Pakistan-China Joint Exercise "Shaheen VII - 2018"

[denel]

PAF knows its requirements better than anyone on this forum and they have rejected the JH-7 hands down for a good reason.

sorry friend. disagree. no wonder why they are in the mess they have been. they dont have requirements they have interests of their own.

 

[FuturePAF]

Hi,

To know about the JH7A is to know about the aircraft---why was it built/created---what was the reasoning---.

The JH7 is the copy of the most feared american aircraft of the cold war---the F111---Aardvark---minus the swing wing---. This aircraft is designed for terrain hugging flight---its engines are efficient at low flight----where the JF17 and the F16's would be guzzling gas---this aircraft would be skimming the waves towards its target.

The A6---the A10---The B52's---slow sluggish aircraft---but beautifully functional in their utility---. The A10 fliers and supporters are crying tears of blood for the aircraft being replaced---but saner heads have prevailed and re-furbished the B52 for stand off strike missions---.

The stand off strike weapons have totally changed the utility of heavy and not so mobile aircraft---it has taken their importance to levels never needed before.

Now just imagine a JH7A with 2 ALCM's on its wings 500 miles away from pakistan's shoreline---pops up to launch altitude and lets go of its ALCM's at the enemy---. You just reached targets from a totally unpredictable angle for the enemy to an area that was not reachable before---and that also without warning to the enemy---.

Low flying aircraft are extremely difficult to see even by radar over land---now when these aircraft are flying over water---they are next to impossible to see---even for surveillance aircraft close by.

Now---if one mission against an enemy ship is successful---what you have done is that you have pushed the enemy's naval force far far back---where they would not be effective---.

The ability of this aircraft to fly heavy fly deep would cover Karachi's flanks from enemy's naval vessels---.

See---the JH7's or the J10B/C's do not bring green cards---cushy jobs in foreign countries---admission to their children in the US and the likes of it---.

All the trials against this aircraft were fabricated by the Paf---.

A heavy strike aircraft is a must for the defenses of Pakistan---Paf admits it or not---but Pakistan needs a heavy weight for protection---.

Knowing this, you would think the Navy would advocate for at least two squadrons of these planes to cover their flanks. Karachi is still vulnerable to air strikes and naval blockade. While the PAF maybe able to take on the enemy fighter/bombers with the new Block III JF-17 and potential Growler on what ever platform it sees fit, the navy should be the one demanding dedicated aerial protection against the Indian carrier battle groups.

Shouldn't the PLANAF operating the JH-7A and operating it in exercises with the PAF show its utility. Btw, Xian is the manufacturer of the JH-7A. I'm sure they could loan a few planes (If approved by the PLA) after the exercise for extended evaluation (just like the Z-10) by the PAF/PN, in hopes of securing a future deal. An unsolicited offer may find fresh ears as some green card granting nations aren't doing much business these days with the PN or its officers.

 

[MastanKhan]

Knowing this, you would think the Navy would advocate for at least two squadrons of these planes to cover their flanks. Karachi is still vulnerable to air strikes and naval blockade. While the PAF maybe able to take on the enemy fighter/bombers with the new Block III JF-17 and potential Growler on what ever platform it sees fit, the navy should be the one demanding dedicated aerial protection against the Indian carrier battle groups.

Shouldn't the PLANAF operating the JH-7A and operating it in exercises with the PAF show its utility. Btw, Xian is the manufacturer of the JH-7A. I'm sure they could loan a few planes (If approved by the PLA) after the exercise for extended evaluation (just like the Z-10) by the PAF/PN, in hopes of securing a future deal. An unsolicited offer may find fresh ears as some green card granting nations aren't doing much business these days with the PN or its officers.

Hi,

The Pak navy is a step child of the armed forces---. For air support it literally has to BEG the Paf for assistance---. So---how can it determine what it needs---.

The need for pakistan is 2 sqdrn's of JH7A's---. 6 for dedicated growler role and the 30 for all other missions. With a modern EW system---this aircraft can be made appropriate for both naval and ground strike missions---.

With more and more standoff weapons coming in production---targetting capabilities that far exceed the range of bvr missiles or SA missiles---this aircraft can pick and chose its target at will.

