JH-7/JH-7A/JH-7B Thread
- Thread starter MIGleader
- Start date
Re: JH-7/JH-7A Thread
JH-7 is a C801 launch platform and nothing else. It's actually pretty sad, to design and produce an aircraft specifically for a missile.
However, the airframe is good, so JH-7A has grown into a real tactical bomber. It has no problem with range and payload so I don't see any problem with the engine. If it has to upgrade the engine in the future, it would be a newer version of WS-9, with even better fuel economy.
JH-7 is a C801 launch platform and nothing else. It's actually pretty sad, to design and produce an aircraft specifically for a missile.
However, the airframe is good, so JH-7A has grown into a real tactical bomber. It has no problem with range and payload so I don't see any problem with the engine. If it has to upgrade the engine in the future, it would be a newer version of WS-9, with even better fuel economy.
Re: JH-7/JH-7A Thread
JH-7 can be upgraded to launch everything that JH-7A can. It's really not that hard to upgrade the radar and avionics to be able to fire all of the missiles.
btw, read some rumour that the next JH-7A regiment will be in the 15th division.
JH-7 can be upgraded to launch everything that JH-7A can. It's really not that hard to upgrade the radar and avionics to be able to fire all of the missiles.
btw, read some rumour that the next JH-7A regiment will be in the 15th division.
Re: JH-7/JH-7A Thread
If PLAAF and PLANAF wants refueling pod on JH-7A, they will have do it long time ago.
If PLAAF and PLANAF wants refueling pod on JH-7A, they will have do it long time ago.
Re: JH-7/JH-7A Thread
Zero credibility.
The fan boys like to put everything they can think of on an airplane. The reality is that JH-7 is a strike platform. It does not need high speed performance, so none of the changes (intake, lerx) make any sense.
I think the best modification to JH-7/7A is the main landing gear. It takes too much space under the body. (That's also my complaint about J-10). By using tighter landing gear (may need to reshape the body a little bit), it can carry more large weapons under the body. A good example is Gripen NG.
Other than more weapons and more range, I don't see any major changes to the platform.
Zero credibility.
The fan boys like to put everything they can think of on an airplane. The reality is that JH-7 is a strike platform. It does not need high speed performance, so none of the changes (intake, lerx) make any sense.
I think the best modification to JH-7/7A is the main landing gear. It takes too much space under the body. (That's also my complaint about J-10). By using tighter landing gear (may need to reshape the body a little bit), it can carry more large weapons under the body. A good example is Gripen NG.
Other than more weapons and more range, I don't see any major changes to the platform.
