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

Inst said:

Look up the modular payloads of the B-21; the B-21 is apparently intended to be multi-role and flexible. One of its rumored roles is as an interceptor, which would not be unprecedented, given that the F-117 was actually a bomber.

As for LPI, LPI isn't foolproof, it just makes it very difficult for aircraft without fully up-to-date gear to effectively track LPI aircraft.

Click to expand...

There is no way the B-21 will be an interceptor. It will quite likely be subsonic. It will have crap maneuverability as well. It might be used to conduct long range reconnaissance flights or naval interdiction and strike tasks similar to the Tu-95RT/MS and the Tu-22M3 in Russian Navy service. Or indeed the H-6K in Chinese service. But not interception tasks. Those are typically done by high Mach speed aircraft.

With regards to the F-117 it is more of a misnomer than anything else. The F-117 couldn't fight to save its life. It did not have a cannon or air-to-air missile in it. It was just a bomb truck.

Modern bombers or fighter bombers typically have SAR. AESA radars typically all have SAR modes available to them. It is trivial to add that feature to an AESA radar it is mostly a software problem in that case.. It is also easier to make an AESA radar have Low Probability of Intercept because you can easily focus the radar beams to a specific area without having a wide sweep angle unless you really want to expose yourself to conduct a wide area target search. IR is not a proper option because you need to have ground mapping radar to do either low level flight or do proper terrain mapping in GPS denied environments. The night vision and IR would be mainly used for final target verification in cases where that is possible and the enemy does not have credible air defenses. Basically you would use INS/GPS navigation to move to the target site if possible, which is completely passive, and keep the AESA radar in passive listening mode while in transit. Close to the actual target you would engage the radar in SAR mode or possibly approach the target at low altitude using the SAR mode. Then you either drop a GPS guided bomb or a laser guided bomb on the target. Or, even more likely, use long distance stand-off cruise missiles to hit the target once you are in range of the target and then simply back away. Since the bomber is not fast enough to escape from fighters. This is quite likely how the H-20 will work too.

A new report by the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) offers the first official acknowledgment of the existence of two stealth bomber development programs by China’s air force.

A previously-confirmed Chinese strategic bomber and a newly acknowledged stealth “fighter-bomber” are both now under development, the DIA says in a China Military Power report released Jan. 15.

The Pentagon first acknowledged a strategic bomber program exists in a 2017 report to Congress. The admission came a year after a senior Chinese air force official publicly confirmed the effort to develop a new strategic comber variously called H-X and H-20.

For several years, Chinese and foreign media have speculated about the existence of a separate stealth bomber development project sometimes called the JH-XX, a replacement for the Mach 1.8-class Xian JH-7 fighter-bomber.

The new DIA report also describes the second project as a “medium”-range stealth bomber. In a chart showing the “aircraft systems characteristics” of the Chinese air force fleet, a “next gen” fighter bomber is shown as a development project with an active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar, long-range air-to-air missiles and precision-guided munitions.

The same chart also describes the “long-range bomber” now in development as equipped with an AESA and precision-guided munitions, but not long-range air-to-air missiles.

“These new bombers will have additional capabilities, with full-spectrum upgrades compared with current operational bomber fleets, and will employ many fifth-generation fighter technologies in their design,” the DIA report states.

The initial operational capability for both bombers is expected “no sooner” than 2025, the DIA reports, although it caveats that forecast by adding “probably.”

Click to expand...

That kind of makes sense. But why not simply use the J-20 in that case? I can see a J-20 derivative with dual seats and perhaps a larger wing to increase lift even if it is to the detriment of maneuverability. Just look at the F-22 studies to turn it into a bomber for an example of that. However, considering that China is still producing the J-16, and that the USA has no aircraft in that segment at all, not even one in development, I doubt a tactical bomber project would have a high priority.

gelgoog said:

That kind of makes sense. But why not simply use the J-20 in that case? I can see a J-20 derivative with dual seats and perhaps a larger wing to increase lift even if it is to the detriment of maneuverability. Just look at the F-22 studies to turn it into a bomber for an example of that. However, considering that China is still producing the J-16, and that the USA has no aircraft in that segment at all, not even one in development, I doubt a tactical bomber project would have a high priority.

Click to expand...

The DIA report is light on details.

But chances are they are working off some of the articles that have been written about "JH-XX" and extrapolating the famous 2013 model.

In any case the difference between a true medium size bomber and a modified J-20 is one of payload and range.

If you want to carry say, a couple of Yj-12 size missiles internally in a supersonic capable aircraft with a 1500-2000km combat radius you aren't going to be able to do it in a J-20 sized aircraft.

You'll want a plane with MTOW of 60 tons or more.



Personally I don't think there's enough evidence to suggest JH-XX is currently in active development in the way H-20 can be confirmed to be, so I think the DIA report is jumping the gun a bit.

Bltizo said:

The DIA report is light on details.

But chances are they are working off some of the articles that have been written about "JH-XX" and extrapolating the famous 2013 model.

In any case the difference between a true medium size bomber and a modified J-20 is one of payload and range.

If you want to carry say, a couple of Yj-12 size missiles internally in a supersonic capable aircraft with a 1500-2000km combat radius you aren't going to be able to do it in a J-20 sized aircraft.

You'll want a plane with MTOW of 60 tons or more.



Personally I don't think there's enough evidence to suggest JH-XX is currently in active development in the way H-20 can be confirmed to be, so I think the DIA report is jumping the gun a bit.

Click to expand...

I was going to say, I wonder what their sources are, and if they are just recycling the same sources we are but drawing stronger conclusions. It’d be nice if they had some extra point of confirmation, but given the history and quality of these reports over the years, and how they’re usually compiled, I somehow doubt it.

Bltizo said:

The DIA report is light on details.

But chances are they are working off some of the articles that have been written about "JH-XX" and extrapolating the famous 2013 model.

In any case the difference between a true medium size bomber and a modified J-20 is one of payload and range.

If you want to carry say, a couple of Yj-12 size missiles internally in a supersonic capable aircraft with a 1500-2000km combat radius you aren't going to be able to do it in a J-20 sized aircraft.

You'll want a plane with MTOW of 60 tons or more.



Personally I don't think there's enough evidence to suggest JH-XX is currently in active development in the way H-20 can be confirmed to be, so I think the DIA report is jumping the gun a bit.

Click to expand...

Would DIA by any chance have any information that we don't? I personally was happy to know jH-XX could potentially be alive as I really liked that 2013 concept. Now that I think about it, everything they've written seem to be compiled open source information so far, so maybe not

latenlazy said:

I was going to say, I wonder what their sources are, and if they are just recycling the same sources we are but drawing stronger conclusions. It’d be nice if they had some extra point of confirmation, but given the history and quality of these reports over the years, and how they’re usually compiled, I somehow doubt it.

Click to expand...

IMO that part is almost certainly open source.

If you look at the reference list overall it's all from open source articles.

They don't specifically reference the part about the medium bomber but I bet that was also open source. There's been a fair few English language pieces mentioning the medium bomber over the last year or so. My first piece for the diplomat dedicated a part to it.

Bltizo said:

IMO that part is almost certainly open source.

If you look at the reference list overall it's all from open source articles.

Click to expand...

The DIA would be a total bunch of morons if they listed a covert source in an public release. I guarantee you that the PRC intel agencies look at open releaseed US reports. And the DIA knows that. Why hand them a lead on a potential leak from the inside?

TerraN_EmpirE said:

The DIA would be a total bunch of morons if they listed a covert source in an public release. I guarantee you that the PRC intel agencies look at open releaseed US reports. And the DIA knows that. Why hand them a lead on a potential leak from the inside?

Click to expand...

Well my point is that there's not much we can learn from these kind of reports because they are open source.
So in this case their part about the medium bomber was almost certainly from open source articles

Bltizo said:

So in this case their part about the medium bomber was almost certainly from open source articles

Click to expand...

Maybe.

There are a lot of politics that go into these reports, too. Let's not forget that.

Additionally, it might be the open sources can be used as cover for the secret sources: "now that this is in the white world, we can talk about it and people might claim we got it from there."

Or it might be they wanted to put it in given the change in congress to increase the perceived threat.

Or they might have even have thought the rumors of the 2 seater J-20 (real or not) might be the theater level bomber.

This might be simply we don't know what their source was and at this point its speculation as to what it was. Likewise, just taking this report at face value should not be the case. Even if the DIA thinks this is the case, their info could be wrong.

Skepticism is a good thing.