JH-7/JH-7A/JH-7B Thread
- Thread starter MIGleader
- Start date
Re: Jh-7 thread
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?
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?
Re: Jh-7 thread
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.
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.Totoro said:
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.
Re: Jh-7 thread
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.
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.
Re: Jh-7 thread
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.....
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.....
Last edited:
Re: Jh-7 thread
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.
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.
Re: Jh-7 thread
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.
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.
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.
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.
Re: Jh-7 thread
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.
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.
Re: Jh-7 thread
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)
Type
Short- and intermediate-range, ground-, ship-, submarine-, air-launched, turbojet powered, single warhead, cruise missiles.
Development
Some reports suggest that the Chinese started a development programme around 1977 to develop a long-range cruise missile family. The missiles were required to carry a nuclear warhead for up to 3,000 km range. Initial development work was probably based on a design known as X-600, which had a design range of 600 km. The X-600 is believed to have used an HY-2 (Silkworm type) body, either a CAS-1 'Kraken' (YJ-6) or a CSSC-7 'Sadsack' (HY-4), with a turbojet engine attached on a pylon at the rear of the missile underbody. The turbojet may have been fixed on the pylon, or it may have been retracted during carried flight on the aircraft. Flight trials were made using a modified B-6D bomber (Tu-16 'Badger') with the test missiles carried inside the bomb bay or mounted on the underwing pylons. It is possible that the initial design was known as XW-41, which was believed to be a modified HY-4 with extending wings mounted on the underside of the body. Alternatively, the initial design may have been known as the YJ-61, a modified YJ-6. The development programme is believed to have been directed by the No.1 Research Institute, which had been called the Hai-Ying Electro-Mechanical Technology Academy, and had already developed the Hai-Ying family of short-range cruise missiles. The 8359 (possibly also known as the 066) Research Institute and the Cruise Missile Institute of China were established in the mid 1980s to centralise all cruise missile developments, and it is assumed that these now control the design work for the subsequent missile programmes. It is reported that the manufacturing of cruise missiles is carried out at the No 7 Machine Building Factory. The first test flight of X-600 was made in 1985, using a small turbojet engine especially developed for the project. This missile is believed to have had terrain-following radar and an optical correlation terminal seeker. It is reported that development testing began in 1988 of an improved design, which was given the Chinese designator Hong-Niao-1 (Red Bird-1). An alternative designator, DH-10, has been reported, but has not been confirmed. This missile has a range of 600 km and is believed to use an airframe similar in shape and size to the Russian AS-15A 'Kent' (Kh-55) and SS-N-21 'Sampson' (3M10) and to the American RGM-109 Tomahawk cruise missiles. There are two versions of the HN-1 missile; the HN-1A, which is ground-launched, and the HN-1B, which is air-launched. The HN-1 missiles began operational evaluation in 1992, and it is believed that they entered service around 1996.
Development of a longer range HN-2 missile followed, with three versions of this missile. It is believed that an improved turbofan engine is used to give longer range, with increased fuel carried. It is reported that the design of HN-2 was largely based on US Tomahawk technologies, recovered from crashed missiles. A US report gave the designator for HN-2 as YH-4, but this has not been confirmed. HN-2A and HN-2B are both believed to be ground- or ship-launched cruise missiles with a range of 1,800 km, and HN-2C is a submarine-launched version with a range of 1,400 km. There is a report of a submarine test launch being made in 1995, but this may have been of another missile. HN-2 is believed to have started operational evaluation in 1998.
A third version, HN-3, is now in development, with a range increased to 3,000 km. This missile can be ground-, ship-, or air-launched, and it is possible that a separate submarine-launched version will also be developed with a reduced range. It is possible that this missile uses technologies based upon the Russian AS-15B 'Kent' missile, integrated with Tomahawk technologies. The first test flight of HN-3 was reported in June 1999. An unconfirmed report suggested that a fourth version was also being designed, HN-2000, with a maximum range increased to 4,000 km and capable of supersonic cruise at high altitude.
