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

ougoah said:

The Tu-22M has much better speed and performance. Higher flight ceiling and better range

Click to expand...

I was asking about mission capability, not numerical differences. For example, just because the TU-22 can fly 500m higher doesn't necessarily give it any practical advantage.

An extra 400km combat radius would allow slightly further inland basing/pacific reach. Actually on this point, some sites give the H-6 a 3500km combat radius . I'm not sure if the Wikipedia flight parameters are correct, if you look at the history, when the engine info was updated from WP-8 to DK-30 none of the flight parameters changed.

Being supersonic does allow the TU-22 to reach targets faster and sortie more often.

silentlurker said:

I was asking about mission capability, not numerical differences. For example, just because the TU-22 can fly 500m higher doesn't necessarily give it any practical advantage.

An extra 400km combat radius would allow slightly further inland basing/pacific reach. Actually on this point, some sites give the H-6 a 3500km combat radius

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

. I'm not sure if the Wikipedia flight parameters are correct, if you look at the history, when the engine info was updated from WP-8 to DK-30 none of the flight parameters changed.

Being supersonic does allow the TU-22 to reach targets faster and sortie more often.

Click to expand...

Agree. Choosing h6 as the platform to develop gap filling theatre bomber(K/J/N) is a demonstration of extreme pragmatism on the pla part. They really thought it through, no existing fancy platforms from russia can really deliver much extra value, neither tu22, tu95 nor even tu160.

Speaking of which, when it comes to h6n, now do we know if its ALBM is for anti ship mission or nuclear strike mission?

caohailiang said:

Agree. Choosing h6 as the platform to develop gap filling theatre bomber(K/J/N) is a demonstration of extreme pragmatism on the pla part. They really thought it through, no existing fancy platforms from russia can really deliver much extra value, neither tu22, tu95 nor even tu160.

Speaking of which, when it comes to h6n, now do we know if its ALBM is for anti ship mission or nuclear strike mission?

Click to expand...

It's not entirely true. When the Soviet Union broke up China was very much interested in buying Tu-160 from Ukraine ala the T-10K Su-33 prototype. But Ukraine being Ukraine got conned by US (again) and decided to destroy them instead.


What a waste.

gelgoog said:

I think in the long term China will have to build some sort of fast long distance strike aircraft. i.e. the mythical JH-XX.
It is a bit of a shame the Tu-22M3 sale didn't happen.

Click to expand...

Agreed, its a shame that the Tu-22M3 sale didn't happen back in. That would have given China a cool fleet of supersonic regional bombers for the here and now while waiting for the JH-XX to develop. I would have loved to see the Tu-22M3 or maybe the Tu-160 in Chinese service. Its mostly for fanboy enthusiasm for these Soviet bombers rather than any actual practical advantages.

Nevertheless, its just my speculation that China probably called off the deal. Maybe because they are viewing that the Tu-22M3 would still be mostly launching standoff weapons. Something that the already available H-6 is doing. And for any supersonic bomber role. They are probably assigning that role to their existing strike fighter aircrafts like the JH-7s, Su-30s, and J-16s. I think they learned from what the Russians are doing with the Su-34. The Su-34 have replaced the Tu-22M3 in some tactical bombing role. Granted, the Su-34 has inferior payload and range than the Tu-22M3, they are nevertheless more survivable if confronted by enemy air defence.

Last off topic: @ougoah I don't think China should spam production to match the US tit for tat. I also don't think the US has 10 or 13 thousand planes - where did this number come from? Wikipedia lists about 4 thousand, excluding trainers. Not the best source, but should be reasonably accurate when it comes to the USAF.

Numbers aren't everything - quality matters a lot. But because the USAF has both quality and quantity, the latter also becomes important for China. Obviously, don't go crazy producing 2000 J-20 lol

Bltizo said:

There's a difference between looking at production capacity in context of overall military procurement and strategic competition and pining for the idea of matching or exceeding production of XYZ domain for the sake of competition alone.

Click to expand...

obviously. I meant my comment in the first way, not the latter.

jimmyjames30x30 said:

People keep saying that the US has more than 10000 fixed wing combat aircraft. Can somebody give a rough break down of the in-service combat aircraft the US currently field. To my knowledge, the number of fighter jets the US currently operates are not that much more than China.

Click to expand...

Sounds like they could be factoring in drones lol

So I've seen some pics online like this:
of the H-X bomber. Are these just speculations? Confirmed leaks?

silentlurker said:

So I've seen some pics online like this:View attachment 65506
of the H-X bomber. Are these just speculations? Confirmed leaks?

Click to expand...

Just fanmade images nothing substantiated on leaks or specifications but there are only so many ways to build stealth bombers so some similarity will be given.

Deino said:

Come on guys ... this is the JH-XX and H-X (aka H-20) thread, the Tu-22M, Tu-160 and even more anything on the USAF's overall force is off topic!

Click to expand...

Ok, since some don't want to listen after this request now as a warning: the next one with an off-topic post will geh a free-ride to a two week vacation; promised.

No more posts on the USAF, its operational numbers and so on.

11226p said:

Just fanmade images nothing substantiated on leaks or specifications but there are only so many ways to build stealth bombers so some similarity will be given.

Click to expand...

That particular image isn't even a particularly plausible one, it pretty egregiously violates the principle of edge alignment for RCS reduction.