AssassinsMace
Lieutenant General
Re: JH-7/JH-7A Thread
I don't think the nose is an intake. You can see the intake barely above the wing section.
I don't think the nose is an intake. You can see the intake barely above the wing section.
JH-7/JH-7A/JH-7B Thread
- Thread starter MIGleader
- Start date
Re: JH-7/JH-7A Thread
Yeah here's to hoping we have a picture to confirm either way.
But we should note the supersonic H-X model also has a single rear wheel landing gear (probably modeller's unintentional)
It would be a bit of a stretch to assume sino LRSS could be a controller for sharp sword (even if the model behind it is the ucav), but it's definitely a potential. The US has placed EW and SIGINT as high priorities for their subsonic LRS-B too. I wonder if the H-X will also emphasize that aspect, for subsonic or supersonic, whichever one materializes (or both)
Yeah here's to hoping we have a picture to confirm either way.
But we should note the supersonic H-X model also has a single rear wheel landing gear (probably modeller's unintentional)
It would be a bit of a stretch to assume sino LRSS could be a controller for sharp sword (even if the model behind it is the ucav), but it's definitely a potential. The US has placed EW and SIGINT as high priorities for their subsonic LRS-B too. I wonder if the H-X will also emphasize that aspect, for subsonic or supersonic, whichever one materializes (or both)
Re: JH-7/JH-7A Thread
I think there is either one or two large main weapons bays, no side bays (the white line we see is just the joint for the main weapon bay door). And yes, its main weapons bay should definitely be larger than J-20s, simply going by the potential size of this plane, as well as the fact that this is a bomber/striker, meaning the bay is probably very deep as well.
Do you mean whether this supersonic HX is "needs" escorts? Depends on the mission I think, but it's definitely meant to be more survivable than traditional bombers like H-6 and even more survivable than Tu-22M3/B-1 etc, through its combination of stealth and speed.
Definitely. If the wing-body blend and shape is similar to the yellow model or the fan art, then there may be significant increases in TOW compared to a similarly sized bomber of previous generations.
I think there is either one or two large main weapons bays, no side bays (the white line we see is just the joint for the main weapon bay door). And yes, its main weapons bay should definitely be larger than J-20s, simply going by the potential size of this plane, as well as the fact that this is a bomber/striker, meaning the bay is probably very deep as well.
Do you mean whether this supersonic HX is "needs" escorts? Depends on the mission I think, but it's definitely meant to be more survivable than traditional bombers like H-6 and even more survivable than Tu-22M3/B-1 etc, through its combination of stealth and speed.
Definitely. If the wing-body blend and shape is similar to the yellow model or the fan art, then there may be significant increases in TOW compared to a similarly sized bomber of previous generations.
Skywatcher
Captain
Re: JH-7/JH-7A Thread
If the diagram is correct, then assuming that the engine nozzle diameter is the same as the WS-10A ( .95m), then the aircraft has to be at least 30-35 meters in length.
Though I think they probably would use a four engine layout, so the diagram probably isn't 100% correct.
Edit: You can certainly stuff two engines with nozzle diameters of 1.0-1.23 meters into each nacelle, if the bomber is intend 40-45 meters long. The 1.46 m wide NK-32 on the Tu-160 has dry/afterburner thrust of 14 ton/ 25 ton, so an upsized WS-15 could do the trick (the F-22A's F-119 is 1.168 m diameter and has a thrust of about 16 tons with afterburner, this Chinese bomber may not need to have if you don't want to go all the way to the Tu-160's 267 ton MTOW/ 40 ton payload)
If the diagram is correct, then assuming that the engine nozzle diameter is the same as the WS-10A ( .95m), then the aircraft has to be at least 30-35 meters in length.
Though I think they probably would use a four engine layout, so the diagram probably isn't 100% correct.
Edit: You can certainly stuff two engines with nozzle diameters of 1.0-1.23 meters into each nacelle, if the bomber is intend 40-45 meters long. The 1.46 m wide NK-32 on the Tu-160 has dry/afterburner thrust of 14 ton/ 25 ton, so an upsized WS-15 could do the trick (the F-22A's F-119 is 1.168 m diameter and has a thrust of about 16 tons with afterburner, this Chinese bomber may not need to have if you don't want to go all the way to the Tu-160's 267 ton MTOW/ 40 ton payload)
Last edited:
Re: JH-7/JH-7A Thread
What about the narrow dark rectangular thing in the first pic. If it does have side bays I assume it should at least be long enough to carry medium ranged AAM like PL-12. So maybe that can be used to infer roughly the length of the bottom bay, and aircraft length in general.
What about the narrow dark rectangular thing in the first pic. If it does have side bays I assume it should at least be long enough to carry medium ranged AAM like PL-12. So maybe that can be used to infer roughly the length of the bottom bay, and aircraft length in general.
Re: JH-7/JH-7A Thread
Unreliable, because 1, the dark rectangular thing may not be a side bay at all. 2 if it is a side bay, we can't assume it's sized for PL-12. 3, if it is sized for PL-12 we're not sure how much clearance there is which may affect the overall length estimate by that same percentage.
I think generally eyeballing it via the cockpit in conjunction with perhaps estimating the engine diameter (let's say it uses WS-10A), should provide a decent estimate for the time being.
could it use WS-15? I don't think a pair of WS-10s will be enough thrust for this monster.
Unreliable, because 1, the dark rectangular thing may not be a side bay at all. 2 if it is a side bay, we can't assume it's sized for PL-12. 3, if it is sized for PL-12 we're not sure how much clearance there is which may affect the overall length estimate by that same percentage.
I think generally eyeballing it via the cockpit in conjunction with perhaps estimating the engine diameter (let's say it uses WS-10A), should provide a decent estimate for the time being.
could it use WS-15? I don't think a pair of WS-10s will be enough thrust for this monster.
Skywatcher
Captain
AssassinsMace
Lieutenant General
Re: JH-7/JH-7A Thread
Those are actually some of the works I mentioned before that were out before this model emerged. It seems some "fan boys" may have insider information.
Here are some weapons loads configuration. Interesting that this depiction even has the side weapons bay.
via hongjian, cdf
Those guys sure work fast.
But I'm not sure on the scaling of this plane. I remember how there was talk of a Su-34 sized bomber... but this thing looks far bigger than Su-34
Those are actually some of the works I mentioned before that were out before this model emerged. It seems some "fan boys" may have insider information.
Here are some weapons loads configuration. Interesting that this depiction even has the side weapons bay.
Last edited:
Re: JH-7/JH-7A Thread
This is a thread before on cjdby that talked about designs for multipurpose long range strike-bomber:
It shows drawings for two designs, one of which is this supersonic one and the other a subsonic flying wing design.
This makes me wonder whether the in the first pic the model behind may not be sharp sword but the subsonic design.
This is a thread before on cjdby that talked about designs for multipurpose long range strike-bomber:
It shows drawings for two designs, one of which is this supersonic one and the other a subsonic flying wing design.
This makes me wonder whether the in the first pic the model behind may not be sharp sword but the subsonic design.