JH-7/JH-7A/JH-7B Thread

[tphuang]

Re: Jh-7 thread

But that's what they're equipped with in pictures, mockups and official exhibitions. I also have the impression that while the plane is underpowered, it's agile like an attack jet it truly is and can roll quickly. Official mockup of the JH-7A shows the plane carry PL-11 SARHs and PL-12 ARHs as well.

It's hard to tell C-801, YJ-82 and YJ-83 as they are all from the same family. They seem all the same from the front end, air intakes at the back distinguish the -82 and -83 from the C-801/YJ-81. Between the YJ-82 and YJ-83, its even tougher, the -83 only being distinguished by a small antenna on the body which might be for some datalink.

The inclusion of BVR AAM on JH-7A is kind of interesting. It sort of signals that JH-7 is going to get a much more capable radar in the future. At least, something that can achieve longer range vs fighters.

 

[Sea Dog]

Re: Jh-7 thread

The inclusion of BVR AAM on JH-7A is kind of interesting. It sort of signals that JH-7 is going to get a much more capable radar in the future. At least, something that can achieve longer range vs fighters.

For sure it's going to give JH-7 much more survivability. And while I wouldn't use it in the air superiority role at all, it does give military commanders more options. But yeah, nominally this aircraft doesn't strike me as one that would carry this type of loadout.

 

[MIGleader]

Re: Jh-7 thread

this is the part that really confuses me. I just don't see why PLA is getting more H-6s, when JH-7 seems to be the better option. For example, H-6M seems to only be able to carry 4 air launched version of YJ-83, that's not any more than JH-7A.

It could be because they only produce enough engine for so many JH-7, but I'm not sure that is the reason.

I think it might be because the h-6 can carry the longer range kd-63 cruise missle, but that appears to be it.

 

[bd popeye]

Re: Jh-7 thread

Nice pic tphuang. I wish the picture was a little clearer so I could see the ordance loaded. But the picture looks real to me. The second pic looks like PS to me..But all you fellows observations could be correct.

If anyone has any better real pics of the Jh-7 with PGM weapons loaded please post them..Thanks!

 

[sumdud]

Re: Jh-7 thread

Is the PL-5 still the only thing the JH-7 can carry on the wing tips? The PL-8 is better (You've got to wonder, most, if not all, of the pictures we've seen with both PL-8 and PL-5, the PL-8 has been bigger.) though the PL-5E is even better (The majority of China's fighters are still without HMS, so the PL-8's special ability is useless)

No way is it compatible with PL-10 though, the PL-10 has never been brought into service since its performance was so bad.

I doubt you can really dogfight with this thing though, since it with such a poor engine will lose thrust easily. Quick turns, probably, but not a lot of them. Unless you can lower your thrust a little and slam on your ailerons and flip over in the least space possible and then turn back on your engines. (And I doubt China will/can buy Israeli F-4s)

One question: Are the 2 pods (for ARM and LGB targeting) equipped on 2 of the 11 pylons (Which lowers the plane's carrying capability since China doesn't use MLUs on its guided weapons) or on its own pylons?

 

[tphuang]

Re: Jh-7 thread

to Miggy, I agree that the ability to carry the YJ-6 (or KD-6x) series is H-6's main advantage over JH-7.

To popeye, I'm not aware of any. Maybe Crobato has some?
huitong's site does show a mockup

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

that seems to show a LGB on the right side. It's the centermost weapon viewable from the left wing (right from our view).

To sumdud, according to huitong

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

there are two hard points under the engine intakes, so I guess that pod is on 1 one of the 11 pylons.

 

[crobato]

Re: Jh-7 thread

The PL-8 can work with or without HMS. I think those that work with HMS are only the latest batches, and the PL-8s themselves have some sequential evolution where they first started out as pure Python 3 copies, and then later, indigenous seekers, boosters and propellants started to be introduced allowing for incremental improvements in performance.

The PL-8s tend to be draggy, probably why they're not favored for wingtip installations. You see the same reason on the FC-1 which uses the PL-5E on the wingtips. The large draggy tail fins derived from the Python 3 is the reason for the missile's exceptional maneuverbility and flight control. If you're asking the reason why not TVC like the Russians did on the R-73, the answer to that is that swiveling nozzles do decrease thrust. This is why the Python 4/5 still uses big tail fins without TVC.

As for PGMs, I only have pics where PGMs are sighted in the background of JH-7A hangers. Looks like laser bombs. The PLAAF's main truck for LGBs are the latest versions of Q-5s however. Small cheap and fast, not to mention reliable, these planes are probably more cost effective with such weapons than on JH-7As or Su-30MKKs.

 

[sumdud]

Re: Jh-7 thread

The PL-8's half isn't what I am focusing on. Even if a PL-8 can slave to a helmet, JH-7As don't have HMS AFAIK, so having it is like having a PL-5, makes no differences. That's all I meant.

 

[Sea Dog]

Re: Jh-7 thread

Is the PL-5 still the only thing the JH-7 can carry on the wing tips? The PL-8 is better (You've got to wonder, most, if not all, of the pictures we've seen with both PL-8 and PL-5, the PL-8 has been bigger.) though the PL-5E is even better (The majority of China's fighters are still without HMS, so the PL-8's special ability is useless)

No way is it compatible with PL-10 though, the PL-10 has never been brought into service since its performance was so bad.

I'm not sure about that. I'm just thinking that if JH-7 uses short-range missiles, they are probably all-aspect, and JH-7 commanders emphasize self-defense only using these missiles. PL-8 are all-aspect missiles, right? Do you know if this aircraft is compatible with any BVR missiles? IF not, does PLAAF intend for that to be a reality?

 

[crobato]

Re: Jh-7 thread

It's not a problem to add HMS on the JH-7A. The question is whether it's justified to add HMS on a plane who isn't fit for that role. The reason why you use PL-8s instead of PL-5E is because PL-5E isn't common with the PLAAF, as the PL-5E is mainly an export goods. Eventually all the older PL-5Bs have to retire from expiration and you have to use the next handy missile available, and that's the PL-8.

And yes, the PL-8 is all aspect. The PL-5B isn't but the PL-5E is.

As I mentioned the official mockup of the JH-7A featured both PL-11 and PL-12 which are BVR missiles, SARH and ARH respectively. In service, one does hardly see any pics of such, so perhaps that option is not exercised. It should be noted that the institute that did the PL-12 seeker is also the same institute that designed the JH-7A's radar. The hardpoint locations for these missiles however, are on the same hardpoints the bombs and ASMs would have to be using.

One interesting aspect is that the original JH-7 only has the wingtip provisions for AAMs. The JH-7A added another hardpoint in the outer wing intended to carry a second set. These hardpoints are too outboard to be used for BVRAAMs or bombs or ASMs and can only be used on a short range AAM. If this self defense capability is useless, why go through the trouble of adding a second set in the succeeding version? So there is more to the plane than meets the eye. They don't add the "J" to this plane for nothing, otherwise it would just be H-7, after H-6 and H-5.


Official mockup of the plane also shows ARMs, either KH-31P or Chinese copy. This means the plane also has a SEAD/DEAD role.