JH-7 as a Missile Hauler

[Bilal]

Support your assumption with evidence. Which PGM can be launched by India from 150-200 km inside their territory and hitting targets within our depth at 150-200 km?
From top my head, I can't think of anything other than 40 odd Brahmos capable Su-30 and SCALP carrying Rafales. With new air defence systems and EW assets, what will be the interception rate against those missiles?
Nobody can stop an enemy aircraft from launching an ALCM from 400 km, but this threat can be mitigated in various ways.

Brahmos, Rudram series and SCALP.

 

[baqai]

oh no ... Khafee yaad a giya lol

 

[Bilal]

oh no ... Khafee yaad a giya lol

View attachment 220123

Bhai we are flying SU35 in secret already.

 

[Hussain]

oh no ... Khafee yaad a giya lol

View attachment 220123

Bhai we are flying SU35 in secret already.

Have some decency, lets not make fun of the dead.

 

[AeronautIR]

Brahmos, Rudram series and SCALP.

Rudram isn't operational yet and it is anti-radiation I think. Brahmos and SCALP are very expensive ALCM and with limited launch platforms, they can only be fired in limited quantity at a time. So PAF's strategy to defend against missiles instead of spending resources on trying to shoot down IAF aircraft at 400 km makes more sense. As I said before, nobody can shoot a fighter at this range, not even S-400.

 

[Bilal]

Have some decency, lets not make fun of the dead.

Yes, my mistake. May Allah have mercy on him.

 

[Bilal]

Rudram isn't operational yet and it is anti-radiation I think. Brahmos and SCALP are very expensive ALCM and with limited launch platforms, they can only be fired in limited quantity at a time. So PAF's strategy to defend against missiles instead of spending resources on trying to shoot down IAF aircraft at 400 km makes more sense. As I said before, nobody can shoot a fighter at this range, not even S-400.

On cusp of operationalization, given the testing. And I am not talking about being able to shoot at 400Km, but a longer engagement range than the current PL15. But I think I am not able to state my point clearly. Let’s leave it at that.

 

[Quwa]

No, our whole counter was not just that, but I understand if you will not accept PAF's claims without satellite imagery. I have had enough of that and even with Pakistan’s geopolitical rise, members here said it was all a lie, Pakistan is only in limelight due to Gaza force etc etc.
However, the discussion won't be fruitful unless this point is setlttled: Did Pakistan actually gave a strong response on 10th, or is it all propaganda unless we see some evidence?
Also, the Indians failed to achieve anything except Bholari and though it may again start a heated debate, but if Brahmos can't destroy aircraft in HAS, render a runway unserviceable or penetrate an underground C2 node, what is the operational impact of a 5 million dollar ALCM?

One trend I'm seeing across the tri-services is responsiveness. I think they have a real sense now that if they can mount enough heavy strikes fast enough, they can interfere with India's mobilization and momentum.

In my view, that is what ARFC (backed by a growing satellite constellation) and the massive OWA/loitering munition investments are all speaking to. Can Pakistan launch 1,000+ guided munitions (ballistics, subsonic cruise, supersonic cruise, jet-powered OWAs, piston OWAs, and GMRLS) at India on a daily basis? I think that's the question Pakistan is trying to answer.

And while it's all surface-launched, this is the only pathway we have right now to leverage. Even if PAF did have access to the Sino-Flanker, I wonder if the decision-makers would even act on it. They might prefer spending several billion dollars on NESCOM to develop the ballistics stack such that proper hypersonic BMs can be manufactured at scale.

Point is, Pakistan needs to be able to strike fast, and stay resilient by sustaining those strikes.

It's what we're seeing with the Middle East and Russia-Ukraine War. Yes, India will strike Pakistan and get its optics in, but what use are all those optics when Pakistan will strike back? Israel showed the world how they took out Iran's last F-14, but Iran hit Tel Aviv, and people remember that. Likewise, Russia invaded Ukraine, yet people remember Ukrainian strikes across Russia's key infrastructure.

 

[Pakistanithinktank]

The more I research JH7A, the more I think Mastan Khan's initial idea wasn't a bad one. PAF could have invested in an updated version of JH7A with all modern 4.5+ gen bells and whistles to support JF-17.

Was Never worth it. It’s like i am asking Pakistan to build Mirage v from
Scratch.

 

[baqai]

Have some decency, lets not make fun of the dead.

not making fun of him AT ALL, this post reminded me of him, God bless his soul

 

[Bilal]

One trend I'm seeing across the tri-services is responsiveness. I think they have a real sense now that if they can mount enough heavy strikes fast enough, they can interfere with India's mobilization and momentum.

In my view, that is what ARFC (backed by a growing satellite constellation) and the massive OWA/loitering munition investments are all speaking to. Can Pakistan launch 1,000+ guided munitions (ballistics, subsonic cruise, supersonic cruise, jet-powered OWAs, piston OWAs, and GMRLS) at India on a daily basis? I think that's the question Pakistan is trying to answer.

And while it's all surface-launched, this is the only pathway we have right now to leverage. Even if PAF did have access to the Sino-Flanker, I wonder if the decision-makers would even act on it. They might prefer spending several billion dollars on NESCOM to develop the ballistics stack such that proper hypersonic BMs can be manufactured at scale.

Point is, Pakistan needs to be able to strike fast, and stay resilient by sustaining those strikes.

It's what we're seeing with the Middle East and Russia-Ukraine War. Yes, India will strike Pakistan and get its optics in, but what use are all those optics when Pakistan will strike back? Israel showed the world how they took out Iran's last F-14, but Iran hit Tel Aviv, and people remember that. Likewise, Russia invaded Ukraine, yet people remember Ukrainian strikes across Russia's key infrastructure.

That is perfectly fine, if the way forward is a diminished PAF role (excluding its ground based air defense / EW portion) due to ground realities. Since It won’t be able to engage/deter at those extended ranges, it won’t be able to strike at depth of the enemy.

Defence of the air as it was noted will be done via ground based interceptors and EW, counter strikes will be done primarily via ARFC. PAF will play diminished secondary role to take on any stray enemy fighter IF it comes close.

 

[EgoKaempfer]

PAF will play diminished secondary role

The air force should suffice with its niche role in the new reality playing second fiddle. After all, there are already enough Lumber‑1s going around these days anyways.

 

[donaldtrump]

The JH-7 series of fighter-bombers is an older aircraft platform. China typically classifies it as a third-generation fighter—that is, one generation behind the J-10A.

Xi'an JH-7 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

This aircraft is significantly behind in many respects. When evaluated against the criteria used for modern combat aircraft, it clearly falls short.
However, in certain specific operational scenarios, it still retains significant combat value.
According to some analysts' current assessments, its barebones price will not exceed $25 million.

Publicly available information indicates that the JH-7 series of fighter-bombers, when configured for strike missions, carries the following payload:
1. Air-to-ship/air-to-surface missiles.
2. Anti-radiation missiles.
3. Electronic warfare (EW) pods.
4. Air-to-air missiles.
This constitutes an integrated strike package: the EW pods are designed to counter enemy air defense systems, anti-radiation missiles target enemy radar, air-to-ship/air-to-surface missiles engage the intended targets, and air-to-air missiles provide self-defense. Without external fuel tanks, the JH-7 has a combat radius exceeding 1,500 km.

While the JF-17 and J-10CE are capable of carrying these types of munitions, they cannot accommodate this full, integrated strike suite simultaneously. Furthermore, both aircraft require the use of external fuel tanks.

If the Pakistan Air Force’s (PAF) operational scope is limited strictly to launching long-range missile strikes against India from within its own territory—or, at most, operating near the border—then there is indeed no need to acquire an aircraft like the JH-7. That is the premise. However, I do not believe this represents the PAF’s strategic objective.

There is a Chinese saying: "Having a sword in one's hand but choosing not to use it is not the same as having no sword to use at all."

Note: In my view, JH-7 is an optional option, not a mandatory one. It would be better if the PAF had other, superior options, such as the J-16 or F-15.

You guys missed my key point. I don't recommend PAF to buy JH-7A, neither JH-7E. I recommend PAF to invest in the R&D of the JH-7 platform, to transform the current JH-7 into a semi stealth long range twin engine fighter bomber. In 1980s, nobody envisioned that J-7/Mig-21 can evolve into something like JF-17 block 3.

Remember that JH-7 was designed as an ultra low altitude supersonic striker, just like a small F-111, or like a mini Tu-22M. Therefore, JH-7 does not need to have low RCS for the whole air frame. The JH-7 just needs to optimize its upper side of the airframe to evade the airborne radar. JH-7 can still use its multiple pylons for pay loads. As JH-7 breaks through the enemy space at ultra low altitude, the lower half of the air frame does not need to have low RCS. Therefore, internal bomb bay is not critical for JH-7. This is a critical advantage, as the internal bay can be used for oil storage for long range strike.

Another practical consideration is that USAF will not give the whole technology of F-15 twin engine fighter to PAF, neither Russian AF gives its Su-34 to PAF, neither PLAAF gives its J-16D to PAF. However, PLAAF may transfer the whole technology platform, including airframe, engine, avionics, weaponry, etc of the whole JH-7 platform to PAF. This is about availability. The PAX program of twin engine multi role stealth fighter is unrealistic as Pakistan does not have mature aerospace industrial bases to realize such an aggressive program.

Another twin engine A2A fighter that may be available to PAF is PLAAF's J-8F. Again, my point is to develop an advanced updated stealth version of J-8F, not the current J-8F.

 

[donaldtrump]

No, you're wrong again, when super-7 project was going on

Tiananmen massacre was occured and super-7 project was closed after we reached Chinato replace our F-6 and mirages in mid 90s with new jets so entirely new project that was not related to super-7 project started by China, In fact most says JF-17 is based on Soviet/Russian single engine jet of 80s era that was rejected by VVS (soviet air force) in early 80s namely MIG-33 (not related to upgrades of MIG-29 with same title) so your assessment is totally wrong about JF-17's history​

This is partly true. JF-17 originated from J-7/Mig-21, then evolved into Super-7, then Mig-33, then JF-17.

 

[Michael]

You guys missed my key point. I don't recommend PAF to buy JH-7A, neither JH-7E. I recommend PAF to invest in the R&D of the JH-7 platform, to transform the current JH-7 into a semi stealth long range twin engine fighter bomber. In 1980s, nobody envisioned that J-7/Mig-21 can evolve into something like JF-17 block 3.

Remember that JH-7 was designed as an ultra low altitude supersonic striker, just like a small F-111, or like a mini Tu-22M. Therefore, JH-7 does not need to have low RCS for the whole air frame. The JH-7 just needs to optimize its upper side of the airframe to evade the airborne radar. JH-7 can still use its multiple pylons for pay loads. As JH-7 breaks through the enemy space at ultra low altitude, the lower half of the air frame does not need to have low RCS. Therefore, internal bomb bay is not critical for JH-7. This is a critical advantage, as the internal bay can be used for oil storage for long range strike.

Another practical consideration is that USAF will not give the whole technology of F-15 twin engine fighter to PAF, neither Russian AF gives its Su-34 to PAF, neither PLAAF gives its J-16D to PAF. However, PLAAF may transfer the whole technology platform, including airframe, engine, avionics, weaponry, etc of the whole JH-7 platform to PAF. This is about availability. The PAX program of twin engine multi role stealth fighter is unrealistic as Pakistan does not have mature aerospace industrial bases to realize such an aggressive program.

Another twin engine A2A fighter that may be available to PAF is PLAAF's J-8F. Again, my point is to develop an advanced updated stealth version of J-8F, not the current J-8F.

Well. Your tendency to indulge in "daydreams" is even more pronounced than other people's!

This has completely lost any basis for rational discussion.