JH-7/JH-7A/JH-7B Thread
- Thread starter MIGleader
- Start date
Re: JH-7/JH-7A Thread
Apart from the rather persistent rumour that SAC has a stealthy striker under development. Of course if they are working on something it may not necessarily be the model we saw... even if it fits the description quite well
Apart from the rather persistent rumour that SAC has a stealthy striker under development. Of course if they are working on something it may not necessarily be the model we saw... even if it fits the description quite well
SinoSoldier
Colonel
Re: JH-7/JH-7A Thread
Huitong's half-confident description of the rejected H-X proposal doesn't match up with the model either. He claimed that the proposal included delta wings and canards, and there was clearly a small model on the Internet a few years ago.
Huitong's half-confident description of the rejected H-X proposal doesn't match up with the model either. He claimed that the proposal included delta wings and canards, and there was clearly a small model on the Internet a few years ago.
Re: JH-7/JH-7A Thread
Shouldn't we move the discussion on the H-X to a new speculative thread? Technically this is just like the JH-X we discussed a couple of years back.
Shouldn't we move the discussion on the H-X to a new speculative thread? Technically this is just like the JH-X we discussed a couple of years back.
Re: JH-7/JH-7A Thread
I mentioned that the last few pages should be moved, but no mod took up the offer :/
Name it JH-X or "future chinese bombers" or something. I think the topic is separate enough from both JH-7 and H-6 threads.
I mentioned that the last few pages should be moved, but no mod took up the offer :/
Name it JH-X or "future chinese bombers" or something. I think the topic is separate enough from both JH-7 and H-6 threads.
Re: JH-7/JH-7A Thread
You're quite correct. For this way of producing aircraft parts you need to develop suitable alloys. You can even vary the alloy over the different areas of the part. But I don't think there is any need to tell that to the developers of this technology.
You're quite correct. For this way of producing aircraft parts you need to develop suitable alloys. You can even vary the alloy over the different areas of the part. But I don't think there is any need to tell that to the developers of this technology.
Last edited:
Re: JH-7/JH-7A Thread
ASBM still is a partial counter to UCAVs, though. UCAVs, if they have more range than strike fighters, still need to travel. If the distance is doubled, the sortie rate for UCAVs is also halved due to the UCAVs spending more time traveling to their destination.
Also, submarine-launched ASBMs, which have been considered, could potentially make ASBMs a true offensive weapon, capable of striking down carriers at any location. Unfortunately for the Chinese, ASBMs need a kill-chain (targeting and mid-course guidance system) to be effective, Chinese submarine warfare is mediocre, and ASBMs launched from submarines are likely not going to be deployed in sufficient quantities to bypass US direct missile defense.
ASBM still is a partial counter to UCAVs, though. UCAVs, if they have more range than strike fighters, still need to travel. If the distance is doubled, the sortie rate for UCAVs is also halved due to the UCAVs spending more time traveling to their destination.
Also, submarine-launched ASBMs, which have been considered, could potentially make ASBMs a true offensive weapon, capable of striking down carriers at any location. Unfortunately for the Chinese, ASBMs need a kill-chain (targeting and mid-course guidance system) to be effective, Chinese submarine warfare is mediocre, and ASBMs launched from submarines are likely not going to be deployed in sufficient quantities to bypass US direct missile defense.
plawolf
Lieutenant General
Re: JH-7/JH-7A Thread
The bigger concern with SSBN launched AShBMs would be the risk that the launch is mistaken for a nuclear first strike (more likely than one might think if you are launching them in a saturation attack) and trigger a 'counter launch' before the true nature and target of the AShBMs are known.
What more, putting AShBMs on boomers would give an enemy cause to go after those boomers, whereas they may be left alone otherwise for fear of triggering a nuclear war. If the USN starts systematically taking out the PLAN's SSBNs, should, or would China take that merely as the USN trying to eliminate the AShBM threat, or the US clearing the way for a nuclear first strike by first taking out China's second strike capability?
Besides, the main issue with range is less one of the actual range of the ballistic missile, and more to do with the kill chain itself. If China has master AShBMs using IRBMs, it would be comparatively easy to put the AShBM warhead on an ICBM instead to extend its range (although doing so will also carry the risk of triggering an enemy nuclear 'counter strike'). The true limiting factor for AShBM beyond IRBM range would be how you find, track and target the carrier that far out. You can only shoot at something you can see, so if the carrier is too far out for its UCAV wing to reach land targets, its probably too far out for land based recon UAVs or OTH radars or most other assets you would have used to generate a kill chain closer to shore.
The bigger concern with SSBN launched AShBMs would be the risk that the launch is mistaken for a nuclear first strike (more likely than one might think if you are launching them in a saturation attack) and trigger a 'counter launch' before the true nature and target of the AShBMs are known.
What more, putting AShBMs on boomers would give an enemy cause to go after those boomers, whereas they may be left alone otherwise for fear of triggering a nuclear war. If the USN starts systematically taking out the PLAN's SSBNs, should, or would China take that merely as the USN trying to eliminate the AShBM threat, or the US clearing the way for a nuclear first strike by first taking out China's second strike capability?
Besides, the main issue with range is less one of the actual range of the ballistic missile, and more to do with the kill chain itself. If China has master AShBMs using IRBMs, it would be comparatively easy to put the AShBM warhead on an ICBM instead to extend its range (although doing so will also carry the risk of triggering an enemy nuclear 'counter strike'). The true limiting factor for AShBM beyond IRBM range would be how you find, track and target the carrier that far out. You can only shoot at something you can see, so if the carrier is too far out for its UCAV wing to reach land targets, its probably too far out for land based recon UAVs or OTH radars or most other assets you would have used to generate a kill chain closer to shore.
Re: JH-7/JH-7A Thread
Regarding this possibly increased production rate or at least new production method ... are there any recent reports about a possible new regiment or brigade ??
As far as I'm correct, the last established unit was the former 110. AR / 37. AD now 110. Brigade in 2012 ... but since than other than the reported maiden flight of the only minor-improved version JH-7B - and not a truely new design !
in late 2012 nothing became known ??!!
Anyone with more info to help ?
Cheers,
Deino
Regarding this possibly increased production rate or at least new production method ... are there any recent reports about a possible new regiment or brigade ??
As far as I'm correct, the last established unit was the former 110. AR / 37. AD now 110. Brigade in 2012 ... but since than other than the reported maiden flight of the only minor-improved version JH-7B - and not a truely new design !
in late 2012 nothing became known ??!!Anyone with more info to help ?
Cheers,
Deino