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

JayBird · Sep 25, 2015

latenlazy said:
Was it? Or did he get to the news early, and original source on the divine eagle was forgotten because his drawings drew more attention and informed more people? I myself can't say for sure either way though, since I haven't trawled around Chinese military forums in a while.

I believe we first saw grassroots's CG of divine eagle, people thought it was just his imagination at first because it was so detailed and clear, and we've never seen anything like that before. Then real blury divine eagle pics came out maybe a week later, and then subsequently clear pictures follow.

I hope to see some blury pics of whatever he draw soon. I think these insders and friends must've been sharing some of these photos privately but can't post them online until they gets an okay from the original insider.

latenlazy · Sep 25, 2015

JayBird said:
I believe we first saw grassroots's CG of divine eagle, people thought it was just his imagination at first because it was so detailed and clear, and we've never seen anything like that before. Then real blury divine eagle pics came out maybe a week later, and then subsequently clear pictures follow.

I hope to see some blury pics of whatever he draw soon. I think these insders and friends must've been sharing some of these photos privately but can't post them online until they gets an okay from the original insider.

Whatever the case, having a picture alone may not be indicative of an active program. Last I heard on a supersonic stealth bomber by SAC (this was at least a year back) there was such a program, but it was shelved in favour of a flying wing. The first time we found out was that mockup. They could easily be circulating designs that don't have programs attached to them. It's not like we found out about such a design from grassroots either. The first indication of such a design was that mockup in that exhibit a while back.

Skywatcher · Sep 25, 2015

latenlazy said:
Whatever the case, having a picture alone may not be indicative of an active program. Last I heard on a supersonic stealth bomber by SAC (this was at least a year back) there was such a program, but it was shelved in favour of a flying wing. The first time we found out was that mockup. They could easily be circulating designs that don't have programs attached to them. It's not like we found out about such a design from grassroots either. The first indication of such a design was that mockup in that exhibit a while back.

I don't think that the supersonic strategic bomber is the same as the JH-XX (Huitong said the strategic bomber had canards, and a strategic bomber would need four engines).

latenlazy · Sep 25, 2015

Skywatcher said:
I don't think that the supersonic strategic bomber is the same as the JH-XX (Huitong said the strategic bomber had canards, and a strategic bomber would need four engines).

And I don't entirely trust huitong if I can't trace back his sources (which is why I have to rhetorically maneuver around in these conversations a lot, since I haven't been very active the last year and a half).

Blitzo · Sep 25, 2015

latenlazy said:
And I don't entirely trust huitong if I can't trace back his sources (which is why I have to rhetorically maneuver around in these conversations a lot, since I haven't been very active the last year and a half).

But in this case, even with limited information, I think we can make a few deductions. Paraphrased from my reply over on CDF:
First there's huitong's statement that the original supersonic strategic bomber that lost to the flying wing was one with canards, and not too stealthy... I've always envisioned it as a sort of B-1/Tu-160 mix with XB-70, in terms of size and configuration, versus the flying wing which as B-2 sized. Logically this makes sense, as it would be a fair competition, in terms of range and payload.

The black model and the CGIs we've had of it since, have all seemed to me to be more of a Tu-22M sized aircraft, or an oversized F-111, far smaller than what I imagine above for the supersonic strategic bomber. For the consideration of various configurations for the next generation bomber project, I don't think the air force would have sensibly allowed such a difference in payload and range between a Tu-22M/F-111 sized aircraft and a B-2 sized one. This isn't just a question about semantics, but about the actual performance the supersonic vs subsonic flying wing bombers would have brought to the table.

Also, the black model in particular also seems to have been associated with the "JH-XX" tag rather than as "H-X"... which is almost fitting, given the black model did seem to show a side weapons bay for an A2A missile, which also helped us estimate the possible size of the aircraft.

The only ways in which the black model could be the supersonic bomber which lost, is if the current accepted consensus of what it was (canard, not too stealthy) is changed, and/or if the black model was actually much larger than we estimated, and/or if the original competition for the strategic bomber allowed bombers of very different weight classes to compete for and shape the air force's actual requirements for its bombers (rather than vice versa), and/or if the actual flying wing which won the bomber competition is actually substantially smaller than we thought and is actually similar to what we currently think the black model's size is thus suggesting the air force's definition of a "strategic" bomber is very loose.

