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

latenlazy

Brigadier
Sure, but being able to threaten a carrier group is still relevant as an option even if it doesn’t actually do it during a conflict. It just adds another headache for US planners to mitigate if they send carriers into range.
Being able to threaten bases along the second island chain is an even bigger capability than threatening carrier groups. Because if you take out those bases you take out the legs for those carrier groups to operate in distantly projected geography.
 

latenlazy

Brigadier
They can build up initial combat capability with a few planes, before revealing them in some test flights.
I suspect that they will want to keep visibility on the plane very low until potential adversaries (mainly the US) have spotted and collected intelligence on the plane, to delay development of countermeasures for as long as possible. We might be able to get some low resolution grainy images but I wouldn't expect anything better than that.
 

FriedButter

Colonel
Registered Member
Being able to threaten bases along the second island chain is an even bigger capability than threatening carrier groups. Because if you take out those bases you take out the legs for those carrier groups to operate in distantly projected geography.

It’s just an option after all on China arensel. Also idk how long you can keep bases suppressed to completely stop them from supporting carrier groups for a good period of time. A good shot can knock out a carrier for some time as it undergoes repairs.
 

latenlazy

Brigadier
It’s just an option after all on China arensel. Also idk how long you can keep bases suppressed to completely stop them from supporting carrier groups for a good period of time. A good shot can knock out a carrier for some time as it undergoes repairs.
If you can do a full munitions dump on a base with large bombers, that base is harder and will take longer to repair than a carrier, especially when it's in a distant forward position. When you take out the base to the extent that a large sized bomber can, you are taking out the ability to maintain basic logistics capabilities like ship repair. What damage ballistic missile batteries do to base operational capacity is one to two order of magnitudes smaller than what large bombing raids can do. These are not the same levels of attack capability. Both capabilities being able to hit the base is not the same as both capabilities doing equivalent damage.
 

FairAndUnbiased

Brigadier
Registered Member
It really is. While a VLO flying wing bomber would definitely offer the PLAAF new capabilites, none come to mind as "crucial" to the PLA's strategy. You've already got the rocket force for far away targets like military bases or CSGs, and you've already got credible nuclear deterrence with subs and land-based ICBMs. Unless by "crucial" the article means "the ability to do what you've already been able to, but for slightly cheaper", it's possible that the H-20 isn't merely a Chinese B-2. Maybe, just maybe, it could be something much more?

What kind of capability could that PLAAF want that proves "crucial" to the PLA's overall strategy?
A VLO bomber would be able to deliver tons of cruise missiles to targets with little warning from odd angles at moderate speeds when contesting/losing and can deliver tons of gravity bombs when winning.
 

Zisan Artaxerxes

New Member
Registered Member
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Flight test for aircraft with "strategic and historic significance" could be H-20.
Ok , how come it's possible?? If the thing is a heavy bomber .The thing should have come out of hanger for ground testing before conducting flight test. If such a huge airframe would have come out of the hanger it would have easily been spotted by satellites in ground testing facilities. But there were absolutely no alleged image clicked.
But here we will face the flight test of a bomber. I wonder if it is H-20 where it rolled out for ground testing that there is not a single sat image !!
 
Top