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

taxiya said:

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

1. 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".
2. 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.

Click to expand...

SinoSoldier said:

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)

• 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

2) There would be three bomber designs that the Chinese have produced in total: the H-20 (flying wing), "H-1X"/"Platypus", and the SAC design

• 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

3) The entire discussion abomiliut the JH-XX/H-1X designations is frivolous

• 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.

4) Finally, the most important point is that we don't know if these theater bomber designs are actually being pursued. The "H-1X" designation sort of implies that XAC may have won the tender (as Huitong also suggests) but whether the entire H-1X project is still being developed is another question.

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.

Click to expand...

Viktor Jav said:

Which in other words mean that the PLAAF may be working on 3 different strike platforms :
1) A Sino B-2
2) A Sino Tu-22/Tu160/B-1B
3) A Sino souped up S-34

Personally I think it is very unlikely for the PLAAF to field options 1 and 2 simultaneously, this is because the functions and capabilities of a strategic and theater bomber overlaps significantly. Not to mention the cost for fielding 2 type of "true" bombers in sizeable numbers at the same time.

Click to expand...

Bltizo said:

I agree with most of your points overall, but there's a few bits I disagree with

1) I agree the SAC design is not the one that XAC is currently working on. However, I believe the H-1X/platypus that is a role/mission/requirement that the SAC design may have once worked on (and which the PLAAF subsequently rejected).
By the sounds of it, it isn't exactly a tender or competition (like CAC vs SAC for the J-XX), but rather it was a role that SAC had proposed a design for, which the PLAAF then rejected, and then subsequently given to XAC to work on in some form. Putting it another way, it doesn't sound like the SAC and XAC design were ever in any kind of competition, but rather that the SAC design had somehow evolved into the XAC design.

2) I think we shouldn't talk about "stealth bomber designs" but rather we should talk about aircraft roles/missions.

For example, we know that the H-20 is the strategic stealth flying wing bomber, for which a large supersonic strategic design was also under consideration for.
For the H-1X/Platypus, we know that it may or may not be under some kind of work by XAC with a design, and that it likely evolved from or succeeded an earlier SAC design that was rejected. the role/mission of this aircraft would be a stealthy regional supersonic bomber/striker that may also have an air to air capability.


3) Agree with JH-XX being a placeholder.

IMO, all of these designations, whether it's H-1X/platypus/JH-XX/JH-X/H-X etc that have all been used, are all talking about an aircraft for the same mission -- a stealthy regional supersonic bomber/striker with possible secondary air to air capability.

Click to expand...

SinoSoldier said:

1. Regarding role:
We simply don't know if SAC proposed a design in response to a tender or if they pitched a whole new niche all by themselves. We also don't know if XAC's design was in fact a succession of SAC's failed venture of if the two were developed concurrently. It is also possible that the two were vying for the same tender but that particular tender changed its requirements midway through. IMO too much speculation on everybody's part on very specific & limited pieces of information from fzgfzy. I don't think I asserted that the two designs were definitely in competition but I did (and still do) entertain the possibility of that being true.

Click to expand...

2. Regarding aircraft missions:
I think "project" would be a better term, since aircraft mission/role can change depending on current and anticipated geopolitical environments. For that, we would have (1) strategic heavy bomber project (H-20), (2) theater bomber project (H-1X/Platypus), and possibly others (although there has been no indication of any programs beyond these two). For all we know, the SAC design could've been a separate project altogether that was later cancelled or merged/evolved into a new one. This, of course, would be under the auspices of the PLA brass rather than the institutions/companies themselves.

Click to expand...

Bltizo said:

Agree that the "role" could be done that evolved from SAC's proposal.

However, given the way that the rumours have come out, it sounds like XAC and SAC's two designs were not under consideration at the same time.






Fair.

Click to expand...

james smith esq said:

EDIT OF ABOVE: [...]The bomber projects that I believe are the critical near-term needs of the PLANAF (H-1X) and PLAAF (H-20) are missile carrying platforms with 2500 km and 4500 km combat radii, respectively. [...].

Click to expand...

Bltizo said:

IMO

1) H-20 (Sino B-2) is as good as confirmed
2) The stealthy regional supersonic bomber would be an aircraft much smaller than Tu-160/B-1B. It would likely be an aircraft halfway between the size of F-111 and Tu-22M, with secondary air to air capability. We don't know what the current status of this project is.
3) I don't think such a project exists, and the fact that we're talking about such a project is a by product of many people including myself using the designation "JH-XX" for 2)

Click to expand...