PiSigma
"the engineer"
You do realize these are all computer generated images with no real information right? This like you basing your entire analysis on a pencil sketch. A total waste of time
H-20 bomber (with H-X, JH-XX)
- Thread starter Deino
- Start date
Don’t official graphics like this usually turn out to be a pretty accurate? Or do we have examples where official graphics were released, well into the program, that turned out not to be accurate?
Having said that, these 3 images don’t appear to show the same plane.
PiSigma
"the engineer"
Official graphics are not accurate. They are typically made by an hired publicity company with limited info and often given some false info.
I mean, is there an inferiority complex if the H-20 ends up having inferior stealth, but better payload for cost than the American equivalent?
Counter-stealth technology is coming a long way, to the extent than the H-20 / B-2 etc are negatable by the right types of radars at certain ranges, although not necessarily stand-off ranges. A Russian-type "good enough" level of stealth is sufficient for bomber aircraft if the goal is simply to prevent them from being sniped off at long-ranges by fighter aircraft. Since pure bombers are not optimized for short-range air-to-air combat, the relative lack of stealth-based survivability is not an issue at present counter-stealth technology levels.
What, in my view, is crucial with the H-20, is more its combination of payload and range, and we are seeing the Americans head toward the same direction. The B-21, from all available drawings, seems to emphasize a larger main body and smaller wings, although fully planform aligned with the main body. The H-20 seems to be headed in the same direction, but likely sacrificing planform alignment for higher efficiency and internal bay volume.
If only he were that rigorous.
Is this a religious creed with you? That Chinese aircraft must always have inferior stealth and you're willing to write pages and pages of technobabble word salads to "prove" it.
We don't really know what the H-20 looks like. But if it takes the cranked-arrow shape, it's still understandable. The B-2 and B-21 must be able to penetrate the formidable land-based SAM systems of China and Russia. I don't think PLA really need the same ability. More likely, the targets of the H-20 are the fleets and islands on the Pacific. At most, you may add the west coast of the States. As long as it's stealthy enough to fulfill such missions, the payload will be a very important factor here since most of the time it won't be a nuclear assault.
Look, don't even entertain that guy's assumptions. Why would the PLAAF make a gimped bomber from the get-go? It does need as much stealth as physics will allow - USN carrier fleets are formidable SAM sites.
Everything needs a trade-off. If just a little bit sacrifice in RCS could get you more payload and longer range, why not? Stealthiness is about going around those radars and SAM sites. Over the ocean, the density of those things would be a lot lower, you surely can cut it with a little bit larger RCS.