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

[Quickie]

swap a pair of AAMs for a pair of self protection jammers/towed decoy dispeners and it'd be quite a loadout.

Also, is there a variant of kd88 with an active radar (mmw?) seeker, instead of an optical one? Not that it matters for a naval jh7...

On another note, are we then ready to conclude jh7 production has ended for good? jh7b or not, it doesn't seam realistic anyone would restart production even for a new variant after a four year long hiatus?

A variant of kd88 with an active radar seeker would be the YJ-83K itself? The question would then be whether the YJ-83K has a radar seeker in the mmw band.

 

[siegecrossbow]

JH-7 sounds like a bizarre choice for an interceptor. Can anyone else validate the veracity of this story?

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The U.S. Defense Department on Tuesday confirmed that Chinese fighter jets recently made an “unsafe” interception of an American spy plane in the Asia-Pacific region.

A pair of JH-7 fighter-bombers, known in NATO parlance as Flounders, from the People’s Liberation Army came within 500 feet of an RC-135 from the U.S. Air Force last week over the Yellow Sea, according to

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

in The Wall Street Journal.

The incident was confirmed by Pentagon Press Secretary Peter Cook.

“The department is reviewing a report that came in from [U.S. Pacific Command] regarding as you said a Sept. 15 intercept of a U.S. RC-135 by the People’s Republic of China,” he said in response to a question from a reporter during a briefing at the Pentagon.

The incident happened about 80 miles east of the Shandong Peninsula, Cook said.

“One of the maneuvers conducted by the Chinese aircraft in this intercept was perceived as unsafe by the RC-135 aircrew,” he said. “Right now, there’s no indication that this was a near collision.”

There are multiple variants of the

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

in the U.S. fleet. The RC-135V/W Rivet Joint is the Air Force’s primary signals intelligence aircraft. It supports theater and national-level personnel with near real-time, on-scene intelligence collection, analysis and dissemination capabilities, according to the Military.com equipment guide.

Pacific Command is headed by Adm. Harry Harris, who last week

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

that the U.S. Navy should sail near China’s manmade islands in the South China Sea.

“I agree that the South China Sea is no more China’s than the Gulf of Mexico is Mexico’s,” Harris said during a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

“I think that we must exercise our freedom of navigation throughout the region and part of our responsibility as Pacific Command commander is to give options to the president and the secretary,” he added, referring to President Barack Obama and Defense Secretary Ashton Carter. “And those options are being considered and will execute as directed by the president and the secretary.”

The last time the sea service conducted a freedom of navigation operation within a dozen nautical miles of China’s artificial islands in the region was three years ago, according to David Shear, assistant secretary of defense for Asian and Pacific Security Affairs at the Pentagon.

Chinese navy ships this month were spotted off the coast of Alaska for the first time. The discovery came the same week China held a massive military parade in Beijing to commemorate the 70th anniversary of the Japanese surrender during World War II — and highlights its ambition to become a global military power.



Read more:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Defense.org

 

[Deino]

Indeed, other reports I found yesterday - by the way all in the by now sadly almost familiar hyper-hysterical US-tone against anything from China - speak of two J-11.

Deino

 

[siegecrossbow]

Indeed, other reports I found yesterday - by the way all in the by now sadly almost familiar hyper-hysterical US-tone against anything from China - speak of two J-11.

Deino

Goes to show how incompetent the journalists are these days.

 

[Deino]

I just found them ... no mentioning of the type !

 

[FilipII]

The JH-7 would, IMHO, not be able to defeat the SU-34 in such a competition, and would have a tough time against front line Russian SU-24 units.

Sounds like they did well in any case. Was this their first time?

Actually Avia Darts is not a competition of planes, but a competition of pilots/crew skills. They don't use on board equipment, but have to find their targets by their eyes, made maneuvers to avoid air defense, fly in proper formations in the time of different maneuvers and engage ground targets by unguided rockets and free fall bombs. Crews and pilots have in this way same conditions not depending on planes in which they fly.

 

[Jeff Head]

Actually Avia Darts is not a competition of planes, but a competition of pilots/crew skills. They don't use on board equipment, but have to find their targets by their eyes, made maneuvers to avoid air defense, fly in proper formations in the time of different maneuvers and engage ground targets by unguided rockets and free fall bombs.

I did not know that.

So they cannot rely on their in-flight instruments for flying or attacking?

 

[Blitzo]

I did not know that.

So they cannot rely on their in-flight instruments for flying or attacking?

I'm not sure about the details -- but I do know that they cannot use guided weapons during the actual weapon-employment part of the competition. That is why JH-7s that participated only carried rocket pods.

As for how JH-7/A actually compares to the Su-34 or Su-24, I think JH-7/A actually has quite a good weapons suite to choose from, if such a competition allowed employment of PGMs. JH-7s have stand off cruise missiles in the KD-88 with various types of seekers, free fall PGMs in the LT-2 with self designation from targeting pods, and anti ship missiles in the various YJ-83K variants. The only major thing missing from JH-7/A to Su-34/Su-24 is the lack of a heavy anti ship missile in the class of moskit. Though Su-34's radar is likely superior to JH-7/As.

In a sense, that makes the aviadarts competition more logical, as forcing pilots to not rely on their onboard targeting avionics and not using precision guided weapons (the quality of which may vary between aircraft and aircraft quite dramatically) means they are assessing the skills of the pilots rather than the equipment.

 

[FilipII]

I did not know that.

So they cannot rely on their in-flight instruments for flying or attacking?

They use navigational instruments for safety of flying, but for searching of targets they could use their eyes and for targeting their HUD to use unguided rockets and bombs. No PGMs, radars, optics, etc. This is why pilots in old Su-25, Su-24, Su-27 and MiG-29 have the same chances as pilots in new Su-30, Su-34, Su-35, Su-25SM and MiG-29SMT. They all have the same route to fly, the same targets, the same tasks to do, but who do it better, depend on the pilot, not on the plane. You could fly in old MiG-15 and you will still have the same conditions as the pilot in Su-35.

 

[newguy02]

@Totoro To be fair though, the H-6K production probably won't last long either since its allegedly only suppose to be a stop gap measure until the H-X comes along, however I agree that JH-7 production probably won't be revived as J-16 is more or less going to replace it in PLAAF service, however we don't know what the status of the JH-7B is and we haven't gotten any pictures in a while, and like you said when Y-20 production comes along it'll take up a lot of resources.