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

I have another explanation. X20飞机 is J-20, XX大型运输机 is Y-20, 歼-XX is the new one from SAC months ago.

The reason that I propose this is that the recommending bodies probably prepared their materials independently probably a year or two ago from old internal communication papers. And kept copy/paste. Some of the papers may be before declassification of the project, such as J-20 vs. X20. For anybody in the committee it is not a problem of such "inconsistency" in editing because everybody knows what the X is.

KampfAlwin said:

Could it be this one? Or maybe a C-5 Galaxy equivalent?
View attachment 76130

Click to expand...

Not likely anything like in the photo (New Medium Transport, AKA Y-30, AKA Y-9) if we trust the wording of classification in the article which said "XX大型运输机", XX large cargo transport. Large is given to IL-46/Y-20/C-17, Medium is given to C-130/Y-8.

Again if we trust the wording, C-5 and Y-20 are really difficult to be put in the same class.

Inst said:

Except you're still assuming the second stealth bomber is a bomber, when it's still a JH-XX; i.e, it's still capable of air-to-air work (at the very least). The JH designation implies it's a fighter-bomber, i.e, cued for air-to-air roles, albeit to a lesser extent than a pure J aircraft.

Incidentally, the Chinese do have a massive inventory of JH-7s, so they are not as air-to-air focused as others might think.

===

Also, a H-20 is, if about the same size as a B-2, going to be around 50x33 in terms of dimensions. A superheavyweight JH-XX (and from all indications, it doesn't seem to be a superheavyweight, given that it's twin-engined) is more likely to be in the 30x20 range. If the H-20 achieves a 30 ton payload, a potential superheavyweight JH-XX would only achieve a 10 ton payload internally. For comparison purposes, a Su-34 can carry about 12 tons payload. A F-15EX can carry 13 tons payload. A B-21 can carry about 13.6 tons of payload internally.

Click to expand...

Aircraft that started its life as a fighter bomber tend to have fairly low value in air to air combat. Examples includes F-111, Su-24, Tornado, Jaguar, and the JH-7. Fighter bombers that have good air combat values tend to be derivatives of planes that started out as pure fighters and then expanded into strike role with little structural change. So judging from the the implication of the designation JH, I think JH-XX will avoid air to air work if at all possible, and will only do it reactively and defensively if Intercepted or ambushed.

Richard Santos said:

Aircraft that started its life as a fighter bomber tend to have fairly low value in air to air combat. Examples includes F-111, Su-24, Tornado, Jaguar, and the JH-7. Fighter bombers that have good air combat values tend to be derivatives of planes that started out as pure fighters and then expanded into strike role with little structural change. So judging from the the implication of the designation JH, I think JH-XX will avoid air to air work if at all possible, and will only do it reactively and defensively if Intercepted or ambushed.

Click to expand...

You're not considering the AWACS plus stealth paradigm. Chinese fighters are limited to a very small counterstealth coverage unless they have a supercruising AWACs escorting them. The JH-XX looks like it's far from ideal for this mission, but what else is there? H-20 is subsonic, so's the KJ-600. The JH-XX, first, is best suited for the American pure-stealth mission in the PLAAF inventory, and second, seems to have a radar large enough to escort J-20s and provide counterstealth support.

Put it another way, there are multiple A2A paradigms live right now. The subsonic manueverability paradigm of the Russians is what most people on this forum seem to favor, except that HOBS missiles seem to imply it'll easily turn into a telefrag. There's also the American stealth uber alles paradigm; IR stealth, radar stealth, and jammers imply that American fighters will see you and lock-on first.

In the absence of actual 5th gens going up against each other, we don't know who's right. Having an aircraft adapted to beat the F-35 at its own game is insurance in the event that the pure stealth paradigm wins out.


_____

I guess we're back to my fundamental views on the J-20. I think it's inadequate, either for facing hordes of F-35s or the NGAD that's seemingly fast-tracked. Alternatives are definitely needed for the Chinese to face their security needs. The JH-XX is one option.

If I understand correct, @Inst 's theory are based on following thesis being true.

1. Manuverability is a non-factor in stealth era air warfare.
2. J-20 is a flawed platform especially in stealth realm.
3. F-35 is the super stealth wunderwaffe better at stealth than any other stealth fighters.
4. US NGAD would see service in this decade.

I believe most member here would disagree with every single one of these thesis thus all you back and forth argument hardly mean anything to said members.

kriss said:

If I understand correct, @Inst 's theory are based on following thesis being true.

1. Manuverability is a non-factor in stealth era air warfare.
2. J-20 is a flawed platform especially in stealth realm.
3. F-35 is the super stealth wunderwaffe better at stealth than any other stealth fighters.
4. US NGAD would see service in this decade.

I believe most member here would disagree with every single one of these thesis thus all you back and forth argument hardly mean anything to said members

Click to expand...

You're strawmanning me.

1.

Maneuverability still matters, but significantly less so since there's now a plethora of long-ranged missiles which apparently have good NEZ and effective range.

Think of when NATO got their hands on the Soviet HOBS missiles. The conclusion was that while maneuverability still matters, the game has changed from getting on someone's six to putting someone into your HOBS cone while they're outside of yours. And these HOBS cones are massive; multiple km in distance, and with the latest improvements in radar, you're looking at 30 km or more. That's not traditionally considered WVR.

The other big advantage of maneuverability is that you can reduce the enemy missile's effective range against you, or force the opponent to fire more missiles. That's to say, missiles have a maximum range as well as an effective range. At maximum range, they're mostly energy-spent and no longer have the energy to track and hit an agile target. At effective range, the missile has enough energy to lock onto the most agile targets imaginable. The maneuverability of the fighter dictates how long the effective range is.

But in the stealth realm, you can skirt deep into the enemy missile effective range provided you're not seen. Then you can still get a first shot off, perhaps from data-linked teammates. So kinematic effective range is not the only factor determining who gets to shoot first and who gets to go home alive / in their plane.

2.

J-20 makes quite a few stealth mistakes. It's considered stealthier than the Su-57, but that might have more to do with design emphasis and coatings. For instance, the canards are not coplanar with the opposite wing, which would reduce emissions. Compared to the F-22 and F-35, from a frontal view, you have 3-6 planes whereas the F-22 and F-35 only have two.

From amateur RCS studies (see Secret Projects), there's major spikes generated by the canards at a 45 degree angle. Since this is not a frontal-facing RCS spike, this isn't such a big deal, but if the opponent knows it's there and how to look for it, it could prove a problem.

It also places a major emphasis on Chinese RWR. Stealth is about emissions tracking; i.e, knowing where the emitters are and making sure they see all the wrong angles.

3.

The F-35 is not an all-aspect stealth design. When it comes to minimum RCS, it probably beats the F-22, but it's a very strong stealth design since the main wing can hide the tail (but canards can't hide the main wing). There's obviously issues with the F-35, but it all depends on angle.

4.

Read up on NGAD. It's apparently ahead of schedule due to the US DOD's new design process. It's intended for rapid prototyping, which is a strength of Chinese private manufacturing, but state-owned, not so much.

Lockheed apparently just broke ground on a LRIP factory for it.

Inst said:

The conclusion was that while maneuverability still matters, the game has changed from getting on someone's six to putting someone into your HOBS cone while they're outside of yours.

Click to expand...

Followed by a whole burst of fast-tracked development programs of new generation WVRAAMs, as well as half-death of ASRAAM (which from "perspective" suddenly turned into "not good enough" for most countries).
I.e. follow money, and not chest-pumping how it didn't matter. It did.

Inst said:

And these HOBS cones are massive; multiple km in distance, and with the latest improvements in radar, you're looking at 30 km or more.

Click to expand...

These 30 km are about as useful as current as all other "maximum" numbers for A2A missiles.
I.e. essentially useless in most real-world situations.

Inst said:

significantly less so since there's now a plethora of long-ranged missiles which apparently have good NEZ and effective range.

Click to expand...

Those existed for quite a while. It isn't hard to shoot far - it's that it isn't a solution in too many situations, for many different reasons.
i.e. it doesn't take the smartest guy in the room to attempt to launch something from relative safety. But there are typically better options. Recent meteor is sort of an exception here.

Gloire_bb said:

Followed by a whole burst of fast-tracked development programs of new generation WVRAAMs, as well as half-death of ASRAAM (which from "perspective" suddenly turned into "not good enough" for most countries).
I.e. follow money, and not chest-pumping how it didn't matter. It did.


These 30 km are about as useful as current as all other "maximum" numbers for A2A missiles.
I.e. essentially useless in most real-world situations.



Those existed for quite a while. It isn't hard to shoot far - it's that it isn't a solution in too many situations, for many different reasons.
i.e. it doesn't take the smartest guy in the room to attempt to launch something from relative safety. But there are typically better options. Recent meteor is sort of an exception here.

Click to expand...

At extreme ranges, the goal of launching AAMs is to force the opponent to maneuver, bleeding energy. In a stealth vs stealth battle, especially with Chinese non-all-aspect stealth, a maneuvering stealth fighter is going to give away its RCS and provide an easy IR/radar lock for other fighters.

For actual dogfight missile range, the current generation of Chinese and American missiles sports around 50 km range at maximum engagement range. If we take a third of this to be its effective range, it's still 17 km.

Also, re ASRAAM, ASRAAM was built as a medium-ranged missile, sort of a shorter-ranged version of MICA. It, unlike certain other missiles, did not prioritize maneuverability as much as true dogfight missiles and had lower max Gs than comparable missiles.

===

Of course, as I've said, the American "stealth uber alles" paradigm is untested, but so's the maneuvering paradigm the Russians emphasize in a modern war. Without actual combat scenarios, it's uncertain as to what actually evinces.

But please do note that the F-35 isn't a complete maneuvering slouch; like the J-20, it's a high-fuel fraction fighter and its agility depends in large part on how much gas is in the tank. For short-ranged defensive missions, it's been demonstrated to be capable of very impressive agility. It's more when it's long-ranged that it starts to fall apart.

Inst said:

At extreme ranges, the goal of launching AAMs is to force the opponent to maneuver, bleeding energy. In a stealth vs stealth battle, especially with Chinese non-all-aspect stealth, a maneuvering stealth fighter is going to give away its RCS and provide an easy IR/radar lock for other fighters.

For actual dogfight missile range, the current generation of Chinese and American missiles sports around 50 km range at maximum engagement range. If we take a third of this to be its effective range, it's still 17 km.

Also, re ASRAAM, ASRAAM was built as a medium-ranged missile, sort of a shorter-ranged version of MICA. It, unlike certain other missiles, did not prioritize maneuverability as much as true dogfight missiles and had lower max Gs than comparable missiles.

===

Of course, as I've said, the American "stealth uber alles" paradigm is untested, but so's the maneuvering paradigm the Russians emphasize in a modern war. Without actual combat scenarios, it's uncertain as to what actually evinces.

But please do note that the F-35 isn't a complete maneuvering slouch; like the J-20, it's a high-fuel fraction fighter and its agility depends in large part on how much gas is in the tank. For short-ranged defensive missions, it's been demonstrated to be capable of very impressive agility. It's more when it's long-ranged that it starts to fall apart.

Click to expand...

(1)Maybe, maybe not. In many (not all, however) airforces idea is more around the lines of extreme range launch=wasted launch, wasted launch of a very expensive missile which you won't be able to get back mid-air.
I can't say for sure about the Chinese one - but it appears that PLAAF isn't really doing it either.

(2)50 is a sort of number "at a higher mach, at high altitude, against a high flying(but lower than you) cooperative target flying right at high mach in a perfectly blue sky". The value of this number is pretty limited.
Longest-ranged such missiles of this type can be considered BVR (like ASRAAM or IR MICA-NG - especially on their main launching aircraft), but it's often considered to be as much of an advantage as a limitation. This is why IRIS-T is substantially more popular than ASRAAM, for example.
p.s. your next sentence was very comparable, but I think it's worth leaving this paragraph like this. We aren't really arguing here, I guess.

(3)Russians do not emphasize the maneuvering paradigm - attention to maneuverability doesn't equal that. Russians emphasize that CQB is a natural development of a2a battle of equal determined opponents. Fighters living in the maneuvering paradigm are more or less left in the 2000s.

(4)Ironically, if networking advantage is somehow negated (opponent has equal networking and/or degradation of own networks reached sufficient state), F-35 centric fleet is probably more dangerous in WVR than in BVR to a high-end opponent. Which is also the reason why a single-type fleet is suboptimal.