What's new

Need for a Strike Aircraft (JH-7) for Naval Aviation

Sir,
A few months back while sitting with some PAF officers came to know that the Navy wanted to have aircraft but the only issue is progression that has some how stalled the process of inducting aircraft in PN.
The example that was give was very convincing PAF operates F-16's that are the top most aircraft and a fighter pilot would have flown all the other aircraft in the inventory before he/she is made a F-16 pilot. There is no such thing in PN, if PN would like to do some thing of this sort it would require time and billions which unfortunately can not be given to the navy.

There are talks regarding this and negotiations are taking place. PAF would like to procure more aircraft. Type is still not known as there are some options that are being evaluated.
Well i don't know about air force friends but all this is common sense. Surely navy will want to get hands on to some strike aircraft. Planes that can be a threat to enemy vessels while provide some sort of defense against enemies air crafts. It is common sense.
Also it is a fact that we all know that navy do not operate and fighter plane squadrons so starting it now/ever will be a costly process. The best thing is that case can be a couple of PAF squadrons liaison to navy, operating from bases near our coast line. These can be equipped with naval strike version of JF-17. I think this is most likely to happen in next three to four years. The next best think that can happen in longer term future is we get heavier planes like J-11 replacing JF-17 in that role (unlikely in immediate future)
 
.
Hi,

That is why you need a heavy----it can load on the anti ship missiles and also a couple of BVR's as well---and you can also have 2 little JF 17 flying hiding under its wings---that at an appropriate time---can pop up and launch their missiles.

Niaz---what I don't understand is why would they not launch the mirages---and they could at least go on a straffing run.
Sir,
PAF or PN requires to have some heavy aircraft but that should not be limited to only JH-7. There are the J-11 series and also SU-35 and even the Mig-35 that could be bought. However Mig-35 has been rejected by PAF. J-11 series have been flown by PAF fighter pilots and was close to be selected but during this the Russians came up with the SU-35 that is far more advance than the J-11D and J-16.

There is an aircraft out there---KFIR---close to 35 years old aircraft---been mothballed----. Then someone decided to give it a technology upgrade----. Now it comes with another 40 years of lifespan---and that too guaranteed----an aesa radar that is one of the most potent in its class--- a set of BVR and WVR missiles that can scare the day lights of any pilots and can also launch smart weapons.
Yes because the aircraft is being marketted to those countries where there is no active 4++ grade fighter aircraft to fight against.

A B52---that is going to launch a smart anti ship missile from 250 + miles away and then run away and the target not knowing what or where the missiles came from---a massive aesa radar and jamming capabilities not seen before and BVR launch capabilities as well.
Sir you yourself quoted in a reply that this is because USA knows there is no need to have any heavy bombers in the future wars as they all are going to be BVR.
 
.
@niaz sahab; thank you for 'filling up some blanks'; from the other side. I have a question for you: did the Missile boat Attacks and the Air Strikes happen together or were they spaced out ?

Another question; technical though, was ESSO in Pakistan part of ESSO Standard Eastern or a separate entity?

Esso Pakistan was a wholly owned affiliate of Esso Standard Eastern Inc. with Head Offices on 6th Avenue ( Avenue of the Americas) New York. Esso Eastern was itself owned by Standard Oil New Jersey. Before that company in Pakistan was a joint venture with Mobil and called Standard Vacuum Oil company. Stanvac was the one which discovered gas at Dharki, In the early 80's all the Standard oil companies became Exxon. Now it is Exxon Mobil.

The attacks occurred at different times. I saw two attacks by IAF Hunters in day time. First by a flight of 4 then by a pair. They came from the South West and dived towards South east strafing on the way. First attack was in the morning and was success full, second was towards late afternoon/early evening but there were what appeared to be a couple of F-6 on the tail but higher up, no damage was reported. Other times I experienced bombing at night when you could only perceive a shadow and couldn’t tell which aircraft it was.

Missile attack occurred at night on the occasion when I was in the morning shift. I saw a river of fire from one of the crude oil tanks of Pakistan Refinery terminal when I arrived around 0800 hours. I was told that it was a missile attack by Ossa class boats that were targeting Pak Navy vessels parked at the outer anchorage, one missed and struck the PRL crude tank.

For the record I must say that all the firefighting equipment and the fire engines from the airport proved absolutely useless. Fire burnt on until oil level in the tank dropped and could be smothered with foam. One of the tanks was never put out and the fire burnt on until the fuel finished. Just goes to show that petroleum fires are extremely difficult to extinguish. In the meantime all we could do was to empty out the nearby tanks and keeping fuel cool by sprinkling water on top during pumping operation.

I was not alone, in addition to the Terminal staff; there were about 20 others from the Head Office with me. Even though I was asked to do it but it was not obligatory and I could have refused. I don’t claim to be a particularly brave person; I did it because it was a job that needed to be done and someone had to do it; also because I could not face being known as a coward afterwards.
 
.
Esso Pakistan was a wholly owned affiliate of Esso Standard Eastern Inc. with Head Offices on 6th Avenue ( Avenue of the Americas) New York. Esso Eastern was itself owned by Standard Oil New Jersey. Before that company in Pakistan was a joint venture with Mobil and called Standard Vacuum Oil company. Stanvac was the one which discovered gas at Dharki, In the early 80's all the Standard oil companies became Exxon. Now it is Exxon Mobil.

The attacks occurred at different times. I saw two attacks by IAF Hunters in day time. First by a flight of 4 then by a pair. They came from the South West and dived towards South east strafing on the way. First attack was in the morning and was success full, second was towards late afternoon/early evening but there were what appeared to be a couple of F-6 on the tail but higher up, no damage was reported. Other times I experienced bombing at night when you could only perceive a shadow and couldn’t tell which aircraft it was.

Missile attack occurred at night on the occasion when I was in the morning shift. I saw a river of fire from one of the crude oil tanks of Pakistan Refinery terminal when I arrived around 0800 hours. I was told that it was a missile attack by Ossa class boats that were targeting Pak Navy vessels parked at the outer anchorage, one missed and struck the PRL crude tank.

For the record I must say that all the firefighting equipment and the fire engines from the airport proved absolutely useless. Fire burnt on until oil level in the tank dropped and could be smothered with foam. One of the tanks was never put out and the fire burnt on until the fuel finished. Just goes to show that petroleum fires are extremely difficult to extinguish. In the meantime all we could do was to empty out the nearby tanks and keeping fuel cool by sprinkling water on top during pumping operation.

I was not alone, in addition to the Terminal staff; there were about 20 others from the Head Office with me. Even though I was asked to do it but it was not obligatory and I could have refused. I don’t claim to be a particularly brave person; I did it because it was a job that needed to be done and someone had to do it; also because I could not face being known as a coward afterwards.


Thank you Sir; for helping me to piece together the mosaic of the events that occurred.

My question about ESSO was connected to the fact that ESSO Standard Eastern had a notable presence in India both in Oil-Refining and Marketing. I had an older (cousin) Brother) who worked for ESSO first managing a Grease and Lube Blending Plant and later as Maintenance Head in the Refinery in Trombay, all in and around Bombay. As a teenager, I got to moonlight (during vacations) in the G & L Plant; tallying wagon movements of L.O. and dispatch of Grease Barrels; earned some pocket-money and ate some great Biryani with the Staff who fetched it from a nearby restaurant, that catered to factory workers. But that is where I learned Ullaging/Guaging also ..... which came in useful when I worked later in the Marine Oil Transportation Industry and as a Loss-Control Assessor.

Now back to the Ops; the Hunter attacks were always in daylight, since they were not equipped for night ops. The attacks on Keamari and on the Gas-Works at Sui as part of the Strategic Bombing policy to cut off POL, combined with the IN's Sea Control and Blockade to choke off critical re-supply. It was the Canberras which launched the nightly attacks as part of the same effort. The Canberras were launched from Poona (and sometimes from Agra), they landed in Jamnagar to refuel and then were launched again for the attack. I knew some of the air-crews in those attacks, so I heard about it from them. The Hunters launched from Jamnagar and sometimes Jodhpur.

