JH-7/JH-7A/JH-7B Thread
- Thread starter MIGleader
- Start date
antiterror13
Brigadier
Re: JH-7/JH-7A Thread
What is JH-8 ?
J-7G is actually quite advanced, also J-8 latest variant, i.e J-8IIM is very good interceptor. China doesn't need to waste it's budget to field J-10A/B or J-11A/B to face Vietnam, Laos, Burma, India, Bhutan, Nepal, Afghanistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, North Korea and Phillipine
. J-7G, J-8 or J-8IIM and even Q-5 are more than enough to deal with those countries. For safety factor, China can field some old SAM systems in its inventory i.e HQ-2 and HQ-7 .... that's it
Doesn't really matter whether it is old or latest technology, as long as do the job and purposes ..... why not ? .. also very cheap to operate
It doesn't matter whether the cat is red or blue as long as can catch/eat mice.
What is JH-8 ?
J-7G is actually quite advanced, also J-8 latest variant, i.e J-8IIM is very good interceptor. China doesn't need to waste it's budget to field J-10A/B or J-11A/B to face Vietnam, Laos, Burma, India, Bhutan, Nepal, Afghanistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, North Korea and Phillipine
. J-7G, J-8 or J-8IIM and even Q-5 are more than enough to deal with those countries. For safety factor, China can field some old SAM systems in its inventory i.e HQ-2 and HQ-7 .... that's itDoesn't really matter whether it is old or latest technology, as long as do the job and purposes ..... why not ? .. also very cheap to operate
It doesn't matter whether the cat is red or blue as long as can catch/eat mice.
Last edited:
Subedei
Banned Idiot
Re: JH-7/JH-7A Thread
As for retiring, this platform, I'd think that the range and payload combined with fairly contemporary avionics and weapons make this a useful platform for both domestic use and for export. I'd think that the PLAAN could effectively station several squadrons of these on Woody Island and be quite confident in their ability to defend their South Sea claims, whether acknowledged by the international community, or not. Additionally, despite the UK's confidence in the deterrent provided by its Typhoons on the Malvinas, the arrival and deployment of two to three squadrons of JH-7As amongst Argentine airbases: Rio Grande: 380 nautical miles, San Julián: 425 nautical miles, Rio Gallegos: 435 nautical miles, and Santa Cruz: 480 nautical miles from Port Stanley, would certainly reduce the UK's confidence level and require a re-formulation of their Malvinas strategy. Not to mention what several squadrons could do to advance the anti-ship capabilities of the Pakistani and Iranian naval air forces.
So, although the JH-7A isn't the latest and greatest, the fact that it's domestically developed and produced, which reduces it's price tag, and that it's uniquely qualified amongst available platforms, which makes it a precious commodity, should confer a fair production run and a few more upgrades, at least.
All IMHO.
As for retiring, this platform, I'd think that the range and payload combined with fairly contemporary avionics and weapons make this a useful platform for both domestic use and for export. I'd think that the PLAAN could effectively station several squadrons of these on Woody Island and be quite confident in their ability to defend their South Sea claims, whether acknowledged by the international community, or not. Additionally, despite the UK's confidence in the deterrent provided by its Typhoons on the Malvinas, the arrival and deployment of two to three squadrons of JH-7As amongst Argentine airbases: Rio Grande: 380 nautical miles, San Julián: 425 nautical miles, Rio Gallegos: 435 nautical miles, and Santa Cruz: 480 nautical miles from Port Stanley, would certainly reduce the UK's confidence level and require a re-formulation of their Malvinas strategy. Not to mention what several squadrons could do to advance the anti-ship capabilities of the Pakistani and Iranian naval air forces.
So, although the JH-7A isn't the latest and greatest, the fact that it's domestically developed and produced, which reduces it's price tag, and that it's uniquely qualified amongst available platforms, which makes it a precious commodity, should confer a fair production run and a few more upgrades, at least.
