PLAAF JH-XX / H-X bomber project


Bltizo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
this one doesn’t.

Yes it does.
Do you not see the line separating the two halves of the canopy to a left and right window?
A tandem seating arrangement would be crazy because you'd have a massive opaque metal separation running down the middle of your field of view.

It is similar to the canopy configuration of the B-1.

Edit: another angle of the same CGI that was made in the same set, below. You can clearly see the canopy separation.

images (1) (20).jpeg
 
Last edited:

Bltizo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
do you remember what excessive secrecy under the Soviet union looked like?

The configuration of the su-27 wasn;t understood in the west until 4 years after the first flight. For a time after the first flight had already occurred the su-27 was believed to be a swing wing fighter similar to the F-14. The existence of a new cruise missile carrying bomber wasn’t confirmed until a TU-160 was photographed parked next to a TU-144. The true designation of Tu-22M bomber wasn;t clear until 12 years after the first flight. The Alfa fast attack submarine was a complete surprise.

I'm not sure what you define as "excessive secrecy", so I won't belabour the relative perceptions of that

My point is that we should find it doubtful that the model and the magazine cover depicts the true details of the real design, because it would be inconsistent with the past practice of the PLA.

Whether that is "excessively secret" by your standards, I don't know.

But either way, we should be doubtful that they depict the true final design.


As I've written multiple times, at best they are non official educated guesses.
 

Richard Santos

Senior Member
Registered Member
JH-XX Is unlikely to be anything near the size of the Tu 22M. The TU 22M, despite its somewhat fighter like fuselage, air intake, and the wing layout, is absolutely not a fighter bomber. It is much closer to a full-blown strategic bomber
 

Richard Santos

Senior Member
Registered Member
Yes it does.
Do you not see the line separating the two halves of the canopy to a left and right window?
A tandem seating arrangement would be crazy because you'd have a massive opaque metal separation running down the middle of your field of view.

It is similar to the canopy configuration of the B-1.

Edit: another angle of the same CGI that was made in the same set, below. You can clearly see the canopy separation.

View attachment 73235
uh, plenty of single seat or tandom seat canopies have two or more separate transparencies with a opaque metal frame running between them. Have you not seen the canopy of the F117?

unobstructed Bubble canopies require there to be no small radius curvatures in the transparency. stress concentration occurs where curvature radius is small. to handle this the transparency must be mafe thick there. To make the transparency thicker there than elsewhere would introduce undesirable optical distortion when the pilot look through the canopy. to make the canopy thick everywhere would make the canopy excessively heavy.

So tge best solution if the shape of the canopy needs to have areas with small radius curvatures is to add a metal frame there.
 

james smith esq

Junior Member
Registered Member
Just saw an interesting picture on Weibo, not sure how real is this one:

View attachment 73191
Inside sources have confirmed that this is a model of the H-22(L-T) This is a proposed PLANAF bomber that is intended to fly long-duration patrols in the SCS, taking-off from SCS islands and flying exclusively in Left-Turning circles (hence the shorter left wing).
 
Last edited:

gelgoog

Captain
Registered Member
There would be little point in making a dedicated tactical bomber with the same total engines as the fighters.
They already have the J-16 for that.

The Tu-22M has only two engines but has about the same total thrust as the B-1 because the engines are a lot more powerful.
We do not have any news about such a large engine program being done in China. So a quad engine bomber is, I think, the only viable option.
 

james smith esq

Junior Member
Registered Member
There would be little point in making a dedicated tactical bomber with the same total engines as the fighters.
They already have the J-16 for that.
I think that some would expect that a “stealth” tactical bomber might offer particular advantages.
 

Bltizo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
uh, plenty of single seat or tandom seat canopies have two or more separate transparencies with a opaque metal frame running between them. Have you not seen the canopy of the F117?

unobstructed Bubble canopies require there to be no small radius curvatures in the transparency. stress concentration occurs where curvature radius is small. to handle this the transparency must be mafe thick there. To make the transparency thicker there than elsewhere would introduce undesirable optical distortion when the pilot look through the canopy. to make the canopy thick everywhere would make the canopy excessively heavy.

So tge best solution if the shape of the canopy needs to have areas with small radius curvatures is to add a metal frame there.

I'm not sure if the F-117 should be the standard for what a "normal" aircraft canopy (or indeed a normal aircraft in general) should be like.

Clearly there's nothing wrong with having a brace to reinforce a canopy -- J-20, F-35 both have it -- but they are not placed down the centreline of the canopy.



Frankly I'm not sure why you believe that JH-XX CGI is a tandem cockpit aircraft, when everything about it looks side by side and reminiscent of the likes of B-1, F-111, and Su-34.
But if you insist, frankly I don't have anything else to say.
 

Richard Santos

Senior Member
Registered Member
the main reason I can think of why china would develop a Dedicated fighter bomber is if she perceive a need to sustain a large number of sorties to a range considerably farther than J-16 or J-20 can reach, and do so without refueling. It would be prohibitively and unnecessarily expensive to build up a fleet a strategic bombers large enough to do this.

I think such a need is not only there, but quite pressing because I think such sorties can become the mainstay of chinese sustained sea denial operation at the edge of second island chain and beyond. And it would take a lot of sorties.

Keep in mind stealth is good, but speed is still an effective way to To complicate enemy interception efforts, and degrade effectiveness of enemy air and surface based air defense assets. So I will not be surprised if the The Chinese try to develop some thing that has combat radius intermediate between the J 20, and the H 20, and is built more like a fighter so as to be able to supercruise
 
Last edited:

Top