Exactly, having a bird that cannot fly because it's a maintenance headache is no good.
H-20 bomber (with H-X, JH-XX)
- Thread starter Deino
- Start date
I'm new to this but the B2 has maintenance issues?
Where did you get the designation FWS-30? Higher bypass and 100 kN? What's the basis of such a claim?
The claim that there's a higher bypass on the H-20 WS-10 derivatives is reasonable. Since Chinese engine technology is generally backwards, it's harder for China to obtain a long-range bomber through simply powering through like the Americans. Instead, high bypass engines can be used to generate higher fuel efficiency by having a larger fan relative to the combustion chamber, thus pushing through more air flow mass.
Interestingly enough, the F118 and F110 seem to share the same diameter, when you'd assume if the F118 were adapted for bomber use, the bypass ratio would be increased. The main drawback of a higher bypass engine, however, in a stealth bomber implementation would be difficulties with engine shrouding to reduce IR emissions, since a higher bypass engine would be larger with the same core.
Interestingly enough, the F118 and F110 seem to share the same diameter, when you'd assume if the F118 were adapted for bomber use, the bypass ratio would be increased. The main drawback of a higher bypass engine, however, in a stealth bomber implementation would be difficulties with engine shrouding to reduce IR emissions, since a higher bypass engine would be larger with the same core.
More precise measurements:
Approximately 11 meters were the H-20 to the same wingspan as the H-20. Each bay door is about 2.2 meters wide, so you're looking at 48.4 square meters of area in the H-20 bay. Without an idea of bay depth, we can't really get an idea of volume, but if we use the DF-21 as a minimum, it's at least 67.76 cubic meters of area.
The B-2, in contrast, has two weapons bays with an width of approximately 2 meters each. The total length is about 11.5 meters, so it'd be roughly 38.37 meters of area.
Approximately 11 meters were the H-20 to the same wingspan as the H-20. Each bay door is about 2.2 meters wide, so you're looking at 48.4 square meters of area in the H-20 bay. Without an idea of bay depth, we can't really get an idea of volume, but if we use the DF-21 as a minimum, it's at least 67.76 cubic meters of area.
The B-2, in contrast, has two weapons bays with an width of approximately 2 meters each. The total length is about 11.5 meters, so it'd be roughly 38.37 meters of area.
Care to explain what are you measuring and even more why you think from a fan-made artwork any reasonable conclusions in comparison to the B-2 can be drawn.
Just like Fu Qianshao noted in the latest news: He believes “that images of the bomber published in some domestic weapons magazines were purely artistic renderings created by aviation enthusiasts and did not represent the actual design” and in fact this is something that needs to be made more obvious in Western media, which too often picks up such speculative drawings as an represent the actual design.
Pardon, but I see with no word the designation WS-30 noted?
So the question is, is Fu Qianshao credible or not on this topic? He could very well have been ordered to do so if the Norinco claim were an inadvertent leak. It's the most credible image we have; remember, if we go to B-21 watching, all the images are "artists depictions" that could be just as purely imaginary as what Fu Qianshao claims is true of the Norinco H-20 pictures.
===
The objective in my view is to ascertain as to whether or not the H-20 is a medium or high payload bomber, or if it's a low payload bomber like the B-2.
In this case, if the H-20 has the bays needed to carry just two DF-21s, it has the bays needed to carry almost 30k tons of bombs, although volume would be a challenge.
Sorry if I was not clear enough! WHAT image are you analysing and measuring and why do you think that to me unknown image should be credible or even be from Norinco?
Last edited:
This is what Fu Qianshao said:
"Fu said he believed that images of the bomber published in some domestic weapons magazines were purely artistic renderings created by aviation enthusiasts, and did not represent the actual design."
Which is the same thing that many of us have been saying as well.
Therefore, trying to measure or derive anything concrete from the renderings and drawings in those weapons magazines is a fruitless effort and a waste of time because they almost certainly do not represent the true design, dimensions or detailed configuration of the real thing.