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

The B-2's stealth is remarkable considering the age of the aircraft. It is often said to be as stealthy as F-22 in every aspect. For the purposes of flying undetected deep into well defended Soviet airspace, it better have been! B-2 would have been finished if it was detected and intercepted by the Soviets and there were no fighters that could help escort it back when it was designed and introduced into service.

For China's Pacific needs, indeed a super stealthy bomber like B-2 would be a bit overkill unless part of H-20's mission is to intrude deep into enemy airspace which I doubt is part of China's strategical requirements now and probably in the future.

What they do need is something much stealthier than H-6 that can attack CBGs and bases from which attacks against China may be launched. With hypersonic and long range stand offs, the requirement for stealth is not to the same level as going deep into radar infested, Sukhoi and Mig-31 territory alone... subsonically, with hardly any means of defending against fighters, interceptors, guns, and missiles.

With flying wings, we've seen Chinese drones use these designs but of course the risks are entirely different. I don't seen how H-20 really needs to be pure flying wing and "uber" stealth like B-2/ F-22 either.

ougoah said:

I'm guessing he means in the sense that these modern "bombers" will be quite a lot more multirole in terms of being able to launch drones, cruise missiles, torpedoes (he's assumption) maybe even DEWs and A2A missiles.
.

Click to expand...

Officially all we know it is a bomber with initial conventional and subsequently nuclear delivery capability. It is designed with the capabilities to hold any target any where in the world at risk This means it is long range. We believe it is likely designed for high altitude penetration and not low level unlike the B-2.It is likely to be able to operate in conjunction with loyal wingman. At this stage the likely candidate is the RQ-180 which has gone operational this year (no official conformation on IOC). I speculate it will have the capability to operate as a slealthy communication relay node just as the B-2 has that built in capability. The stuff about A2A; lasers; et al are all pure speculation which has no direct relationship to the B-21's stated mission set.

ougoah said:

So in this way, JH-xx/ H-20 will be more like B-21 in mission profiles than B-2 which was developed with more limited missions in mind, partly due to the requirement for nuclear strikes on the Soviet Union and the electronics of the era it was developed. B-21 retains all these roles but expands on them. There's no evidence of H-20 let alone what it can and can't do but it'll be a bit of a let down if it ends up simply being a stealth bombed capable of only dropping bomb loads and the odd cruise missile. H-6 can do all that and more already albeit without stealth.

Click to expand...

Any differentiation or similarity is not in the mission set but in its capabilities. The B-29 also served as a long range bomber with the capability to deliver fat boy. Are we going to suggest that the B-29 is analogue to the B-21? No one has any idea on the B-21's capabilities.

Brumby said:

Officially all we know it is a bomber with initial conventional and subsequently nuclear delivery capability. It is designed with the capabilities to hold any target any where in the world at risk This means it is long range. We believe it is likely designed for high attitude penetration and not low level unlike the B-2.It is likely to be able to operate in conjunction with loyal wingman. At this stage the likely candidate is the RQ-180 which has gone operational this year (no official conformation on IOC). I speculate it will have the capability to operate as a slealthy communication relay node just as the B-2 has that built in capability. The stuff about A2A; lasers; et al are all pure speculation which has no direct relationship to the B-21's stated mission set.



Any differentiation or similarity is not in the mission set but in its capabilities. The B-29 also served as a long range bomber with the capability to deliver fat boy. Are we going to suggest that the B-29 is analogue to the B-21? No one has any idea on the B-21's capabilities.

Click to expand...

All that extra capability is definitely speculation and conjecture but I think this is what Inst was referring to. Of course these roles can be assigned to various existing and future platforms.

Well then I'm speaking about capabilities relating to mission. B-29 and B-2 are comparable in some ways like performing nuclear strikes and entirely different in other capabilities. JH-xx and H-20 will be tasked with performing missions that exploit their stealthiness despite having overlapping capabilities with H-6.

I feel like this conversation will degrade to semantics and intellectual masturbation again. Let's refrain.

Inst's speculations are clearly written in a way that makes it obvious it is his opinion. We have zero information about JH-xx and H-20. We don't even know for certain if there are indeed two separate programs that will create two separate platforms going into future service. What the capabilities and missions are, are based off these conjectures in case anyone thinks otherwise.

If the rule is to refrain from discussing this topic, this entire thread should be deleted until solid news come out. Until then, people are going to be saying wild things and generally just entertaining themselves while making their opinions and thoughts heard.

My thoughts on Inst's post; I think it'll be strange for let's say Australia to produce their first domestic TV set using CRT technology just like I think it'll be strange for China to produce their first stealth bomber with antiquated radar and electronic equipment that limits its operative capabilities to the same level as a 1990s B-2.

ougoah said:

I feel like this conversation will degrade to semantics and intellectual masturbation again. Let's refrain.

