JF-17 Thunder Multirole Fighter [Thread 3]

[TaimiKhan]

which jet is a better dogfighter j-7 or j-8 or jh-7a

J-8 & J-7 both are interceptors, difference is:

J-8 is a double engine high altitude interceptor for bombers & spy planes which fly at higher altitudes where J-7 could not reach.

If you look at the pic, the shape nearly seems that of a J-7 interceptor, just having two engines, intakes on the side as a large radar was needed on it & large airframe.

While J-7, single engined, light interceptor.

JH-7A is designed for ground attack missions, so it may be bad at dog fights.

J-7 latest versions may win at lower altitude as its small & would be more maneuverable. But J-8 may not suck too as it has nearly the same designed body structure as J-7.

JH-7A not built for dog fights.

 

[TaimiKhan]

J-8F carry SD-10/PL-12

J-7

 

[Arsalan]

hmm, when will we see a pic of JF carrying one!

i cant wait!

 

[TaimiKhan]

hmm, when will we see a pic of JF carrying one!

i cant wait!

Just for satisfaction purposes till don't see one with operational one here is a JF-17 prototype equipped with SD-10 & Python 4

 

[sancho]

Even if it require two of those precision guided munitions to destroy a ground radar, it is worth the created electronic gap. The mission does not have to be that nuclear facility. It cannot go anywhere. The mission could be against the air defenses around that nuclear facility. With precise timing, and keep in mind we did have such timing back in Desert Storm, a few F-35s each is armed with only two precision guided munitions, can destroy or seriously degrade the electronic coverage of a valuable ground target. Let the high altitude B-52s or the sneakier low altitude B-1s finish off that nuclear facility.

I also meant strikes against ground radars or sams, which comes in numbers. So if you send only F35 with only 2 a2g weapons, they would need much longer, or way more F35s to take them out right?
Donno, but I somehow doubt that they will send double as much fighters, just to keep the advantage of stealth and internal weapon carriage, if maybe only 2 are needed with just some more weapons.
However, we will see how big the difference of RCS really will be after F35 is inducted.

 

[gambit]

I also meant strikes against ground radars or sams, which comes in numbers. So if you send only F35 with only 2 a2g weapons, they would need much longer, or way more F35s to take them out right?
Donno, but I somehow doubt that they will send double as much fighters, just to keep the advantage of stealth and internal weapon carriage, if maybe only 2 are needed with just some more weapons.
However, we will see how big the difference of RCS really will be after F35 is inducted.

I was in a winter exercise with the ROK Marines against Osan and Kunsan way back in the evil-Soviet-empire days and if I was not in my SIGINT role all I needed was two grenades to disable the radar section of any SAM station. Desert Storm with the US Army's Apache strikes on Iraq's air defense radars were overkill but it was nothing out of the usual as the Apaches were seeking total destruction, not disablement. The result was a radar coverage gap and that was all we needed. In our exercises, we have inspectors who can issue on-the-spot instant simulated disablement of any equipment, from a fuel truck to an aircraft or even to entire airfield and there is nothing anyone can do about it other than to scramble to adjust their plans. Those who are disabled cannot even inform their superiors that they are out of the exercise. That was what happened with Iraq's air defense, that Saddam was totally ignorant of his blindness.

The myth that no F-35 would be sent unless there is air dominance persists and no amount of logical thinking and evidences will change some minds and we really do not care as their opinions do not affect our goals. In pre-war planning, situations will be in flux and the truth is that conventional and VLO aircrafts are EQUALLY lethal in terms of deliverable ordnance. Two F-35s to destroy two SAM stations can induce considerable confusion and unless the defenders are well trained on how to compensate for the sudden loss of information, the battle is lost for the defenders. Human behaviors are predictable in many situations and sudden loss of information is one of them. There is ALWAYS hesitancy in the decision making process and inevitably translate to increased response time. VLO aircrafts are threats to this response time.

 

[wangrong]

J-7

sir,
it is J81,not j7

please see this pic,double engine

 

[wangrong]

J-7

sir,
it is J81,not j7

please see this pic,double engine

 

[PakShaheen79]

sir,
it is J81,not j7

please see this pic,double engine

Yeah ... Double engine, this is exactly what i was wondering Apart from that J-7 air frame is also smaller in size.

 

[wangrong]

J-7, single engine

 

[nightrider_saulat]

i think PLAAF should now replace all it's j-7 and j-8 by it's j-11 and j-10

 

[TaimiKhan]

sir,
it is J81,not j7

please see this pic,double engine

Wangrong, below is the pic of the same fighter aircraft parked at a Chinese Beijing Museum. & Can you tell me from where does it looks like an earlier version of J-8 ?? Just to tell the difference, kindly look at the distance between the cockpit area & where the wing of the aircraft starts & also the width at the end of the engibe, where can be the double engine nozzles seen ?? If you look at the pic of the single engined J-7 that you posted, it exactly matched that distance, which clearly can be said to be a J-7 not a J-8.

Below is the pic of an early version of a J-8, plz see the distance between the cockpit & the start of the wing. double the distance of J-7.

Checkout the page below, clearly stating it to be a J-7

http://xanthis.wordpress.com/2008/04/

 

[wangrong]

double engine:J8
single engine:J7

 

[TaimiKhan]

double engine:J8
single engine:J7

That's what i said too.

 

[nightrider_saulat]

very great research khan