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

Airplanes with variable geometry typically have higher airframe maintenance costs. As would be expected. They have more airframe fatigue. I also think the USA did not expect to use the B-1 as much as they did in the Middle East and in Afghanistan. In particular in the Afghanistan campaign it was one of the few airplanes with the required range to fly from Diego Garcia airbase in the initial stages. The Soviets did something similar when they were there in the 1980s where the Tu-22M was used in the high-altitude bomber role. The B-2 could not fly from Diego Garcia back then because that base did not have climate controlled hangars to not degrade the B-2's finicky stealth coatings.

As a result, until those hangars were built, the B-2 was mostly used in a ceremonial role and had to be flown from across half the world on a long endurance mission. Not that good when you want to deliver a lot of bombs on a short notice. As a result they had to use the B-1 even more. The B-52 just does not have the same response time even though it was used extensively in there as well. They probably shortened the life of the B-1 airframes by a decade with that.

The USAF is not willing to spend the money to refurbish their B-1 airframes. Russia is doing it with their Tu-160s though. So it is not like it is impossible. Just a matter of priorities.
Russia basically had to abandon their stealth bomber program for the near future as a result.

The H-20 using the D-30? I consider that highly unlikely. I expect it to use quad WS-10B engines without the afterburner or something like that. Allegedly the WS-10B was originally based on the civilian CFM-56 engine. Which was in turn based on the military GE F101 engine of the B-1 bomber. Alternatively they could make it smaller and only use two WS-15 engines when those become available. But then what would be the point of something like that over the J-20 or the H-6K? There would be some advantage from the airframe if has more lift but I doubt they'll go with such a powerplant choice.

The Russians have had issues with manufacturing D-30s in the amounts they would like from several reports that I have heard in the past. Aviadvigatel has had all sorts of issues and AFAIK they had to have people from Saturn NPO there to help them get the PD-14 past the hump for example. The D-30 has similar dry thrust to the projected WS-15 parameters. The WS-10B has more dry thrust than the original B-1 or B-2 engines. So why not just use that. It would also allow for smaller engine intakes which should improve frontal aspect stealth.
I think the H-20 engines will not have an afterburner because that would degrade IR stealth. Much for the same reason why the B-2 does not have them.

gelgoog said:

Airplanes with variable geometry typically have higher airframe maintenance costs. As would be expected. They have more airframe fatigue. I also think the USA did not expect to use the B-1 as much as they did in the Middle East and in Afghanistan.

Click to expand...

If I may though, it is not just the airframe that is an issue with the B-1. It is also the electronics and other bits. I have been told by those far better connected than I, almost all of the B-1s cleared for combat still have systems in degraded modes or whatnot: this includes the electronics. The aircraft are in bad, bad shape.

anzha said:

If I may though, it is not just the airframe that is an issue with the B-1. It is also the electronics and other bits. I have been told by those far better connected than I, almost all of the B-1s cleared for combat still have systems in degraded modes or whatnot: this includes the electronics. The aircraft are in bad, bad shape.

Click to expand...

O/T. But.

I actually had that question some time ago. Then I found out they upgraded the radars on all the combat coded B-1s not that long ago. That was supposedly the main issue with electronics they had with the aircraft.




Then there is this.




They already changed most of the electronics. So no, I am afraid it is the airframe.

gelgoog said:

O/T. But.

I actually had that question some time ago. Then I found out they upgraded the radars on all the combat coded B-1s not that long ago. That was supposedly the main issue with electronics they had with the aircraft..

Click to expand...

The upgrades are not yet done. They are only doing 6 at a time and the remaining 50 odd are at a 51% combat readiness.



Even in 1995, the B-1 never achieved its 75% readiness and it was far from being used in Afghanistan and Iraq then:



The historical mission readiness rate when the bomber was less than 10 years old was 57%.

I suggest we move the topic to the proper thread though before the mods (rightly) yell at us.

If you think the avionics on B1 are old the B52 are prehistoric. And the engines have not been upgraded as such they burn far more fuel than needed.
This is the issue with a almost 70 year old design.
As a tactical bomber B52 is kept purely based on asymmetric and cruise missile capabilities.
Vs a conventional conflict I have my doubts regarding there usefulness.
Even with a rewing and reengine I feel that they are beyond anachronistic for modern operations.
In a fight against adversary armed with AKs and RPGs who might at best have a Toyota technical with an antiaircraft gun left from the last world war no contest but if you get any degree of modern antiaircraft capabilities B52 is a lumbering kick me sign.
Even B1 would be increasingly relegated to either specialized roles or left behind. These are major reasons for the B21 program. The aim being a more reliable bomber type that can do strategic or tactical withowithout the expense of the huge fuel consumption B1 or B52, expensive servicing of B52 on parts and general age. ( climate controlled hangers less an issue with increased stealthy aircraft in general)

The H-X program seem to be trying to follow that model and produce a bomber that can do both. As H6 is also a relic of the early cold war. More useful against ice flows than it would be against even Taipei.
However the emphasis from the article on payload seems to me to be wrong. Unless the PLAAF intends to use carpet bombing or large number of large sized weapons.
The rise of guided munitions means that rather than flatten miles to take out a few targets you can take the targets individually.

Do we have any rumors on sensor systems of the H-20? The issue with the H-20 isn't that it should match the B-2, but rather that it should match the B-21. If the latter turns out to be a capable stealth AEW&C craft for F-35s, Chinese air superiority dreams are in big trouble.

We have reports that the Chinese have aircraft AESA radars on the J-10C and J-20 among other fighters. It would not be that difficult to scale up those radars for a bomber like the H-20. Modern radars are typically modular in nature and built as a planar matrix of transmit/receive elements. So you would basically use something like the basic J-20 radar elements, just more of them to increase the surface area and increase detection range. The Chinese reportedly are able to manufacture modern GaN radar technology. It is not that hard when you consider that China is a leader in cellphone network technology including antennas. Those use similar microwave frequencies to radars to operate.

They are also likely testing the glass cockpits, that will be the base for those in the H-20, with the H-6K glass cockpit upgrades.

They have stealth coatings technology from the J-20 program.
They have large aircraft manufacturing experience from the Y-20 program.

The engines, like I said before, the question is will it use four or two engines. I think it will use four engines in the WS-10B class. But that is just my educated guess.

I suspect it will use a flying wing (like reported by several people) or blended wing body design.
You can guess their airframe design technology expertise level by looking at their drone prototypes.

For example this drone was presented at Zhuhai. At least to my untrained eye seems to have a blended wing body shape with a high degree of stealth.


The top mounted engines also remind me of some of the concepts used in some of the Russian medium bomber designs to replace the Tu-22M in the 1990s period. You should basically be reducing your IR and radar profile from the perspective of a ground sensor station with this. The B-2 uses a similar engine intake position and intake shape.

gelgoog said:

We have reports that the Chinese have aircraft AESA radars on the J-10C and J-20 among other fighters. It would not be that difficult to scale up those radars for a bomber like the H-20. Modern radars are typically modular in nature and built as a planar matrix of transmit/receive elements. So you would basically use something like the basic J-20 radar elements, just more of them to increase the surface area and increase detection range.

Click to expand...

It's a bomber not a fighter so the mode of radar would be different. The main aim of a stealth aircraft outside of Air defence is to avoid detection. As such the radar would be more oriented to navigation and more would likely be spent on passive. This being in hopes of finding weaker areas of radar cover. Stealth can still be detected by radar if the return is powerful enough. So it would want to avoid areas of strong radar emissions.

gelgoog said:

They are also likely testing the glass cockpits,

Click to expand...

that's the norm for any modern aircraft outside of North Korea or Iran. The only aircraft that still have that kinda "Steam punk" are vintage machines like B52 but even that is changing as users of such install retrofits of glass.

gelgoog said:

They have stealth coatings technology from the J-20 program.

Click to expand...

It's probable that it would still be a farther new version of stealth as J20 would be comparatively small compared to H20.

gelgoog said:

suspect it will use a flying wing (like reported by several people) or blended wing body design.

Click to expand...

These are pretty much one and the same.
A flying wing means there is no fuselage at all the entire form is a wing. This however results in either a very odd interior or a very big aircraft. For modern military aircraft these are only really going to be UAVs
A blended wing body means that the Fuselage is blended into the wing. So you have space for crew and propulsion in a more moderately sized aircraft. B2 is the later.

gelgoog said:

The top mounted engines

Click to expand...

Are a requirement to avoid radar returns from below. It also may give some additional lift via the Coandă effect.

Any radar the future H-20 bomber will have will likely be one that is geared specifically towards surface mapping and targeting. So we may be looking at a synthetic-aperture radar or maybe even a simpler surface search radar like the one we see on the Y-8 ASW variant.