Xian JH-7

Jon Lake looks at the troubled development of China's JH-7 combat aircraft.

HINA'S LATEST indigenous in-service fast

jet combat aircraft is an anachronistic
fighter-bomber, the Xian JH-7. Although
it made its maiden flight, as the H-7, only 12
years ago, on December 14, 1988, the Xian
JH-7 uses much older technology and design
concepts than one might expect. This should
hardly be surprising in a nation w h e r e
derivatives of the 1950s-vintage MiG-19 and
MiG-21 remain the most numerous aircraft
types in frontline service. By this standard, the
JH-7 (in many respects analogous to aircraft
like the Phantom) actually seems remarkably
modern.

Chinese aircraft industry

Efforts to equip the People's Liberation Army Air
Force with modern aircraft types were frustrated
by the break with Moscow, China's main arms
supplier and industrial collaborator. Russia
helped establish China's aircraft industry, but
the break between Peking and Moscow
happened before China's indigenous industry
was even able to efficiently licence produce
existing aircraft types. It was certainly not
ready to 'go it alone'. The situation was hardly

36 December 2000

Above: One of the small number of JH-7s in service with the Air Force of the PLA Navy roars out of

its base 'somewhere in China' carrying a probable drill round of the YJ-1 (Ying-Ji/Eagle Strike)
ASM. Although the aircraft is considered to be under-powered, this take-off seems to be quite spirited, with a positive angle of climb in full afterburner.
Below: The large size of the JH-7 can be appreciated from this line-up of nine aircraft, posed for
publicity purposes. Like many Chinese aircraft, it seems to be well engineered, although perhaps
locked in a technological 'time warp' determined to some extent by the selection of the rather passe
Rolls-Royce Spey (licence built as the WS9) as the basis for its powerplant.

improved by the massive disruption which

accompanied and followed Mao's Cultural
Revolution.
This led to the relentless
persecution of intellectuals and professionals,
economic 'reform' which caused enormous
stagnation and suffering, and even to the
pointless relocation of factories, at enormous
cost, and often without ensuring that adequate
facilities or infrastructure were provided at the
new locations.
The Chinese aircraft industry did eventually
recover from these twin blows, but by the time
it did, the aircraft which it was equipped to
produce were even more obviously obsolescent.
The Cultural (or Great Proletarian) Revolution
began in 1966, and lasted until the deaths of
Mao and Zhou En Lai in 1976. This left the
PLA still waiting for the latest variants of the
ancient J-6 (MiG-19), the J-7 II (MiG-21) and
for the 1964-vintage J-8 and the MiG-19-based
Q-5 fighter-bomber.
The most urgent priority was to replace the
PLA's offensive support and strike/attack
a i r c r a f t . Fighter-bomber units were still
primarily equipped with MiG-15s and J-5s
(licence-built) MiG-17s. These would be
replaced by Nanchang Q-5s. Bomber units
used a mix of Harbin H-5s (Chinese-built
llyushin ll-28s) and Xian H-6s (an unlicensed
copy of the Tupolev Tu-16). The H-6s were
increasingly used with stand-off missiles, which
compensated for their growing obsolescence,
but the H-5 had to be replaced.
This left the replacement of the ancient Harbin
H-5 as the most pressing PLA requirement, and
the primary goal of the post Cultural Revolution
development effort. The ageing Beagle (often
described as the WarPac Canberra!) was latterly
used primarily by the Peoples Liberation Army
Navy, and had operated principally in the antiship role, armed with airborne torpedoes. The
Chinese initially looked at producing a version
of the Nanchang Q-5 fighter-bomber for naval
use. This variant, known as the Q-5 II (A-5B),
was built in prototype form, and made its
maiden flight on September 29, 1970. It
featured a raised cockpit and a more drooped
nose, with a large bulbous radome occupying
the forward part. The aircraft was intended as
a torpedo-carrier, but its development was
abandoned during the Cultural Revolution, and
was not re-started. A more modest torpedo
bomber version of the Q-5 was produced for the
PLA Navy, with a similarly raised cockpit and
drooped nose, but only in tiny numbers. The Q5 was really too small and lacking in range for
the anti-shipping role, while it was quickly
realised that the aircraft would require a
dedicated Weapons Systems Operator to exploit
the radar properly. It was therefore decided
that China would need to produce a new
aircraft type, a twin-engined, two-seat fighterbomber in the mould of the European Tornado
or the Su-24. The requirement for the new
aircraft to carry torpedoes was quietly dropped.

The JH-7 had been flying for some time before it was formally presented in public as the FBC-1
Flying Leopard at Air Show China in November 1998 at Zhuhai. This aircraft, assumed to be the
third prototype of the JH-7, is effectively a demonstrator for an export variant of the aircraft, albeit
with little prospect of sales in the offing. The gun location on the lower edge of the fuselage below
the air intake echoes that on the MiG-31 Foxhound, whilst the aircraft itself resembles a scaled-up
IAR-93/Orao.
designation was B-7. The new aircraft broke
considerable new ground for the Chinese
aircraft industry, not least in being a genuinely
new and genuinely indigenous design, rather
than being a simple copy of an existing Soviet
type. Some suggest that the J-8 had already
taken this distinction, though others believe that
the Shenyang team had based their aircraft on
the Russian Mikoyan Ye-152, which flew four
years before the Chinese fighter programme
was launched. This was basically a scaled-up
MiG-21, and most impartial observers believed
that Shenyang had been extremely influenced

by this Russian aircraft. Most assumed that the

Chinese had scaled up the basic MiG-21 design
in just the same way, though perhaps not with
formal co-operation from the Mikoyan Design
Bureau.
In fact, two genuinely all-new indigenous
Chinese military aircraft did fly before the H-7,
although these aircraft, the Shenyang JJ-1 and
the Nanchang J-12, were destined not to enter
service. The JJ-1 was a one-off straight-winged
jet trainer prototype, while the J-12 was an
ambitious lightweight fighter, six of which were
produced for test and development. But while
the J-12 was in no way a direct copy of any
existing Russian aircraft, it still bore a close
family resemblance to the MiG-19 and MiG-21
and borrowed heavily from the Ye-50, albeit
with a less highly swept wing platform.

All new

Everywhere in China the contrast between

ancient tradition and modern practice is stark.
Here two technicians use a wooden handcart
to deliver a pair of PL-5 air-air missiles to their
waiting JH- 7. Manpower and ground transport
are probably the PLA Air Force's least
problematical areas of concern.

The H-7, by contrast, was all new, and did not

even borrow from the Sukhoi Su-24, the
USSR's nearest equivalent aircraft type. The
X i a n H-7 borrowed its basic fuselage
configuration from the Shenyang J-8 II, but
married this to a high-set swept and tapered
anhedral wing, and to simple fixed lateral air
intakes. The aircraft even introduced an allnew rough-field type undercarriage, strongly
reminiscent of that fitted to the Anglo-French
Jaguar, with twin mainwheels on trailing-link
oleos.

Allocating the H-7 designation

After the Cultural Revolution the development
of this new bomber was entrusted to the Xian
f a c t o r y , w h i c h had been r e s p o n s i b l e for
production of the H-6. The new aircraft was
intended as a replacement for both PLA Air
Force and PLA Navy H-5s, and was allocated
the designation H-7. The H- prefix stood for
Hongzhaji (bomber), and the anticipated export

A JH-7 just after take-off in characteristic initial flat attitude, revealing its substantial trailing link
main undercarriage and 'draggy' door configuration on all gear units. The large flap area is also
noteworthy, as is the deep non-folding ventral fin.

www.airforcesmonthly.com

37

Above: First prototype of the JH-7 in demonstration colours. The significance of

using an 'un-Chinese' red-white-blue chevron and lightning flash is not known.

Above: The fourth prototype of the JH-7 wore a naval-style colour scheme, although it was not adopted for use
on PLA Navy aircraft. It wears the markings of an unknown evaluation unit aft of the side number.
Below: One of at least 12 known JH-7s in PLA Navy service, carrying both offensive and self-defensive armament.
The triangular warning signs, other than those for the ejection seats, are worn by all in-service JH-7s, but do not
seem to be associated with obvious pyrotechnic devices on the aircraft. ALL ILLUSTRATIONS CHRIS DAVEY

Little is known of the early history of the H-7

programme, although its launch was nearsimultaneous with China's 1975 agreement
with Rolls-Royce for the co-production of the
Spey turbofan engine as the WS9.
Dissatisfaction with the quality and
performance characteristics of indigenous
engines had been expressed from the very top
(Premier Zhou En Lai himself). The Spey deal
was expected to give Chinese industry
experience of a new generation of turbofan
engine and of new metallurgical, chemical
engineering and machining processes, while
also providing a powerplant for a new
generation of indigenous combat aircraft, spearheaded by the H-7. Trial production of the
WS9 began in 1976, and four engines were
completed in 1979. Perhaps more significantly,
the agreement with Rolls-Royce also saw the
provision of some 50 Spey Mk.202 engines as
'patterns', since these engines were destined to
power the f i r s t batch of H-7 a i r c r a f t .
Interestingly, during the mid-1980s a large
number of Spey engines were known to have
been hangared at RAF Leuchars in crates
covered in Chinese stencilling how long
these had been stored there and when they
were transferred to Aston Down remains
something of a mystery.
Chinese sources suggest that the first of four
(or five?) H-7 prototypes was rolled out in
August 1988. Less than one month later, a

38 December 2000

model of the aircraft was displayed at the SBAC

Farnborough air show. This was remarkably
accurate, though it featured a different 'straightcut' fin tip shape. Chinese sources at
Farnborough suggested that the aircraft would
fly that November, though little more was heard
until 1995, when a single poor-quality black
and white photo emerged in the Western press,
having been published in the PLA's Navy
Dictionary. The aircraft pictured carried two
missiles on its inboard underwing stations, with
tanks outboard, and was probably 083, the
third prototype.
It has since emerged that the H-7 prototype
first flew on December 14, 1988, having been
delayed slightly by minor technical problems.
There is some confusion as to what engines
were used by the first prototype. Some sources
have suggested that early aircraft used LMC
WP13A turbojets, each rated at 9,590lb st
(42.65kN), or 14,815lb st (65.89kN) with
afterburning, as used by the J-7 III and J-8 II.
Others maintain that they were powered by
some of the UK-supplied Rolls-Royce RB168
Spey Mk.202 engines, each rated at 12,250lb
st (54.5klN), or 20,525lb st (91.3KN) with
afterburning. It was then still thought likely
that in its definitive production form the aircraft
would be powered by indigenous Wopen WS6
engines in the 2 7 , 5 0 0 l b ( 1 2 2 . 3 k N ) to
31,085lb st (138.27kN) class, though in fact
they appear to have used the UK-built Speys.

Some sources claimed that the aircraft's radar

and avionics systems were of entirely Chinese
origin, while others suggested that the Terrain
Following Radar (TFR) and certain other
systems owed much to US systems
compromised during the Vietnam War.
Chinese practice has been to procure twinengined aircraft and engines in a 5:12 ratio,
meaning that an extra pair of engines is
obtained for every five aircraft. The availability
of 50 Spey engines would therefore suggest
that Xian would have produced a maximum of
20 H-7 prototype and pre-production aircraft.

General arrangement drawing of the JH-7, with additional view of starboard side and cannon location ahead of the main undercarriage bay.
There seem to have been five prototypes,
wearing three-digit codes 081-085. Little is
known about the development programme,
although it is known that the first prototype made
its first supersonic flight on November 17, 1989.
Reports suggest that at least one aircraft (possibly
082) was written off in a fatal crash. At some
time during the a i r c r a f t ' s development
programme, it was re-designated as the JH-7,
with the new JH- prefix standing for JianjijiHongzhaji (Fighter Bomber) and with the
assumed export designation of FB-7.

Production aircraft
The first JH-7 prototype (081) wore an unusual
colour scheme, with pale blue undersides and
fin and white topsides and rudder, with the
topsides and under surfaces separated by a red
and blue lightning-flash cheatline. The third
aircraft (083) was painted white overall (later
gaining Chinese National Aero-Technology
Import and Export C o r p o r a t i o n [CATIC]
markings and titles) and was used for weapons
trials, as was the fifth (085), while the fourth
(084) wore dark grey topsides and light grey
undersides. Interestingly, production aircraft
wear an overall very pale grey, almost white,

colour scheme, with five-digit serials in red on

the intakes.
Some sources suggest that the type entered
service in 1994, while others claim that the
aircraft entered service rather later, after the
successful firings of the C-801 missile in 1996.
The type was shown on Chinese television
during major naval exercises in 1995, perhaps
indicating that the earlier date was correct,
although footage is believed to have shown 083
(armed with a pair of anti-ship missiles) rather
than a production aircraft.
Sources differ widely as to how many JH-7s
have been built, or are in service. In mid-1997
Chinese sources suggested that some 24
aircraft were in service (in what was described
as a 'test-and-evaluation' role). This would
seem to be too many if all used UK-supplied
Spey e n g i n e s . One y e a r later, Western
journalists were suggesting that only between
seven and nine (including prototypes) had been
completed, though this was an under-estimate.
This was clear, since even published photos
showed that at least 12 (excluding prototypes)
w e r e in f r o n t l i n e s e r v i c e .
From these
photographs eleven aircraft are identifiable by
s e r i a l number (81764, 81765, 81766,

Above: A model of what eventually was to be the JH-7 was shown at Farnborough in 1988. PAUL JACKSON
Left: The JH-7's IAR-93/Orao-like appearance is evident in this overhead view in the Xian assembly
shop. The JL-10 Shen Ying J-band pulse Doppler fire-control radar is shown here protected by a
temporary cover during airframe assembly work. The antenna of the JL-10 is a flat planar array and
the radar is capable of tracking four targets simultaneously. As the air-air role is secondary on the
JH-7, the radar seems to be an inappropriate choice for an all-weather interdictor and attack aircraft.

81767, 81768, 81769, 81860, 81864,

81865, 81867 and 81866), and one more out
of sequence serial (81861) has been reliably
reported. These serials comprise a three-digit
unit identifier (taken from the first, second and
fourth digits) with the remaining two digits
forming a consecutive individual aircraft
identity, albeit perhaps not a permanent one.
The best guess is that 20 aircraft (including
prototypes) have been built, and that about 12
are in service with the PLA Navy Air Force,
equipping a single evaluation/operational trials
unit. The reported purchase of 84 more Speys
from Rolls-Royce would indicate that a second
batch of 35 aircraft is likely to be built, perhaps
suggesting that the type could fulfil China's
stated requirement for 72 interim anti-shipping
strike/attack aircraft.
Further production remains possible, with
some Chinese sources suggesting that a
dedicated EW/ECR variant may be under
development, using an SWIEE (Southwest
China Institute of Electronic Engineering)
KJ8602 RWR ( R a d a r Warning Receiver),
KG8605 ECM jammers, a KG300G jamming
pod and a KZ900 tactical ELINT pod.
Xian has reportedly been looking at a variety
of possible alternative powerplants for a JH-7 II,
including the 21,835lb st (97.1kN) SNECMA
M53-P2 and the 2 7 , 5 5 7 l b st (123.4KN)
Lyulka-Saturn AL-31F. The Russian engine
would give useful commonality with China's Su27s (locally known as J-lls), and may soon
enter local production. These engines might
conceivably be used by any third batch of JH7s. Although a great engine in its day (and
used successfully in the Buccaneer, Phantom
and Corsair) the Spey is hardly at the cutting
edge of engine technology. Furthermore it is
probably not powerful enough for the JH-7,
whose MTOW (Maximum Take-Off Weight) has
been 'guesstimated' at 62,776lb (28,475 kg) heavier than a Tornado GR.4.
The JH-7 is similarly old-fashioned when it
comes to its armament. The aircraft has a
primitive twin-barrelled 23mm cannon (an

www.airforcesmonthly.com

39

The graceful lines of this large fighter can be appreciated in this view of a JH-7 taxying out of dispersal. Ground clearance for the ventral fin is small, since the aircraft's take-off and landing attitude is quite flat.
unlicensed copy of the Soviet GSh-23) in its
starboard lower fuselage, and has only five
main weapons hardpoints, plus two wingtip
launch rails stressed only for the carriage of
short-range AAMs. These are usually AA-2
Atoll-based PL-5Bs (which incorporate some
compromised
AIM-9B/AIM-9G/AIM-9L
technology). It has been said that the aircraft
can also use the PL-7 (Matra R550 Magiccopy), the PL-8 (a Python 3 copy) or could
presumably also be fitted with the PL-9, which
copies features from the AIM-9P, the R550
Magic and the Python 3. None of these more
advanced missiles has been seen on the inservice JH-7s.
Offensive weapons known to be carried by the
aircraft include a range of free-fall bombs (the
aircraft can carry up to 20 500lb/250kg bombs,
for example), as well as the C-801 (YJ-1) seaskimming anti-ship missile. This weapon looks
very much like an AM.39 Exocet (supplied to
China for use on the country's handful of Super
Frelons), though France has denied any
exchange of sensitive Exocet technology,
inferring that the weapon may be an AM.39
lookalike, but that it may not have the same
performance characteristics. The basic YJ-1 has
been photographed on service JH-7s, though
the rounds seen have always looked like inert
drill rounds or Day-Glo-splashed instrumented
test rounds, and the weapon may not be in
normal frontline service yet.
The aircraft is also said to be compatible with
its longer-ranged (74 mile/120km), turbojetpowered derivative, the C-802K. There is also
a land-attack version of the missile, the YJ-22,
with a 250 mile (400km) range, but this has
not been seen on the JH-7. There are reports
that the aircraft could c a r r y China's new
270nm (500km) LGB, but this weapon is not
believed to have reached operational service.
The centreline and outboard underwing pylons
are 'plumbed' to allow the carriage of fuel
tanks, and the aircraft has been photographed
carrying drop tanks which look very much like
those carried by the J-8 II. In-service aircraft
seldom carry weapons at all, and the type
seems limited to carrying C-801s and C-802s
and unguided bombs in service.
But for all of its problems and antiquated
f e a t u r e s , the JH-7 is being aggressively
marketed as a genuinely modern fighterbomber, with modern weapons, systems and
operational capabilities. Unfortunately, CATIC
has released details of what remains a 'paper
aeroplane' (the export FBC-1) but has never
made it clear that many of these details do not
apply to the basic JH-7. Many of the features
merely planned for the export aircraft have been
assumed to apply to the existing in-service

40 December 2000

aircraft.
The new version features a China Lehua
Electronic Technical Research Institute
(CLETRI) JL-10 Shen Ying multi-mode J-band
pulse-Doppler radar, said to be an export
derivative of Phazatron's Zhuk (Beetle),
originally designed for the MiG-29M. This
radar has comprehensive air-to-ground and
mapping modes, including Doppler-beam
sharpening. The FBC-1 also features locally
licence-built Luoyang Electro-Optical Equipment
Centre (LOEC) h e l m e t - m o u n t e d sighting
systems for its crew, versions of the helmet
sights used by MiG-29 and Su-27 pilots. This
is said to offer a 60 (in azimuth, plus 40 in
elevation) off-boresight missile aiming capability
when used in conjunction with the PL-9
missile. Proposed integration of the Russian R73 AAM would reportedly expand the offboresight aiming capability to 75, while the
aircraft could have a 90 capability with the
revolutionary new R-74ME version.
While a genuine off-boresight missile aiming
capability does not make the FBC-1 into a
fighter, it was probably not intended to do so.
In fact, the provision of such a capability is
probably more pertinent to a relatively
unmanoeuvrable ground attack aircraft than it is
to a true fighter. The fighter (which may also
be armed with long-range BVR missiles) can
manoeuvre more easily to 'boresight' its target,
making off-boresight capability less relevant.
Boresighting involves the fighter placing the
target directly in line with its own 'extended
centreline', and thus smack in the middle of its
missile seekers' field of view. The missile, of
course, will have greater reach and energy if it
does not have to manoeuvre hard straight off
the launch rail. The low-level attack aircraft,
however, may be much less agile, and may not

want to pull up and turn off its track in order to

react to a threat. To do so may involve leaving
the sanctuary offered by terrain masking,
exposing it to new threats. It may make the
attack aircraft miss its 'time on target' and may
even force it to jettison its weapons. And it
should be remembered that the defending
fighter has scored a 'mission kill' if it prevents
the attacker from delivering its weapons on
target, on time.
In its primary air-to-ground rale, the FBC-1 is
being offered with a Blue Sky low altitude
navigation pod, produced by Institute No.607,
and with a FLIR/laser targeting pod created by
Institute No.613. Together, these pods are
assumed to be broadly equivalent to the US
LANTIRN pods. The aircraft also features a
new head-up display (HUD) and multi-function
head down displays produced by Institute
No.603.
The way in which Chinese military serial
numbers are 'scrambled' makes it difficult to
accurately assess the precise order in which
aircraft were built, while prototype JH-7s wear
three-digit codes rather than their full serials.
One of these JH-7 prototypes ('083', said by
some Chinese sources to be 81863, and
assumed to be the third prototype) has
sometimes been presented as the FBC-1
prototype, though it should probably be more
accurately described as a demonstrator. The
aircraft has been photographed with a JL-10
radar (or a JL-10 mock-up) installed, but has
always been limited to flying demonstrations,
and its cockpit has never been shown. This
suggests that under its CATIC insignia and
Flying Leopard titles, the aeroplane is still a
basic, unmodified JH-7, though there are
suggestions that it will act as a test-bed for new
items of equipment, weapons and systems.
But without greater commitment from a
domestic customer, prospects for the aircraft on
the export market cannot be regarded as
anything but remote. The Su-30 (already
ordered by the PLA Air Force as the Su-30MKK,
and believed to have been evaluated by PLA
Navy pilots) makes the JH-7 look extremely oldfashioned and rather incapable. The PLA now
seems likely to standardise on the newer, more
capable Flanker to meet its fighter-bomber and
tactical strike requirements. Many believe that
export customers are unlikely to order an
aircraft which has been virtually 'passed over'
by the c o u n t r y w h i c h designed and
produced it.

As is evident in this view of 81769 landing, the wing of the JH-7 is mechanically quite simple, its
only high lift devices being the large trailing edge flaps. In its primary role, manoeuvrability is conferred upon the weapon and the aircraft itself does not have to possess the agility of a true fighter.