JH-7/JH-7A/JH-7B Thread
- Thread starter MIGleader
- Start date
speculator
New Member
Re: JH-7/JH-7A Thread
JH7A are slightly inferior in their avionics, payload, range, and aerodynamic performance, BUT they are much much cheaper to run and maintain.
Re: JH-7/JH-7A Thread
actually we can't make such a sweeping statement, there is just no info for some of that. And some info actually supports jh7 being better. Avionics wise, its probably a mixed bag compared to su30mkk. It has a more modern radar design - slotted radar versus sukhois cassegrain antenna. I'd say its better for certain modes, primarely ground scan modes. Radar power is unknown, so it may very well be inferior in absolute detection range. Computers wise - well, another unknown, but judging by the rest of chinese airplanes lately, i have a feeling it's holding up there pretty well too. Cockpit seems to be more modern than sukhoi's, offering better situational awareness.
Flight performance wise - sukhoi wins there hands down. Better aerodynamics, better agility - it really could serve as a fighter if needed. Payload and range are unknown for jh7 - ranging from slightly better than su30 to slightly inferior. At least for payload we are sure it can carry at least 7 tons of weapons - though, of course, we've no way of knowing if that's doable with full internal fuel.
Another very important point is available weaponry. Chinese never were able to use russian laser guided bombs, for some reason. they were limited to tv and radio guided weapons. On top of that, jh7 is shaping up to be PLANAF's main antiship platform - with more potent antiship missiles than su30 can deliver. On the flip side, it is not known if jh7 can use pl-12, while su30 definitely can use r-77 for a2a engagements.
All in all, though su30 airframe has potential - the exact variant china got is unofortunently not that potent and thus jh7 is a more capable platform.
actually we can't make such a sweeping statement, there is just no info for some of that. And some info actually supports jh7 being better. Avionics wise, its probably a mixed bag compared to su30mkk. It has a more modern radar design - slotted radar versus sukhois cassegrain antenna. I'd say its better for certain modes, primarely ground scan modes. Radar power is unknown, so it may very well be inferior in absolute detection range. Computers wise - well, another unknown, but judging by the rest of chinese airplanes lately, i have a feeling it's holding up there pretty well too. Cockpit seems to be more modern than sukhoi's, offering better situational awareness.
Flight performance wise - sukhoi wins there hands down. Better aerodynamics, better agility - it really could serve as a fighter if needed. Payload and range are unknown for jh7 - ranging from slightly better than su30 to slightly inferior. At least for payload we are sure it can carry at least 7 tons of weapons - though, of course, we've no way of knowing if that's doable with full internal fuel.
Another very important point is available weaponry. Chinese never were able to use russian laser guided bombs, for some reason. they were limited to tv and radio guided weapons. On top of that, jh7 is shaping up to be PLANAF's main antiship platform - with more potent antiship missiles than su30 can deliver. On the flip side, it is not known if jh7 can use pl-12, while su30 definitely can use r-77 for a2a engagements.
All in all, though su30 airframe has potential - the exact variant china got is unofortunently not that potent and thus jh7 is a more capable platform.
Re: JH-7/JH-7A Thread
The combat radius of the JH-7 is 1650 Km according the Sinodefence. Im not sure if this is for the orginal varient or the JH-7A. If it is for the original, then the latter might have an increased range due to it's lighter airframe(if the weapon loadouts are similar). 1650 Km, I must say, is not too shabby, it beats out the MKK. However, the MKK is capable of in-flight refueling which the JH-7 is not.
With your second statement, are you trying to say that weapon availibility is in the favor of the JH-7 because of it's ability to use Chinese LGB's? Or would it be in the favor of the MKK due to it's ability to use a variety Russian ordinance?
Yeah, it's a real shame the JH-7's outdated design from the start greatly limits it's future with the PLAAF. Hence thats why China is currently persuing the J-11B(S?) to emulate the Su-30's design and potential, and possibly another attacker project resembling the Su-34.
The combat radius of the JH-7 is 1650 Km according the Sinodefence. Im not sure if this is for the orginal varient or the JH-7A. If it is for the original, then the latter might have an increased range due to it's lighter airframe(if the weapon loadouts are similar). 1650 Km, I must say, is not too shabby, it beats out the MKK. However, the MKK is capable of in-flight refueling which the JH-7 is not.
With your second statement, are you trying to say that weapon availibility is in the favor of the JH-7 because of it's ability to use Chinese LGB's? Or would it be in the favor of the MKK due to it's ability to use a variety Russian ordinance?
Yeah, it's a real shame the JH-7's outdated design from the start greatly limits it's future with the PLAAF. Hence thats why China is currently persuing the J-11B(S?) to emulate the Su-30's design and potential, and possibly another attacker project resembling the Su-34.
