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

by78 said:

Klon said:

Being wrong (1, 2), posting something that had been posted one page back (1), posting misleadingly in the wrong thread (1), all of this without providing links; being unprofessional (1, along with using LOLs and emojis often), mocking a user's post without legitimate reason (1). This is just what I could remember from the last year. The point is that you should both improve and stop being rude to other users. Thanks.

Click to expand...

LOL!

Click to expand...

by78
seems you took it well

of course #1026 Klon, Wednesday at 1:19 PM
made me wonder what's in Jura Files
LOL! they're probably too big

james smith esq said:

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?

Click to expand...

A 4500 km combat radius would be nice, but that is measuring it from when they are deployed at air bases on China's coast. During wartime with a peer, they would be vulnerable to air and missile attack.

But a 12000km range (6000 km combat radius) would allow the bombers to be deployed in more survivable air bases in central China and still have the range to hit targets covering the second island chain.

Gloire_bb said:

Range and payload still do count as a markers of awesomeness for a bomber.
Simple as that...

Click to expand...

Oh I see what you mean.

What I wrote is that range and payload are "far from the most important markers" -- especially in this context for two bombers whose payloads and range are not overwhelmingly different. I never said that range and payload are unimportant markers.

For example, if H-20 has a payload of 20 tons and a range of 12,000 km and a B-21 has a payload of say, 12 tons and a range of 8,000 km those factors will not be the only ones to be considered in determining the effectiveness of each type.

VLO, sensors, datalinking, payloads, and fleet size are all indicators that are as important if not more important.

james smith esq said:

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?

Click to expand...

I can't consider China a first tier global military without a long range strategic bomber and I think the Chinese military desires to go down that path. With the procurement and strategic moves China is making, it doesn't look like its purely a continental power. If China sets its sights global then nation specific weapons would make operations too inflexible and costly.

Some people might not be impressed with the TU-160 but it certainly adds credibility to Russia's military posturing compared to most nations. With that system, it is able to project power further from its borders, though you can argue the force of that power projection isn't powerful since its opposition (NATO) has a more powerful counter balance.

By China's strategic concerns in the Pacific, it is necessary for China to be able to reach the second island chain and possibly beyond without air-refuelling over international waters.

by78 said:

A Chinese strategic bomber doesn't have to fly with cruise missiles; otherwise, it'd be a terribly inflexible platform. You are also assuming China would avoid at all costs a strategic conflict. I think China would avoid it if at all possible, but if push comes to shove, she'd be better off prepared for that eventuality. Look, just because a country wants to avoid a nuclear exchange at all costs doesn't mean that country has no need for nuclear weapons; and just because I want to avoid a gunfight doesn't mean there is absolutely no need for me to have a firearm.

Click to expand...

Just like the strategic nuclear arsenal costs billions to develop and maintain but isn't directly used, the strategic bomber for the purpose of nuclear triad is the same. Firepower potential projects power and defends whatever interests China has without direct conflict. The strategic weapons are just an insurance premium nations have to pay to have that security. It is like letting people you have a gun but probably will never shoot people with it since it will bring retaliation but others would take your interests more seriously.

These bombers can be used for conventional warfare a well, deterring any small nations that might damage its interests.

SinoSoldier said:

Your original inquiry was about whether there exists or existed two designs which, after much dissection of fzgfzy's dialogue with other members, have been agreed upon in the previous posts.

Click to expand...

Is your memory this faulty? Let's refresh it. Here's our conversion in chronological order:


As you can see, contrary to your claim, my inquiry has always been if there presently exist TWO JH-XX bomber designs.

SinoSoldier said:

Nowhere did you explicitly ask whether these designs were still being developed simultaneously and whether I held such an opinion.

Click to expand...

I beg to differ. See here, and I quote:
I've made it explicitly clear that I regard "are" and "were" as different. Your original assertion contained the word "are", which is the present tense.

You may simply admit that you were imprecise with your choice of words in your original post, and I would consider this particular matter closed. In fact, I have given you multiple opportunities to make such an admission, but you didn't take it up.

SinoSoldier said:

P.S. I'm not sure why you brought up the JH-XX / H-XX naming issue because they're placeholders used by observers/forumers to facilitate discussions.

Click to expand...

Did you even bother to read my replies? I've made it plenty clear why I brought up the issue, and I quote myself from a previous post:
There is a bloody world of difference between 'JH' and 'H', and the implication is huge to our disagreement. Here, let me help you.


Do you notice any difference between the two? One is a pure bomber, as in designed from ground up as a bomber; it's not designed to dog-fight or fight its way in and out of a bombing mission. The other is a fighter-bomber, designed not to be a pure bomber, but rather as a hybrid of a fighter and bomber; it can defend itself and dog-fight.

To summarize, the Chinese Air Force designates pure bombers as 'H' and fighter-bombers as 'JH'.

In your original post, you said "Fzgfzy seems to be saying that there are two JH-XX bomber designs". You used the designation 'JH-XX', meaning you believe fzgfzy thinks that there are TWO FIGHTER-BOMBER designs.

Sorry to break it to you, but that's absolutely NOT what fzgfzy said in his posts. Hell, he never even used the 'JH' designation in his posts.

So why and how in the world did you attribute the 'JH' designation to fzgfzy?! The very fact that you asked me why I keep bringing up the "JH-XX / H-XX naming issue" tells me that you were using terminologies that you didn't understand. In other words, you didn't know what you were talking about, and sadly, you weren't even aware that you didn't know what you were talking about.

SinoSoldier said:

FZGFZY refers to both the "H-1X" and the "Platypus" as a "more beautiful" design (I see that you've conveniently left that portion out in your translation for the H-1X reply) which would lead one to suspect that he is referring to the same thing. Are you saying that there could've been

Click to expand...

Ah no. I can't tell if you are genuinely obtuse or not, but let me walk you through this for the third time.

I will make that correction to my translation to satisfy you, but it's really irrelevant, as you shall see.


Here's a more accurate translation, with time stamps:
...

End translation.

Please note that 1) I have translated only the relevant comments from among 19 or total comments, 2) '精准微操蒋中正' and 'Redeye123' are obviously two different individuals.

So, let's shorten the above translation as follows:

End translation.

Again, please note that '精准微操蒋中正' and 'Redeye123' are two different individuals, and their respective questions were asked at different times.

More importantly, please note that not all things that share the same adjective(s) are identical or the same. For example, a dog can be called beautiful, and a woman can also be called beautiful, but a dog is not a woman and vice versa.

Also consider, just because P > M and HX > M, it doesn't mean P = HX.

Lastly, 5 > 2 and 7 > 2, but 5 ≠ 7.

So what does the translation tell you? What can you infer logically from it?


But does H-1X equal Platypus? In other words, is H-1X the same thing as the Platypus? That absolutely cannot be logically inferred from fzgfzy's posts.

End of story!

by78 said:

Ah no. I can't tell if you are genuinely obtuse or not, but let me walk you through this for the third time.

I will make that correction to my translation to satisfy you, but it's really irrelevant, as you shall see.

First, here are screen captures of the comment section in its entirety. I have marked the relevant comments with red arrows:

​

Here's a more accurate translation, with time stamps:

...
...
5/3/2018, 22:42, 精准微操蒋中正 asks: Is this what you referred to previous as the H-1X?
...
...
...
5/4/2018, 06:36, Redeye123 asks: Is this the 'platypus' you talked about?
...
...
...
...
5/4/2018, 17:27, Fzgfzy replies to 精准微操蒋中正: No. H-1X is from the northwest and is more futuristic-looking/more science-fiction-like and more beautiful than this.

5/4/2018, 17:27, Fzgfzy replies to Redeye123: What I talked about was more beautiful than this.
...
...​

...

End translation.

Please note that 1) I have translated only the relevant comments from among 19 or total comments, 2) '精准微操蒋中正' and 'Redeye123' are obviously two different individuals.

So, let's shorten the above translation as follows:

精准微操蒋中正 asks: Is this what you referred to previous as the H-1X?

Sometime later...

Redeye123 asks: Is this the 'platypus' you talked about?

Sometime later...

Some more time later...

(Fzgfzy comes online to read the comments and make replies...)

First, Fzgfzy answers the question from 精准微操蒋中正: No. H-1X is from the northwest and is more futuristic-looking/more science-fiction-like and more beautiful than this.

Then...

Fzgfzy answers the question from Redeye123: What I talked about was more beautiful than this.
​

End translation.

Again, please note that '精准微操蒋中正' and 'Redeye123' are two different individuals, and their respective questions were asked at different times.

More importantly, please note that not all things that share the same adjective(s) are identical or the same. For example, a dog can be called beautiful, and a woman can also be called beautiful, but a dog is not a woman and vice versa.

Also consider, just because P > M and HX > M, it doesn't mean P = HX.

Lastly, 5 > 2 and 7 > 2, but 5 ≠ 7.

So what does the translation tell you? What can you infer logically from it?

1) H-1X is more beautiful than the mockup.
2) The 'Platypus' is more beautiful than the mockup.​

In other words, H-1X ≠ Mockup, and Platypus ≠ Mockup.
​

But does H-1X equal Platypus? In other words, is H-1X the same thing as the Platypus? That absolutely cannot be logically inferred from fzgfzy's posts.

End of story!

Click to expand...

I think in the context of the comments all being in the same thread under the SAC nose picture, one reasonable interpretation of fzgfzy's replies is that the platypus and the H-1X are the same aircraft. I.e. that the aircraft he refers to as both "more beatifube" and "science fiction like" to the two separate questions are one and the same.


This isn't to say it cannot be interpreted a different way, but I think it definitely isn't unreasonable to get "platypus = H-1X" as one of the possible conclusions from his answers.

by78 said:

sorry to break it to you, but that's absolutely NOT what fzgfzy said in his posts. Hell, he never even used the 'JH' designation in his posts.

So why and how in the world did you attribute the 'JH' designation to fzgfzy?! The very fact that you asked me why I keep bringing up the "JH-XX / H-XX naming issue" tells me that you were using terminologies that you didn't understand. In other words, you didn't know what you were talking about, and sadly, you weren't even aware that you didn't know what you were talking about.

Click to expand...

I think you are being a bit unreasonable here.

The aircraft/role that sinosoldier has referred to as JH-XX is one that has also been variously referred to as H-X, H-1X, H-18, JH-X and J-X. Huitong's stand in entry for the aircraft also acknowledges how there is yet to be a single agreed upon designation for this aircraft.

JH-XX is one of the more common stand in designations we've used on SDF and is one I've consistently used as well.


In the context of fzgfzy's answers in that thread, i interpret what he describes as H-1X, and platypus, to be the same aircraft that I've referenced as JH-XX over the years.


I think sinosoldier was a bit vague with some of his initial posts and not providing direct links to the claims he was making, but calling H-1X as JH-XX is not a mistake but rather an unfortunate consequence of no one knowing what this aircraft's name actually is.

Bltizo said:

I think in the context of the comments all being in the same thread under the SAC nose picture, one reasonable interpretation of fzgfzy's replies is that the platypus and the H-1X are the same aircraft. I.e. that the aircraft he refers to as both "more beatifube" and "science fiction like" to the two separate questions are one and the same.


This isn't to say it cannot be interpreted a different way, but I think it definitely isn't unreasonable to get "platypus = H-1X" as one of the possible conclusions from his answers.

Click to expand...

Bltizo said:

I think you are being a bit unreasonable here.

The aircraft/role that sinosoldier has referred to as JH-XX is one that has also been variously referred to as H-X, H-1X, H-18, JH-X and J-X. Huitong's stand in entry for the aircraft also acknowledges how there is yet to be a single agreed upon designation for this aircraft.

JH-XX is one of the more common stand in designations we've used on SDF and is one I've consistently used as well.


In the context of fzgfzy's answers in that thread, i interpret what he describes as H-1X, and platypus, to be the same aircraft that I've referenced as JH-XX over the years.


I think sinosoldier was a bit vague with some of his initial posts and not providing direct links to the claims he was making, but calling H-1X as JH-XX is not a mistake but rather an unfortunate consequence of no one knowing what this aircraft's name actually is.

Click to expand...

Sorry, but that interpretation is placing upon the logical and semantic resources of both the English language and the Chinese language a heavier burden than they can reasonably be expected to bear; it's neither logical nor reasonable, considering the scope of our discussion, and considering, especially, that Fzgfzy has never made it clear, in so far as I can glean from his comments, whether the 'platypus' refers to a general project or one of the competing airframes within the said project. For all we know, the are nominees for the strategic bomber, and in which case, the Platypus is most definitely not the H-1X or JH-XX, both of which are speculated to be theater or medium-range in nature.

I suspect, Fzgfzy's separate replies, which were to different individuals, being grouped contiguously in the comment thread and both having in them the words "more beautiful" had caused Sinosoldier to conflate the identities of the designs and/or projects. This is why I have in my latest translation grouped the questions and replies in their chronological order so as to avoid such a conflation.