JH-7 News & Discussions

Deino · Nov 18, 2019

FuturePAF said:
Looking at the diameter, length, and weight of the current engine on the JH-7A and the Al-31/Al-41F as a stand in for the Chinese WS-10 Engine, the current engine could be replaced and still leave room for structural modifications to improve the aircraft's situational awareness and war-fighting capabilities (addition of a RWR and Rear Jammer).

Due to the political difficulties getting a J-11 or J-16, re-engine-ing the Jh-7A with the same engine as the J-10C for commonality of parts and a higher thrust maybe the best way to get a heavy lift aircraft for the least amount of money. The current engine is longer, wider, and heavier then the Al-31/Al-41F/WS-10.

With two WS-10 Engines, the thrust would near the levels of the H-6 Bomber. With that amount of dry thrust, the JH-7A maybe able to lift the same kind of heavy supersonic Anti-ship Cruise missiles.

open question to everyone:
With change in the engine, would the higher thrust allow the aircraft to be able to carry something like the YJ-12?
A Photo-shopped picture to demonstrate (the missile may not be sized right, but this is just for demonstration purposes):

The YJ-12 on the H-6

Thats all a speculative would, could and should eventually discussion, but the JH-7 is simply too old for such a costly programme.

FuturePAF · Nov 18, 2019

Deino said:
Thats all a speculative would, could and should eventually discussion, but the JH-7 is simply too old for such a costly programme.

Sure it’s speculation, but what other option do we have. I would rather we go for the J-16, but if we can’t get that then we need to find other means of carrying heavy supersonic anti ship cruise missiles.

We need a platform that can serve for at least a generation. I agree it’s an old design, but it should not be seen as a fighter; agile and used for bvr and wvr combat. Rather it should be seen as a low level penetration naval bomber.

It all comes down to costs and the ability of the air frame to handle such a modification. It’s worth consider planes build in the 90s rather than buying old Mirage 3/5 built much earlier, at least for the naval role; where we need higher payload capacity and enough range to engage enemy ships further out.

Deino · Nov 18, 2019

FuturePAF said:
Sure it’s speculation, but what other option do we have. I would rather we go for the J-16, but if we can’t get that then we need to find other means of carrying heavy supersonic anti ship cruise missiles.

We need a platform that can serve for at least a generation. I agree it’s an old design, but it should not be seen as a fighter; agile and used for bvr and wvr combat. Rather it should be seen as a low level penetration naval bomber.

It all comes down to costs and the ability of the air frame to handle such a modification. It’s worth consider planes build in the 90s rather than buying old Mirage 3/5 built much earlier, at least for the naval role; where we need higher payload capacity and enough range to engage enemy ships further out.

Sorry to say so, but if you mean with "we" = "the PAF", then either forget it or spare some money - and it will be a lot - and found that surely not easy development on your own.

I cannot think that the PLAAF nor the Chinese aviation industry will pay for an expensive and extensive project to re-engine an old and dated type with a new engine, then to design, develop and manufacture, to test and certify and finally to convert them.

Just plain and simple: why should they?

In PLAAF service the future lies in the J-16 and if the PAF will get the old ones is one question, the other one, if you could pay for this?

Deino

FuturePAF · Nov 18, 2019

Deino said:
Sorry to say so, but if you mean with "we" = "the PAF", then either forget it or spare some money - and it will be a lot - and found that surely not easy development on your own.

I cannot think that the PLAAF nor the Chinese aviation industry will pay for an expensive and extensive project to re-engine an old and dated type with a new engine, then to design, develop and manufacture, to test and certify and finally to convert them.

Just plain and simple: why should they?

In PLAAF service the future lies in the J-16 and if the PAF will get the old ones is one question, the other one, if you could pay for this?

Deino

Fair points. It would have been a lot of work on an old air frame.

What do you think the PAF is think via a vi providing support to naval forces?

