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

MarKoz81 said:

The shape that is shown on the images with long thin wings at low sweep angle is not a high-supersonic profile. So while theoretically the plane might be capable of supersonic flight it will not be its default mode of operation because there are no benefits to that.

There were benefits to high speed when missiles and detection were less developed than today. There's no way any aircraft can outrun a dedicated long-range missile, let alone a swarm of them which is linked with a network of sensors. At high supersonic speeds the target creates so much heat and has such a distinct trajectory that it isn't a challenge to write an algorithm that follows it with minimal error. Intelligent IR missiles would quickly put an end to this tactic which is why nobody is really eager to explore it. Low speeds, flares and maneuvering to evade small short-range missiles with small sensors is a viable solution because the capability of the missile is limited. High speeds and no maneuvering to evade a large long-range missile with good sensors is not a viable solution because the capability of the missile has no real upper limit. If you are targeting a strategic bomber then throwing a fighter at it like a Kamikaze is a viable solution.

Click to expand...

It’s not entirely true there is no benefit to a large strike or bomber aircraft being capable of significantly supersonic speed.

On an operational level supersonic speed makes aerial interception more difficult by lessening the amount of time interception assets have to get into position to target the intruder, and thus increasing the number of interceptors needed to defend a given frontage.

On tactical level it also reduces the envelop in which an air to air, or surface to air missile can kinematically engage the strike aircraft. So it makes the range of defending missile effectively shorter, thus further complicating the defender’s calculations.

If the strike aircraft deployed supersonic missiles for its strike, say something similar to short range attack missile AGM-69, or any of an array of hypersonic air launched missiles putatively under development, then lunching from a supersonic platform can substantially increase their effective range. This again increases the complexity and difficulty of defending against the attacks launched by supersonic bombers.

The question is always can you afford strike aircraft large enough to have both the necessary range and supersonic performance, and if you can, is that the best use of available resources to improve the combat effectiveness of your entire force. I imagine something that can have heavy bomber range and still be capable of being substantially supersonic will still need to be the size of B-1 or larger.

Several western sources suggest the Chinese did in fact consider building a B-1 style large supersonic heavy strike bomber. Around 2005ish Russia actually offered to lease Tu-22M or Tu-160 to help the Chinese gather experience with this type of aircrsft, in return for participating in the development of such an aircraft. No doubt the Russians hoped such a Chinese bomber might be based on the Tu-160, so the Chinese program would in effect subsidize any future enhancement of Russia’s Tu-160 fleet. But China decided against it and opted to develop a B-2 style bomber with higher emphasis on using stealth for penetration instead.

Deino said:

Can anyone explain who these guys are and why it should be taken seriously what they say?

Click to expand...

They're just guys that talk about mostly tech. I just used them because normally Chinese military tech talk usually doesn't reach down to this level of the US. A lot of military developments in China you don't hear generally in the US until at least three years after it happens.

@MarKoz81

For what the H-20 is trying to do, you just have a set of trade-offs between range, speed, stealth, and payload. The information we have available on the H-20 suggests that range is a necessary feature of the H-20; the aircraft must be able to put nuclear cruise missiles onto the United States. That suggests that payload is sacrificed for near regions; the H-20's bomb bay seems as anemic as that of the B-2, whereas the B-21 has a very robust bomb bay for its cost.

However, if you're designed as an intrinsically long-ranged design, it's possible for you to trade off some percentage of range (as in 60+%) in favor of speed. When you have speed, you can potentially increase your sortie rate, which can compensate for a poor payload.

Inst said:

@MarKoz81

For what the H-20 is trying to do, you just have a set of trade-offs between range, speed, stealth, and payload. The information we have available on the H-20 suggests that range is a necessary feature of the H-20; the aircraft must be able to put nuclear cruise missiles onto the United States. That suggests that payload is sacrificed for near regions; the H-20's bomb bay seems as anemic as that of the B-2, whereas the B-21 has a very robust bomb bay for its cost.

However, if you're designed as an intrinsically long-ranged design, it's possible for you to trade off some percentage of range (as in 60+%) in favor of speed. When you have speed, you can potentially increase your sortie rate, which can compensate for a poor payload.

Click to expand...

This is the default theater for American and Soviet bombers during the Cold War. It illustrates two things:

1. The constraints for development of Soviet/Russian and American strategic bombers.
2. The constraints for Chinese bombers attempting to strike against US territory and in particular US mainland.





