JH-7A Fighter Bomber, China

[TOPGUN]

Guys i was just wondering there have been talks about having a bomber aircraft ! i was reading about the jh-7a fighter-bomber at Chinese Defence Today | SinoDefence.com | Leading online source of information on China's military power wat do you guys think if we get this aircraft to fill the gap of having bombers in our inventory i dont think its too bad of a idea again i can be wrong please share your views thanks.

JH-7A is the improved variant of the JH-7 and was in service with PLAAF in late 2004.

Two seat
Twin engine / Spey mk202 turbofan engine known as ws-9 Qinling
All weather fighter -bomber
Capbable of firing a range of precision wepons > Anti-radiation missile>
Tv guidance air-to -surface missile> Capability to deliver chinesse indigenous 500 kg laser guided bombs > The aircraft can carry up to four YJ-8 subsonic sea skimming anti ship missiles under the wings and can carry free fall bombs and unguided rockets for conventional ground attack missions.
In addition the number of external stores stations have been increased from 7 to 11.

The tandem-seat fighter bomber is the same mission-class of the European Panavia Tornado IDS and Russian Sukhoi Su -24 Fencer.

Wat do you guys think if we can have a few of these in our inventory ?
sorry if i did not provide more info just wanted to get your feedback. Once again the link is www.sinodefence.com:china::pakistan:

 

[JK!]

Nope this aircraft is nowhere close to being as good as a Tornado GR4.

The engines don't provide enough thrust and the payload isn't that great.

 

[echo 1]

I have to agree we would be better of buying the G4 but personally I would love to see the Su-34 bomber in our fleet but that is just a dream.

 

[fatman17]

Guys i was just wondering there have been talks about having a bomber aircraft ! i was reading about the jh-7a fighter-bomber at Chinese Defence Today | SinoDefence.com | Leading online source of information on China's military power wat do you guys think if we get this aircraft to fill the gap of having bombers in our inventory i dont think its too bad of a idea again i can be wrong please share your views thanks.

JH-7A is the improved variant of the JH-7 and was in service with PLAAF in late 2004.

Two seat
Twin engine / Spey mk202 turbofan engine known as ws-9 Qinling
All weather fighter -bomber
Capbable of firing a range of precision wepons > Anti-radiation missile>
Tv guidance air-to -surface missile> Capability to deliver chinesse indigenous 500 kg laser guided bombs > The aircraft can carry up to four YJ-8 subsonic sea skimming anti ship missiles under the wings and can carry free fall bombs and unguided rockets for conventional ground attack missions.
In addition the number of external stores stations have been increased from 7 to 11.

The tandem-seat fighter bomber is the same mission-class of the European Panavia Tornado IDS and Russian Sukhoi Su -24 Fencer.

Wat do you guys think if we can have a few of these in our inventory ?
sorry if i did not provide more info just wanted to get your feedback. Once again the link is www.sinodefence.com:china::pakistan:

PAF dosnt favour 2-man crews in general (exception was the B-57)

 

[su-47]

PAF dosnt favour 2-man crews in general (exception was the B-57)

why is that?

 

[EagleEyes]

why is that?

Mainly because two engines require more maintenance and time to keep the aircrafts in a good shape. Which isn't worth it, when you can get an aircraft in the same league and costs so much less to operate.

 

[su-47]

Mainly because two engines require more maintenance and time to keep the aircrafts in a good shape. Which isn't worth it, when you can get an aircraft in the same league and costs so much less to operate.

two engine aircraft have better survival rate

 

[Inception-06]

two engine aircraft have better survival rate

hahahha because India has two-Engines Aircraft ?

 

[HAIDER]

Two engine has no doubt better survival rate, but all 5th and above generation aircraft are now single engine. Two engine is better for speed, otherwise its era is basically over.

 

[Myth_buster_1]

I have to agree we would be better of buying the G4 but personally I would love to see the Su-34 bomber in our fleet but that is just a dream.

I also dream about Su-34 in PN colors.! hope their is a political change between the two countries so PN can pursuit with this deal.
JH-7A is no way near JF-17s let alone any decent Navy planes.

 

[araz]

If i remember correctly PAF has previously evaluated this plane and rejected it for being underpowered . Currently, PAFs policy seems to be to have multirole fighters rather than fighters specifically tasked for one purpose. The only exception is the Mirage V which has been specially kitted out for naval air support. To be honest, I would much rather buy older F16s and upgrade them than buy another plane. The other option may be to either have Thunder or J10s in that particular role.
Rgeards
Araz

 

[Keysersoze]

Two engine has no doubt better survival rate, but all 5th and above generation aircraft are now single engine. Two engine is better for speed, otherwise its era is basically over.

Dude did you forget? the F-22 has two engines.....the Russian PAK-FA aircraft will be twin engined. ANd I am pretty sure the JXX will be as well.

 

[HAIDER]

Nodoubt F22 twin engine is last one in that category. Its more sound like twin engine came as fashion, introduced by Russian and followed by Europe and US. Russia had reason to used twin engine, first they believe in speed and second they had vast area to cover and catch any NATO border interference.(i think Russian still believe in cold war doctrine) But now speed is not important factor. Its attached armaments with platform.
Otherwise in case of range and stability, Israeli single engine F16 strike on Iraqi reactors leave good example.
If take over all picture single engine performed far better in combat scenario then twin. F16 performance in Afghan war or Balkan war. F16 shooting down Mig 29 or any other twin engine Russian made.
Recent induction of STOVL F35, an amazing fighter waiting in line. A last manned aircraft. Then we see all unmanned single engine Reconnaissance aircraft. A manned aircraft will only be found in Russia and 3rd world countries. Because US and Europe are more comfortable with unmanned and they already did their homework. But rest of nation just entered in this field.

 

[Keysersoze]

Nodoubt F22 twin engine is last one in that category. Its more sound like twin engine came as fashion, introduced by Russian and followed by Europe and US. Russia had reason to used twin engine, first they believe in speed and second they had vast area to cover and catch any NATO border interference.(i think Russian still believe in cold war doctrine) But now speed is not important factor. Its attached armaments with platform.
Otherwise in case of range and stability, Israeli single engine F16 strike on Iraqi reactors leave good example.
If take over all picture single engine performed far better in combat scenario then twin. F16 performance in Afghan war or Balkan war. F16 shooting down Mig 29 or any other twin engine Russian made.
Recent induction of STOVL F35, an amazing fighter waiting in line. A last manned aircraft. Then we see all unmanned single engine Reconnaissance aircraft. A manned aircraft will only be found in Russia and 3rd world countries. Because US and Europe are more comfortable with unmanned and they already did their homework. But rest of nation just entered in this field.

Haider the Russians are developing twin engine aircraft (derivatives of the su-47 and the mig 1.44), as are the Chinese by all reports (J-13 and J-14), the Euro fighter is twin engined as is the Shornet. the Korean 5th gen plane is going to be twin engined As is the Japanese aircraft. And if you go through most of the successful aircraft of the history of flight you will find that they have something in common........two engines.........To suggest that it is a "fashion" statement is somewhat ludicrous.

Su-30
MIG-29
F-14
F-15
F-18
RAFALE
J-11

Using the exmple of F-16's in combat does not work either, as I could trundle out the F-14's and the F-15's record as well as the Hornets in various wars.

 

[fatman17]

If i remember correctly PAF has previously evaluated this plane and rejected it for being underpowered . Currently, PAFs policy seems to be to have multirole fighters rather than fighters specifically tasked for one purpose. The only exception is the Mirage V which has been specially kitted out for naval air support. To be honest, I would much rather buy older F16s and upgrade them than buy another plane. The other option may be to either have Thunder or J10s in that particular role.
Rgeards
Araz

araz - i completely support your view - it makes not only financial sense but fits into the PAF doctrine - multi-purpose aircraft.