The Mysterious PLAAF's H8 & H9 Stealth Bomber... Rumour...? Reality...?

Deino said:

Honestly that's ridiculous ! „a stealth bomber capable of Mach 1.3” and an “atmospheric bomber” “WS-12 … Scramjet-engines” … come on.
To think that there are two such advanced projects under development in parallel or even flying are for sure only fan-boys dreams. The J-20 is a great leap forward, but such a project is beyond anything even the US aviation industry could build … or at least afford.
Since I follow these rumors about a possible future H-8, H-9 or H-X I remember such stupid reports like a “scaled-up” F-117 build out of the crashed one from Serbia … there were reports about a “scaled down” Sukhoi T-4/T-4M development powered by three high-tech turbofans … .

I admit right after the unveiling of the J-20 may think “only the sky is the limit” but we should be realistic.

Click to expand...

Perhaps you should read more on the matter. There are no evidence that disproves the fact that the WS-10A provides enough thrust to propel the bomber at Mach 1.4. What you are saying is strictly from the top of your head. For all I know, the original article puts its maximum speed at Mach 1.4 and the four WS-10A is what does it.

In case you aren't as updated on aviation technology, all of the technology to develop an atmospheric has been developed (ramjet engine, ceramics material, etc). The concept is not new. Germany developed such design in 1930s, while the Soviets also had a project called the Tu-2000. The US also has a project.
Welcome to the 21st century, buddy. So please don't assume if you haven't read recent aviation articles.

All of the information contradicts your argument, for which you have no sources to back it up.

Deino said:

… and finally …


You really call these “links” a source ??? … come on again. If You believe everything what You can find in the net, the tiny little green men were helping the US to develop these super-duper-hyper bombers right that moment.

Deino

Click to expand...

What do you call a "reliable source"? BBS posts by netizens? This guy called "Huitong" (where 25% of his so-called "predictions" are incorrect)?
Give me a break, buddy.

The information you saw are reported in three different articles.

In fact, US articles also predicted that China will field a "stealthy space bomber" within the decade. I can show you these if you want.

Sorry, buddy, but forum posts and a guy's imagination ain't gonna cut it.

People let's clarify something. The top speed an aircraft can reach is not thrust dependent. Thrust determines how fast a plane can accelerate. Top speed is determined by the exhaust velocity. You could have a very low thrust engine with a high exhaust velocity, and it will be able to reach a much higher speed than a high thrust engine with low exhaust velocity.

With that in mind, you don't need a high thrust engine to break the sound barrier or even supercruise.

Guys, just cool it down...

I am not doing a mod's job but try not to start an arguement. We are human being and should not flame at each other. Perhaps both of you can cool down a bit before returning to discuss.

Cheers

SinoSoldier said:

…
Welcome to the 21st century, buddy. So please don't assume if you haven't read recent aviation articles. All of the information contradicts your argument, for which you have no sources to back it up.

Click to expand...

First of all calm down and read my post again. When did I say that it won’t be possible, nor that the WS-10A won’t fit for such a type ?
So I think I read the “relevant” articles … , while You stuck to the “since fiction” stories only ?

What do you call a "reliable source"? BBS posts by netizens? This guy called "Huitong" (where 25% of his so-called "predictions" are incorrect)?
Give me a break, buddy.

Click to expand...

One again wishful thinking and to quote Huitong for that is shame on You.
Where did he say something about a Mach 1.3 Stealth or an hypersonic atmosphere bomber ?? Simply show me this link !!

All he does is to mention that there are rumors / reports about something under development at XAC … the rest is wishful thinking on Your side mixed by such stupid videos from the net “spiced” up with fan-arts used by moderators or journalists, who has no meaning in real aerospace industry.

The information you saw are reported in three different articles.

Click to expand...

Oh yes, and I have even more "links" that green men are right that moment between us here ....

Again that’s surely fine for a youngster like You … You just take the number of “sources” and take the most “interesting” things for granted without thinking ?! Not the number of sources is important, the source alone is it !

