First Pic Of Chengdu J-7G | Key Aero

Skip to main content Cookies are required to watch videos and view magazine page-turners. Close First pic of Chengdu J-7G

Primary tabs

• View

1. Home
2. Forums
3. Modern Military Aviation

Read the forum code of contact

Member for

25 years 11 months

Posts: 6,409

Send private message

By: crobato - 7th September 2002 at 06:55

[updated:LAST EDITED ON 07-09-02 AT 07:16 AM (GMT)] Nice one by Bomberman of the CMF. This is updated J-7E with upgraded electronics and engine (maybe). Note the one piece canopy on the plane (like F-7MG/PG).

Attachments:

Original post

Member for

25 years 11 months

Posts: 45

By: Diana - 7th September 2002 at 08:50 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

RE: First pic of Chengdu J-7G

Very nice. That thing behind the cockpit looks the same as the RWR on Pakistani Mirages and A5's. I am curious what the avionics are. The small nose cone is a major problem.

New

Member for

25 years 11 months

Posts: 6,208

Send private message

By: Ja Worsley - 7th September 2002 at 10:21 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

RE: First pic of Chengdu J-7G

Very interesting, so tell me, how many different uses can you fit in one airframe?

This Bomberman, he's not the same guy that was giving us a bit of curry earlier this year is he?

Give me coffee and no-one gets hurt!

New

Member for

25 years 11 months

Posts: 6,409

Send private message

By: crobato - 7th September 2002 at 12:32 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

RE: First pic of Chengdu J-7G

I don't think you can really fit that much. Other than point defense interception, J-7s are often used in close support, dumping iron bombs and shooting saturation rockets from pods.

New

Member for

25 years 11 months

Posts: 6,208

Send private message

By: Ja Worsley - 7th September 2002 at 12:57 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

RE: First pic of Chengdu J-7G

What I ment mate was how many differet rolls can you give this a/c?

Give me coffee and no-one gets hurt!

New

Member for

25 years 11 months

Posts: 3,857

Send private message

By: plawolf - 7th September 2002 at 15:59 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

RE: First pic of Chengdu J-7G

well i doubt that this fighter can take on too many other roles effectively. the time of the mig21 has passed, j7s r still quite useful as point defence fighters, but thats abt all. a few hundred should be kept to complament the newer j10,j11 and su30s but i dont think much more money should be spent on improved versons, as its pretty much a wast of money.

btw, what is the difference between this new j7G and the j7MGs that came out quite a while ago?

New

Member for

25 years 11 months

Posts: 213

By: BearCat - 7th September 2002 at 16:15 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

RE: First pic of Chengdu J-7G

Cool pict of yet another Chinese project!

I wonder if this is just a Chengdu initiative and not offically funded by the PLAAF. With the different wing, it couldn't really be a cheap upgrade standard for all the J-7Bs.

I can't see the air force continuing to develop the J-7 line with the J-10 in production.

New

Member for

25 years 11 months

Posts: 95

By: flydesi - 7th September 2002 at 16:22 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

RE: First pic of Chengdu J-7G

Whats the difference between the J-7G/MG/PG ?

How does it compare to the Mig-21-93/UPG or Mig-21-2000 upgrades? More interested in the range, maximum takeoff weight, thrust to weight ratio, etc. Since the F-7s were based on the earlier Mig-21 vairants and not the Mig-21BIS variants which were larger. The Mig-21 UPG is the upgraded BIS.

Electronics/avionics comparison would be interesting as well.

Thanks

New

Member for

25 years 11 months

Posts: 6,409

Send private message

By: crobato - 7th September 2002 at 16:32 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

RE: First pic of Chengdu J-7G

Not much of a role hehe, just point defense and close support.

Personally, I'm still surprised they would still come out with a new J-7 variant. But then they still came out with a new T-59 refit/variant, a new Q-5 refit/variant, new J-8IIs refit/variants, and possibly a new H-5/6 refit/variant that will enable to Badgers to fire long range cruise missiles and AshMs.

It does prove to me one thing though, that the military and defence industry in China are also job subsidy industries. Rather than kill a production line and idle workers, they continue to produce the thing again and again, until the said factory could produce a replacement product.

As J-6 retirement accelerates, the production and supply of SU-27SKs, SU-30MKKs and even the J-10s won't be fast enough to replace the old planes. Despite the talk about forces reduction and trading quatity for quality, the undisputable fact remains that the PLA cannot afford to let go too much people (and deprive the generals of their power base). And most especially pilots, who, while still under trained, still remains a most valuable manpower asset.

