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

Gloire_bb said:

Stealth technology includes quite deep IR sig suppression(one of the main reasons for subsonic flying wings in the first place), so IRST range against those may be quite meh.

Saddams' Mig-29s failed to find F-117s over Baghdad back then.


One the other hand, one of the key reasons for manned bombers is ability to penetrate the AD mesh and see that you're engaging in the first place (best kill chain is no kill chain, best verification&damage assessment is visual). In some cases even targeting something mobile can be attempted.
Especially because in such a big war, not only enemies' defenses are probably targeted, but also your own strategic reconnaissance assets.

Otherwise there is a point in simply making even larger stealthy missiles(Kh-101/102 with their crazy ranges are already showing that) - fuel doesn't cost that much to add.

Click to expand...

I didn't think this has to be said but US and Japanese forces aren't Saddam's Iraq.

IRST uses mid/long wave IR, which is emitted at ambient or slightly warmer, and is also diffusely reflected as well. It is basically light.


No IR suppression can eliminate heat, it just diffuses heat and raises the temperature of the surrounding fuselage a bit rather than have a high temperature source at the engine outlet. This temperature will still be far higher than ambient and readily detectable.

IRST is an imaging system. Just as your eyes aren't fooled by a piece of glass, which has far lower contrast vs. air than the contrast you can get for an IR emitter vs ambient, you are unlikely to be able to go unnoticed by IRST.

IR suppression is better for MANPADs.

FairAndUnbiased said:

I didn't think this has to be said but US and Japanese forces aren't Saddam's Iraq.

Click to expand...

Both use technological solutions of their respective tech levels. Iraqis used reasonably fresh 1980s Soviet IRSTs - but those came wanting against reasonably fresh 1980s suppressed F-117 exhaust and reasonably cool surfaces.

2020s stealth airframes employ much more sophisticated ways of cooling edges&surfaces of the aircraft, as well as hiding the exhaust.
Even for supersonic fighters, the net gain is worth a lot of effort. Here we're on a platform that has both the size and volume to get things cool.

FairAndUnbiased said:

IRST uses mid/long wave IR, which is emitted at ambient or slightly warmer, and is also diffusely reflected as well. It is basically light.

Click to expand...

Well, for example, F-35s' mid- IR EOTS is readily dissipatable by the atmosphere. So from a certain range onwards, we'll be able to hide just by that. If there won't be much to see in the first place - the chance to remain unnoticed will increase dramatically.
No one would bother with stealth if it would be so easily defeatable just by another channel. In fact, IR stealth is just as much a major part of the whole technology as radar stealth is.

FairAndUnbiased said:

IR suppression is better for MANPADs.

Click to expand...

Given the altitudes they're talking about for the 3 new bombers(well, certainly for B-21, but probably the same for H-20/PAK-DA as well) - I doubt it is of any concern.

I think it's fair to say that H-20 should have significant measures of suppressing heat signature, but that with modern IR detection technology, it will still get detected if it gets too close. I just think that H-20s will not get detected by a degraded air defense infrastructure by IR or radar sensors from 50 km out (the number could be a lot lower than that depending on how much the defense is degrade). I would expect H-20 to be a magnitude more stealthy in all aspect stealth than something like J-20 or F-35 (which are focused at frontal stealth against X-band radar). So even against a fully setup defense over Japan, a group of H-20 with powerful EW suites should be able to get pretty close to target without getting detected.

Yes, I would expect H-20s and H-6K to be carrying a new generation of VLO cruise missiles in the future. I think something with 250 kg warhead and 1000 kg in weight would be pretty good.

Gloire_bb said:

Both use technological solutions of their respective tech levels. Iraqis used reasonably fresh 1980s Soviet IRSTs - but those came wanting against reasonably fresh 1980s suppressed F-117 exhaust and reasonably cool surfaces.

2020s stealth airframes employ much more sophisticated ways of cooling edges&surfaces of the aircraft, as well as hiding the exhaust.
Even for supersonic fighters, the net gain is worth a lot of effort. Here we're on a platform that has both the size and volume to get things cool.

Well, for example, F-35s' mid- IR EOTS is readily dissipatable by the atmosphere. So from a certain range onwards, we'll be able to hide just by that. If there won't be much to see in the first place - the chance to remain unnoticed will increase dramatically.
No one would bother with stealth if it would be so easily defeatable just by another channel. In fact, IR stealth is just as much a major part of the whole technology as radar stealth is.

Given the altitudes they're talking about for the 3 new bombers(well, certainly for B-21, but probably the same for H-20/PAK-DA as well) - I doubt it is of any concern.

Click to expand...

In this government sponsored summary of Desert Storm there is no mention of any Iraqi plane being observed utilizing IRST. The first detailed look at eastern bloc IRST was with the Mig-29s acquired from East Germany (reference 82).


IR stealth typically reduces detection range only by a few km.

The results show that when the emissivity of the aircraft component is decreased from 0.95 to 0.7, the detection range of the
aircraft is reduced from 25.6 to 23.5 km from the front view. This means that the aircraft achieves a stealth distance of 2.1 km, and is allowed to have extra attacking time of 4.0 s, compared to other ordinary aircraft without the stealth capability. In Fig. 9, the effect of aircraft-skin emissivity on the IR contrast is presented. The results show that when the emissivity of the aircraft component is reduced to 0.7, the IR contrast between the aircraft and the background subsequently decreases from 4.0 to 3.0. This means that the aircraft has 25% lower observable capability.

Click to expand...

taxiya said:

I could not have a dialect issue because I grow up in Beijing surrounded by CCTV anchors speech all my life. Anyway, let's drop it, I may need to see a doctor for my ears.


His suggestion was Kong-20 being KongJing-20/空警20 with 警 being skipped based on your assumption. However there is a problem with this suggestion. All the numbers KJ-2000, 200, 500, 600 are NOT the number of their platform aircraft il-76, Y-8 etc. So a Y-20 based AWAC being KJ-20 would break PLA's naming convention, doesn't make sense.

Click to expand...

latenlazy said:

I’m with Taxiya on this one. I hear hong, not kong. And if you’re wondering, I’m from Hebei.

Click to expand...

Just curious, are you guys members of strategic foolyou agency?

It's super clear he said "kong 20" and then "hong 20"

And I suspect "kong 20" means "kong tian", which is the low orbit aircraft

Various posts deleted.

Discussion about accents or dialects within the scope of clarifying what is actually said, is fine. Beyond that, it's needless.

I don't think the claims about the H-20 in a dumb bomb role are overblown. Unlike the Soviet Union, China's strategic position orients it toward being a true airpower and going from simply air denial a la the Soviets to air superiority ala the Americans is not far-fetched.

The fact of the matter is, China does not have a substantial air-to-ground fleet beyond the short-ranged JH-7s and limited numbers of H-6s. The H-20 is likely not only to play the role of the B-21 and B-2 in the Chinese fleet, but also that of the B-52; a work-horse bomber procured in large numbers that provides substantial air support for China.

The image is an illustration from a research paper. This is unlikely to have anything specific to do with the H-20 project, but it is nonetheless interesting due to layout D, which shows what's likely a supersonic design.

Inst said:

I don't think the claims about the H-20 in a dumb bomb role are overblown. Unlike the Soviet Union, China's strategic position orients it toward being a true airpower and going from simply air denial a la the Soviets to air superiority ala the Americans is not far-fetched.

The fact of the matter is, China does not have a substantial air-to-ground fleet beyond the short-ranged JH-7s and limited numbers of H-6s. The H-20 is likely not only to play the role of the B-21 and B-2 in the Chinese fleet, but also that of the B-52; a work-horse bomber procured in large numbers that provides substantial air support for China.

Click to expand...

That would be a huge shift. B-52 was historically built for strategic strike on stationary, undefended, remote targets. It isn't the best for tactical attacks on moving hard targets with self defense like ships, troop concentrations, etc.

For those, you use missiles. Soviets were innovators of air to ground striking with missiles such as the Tu-22M maritime striker which had one of the first supersonic air launched antiship cruise missile, Kh-22. They designed such bombers and missiles because they needed to eliminate enemy shipping, troop concentrations, etc in a potential conflict in their near abroad.

for smaller tactical strikes, such as on individual groups of vehicles, you usually need much faster reaction time, the ability to dodge SAMs, and to be able to fly in contested airspace. The solution to that is tactical strikers for hardened targets and drones for more vulnerable targets.

Do you forsee China as having a near term requirement for large scale bombing of defenseless, stationary targets, or more for attacking hardened, moving military targets with significant self defense capability that are closer by?

Inst said:

limited numbers of H-6s

Click to expand...

230-240 units of H-6 are low numbers ? and still in production