I think building J-20 would be harder than H-20. Larger devices, machines etc are usually easier to engineer. Of course we don't know the specific challenges but an organisation capable of creating J-20 should have relatively little trouble with H-20. Of course in this case the "organisation" is a nation's entire aviation tech industry and the resource pool they have access to. One of the main reasons the J-20 predates the H-20 is due to a more immediate need for a platform that dominates a larger portion of air warfare, as opposed to something that is far more niche and no strong demand for immediate operations. I would imagine building the J-20's three internal bays was a monumentally difficult challenge. Large stealth bombers bay/s should be relatively simpler to engineer than something like J-20s where every mm matters far greater than on a large strategic bomber.
H-20 bomber (with H-X, JH-XX)
- Thread starter Deino
- Start date
by78
General
Nice try, except in your original post, you stated "Fzgfzy seems to be saying that there are two JH-XX bomber designs". You didn't at all mention "H-1X".
Could you point out where in fzgfzy's posts that he used the term "JH-XX"? Furthermore, could you define for me the differences between the "JH" and "H" designations?
I ask because I don't you think you understand these basic terminologies, or if you do, you are intentionally playing fast and loose and treating SDF as a gossip column.
My point still stands, I categorically reject your original contention that "Fzgfzy seems to be saying that there are two JH-XX bomber designs". That is to say, based on fzgfzy's posts, one cannot reasonably infer that presently two JH-XX designs exist.
I regret to inform you, my goal posts have remained steadfastly the same, that is I reject your contention that "Fzgfzy seems to be saying that there are two JH-XX bomber designs".
You didn't use the worlds "were", "may have been", "at one point", and so on. You used the word "are", which is present-tense.
So did you confuse "Northwest" with "SAC"?
by78
General
LOL!
Range and payload still do count as a markers of awesomeness for a bomber.
Simple as that...
Not very connected.
Building bombers is, well, very hard.
All heavy bomber projects since 1950s were both incredibly expensive and met huge challenges.
You do enjoy taking quotes out of context don't you?
by78
General
Could you link us to the AviationWeek article?
by78
General
Whoa whoa whoa, hold your horses and be careful with your words, lest more confusion ensues.
What do you mean by "this project"? What project are you referring to? Please be precise with your language.
Eh, no. Here are the relevant posts from fzgfzy regarding the photo below:
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 asks: Is this the 'platypus' you talked about?
超级大本营CDF replies: What I talked about was more beautiful than this.
精准微操蒋中正 asks: Is this what you referred to previous as the H-1X?
超级大本营CDF replies: No. H-1X is from the northwest and is more futuristic-looking/more science-fiction-like than this.
End translation.
Please note: 1) '超级大本营CDF' is 'fzgfzy', and 2) 'northwest' refers to XAC, or Xi'an Aircraft Corp.
===========================================================
All we can logically infer from the above are the following:
1) The mockup in the photograph is not the 'platypus'.
2) The mockup in the photograph is not the H-1X from XAC.
What we cannot logically infer are the following:
1) The mockup in the photograph and H-1X belong to the same project, which is to say, they are competing designs for the same project.
2) H-1X is the Platypus.
Based on fzgfzy's posts, how have you concluded the following?
1) The 'platypus' and H-1X are one and the same.
2) The mockup in the photograph represents SAC's competitor to XAC's H-1X.
3) H-1X and the SAC's mockup in the photograph belong to the same project.
Last edited:
PLAAF has absolutely no need for an inter-continental bomber. China is a continental power; it is directly adjacent to the continental heartland. A 4500 km combat radius will be sufficient to all relevant contingencies.
Are Chinese planners really so immature that they ascribe to a ‘bigger is better’ philosophy or is this simply the penile envy of immature commentators that project such thinking onto others? I’d much prefer weapons systems designed to the specific strategic concerns of a nation to those designed to impress the impressionable. I mean, is anybody really impressed with RuAf’s 6 Tu-160s?
Are Chinese planners really so immature that they ascribe to a ‘bigger is better’ philosophy or is this simply the penile envy of immature commentators that project such thinking onto others? I’d much prefer weapons systems designed to the specific strategic concerns of a nation to those designed to impress the impressionable. I mean, is anybody really impressed with RuAf’s 6 Tu-160s?
Last edited:
It is important to remember that China is a growing power and that unlike many developed superpowers like the US or UK whose power status is set, whilst china is now a continental power, it may be the intention of the government to become an inter-continental power or at least have the capability to do so should things come to it. In some ways China is still playing catch up, and it may want things that whilst it doesnt need or have now, it may still want for the future.
We don’t learn algebra or calculus at the age of 14-18 because we will use it then, but in anticipation for if we take on such careers in the future.
by78
General
I don't think we can be so certain as to what China sees as her needs. Perhaps her planners foresee scenarios in the not-so-distant future that there needs to be an intercontinental bomber to strike faraway targets without the need for foreign airfields. I don't want to speculate what these faraway targets might be, as that would quickly escalate into a heated off-topic discussion.
Last edited: