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

SinoSoldier said:

Where did you get the idea that the "red B2 / manta ray" and the "more beautiful" bomber are references to the same project? Because OP mentioned "northwest" (XAC) and hence you assumed that they must be the same aircraft?

The conversation, if my memory serves me correctly, went somewhat like this:
1. Person A asked OP if this is the H-1X/"platyplus"/whatever, mentioned previously by OP, with respect to the photograph of the JH-XX cockpit at the SAC compound.
2. OP responded by saying that the aircraft in question is "more beautiful" than the one in the photograph and was from the "northwest".

I've no idea how you managed to conflate that with the "red B-2" that was mentioned in a separate post altogether.

Update: I've looked at what Huitong thinks of it and he seems to believe that the JH-XX/H-X could be developed at XAC (

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

)

Click to expand...

dude. Just do a screenshot of the relevant parts of fzgfzy's posts/comments on each page and do a word for word translation for his comments.


I think I see where you are coming from, but the problem is that if you want to repost rumours from Chinese language big shrimps you need to do a good job of translating them directly with an easy way for everyone else to verify and agree with what parts you're referring to.

SinoSoldier said:

Where did you get the idea that the "red B2 / manta ray" and the "more beautiful" bomber are references to the same project? Because OP mentioned "northwest" (XAC) and hence you assumed that they must be the same aircraft?

The conversation, if my memory serves me correctly, went somewhat like this:
1. Person A asked OP if this is the H-1X/"platyplus"/whatever, mentioned previously by OP, with respect to the photograph of the JH-XX cockpit at the SAC compound.
2. OP responded by saying that the aircraft in question is "more beautiful" than the one in the photograph and was from the "northwest".

I've no idea how you managed to conflate that with the "red B-2" that was mentioned in a separate post altogether.

Update: I've looked at what Huitong thinks of it and he seems to believe that the JH-XX/H-X could be developed at XAC (

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

)

Click to expand...

Sigh... Let me walk you through this again.

Before we proceed, some definitions are in order:
1) The designation 'JH' stands for 'Jian-Hong', or 'fighter-bomber'. An example would be JH-7.
2) The designation 'H' stands for 'Hong', or 'bomber'. One example would be the Xi'an H-6. These are designed as pure bombers.
3) The word 'are' indicates present tense. The word 'were' indicates past tense.

Now onto the meat of our disagreement...

超级大本营CDF, a.k.a. fzgfzy, posted on his Weibo account the following on May 2, 2018:

The above photo is accompanied by a caption at the bottom that reads "战轰鸭嘴，另一款红色B2就…", as seen in the cropped screen capture below:

"鸭嘴" means duckbill, or it can be a shorthand for "鸭嘴兽" (duckbill beast), which means "platypus". "红色B2" translates as "Red B2".

With the above in mind, the caption translates literally as "duckbill/platypus bomber, the other is Red B2", or alternately "duckbill/platypus bomber, the other item Red B2 is or may..."

In my opinion, "Red B2" can only refer to the Chinese counterpart to the American B-2; in other words, a Chinese flying-wing, long-range, strategic stealth bomber. Taken together, these photos indicate the existence of, in the present or the past, two distinct bomber projects: one being the platypus bomber, the other the flying-wing B-2 equivalent.

Subsequently, on May 3rd, 2018, fzgfzy , which depicts a mockup at Shenyang.


In the comment section for the above photograph, 超级大本营CDF, a.k.a. fzgfzy, answered some questions from commenters:

Redeye123：这是你讲的鸭嘴兽吗？
超级大本营CDF：我讲的更漂亮

精准微操蒋中正：这个就是你之前说轰1X？？
超级大本营CDF：不是的，我说的在西北方向，而且更科幻更漂亮

Begin Translation:
Redeye123: Is this the 'platypus' you talked about?
超级大本营CDF: What I talked about was more beautiful than this.

精准微操蒋中正: Is this what you referred to previous as the H-1X?
超级大本营CDF: No. H-1X is from the northwest** and is more futuristic-looking/more science-fiction-like than this.

**Northwest seems to imply XAC, which is located in Xi'an, in northwestern China.

End Translation.

So basically, the Shenyang mockup is not the platypus bomber, nor is it XAC's H-1X bomber. In other words, the platypus bomber is something else entirely.

In other words, fzgfzy implied the existence of two distinct bomber projects. He didn't say if they are current projects or defunct. He also never applied the designations such as 'H' or 'JH' anywhere.

This begs the question as to how you arrived at the conclusion that "fzgfzy seems to be saying that there are two JH-XX bomber designs", keeping in mind the word "are" indicates present tense, as in the projects are ongoing and not cancelled.

by78 said:

Sigh... Let me walk you through this again.

Before we proceed, some definitions are in order:
1) The designation 'JH' stands for 'Jian-Hong', or 'fighter-bomber'. An example would be JH-7.
2) The designation 'H' stands for 'Hong', or 'bomber'. One example would be the Xi'an H-6. These are designed as pure bombers.
3) The word 'are' indicates present tense. The word 'were' indicates past tense.

Now onto the meat of our disagreement...

超级大本营CDF, a.k.a. fzgfzy, posted on his Weibo account the following on May 2, 2018:

The above photo is accompanied by a caption at the bottom that reads "战轰鸭嘴，另一款红色B2就…", as seen in the cropped screen capture below:

"鸭嘴" means duckbill, or it can be a shorthand for "鸭嘴兽" (duckbill beast), which means "platypus". "红色B2" translates as "Red B2".

With the above in mind, the caption translates literally as "duckbill/platypus bomber, the other is Red B2", or alternately "duckbill/platypus bomber, the other item Red B2 is or may..." In my opinion, "Red B2" can only refer to the Chinese counterpart to the American B-2; in other words, a Chinese flying-wing, long-range, strategic stealth bomber. Taken together, these photos indicate the existence of, in the present or the past, two distinct bomber projects: one being the platypus bomber, the other the flying-wing B-2 equivalent.

Click to expand...

100% agree

Subsequently, on May 3rd, 2018, fzgfzy

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

, which depicts a mockup at Shenyang.

In the comment section for the above photograph, 超级大本营CDF, a.k.a. fzgfzy, answered some questions from commenters:

Redeye123：这是你讲的鸭嘴兽吗？
超级大本营CDF：我讲的更漂亮

精准微操蒋中正：这个就是你之前说轰1X？？
超级大本营CDF：不是的，我说的在西北方向，而且更科幻更漂亮

Begin Translation:
Redeye123: Is this the 'platypus' you talked about?
超级大本营CDF: What I talked about was more beautiful than this.

精准微操蒋中正: Is this what you referred to previous as the H-1X?
超级大本营CDF: No. H-1X is from the northwest** and is more futuristic-looking/more science-fiction-like than this.

**Northwest seems to imply XAC, which is located in Xi'an, in northwestern China.

End Translation.

So basically, the Shenyang mockup is not the platypus bomber, nor is it XAC's H-1X bomber. In other words, the platypus bomber is something else entirely.

In other words, fzgfzy implied the existence of two distinct bomber projects. He didn't say if they are current projects or defunct. He also never applied the designations such as 'H' or 'JH' anywhere.

This begs the question as to how you arrived at the conclusion that "fzgfzy seems to be saying that there are two JH-XX bomber designs", keeping in mind the word "are" indicates present tense, as in the projects are ongoing and not cancelled.

Click to expand...

This is where it gets a bit dicey.

IMO, fzgfzy's two answers to the two different users might reflect the same aircraft.

When redeye123 asks whether the SAC nose picture is the platypus bomber and fzgfzy says it is "more beautiful than this," IMO it can logically be interpreted it as fzgfzy saying: "the platypus bomber is more beautiful than the aircraft represented by the SAC nose mock up picture"

When 精准微操蒋中正 asks whether the SAC nose picture is the "H-1X" and fzgfzy says "No. H-1X is from the northwest** and is more futuristic-looking/more science-fiction-like than this," I think this answer can be argued to be interpreted in conjunction with his answer to redeye123 above.

Which is to say, that the platypus bomber and what he described as "H-1X" might be the same thing, and that the platypus bomber/H-1X is both "more beautiful" and also "more futuristic-looking/more science fiction" than the SAC nose mock up, and that this aircraft is developed by the northwest/XAC.

I have a feeling that is how Sinosoldier interpreted fzgfzy's answers, and to be honest I think I would reasonably interpret it in that way as well.

In other words, the SAC nose picture, and whatever is currently(?) under consideration or development as the "platypus bomber"/H-1X were both related or gunning for the same "role," but that a current "more beautiful + more futuristic/science fiction" design won over the design that the SAC nose mock up was a part of.



Now, the issue is that we still don't really know the actual designation or even prefix (i.e.: H, or JH etc) for the "platypus bomber". What we are going around calling "JH-XX" could be the same thing fzgfzy is calling the H-1X.

Lethe said:

Cool video, even without the "next-gen" bit at the end. The video carries the "AVIC" logo but appears to showcase only products from XAC and COMAC -- JH-7 and C919 but no Flankers, J-8s, J-10s, etc. For those who can read it, does the text provide any explanation for depicting the particular aircraft that it does?

Click to expand...

"Aviation Industry Corp of China, the nation’s leading aircraft maker, displayed a front view of what appears to be a flying-wing aircraft concept at the end of a promotional video. The video was published on its WeChat account to mark the 60th birthday of Xi’an Aircraft Industry, an AVIC subsidiary in Shaanxi province that is China’s major builder of bomber aircraft."

Bltizo said:

In other words, the SAC nose picture, and whatever is currently(?) under consideration or development as the "platypus bomber"/H-1X were both related or gunning for the same "role," but that a current "more beautiful + more futuristic/science fiction" design won over the design that the SAC nose mock up was a part of.

Now, the issue is that we still don't really know the actual designation or even prefix (i.e.: H, or JH etc) for the "platypus bomber". What we are going around calling "JH-XX" could be the same thing fzgfzy is calling the H-1X.

Click to expand...

Agreed.

And I'd like add that your interpretation means that there were two designs for the platypus, but now there is only one, which is the winning design.

I know I'm being a bit pedantic, but Sinosoldier claims that, according to fzgfzy, "there are two JH-XX bomber designs". I object to his use of the present tense 'are', which erroneously implies that both designs are ongoing; he should have instead used "were". And this is why I specifically pointed out in my last post that "the word 'are' indicates present tense. The word 'were' indicates past tense."

SinoSoldier said:

Here's my understanding: AVIC is the parent organization which XAC falls under, so while this video seems to be from (or made by) XAC, it would make sense for them to put the AVIC logo as well.

Click to expand...

Yes at first glance it looks to be a video celebrating the achievements of XAC, but then why are COMAC products ARJ21 and C919 in there? Is there some overlap or special relationship between COMAC and XAC?

by78 said:

Agreed.

And I'd like add that your interpretation means that there were two designs for the platypus, but now there is only one, which is the winning design.

I know I'm being a bit pedantic, but Sinosoldier claims that, according to fzgfzy, "there are two JH-XX bomber designs". I object to his use of the present tense 'are', which erroneously implies that both designs are ongoing; he should have instead used "were".

Click to expand...

I'll let sinosoldier defend the details for himself, but I will note that in at least one of his replies over the last few pages he did use the word "were" rather than "are". I wouldn't be surprised if it was a case of accidental replacement of the word "are" for "were" in some of his replies.

SinoSoldier said:

He absolutely implied there were two bomber designs: one which was photographed in that FC-31 album and another that he hinted was more "beautiful". I believe I've provided links to his claims as well. We don't know if there were two concurrent designs or if one was a natural evolution of the other, but if fzgfzy is indeed credible in his claims, there should be a change from what was photographed in that FC-31 album and what was ultimately displayed in the recent cockpit mockup photos (if the latter is representative of an actual bomber project).

Click to expand...

Bltizo said:

I'll let sinosoldier defend the details for himself, but I will note that in at least one of his replies over the last few pages he did use the word "were" rather than "are". I wouldn't be surprised if it was a case of accidental replacement of the word "are" for "were" in some of his replies.

Click to expand...

Ah, but there is one problem with Sinosoldier's words that you quoted: he seems to think that the two platypus designs are both Shenyang projects. He didn't at all mention XAC's H-1X, which is what you think Sinosoldier might have interpreted to be one of the two platypus designs.

In other words, my understanding of Sinosoldier is correct: he believes in the existence of two so-called JH-XX designs, whether one is "the natural evolution of the other" or both being "concurrent".

Had he considered the existence of XAC's design, he would have counted three so-called JH-XX designs, and he certainly would not have said the following (my emphasis in bold):

by78 said:

Ah, but there is one problem with Sinosoldier's words that you quoted: he seems to think that the two so-called JH-XX designs are both SAC projects. He didn't at all mention XAC's H-1X project, which is what you think Sinosoldier might have interpreted to be one of the two JH-XX designs.

In other words, Sinosoldier thinks there are/were two SAC JH-XX designs, whether they be "concurrent", or one is "the natural evolution of the other".

If he had considered the XAC's design, he would have stated that there were/are three so-called JH-XX designs, and he certainly would not have said the following (my emphasis in bold):

"We don't know if there were two concurrent designs or if one was a natural evolution of the other, but if fzgfzy is indeed credible in his claims, there should be a change from what was photographed in that FC-31 album and what was ultimately displayed in the recent cockpit mockup photos (if the latter is representative of an actual bomber project)."​

Click to expand...

Looking back at his posts, I can't find any statement where he says that the "more beautiful" design was also from SAC. I agree that I can't find a post where he explicitly says the "more beautiful" design was from XAC, but the way I read his posts didn't suggest to me that he believed the "more beautiful" design was necessarily also from SAC.


I'll leave the floor open to him to clarify what his meaning was, but I think this entire issue has been a case of miscommunication rather than actual disagreement.

I agree with your previous posts about having clear sources and precise identification of which statements are which, but let's give him the benefit of doubt a little.

Bltizo said:

Looking back at his posts, I can't find any statement where he says that the "more beautiful" design was also from SAC. I agree that I can't find a post where he explicitly says the "more beautiful" design was from XAC, but the way I read his posts didn't suggest to me that he believed the "more beautiful" design was necessarily also from SAC.

Click to expand...

Here is the post in question, which I shall quote the relevant part in its entirety:

By "one which was photographed in that FC-31 album", he meant the mockup in the background that was photographed in 2013 and only recently released in a SAC photo album. I shall call this the 2013 mockup.


By "another that he hinted was more beautiful" and "displayed in the recent cockpit mockup photos", Sinosoldier was referring to the Shenyang mockup below. I shall call this the 2018 mockup.



Sinosoldier seems to think that the 2013 mockup and the 2018 mockup represent two so-called JH-XX designs, with the two being either "concurrent" with each other, or the 2018 mockup being a "natural evolution" of the 2013 mockup. Since both mockups were photographed at Shenyang, this tells me that Sinosoldier thinks both JH-XX designs are/were Shenyang projects.

Also telling is the fact that Sinosoldier never once mentioned XAC in his exchanges with me.