About the IN's attack on Karachi; that was an attack that seemed unthinkable to most people; most of all the Russians/Soviets. Even the FOCINC Western Command IN, at the time had prepared a traditional attack plan centered around the 6 in gun Cruiser INS Mysore and a fleet bombardment. It was Adm.S.M.Nanda (then CNS) who thought of using the Osa Boats. Nanda had started his career in the Karachi Port Trust and then entered the Navy as a RINVR Officer in WW 2. He knew Karachi like the back of his hand. Many other IN Officers also did, like one I grew up around who had commanded HMIS Himalaya on Manora. So Nanda had always carried the sight of the Tank-Farm in Keamari in his mind, though it was not the IN's primary target. Just that the old Styx Missiles had very rudimentary guidance. So in one of the Op Plan reviews, that had even got raised, Adm.Nanda said that even if the missile missed a ship, the steel sides of a tank were far larger; no missile could miss that.

Incidentally, the uncle of one of our co-forumers here @Joe Shearer; was the DNI and O.S.Dawson was DNO at NHQ, IN. Both reached Flag rank, Adm.Dawson becoming CNS later.

About the last underlined part, I believe that the greatest courage is contained within those that are quietest and seemingly detached. Courage is a mind thing, not even physical. At the beginning of my career; I survived a ship-wreck where we lost ship-mates. I was afraid of dying, but a bigger fear than that was that my fear would overcome me. That is what kept me fully functional..... :)

Thank you again Sir; for sharing so much of value from your past. Having seen and having to handle a large oil-fire on my part; I salute the role that you played in Wartime conditions.
 
.
@niaz

Hi,

Now we all know how it started----with the reporting of a PIA pilot sighting missile boats being towed in by larger ships towards Karachi---informing the commander at Karachi air base---.

The commander of the base instead of taking it upon himself to launch a couple of recce and strike aircraft---he chose to call the air marshal of that time to ask for permission----got turned down---and that infamous was made by Air Marshall A Rahim---" Let navy handle its problems".

Then there was the electronic surveillance plane---the EB B57---the one that the americans gifted us----which could fy at an attitude of 80000 feet----it was destroyed on the tarmac.

So---where were the Vaunted Mirage 3's and %'s in this war over Karachi----hiding.

Reminds me of the saying of Air Marshall Asghar Khan to his counter part in india before the start of 1965 war----" If you don't send any air strikes against my country---I won't send against your country "-----an act of treason----.
 
.
@niaz

Hi,

Now we all know how it started----with the reporting of a PIA pilot sighting missile boats being towed in by larger ships towards Karachi---informing the commander at Karachi air base---.

The commander of the base instead of taking it upon himself to launch a couple of recce and strike aircraft---he chose to call the air marshal of that time to ask for permission----got turned down---and that infamous was made by Air Marshall A Rahim---" Let navy handle its problems".

Then there was the electronic surveillance plane---the EB B57---the one that the americans gifted us----which could fy at an attitude of 80000 feet----it was destroyed on the tarmac.

So---where were the Vaunted Mirage 3's and %'s in this war over Karachi----hiding.

Reminds me of the saying of Air Marshall Asghar Khan to his counter part in india before the start of 1965 war----" If you don't send any air strikes against my country---I won't send against your country "-----an act of treason----.


@MastanKhan (and @niaz sahab)

Apropos your post above, are you sure that you have all your facts in place. The only thing that has been specifically documented is that the AOC said to the resident Admiral, something to the effect of "it happens old boy, we can't help you" when the Fleet and harbor was up in flames. Now also check some context of that time in 1971, East Bengal was nearly gone, Indian Forces were being transferred to the West, not so much the IA though. It was the IAF which was winding down in the East, Hunters and MiGs were already moving with some units in Punjab and Rajasthan. The tempo of Air Ops was being stepped up. Simultaneously PAF offensive strikes had come down. There was reason for that, Yahya and his Junta were bracing for an all out attack on West Pakistan. Some PAF air-assets were even moved to Iranian Airfields, because of the lack of Strategic Depth. Therein lies (probably) the explanation for the lack of air activity in South Pakistan that @niaz bemoaned in an earlier post here. That may due to the fact that (remaining) assets were being conserved. There were also issues with availability of POL and Ammo. Mr.Niaz may be able to throw more light about the POL at least. Though he may have some idea about shipping movements into Karachi, visible as they may have been from Keamari. Of course the higher echelons of the Pakistani Command may also have felt pole-axed at how the war was going, and gone into a state of limbo/shock.

