Actually, in terms of VLO design such a plane should focus on broadband stealth. Evading high band parts of the spectrum shouldn’t take priority when the idea is to get as close as possible before dashing out.
Future PLA strategic procurement priorities
- Thread starter AndrewS
- Start date
I don't question that it "should" focus on broadband stealth, I question whether it's possible. It would be great if it were possible to design a supersonic bomber with broadband stealth, but is it?
My reply was to a comment that was (to the best of my interpretation), describing a situation that the OP believed to be the case in the present. That's why the production I described for China was also of that of the present.
Into the future, I obviously expect the gap to close. To what specific extent, none of us can predict.
I do not see a situation where China has sufficient number of global air bases that are sufficiently survivable to allow them to conduct the kind of basing or air refuelling to do so.
And if you are suggesting H-20s should conduct such raids from China mainland proper without air refuelling, well H-20 most definitely will not not have the range for it. Not to mention there's the little issue of various US bases both in the Pacific and around the world that would be on alert to try to forewarn and intercept any H-20s that China sends out.
Not to mention that being the first to use tactical nukes and against CONTUS for that matter, is a sure fire way of rapidly bringing the conflict to a nuclear threshold.
So I cannot see what you described as being anywhere near plausible.
Yes? The only requirement is feature sizing and materials selection. Nothing about engineering for broadband stealth is at odds with supersonic flight.
Fair enough, I didn't really bother to read the post you were responding to. But this asymmetry of homeland security is a point I've encountered more than once and I wanted to respond to it.
I wouldn't speculate about the H-20's range, but if you're correct then substitute H-20s with ICBM-class HGVs.
I disagree profoundly. I think it's abhorrent that China just sit there and take blows to its homeland while the US sits pretty on the other side of the world. I think you're too hung up on the term "nuclear" when the principle that should be focused on is equality of devastation. I'll repeat that I mentioned that the bombs should have a yield of around one kiloton - that's roughly on the scale of the Beirut Explosion. That's enough to destroy something like a shipyard but not the city the shipyard is in. I don't care if the US destroys JNCX or DN with conventional weapons - if it dares to do that then its own yards will be destroyed. The physics used to do so don't matter.
This is the only way for China to finally be free of the post-WII yoke the US has imposed on the world. It has to match - if not outmatch - the US at every potential level of conflict, from gray-zone "hybrid warfare" all the way up to strategic nuclear warfare. It cannot allow any gaps for the US to exploit. China has to be able to freeze the US out of any escalation.
I'll stress again that this would be in response to US attacks on the Chinese homeland. If the US doesn't want this to happen, then it doesn't touch Chinese facilities on the Chinese mainland. If it does, it suffers the consequences. If it chooses to escalate after that, then the Great Filter is activated and the species has had a good run - but the onus would be on the US to escalate things that far.
If this thread is really about strategic priorities then you can forget about airpower beyond 20 series and maybe J-31, the real priorities are SSNs as fast as Huludao can build them and ICBMs as fast as they can be put in silos. Only once near parity with US is achieved in these areas can other types of system be prioritised.
Well, kind of. All stealth fighters (the only stealth aircraft that fly supersonically) have features the long wave radar can pick up by Rayleigh scattering. A bomber engineered to fly supersonically would presumably have those features - the model of the JH-XX has them.
Uh I definitely would speculate about H-20s range given we know what size class and engine class it will be using.
Its effective combat radius will likely be similar to B-2. Heck, even if it were a little bit greater, it would still be far too short to operate in the way you envision.
For an ICBM class HGV (even if air launched) you'd need something like an ICBM class missile.
You're not fitting that inside an H-20.
I never said that China would not seek to attain the means to try and strike CONTUS during a conflict.
I said that China would not be the first to use tactical nuclear weapons in a conflict, and that H-20 did not possess the range to be viable in strikes against CONTUS.
And yes, the use of nuclear weapons is a major escalation in the ladder, and something that the US and other nations will respond to in a proportionate manner. So for the purposes of discussion, I am deliberately leaving nuclear weapons out of it because the end result is simply large scale nuclear exchange and any discussions become moot.
Also, please tone it down a bit. Your rhetoric is unnecessarily emotive and is unnervingly easy to be turned into a copy pasta if anyone so desired.
I meant ignore the H-20 entirely if you don't believe it will have the range. The tactical nuclear bombardment mission can be done by ground-launched ICBM-range HGVs. I imagine such a launcher would be between a DF-26 and DF-31 in size, given the lighter payload and range extended trajectory of HGVs relative to ballistic trajectories.
That's what this section of your post that I responded to implied:
If you have some other way to do it you haven't mentioned, I'd love to hear it.
Asymmetric use of nuclear weapons is not an idea that originated with me. The First Offset and Russia's supposed "escalate to de-escalate" strategy are two examples off the top of my head. It's an idea that's regularly bounced around in respectable US think tanks by Very Serious People™ - so as I see it, what's good for the goose is good for the gander.
Once again, a 1kt warhead is barely "nuclear." If there were a way to do this feasibly with a conventional munition, I'm all for it. Sadly, whatever mechanism by which our universe came to be saw fit to make the binding energies of nuclei far exceed the energies of coupling valence electrons.
"Proportionate" escalation doesn't do much for the US that conventional force hasn't already done. If America wants to go beyond that, if it thinks it can escalate to countervalue strikes, my unshakeable view is simple: I dare them.
Fair enough once again; you're free to put whatever limits you please on the topics you discuss. I don't subscribe to such a limit because I don't believe those planning war (in America or in China) are circumscribing their discussions similarly. I understand that discussion of nuclear war often escalates (no pun) into shouting matches or "everybody dies" dismissals, but I believe a nuanced discussion about calibrated nuclear responses can be had. I also think the crowd here at SDF (for the most part) is sophisticated enough to have such a discussion.
It's not my intention to be "emotive" or make it easy for haters to caricature my position (which isn't something I really care about). The point I'm trying to get across is that a war between the US and China must be transformed from a contest of strength and capability as it is now into a contest of wills, which it will be when China achieves comprehensive parity. That kind of concept and pattern of thinking naturally lends itself to "emotive" language, but I hope the underlying logic of my argument isn't lost.
Skywatcher
Captain
Can't remember hearing that, apart from some sixth rate think tank (CIMSEC was it?).
Doing that sounds like a good way to jump start an Asian NATO (or Shanghai/Kuala Lumpur Pact if you will) aimed against DC.