makes sense, because if anti-stealth technology becomes prevalent then suddenly a B-2 type is worthless.
H-20 bomber (with H-X, JH-XX)
- Thread starter Deino
- Start date
It depends right? Anti-stealth using long wavelength radar is just going to tell you there is a stealth aircraft in the area, you still need to put a fair amount of effort into actually obtaining targetting data.
In a shooting war I would assume h-20 to be just a stealth cruise missile truck, hopefully with some jassm equivalent to increase standoff range and hit probability, it would be very risky to use a fancy stealth bomber to drop a bunch of bombs right on top of the enemy, guided or not.
In a modern battlefield, there are just too many threats that can take out a subsonic heavy bomber, no matter how good your stealth is. There are very few things that would warrant sending a super expensive bomber in that could not be done using a ballistic missile launch.
Anti-shipping being one of those core capabilities that a bomber still has an edge over ballistic missiles.
In a shooting war I would assume h-20 to be just a stealth cruise missile truck, hopefully with some jassm equivalent to increase standoff range and hit probability, it would be very risky to use a fancy stealth bomber to drop a bunch of bombs right on top of the enemy, guided or not.
In a modern battlefield, there are just too many threats that can take out a subsonic heavy bomber, no matter how good your stealth is. There are very few things that would warrant sending a super expensive bomber in that could not be done using a ballistic missile launch.
Anti-shipping being one of those core capabilities that a bomber still has an edge over ballistic missiles.
i think the tradeoff might look like this:
if sacrifices have to be made on stealth in favor of speed, it can be justified by what you have stated, that these bombers are meant to carry mostly stand-off munitions. just enough stealth to obscure its approach is sufficient, but speed will be needed for a quick approach and then evasion, and even to increase the effective range of the munition that it is launching.
If speed is king, a tu-160 or B-1 approach might have been better, but those are obviously non-stealth and I'm not certain they offer much over ballistic missiles since they can be intercepted before they can launch their payload.
Hmm.. so many coincidences are they going for a boiling frog approach, considering current political climate would make sense
if the h-20 is detected and tracked, what ever additional agility it has provided by those tails aren't gonna help against supersonic interceptors or SAM.
the tails are probably represent some sort of high speed burst ability to get to pop up target faster.
Hints that they tested this configuration, but in what intend ? Some more of these emerging :
That actually depends a lot on the engagement envelope and at what range it might be seen at and engaged with. When engaged with missiles at longer ranges differences in turn rate can actually make a very big difference in probability of intercept, especially if you also reduce accuracy from both low observable signature and electronic jamming. A lot of this stuff gets very specific though, so we really won’t know the particulars of the parameters influencing the thinking behind the design.