JH-7 as a Missile Hauler

[AeronautIR]

My focus was a bit future oriented, not only from the perspective of what they can have (I hope their bureaucracy delays it as usual) and also what we should have, given their depth.

If they show decision agility, they already have a platform right now that can sport air lora / rocks. And in any case, it’s an emerging trend which we can think of now or decide not to.

Maybe I am not explaining it well enough, so let me share what CNS told @Quwa. You are platform oriented, while things have shifted towards gaining capabilities by available means.
"In his recent interview with Quwa, the Pakistan Navy (PN) Chief of Naval Staff (CNS), Admiral Naveed Ashraf, stated that the service arm’s modernization track was focused on “capability-based development rather than platform-based modernization.”
In its most straightforward sense, Admiral Ashraf was essentially stating that the PN was not trying to accumulate assets, like surface ships, for the sake of numbers, but instead, it aimed to build certain capabilities from what it can realistically acquire.
When reviewing the PN’s modernization efforts thus far, alongside Pakistan’s broader defence procurement and industrial activities, those capabilities seem to focus on the following outcomes: (1) long-range, precision-strike; (2) deep system and subsystem integration across platforms with greater sensor fusion and connectivity range; and (3) offloading any requirement for greater platform numbers to uncrewed air, surface, and underwater vehicles – all led by core crewed platforms already in the pipeline.
Collectively, these outcomes will feed back into the PN’s anti-access and area-denial (A2/AD) posture, i.e., its capacity to deter and prevent an Indian military incursion into Pakistan’s coastlines, sea lanes, and territorial waters."

 

[Bilal]

Maybe I am not explaining it well enough, so let me share what CNS told @Quwa. You are platform oriented, while things have shifted towards gaining capabilities by available means.
"In his recent interview with Quwa, the Pakistan Navy (PN) Chief of Naval Staff (CNS), Admiral Naveed Ashraf, stated that the service arm’s modernization track was focused on “capability-based development rather than platform-based modernization.”
In its most straightforward sense, Admiral Ashraf was essentially stating that the PN was not trying to accumulate assets, like surface ships, for the sake of numbers, but instead, it aimed to build certain capabilities from what it can realistically acquire.
When reviewing the PN’s modernization efforts thus far, alongside Pakistan’s broader defence procurement and industrial activities, those capabilities seem to focus on the following outcomes: (1) long-range, precision-strike; (2) deep system and subsystem integration across platforms with greater sensor fusion and connectivity range; and (3) offloading any requirement for greater platform numbers to uncrewed air, surface, and underwater vehicles – all led by core crewed platforms already in the pipeline.
Collectively, these outcomes will feed back into the PN’s anti-access and area-denial (A2/AD) posture, i.e., its capacity to deter and prevent an Indian military incursion into Pakistan’s coastlines, sea lanes, and territorial waters."

I mentioned platform as a capability enabler. Right now, no unmanned system can provide this capability nor do other service integrations give the same capability.

I catch your drift, that not everything that is desired can be had, there has to be compromises given the resources and more pressing needs. I understand.

Its just as a thought experiment or a what if or something for a further out timeline (long term).

So, down the line we need heavy payload capability enabler. Unless of course, this whole thing has no merits at all or it is totally redundant compared to surface launched systems.

 

[AeronautIR]

I mentioned platform as a capability enabler. Right now, no unmanned system can provide this capability nor do other service integrations give the same capability.

I catch your drift, that not everything that is desired can be had, there has to be compromises given the resources and more pressing needs. I understand.

Its just as a thought experiment or a what if or something for a further out timeline (long term).

So, down the line we need heavy payload capability enabler. Unless of course, this whole thing has no merits at all or it is totally redundant compared to surface launched systems.

It isn't redundant to surface launched, but I think platforms like 5th and 6th gen or bigger drones may be a better option in 10 years or so.

 

[Bilal]

It isn't redundant to surface launched, but I think platforms like 5th and 6th gen or bigger drones may be a better option in 10 years or so.

And yes, one thing I under emphasized and this probably will be a shorter horizon issue. We need a VLRAAM capability to engage their stand off weapons carriers, to deter/engage long ranged safe operations while they sit outside the range of PL15. That’s something they can do right now or at least very soon and they have learnt their lesson the hard way.