The HN family of missiles appears to be developed for a wide variety of roles, with nuclear, high explosive and submunition warheads. Vertical launch capsules are being designed for use on ships and submarines, and it is possible that an encapsulated version has been successfully launched from standard 533 mm torpedo tubes. It is expected that HN missiles could be carried by 'Song' class (type 039), 'Kilo' class (type 877EKM/636) and the new type 093 submarines, and could be fitted to 'Luhai' and 'Luhu' class destroyers. The ground-launched versions could be carried by wheeled TEL vehicles, as the Chinese have displayed some large vehicles for ballistic missile TELs, and several of these vehicles could be adapted to carry four to six cruise missiles. Initial flight tests on the X-600 prototype were carried out using a modified B-6D bomber, and it is reported that some 25 of these are being upgraded to carry HN family missiles. A report in November 2002 indicated that four missiles were being carried by the B-6D aircraft. In addition, it is possible that one or two missiles could be carried by JH-7 (B-7), J-8IIM or Su-27 and Su-30 'Flanker' (J-11) aircraft.
Description
The HN-1 missile has a square shaped body, with two under-body mounted straight wings, a low tailplane and a vertical fin on the upper side. The wings, tail and fin unfold after launch. The air inlet for the turbojet engine is under the body at the rear of the missile, with the exhaust from the boat tail. The missile is believed to be 6.4 m long, and 7.2 m long with a tandem mounted boost motor. The body diameter is around 0.5 m, the wing span 2.5 m and the launch weight is reported to be 1,000 kg. The boost motor assembly weighs around 200 kg, giving the HN-1A ground-launched missile a launch weight of 1,200 kg. The boost motor assembly is jettisoned after use. It is believed that the payload weight is 400 kg, and that a 20 to 90 kT nuclear warhead, an HE warhead and a submunitions warhead are all options. A report in 1995 stated that China was developing 5 kg submunitions, with around 50 carried by a cruise missile. NORINCO has developed and offered for export several submunitions for use in cluster bombs since the early 1990s, and some of these could be used in the HN-1. Type 1 HE fragmentation submunitions weighing 5 kg, runway cratering submunitions weighing 20 kg, anti-armour submunitions with an IR sensor weighing 4.5 kg firing a shaped charge through top armour, small submunitions containing 765 steel balls, and fuel-air explosive submunitions could all be carried by HN-1 missiles. Mid-course guidance is reported to be provided by an INS/GPS system, with terrain comparison updates provided by a TV seeker. A radio altimeter is used for terrain following. Terminal guidance is by terrain comparison, using the same TV correlation system backed-up by a low-light level system for use at night. An accuracy of 15 to 20 m CEP has been reported. China has bought and developed several UAV that could be used to gather radar and optical pictures of intended targets, plus satellite pictures. The missile is powered by a turbojet engine, possibly with the Chinese designator W40. The ground-launched HN-1A has a tandem-mounted solid propellant boost motor that accelerates the missile up to around M 0.6, when the turbojet engine starts and takes over for the mid-course and terminal phases. The missile cruises at around M 0.8 at an altitude of 20 m. The minimum range of the HN-1 is probably around 50 km, the maximum range of the ground-launched version is 600 km, and the maximum range of the air-launched version 650 km when released from medium level (10 km altitude). The HN-1A version is ground-launched from a wheeled TEL vehicle, but the type of vehicle is unknown. The HN-1B is air launched from B-6D bombers, with two, three or four missiles carried per aircraft.
HN-2 has several improvements over the earlier HN-1 versions. A turbofan engine was developed for the HN-2 missile, believed to be based on the Russian Omsk OKB-designed TRDD-50 engine used in the SS-N-21 and AS-15 missiles, and manufactured in China from 1992. China has also had the opportunity to examine in detail several US-made RGM/UGM-109 Tomahawk cruise missiles that have malfunctioned and crash landed, following the extensive use of these missiles in Iraq, Bosnia, Serbia, Kosovo, Afghanistan and Sudan. A wide range of improved technologies have been made available, including INS/GPS guidance, computer hardware and software, electronics, power supplies, airframe, wings, fuel systems and small turbofan engines. The payloads and guidance of HN-2 is believed to be similar to that used by HN-1, but with the body diameter increased to 0.7 m and the launch weight increased to 1,400 kg including the tandem-mounted boost motor. The wing position on HN-2 has been changed, to a mid-body position. This version has a rectangular air inlet scoop halfway between the rear of the wings and the tailplane, on the underside of the body. The HN-2A and -2B versions are ground- and ship-launched missiles with a maximum range increased to 1,800 km. HN-2C is a submarine-launched version, believed to be launched through the 533 mm torpedo tubes using a launch capsule, with a range of 1,400 km. An accuracy of 5 m CEP has been reported.
