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

[darth sidious]

Re: Jh-7 thread

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]

Re: Jh-7 thread

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]

Re: Jh-7 thread

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]

Re: Jh-7 thread

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]

Re: Jh-7 thread

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]

Re: Jh-7 thread

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]

Re: Jh-7 thread

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]

Re: Jh-7 thread

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]

Re: Jh-7 thread

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]

Re: Jh-7 thread

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.