JH-7 as a Missile Hauler

[Deino]

@Fatman17 why not simply closing this thread!

As much as I rate the idea to get JH-7As back then maybe the only good idea from MK, this idea makes no sense any more today!

As such, repeatedly going round in circles, like a never-ending debate, over whether it might actually be the case is simply just as pointless as asking whether India will ever develop a bomber.

And now, broadening the discussion to other points has simply nothing to do with the topic at hand. Just bury this dead horse once and for all and let it rest in peace.

 

[MH.Yang]

IMPOSSIBLE.

We'd seriously be dumb fools to induct a huge RCS, ancient aircraft with super heavy maintenance.

Why not buy more J-10Cs instead ? JF-17s/J-10Cs can carry ALBMs.

People needs to understand, its really NOT important for us to pack 4 ALBMs into single platform. Infact it has serious downside. If its shotdown, then you lose 4 of your missiles even before those could be utilized. Instead 2 Jeffs carry 2 ALBMs each is much more deadlier and smarter approach.

Secondly, range of the aircraft has absolutely ZERO value in Pakistan - India context. We are not going to fly over indian airspace either over land or water to strike targets. We are most likely to release payload from our own airspace just like what was done in 2025 by both sides.

What they want is a platform capable of launching the PL-17 and possessing a large payload. The JH-7A is merely a compromise product when the J-16D/F-15EX is unavailable.

 

[MH.Yang]

I don't agree with you. The reach and strike across India is very much needed. If India needs to feel pain, the fear of pain is bigger than pain itself. They need to know that PAF has the capability and capacity, plus the firepower, to go beyond LR drones and rockets to attack the length and breadth of Bharat. Just like they, the bhindi mindset, always claim that they can annihilate entire Pakistan conventionally... let them have this pain also. For me, the updated JH7P is the only option until / unless the J16 is available.

Unless China and Pakistan can perform a major overhaul on the JH-7A just as they did when iterating the J-7 into the JF-17, the PAF not choose the JH-7A even if they cannot obtain the J-16D; it is not worth it even if it is given for free.

I still suggest finding a way through the diplomatic field to get Russia to allow Pakistan to purchase the J-16D.

 

[studsmart]

Unless China and Pakistan can perform a major overhaul on the JH-7A just as they did when iterating the J-7 into the JF-17, the PAF not choose the JH-7A even if they cannot obtain the J-16D; it is not worth it even if it is given for free.

I still suggest finding a way through the diplomatic field to get Russia to allow Pakistan to purchase the J-16D.

J16D is ARM / Jammer version. but yes PAF needs J16 class fo fighter for deep strike. However JF17 is not a upgrade version of J7. You are dead wrong there.

 

[AeronautIR]

J16D is ARM / Jammer version. but yes PAF needs J16 class fo fighter for deep strike. However JF17 is not a upgrade version of J7. You are dead wrong there.

Strange discussion... PAF has limited resources and can't afford any new platform like JH-7 or J-16.

 

[Hussain]

Strange discussion... PAF has limited resources and can't afford any new platform like JH-7 or J-16.

Do you have kids? When kids are busy in doing something non-destructive, you encourage them and enjoy your piece of mind

 

[Hussain]

I have never opposed Pakistan conducting in-depth research into fighter jet design and manufacturing technologies for research purposes. That is the premise.

However, technical research and actual production are two entirely different systems. Even if you possess the complete technical knowledge, it does not guarantee an ability to carry out actual production (there are numerous real-world examples of this). Yet, it is only through actual production that economic value is generated and strategic autonomy is achieved.

This touches upon the issue of an industrial ecosystem. Perhaps you could explore other avenues to gain a deeper understanding of this.

The current cost of the JF-17 Block III exceeds $30 million. If we were to replace the engine with the WS-21, add an Infrared Search and Track (IRST) system, and re-optimize the internal avionics and electronic systems, the cost would surpass $40 million—or even more. —And this is an assessment based on the use of mature, Chinese-supplied subsystems. If one were to factor in your requirement for "autonomy"—by replacing these with components manufactured entirely within Pakistan—the costs would skyrocket, potentially to an astronomical level.

Now, assuming you were a customer (such as the Pakistan Air Force), and faced with a choice between the JF-17 Block IV and the J-10CE at a similar price point, which would you choose?

Since you are so well versed in it could we request you to post the "publicly available" specs of the JH-72A?

 

[Bilal]

Strange discussion... PAF has limited resources and can't afford any new platform like JH-7 or J-16.

Not all discussions are meant for immediate execution. But they do open up points to bounce ideas. It’s not like we are writing AFDP here.

 

[AeronautIR]

Not all discussions are meant for immediate execution. But they do open up points for bounce ideas. It’s not that we are writing AFDP here.

If the discussion is to pass time because we are bored, then any topic is fair game. We can even think about making a base on Moon. Otherwise, I think the forum should be a place for discourse about realistic topics, so that we can all learn something instead of just wishful thinking.

 

[maxpane]

If the discussion is to pass time because we are bored, then any topic is fair game. We can even think about making a base on Moon. Otherwise, I think the forum should be a place for discourse about realistic topics, so that we can all learn something instead of just wishful thinking.

sir for deep srike is arfc is the only option or paf would use something from its arsenal ?

 

[Bilal]

If the discussion is to pass time because we are bored, then any topic is fair game. We can even think about making a base on Moon. Otherwise, I think the forum should be a place for discourse about realistic topics, so that we can all learn something instead of just wishful thinking.

Yeah, I can tell you back in 2000s on the grand parent version of PDF (when PAF was a bit averse to HIMADS) similar reactions were thrown when that topic was brought up.

Or 5-10 years ago when people kept nagging about MRAPS/Armoured troop carriers or extensive drone employment in CT Ops it was same reaction about wishful thinking, look where we are now.

There are many examples like this. Instead let’s hypothesize, it’s not as far fetched as a moon base or Death Star.

Again, JH7 itself maybe an infeasible cart in front of the horse but problem statements such as how (if and when needed) VLAAM can be employed or how (if and when needed) proper ALBM capability can be had, given the trend and given the opening day effectiveness they showed recently and given te capability now being introduced in our theater.

 

[Pakistan First]

This perspective represents a common misunderstanding that many people have regarding the JH-7 series of fighter-bombers.

Within the PLA’s operational framework, the JH-7 series of fighter-bombers is primarily tasked with medium-to-long-range anti-ship strikes and ground-attack missions.

The JH-7 series—most notably its latest iteration, the JH-7A2—was designed with Aegis-class destroyers as a primary target. Consequently, it is capable of carrying a comprehensive suite of armaments and equipment—including anti-ship missiles, anti-radiation missiles, electronic warfare jamming pods, and short-to-medium-range air-to-air missiles (for self-defense)—while maintaining an operational radius exceeding 1,500 km without the need for external fuel tanks.

While the JF-17 Block 3 and J-10CE fighter jets are also capable of carrying such munitions, neither can accommodate this full, integrated strike payload simultaneously. Operators are forced to make trade-offs; furthermore, achieving an extended operational range would require the use of external fuel tanks, which would further diminish the aircraft's capacity to carry weapons. This is the core reason why the PLA continues to retain the JH-7 series in its inventory. The only aircraft capable of replicating this specific set of capabilities is the J-16. The PLA is currently in the process of replacing the JH-7 series with the J-16, though this transition will take time.

As the JH-7 series of fighter-bombers are currently slated for replacement within the PLA’s inventory, AVIC has little incentive to develop more comprehensive upgrade programs for them. Consequently, the JH-7 series has fallen behind the rest of the PLA’s operational ecosystem—a key reason why it fails to attract interest from many international clients. This is also the primary basis for the criticism leveled against the aircraft by many in Pakistan.

Nevertheless, this does not mean the platform is entirely without merit; the airframe itself still holds significant potential. This stands in stark contrast to the JF-17 platform, the potential of which has been fully exhausted by the JF-17 Block 3 (JF-17B3) variant—leaving virtually no room for further development.

Of course, I know the J-16 fighter is better. But the J-16 is not for sale. By comparison, the JH-7 series of fighter-bombers is a solid alternative.

You missed entire point of my post. Can't just comment on a single line without context. Pakistan has limited budget, lets assume PAF gets grant of 2 billion dollars to buy more aircrafts and it has option between JF-17s and JH-7. We will choose JF-17, 100 out of 100 times. If we are given option between J-10C and JH-7, then we'll choose J-10C 100 out of 100 times. Not a chance on planet earth that we will go for JH-7x (x whatever version).

You simply cannot apply China's requirements and perspective on Pakistan's case. That is the only misunderstanding here.

China has vastly different requirements. Those do not apply for Pakistan. JH-7 could be useful for China. As China can fully utilize its range. Flying over south china sea.

In Pakistan-India context, there's nothing such requirement. In 2025 conflict, both sides remained in their airspace. No strike package has to fly deeper into enemy territory. A strike package will takeoff, reach a certain altitude and position and release its payload well within their own airspace. For us, range maybe is more important for aircrafts on CAP or interception missions.

Its common knowledge that JH-7 / J-16s have more ranges and larger payloads. For us, JF-17s / J-10Cs are upto the mark for our needs. We don't have a huge priority or critical requirement for range / payload that we spend tons loads of money on a new platform specifically for these attributes.

 

[Deino]

What they want is a platform capable of launching the PL-17 and possessing a large payload. The JH-7A is merely a compromise product when the J-16D/F-15EX is unavailable.

So, they are discussing about the unlikely option to get the PL-17 and as such discuss and even more unlikely option to launch it!??

Honestly ... a more useless thread is simply not possible.

 

[Bilal]

So, they are discussing about the unlikely option to get the PL-17 and as such discuss and even more unlikely option to launch it!??

Honestly ... a more useless thread is simply not possible.

You can always decide not to read a thread, you know.

 

[Deino]

You can always decide not to read a thread, you know.

Yes for sure, but why discussing irrelevant stuff in an old thread when it is totally unrealistic?

Just for fun? But isn't this a bit below your reputation as a think tank/consultant?