HN-3 is believed to have had its maximum range increased to 3,000 km, and to have had further improvements. This version is reported to have a higher cruise speed of M 0.9, and to cruise at between 10 and 20 m altitude. The body diameter has been increased to around 0.75 m, and the launch weight, including the tandem-mounted boost motor, has been increased to 1,800 kg. It is believed that conformal fuel tanks have been added to this version, similar to those fitted to the Russian AS-15B.
HN-2000 is believed to be in design, with a supersonic cruise option at high level, and a maximum range increased to 4,000 km.
Operational status
The development work on the Hong-Niao family of cruise missiles is believed to have started in 1977, with design of a prototype known as X-600. The HN-1 missile was first flight tested in 1988, operational evaluation started in 1992, and it is believed that the missiles entered service in 1996. An air-launch was reported in June 2001. HN-2 started flight tests in February 1995, with four tests reported up to October 1997, and it is believed to have entered operational evaluation in 1998. A ground launched HN-2 was tested in August 2001. HN-3 was first flight tested in June 1999. There are no reported exports of any of the three versions.
Specifications
Length: 6.4 m (7.2 m including boost motor)
Body diameter: 0.5 m (HN-1), 0.7 m (HN-2), 0.75 m (HN-3)
Launch weight: 1,200 kg (HN-1), 1,400 kg (HN-2), 1,800 kg (HN-3)
Payload: Single warhead
Warhead: 20 to 90 kT nuclear, 400 kg HE or submunitions
Guidance: INS/GPS with tercom and TV correlation
Propulsion: Turbojet (HN-1), turbofan (HN-2/-3)
Range: 600 km (HN-1A), 650 km (HN-1B), 1,400 km (HN-2C), 1,800 km (HN-2A/B), 3,000 km (HN-3)
Accuracy: 15 to 20 m CEP (HN-1), 5 m CEP (HN-2/3)
Contractor
The development programme is believed to be directed by the 8359 (or 066) Research Institute and the Cruise Missile Institute of China. Manufacture is reported to be by the No 7 Machine Building Factory. The exporting of missiles is being managed by CPMIEC, Beijing.
crobato said:
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)
Type
Short- and intermediate-range, ground-, ship-, submarine-, air-launched, turbojet powered, single warhead, cruise missiles.
Development
Some reports suggest that the Chinese started a development programme around 1977 to develop a long-range cruise missile family. The missiles were required to carry a nuclear warhead for up to 3,000 km range. Initial development work was probably based on a design known as X-600, which had a design range of 600 km. The X-600 is believed to have used an HY-2 (Silkworm type) body, either a CAS-1 'Kraken' (YJ-6) or a CSSC-7 'Sadsack' (HY-4), with a turbojet engine attached on a pylon at the rear of the missile underbody. The turbojet may have been fixed on the pylon, or it may have been retracted during carried flight on the aircraft. Flight trials were made using a modified B-6D bomber (Tu-16 'Badger') with the test missiles carried inside the bomb bay or mounted on the underwing pylons. It is possible that the initial design was known as XW-41, which was believed to be a modified HY-4 with extending wings mounted on the underside of the body. Alternatively, the initial design may have been known as the YJ-61, a modified YJ-6. The development programme is believed to have been directed by the No.1 Research Institute, which had been called the Hai-Ying Electro-Mechanical Technology Academy, and had already developed the Hai-Ying family of short-range cruise missiles. The 8359 (possibly also known as the 066) Research Institute and the Cruise Missile Institute of China were established in the mid 1980s to centralise all cruise missile developments, and it is assumed that these now control the design work for the subsequent missile programmes. It is reported that the manufacturing of cruise missiles is carried out at the No 7 Machine Building Factory. The first test flight of X-600 was made in 1985, using a small turbojet engine especially developed for the project. This missile is believed to have had terrain-following radar and an optical correlation terminal seeker. It is reported that development testing began in 1988 of an improved design, which was given the Chinese designator Hong-Niao-1 (Red Bird-1). An alternative designator, DH-10, has been reported, but has not been confirmed. This missile has a range of 600 km and is believed to use an airframe similar in shape and size to the Russian AS-15A 'Kent' (Kh-55) and SS-N-21 'Sampson' (3M10) and to the American RGM-109 Tomahawk cruise missiles. There are two versions of the HN-1 missile; the HN-1A, which is ground-launched, and the HN-1B, which is air-launched. The HN-1 missiles began operational evaluation in 1992, and it is believed that they entered service around 1996.
Development of a longer range HN-2 missile followed, with three versions of this missile. It is believed that an improved turbofan engine is used to give longer range, with increased fuel carried. It is reported that the design of HN-2 was largely based on US Tomahawk technologies, recovered from crashed missiles. A US report gave the designator for HN-2 as YH-4, but this has not been confirmed. HN-2A and HN-2B are both believed to be ground- or ship-launched cruise missiles with a range of 1,800 km, and HN-2C is a submarine-launched version with a range of 1,400 km. There is a report of a submarine test launch being made in 1995, but this may have been of another missile. HN-2 is believed to have started operational evaluation in 1998.
A third version, HN-3, is now in development, with a range increased to 3,000 km. This missile can be ground-, ship-, or air-launched, and it is possible that a separate submarine-launched version will also be developed with a reduced range. It is possible that this missile uses technologies based upon the Russian AS-15B 'Kent' missile, integrated with Tomahawk technologies. The first test flight of HN-3 was reported in June 1999. An unconfirmed report suggested that a fourth version was also being designed, HN-2000, with a maximum range increased to 4,000 km and capable of supersonic cruise at high altitude.
The HN family of missiles appears to be developed for a wide variety of roles, with nuclear, high explosive and submunition warheads. Vertical launch capsules are being designed for use on ships and submarines, and it is possible that an encapsulated version has been successfully launched from standard 533 mm torpedo tubes. It is expected that HN missiles could be carried by 'Song' class (type 039), 'Kilo' class (type 877EKM/636) and the new type 093 submarines, and could be fitted to 'Luhai' and 'Luhu' class destroyers. The ground-launched versions could be carried by wheeled TEL vehicles, as the Chinese have displayed some large vehicles for ballistic missile TELs, and several of these vehicles could be adapted to carry four to six cruise missiles. Initial flight tests on the X-600 prototype were carried out using a modified B-6D bomber, and it is reported that some 25 of these are being upgraded to carry HN family missiles. A report in November 2002 indicated that four missiles were being carried by the B-6D aircraft. In addition, it is possible that one or two missiles could be carried by JH-7 (B-7), J-8IIM or Su-27 and Su-30 'Flanker' (J-11) aircraft.
Description
The HN-1 missile has a square shaped body, with two under-body mounted straight wings, a low tailplane and a vertical fin on the upper side. The wings, tail and fin unfold after launch. The air inlet for the turbojet engine is under the body at the rear of the missile, with the exhaust from the boat tail. The missile is believed to be 6.4 m long, and 7.2 m long with a tandem mounted boost motor. The body diameter is around 0.5 m, the wing span 2.5 m and the launch weight is reported to be 1,000 kg. The boost motor assembly weighs around 200 kg, giving the HN-1A ground-launched missile a launch weight of 1,200 kg. The boost motor assembly is jettisoned after use. It is believed that the payload weight is 400 kg, and that a 20 to 90 kT nuclear warhead, an HE warhead and a submunitions warhead are all options. A report in 1995 stated that China was developing 5 kg submunitions, with around 50 carried by a cruise missile. NORINCO has developed and offered for export several submunitions for use in cluster bombs since the early 1990s, and some of these could be used in the HN-1. Type 1 HE fragmentation submunitions weighing 5 kg, runway cratering submunitions weighing 20 kg, anti-armour submunitions with an IR sensor weighing 4.5 kg firing a shaped charge through top armour, small submunitions containing 765 steel balls, and fuel-air explosive submunitions could all be carried by HN-1 missiles. Mid-course guidance is reported to be provided by an INS/GPS system, with terrain comparison updates provided by a TV seeker. A radio altimeter is used for terrain following. Terminal guidance is by terrain comparison, using the same TV correlation system backed-up by a low-light level system for use at night. An accuracy of 15 to 20 m CEP has been reported. China has bought and developed several UAV that could be used to gather radar and optical pictures of intended targets, plus satellite pictures. The missile is powered by a turbojet engine, possibly with the Chinese designator W40. The ground-launched HN-1A has a tandem-mounted solid propellant boost motor that accelerates the missile up to around M 0.6, when the turbojet engine starts and takes over for the mid-course and terminal phases. The missile cruises at around M 0.8 at an altitude of 20 m. The minimum range of the HN-1 is probably around 50 km, the maximum range of the ground-launched version is 600 km, and the maximum range of the air-launched version 650 km when released from medium level (10 km altitude). The HN-1A version is ground-launched from a wheeled TEL vehicle, but the type of vehicle is unknown. The HN-1B is air launched from B-6D bombers, with two, three or four missiles carried per aircraft.
HN-2 has several improvements over the earlier HN-1 versions. A turbofan engine was developed for the HN-2 missile, believed to be based on the Russian Omsk OKB-designed TRDD-50 engine used in the SS-N-21 and AS-15 missiles, and manufactured in China from 1992. China has also had the opportunity to examine in detail several US-made RGM/UGM-109 Tomahawk cruise missiles that have malfunctioned and crash landed, following the extensive use of these missiles in Iraq, Bosnia, Serbia, Kosovo, Afghanistan and Sudan. A wide range of improved technologies have been made available, including INS/GPS guidance, computer hardware and software, electronics, power supplies, airframe, wings, fuel systems and small turbofan engines. The payloads and guidance of HN-2 is believed to be similar to that used by HN-1, but with the body diameter increased to 0.7 m and the launch weight increased to 1,400 kg including the tandem-mounted boost motor. The wing position on HN-2 has been changed, to a mid-body position. This version has a rectangular air inlet scoop halfway between the rear of the wings and the tailplane, on the underside of the body. The HN-2A and -2B versions are ground- and ship-launched missiles with a maximum range increased to 1,800 km. HN-2C is a submarine-launched version, believed to be launched through the 533 mm torpedo tubes using a launch capsule, with a range of 1,400 km. An accuracy of 5 m CEP has been reported.
HN-3 is believed to have had its maximum range increased to 3,000 km, and to have had further improvements. This version is reported to have a higher cruise speed of M 0.9, and to cruise at between 10 and 20 m altitude. The body diameter has been increased to around 0.75 m, and the launch weight, including the tandem-mounted boost motor, has been increased to 1,800 kg. It is believed that conformal fuel tanks have been added to this version, similar to those fitted to the Russian AS-15B.
HN-2000 is believed to be in design, with a supersonic cruise option at high level, and a maximum range increased to 4,000 km.
Operational status
The development work on the Hong-Niao family of cruise missiles is believed to have started in 1977, with design of a prototype known as X-600. The HN-1 missile was first flight tested in 1988, operational evaluation started in 1992, and it is believed that the missiles entered service in 1996. An air-launch was reported in June 2001. HN-2 started flight tests in February 1995, with four tests reported up to October 1997, and it is believed to have entered operational evaluation in 1998. A ground launched HN-2 was tested in August 2001. HN-3 was first flight tested in June 1999. There are no reported exports of any of the three versions.
Specifications
Length: 6.4 m (7.2 m including boost motor)
Body diameter: 0.5 m (HN-1), 0.7 m (HN-2), 0.75 m (HN-3)
Launch weight: 1,200 kg (HN-1), 1,400 kg (HN-2), 1,800 kg (HN-3)
Payload: Single warhead
Warhead: 20 to 90 kT nuclear, 400 kg HE or submunitions
Guidance: INS/GPS with tercom and TV correlation
Propulsion: Turbojet (HN-1), turbofan (HN-2/-3)
Range: 600 km (HN-1A), 650 km (HN-1B), 1,400 km (HN-2C), 1,800 km (HN-2A/B), 3,000 km (HN-3)
Accuracy: 15 to 20 m CEP (HN-1), 5 m CEP (HN-2/3)
Contractor
The development programme is believed to be directed by the 8359 (or 066) Research Institute and the Cruise Missile Institute of China. Manufacture is reported to be by the No 7 Machine Building Factory. The exporting of missiles is being managed by CPMIEC, Beijing.
Re: Jh-7 thread
DH-10 is not the same missile as the YJ-63. The DH-10 is a complete fire and forget LACM. The YJ-63 requires a man in the control loop, and it should work like any other TV guided weapon. Once over the target area, the weapons officer uses the missile's TV seeker to locate and lock the target.
DH-10 is not the same missile as the YJ-63. The DH-10 is a complete fire and forget LACM. The YJ-63 requires a man in the control loop, and it should work like any other TV guided weapon. Once over the target area, the weapons officer uses the missile's TV seeker to locate and lock the target.