I just remembered the name for this device: its a blow in door.I think what Deino refers to (although I never heard the term "bleed-in intake) is the option of having additional air feed into the engine in a high power, low speed condition. So far I only really knew of that feature in the Tornado. On the outside structure just aft of the intake, there's two small "cowlings" (don't know a proper term). They are springloaded to the closed position. Under a high power setting (much air demanded), but in slow speed (e.g. take off) the intake area is too small to allow enough air to come in. As such, there's a low pressure area in front of the compressor, sucking those doors open, allowing for more air to come in. At higher speeds, when ram air pressure actually supplies enough air, the low preassure area dissipates and the cowlings close.
Seems to be similar here on the J-7.
Is it really that bad of an aircraft? At 8.5 million US (personally I think more around 11 or 12 million US) it’s not a bad deal.
Well ....
- As a fighter, it is somewhat better then Mig-21 bis, but not that much. If your opponent flies light utility or passenger aircraft it would suffice, but so would Mig-21 bis . It could also patrol in peacetime, but so could Mig-21. Reason I'm mentioning Fishbed is because most of potential customers do operate Mig-21/J-7 and they would be reluctant to replace them with aircraft that has only marginally better qualities.
- As a ground attack aircraft, it could serve in that purpose. But again, your opponent must not be too sophisticated . But if you are fighting ISIS-like rebels, and you don't have much funds, dedicated ground-strike aircraft like Su-25 ,A-5, Mig-27 or attack helicopters could be a better option.
- As a trainer : it would be a fine trainer, but you would need something to train for . Countries looking at JL-9 usually could not afford more expensive aircraft (like J-10, Su-30 etc ) to justify purchase of JL-9 as a trainer
While the superb performances of IAF Sukhoi-30s were somewhat anticipated, the performance of MiG-21Bison came as a major “unpleasant surprise” to the USAF officials. It also validates the claim of the Russian officials that they are capable of successfully converting “second generation” late-model MiG-21bis fighters to “fourth generation combat platforms”. Inherently the significant positive attributes enjoyed by MiG-21s were their dog fighting ability in WVR (Within Visual Range) combat. Even the earlier models had a low corner velocity of 556 kilometers per hour and at Mach 0.5 had an instantaneous turn rate of 11.1 degrees per second. The MiG-21Bison with more powerful R-25 engines not only considerably bettered this performance but it may also be credited with “jackrabbit” acceleration, a very critical attribute in WVR combat.
Among many fourth generations attributes added to the IAF MiG-21Bison design, the incorporation of HMS (Helmet Mounted Sight) and high-off-boresight R-73RDM2 NBVR/WVR (Near Beyond Visual Range/Within Visual Range) AAMs (Air-to-Air Missiles) have turned it into a “Great Equalizer” in the WVR combat scenario. Conceptually a small number of MiG-21Bisons maintaining “radar silence” can be guided towards their aerial target by a couple of Sukhoi-30s by secure data links in accordance with MFFC (Mixed Fighter Force Concept). Upon entering into an WVR combat envelope the MiG-21Bisons armed with HMS and deadly NBVR/WVR missiles had the capability of destroying even fifth-generation fighters alike F/A-22 Raptor as assessed by high-profile Fighter Analyst Ben Lambeth of RAND Corporation. According to Lambeth “in visual combat everybody dies at the same rate.” F/A-22 also has to slow down if forced into a WVR combat scenario and loses the advantage of its super-cruise attributes. The situation further complicates if the IAF Sukhoi-30s have acquired the capability of providing target illumination for RVV-AE (AA-12 Adder) BVR missiles being launched from IAF MiG-21Bisons at extended ranges.
Well ....
- As a fighter, it is somewhat better then Mig-21 bis, but not that much. If your opponent flies light utility or passenger aircraft it would suffice, but so would Mig-21 bis . It could also patrol in peacetime, but so could Mig-21. Reason I'm mentioning Fishbed is because most of potential customers do operate Mig-21/J-7 and they would be reluctant to replace them with aircraft that has only marginally better qualities.
- As a ground attack aircraft, it could serve in that purpose. But again, your opponent must not be too sophisticated . But if you are fighting ISIS-like rebels, and you don't have much funds, dedicated ground-strike aircraft like Su-25 ,A-5, Mig-27 or attack helicopters could be a better option.
- As a trainer : it would be a fine trainer, but you would need something to train for . Countries looking at JL-9 usually could not afford more expensive aircraft (like J-10, Su-30 etc ) to justify purchase of JL-9 as a trainer
Yes the Mig-21 Bison or a FTC-2000G (modified as a fighter) would do very well as mentioned previously with the support of AWAC or SU-30s (acting as AWAC) The WS-14 engine in the FTC-2000/JL-9 is actually more powerful , or of equal thrust, as that on the MiG-21 Bison.Comparing Mig-21 Bison and JL-9 there are similarities, but there are also few differences :
- Bison is a upgrade program of existing aircraft, not a newly built aircraft like JL-9 .
- Bison is somewhat cheaper then JL-9
- Bison has somewhat better avionics and air-to-air weaponry then JL-9
- JL-9 is more maneuverable, but Bison is faster and accelerates faster at full afterburner.
- JL-9 could be used as a trainer, and Bison of couse could not .
Despite all of this, although many countries poses Mig-21 bis, only India upgrades some of them to Bison standard (not all of them) . Operators of Mig-21 simply either don't have money, or they don't want to spend money on basically obsolete airframe . It is worth noting that to be really effective Bison needs other aircraft or ground based radars to vector them to target . Indians used this tactics in Cope India 2004, but other potential operators of Bison simply cannot afford to buy Su-30 or AWACS
Sorry to disturb Your discussion, but first of all how do You know which one is better, is more manoueverable and so on.
Even more, the JL-9 is developed as a trainer ... not a fighter and I'm this can be "seen" in its structure, even more there is no WS-14, not even a WP-14 ... as far as Inknow it is powered by a standard WP-13F(C) ! Also regarding the weapons and avionics ... there is much too much "theoretically" included: AESA ... forget it, radar-guided AAMs ... the same !
Therefore I don't know how You make up this tiny little bird into a super-duper-fighter ???