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

plawolf

Lieutenant General
Very strong argument wolf. I stand rebuked. I should've put more time into that post. Thanks for the info.

Very mature of you to put your hand up and admit to an error like that. We all make errors and mistakes, its rare for people to be able to own up to them with so much grace as you have shown.
 

Quickie

Colonel
There seems to be a slight change in the shape of the front fuselage? Has anyone already done a side by side comparison with the JH-7A? The protrusion at the bottom front part of the vertical stabilizer also seems to be more pronounced.
 

Totoro

Major
VIP Professional
i see the idea of jh7b going mostly for planaf getting some traction so ill copy my post frpom cdf.

are we actually going to see many more jh7 of B variant in service with planaf? we might not. right now, all strike regiments in planaf have switched to jh7. to add more jh7 planes planaf would have to a) add more regiments to orbat, or b) change one of the existing fighter regiments into a strike regiment. or, of course, c) not add any more jh7 for some more years to come.

i dont think planaf added any more regiments in decades now. except, of course, the very recent j15 regiment which seems to be a new addition, but thats understandable, given the newly developed carrier capabilities.

planaf did in fact change two of its fighter regiments into jh7 regiments, but thata happened back in 2003 and 2004 and hasnt happened again since. with very recent additions of j10 and j11 regiments, it does appear planaf is stillvery much keen on providing its own fighter escorts. so extra regiments convertingfrom fighters to strikers may not be a likely thing.

the two oldest jh7 regiments are now some 20+ years old, which isnt really screaming for urgent replacement. even some j7 regiments in plaaf date from 1980s. so those jh7 may not really need to be replaced before end of this or beginning of next decade.

on the other hand, we have plaaf which has consistently replaced the rwegiments operating strikers q5 with jh7a. at the same time, four su30 regiments replaced previous fighter regiments. logic would suggest that jh7, in its B guise, will continue to replace the remaining q5 regiments in plaaf. at the same time, j16 may also continue what su30 started and replace some ofthe numerous j7 regiments. in the last ten years, two regiments of jh7a went to planaf, while five went to plaaf. in the last five years just one regiment worth of jh7a went to planaf.

after all, plaaf is now behind planaf quite a bit in the percentage of modern aircraft, so it wouldnt be strange if even greater majority of new planes went to plaaf, with les new regiments going to planaf.

in that light, we may wait a fair bit until many newlybuilt jh7 equipped for yj12 go to planaf. but in the end tats not so important as i am sure older variants would be modernized to utilize them, if they are not already.
 

Deino

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
There seems to be a slight change in the shape of the front fuselage? Has anyone already done a side by side comparison with the JH-7A? The protrusion at the bottom front part of the vertical stabilizer also seems to be more pronounced.

IMO this is indeed only an avionics-related upadate - and as such I'm almost sure that is is intented as a MLU - with nearly no external changes. Even that strange-looking bump on the tail is only due to an optical Illusion since the tail's leading edge has the same colour as the sky in the background.

Deino
 

Attachments

  • JH-7B + wrong tail.jpg
    JH-7B + wrong tail.jpg
    106 KB · Views: 55
  • JH-7B side view + tail detail.jpg
    JH-7B side view + tail detail.jpg
    49.7 KB · Views: 43

Quickie

Colonel
IMO this is indeed only an avionics-related upadate - and as such I'm almost sure that is is intented as a MLU - with nearly no external changes. Even that strange-looking bump on the tail is only due to an optical Illusion since the tail's leading edge has the same colour as the sky in the background.

Deino

Regarding the bump, I'm not sure which picture you're referring to.

I compare the older pictures of JH-7A and the CG of the JH-7x you posted and it seems that there're indeed a different in the shape of the cockpit frame. You may have to overlap the 2 pictures to see the difference.
 

Deino

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
Regarding the bump, I'm not sure which picture you're referring to.

I compare the older pictures of JH-7A and the CG of the JH-7x you posted and it seems that there're indeed a different in the shape of the cockpit frame. You may have to overlap the 2 pictures to see the difference.

Sorry if I was misleading: To admit the only bump I was talking about was the "looks alike" on the vertical tail, which looks in the very first imgae as if there is a strange "bump-like" extension. In fact hower it was only an optical illusion due to the fact that the sky behind had the same colour as the leading edge and so only the white and yellow parts were visible.

To admit a modified cockpit section I cannot see ... it looks as if there was nothing changed at all.

Cheers, Deino
 

Quickie

Colonel
What I meant is as in the attachment. On the other hand, is the CG an actual and accurate representation of the JH-7B?
 

Attachments

  • jh7bmodified.jpg
    jh7bmodified.jpg
    36.4 KB · Views: 52
Top