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

escobar

Brigadier
Re: JH-7/JH-7A Thread

... But for the time being, a long ranged carrier based UCAV is a logical response to ASBM (combined with a greater focus on ABM, and a change in doctrine of course).

Using UCAVs to destroy a ASBM unit inside china is very unsafe. better use cruise missile launched from a SSGN. It's more "easy" for china to intercept UCAVs than to find a SSGN.
 

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
Re: JH-7/JH-7A Thread

Using UCAVs to destroy a ASBM unit inside china is very unsafe. better use cruise missile launched from a SSGN. It's more "easy" for china to intercept UCAVs than to find a SSGN.

You misunderstand.

The USN is not intending for UCAVs to search and destroy ASBM units. They see ASBM as an area denial weapon for large carriers, preventing them from deploying strike sorties at targets x, y and z because their existing planes do not have the range. But UCAVs will allow them to conduct strike sorties at targets x y and z ignoring the ASBM threat altogether, and thus countering it. A "counter" to weapon "x" doesn't necessarily have to be "anti weapon x". For instance, to counter a sea skimming AShM you could deploy SAMs to target it in a hard kill way, or you can use heavy EW and ECM, or through very capable stealth, or through recon, thus allowing you to keep a minimum safe distance away.

If they wanted to actually eliminate the ASBM threat (a "hard counter" so to speak), then all manner of systems and assets could be put to that use. SOF, SSGNs like you said, satellites, UCAVs, stealth bombers, JSF etc...
 

Preux

Junior Member
Re: JH-7/JH-7A Thread

I checked my hardrive since I thought I knew this design .... this one (saved in February 2010) shares some similarities at least !

Deino,

Baiwei.jpg

Your good friend Bai Wei says that it's a concept model from SAC, and that the real H-X will be a 'proven design in America' in XAC - a flying wing.
 

mack8

Junior Member
Re: JH-7/JH-7A Thread

Dammit forget about "proven designs in America", they should build this ( if only for the troll factor lol), or at least both as Blitzo says they should! :D

On another forum someone says this apparently SAC concept might actually have nothing to do with H-X, but be a project in it's own right (and it's own class). Would be nice if the chinese internet big shrimps can give us bit more info.

Still no idea where this concept was shown and when?
 

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
Re: JH-7/JH-7A Thread

Regarding the plausibility of the bomber... (and some other anecdotes regarding the chinese aerospace industry)

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Chinese aerospace renaissance underway?
By Dave Majumdar on June 13, 2013

During the first half of 2013 a couple of new Chinese military aviation projects have come to light. One recent development was the sighting of China's Sharp Sword unmanned combat air vehicle, which was revealed in May. More recently, images have emerged of a structural model of what appears to be a new Chinese stealth bomber.

While many are tempted to dismiss the Chinese developments as mere knock-offs based on stolen Western technologies, there are those who believe that we, particularly those of us here in the United States, are underestimating China's capabilities.

Having examined the Chinese designs, a number of highly experienced US aerospace engineers--all of whom have extensive experience designing low observable aircraft--are convinced that not only are the new designs original, but that they are viable stealth airframes (even if they are not all-aspect stealth machines in some cases). "There is an aerospace renaissance underway in China," one engineer says. "It was just a matter of time."

The Sharp Sword not only looks viable as a low observable aircraft from many angles--save for the distinctly non-stealthy exhaust, it looks like it is an original design, one engineer says. Asked about the structural model for the Chinese stealth bomber, the engineer says that his unfortunate conclusion is that the aircraft is in fact a viable design.


While China is not yet an adversary of the Unites States, there is potential that as the country continues to reemerge as a great economic and military power that it could become one. In that case it would be foolish to underestimate the capabilities of Chinese engineers. "They have talented designers," one engineer says.

If it does come down to some sort of new Cold War, this time around the United States would be facing-off against an enemy with a vibrant economy, as a learned friend notes--a marked contrast to the Soviet Union, which was always hamstrung by its command economy.