About 1965, that alleged conversation has never been substantiated. Another interesting thing is that there was 'No Declaration of War' on either side. This may seem to be a trivial formality, but it changes many things. The fact is that Operation Gibraltar took place unannounced, so much so that PAF was not involved in the planning or execution. When Operation Gibraltar fell flat, Operation Grandslam was commenced which is when PA reluctantly pulled the PAF in. On the Indian side, the entire Ops was commenced also without any declaration of War. So much so that when the IA crossed the IB to react to Gibraltar in the LOC/CFL; the CNS of the IN issued an 'Order of the Day' which he had to rescind on instructions from the Indian MoD. Later, he was even issued instructions setting the Latitude of Porbandar as the limit of the operating area of the IN.
Any Force of State Actors ; which National Armies are considered to be, are bound by some legal niceties.... which include "Declarations of Hostilities" between States.
A deviation from that was again in Kargil in 1999, when some "cowboy" Generals decided to initiate Ops on their own. 1971 in contrast, was a Declared War.

MK and @niaz, we need now to look at these wars with more detachment, if we can. Even our antiquity may allow us to do so.
 
.
Hi,

That is an extremley sensless ONE LINER from a poster like you---written without givin any thught to what you were saying.

In this day and age of technology---electronic warfare packages--and missiles that find their own target with as little a push and a nudge---fly so far and hit their targets that it is beyond imagination---and that also they can do in the silent mode-----an aircraft in itself has become nothing but a conduit that delivers the materials of death and destruction.

The power of technology has brought down many a mighty to their knees---just like the great inception of AK47 in the hands of freedom fighters in its time.

This is the age when the ordinary and the average have become extraordinary---because now they can rely on a MASSIVE CRUTCH---

There is an aircraft out there---KFIR---close to 35 years old aircraft---been mothballed----. Then someone decided to give it a technology upgrade----. Now it comes with another 40 years of lifespan---and that too guaranteed----an aesa radar that is one of the most potent in its class--- a set of BVR and WVR missiles that can scare the day lights of any pilots and can also launch smart weapons.

Then there is a 60 years old warhorse---that has just come out of the reconditioning shop---totally refurbished to serve for another 50 years and the capability to launch a plethora of smart weapons----with the launching capability that is un-imaginable a few months ago to the general public--- .

A B52---that is going to launch a smart anti ship missile from 250 + miles away and then run away and the target not knowing what or where the missiles came from---a massive aesa radar and jamming capabilities not seen before and BVR launch capabilities as well.

Now if that little piece of ---- aircraft the JF 17---a hybrid copy of the MIG 21---F7PG---Mirage 3 / 5---F5----can become a 4th gen aircraft with some sweet gizmos and weapons system----then what is wrong with the JH7B---.

The JH7B is the same aircraft as would be the JF 17 with out the aesa or with out the BVR capability. If the JF 17 can look pretty and presentable with all that make up and doodahs---the why the JH7B look better with an aesa that is twice as big---with 4 times the BVR carrying capacity---antiradiation paint---and 4x the loiter time.

Technology is what is going to rule the skies---thru the aircraft---.

Just like 7---or 8 years ago---posters on this board would jump on me when I discussed the superiority of the BVR missiles and how the air combat would change---where pilots would be trained to take BVR shots and then run away and how the game has changed and you guys were still in your man behind the machine and WVR---and some super stu-ds over here would patronize me----and everyone of them has been proven wrong.

Specially those who claimed that let the America air force fight the Pakistani air force and we ( paf ) will teach them a lesson---and I told them it won't happen even in their dreams---there were so many of those over here---now they all have their mouths shut---salala check post strike and OBL.

