Over what span of time though? China's White Papers assert that the PLA won't finish strength building until around 2040. Obviously as China's power and interests grow the JH-7 will become appropriately obsolete, especially as the airframes age, but I don't see it happening for years to come. I don't contest that eventually the JH-7 will have to be replaced, just that it would be unreasonable and pointless to halt production in favour of something that China won't be needing for at least another decade.
China Flanker Thread II
- Thread starter sumdud
- Start date
- Status
I am thinking along another line. Production of JH-7 might not need to be halted, but they might need to upgrade the new JH-7 to carrier borne. China's carrier is going to be in service within the next two years or so, so the JH-7 might need to change too...
That's where the naval flanker is supposed to come in?
Then it came back to the same question, why do we need JH-7 when Flanker or J-11 (whatever version) could do the same job.
lcloo
Captain
If a J-11X version can be as good as JH-7 in the strike capability, it would be cheaper to procure a dual role J-11X or J-10X than continuing to buit JH-7. They could save money and resources on pilot training and logistic.
The role of dedidcated strike aircraft may be over. Since A-6 retired from US Navy, there are no dedicated naval strike aircraft in service. F/A-18 and F-15E serve the role in USN and UASF. We will also not see any future aircraft built like old Bucaneer, Jaguar, A-4, A-7 anymore, China should follow the same trend.
The role of dedidcated strike aircraft may be over. Since A-6 retired from US Navy, there are no dedicated naval strike aircraft in service. F/A-18 and F-15E serve the role in USN and UASF. We will also not see any future aircraft built like old Bucaneer, Jaguar, A-4, A-7 anymore, China should follow the same trend.
Roger604
Senior Member
I think there is still a place for dedicated strike aircraft. The Su-34 is a good example.
If the J-11CS turns out to be like the Su-34 with much larger airframe and side-by-side seating, it would be a terrific asset for the PLAAF. With a combat radius of 4500 km packing two CJ-10K (each with 1500+ km range), a strike aircraft like this would be perfect for PLAAF.
PLAAF is in urgent need of long range strike platforms. So far it seems it has only the H-6K (not yet mass produced) and a future trans-atmospheric bomber. Something like the Su-34 would be complementary.
If the J-11CS turns out to be like the Su-34 with much larger airframe and side-by-side seating, it would be a terrific asset for the PLAAF. With a combat radius of 4500 km packing two CJ-10K (each with 1500+ km range), a strike aircraft like this would be perfect for PLAAF.
PLAAF is in urgent need of long range strike platforms. So far it seems it has only the H-6K (not yet mass produced) and a future trans-atmospheric bomber. Something like the Su-34 would be complementary.
Last edited:
Come on guys ... to think the JH-7 could be turned into a carrier-borne fighter is plain stupid !
Deino
Come on guys ... to think the JH-7 could be turned into a carrier-borne fighter is plain stupid !
Deino
why? I do not have your wisdom in this matter, so maybe you would like to elaborate your point?
Sorry if my reply sounded "arrogant", but these discussions do come up from time to time and so IMO are fruitless.
First off all - even if maybe not impossible - the JH-7 is a dated design and to transform it into a carrier-borne fighter, it would for sure require a strengthened structure, adding more weight, which agin would require higher thrust engines, since the WS-9 are already underpowered for such a heavy aircraft.
All this would take time ... a lot of time and money !
So why should anyone invest so much into an already dated type, when on the other side a navalised Flanker or even a new type could to the same for a much longer service life ??
Anyway, these reports or rumors about an operational carrierforce within the next two years is impossible !
Hope this helps a bit.
Deino
I agree with Deino. JH-7 is too dated a design.
The optimum engineering solution is to design a carrier based fighter from scratch if you really like the optimum weight to strength efficiency. Even when based from a land based model, there are serious compromises.
The optimum engineering solution is to design a carrier based fighter from scratch if you really like the optimum weight to strength efficiency. Even when based from a land based model, there are serious compromises.
- Status