No disagreement from me.
Never heard of a flying wing that can goes supersonic.
And an unmanned one?????!
report of H-8 bomber
- Thread starter challenge
- Start date
No disagreement from me.
Never heard of a flying wing that can goes supersonic.
And an unmanned one?????!
there are simple to many hoax and phony news in Chinese web site,fake photo of so call J-14 even (end up or fooled Miltech),report of "new bomber" reported by american heritage,both turn out to be fake.
some fake even attempt to pass as article from janes def. weekly and military technology.
If this bomber really exist, PLAAF may needed complete new facilities ,new logistic support unit that can be spotted by satelite.
second if the bomber really exist why attempt to purchased backfire bomber?
some fake even attempt to pass as article from janes def. weekly and military technology.
If this bomber really exist, PLAAF may needed complete new facilities ,new logistic support unit that can be spotted by satelite.
second if the bomber really exist why attempt to purchased backfire bomber?
Roger604
Senior Member
Remember the UAV thread? "Big shrimps" on Chinese BBS have disclosed that a new UCAV is now in testing. I do believe this new UCAV and the "H-8" (also reported to be flying) are related!
Most likely, the H-8 program started as a manned bomber, but was later changed to a strike UCAV. A strike UCAV is much simpler than an aerial combat UCAV. My guess is that it's would be smaller than a B-2 and much bigger than a Barracuda, but combine features of each.
Note that the CGI posted above also has some Barracuda-like features. It's not purely a flying wing -- the wings and the fuselage are more distinct.
There can't be any PLAAF logistics tail for the H-8, since it's supposed to be in prototype development phase. Also, China only sought to buy Backfire in the 90's, and was denied at the time. Although there have been rumors (not really sure) that Russia has recently agreed to a licensed production of some Backfires that can use Chinese ammunition. If this is true, then the PLAAF would have several new bombers: H-6K for basic cruise missile carrier, upgraded Backfire for supersonic dash, H-8 for low-observable strike, and possibly distant future scramjet vehicle.
Last edited:
AssassinsMace
Lieutenant General
I think Deino has been posting around that Chinese aircraft chart showing the progression through the years. If you remember there's a little unknown aircraft on there that everyone believes is a UCAV. If you look at it it has a similar shape including the top mounted intake to the bomber pic but this one has a tail fin.
I recall early 2000, aircraft engineer claim that "russian teach us how to copy,but do not teach us innovate"
lack of innovation combine with cultural revolution ,mismanagement damage China aerospace industries.
particulary the Mao extreme form egalitarian ideology,during the early 80's a group aviation week reporter tour Xian aerospace university and factory discover janitors and engineers has same wage scale!!!
Thank's God! this idea been abandone. already report that wages for professional are steady rising
lack of innovation combine with cultural revolution ,mismanagement damage China aerospace industries.
particulary the Mao extreme form egalitarian ideology,during the early 80's a group aviation week reporter tour Xian aerospace university and factory discover janitors and engineers has same wage scale!!!
Thank's God! this idea been abandone. already report that wages for professional are steady rising
Last edited:
Hendrik_2000
Lieutenant General
To make broad sweeping condenscending atititude based on single personal opinion is not wise nor true ! It all come down to your basic insecurity that all Chinese tech must be inferior to the western tech!
Cultural revolution is water under the bridge In the mean time new generation grew up and Looking at JF 17 design team I couldn't wonder at their young ages mostly are people under 30!
That is not counting 10's of thousand who went to the west and return to China during 90's So your outdated idea of backward Chinese tech might need revision!
The fact that China doesn't produce innovative design is mainly due to the low funding during the 70's and 80's plus The structure of China weapon industry that is dominated by single behemoth. Since 90's China has undertaken reform and split the defense industry into competing group a Any weapon purchase is now based on competing design and certification So we will see more innovative design in the future because competition breed excellence and monopoly reward the laggard and lazy
One more thing Defense industry is not created in Vacuum The The basic industrial strength play a major role and basic industry in China benefit tremendously from infusion of technology transfer and management skill over the last couple decade
Last edited:
Hendrik, you need to cool down a bit, although what challenge is saying isn't correct on both counts. There is a standard of decorum that must be observed by all members.
Challenge, the Chinese aviation industry did develop the Y-10 liner, then the Y-7, and finally the Y-9 and ARJ-21. But developing a two to four engined cargo plane does not appear to be such a priority that they would rather expedite it by using available designs. After all a mule is a mule, does not really matter where it comes from. China appears to want to concentrate development efforts on more visible and "sexier" projects. As for the Russians, there is no lack of innovation coming from them. There is no proof that by being Communist, they were less innovative.
Challenge, the Chinese aviation industry did develop the Y-10 liner, then the Y-7, and finally the Y-9 and ARJ-21. But developing a two to four engined cargo plane does not appear to be such a priority that they would rather expedite it by using available designs. After all a mule is a mule, does not really matter where it comes from. China appears to want to concentrate development efforts on more visible and "sexier" projects. As for the Russians, there is no lack of innovation coming from them. There is no proof that by being Communist, they were less innovative.