As a leading poster---it is your obligation to write something with reason and a narrative.

Why when a modified B52 with all the electronic gizmos become such a massive threat---then why can't any other aircraft in a similar situation, with similar upgrades.
Sir I basically sum up the performance of this plane in one line. Read lots of detail and modification of this plane. From day one its was not good platform, even replace British made Spey MK-202 turbofan engines but platform fail to give required results.Plane was even rejected by PLAAF. Even though try to make copy of British Tornado . Now in 2009 again Chinese try to revive this platform, but still no update. Now PLAAF chose SU27 over JH series.

EB B57 was the greatest loss to Pakistan air force. That was one hell of plane. Even still useful.
 
.
Hi,

Sinodefence forum is a professionally run forum---where kids are basically not allowed with their kind of comments. If anyone interested further in the JH7B----please check it out----at least the last 15 pages on JH7B.

You will be surprised how many professionals are recommending this aircraft for pakistan, Iran and Argentina for its strike capabilities.

Another professional member recommends it to be a support aircraft for the Chinese SU30 in its electronic cover providing capacity.

You will be surprised by the comments of some of the professionals as well at how it could be a preferred aircraft over the su27.
 
.
Hi,

Geography can also be a part of what needs to be important for the aircraft in its consideration. Which means from how many different directions it can approach the target and how easily it can change targets---and for that you need to have an aircraft that has long legs----ie--it can stay in the air for a long time.

That allows it to approach the target from different directions----rather than a crow flight---.

Air Force | China Defence Forum


For readers information


JH-7B | Tiananmen's Tremendous Achievements
 
.
Much better optiom would be j-16/11 fighter which have better payload and rang then jf-17 to strike IN flotilla as it can figjt the mig-29 as well as carry other weapons. In my opinion jf-17 should be there for Costa let defence and providing support for main strike fighter.
 
.
Sir,
J-11 series have been flown by PAF fighter pilots and was close to be selected but during this the Russians came up with the SU-35 that is far more advance than the J-11D and J-16.

.
In which area, Su-35 is more advanced than J-11D?[/QUOTE]
 
.
JF-17s can just as easily be armed with YJ-12, CM-400AKG and C-802AK for targeting surface threats. Pakistan Navy's main role is sea denial and JF-17s have enough combat range to help enforcement of sea denial during war time.
Alright then, one must always be open to corrections.

But, I would like to know that combat radius of JF-17 with the fillowing conditions.

1) 2 x PL-5E + 2 x PL-12 + 3 x YJ-12 (Total wieght = 4608.3 KG)

2) The AC with the above payload gets refueled immediately after take off.

@Horus

Tag someone who can answer the question.

@Windjammer
 
Last edited:
.
even though i dont think pak should go for JH-7, I agree with mastankhan's earlier posts regarding how illiterates from some third rate pind scrutanize people educated input with illogical bravado, he's correct on this point, i think
Hi,

Geography can also be a part of what needs to be important for the aircraft in its consideration. Which means from how many different directions it can approach the target and how easily it can change targets---and for that you need to have an aircraft that has long legs----ie--it can stay in the air for a long time.

That allows it to approach the target from different directions----rather than a crow flight---.

Air Force | China Defence Forum


For readers information


JH-7B | Tiananmen's Tremendous Achievements
i agree with some of your points you raised earlier, I think you're correct about the JF-17. I personally dont think its the answer to the current imbalance vs the IAF. the aircraft is a lightweight fighter, its by no means a strike fighter and it was never designed to fight off the likes of the SU-30MKI, The goal of the JF-17 is to bring the rest of the airforce up to date with modern technology, its a upgrade from the current fighters like Mig21 and mirage III, it was also designed to give pakistan experience in manufacturing fighter aircraft.
in my personal opinion as controvertial as it sounds I think the Higherarachy in the PAF are eager to sell this plane internationally because of the kickbacks they'll get rich and be a benificiary of some of the international sales, you hear all this shit about PAC having the ability to manufacture 25 blk 2 a year and how many are in service with the PAF?
Pakistan desperately needs a 4+ generation aircraft that can defend the skies, the JF-17 wont do shit, even if you upgrade with modern technology the unit price will increase substantially, the aircraft needs to be redisigned to carry a bigger payload and that will cost extra, with that kind of investment it would be cheaper to buy another aircraft.

Alright then, one must always be open to corrections.

But, I would like to know that combat radius of JF-17 with the fillowing conditions.

1) 2 x PL-5E + 2 x PL-12 + 3 x YJ-12 (Total wieght = 4608.3 KG)

2) The AC with the above payload gets refueled immediately after take off.

@Horus

Tag someone who can answer the question.

@Windjammer
the JF-17 cant carry that ammount of ordinance, I think you need to look at the JF-17 as being the modern day version of the F-20 tigershark. , you cant overburden a lightweight fighter jet, it will literally have limited manuvarability, to make it carry that ammount of bombs you have to redesign the fighter, it will take years.
 
.
Babar at this stage has two applications.

1: Ground TEL launched varient deployed to take out tier-1 static enemy infrastructure.

2: Under development variant Babur-N, with extended range to 1000km and submarine launch capabilities using torpedo tubes.

I think that after the successful integration of these variants we might see a Coastal Defense variant which would have updated sensor suite and targeting system for anti shipping roles at extended ranges. That role is currently served by TEL mounted C-602A Coastal Defense System which doesn't have enough range to take out wide area targets. Babur can solve this issue.


Can you tell us more please about this TEL mounted C-602A, what is a TEL ?


Its something like that ?
C602_Anti-Ship_Missile.jpg
 
.
Sir you yourself quoted in a reply that this is because USA knows there is no need to have any heavy bombers in the future wars as they all are going to be BVR.

Hi,

I did not quote any such thing---heavy bombers are a must and will stay as such---if I made you misunderstand something---my apologies.

The air to air combat will focus primarily on BVR contact---the U S pilots are have gone thru intensive training to shoot and scoot----let the missile do the taking----. Shoot---run away----come back---shoot and run away again---.

Alright then, one must always be open to corrections.

But, I would like to know that combat radius of JF-17 with the fillowing conditions.

1) 2 x PL-5E + 2 x PL-12 + 3 x YJ-12 (Total wieght = 4608.3 KG)

2) The AC with the above payload gets refueled immediately after take off.

@Horus

Tag someone who can answer the question.

@Windjammer


Hi,

Possibly around 500 miles----and once refueled in the air immediately after take off---then around 800 miles----. and that does not do the job---. It does not have the long legs needed over the Arabian sea.

Now compare it to the JH7B---almost 1200 miles without refueling---and with refueling after take off---around 2500 miles + combat range---it fly away in a different direction from the target and come down from a different direction to hit it.

The long range missions would not be without a Growler version of the JH7B an BVR loaded aircraft as well. Its Grolwer type capabilities are so impressive that it is suggested that it could be providing coverage for the SU30's as well.

If china feels that its electronic suppression abilities and AShM on this aircraft is good enough to strike at the U S naval ship---it will be good enough for Pakistan as well against India.



map.png


Now look at the map of india / Pakistan---it has a lots of diversity in taking which direction to go


The Real Military Threat from China: Anti-Ship Cruise Missiles
Posted: January 26, 2015 | Author: chankaiyee2 | Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: anti-ship cruise missile, China, J-16, JH-7B, PLAN, Su-30MKK2, US, YJ-100, YJ-12 | Leave a comment
i
4 Votes


