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

Hendrik_2000 said:

Exciting news. From Henri K blog further confirming Da Tang post

An article published a few days ago by Factory XAC in Xi'an talks about laser welding of a "large S-shaped escapement". This seems to suggest that the prototype of the Chinese strategic flying wing bomber would be in assembly.

Click to expand...

The diagram may not be related to H-20. But rather indicates XAC's study into the "boundary layer separation" arrangement for the back-mounted S shape inlet. XAC may or may not have chosen this configuration for H-20, DSI is a strong contender as well.

According to what I read through fyjs and cjdby, the aircraft is NOT in assembly, the "S shaped exhaust" was a prototype to verify the production method of the component. Pretty much like the recent delivery of 4 packed SLBM launch module to Columbia class SSBN, it is only a verification piece.

I don't have the link, if anyone is interested, search it. The link also described the GJB "development phases", which made this "S shaped exhaust" milestone being one phase earlier than a "prototype aircraft assembly".

taxiya said:

When you said "secondary air flow", did you mean "boundary layer separation"? It is "附面层(boundary layer) 分离(separation)".

Click to expand...

In B-2A TOs this is called Secondary Air Flow System (SAFS) that's why I call it so, and it looks much different and much more complicated than on this isometry. Providing a cutaway drawing from a PopMech a little bit funny as it's as authentic as Knopf's cross-sections books for children. Simplified cross-section that was around since '89 gives you as much information of real system configuration on B-2 as one elephant trunk CT section gives you of all the animal. For example, if you are looking at the forward end of B-2 open engine bays, you will not see any sign of that weird 'tube' shown on isometry...

flateric said:

In B-2A TOs this is called Secondary Air Flow System (SAFS) that's why I call it so, and it looks much different and much more complicated than on this isometry. Providing a cutaway drawing from a PopMech a little bit funny as it's as authentic as Knopf's cross-sections books for children. Simplified cross-section that was around since '89 gives you as much information of real system configuration on B-2 as one elephant trunk CT section gives you of all the animal. For example, if you are looking at the forward end of B-2 open engine bays, you will not see any sign of that weird 'tube' shown on isometry...

Click to expand...

Regardless the abbreviation, Secondary Air Flow is the same thing as boundary layer, right? The reason that it is called secondary air flow is probably because that air flow also goes through the full length of the aircraft as the main air flow through the engine. But there is no doubt it's primary purpose is boundary layer separation because you have to deal with the boundary layer air flow. The flowing through (secondary flow) is ONLY a bonus to cool the exhaust therefor reduce the infrared signature.

Now you seem to say that just because those cutaway drawing and cross-section drawing are not from Northrop Grumman's blueprint, they are not depicting the basic function and purpose of the device. By that logic, you would have dismissed any diagram in any engineering and scientific research papers, wouldn't you? A car designer would start making drawings before making it, just because the drawing is preliminary in research does not make it wrong or invalid.

P.S. I am not saying XAC actually choose that design, but merely saying it was studied.

taxiya said:

The flowing through (secondary flow) is ONLY a bonus to cool the exhaust therefor reduce the infrared signature.

Click to expand...

Lol, really? You'd read some basic literature (you can start with wiki article on bleed air systems) to understand how many various uses cool air has on aircrafts that has zillion things to cool (have heard anything of thermal management)?

taxiya said:

Now you seem to say that just because those cutaway drawing and cross-section drawing are not from Northrop Grumman's blueprint, they are not depicting the basic function and purpose of the device.

Click to expand...

Once more, I say that drawing has no relation to H-20 or B-2. It's just a generic 'B-2-alike' pic from AVIC that don't show real complicated shape of B-2 inlets and SAFS.

flateric said:

Lol, really? You'd read some basic literature (you can start with wiki article on bleed air systems) to understand how many various uses cool air has on aircrafts that has zillion things to cool (have heard anything of thermal management)?

Once more, I say that drawing has no relation to H-20 or B-2. It's just a generic 'B-2-alike' pic from AVIC that don't show real complicated shape of B-2 inlets and SAFS.

Click to expand...

So it seems that you just pick my words that fit your argument and ignore the ones that make sense? Did I say it is the only use of that arrangement (B2). Why don't you pay attention to the right use I said "boundary separation"?

Did I ever say that drawing is meant to be H-20? I have constantly said it is just a XAC study into it, in the same post you replied but choose to exclude. Did I say that drawing honestly showed B2 inlet? All I said was that it was a theoretic study.

It was you who makes the assumption that the drawing must be carbon copy of B2 inlet (not my words) to mean it has some meaning for XAC to study. Your point is that if it is not carbon copy, it is unrelated. I never made that assumption/connection.

You should not take pieces of others words for the purpose of winning an argument. P.S. if you have more knowledge to teach me, tell me what I don't know. This is a forum for everyone to learn, not just for you to pretend to be an expert.

I still can't understand what exactly argument you pretend to 'win' in regards to my first post that image has nothing to do with H-20 or B-2. If AVIC thinks that B-2 inlets looks like this then MSS is working bad (but I really doubt the last thing, remembering the Gowadia story).

Original image source is AVIC ARI (h/t to Deino)

Supposedly the H-20's iron bird test rig:



The full WeChat article can be found :

原总装科技委主任、副部长李安东到一飞院调研

9月18日，原总装科技委主任、副部长李安东到一飞院调研，航空工业集团科技委副主任唐长红院士和一飞院刘小锋院长陪同李安东参观了某飞机“铁鸟”试验台和综合试验厂房，观看了一飞院科技成果展，在“新舟”700飞机模拟器上体验了模拟飞行，并在会议室听取了一飞院各型号研制工作情况汇报。
李安东表示，本次调研，获取了大量有价值的信息，收获很大。同时，他还针对本次一飞院之行谈了三点感受：第一、一飞院和其他军工单位的广大干部职工一起，为我军的武器装备建设作出了卓越的贡献，你们是中华民族的脊梁。第二，一飞院当前型号任务之繁重，前所未有，而且承担的都是国之重器，使命神圣，任务光荣。第三，这些年来，随着多个型号的研制，一飞院的技术水平、能力以及发展理念等，都有了很大提升。他希望我院干部职工能够不忘初心、不负使命，抓住机遇，乘势而上，为我军武器装备建设作出更大的贡献。

文图：吴玉国 刘战飙
编辑：龚静
审核：崔斌峰

Click to expand...

The National Important Weapons (国之重器)
Of course, the H-20 is included.

This is supposed to be a platform to replace the H-6. It does not need to be that stealthy. What it does need is to have further reach and be produced in larger numbers. The flying wing configuration is well suited to long distance strike bomber platforms. This has been recognized since at least WW2. They can carry more fuel or payload than a standard configuration. I wonder which kind of engines they will use though. Are they going to make this a quad engine aircraft or a dual engine aircraft? AFAIK they do not have single engines with enough performance for a long distance bomber. So I suspect it will be a quad engine. But this will make it more expensive than the H-6. But this makes it highly likely it will never be built in large numbers in that case.

I still think they need a fast strike bomber ala Tu-22M.

gelgoog said:

This is supposed to be a platform to replace the H-6. It does not need to be that stealthy. What it does need is to have further reach and be produced in larger numbers. The flying wing configuration is well suited to long distance strike bomber platforms. This has been recognized since at least WW2. They can carry more fuel or payload than a standard configuration. I wonder which kind of engines they will use though. Are they going to make this a quad engine aircraft or a dual engine aircraft? AFAIK they do not have single engines with enough performance for a long distance bomber. So I suspect it will be a quad engine. But this will make it more expensive than the H-6. But this makes it highly likely it will never be built in large numbers in that case.

I still think they need a fast strike bomber ala Tu-22M.

Click to expand...

It’s supposed to be a platform that dramatically *expand* China’s strategic bombing capabilities from the H-6, so it in fact does need to be very stealthy.