SinoDefence Forum

KYli

duskylim

Hi Guys!

Its been some time since I last posted on this forum. While it appears that the JL-15 will be THE advanced and/or LIFT trainer for the PLAAF/PLANAF, I feel that the JL-9 will still have a large role to play. Also, I have to admit that I have a soft spot in my heart for what will probably be the last reincarnation of the J-7/JJ-7/MiG-21 to fly.

I feel this is true for several reasons.

Firstly, there is ubiquity; the PLAAF and PLANAF still operate some 700(?) J-7's, 300(?) J-8's and aerodynamically similar aircraft like the JH-7 and Q-5. These older design (read obsolescent) aircraft currently are and will still comprise the bulk of the PLAAF's and PLANAF's inventory for at least (perhaps) the end of the decade.

The JL-9 would still be a suitable advanced trainer for these aircraft; indeed, in this particular role it would be more suitable than the JL-15 (which is more suited for training J-10 and J-11 pilots)!

This is particularly true if its flight characteristics could be reprogrammed via the same set of fly-by-wire techniques utilized on the experimental JL-8. Though admittedly that would probably raise the cost, it would allow the JL-9 to serve as an advanced trainer for a greater variety of combat aircraft.


Secondly, there is the issue of experience. The PLAAF and PLANAF have had decades of experience operating this aircraft and have both the neccesary maintenance equipment and personnel at hand. The Chinese aircraft industry has large production lines and tooling for this aircraft so no further investment need be made. There are no great technical (or financial) risks involved.

Thirdly is the issue of cost. For the reasons stated above, this aircraft is cheap. It is cheap to make, and cheap to operate. This in itself is a great virtue.

Fourth is that there is room for improvement. The JL-9 shares the layout of the JJ-7 and the double-delta wing of the J-7E. If (perhaps with permission from Chendu) it were to have the J-7E's automaneuvering flaps as well, that would greatly enhance its' maneuverability.

Further one could install a much better engine (like the Kunlun II) with higher thrust, lower specific fuel consumption and greater reliability. Perhaps (with more of Chengdu's cooperation), things like DSI and LERX's may be adapted.

What is obvious of course is that a much larger radar can be installed in the new nose than is possible with the J-7/JJ-7. Add to that better avionics all-around and I feel that this aircraft has the potential to be a reasonably successful export trainer/strike/budget fighter.

Let us be honest with ourselves, this aircraft is a stop-gap trainer. The need for it will disappear with the demise of the J-7's and J-8's from the Chinese airforces. Yet I think many people may still be surprised how much life there still is in the old girl yet!

Best Regards,

Dusky Lim

tphuang

yeah, there is something to be said about JL-9. CCTV reported a while back that China is getting 10 JL-9 this year. It's probably a reward to GAIC for developing it so fast. But in reality though, JL-15 will get all of the orders once it becomes available.

Other than the capability issues, it has many other advantages:
1. it can be converted to the attacker role better, since it has turbofan engine, so it will have longer operating radius and such
2. The most important point - it has 3 times the service life of JL-9 (I'm not kidding here), so basically, you might get immediate savings with JL-9, but not over the long haul. When you think about that, it's probably cheaper to just get JL-15.
3. If you put FBW into JL-9, that will just raise the cost of the plane, so making it even more unattractive.

chicket9

You gotta say, both JL-9 and JL-15 are very attractive aircraft for export.

To what weve seen,, JL-9 has an inflight refuelling probe?

Because JL-9 has similar performance and probably better compatibility with the older fighters like J-8D, the small number acquired (10?) could serve as inflight refueling trainers...which the PLAAF needs. I mean at the moment, I am really surprised not to have heard of any H-6U and J-8D accidents while conducting inflight refueling exercises, which is very good, and shows the training simulations do help. But it would be necessary to provide an inflight refueling trainer (even if it is only a static probe to simulate inflight refueling) to give new pilots the necessary experience before touching a J-8D.

If PLAAF were to spend on JL-9, they might as well better pay for SLEP type upgrades for their JJ-7s instead, to keep em in service for a little longer. Though I have some feeling that they might make some kind of JJ-7E/G version, which features the double delta wing, and similar avionics, new canopy/cockpit, but newly manufactured. This would be far more economical than JL-9, and would be far less riskier. Such design could replace the basic JJ-7s, with the advantage of better manoeuverability and avionics. I agree to some people that PLAAF should operate a two tiered advance trainer, and one has to be trainer for the Low mix, while one for the High mix of fighters. In addition, a JJ-7E/G idea is quite plausible, as Chinese aero industry is quite capable of turning around 1960 designs with new techs, like the recent two seater Q-5 addition.

But God forbid the PLAAF from not ordering any JL-15s. It is an excellent trainer and my God its beautiful in many aspects. JL-15 will serve far beyond training. If a single seater is derived, it would be a potential replacement for the Q-5 as a light attack aircraft...

1) Better avionics...especially with only one seat, the second seat could be filled up with avionics or fuel
2) Could carry pods and systems to assist in PGM delivery
3) If it carries as much weapons load as the Yak-130 (seven hardpoints, 3000kg), it already possesses far greater weapons carriage than the Q-5 and J-7
4) Maneuverable, supersonic, FBW

Altogether, a single seat variant could do as well on the export market as the single seated Hawk derivative!

tphuang

this is from Zhuhai airshow on JL-9, a lot of publicity on Shanying, not sure if it deserves it.

challenge

L-15 to start test fly of Fly-by-electric" in 2008.
aviation week reported that F-18C to adapt "fly-by-electric".
what is the different between fly by wire and fly by electric?

wanderingmind

After fevered hunting through another bunch of defence forums and sites, etc., I've been unable to find any difference. However, "fly-by-wire" can mean "through fiber optic cables," whereas "fly-by-electric" would mean exactly that! Perhaps there's an electromagnetic pulse vulnerability in FBW that "fly-by-electric" would be less susceptible to!

Well, better go get my first cuppa coffee now. Your question was astute enough to divert my normal morning operations...

crobato

Probably the phrase is something that didn't get through proper translation.

crobato

Seriously, the JL-9 looks like it has a nose that can hold a decent radar the size of an APG-67 or something (radar used in F-20, A-50 and in variant form, the F-CK-1). The JL-9 in my opinion, is almost like a two seater version of the original Grumman Super 7 concept proposed back in the late eighties. Which of course, conceptually morphed into the FC-1 albeit as a totally new aircraft.

The whole concept of the Super 7 revolves around one thing---to get a decent sized radar into a MiG-21F airframe. That is a constant theme in the evolution of the Fishbed. Of course, what the Russians did was to enlarge the nose to hold a larger radar in the inlet cone. This however created new aerodynamic and structural effects in the aircraft, resulting in an extensive redesign of the airframe. The radar in the inlet nose is an pig's ass to maintain; its obviously not very accessible. Like the rest of the world, who dropped the radar in inlet designs early, the Chinese saw the writing in the wall that this is not a good direction. Perhaps one of the reasons why the J-8I and J-7C/D wasn't pursued any further.

As the Super 7 evolved into the FC-1, Chengdu didn't pursue the original Super 7 design traits into evolving the J-7E. Rather it experimented with other nose concept designs like the J-7FS with the A-7 Corsair like nose, and the F-7MF with the J-10 like nose. The F-7MF was being treated like a fallback should the J-10 and FC-1 fail, and in exploring a BVR J-7 concept further. But alas, foreign interest is not there.

By itself the F-7MF would have been the potentially having the largest radar of the renosed J-7 variants. It could potentially hold a radar the size of the F-16 or J-10's, bigger than the original Super 7 concept or the third generation MiG-21.

I suspect Hongdu may be exploring waters for a single seater, but with the lack of interest on the F-7MF, Hongdu's single seater JL-9 may remain in blue print only.

I do think both JL-9 and L-15 can be useful for the PLAAF in a two tiered away, as Dusky Lim and Tphuang had described it. I have to add that the J-7E is a popular plane with PLAAF pilots despite its obsolescence. As I have even given with my Blue Flag Aggressor example in another thread, even some Su-27 veterans prefer to fly this.

However, no JJ-7 ever adopted the double delta wing layout of the J-7E until the JL-9. It does seem a bit late though to finally introduce this with the JL-9, nearly sixteen years after the J-7E debuted. I must note that the double delta of the JL-9 is a bit different from the J-7E, certainly not a direct copy. It does not have the variable camber slats at the front edge and the tip is clipped. I don't know about the total wing area. Its flight characteristics may be different from the J-7E.

In a JL-9 vs. L-15 showdown, the JL-9 certainly has the advantage of using the existing local logistical infrastructure. With a Kunlun I or II it should perform quite sprightly. It's based on a proven design that remains popular with the PLAAF.

The L-15 will probably beat the JL-9 in high AoA maneuvers, and with FBW, it should perform much more like a modern fighter and a better traning ground for pilots to the J-11, J-10 and maybe the FC-1. I would think the airframe itself is more enduring and should take a lot more hard use than the JL-9's. The turbofans could give more flight time and range. The cockpit offers better visibility. The drawback is the potential higher cost of the plane, plus more costs if the engine has to be imported.

eecsmaster

I thought the FTC-2000 is the export name of the JL-9?

tphuang

yep, that's what it should be.
I guess this time CATIC didn't want JL-15 to have all the spotlight, so it put Shanying out there.

challenge

single seat JL-15 is being develop as ground attack aircraft.this mean that Q-5 may already plan for phase out.

ahho

Where did you get this news??? just curious about it because i always thought JH-7 Was the replacement of Q-5 and JL-15 as a interceptor style light aircraft

tphuang

this is kind of interesting.

I read on the Chinese forum that L-15 is failing to attract orders from plaaf. In fact, according to one of the guys working in a factory that produces avionics for plaaf, they have receive no bids for avionics on L-15 (which they've had for pretty much every other fighter in plaaf)

adeptitus

The L-15 just had its maiden flight this year in 2006:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oh0TgYu0jD8

It's prolly still a product under development and not ready for mass production.

I do however think it's a surperior platform than K-8 or JL-9. If by chance the L-15 fails, I think the PLAAF should prolly consider licensing the Yak-130 for domestic assembly/production, both trainer and ground attack versions.