PLA’s new anti-ship cruise missiles
During the 1982 Falklands War, Argentina possessed a measly total of five Exocet anti-ship cruise missiles with which to face down the Royal Navy in the South Atlantic. Had that number been more like 50 or 100, that conflict might well have had a very different ending. This important lesson has not been lost on China’s military chiefs. Indeed, China has placed great emphasis on anti-ship cruise missile (ASCM) development over the last three decades and is now set to reap the strategic benefits of this singular focus.
Western defense analysts have taken up the habit of fixating on the “whiz-bang” aspects of Chinese military modernization, such as the anti-ship ballistic missile (ASBM), or threats that are largely hypothetical, such as Beijing’s supposedly fearsome cyber arsenal. However, it will be unwise to ignore certain more mundane threats of proven lethality. These concern, at least in part, China’s emergent naval air arm and not the carrier-based part of that air-arm – which continues to be the red herring of Chinese naval development, at least for now. Flying from bases in the Mainland out to longer ranges with more sophisticated search radars and electronic countermeasures, the large fleet of land-based aircraft will now deploy some of the world’s most advanced anti-ship cruise missiles to boot. This rather mature capability might be described as “air-sea battle” with Chinese characteristics.
This edition of Dragon Eye probes a survey from the October 2014 issue of Mandarin-language defense magazine 舰载武器 [Shipborne Weapons] of “中国海军空基对海打击力量” [The Chinese Navy’s Air-Based Maritime Strike Force]. The magazine is published by a Zhengzhou institute of the China Shipbuilding Industry Corporation (CSIC), a primary actor in China’s ongoing naval modernization process.
Hardly Satisfied
The background sketch of this force reveals a keen appreciation by the Chinese analyst of the PLA Navy’s early difficulties in developing a naval air strike force. It is noted that the absence of such a force was plainly revealed during the 1974 battle with Vietnam for the Paracels in which Chinese supporting forces were totally absent in the air above the sea battle. With the initial deployment of the stubby Q-5 attack aircraft, as well as the low-performing H-6 bomber and J-7 fighter-bomber, China could be said to have a strike force, though admittedly one with rather pathetic capabilities. The Q-5 could hardly muster a combat radius of 300 km, the H-6 was too expensive, and the J-7 suffered from a weak radar, low survivability, and backward electronic systems.
A turning point in Beijing’s quest to develop a credible “air-sea battle” strategy occurred in 2004 with the arrival of 24 Su-30MK2s from Russia. For the first time ever, the Chinese Navy possessed a modern, capable strike platform. Not only could this aircraft fly well beyond the first island chain to a radius of about 1,300km, but these imported planes came equipped with the highly prized Mach 3 KH31 ASCM. At the same time, Chinese military leaders were not content to rely on imported weaponry and during the late 1990s pursued extensive upgrades for both the H-6 bomber and the J-7 fighter bomber.
The H-6 M/G joined the Chinese Navy in 2003-04 and featured an advanced search radar, fire control, navigation, communications, and electronic countermeasures systems. Similar improvements and a new engine were among the major alterations to J-7 that resulted in the JH7A, which became a major focal point of Chinese naval strike aviation for the last decade. The author of this analysis concludes: “… JH7A has received lot of resources from the Chinese Navy, and at this time there are already three regiments comprising more than 80 aircraft in service. Together with the 24 Su-30 MKK2 multi-role fighters, they form the foundation of the Chinese Navy’s tactical strike force against sea [targets].”
Above all, however, it is the widespread use of the YJ83 ASCM (C802) with a 150 km range in combination with the new, upgraded aircraft variants discussed above that has radically improved China’s ability to strike naval surface targets from the air over the last decade. A copy of this missile made headlines when one struck and achieved a mission kill against an Israeli corvette in 2006. Its effectiveness is further suggested by the many countries that have sought to purchase this particular Chinese ASCM. The article interestingly notes that while the YJ83 is subsonic, the imported Russian-made supersonic KH31 “in certain situations with respect to combat effectiveness” actually does not compare favorably to the YJ83. But this analysis also suggests that, actually, even in the scenario of a multi-axial attack the YJ83 is “less than ideal” against a carrier battle group or large-size air defense destroyer. Summing up the appraisal of China’s first generation aerial maritime strike forces, the author concludes candidly that compared to neighboring armed forces, that Chinese forces were “并不强大” [not especially impressive], but against USN carrier battle groups or against Japanese forces “更难以发挥什么作用” [they would hardly have any use at all].
