HOME | DD

BlacktailFA — J-9 Fastback

Published: 2011-03-22 03:28:16 +0000 UTC; Views: 1291; Favourites: 4; Downloads: 29
Redirect to original
Description The J-9 was a 1960s Chinese attempt at building an incredibly fast Interceptor, largely with the intent of building an aircraft that would eclipse the F-4 Phantom II in air-to-air combat.

It was a highly ambitious design that was to wrap a delta-canard airframe around a Low-Bypass Turbofan with up to 27000lbs of thrust, in order to enable Mach 2.8 speeds at altitudes of up to 92000ft.
The design itself was sound, but needless to say, the technology required to actually *build* such a machine was largely non-existent in China in the 1960s and 1970s.

Moreover, the complaints to that effect of the design team behind the ill-fated J-9 fell upon deaf ears; they suggested a lighter, somewhat slower, Turbojet-powered version (a sort of a "Super Mig-21", if you will) with greater range and maneuverability, but the establishment would not be swayed.
The 1967 Border War with the Soviet Union and the Cultural Revolution also disrupted the development of the J-9, but it was ultimately the realization that China just didn't have the technology that killed the program --- and that was in *1975*.

In the VERY unlikely even that China WAS able to pull-off the J-9, it would have radically shifted the balance of power between Russia, USA, and China.
But it wasn't to be, and China would continue to have problems with the technologies that were to be used in the J-9 (notably high-performance, Low-Bypass Turbofans) for decades to come.

However, the very similar J-8 (the sister program of the J-9) ultimately *did* see completion, once funding was shifted away from the J-9, and it went-on to become the J-8 I Finback A.
Though it sucked... a LOT.


Also, note that the "Fastback" code-name is my own concoction. It seems perfect for the J-9, because it's layout is extremely similar to the J-8 Finback (hence, the "-back" part), and --- of course --- it's damned fast (hence, the "Fast" part).


The data below reflects what an *operational* J-9 would have performed like.
I "watered-down" a few of it's performance stats, since I have a VERY hard time believing that the official performance figures are actually possible in an airframe of this configuration (a 92000ft Service Ceiling? Seriously?!).

============ J-9 Fastback Data ============

Role: Air Superiority Fighter
Unit Price: $30 Million
Crew: 1
Size(LxWxH): ~59x40x18ft
Wing Area: 538ft2
Empty Weight: 28700lbs
Internal Fuel: ~12000lbs
Payload: ~12000lbs
Max. T/O Weight: ~55000lbs
Wing Loading: ~53.34lb/ft2
T/W Ratio: ~0.95
Fuel Fraction: ~48%
Range: 1000 miles
Ceiling: 80000ft
Cruise Speed: Mach 1.6
Top Speed: Mach 2.6
Climb Rate: 51000ft/min
Initial Turn Rate: 22 degrees/sec
Continuous Turn Rate: 15 degrees/sec
Max. G-Load: +8/-3
Sensors:Type 205 Pulse-Doppler Radar, RWR
Scan Range: 40 miles @ 30 degrees
Look Down: Yes
Shoot Down: Yes
Propulsion: WS-6 Low-Bypass Turbofan w/18700lbs Military Thrust, 27300lbs/AB
Thrust Vectoring: No
Weapon Stations: 2×Type 23-III 23mm autocannon w/400rds, 1x Centerline Hardpoint w/3000lb Capacity, 2x Underfuselage Hardpoint w/2000lb Capacity, 2x Underwing Hardpoint w/2000lb Capacity, 2x Underwing Hardpoint w/1000lb Capacity
ECMs: Chaff/Flare dispenser (30/30rds)
FBW: No
RCS: 60ft/2
Stealth: No
Tailhook: No
Catapult Hitch: No
Drag Chute: No
AAR: Yes
Other: Clamshell Canopy, Zero-Zero Ejection Seat
Related content
Comments: 14

Gr4yZ0n3 [2011-03-26 09:50:50 +0000 UTC]

maybe they're trying to create a kamikaze aircraft?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

BlacktailFA In reply to Gr4yZ0n3 [2011-03-28 11:47:56 +0000 UTC]

Let's hope not --- if that thing could do Mach 2.6 in level flight, imagine how fast it would move in a shallow dive!

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Gr4yZ0n3 In reply to BlacktailFA [2011-03-29 10:18:53 +0000 UTC]

and how fast it's hull tearing apart. lol?

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Kitlian [2011-03-23 04:15:39 +0000 UTC]

very similar to the F-106 in concept. except of course with canards.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

BlacktailFA In reply to Kitlian [2011-03-23 08:13:38 +0000 UTC]

Not to mention guns, a Turbofan, and CRAZY performance stats.

But yeah, it's basically the Chinese attempt to break into the US "speed, missiles, and nothing else at all" edict.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Kitlian In reply to BlacktailFA [2011-03-25 02:04:58 +0000 UTC]

I actually prefer aircraft that are small, maneuverable, and carry a dedicated gun weapon system.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

BlacktailFA In reply to Kitlian [2011-03-25 07:31:41 +0000 UTC]

If you like that, you would have LOVED the "Blitzfighter" --- a 10000lb Attacker that was devised by Col. Jamed G. Burton (the same guy who was later put in charge of live-fire testing the M2 Bradley).
It was basically a mini A-10 wrapped around a 4-barrel 30mm rotary cannon and a single Turbofan engine, with no FBW, no radar, and no missiles or guided bombs.
And it was estimated to cost $2 Million. No that's NOT a typo --- TWO Million dollars.

So naturally, the USAF had an EPIC conniption over it, and had the program put-down. They opted instead for the "Enhanced Tactical Fighter" Project, which spawned the $75 Million F-15E Strike Eagle.

👍: 0 ⏩: 3

ArmamentDawg In reply to BlacktailFA [2013-04-09 04:01:22 +0000 UTC]

No missiles or guided bombs means no standoff attack ability, which means it must get the enemy within gun range to attack, which means it'll be well within the enemy air defenses' range. And don't repeat sh** about "expendable aircraft," the pilots aren't expendable- at the very least, their deaths mean the millions spent on flight training is up in smoke- and suggesting that they are, will likely make them mutiny.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Kitlian In reply to BlacktailFA [2011-04-05 03:37:14 +0000 UTC]

see that idea just makes sence to me. with modern countermeasures and maneuvers, a good pilot, in a well equipped aircraft can dramaticaly reduce the chance of getting taken down by a missile. besides, when a $500K missile down a 1 billion dollar aircraft, thats cause for celebration. but if it takes 4 such misiles to drop a 2 million dollar craft, it's kind of a farse, all things considered.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

zeraful In reply to BlacktailFA [2011-03-25 13:32:04 +0000 UTC]

Why am I keep getting chilled when heard of the ideas like this: The Growler, Bradley, Abrams......Mig-2000, J-20..........

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

BlacktailFA In reply to zeraful [2011-03-26 05:32:04 +0000 UTC]

The J-9 and the J-20 aren't quite the same thing as the US systems you mention; the former was a canceled project, while the latter is still in development.

By contrast, the Bradley took forever to develop and STILL came out lousy, while the M1 Abrams and Growler were rammed into service in preference over technically superior (and cheaper) competitors.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

zeraful In reply to BlacktailFA [2011-03-26 07:03:32 +0000 UTC]

Actually, I still think that the J-20 a hoax somehow, at the Chinese are the second master of deceiving technique (the first is Vietnamese, i think xD).

And about the Growler and Abrams, each and every time you mention them, the prase "it was all....good business" in Pirates of Carribean was somehow floating in my head

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

BlacktailFA In reply to zeraful [2011-03-26 08:02:56 +0000 UTC]

The Chinese have indeed pulled-off a lot of hoaxes in the past (Sun Tzu stated that "All Warfare is based on deception"), and the J-20 could prove to be just that. However, it's too dangerous to assume it IS a hoax.


"it was all....good business"
Indeed, the business of the Pentagon is business. XD

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

zeraful In reply to BlacktailFA [2011-03-26 08:36:22 +0000 UTC]

Well, it's just my personal ideas xD

👍: 0 ⏩: 0