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

[Gloire_bb]

Obviously J-16 is a much better bomber but also much more expensive

Even very deeply upgraded for A2G Su-34 airframe(which lost significant part of A2A capability) can't maintain whole range of dedicated bomber capabilities(Su-24 airframe).

And F-15E against F-111, iirc, did much worse than that as a bomber.

It'll be a big mistake to undersestimate them just for being decade(JH-7B) older.

Btw, as a side bonus from more focused mission capability - it almost universally means better training in its dedicated role.

 

[FORBIN]

antiterror13 said: ↑
Obviously J-16 is a much better bomber but also much more expensive

Ofc more recent better electronic etc... but JH-7A with 11 hardpoints and a weap load of 9 t is very decent, JH-7 less 7 HPs and 6.5 tons, in average many parameters... have CR of 1250 km very good also.

Even very deeply upgraded for A2G Su-34 airframe(which lost significant part of A2A capability) can't maintain whole range of dedicated bomber capabilities(Su-24 airframe).

And F-15E against F-111, iirc, did much worse than that as a bomber.

It'll be a big mistake to undersestimate them just for being decade(JH-7B) older.

Btw, as a side bonus from more focused mission capability - it almost universally means better training in its dedicated role.

Yes for Su-34 in more he do 45 t so not a true dancer max 7.5 G but also her radar is more oriented for A2G Attack less good for A2A missions on' twant far bars, Irbis etc.. but the Su-34 is able with it for BVR combat not the Su-24.
To 45 tons it is the more big fighter bomber never build with Mig-31 and Tu-28 the first replacing the 2nd both used only by Soviet PVO pure interceptors.

 

[FORBIN]

 

[Hendrik_2000]

Chinese Navy - South China Sea Fleet: a flight group is flying training to win bet must regiment 27 in Ledong

 

[Gloire_bb]

Yes for Su-34 in more he do 45 t so not a true dancer max 7.5 G but also her radar is more oriented for A2G Attack less good for A2A missions on' twant far bars, Irbis etc.. but the Su-34 is able with it for BVR combat not the Su-24

Su-34 in 1980s and early 1990s benefited much from new heavy(not strategic!) bomber Sukhoi program, which died in 1992. I.e. in many ways it got much more than such "intermediate" program could hope to obtain.
I don't want to tell the whole story, it isn't russian thread after all, but in short:

Initially it was program to deeply update existing Su-24 (so-called T-6BM), which by 1983 looked like this:

VVS were very much in favor of this, but internal fights in Sukhoi OKB were another story.
Program was killed in favour of Su-34(by that moment it looked more like "Su-30 VISTA"), with a lot of innovative solutions, which never happened to worked out.
Like this:

(note crazy "twin aisle" engines - it's actually two, not four! Idea was to get actual stealthy supercruiser).

So, Su-34 switched to much more realistic deep upgrade of T-10 airframe.
But, while not as adventureous per se, there was huge input of technology from other project, s.c. "object 54s"

(no, this isn't just random fanboy drawing; but how much details match actual prototype is unknown, program still remains secret)

"donor" project was very ambitious in many ways(Stealthy, supercruising, yet capable of terrain following penetration and so on), and expectedly it couldn't hope to survive fall of USSR(and in any way, it depended on AL-41 engine program to take off).
But at this point Su-34 could do some of it job - it inherited offensive electronics, forward fuselage section, and airframe was "taught" to be able to at least partially cope with terrain-following flight.


All above is for one certain point: soviet VVS were in favor of dedicated bomber aircraft(B-90 program), not previous generation air superiority fighter rework.
It worked out better than it could, but it did so only thanks to external events.
While current level of technology definetely removed much of a difference(for example, rapid progress of suspendable external targeting pods) - there still are points, in which dedicated bomber airframes will be of utility, and planes initially designed as loitering interceptor/air superiority fighter(Su-27 family), even of somehow updated - will still lag behind in many areas.

 

[FORBIN]

JH-7A training in the night

 

[2=GT]

 

[Richard Santos]

JH-7A/B is good enough for most operation.... and very effective and respected bomber. Obviously J-16 is a much better bomber but also much more expensive

I am not sure about that.

J-16 obvious derives her airframe design from su-27. The su-27 prioritized combat maneuverability over high speed penetration of enemy airspace. As a result, su-27/j-16 has huge wings, low wing loading, and big engines for its size. This means j-16 can sustain high turn rates, fantastic climb rates, and high roll and,pitch rates. But achieving these same attributes means su-27/j-16 also has high induced drag and needs big engines to go fast, are highly sensitive to gust and offers a punishing ride at high speed low altitude flight. In other words they make poor airframes for deep high speed low altitude penetrations of enemy airspace.

If jh-7 on the other hand didn't seem to put much emphasis on combat maneuverability. So it has relatively small wings with high wing loading. This means Jh-7 can't turn or climb with the su-27/j-16, but it probably has low gust response, low induced drag, smooth ride at low altitude, high speed penetration role, and need less fuel comsumption to,achieve the same low altitude, high speed performance, and thus a longer range for the same fuel load.

Yes, both the US and Russia decided to base their current strike fighters off of air superiority fighter airframes. But that was not done because air superiority airframes makes ideal low altitude penetration strike airframes. That was done to save money by reusing big powerfully engined airframes that could carry a lot of weight by virtues of their big engines and big wings. A truly ideal penetration strike aircraft would have a whole different mix of wing size, engine power, and airframe design than f-15e and su-34.

 

[latenlazy]

I am not sure about that.

J-16 obvious derives her airframe design from su-27. The su-27 prioritized combat maneuverability over high speed penetration of enemy airspace. As a result, su-27/j-16 has huge wings, low wing loading, and big engines for its size. This means j-16 can sustain high turn rates, fantastic climb rates, and high roll and,pitch rates. But achieving these same attributes means su-27/j-16 also has high induced drag and needs big engines to go fast, are highly sensitive to gust and offers a punishing ride at high speed low altitude flight. In other words they make poor airframes for deep high speed low altitude penetrations of enemy airspace.

If jh-7 on the other hand didn't seem to put much emphasis on combat maneuverability. So it has relatively small wings with high wing loading. This means Jh-7 can't turn or climb with the su-27/j-16, but it probably has low gust response, low induced drag, smooth ride at low altitude, high speed penetration role, and need less fuel comsumption to,achieve the same low altitude, high speed performance, and thus a longer range for the same fuel load.

Yes, both the US and Russia decided to base their current strike fighters off of air superiority fighter airframes. But that was not done because air superiority airframes makes ideal low altitude penetration strike airframes. That was done to save money by reusing big powerfully engined airframes that could carry a lot of weight by virtues of their big engines and big wings. A truly ideal penetration strike aircraft would have a whole different mix of wing size, engine power, and airframe design than f-15e and su-34.

That more specific low level penetrator role might be better done with a drone these days.

 

[Richard Santos]

That more specific low level penetrator role might be better done with a drone these days.

There are few if any drones well known to the public domain that would make good low altitude, high speed pentrators. Most offensive drones prioritize long loiter time over anything else. Hence they have long, straight, high aspect ratio wings that would snap off in high speed, low altitude penetration runs.

A good high speed, low altitude penetrator would have tiny low aspect ratio wings.