The Q-5, J-7, J-8 and older PLAAF aircraft

i.e.

Senior Member
Now, onto your IR BVR missile, well that sounds a lot like the IR MICA tbh, and apart from the French, no-one seems all that keen on the idea. The Americans, Russians, Chinese, even the British and Germans never seriously tried to come up with something in the same class even after all these years. That clearly shows a consensus.

I do not like long and verbose post that don't get to the point quickly.

I will reply the rest later.

but...

Almost EVERY ONE of Soviet Long Range AAMs had both an IR model and a SARH model. The standard soviet tactics seem to rely on salvo firing both too.

and they has had combat success too.

In gulf war I, an Iraqi Mig-25 firing an R-23T IR-Medium Range well beyond vis range score a kill on an American F-18.

They are not as impotent nor neglected as you think.

certainly Americans were aware the effectiveness of such arrangement. The fact that both entry for the replacement for Phoenix missile the AIM-152. AAAM, put an IR-sensor as the terminal seeker in their design.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


and as you mentioned the French were interested MICA IR,

And are you aware that the IRIS-T has an 25 KM range, which was in beginning an requirement from Germans. So that crosses out Germans.

AND....

are you aware that the British led AIM-132 ASRAAM (or ass-ram) one requirement was to trade maneuverability for range, resulting most importantly much better kinetics at those range than the typical short range AAMs? based on a airframe that is not bigger and heavier than an standard AIM-9?

so out of that list...
The Americans, Russians, Chinese, even the British and Germans ...

That leaves... CHinese.
as the only ones do not have an good IR Mid range AAMs.
 

plawolf

Lieutenant General
Yes, you are right, I did forget about the Russian long range heat seekers.

However, the AIM152 was a cancelled project, and has not successor. No US BVR weapon is IR guided at present.

Classing IRIS-T and ASRAAM as 'BVR' weapons is a bit of a stretch. The PL9 has a 23km range btw, but that does not make it a BVR weapon.

The only nations with BVR class IR missiles are the French and the Russians. And the Russians do not use their IR seekers all that much iirc, which is why I forget about it at first, and that practice seem to be dying out as well, since I do not know of any IR versions of the R77 or more recent missile developments.
 

i.e.

Senior Member
Yes, you are right, I did forget about the Russian long range heat seekers.

However, the AIM152 was a cancelled project, and has not successor. No US BVR weapon is IR guided at present.

Classing IRIS-T and ASRAAM as 'BVR' weapons is a bit of a stretch. The PL9 has a 23km range btw, but that does not make it a BVR weapon.

The only nations with BVR class IR missiles are the French and the Russians. And the Russians do not use their IR seekers all that much iirc, which is why I forget about it at first, and that practice seem to be dying out as well, since I do not know of any IR versions of the R77 or more recent missile developments.

Russians love their IR Med range missiles and I think the only combat success for a mid range IR missile has been russians.

and I assure you the golden age of IR guidance is coming!

Pretty soon you will see IRST systems that has near 100 KM tracking range. (duh it is already here in F-35's DAS)
and almost all of today's newest IR missiles already uses a focal planar array to do infrared imaging. it is one more step to miniturize and mount a more capable seeker in a medium range missile body.

and as for ASRAAM/IRIS-T these new missiles, vs older, the idea is not to have a "true" BVR, but a missile that can utilize the seeker performance by trade high-g manuevability for kinetic performance at its extended range. manage chemical (rocket) energy - kinetic energy trade if you will and trade for high G maneuver with kinetic performance at end of the range.

an older AIM-9 may have the advertized range of 20 KM but at end of that flight most of its energy (speed.or.rocket burn) is gone and it can not manuever (trade speed for Gs). these newer missiles retains energy much better at those extended ranges.

