H-20 bomber (with H-X, JH-XX)
- Thread starter Deino
- Start date
True, but look at the limitations of the weapons bays for a stealthy aircraft.
Depending on the size of a JH-XX, it might only be able to carry 1 (or possibly 2) standoff antiship missiles.
So you would have to build and coordinate a large number of JH-XX to launch enough missiles.
If you're going with that size, look at the size of the weapons bays versus powered antiship/strike missiles:
YJ-12: 6.3m long x 0.756m diameter
Harpoon: 3.8m long x 0.34m diameter
So an FB-22 class aircraft is going to cost $150M+
But it only launch 4? Harpoons (which would likely all be shot down because they are too slow)
Or possibly 2 YJ-12 missiles.
It would still be detected by UHF radars anyway, so would likely be intercepted by other fighter jets in the 1st Island Chain
So it would need a fighter escort anyway?
It seems that the Chinese Air Force would be better off buying an updated JH-7C, which would cost 3x less and also be able to carry 3-4 YJ-12 missiles.
But then again, CJ-10 cruise missiles cost less than $1M, and could be launched from trucks to reach up to 1500km, which covers every part of the 1st Island Chain.
So would it be better to send out a J-20 fighter escort to cover a mass cruise missile strike?
It forces enemy stealth fighters to reveal themselves and waste their AAMs on cheap cruise missiles.
Number of issues
1. How much payload can really fit inside JH-XX internal weapons bays?
2. A supersonic fighter bomber JH-XX generates a huge heat signature - which negates its stealth properties
3. A H-20 with intercontinental range would have a round-trip of 20000km from Asia across the Pacific.
That's almost twice the range of a B-1, B-2.
So the H-20 would be huge, expensive and produced in really small numbers.
Plus, wouldn't it work out cheaper and better to produce more DF-41s instead of having a nuclear triad?
50 DF-41 missiles with 500 warheads would cost say $3B?
4. On the other hand, an H-20 could be sized for the 2nd Island Chain (Guam-3000km). After that, it is empty ocean until Hawaii which is just too far as it is another 6000km away. That would allow for much larger numbers of cheaper aircraft with a larger payload for ground strikes. And they are capable of being used in the 1st Island Chain as well.
5. It's interesting to see how the B-21 is envisioned as a C&C centre or mothership for future recon aircraft.
So an H-20 could serve as in the same role in hunting naval ships.
I need to point out that a H-20 can just as well be loaded up with cruise missiles as a JH-XX. Likewise, in an actual engagement, if the H-20 is built to similar specs as the B-21, the H-20 will serve as an invaluable force multiplier as it can serve as a counter-stealth AEW&C for J-20s.
The biggest difference between an H-20 and a JH-XX, ultimately, is that the JH-XX is fast, while the H-20 is slow and stealthier. This matters a lot when the J-20 is supercruise capable and the H-20 can't keep up with it.
The biggest difference between an H-20 and a JH-XX, ultimately, is that the JH-XX is fast, while the H-20 is slow and stealthier. This matters a lot when the J-20 is supercruise capable and the H-20 can't keep up with it.
Since JH-XX hasn't been announced, only possible answer is: who knows?
That being said, if it's really a FB-22 sized, 55 000 kg MTOW plane, then we're looking at similar capability. FB-22 was estimated to be able to carry 24-32 SDBs. That indicates double the length of the bomb bay, meaning a 7.5 meter long bay.
I personally actually doubt that long bay could be fitted to a such class of a plane and would suggest a 6 meter long bay to be a safer assumption. With bays being both a bit wider and deeper.
How much payload also depends on what sort of weapons are in there.
That's a very simplistic statement. So F-22 or J-20 must never go supersonic as their stealth would magically disappear?
I'd say supercruise would be an important aspect of JHXX but even without that, an afterburning achieved mach 1.8 or so would still very much keep the plane undetectable. Basically only planes in the air carry IRST sensors. So various ground based or ship based systems are not alerted any more than they'd be otherwise. Even with plane mounted IRST, if we're talking head on course, detection of something (not identification) would likely not occur at over 100 km away)
JHXX would likely carry neither of those missiles. YJ12 is too big, harpoon or better yet yj83 too old.
It'd more likely carry either a missile based on YJ12 tech but made a little smaller and lighter
or a missile similar to LRASM, meaning a stealthy missile.
I'd still expect 2 missiles per plane, of course. Anything more is simply not realistic.
But that's not really an issue. JH7 can carry either 2 at longer range or 4 if it doesn't carry drop tanks. And might not even survive to get to 200-300 km launch range.
JHXX should survive.
Of course, antishipping would be just one, perhaps even slightly less important, mission set. Bombing enemy bases would be another mission set.
longer waves increase the detection distance but they don't make it automatic at all ranges. It'd still be a huge deal whether the JHXX is detected by UHF radars at 200 or 500 km away.
And UHF radars make up a fairly small portion of all radars. Pretty much all US army radars are currently L or C band. Navy radars are S band. E-3 radars are S band. Only E-2 radars are UHF. So we're talking about perhaps a quarter of overall radars.
And none of that still means the JHXX would get targeted. For shooting it down, lock ons with X/C fire control radars and then later on with sub X band radar in missile seekers would be needed. And all those would happen at much, much shortened ranges, compared to a lock onto JH7.
To sum it up, JHXX would be immensely more survivable than a JH7.
Who knows how much it'd cost (overall use cost would certainly not be 3 times, when absolutely everything is taken into account, not just airframe procurement) but i do know
jh7 doesn't carry any yj12. it's too big at over 2 tons. We will likely never see jh7 carry it, as it seems h6 is the only air platform for it.
SDBs are no good against naval ships. You need a fast guided missile with a large warhead.
Arguably, SDBs are also no use against land targets, if there a gun point defence system nearby.
Remember that a J-20 or F-22 or FB-22 can still be tracked with UHF radar.
Their stealth just prevents an X-Band missile seeker or fire control radar from obtaining a weapons quality radar lock.
So you know roughly where the stealthy fighter-bomber is, which is enough for an opposing stealth fighter to get in close for IRST and launch IR missiles. Going with afterburner makes you very visible.
My opinion is that LRASMs are too slow, and therefore too easy to shoot down.
Especially since a UHF band radar should be able to track them from significant distances.
But if you want a fast, long-range missile, you end up with something the size of the YJ-12.
Looking at the geography and target set, I'd say land targets would be the most numerous and also the priority.
Taiwan and Korea are only 200-400km away. So even non-stealthy Chinese aircraft can get into launch range of their targets.
But with those sorts of distances, TEL launched cruise missiles or MLRS systems can deliver a lot more ordnance and at a much lower cost than a fighter-bomber.
Okinawa and Kyushu are further away, but I reckon the Chinese Air Force should be able to (temporarily) obtain air superiority to a distance of 100km from Okinawa or 200km for Kyushu.
So I reckon the Chinese Stealth Fighters could successfully escort a non-stealthy strike package with a larger payload than for a JH-XX.
But if you accept that SDBs are useless because they're slow guide bombs that could be taken out with point defence guns, that means you do need larger powered missiles with guidance systems, which favours non-stealthy aircraft.
But again, at those distances (<1300km), missile systems can deliver a lot more ordnance at a much lower cost than an aerial platform.
The E-2 is the key C&C platform for the US Navy and the Japanese Air Force, which controls the air battle.
I'm not arguing that a JHXX is more survivable than a JH7.
But that the additional cost is not worth it, given the limited payload, and how the Chinese Air Force can probably achieve temporary air control at sufficient distances for a non-stealthy aircraft to be used.
I'm guessing a JHXX might be 3x more in terms of TCO than a JH-7, depending on the size and how stealthy it is.
But the same argument still applies even if it is only 2x more expensive.
I used the YJ-12 as an example, to demonstrate that a fighter-bomber (like the JH7 or JHXX) is fundamentally unsuited to carrying large high-performance antiship missiles.
It’s in China’s interest to update the attack aircraft fleet though. JH-7s and Q-5s are no longer safe enough, unless against underdeveloped enemies.
Cost is not really an issue. The JH-7 was expensive back when it was designed as well. Being able to preserve pilots and complete missions is more important.
Cost is not really an issue. The JH-7 was expensive back when it was designed as well. Being able to preserve pilots and complete missions is more important.
To add to this, consider the physics and economics of missiles. A missile is a vehicle that tries to guide and transport a payload to its target. It is a one-way trip and the launch vehicle is destroyed on delivery.
An aircraft, in comparison, is a vehicle that tries to guide and transport a payload to its target as well, although an aircraft can also launch missiles. But the difference between an aircraft and a missile is that an aircraft isn't destroyed on delivery and that the aircraft needs to spend fuel to return to base.
In other words, an aircraft, in order to justify itself, has to survive both its delivery mission and its return mission. Otherwise, long-range missiles present a better financial choice.