On naval strike missions---this aircraft would be out of the reach of any enemy SA missile range or missiles launched from enemy ships---it can launch its standoff weapons and be gone---.

In naval warfare---you would rather target a ship with two missiles than one---because---first of all---it would be very difficult just to get close to launch range at an enemy ship---but if it happened---you never want to be with only one missile targeting the enemy ship---. For a higher percentage shot---you need a minimum of two AShM---.

 

[FuturePAF]

Hi,

The Pak navy is a step child of the armed forces---. For air support it literally has to BEG the Paf for assistance---. So---how can it determine what it needs---.

The need for pakistan is 2 sqdrn's of JH7A's---. 6 for dedicated growler role and the 30 for all other missions. With a modern EW system---this aircraft can be made appropriate for both naval and ground strike missions---.

With more and more standoff weapons coming in production---targetting capabilities that far exceed the range of bvr missiles or SA missiles---this aircraft can pick and chose its target at will.

On naval strike missions---this aircraft would be out of the reach of any enemy SA missile range or missiles launched from enemy ships---it can launch its standoff weapons and be gone---.

In naval warfare---you would rather target a ship with two missiles than one---because---first of all---it would be very difficult just to get close to launch range at an enemy ship---but if it happened---you never want to be with only one missile targeting the enemy ship---. For a higher percentage shot---you need a minimum of two AShM---.

I agree: 6 Growler to 30 Strike Platforms. The Chief of the Navy Should Challenge the PAF Chief to see how far they can operate fighters to support the navy in war time. We are buy a lot of naval platforms but not thinking about protecting them adequately. As a first step, to show the PAF Chief what the navy faces on a daily basis, the Navy should buy the Chinese LD-JHC300 Surface Wave Over the horizon Radar station. (The OTH Radar is expected to detect a LCS Class Frigate at 500 km and a reduced RCS Arleigh Burke at 200 km.) Fuse the data with an Erieye or ZDK AEW aircraft and show the amount of traffic the navy has to sift through in peacetime.
Btw, the Russians, Chinese and Americans are working on Surface Wave OTH Radars.
http://www.amaradu.com/n103/n77836/n9888782/n9890193/n9914783/c9929392/part/9929401.jpg
https://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/russia/images/podsolnukh-image01.jpg
https://sdelanounas.ru/i/d/3/d3d3Lm...wNTAwNTYwNTYwNTAwNTAuanBnP19faWQ9MjQ2NTM=.jpg
https://slideplayer.com/slide/4901806/16/images/5/High+Frequency+Surface+Wave+Radar.jpg

https://twitter.com/x/status/1060709877809434625

Here is a sample of how many tracks the radar can detect; allow them to try to figure out what is commercial and what is military.

Listing all the responsibilities of the Navy, Including the risk of submarines operating just off the coastline, an all that the navy will have to do to hunt them down and neutralize them, that some air protection is warranted. If not by the PAF, then by a dedicated part of the Navy; PN-AF. The PN-AF is also needed because the need to operate all the drones and other aircraft needs deducted focus to make a complete naval picture.

I hope of our Chinese Members can translate this video for more details

More Information:
http://www.asiawind.com/bb/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1782
https://www.diginext.fr/en/offer/critical-operation-support-systems/hf-surface-wave-radar

-----------
All This is to say, give the PN Pilots and enough of a budget to protect its responsibility.
https://www.meretmarine.com/sites/d.../20161019162120_STRADIVARIUS_FORMAT_PRESS.JPG

 

[denel]

I agree: 6 Growler to 30 Strike Platforms. The Chief of the Navy Should Challenge the PAF Chief to see how far they can operate fighters to support the navy in war time. We are buy a lot of naval platforms but not thinking about protecting them adequately. As a first step, to show the PAF Chief what the navy faces on a daily basis, the Navy should buy the Chinese LD-JHC300 Surface Wave Over the horizon Radar station. (The OTH Radar is expected to detect a LCS Class Frigate at 500 km and a reduced RCS Arleigh Burke at 200 km.) Fuse the data with an Erieye or ZDK AEW aircraft and show the amount of traffic the navy has to sift through in peacetime.
Btw, the Russians, Chinese and Americans are working on Surface Wave OTH Radars.
http://www.amaradu.com/n103/n77836/n9888782/n9890193/n9914783/c9929392/part/9929401.jpg
https://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/russia/images/podsolnukh-image01.jpg
https://sdelanounas.ru/i/d/3/d3d3Lm...wNTAwNTYwNTYwNTAwNTAuanBnP19faWQ9MjQ2NTM=.jpg
https://slideplayer.com/slide/4901806/16/images/5/High+Frequency+Surface+Wave+Radar.jpg

https://twitter.com/x/status/1060709877809434625

Here is a sample of how many tracks the radar can detect; allow them to try to figure out what is commercial and what is military.

Listing all the responsibilities of the Navy, Including the risk of submarines operating just off the coastline, an all that the navy will have to do to hunt them down and neutralize them, that some air protection is warranted. If not by the PAF, then by a dedicated part of the Navy; PN-AF. The PN-AF is also needed because the need to operate all the drones and other aircraft needs deducted focus to make a complete naval picture.

I hope of our Chinese Members can translate this video for more details

More Information:
http://www.asiawind.com/bb/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1782
https://www.diginext.fr/en/offer/critical-operation-support-systems/hf-surface-wave-radar

-----------
All This is to say, give the PN Pilots and enough of a budget to protect its responsibility.
https://www.meretmarine.com/sites/d.../20161019162120_STRADIVARIUS_FORMAT_PRESS.JPG

well put. there is no cohesive strategy and concept of complete Sita; even with artillery same thing... you just dont buy long guns without complete overall situation awareness systems/linkage.

 

[SQ8]

Knowing this, you would think the Navy would advocate for at least two squadrons of these planes to cover their flanks. Karachi is still vulnerable to air strikes and naval blockade. While the PAF maybe able to take on the enemy fighter/bombers with the new Block III JF-17 and potential Growler on what ever platform it sees fit, the navy should be the one demanding dedicated aerial protection against the Indian carrier battle groups.

Shouldn't the PLANAF operating the JH-7A and operating it in exercises with the PAF show its utility. Btw, Xian is the manufacturer of the JH-7A. I'm sure they could loan a few planes (If approved by the PLA) after the exercise for extended evaluation (just like the Z-10) by the PAF/PN, in hopes of securing a future deal. An unsolicited offer may find fresh ears as some green card granting nations aren't doing much business these days with the PN or its officers.

The asserted “qualities “ of the JH-7 are not applicable to the PAF or PN vis a vis budget and future growth,

It uses Chinese copies of the Spey engine but that leads to it having a lower thrust to weight ratio even to the older F-4 Phantom and payload comparable less than the Tornado which is a much much superior airplane.

For the 70-80’s PLAAF looking for an indigenous strike platform it was an OK design, but it is wholly disadvantaged for both today’s and tomorrow’s fight.

As for the wikipedia pasted assertion on how it was to mirror the F-111 or otherwise, all it takes is a cursory look at its payload/range on a Hi-lo-lo-Hi mission to see how its barely as good as the blackburn bucaneer(designed in the 50s) and lacks flexibility against more modern threats.

Those advocating for the Jh-7 probably are from the 50s with a thought process mirrored in that age; along with similar understanding of how military arms are run.

 

[Readerdefence]

JF-17 & J-10C are much more suited to carry a subsonic stealthy ALCM than a massive supersonic one that even the J-15 has difficulty equipping. PAF already has the Ra'ad option as well as a few Chinese ones: the GB-500C and GB-6A.

GB-500C with JF-17 (Zhuhai 2018):
View attachment 524789

GB6A with J-10B (Zhuhai 2016):
View attachment 524788

Slugging around a 1+ ton HD-1A or CM-302 not only severe hinders the maneuverability of the platform but also its already-limited range. I'm also of the opinion that low-flying, stealthy cruise missiles will eventually supplant the fast but highly-detectable supersonic CMs.

Hi Akasa are these dummy missiles or ready to go as one of the GB-500 is having a bump on the corner
Thank you

 

[Beast]

The asserted “qualities “ of the JH-7 are not applicable to the PAF or PN vis a vis budget and future growth,

It uses Chinese copies of the Spey engine but that leads to it having a lower thrust to weight ratio even to the older F-4 Phantom and payload comparable less than the Tornado which is a much much superior airplane.

For the 70-80’s PLAAF looking for an indigenous strike platform it was an OK design, but it is wholly disadvantaged for both today’s and tomorrow’s fight.

As for the wikipedia pasted assertion on how it was to mirror the F-111 or otherwise, all it takes is a cursory look at its payload/range on a Hi-lo-lo-Hi mission to see how its barely as good as the blackburn bucaneer(designed in the 50s) and lacks flexibility against more modern threats.

Those advocating for the Jh-7 probably are from the 50s with a thought process mirrored in that age; along with similar understanding of how military arms are run.

The engine used on JH-7A are not just pure 1:1 copy. They are based on but improve which has updated thrust and lifespan.

http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/436643.shtml

 

[SQ8]

The engine used on JH-7A are not just pure 1:1 copy. They are based on but improve which has updated thrust and lifespan.

http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/436643.shtml

Still a 50’s concept engine driving a 50’s concept airplane. There is a reason the PLAAF and PLAN both prefer J-16

 

[Beast]

Still a 50’s concept engine driving a 50’s concept airplane. There is a reason the PLAAF and PLAN both prefer J-16

J-16 is prefer is more of streamline fighter jet and simplify logistics since it's part of J-11 series fighter(J-11B/J-11BH/J-15/J-16)

While JH-7A has only one series in it's class. I dare to say JH-7A is near as capable as J-16 for attack and EW role if upgraded is carried out for it. But u see, there is no point for PLAAF to keep 2 different times of planes for a same role.

JH-7A still has some advantage like massive range. It's range is so good a refuelling rod is not needed for it. It's has good payload of 9tons. There can be many improvement for it.

 

[SQ8]

J-16 is prefer is more of streamline fighter jet and simplify logistics since it's part of J-11 series fighter(J-11B/J-11BH/J-15/J-16)

While JH-7A has only one series in it's class. I dare to say JH-7A is near as capable as J-16 for attack and EW role if upgraded is carried out for it. But u see, there is no point for PLAAF to keep 2 different times of planes for a same role.

JH-7A still has some advantage like massive range. It's range is so good a refuelling rod is not needed for it. It's has good payload of 9tons. There can be many improvement for it.

The massive range comes at the cost of being underpowered, the electronics are comparable to the Mirage ROSE III upgrade and its a sitting duck in air combat. So what advantages does it bring to the PAF to iustify not just the cost of the airframe but also its lifecycle costs and future potential especially with the limited budget of the PAF versus the big wallets of the PLAAF?

 

[denel]

The asserted “qualities “ of the JH-7 are not applicable to the PAF or PN vis a vis budget and future growth,

It uses Chinese copies of the Spey engine but that leads to it having a lower thrust to weight ratio even to the older F-4 Phantom and payload comparable less than the Tornado which is a much much superior airplane.

For the 70-80’s PLAAF looking for an indigenous strike platform it was an OK design, but it is wholly disadvantaged for both today’s and tomorrow’s fight.

As for the wikipedia pasted assertion on how it was to mirror the F-111 or otherwise, all it takes is a cursory look at its payload/range on a Hi-lo-lo-Hi mission to see how its barely as good as the blackburn bucaneer(designed in the 50s) and lacks flexibility against more modern threats.

Those advocating for the Jh-7 probably are from the 50s with a thought process mirrored in that age; along with similar understanding of how military arms are run.

Friend i take exception to your comments. We were running Buccaneers and its primary aim was to carry offensive weapons which became drop off n.warheads; you cannot compare buccaneer which was very primitive in comparison to jh-7. my question is very simple you need dedicated strike platform; with the exception of su-35; do you have an alternative; heaven forbid given the graveyard status of Rose platforms - jfts are not capable of fulling that role as of yet. when you were running very obsolete a-5s and did not complain of maintenance nightmares.
we are noting jh-7 as a sow carrier amongst others.

