Here are some freshly made drawings and some estimates as to weight, performance etc. by Paralay ( i was actually going to ask him if he can do some of his unique drawings for this JH-X!)
http://paralay.iboards.ru/viewtopic.php?style=12&f=5&t=2677
care to repost them here? Link’s not working.
It could be modern equivalent of F-117, used to knock out only most important targets like Taiwanese or Indian ABM systems, etc. Perhaps Chinese feel that such missions needs a human pilot instead of drone what can be jammed.
How many LS-6 (50kg) series bombs could that sort of machine hold?
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-PLA-GBU.html#mozTocId132067
More like a modern stealthy F-111 considering its emphasis on speed.
Kopp should petition Australia to cooperate with SAC
—
When this model emerged there was actually a lot of talk regarding its dimensions. There was a rather curiously detailed post over on cjbdy that gave it dimensions of…
length: 28.4m, wingspan 22.12m, height, 4.96m, combat radius, 3200 km (you can challenge the verity of the claim of course, on many levels, but I for one think it feels right.)
http://lt.cjdby.net/thread-1623084-1-1.html
As to a potential weapons load…


Among others which I won’t post
Regarding the plausibility of the bomber…
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2013/06/chinese-aerospace-renaissance.html
Chinese aerospace renaissance underway?
By Dave Majumdar on June 13, 2013During the first half of 2013 a couple of new Chinese military aviation projects have come to light. One recent development was the sighting of China’s Sharp Sword unmanned combat air vehicle, which was revealed in May. More recently, images have emerged of a structural model of what appears to be a new Chinese stealth bomber.
While many are tempted to dismiss the Chinese developments as mere knock-offs based on stolen Western technologies, there are those who believe that we, particularly those of us here in the United States, are underestimating China’s capabilities.
Having examined the Chinese designs, a number of highly experienced US aerospace engineers–all of whom have extensive experience designing low observable aircraft–are convinced that not only are the new designs original, but that they are viable stealth airframes (even if they are not all-aspect stealth machines in some cases). “There is an aerospace renaissance underway in China,” one engineer says. “It was just a matter of time.”
The Sharp Sword not only looks viable as a low observable aircraft from many angles–save for the distinctly non-stealthy exhaust, it looks like it is an original design, one engineer says. Asked about the structural model for the Chinese stealth bomber, the engineer says that his unfortunate conclusion is that the aircraft is in fact a viable design.
While China is not yet an adversary of the Unites States, there is potential that as the country continues to reemerge as a great economic and military power that it could become one. In that case it would be foolish to underestimate the capabilities of Chinese engineers. “They have talented designers,” one engineer says.
If it does come down to some sort of new Cold War, this time around the United States would be facing-off against an enemy with a vibrant economy, as a learned friend notes–a marked contrast to the Soviet Union, which was always hamstrung by its command economy.
Interesting that both the foreign policy article and this DEW article have forsaken the actual picture of the model itself which sparked it all
This plane is a striker not designed for high AoA. The top air intakes would give it better stealth characteristics against ground radars and even against airborne threats in a high altitude profile.
Compared to the chinese everyone else appears to be bungling fools.
That is one of the reasons why so many people dislike plaaf followers on this forum, not only because of the lionizing of your own group but the derogation of others. Sure everyone has their own flaws but jeez some users here are just opening the rest of us for verbal abuse.
/rant over
… But yes the top air intakes is a nice addition and will certainly aid against ground based radar. If this plane materializes, I think it will be one of the first if not the first supersonic aircraft with top mounted air intakes. A better shot of the model should also confirm whether it follows the YF-23’s general fuselage/wing blend, and the wing planform. I don’t know who in their right mind could think this thing was subsonic.
A shot to confirm the side weapon bays (for carrying self defense BVRAAMs?) would also be nice.
The first picture is a drawing of an export LHD that CSOC were offering at some recent naval expos. Very mistral esque yes?
The other two are fan art.
The export LHD displaces 22,000 tons.
http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=910
The PLAN are also said to be pursuing a much larger, wasp weight class LHD or LHA, in the 40,000 ton range. The “rumour designation” of this PLAN LHA/D is “075” at the moment. 081 is the prefix for a class of minesweepers in service, I believe.
I don’t think there was anything wrong with what he said….
He pointed out that it looked like the model shown at an Iranian parade day. I see similarities in it myself. He also said that maybe they are doing a joint project like China/Pakistan. It’s just speculation, nothing wrong with that.
I thought he was making a reference that the model was somehow Pakistani and that therefore the chinese model and that may be connected.
Of course the more paranoid folks may also wonder if there was a coy subtext trying to connect the cheap plastic propaganda models that Iran has been showing which serve no other purpose than to wave their arms around in a childish manner screaming “we’re relevant!” along this chinese model, thereby insinuating the latter is as much a real project as the Iranian model (with the most distinctive shared feature being their top mounted air intakes)… but I’m sure nobody was thinking that.
Talking about distinctive shared features:
-Aircraft_180113.jpg)

1, that’s iran
2, pakistan really needs a bomber of this size?
3, that’s iran
forgive me if you’re just being facetious.
I don’t know, if it’s using two WS-15 engines, why not build a strike version of the J-20? This project doesn’t make sense unless they have a power plant with enough thrust for a bomber in the Backfire class IMHO.
A strike J-20 won’t be able to hold jack inside. Stretch it, but it’ll only be able to hold guided dumb bombs, and small diameter AShMs if you’re lucky.
I’d venture that this bomber probably won’t be backfire class, but a weight between backfire and Su-34/F-111. Two WS-15 class engines for an 80 ton striker is a good overall thrust to weight ratio comparable to many other supersonic bombers out there, Tu-22m, 160, B-1.
The biggest problem with the whole J-20 is a striker debacle when the plane first came out was that it was completely wrong for what the PLAAF needed. Not big enough to carry supersonic ASHMs let alone normal ASHMs internally, relatively small, lacking the range needed to strike at targets in the second island chain and beyond.
This plane “Jh-XX” or whatever we’re dubbing it, makes much more sense as a striker, for the PLA.
And to whoever said this is a UCAV, the models nose shows a canopy, notice how it reflects the light differently.
Huge and… subsonic
But you know, the black model might only be an artistic impression made around a former project in the form of the yellow model.
What can be extracted form this photo is only that the Chineese AF are confident enough to build a large modern/long range version of the F117… Or simply want others to think around this idea. Any how, I don’t see any benefits afgainst the so called J-20 (no supersonic dash capability etc… etc…)
I thought one of the more obvious aspects of this plane is that its intended for high speed?
It’s more FB-23 than F-117 methinks

Maybe my eyes are messed up, but i dont see air inlet on top of the bomber on the yellow model
[ATTACH=CONFIG]217536[/ATTACH]
The yellow model appeared some three years ago to test structure or aerodynamics (?), I suspect the black model is simply a more refined version
Does anyone know how far the Indians are along with their Kolkata destroyers? Wikipedia says two should’ve been commissioned by now, but the latest pictures (circa March this year) show this:


And I’ve heard no news or pictures of any of them actually in service ploughing the waves. Any more knowledgable members willing to enlighten the subject? Cheers.
how is that modernization of MIG-29K from 1980s?. Can you modernized F-18C to F-18E?
Fundamental differences.
1. MIG-29K has 5 wet stations.
2. 4 weopon stations per wing.
3 enlarged fuel capacity to 5000kg.
4 RD-33MK engines. Cannot be installed on legacy fulcrums.
5. quad digit FBW with no mechanical backup.
6. 6000hr airframe life. It alone needs different structure and materials. legacy Fulcrums can only be modernized to 4000hrs.It has higher top speed, ceiling than Rafale/F-18E. and this was created on very paltry sum of money. converting a land based fighter to Naval is not a big deal now considering past experiance and money. the rest is done by supercomputers.
F-18C to F-18E comparison isn’t quite valid. Superbug’s practically a new plane compared to classic bug.
Comparing F-16A to F-16C is fairer I think. Or perhaps F-14A to F-14D.
Mash up is a terrible source. But we’ve known for ages Y-20 will be using a high bypass WS-10, not sure why a dedicated thread is necessary
Anyone have a photo of J-10s carrying Kh-31? Or any ARM?
I don’t think the PLAAF are equipped with any non-Kh-31 derived ARMs.
Answer is no to both questions, anyway. They’re more commonly seen aboard JH-7As.
I just noticed the tail hook in both Ching kuo pictures. I wonder what they are on all FCK-1s.. The implications are also interesting, meaning they are strengthened for arrested landings