Talk:Xi'an H-8

Untitled

The introduction of the Xian H-6K which is substantially modernized and can carry 6 Tomahawk-like long-range cruise missiles give China the ability to strike at ranges of thousands of miles, throughout Asia, without the need for stealth in oder to get close to the target. So its unlikely that China is is pursuing a stealthy bomber now, because it doeas not need it. It concentrates its efforts on developing stealth fighters. As for the intercontinental nuclear deterrence role, the mobile DF-31 and the JL-2 SLBM are much more suited to penetrate NORAD than a big bomber.--Arado (talk) 13:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

merge

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

No consensus to merge. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:27, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

---

Proposing merge into Xian H-6, H-8 is just a project dropped in early-stage. --Yuriy Lapitskiy ~ 14:51, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

H-7 vs H-8

This article should be renamed Xi'an H-8 (abbr. H-8), and the abbreative H-7 should instead refer to a different project (see below):

• The term Xi'an H-8 (and its variants) is more much more commonly used than said Xi'an H-7 (and its variants) on most media including the internet to refer to this project.
• According to Encyclopaedia of Chinese Aircraft(Vol.3), the very project described in this article was officially designated 轰-8 (Hōng-8), which should naturally translate to Xi'an H-8.
• According to the same source, there was another cancelled project by HAMC that was designated 轰-7 (Hōng-7) in 1965-1971, which should naturally translate to Harbin H-7.

The publisher of the book was fomally a child of today's AVIC, so I think the source can be regarded reliable.MS1337 (talk) 21:17, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Although it's just my theory, there might be a reason for the possible confusion:

• PLAAF isn't resistent to recycle the designations of canceled older projects for newer ones.
• The old Harbin H-7 project was canceled in 1971, but PLAAF still demanded such an attacker/fighter-bomber at that time.
• There was indeed a Xi'an H-7 design won out for that in mid-1970, which was different from Harbin H-7.
• And that very Xi'an H-7 later got renamed to Xi'an JH-7.
• And some sources could just get confused by these. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MS1337 (talk • contribs) 22:15, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

There is no sane way for the same manufacturer, XAC, to have the same 轰-7 designation to both of an on-going fighter-bomber project and an on-going strategic bomber project during the same time period (1970s-1980s).

Unfortunately the original source of the the information on the renaming of Xi'an JH-7 was no longer available on the net. There is also information about the name Xi'an B-7 used for Xi'an JH-7 in Farnborough International Airshow 1988, but I couldn't confirm that. If we could confirm that, then the sane move would be to rename this article to Xi'an H-8 and redirect Xi'an H-7 to Xi'an JH-7. MS1337 (talk) 22:04, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Alright. So I've split the H-6I part from this article and the time frame of JH-7 no longer overlaps with that of H-8. One problem is avoided. MS1337 (talk) 01:55, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Xian Y-7 which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 21:02, 13 November 2023 (UTC)