Because variable geometry is awesome and is actually a step further. Future generation fighters and UCAVs are almost definitely going to incorporate variable geo as part of distinguishing major features. I'd say variable geometry (not just swing wing) is going to be the core of next gen kinematic performance side tech including range improvements which this is really going to be a great part of anyway.
IMO that is a
very questionable claim and greatly overreaches.
In any case, this part is off topic and frankly you are talking about a different thing to what flateric is saying.
If H-20 includes folding tails in some form, there is a big difference between that and what potential variable geometry technology (if any at all) might be present in next generation fighters or UCAVs.
I really don't understand why some members are refusing the believe that H-20 might actually be variable geometry. Some are refusing to believe Chinese military aviation is incapable of building a flying wing design because it's presumably hard. Wrong. It's not hard and China's done several known flying wing prototypes and flying, operational flying wing aircraft. None of them are piloted though. It's a mistake to assume H-20 not being only flying wing means it's somehow "worse".
If we assume the hints that there are variable geometry wings/stabilisers, I would consider that quite a step beyond just doing a B-2 design copy. The variable geometry has been hinted at making the aircraft much more controllable for take offs and landings. It becomes a plane flying wing when cruising. It's possibly even more flexible with variable geometry. This aspect only improves the design over one that doesn't have a variable geometry design but with weight and complexity penalties of course. Maybe it becomes much better for slow speed, low altitude flight and makes landing safer and easier? While still retaining all the benefits of flying wing ... since you know... it is a flying wing when those control surfaces move to align. It's basically having the best of both worlds. Flying wings should be easy for China since they've been publicly flying at least one (GJ-11 prototype) since 2013 and probably have been flying them not so publicly well before that.
I am strongly against the idea of calling this depicted configuration "variable geometry" because that creates a different impression to what is being shown/thought of.
"Folding tails" is more accurate, because "variable geometry" or "variable geometry tails" both lead to different, less specific visions than what it is meant to show.
As for the skepticism towards the idea of having folding tails, the skepticism is there because of the idea that China has designed and built and flown multiple flying wing aircraft (UAVs) in the past, therefore there is a belief that the requisite flight control systems for a flying wing in all phases of its flight can be sensibly derived/developed for a full size flying wing bomber.
IMO that above is not an unreasonable position to take.
However, the reason for why folding tails might be seen as desirable by the PLA for H-20 as a full size flying wing bomber even if they have mastered the flight control systems for flying wings, is if they are extra cautious and placing higher margins for safety and to reduce risk in the lower speed and altitude phases.
Ultimately I think the skepticism is not unjustified, and simultaneously the idea of having folding tails is also not beyond reproach.
But we have no confidence to definitively rule either one out (or rule one in) at this stage.
