SinoSoldier
Colonel
Strike fighters are multirole (F-15E) when compared to fighter bombers (F-111). JH-7A does not bear a great air to air capability.
Shenyang FC-31 / J-31 Fighter Demonstrator
- Thread starter RedSky
- Start date
- Status
A fighter bomber and strike aircraft are the same in that they both have bombing roles and some A2A capability, not sure where you got fighter bombers were single role. The two terms are near synonymous.
So really fighter bombers and strike aircraft are still relevant.
It would help if you tell us which picture you're talking about.. if it's the J-8V steelbird mentioend and the one I posted... we know
sinosoldier got it right. Fighter bombers refer to strike aircraft that reserve air to air capabilities for self defense. True multi-role aircraft such as the F-15E, F-16C/D, and Su-30 are good in both air to air and air to ground roles where as fighter bombers such as the F-111 often fly with out air to air payloads.
In the exact meanings of the two terms, both basically refer to aircraft with both fighter and bomber capabilities without detailing what degree. Unless there is a universal aircraft jargon I'm not aware of, F-15E, Su-30 and F-16s depending on load outs can be fighter bombers and or strike fighters.
SteelBird
Colonel
Well, siege. No one takes the so-called J-8V seriously. I stated that it was a fan art from the very beginning. The picture came out several years ago and claimed that it was the terminator of the J-8 series. It was so long ago that I almost forgot the detail of the picture. So when I saw the drawing posted by Bltizo I thought it was the same.
I guess the point I intended to make that it wasn't so much a "fan" art as the opposite... like a parody work.
airsuperiority
Captain
The J-8V in there looks nice actually
Just a short reply before I need to go to school !
The very nice J-8V is simply a nice "What-if" made by a very talented artist known as "LEGO", whoch posted several of updated versions from existing aircraft as well as complete speculative projects ... sadly he once dissappeared silently !
Regarding the overall more than interesting J-16 - J-19 speculation ranging from loud "wild-guesses" from some fan-boy to more than sceptical "not-real" posts by others.
IMO honestly I don’t think that there are so many types "out there" in some secret hangars (even if I won't mind if so) as listed and several of them are listed twice. Additionally I don't think that there are too many developments around based on "older" models like a "Silent Flanker" or the JH-7B based on the standard Flounder. As such IMO the J-16 is simply – as Huitong suggests – what we expected the J-11BS to be, a Chinese Su-30MKK-equivalent. The JH-7B – and here I really don’t understand why it is still called JH-7B – is a completely new design similar to the model or that very fine CG we’ve seen.
Regarding the numbers 17 - 19 again I’m still very skeptical if this J-17 “Silent Flanker”, J-18 “Snowy Owl” and J-19 or whatever are real and IMO they are in most cases the wildest possibilities of fan-boys dreams or at best concepts under consideration or fall-back options if the real projects were unsuccessful. Anyway I agree that – similar to Sukhoi, where each new “version” received a new type designation – SAC tried to do its best with the Flanker-design and its failed XXJ-concept. Maybe if the J-20 would fail or if it couldn’t be afforded in that large numbers, so another less-complex type could be a solution.
Therefore this – and IMO most likely option – is the following scenario:
The PLAAF has / had actually three different requirements … the XXJ (as a heavy weight fifth generation fighter), the JH-XX (as a stealthy JH-7-successor and H-6-supplement) and – IMO not yet defined – a type with multirole and carrier capabilities. To all the SAC issued their proposals ... as well as CAC and maybe (at least for the second one) even XAC.
The first one (sometimes called J-19) was lost by SAC to CAC with the now famous J-20, the second one is reportedly a large stealthy fighter-bomber type (funny, sometimes also called J-19) and the third one … I don’t know, but IMO it would make the most sense to develop a maybe slightly smaller, lighter multi-role type like the Super-Hornet in size maybe based on the studies for the XXJ or Flanker derivates, which could both complement the J-20 and J-10 (maybe as dedicated J-8-succssor) and J-11 for the PLAAF but also J-15 for the PLANAF.
As such one type, three versions … three designations !
And now back to You, what to You think ?
Besides that I won't be disappointed if it would look like that !
The very nice J-8V is simply a nice "What-if" made by a very talented artist known as "LEGO", whoch posted several of updated versions from existing aircraft as well as complete speculative projects ... sadly he once dissappeared silently !
Regarding the overall more than interesting J-16 - J-19 speculation ranging from loud "wild-guesses" from some fan-boy to more than sceptical "not-real" posts by others.
IMO honestly I don’t think that there are so many types "out there" in some secret hangars (even if I won't mind if so
) as listed and several of them are listed twice. Additionally I don't think that there are too many developments around based on "older" models like a "Silent Flanker" or the JH-7B based on the standard Flounder. As such IMO the J-16 is simply – as Huitong suggests – what we expected the J-11BS to be, a Chinese Su-30MKK-equivalent. The JH-7B – and here I really don’t understand why it is still called JH-7B – is a completely new design similar to the model or that very fine CG we’ve seen. Regarding the numbers 17 - 19 again I’m still very skeptical if this J-17 “Silent Flanker”, J-18 “Snowy Owl” and J-19 or whatever are real and IMO they are in most cases the wildest possibilities of fan-boys dreams or at best concepts under consideration or fall-back options if the real projects were unsuccessful. Anyway I agree that – similar to Sukhoi, where each new “version” received a new type designation – SAC tried to do its best with the Flanker-design and its failed XXJ-concept. Maybe if the J-20 would fail or if it couldn’t be afforded in that large numbers, so another less-complex type could be a solution.
Therefore this – and IMO most likely option – is the following scenario:
The PLAAF has / had actually three different requirements … the XXJ (as a heavy weight fifth generation fighter), the JH-XX (as a stealthy JH-7-successor and H-6-supplement) and – IMO not yet defined – a type with multirole and carrier capabilities. To all the SAC issued their proposals ... as well as CAC and maybe (at least for the second one) even XAC.
The first one (sometimes called J-19) was lost by SAC to CAC with the now famous J-20, the second one is reportedly a large stealthy fighter-bomber type (funny, sometimes also called J-19) and the third one … I don’t know, but IMO it would make the most sense to develop a maybe slightly smaller, lighter multi-role type like the Super-Hornet in size maybe based on the studies for the XXJ or Flanker derivates, which could both complement the J-20 and J-10 (maybe as dedicated J-8-succssor) and J-11 for the PLAAF but also J-15 for the PLANAF.
As such one type, three versions … three designations !
And now back to You, what to You think ?
Besides that I won't be disappointed if it would look like that !
Attachments
-
J-19 maybe red.jpg
- Status