 

[SQ8]

Friend i take exception to your comments. We were running Buccaneers and its primary aim was to carry offensive weapons which became drop off n.warheads; you cannot compare buccaneer which was very primitive in comparison to jh-7. my question is very simple you need dedicated strike platform; with the exception of su-35; do you have an alternative; heaven forbid given the graveyard status of Rose platforms - jfts are not capable of fulling that role as of yet. when you were running very obsolete a-5s and did not complain of maintenance nightmares.
we are noting jh-7 as a sow carrier amongst others.

Actually there were PLENTY of maintenance nightmares with the A-5s along with their general obsolescence. As such the ROSE mirages arent yet at the grave yards(the older blue flash airframes are). The Bucaneer and the JH-7 use the same engine as such. Both aircraft have a high wing loading which making them stable at low level and the Bucaneer could do 900nm without tanks in a Hi-lo-hi-hi mission profile which is precisely whay the JH-7 does(even with the larger fuel and payload capacity).
The F-4K used a higher powered version of the spey and so does the JH-7, yet the F-4 is better optimzed for multirole than the JH-7(the Turkish F-4 terminator is a very capable kit).

But what is missed by ALL advocates of the JH-7 for a heavy fighter is budget and operational requirements. The PAF is near to facing 3-1 disparity in numbers and in high tech multirole aircraft whilst having a limited budget. It has no “business case” for a one trick pony like the JH-7A which is going to be obsolete for most high intensity conflicts requiring flexibility in combat tasks in ten years.

 

[denel]

Actually there were PLENTY of maintenance nightmares with the A-5s along with their general obsolescence. As such the ROSE mirages arent yet at the grave yards(the older blue flash airframes are). The Bucaneer and the JH-7 use the same engine as such. Both aircraft have a high wing loading which making them stable at low level and the Bucaneer could do 900nm without tanks in a Hi-lo-hi-hi mission profile which is precisely whay the JH-7 does(even with the larger fuel and payload capacity).
The F-4K used a higher powered version of the spey and so does the JH-7, yet the F-4 is better optimzed for multirole than the JH-7(the Turkish F-4 terminator is a very capable kit).

But what is missed by ALL advocates of the JH-7 for a heavy fighter is budget and operational requirements. The PAF is near to facing 3-1 disparity in numbers and in high tech multirole aircraft whilst having a limited budget. It has no “business case” for a one trick pony like the JH-7A which is going to be obsolete for most high intensity conflicts requiring flexibility in combat tasks in ten years.

yes i agree but you are already living with a maintenance nightmare with mirages.

 

[MastanKhan]

J-16 is prefer is more of streamline fighter jet and simplify logistics since it's part of J-11 series fighter(J-11B/J-11BH/J-15/J-16)

While JH-7A has only one series in it's class. I dare to say JH-7A is near as capable as J-16 for attack and EW role if upgraded is carried out for it. But u see, there is no point for PLAAF to keep 2 different times of planes for a same role.

JH-7A still has some advantage like massive range. It's range is so good a refuelling rod is not needed for it. It's has good payload of 9tons. There can be many improvement for it.

Hi,

China is going for the J11-15-16 for a reason---they want to show off their brand new merchandise---. They built a very capable new product---and it would be very obvious that they want to show that they trust their new merchandise---.

It is just like the F35---. This aircraft cannot do the sh-it that the A10 warthog can do---but still it has replaced the A10---. Even though the A10 is still an extremely superior aircraft for the job and purpose that it was built for---and even after so many decades---there is no true replacement for it---.

Otherwise---the JH7A is far superior an aircraft in the capability that it was built for than the J11-15-16---ie for low low flight and strike capability---.

The american UK engine technology had been 30-50 years ahead of china---.

The engines in the F16 /15 are 60-70 design technology and these are top tier fighter interceptor aircraft---.

Most average intellect people don't understand is that for strike aircraft---you really don't need state of the art engine or design---as long as the EW package is upto date---you will have a monster of a machine---and then when you add the modern standoff weapons to it---you have made a monster out of it---.

Just look at what the US air force has done to the B52 with modern upgrades---it is performing an unimaginable job for the US military---.

Don't cutoff your nose to spite your face---.