H-20 bomber (with H-X, JH-XX)

[Blitzo]

Some observations and inferences mentioned by the Guancha Trios based on the recent observation of that WZ-X at Malan in one of the latest ChaHuaHui podcast on Bilibili (minute 23:30 - minute 48:40):

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

(Please note that they likely aren't necessarily talking about H-20 in-particular.)

Several key points:
#1 - The drone testing and evaluation base at Malan actually has multiple massive hangars with large main spans (widths). They described the spans of those hangars as "shocking".
#2 - China has no problem with developing and building something like the B-2 today (or, alternatively, a H-20-sized aircraft/manned and unmanned flying-wing aircraft with huge wingspans, ranges in the 5 digits of kilometers, and endurance in the 2 digits of hours).
#3 - The above point (#2) is especially when compared to the past when factors like flight control, engines, material science etc's development/maturity are yet to become satisfactory enough to enable such large-sized flying-wing aircrafts.
#4 - The flying-wing design is actually better suited for strategic reconnaissance/ISR UAVs than bombers, relatively speaking (where the various requirements for an ISR UAV isn't as "demanding" as a bomber would - Refer #7 and #8).
#5 - In flying-wing designs, it is actually preferable for the powerplant(s) (i.e. engines) to be placed as close to the aircraft's centerline axis as possible, due to the effects from the differential in engine power outputs on opposing sides (in multi-engine aircrafts) being actually much more impactful/damning in a flying-wing aircraft.
#6 - The IWBs on bombers should be future-proofed (or alternatively, should take future weaponry development in mind), where both payload weight capacity and payload size capacity is crucial (they listed the example where despite the Tu-22M is larger and much heavier than the Tu-16, they both have largely similar IWB sizes).
#7 - Having a bomber based on the flying-wing design means that multiple compromises would have to be made (to put it simply: flying wing design means shorter fuselage -> shorter IWB length -> IWB have to be expanded sideways -> engines have to be placed further away from aircraft centerline axis -> Problems/risks associated with #5, alongside impacts on cruising efficiency).
#8 - On the other hand, a flying-wing design reconnaissance/ISR UAV do not have the associated issues as mentioned above (#7) (namely, engine can be placed along the centerline axis, no IWB demand, radar/EO/IR sensor windows can be conformal to the aircraft body/skin, reduced thickness of the aircraft body etc), meaning that they are technically easier to be designed and developed.
#9 - "Modularity" (i.e. changing/swapping modules for different mission profiles) isn't as nice as it sounds.
#10 - Last-but-not-least, there is one key mention: One of the Horten Brothers' designs (I interpret this refers to the best if not one of the best) isn't being carried forward and realized in Germany or the United States, but in China. (I'm not sure which specific design(s) did they refer to.)

(For #7 - Just take a look at the engine and IWB layout arrangements of the B-2 versus the B-21.)

(Please do correct me if there are any information/points that I missed or mistaken from the podcast on that segment.)

One funny note - The Guancha Trios actually mentioned how @Deino is "calming" the outside (West-based) observers on the WZ-X (basically those observers were like "Look! Large flying-wing aircraft! H-20!", and @Deino be like "No no no, notice how the aircraft is much shorter in length? It's not a H-20, but a UAV").

Thanks for the translation.

The most interesting thing to me with the whole WZ-X emergence, is that we actually missed the initial flights of what is essentially a B-2 sized aircraft.

Malan is not an aircraft manufacturing base -- it's a test base. WZ-X being at Malan means it should have been constructed at a different site, had initial test flights at said different site, and then eventually flown to Malan.

This is a flying wing, reduced signature aircraft with a B-2 wingspan (i.e.: an aircraft that under many circumstances could have a physical footprint and configuration of what we'd expect for H-20), and we didn't know about it until Planet Labs and TWZ did an article on it.

This is actually somewhat unprecedented and just goes to show that the PLA can keep things hidden if they wanted to, and to be honest it somewhat makes me revise how soon we would get images of H-20 whenever it emerges, whatever the configuration it has.

 

[00CuriousObserver]

Malan is not an aircraft manufacturing base -- it's a test base. WZ-X being at Malan means it should have been constructed at a different site, had initial test flights at said different site, and then eventually flown to Malan.

Is this absolutely true? Can we say with certainty that they didn't transport the plane to Malan in a piecewise fashion?

 

[FKAMtS4kE]

Some observations and inferences mentioned by the Guancha Trios based on the recent observation of that WZ-X at Malan in one of the latest ChaHuaHui podcast on Bilibili (minute 23:30 - minute 48:40):

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

(Please note that they likely aren't necessarily talking about H-20 in-particular.)

Several key points:
#1 - The drone testing and evaluation base at Malan actually has multiple massive hangars with large main spans (widths). They described the spans of those hangars as "shocking".
#2 - China has no problem with developing and building something like the B-2 today (or, alternatively, a H-20-sized aircraft/manned and unmanned flying-wing aircraft with huge wingspans, ranges in the 5 digits of kilometers, and endurance in the 2 digits of hours).
#3 - The above point (#2) is especially when compared to the past when factors like flight control, engines, material science etc's development/maturity are yet to become satisfactory enough to enable such large-sized flying-wing aircrafts.
#4 - The flying-wing design is actually better suited for strategic reconnaissance/ISR UAVs than bombers, relatively speaking (where the various requirements for an ISR UAV isn't as "demanding" as a bomber would - Refer #7 and #8).
#5 - In flying-wing designs, it is actually preferable for the powerplant(s) (i.e. engines) to be placed as close to the aircraft's centerline axis as possible, due to the effects from the differential in engine power outputs on opposing sides (in multi-engine aircrafts) being actually much more impactful/damning in a flying-wing aircraft.
#6 - The IWBs on bombers should be future-proofed (or alternatively, should take future weaponry development in mind), where both payload weight capacity and payload size capacity is crucial (they listed the example where despite the Tu-22M is larger and much heavier than the Tu-16, they both have largely similar IWB sizes).
#7 - Having a bomber based on the flying-wing design means that multiple compromises would have to be made (to put it simply: flying wing design means shorter fuselage -> shorter IWB length -> IWB have to be expanded sideways -> engines have to be placed further away from aircraft centerline axis -> Problems/risks associated with #5, alongside impacts on cruising efficiency).
#8 - On the other hand, a flying-wing design reconnaissance/ISR UAV do not have the associated issues as mentioned above (#7) (namely, engine can be placed along the centerline axis, no IWB demand, radar/EO/IR sensor windows can be conformal to the aircraft body/skin, reduced thickness of the aircraft body etc), meaning that they are technically easier to be designed and developed.
#9 - "Modularity" (i.e. changing/swapping modules for different mission profiles) isn't as nice as it sounds.
#10 - Last-but-not-least, there is one key mention: One of the Horten Brothers' designs (I interpret this refers to the best if not one of the best) isn't being carried forward and realized in Germany or the United States, but in China. (I'm not sure which specific design(s) did they refer to.)

(For #7 - Just take a look at the engine and IWB layout arrangements of the B-2 versus the B-21.)

(Please do correct me if there are any information/points that I missed or mistaken from the podcast on that segment.)

One funny note - The Guancha Trios actually mentioned how @Deino is "calming" the outside (West-based) observers on the WZ-X (basically those observers were like "Look! Large flying-wing aircraft! H-20!", and @Deino be like "No no no, notice how the aircraft is much shorter in length? It's not a H-20, but a UAV").

The discussion on centerline axis engines makes me suspect #10 is referring to the Horten H.XVIII.

https://imgur.com/5rYw81H

 

[Blitzo]

Is this absolutely true? Can we say with certainty that they didn't transport the plane to Malan in a piecewise fashion?

That is a good point, in theory that is also possible.

How viable it would be to have a large flying wing be designed to be able to be broken down is another matter (structurally desirable?). Then there's the question of whether doing initial flight testing at Malan would make sense for an aircraft of this complexity and scale (you'd think doing at least the first few tests at the manufacturer where all the bespoke engineering staff are present would be prudent).

 

[latenlazy]

That is a good point, in theory that is also possible.

How viable it would be to have a large flying wing be designed to be able to be broken down is another matter (structurally desirable?). Then there's the question of whether doing initial flight testing at Malan would make sense for an aircraft of this complexity and scale (you'd think doing at least the first few tests at the manufacturer where all the bespoke engineering staff are present would be prudent).

China does ground transport for wind turbines that are much bigger and the plane body could easily be broke down to a few pieces. As a drone structural integrity shouldn't be as important so modular construction is more plausible. But to be clear I personally don’t think this particular idea is necessarily correct.

 

[Blitzo]

China does ground transport for wind turbines that are much bigger and the plane body could easily be broke down to a few pieces. As a drone structural integrity shouldn't be as important so modular construction is more plausible. But to be clear I personally don’t think this particular idea is necessarily correct.

Yeah, to clarify transporting the physical dimensions of sections of an aircraft like this is entirely reasonable and doable.

I was more thinking about whether a flying wing (especially a prototype) would be designed to be broken down into sections to begin with.


We basically just have two options to explain the "lack of prior awareness" of this WZ-X aircraft:
1. It has already flown at less remote locations but they did so under secrecy, before flying to Malan (relatively remote)
2. It has only ever flown at Malan (relatively remote), which is why we haven't seen it before

 

[Deino]

Yeah, to clarify transporting the physical dimensions of sections of an aircraft like this is entirely reasonable and doable.

I was more thinking about whether a flying wing (especially a prototype) would be designed to be broken down into sections to begin with.


We basically just have two options to explain the "lack of prior awareness" of this WZ-X aircraft:
1. It has already flown at less remote locations but they did so under secrecy, before flying to Malan (relatively remote)
2. It has only ever flown at Malan (relatively remote), which is why we haven't seen it before

Indeed … and anyway it leaves the question open, who‘s the manufacturer?

 

[ACuriousPLAFan]

Malan is not an aircraft manufacturing base -- it's a test base. WZ-X being at Malan means it should have been constructed at a different site, had initial test flights at said different site, and then eventually flown to Malan.

Yeah, to clarify transporting the physical dimensions of sections of an aircraft like this is entirely reasonable and doable.

I was more thinking about whether a flying wing (especially a prototype) would be designed to be broken down into sections to begin with.

We basically just have two options to explain the "lack of prior awareness" of this WZ-X aircraft:
1. It has already flown at less remote locations but they did so under secrecy, before flying to Malan (relatively remote)
2. It has only ever flown at Malan (relatively remote), which is why we haven't seen it before

On the other hand - What would be the probability of Malan having the same nature as the American Plant 42 at Palmdale (though only for U(C)AVs)?

 

[mack8]

Perhaps it might have been discussed previously, but i was thinking that given the talk of for instance of the possibility/consideration of unmanned B-21 variants, what are the chances the WZ-X is among others a CCA for the H-20? Might not be a straight derivative of it judging by what it is said here and elsewhere, but just like the 6th gen CHADs will have their own cluster of fighter orientated CCAs, so does the H-20 could have it's own cluster of similarly profiled (VLO, long range strike) CCAs?

 

[Blitzo]

On the other hand - What would be the probability of Malan having the same nature as the American Plant 42 at Palmdale (though only for U(C)AVs)?

I'm not sure we've ever had evidence of UAVs or UCAVs being manufactured at Malan.