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

[i.e.]

Re: JH-7/JH-7A Thread

If they attempt to roll two different requirements (strike vs bomber) into one airplane then thats fine with me.

we all know how the Sturzkampfbomber and Schnellbomber requirements all roll into one airplane worked out for luftwaffe at the end.

make a large airplane pull Gs is hard.

make a strong airplane that goes long range is hard.

stick with one but don't try to do too much with one platform.

planners some times suffer from delusional lack of judgement stemming from their substitution of power point visual skills for actual engineering experience.

 

[i.e.]

Re: JH-7/JH-7A Thread

I wonder if Tu-22s cost more to maintain though. And while I agree H-6K isn't survivable against a modern well armed opponent, I think it is a wise gap filler until a real new bomber is developed.

Better have a gap filler and jump forward to a next generation instead of buying or developing a half baked Tu-22M3 equivalent which probably won't be survivable sometime post 2020

that's true. may be back in mid 90s a division of Tu22 may be worth it in a Taiwan Strait Crisis scenario. not today.

no point at this time to field something that may only have shock value. since they already has decent shock value with DF-21 ASBMs.

also, PAKDA is suppose to be the size of Tu-22M, no?

 

[i.e.]

Re: JH-7/JH-7A Thread

I don't want to comment on the bomber design before we have more information. I only want to remark that when using printing rather than older metal working methods for the heavily loaded parts of such an aircraft you not only save a lot of weight but in the prototyping stage you also save a lot of time. I think that will be mightily interesting to PLAAF.

yeah but I am still very skeptical as the metalic property of a metal part does not only came from its external shape.

for example an forged and annealed part would have different strength bearing property then a same material and same externally shaped part made from, let's say, sand-casting.

 

[SinoSoldier]

Re: JH-7/JH-7A Thread

Another view of the striker: the only thing bugging people now is whether that thing is a mockup, prototype, or unrelated.

 

[Blitzo]

Re: JH-7/JH-7A Thread

Huitong's saying the model is of the failed supersonic proposal for H-X... But I somewhat doubt that considering this model definitely is in a different class entirely to what they eventually went with.

 

[Deino]

Re: JH-7/JH-7A Thread

Another view of the striker: the only thing bugging people now is whether that thing is a mockup, prototype, or unrelated.

I think You hit the mail right on top !

WHAT is that damn thing ? ... especially since it looks huge, but more like a boat than an aircraft.

Deino

 

[SinoSoldier]

Re: JH-7/JH-7A Thread

Huitong's saying the model is of the failed supersonic proposal for H-X... But I somewhat doubt that considering this model definitely is in a different class entirely to what they eventually went with.

It makes no sense for the H-X proposal to be reviewed by the production manager of the J-15.

 

[SinoSoldier]

Re: JH-7/JH-7A Thread

I think You hit the mail right on top !

WHAT is that damn thing ? ... especially since it looks huge, but more like a boat than an aircraft.

Deino

If you take a look at the other photograph, there appears to be two engine coverings in the background. It's likely to be just a mockup, but even then that is hugely significant.

 

[Blitzo]

Re: JH-7/JH-7A Thread

It makes no sense for the H-X proposal to be reviewed by the production manager of the J-15.

1: the thingy the J-15 production manager is looking at may not be the JH-X/H-X proposal/mock up
2: how does it not make sense? We've known for ages that H-X has had both a flying wing proposal and a supersonic proposal. The latter may well have been offered by SAC, so it's not a stretch to believe the J-15 manager or whoever he is, may have popped in to look at it. (If that's what the pictures show in the first place)


Again, I disagree with huitong in this regard, I think the model is a bit small for what the H-X is meant to be.

 

[escobar]

Re: JH-7/JH-7A Thread

<<It would appear to be a concept presented to a delegation from PLAAF a few years ago by 601th Institute. there would be no evidence proving an official project was launched.>>