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

[Semi-Lobster]

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.

Its certainly proven useful for the PLANAF, its pretty similiar to the Panavia Tornado ADV (except not having those archaic Variable-sweep wings) in terms of role which is an extremely useful niche to fill. I think if there had been a successful export of the FBC-1 there might have been some incentive to develop a 'JH-7B' given the availability of a longer production run and inhouse upgrades like the relationship between the F-7PG/BG and the J-7G but without it I don't really believe that the JH-7A will stick around long after its replacement shows up, although that really depends on how quickly a replacement IS developed

 

[crobato]

Re: JH-7/JH-7A Thread

I don't think there will be a direct replacement. The entire genre of dedicated attack aircraft will go extinct as they already did in the West. There probably won't be a follow up on the JH-7A which maybe the last of its kind along with the Q-5.

You will be left with the big bombers like H-6, multi-role fighter aircraft, adapted trainer aircraft, and UCAVs to the strike and CAS missions.

 

[Semi-Lobster]

Re: JH-7/JH-7A Thread

I don't think there will be a direct replacement. The entire genre of dedicated attack aircraft will go extinct as they already did in the West. There probably won't be a follow up on the JH-7A which maybe the last of its kind along with the Q-5.

You will be left with the big bombers like H-6, multi-role fighter aircraft, adapted trainer aircraft, and UCAVs to the strike and CAS missions.

Well I believe the heavy twin seat fighter bomber still has a role, but more in line with the concept of a fighter with a stronger emphasis on things like SEAD, like the Russian Fullback

 

[crobato]

Re: JH-7/JH-7A Thread

Even SEAD can be done by UAVs. I'm likely to think that some kind of future J-10 and J-11 variant will end up handling the strike tasks for the PLAAF, much like F-16Cs and Strike Eagles have done the job for the USAF. The JH-7A may go in the same line as the F-111. It will exist and be useful for some time, maybe a decade or two, but when it goes, it goes without a direct replacement in plane type. Some other plane type will replace it in purpose.

 

[Semi-Lobster]

Re: JH-7/JH-7A Thread

Even SEAD can be done by UAVs. I'm likely to think that some kind of future J-10 and J-11 variant will end up handling the strike tasks for the PLAAF, much like F-16Cs and Strike Eagles have done the job for the USAF. The JH-7A may go in the same line as the F-111. It will exist and be useful for some time, maybe a decade or two, but when it goes, it goes witit hout a direct replacement in plane type. Some other plane type will replace it in purpose.

Well the Su-34 after all is pretty much a 'really big flanker'. Neiter of us are privy to the internal going ons of the PLAAF though. Obviously there will still be requirements for better performance in the air but the 'shape' of the aircraft will depend on payload requirements and the larger they are, the greater likelyhood of having a drastically enlarged, twin engined version of an existing aircraft like the F-15E or the Su-34 to something completely new rather than a single engine aircraft. With the advances in engine technology the problems that plagued new aircraft development in the 70s and 80s is long gone but it will still probably be cheaper to develop a 'strike' version of something that already exists

 

[adeptitus]

Re: JH-7/JH-7A Thread

Its certainly proven useful for the PLANAF, its pretty similiar to the Panavia Tornado ADV (except not having those archaic Variable-sweep wings) in terms of role which is an extremely useful niche to fill.

A better comparison might be to the Jaguar 97/GR.3A and not Tornado ADV.

The Tornado ADV with foxhunter radar had Mach 2.2+ speed, and was designed to detect Soviet bombers at long range (185 km head-on) and engage them with 4 x MRAAM's.

I'm a fan of the Su-34's design concept, i.e. side by side cockpit and crew comfort. The cockpit is big enough to stand up to stretch your legs and lay down for a nap, or use the toilet in the back.

 

[crobato]

Re: JH-7/JH-7A Thread

I'm not a big fan of the twin seat position. It's bad because the pilot cannot see the other side, though his co pilot can. But there is an advantage of being able to see down on both sides from where you sit. I mean, imagine if you're the guy sitting there.

 

[crobato]

Re: JH-7/JH-7A Thread

Well the Su-34 after all is pretty much a 'really big flanker'. Neiter of us are privy to the internal going ons of the PLAAF though. Obviously there will still be requirements for better performance in the air but the 'shape' of the aircraft will depend on payload requirements and the larger they are, the greater likelyhood of having a drastically enlarged, twin engined version of an existing aircraft like the F-15E or the Su-34 to something completely new rather than a single engine aircraft. With the advances in engine technology the problems that plagued new aircraft development in the 70s and 80s is long gone but it will still probably be cheaper to develop a 'strike' version of something that already exists

I'm likely to think they're not developing at all, considering we have seen rumors here and there on new generation fighters, and get to see all forms and models of UAVs but nothing on a new generation strike or attack aircraft. I think and quite rationally, they're putting their eggs on building as many planes of less types, concentrating on fewer types like the J-10 and J-11, to increase economies of scale, which would lower the cost of manufacturing, training and maintaining the aircraft.

The PLAAF certainly has too many types right now. It should rationalize into as few types as possible. Sometimes I look into these myriads of type in the PLAAF and why they keep making them. For me it smells like job subsidy support.

 

[Pointblank]

Re: JH-7/JH-7A Thread

The PLAAF certainly has too many types right now. It should rationalize into as few types as possible. Sometimes I look into these myriads of type in the PLAAF and why they keep making them. For me it smells like job subsidy support.

Or it's pork barrel in the worst form...

 

[King_Comm]

Re: JH-7/JH-7A Thread

Not every company can produce the latest fighters, but the research and development, manufacturing, management teams are invaluable, there has to be a way of keeping them in the industry and keep them occupied. Remember the British nuclear submarine programme? Britain actually lost the ability to build nuclear submarines by they time they needed a replacement for Swiftsure class because no subs were built for 20 years, and required serious assistance from the US to build the Astute class.

So, it 's a good idea to keep the capability alive, even if it looks like a waste of money at the time.