In fact, US articles also predicted that China will field a "stealthy space bomber" within the decade. I can show you these if you want.

Sorry, buddy, but forum posts and a guy's imagination ain't gonna cut it.

Click to expand...

At best politically motivated hype to continue with the own weapon projects … and far from reality, since not even the USAF will field such a type within the next decade. Maybe again from Carlo Kopp, who only wants to persuade the Australian and US government to buy more Raptors or develop a new 6th generation type otherwise the Western world will be overthrown by hordes of PLA-forces ! Come on … just be serious !

If You really believe that BS You are writing here, then You surely got lost “Somewhere in the void between the concept of conclusion and hypothesis”.

But let me help You out not with a statement by me, but from another respected member at CDF, where a similar discussion is currently going on without “fan-boys”-theories:

[quote author=SARguy]A pragmatic and salient observation of China's aero-industry today.
Given our current national security environment and defense posture, a new (stealth???) bomber probably would be in the list with a heading "nice to have", but not "must have". Our priority in aero sectors lies somewhere else. But since it is, I'll stop here.
[/quote]

Have a nice day and hopefully You will return to reality some day.

Deino

Twix101 said:

Rafale figure looks very odd to me, it is much more close to 0.1 m² in clean config (given the requirement of 1/20 of the Mirage 2000 which was about 2m²).

Also, I don't know where you got your sources but B-2 Signature looks bogus, as well as the SR-71 (stealthier than F-22 ?? that's not logic !)

Click to expand...

Those figures were from Key Publishing Forum


I know some of them are probably bogus or inaccurate. But just figures for reference.

Asymptote said:

Those figures were from Key Publishing Forum

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

I know some of them are probably bogus or inaccurate. But just figures for reference.

Click to expand...

Ugh, just for future referencing, the F-22 does not have a 0.003 m2 RCS. Carlo Kopp, an Electrical Engineer and Defense Analyst, has put the figure to 0.0001 m2.

Back on topic, I personally see China's leap from a Medium bomber into an Atmospheric bomber to be, as others have put it, far fetched. It would be more logical for China to develop and produce something within the means of their own technology, something maybe similar to the B-2 or the Tu-160.

IronsightSniper said:

Ugh, just for future referencing, the F-22 does not have a 0.003 m2 RCS. Carlo Kopp, an Electrical Engineer and Defense Analyst, has put the figure to 0.0001 m2.

Back on topic, I personally see China's leap from a Medium bomber into an Atmospheric bomber to be, as others have put it, far fetched. It would be more logical for China to develop and produce something within the means of their own technology, something maybe similar to the B-2 or the Tu-160.

Click to expand...

I don't know. It is exciting time!
I have a feeling that it is possible for China to develop hypersonic atmospheric bomber. And Why not?
China is developing that Shenlong space shuttle - I think it could ended up something like the Rockwell X-30 project - the technologies that are being develop in that project can also be used for the atomospheric bomber.

Deino said:

First of all calm down and read my post again. When did I say that it won’t be possible, nor that the WS-10A won’t fit for such a type ?
So I think I read the “relevant” articles … , while You stuck to the “since fiction” stories only ?

Click to expand...

When? Since you said this: "Honestly that's ridiculous ! „a stealth bomber capable of Mach 1.3” and an “atmospheric bomber” “WS-12 … "

Denial ain't just a river in Egypt

And BTW, if I believe in science fiction, then the H-8 bomber would be 20 times more capable than it is described

Deino said:

One again wishful thinking and to quote Huitong for that is shame on You.
Where did he say something about a Mach 1.3 Stealth or an hypersonic atmosphere bomber ?? Simply show me this link !!

All he does is to mention that there are rumors / reports about something under development at XAC … the rest is wishful thinking on Your side mixed by such stupid videos from the net “spiced” up with fan-arts used by moderators or journalists, who has no meaning in real aerospace industry.

Click to expand...

Take a break from your blind devotion and take a look at the state of Huitong's posts. First of all, he posts the information on most planes AFTER they've taken first flight and released to the public. Second of all, his information changes once now and then, since his predictions have been proven wrong.

You want some links:













and there are more.

There, you said it. You stated that Huitong posts "rumors" and that you don't believe in "rumors". Make up your mind, buddy.

Hopefully you do realize that information happens to be more reliable in news articles than a guy's posts or BBS rumors.

Deino said:

Oh yes, and I have even more "links" that green men are right that moment between us here ....

Again that’s surely fine for a youngster like You … You just take the number of “sources” and take the most “interesting” things for granted without thinking ?! Not the number of sources is important, the source alone is it !

Click to expand...

And you say that a guy who gets a quarter of his "predictions" wrong is a "good source"? Very scientific, buddy, very scientific.

Perhaps you should work for the CIA

Deino said:

At best politically motivated hype to continue with the own weapon projects … and far from reality, since not even the USAF will field such a type within the next decade. Maybe again from Carlo Kopp, who only wants to persuade the Australian and US government to buy more Raptors or develop a new 6th generation type otherwise the Western world will be overthrown by hordes of PLA-forces ! Come on … just be serious !

If You really believe that BS You are writing here, then You surely got lost “Somewhere in the void between the concept of conclusion and hypothesis”.

But let me help You out not with a statement by me, but from another respected member at CDF, where a similar discussion is currently going on without “fan-boys”-theories:

[quote author=SARguy]A pragmatic and salient observation of China's aero-industry today.
Given our current national security environment and defense posture, a new (stealth???) bomber probably would be in the list with a heading "nice to have", but not "must have". Our priority in aero sectors lies somewhere else. But since it is, I'll stop here.

Click to expand...

Have a nice day and hopefully You will return to reality some day.

Deino[/QUOTE]

And here goes your blissful ignorance again. So the US sources aren't reliable now, huh? What's next? CCTV and CNN will be run by internet bloggers?

Seriously, my friend, go read some articles and come back with at least a sense of logic in researching

Sorry my friend, but IMO Huitong is actually still one of the "more" - IMO "most" - reliable "sources". That doesn't make all-knowing and YES, he made some errors over the years - who doesn’t ? - but Your links are truly fan-posts.

And what the hell does the last sentence have to do with the reliability of Huitong or Your links ?
Once again like another respected member said: "It all comes down to who you listen to and who actually knows what they're talking about"

As such I think we both can continue with this “discussion” until such a system will be fielded … You stick to Your opinion and I to mine.


Maybe we can make a bet if the PLAAF will field both a „a stealth bomber capable of Mach 1.3” and an “atmospheric bomber” “WS-12 … ". within the next decade but like I said before: I don't think it's impossible, but really You should be realistic.

IMO the important question is not whether Your links are more reliable or simply fan-posts than mine, which You question or deem ignorant of the latest achievements and capabilities. The question should be more:

1. Is it technically possible to develop such systems … maybe YES (even if I doubt that at the moment for China)

2. Is it possible to develop both systems like You describes simultaneously ?? … IMO see no. 1 But then the question is no. 3.

3. Is it affordable to develop and/or field at a later stage two such highly sophisticated systems ? … IMO a clearly NO, since other assets are much more necessary like the Y-20, another tactical airlifter, to replace the numerous J-7 and J-8 … most of all the Q-5, additional AWACS/AEW-assets, transport helicopters …. The list is nearly endless … and only on the end of this list there’s IMO a stealthy supersonic and an atmospheric bomber, which led to no. 4

4. What should such a highly expensive and technically risky (if ever possible) type could to - in mind of the PLAAF’s doctrine and strategy -, what can’t be done with other cheaper, less-risky and more affordable assets ? … NOTHING, at least nothing worth these vast investments.


Maybe You have different answers to no. 1-4 and at least we can go back in „arguing“ … so long & have a nice day.

Deino

The photos provided by the links are mostly, everybody here knows that, H6 with three pylons on each wing. Some of the photos even have the words (PSed?) "God of Warrior" on it.