It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

China deploys its latest fighter-bomber - The JH-7A Flying Leopard

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 5 2005 @ 02:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by NWguy83
Too bad those JH-7As won't stand a chance against PAC-3s.



And how , pray tell , in the Taiwan strait ,will PAC-3 be used on ships??




posted on Aug, 5 2005 @ 02:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Harlequin
And how , pray tell , in the Taiwan strait ,will PAC-3 be used on ships??


The PAC-2's have a range of about 160 km which can cover a good portion of the straight. The PAC-3's which are primary ABM SAMS have a range of 15 km in the anti air role or 15-45 in the ABM role. You will see staggered batteries of both IMHO.

Patriot Specs



posted on Aug, 5 2005 @ 02:59 AM
link   
I can`t see a PAC-2 succesfully enaging a low level strike package especially coming directly at a CBG - they will be defended by SM-2 and maybe RAM if they have any ships with it.

But over land then yes PAC-2 will be thrown into the fray , BUT , every manufacturer in the world makes extensive claims about the product - and if they were true then all of the SAMS fired in iraq over the last few years would have downed everything they shot at and the US would need replacement of everything in theatre!!



posted on Aug, 5 2005 @ 03:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Harlequin
I can`t see a PAC-2 succesfully enaging a low level strike package especially coming directly at a CBG - they will be defended by SM-2 and maybe RAM if they have any ships with it.


Hmmm are we arguing apples and oranges? The reference to the PAC-2/3 was in regards to Taiwan SAM defences and thier ability to defend the island nation from JH-7A attacks. You are correct in your assertion that USN CBG's will have thier own defences, however, they will be well away from the Straight and conduct operations at the extreme range of PLAAF air cover.

The Patriot can engage targets down to 60 meters. So a low level strike will have to be really low level



posted on Aug, 5 2005 @ 03:25 AM
link   
Given that in the gulf , RAF crews were coming in lower than that - BUT IMO the RAF are the worlds best at hedge hoping at M1 , then you well be correct about pac-2 being usefull.


Well away from the area? they`ll need lots of tanker support to conduct operations then - as to strike anywhere thats not the coast , a CBG would have to be in the strait and thus well within range of JH-7A and coastal batteries

[edit on 5-8-2005 by Harlequin]



posted on Aug, 6 2005 @ 07:03 AM
link   


Is this a new picture? Im not sure you see.



posted on Aug, 6 2005 @ 08:13 AM
link   
Greetings,

This is another cog in the improvement in the Chinese Air Force. The line up is becoming quite impressive in terms of aircraft, with the SU-30 as the primary fighter, the J-10 as the Multi role fighter/ground attack and then a dedicated ground support aircraft. On there own it would be easy to merely view them as an improvement, in my opinion it is much more than that, the over all order of battle in the PLAAF is changing and in turn is becoming more advanced and capable.

The Mig-21 is solid design that has been operated by Russia and nearly every Asian nation from its introduction into service. From the looks of the specs that I have had a chance to look over, it has still some of the draw backs of its original design, short legs, in a tactical environment I suppose this isn’t much of a issue with ground support but the limited fuel means a very short time over target if it is to be used in any conflict with Taiwan. I would ask if this design will operate with a refuelling capability? The aircraft doesn’t appear to be a vast improvement on the MIG-21 but the ability to carry more stores is for sure a benefit in any conflict but I would be interested to see if the jury-rigged style of construction has had any effects on the ability of the aircraft to dog fight or even manoeuvre with its full payload, of course aircraft with a full payload would suffer, but the MIG was never designed to carry a large weapon load, this new design appears to be basically a new wing and cockpit section, along with engine… I would be interested if any one has any performance data for it?

As for the PAC-2/3 In my opinion, it’s a flawed system. In the gulf, its down falls were out there for all to see and that was with the nation that originally designed them. I have doubts that they are actually capable of their chosen role, issues with the communications equipment, missiles and radar systems have plagued the system since its introduction in the US armed forces. I wonder if the Taiwanese will try to buy some of the RAM systems from the US navy to fit to their bunkers, some thing which they have done with the Goal Keeper system, the US Army also have a version for close in defence.

Any defence network can be overcome, not without loss I may add, either through either direct attacks [Wild Weasel Tactics], Electronic Warfare, Special Warfare [Special Forces or Agents] not to mention indirect attacks against supply lines or the killing of the people that service them or operate them.

It’s a good idea to convert an existing design to a new role, it saves on development costs not to mention the ability to convert existing airframes to the new design, the only problem is that they aren’t purpose build from scratch for their new role, it’s a trade off. Just some thing to remember.

Note: The best low level movers on the Planet are the RAF, no questions, no doubts.

- Phil



posted on Aug, 6 2005 @ 10:15 AM
link   
JH-7/A is definitely not a MIG-21. Mig-21? Where did that come from, J-7 is a vastly improved MIG-21, JH-7 is not related to the J-7 or the MIG-21. I think you've mistakened J-7 to JH-7, completely different.



posted on Aug, 6 2005 @ 10:18 PM
link   
Hi guys, the JH-7/7A is not a small size plane like Jaguar or MIG-21/J-7. It's a new designed fighter-bomber with the same class as Tornado/Su-24/F-15E. It has 9 tonnes payload and 1600km combat radius.It can carry various precise guidance ammunition and conventional bombs.

I have lots of JH-7/7A pics, How can I post pics here?must insert a http link of other sites?????


[edit on 7-8-2005 by hijjjj]



posted on Aug, 7 2005 @ 12:20 AM
link   
The 1600 range is with full load and internal fuel or otherwise??
And also although it is in the same class as those a/c.. I still want to know how it
handles and performs as compared to those..Also heavier a/c are more difficult to control at low altitudes..And since a major topic over here was the necessity to have the capacity to execute a low level strike.. I was wondering about the Stick force per gee...



posted on Aug, 7 2005 @ 02:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Daedalus3
The 1600 range is with full load and internal fuel or otherwise??
And also although it is in the same class as those a/c.. I still want to know how it
handles and performs as compared to those..Also heavier a/c are more difficult to control at low altitudes..And since a major topic over here was the necessity to have the capacity to execute a low level strike.. I was wondering about the Stick force per gee...



The 1600km combat radius was from FBC-1(JH-7's export version)'s specification published on 1998 Zhuhai airshow. Nobody will test a plane's max combat range with full weapon load. From the photos I saw, 1600km combat radius should based on JH-7's typical long distance anti-ship payload: 3*drop tanks, 2*YJ-83 ASM, 2*PL-5E IR AAM.

The Jane's report says JH-7A can fly as low as 60m at the speed of 900km/h, with the help of its additioanal Navigation/Aiming pod.Plus the radar of JH-7/7A also has terrian following capability. Low level strike is still very useful especially for anti-ship mission.Radars on ship can only find low level aircrafts with 40km due to the limitation of earth curve.


JH-7A and JH-7 pics:

































posted on Aug, 7 2005 @ 03:00 AM
link   
nice pictures.. some of them have a good paint job..



posted on Aug, 7 2005 @ 05:14 AM
link   
It seems a very large aircraft for a 9 ton payload, especially as none of it is internal. For comparison the Jaguar carries 10 tons and is much smaller while the Tornado carries 18 tons at about the same size.

On the plus side though I reckon the Chinese JH-7 crews will enjoy a more comfortable low level high speed ride than the F-15E jocks as the JH-7 bears all the hallmarks of having been actually designed for the role.



posted on Aug, 7 2005 @ 05:52 AM
link   
from what i read at gobalsecruity the tornado only can carry over 9tons. maximum take off weight is 28tons

www.globalsecurity.org...



posted on Aug, 7 2005 @ 06:01 AM
link   
Chinawhite, It might be my maths that is suspect, being British (and a bit old fashioned at that) I find Kg's a bit confusing so I will tell you what I think and you can tell me why it is wrong



The Jaguar carries a 10,000lb payload and I have seen this also reported as '10 tons'.

The Tornado carries 18,000 - 21,000lb payload (depending on sources) so I equated this to 18 tons.

Therefore I equated the reported JH-7 load of 9 tons as 9,000lb.

Go for it



posted on Aug, 7 2005 @ 06:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
Chinawhite, It might be my maths that is suspect, being British (and a bit old fashioned at that) I find Kg's a bit confusing so I will tell you what I think and you can tell me why it is wrong



The Jaguar carries a 10,000lb payload and I have seen this also reported as '10 tons'.

The Tornado carries 18,000 - 21,000lb payload (depending on sources) so I equated this to 18 tons.

Therefore I equated the reported JH-7 load of 9 tons as 9,000lb.

Go for it



1lb=0.45kg, 1 ton=1000kg

so, Jaguar's 10,000lb=10,000*0.45kg= 4500kg=4.5ton
Tornado's 18,000 - 21,000lb =8.1ton -9.45ton



posted on Aug, 7 2005 @ 06:50 AM
link   
hijjjj is correct.

so its about the same load



posted on Aug, 7 2005 @ 07:14 AM
link   
from teh 4th picture down - those red top ASCM looks ALOT like `sea eagle`



posted on Aug, 7 2005 @ 07:20 AM
link   
IAF Jaguars have 1500km range on full payload and external drop tanks, 850 km on Internal fuel and a ferry range of 4850km..



posted on Aug, 7 2005 @ 07:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by chinawhite
hijjjj is correct.

so its about the same load


yes, thank you both. I suspected the answer would be something like that.

So whats the difference between a ton and a tonne



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join