Inst's speculations are clearly written in a way that makes it obvious it is his opinion. We have zero information about JH-xx and H-20. We don't even know for certain if there are indeed two separate programs that will create two separate platforms going into future service. What the capabilities and missions are, are based off these conjectures in case anyone thinks otherwise.

Click to expand...

The issue I have with Inst's post is very simple. If we don't know anything about the B-21 and similarly the JH/XX's capabilities, how do you reasonably speculate that they are analogue of each other? I don't have an issue with speculations. I am simply asking the rationale on which the speculation is based on.

ougoah said:

If the rule is to refrain from discussing this topic, this entire thread should be deleted until solid news come out. Until then, people are going to be saying wild things and generally just entertaining themselves while making their opinions and thoughts heard.

My thoughts on Inst's post; I think it'll be strange for let's say Australia to produce their first domestic TV set using CRT technology just like I think it'll be strange for China to produce their first stealth bomber with antiquated radar and electronic equipment that limits its operative capabilities to the same level as a 1990s B-2.

Click to expand...

I am afraid that is not how development programs work - at least with the US approach.

You start off with your requirements. You then determine what capabilities are needed to deliver those mission requirements - not just based on current but also future threats. Some of the required technologies may be matured and others not. You then go through design trade offs deliberation and eventually might end up with a design that is both affordable and deliverable (in terms of technology). During that process certain immature and high risk technologies might have to go through some form of proof of concept to demonstrate that it is indeed tenable. I am sure we all want warp speed capable engines and cloaking capabilities because the B-2 tech features are so outdated.

China will need to deal with whatever technological issues given its state of development. However just because the B-2 was developed in the 90's does not mean that that technology is outdated.

Agree with all this. However as a totally separate point of discussion, surely the B-2 technology is in many ways outdated. Certainly not as an overall platform. Its overall utility will remain almost exclusive for decades. But unless the electronics, software, and sensors have received thorough upgrades in recent years, surely those subsystems can be considered outdated by modern standards? Even if the finest, most innovative, and expensive Intel chip from 1999 is the best on the market by a wide margin, it's still no comparison to the cheapest available in 2019.

In the total absence of information, there is no way to say this and that for sure but I'd imagine US subsystems have improved quite a lot since the 90s and rather than completely overhaul the B-2 individually, they are building a ground up platform to accommodate all the new advances in these subsystems along with entirely new technologies. Combining these may result in new capabilities like the things Inst mentioned.

Just like how there is nothing wrong with the F-14 design and concept but if the USN wanted an F-14 for the modern era, it could either retrofit everything or the investigation may conclude that building something very similar in concept, from the ground up to accommodate the new demands, may be more favourable and less restrictive. After all there is a limit to how much you can retrofit and upgrade.

Where Chinese industry is at with regards to these points is entirely unknown. However it should be mentioned that if these industries are not far behind on critical technologies, it would make more sense for the upcoming H-20 to also expand on the capabilities of something like the B-2 with respect to the sorts of ordinance it can be armed with, which indirectly affect its mission capabilities. Sure there are myriad factors involved and with both H-20 and B-21, we don't know any of them. After all these are Inst's claims. Food for thought if nothing else.

ougoah said:

Agree with all this. However as a totally separate point of discussion, surely the B-2 technology is in many ways outdated. Certainly not as an overall platform. Its overall utility will remain almost exclusive for decades. But unless the electronics, software, and sensors have received thorough upgrades in recent years, surely those subsystems can be considered outdated by modern standards? Even if the finest, most innovative, and expensive Intel chip from 1999 is the best on the market by a wide margin, it's still no comparison to the cheapest available in 2019.
.

Click to expand...

"Outdated by modern standards". What does that actually mean? IMO, you are conflating many things with that statement. Firstly you are conflating obsolescence with sufficiency. A technical capability might be dated but that does not mean it is obsolete. It becomes obsolete when it is incapable of being upgraded to the extend that existential threats can no longer be addressed by its performance. Secondly you are conflating modern commercial standards with military standards. Generally there is a lag of about 10-15 years in adoption between commercial and military use. In the military field especially aerospace the emphasis is reliability not the latest. Electronics in military aerospace require robust testing and hardening against radiation, EMP and shocks. No doubt there is acceleration towards COTs but there is limitation to it because of the high performance demand of military aerospace. Finally you are conflating between the different demanding nature of GPUs and the specialty items like digital signal processors and FPGAs in military electronics. The advent of AESA radars and the complex waveforms demand on EW systems have placed significant burden on processing capabilities. These are not met by the GPUs of the world but by the DSPs and FPGAs. For example, one of the F-16 upgrade (from memory) involved a 100 times relative increase in its signal processing capacity when compared to its GPU upgrade. The trillion bit calculations are done by the FPGAs - not the GPUs. According to a 2018 CSIS report, China does not have the capability to manufacture FPGAs. The DSPs and FPGAs are the crown jewels of the US military electronic leadership that President Xi is after in its modernization drive.

ougoah said:

In the total absence of information, there is no way to say this and that for sure but I'd imagine US subsystems have improved quite a lot since the 90s and rather than completely overhaul the B-2 individually, they are building a ground up platform to accommodate all the new advances in these subsystems along with entirely new technologies. Combining these may result in new capabilities like the things Inst mentioned.

Click to expand...

I am not familiar with the B-2 and so I do not know how easy or difficult it is to upgrade its systems. Typically some upgrade consideration are designed into the platform and more so with the newer platforms than the older ones. For example, the F-35 is designed and built in a way that 97 % of access to its systems are tier 1. All of its systems are LRC based except for two systems that are LRU based.

As to Inst's comments, the principle point I would ask is whether those technologies are integral to the delivery of the platform's primary mission set. in other words, you don;t add the technology because it is available. You adopt the technology because it is necessary.

ougoah said:

Just like how there is nothing wrong with the F-14 design and concept but if the USN wanted an F-14 for the modern era, it could either retrofit everything or the investigation may conclude that building something very similar in concept, from the ground up to accommodate the new demands, may be more favourable and less restrictive. After all there is a limit to how much you can retrofit and upgrade.

Click to expand...

While the F-14 was a very capable platform. it was also a nightmare to maintain. There are other issues that come into play. It is the same issue that is confronting the B-2. It is very expensive to maintain. It is not a technological issue.

ougoah said:

Where Chinese industry is at with regards to these points is entirely unknown. However it should be mentioned that if these industries are not far behind on critical technologies, it would make more sense for the upcoming H-20 to also expand on the capabilities of something like the B-2 with respect to the sorts of ordinance it can be armed with, which indirectly affect its mission capabilities. Sure there are myriad factors involved and with both H-20 and B-21, we don't know any of them. After all these are Inst's claims. Food for thought if nothing else.

Click to expand...

If the facts are limited or nil I would not speculate but that is just me.

We're just being lawyers here. I never used the word obsolete. Outdated was defined carefully as in comparison to what US defence industry has available. Let's finish up with this conversation since it's going nowhere except verbose intellectual masturbation which I'm sure will be frustrating for both of us and anyone reading. Honestly these types of threads should be left for news and discussions come after breaking news and more concrete information is delivered. On that we both agree.

Lol next time I am going to refrain from attempting a reconciliation of different approaches (you and Inst) in how we discuss these things. That was dumb in hindsight since it's added nothing of value and wasted everyone's time. I can't be bothered looking but I don't get how these types of threads get resurrected when nothing new has been offered.

This is about the earlier stages of the B-21 project (LRS-B), but this is why the B-21 is much more of a threat to China than the B-2, as the latter is single mission (does it even have a radar?).



So if we look at the H-X or JH-XX as an analogue to the B-21 (and I am not sure if the B-21 is the target, as opposed to the single-role B-2 being the target), the H-X or JH-XX SHOULD (and this doesn't mean it has it or either is designed for it) have similar AEW&C / passive detection ability to the H-X / JH-XX. But we have no even semi-reliable information on the H-X / JH-XX having this capability.

ougoah said:

The B-2's stealth is remarkable considering the age of the aircraft. It is often said to be as stealthy as F-22 in every aspect. For the purposes of flying undetected deep into well defended Soviet airspace, it better have been! B-2 would have been finished if it was detected and intercepted by the Soviets and there were no fighters that could help escort it back when it was designed and introduced into service.

For China's Pacific needs, indeed a super stealthy bomber like B-2 would be a bit overkill unless part of H-20's mission is to intrude deep into enemy airspace which I doubt is part of China's strategical requirements now and probably in the future.

What they do need is something much stealthier than H-6 that can attack CBGs and bases from which attacks against China may be launched. With hypersonic and long range stand offs, the requirement for stealth is not to the same level as going deep into radar infested, Sukhoi and Mig-31 territory alone... subsonically, with hardly any means of defending against fighters, interceptors, guns, and missiles.

With flying wings, we've seen Chinese drones use these designs but of course the risks are entirely different. I don't seen how H-20 really needs to be pure flying wing and "uber" stealth like B-2/ F-22 either.

Click to expand...

I highly doubt that B-2 would dare to go deep inside Chinese or Russian airspace. I am 99% certain it would get detected and shoot down, 1 pop is $2B