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

Deino

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
J/H-7A night assault training, JiNan MA, 30, Mar. 2015
oRMSepC.jpg


Interesting that the new KG-600 ECM-pod becomes a bit more common !

Deino
 

manqiangrexue

Brigadier
JH-7A is a bomb truck, and JF-17 is a light fighter. Between the two, you decide what the UK rather China not sell to Argentina.
Well, the bomb truck probably won't make it anywhere against a credible air force defending an area. A light fighter has a better chance to take down a small air force. If the UK has 4-8 Typhoons guarding the Falklands, you'd be better off with 24 JF-17 than 14 JH-7. JF-17 can still do lighter bombing roles while you can't really configure JH-7 to do air superiority.
 

tphuang

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
VIP Professional
Registered Member
Well, the bomb truck probably won't make it anywhere against a credible air force defending an area. A light fighter has a better chance to take down a small air force. If the UK has 4-8 Typhoons guarding the Falklands, you'd be better off with 24 JF-17 than 14 JH-7. JF-17 can still do lighter bombing roles while you can't really configure JH-7 to do air superiority.
JH-7A is considered more of an offensive weapon. On top of that, it was using Spey engine before.
 

Miragedriver

Brigadier
Well, the bomb truck probably won't make it anywhere against a credible air force defending an area. A light fighter has a better chance to take down a small air force. If the UK has 4-8 Typhoons guarding the Falklands, you'd be better off with 24 JF-17 than 14 JH-7. JF-17 can still do lighter bombing roles while you can't really configure JH-7 to do air superiority.

True but the JH-7 can carry more anti-shipping missiles than the one carried by the Super Etendard. Additionally, the JH-7 has an incredible range, which used in conjunction with in-flight refueling would be able to attack vessels from almost any point on the compass. This places vessels in more danger and requires the defending picket vessels to protect a perimeter as opposed to one side, thereby requiring more assets in defense.

Back to bottling my Grenache
 

manqiangrexue

Brigadier
True but the JH-7 can carry more anti-shipping missiles than the one carried by the Super Etendard. Additionally, the JH-7 has an incredible range, which used in conjunction with in-flight refueling would be able to attack vessels from almost any point on the compass. This places vessels in more danger and requires the defending picket vessels to protect a perimeter as opposed to one side, thereby requiring more assets in defense.

Back to bottling my Grenache
Yeap, I forgot about anti-ship capabilities. JH-7 is very useful, but I still think if Argentina could only have 1, they should try to use the JF-17 to try to outnumber and take down the Typhoons. If you can't get them out of the way, forget about sending heavily-laden JH-7 to do anything.
 

Miragedriver

Brigadier
But in any case we'll never know, because Argentina has no interest in acquiring the capabilities required to take the Falklands by force.

True. It is all just rhetoric to distract the populous of the greater picture, which is the socialist train weak that has become the economy.

Back on topic for the JH-7A/B please

Crying over broken bottles of Grenache
 

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
GET BACK ON TOPIC.

This thread is about the JH-7 thread. While reporting that they might be offered to Argentina is fine (as long as you provide evidence of it)...getting off topic over the political and economic ties of Argentina and the UK is not fine.

It has no place on this thread.

I have deleted that off topic strain.

DO NOT REPSOND TO THIS MODERATION

Note: Thanks to Plawolf for letting me know that I had initially stated that this was the JF-17 thread when it is in fact the JH-7 Thread. Ooops...but fixed now.
 
Last edited:
Top