Here's something cool:
This is the new B-21 bomber. What the Western media is going gaga over is the new window arrangement. But if we consider the H-20 leaks, what's more interesting is the similarity in the design between the H-20 and the B-21, and how they differ from the B-2. With the B-2, you had a single weapons bay that was longitudinal beneath the flying wing. With the B-21, however, it resembles the H-20 in that it more resembles a lifting body fuselage with wings affixed onto it, which should increase the cargo volume of both the B-21 and H-20. Where the H-20 differs, of course, is that the wings are not affixed at the same angle as the main body, so that you have a two-section stealth planform, sacrificing stealth for greater lift on the wings and a potentially longer main body.
Another interesting aspect is that the H-20 might not sacrifice low-band stealth at all compared to the B-21, unless we're concerned about corner reflections. The H-20 is in the 45-60 meters range, and it roughly cranks its wing at 50% of the aircraft length. The B-21, incidentally, is estimated at a maximum of 30 meters long, or in other words, the H-20's smallest features, provided the tail folds properly into the body, is almost equal to the size of the entire B-21.
In other words, we could potentially consider the H-20 more advanced than the B-21. The half-wavelength resonance frequency for both the B-21 and H-20 is likely to be in the low part of the HF sector (5 mhz). It's also theoretically possible that neither the B-21 nor the H-20 can be picked up by radars at practical distances, which makes the H-20 more considerable as a nuclear deterrent. But the H-20, unlike the B-21, can sacrifice trivial parts of its low-frequency stealth compared to the B-21 for improvements in aerodynamic and layout efficiencies.
====
Also, as a side note, the H-20 really changes the strategic balance if China builds even 50 of these things. The current H-6 fleet has a theoretical bomb load of 33% of the American strategic bombing fleet. 50 H-20s at 30k + tons of payload gives China about 2/3rds of the US bomb load, and unlike American bombers, Chinese bombers are centralized to the East Asia region. Or, in other words, the H-20 fleet should be roughly as threatening as the American strategic bomber fleet in the region. Scaling up to 100 bombers, the H-20s provide a stealth punch that's more threatening than the American presence in terms of what sustained bomber assaults can do, and given the range on H-20s, they can credibly bomb the crap out of any American ally in the region.
This is the new B-21 bomber. What the Western media is going gaga over is the new window arrangement. But if we consider the H-20 leaks, what's more interesting is the similarity in the design between the H-20 and the B-21, and how they differ from the B-2. With the B-2, you had a single weapons bay that was longitudinal beneath the flying wing. With the B-21, however, it resembles the H-20 in that it more resembles a lifting body fuselage with wings affixed onto it, which should increase the cargo volume of both the B-21 and H-20. Where the H-20 differs, of course, is that the wings are not affixed at the same angle as the main body, so that you have a two-section stealth planform, sacrificing stealth for greater lift on the wings and a potentially longer main body.
Another interesting aspect is that the H-20 might not sacrifice low-band stealth at all compared to the B-21, unless we're concerned about corner reflections. The H-20 is in the 45-60 meters range, and it roughly cranks its wing at 50% of the aircraft length. The B-21, incidentally, is estimated at a maximum of 30 meters long, or in other words, the H-20's smallest features, provided the tail folds properly into the body, is almost equal to the size of the entire B-21.
In other words, we could potentially consider the H-20 more advanced than the B-21. The half-wavelength resonance frequency for both the B-21 and H-20 is likely to be in the low part of the HF sector (5 mhz). It's also theoretically possible that neither the B-21 nor the H-20 can be picked up by radars at practical distances, which makes the H-20 more considerable as a nuclear deterrent. But the H-20, unlike the B-21, can sacrifice trivial parts of its low-frequency stealth compared to the B-21 for improvements in aerodynamic and layout efficiencies.
====
Also, as a side note, the H-20 really changes the strategic balance if China builds even 50 of these things. The current H-6 fleet has a theoretical bomb load of 33% of the American strategic bombing fleet. 50 H-20s at 30k + tons of payload gives China about 2/3rds of the US bomb load, and unlike American bombers, Chinese bombers are centralized to the East Asia region. Or, in other words, the H-20 fleet should be roughly as threatening as the American strategic bomber fleet in the region. Scaling up to 100 bombers, the H-20s provide a stealth punch that's more threatening than the American presence in terms of what sustained bomber assaults can do, and given the range on H-20s, they can credibly bomb the crap out of any American ally in the region.
Last edited:
