It is time for Navy Air Arm to take over from PAF and start flying JF-17's

[GriffinsRule]

Hi,

For naval strike missions---JH7A is still the best option out there.

Explain please.

Its designation, 'JH' should give you a hint towards its mission. Its a fighter-bomber in the same role as Tornado GR or F-111. These planes are perfect if you need a bomb truck but that is not what the PAF requirement is. A JH-7 would never be operating without cover being provided by escort fighters like their Su-27 clones etc, similarly to what happens with aircraft of the same role/class in other air forces. Main reason being, JH-7 is as maneuverable as a truck. It will be sitting duck against Su-30s, Mig-29Ks and Rafales from the Indian side.

If we then assume that it will be escorted by JF-17s, then well we might as well just use the Thunder for naval missions as well since they have the capability for carrying out these missions. Otherwise we need a true multirole fighter 4th generation fighter, not a dedicated strike platform which bring very little to the table besides range.

It is also one of the older designs from the late 70s, early 80s era of Chinese aerospace days, when their aviation industry was still in its adolescent days. It is not an aircraft that will serve you for the next 20-30 years. If it was such a great option, PAF would have showed interest in it a long time ago when it has been looking at every XYZ but it has never come up as an option, besides on forums like this, and for good reason.

 

[Ultima Thule]

Its designation, 'JH' should give you a hint towards its mission. Its a fighter-bomber in the same role as Tornado GR or F-111. These planes are perfect if you need a bomb truck but that is not what the PAF requirement is. A JH-7 would never be operating without cover being provided by escort fighters like their Su-27 clones etc, similarly to what happens with aircraft of the same role/class in other air forces. Main reason being, JH-7 is as maneuverable as a truck. It will be sitting duck against Su-30s, Mig-29Ks and Rafales from the Indian side.

If we then assume that it will be escorted by JF-17s, then well we might as well just use the Thunder for naval missions as well since they have the capability for carrying out these missions. Otherwise we need a true multirole fighter 4th generation fighter, not a dedicated strike platform which bring very little to the table besides range.

It is also one of the older designs from the late 70s, early 80s era of Chinese aerospace days, when their aviation industry was still in its adolescent days. It is not an aircraft that will serve you for the next 20-30 years. If it was such a great option, PAF would have showed interest in it a long time ago when it has been looking at every XYZ but it has never come up as an option, besides on forums like this, and for good reason.

Jh-7 main mission is ANTISHIP jh-7A the latest version can defend itself from the enemy because its radar is same as j10a radar which could fire SD-10/10A weapon loadout 7-8 tons its a best available/cheapest option for Pakistan do research before you post @GriffinsRule

 

[Ultima Thule]

It is also one of the older designs from the late 70s, early 80s era of Chinese aerospace days, when their aviation industry was still in its adolescent days. It is not an aircraft that will serve you for the next 20-30 years. If it was such a great option, PAF would have showed interest in it a long time ago when it has been looking at every XYZ but it has never come up as an option, besides on forums like this, and for good reason.

And su27, f-15,f16,MIG29 is/was not designed in 70, 80's infact su35 based on su27 and do research before you post @GriffinsRule

 

[GriffinsRule]

Jh-7 main mission is ANTISHIP jh-7A the latest version can defend itself from the enemy because its radar is same as j10a radar which could fire SD-10/10A weapon loadout 7-8 tons its a best available/cheapest option for Pakistan do research before you post @GriffinsRule

LOL and what do you think would happen once the BVR missiles miss and the fight gets within visual range you suppose? After all, Su-30s will have BVR missiles as well.

Also, since it has never been exported, how do you know if it is a cheap option? Certainly not cheaper then JF-17 am I right?

And su27, f-15,f16,MIG29 is/was not designed in 70, 80's infact su35 based on su27 and do research before you post @GriffinsRule

Yes they were designed in the 70/80 by countries with lot of experience and expertise making jet fighters. China in the 80s was a newbie in comparison and it is clearly reflected in the JH-7's design.

