If the projected cost of b-21 is a eye watering 500 million+ each it means that it's more a 1 billion+each price... and they will stop production after 30 or so. China will probably be able to build their H-20 for a lot less than that and in far greater quantity because no retarded politicians decisions will be able to deter them from their objectives.
H-20 bomber (with H-X, JH-XX)
- Thread starter Deino
- Start date
This is perhaps more of a discussion about the best bomber solutions...
But if I were the PLA, I think pursuing a heavy bomber along the lines of Tu-160/B-1 may be better spent if they carefully gather, collect and accumulate the developmental and procurement funds that would be needed for it, and literally set it on fire.
Last edited:
Shooting off 30 cruise missiles/ hypersonics at mach 1.5+ towards a carrier group then turning tail and running seems a heck of a lot more survivable than a VLO bomber if it ever gets discovered, but this IS getting off topic so I think I'll leave the discussion at that.
That "if" is doing some Herculean lifting. How do you find a stealth bomber?
That's the neat part, you don't.
Make no mistake, a Sino Tu-160 White Swan/B-1B will be an absolute White Elephant in today's threat environment.
I would argue that highly visible platforms like the B-1B and Tu-160 have been obsolete since at least the early 1980s. Remember, the U.S Air Force discarded the concept of high altitude high speed bomber such as the XB70 by the early 1960s, when the Soviets began to deploy larger number of long range high performance AAMs.
The follow up B-1 program did not fair any better. It was envisioned to combine the speed of a B-58 Hustler and the payload of a B-52 in low altitude penetrating strikes, but by the early 1970s the Soviet had developed a effective look-down shoot-down radar and rendered such tactics obsolete. Only a combination of U.S domestic politics gamesmanship (Between Carter and Regan) and concerns over ATB Bomber (B-2) program delay saved the B1-B from total cancellation. A relatively low number of 100 was procured and all production ceased by 1988.
Had the Cold War continued apace, the U.S would have acquire far more than mere 21 B-2 Spirit airframes. The original plan called for a purchase of 132+ airframes and the number was slashed only after the dissolution of the Soviet Union. The eye-watering cost of B-2 was a direct result of the dreaded death spiral of program cost rise/procurement cut.
Fast forward to the present day, the trend is clear. All aspects of air power is gravitating toward VLO. Hell, I would not even be surprised if tanker, EW and AEW&C aircraft all goes low observable in the next few decades as well. (The cost would of course be enormous, but one can argue it is already heading that way...)
Last edited:
If PLAAF can buy a H-20 airframe for 250 Mil /or two J-20 equivalent, with comparable performance to B-21 Raider.
I'd imagine their reaction would be:
survivability is a function of munitions range, speed and detection range.
Example: dropping unpowered munitions.
There's 3 ways to make a bomber more survivable.
1. use cruise missiles instead of drop munitions (this requires high payload and large internal bay dimensions)
2. make it faster (this requires better or more engines)
3. further reduce signatures (this comes automatically with carrying munitions internally and that gives a huge benefit by itself, but to go further, you have to use less aerodynamically optimal shaping and RAM)
A B-1B launching LRASMs or a Tu-160 launching Kh-55s is pretty survivable because it has long ranged munitions and has enough speed and range to never be within the range of enemy fighters. the context of a 'low altitude penetrating bomber' is to drop unpowered bombs when air launched cruise missiles weren't very good yet. Tu-160 was never supposed to be a low altitude bomber, it was always a missile truck, and B-1B quickly converted into the missile truck role.
B-1B isn't unstealthy either, it has enough stealth capability (such as the ability to carry all munitions internally and serpentine intakes) that give it a compared to ~50 m2 for the B-52 and ~25 m2 for a F-15. The biggest contributor to RCS by far is external munitions which act as Tu-160 also can carry everything internally.
In general for given frequency, range R ~ (RCS)^(1/4) (see pg14). For low hanging fruit, going from say 100 m2 to 1 m2, your detection range decreases 3x. This is not that bad to achieve: a conventional layout with internal munitions, serpentine intakes and some RAM coating gets you close. Going from 1m2 to 0.01 m2 is a further 3x decrease in detection distance but now that requires some extreme modifications to a conventional aerodynamic airframe and imposes constraints on say, speed, fuel efficiency, range, payload weight and dimensions.
Basically it's more complicated than any 1 factor. Realistic requirements and understanding how your plane actually will fit into the overall air doctrine is the most important part. You have to balance cost, reaction speed, payload, range and detection distance.
With bombers, my shorthand has been basically that of the below three desirable traits, you can only choose two to develop a viable economically feasible bomber:
- large size (payload/range)
- VLO
- supersonic capable
The question is which two of those three desirable traits are actually worthwhile to have in a modern bomber.
For a strategic bomber, you need large size.
So the question is whether you want VLO or be supersonic capable, knowing that you cannot have both, and in the contemporary combat environment and battlespace.
I believe choosing "supersonic capable" means you may as well literally burn the money you're spending on buying it than actually developing and buying and supporting the fleet, given how completely unsurvivable a non-VLO primary combat aircraft is in this day and age (and especially the future)
- large size (payload/range)
- VLO
- supersonic capable
The question is which two of those three desirable traits are actually worthwhile to have in a modern bomber.
For a strategic bomber, you need large size.
So the question is whether you want VLO or be supersonic capable, knowing that you cannot have both, and in the contemporary combat environment and battlespace.
I believe choosing "supersonic capable" means you may as well literally burn the money you're spending on buying it than actually developing and buying and supporting the fleet, given how completely unsurvivable a non-VLO primary combat aircraft is in this day and age (and especially the future)
But that was with the preface that they would be dropping nuclear bombs when they were built, infact both the B1 and B2 wasn't even designed to fight a conventional war, they're part of the nuclear Triad.
The threat environment has changed rapidly in the mean time, so has technology, the US has since converted their B1s to a conventional bomb truck role and is finding it very good at this role. Packing it full of ER-JASSM or future hypersonics and lobbing it at a Chinese fleet outside CAP range (700-800km+) is a very real possibility in the future. With more than 50 of those airframes still in active service they can easily commit to a massive salvo that can't be fully shot down and cripple a fleet, no other USAF aircraft can achieve the same thing with the same speed and low cost.
The US stopped building them because of nukes getting better, not purely because a high speed bomber is obselete.
You are right that technology has changed, but I don't think you are looking far enough.
Weapons like JASSM-ER are in the direction of the future yes.
But are implying that a standoff range of 700-800km launched from a conventional, non-VLO platform is enough for the battlespace of the near future.
The gold standard of survivable long range standoff aerial attack will be 1500-2000km VLO LACMs or hypersonics launched from VLO bombers that prioritize range and endurance.
Getting within 1000km of your target with a non-VLO platform will likely be difficult in the first stages of a high intensity conflict.
Instead, what you want is to have your weapon be even longer ranged (and stealthy or alternatively very high speed), while having your launch platform be VLO as well.