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

[Inst]

When entering air combat fighters usually jettison external fuel tanks and sometimes even dump internal fuel to lighten themselves. Then they build up speed&height (i.e energy) to achieve advantage over opponent. During air combat, they manoeuvre and lose that energy . In both cases better engine is an asset, because what engine really does is conversion of chemical energy from fuel to kinetic and potential energy (aforementioned speed and height ).



There is no doubt JH-7A could do hit&run attacks while avoiding close combat. But in that role even older 3rd generation fighters like Mig-23, Kfir or J-8 are better simply because they are faster (with upgraded avionics of course ).

Jettisoning external fuel tanks and dumping internal fuel to lighten themselves doesn't change my point. Your aircraft will still be limited by range, because when it has an air combat engagement, it is always going to have a minimum fuel level depending on the distance to the closest air base. You can win an engagement with your opponent by dumping 75% of your fuel, but it will be Pyrrhic if you'll end up crashing before being able to return to base.

Your aircraft will still be designed around the fuel level, because the T/W ratio and wing loading is not actually going to be constant for your aircraft, but instead will be variable depending on the distance between the airbase and the mission environment. If your aircraft is going to do short-range, you can choose relatively small wing areas to reduce weight, because you will not require large wing areas to provide low wing loading with a high fuel weight. Conversely, if you're going to do long-range, you'll need large wing areas to provide low wing loading with large amounts of fuel, and you'll also need high-powered engines to provide good T/W with high fuel loads and heavy payloads.

===

As far as interceptor missions regarding the JH-7A, the JH-7A cannot do real stand-off missions with its present avionics. It needs avionics upgrades independent of whether it's going to do multirole or whether it's going to be a dedicated anti-ship missile carrier. Its radar system can only reach 100 km even outside of jamming conditions, and the US has long-range anti-aircraft missiles that have a declared range of 240km and can probably reach 300km. If the JH-7A is going to carry long-range stand-off missiles that can launch vs US Aegis Destroyers from long range, it will need avionics upgrades. And if it is going to receive avionics upgrades to enable it to feature stand-off capability versus enemy ships in realistic ECM conditions, it might as well have enhanced air-to-air capabilities built-in, as it features a 1000+mm radar aperture.

 

[Deino]

Hmmm ... any latest news on the JH-7B ???

 

[adeptitus]

As far as interceptor missions regarding the JH-7A, the JH-7A cannot do real stand-off missions with its present avionics. It needs avionics upgrades independent of whether it's going to do multirole or whether it's going to be a dedicated anti-ship missile carrier. Its radar system can only reach 100 km even outside of jamming conditions, and the US has long-range anti-aircraft missiles that have a declared range of 240km and can probably reach 300km. If the JH-7A is going to carry long-range stand-off missiles that can launch vs US Aegis Destroyers from long range, it will need avionics upgrades. And if it is going to receive avionics upgrades to enable it to feature stand-off capability versus enemy ships in realistic ECM conditions, it might as well have enhanced air-to-air capabilities built-in, as it features a 1000+mm radar aperture.

SAM effective range is affected by target speed, altitude, aspect, and maneuverability . I'd caution on taking the manufacture's (or speculated) claim of max range under ideal conditions.

Also, modern anti-ship missiles can be guided by variety of means, including pre-programmed search patterns, cruising around combat area to locate and attack a target.

 

[Blitzo]

A couple of JH-7As with jamming pods. Useful as combat jammers, but it would be nice for PLAAF and PLANAF to cooperate on developing a dedicated EW capability on the flanker platform.

J-16 and J-15S are good candidates to develop similar "upgrade" EW packages for, given their relatively similar airframe. Stick on four EW pods, make the necessary internal airframe adjustments for other antennae, and modify the WSO station for EW. They'll still retain good reserve for weapons, fuel, and the powerful AESA on J-16 and on J-15/S whenever it gets it.

PLA has decent EW/ECM with its JH-7As and H-6s capable of carrying pods, but I imagine they're mostly self defence in nature. fortunately they have multiple Y-8 EW birds in service, providing a wide area stand off jamming role, but it would be nice to have a more dedicated jammer that can survive encounters with enemy fighters, and conduct its own strike missions if need be.

 

[FORBIN]

Hui Tong say, recently ?

H-6G is speculated to be replaced by the smaller and more versatile JH-7B

however H-6G seems now or soon carry new YJ-12

 

[Quickie]

Hui Tong say, recently ?
however H-6G seems now or soon carry new YJ-12

H-6G is speculated to be replaced by the smaller and more versatile JH-7B

JH-7x don't have the MTOW to carry the larger missiles.

 

[SinoSoldier]

Wow, thank you guys for all the prospective likes. Too bad they covered up the radome with the tarp.

 

[Deino]

Wow, thank you guys for all the prospective likes. Too bad they covered up the radome with the tarp.

Nice ... but it seems as if there at least externaly no changes at all !?

 

[Lethe]

For a modern, dedicated striker I am surprised that JH-7B does not incorporate something like EOTS.

 

[Blitzo]

For a modern, dedicated striker I am surprised that JH-7B does not incorporate something like EOTS.

Well, it can carry an external targeting pod so there's really no need for a targeting system integrated into the airframe.
For instance, F-15E relies on externally mounted pods too.

Also, I think the PLA's strikers are more oriented for a standoff strike role where they are facing foes with competent air defenses, rather than oriented for using shorter range smart bombs facing foes where PLA air superiority has already been achieved. Targeting systems with an onboard optical component will not be very useful in a long range standoff (i.e.: >100km) role, instead, datalink pods will be more valuable. So I think installing a dedicated piece of machinery that won't be used too often would be a poor funding decision considering PLA's limited budget.

I believe that is part of the reason why we've only seen limited service of smart bombs in the PLAAF's arsenal -- I think LT-2s are the only standard smart bomb for JH-7/As. Their most commonly carried munition appears to be the KD-88, which is a formidable weapon with multiple guidance types and stand off range similar to SLAM.