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

A

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
Xsizor said:
Also, why the emphasis on flying wing for H-20? As I understand, the B-2 is less stealthy compared to F-22. The B-2 is a really huge aircraft too. A B-2 Spirit crash is presumed to have happened because one of the sensors were not maintained/checked prior flight and this sensor (due to moisture buildup?) put out skewed data that messed with the computers that controlled the aircraft.
Unless there is another way to pilot a flying wing aircraft, wouldn't China be burdened with the same technological complexities of Sensors-Computers-FBW that of B-2 /flying wing platform?
Wouldn't it be safer and less costly if China went with blended wing or a configuration with a Vertical Control surfaces?

(Tbh, the JH-XX concept had caught my imagination and I root for it :rolleyes:
)
Click to expand...

B-2 is more stealthy than the F-22.

The F-22 has small control surfaces which reflect UHF frequencies.
 
Xizor

Xizor

Captain
Registered Member
AndrewS said:
B-2 is more stealthy than the F-22.

The F-22 has small control surfaces which reflect UHF frequencies.
Click to expand...
Hmm. But...
The U.S. Air Force, in it’s effort to get money to build more F-22s, has revealed just how “stealthy” the F-22 is. It’s RCS (Radar Cross Section) is the equivalent, for a radar, to a metal marble. The less stealthy (and much cheaper) F-35, is equal to a metal golf ball. The F-35 stealthiness is a bit better than the B-2 bomber, which, in turn, was twice as good as that on the even older F-117. Much older aircraft, like the B-52, have a huge RCS, which makes them very easy to spot on radar. But with a smaller RCS, it's more likely that the aircraft won't be detected at all.
 
Xizor

Xizor

Captain
Registered Member
If the US were so sold out on the B-2 VLO capabilities why did they make a drastic change in the program definition to include Low Altitude Penetration? The Low Altitude Penetration requirement came at the cost of increased Dollars, Complexity (Sawtooth Trailing edges) as well as reduction in Range and MAX Altitude performances. Why did US insert the Low Altitude Penetration requirement with all these projected disadvantages in mind?
Because, I think, the US weren't so sure that the Soviet Radars, that had got to be very acclimatized to U-2(LO enhanced) and potential incursions by the A-12 a nd SR-71 (again having some LO qualities) would not see the B-2. That too 40 years ago.
That tells me - by the later 1980s, High altitude Radar detection and SAM performance of Soviet where advanced to a point where US had to cram in a Low Altitude Penetration requirement.
(I'm open to corrections on the statement. I read that it was the case.)

What I understand of US LO aircrafts
B-2 - has all aspect stealth (including IR, long and short wavelength )
F-22 - less IR stealth compared to B-2 owing to afterburner derived thrust requirements but better short wavelength fire control radar stealth than B-2.
F35 - lesser IR stealth compared to F-22 but even better than F-22 in short wavelength stealth. ( longer wavelengths too?)
 
A

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
Xsizor said:
Hmm. But...
The U.S. Air Force, in it’s effort to get money to build more F-22s, has revealed just how “stealthy” the F-22 is. It’s RCS (Radar Cross Section) is the equivalent, for a radar, to a metal marble. The less stealthy (and much cheaper) F-35, is equal to a metal golf ball. The F-35 stealthiness is a bit better than the B-2 bomber, which, in turn, was twice as good as that on the even older F-117. Much older aircraft, like the B-52, have a huge RCS, which makes them very easy to spot on radar. But with a smaller RCS, it's more likely that the aircraft won't be detected at all.
Click to expand...

That should be at X-Band frequencies.
An F-22 or F-35 can definitely be detected in the UHF band - although this will not be a weapons quality track.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
A

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
Xsizor said:
If the US were so sold out on the B-2 VLO capabilities why did they make a drastic change in the program definition to include Low Altitude Penetration? The Low Altitude Penetration requirement came at the cost of increased Dollars, Complexity (Sawtooth Trailing edges) as well as reduction in Range and MAX Altitude performances. Why did US insert the Low Altitude Penetration requirement with all these projected disadvantages in mind?
Because, I think, the US weren't so sure that the Soviet Radars, that had got to be very acclimatized to U-2(LO enhanced) and potential incursions by the A-12 a nd SR-71 (again having some LO qualities) would not see the B-2. That too 40 years ago.
That tells me - by the later 1980s, High altitude Radar detection and SAM performance of Soviet where advanced to a point where US had to cram in a Low Altitude Penetration requirement.
(I'm open to corrections on the statement. I read that it was the case.)

What I understand of US LO aircrafts
B-2 - has all aspect stealth (including IR, long and short wavelength )
F-22 - less IR stealth compared to B-2 owing to afterburner derived thrust requirements but better short wavelength fire control radar stealth than B-2.
F35 - lesser IR stealth compared to F-22 but even better than F-22 in short wavelength stealth. ( longer wavelengths too?)
Click to expand...

My guess is that in 1985, the US Air Force was paranoid about the capabilities of the Soviet Union, and weren't entirely confident of that all-aspect stealth was achievable.

So adding $1B to the $44B cost wasn't actually a big deal to them.

But 34 years later, we now know all-aspect stealth is feasible and effective.
 
A

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
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 logic is kind of the other way around.

The Chinese Air Force should have a set of strategic requirements first.
eg. the payload/effect required for each target along with a priority - for different scenarios

Then it is a case of looking at the technology and platforms that are available - along with their cost and timescales.

If we go with the premise that China winning requires:
1. control of the 1st Island Chain
2. denial of the 2nd Island Chain (ie. Guam and US aircraft carriers)

Then I think one of the highest priority missions is hunting US Carriers and Guam in the 2nd Island Chain
And that a large all-aspect stealth bomber such as the H-20 is well suited to this.
And that such a H-20 has similar mission requirements to the B-21.

As for the JH-xx - my feeling is that a smaller stealthy fighter-bomber would only really be useful along the 1st Island Chain, but deliver too small a payload from internal bomb bays to justify the cost
Given that sort of range, would it be better for stealthy cruise missiles to be used?
Or for the Chinese Air Force to obtain local air superiority over the ECS/SCS (which they want anyway), so that non-stealthy aircraft can launch a larger payload of missiles?
 
I

Inst

Captain
Point of the JH-XX over a H-X is that the H-X apparently won't be supersonic. The JH-XX, on the other hand, will likely be at least supersonic and may be capable of supercruise. While supercruise is bad for IR stealth, it gives the Chinese more ways to strike than simply ground-launched / naval cruise missiles, subsonic strategic bombers, and ballistic missiles.

The idea is that there's now more to defend against and it becomes more likely that the USN will screw up somewhere.
 
Xizor

Xizor

Captain
Registered Member
Inst said:
Point of the JH-XX over a H-X is that the H-X apparently won't be supersonic. The JH-XX, on the other hand, will likely be at least supersonic and may be capable of supercruise. While supercruise is bad for IR stealth, it gives the Chinese more ways to strike than simply ground-launched / naval cruise missiles, subsonic strategic bombers, and ballistic missiles.

The idea is that there's now more to defend against and it becomes more likely that the USN will screw up somewhere.
Click to expand...

Also:
1. JH-XX type aircraft will be less technology dependent for flight relative to a flying wing.
2. JH-XX could seek, source and share components with H-6 bombers wherever possible, atleast in the future.
3. All aspect stealth, while not a fool's errand per se, could be traded for Range, Payload and Speed.
4. WS-10 with Afterburners are increasing in numbers. Using the same engines types to power the JH-XX would mitigate any engine shortfall issues and maintenance hell.
5. A stealthy B-1B Lancer is a good thing in any case.It just sounds good.
6. What if stealth gets countered one day? A new radar that uses more power or a different principle is always on the horizon. In any case, having JH-XX type platform will ensure that the eggs are not put in one basket. If stealth becomes unreliable ( somehow), the aircraft can still be useful owing to its speed. A better H-6 to be exact.
 
SinoSoldier

SinoSoldier

Colonel
I see the H-20 more as a deterrent system than anything else. In a scenario in which China faces a technologically-superior foe, the H-20 would have little role to play since it's unsuitable for naval strike missions and its limited quantity would restrict its use to pinpoint, high-value strikes that more or less could be conducted with ballistic missiles and other platforms. Due to speed, maneuverability, and arguably cheaper cost, a Sino-FB-22 such as a J-20-based supersonic tactical bomber would be very handy in tackling naval targets and those in environments that warrant both low observability and kinematic prowess. It would theoretically be capable of delivering anti-ship missiles, cruise missiles, bombs, and both CAS-type and standoff weaponry.

The H-20 would be delegated to a nuclear-strike role and act as an incredible boost to China's aerial component of her nuclear triad. For these conditions to be met, (1) both types of bombers would need to be developed and (2) the H-20 must have an intercontinental strike range.

This also lessens the numerical requirement for H-20 bombers.
 
Xizor

Xizor

Captain
Registered Member
SinoSoldier said:
I see the H-20 more as a deterrent system than anything else. In a scenario in which China faces a technologically-superior foe, the H-20 would have little role to play since it's unsuitable for naval strike missions and its limited quantity would restrict its use to pinpoint, high-value strikes that more or less could be conducted with ballistic missiles and other platforms. Due to speed, maneuverability, and arguably cheaper cost, a Sino-FB-22 such as a J-20-based supersonic tactical bomber would be very handy in tackling naval targets and those in environments that warrant both low observability and kinematic prowess. It would theoretically be capable of delivering anti-ship missiles, cruise missiles, bombs, and both CAS-type and standoff weaponry.

The H-20 would be delegated to a nuclear-strike role and act as an incredible boost to China's aerial component of her nuclear triad. For these conditions to be met, (1) both types of bombers would need to be developed and (2) the H-20 must have an intercontinental strike range.

This also lessens the numerical requirement for H-20 bombers.
Click to expand...

Yeah, thanks for pointing out the South China Sea angle. America might have forsaken the FB-22. China cannot afford to because of her unique security challenges and national interest. JH-XX can be the grim reaper in the South China Sea for Rival nations of Asean.
" The JH-20s are coming from Hainan. Abort mission. Over!! Over!!"
- Sounds snazzy, but it isn't that much if you think about it. The nations of South China Sea are getting Advanced Cruise missiles. I read that Philippines is ordering Brahmos missiles.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Brahmos is a threat due to its high speed for Chinese Surface fleet and Coast Guard vessels. In times of escalation, a Supersonic platform with heavy Anti-Ship and Anti-SAM capabilities are needed to rush to the Farthest islands of the South China Sea ( like the Zengmu/James shoal). Such an aircraft could take-off from the Hainan Islands and make the Dash to take down Cruise Missile Bases/ Radar Stations/ Surface fleet of ASEAN nations. A slow flying wing will not be able to counter the fleet of Sukhois, Gripens and F-16s while a JH-XX can escape the theater after delivering the payloads.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top