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

Brumby said:

I do not understand where you are trying to take your conversation.

There are pop up targets within denied airspace that are time sensitive. 4th gen platforms will not be able to execute those mission sets due to their questionable survivability against heavily defended targets. It is not just an issue of cost. Btw, SDB-II are used not because it is cheap but they serve their purpose. They are not dumb bombs with REKs. I am not aware that China has a product equivalent to the SDB-II You will need to educate me on that.

The piece I don't understand is why the need for a JHXX. The FC-31 or a J-20 fitted with air to ground capabilities could conduct those roles. Anyone?

Click to expand...

I agree that the JHXX is not needed. It's Totoro arguing the case that they are needed.

Yes, there are time sensitive targets, but these are for mobile targets like naval ships.

But land targets aren't mobile, so aren't time sensitive. And it is land targets that will be the vast majority of targets.

Yes, SDBs do the job, but an aircraft has to get close enough to deploy, and the air defences do have to be degraded enough.

I recall there was a sino-SDB displayed at one of the arms shows. But it does look like Chinese air force has passed on this type of weapon.

I imagine it's a similar calculation that led to the Chinese military to ignore development of an LRASM and focus on hypersonics instead.

Bltizo said:

this entire conversation is a bit meaningless unless each side states what their vision of a hypothetical JH-XX actually is.

Click to expand...

I agree because without context the entire conversation is meaningless. IMO, we all need to define what we believe are the intended mission sets of the platforms under discussions. Having a greater payload or range is a good thing but platforms in reality are often built on trade offs (F-35) or planned capabilities (F-22). In the context of our conversation my underlying premise is that the H-20 and JHXX are two different platforms and not one. This is based on my understanding of the Pentagon's current assessment While separate platforms, both will incorporate VLO features. The H-20 will probably be of blended wing design with extended range and payload to deliver against targets into the 2nd island chain. That said, I don't believe it will have intercontinental range due to propulsion technology limitations. In contrast, the JHXX is a tactical bomber with range similar to the Flanker family variants. Its primary role is for penetration strike into contested airspace or to engage in SEAD/DEAD missions that would not be permissible with 4th gen assets. Its range would be sufficient to cover most of the immediate theaters associated with the 1st island chain.



The question that keeps surfacing in my mind is why is a JHXX even needed? Where capabilities permit, the J-16s and JH-7s can perform the necessary strike missions. If VLO penetation missions are needed, why can't the J-20s be modified with the targeting systems to conduct such roles? Is a JHXX really necessary because it adds another maintenance tail in to the picture besides the whole supply chain of parts to support another platform? Is payload that important for a tactical bomber to warrant another platform?

During the opening night of Desert Storm, twenty F-117 stealth fighters were able to strike 28 separate targets. Conversely, it took forty non-stealthy legacy aircraft to hit one target because of the need for electronic jamming aircraft, protective fighter cover, and surface-to-air missile suppression. In the first 24 hours, the coalition flew 2,775 sorties. The F-117, combining stealth and precision, hit 31 percent of the targets the first day. In those missions, it wasn't about deep payload but the capability to execute it.

I literally wrote about why J-20 is only a partial solution in my previous post. #1520.

Totoro said:

J-20's bays are fairly well sized, certainly not smaller than F-35's. But the issue with J-20 is that it's not going to be available in sufficient numbers. There will always be a bunch of them needed for defense all over China and, perhaps more so, a bunch of them needed for escort. We're talking easily 500-1000 planes for air to air missions. (Let's keep in mind they may be facing upward of 1500 F35/F22 around the 1000-15000 km distance mark by 2030 or so.

Click to expand...

I don't understand your argument about lack of J-20s. If China cannot produce enough J-20s for multi role missions, why would it be able to produce sufficient JHXX?

Totoro said:

Self escorting is possible, (2+2 aams) but then the bomb loads are probably going be fairly poor. Perhaps 2 JSOW class weapons at best. And even then the air to air role may suffer due to excess weight and fewer missiles. It'd make a decent anti-ship striker though, if it had a weapon modelled after kh58ushke

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

in regards to size/warhead/speed (but of course that's even more planes needed)

Click to expand...

The reason why a VLO platform is needed for delivery is because the mission requires close in delivery. If standoff delivery is to be employed then a VLO platform is not needed. Just send in a J-16 and fire off from 500 kms away.

Totoro said:

And stealth wise J-20 isn't what a JH-XX could be. Not only would JH-XX benefit from a decade more modern stealth fundations, but given it's role, it could be made even more inherently stealthy, as it could be a simple tailless delta wing, very much something like FB-22 was. It could have less control surfaces, less surfaces giving out radar returns. It could have engines buried deeper inside the fuselage and shielded from the top/down/sides, giving out smaller infrared return.
and it could, of course, have a bigger bomb bay. Imagine two bays, each 6 by 1.5 meters. (compared to J20's roughly 4.3 by 0.95 meters)

Click to expand...

I think we will have to be patient on this and wait for its unveiling to determine if your postulation is correct or not.

Totoro said:

That's enough for 4 missiles bigger than JASSM class. Enough for 30 small form 100 kg bombs. Enough for 12 500 kg class bombs. And probably enough room for 4 supersonic missiles (antiship or other) with a 300+ km reach. I'd still rate the antishipping mission as something somewhat less important for jh-xx than the ground strike mission.

Click to expand...

There is a reason why there is no conversation about fitting a JASSM or a LRASM unto the F-35. It is because long range stand off weapons do not need a F-35 for delivery. It is the reason why the F-18 and B-1s are integrated to employ them.

Xsizor said:

JH-XX is both technologically and financially viable for the PLAAF. This isn't an issue at all. I cannot think of any specific technological challenge that would be presented by the JH-xx that could be deemed "hard" for China. Anything you can think of ?

Click to expand...

I agree there isn't any technological or hard financial reason against a JHXX.

But is a new JHXX programme actually a good use of money?

An analogy that comes to mind is that there's no reason the Chinese military couldn't develop and field an LRASM antiship missile.

An LRASM would undoubtedly be of use.

But they've decided to skip LRASMs and go with hypersonic antiship missiles, which they judge as a more effective alternative.

Remember that China limited military spending to a modest 2% of GDP over the past 2 decades. That is only half of what Russia and the US routinely spent during the same time period.

And it's unlikely that China will decide on obtaining outright military supremacy, because that would entail a military budget at least 3x larger.

So they still need to focus their spending on systems which provide the greatest capability for their cost.

Brumby said:

I agree because without context the entire conversation is meaningless. IMO, we all need to define what we believe are the intended mission sets of the platforms under discussions. Having a greater payload or range is a good thing but platforms in reality are often built on trade offs (F-35) or planned capabilities (F-22). In the context of our conversation my underlying premise is that the H-20 and JHXX are two different platforms and not one. This is based on my understanding of the Pentagon's current assessment While separate platforms, both will incorporate VLO features. The H-20 will probably be of blended wing design with extended range and payload to deliver against targets into the 2nd island chain. That said, I don't believe it will have intercontinental range due to propulsion technology limitations. In contrast, the JHXX is a tactical bomber with range similar to the Flanker family variants. Its primary role is for penetration strike into contested airspace or to engage in SEAD/DEAD missions that would not be permissible with 4th gen assets. Its range would be sufficient to cover most of the immediate theaters associated with the 1st island chain.

View attachment 56129

The question that keeps surfacing in my mind is why is a JHXX even needed? Where capabilities permit, the J-16s and JH-7s can perform the necessary strike missions. If VLO penetation missions are needed, why can't the J-20s be modified with the targeting systems to conduct such roles? Is a JHXX really necessary because it adds another maintenance tail in to the picture besides the whole supply chain of parts to support another platform? Is payload that important for a tactical bomber to warrant another platform?

Click to expand...

Agree with the above.
But also that missiles would be better than a stealthy fighter-bomber in most scenarios.

During the opening night of Desert Storm, twenty F-117 stealth fighters were able to strike 28 separate targets. Conversely, it took forty non-stealthy legacy aircraft to hit one target because of the need for electronic jamming aircraft, protective fighter cover, and surface-to-air missile suppression. In the first 24 hours, the coalition flew 2,775 sorties. The F-117, combining stealth and precision, hit 31 percent of the targets the first day. In those missions, it wasn't about deep payload but the capability to execute it.

Click to expand...

Desert Storm was a long time ago.

I think a modern stealth fighter-bomber (whether based on the J-20 or a new larger JHXX) would nowadays need electronic jamming aircraft, protective fighter cover, and surface-to-air missile suppression as well.

And my guess is that a JHXX is being pushed by Xi'An as a JH-7 replacement because they want the work.

SAC is also pushing the J-31 mediumweight fighter, but the Air Force has decided not to pursue it. So I see the JHXX as being in the same situation.

Can China depend on its rocket force to do the same job as JH-XX ? Yes, but not for long...Not with guaranteed effectiveness. What is it to do when countered with potent Ballistic Defence System ( Aegis Ships and Aegis Ashore) that are increasingly popping up around China?
Stealth is required to sneak in as close as possible and pop in a Missile. This reduces reaction time and the window of opportunity to detect and intercept them.
Of course, land attack cruise missiles launched from SSNs would be effective too. But that too is increasingly countered by potent Anti-sub warfare net extending from philippines to South Korea. A network of Hydrophones exist that have their base stations in Singapore/Philippines/Japan - constantly monitored.

Thus the JH-XX.

Brumby said:

I don't understand your argument about lack of J-20s. If China cannot produce enough J-20s for multi role missions, why would it be able to produce sufficient JHXX?

Click to expand...

Assuming all planes are equal (which they're not) but just to reply to this particular question: Because real world politics. Because one can't expect that Xian or SAC will ever be given to produce J-20s. Or that CAC will be given so much funds that they triple their production of J-20 while at the same time Xian and SAC get their funds cut (as funds are finite, so if CAC gets more, others will get less)

The reason why a VLO platform is needed for delivery is because the mission requires close in delivery. If standoff delivery is to be employed then a VLO platform is not needed. Just send in a J-16 and fire off from 500 kms away.

Click to expand...

I absolutely agree on close in delivery needs. But standoff delivery is not all the same. Say one has a missile with nominal range of 300 km. What if the enemy has air defenses and interceptors positioned 200 km in front of the target. Suddenly the plane needs to get to 100 km of the enemy defenses. VLO may stand a chance there where non VLO won't.

I think we will have to be patient on this and wait for its unveiling to determine if your postulation is correct or not.

Click to expand...

There's no question that a larger airframe that is primarely designed for a strike mission is inherently more capable of achieving more range, more payload and better stealth. That doesn't need to be proven.

There is a reason why there is no conversation about fitting a JASSM or a LRASM unto the F-35. It is because long range stand off weapons do not need a F-35 for delivery. It is the reason why the F-18 and B-1s are integrated to employ them.

Click to expand...

Another thing with stand off weapons is that range often isn't used in a straight forward way. If the target it 300 km away, one won't just launch the missile and have it go down that shortest, most obvious route. Especially if we're talking about stealthy missiles. Rather, those JASSMs will go along various waypoints around the target, possibly crossing even double the distance, in order to reach the target from less expected and thus less monitored/defended directions.

F-35 will definitely be carrying JASSMs one day, too. Externally, of course. It'd be even better for it if it could carry them internally. JSOW and JSM are one of the main weapons for F-35C for example, even though both are stand off stealthy weapons.

J20 will make a very decent striker one day. Perhaps even as good striker as F-35 or better than it. IF indeed 1000 of them can be put into service within a decade, a separate JHXX is certainly not as important. But it's VERY unlikely we'll see such production numbers in such a timeframe. So IF there's money to go around to XAC or SAC, besides H20 and J31, one can still do better for strikes.

Xsizor said:

Can China depend on its rocket force to do the same job as JH-XX ? Yes, but not for long...Not with guaranteed effectiveness. What is it to do when countered with potent Ballistic Defence System ( Aegis Ships and Aegis Ashore) that are increasingly popping up around China?
Stealth is required to sneak in as close as possible and pop in a Missile. This reduces reaction time and the window of opportunity to detect and intercept them.
Of course, land attack cruise missiles launched from SSNs would be effective too. But that too is increasingly countered by potent Anti-sub warfare net extending from philippines to South Korea. A network of Hydrophones exist that have their base stations in Singapore/Philippines/Japan - constantly monitored.

Thus the JH-XX.

Click to expand...

Ballistic missile defence is a losing proposition because the cost of the defending radar and interceptor missiles is far greater than the cost of an incoming missile.

We've got to distinguish between land attack and antiship missions.

How close do you want a JHXX to get to destroyer for an antiship mission?
Realistically, i think the closest a JHXX would ever want to approach is 50km due to the radar horizon and infrared sensors.

But also remember that a subsonic antiship missile will have to face at least 4 full length SAM engagements when it crosses the radar and visual horizon at 35km. If the SAMs have a pk of 0.7, it means less than 1% of the missiles will survive.

So a JHXX has to launch supersonic missiles, which drastically reduces the number of missiles it can carry.
Particularly since antiship missiles have to be big and/or fast to do enough damage to be worthwhile.

In comparison, a CF-100 is supposed to be hypersonic (Mach 5) with a range of 2000-3000km.
And there is also the DF-17 which is Mach 5 with a range of 1800-2500km.

Totoro said:

Assuming all planes are equal (which they're not) but just to reply to this particular question: Because real world politics. Because one can't expect that Xian or SAC will ever be given to produce J-20s. Or that CAC will be given so much funds that they triple their production of J-20 while at the same time Xian and SAC get their funds cut (as funds are finite, so if CAC gets more, others will get less)

...

J20 will make a very decent striker one day. Perhaps even as good striker as F-35 or better than it. IF indeed 1000 of them can be put into service within a decade, a separate JHXX is certainly not as important. But it's VERY unlikely we'll see such production numbers in such a timeframe. So IF there's money to go around to XAC or SAC, besides H20 and J31, one can still do better for strikes.

Click to expand...

I really don't think there will be 1000 J-20 either.

If we get to say 600x J-20, that should be enough to cover the air-to-air requirements it is best suited to.

Instead of buying another 400x J-20, it's probably better to buy 500x J-31 from SAC.
It should cost less money overall, even with a brand new development programme.
The overall result should be a more effective fighter fleet, because there are a lot of situations where a J-31 is better suited or a J-20 is too much capability.

I also think XAC will be fine with their large transport programmes and the H-20 programme, because those tend to be high value and China is starting from zero there as well.