My current overall conclusion, as it seems, my first impressions is correct or much likely: it is some sort of PR stunt to gain attention and even more to distract from the real thing grows stronger and stronger … so let’s wait for the real one.
This looks to me like the fakes we got before the real J-20 prototype flew out. Might be losing designs.
it might not be a good comparison, it took Y-20 3 years from first flight to IOC, taking C919 about 5. I think H-20, assuming it is quite complex, is likely closer to C919. so if it flies this year, IOC in 2026-2027. if this is a critical piece for Taiwan then no attempt on Taiwan before 2029.
Taiwan can be taken care of with the H-6. The H-20 is a long endurance, high range, stealth bomber. You would use it against targets like Japan, Indochina, India, Guam or even Hawaii.
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.
The B-2 and F-22 were not designed for low maintenance cost. You need air conditioned hangars for the coatings not to degrade for example and that adds to the cost of the program. They are hangar queens. I think the whole stealth concept they use was a waste of time. Especially when you consider who these aircraft actually ended up being used against.
The Tu-160 and B-1B (half the size) have their uses. The whole idea the bomber needs to go through without first gaining air superiority with fighters or interceptors is an obsolete concept anyway. The XB-70 was cancelled because the US couldn't get it to work, the materials problems like the honeycomb metal matrix materials it was supposed to use never worked as per design, the boron doped fuel had issues with toxicity, and the Soviets had the Su-15 and later the MiG-25. The MiG-25 could do Mach 3.
At one time the Germans called that the Schnellbomber concept. i.e. a medium bomber, typically twin engine, that is faster than a fighter. Well it is only faster until you make a fighter with the same engine. Say you make a ramjet powered bomber at Mach 5. Then someone makes a fighter with the same engines and it can be intercepted. You make a scramjet powered bomber at Mach 9 with similar engine technology to the Russian Zircon. Then someone makes a fighter with the same engines. etc.
It is always easier to make a fast disposable missile than a fighter or a bomber of the same speed. That is like a law of physics almost. It is easier to make a one use material than a reusable one. And if you can make a twin engine bomber you can make a single engine fighter.
Your Schnellbomber is only better until the opponent catches up in engine, airframe, and material technology.
