The Q-5, J-7, J-8 and older PLAAF aircraft


Totoro

Captain
VIP Professional
It can also mean those units are not manned at full size. For example, if they have half as many pilots and crews, then those pilots that are present in the unit can still get some half decent 100-ish hours per year of flight time, even if they're flying half of those hours on one airframe and other half on another airframe. That way those very old planes could still possibly be kept airworthy, since they're not flown very much. Indeed, looking at the satellite images of such J7 bases over time does give an impression there's rarely more than several of those around the airbase.

The downside would be that the unit is still kept under the numbers of personnel needed to operate a full squadron of modern planes. So when and if they do receive J10s, for example, they still might need to expand a bit, personnel wise. Of course, adding 30 or 50% more personnel is still easier than having to start up an airbase from scratch and stand up an unit from scratch.
 

Josh Luo

Senior Member
Registered Member
I think this has been discussed endlessly before.

The continued service of old aircraft is useful for maintaining the existing number of units so it is easier for them to convert to newer, more modern aircraft when it gets around to them. Retiring older aircraft without a replacement to convert to, likely means disbanding the unit itself and giving them more work when they inevitably move to reestablish the unit.
Got it. Thanks!
 

free_6ix9ine

Junior Member
Registered Member
I think this has been discussed endlessly before.

The continued service of old aircraft is useful for maintaining the existing number of units so it is easier for them to convert to newer, more modern aircraft when it gets around to them. Retiring older aircraft without a replacement to convert to, likely means disbanding the unit itself and giving them more work when they inevitably move to reestablish the unit.
The upgraded J-7G's are not bad at all..but yeah I agree it is better to have older aircraft in service than disbanding an entire unit because there aren't enough newer aircraft. The basic skills of being a combat pilot is not that much different between different generations of aircraft.

As long as the older aircraft are safe, keeping them in service isn't a big issue IMO. Unlike India which has had a lot of crashes with their Mig-21's, China is able to make every part of the Mig-21/J-7's, so the airframes are overhauled domestically with new replacement parts.
 

stannislas

Junior Member
Registered Member
just wondering, is there any J-7G cockpit photo out there? Really curious about how the latest J-7 family avionics looks like.
 

Hyperwarp

Captain
thx mate, yeah, it could be close to F-7PG, but with J-7G was not a direct descendant of J-7P (F-7PG is an updated version of J-7P right?), I'm just not sure how close they are
J-7G is an evolution of the J-7E (double delta wing). The same goes to the F-7PG. J-7G is the domestic version of the F-7PG, F-7BG, etc. F-7BGI (Bangladeshi version) is a further improvement of the F-7BG.
 

AndrewS

Captain
Registered Member
The upgraded J-7G's are not bad at all..but yeah I agree it is better to have older aircraft in service than disbanding an entire unit because there aren't enough newer aircraft. The basic skills of being a combat pilot is not that much different between different generations of aircraft.

As long as the older aircraft are safe, keeping them in service isn't a big issue IMO. Unlike India which has had a lot of crashes with their Mig-21's, China is able to make every part of the Mig-21/J-7's, so the airframes are overhauled domestically with new replacement parts.
Don't forget that J-7s would still be an effective deterrent against Vietnam or India which still operate Mig-21s or older aircraft.
 

Top