The approximate distance against US mainland is at minimum 12-13 thousand kilometers. It is also impossible to not pass along enemy airspace. It's less than half that distance for Russian and American bombers flying over the Arctic and almost no limitation on the choice of route.

I don't think this is a situation where "higher sortie rate" matters. The main advantage of such a stealth bomber is the ability to deliver stand-off weapons while crossing airspace with minimal visibility. That visibility stops being minimal once you cross into supersonic speeds especially considering that the design of the bomber is exactly the opposite of what an optimized supersonic airframe looks like. Just think about the existing supersonic bombers with variable wing geometry. It's there for a reason.

Richard Santos said:

On an operational level supersonic speed makes aerial interception more difficult by lessening the amount of time interception assets have to get into position to target the intruder, and thus increasing the number of interceptors needed to defend a given frontage.

Click to expand...

The Soviets have developed their PVO interceptors in the 70s and the 80s with those factors in mind and they had the most extensive area to cover especially when you consider the spherical geometry in question for bombers coming over the North Pole. Now we have the 2020s and the capabilities of the sensors and computers are much greater.

Besides the B-1 was already considered not survivable in contested airspace even before it entered service. It shifted immediately to low altitude bombing runs. It was an outdated concept at the time - invented in the 60s, designed in the 70s. By the time it entered service Soviets have negated most of the advantages it was supposed to have.

Richard Santos said:

Several western sources suggest the Chinese did in fact consider building a B-1 style large supersonic heavy strike bomber. Around 2005ish Russia actually offered to lease Tu-22M or Tu-160 to help the Chinese gather experience with this type of aircrsft, in return for participating in the development of such an aircraft. No doubt the Russians hoped such a Chinese bomber might be based on the Tu-160, so the Chinese program would in effect subsidize any future enhancement of Russia’s Tu-160 fleet. But China decided against it and opted to develop a B-2 style bomber with higher emphasis on using stealth for penetration instead.

Click to expand...

That's because the only reason why Russia doesn't have a B-2 clone is because B-2 was built in the 90s when Russia could no longer afford such projects.
China can afford such projects which is why it funds one. And considering that the temptation to use Russian airspace for a shortcut is massive I don't think they will let slip a single piece of data to the Russians.

Tu-160 is a strategic bomber developed in the 1970s as a response to B-1A. It's also completely outdated. It serves its role as a tool of long-range strategic power projection during peacetime but it wouldn't be useful in a peer conflict. It's a complete dead end, especially with the currently projected growth of sensor capability.

I don't think any country reasonably can claim that there's any other mode of operation for a strategic bomber than maximum stealth. Americans know this and China knows this. Russians just have to play a different tune because they have bad cards in the game. That's it.

I'll be very surprised if H-X has supersonic capability. It's just a waste of space and energy. It's better to put a laser or other EM weapon for self defense on it than add speed.

MarKoz81 said:

This is the default theater for American and Soviet bombers during the Cold War. It illustrates two things:

1. The constraints for development of Soviet/Russian and American strategic bombers.
2. The constraints for Chinese bombers attempting to strike against US territory and in particular US mainland.



View attachment 73651

The approximate distance against US mainland is at minimum 12-13 thousand kilometers. It is also impossible to not pass along enemy airspace. It's less than half that distance for Russian and American bombers flying over the Arctic and almost no limitation on the choice of route.

I don't think this is a situation where "higher sortie rate" matters. The main advantage of such a stealth bomber is the ability to deliver stand-off weapons while crossing airspace with minimal visibility. That visibility stops being minimal once you cross into supersonic speeds especially considering that the design of the bomber is exactly the opposite of what an optimized supersonic airframe looks like. Just think about the existing supersonic bombers with variable wing geometry. It's there for a reason.


View attachment 73652

The Soviets have developed their PVO interceptors in the 70s and the 80s with those factors in mind and they had the most extensive area to cover especially when you consider the spherical geometry in question for bombers coming over the North Pole. Now we have the 2020s and the capabilities of the sensors and computers are much greater.

Besides the B-1 was already considered not survivable in contested airspace even before it entered service. It shifted immediately to low altitude bombing runs. It was an outdated concept at the time - invented in the 60s, designed in the 70s. By the time it entered service Soviets have negated most of the advantages it was supposed to have.



That's because the only reason why Russia doesn't have a B-2 clone is because B-2 was built in the 90s when Russia could no longer afford such projects.
China can afford such projects which is why it funds one. And considering that the temptation to use Russian airspace for a shortcut is massive I don't think they will let slip a single piece of data to the Russians.

Tu-160 is a strategic bomber developed in the 1970s as a response to B-1A. It's also completely outdated. It serves its role as a tool of long-range strategic power projection during peacetime but it wouldn't be useful in a peer conflict. It's a complete dead end, especially with the currently projected growth of sensor capability.

I don't think any country reasonably can claim that there's any other mode of operation for a strategic bomber than maximum stealth. Americans know this and China knows this. Russians just have to play a different tune because they have bad cards in the game. That's it.

I'll be very surprised if H-X has supersonic capability. It's just a waste of space and energy. It's better to put a laser or other EM weapon for self defense on it than add speed.

Click to expand...

Russia has also been developing the PAK-DA stealth strategic bomber. I think all major countries understand that a strategic bomber is a must have as part of their nuclear forces and still a lot more of a force multiplier when used conventionally. This doesn't make supersonic non-stealth bombers any less useful and a "dead end". Think of Tu-160s and B-1s etc as supersonic versions of bombers that are still immensely useful e.g. H-6a/b/c/d/e/f... B-52 and Tu-95.

@MarKoz81

My primary concern with the H-20 isn't whether it can strike the US, but whether it can strike regional bases such as in Japan or Guam with a sufficient payload.

Some reports claim that the H-20 can achieve 12,000 km range, implying like a 4,800 km combat radius. Reducing it by 1/3rd to 1,600 km is enough to strike Tokyo.

The H-20 is less important for its ability to strike the American mainland with nuclear cruise missiles (and honestly, why not just lob ultra-long range cruise missiles instead) and more important for its ability to deliver heavy payloads into defended airspace. If the H-20 compromises its payload for extreme range (the H-20 design, compromising part of its wing area for folding wings already looks like it has a compromised payload), it should be able to regain continuous (as opposed to instantaneous) payload delivery capability by increasing its sortie rate.

I think there's one important and relevant question as to the H-20, if we're curious as to the payload.

What's the dimensions? Coincidentally, both the B-2 and B-52 have approximately the same wingspan, in the range of 180 feet, or 55 meters. The B-2 has roughly a wingspan to length ratio of 5:2. What about the H-20?

From the magazine scan, it looks like it has a rough ratio of 5:4, which would be double that of the B-2, which has a stated maximum capacity of 23,000 kg. The B-52, in contrast, has a maximum capacity of around 32,000 kg. So the H-20 MIGHT, and only MIGHT, have a B-52 class payload.

escobar said:

From Huitong.....
View attachment 73374

Click to expand...

This is not H-20.

flateric said:

This is not H-20.

Click to expand...

On what do you make such an assessment?

Regarding the H-20's measurements, I made an error and it's not 4:5 wingspan to length. Rather, it's roughly 3:2 (29:20) wingspan to length. For comparison, the B-2 is 5:2. On the same wingspan, it'd imply that a H-20 would be 36 meters long, which would make it slightly longer than a H-6, but with a significantly longer length.

For wingspan estimates, the cockpit of a B-2 is about 5.8% of the wingspan. The cockpit of a H-20 is about 6.2% of the wingspan. The engine exhausts are about 4.4% of the wingspan. The B-2's exhausts are between 3.8% and 5.7% of the wingspan.

So, from the cockpit (which is likely to vary in design), you'd get about 49 meters wingspan with 33.8 meters length. From the engine exhausts, you'd get 45 meters wide with 31 meters long (using high exhausts) to 68 meters wide with 47 meters long.

I'd think we'd need further information before we can make a judgment to the capacity of the weapons bay, but it's certainly going to be at least 25% larger in payload than a B-2.

===

If we look at the SCMP reporting (no one cares), they're claiming it could have a maximum take-off weight of 200,000 kg. For reference purposes, the B-2 has a maximum take-off weight of 150,000 kg. Given the size of the bomber, 200,000 kg is likely in range.

On the other hand, the SCMP reporting is also claiming that it'd have a payload of 45,000 kg. With the greater platform size, could that be in reach?