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

We are extrapolating too much about the design of the aircraft from a black and white photo of a covered nose. We don't know what it will look like, even if this thing is a real aircraft (which we don't know).

We've had past false calls about JH-XX in recent years and I don't want to jump the gun this time.

@Bltizo

We're extrapolating from the other Huitong picture, which has an exposed nose resembling the Su-34 to a degree, albeit that's ancient.

Inst said:

Aircraft ultimately all look like each other because they have common functions. The choice of the duckbill radome is similar to the choice of the sparrow radome on the JH-XX. They're both highly longitudinal radars, probably because the radar is tilted at an angle to improve stealth as well as to improve tracking of ground targets.

That said, the radome size on the Su-34 is about 2 meters. Applying a typical 25% reduction, we'd expect 1.5 meters radar aperture. If the JH-XX is about the same, the radome power on the JH-XX would be about 50% greater than on the J-20.

If the Chinese opt to use GaN here, you could see 2.66x the detection range, or about 1200 km detection vs 0 dBsm. vs -40 dBsm like the F-22, you'd be looking at 120 km detection range (sufficient to cue J-20 EODAS / EOTS), or 67 km detection vs -50 dBsm as on the F-35. Maybe L-band as opposed to X-band might cut opponent stealth by 10 dBsm, which might provide workable detection ranges, although it's still ever so thin a margin compared to a true counterstealth radar.

Click to expand...

Where is this notion that F-35 has superior stealth characteristics compared to F-22 coming from? This runs contrary to my reading on the topic which universally acknowledged F-22 as having superior stealth characteristics. Admittedly it has been a number of years since I paid much attention to the F-35 program.

Inst said:

@Bltizo

We're extrapolating from the other Huitong picture, which has an exposed nose resembling the Su-34 to a degree, albeit that's ancient.

Click to expand...

Give it a rest. Please be considerate of the wider community here and take your obsessive compulsions elsewhere. You do this a lot and it's getting really, really old. I'd suggest that you seek professional help or maybe take up palm reading as a hobby and leave the rest of us in peace.

Inst said:

@Bltizo

We're extrapolating from the other Huitong picture, which has an exposed nose resembling the Su-34 to a degree, albeit that's ancient.

Click to expand...

Even extrapolating from that, the only thing that can be ascertained with anything resembling mild confidence is that it may have side by side seating, and it's meant to be somewhat stealthy.

Anything else beyond that is being either dishonest or massively jumping the gun.

Lethe said:

Where is this notion that F-35 has superior stealth characteristics compared to F-22 coming from? This runs contrary to my reading on the topic which universally acknowledged F-22 as having superior stealth characteristics. Admittedly it has been a number of years since I paid much attention to the F-35 program.

Click to expand...

In sectors the F-35 is stealthier than the F-22; i.e, it seems as though the minimum RCS of the F-35 is better than the F-22, even though the F-22 has better all-aspect stealth. Expect the F-35's emissions control computer to keep the F-35's minimal RCS pointed at the emitter, just as the F-22's computer is going to do the same, or the J-20 / Su-57 would do the same.

@Bltizo

We've had mock-ups of a JH-XX being posted repeatedly, mostly showing a twin-engined design with v-tails that is at least as large as the J-20, probably larger.

We can also assume that the JH-XX is going to be stealthier than the J-20 for the reasons I've listed above (a fighter bomber doesn't need the same strong aerodynamic characteristics as an air superiority fighter), as well as from a lookover of the various mock-ups' aerodynamic design. The swept wing, certainly, does no favors for its stealth, especially its rear stealth, but generally in terms of wings and angles, it is closer to the Checkmate and YF-23, with a V-tail and no tail elevators or canards, and for that matter, no ventral fins.

Likewise, from the SAC leak, it seems reasonable to assume the radar will be comparably large as the Su-34's radar, which is significantly larger than that on the J-20.

Or, in other words, according to American conceptions of what 5th and 6th generation aircraft should look like, the JH-XX is a better stealth fighter than the J-20, with a combination of careful shaping, and powerful radar.

I have seen/there are larger colour pics of that image floating around. Will have to dig around and find them again but it was just a generic training mock-up from memory.

Oh well, I am in Italy for vacation with the family and even if I saw that image just prior befor we left I misinterpreted it as a trainer of some sort however I am not really sure if it is a bomber.

james smith esq said:

Been sayin’ this!!!
Internal rotary bay with 4 x 450 km ranged super-sonic AShMs would do it!

Click to expand...

Yep, that's just a direct attack role. They can also have a patrol role to launch recon drones to serve as high resolution eyes that provide detailed information when OTH sensors and satellites see something's off but lack

Inst said:

The big question is still payload. If you go supersonic, you sacrifice range since supersonic flight is extremely fuel intensive, or alternately you sacrifice payload as the space that'd otherwise be devoted to a bomb bay ends up being used for fuel storage.

Click to expand...

It's not just payload but the physical space required for internal bays, since to stay stealthy you can't carry anything externally.

As an example of internally carried ALCMs, take the Kh-15 with diameter = 45.5 cm, length = 498 cm. Range of Kh-15 is 300 km, speed Mach 5. Tu-22M can carry 6x.

In contrast, JSOW has diameter = 33 cm, length = 410 cm, has range 130 km, and F35 can only carry 2.

Thus I believe a missile truck JH-XX would, relative to a Tu-22M, sacrifice payload (you don't need wing loaded munitions) and short takeoff (to eliminate swing wing). The gains would be a smaller platform to reduce engine requirements and weight and the capability to reduce crew from 4 to 2.

Relative to F35, it'd gain larger weapons bay, payload and range, in exchange for size and expense.

e46m3 said:

I have seen/there are larger colour pics of that image floating around. Will have to dig around and find them again but it was just a generic training mock-up from memory.

Click to expand...

Yeah I recall it being a pilot training module? But it's still curious why they would have such a cockpit simulator that reflects the models shown years prior. At the very least such a project exists or once existed at SAC.