Page 66 of 90 FirstFirst ... 16263656616263646566676869707176 ... LastLast
Results 976 to 990 of 1342
Like Tree432Likes

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

This is a discussion on JH-7/JH-7A/JH-7B Thread within the Air Force forums, part of the China Defense & Military category; The JH7A will not sell well on the export market because it's too pure of a striker. In terms of ...

  1. #976
    plawolf's Avatar
    plawolf is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    2,987

    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.
    Bltizo, getready, victtodd and 5 others like this.

  2. #977
    victtodd is offline New Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    76

    Re: JH-7/JH-7A Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by antiterror13 View Post
    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.
    Err, are you sure you haven't made a typo and lumped India with those other countries?

  3. #978
    kwaigonegin's Avatar
    kwaigonegin is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    2,141

    Re: JH-7/JH-7A Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by plawolf View Post
    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 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.

  4. #979
    A.Man is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    2,149

    Re: JH-7/JH-7A Thread

    That's Why J-8II Is Still Around!







    Last edited by A.Man; 04-15-2012 at 09:42 PM.
    Red___Sword and Jeff Head like this.

  5. #980
    Lion is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    1,985

    Re: JH-7/JH-7A Thread

    J-8II is PRC first domestic multi- role fighter... It has the payload plus the range. But can you comfirmed that's a real footage. I think it looks abit like CG? Or anybody know where can I get the video?

  6. #981
    plawolf's Avatar
    plawolf is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    2,987

    Re: JH-7/JH-7A Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by kwaigonegin View Post
    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.
    How much of a test did the Libyans truly offer the likes of the Rafale or Typhoon?

    Unless you fought a worthy adversary, 'combat proven' is just another marketing gimmick and is way over-rated. Does anyone seriously think the likes of the F15 or F16 would enjoy anywhere close to their 'combat proven' kill ratios if they went up against Soviet/Russian Mig29s and Su27s?

    So what did the wars these western planes have flown in tell us about their true capabilities?

    Besides, the JH7s have taken part in joint Chinese-Russian anti-terror exercises. But I do not see how that makes it a more or less valid exercise than what the JH7 crews practice by themselves.

    Hell, international events like Red Flag is probably less intensive in terms of training difficulty than what the participants do by themselves at home because of the strict RoEs imposed at such events by both the organisers and participants themselves, as no-one wants to risk an incident at such events, and everyone hold back a little as they do not want others to get a true gauge of how good their men and machines are or learn too much about their tactics.
    Bltizo and Red___Sword like this.

  7. #982
    Deino's Avatar
    Deino is offline Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    2,827

    Re: JH-7/JH-7A Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Lion View Post
    ...I think it looks abit like CG? ...
    I thank that is more than abviously a CG !

    Deino

  8. #983
    escobar's Avatar
    escobar is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    5,024

    Re: JH-7/JH-7A Thread

    KD-88 ASM

    Jeff Head likes this.

  9. #984
    escobar's Avatar
    escobar is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    5,024

    Re: JH-7/JH-7A Thread

    EW pod

    Jeff Head likes this.

  10. #985
    Subedei is offline Banned Idiot
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    267

    Re: JH-7/JH-7A Thread

    would it be inappropriate to ask why plawolf is showing up as being banned?

  11. #986
    Hyperwarp's Avatar
    Hyperwarp is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Colombo, Sri-Lanka
    Posts
    659

    Re: JH-7/JH-7A Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Subedei View Post
    would it be inappropriate to ask why plawolf is showing up as being banned?
    he pi$$ed-of the the Empire. Darth Vader himself carried out the execution - Link


  12. #987
    i.e. is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    1,189

    Re: Jh-7 thread

    OPPS
    realized was reply to a oollllddd thread. delete.
    Last edited by i.e.; 04-27-2012 at 10:35 AM.

  13. #988
    escobar's Avatar
    escobar is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    5,024

    Re: Jh-7 thread

    PLAN JH-7A low-altitude patrolling:



    Last edited by escobar; 05-06-2012 at 02:13 PM.
    Jeff Head and AeroEngineer like this.

  14. #989
    Jeff Head's Avatar
    Jeff Head is online now Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Idaho - Beautiful Rocky Mountains
    Posts
    10,412

    Re: Jh-7 thread

    Quote Originally Posted by tphuang View Post
    actually, JH-7 was originally developed as a multi-role fighter like the tornado, but then it stunk as a multirole fighter. So, it has become China's attacker/bomber now. It seems to settle somewhere in between H-6 and Q-5. With the latest pods, missiles and avionics, JH-7A is actually very good at what it does. It's precision strike ability is supposed to be superior to that of mkk.
    Seems to me to be fulfilling the role of the US FB-111. Nice comparison too:

    PLAAF and PLAN JH-7


    US AIR FORCE FB-11


    BTW, here's one of my favorite photos of the J-20:

    bruceb1959 likes this.

  15. #990
    i.e. is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    1,189

    Re: Jh-7 thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Head View Post
    Seems to me to be fulfilling the role of the US FB-111. Nice comparison too:
    the originally PLAAF requirement called out almost exactly as the FB-111 . tactical strike. to stop soviet tanks formations.
    two side by side seats to facilitate night attacks.

    also I think chinese did get a downed FB-111's cockpit in vietnam to take a look at.

    but PLAAF version didn't go.

    PLAN's missile striker did get a green light. which is the tandem seat version you see today.

    also interesting enough, the Spey mk202 engine whcih is on JH-7, was actually a good standin for TF-30. and is in similar class.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •