JH-7/JH-7A Thread

[MIGleader]

we need a thread to discuss all things jh-7 related. like exactly what is the fate of the aircraft? will china build more jh-7as or upgrade the fighter even more before production? what new engine will an improved jh-7 fit?

[darth sidious]

What is the payload of JH-7a I heard is 9 tons but that seems a bit relastic but as the orignal is powered by speys riped out from Rafs phantoms could that be true

[jatt]

What is the payload of JH-7a I heard is 9 tons but that seems a bit relastic but as the orignal is powered by speys riped out from Rafs phantoms could that be true
Probabily not. It looks heavier than the Jaquar and its a two seater.

[tphuang]

Let's just talk about JH-7A. Powered by 2 WS-9 engine right now. Which 9.8 kN of thrust using afterburners and a T/W ratio of 6.55.

It has 6500 KG of payload. Uses JL-10A as its radar, carries China's latest precision strike pods. It also launches YJ-83 as its ASM. I'm not sure if it supports PL-12.

As for upgrade, JH-7A actually underwent a huge upgrade from JH-7. It's entire cockpit is all modern now. Next upgrade could consist of redesigning the frame to allow for AL-31F/WS-10A engines.

[Gollevainen]

Well i have heard intresting rumour about that Jh-7 has something to do whit Yugoslavian-Romanina Orao attack plane. I heard that Romaninas, a good pals of china during that time (in the 70's) Were in hands of similar requirments and that orao was orginally mented to be a twin seat attacker whit twin SPEY engine arragments. Somehow, UK didnt want to sell military spey into Warsawpact nation and the co-operation prospect was cut of, Balkan nations were forced to stick whit tiny Viper, and China got their Speys elsewere. Also was mentioned that Unbuild Romanian IAR-95 jet fighter has some relations of similar Spey engined chinese unbuild projects.

Anyway, Orao an JH-7 has always got to my eye as very similar planes in concept (not in size) and if you take look of them, you find some similarityes...

And remember, this is just wild rumour, I dont believe it my slef 100%, but you never know...:confused:

[MIGleader]

What is the payload of JH-7a I heard is 9 tons but that seems a bit relastic but as the orignal is powered by speys riped out from Rafs phantoms could that be true

9 tons should be a goal for the next jh-7 model to achieve. the jh-7a achived a 1.5 ton increase in weight carrying ability do to the more cpable engine and more use of polymers. but plane needs a whole engine altogether..would wsd-13 work? al-31 might be considered, but that would require a signifigant change to the entire airframe, and would hugely expensive.

anyways, is the next jh-7 going to be a su-34/jh-7 hybrid? china certainly has studied deeply into the su-34, and it would be a shame to see such a design wasted serving in small numbers in the russian af.

[tphuang]

9 tons should be a goal for the next jh-7 model to achieve. the jh-7a achived a 1.5 ton increase in weight carrying ability do to the more cpable engine and more use of polymers. but plane needs a whole engine altogether..would wsd-13 work? al-31 might be considered, but that would require a signifigant change to the entire airframe, and would hugely expensive.
If next generation of JH-7 is to assume the role of the primary attacker in PLAAF, then it will have to use AL-31F in the next variant. WS-13 is actually a superior engine, but it's much smaller in dimension than JH-7. Also, the next generation of JH-7 supposedly will be more stealthy.

Anyway, an article on China's next attacker:

搏杀中国新一代战轰机---揭三飞机集团的竞争

作者：风孤独
　　
　　重所周知，军用飞机特别是军用战斗飞机的利润比普通民用机要高很多，而且需求更稳定，因此，谁的飞机被 认可，谁就能获得巨大的利益和长期的兴旺，甚至能决定各厂商今后的命运。这点，从俄罗斯两家飞机巨头苏霍伊 和米高扬近年来的发展情况便知。 转自铁血 http://www.tiexue.net/
　　
　　因此，为了抢夺军用战机这快利润丰厚的蛋糕，早已觊觎西飞在战斗轰炸机市场上独占花魁局面的国内另两家 已经完成改制，要自负盈亏的飞机巨头成飞和沈飞，为了各自长久利益，利用自己研制军机历史经验的优势，必然 将在战斗轰炸机市场上与西飞飞豹一争雌雄。
　　
　　首先，沈飞自从引进SU-27生产线后，公司内部进行体制改革，打破大锅饭，逐步提高自主创新能力，其在SU-27基础上全新研制的歼11B型飞机，取代了俄罗斯提出的SU-27改进型方案，获得了极大的成功。而我国花大价购买的SU-30MKK战斗轰炸机即在SU-27基础上改进而来，并且在最近的央视曝光照中，我们清晰的看到了一架与SU-34及其类似的新型战斗轰炸机的身影，按照沈飞目前的实力和科研水平，沈飞基于歼11开发重型轰炸机参与竞 争几成定局，这款类似SU-34的机型将会对空军有巨大的诱惑，对飞豹A构成严重威胁。
　　
　　再看成飞，歼10的载弹量7吨，性能有目共睹。放眼全球，从以色列F-16 I到F-15E，从幻影2000-9到SU-30MKK，世界上目前使用的主力战斗轰炸机都由优秀的空优战机改型担当，而歼10双座已完成试飞，成飞搞 出歼10战斗轰炸型应该不是难事，其更好的机动性和更小的机身反射面， 将比现有的飞豹有更好的低空突防能力和空战生存能力。 转自铁血 http://www.tiexue.net/
　　
　　而目前西飞虽已取得空军订单，但其并未高枕无忧，而是玩命的改进，他们知道飞豹A并非完美，其机动性差 ，发动机推力不足，雷达对地探测能力有限等问题将会使其在未来竞争中处于不利地位，为了改变这种局面，只有 不断的改进，我们已可喜的看到了西飞新飞豹的模型，新的进气道和发动机，新的隐身设计等，足以说明他们的忧 患意识的。
　　
　　按以上分析来看，我国新型战斗轰炸机将可能在以上三种方案中产生
　　
　　类似SU-34的沈飞 新战轰，类似F-16I 的成飞歼10B和西飞的飞豹III
　　
　　是类似SU-34的新战轰好还是带隐身设计的飞豹III好，还是轻巧的歼十B好，或者高低搭配？限于篇幅，这个问题由网 友评述，但我国战机工业必将会在这场竞赛中，得到极大的发展。
　　
　　除了俄罗斯苏，米两家的例子，我想谁都不会忘了另一个竞争失败的例子，当年麦道最后不得不归附于波音， 除了其MD-90市场表现不佳外，在美国下一代战斗机计划中提前出局，也是重要的原因。

[crobato]

JH-7 is a much bigger aircraft than the Oreo. If you notice all the aircraft that used Rolls Royce engines, including the Jaguar, they seem to have certain similarities. But its most likely its all because all these aircraft are designed in the same generation when the Roll Royce engines were hot, and the design they have is sort of like the fashion trend then. Note aircraft design tends to follow trends like delta wings, variable geometry, canards, and now even stealth.

Yes, the JH-7A can use the PL-12. The company that made the PL-12 seeker is the same as the company that designed its radar. The PL-12, and PL-11 has been shown in the JH-7A mockup.

I'm not sure what the PLAAF's next attacker might look like. Some say an Su-32 look alike. I think CAC may be trying to offer its twin engined J-10 derivative instead. Unless XAC has their own proposals, but if they lose the business supplying attack jets, XAC might end up building purely commercial planes like its AJR-21 project.

[Gollevainen]

JH-7 is a much bigger aircraft than the Oreo. If you notice all the aircraft that used Rolls Royce engines, including the Jaguar, they seem to have certain similarities. But its most likely its all because all these aircraft are designed in the same generation when the Roll Royce engines were hot, and the design they have is sort of like the fashion trend then. Note aircraft design tends to follow trends like delta wings, variable geometry, canards, and now even stealth.

Ofcourse it is bigger, that's the hole point of those rumours...you see i said that Yugoslavia and romania were sticked to vipers wich requires the aircraft being quite small. in effect the Jh-7 is the plane (based on these rumours) that Orao orginally should have been...

[adeptitus]

IMO the JH-7 is not a fighter, and its ability to use the PL-12 AAM is of secondary importance. The primary reason to even field them is that the Russians don't like PLAAF using locally made AShM's on Sukhoi aircraft.

Like the newer F-15's that can carry 4 Harpoon's, the JH-7 can be equipped with 4 PRC-made AShM's, such as the YJ-82K for anti-shipping strike missions. A pair of JH-7's and unload 8x YJ-82K's against a ship from up to 120km away. OR, if the YJ-83 is avail, from as far as 250km away. Except for dedicated air defense ships, most warships today would not survive an attack from 8 anti-ship missiles.

If the Russians allowed the PLAAF to make source code modification to combat computer and use locally made munitions on Su-30's, then there would be less incentive to deploy the JH-7's.

[tphuang]

IMO the JH-7 is not a fighter, and its ability to use the PL-12 AAM is of secondary importance. The primary reason to even field them is that the Russians don't like PLAAF using locally made AShM's on Sukhoi aircraft.

Like the newer F-15's that can carry 4 Harpoon's, the JH-7 can be equipped with 4 PRC-made AShM's, such as the YJ-82K for anti-shipping strike missions. A pair of JH-7's and unload 8x YJ-82K's against a ship from up to 120km away. OR, if the YJ-83 is avail, from as far as 250km away. Except for dedicated air defense ships, most warships today would not survive an attack from 8 anti-ship missiles.

If the Russians allowed the PLAAF to make source code modification to combat computer and use locally made munitions on Su-30's, then there would be less incentive to deploy the JH-7's.
I think you are 100% correct here. Russia looses out big time, if China does not buy the missiles it produces like KH-31A and KH-59MK (which was pretty much developed for mkk2).

From this article, http://www.rense.com/general31/missle2.htm, I think it's clear that JH-7A can fire 250 KM YJ-83s. Although, I think the detection range of JL-10A vs destroyers is still not the greatest at the moment, so it would need to datalink with other fighters/AWACS/destroyers to make good use of the range of YJ-83s.

[MiG-29SMT]

IMO the JH-7 is not a fighter, and its ability to use the PL-12 AAM is of secondary importance. The primary reason to even field them is that the Russians don't like PLAAF using locally made AShM's on Sukhoi aircraft.

Like the newer F-15's that can carry 4 Harpoon's, the JH-7 can be equipped with 4 PRC-made AShM's, such as the YJ-82K for anti-shipping strike missions. A pair of JH-7's and unload 8x YJ-82K's against a ship from up to 120km away. OR, if the YJ-83 is avail, from as far as 250km away. Except for dedicated air defense ships, most warships today would not survive an attack from 8 anti-ship missiles.

If the Russians allowed the PLAAF to make source code modification to combat computer and use locally made munitions on Su-30's, then there would be less incentive to deploy the JH-7's.
Interesting gossip well the orao and the JH-7 look quit similar but who knows :confused:

[tphuang]

Future of JH-7A?
中国飞豹战轰新计划大揭秘

　新飞豹分电战型、侦察型、伙伴加油型和常规战斗轰炸型 。
JH-7A, possibly different types for ECM, surveillence, tanker type and conventional fighter/bomber? That's weird.

　　电子战型新飞豹，能压制敌人雷达保护己方攻击轰炸编队，还能连续播撒红外干扰弹（燃烧镁球袋），当敌人 防空导弹锁定自己的时候，还可发射反辐射导弹攻击敌人雷达进行主动自卫；
The ECM version of JH-7A, I don't really take this seriously.
伙伴加油型新飞豹不但能超音速飞行还能为己方攻击编队提供油料。
　　常规战斗轰炸型新飞豹载油多，除了欢ǖ牡缱幼晕滥芰ΑＤ芰ト龊焱飧扇诺ㄈ忌彰厩虼揖弑缚 罩惺苡湍芰Γ患幼昂焱夤セ鞯醪蘸竽茉谝辜渫吨兰す庵频颊ǖ缘腥司反蚧骱驼妒祝荒芊⑸湫滦椭匦头唇⒌嫉 弑阜春侥改芰Γ荒芊⑸浞捶涞嫉セ鞯腥死状镎蟮兀荒芡吨谰分频嫉缡樱焱庵频颊ǖ偷嫉缘腥耸敌 芯反蚧骱驼妒祝荒芄煌吨拦叩迹牵校咏萘频颊ǖ凳┚反蚧骱驼妒祝

有些则是带精确制导的钻地炸弹。是唯一能投放巡航导弹精确打击或斩首的国产战斗机。飞行控制系统和火控系统 相交联，而且有角速度轰炸装置，根据各种传感器反馈，连续计算着弹点。飞行控制系统自动同步随动于火控系统 ，火控系统做了针对性改进：火控系统为原来的连续计算增加闭环和实时当前提前量算法。在投掷炸弹时为了提高 精度，准备投弹到投弹时的一段时间，有意增加降低了操纵系统灵敏度、钝化操纵系统和动态同步增 稳的手段.
precision bombing, this is the only domestic fighter capable of dropping cruise missile and precision bombs? radar control and flight control communicate. Shoot, this part seems to not make any sense to me.

即使投掷常规炸弹，精度也不低。数字四余度电传操纵系统机动更灵活，实现无顾虑驾驶。具备地形跟踪雷达，低 空飞行时，能够自动规避障碍物、测高雷达、红外导航掉舱（具备夜间超低空突袭能力）、和智能自动驾驶仪，两 套驾驶操纵系统，玻璃化座舱，语音提示，拥有惯导／ＧＰＳ／ＧＬＯＮＥＳＳ／北斗等综合导航装置，每个驾驶 员有3个以上多功能电脑显示屏，仪表显示更直观、傻瓜；驾驶员可轮换休息，大大减轻长距离、超低空飞行驾驶 员的疲劳和负荷。
Just talks about the accuracy in bombs is pretty high. It can autopilot at low altitude to avoid hitting things. It has two sets of pilotting control. voice display, glass cockpit. It can use GPS, GLONASS and BEIDOU navigation. Each pilot will have 3 or more MFD.

相关单位还专门设计了执行特殊任务的飞行服，方便飞行员可以在座舱内小便。具备多次空中加油，长途突袭的能 力。如果在中国新大预之间建立数据链，可以作到无线电静默导航，更是如虎添翼；可以说是全能攻击、压制机． 飞豹改进计划：飞机雷达系统改进，增加了与光电吊舱的接口和显示系统（未来飞豹将前视红外传感器镶入机头， 类似SU-27的设计）；使用新的机载计算机和内部数据传输系统，改进了电子对抗系统等；改进火控系统。使用头盔瞄准 具（雷达、红外和数字仪表的图、文符、号信息可传入头盔，不必经常盯着仪表。有利于降低空战和复杂条件驾驶 员的疲劳和负荷）
it uses new plane computer and processing system, improved ECM against jamming, improved fire control and HMs.

提高机动性能，使用中程空空导弹自卫。开发了“人性化驾驶系统â€�（因为个人差异和驾驶习惯不同，每 个人都是有差异的。以前飞行员同样是开飞豹，但是由于飞机个体差异，换了别人的飞机就非常不适应。新系统给 每个驾驶都有一个微型硬盘，里面针对这个驾驶员飞行习惯和特点记录了各种动作的传感器灵敏度等一系列驾驶参 数。以前要人适应飞机，现在可以让飞机适应人。即使是开别人的飞机只要用它，就像开自己的飞机 一样顺手。）
improved manuverability, uses MRAAM for self defense.

I'm not sure how much of this is true, seems a lot of rubbish, but I saw it, so I figure I will just post it anyhow.

[darth sidious]

Gollevainen

I did not find anything on the oreo? JH-7 but romania and Yugoslavia did help china with weapons in the 70s/80s example includ the T-72 tank and data on the Koni class frigate and some SA-3 missile later used to develop parts of the Hq-62

as for the JH-7 china consluted Yougslvia as they had some experince in operating western ground attack aircraft plus some info on the radar

[Sea Dog]

It can autopilot at low altitude to avoid hitting things. It has two sets of pilotting control. voice display, glass cockpit.

radar control and flight control communicate. Shoot, this part seems to not make any sense to me.



Very interesting to say the least. Sounds to me like a terrain following radar/auto-pilot. Very handy in low-level bombing missions. This is one of the things that gives the JH-7 the all-weather capability.

But what do they mean by voice display?

[Gollevainen]

did not find anything on the oreo? JH-7 but romania and Yugoslavia did help china with weapons in the 70s/80s example includ the T-72 tank and data on the Koni class frigate and some SA-3 missile later used to develop parts of the Hq-62

as for the JH-7 china consluted Yougslvia as they had some experince in operating western ground attack aircraft plus some info on the radar


Mean you didnt find anything from Orao? or anything about Orao-chinese relations??

http://www.yumodel.co.yu/yugoslav_air_force/j22_orao.htm

The relationship with JH-7 is, like i said, a rumour and a wild one...Sofar nothing confirms it but in other hand nothing denye it either...And Yugoslavia would have been rather unlikely partnert for china, as there werent much military co-operation between these two, But Chausecu's Romania had little affair with Beging back in the 70's...

[darth sidious]

origin of JH-7

研制背景

来谈谈歼轰-7研制的背景。1974年初，中国海军在西沙对越自卫反击战中取得了击沉击伤敌四艘巡逻艇的战绩，但也暴露 出缺乏海军航空兵空中支援的问题。这主要是因为当时海航装备的歼击机基本没有对海攻击能力，轰-5航程较远，又过于老旧不堪重任。因此适合海航使用的新型攻击机成为迫切急需的机型。在1975年的军备发 展会议上，军方强烈要求三机部，现航空工业总公司，研制一种中程轰炸机以满足未来的作战需求。 同时空军的轰-5、轰-6速度太慢，无法适应现代高强度作战的要求，而超音速的强-5航程又太短(1500千米)，且载弹量仅有2000千克。因此空军也迫切希望拥有兼有战斗机和轰炸机性能 的新型飞机。国防科工委根据海空军的要求，确定关于新歼击轰炸机的战术技术要求，随即据此要求三机部用一个 机型，装备同种类武器和机载设备，分别满足海空军的需求。在计划中，海空军的新歼轰除了作战使用的武器和配 备不同外，技术性能基本一致。



1976年6月，三机部下属各单位的设计精英云集北京，被要求在最短的时间内提出各自设计方案。沈阳飞机制 造厂和南昌飞机制造厂率先提出了自己的方案。起先三机部倾向沈阳歼轰-8方案，该方案计划在歼-8的基础上发展一种强调对地攻击能力的轻型歼击轰炸机。沈飞以米格-23MC为基础，改歼-8机头进气为两侧进气配置，采用新型大推力发动机，在牺牲升限和速度的前提下(由20000米、M2.0下 降到15000米和M1.75)，增大载弹量(由2200千克到4500千克)。同时飞机的航程也提升至3 000千米以上。



南昌厂的强-6型强击机的?杓扑枷朐蚋映啊４?60年代到70年代这段时间，世界航空界非常流行可变翼技术的应用开 发，这股潮流对中国航空业也产生了相当程度的影响。在强-6的研发初期，部份科研人员建议在吸取米格-27，以及从越南战争获得的F-111的精华，发展我国的下一代歼轰机。其实从60年代末开始，中国唯一具有攻击机制造经验的南昌飞机制造 厂，在总设计师陆孝彭坚持下，吸收部份米格-23的设计经验，已经开始设计单发双座超音速强击机，作为强-5和歼-6的共同后续机。南昌厂确定的强-6方案，采用悬臂式可变翼设计，机腹进气，装一具最大后推力为12200千克的涡扇-6涡扇发动机。从外形来看，强-6就像是F-16和米格-23的混合体。但计划采用的发动机出现了严重的技术瓶颈，此时控制可变翼的具有高速运算能力的小型计算机也 无法按计划完成。

涡扇-9两图





这时，苏联已在我边境附近部署了重兵，高密度大纵深的防空火力网已经建成，进攻威胁咄咄逼人。在这一严峻形 势下，终于在1977年11月，西安603所在统一内部争议后，发表了第三个方案的初步设计：一种具有前线 超音速低空突防能力的歼击轰炸机。603所确定了传统设计和线传飞行控制技术相结合的路子，力图使该设计达 到更先进的水平。新歼轰的竞争进入了三足鼎立的局面，之后歼轰-7最终确认由西安的603所负责研制。

之后，海空军因为各自作战对象不同及使用兵器不同，而对飞机座舱布局产生了争论。海军作战目标为各种水面舰 艇，飞行员根据机载电子设备操纵空舰导弹进行攻击，希望采用类似美国刚服役不久的F-14的纵列双座。而空军因其主要面对是苏联地面部队，希望搞便于两名飞行员协同的并列双座布局。而当时的航 空工业不足以搞两种座舱布局，双方进行了旷日持久的争论。这一争论一下子占用了三年的宝贵时间 。

进入80年代中国改革开放，百业待兴。军队建设也不得不为经济建设让路。多项新装备研发计划被迫终止，包括 歼-13，强-6等最重要的装备发展项目下马。同期的歼轰-7也落得个经费削减，进度放缓的地步。1982年英阿马岛一战，阿根廷超军旗攻击机发射AM39“飞鱼 â€�导弹击毁英国皇家海军“谢菲尔德â€�号驱逐舰，这给中国军方留下了深刻的印象。马岛战争后，中 国海军开始探讨轰炸机、水面舰只、潜艇三位一体的联合作战模式。于是到了1982年11月，歼 轰-7、歼-8全天候型计划再次全面启动。到1983年初，603所先后完成了歼轰-7结构，强度和系统原理性实验，同时转入全面详细设计阶段。同时与歼轰-7相配套的新一代“鹰击-8â€�(YJ8)空舰导弹的预研工作也正式开始。同年5月，国家拨专款更新603所的生产制造设备，以确 保飞机的正常生产研制进度。603所在没有原准机可供参照的情况下，提出了标准设计“20年不落后†�的口号，主要负责人为陈一坚。在此后10年“飞豹â€�的研制过程中，仍经受了“三起三落â€� 的严峻考验。

当时，“飞豹â€�的研制经费只有一亿美元，远低于其他国家同等水平。最初限于条件，许多试验都是在露 天完成，使用手摇计算机和计算尺处理大量数据，绘图过程完全依赖手工。最终确定的“飞豹â€�气动外形 如下：正常式串列双座布局，常规半硬壳式蜂腰形机身，带腹鳍。中等展弦比后掠式上单翼有前缘锯齿，带下反角 ，气动扭转外翼，翼根有填角。斜定轴全动式中下平尾，大后掠单垂尾。两台涡轮风扇发动机并列装在后机身内， 进气道位于机身两侧翼根处。

[sumdud]

6.5 tonnes? That's pretty good.

But as for the JL-10A, they say it isn't very reliable.
That doesn't mean it'll stop working suddenly, does it, or does it mean breaking apart?
I hope it isn't real.....
I can't imagine doing a Doolittle Raid in a JH-7A and suddenly the radar goes off.........

[swimmerXC]

今日最猛图文：对于中国FBC-1歼击轰炸机的再改进
2005-12-20 07:26:10 点击:2291
AF2000航空篇一:对于fbc1战斗机的改进

　　西飞的fbc1(jh-7)是目前现役的国产最好战机，最新型的fbc1在不停的升级和改进,但一些关键性的问题没有得到很好的解 决,fbc1大最大的缺点，发动机太臭。

　　当今世界先进战斗机的发展,无不是向多功能方面发展,即可空优作战又能对地攻击,可执行多重任务,攻守 兼备,全面发展。从世界军机发展趋势来看,目前世界主流战斗轰炸机都是来自于著名的空优战斗机 ,从SU-27到SU-30,从F-15到F-15E/K,从F-16到以色列的F-16I,从幻影2000 到出口沙特的幻影2000-9等,无不说明,在现代高度激烈的空地一体化作战中,仅具有强大的对地攻击力量,不具备优秀的空中交战能力 的飞机是无法完全适应现代战场瞬息万变的局势的!

　　而西飞的fbc1在设计之初就是为对地对海攻击准备的，机动性不佳，因此这对fbc1战斗机未来的发展 是极为不利的。fbc1在对海攻击中必须由别的战机为其护航，超低空掠海飞行固然可躲避岸基雷达，但在对方 先进的宙斯盾雷达和预警机面前将变的无处可藏。机动性不强则自卫能力及差,很容易被对方的战机击落。因此f bc1不去改进升级，只能成为新贵SU-30MKK的配角。用fbc1偷袭金刚和基德还有成功的把握，若是用其攻击航母则壮士一去兮不复返。fbc 1要想在未来的战斗中提高生存率就必须增强其空优作战的能力。

　　fbc1的气动布局已十分优秀了，不需大改，当然改成双垂尾会更好。

　　为增强机动性，fbc1的双三角翼改进成边条翼，结合电传操纵系统，可以使fbc1的大迎角飞行性能十 分出色。这里要说明一下，为何三代战斗机比较强调大迎角性能呢？因为战斗机在空战机动中，会频繁的处于急剧 爬升、转弯动作中，这些机动都要伴随拉杆——抬头的动作，如果飞机的大迎角性能不好，那么飞机在机动中就很 容易因失速而失控，同时，大迎角性能意味着飞机在较低的速度下能够保持比较好的机头指向能力。
要想增强战斗机的机动性，大推力的发动机是必须装备的，推重比高，动能大，战斗机机动性才可增强,格斗性能 才可提高。

　　虽然FBC-1现用的涡扇9发动机高速性能好，稳定可靠，维护方便，经济性佳，翻修寿命长，故障率低，但也存在低速性差 ，耗油量大，加速性慢，推力不足等缺点，不能与现役或未来的战斗机匹配。其整体技术仍停留在近30年前的水 平，甚至较中国自制的涡扇6等而下之，而且尚未完全实现国产化，明显影响了 FBC-1的性能和发展。

　　网上传说新一代的FBC-1A改用AL-31SM涡扇发动机，本人以为不妥。FBC-1A改用AL-31SM涡扇发动机后，虽然性能上大幅提升，但对飞机的气动外型产生重大影响，加上全面更新机载设备，整个 工作量相当于重新设计一次。

　　AL-31SM源于侧卫家族中S／SK、uB、Su-10K／M／MK上共用的AL-31F双转子加力式涡扇发动机。这种发动机在研制过程中曾遇到多种极大的困难，在十年间动用了51具试验发 动机，解决了658个难题，共获得128项专利。该机采用了模拟式电子综合控制器（AL-31SM改用全数字式），能把工作状态发挥到接近极限值，当电子综合控制器故障时，会自动转换成机械-液压系统控制。另外还具有多种参数监视系统、设计局独创的防喘振系统和涡轮冷气控制系统等。A L-31SM发动机目前的价格为300万美元／台，不带加力器的AL-31F曾以6台共用的方式装在暴风雪号航天飞机上进行大气层试验，是一种非常优秀的发动机。

　　因为涡扇9的最大直径和长度分别是1093毫米和5205毫米，与AL-31F的1300毫米和 4950毫米不能相容，更不要说略有变动的AL-31SM。所以，势必重新设计后段机体。更新的发动机直径较大而长度略短，涵道比由0．62降到0．6，总 增压比由20增至23．8，涡轮进口温度由1167℃升至1392℃，各种推力状态下耗油率亦下降，但发动 机推重比却由5．05升至8．173，对提高飞机性能的作用十分明显。由于涡扇9的气流量只有96．2公斤 ／秒，少于AL-31F的112公斤／秒，所以FBC-1A的进气道必须扩大。

　　为适应单台发动机重量由1842公斤降至1530公斤，以及飞机重新配重和载弹量的增加，数模混合自动 驾驶仪和三重线传操纵系统必须重新设计。FBC- 1A将装上由飞行自动控制研究所（即618所）研制的全数字式自动驾驶仪和四重线传操纵系统，该系统采用冗 余度技术和16位中央微处理器，以相当于美军 MIL-STD-1750A软件指令控制。

　　既然FBC-1A改用AL-31SM涡扇发动机后，虽然性能上大幅提升，但对飞机的气动外型产生重大影响，加上全面更新机载设备，整个 工作量相当于重新设计一架飞机，那不如用这些财力和精力去仿制su-34战斗轰炸机。毕竟su-34战斗轰炸机是专业级的战斗轰炸机，FBC-1A要想追赶su-34战斗轰炸机的技术数据还需要大量的修改，大可不必。

　　本人就是中华网中华军备的网友AF2000，是一个初级航空发烧友，根本不是专业学校毕业的，更谈不上 什么专家，因此本人对于fbc1的改动总是基于其机体之上的，不需大改他的骨架结构，既在不伤害其原有机体 结构的情况下对其改动，对其不需伤筋动骨，至少本人自己是这样认为的。

　为了增强fbc1的格斗性能和增加载弹量，更换大推力的发动机是必须的，但本人以为不要用A L-31SM涡扇发动机，而应该改用涡扇10发动机，本人有以下理由：

　　因为涡扇9的最大直径和长度分别是1093毫米和5205毫米，与AL-31F的1300毫米和4950毫米不能相容，更新的发动机直径较大而长度略短所以，势必重新设计后段机体 。网上流传着涡扇10的神话，是涡扇10还是涡扇10A本人也说不太清楚，就是先前专门为歼10战斗机配备 的那一款涡扇发动机。涡扇10在网上流传了许久，其推力和AL-31涡扇发动机不相上下，但其具体的体积尺寸在网上没有公布。由于是新生事物，还不太成熟，为增加安全使用 性，先期生产的歼10战斗机使用的是AL-31涡扇发动机，而把涡扇10发动机安装与试生产的歼11B了，因为不太成熟的涡扇10发动机双发使用更为 保险。AL-31发动机为了适应歼10战斗机的机体，还把AL-31F的1300毫米的直径缩小到1200毫米,即便是缩小了以后，装到歼10战斗机的小机体内还显得略大 些，极不自在，由此可以推断出涡扇10发动机的体积略小于AL-31涡扇发动机的体积。

　　有以上可以推算出涡扇10 发动机的最大直径介于涡扇9的1093毫米和AL-31F的1300毫米之间，而其长度要小于AL-31F的4950毫米长度。其重量比AL-31F的 1530公斤还轻，因此本人推算不用大改，涡扇10发动机可以非常容易的放入fbc1战斗机的机体内。

　　感觉上涡扇10发动机应该是数字控制的，非常适合由飞行自动控制研究所（即618所）研制的全数字式自 动驾驶仪和四重线传操纵系统。

　　接下来的问题又来了，涡扇10发动机的长度比涡扇9短而重量比涡扇9轻，在原来fbc1的机体结构不变 的情况下，如何解决配重问题是一个需要考虑的问题。在机体后部放一个几百公斤的铅块以解决配重问题,但这种 思维太落后了。在不大改其机体的前提下，还有什么好的解决办法哪？可不可以为涡扇10发动机安装矢量喷嘴哪 ？据说最新型的涡扇10发动机正在作安装矢量喷嘴的实验吗？可否一试？在涡扇10发动机安装矢量喷嘴后其长 度和重量与涡扇9发动机就相差无几了，本人就是这么想的。别国的战斗机加装矢量喷嘴是要增强其机动性，而本 人为fbc1的涡扇10发动机安装矢量喷嘴首先是要解决机体的配重问题，其次才是考虑增强其机 动性。

　　国际上实用的矢量喷嘴技术有俄罗斯的轴对称适量发动机喷嘴技术和美国的二元俯仰轴推力矢量喷口技术，本 人喜欢美国的二元俯仰轴推力矢量喷口。

　　F/A-22二元俯仰轴推力矢量喷口
　　F/A-22装两台普拉特·惠特尼公司F119-PW-100加力式涡扇发动机，单台加力推力155.7千牛，发动机推重比达到10，飞机推重比达到1.1 。

　　发动机装二元俯仰轴推力矢量喷口，可在俯仰方向变化正负20度，使飞机具有高的超音速机动性能和好的低 速大迎角性能，最大迎角可达60度。飞机能在空中迅速变换自己的位置，使机头快速指向目标，并能在空中任一 位置向敌机发起攻击。

　　二元俯仰轴推力矢量喷口看似复杂，原理很简单。在发动机喷气口由圆形改成四方形，上下偏转方形喷气口的 方向便可导引发动机喷出气流的方向，使发动机适量变向喷气，比俄罗斯的轴对称适量发动机简单多了。俄罗斯的 轴对称适量发动机密封性只要有一点偏差而漏气，就可能引起爆炸，而美国的二元俯仰轴推力矢量喷口技术则简单 的多，顶多是挡板被烧坏，不能变向而已。当然俄罗斯的轴对称适量发动机可以沿发动机轴心360度旋转，而美 国的二元俯仰轴推力矢量喷口技术只能沿发动机轴心上下偏转。还是用美国的保险一些，俄罗斯的变向完善，可安 全系数低，使用寿命低。（本人的想法过于简单）

　　大推力的发动机固然可以使FBC-1的速度和机动性加强，但其机体结构的抗压强度也应相应的增强。

　　加装大功率雷达：

　　MIG-29、SU-27、F-14、F-15、F-16、F-18、F-2他们都有一个共同的特征，在机头前面有一个大大的机鼻，在这方面，中国实在是太小气了。歼八Ⅱ、歼十、歼 轰七的机头已经够大了，为什么机鼻不能再大一点，因为机鼻大了才能装载更大直径的雷达，在相同功率下雷达探 测距才能更远。日本的F-2战斗机机鼻比F-16大一点，便安装了有源相控阵雷达探测距达180千米。当然优格斗，应有一个大大的机鼻对你的气动布局又 有多大的伤害，无非是远程攻击力又提高了。

　　金刚和基德的标准2改180km的射程是现有fbc1和c802反舰导弹所吃不消的。c803的空射型 的最大射程据说不是有265公里吗？估计那是在运八迷猎雷达的引导下完成的，但在攻击航母的战斗中这是不可 能实现的。理论上fbc1可能有及少数突破航母编队的1000公里的（由f-14、F-18组成的）外围防御圈来到航母编队外300公里处，在宙斯盾的防空火力圈之外发射大量的反舰导弹击毁航母 ，而运八预警机则绝飞不到离航母编队外300公里远的地方，因为他那时早已被对方的飞机击落了。当然理论上 fbc1发射的c803反舰导弹还可以由SU- 30MKK的大功率雷达引导，在300公里外攻击航母。但不要总是在理论上好不好，所有的理论不如fbc1 自己装载探测距离远的大功率雷达引导c803反舰导弹攻击更为可靠。


　　未来新型的fbc1战斗机不管是纵列座仓布局还是并列座仓布局，总之机鼻一定要设计的更大一点，雷达的 直径与功率和探测距一定要大，这样他才有能力使用c803之类的超远距离反舰导弹。

　　本人比较喜欢SU-30MKK3装备的应该是SOKOL“隼”雷达

　　SU-30MKK3装备的应该是SOKOL“隼”雷达.采用主动电子扫描阵，在其天线(AESAA)上集成有约1 ，000个x波腔的T／R模块。雷达有 3个接收器，发射机峰值6KW，平均功率1.5KW，有16个工作频率，增益37分贝，对5平方米的空中目 标的迎头搜索距离为150千米，下视距离140 千米。尾追搜索距离分别为60千米(上视)、55千米(下视)。对桥梁的探测距离是150千米，对坦克集群 的探测距离为25千米。对驱逐舰的探测距离是 300千米。其天线直径为980毫米，可同时精确跟踪12个目标，同时攻击4-6个目标。

　　以上便是本网友对于fbc1战斗机的改进，边条翼设计、涡扇10发动机加矢量喷嘴，SU-30MKK3装备的SOKOL“隼”雷达等可以使fbc1战斗机载弹量增大，机动性超强，同时远距离对舰攻 击力大增。使fbc1成为多功能战斗机

　　本人不喜欢AL-31涡扇发动机，把希望寄托在涡扇10发动机上，这是AF2000的个性，欢迎网友拍砖。af20 00
http://www.wforum.com/specials/upload/232744.jpg
编辑：龙芯
Source (http://www.wforum.com/newspool/articles/headline/73675.html)

[sumdud]

JH-7 getting AL-31SM? China is not going to do that, right??........

The JH-7 just need a better engine..........
I hope China is not going to dump the plane or redesign it just for that......
(Now I am wondering, how did the Phantom get to be a successful fighter-bomber with the same two old engines?)

[darth sidious]

only the british phantom has the spey and they werent very good

the original JH-7 has a low payload beacause the engines were sceond hand ones used on the british phantom

[MIGleader]

well, second hand engines arnt that weak. the new jh-7a using the ws-9 wasnt a great improvement, even though the engine were new.

i thought the upgrade to al-31 was deemed to expensive

[Sea Dog]

I thought China wanted to use al-31 regardless of any cost issues. It is more expensive, but the fact that they have procured so much in the way of advanced avionics, and advanced navigation equipment shows China expects to get good results out of this bomber. The all-weather aspects and apparent terrain-following radar and auto-pilot modes on aircraft like this is not exaclty cheap. JH-7 is looking like it will be a great tactical bomber. And I expect China to use whatever engine to get the results they need.

[adeptitus]

The FBC-1 improvement article by AF2000 is pretty detailed. Do you guys want to translate it to English for those who can't read Chinese? I'll start with the first couple of paragraphs, if we can get a few more volunteers to do the rest, it shouldn't be too much work.

Apologies for my hack/quick-and-dirty translation. =P
=============================
(translation of article)

AF2000's FBC-1 improvement article

XAC's FBC-1 (JH-7) is currently the best domestically produced combat aircraft. The newest FBC-1 is constately upgrading and improving, but there are certain critical points that were not addressed. The biggest problem for FBC-1: its power plant stinks.

Today's world modern aircraft development is toward multi-function, the aircraft can be used for air superiority and ground attack, multi-role capable. Today's mainstream fighter-bombers are all developed from air superiority fighters, from Su-27 to Su-30, from F-15 to F-15E/K, from F-16 to Israeli F-16I, from Mirage-2000 to Mirage-2000-9, etc. In today's high intensity, air to ground integrated battlefield condition, having only powerful ground attack and not air superiority combat capability is unsuitable for the constately changing modern battlefield.

The XAC FBC-1's design is for martime strike, its powerplant is not great. Because of this, the FBC-1's future development is put at a distadvantage. When FBC-1 is performing martime strike, it must be escorted by other combat aircraft. Although low-altitutde flying could avoid ground-stationary radar, it cannot hide against modern AEGIS or AWACS aircraft. The FBC-1's powerplant and defense capability are weak, resulting in higher chance of being shot down by enemy combat aircraft. Therefore unless if the FBC-1 receives improvements and upgrades, it can only play a secondary role to the new and expensive Su-30MKK. The FBC-1 might have a chance in sneak attacks against Kinmen or Keelung (Taiwan port), but against aircraft carrier (group), it'd never return. The FBC-1 must improve its air superiority capability to have greater chance of surviving future battlefield conditions.

[tphuang]

AL-31 on JH-7 is another interesting dilemma. First of all, I'd think that JH-7 would be using WS-10 rather than 31 if it decides to switch to that class of engine. WS-10's production rate is quite low right now (50 to 60 a year), so it's most likely that China will just try to improve on WS-9 to improve the thrust of JH-7. Other improvements include lower RCS, more composites and better radar and such. The much talked about su-34 clone could be produced by SAC instead of XAC. It actually makes more sense that way, since SAC has way more experience with flankers.

[Sea Dog]

Well, whatever engine they used in flight tests, the JH-7 showed Mach 1.7 at 35,000 ft. and a sustained cruise at medium altitudes of Mach 0.85 (Jane's). That's not exactly bad performance for a heavy-weight tactical bomber. That's actually rather good. I wonder if they used WS-10, WS-9, or the AL-31's in those specific trials.

[MIGleader]

ws-9 was used. if the ws-10 or al-31 had been used, it would have been making headlines all across chinese defence forums.

the jh-7 is not to my knowledge a heavy tacticla bomber, but a medium ground and naval attacker, in a similar class to the tornado(although it certainly is not as capable as the tornado)

[sumdud]

Cruising at M0.85? That's transonic speeds am I not right? Would you think it is possible to cruise at.........let's say M1.3, when you just passed the transonic stage. You just go full power until get to M1.3, then reduce your power, or would it take too much power?

[vincelee]

air friction at the speed might very well be a constant * speed^3. When you have that kind of restriction......well.

But don't quote me, I haven't taken aerodynamics and I don't take the massive air compression factors into account.

[tphuang]

ws-9 was used. if the ws-10 or al-31 had been used, it would have been making headlines all across chinese defence forums.

the jh-7 is not to my knowledge a heavy tacticla bomber, but a medium ground and naval attacker, in a similar class to the tornado(although it certainly is not as capable as the tornado)
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.

[Sea Dog]

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.

With the avionics JH-7 is quoted to have, it will certainly outclass MKK in all-weather operations. I'm not sure how the attack avionics compare however.

[MIGleader]

mkk avionics are fairly mediocre, like all the rest of russias avionics. there are three mfds, but that still only gives it 80s level ability and layout. from the few rare jh-7 pics weve seen, the plane has a good color ground tracking radar lcd, and an targeting screen.

[crobato]

Well, whatever engine they used in flight tests, the JH-7 showed Mach 1.7 at 35,000 ft. and a sustained cruise at medium altitudes of Mach 0.85 (Jane's). That's not exactly bad performance for a heavy-weight tactical bomber. That's actually rather good. I wonder if they used WS-10, WS-9, or the AL-31's in those specific trials.

Most likely this is the original JH-7 itself using the second hand Spey engines. No AL-31s ever ever used on the JH-7 whose fuselage is too slim for such engines. The JH-7A would use a copy (licensed or reverse engineered) of the Spey that is uptuned for more trust called the WS-9, has less drag from the removal of the wing fences, and would have composite and other changes to reduce weight.

[crobato]

mkk avionics are fairly mediocre, like all the rest of russias avionics. there are three mfds, but that still only gives it 80s level ability and layout. from the few rare jh-7 pics weve seen, the plane has a good color ground tracking radar lcd, and an targeting screen.

Actually the MKK has two MFDs in the cockpit, and two large MFDs in the officer's seat. The JH-7A has two MFDs in the pilot, and four MFDs in the officer's seat.

The MKK has a better rear seating position because the second guy's viewpoint is placed above the pilot's head. The JH-7A on the other hand, puts the second officer into some tunnel vision with little visibility.

[crobato]

With the avionics JH-7 is quoted to have, it will certainly outclass MKK in all-weather operations. I'm not sure how the attack avionics compare however.

The Russians sort of delivered the MKK's avionics half baked. When the MKK was delivered they got all the TV guidance functions worked out, so the MKK came with all sorts of TV guided weapons, Kh-59ME, Kh-29TE, various Kab-500kr and Kab-1500kr bombs. However, the laser guidance functions were not fully worked out since the MKK lacked a proper targeting pod. The IRST ball in front of the cockpit is capable of laser targeting yes, but the plane would have to be in a dive or flying upside down to use it. The Russians were supposed to provide a laser targeting pod called SAPSAN, and the project sort of bogged. Furthermore, the old style twist cassegrain radar, even with buffed up modern electronics, didn't have a proper SAR function, and this the Russians proposed in ammending with the M400 recon pod.

In the last Sino-Russian exercises though, the MKKs have now demonstrated laser bomb guided attacks using Kab-500Ls, and last year, has been involved with SAR based recons of Taiwan coast using a pod.

The MKK also got the anti-radiation function completed, so it could use Kh-31P ARMs for radar suppression.

Moreover, the MKK lacked a proper air to sea attack, since that mode was not fully integrated into the radar. Sukhoi corrected this with an electronic upgrade that was incorporated into the so called MK2 plane, which is just the MKK with the air to sea functions. With this, the MK2 can use the Kh-31A, Kh-35E and Kh-59MK antiship missiles.

The JH-7 in contrast came with the air to sea functions but lacked everything else. Then the new JL-10A radar replaced the Type 232H radar, which provided other functionality such as anti-radiation attack using the YJ-91 (a Kh-31P clone with allegedly Israeli inspired electronics). The Chinese also managed to come up with their own Litening equivalent called the Blue Sky pod which enabled the plane to use laser guided munitions. While the JL-10A radar is smaller and lacks the power of the MKK's radar, its slotted array design gives it a wider aperture, better for air to ground and air to sea scanning. The radar is allegedly said to have SAR functions built in, something that the MKK radar didn't.

Then the JH-7A came with the radar equipping into the improved airframe and engines. The year the JH-7A came into service, China also stopped its order of MKKs the same year, something that struck the Russians with great surprise, as they were used to expecting the orders like a yearly ritual. This iwas a surprising and ironical turnaround, considering when China first acquired the MKKs, experts were sounding the death knell of the JH-7.

[sumdud]

Huh..... Couldn't the Russians have designed the MKK to put the IRST on the bottom of the nose instead, like on the Q-5D, but forward........... Could've probably did that on the JH-7A too.......

But can the JH-7A use TV-guided munitons?
And isn't the two ARMs basically the same?
Wait, doesn't the JH-7A have laser guidance equipment under the fuselage, as said in Huitong's site?

PS- Have a link to the specs of the Russian ASMs?

[crobato]

The Russians designed the IRST on the Su-27 originally in support of air to air operations. If you want something intended for ground operations, look at the Su-34 instead.

I think the JH-7A can use TV guided munitions but I have not seen much evidence of it. The technology potential is there since the H-6H uses TV guided and directed YJ-63 missiles. If there is TV guided YJ-83s, perhaps the JH-7A can use them along with a version of the H-6 (H-6M?)

The YJ-91 and the KH-31P have the same body, since the former is a copy of the latter. But the former uses electronics and a seeker design inspired from mroe Western sources like the Israeli Harpy. Now you can understand the major objection the US DoD had about Israel upgrading the PRC's Harpies.

The JH-7A uses a laser targeting pod called Blue Sky to handle laser guided weapons. Perhaps this pod might be used on the J-10 as well.

[MIGleader]

i belive the j-10s are already fitted with blue skys. it still doesnt give them mush a2g ability though.

hey, anyone have inofrmation of how the jh-7 performs in air combat? its classified as a fighter bomber, and im eager to know whether it can be as vesatile as the mkk

[tphuang]

i belive the j-10s are already fitted with blue skys. it still doesnt give them mush a2g ability though.

hey, anyone have inofrmation of how the jh-7 performs in air combat? its classified as a fighter bomber, and im eager to know whether it can be as vesatile as the mkk
I believe it's AAMs are for pure air defense. It is definitely not the platform that mkk is. It will need plenty of J-10s to protect it.

[Superior China]

its RCS could be reduced, so it more difficult to detect!
Add some cloaking, that would help too!
Reduce its IR.

And of course you can make it invisible to the human eye! So it will be very hard for fighters to spot you!

[MIGleader]

yeah sure, why not? shal we install a proton cannon and energy sheilds while were at it?

seriously, how on earth do you make a plane invisible to the eye? the russians tried in the 30s, making a propellor plane almost entirely of a kind of french plastic. with only the engine standing out, it would be very difficult to see. the plastic,however, did fade to color after a while. but nowadays...thats impossible.

[adeptitus]

seriously, how on earth do you make a plane invisible to the eye?

Fractal Camo?
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/images/AIR_F-16_in_KA2-Desert_lg.jpg
:rofl:

Then there's also optical camo:
http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/sns-pod-optical-jpg,0,7844604.photo?coll=stam-main-utility

It's still quite primitive, but in the future it might be a necessity to defeat optical guided missiles that recongize targets by its shape, size, and apperance.

[Superior China]

"defeat optical guided missiles that recongize targets by its shape, size, and apperance."

Its shape, size and apperance is called Radar signature. Every plane sends back a different "signature" indicating its shape, size, speed, barring etc.

Radar today locks-on onto this, the signature. That is the way it worked since say one. You have somehting mixed up!

And MigLeader it is possible, there are these camo-suits which are transparrent, or invisible. Bbio-hazzard suits will do the same!

Of course you too can install this on a plane!

But I have stated more recent which can be achieved today, not a few years in the future!

At least We have an equal start with this technology!

[sumdud]

He is talking about LiDAR, not RaDAR........

There are SAMs that incorprate LiDAR you know.....

[adeptitus]

"defeat optical guided missiles that recongize targets by its shape, size, and apperance."
Its shape, size and apperance is called Radar signature. Every plane sends back a different "signature" indicating its shape, size, speed, barring etc.
Radar today locks-on onto this, the signature. That is the way it worked since say one. You have somehting mixed up!


http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/missile_systems/air_missiles/python/Python5.html
Electro-optical seeker:

Conventional air-to-air missiles see targets as dots - a fact which makes it hard for the missile to tell between true or false targets .The Python 5's head seeker literally sees a clear image of the target and background, giving it an incredible advantage over other missiles by authenticating the target, thus reducing the chance of being mislead by counter measures. Using this technology allows the luxury of locking on a target after the launch. The transition to this unique technology required a development by RAFAEL, which exists in only several countries in the world. Using an electro-optical head seeker also makes it easier to locate and lock on low-heat signature aircrafts such as UAVs, helicopters or even cruise missiles. These aircrafts can fly very close to the ground and can be very hard to detect using regular head seekers. The Python 5 with the electro-optical head can easily accomplish that, by creating a sharp target image and locking on it. In order to achieve perfect performance and tracking ability, the engineers at RAFAEL tested the Python 5 against all advanced counter measures. Usually this is a tough challenge, as the missile would have to handle counter measures in the future. But that was not an impossible challenge to RAFAEL, which also develops the future counter measures. The unique head-seeker also extends the lethality of the missile by aiming it to the target's most vulnerable areas. Most heat seeking missiles tend to home on the hottest spot of the aircraft which is normally the rear exhaust system. In modern combat history, some aircrafts that were hit by a missile in that area, managed to survive the flight until the landing. The Python 5, which acquires a sharp image of the target can home on the most critical areas of the aircraft, such as the cockpit or the central area, and significantly improve the chances for a shot down.

[Superior China]

Big deal.

The V-750SM has the same guidance only isn't a2a!

Don't over estimate the israelies!

Its just a new way of doing it! It merely has a more advanced radar which sees more and so will hit the plane somewhere else, rather its strongest heat source (easist to counter.)
You can counter it, you know!
Sure they build it to counter everything at the enemies arsonal, but new things can be build!

I didn't we would switched to Lidar all of a sudden.

YOu can't lock-on on stealth.

Instead of using frequency signals you use light, it still depends on the light being reflected back to its source!
Maybe the bistatic will help, if you indeed have one instead of a Monostatic system which is prefered by sciencetists!

So were switching to LIDAR systems now?

[MIGleader]

Fractal Camo?
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/images/AIR_F-16_in_KA2-Desert_lg.jpg
:rofl:

Then there's also optical camo:
http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/sns-pod-optical-jpg,0,7844604.photo?coll=stam-main-utility

It's still quite primitive, but in the future it might be a necessity to defeat optical guided missiles that recongize targets by its shape, size, and apperance.

nice. ive seen the japanese one, but it requires a special orb projector camera to focus on the person. for camo, perhaps you could coast the plane with thousands of tiny lcd screens, and a camera. the screens would change color and outline depending on what terrain the camera saw. but nowadays, combat requires visual confirmation, so its kind of cheating.

[sumdud]

OK......... the stealth conversation need to stop. This is about the JH-7A. If you'd like to continue, go to the anti-stealth thread.

[Superior China]

Yes, MigL, that is exactly what you do. But not thousands, just a few.

Alright, summud, I'll change the "stealth" with "RCS reduction."

That phython relies on a big RCS too, so. And don't even start saying the UAV had a small RCS.

[sumdud]

No, this is a thread about the JH-7/A. There should be no off topic posts here. And that includes RCS!!!

And don't try to excuse yourself by morphing words. We know this well enough and we all know this forum does not allow for politics!!!

One more and you know what is to happen, so be warned!

[Superior China]

"we need a thread to discuss all things jh-7 related. like exactly what is the fate of the aircraft? will china build more jh-7as<b> or upgrade the fighter even more before production?</b> what new engine will an improved jh-7 fit?"

I was answering the question!

[WEN?]

i think that china will probaly focus more on the new FB-7.it is a twin-engine, all-weather, supersonic, medium-range fighter-bomber. it will probaly get bet avionics, weapons and radar. in the near future air forces probalywill focus on 4th genartion aircraft, FB-7 and upgrading the Su27 and Su30. the futrue might not have a bomber fleet but focus on fighter-bomber aircraft for their capbalities are better and have more uses as a bomber normally has one.

[renmin]

Correct me if im wrong but doesnt the JH-7 have the ability to carry nuclear free fall bombs? I heard it was a super sonic nuclear strike bomber.

[Sea Dog]

Correct me if im wrong but doesnt the JH-7 have the ability to carry nuclear free fall bombs? I heard it was a super sonic nuclear strike bomber.

I don't know about this, but I don't see why it couldn't carry 1 or more nuclear bombs. I heard it was more of a naval strike tactical aircraft which would negate this usage. But who knows?

Anybody heard any more JH-7 news? Any updates at all?

[crobato]

Anything has a theoritical capability to carry nuclear bombs, but for now the JH-7s and JH-7As are naval strike bombers and PGM using strike fighters.

No updates at all since 2004, when a PLAAF and a PLANAF regiment both employed the type, in addition to an upgraded JH-7 going to another PLANAF regiment.

Sometimes I wonder if there are any reservations the PLAAF or PLANAF have in deploying more of the type. It's likely the plane is in temporary hiatus because the same factory had to deliver 3 regiments worth of new H-6Hs capable of delivering the new standoff YJ-63 cruise missile. Assuming 20 planes per regiment, that would be 60 planes, and the factory is good for a production of 50 planes per year. This would have meant temporarily stopping JH-7A production just to fill the new H-6 orders.

I also wonder if any developments on the J-11s and J-10s can have adverse effects on the JH-7A's future deployments.

[wael]

hello to all
any one can tell me about the unit cost of JH-7
and i want to get some details about JL-10A radar that is used in JH-7 bombars
regards to u all

[simonov]

ctually how manny JH-7 and A in PLAN and PLAAF inventory. If they have much Su-30 or its copy in JH-8, r they still keep the JH-7 series?
Thx

[xihaoli]

The numbers i have gotten form CDF have been around ~50.

The main reason of the slow production is the poor airframe of the Jh-7, although the slot array radar does provide impressive scanning range agunist naval targets. (250km+) The other problem have been the sprey engines, the Plan either have to get an alternative, or scrap the project overall due to the fact that even the j-10 persumably can carry 6 tones+, and the fact that multi-role aircraft are the norms now days....

The Jh-7 would probrably become to the PLAN what the Backfires are to the Russians. They provide middle ranged, naval strike power using long ranged targets. Although i must admit that the backfire and by far a superior aircraft to the Jh-7. They should be grouped together due to the fact that they are both middle range naval strike aircrafts. Although the Kh-55/As-4/6 are superior to the Yj-83, the Jh-7 benefits due to its lower Rcs and lower cost. The range can also be compromised by a few tanks.

Overall the Jh-7 isnt bad, 4 yj-803s per-aircraft can provides a fair amount of firepower and deterancy agunist any naval force. Although the chances of using it offencely will be slim to none.

[crobato]

With four confirmed regiments, we are looking at 80-90 aircraft combined not including prototypes, which can add about 10 more.

[Sea Dog]

The numbers i have gotten form CDF have been around ~50.

Overall the Jh-7 isnt bad, 4 yj-803s per-aircraft can provides a fair amount of firepower and deterancy agunist any naval force. Although the chances of using it offencely will be slim to none.

Hi xihaoli. So the number is 50. Thanks for that number. I've been wondering what numbers of JH-7 are official myself. JH-7 does provide a good naval strike capability, IMO. But I have to ask you, why do you believe JH-7 cannot/will not be used in the offensive role? I thought it is a tactical naval strike aircraft. That by it's very nature designates it an offensive platform. I guess you may be arguing that it may be used to limit/deter movements of opposing naval units? If that's the case, then I agree.

Edited to add: So is it 80-90 or 50?

[vincelee]

JH-7 or JH7 AND JH-7A? If the latter, then it's 4 regiments.

[Totoro]

When reading what has been written bout the planes, comparing it with info on sinodefence.com and globalsecurity one can deduce that by the end of 2004 there was one regiment of jh7 and one regiment of jh7A. So the question really is - how many new jh7A planes were produced in the last 14 or so months?

[tphuang]

When reading what has been written bout the planes, comparing it with info on sinodefence.com and globalsecurity one can deduce that by the end of 2004 there was one regiment of jh7 and one regiment of jh7A. So the question really is - how many new jh7A planes were produced in the last 14 or so months?
the number is around 90 (around half of that is JH-7 and half is JH-7A). 7a uses WS-9 and 7 uses the original Spey engine.

There was rumours that a new JH-7A division is forming recently. Let's see if that happens. Considering the low production rate of JH-7A due to the engine issues (they are producing only 30 WS-9 per year, yikes!), 1 new regiment per 18 months is probably not unexpected.

Also, I don't think YJ-83 is any worse than the Russian missiles. It probably has a newer and more accurate seeker. Also, it is smaller(lighter), which is important on a fighter-bomber like JH-7A. 7A probably cannot carry something like AS-4. Also JH-7A is like su-24 or su-34 in the Russian inventory.

[Totoro]

I don't understand the deal with low production of the engine. One either can't get the design quite right and the production is really more in the prototype phase until one gets it right - and this can last for years or longer or even never materialize. I get that. But why pursue some kind of larger scale production, like the 30 pieces a year, if its basically still a flawed design? Or if its not a flawed design - and there's a definite need for the engines - why not ramp up the production? It just doesn't make sense. Only possible explanation i see is politics. That politics is either preventing a move to serial production and is forcing the engines to still be hand assembled so to say, like the prototypes, or that political decisions are preventing more planes to be produced and the low level of engine production is just a consequence, not the reason.