This is why J-8s, J-7s and even Q-5s are still produced. Rather than lay pilots off or force them to continue to fly aging and increasingly unsafe aircraft, they can still fly and even increase their training with brand new but inexpensive aircraft. New and obsolete is still better than old and obsolete, or nothing at all. In my opinion, the biggest mistake India ever made was to shut down their MiG-21 production line, because if India still continued to make new MiG-21s, no matter how obsolete, pilots will not be dying from accidents with aging aircraft. At the same time, India could not replace wholesale their vast fleet of Fishbeds overnight.

So China still needs new J-7s just to replace those obsolete J-6s until J-10 and J-11 production has ramped fast enough. The new planes will be as valuable in raising the training time for the pilots where in previously training time was limited due to the limited flight hours of aging aircraft.

As for changes in the J-7G, I think it's pretty much up to the level of avionics as the F-7MG. But you won't need a prototype like this unless something more drastic is changed and I suspect that is the engine. If the J-7G is equipped with the WP-14 (thrust rating 7,500kg) or the WP-13B (rating 8,000kg), you have literally a hot rod, a J-7 that achieves a healthy 1:1 power to weight ratio at normal takeoff weights. The plane, despite being obsolete, remains a potent foe because of a high TWR.

New

Member for

25 years 11 months

Posts: 6,409

Send private message

By: crobato - 7th September 2002 at 17:01 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

RE: First pic of Chengdu J-7G

[updated:LAST EDITED ON 07-09-02 AT 05:34 PM (GMT)]At this point there is no knowledge about the avionics of the aircraft. It is however, unlikely to use any foreign system like the Super Skyranger, the Grifo-7 or the ELTA M/2032, which are the options for the export sales F-7MG only. I think it still uses the reliable JL-7A radar used on the J-7E, and no one is complaining about that. This radar may have terrain mapping, terrain avoidance as well as look down ability. On the J-7D (which has the same body style as the MiG-21MF or -bis) the JL-7A has a range of 70km, but on the smaller nose of the J-7E, range may be cut to 50-55km. The radar will enable use of PL-8 and PL-9 missiles.

It probably has a color MFD like later block production of J-7E and support for helmet sighting. i don't think there is any BVR capability like in the MiG-21UPG or MiG-21-2000.

Empty weight of the J-7E is about 5,300kg empty, its normal takeoff weight with weapons are about 7,500kg.

The WP-13F engine of the J-7E has about 6,600kg thrust. The J-7D (of which only 30-40 are built) has the WP-13FI engine of 7,300kg (this aircraft is roughly the equivalent of the MiG-21bis for China). However it is not known if WP-13FI equipped later blocks of J-7E.

It is probable that the J-7G may equip with a more powerful engine, such as the WP-14 (7,500kg) or the WP-13B (8,000kg). These engines have been displayed in the last Zhuhai airshow. If the normal takeoff weight is 7,500kg, with these new engines, TWR is achieved with unity right at takeoff.

Another angle for the plane:

Attachments:

New

Member for

25 years 11 months

Posts: 6,409

Send private message

By: crobato - 8th September 2002 at 01:45 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

RE: First pic of Chengdu J-7G

[updated:LAST EDITED ON 08-09-02 AT 01:50 AM (GMT)]Just a test, by the way,

Is there a way to link an image directly to this forum without attaching a file?

New

Member for

25 years 11 months

Posts: 6,409

Send private message

By: crobato - 8th September 2002 at 02:29 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

RE: First pic of Chengdu J-7G

While an F-22 can always win over a MiG-21 by playing smart and sniping it just beyond WVR, this infamous article from Janes still reflects why an upgraded Fishbed is still a dangerous opponent for anyone and also gives you an idea why the J-7 still has its place in China's armed forces.

"Most attention is naturally focused on airframe-related advances - stealth, supersonic maneuverability and so on - but it is smaller, often overlooked details that may bring about a revolution in air combat and bring about some of the most important changes since the advent of the missile-armed supersonic fighter in the 1960s.

Within 10 years, many in-service fighters will be armed with new and much more lethal air-to-air missiles (AAMs). They will be carrying more advanced radars and other technologies which make it much less difficult to declare a target as hostile well beyond visual range. They will also be operating with tactical datalinks which allow several aircraft to share tactical information in a manner which is simply impossible for most aircraft today. Individual and formation tactics will change - but the implications of new technology are such that nobody knows exactly how that will happen.........

AAM technology defines the depth of the air battle. "Whoever has the longest reach controls the engagement," comments fighter analyst Ben Lambeth of the Rand Corporation. Lambeth recalls flying on a mock engagement in 1996, a four-versus-four out of Eglin Air Force Base (AFB), Florida. F-15s armed with the AIM-120 Advanced Medium Range AAM (AMRAAM) took on four F-15s simulating MiG-29s armed with R-27 Alamo MRAAMs and R-73 Archer SRAAMs. "I never had a tally on any of the bad guys. I rarely saw our wingman. We never put more than 3g on the airplane and we never got inverted. There were missiles and people dying everywhere."

This result reflects today's level of technology, in which the within visual range (WVR) and beyond visual range (BVR) envelopes are separate. A BAE Systems paper from 1996 - reflecting the UK thinking that led to the adoption of the BAE Systems Meteor AAM for the Typhoon - points out that a target beyond 40km range "can feel free to maneuver without fear of engagement". This is echoed by Robert Shaw, former US Navy fighter pilot and author of Fighter Combat Tactics. "There is virtually no missile that you can't outmaneuver at maximum range."

With today's weapons, the BAE paper notes, most MRAAM engagements will take place between 15km and 40km-range. Older short-range AAMs "lack not only total energy but also missile speed" and are most lethal at ranges under 8km, according to BAE. Between 8km and 15km, therefore, there is a 'commit' zone where the target can still avoid a merge into close combat if the odds are unfavorable.....

New SRAAMs are faster than the AIM-9 (due to larger motors or smaller wings) and have new infrared (IR) dome materials which do not blind the seeker when they are heated by air friction. With imaging infrared (IIR) seekers, they are just as effective against a non-afterburning target as against a full-reheat target. Under some circumstances, a modern SRAAM is a BVR missile, capable of being cued on to the target by aircraft sensors and locking on to it at an extreme range of 12-20km.

Once the fighters 'merge' - that is, their momentum takes them within SRAAM range of each other, so that the first fighter to attempt to escape will offer his opponent an open tail-on shot - improved SRAAMs and helmet-mounted display (HMD) technology multiply the opportunities for WVR shots. It is no longer necessary to point the aircraft towards the adversary; any target within the field of regard of the missile seeker can be engaged instantly.

According to one source, US Marine Corps F/A-18 Hornets from the Balkans theater recently engaged in mock combat with Israeli Air Force fighters. The Hornets were armed with AIM-9s, and the Israeli fighters carried Python 3 and Python 4 missiles and Elbit DASH helmet sights. IDR's source describes the results as "more than ugly", the Israelis prevailing in 220 out of 240 engagements.

There are lessons to be learned from this engagement and other tests which have shown similar results. One is that modern HMDs and SRAAMs are essential. A second lesson is that WVR combat is extremely dangerous and will become more so. "We'll see less dogfighting once we get the ability to engage targets 90º off the nose," says Shaw. "Somebody's going to get a shot, and if the missile is lethal you're going to get hit." Even the recent history of engagements suggests that the 'furball' of fighter combat, with multiple engagements spread across miles of sky, is on its way out. "We don't see a history of high-g maneuvering in recent engagements," says one industry analyst. "It's fun to practice but unwise to pursue."

A third lesson is that WVR is an equalizer. "An F-5 or a MiG-21 with a high-off-boresight missile and HMD is as capable in a 1-v-1 as an F-22," comments a former navy fighter pilot, now a civilian program manager. "In visual combat, everybody dies at the same rate," says RAND's Lambeth. Indeed, he says that a larger fighter like the F-22 may be at a disadvantage. In the early 1980s force-on-force exercises at the navy's Top Gun fighter school, F-14s were routinely seen and shot down by smaller F-5s flown by the navy's Aggressor units. An F-22 which slows down to enter a WVR combat also gives up the advantage of supersonic maneuverability."

Also there is a comment by Xinhui at the CDF saying that the J-7E only costs $3.5 million a copy (probably unit flyaway costs). You can see why this kind of pricing that you can replace the more than 2000 obsolete and worn J-6s in PLAAF service, despite the J-10s and J-11s.

Also Rick Kramer of the CDF has also commented in effect that today's J-7 squadron may be tommorrow's J-11 or J-10 squadron (if you keep the pilots alive and trained with new, not aging, planes).

New Sign in to post a reply