The impetus is that if you can lock on and fire first in >10s of KMs instead of having to merge and close in to the traditional < 10Km useful range of AIM-9... that gives you an advantage.

these ranges are already close to what the useful range for Sparrow was.
 

plawolf

Lieutenant General
Russians love their IR Med range missiles and I think the only combat success for a mid range IR missile has been russians.

and I assure you the golden age of IR guidance is coming!

Pretty soon you will see IRST systems that has near 100 KM tracking range. (duh it is already here in F-35's DAS)
and almost all of today's newest IR missiles already uses a focal planar array to do infrared imaging. it is one more step to miniturize and mount a more capable seeker in a medium range missile body.

and as for ASRAAM/IRIS-T these new missiles, vs older, the idea is not to have a "true" BVR, but a missile that can utilize the seeker performance by trade high-g manuevability for kinetic performance at its extended range. manage chemical (rocket) energy - kinetic energy trade if you will and trade for high G maneuver with kinetic performance at end of the range.

an older AIM-9 may have the advertized range of 20 KM but at end of that flight most of its energy (speed.or.rocket burn) is gone and it can not manuever (trade speed for Gs). these newer missiles retains energy much better at those extended ranges.

The impetus is that if you can lock on and fire first in >10s of KMs instead of having to merge and close in to the traditional < 10Km useful range of AIM-9... that gives you an advantage.

these ranges are already close to what the useful range for Sparrow was.

As interesting as this discussion on possible BVR IR AAMs is, I feel we are getting a little off topic here.

If you want to start a new thread on IR BVR AAMs, we can continue this discussion there, but I think we should return the focus back to the J7 here.
 

Ian_PD

New Member
The PLAAF are already retiring the J-7E from its units, right? What will happen with this fighters (¿dozens, perhaps?)? They are going to be stored as reserve or scrapped? I think than this aircraft can be sold to countries with very limited budget, and the revenue will come from the refurbishment and support for the aircraft more than the sale of the aircraft itself.

The J-7E/G is still a viable fighter in my opinion, and its BVR capacity is not so limited if the aircraft is properly equipped with the correct radar (using the J-7FS nose) and the correct missile, and above all, deployed with the right strategy.

Greetings from Peru.
 

AssassinsMace

Lieutenant General
Here's something interesting. I came across a new US TV show called Around the World in 80 Ways. Basically two Americans are trying to travel around the world without using the same mode of transportation more than once. So in the end they show scenes of upcoming episodes and they seem to be flying in a couple PLAAF prop planes. It would be hard to believe they're private aircraft. So did the PLAAF accomodate a couple of Americans for their TV show?

snapshot001j.jpg

snapshotwl.jpg
 

Igor

Banned Idiot
»Ø¸´: The J-7 and older PLAAF aircraft

The J-7's are very quick little interceptors. Surely if armed with modern air to air weapons, the platform remains relevant?
 

Semi-Lobster

Junior Member
Here's something interesting. I came across a new US TV show called Around the World in 80 Ways. Basically two Americans are trying to travel around the world without using the same mode of transportation more than once. So in the end they show scenes of upcoming episodes and they seem to be flying in a couple PLAAF prop planes. It would be hard to believe they're private aircraft. So did the PLAAF accomodate a couple of Americans for their TV show?

snapshot001j.jpg

snapshotwl.jpg

Those are CJ-5s which have all been retired, they're definitely not PLAAF aircraft.
 

siegecrossbow

General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Here's something interesting. I came across a new US TV show called Around the World in 80 Ways. Basically two Americans are trying to travel around the world without using the same mode of transportation more than once. So in the end they show scenes of upcoming episodes and they seem to be flying in a couple PLAAF prop planes. It would be hard to believe they're private aircraft. So did the PLAAF accomodate a couple of Americans for their TV show?

snapshot001j.jpg

snapshotwl.jpg

CJ-5s are very popular amongst American aviation enthusiasts. Those are definitely not PLAAF CJ-5s but probably one of the CJ-5s sold to the states during the 80s.
 
Top