China’s New Generation of Aerial Maritime Strike Forces
By contrast, according to this late 2014 Chinese analysis, “… the second generation of long-range aerial maritime strike forces … will be completely able to satisfy the Chinese Navy’s strategic combat requirements for the new century.” It continues that internet sources and photographs reveal that the “second generation forces are already equipping combat forces …”
The JH-7B fighter attack represents a further dramatic refinement of this workhorse of Chinese maritime strike aviation. A prototype first flew in 2012, and serial production is apparently expected to begin in 2015. The improved aircraft is said to increase the combat radius to as far as 1,800 km and even out to 4,500km since it has the aerial refueling capability that its predecessor lacked. Within the Chinese Navy’s developing “high-low mix,” this airframe will form the lower class platform and this analysis explicitly suggests the JH-7B’s “low price” is a factor in the acquisition strategy. A more high performance strike aircraft will be the J-16, which seems to be an indigenized version of the Su-30MKK2. This report claims, moreover, that it will be superior to the Russian aircraft in several respects, including its sensors. This new aircraft is said to be already entering service with the PLA Navy. Interestingly, the article notes that while a large strike platform is desirable, the PLA Navy nevertheless does not expect to continue improvements to the H-6 bomber, but rather prefers a complete redesign of an aircraft intended to carry 8-10 long-range anti-ship missiles out to ranges of 3,000 km or more.
But as anyone familiar with the B-52’s long run in service with the U.S. Air Force, maritime strike is not really about the aircraft, which will be by and large “shoot and scoot,” but rather about the missile. Here, the news is grim. This Chinese analysis yields up two new and potent arrows in the Chinese Navy’s quiver. The first is the Mach 3 YJ-12. This supersonic ASCM is capable of ranges up to 300 km. The second is a sub-sonic ASCM with a range of up to 800 km that is designated as YJ-100. Such capabilities imply that, as least for the near future, U.S. forces may be “outgunned” by China’s emerging ASCM inventory. Nor is it clear that U.S. defense analysts fully understand the nature of the threat. A 2014 U.S. government-sponsored study of the Chinese ASCM threat, for example, seems to largely neglect the “second generation” of aerial maritime strike platforms, both missiles and aircraft, discussed in this Chinese analysis.
According to this Chinese article, China aerial maritime strike has increased its combat efficiency in recent years by tenfold. It is noted that further breakthroughs are required (e.g. long range reconnaissance), but this Chinese author concludes: “The building of the second generation aerial maritime strike force will allow China to effectively control neighboring sea areas and sea lines of communication …” Future Chinese ASCM designs will seek to push the envelope on speed up to Mach 4 and even Mach 6, according to this analysis.
A standard response to concerns over Chinese aerial maritime strike forces is that U.S. aircraft and pilots are superior plane-for-plane and pilot-for-pilot. Perhaps that is still true. Hence, the Chinese attack aircraft will hypothetically be “splashed” before getting close enough to unleash their deadly array of missiles. Unfortunately, that perspective does not sufficiently account for not only the increasing range and sophistication of Chinese missiles, but also the likelihood that Chinese missiles will destroy air bases such as Kadena in the first phase of any conflict. That opening salvo from China’s Second Artillery could leave China’s large air forces a relatively free hand to establish air superiority and to hunt widely in the near seas and beyond for U.S. carrier battle groups and other adversary surface action groups. This Chinese article seems to provide even more of a basis for the argument to invest in the U.S. Navy’s submarine force, which is nearly invulnerable to Chinese ASCMs, or in the versatile F-35B that may yet succeed in hiding out and operating from remote and rugged airstrips around the Asia-Pacific. It also perhaps strengthens the argument for caution and restraint in our dealing with the Panda, which evidently has increasingly sharp claws.
The author of this article Lyle J. Goldstein is Associate Professor in the China Maritime Studies Institute (CMSI) at the U.S. Naval War College in Newport, RI. The opinions expressed in this analysis are his own and do not represent the official assessments of the U.S. Navy or any other agency of the U.S. Government.
Editor’s Note: The following is part seven of a new occasional series called Dragon Eye, which seeks insight and analysis from Chinese writings on world affairs. You can find all back articles in the series here.
Source: The National Interest “The Real Military Threat from China: Anti-Ship Cruise Missiles”
 
.

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom