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

Zisan Artaxerxes said:

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 !!

Click to expand...

If the taxiing tests were done in a remote facility during the night and under clouds, OSINT bros and the general public would have no idea. Only government-owned radar recon satellites would capture it if they are very lucky and in very low resolution. And we have no reasons to think the US gov would publish the H-20's taxiing tests.

coolgod said:

The comments I see on the Chinese internet all think it is the J-15 catapult variant.

Click to expand...

That would be hilarious, if only in terms of how overhyped the announcement is.

Actually, now that I think about it, a strategic airlift like the C-5 or 124 might also fit the description, but I can't imagine hiding that thing for so long.

coolgod said:

The comments I see on the Chinese internet all think it is the J-15 catapult variant.

Click to expand...

It can be. A catapult capable fighter should be not be measured alone but as part of CVG which is indeed of strategic and historical importance.

KangarooPriest said:

Actually, now that I think about it, a strategic airlift like the C-5 or 124 might also fit the description, but I can't imagine hiding that thing for so long.

Click to expand...

AVIC heavy transport department have been talking about intercontinental strategic lifter since 2017. but this news is about 'China to conduct flight test of strategic aircraft' it means prototype has already been produced. so can't be C-5/AN-124 like heavy aircraft.

coolgod said:

The comments I see on the Chinese internet all think it is the J-15 catapult variant.

Click to expand...

J-15B has been flying for many years. There is nothing news worthy about it flying again.

Also, it's not a strategic aircraft. And neither is J-35.

Zisan Artaxerxes said:

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 !!

Click to expand...

As part of the workup to an aircraft's flight test, that would naturally include outdoor ground tests and taxiing tests and so on.

No one is saying that we are going to literally expect H-20's first flight tomorrow, but rather that this is just further weight that the first flight it is on the horizon, and that as part of the leadup to its first flight, other prework is of course going to happen.

latenlazy said:

I maintain the belief that the H-20 could well be into production before we ever see a picture of it.

Click to expand...

I think it will be hard to hide it from satellite.


Also, the fact that the PLA/AVIC has allowed promotional material and teases of it to be conveyed in official capacity over the last few years (even though they didn't really tell us that much), makes me feel like they might actually be a bit more open this time around.

That's not to say we will get a Y-20 maiden flight level of transparency, but I don't think it'll be black-project level.

Squidward said:

I'm new to PLA watching as a whole, but I'm under the impression that the H-20's primary mission would be striking heavily defended targets within contested airspace (i.e. if you sent an H-6 there it would get shot down). I was originally wondering "why would you need to send a VLO bomber and wait several hours to bomb someplace like Guam, when you can just send a salvo of DF-26s and get it done in less than half an hour?" But the points made my other forum members in response have already enlightened me about the advantages a VLO bomber enjoys over IRBMs for certain missions, even if it isn't a complete subsitute.

Click to expand...

IRBMs on launch, due to their trajectory, are easy to detect and relatively easy to track with the variety of modern BMD radars that exist. They are still very useful weapons when used in conjunction with supporting fires, supporting EW/ECM, and other preparatory measures, but they are only one type of fires among many.

Additionally, an IRBM is only one unit payload.

For a standoff strike mission using ALCMs, a B-2 for example can carry 16 JASSMs internally.
Assuming H-20 can carry 12-16 ALCMs of a similar nature, that is 12-16 targets that you don't have to use IRBMs for and expend them in a more sensible manner.



If you are attacking a well defended target, if you have the money, the best way to do so would be to launch an equivalent of multi-round-simultaneous impact across various strike modalities (including flight profiles and geographical locations), ideally with supporting EW/ECM and penetration aids.

For a target that is 3000km away during the early stages of a high intensity conflict and the capabilities that each side would bring to bear, those strike modalities could include:
- IRBMs and HGVs launched from land TELs
- ALCMs launched from long range VLO bombers
- air launched IRBMs and HGVs from non-stealthy bombers at standoff range
- nuclear submarine launched LACMs and HGVs
- surface navy launched LACMs and HGVs
- carrierborne naval aviation strike (depending on the circumstances of the conflict and their positioning thereof), which could include strike fighters with standoff weapons, UCAVs, etc


Ideally, you'd want to array those above platforms in a way that is geographically able to surround your target as much as practically possible, and to launch the variety of munitions in a way that allows for a comprehensive first wave that can saturate the defender's sensors and weapons (by launching them all together rather than in piecemeal, and having them arrive as close together as possible rather than piecemeal). Afterwards, reattack missions would be delegated based on battle damage assessment and the importance of time sensitivity matters a bit less and using more affordable (but still survivable) long range strike capabilities would be attractive.


So what H-20 brings to the picture, is that it adds a significant new strike modality that is quite survivable and relatively hard to defend against, and where in a real world conflict its strike capability would be used simultaneously with other existing strike modalities to enhance the likelihood of mission success in the total strike package.

FriedButter said:

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.

Click to expand...

I think what tphuang means, is that if H-20 is only capable of carrying 4 AShMs, that is somewhat low of a payload capacity for such an aircraft.

Personally I agree that H-20 will have an anti-shipping role and be capable of carrying AShMs. But I think they'd aim to carry a few more than only 4 AShMs.


I don't think H-20 will be designed around carrying YJ-12s internally

I expect H-20 to be capable of carrying 12-16 ALCMs in the KD-20 weight class and form factor, likely developed with a VLO ALCM in that weight class in mind as replacement, let's call it "KD-XX".
I expect that an anti-shipping capability for H-20 would primarily reside in a AShM variant of "KD-XX" (which would be basically a slightly larger LRASM).

I like the idea of a long range VLO air launched cruise missile and a shorter range VLO stand off missile. The former would fit inside of H-20 and can be carried externally (maybe 4 per J-15). The latter would be able to fit inside the weapons bay of J-20/35.

Having something with 1000km range (even if it comes without a huge warhead) would be pretty impressive if you can fill 12 of them inside H-20. And they can adopt that for UVLS also, but will have larger warhead and be heavier. That way, you can attack from different angles. It would be very hard to defend again if they are launched in large numbers.

I hope it becomes a true multi role platform.

tphuang said:

I like the idea of a long range VLO air launched cruise missile and a shorter range VLO stand off missile. The former would fit inside of H-20 and can be carried externally (maybe 4 per J-15). The latter would be able to fit inside the weapons bay of J-20/35.

Having something with 1000km range (even if it comes without a huge warhead) would be pretty impressive if you can fill 12 of them inside H-20. And they can adopt that for UVLS also, but will have larger warhead and be heavier. That way, you can attack from different angles. It would be very hard to defend again if they are launched in large numbers.

Click to expand...

This is tangentially related to H-20, but seeing as you posted it...

... I've thought a bit about this as well, and I think that in terms of the "next generation of LO/VLO LACM/AShM" categories, there should probably be three major airframe families:

Large VLO LACM/AShM -- air launch and land TEL launch options (possibly ship UVLS launch capable):
Designed to be the footprint of KD-20 or smaller, capable of being carried internally by H-20s (12-16), with range of 1500-2000km (at least). Able to basically be launched by any existing TEL or aircraft that can accommodate KD-20. Depending on how big it is, it may also be UVLS launch capable.

Medium VLO LACM/AShM -- air launch and ship slant launch and ship UVLS launch capable:
Designed around the weight class and stored footprint of the YJ-83/K family. Such a missile with a modern flight planform, guidance and propellant could achieve a range of 400-500km, and would be designed to use the same slant launch tubes that YJ-83 family uses, as well as being able to fit in the 7m long length UVLS length. It would also be able to be carried by bombers (likely to be half the weight of the Large VLO LACM/AShM, thus allowing two weapons to be carried in its place if volume permits), and also fighter aircraft (replacing YJ-83K family and KD-88 family).

Small diameter VLO LACM/AShM -- primarily for internal carriage for 5th gen fighters and other aircraft limited by weapons bay depth:
This would be a somewhat smaller missile designed to fit in the weapons bay of J-20 and J-XY/35, to fit four in their ventral weapons bay. It goes without saying that both of those aircraft need a standoff powered A2G weapon, and we've had rumours that such a weapon is under development. However, because of the size limitations of their weapons bay (particularly depth), I don't think that this sort of weapon would be useful as a weapon for other aircraft which don't have this limitation of weapons bay depth. Such a weapon is likely still going to be able to achieve a range in excess of 300km and have a reasonable payload weight, but it would be a fair bit lower than the Medium VLO LACM/AShM.