I'm not sure if we have enough indications to consider any of the above, as of yet.

latenlazy · Sep 25, 2015

Bltizo said:
But in this case, even with limited information, I think we can make a few deductions. Paraphrased from my reply over on CDF:
First there's huitong's statement that the original supersonic strategic bomber that lost to the flying wing was one with canards, and not too stealthy... I've always envisioned it as a sort of B-1/Tu-160 mix with XB-70, in terms of size and configuration, versus the flying wing which as B-2 sized. Logically this makes sense, as it would be a fair competition, in terms of range and payload.

The black model and the CGIs we've had of it since, have all seemed to me to be more of a Tu-22M sized aircraft, or an oversized F-111, far smaller than what I imagine above for the supersonic strategic bomber. For the consideration of various configurations for the next generation bomber project, I don't think the air force would have sensibly allowed such a difference in payload and range between a Tu-22M/F-111 sized aircraft and a B-2 sized one. This isn't just a question about semantics, but about the actual performance the supersonic vs subsonic flying wing bombers would have brought to the table.

Also, the black model in particular also seems to have been associated with the "JH-XX" tag rather than as "H-X"... which is almost fitting, given the black model did seem to show a side weapons bay for an A2A missile, which also helped us estimate the possible size of the aircraft.

The only ways in which the black model could be the supersonic bomber which lost, is if the current accepted consensus of what it was (canard, not too stealthy) is changed, and/or if the black model was actually much larger than we estimated, and/or if the original competition for the strategic bomber allowed bombers of very different weight classes to compete for and shape the air force's actual requirements for its bombers (rather than vice versa), and/or if the actual flying wing which won the bomber competition is actually substantially smaller than we thought and is actually similar to what we currently think the black model's size is thus suggesting the air force's definition of a "strategic" bomber is very loose.

I'm not sure if we have enough indications to consider any of the above, as of yet.

From my reply in CDF,

"If I recall the order of events was,

Supersonic vs flying wing
Flying wing selected, supersonic shelved,
Supersonic concept redesigned to JH-XX
JH-XX not approved yet/also shelved."

Blitzo · Sep 25, 2015

latenlazy said:
From my reply in CDF,

"If I recall the order of events was,

Supersonic vs flying wing
Flying wing selected, supersonic shelved,
Supersonic concept redesigned to JH-XX
JH-XX not approved yet/also shelved."

I'm aware of the first two supposedly occurring (which is the basis of my position), but I'm not aware of the two latter events occurring.
Specifically, I'm not sure if the supersonic concept was "redesigned' to become JH-XX (I imagine that would be virtually a brand spanking new aircraft).
I also believe that JH-XX, if it exists, is still up in the air as to whether it is under development or not.

Which leads back to my position, that we should keep an open mind as to the possibility of JH-XX being a real thing.

Jeff Head · Sep 26, 2015

I remember seeing that design...I believe it was earlier in the summer...

latenlazy · Sep 26, 2015

Bltizo said:
I'm aware of the first two supposedly occurring (which is the basis of my position), but I'm not aware of the two latter events occurring.
Specifically, I'm not sure if the supersonic concept was "redesigned' to become JH-XX (I imagine that would be virtually a brand spanking new aircraft).
I also believe that JH-XX, if it exists, is still up in the air as to whether it is under development or not.

Which leads back to my position, that we should keep an open mind as to the possibility of JH-XX being a real thing.

I'm not questioning the existence of a potential JH-XX. I'm simply questioning how much we can read into Grassroots sharing what surmounts to a drawing.

Blitzo · Sep 26, 2015

latenlazy said:
I'm not questioning the existence of a potential JH-XX. I'm simply questioning how much we can read into Grassroots sharing what surmounts to a drawing.

I'd say we shouldn't read too much into it but at the same time we shouldn't dismiss it either.
Put it into the "potential indicator" box for JH-XX.

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

JayBird

Junior Member

latenlazy

Brigadier

Skywatcher

Captain

latenlazy

Brigadier

Blitzo

Lieutenant General

latenlazy

Brigadier

Blitzo

Lieutenant General

Jeff Head

General

latenlazy

Brigadier

Blitzo

Lieutenant General