I agree with Deinos reply to that tweet.
H-20 bomber (with H-X, JH-XX)
- Thread starter Deino
- Start date
I agree with Deinos reply to that tweet.
And here is his translated post from Telegram. He says that he is going to upload the video later. Lets see what comes out of this
B-21 official render also has really weird cockpit windows what’s going on lol.
Hopefully that render is real but no one that’s respected seems to think so..
This one from the same video or different?
What are the thoughts on relative efficacy in use cases between a flying wing type subsonic heavy bomber and a "big fighter" conventional layout type (like a bigger J-20 with an internal rotary launcher) with supersonic capability?
For a subsonic flying wing, there's a few issues that may reduce it's efficacy in a peer conflict;
1. Vulnerability to IR tracking and 100% unable to escape if caught
2. Slower response speed to rapidly changing events
3. Lower payload for equal thrust due to higher drag (from thick wing).
Just comparing B2 with B1 - they have equal thrust (4x 77 kN) but B2 has half the payload.
Alot of the advantages of a flying wing - the capability to drop dumb bombs on weak adversaries - isn't useful to the PLAAF. The purpose of a bomber in PLAAF doctrine should be closer to Russian - as a big missile truck.
A conventional layout may have some advantages:
1. Can potentially still escape if caught, particularly at edge of engagement windows
2. Can have high payload for equal thrust
3. Still can have a low RCS since design techniques have vastly improved since the B1 and Tu160.
For a subsonic flying wing, there's a few issues that may reduce it's efficacy in a peer conflict;
1. Vulnerability to IR tracking and 100% unable to escape if caught
2. Slower response speed to rapidly changing events
3. Lower payload for equal thrust due to higher drag (from thick wing).
Just comparing B2 with B1 - they have equal thrust (4x 77 kN) but B2 has half the payload.
Alot of the advantages of a flying wing - the capability to drop dumb bombs on weak adversaries - isn't useful to the PLAAF. The purpose of a bomber in PLAAF doctrine should be closer to Russian - as a big missile truck.
A conventional layout may have some advantages:
1. Can potentially still escape if caught, particularly at edge of engagement windows
2. Can have high payload for equal thrust
3. Still can have a low RCS since design techniques have vastly improved since the B1 and Tu160.
I agree. This "bomber" demo is about "分布式电液能源系统", literally translated to distributed electrical-hydraulic energy/power system. It is in similar area as the "6Gen fighter" demo.
I highly suspect that all these videos and screen dumps are from the same source. That means all these CGs are the same thing, a placeholder, nothing special.