 

[maxpane]

And let me repeat my point that I mentioned while replying to @maxpane. Air launched cruise or ballistic missiles are a better capability than using ground launchers. Neither IAF nor PAF have top notch capabilities to cover air2air and air2ground roles. They have Brahmos, we have PL-15. Now, I can ask Army to help me out for strikes. What options does IAF has to cover the weakness in aerial engagements? With limited resources, it is better to keep the edge in BVR fight and gain control of air.

yep you already explained that in one of your videos. Got it thanks

 

[Michael]

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

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.

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.

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.

 

[AeronautIR]

And yes, one thing I under emphasized and this probably will be a shorter horizon issue. We need a VLRAAM capability to engage their stand off weapons carriers, to deter/engage long ranged safe operations while they sit outside the range of PL15. That’s something they can do right now or at least very soon and they have learnt their lesson the hard way.

I agree with you on requirement of such capabilities. But when I say PAF may not have them, that isn't because the capabilities are not important but due to dearth of funds.
So my point is that the discussion should be about the alternatives, how to mitigate our issues if we can't afford a platform like J-16. Lastly, India is working on all of this but they don't have much options. R-37M, Su-57, more S-400 etc. are under discussion but their main focus is also on multi-domain ops now. Our problem is money, their problem is availability.

 

[Bilal]

I agree with you on requirement of such capabilities. But when I say PAF may not have them, that isn't because the capabilities are not important but due to dearth of funds.
So my point is that the discussion should be about the alternatives, how to mitigate our issues if we can't afford a platform like J-16. Lastly, India is working on all of this but they don't have much options. R-37M, Su-57, more S-400 etc. are under discussion but their main focus is also on multi-domain ops now. Our problem is money, their problem is availability.

I did not mean their VLRAAM capabilities pipe dream. I meant their A2G which they can (and most likely will, going forward) launch from outside the envelope of PL15 or they will launch ingressing within just enough that they can safely retreat after launch.

Will this win wars? no. Does it give them an option to take highly publicized pot shots with impunity? Most likely. Unless we do risky cross border engagements.

 

[AeronautIR]

I did not mean their VLRAAM capabilities pipe dream. I meant their A2G which they can (and most likely will, going forward) launch from outside the envelope of PL15 or they will launch ingressing within just enough that they can safely retreat after launch.

Will this win wars? no. Does it give them an option to take highly publicized pot shots with impunity? Most likely. Unless we do risky cross border engagements.

So the only thing they can achieve is optics for domestic audience. Nobody was fooled around the globe by those satellite images. Also, the Western bases like Saidu Sharif will be operational soon and that will keep our best assets out of Brahmos range.

 

[Hussain]

So the only thing they can achieve is optics for domestic audience.

I think this has been a priority for them for a long time.

 

[Bilal]

So the only thing they can achieve is optics for domestic audience. Nobody was fooled around the globe by those satellite images. Also, the Western bases like Saidu Sharif will be operational soon and that will keep our best assets out of Brahmos range.

Our whole counter was that we shot down large numbers of their aircraft for violating our sovereignty. Unless I misunderstood the above post, it says we accept such strikes (basically their claim of new normal) as they are just optics and our key assets will anyways be safe in deeper bases.

 

[AeronautIR]

Our whole counter was that we shot down large numbers of their aircraft for violating our sovereignty. Unless I misunderstood the above post, it says we accept such strikes (basically their claim of new normal) as they are just optics and our key assets will anyways be safe in deeper bases.

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?

 

[Bilal]

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?

Let’s set the premise that counter strikes were done effectively (and we are exploring the VLRAAM capability aspect, not the ALBM right now, that discussion was settled), then that lies overwhelmingly with the ground launched systems, but in any case that’s not my point.

My point is what happens to the main mandate of the PAF then, when we can’t effectively engage and/or deter enemy assets carrying out offensive actions, violating our sovereignty by lobbing stand off PGMs let’s say 150-200km in their territory hitting targets 150-200Km within our depth.

PAF just stands by, reneging on its main mandate? That’s the acceptance threshold?

 

[Hussain]

members here said it was all a lie,

Those belong to a certain cult, ignore them.

 

[AeronautIR]

Let’s set the premise that counter strikes were done effectively (and we are exploring the VLRAAM capability aspect, not the ALBM right now, that discussion was settled), then that lies overwhelmingly with the ground launched systems, but in any case that’s not my point.

My point is what happens to the main mandate of the PAF then, when we can’t effectively engage and/or deter enemy assets carrying out offensive actions, violating our sovereignty by lobbing stand off PGMs let’s say 150-200km in their territory hitting targets 150-200Km within our depth.

PAF just stands by, reneging on its main mandate? That’s the acceptance threshold?

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.