[xihaoli]

I believe the main reason for ws-9's low rate production is it's lack of adaquite thrust. I'm not saying that ws-9 is a flawed engine, its has a decent t/w ration with its ~19500 pounds of thrust. However the Jh-7 has a similar normal take off weight similar to a flanker. If we compare the power plants of both ~39000 pounds : ~55000 pounds, we can obveiously see the difference in power. The other reason being that seeing as how the ws-10a has just recently been certifited and the j-11b in the prototype stage, (I do believe it was a J-11b in the wz-10 thread isnt it?) the flanker has an advantage over the jh-7 both in payload and range, not to mention being a much better dogfighter in times of need.

The PLAN has two choices:

A) Get the ws-10a on the jh-7, which who require a total redesign of the tail section thus requiring major funding.

B) Install the slot array radar of the Jh-7A onto yet to be built j-11s, seeing as how the radar diameter of the flanker is one of the largest in its class, i see no major problem in it. Besides, the indigeninization of j-11's electronic package can start there.

In regards to why the Jh-7 is unsuitable for strike roles:

1) The Jh-7a has always suffered from a somewhat dated airframe, thus if intercepted can easily be downed by enamy aircraft. Such a flaw is often countered in the naval role by the use of long range stand off AShM, as opposed to LGB's and Kh-29's when used in the strike role.

2) In the percision strike role the Jh-7a is bested by both the Su-30Mkk and the J-10A/B, they offer higher manuverability with fair payloads.

3) In the Ground support the role is the Jh-7 is unfortunately bested by the Q-5's. Even though the Jh-7 does feature an armored fuelsolage, the cost to affect ration is far to large, especially considering the poor performance of swept wing deisgns in low level flight.

4) The H-6 is much better suited for the carpet bombing role even in modern warfare, this has been shown in Afagavistan and Iraq, where B-52's were used to devistating affect instead of the f-18.


Overall I am not saying that the Jh-7 is a poor aircraft, on the contrary it is very deadly when used in its proper role with the proper weapons. However, the lack of mulirole abilities and the abundance of better alturnative really drives down the appeal of the aircraft.

Btw, seeing the similar thrust of the ws-9 to the r-93, is there any reason to believe the the engine will be used on the Fc-1? Similar t/w ratio....Similar thrust.....

[crobato]

One reason why the JH-7A production has been a little slow is because the factory isn't capable of building more than 50 aircraft per year. This factory also produces both H-6 and JH-7A. Last year, we have seen at least three or four regiments upgraded to the new H-6H an H-6M with the standoff or antiship weapons. We know the new H-6s are not modified from existing H-6s but are built from the ground up. Given that a bomber regiment is about 20 planes, three or four regiments of new H-6s would have amounted to 60 to 80 planes. That would have put JH-7A production in temporary hiatus.

The production may have balanced out now between H-6H and JH-7A, and I myself is expecting that a new JH-7A regiment would form this year, the likely candidates being one of the Q-5 regiments.

As for the WS-9 I think it is a bit too heavy for the FC-1. The WS-13 on the other hand, is a bit small and low powered for the JH-7A, with an estimated 8100-8500kg of thrust while the WS-9 is about 10,000kg. As for the plane's weight I consider the JH-7A to be somewhat lighter than a Flanker, like the 15000 to16000kg region when empty.

I concur that the JH-7A might be a bit vulnerable in strike interdiction missions. I think the plane is fairly agile but it has a low power to weight ratio. The H-6s are even more obsolete but they could shoot their stand off weapons at relative safety with range.

Although the JH-7A is capable of using LGBs, I don't think that for the PLAAF, LGBs are its primary weapons. There might be a TV guided YJ-8X variant out there that maybe used for land strikes. The second weapon is the YJ-91, which is used to attack radar sites.

Of all the modifications suggested, putting the JL-10G on the J-11 might be a lot easier and cheaper to do than putting WS-10A on the JH-7A. The problem is that it's not clear if China is allowed to license or produce the 2 seater variant of the J-11. The PLAAF seems to want only two seaters for standoff weapons or antiship missiles. It is probably a lot easier for the pilot to delegate the task of handling weapons to the second officer which acts as both a weapons and radar management officer. Also the second person might also be a political officer to make sure the pilot stays honest and won't use the weapons in any way inappropriate.

The problem is, without a second seater, the J-11 is also less than appropriate for certain tasks. I can see the single seater J-11 doing some LGB bombing, air defense suppresion, possible yeah, but without 2 seater, I don't see it being used with standoff weapons or longer range antiship missiles. It's not clear if single seaters are authorized to use antiship weapons in both PLAAF or PLANAF by political reasons even though the technical capability is there.

Which brings you to the third alternative and that is the J-10B. I suspect the range is shorter, the TWR ratio is better on the J-10B, the payload is also comparable, and the usuable hardpoints are similar, with four inner pylons stressed to carry large missiles. I don't know how the J-10 radar compares to the JH-7A, but I mentioned before I think the JL-10G might have more A2G functionality currently than the KLJ type on the J-10. In the end though I think the KLJ radars would integrate more on A2G capabiltiy as the line matures. The J-10B might be able to handle a variety of A2G roles, though because of its strike bomber speclialization, the JH-7A might have certain advantages at the edge of the range envelope and armament configuration. But in the end, it may not be enough, like what happened to the F-111, which ultimately died out in the face of the multirole F-16s.

[tphuang]

To xihaoli,
The precision strike capability on JH-7A should be the same as J-10B since they would be using the same pods/guided bombs. You know, this is an interesting article by kanwa on the pod used by JH-7A.
http://img220.imageshack.us/img220/3210/20051229181032886207ks.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
Also, according to Chinese, JH-7A has better precision striking capability than Su-30.

To totoro,
It's not that they are not trying to mass produce WS-9. They are trying, they just can't produce enough of it, lol.

Back to this bomber question. My preferred choice is J-10B with all the latest targetting pods and domestic AShM. The payload on J-10B should be at least equal to JH-7A right now. Although, they did talk about FBC-1M with a 9 tonne payload?

btw Crobato, do you know of any indigenous TV-guided A2S missile like KH-59?

The WS-13 thing is interesting too. They did talk about redesigning JH-7 to use two WS-13 on Chinese forums. But then again, I'd put that as I will believe it when I see it category. Until then, China is stuck with the T/W ratio 6.55 WS-9 for JH-7. Also, XAC is no where near the development/production capability of CAC and SAC, so these are all things working against JH-7.

As for twin-seated J-11, the Chinese forums are saying that tandem ones are in planning. China will claim it as a new design and get away with it. Let's face it, it has been doing this for 50 years.

[crobato]

Anything like the Kh-59ME? The closest thing right now would be the YJ-63, and frankly I am not going to hesitate to say the YJ-63 is superior in terms of raw data like range and payload.

Another thing is, and it's been speculated before that there is a TV guided air launched version of the YJ-83. Much like the YJ-63 of the H-6H is the TV guided version of the YJ-62 AshM used in the 052C destroyers. If such a missile exists, and I suspect it does, it would be the primary A2S armament of the PLAAF (land attack) version of the JH-7A. The MKK is bought for the Kh-59ME, and when the PLAAF stopped acquiring the MKK, one can theorize that they have found something to fill that gap.

I also wonder if the JH-7A is capable of delivering two YJ-63, or the inner hardpoints could hold it.

The WS-13 is a low bypass ratio turbofan. It's good for a fighter, but not a long range bomber. The WS-9 should be based on a civilian Spey engine, with a higher bypass ratio for better fuel economy. However, when looking at the slim fuselage, I kind of think that the WS-9 has a lower bypass ratio as well (smaller compressor), but maybe still hgiher than the WS-13.

It should be noted that the J-10's AL-31FN and variants might have a higher bypass ratio than the standard AL-31F due to a larger diameter compressor. That could give the plane better range than what we credit for before.

[adeptitus]

A
I also wonder if the JH-7A is capable of delivering two YJ-63, or the inner hardpoints could hold it.


YJ-63 is DH-10 LACM with 500kg warhead right? That's gotta be a pretty big missile. So far the articles I've read indicate that it is "possible" for the JH-7A to carry 1 or 2 LACM's, but the only photos we've seen are H-6 bombers carrying them.

Here's an old article from Janes on possible JH-7 deployement with LACM's:

Jane's Strategic Weapon Systems 40
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HN-1/-2/-3 (X-600)