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

[crobato]

Re: JH-7/JH-7A Thread

I know it would make for a sluggish fighter but, like the J-8H/F, a BVRAAM platform is a BVRAAM platform. Its not really an issue for China who have the capability for aircraft dedicated to strike operations while having fighter aircraft to do the actually fighting, but the Xian JH-7A is one of the aircraft China's been trying to export as the FBC-1, so the incentive of at least having BVR for a country, who might not have any BVR at all would be pretty good

In a battle for air superiority scenario, even if the JH-7A has spec'ed BVRAAM capability, this aircraft is far more likely to be bombing an airbase rather than shooting at aircraft. Always remember that the best route to air superiority is to nail the other guy on the ground.

 

[Semi-Lobster]

Re: JH-7/JH-7A Thread

In a battle for air superiority scenario, even if the JH-7A has spec'ed BVRAAM capability, this aircraft is far more likely to be bombing an airbase rather than shooting at aircraft. Always remember that the best route to air superiority is to nail the other guy on the ground.

Indeed, I remember a year ago the Tamil Tigers in some tiny Zlin Z-143s hit a Sri Lankan military base and took out two Mi-24s and a K8. I just wanted to know about the JH-7As radar capabilities in a sort of 'just in case' sort of way, its certainly no J-11 when in the air.

 

[crobato]

Re: JH-7/JH-7A Thread

My own personal opinion of the performance of the JL-10A radar is somewhere along the Type 1471 radar. In terms of A to A not as good as let's say, the Type 1473 radar on the J-10. However, the JL-10A is more versatile and has more air to surface modes. Also, its been navalized meaning its already compensating in the difference how radar scatters over a sea environment compared to the land environment. Something I'm not sure the J-10's radar already is, although the J-8II's Type 1471 and 1492 radar already appears to be. The Su-30MKK radar is probably isn't navalized without an upgrade that would bring them to the Su-30MK2 standard.

 

[Semi-Lobster]

Re: JH-7/JH-7A Thread

My own personal opinion of the performance of the JL-10A radar is somewhere along the Type 1471 radar. In terms of A to A not as good as let's say, the Type 1473 radar on the J-10. However, the JL-10A is more versatile and has more air to surface modes. Also, its been navalized meaning its already compensating in the difference how radar scatters over a sea environment compared to the land environment. Something I'm not sure the J-10's radar already is, although the J-8II's Type 1471 and 1492 radar already appears to be. The Su-30MKK radar is probably isn't navalized without an upgrade that would bring them to the Su-30MK2 standard.

Well it would take an astounding lack of common sense to not equip your most potent-fighter bomber with your most versatile air-to-surface capable radar. Its good to know the JH-7A is equipped for a good range of tasks.

Speaking of the JH-7A, the WS-9 is over twenty years old now, are there any plans to upgrade or replace it in the future with something else? From what I've read about the J-8, there seems to be a newer, more potent engine for every new variant.

 

[crobato]

Re: JH-7/JH-7A Thread

Well it would take an astounding lack of common sense to not equip your most potent-fighter bomber with your most versatile air-to-surface capable radar. Its good to know the JH-7A is equipped for a good range of tasks.

Right now, the JH-7A/JL-10A combo can support more weapons systems than the J-10's systems. For example, the JH-7A/JL-10A combo can already support antiship missiles like the YJ-83 and ground attack missiles like the KD-88s. The J-10 hasn't reached that point yet.

Speaking of the JH-7A, the WS-9 is over twenty years old now, are there any plans to upgrade or replace it in the future with something else? From what I've read about the J-8, there seems to be a newer, more potent engine for every new variant.

They will probably refine the WS-9 into better variants, but I don't expect the JH-7A and the WS-9 to stay that long in the future for a new engine to be developed for the JH-7X.

 

[Semi-Lobster]

Re: JH-7/JH-7A Thread

Right now, the JH-7A/JL-10A combo can support more weapons systems than the J-10's systems. For example, the JH-7A/JL-10A combo can already support antiship missiles like the YJ-83 and ground attack missiles like the KD-88s. The J-10 hasn't reached that point yet.



They will probably refine the WS-9 into better variants, but I don't expect the JH-7A and the WS-9 to stay that long in the future for a new engine to be developed for the JH-7X.

You think that the PLAAF/PLANAF are already looking a replacement for the JH-7A which was only introduced in 2004? While the airframes are getting old for the original, underpowerd JH-7, its still got a rather potent payload. What sort of replacement could they be looking for? Was that computer mockup from this year's Zhuhai be it? Sorry if this question has been asked already but once aain, I'd like to point out this thread is VERY long.

BTW do you have that picture of the JH-7A with the PL-11? I've been looking everywher for it and I don't know where it went

 

[Scratch]

Re: JH-7/JH-7A Thread

Just wondering if there's really a place in the future for a JH-7X. Or if potential roles would rather already be filled by the J-11BS and perhaps a JH-11 alias SU-34 mod of the aforementioned A/C. And the J-10 on the low end.
Or is there still a need for another dedicated strike A/C besides those already mentioned? Optimized for low level attackes then.
I also wonder what happens to that role. This way of striking has vanished lately. With modern and potent SHORAD SAMs, A/C have become too vulnerable. But with precision glide bombs that can be more or less ballisticly lifted onto targets from 10+ NM out, or some kind of other stand off munitions, I believe there's still merit in low level penetration. One cannot safeguard a whole country's territory with short range SAMs, only the hotspots. And striking them from a distance (partly) neglects that cover.

 

[crobato]

Re: JH-7/JH-7A Thread

You think that the PLAAF/PLANAF are already looking a replacement for the JH-7A which was only introduced in 2004? While the airframes are getting old for the original, underpowerd JH-7, its still got a rather potent payload. What sort of replacement could they be looking for? Was that computer mockup from this year's Zhuhai be it? Sorry if this question has been asked already but once aain, I'd like to point out this thread is VERY long.

Because the JH-7 is an old design whose development started in the 70s. Due to China's backwardness and playing catchup, the finished version ended up coming out in the 2000's not in the Eighties.

I would tend to think the JH-7A becomes redundant once the J-10 and J-11s acquire even more air to surface capability, and that's only a matter of time, and some electronics and software additions to go.

BTW do you have that picture of the JH-7A with the PL-11? I've been looking everywher for it and I don't know where it went

I need to check my backups. However in the xmas season I feel lazy.

 

[Semi-Lobster]

Re: JH-7/JH-7A Thread

Because the JH-7 is an old design whose development started in the 70s. Due to China's backwardness and playing catchup, the finished version ended up coming out in the 2000's not in the Eighties.

I would tend to think the JH-7A becomes redundant once the J-10 and J-11s acquire even more air to surface capability, and that's only a matter of time, and some electronics and software additions to go.

Well that makes sense, but I guess the JH-7A will have to soldier on since rumours of a development of a replacement has only been going around recently.

I need to check my backups. However in the xmas season I feel lazy.

Thanks! Don't worry though, I know the feeling around this time of year

 

[montyp165]

Re: JH-7/JH-7A Thread

The JH-7A does make for a cheaper SEAD aircraft than the J-11s or J-10s, so it does have its uses still.