JH-7/JH-7A/JH-7B Thread
- Thread starter MIGleader
- Start date
Re: JH-7/JH-7A Thread
False alarm, by the looks of it then lol.
That isn't to say we won't see a JH-7B emerge in the next year or two.
False alarm, by the looks of it then lol.
That isn't to say we won't see a JH-7B emerge in the next year or two.
Re: JH-7/JH-7A Thread
Seems like it. We would probably get more news on it if it were real.
Seems like it. We would probably get more news on it if it were real.
Re: JH-7/JH-7A Thread
thanks for posting ... but as said an interesting "thing" and nearly what we expected.
Besides that, if there's really a JH-XX - I would prefer a new designation and not JH-7B - then it is nearly as important for the PLAAF / PLANAF as the J-20 .... but I expext the Y-20 as the next mayor unveiling !!!
Deino
thanks for posting ... but as said an interesting "thing" and nearly what we expected.
Besides that, if there's really a JH-XX - I would prefer a new designation and not JH-7B - then it is nearly as important for the PLAAF / PLANAF as the J-20 .... but I expext the Y-20 as the next mayor unveiling !!!
Deino
Re: JH-7/JH-7A Thread
I would guess a jh7 replacement (whatever it is called) should be bigger than jh7. If it doesn't have weapons bays then it's pretty much obsolete at start. And cramming in two or more full sized antiship missiles requires quite a bit of space. It pretty much means a rework of jh7 is impossible. I expect a 20-25 ton heavy plane with a mtow of around 40-45 tons, some 25 m in length. I don't see how anything else would be worth the effort. A lesser plane could be more economically replaced by a j20 variant. All that being said, i don't believe we can expect to see the first flight of such a new platform before 2015., at the earliest.
I would guess a jh7 replacement (whatever it is called) should be bigger than jh7. If it doesn't have weapons bays then it's pretty much obsolete at start. And cramming in two or more full sized antiship missiles requires quite a bit of space. It pretty much means a rework of jh7 is impossible. I expect a 20-25 ton heavy plane with a mtow of around 40-45 tons, some 25 m in length. I don't see how anything else would be worth the effort. A lesser plane could be more economically replaced by a j20 variant. All that being said, i don't believe we can expect to see the first flight of such a new platform before 2015., at the earliest.
plawolf
Lieutenant General
Re: JH-7/JH-7A Thread
What is this obsession with weapons bays these days and people automatically assuming sth is automaticakky 'obselete' if it doesn't have one?
No plane (other than the B2) currently operational or planned can fit two full blooded AShMs internally. So does that mean the F35, Su34 etc are also all obselete now as well?
In anti-shipping, you need a big-assed warhead to have any chance of taking out a large warship, that means that a missile with even modest range is going to need sth the size of a tactical bomber to carry internally. AShMs don't work with internal carrage on fighterbomber sized planes.
The JH7A seems perfectly adequate for doing the bomb/missile truck role it needs to fill. There is no need to sex it up and add unnecessary agility or turn rate improvements etc at enormous cost to price and probably range/payload. Even stealth is probably pointless considering any RCS gains from theairframe will be more than offset once you start hanging a useful payload on it.
For first day of war high risk missions, the PLAAF is far better off putting more resources into stealthy UCAV R&D. If the PLAAF really wants something better than the JH7A, they have the J11BS readily available that could be converted into a MKK like striker, but with modern Chinese avionics and radar to allow the use of Chinese PGMs. A strong strike capability should be part of the J11BS as standard, so development costs and time should be minimal compared to a new JH7B.
Unless the PLA wants to buy a silly number of the new strikers, it may well be cheaper to go with the J1BS, since the ectra unit cost would likely be offset by the minimal development costs needed for the J11BS compared to a new JH7B, and the logistics saving from sharing the same parts as the existing J11 fleet would also likely offset higher operating costs.
Now, Xian may well come up with a new JH7B off their own back if it looks like the PLA is thinking of swtiching to the J11BS as its main striker. But whether the PLAAF would go and buy the JH7B is a totally dfferent question.