Fsjal · Nov 19, 2019

Deino said:
Sorry to say so, but if you mean with "we" = "the PAF", then either forget it or spare some money - and it will be a lot - and found that surely not easy development on your own.

I cannot think that the PLAAF nor the Chinese aviation industry will pay for an expensive and extensive project to re-engine an old and dated type with a new engine, then to design, develop and manufacture, to test and certify and finally to convert them.

Just plain and simple: why should they?

In PLAAF service the future lies in the J-16 and if the PAF will get the old ones is one question, the other one, if you could pay for this?

Deino

I'm probably a little late to this but another thing to add is that the JH-7 is limited in its capability compared to the J-16. While the J-16 itself is a truly flexible multirole strike fighter, the JH-7 on the other hand is more of a fighter-bomber with main-emphasis on air-to-ground strike roles (air-interdiction and close-air support) with only a secondary A2A capability. JH-7A does have BVR capability due to the usage of JL-10A pulse-Doppler radar and it is said to be capable of carrying PL-12 BVRAAMs as well (although I have never seen pics of an actual JH-7A or a model carrying PL-12s), however at best the JH-7A would be more of a mediocre interceptor than an actual effective fighter (the plane wouldn't be as maneuverable as something like J-10 or J-11/16, making it unfit for dogfighting while its slow speed and the JL-10A being less advanced makes it pretty outdated for an interceptor against modern opponents).

I could roughly compare the JH-7 to something like the older-generation F-4E Phantom II and the J-16 to F-15E Strike Eagle, if this was the 70s or 80s then JH-7 would of actually been a decent interceptor too. Realistically, the only time a JH-7A would be used fully in A2A role is if it was being used by a foreign customer that doesn't have any dedicated interceptor planes in service. PLAAF has no interests in using JH-7 in an A2A role since PLAAF has hundreds of dedicated fighters in the first place.

FuturePAF said:
Sure it’s speculation, but what other option do we have. I would rather we go for the J-16, but if we can’t get that then we need to find other means of carrying heavy supersonic anti ship cruise missiles.

We need a platform that can serve for at least a generation. I agree it’s an old design, but it should not be seen as a fighter; agile and used for bvr and wvr combat. Rather it should be seen as a low level penetration naval bomber.

It all comes down to costs and the ability of the air frame to handle such a modification. It’s worth consider planes build in the 90s rather than buying old Mirage 3/5 built much earlier, at least for the naval role; where we need higher payload capacity and enough range to engage enemy ships further out.

If Pakistan is in need of long-range coastal defense using supersonic heavy AShM, a more cost-effective solution is to simply acquire heavy AShMs and utilize them on either current-service warships or newly-bought warships. Air-lunching heavy AShMs has its advantages, and JH-7 was also created with maritime strike role in mind, however re-engining the JH-7 would be costly. Applying modern avionics on an older airframe works, but changing the JH-7's WS-9 engines with WS-13 engines would take time and effort to modify the airframe design in order to accommodate the new engines, this isn't impossible since Israel showed this by creating the Kfir and replacing the older French SNECMA Atar engine used on their Mirages and Neshers with the more-powerful American GE J79 engine, however this took time and money for Israel Aircraft Industries to achieve.

The most cost-effective solution for giving Pakistan Navy airborne anti-ship capability would be to simply buy the JH-7E variant without putting too much modification to it so as to keep the price low. Applying new avionics on JH-7E is the best way to keep the plane up to date in its capabilities but re-engining them would increase the price of operating and maintaining them (although having the planes use WS-13 does create commonality with any JF-17s using the WS-13 also).

lcloo · Nov 19, 2019

The better option is to acquired JH-7A from existing stock from PLAAF/PLAN, and upgrade on its radar and avionics. There no need to change to another type of engine or alter the fuselage structure as the costs involved could be prohibitive.

JH-7 is in the league of Jaguar, Buccaneer, Tornado strike variant, SU-24 etc. many of which have since retired.