Anyways, if JH-7 was so great, PAF would have elected to procure it already.

 

[Ultima Thule]

LOL and what do you think would happen once the BVR missiles miss and the fight gets within visual range you suppose? After all, Su-30s will have BVR missiles as well.

Also, since it has never been exported, how do you know if it is a cheap option? Certainly not cheaper then JF-17 am I right?



Yes they were designed in the 70/80 by countries with lot of experience and expertise making jet fighters. China in the 80s was a newbie in comparison and it is clearly reflected in the JH-7's design.

Anyways, if JH-7 was so great, PAF would have elected to procure it already.

so same think will happen to J-11, Su-30 and other Jets all round the world, and it was dedicated maritime striker/ CAS Jet like Tornado's, Su-24, F-111 and was well designed at that time, lot Cheaper than J-11 series, Su- series of jets, the main Problem for PAF is not satisfy its electronics ECM, ECCM/ ES/EW, that's why Pakistan didn't buy it
take a look at JH-7 yourself @GriffinsRule
JH-7 Flounder/Flying Leopard


This tandem-seat fighter bomber in the same of class of Tornado and Su-24 (max TO weight 28,500kg, weapon load 6,500kg, max speed Mach 1.7, ferry range 3,650km, combat radius 1,650km) entered limited service with PLA naval aviation in 1994, replacing old Il-28 torpedo bombers. Designed by Xian Aircraft Design Institute (603 Institute) and built by Xian Aircraft Company (XAC), the JH-7 prototype first flew in December 1988. However it did not complete the development until late 1996 after successfully test-firing YJ-81 ASM (after the loss of one prototype and two test pilots due to engine failure). Its standard mission is anti-ship, where it carries up to 4 YJ-81/YJ-83K AShMs under the wing plus two wingtip PL-5B AAMs and a twin 23mm cannon (200 rounds) for self-defense. It can also carry rocket pods or up to 20 250kg free-fall bombs for ground attack mission. The naval JH-7 can also carry aerial mines for mine laying missions. The aircraft is equipped with a complete set of avionics which initially suffered a high malfunction rate. Its onboard system consists of Type 232H Eagle Eye multi-role radar, triplex digital-analog autopilot, 8145 air-data computer, WG-5A radio altimeter, 210 Doppler navigational system and HZX-1B "stabilizing" system; EW suite includes RW1045 RWR, 960-2 noise jamming system, and 914-4G passive jamming system. JH-7 was first revealed on TV during the naval exercise in October 1995. However due to its 1970's design as well as two underpowered Rolls-Royce Spey MK202/WS-9 turbofans (20,515lb with afterburning), it was rejected by PLAAF who is in favor of Su-30MKK and has become the first dedicated maritime attack aircraft for PLA Naval Aviation. All pre-production JH-7s (around 18, S/N 81x6x) are believed to be stationed at Dachang Airbase near Shanghai. Nonetheless, engineers at 603 Institute are still making various improvements on JH-7 which include the new JL-10A PD radar, one-piece windshield, two additional underwing hardpoints, new databus and INS/GPS. The result is the upgraded JH-7A(see below), capable of delivering a variety of PGMs and stand-off missiles. Its export version is dubbed FBC-1 (Fighter/Bomber Export-1), which was unveiled at Zhuhai International Airshow in November 1998, but has yet to attract any foreign customers. Between 2002 and 2004 PLAN received the last batch of about 20 improved JH-7s (02 Batch? S/N 82x6x), where are powered by additional second-hand Sprey MK202 turbofan engines supplied by Rolls-Royce. These JH-7s have upgraded avionics including the new JL-10A (with enhanced AA & AG modes and compatible with YJ-83K AShM) multi-mode PD radar replacing the old Type 232H. In late 2007 JH-7 was first seen carrying large ECM pods under the wings without any weapons. They are part of a new frequency jamming system and consist of one receiver pod and four different transmitter pods, each covering different frequencies. Therefore the aircraft could provide an electronic shield for other JH-7s within the formation similar to American EF-111 (though limited in terms of capability). Recent images indicated that all early batch of JH-7s have been upgraded with the JL-10A PD fire-control radar as well as a new datalink antenna behind the cockpit.
- Last Updated 4/1/16
JH-7A Flounder/Flying Leopard