The only reason I can see for the PLA to buy JH7Bs over J11BS is to keep Xian alive, but if they are doing that, they are better off just buying more JH7As and giving Xian more grant money and tell them to focus on UCAVs instead.
What is this obsession with weapons bays these days and people automatically assuming sth is automaticakky 'obselete' if it doesn't have one?
No plane (other than the B2) currently operational or planned can fit two full blooded AShMs internally. So does that mean the F35, Su34 etc are also all obselete now as well?
In anti-shipping, you need a big-assed warhead to have any chance of taking out a large warship, that means that a missile with even modest range is going to need sth the size of a tactical bomber to carry internally. AShMs don't work with internal carrage on fighterbomber sized planes.
The JH7A seems perfectly adequate for doing the bomb/missile truck role it needs to fill. There is no need to sex it up and add unnecessary agility or turn rate improvements etc at enormous cost to price and probably range/payload. Even stealth is probably pointless considering any RCS gains from theairframe will be more than offset once you start hanging a useful payload on it.
For first day of war high risk missions, the PLAAF is far better off putting more resources into stealthy UCAV R&D. If the PLAAF really wants something better than the JH7A, they have the J11BS readily available that could be converted into a MKK like striker, but with modern Chinese avionics and radar to allow the use of Chinese PGMs. A strong strike capability should be part of the J11BS as standard, so development costs and time should be minimal compared to a new JH7B.
Unless the PLA wants to buy a silly number of the new strikers, it may well be cheaper to go with the J1BS, since the ectra unit cost would likely be offset by the minimal development costs needed for the J11BS compared to a new JH7B, and the logistics saving from sharing the same parts as the existing J11 fleet would also likely offset higher operating costs.
Now, Xian may well come up with a new JH7B off their own back if it looks like the PLA is thinking of swtiching to the J11BS as its main striker. But whether the PLAAF would go and buy the JH7B is a totally dfferent question.
The only reason I can see for the PLA to buy JH7Bs over J11BS is to keep Xian alive, but if they are doing that, they are better off just buying more JH7As and giving Xian more grant money and tell them to focus on UCAVs instead.
Re: JH-7/JH-7A Thread
Agreed !
IMO a stealthy new-design with new engines + avionics JH-XX-type would indeem make sense esp. in comparison to the Su-30MKK/J-11BS/J-16 or what-ever new or old Flanker derivate.
IMO such a type would not only be a good successor to the JH-7/A but also to - in certain roles - the H-6 ... similar to the Su-34, which also replaces the Backfire in certain roles in RuAF.
Besides that IMO such a type would surely not be the type to "keep XAC still alive" ... since they also have the Y-20 and reportedly a new bomber under development.
Just my 2 cents,
Deino
Agreed !
IMO a stealthy new-design with new engines + avionics JH-XX-type would indeem make sense esp. in comparison to the Su-30MKK/J-11BS/J-16 or what-ever new or old Flanker derivate.
IMO such a type would not only be a good successor to the JH-7/A but also to - in certain roles - the H-6 ... similar to the Su-34, which also replaces the Backfire in certain roles in RuAF.
Besides that IMO such a type would surely not be the type to "keep XAC still alive" ... since they also have the Y-20 and reportedly a new bomber under development.
Just my 2 cents,
Deino
Re: JH-7/JH-7A Thread
JH-7 and fighte bombers like them are stressed to much lower gs then +9 gs on airframe like su-30. that's alot weight you can use for gas.
that's the advantage of not going backwards from a fighter.
JH-7 and fighte bombers like them are stressed to much lower gs then +9 gs on airframe like su-30. that's alot weight you can use for gas.
that's the advantage of not going backwards from a fighter.
Schumacher
Senior Member
Re: JH-7/JH-7A Thread
In the end, the main difference between this JH7B and the future J16 or whatever may turn out to be just the cost-effectiveness.
In the end, the main difference between this JH7B and the future J16 or whatever may turn out to be just the cost-effectiveness.