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

james smith esq said:

Precisely the basis of my argument for 4500 km combat radius bomber. I acknowledge the practical and logistical logic of Blitzo’s suggested 6000 km radius and I agree. And, I’m very satisfied that Chinese planners are invested in the philosophy of placing greater emphasis on the capabilities of weapons delivery systems.

Click to expand...

Regarding the 6000km radius/12,000 km range thing, there are other roles for that kind of range further down the road, outside of high intensity conflicts where the mission of H-20 will basically targeting high value assets with stand off missiles.

That kind of long range also gives the aircraft the ability to carry a large number of direct attack munitions for more conventional interdiction/strike missions against less well defended targets -- either in the latter phases of a high intensity conflict where the opfor's air defences have been degraded, or simply against less capable foes. The prospect of PLAAF ever having the requirement to conduct penetrating bombing strikes with direct attack weapons might seem a bit fanciful now, but going into the late 2020s I expect this will begin to emerge as a requirement as the PLAAF consolidates a greater ability to achieve air superiority and achieves a robust stealthy stand off strike capability.
Looking at targets 6000km outside of China's borders, (or 6000km minus however many km inland depending on where H-20 is based), there are quite a few theatres where the late 2020s and 2030s and beyond could see the PLAAF have a role to conduct large scale conventional bombing.


That kind of dovetails with the other reason for why I think having a long, intercontinental range is important -- H-20 will likely be the mainstay of the PLAAF's bombing fleet for the middle part of the 21st century. We do not know what kind of global missions and requirements the PRC may have going forwards, but it may well require the ability to reach across the globe with conventional strikes, in situations where the PRC may not have as many bases available to it as the USAF currently does.
Then there is also the elephant in the corner of the room, which is that there may one day come a time later in the 21st century where the ability to conduct bombing of the continental US becomes a viable operational option by virtue of a shift in geopolitical alliances or the way in which a future conflict may evolve -- in such a situation, I'm sure the PRC govt would be very glad to have an aircraft that has the range to carry out that option if it needs be.



So I see having an "intercontinental range" for H-20 as allowing it to both conduct regional missions and also global missions, where regional missions will obviously be the mainstay of PLA concerns in the foreseeable future, but where global missions may emerge in the longer term future which the H-20 would likely have been designed to be capable of doing if required.

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...

First, China do have a need.
It just a necessity for a would be superpower, with global ambitions or even without. It isn't nice, but it's the fact.
If your only wish is deterrence - well, what's it, but just as a reminder: US never signed anything reminding binding "no first use" obligation. On the contrary, they're playing stupid things like low-yeld strategic missiles, which clearly escalate possibility of a nuclear conflict.
Dessuading arsenal swiftly becomes insufficient.

Unimpressive 16 Russian Blackjacks (as part of 50+ strategic bomber fleet) by themselves possess more conventional firepower than most airforces out there(96-192 missiles in Salvo, depending on range), almost anywhere in Northern hemisphere. Today. Being largely invulnerable in most scenarios at that(problems for a supersonic bomber truly begin when you aim at continental US with NORAD still more or less intact).
And, because they're aircraft, the day after tomorrow they will be ready to come again(repeated strike capability).
They're something more than just a conventional bigstick, though, and can perform exactly the same in any conflict, up to and including an all-out nuclear war.
There is only one bomber in service, which offers more, and even it's proven itself to be more vulnerable to age and progress(namely, B-2 Spirit).

Before end of the year I guess. Some people think it's next year though.

Deino said:

To admit - and even if some might think it's simple-minded - the most important issue now is to answer how soon is soon?

Click to expand...

Gloire_bb said:

First, China do have a need.
It just a necessity for a would be superpower, with global ambitions or even without. It isn't nice, but it's the fact.
If your only wish is deterrence - well, what's it, but just as a reminder: US never signed anything reminding binding "no first use" obligation. On the contrary, they're playing stupid things like low-yeld strategic missiles, which clearly escalate possibility of a nuclear conflict.
Dessuading arsenal swiftly becomes insufficient.

Unimpressive 16 Russian Blackjacks (as part of 50+ strategic bomber fleet) by themselves possess more conventional firepower than most airforces out there(96-192 missiles in Salvo, depending on range), almost anywhere in Northern hemisphere. Today. Being largely invulnerable in most scenarios at that(problems for a supersonic bomber truly begin when you aim at continental US with NORAD still more or less intact).
And, because they're aircraft, the day after tomorrow they will be ready to come again(repeated strike capability).
They're something more than just a conventional bigstick, though, and can perform exactly the same in any conflict, up to and including an all-out nuclear war.
There is only one bomber in service, which offers more, and even it's proven itself to be more vulnerable to age and progress(namely, B-2 Spirit).

Click to expand...

Having long range strategic bombers is a major defining factor of a major military power. So far only US and Russia possess truly long range strategic bombers with heavy payload and only US possesses the ability to field it globally. All other nations are much less geopolitically significant due to lacking this ability.

The Americas is essentially an island and most of the geostrategic areas it is participating in are located on the "World Island" as defined by Mackinder. China will have an easier time participating in this due to its proximity to other geostrategically important regions. Its centrality to the action necessitates less overseas bases for the same force projection, lessening logistical burden to project power.

Having a stealth bomber with a combat radius of 6000 km means it can project power over the entire "World Island" while only refuelling within China's airspace.

In the Pacific, China would be able to strike anywhere within the second island chain, Guam, Marshall Islands, and Wake Island with bombs, extending to Hawaii with cruise missiles.


In the west, China can project into Europe, MENA, Central Asia, and East Africa. In practice the range might be reduced due to manoeuvring to avoid unfriendly airspace. Forward deployment of tankers would be an important step for China to project power over the entire "World Island".
China's stealth bomber would likely not be based and flown from the border regions of China but it can refuel near its borders. From pictures released, it seems like China is working on a flying boom air refuelling platform.

SilentObserver said:

Having long range strategic bombers is a major defining factor of a major military power. So far only US and Russia possess truly long range strategic bombers with heavy payload and only US possesses the ability to field it globally. All other nations are much less geopolitically significant due to lacking this ability.

The Americas is essentially an island and most of the geostrategic areas it is participating in are located on the "World Island" as defined by Mackinder. China will have an easier time participating in this due to its proximity to other geostrategically important regions. Its centrality to the action necessitates less overseas bases for the same force projection, lessening logistical burden to project power.

Having a stealth bomber with a combat radius of 6000 km means it can project power over the entire "World Island" while only refuelling within China's airspace.

In the Pacific, China would be able to strike anywhere within the second island chain, Guam, Marshall Islands, and Wake Island with bombs, extending to Hawaii with cruise missiles.
View attachment 46720

In the west, China can project into Europe, MENA, Central Asia, and East Africa. In practice the range might be reduced due to manoeuvring to avoid unfriendly airspace. Forward deployment of tankers would be an important step for China to project power over the entire "World Island".View attachment 46719
China's stealth bomber would likely not be based and flown from the border regions of China but it can refuel near its borders. From pictures released, it seems like China is working on a flying boom air refuelling platform.

Click to expand...

Hi my friend just a small query is it possible to build a stealth tanker also beside a long range bomber
Sorry to be a off topic question
Thank you

defenceman said:

Hi my friend just a small query is it possible to build a stealth tanker also beside a long range bomber
Sorry to be a off topic question
Thank you

Click to expand...

It is possible but difficult. Air refuelling requires long protruding mechanisms which compromises stealth. For it to be low observable by radar the mechanisms would need to be concealed when not in use (or even in use). The probe-and-drogue refueling system would be relatively easier to implement and more compact for a stealth tanker but refuels at about half the rate of a boom system and long range bombers have a large fuel capacity.

I assume you are bringing up the idea that the bomber range can be extended through air refuelling with stealth tankers over foreign soil (potentially hostile). So maintaining stealth when refuelling would be desired as well. I don't have data on the RCS of the planes using each refuelling system. Stealth can be compromised by the refuelling process but maybe it can be mitigated by clever positioning of the plane formation.

The US Navy is working on an air refuelling drone based on the MQ-25 drone.

America's B-2 flying out of Whiteman AFB took 70 hours for bombing run on Afghanistan at the start of operation enduring freedom. The impressive feat was enabled by America's airbases dotted across the oceans, providing airbases for tankers to take off and refuel bombers. Such long continuous operations are also very taxing on the B-2 crew members.

If China chose to operate in the same theatre, it won't necessitate overseas airbases needed for refuelling. Less logistical burden makes operating the H-20 more affordable and increases the sortie rate. However air refuelling would also be need as the H-20 would likely be based in China's deep interior and max bomb load would likely mean it can't take on the full fuel load.

Under the SCO military frame work China would have access to the middle east through central asia or Pakistan's airspace and access to Africa through Pakistan. In the future I expect China to place tankers in Pakistan or at least have agreements that would allow for that arrangement. If China were to conduct a strike in Iraq or Syria, it would likely pass through central asia and Iran. Then China has the option of launching cruise missiles over friendly airspace like Iran or fly over Iraq or Syria for a bombing run.


If China could refuel around the horn of Africa, it would cover the entire continent of Africa, Middle East, and Europe.

james smith esq said:

I mean, is anybody really impressed with RuAf’s 6 Tu-160s?

Click to expand...

I think all other European nations were impressed by Russia's ability to intervene in Syria with strategic airpower, delivering munitions in quantities and on timetables that other powers lacking such capabilities could only dream of.

So yes, Russia's strategic aviation capabilities are impressive from any perspective other than America's -- including, for the moment, from China's perspective.

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...

To be fair, there would be quite a few governments who would like to have a long range speedy strike capability independent of sea reach.Britain and the French included. The only reason why they aren't building more them is because long range modern bombers are obscenely expensive, with Russia's being consist of mostly hand-me-downs from the Soviet days.
There is a lot of ways that combat radius of a plane can be exploited, like long duration patrols over the East and South China Seas as visible power projections as well as taking unexpected alternative routes to strike targets.
And to be frank, with the current progress of aerospace aviation tech : Yes, bigger is better. You get bigger payload, longer loiter time and as a side bonus better crew comfort which increases crew efficiency.
There are also talks about developing a flying "arsenal ship" with the bomber modified to carry long range AA missiles.

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...

To be fair, there would be quite a few governments who would like to have a long range speedy strike capability independent of sea reach.Britain and the French included. The only reason why they aren't building more them is because long range modern bombers are obscenely expensive, with a huge portion of Russia's being hand-me-downs from the Soviet era.
There is a lot of ways that combat radius of a plane can be exploited, like long duration patrols over the East and South China Seas as visible power projections as well as taking unexpected alternative routes to strike targets.