A PLAAF JH-7A was photographed while it was approaching for landing. The first batch of JH-7A entered the service with PLAAF (S/N 30x9x, 62x6x, 64x2x, 31x9x, 72x1x, 78x6x, 73x7x) in late 2004. Unlike the naval JH-7A (S/N 83x9x, 82x5x, 82x7x) which first entered the service earlier in 2004, it wears a medium-blue color scheme and has the serial number painted under the side of cockpit. First revealed as a full-scale mockup, this improved variant of JH-7 was seen carrying a full range of air-to-air and air-to-surface weapon load, reflecting its enhanced capability of launching precision strikes using anti-radiation missiles and LGBs. The precision strike capability is believed to be a major requirement JH-7A has to meet in order to attract orders from PLAAF. This capability is thought to be achieved by the JL-10A/AG (K/LKK10?) multi-mode PD radar integrated into a new fire-control system, plus an improved "stabilizing" system (analog FBW) giving the aircraft a true terrain-following capability. The aircraft also features a one-piece windshield and a tandem glass cockpit (front/rear) and HOTAS. It also has new wings and horizontal stabilizers made of composite materials and have the 1950 style wing fences removed. As the result, a few hundred kilograms of weight has been eliminated. The engines are the indigenous WS-9 Qinling turbofans (certified in July 2003) replacing the original R&R Spey MK202s. The aircraft has a total of 11 hardpoints, 6 underwing, 2 wingtip, 2 under the engine intakes and 1 under the fuselage. Currently PLAAF JH-7As are equipped with PL-8 AAM, LS-500J & GB500 LGB, KD-88/KD-88A TV/IIR guided ASM and YJ-91ARM. A datalink pod can be carried underneath the engine intake for KD-88 ASM. Similarly a laser designation pod (K/JDC01) can be carried to paint targets for LS-500J LGBs. It can also carry two large ECM pods similar to those being carried by JH-7. In addition to ECM missions, the aircraft can also fly ELINT/SIGINT missions carrying two receiver pods. The naval JH-7A can also drop 250kg aerial mines (MKC-03-500?) as well. 5 prototypes were built (#811-815), with the first JH-7A prototype taking off on July 1, 2002. Since 2009 most JH-7As have been upgraded with a new UHF/VHF antenna behind the cockpit. In 2014 JH-7A started to carry KL700A ECM pod (KG600) for self-defence. The latest image (November 2016) suggested that it started to the bigger and more powerful KG800 ECM pod, which can provide the electronic protection for the attacking formation.Its export version is called JH-7E but is unlikely to attract any foreign customer due to its obsolete design. JH-7A is expected to be replaced by J-16.

 

[GriffinsRule]

so same think will happen to J-11, Su-30 and other Jets all round the world, and it was dedicated maritime striker/ CAS Jet like Tornado's, Su-24, F-111 and was well designed at that time, lot Cheaper than J-11 series, Su- series of jets, the main Problem for PAF is not satisfy its electronics ECM, ECCM/ ES/EW, that's why Pakistan didn't buy it
take a look at JH-7 yourself @GriffinsRule
.

Yes, a merge will also happen with Su-30s, Rafales, JF-17s etc, but these fighters are much more capable of holding on their own against other fighters versus a lumbering behemoth that is the JH-7. If PAF wants to have it as their strike platform for any reason, if would then have to dedicate long range interceptors, like the Su-27 to provide it top-cover, with sufficient range to accompany the strike aircraft in order to fully exploit its range. But at that point, just buy the Su-27s and use them for that role.

Anyways, you don't need to preach me the virtues of JH-7. If you think its the BEST option for PAF's maritime role, then good for you. I am not going to be convinced by you copy-pasting blocks of text from the web without any critical thinking of your own.

Its export version is called JH-7E but is unlikely to attract any foreign customer due to its obsolete design. JH-7A is expected to be replaced by J-16.

BTW, did you read the last line of what you posted yourself?

 

[PakShaheen79]

The ultimate question is who will fight the air-sea battle for Pakistan? Navy or Airforce. Most important topic in the context of Pakistan's conventional defense, I must say. Why I am saying this, must read my research paper on the very specific topic published by NDU a few years back.
http://www.ndu.edu.pk/issra/issra_p...galla-Papers-2012/05-Eurasian-Geopolitics.pdf
To me, either PN or PAF can take the role but the real question is do we have the right tool for the job? both the platform and weapon systems. The answer is relative to how do we look at the prevailing situation. In a defensive role, we are slowly getting there with JF-17/C-802AK and JF-17/CM-400AK combinations along with coast based anti-ship weapons we acquired in recent years. For offensive and deep-sea air strike missions against Indian carriers and guided missile destroyers, we are lacking the ideal platform (Flankers? May be Mig-35s). Senior political and military leadership is responsible to fill this critical gap ASAP.

 

[MastanKhan]

Its designation, 'JH' should give you a hint towards its mission. Its a fighter-bomber in the same role as Tornado GR or F-111. These planes are perfect if you need a bomb truck but that is not what the PAF requirement is. A JH-7 would never be operating without cover being provided by escort fighters like their Su-27 clones etc, similarly to what happens with aircraft of the same role/class in other air forces. Main reason being, JH-7 is as maneuverable as a truck. It will be sitting duck against Su-30s, Mig-29Ks and Rafales from the Indian side.

If we then assume that it will be escorted by JF-17s, then well we might as well just use the Thunder for naval missions as well since they have the capability for carrying out these missions. Otherwise we need a true multirole fighter 4th generation fighter, not a dedicated strike platform which bring very little to the table besides range.

It is also one of the older designs from the late 70s, early 80s era of Chinese aerospace days, when their aviation industry was still in its adolescent days. It is not an aircraft that will serve you for the next 20-30 years. If it was such a great option, PAF would have showed interest in it a long time ago when it has been looking at every XYZ but it has never come up as an option, besides on forums like this, and for good reason.

Hi,

Your posts hows that your are not familiar how strike missions are carried out---. They don't go in under the umbrella of an escort---.

An aircraft like the F111 moves in flying low close to the surface---so it stays below the radar---. F111 does not have any swift moves and that was the aircraft that the russians feared the most---.

JH7 is purely based on the F111 except for the swing wing---.

You use your ECM jamming pods for the mission---and if there is an escort---then the escort will do its job---and the strike aircraft does its job.

The reason Japan made the F2---larger than the F16---because they knew that they had to fight a naval war with their enemy---and they decided that their primary strike aircraft for naval mission would have to carry TWO heavy AShM---each a 1000 KG weight minimum.

Every aircraft would be a sitting duck against the other aircraft when salvos of BVR missiles are launched---.

By the way---the F15 had terrible manuverability---barely 5 G's when loaded in the strike mode---and same goes for the f16's when it is loaded up with bombs---.

You thought that the F16 would be doing 9 g's when it is loaded up with 7500 kg of bombs---!!!

Gambit had written an excellent post a few weeks back---but you kids don't learn nothing---except to argue---.

The F16 & F15 are late 60's early 70's design---Mirage 3 is a late 50's design---F22 is a late 80's early 90's design---.

The chinese stole the design of the F111---the best low flying strike aircraft that there is---.

The JH7 can use a same sized aesa radar as the J15---and modified to be used as a BVR truck---just like the US has done with the B1 bomber---.

Get the term MERGE out of your diction---merges are not going to happen on the conventional 3rd 4th and 4.5 gen aircraft---they will launch ther BVR's and bug out of the arena---.

Only the 5th gen aircraft would have the choice of the merge---because the enemy radar would not be able to see them---secondly---even if the enemy saw them---they would have an impossible mission of getting a lock on the aircraft.

The 5th gen will merge---because its BVR volleys would have destroyed most of enemy aircraft and the remaining would be confused as to what happened---.

Now when you want to send a strike aircraft against a ship----you at least want 2 heavy AShM per aircraft to be launched at the ship.

Tactically---you cannot say---we will have 2 aircraft with one AShM each---now we have two missiles---. You have to assume that only one aircraft will get thru---and it must have 2 chances to take the enemy ship out---.

Percentages are very low for one AShM to hit the target against enemy counter measures---.

I am just repeating what I wrote years ago---and yet you are coming back with the same lame excuses--how sad.

 

[GriffinsRule]

Hi,

Your posts hows that your are not familiar how strike missions are carried out---. They don't go in under the umbrella of an escort---.

An aircraft like the F111 moves in flying low close to the surface---so it stays below the radar---. F111 does not have any swift moves and that was the aircraft that the russians feared the most---.

JH7 is purely based on the F111 except for the swing wing---.

You use your ECM jamming pods for the mission---and if there is an escort---then the escort will do its job---and the strike aircraft does its job.

The reason Japan made the F2---larger than the F16---because they knew that they had to fight a naval war with their enemy---and they decided that their primary strike aircraft for naval mission would have to carry TWO heavy AShM---each a 1000 KG weight minimum.

Every aircraft would be a sitting duck against the other aircraft when salvos of BVR missiles are launched---.

By the way---the F15 had terrible manuverability---barely 5 G's when loaded in the strike mode---and same goes for the f16's when it is loaded up with bombs---.

You thought that the F16 would be doing 9 g's when it is loaded up with 7500 kg of bombs---!!!

Gambit had written an excellent post a few weeks back---but you kids don't learn nothing---except to argue---.

The F16 & F15 are late 60's early 70's design---Mirage 3 is a late 50's design---F22 is a late 80's early 90's design---.

The chinese stole the design of the F111---the best low flying strike aircraft that there is---.

The JH7 can use a same sized aesa radar as the J15---and modified to be used as a BVR truck---just like the US has done with the B1 bomber---.

Get the term MERGE out of your diction---merges are not going to happen on the conventional 3rd 4th and 4.5 gen aircraft---they will launch ther BVR's and bug out of the arena---.

Only the 5th gen aircraft would have the choice of the merge---because the enemy radar would not be able to see them---secondly---even if the enemy saw them---they would have an impossible mission of getting a lock on the aircraft.

The 5th gen will merge---because its BVR volleys would have destroyed most of enemy aircraft and the remaining would be confused as to what happened---.

Now when you want to send a strike aircraft against a ship----you at least want 2 heavy AShM per aircraft to be launched at the ship.

Tactically---you cannot say---we will have 2 aircraft with one AShM each---now we have two missiles---. You have to assume that only one aircraft will get thru---and it must have 2 chances to take the enemy ship out---.

Percentages are very low for one AShM to hit the target against enemy counter measures---.

I am just repeating what I wrote years ago---and yet you are coming back with the same lame excuses--how sad.

Well, I am not going to argue with you on opinions. I still think the aircraft is shit and PAF will not touch it with a 10ft pole thank goodness

 

[MastanKhan]

Well, I am not going to argue with you on opinions. I still think the aircraft is shit and PAF will not touch it with a 10ft pole thank goodness

Hi,

I will agree to a part of your comment---Paf did not touch the best of the aircraft available either---The Rafale---.

Stated that it did not meet their standards and was not battle proven--.

And then after the Libyan air strikes---they changed to stance to " oh we did not know it could do all that "---.

 

[GriffinsRule]

Hi,

I will agree to a part of your comment---Paf did not touch the best of the aircraft available either---The Rafale---.

Stated that it did not meet their standards and was not battle proven--.

And then after the Libyan air strikes---they changed to stance to " oh we did not know it could do all that "---.

I am not privy to what assessments PAF made of all the aircraft they have tested and if they were ever made public. Your quotation marks seem to suggest someone literally said that. Care to share who, where etc. Seems like something a very unprofessional person would say, not any officer serving as they know better than all of us what these platforms have to offer.

 

[KapitaanAli]

Hi,

Your posts hows that your are not familiar how strike missions are carried out---. They don't go in under the umbrella of an escort---.

An aircraft like the F111 moves in flying low close to the surface---so it stays below the radar---. F111 does not have any swift moves and that was the aircraft that the russians feared the most---.

JH7 is purely based on the F111 except for the swing wing---.

You use your ECM jamming pods for the mission---and if there is an escort---then the escort will do its job---and the strike aircraft does its job.

The reason Japan made the F2---larger than the F16---because they knew that they had to fight a naval war with their enemy---and they decided that their primary strike aircraft for naval mission would have to carry TWO heavy AShM---each a 1000 KG weight minimum.

Every aircraft would be a sitting duck against the other aircraft when salvos of BVR missiles are launched---.

By the way---the F15 had terrible manuverability---barely 5 G's when loaded in the strike mode---and same goes for the f16's when it is loaded up with bombs---.

You thought that the F16 would be doing 9 g's when it is loaded up with 7500 kg of bombs---!!!

Gambit had written an excellent post a few weeks back---but you kids don't learn nothing---except to argue---.

The F16 & F15 are late 60's early 70's design---Mirage 3 is a late 50's design---F22 is a late 80's early 90's design---.

The chinese stole the design of the F111---the best low flying strike aircraft that there is---.

The JH7 can use a same sized aesa radar as the J15---and modified to be used as a BVR truck---just like the US has done with the B1 bomber---.

Get the term MERGE out of your diction---merges are not going to happen on the conventional 3rd 4th and 4.5 gen aircraft---they will launch ther BVR's and bug out of the arena---.

Only the 5th gen aircraft would have the choice of the merge---because the enemy radar would not be able to see them---secondly---even if the enemy saw them---they would have an impossible mission of getting a lock on the aircraft.

The 5th gen will merge---because its BVR volleys would have destroyed most of enemy aircraft and the remaining would be confused as to what happened---.

Now when you want to send a strike aircraft against a ship----you at least want 2 heavy AShM per aircraft to be launched at the ship.

Tactically---you cannot say---we will have 2 aircraft with one AShM each---now we have two missiles---. You have to assume that only one aircraft will get thru---and it must have 2 chances to take the enemy ship out---.

Percentages are very low for one AShM to hit the target against enemy counter measures---.

I am just repeating what I wrote years ago---and yet you are coming back with the same lame excuses--how sad.

But JH7 is still more like a work in progress, if you consider modernity.

It'll take years for it to be something Pak would want if interest is expressed now. By then, J16 will replace them in China and Pak will be stuck with the maintenance of an obsolete design with twin engines, God knows of what origin.

 

[MastanKhan]

I am not privy to what assessments PAF made of all the aircraft they have tested and if they were ever made public. Your quotation marks seem to suggest someone literally said that. Care to share who, where etc. Seems like something a very unprofessional person would say, not any officer serving as they know better than all of us what these platforms have to offer.

Hi,

Those comments came from the upper command---and it was in the news papers---before that they said the same thing for the M2K's as well---and long before that they stated the same thing for the Mirage F1's as well---.

Now after 33 years---the Paf has an aircraft that is as capable as the Mirage F1 except for flyby wire---modern avionics and modern weapons---.

 

[YeBeWarned]

Other than JF-17 what is the best option you people think for PN:
Grippen
Rafael - If France allows
EF-2000
SU-35
J-31

J-11 or J-16D 1 Full sq consist of 18 units ..

 

[ziaulislam]

Well, I am not going to argue with you on opinions. I still think the aircraft is shit and PAF will not touch it with a 10ft pole thank goodness

you will learn to ignore our senior brother