About the strategic bomber for china, i dont think that china needs a bomber to go beyond japan. Why would it? it wouldnt be worth the expense to develop one, even assuming that china would have the tech to build it. Yea, because right now i dont think that china has it. China doesnt appear to have the capacity to develop engines for a tu-160 sized-plane, and even for a smaller plane, it would be a challenge, not only because of the engines but also because AFAIK, barring the tu-16 copies, china has never develop anything resembling a strategic bomber. It would be their first.
H-20 bomber (with H-X, JH-XX)
- Thread starter Deino
- Start date
If they can build the J-20 they can build a strategic bomber. B-1Bs use WS-10 equivalents, so the notion that China doesn’t have the engines for a strategic bomber is just factually incorrect.
vesicles
Colonel
Why would China not need a strategic bomber? China has interests all over the globe, which need to be protected. And China's global interests will grow further in the future, which also need to be safeguarded. If they need carriers to complete missions far away from their homeland, they will equally need strategic bombers for missions far away from their homeland.
And are you telling me that China cannot design and build a B-52 type strategic bomber? The B-52 is still a highly potent strategic bomber for the US. And the US is planning to continue to use the B-52 for the next 50 years. China would have absolutely no problem building something like a B-52, thus having strategic bombers fully capable of completing any missions.
Whether they can build a B-2 type stealth bomber is a question. I would imagine they are working hard on it. I don't see why they cannot build it, just like their J-20,
kwaigonegin
Colonel
You don't design and built something like a long range strategic bomber for wars you may fought yesterday. You do it for the wars you may fight in tomorrow. Nobody knows what the world will look like in the 2020s let alone 2030s etc. By the time China starts building them only when she really needs a LR strike platform, it would've been far too late. With the finances available and technical know how I can't blame them one bit for pouring considerable resources and wanting to built an aircraft like that considering their growing influence and global reach.
I even posted b-1b picture with lots of long-range missiles here.
It's very funny, how everyone considers such a concert to be very feasible for 40 years, yet not a single airforce ever committed to it.
Self-escort capability for bombers - no problem, yet such a heavy fighter - never, even now.
At best there was exactly one(1) serious attempt attempt to create a dedicated bvr fighter, intended not just to hunt down bombers, which almost reached fruition.
Yet after collapse of the Soviet Union abovementioned MiG-31M also died, yet universal fighters - lighter and equally capable within and beyond visual - survived.
SinoSoldier
Colonel
My final conclusion on the JH-XX/H-XX/whateverthef*ck discussion that has been flourishing for the past 100 pages:
1) There is likely a competition or tender for a theater bomber between SAC and XAC, each of which has produced their own design(s)
You may take these interpretations at face value or you may choose to convolute my statements and draw up further straw man attacks. Frankly, that won't change the nature or intent of my points.
1) There is likely a competition or tender for a theater bomber between SAC and XAC, each of which has produced their own design(s)
- Fzgfzy has claimed that the photographed SAC cockpit model is not the H-1X or "platypus"
- Fzgfzy has claimed that the "H-1X" design is from XAC ("northwest") and is more "sci-fi" and "beautiful" than SAC's design
- Fzgfzy has also spoken of a "platypus" bomber design, which he claims is also "more beautiful" than the SAC design
- While not explicitly stated, it can be reasonably inferred that the "H-1X" and "Platypus" are the same bomber design, as fzgfzy has ascribed the descriptor "more beautiful" to them
- Reasons for believing that the H-1X and Platypus are the same design have been iterated above
- I do not believe SAC or XAC has the capability to pursue two separate bomber designs for a tender, not to mention that it would be more efficient to pool their available resources to focus on one project/design instead
- Aside from the flying wing, it is unknown if the H-1X/Platypus or SAC design is actually under development
- The "JH-XX" is merely a fan-given placeholder designation for a Chinese medium/theater-range bomber project; there is no evidence that the "Platypus" or even SAC's design has adopted that name
- The only semi-credible claim would be that XAC's bomber design is the "H-1X" (claimed by fzgfzy)
- Unless there is evidence that any of these designs are actually under development, none of these would be able to adopt the military-specific J- or H- prefix anyways
- This means that the "H-1X" or "JH-XX" or "J-XX" can apply to either design depending on which one wins the tender. Fzgfzy is claiming that XAC may have been able to adopt the "H-1X" designation (suggesting that it is under development?) but that remains to be seen.
You may take these interpretations at face value or you may choose to convolute my statements and draw up further straw man attacks. Frankly, that won't change the nature or intent of my points.
This is Anjian/Dark Sword WT model drawings showing alternate variations of wing and control surfaces placement (my five fens).
Attachments
-
J-8-3.jpg -
DSC01046_.jpg
asif iqbal
Lieutenant General
I have no idea what the discussion is here ?
There is a bomber called H-20 what the hell so a JH-XX? Even further a H-1X?
There is a bomber called H-20 what the hell so a JH-XX? Even further a H-1X?
H-20 is the supposed strategic bomber, suspected by many members here as a fly wing design similar to B-2 or B-21.
H-1X is the theatre bomber in the league of H-16, or the successor of H-16.
JH-XX is the suspected successor of JH-7 in the league of Su-34, F-111 etc.
If you go through earlier posts, you will find that this thread has covered all the three types in the past in the themes
- Strategic subsonic stealthy bomber vs. supersonic semi-stealthy theatre bomber. Which one is the first priority for PLAAF. This has been the recent focus of this thread after the revelation by the PLAAF commander Ma Xiaotian "Long range bomber".
- Stealth JH (JH-XX) had its attention in the beginning of this thread when we have seen a partial side photo (in yellow primer) of a cockpit many years ago, supposedly to be a stealth JH-7.