H-20 bomber (with H-X, JH-XX)
- Thread starter Deino
- Start date
Even without these views one can say that generic model underside OML apparently doesn't belong to strategiс bomber...
I said this earlier here, and I had a hard time having people believe it. 4 WS-10s allow a 200 ton MTOW. A 45,000 kg payload is possible too in very specific conditions. An aircraft of that weight would have an operating empty weight of around 100 tons. The remaining 100 tons would be the payload or fuel. If the H-20's bomb bay is large and robust enough for handling such massive munitions, it should be able to carry a 45-ton payload in a low fuel configuration. It would be great for delivering 2 massive 22.5-ton bunker busters or cluster bombs in the first island chain.
You can't just throw out fuel and put payload in its place. There are meticulate structural limitations to how much payload you suspend inside the bomb bay of any bomber. It is based on a multitude of factors ranging from volume available to load limits of adapters to limitations based on effects on flight control. This is why every bomber has a 'maximum payload' capacity, irrespective of how less fuel you put into it.
This is why I wrote, "If the H-20's bomb bay is large and robust enough for handling such massive munitions". What I am saying is an aircraft with 4 WS-10s may very well be engineered to carry 45 tons for shorter ranges if such a feature is deemed necessary.
I found the B-1 was actually capable of this. It can carry up to 57 tons if the range and small RCS are sacrificed. Its MTOW is 215 tons. 45 tons is possible for a 200-ton aircraft.
My point is that the H-20 is sort of like a Chinese F-35; the F-35 is a highly multi-role fighter that's intended to pursue multiple roles. The H-20, likewise, has to pursue BOTH the roles of the B-2 (long-range strategic bomber) and the B-21 (mid-range strategic bomber), since to the best of our knowledge, the Chinese don't have a separate theater strategic bomber program. The B-2, unlike the B-21, has a very anemic payload for weight and cost, fielding only 20-25 tons of payload. The B-21 is likely to be twin-engined, unlike the B-2, but it looks as though it'd be capable of 3/4ths of the B-2's bomb load.
Basically, posters on this forum have been focusing on the H-20's status as an "Amerikabomber" that can theoretically strike targets on the American West Coast, completing a Chinese nuclear triad, as well as potentially putting American military factories on California (or even Texas) in range.
However, this Amerikabomber status is not that interesting when you consider the PLAAF is smaller than the USAF, and that fighter escorts will not likely have a sufficient range to hit American F-35 factories or West Coast drydocks. It's a capability that's nice to have, because it'll force the USAF and USN to move air defenses and assets back to the United States mainland to stop attacks on the US mainland, but where the H-20 is going to be more useful is where it fulfills the B-21's role, not the B-20's role, by being a large, high stealth (it'll likely be less stealthy than the B-21 and B-2) platform capable of deploying gravity bombs into the East Asian theater while being impossible to shoot down without good counter-stealth radar.
Hence, the heavy payloads ARE necessary for the H-20. Since it's going to be quad-engined, the ideal would be, for the bomber to be comparable to the B-21, to have double the payload of the B-21 at 27 tons minimum, with a 33 ton payload putting it into the B-52's range, and making the complete obsolescence of the H-6 platform viable except on a cost basis.
Moreover, we also have to think about the advantages of gravity bombs over guided missiles; i.e, the main point to have a stealth bomber. Gravity bombs can deliver immense levels of ordinance for platform and fuel costs only; a 1 ton bomb is equivalent, in terms of explosive payload, to 100 155mm shells. In other words, if the H-20 achieves a 30 ton payload, 33 bomber sorties are equivalent in terms of explosive delivered to 100,000 155mm shells.
===
As for sacrificing range, I think you're thinking of it in reverse. The B-2 is capable of carrying detachable internal fuel tanks to increase its range at the expense of payloads. A high payload on a H-20 platform can be translated into high range; i.e, it might only be capable of 4000 km combat radius on internal fuel, but with internal fuel tanks it might be able to reach 6000 km or higher.
===
Moreover, a key advantage of a long-ranged high-capacity theater strategic bomber is simply the range. H-20s based in Fujian for Taiwan or Guam targets are potentially capable of striking Delhi as well; i.e, a long-ranged high-capacity H-20 becomes a key counter-encirclement weapon as it can pose a deadly threat to all parts of the encirclement chain from a single location. In essence, a H-20 becomes the Chinese capability to launch a two-front war by constantly switching theaters as necessary to deliver bomb payloads.
Furthermore, if the H-20 is holding double the payload of the B-21s, well, guess what? A 50 H-20 procurement is thus equal in payload capability to the expected 100 initial B-21 procurement. In other words, when it comes to stealth bomber procurement, the H-20 is going to put the Chinese on a rough parity course compared to the USAF.
Lastly, while the H-20 looks obviously to be a stealth compromised design (i.e, it might be able to reach the B-2's stealth level based on newer stealth materials), its probable poor low-band stealth is going to be partially mitigated by its tremendous size. The B-21 is going to be more vulnerable to low-band counterstealth (materials independent) than the B-2 for that reason; the smaller size of the B-21 makes it more vulnerable to half-wave resonance. While the H-20 will likely have smaller features than the B-21 and B-2, its large size means that its features aren't going to be THAT much smaller (i.e, 33% range) than comparable features on a B-21.
Where I think the H-20's lack of stealth will be a major factor will be more in the Indian theater, since the Indians can import Russian counterstealth radars or build them on their own. Large metric-wave installations a la the Chinese set-ups are quite viable for India. On the East Asia theater, in contrast, counterstealth either comes from an island, making them space inefficient and relative sitting ducks, or from naval platforms, which simply don't have the size to do the job. Perhaps the Americans can tow their SBX radar into the East Asia theater?
Last edited:
Lastly, there's one similarity between the J-20 and H-20 programs. The J-20 was stealth compromised because the J-20 was designed to be able to operate, albeit at lower capability, with a WS-10 / Al-31 engine set-up.
With the H-20 program, likewise, we are expecting WS-10 derivatives for its engines. On the other hand, the platform could be potentially modified for WS-15 derivatives, similar to how the B-21 is likely going to be a twin-engined F135-derivative bomber. When that is considered, what's the potential development path for the H-20? Could the bomber become even larger and more long-ranged due to thrust increases (from around 80 kN to 110 kN)? Or would the H-20 see a H-21 or H-22 derivative a la the B-21 with twin-engines and purer stealth?
With the H-20 program, likewise, we are expecting WS-10 derivatives for its engines. On the other hand, the platform could be potentially modified for WS-15 derivatives, similar to how the B-21 is likely going to be a twin-engined F135-derivative bomber. When that is considered, what's the potential development path for the H-20? Could the bomber become even larger and more long-ranged due to thrust increases (from around 80 kN to 110 kN)? Or would the H-20 see a H-21 or H-22 derivative a la the B-21 with twin-engines and purer stealth?
Yes, probably because of the stealth requirement, but you have to realize the T-60S was designed to be supersonic. The H-20 is subsonic, unless someone wants to stuff supercruising engines in, and Mach travel is a major pain for stealth aircraft maintenance.