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

[Jeff Head]

I suspect that the relatively cheap cost, acceptable payload capacity, funneling money to Xian, and the fact that J-11 series fighters have not been fully developed and ramped up, are the main reasons the JH-7 series still exists. But this is a fighter that has reached its limit of usefulness. Upgrades like the "JH-7B" and "JH-7C" can do little to change the fact that at best this is a gen3.5 plane, capable of being nothing more than a bomb truck that cannot handle any significant airborne threat like its modern compatriots the J-10 series, J-11 series, etc. who can all dump their ordinance and defend themselves effectively in air-to-air combat if necessary. I suspect that once the J-11BSH and/or J-16 start being produced in numbers within the next 10 years or so, they will replace this legacy plane and never look back.

Agreed in the main.

Just the same, a longer range, better sensor, a little more maneuverable, and higher ordinance rate upgrade was an effective stop gap over the next several years.

There are still a lot of other aircraft that need replacing, and having these improved JH-7s can help in the overall endeavor.

Heck, look at the H-6K. It is still an old design despite the significant improvements.

But with its range and capability to haul sophisticated ALCMs around, it is still a potent threat.

The JH-7B will be the same out over the SCS and places like that and will allow the much more modern and capable aircraft to be used in other more critical places first.

 

[siegecrossbow]

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

JH-7A at Aviadarts 2016.

 

[Jeff Head]

I lreally ike the JH-7A. Even though a little older (designed in late 1990s and entered service in 2004), I believe it is still an effective strike/attack aircraft that can be loaded up with a lot of ordinance. with the "B" version now coming out, it has just improved it all the more.

...and I loaded my

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

​

 

[Brainsuker]

I lreally ike the JH-7A. Even though a little older (designed in late 1990s and entered service in 2004), I believe it is still an effective strike/attack aircraft that can be loaded up with a lot of ordinance. with the "B" version now coming out, it has just improved it all the more.

...and I loaded my

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

​

I like it too. But wait, the "B" variant is coming out? I thought they cancel it in favor for the Chinese Flanker Variant (J-16)?

 

[tidalwave]

I read some article saying JH7A is biggest nightmare for Japanese aegis fleet. It capable of flying just few feet above water and Japanese aegis fleet totally missed incoming JH7As and shocked them when the planes passed them by.

 

[Jeff Head]

I read some article saying JH7A is biggest nightmare for Japanese aegis fleet. It capable of flying just few feet above water and Japanese aegis fleet totally missed incoming JH7As and shocked them when the planes passed them by.

Depends entirely on the circumstances.

Were the JMSDF AEGIS vessels operating in a full sensor mode, where they were looking for potential aggressive aircraft?

I find it highly unlikely that they caught them unawares. Sort of like the SU-24s and the US Destroyer. The US Destroyer knew they were there...they were just having t operate under ROEs that would not allow them to shoot at them unless they were actively lit up by the aircraft radar or seekers.

Probably something similar went down with the Japanese.

 

[tidalwave]

Depends entirely on the circumstances.

Were the JMSDF AEGIS vessels operating in a full sensor mode, where they were looking for potential aggressive aircraft?

I find it highly unlikely that they caught them unawares. Sort of like the SU-24s and the US Destroyer. The US Destroyer knew they were there...they were just having t operate under ROEs that would not allow them to shoot at them unless they were actively lit up by the aircraft radar or seekers.

Probably something similar went down with the Japanese.

well , because the plane was flying super-low, all it takes is about 10 miles to get hided by the earth curvature.

 

[Iron Man]

well , because the plane was flying super-low, all it takes is about 10 miles to get hided by the earth curvature.

Where did you get this number "10 miles"? This is definitely wrong. A fighter flying (dangerously) low at 10m above the sea surface will be detected by a radar at 20m elevation, such as those mounted on top of ship masts, out to 31km.

 

[tidalwave]

Where did you get this number "10 miles"? This is definitely wrong. A fighter flying (dangerously) low at 10m above the sea surface will be detected by a radar at 20m elevation, such as those mounted on top of ship masts, out to 31km.

Where did you get this definitely wrong?
It's based on earth curvature calculator.
10m dangerous? No! It can go lower.

 

[Iron Man]

Where did you get this definitely wrong?
It's based on earth curvature calculator.
10m dangerous? No! It can go lower.

Not sure where you got your "earth curvature calculator" from. Hopefully not the same place SamuraiBlue got his from. Here is a good one:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Even if your daredevil suicidal pilot goes down to 5m above the sea surface you will still get 27.7km detection distance.