Interesting that both the foreign policy article and this DEW article have forsaken the actual picture of the model itself which sparked it all
 
Last edited:

hardware

Banned Idiot
Re: JH-7/JH-7A Thread

the model turn out just conceptual design,trying to influence or lobby the PLAAF to fund the project.my bet is flying wing design appear in wmf may have come from XAC.
But Last April, which I already posted (Flanker) ,russian reported that wind tunnel model of Chinese version SU-33,designate J-17 already finish.could it be russian is refering to so called stealth bomber.seen in this blog.
 

i.e.

Senior Member
Re: JH-7/JH-7A Thread

Here is my take on the latest emerging images.

Not to comment on its "authenticity" but just take the image on "as it is" basis.

The V-tailed variant is clearly a manuevering strike platform, F-111 sized, with emphasis on speed. a JH-7 replacement in the spirit of FB-22.

the much vaunted flying wing is for Long range, payload, and stealth. a near-strategic theater bomber.

could very much be two different programs.
 

Hyperwarp

Captain
Re: JH-7/JH-7A Thread

In other words,

JH-X : a stealthy Su-34 class A/C replacing JH-7 series
H-X : An intercontinental flying wing design like the B-2 replacing H-6 series

Me go that right I assume? :D
 

i.e.

Senior Member
Re: JH-7/JH-7A Thread

You misunderstand.

The USN is not intending for UCAVs to search and destroy ASBM units. They see ASBM as an area denial weapon for large carriers, preventing them from deploying strike sorties at targets x, y and z because their existing planes do not have the range. But UCAVs will allow them to conduct strike sorties at targets x y and z ignoring the ASBM threat altogether, and thus countering it. A "counter" to weapon "x" doesn't necessarily have to be "anti weapon x". For instance, to counter a sea skimming AShM you could deploy SAMs to target it in a hard kill way, or you can use heavy EW and ECM, or through very capable stealth, or through recon, thus allowing you to keep a minimum safe distance away.

If they wanted to actually eliminate the ASBM threat (a "hard counter" so to speak), then all manner of systems and assets could be put to that use. SOF, SSGNs like you said, satellites, UCAVs, stealth bombers, JSF etc...

people also forget that one can airlaunch a guided ballistic missile from a bomber bay...

Skybolt AGM-4 as an earlier one. and more successfully. AGM-69 SRAM, which also one time had a anti-shipping proposal with a radar terminal guidanc)

The soviet also has a similar missile Kh-15 (AS-16 Kickback) which had an in service antishipping variant...

The trade off is simple, the higher the altitude the thinner the air, less the drag. after burn off the guild phase one can trade back the potential energy at a 10-1 glide ratio. which result in huge distances and still respectable terminal speed.

which given the final payload energy delievered on target at a distance is very respectable compare to a low altitude hugger like a traditional turbofan powered ALCM.

So one can leverage. basically making smaller lighter BMs with little or no war head with all of its kill power derived from its terminal kinetic energy. and launch a whole bunch of them at same time to overwhelm a terminal defense... launch more missiles than the they have in interceptor channels.

just imaging,
a speedy maritime stealth striker with a belly full of small ballstic missiles, rotary launched en-mass, way beyond any intercept range. 50-100 missiles, climbed to 200,000 ft at burn out, and glide down at mach-3, much like the pheonix missile. with inertial guidance, mid-course update, and radar or IR terminal guidance. no war heads but each has enough terminal kinetic energy to burn through the decks and upper works of a destroyer...

this will render any current or future defensive weapons essentially meaningless... and it will not cost much as there is essentially no new technology to be developed.
 

i.e.

Senior Member
Re: JH-7/JH-7A Thread

In other words,

JH-X : a stealthy Su-34 class A/C replacing JH-7 series
H-X : An intercontinental flying wing design like the B-2 replacing H-6 series

Me go that right I assume? :D

2xWS-15

4xWS-10 mid bypass variant.
 
Top