Two seater. whats the point of having two as this aircraft cannot do simulatneous air to air and air to ground fight. .

On the other thought I think this should be best comment of the day!
😀

why are you guys feeding the conversation?

has he actually seen the turn radius of B474?

the range would suffer because the turn radius is small?
would a Mig-15 out range a U-2? 😉
come freakin on now…. does any one realize the ridiculousness nature of this conversation.

folks!

J79 vs Atar 9, roughly same T/W true.
but things on airplanes don’t scale up the same.
the absolute thrust increased with roughly the same foot print.
if hold MTOW the same then practically means exchange bit of fuel/store for a bigger motor.

frontal aera increase, true, but most drag came from induced anyways on airplanes.

and don;t forget J79 had a higher compression ratio. which if all things is the same then typically means a bit higher un-reheat SFC. which means more power for less gas.

Yes,
I would take a J79 in a Kfir vs over a Atar 9 in a Mirage 5. anyday of the week.
better rate of climb, level accel….etc etc.

Ohh come one ! …how stupid can one be !?

If You compare the old MiG-23 with the F-22 in terms of climb rate, … the Flogger is a real sitting duck ! … but did You take a look when both were developed and for what role ?? Again comparing apples with bananas just to feel better.

Yes the JH-7 is not comparable to the Fencer, simply since it was never to be
… and even more to the latest MiG-29K. It was developed as China’s first dedicated long range straiker for a role similar to the F-111/Su-24/Tornado, YES, with a dated and underrated powerplant but anyway it was the best the CHinese Aviation Industry had avialable when it was under development (and not yet). It was to provide an aircraft with a better range, weapons load and overall performance to the Q-5 … and now after surely a protracted development phase with the latests avionics it’s surely worth these efforts for the PLAAF/PLANAF….. and please leave these stupid comparisons to aircrfat of different generations and developed for different roles.

Deino:mad:

did not have time to read JSR’s comments above.
but I am sure it is not worth my time.
fully support what Deino has to say.

.

Tornado engine weighs 975kg. and JH-7 engine weighs 1950kg. Just based on engine difference alone there is 2000kg weight difference for two engines. Now to support such heavy engine you need beefup structure..

***facepalm***
heavy engine =/= heavier overall structures. the effect is marginal. what heavy engines gets penalized for is the the dead weigh which means less weight for fuel/stores.

tornado had the swing wing structure which JH-7 don’t and airframe is designed to a higher rated g load. higher MMo and prob a higher speed on deck, which all means high loads which means higher structure weights. JH-7 has none of that, it can’t pull as much gs and it prob has a rough ride on deck, all which thanks to a older engine. which means V-n has to shrink inorder to give it about the same range-payload class as tornado GR1.

You have understand this basic things about bombers. Bombers wetstations are much more stressed than regular fighters. Su-24M2 weighs much more than Su-30MK.
Su-24M could carry 3000L tank under wings for very long time. but Flankers couldnot. It is only very advanced material variants of Flanker like Su-35/Su-34 that are able to carry it.

eh… I see we have people dont typically work in aerospace industry here and are light on engineering details.

ok. here is the deal .

carrying loads under the wing actually help relieve structure loads believe or not because your wing root bending moment is less now, same weight but distributed out = less wing root bending. wing root bending is the first thing an aircraft designer sees when he wants to predict weights.

your structure weigh is typically almost directly a function of your loads which is interm of your V-n envelope. stress a wing to take 9 gs takes much more metal than the same wing stressed to 6 gs. its almost an exponential relationship in the prelim design stage.

Bomber structure typically gets stressed much less. thus lighter interm of structure weight than their fighter brethens because of it.

Su24 weights get penalized because of swing wing structure.

In summary,
JH-7 is a gas bag that can’t manuever worth **** but that’s ok because it is not meant to.

Blue

I didnot say they use dumb bombs only. It is just that regiment of JH-7 cannot carry that many PGMs that you claim. or those PGMs are some small bombs. Not standoff missiles. you cannot compare stand off missiles inventory with glide bombs.

So one regiments can only fly one sortie in an exercise?
I think you should go back and re-read my statement.
since i havent seen PLAAF Su-30 equiped with Chinese PGM and Russia TMC revenues are now 50-50. It means more of newer PGMs are going to Ruaf inventory than exported to particular country.

Is Russian TMC the only source for Su-30MKK’s PGMs…
or let’s put it this way, Do you know amount of technical assistance, licensing and engineering-with-out-licensing. that is going on with these weapon.

let’s put it another way, in your estimate, you think PLAAF is so dumb as to pluck down cash for 100 su-30MKKs but didnot bother to secure an source for PGMs that goes with these airplanes. ?

First you have to accept the fact that JH-7 cannot have the weight of Phantom. It is much bigger aircraft.

Why bigger a/c has to weigh more? what is the fallacy here?
It has about the same MTOW and empty as Tornado.

You will never see JH-7A lifting 9000kg externally.
Both MIG-29SMT/MIG-29K and JH-7 are limited to 5500-6500kg as they only have 5 wet stations.
how can JH-7A be so light weight when a single spey engine weighs 1900Kg.
JH-7A weight is more closer to Su-30MK without the thrust and internal fuel capacity.
Spey powered F-4 was 14 ton empty. with maximum range of 3000km with ET.
http://www.f-4.nl/f4_24.html

you still hasn’t answer the question,

“How is JH-7A comparable to Mig-29s? They have different roles. “