JH-7/JH-7A/JH-7B Thread

[Skywatcher]

Re: JH-7/JH-7A Thread

If this is true, the Center for New American Security conference on Wednesday will get very interesting...

 

[Blitzo]

Re: JH-7/JH-7A Thread

Those loadout pictures are like the ultimate fan service.
I especially like the twin YJ-12 loadout, as I speculated months ago that an optimal PLA anti shipping platform should probalby only be able to hold two YJ-12s in its main bay.

Considering how quickly these pictures popped up along with the seemingly convincing authenticity of recent models shown at exhibitions I'm gonna call it now -- this bomber is real. I was skeptical after J-31 and sharpsword that the PLAAF would be able to outdo those "displays"/"hints" but this bomber, whatever it is, has outdone it. I just hope they are pursuing it as a real project (along with the flying wing!), but that may be too much to hope for.

Also, from noname's link, the supersonic HX has dimensions of:
length: 28.4m, wingspan 22.12m, height, 4.96m, combat radius, 3200 km
The length and wingspan would actually correspond quite well with the model's proportions.

(For the flying wing, which at this point we haven't seen a model or anything of: L ,21.32m, wingspan, 26.88m, height, 4.12m, combat radius, 3500km)

 

[mack8]

Re: JH-7/JH-7A Thread

One other puzzling thing is why there is writing in english on the wall ("Ability"), is it some kind of defence expo? When ? Where? For who?
Would be great to have more pictures though (unlikely unfortunately), especially of that second model too.

Also, from noname's link, the supersonic HX has dimensions of:
length: 28.4m, wingspan 22.12m, height, 4.96m, range, 3200 km
The length and wingspan would actually correspond quite well with the model's proportions.

(For the flying wing, which at this point we haven't seen a model or anything of: L ,21.32m, wingspan, 26.88m, height, 4.12m, range, 3500km)

I guess that should read radius not range, right?

 

[Blitzo]

Re: JH-7/JH-7A Thread

If I was Rick Fisher I'd be soiling myself right about now.

I guess that should read radius not range, right?

Yes, my bad. Combat radius.

 

[Skywatcher]

Re: JH-7/JH-7A Thread

If I was Rick Fisher I'd be soiling myself right about now.

He's been very quite (though I did see him around town a few times last year).

 

[Blitzo]

Re: JH-7/JH-7A Thread

Maybe the overwhelming array of models becoming planes have stunned him into silence

--

Anyway over in the future chinese bomber thread on CDF a few months ago there was a discussion about what a future chinese bomber should look like, with both a supersonic and subsonic version debated over, given what little we know in february.

I remember suggesting

If there really is a stealth striker/light bomber going on at SAC (and if there is, we need rumours to get a picture of what it could be asap), it would definitely be a "world first". SAC will be moving into uncharted waters, for all stealth aircraft have either been fighters or slow moving bombers. This kind of plane would be in its own class. However I think it would be much easier to develop a plane whose requirement is just to supercruise with good VLO with long combat radius, than requiring the substantial kinematic and maneuverability J-20 would need. It will be interesting to see how it could look. For instance, I wonder if they would consider top mounted air intakes, like boeing's F-X. There would be no need for high alpha maneuvers, and the benefits against ground based radar, as well as increasing potential under fuselage space for weapon bays could make it a worthwhile endeavor.

And in terms of size, we talked about a Su-34 sized stealthy striker, and I put up the once proposed YF-23 bomber as something well sized for PLAAF needs (even though I thought it a little out of the chinese aerospace industry's capability... clearly they and the PLAAF disagree though!). At the very least I thought the ability to carry two YJ-12s internally should be a definite necessity, with at least 1000+km combat radii.
The 3200 km combat radii and main + side weapon bays have obviously far out stripped the above requirements.

Not to toot my own horn, but I'm happy with how this supersonic H-X looks like a blend of the two above pictures

 

[Skywatcher]

Re: JH-7/JH-7A Thread

Seems like it's in between the LRSB and Tu-22M3 (if the LRSB requirement of a 12-14 ton max payload continues to hold).

 

[no_name]

Re: JH-7/JH-7A Thread

Considering how quickly these pictures popped up along with the seemingly convincing authenticity of recent models shown at exhibitions I'm gonna call it now -- this bomber is real. I was skeptical after J-31 and sharpsword that the PLAAF would be able to outdo those "displays"/"hints" but this bomber, whatever it is, has outdone it. I just hope they are pursuing it as a real project (along with the flying wing!), but that may be too much to hope for.

A

Would that be enough to get you excited, Siegecrossbow, if this project is real?

Interesting how all these designs are pretty similar. I guess for future bombers the two main requirements are:

stealth

and speed. and maybe large enough for respectable payload and range.

Would be interesting of how after testing the YF-23 they found out that it is better for strike-bomber role. Other nations probably took noticed and studies similar designs.

 

[Blitzo]

Re: JH-7/JH-7A Thread

Would that be enough to get you excited, Siegecrossbow, if this project is real?

Interesting how all these designs are pretty similar. I guess for future bombers the two main requirements are:

stealth

and speed. and maybe large enough for respectable payload and range.

Would be interesting of how after testing the YF-23 they found out that it is better for strike-bomber role. Other nations probably took noticed and studies similar designs.

Actually, the reality is the opposite of what you described.

Both the US, Russia, and China have future bomber programs that seem to emphasize stealth, on a slow flying wing platform. Both Russia and the US considered supersonic platforms of course but seem to have moved to a safer flying wing configuration.

we've known for a while there has been a similar debate in the PLAAF, of stealth versus speed (because inevitably a flying wing will be stealthier than a supersonic platform), and the latest news seemed to have suggested the PLAAF selected the flying wing H-X proposal as well. But this latest revelation gives some credence that they may be pursuing both the flying wing and the supersonic bomber, which if true is completely unprecedented and I wonder if they have the moolah to fund two programs.

Also, while many countries have proposed stealthy supersonic strikers/bombers, none have actually turned up with one, not even the US. If China does end up producing this YF-23+T-60S supersonic H-X, then there will be no other aircraft in the world combing such a large range, payload, stealth and speed all in a single platform.

 

[Skywatcher]

Re: JH-7/JH-7A Thread

Well, the flying wing might be a heavier bomber (if it does use four non AB WS-10A engines, so maybe 20-25 ton payload), while this looks like a smaller bomber.