All IMHO.
antiterror13
Brigadier
Re: JH-7/JH-7A Thread
I'd put a squadron of old JH-7 (not A) and another squadron of J-7G on woody island and a couple batteries of old HQ-7 SAM sytems. Perhaps a couple of 056 or 4 022
I'd put a squadron of old JH-7 (not A) and another squadron of J-7G on woody island and a couple batteries of old HQ-7 SAM sytems. Perhaps a couple of 056 or 4 022
plawolf
Lieutenant General
Re: JH-7/JH-7A Thread
The JH7A will not sell well on the export market because it's too pure of a striker.
In terms of range, payload and weapons mix, the JH7A is as effective a striker as far more expansive aircraft like the F15E or Su34. Sure, overall it's not as good as the Strike Eagle or Platypus, but then one could easily argue about how much the superior dogfighting capabilities the later two bring add to their effectiveness as strike aircraft, as ideally, your bomb trucks should not get within visual range of enemy fighters.
The JH7A might not be the newest, flashiest or sexist striker out there, but they do their job very well and there is no need to replace them for several decades yet.
What the JH7A brings is massive strike capabilities, but that is usually too much striking power for small air forces, who generally could not afford many airframes and as such could not afford to keep a dedicated strike regiment. For them, a primary air superiority fighter with limited secondary strike capabilities would do just fine.
Sure countries like Argentina, Pakistan and Iran would benefit massively from having a few regiments of JH7As, but can they afford to buy and operate them? These air forces have limited budgets, and plenty of other assets far higher up on their priority list for what funds they do have.
Bigger air forces with the kinds of budget to afford a dedicated striker like the JH7A generally have very advanced domestic aerospace industries that can make an equivalent themselves.
As for stationing JH7s on Woody Island, well why bother? One of the JH7A's primary design requirements was that it has range to conduct operations over the disputed SCS islands when operating from Hainan island. This thing has so much range the PLAAF didn't even bother to put an IRF probe on it.
If need be, JH7As could conduct strike operations on any SCS disputed islands from Hainan, so why place them on Woody Island and heighten tensions and actually put them in harm's way?
The PLAN's surface fleet would dominate the SCS against anyone other than the USN, with or without air cover. The PLANAF's Su30MK2s is fighter enough to handle anything the regional powers could put in the air, and the JH7As and even H6 cruise missile carriers could strike any target in the SCS with effective impunity.
If the PLA did not see the need to station JH7s (or any fighters) on Woody Island in the past or present, there is even less need to do so in the future with the Varyag and indigenous Chinese carriers due to come online within the decade.
Truth be told, stationing fighters on Woody, or any island down there would be more trouble than they are worth. The islands are too small to disperse and hide aircraft, and too close to potential attackers to allow you enough warning to be sure you could get most of your birds in the air in the event of a surprise attack without having to spend a fortune keeping planes and crews on alert 5 status or something alone those lines.
If you put aircraft on the islands, you will also be obliged to put a lot of high end air defense on them, and then more troops/marines to protect all this hardware and pretty soon those islands will look like armed camps that cost you a small fortune to keep supplied. With so much men and equipment stationed on small islands, you make it that much easier for an enemy to just blockade and starve you out.
The only effective offensive aircraft I could see being useful to be stationed on any SCS island would be attack helos, either dedicated attack helos like the WZ10, or transport helos with secondary attack capabilities like the WZ9 or Mi17s. These birds can take off or land pretty much anywhere that is flat, and would be far more useful at repelling enemy amphibious assaults than fast jets. That is the only role the island garrison force should be tasked with.
The only time you need to station fixed wing aircraft on those islands is if you were looking to use them as springboards to launch amphibious assaults of your own on the home islands of the Philippines or Indonesia etc as happened during WWII. That is another reason for not stationing aircraft there - it sends entirely the wrong message.
The JH7A will not sell well on the export market because it's too pure of a striker.
In terms of range, payload and weapons mix, the JH7A is as effective a striker as far more expansive aircraft like the F15E or Su34. Sure, overall it's not as good as the Strike Eagle or Platypus, but then one could easily argue about how much the superior dogfighting capabilities the later two bring add to their effectiveness as strike aircraft, as ideally, your bomb trucks should not get within visual range of enemy fighters.
The JH7A might not be the newest, flashiest or sexist striker out there, but they do their job very well and there is no need to replace them for several decades yet.
What the JH7A brings is massive strike capabilities, but that is usually too much striking power for small air forces, who generally could not afford many airframes and as such could not afford to keep a dedicated strike regiment. For them, a primary air superiority fighter with limited secondary strike capabilities would do just fine.
Sure countries like Argentina, Pakistan and Iran would benefit massively from having a few regiments of JH7As, but can they afford to buy and operate them? These air forces have limited budgets, and plenty of other assets far higher up on their priority list for what funds they do have.
Bigger air forces with the kinds of budget to afford a dedicated striker like the JH7A generally have very advanced domestic aerospace industries that can make an equivalent themselves.
As for stationing JH7s on Woody Island, well why bother? One of the JH7A's primary design requirements was that it has range to conduct operations over the disputed SCS islands when operating from Hainan island. This thing has so much range the PLAAF didn't even bother to put an IRF probe on it.
If need be, JH7As could conduct strike operations on any SCS disputed islands from Hainan, so why place them on Woody Island and heighten tensions and actually put them in harm's way?
The PLAN's surface fleet would dominate the SCS against anyone other than the USN, with or without air cover. The PLANAF's Su30MK2s is fighter enough to handle anything the regional powers could put in the air, and the JH7As and even H6 cruise missile carriers could strike any target in the SCS with effective impunity.
If the PLA did not see the need to station JH7s (or any fighters) on Woody Island in the past or present, there is even less need to do so in the future with the Varyag and indigenous Chinese carriers due to come online within the decade.
Truth be told, stationing fighters on Woody, or any island down there would be more trouble than they are worth. The islands are too small to disperse and hide aircraft, and too close to potential attackers to allow you enough warning to be sure you could get most of your birds in the air in the event of a surprise attack without having to spend a fortune keeping planes and crews on alert 5 status or something alone those lines.
If you put aircraft on the islands, you will also be obliged to put a lot of high end air defense on them, and then more troops/marines to protect all this hardware and pretty soon those islands will look like armed camps that cost you a small fortune to keep supplied. With so much men and equipment stationed on small islands, you make it that much easier for an enemy to just blockade and starve you out.
The only effective offensive aircraft I could see being useful to be stationed on any SCS island would be attack helos, either dedicated attack helos like the WZ10, or transport helos with secondary attack capabilities like the WZ9 or Mi17s. These birds can take off or land pretty much anywhere that is flat, and would be far more useful at repelling enemy amphibious assaults than fast jets. That is the only role the island garrison force should be tasked with.
The only time you need to station fixed wing aircraft on those islands is if you were looking to use them as springboards to launch amphibious assaults of your own on the home islands of the Philippines or Indonesia etc as happened during WWII. That is another reason for not stationing aircraft there - it sends entirely the wrong message.
Re: JH-7/JH-7A Thread
Err, are you sure you haven't made a typo and lumped India with those other countries?What is JH-8 ?
J-7G is actually quite advanced, also J-8 latest variant, i.e J-8IIM is very good interceptor. China doesn't need to waste it's budget to field J-10A/B or J-11A/B to face Vietnam, Laos, Burma, India, Bhutan, Nepal, Afghanistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, North Korea and Phillipine
Doesn't really matter whether it is old or latest technology, as long as do the job and purposes ..... why not ? .. also very cheap to operate
It doesn't matter whether the cat is red or blue as long as can catch/eat mice.
kwaigonegin
Colonel
Re: JH-7/JH-7A Thread
the issue with the JH-7 or most indigenous chinese aircraft for that matter is all we have to go on is their technical specifications. As far as I'm aware none of these aircraft has ever been tested in combat so their true capabilities remains unknown. I am also unaware of these aircraft being tested in exercises that replicate real combat conditions such as Red Flag or other multinational war games nor do we even how good the chinese aggressor squadrons are. Maybe someone who is very familiar with PLAN or PLAAF can chime in.
the issue with the JH-7 or most indigenous chinese aircraft for that matter is all we have to go on is their technical specifications. As far as I'm aware none of these aircraft has ever been tested in combat so their true capabilities remains unknown. I am also unaware of these aircraft being tested in exercises that replicate real combat conditions such as Red Flag or other multinational war games nor do we even how good the chinese aggressor squadrons are. Maybe someone who is very familiar with PLAN or PLAAF can chime in.
