No, because H-20 does have even higher power generation potential and range. It can also carry more ammunitions.
Let's put it this way, with single refuel, H-20 can get close enough to Hawaii to attack Pacific fleet base and hit naval related infrastructure. You can hit most targets in Australia without refueling.
I would agree that J-36's presence makes H-20 a little less important.
Having long range is really a game changer
These figures are obviously speculative estimates, if not outright guesses, and will inevitably be updated and vary depending on the mission profile and the propulsion systems ultimately installed on the J-36 and H-20; however, the current combat radius "guesstimates" for these two platforms w/o aerial refueling are generally speaking 3,000km and 5,000km, respectively (please don't hesitate to speak up if that's off).
The difference here is undoubtedly material, but what are the odds that the PLAAF will actually be able to deploy the H-20 against targets in Hawaii and Australia w/o the J-36 and/or other manned and unmanned systems flying nearby as escorts?
Moreover, if J-36s will need to escort H-20s anyhow, why not just employ J-36s and attritable CCAs to accomplish the mission instead?
Not going to deny that the H-20 will almost certainly benefit from a larger payload capacity than the J-36, but unless the former can supercruise, the J-36's superior speed and by extension sortie rate may offset some of the H-20's payload advantage.
The PLAAF will ideally want to be equipped with both the J-36 and H-20, and preferably in sizable numbers.
However, in a world of finite resources, the PLAAF may get more bang for buck out of the J-36 than the H-20, especially in the next ten or fifteen years or so, unless striking aimpoints in Hawaii or Australia is of equal or greater priority than hitting aimpoints in Guam and elsewhere on the Second Island Chain.
And while a B-2, B-21 or H-20 don't provide the supersonic speed a Tu-22M3, provides, they are more difficult to detect, which could mean they can launch at closer range and thus reduce the reaction time until the arrival of the missile, which in turn increases the chance of sinking the vessel.
A lot of things are stealthier than a Tu-22M3, but a H-20 is not necessarily stealthier or less vulnerable than a J-36.
Moreover, if minimizing reaction time is the goal here, wouldn't it be more optimal to hit naval targets with HGV armed DF-17 and DF-27 missiles cued by airborne and orbital ISR assets?