Re: JH-7/JH-7A Thread
In my opinion - jh7 has the edge here. mkk can't use LGBs, jh7 can. Both have stand off land attack missiles (jh7's kd88 being newer is probably somewhat better than mkk's kh59) only mk2 (not mkk) can use antiship missiles, and in my opinion kh31 is just a bad weapon for antiship role, compared to yj-83 due to limited range.
mkk is limited to tv guided bombs while jh7 can also use laser guided ones. What jh7 lacks is maverick class weapon, like mkk's kh29. Perhaps even more than jh7, q-5 would be a very good platform to use that, if chinese developed something similar. Off topic - something like brimstone would also greatly add to Q-5.
both mkk and jh7a have similar anti radar missiles. So, all in all - jh7 makes a better ground and sea attack platform. Where mkk trumps the jh7 is in the self defence - with better agility and BVR missiles, it stands much better chances against enemy planes, if there's no special fighter cover.
In my opinion - jh7 has the edge here. mkk can't use LGBs, jh7 can. Both have stand off land attack missiles (jh7's kd88 being newer is probably somewhat better than mkk's kh59) only mk2 (not mkk) can use antiship missiles, and in my opinion kh31 is just a bad weapon for antiship role, compared to yj-83 due to limited range.
mkk is limited to tv guided bombs while jh7 can also use laser guided ones. What jh7 lacks is maverick class weapon, like mkk's kh29. Perhaps even more than jh7, q-5 would be a very good platform to use that, if chinese developed something similar. Off topic - something like brimstone would also greatly add to Q-5.
both mkk and jh7a have similar anti radar missiles. So, all in all - jh7 makes a better ground and sea attack platform. Where mkk trumps the jh7 is in the self defence - with better agility and BVR missiles, it stands much better chances against enemy planes, if there's no special fighter cover.
Re: JH-7/JH-7A Thread
in terms of payload/range combination, JH-7A trumps flankers in general. It uses a far more fuel efficient engine, uses more composite, probably slightly more aerodynamically efficient too. It was built for this after all. Even looking at the some of the range/payload number for su-34, I have to say I wasn't too impressed.
The main advantage of mkk over JH-7 series is air combat. Other than the obvious advantage in maneuverability, JH-7A's radar I'm sure is also far more geared toward land/sea missions than N-001VEP (smaller detection range despite using a more modern radar).
in terms of payload/range combination, JH-7A trumps flankers in general. It uses a far more fuel efficient engine, uses more composite, probably slightly more aerodynamically efficient too. It was built for this after all. Even looking at the some of the range/payload number for su-34, I have to say I wasn't too impressed.
The main advantage of mkk over JH-7 series is air combat. Other than the obvious advantage in maneuverability, JH-7A's radar I'm sure is also far more geared toward land/sea missions than N-001VEP (smaller detection range despite using a more modern radar).
Re: JH-7/JH-7A Thread
Actually MKK can now use LGBs, since SAPSAN pods have been confirmed wit the PLAAF. I mean its very late, but better late than never.
Besides a Maverick like weapon, the JH-7A lacks a TV guided bunker buster like the MKK's KAB-1500kr. This is a massive 1500kg bomb great against hardened shelters.
China could have used C-701 as a Maverick style weapon but for some reason did not pursue this line of PGM.
The JH-7A has other tricks of its own, for example, there is a domestic 6 250kg bomb multiple ejector rack, that's great for bombing saturation. A JH-7A can carry four of these, for a total of 24 bombs.
Actually MKK can now use LGBs, since SAPSAN pods have been confirmed wit the PLAAF. I mean its very late, but better late than never.
Besides a Maverick like weapon, the JH-7A lacks a TV guided bunker buster like the MKK's KAB-1500kr. This is a massive 1500kg bomb great against hardened shelters.
China could have used C-701 as a Maverick style weapon but for some reason did not pursue this line of PGM.
The JH-7A has other tricks of its own, for example, there is a domestic 6 250kg bomb multiple ejector rack, that's great for bombing saturation. A JH-7A can carry four of these, for a total of 24 bombs.
Re: JH-7/JH-7A Thread
Nothing beats really a modded H-6. The H-6 carries three times more fuel than an Su-34. What it needs is an efficient turbofan.
Nothing beats really a modded H-6. The H-6 carries three times more fuel than an Su-34. What it needs is an efficient turbofan.
speculator
New Member
Re: JH-7/JH-7A Thread
Bigger doesnt always mean better! as 2 smaller bombs can be targeted at exatly the same place.where the second bomb goes through the hole made by the first bomb. this is not as ridiculous as it sounds. the US used this tactic many times in iraq to destroy hardend shelters.
Bigger doesnt always mean better! as 2 smaller bombs can be targeted at exatly the same place.where the second bomb goes through the hole made by the first bomb. this is not as ridiculous as it sounds. the US used this tactic many times in iraq to destroy hardend shelters.