Utility of JH7 for PAF

[araz]

A lot has been written on the subject of whether PAF should relook the issue of JH7s for its naval role. I think it needs a new thread for appropriate discussion.
I will request the Moderators to kindly shift he posts from M3/5 thread to this thread.

Here is the excerpt from Air force technology.

The JH-7 is powered by two Rolls-Royce Spey Mk202 turbofan engines. Each engine can produce 54.29kN of dry thrust and its thrust after burner is 91.26kN.

"The first JH-7 prototype was rolled out in August 1988."
The engine is 5.2m long. Its diameter is 1.09m. The dry weight of the engine is 1,856kg.

The Spey Mk202 engine was introduced in 1960. The engine was first received by China in 1975.

China signed an agreement with Rolls Royce in 1975 to reproduce the Spey Mk202 engine through reverse engineering.

The Chinese produced engine is designated as WS-9 Qinling turbofan engine and its trail production began in 1976. The WS-9 incorporated in the JH-7A aircraft is a licensed copy of the Spey Mk202 engine.

Performance
The aircraft can fly at a maximum speed of 1,808km/h. Its cruise speed is 903km/h. The normal and ferry ranges of the JH-7 are 1,759km and 3,700km respectively. The service ceiling of the aircraft is 16,000m. The aircraft weighs around 14,500kg while its maximum take-off weight is 28,475kg.

I think it's the side-discussion re: a potential Mirage III/5 replacement. As @MastanKhan brought up from the very start (here's ur credit man), the JH-7A is basically the only fighter-bomber solution available to the PAF in as far as lobbing big SOWs (H-2, H-4s, Ra'ad, Ra'ad II, and Mk. 84-based REKs) is concerned.

And, to be honest, he's right -- if doubling down on more JF-17s is the only route, then why not shore-up the heavyweight stuff using the JH-7A while using JF-17s as escorts/support fighters?

The only problem is PAF seems blissfully unaware of this need and has not evaluated this platform since the late 80s. What was rejected in the 80s is unlikely to be accepted as the basic flaws in the design are not rectified and the engine remains pathetic. It seems that other forces world wide share the same view as to the best of my knowledge no one has expressed any interest in it barring Mr Mastan Khan and a few of his avid followers. If you look at the PAF philosophy it wants multirole platforms rather than single role ones. That maybe why it has not ben considered. With the J series running on WS series engines it maybe a better bet at the fighter bomber role than the JH7 provided China can work round the restrictions imposed on it by Russia regarding sales to third party.
A

 

[aliyusuf]

The only problem is PAF seems blissfully unaware of this need and has not evaluated this platform since the late 80s. What was rejected in the 80s is unlikely to be accepted as the basic flaws in the design are not rectified and the engine remains pathetic. It seems that other forces world wide share the same view as to the best of my knowledge no one has expressed any interest in it barring Mr Mastan Khan and a few of his avid followers. If you look at the PAF philosophy it wants multirole platforms rather than single role ones. That maybe why it has not ben considered. With the J series running on WS series engines it maybe a better bet at the fighter bomber role than the JH7 provided China can work round the restrictions imposed on it by Russia regarding sales to third party.
A

You may want to google JH-7AⅡ, maybe China is realizing the potential for it's payload capacity and range. With newer AESA radars and EW suite ... it can be a very potent heavy strike + stand off kill + Naval Interdiction platform. Furthermore it could also serve as a BVR missile truck ... giving top fighter cover from a distance.

Maybe it's no longer going to be a one trick pony that everyone thinks that it is.

Just a thought.

 

[Chak Bamu]

The only problem is PAF seems blissfully unaware of this need and has not evaluated this platform since the late 80s. What was rejected in the 80s is unlikely to be accepted as the basic flaws in the design are not rectified and the engine remains pathetic. It seems that other forces world wide share the same view as to the best of my knowledge no one has expressed any interest in it barring Mr Mastan Khan and a few of his avid followers. If you look at the PAF philosophy it wants multirole platforms rather than single role ones. That maybe why it has not ben considered. With the J series running on WS series engines it maybe a better bet at the fighter bomber role than the JH7 provided China can work round the restrictions imposed on it by Russia regarding sales to third party.
A

Here credit is due to @MastanKhan for making a good case for JH-7A II. I was skeptical too, but I have come around to appreciate the soundness of logic in acquiring a longer-legged platform for strike role. If PAF would rather limit itself to multi-role aircraft, then it may be time to consider giving Navy some much-needed wings.

Who can forget pleas of help from PN when Indian navy prepared to attack coastal installations? PAF refused to help, even though it would have been pretty much a duck-shoot given that frigates were towing missile boats for attack on coastal assets.

If PAF does not wish to think out of the box, then its time to let someone else do it.

 

[araz]

Here credit is due to @MastanKhan for making a good case for JH-7A II. I was skeptical too, but I have come around to appreciate the soundness of logic in acquiring a longer-legged platform for strike role. If PAF would rather limit itself to multi-role aircraft, then it may be time to consider giving Navy some much-needed wings.

Who can forget pleas of help from PN when Indian navy prepared to attack coastal installations? PAF refused to help, even though it would have been pretty much a duck-shoot given that frigates were towing missile boats for attack on coastal assets.

If PAF does not wish to think out of the box, then its time to let someone else do it.

I understand where you are coming from. However, if you employ JH7s they will require top cover with PAF fighters. That brings us back to square work. The Spey engines are under powered as it is . Loading it with heavy anti sea missiles means that the platform gets slower and more like a brick. Add on 2-4 BVRs and a couple of WVRs and it will be a pthetic plane . I fully sympathize with the PN and say that PN needs a couple o squadrons of Dual engined platforms with decent range independent of PAF which would be its air arm to shoot at sea based targets. It remains a weakness but the question is does JH7 cover it? I do not think so which is my reservation. In order for the JH7s to be accepted it needs better engines in the class of RD93 giving it suffiicent thrust to get itself out of trouble when aerial arm of IN approaches it. Otherwise it will be a Turkey shoot. M3/5s might not have the maneouverability or the carrying capacity but they have the power to do just that . I know the situation is not ideal otherwise we would not be using JFTs to replace M3/5s in that role, instead going for a twin engined platform. So the PN currently relies on the ATRs and P3C s for missile delivery top guarded by JFTs /F16s
A

You may want to google JH-7AⅡ, maybe China is realizing the potential for it's payload capacity and range. With newer AESA radars and EW suite ... it can be a very potent heavy strike + stand off kill + Naval Interdiction platform. Furthermore it could also serve as a BVR missile truck ... giving top fighter cover from a distance.

Maybe it's no longer going to be a one trick pony that everyone thinks that it is.

Just a thought.

China may have showcased it but there is no indication it is being built in large numbers the Chinese are instead relying on J11 series for aerial operations over sea. To the best of my knowledge the JH7 plant has not produced any planes for 2 years. Please correct me if I am wrong. Iam all for correcting my mistakes if I have made one. Look the point still remains that if it was an al singing and dancing platforms how many countries have purchased it? China only built 220 at a time when there was a serious dearth of fighters and J series had not been inducted. China has a history of milking each platform to its last limits. So the J7 series continues on in its latest iteration with JFT like inlets and the same pathetic range in J9? /FT2000. And frankly I dont blame them for good business acumen. It isinteresting to note that all export successes for China have resulted in being inducted in PAF. Even J10 in spite of being such a good plane has not seen exports. It may be because of the Engines and we may yet see J10s in numbers in PAF but for heavens sake why has no one else bought it??

"The first batch of 12 to 18 JH-7 aircraft was delivered to both PLNAF and PLAAF for evaluation in the 1990’s. The PLAAF declined to acquire JH-7 due to its old technology and unreliable Spey turbofan engines. The air force finally agreed to procure aircraft after upgrading the avionics and weapons suite with state-of-the-art technology. The upgraded JH-7 is known as JH-7A and was delivered to PLAAF in 2004."

"The JH-7 is powered by two Rolls-Royce Spey Mk202 turbofan engines. Each engine can produce 54.29kN of dry thrust and its thrust after burner is 91.26kN.

"The first JH-7 prototype was rolled out in August 1988."
The engine is 5.2m long. Its diameter is 1.09m. The dry weight of the engine is 1,856kg.

The Spey Mk202 engine was introduced in 1960. The engine was first received by China in 1975.

China signed an agreement with Rolls Royce in 1975 to reproduce the Spey Mk202 engine through reverse engineering.

The Chinese produced engine is designated as WS-9 Qinling turbofan engine and its trail production began in 1976. The WS-9 incorporated in the JH-7A aircraft is a licensed copy of the Spey Mk202 engine.

Performance
The aircraft can fly at a maximum speed of 1,808km/h. Its cruise speed is 903km/h. The normal and ferry ranges of the JH-7 are 1,759km and 3,700km respectively. The service ceiling of the aircraft is 16,000m. The aircraft weighs around 14,500kg while its maximum take-off weight is 28,475kg."
Here is some referencing from air force technology. My mistake the engines are equally powerful but read the note from PLAAF which initially did not accept it due to reliability issues.
Secondly look at the top speed and cruising range. It looks like the airframe is aerodynamically flawed. I think even to a nvice olike me there are flaws blatantly visible in the JH7 which cannot be rectified by spit polishning. Redesigning will apparently not help either and thew cost vs benefit of a seventies style platform based on 1950 ideas will not do.
I think will rest my case.
A

 

[denel]

I understand where you are coming from. However, if you employ JH7s they will require top cover with PAF fighters. That brings us back to square work. The Spey engines are under powered as it is . Loading it with heavy anti sea missiles means that the platform gets slower and more like a brick. Add on 2-4 BVRs and a couple of WVRs and it will be a pthetic plane . I fully sympathize with the PN and say that PN needs a couple o squadrons of Dual engined platforms with decent range independent of PAF which would be its air arm to shoot at sea based targets. It remains a weakness but the question is does JH7 cover it? I do not think so which is my reservation. In order for the JH7s to be accepted it needs better engines in the class of RD93 giving it suffiicent thrust to get itself out of trouble when aerial arm of IN approaches it. Otherwise it will be a Turkey shoot. M3/5s might not have the maneouverability or the carrying capacity but they have the power to do just that . I know the situation is not ideal otherwise we would not be using JFTs to replace M3/5s in that role, instead going for a twin engined platform. So the PN currently relies on the ATRs and P3C s for missile delivery top guarded by JFTs /F16s
A


China may have showcased it but there is no indication it is being built in large numbers the Chinese are instead relying on J11 series for aerial operations over sea. To the best of my knowledge the JH7 plant has not produced any planes for 2 years. Please correct me if I am wrong. Iam all for correcting my mistakes if I have made one. Look the point still remains that if it was an al singing and dancing platforms how many countries have purchased it? China only built 220 at a time when there was a serious dearth of fighters and J series had not been inducted. China has a history of milking each platform to its last limits. So the J7 series continues on in its latest iteration with JFT like inlets and the same pathetic range in J9? /FT2000. And frankly I dont blame them for good business acumen. It isinteresting to note that all export successes for China have resulted in being inducted in PAF. Even J10 in spite of being such a good plane has not seen exports. It may be because of the Engines and we may yet see J10s in numbers in PAF but for heavens sake why has no one else bought it??
A
A
A

j10 is plagued with engine issues constantly; best to stay away. Comm party has put pressure to field more from PR exercises but the problem remains; they dont state how many hours these engines last before complete breakdown; % of fleet is out for engine repairs at any time.

With respect to Jh7s' already P3 are doing antiship role; if P3s are ok, then why are not Jh7. It is a balancing act in terms of payload and with SOW/long range anti-ship; you dont need aircover. Will P3's be having aircover during their operations - no.

 

[aliyusuf]

China may have showcased it but there is no indication it is being built in large numbers the Chinese are instead relying on J11 series for aerial operations over sea. To the best of my knowledge the JH7 plant has not produced any planes for 2 years. Please correct me if I am wrong. Iam all for correcting my mistakes if I have made one.
A

Point is that China is serious enough to think of it in the newest version. Nothing is showcased without proper & valid utility. First step may quite likely be to upgrade it's existing fleet of 240+ JH-7s. That in itself is testimony to the effectiveness of the platform. Newer AESA (with BVR) can and will eliminate the need for fighter escort. The stoppage in production may have been a necessity to concentrate resources on getting the more capable Su-27/30 derivatives in numbers in priority in the past. But now with advancement in avionics technology an old but long legged horse can be made to learn and perform newer tricks.

 

[araz]

MOD EDIT:
JH-7 discussion moved to and to continue on this thread.

 

[Khafee]

A lot has been written on the subject of whether PAF should relook the issue of JH7s for its naval role. I think it need s a new thread for appropriate discussion.
I will request the Moderators to kindly shift he posts from M3/5 thread to this thread.

Here is the excerpt from Air force technology.

The JH-7 is powered by two Rolls-Royce Spey Mk202 turbofan engines. Each engine can produce 54.29kN of dry thrust and its thrust after burner is 91.26kN.

"The first JH-7 prototype was rolled out in August 1988."
The engine is 5.2m long. Its diameter is 1.09m. The dry weight of the engine is 1,856kg.

The Spey Mk202 engine was introduced in 1960. The engine was first received by China in 1975.

China signed an agreement with Rolls Royce in 1975 to reproduce the Spey Mk202 engine through reverse engineering.

The Chinese produced engine is designated as WS-9 Qinling turbofan engine and its trail production began in 1976. The WS-9 incorporated in the JH-7A aircraft is a licensed copy of the Spey Mk202 engine.

Performance
The aircraft can fly at a maximum speed of 1,808km/h. Its cruise speed is 903km/h. The normal and ferry ranges of the JH-7 are 1,759km and 3,700km respectively. The service ceiling of the aircraft is 16,000m. The aircraft weighs around 14,500kg while its maximum take-off weight is 28,475kg.

Sounds good. How many, and when? $25m a pop?

 

[araz]

Excerpts from Wiki.
I understand it is not a relaible website but operational history and inventory gives you an idea of its current capabilities. Notably it is not wired to carry SD10A.





Operational history of JH7:-
On its maiden flight on 14 December 1988, while en route back to the airport to land, the engines of the JH-7 prototype suddenly begun to vibrate violently. The test pilot Huang Bingxin (黄炳新) decided to make an emergency landing, but as he approached the airport, the vibration was so great that two thirds of the instruments had been shaken off the instrument panel, and all of the connectors of the remaining third still attached to the panel had also been shaken loose, so none of the instruments worked; the pilot nonetheless managed to eventually land the prototype safely.[16]

On 8 June 1991, a JH-7 prototype suddenly began to leak fuel at a high rate. Lu Jun (卢军), a Russian-trained Chinese test pilot, managed to make a safe emergency landing when the fuel reserve had dropped to slightly more than 30 liters. Three years later, on 4 April 1994, a JH-7 prototype crashed during a test flight, killing Lu.[16]

On 19 August 1992, the entire rudder of a JH-7 suddenly fell off at an altitude of 5,000 meters, while carrying four live missiles. Against orders to jettison the missiles and abandon the aircraft, the test pilot decided to attempt an emergency landing. Using mainly differential thrust of the two engines, the test pilot Huang Bingxin (黄炳新) made it back to the airport and attempted to make an emergency landing, but a tire at the starboard side exploded on touch down, causing the aircraft to veer off course. Using brakes as control, the test pilot made two attempts before finally releasing the drogue parachute to finally stop safely.[16]

The JH-7A entered service with the PLANAF in early 2004, and with the PLAAF by the end of the year.[17]

In 2007 JH-7s went abroad to participate in "Peace Mission" exercises of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO). In April 2012, multiple JH-7 aircraft joined a Russia-China joint naval exercise in eastern China. In 2013, JH-7s participated in a Russia–China joint exercise held on Russian territory.[18]

On 12 March 2019, a JH-7 crashed during a training exercise in Ledong County, Hainan, killing two pilots onboard.[19] The crash of the normally high-altitude-usage, aged aircraft happened during a low-altitude training flight, the pilots gave up an opportunity to eject to avoid densely populated residential area and were killed when trying to avoid a school, they were hailed for their bravery as martyrs by local officials.[20]

Operators[edit]

People's Republic of China

• People's Liberation Army Naval Air Force – 120 (As of January 2014[update]).[2]
• People's Liberation Army Air Force – 120 (As of January 2014[update]).[2][21]

Variants[edit]



This section does not cite any sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (May 2011) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

• JH-7 – Initial production version of the PLANAF anti-shipping fighter-bomber.
• JH-7A – Later production utilising composite structure to reduce weight, improved flying control system and improved avionics including the JL10A Shan Ying J-band pulse-Doppler radar. Weapon loads increased by the addition of two more wing hardpoints and two hardpoints under the intake trunking for mission pods such as targeting pods.
• JH-7B - New variant, with upgraded avionics, engines with 15% more thrust, in flight refueling, upgraded mission computer, full authority digital fly-by-wire system, and greater use of composite materials.
• JH-7E - Possibly export variant, shown at 2018 Zhuhai Airshow.[22]
• FBC-1 Flying Leopard – Export version of the JH-7.
• FBC-1A Flying Leopard II – Export version of the JH-7A.

Specifications (JH-7)[edit]

Data from AVIC I, SinoDefence.com

General characteristics

• Crew: 2: pilot, weapons operator
• Payload: 9,000 kg[7][8] (19,842 lb) of weapons
• Length: 22.32 m (73 ft 2 in)
• Wingspan: 12.8 m (41 ft 7 in)
• Height: 6.22 m (20 ft 4 in)
• Wing area: 42.2m² (ft²)
• Empty weight: 14,500 kg[23] (31,900 lb)
• Loaded weight: kg (lb)
• Max. takeoff weight: 28,475 kg[24] (62,720 lb)
• Powerplant: 2 × Xian WS-9 afterburning turbofans
  • Dry thrust: 54.29 kN (12,250 lbf) each
  • Thrust with afterburner: 91.26 kN (20,515 lbf) each

Performance

• Maximum speed: Mach 1.75 (1,808 km/h, 1,122 mph)
• Combat radius: 1,760 km (950 nm, 1,100 mi with one in-flight refueling (estimated), 900 km without refueling (estimated))
• Ferry range: 3,700 km (1,970 nm, 2,299 mi)
• Service ceiling: 16,000 m (51,180 ft)
• Wing loading: kg/m² (lb/ft²)

Armament

• Guns: 1× 23mm twin-barrel GSh-23L autocannon, 300 rounds
• Hardpoints: 9 in total (6× under-wing, 2× wing-tip, 1× under-fuselage) with a capacity of 9,000 kg (20,000 lb) external fuel and ordnance
• Rockets: 57mm/90mm unguided rocket pods
• Missiles:
  • Air-to-air missiles:
    • PL-5[25]
    • PL-8
    • PL-9
  • Anti-ship missiles:
    • Yingji-8K[26]
    • Yingji-82K[27]
  • Air-to-surface missiles:
    • CM-802A
    • KD-88[28]
    • C-705
    • C-704
  • Anti-radiation missiles:
    • Yingji-91[29]
    • LD-10
    • CM-102
• Bombs:
  • Unguided bombs
  • Laser-guided bombs
    • GB1
    • GB5
  • Satellite-guided bombs
    • LS-6
    • FT-12
    • GB6
    • FT-2
    • FT-3
    • FT-6

Avionics

 

[HAIDER]

A lot has been written on the subject of whether PAF should relook the issue of JH7s for its naval role. I think it need s a new thread for appropriate discussion.
I will request the Moderators to kindly shift he posts from M3/5 thread to this thread.

Here is the excerpt from Air force technology.

The JH-7 is powered by two Rolls-Royce Spey Mk202 turbofan engines. Each engine can produce 54.29kN of dry thrust and its thrust after burner is 91.26kN.

"The first JH-7 prototype was rolled out in August 1988."
The engine is 5.2m long. Its diameter is 1.09m. The dry weight of the engine is 1,856kg.

The Spey Mk202 engine was introduced in 1960. The engine was first received by China in 1975.

China signed an agreement with Rolls Royce in 1975 to reproduce the Spey Mk202 engine through reverse engineering.

The Chinese produced engine is designated as WS-9 Qinling turbofan engine and its trail production began in 1976. The WS-9 incorporated in the JH-7A aircraft is a licensed copy of the Spey Mk202 engine.

Performance
The aircraft can fly at a maximum speed of 1,808km/h. Its cruise speed is 903km/h. The normal and ferry ranges of the JH-7 are 1,759km and 3,700km respectively. The service ceiling of the aircraft is 16,000m. The aircraft weighs around 14,500kg while its maximum take-off weight is 28,475kg.

Long range bombing mission, no place in PAF. Pakistan only use agile strike fighter bomber. F16 and JF17 is lethal combo. To carry small nuclear weapon Pakistan has Mirage and more then 50 A5 in storage.

 

[PurpleButcher]

Long range bombing mission, no place in PAF. Pakistan only use agile strike fighter bomber. F16 and JF17 is lethal combo. To carry small nuclear weapon Pakistan has Mirage and more then 50 A5 in storage.

How about JH7 as naval air wing?

 

[araz]

Sounds good. How many, and when? $25m a pop?

I would be happy if you came true on the promise of 18-24 Block72s and 20 older16s. As to JH7 I personally see very little if any role for it in PAF/PN.But then what do I know!!!
A

 

[HAIDER]

How about JH7 as naval air wing?

Pakistan has JF17 and Mirage for navel mission.

 

[PurpleButcher]

Pakistan has JF17 and Mirage for navel mission.

Mirages are getting old rather very old. JF-17 vs JH7 , the difference lies in hardpoints, twin engines and if I am not wrong combat radius etc

 

[Pakhtoon yum]

Long range bombing mission, no place in PAF. Pakistan only use agile strike fighter bomber. F16 and JF17 is lethal combo. To carry small nuclear weapon Pakistan has Mirage and more then 50 A5 in storage.

Nuclear this, nuclear that, blah blah blah. I'm sorry but it wasnt a nuclear tipped missile that gave the Indians a mouth shattering response on the 27th. Conventional warfare is still the most dominant form of warfare. Deep strike fighters are need to attack the Indians far east and central, locations. Anyone that says otherwise is frankly, stupid.

Lunch a nuclear missile and face a nuclear missile in return. Killing thousands of people on our side too. Lunch a deep strike and they can only hope to accomplish the same.

Pakistan has JF17 and Mirage for navel mission.

Might as well give them prop planes.