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

BagPiper said:

Too bad. Either this project is in even higher level of secrecy protection than J20 or it simply doesn't exist yet. Although J20 was highly classified before its maiden flight, we were still able to see actual leaked wind tunnel prototypes. But so far we've only seen pictures of UAV's and fan made CG's.

Click to expand...

It seems to me J-20 and H-20 signal different things.

J-20 may have been a game changer in terms of what external perception of Chinese military aviation design and manufacturing capability is.

H-20 is likely to be a game changer in terms of how far and how heavy the perception of the Chinese strategic reach is.

J-20 serves China’s purpose better if it advertises just what design and manufacturer if capability involved is.

H-20 serves China’s purpose by just letting it be known it exists.

J-20 served notice that China is ready to play in the big league, but it’s role in the big leagues was still ambiguous. Other players have a mix of apprehension, confusion and hope with regard to the addition to the league.

H-20 serves notice that China is one of the two finalists, and by default the main adversary of the other long time champion in the league.

I think the H-20, once it's available in numbers and should it be a high payload design, will be publicly declared for the simple reason that nothing short of a large HF radar installation or an SBX-type installation can detect it from long range. The latter is outrageously expensive, and an easy target for conventional ballistic missiles, while the former requires extensive amounts of land.

As I've said before, 50 H-20 bombers with 30k in payload come out to a third of the USAF strategic bomber payload. It becomes a strong deterrent for neighboring countries to reconsider their participation in the Quad or even their strategic alignment.

I don’t expect to see the H-20 for a very long time. Fighters have to sortie often and do a lot of busy work, so it’s inevitable that their radar signature will be modeled or characterized over time. Their mission success for most of their roles doesn’t hinge exclusively on being completely undetectable, and even if they are rendered detectable they have other countermeasures to be effective. That’s why there isn’t as much effort put into making their basic appearance a secret. Can’t keep basic appearances secret when you need to fly these planes into active hotspots just to send a message.

Bombers, on the other hand, live or die by their ability to evade or escape detection. They’re also expected to penetrate much deeper against much more demanding and hostile detection environments. The difference in loss of capability relative to roles is much greater for a bomber than a fighter when an adversary can do rough models of your signature.

I doubt the Chinese can hide the H20. Any satellite image of it would be gold for American China hawks.

If the H-20 is procured in large numbers, the H-20 becomes a strategic deterrent of the PLA. Consequently, the Chinese are incentivized to display the H-20 once the sufficient numbers are ready, simply to threaten and scare the entirety of the region. Hell, the Chinese are incentivized to display the H-20 once insufficient numbers are ready, simply to provide a bluff to the rest of the region.

Richard Santos said:

I doubt the Chinese can hide the H20. Any satellite image of it would be gold for American China hawks.

Click to expand...

A satellite image doesn’t tell you enough to build a good RCS model.

latenlazy said:

A satellite image doesn’t tell you enough to build a good RCS model.

Click to expand...

Does it matter if the aircraft is stealthy enough? With fighter jets, ironically, you have exploitable issues with RCS spikes in certain ranges (the Americans claim the J-20 has severe RCS spikes in certain sectors, corroborated by Kopp's RCS study). With a bomber, on the other hand, the RCS spikes are less likely to be there (see near-pure stealth on B-2) and are less tactically significant, because a fighter will blast you out of the sky if you fail to exploit it, whereas against a bomber, you only need to get close enough and you can down it with guns if no other munition can obtain a lock.

Also, @Xsizor , why is it claimed that the H-20 is optimized for low-altitude flight? A major issue of low-altitude flight, compared to high-altitude flight, is that your engines inlets are going to be exposed. You can, of course, RAM-treat, but RAM isn't a substitute for shaping.

Another issue is that low-altitude bombers are going to be moving against higher air density; i.e, drag is greater at low-altitudes vs high-altitudes. Since we know that the H-20 is trying to go for range, the H-20 is likely to obtain better ranges at high-altitude.

Inst said:

Does it matter if the aircraft is stealthy enough? With fighter jets, ironically, you have exploitable issues with RCS spikes in certain ranges (the Americans claim the J-20 has severe RCS spikes in certain sectors, corroborated by Kopp's RCS study). With a bomber, on the other hand, the RCS spikes are less likely to be there (see near-pure stealth on B-2) and are less tactically significant, because a fighter will blast you out of the sky if you fail to exploit it, whereas against a bomber, you only need to get close enough and you can down it with guns if no other munition can obtain a lock.

Click to expand...

It matters significantly, because knowing the exact radar return signature of an object makes it much easier to spot, especially as radar control algorithms become significantly more advanced. All low observable aircraft have spikes, peaks, and specific signature return patterns, even for flying wings, especially at oblique angles. The fact that the moment an unescorted bomber is detected it is extremely vulnerable is precisely why radar signatures for bombers are more sensitive.

latenlazy said:

A satellite image doesn’t tell you enough to build a good RCS model.

Click to expand...

Nor can photos taken by amateur plane spotter from the ground.