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

Maikeru said:

Well indeed. I can envisage a situation where Japan gets its own nukes (to the extent it doesn't already have them) and asks US forces to leave. However, that doesn't solve the problem of H20 having to cross neutral territory to attack CONUS.

We can assume Japan will be either on the US side or will observe strict armed neutrality and attempt to intercept both H20 and B21trying to cross its territory. If Russia is also strictly neutral, that leaves H20 with a problem in attacking CONUS.

Click to expand...

Your envisaging needs work. Japan is not going to get nuclear anything; the balance of power is going to keep shifting China's way until it's clear to Japan that the US has no hope of containing China or prevailing in war. At that point the permanent interest of survival will kick in and Japan will send the US a Dear John letter. Japan will understand that its only security from China is in abandoning the US and behaving itself.

As for Russia, there's another permanent interest at play here: The permanent interest Russia and China share in breaking America's knees. Russia will keep integrating with China economically, politically, and militarily whether or not there's a piece of paper formalizing it. Even if Russia wants to have a rapprochement with Europe, that'll be far easier to do and with much better results for Russia when America has its knees broken. H-20 overflights are the least of it - Russia and China are going to fully integrate their nuclear forces so that an attack on one is an attack on the other.

The permanent overriding interest for Russia and America is breaking America's knees. Once that's done, we can speculate about whether the alliance has any more depth than that.

Maikeru said:

As you point out, crossing NK will be easier in itself but still leaves the problem of getting past Japan.

Click to expand...

If Japan is to be avoided completely, there are two other paths that the H-20 could take.

First route as follows:

This route would require the H-20s to go south and avoid the expected theater of war around Taiwan, go through the Luzon Strait and maneuver around to avoid the Mariana Islands (including Guam and Saipan) to the south and Ogasawara Islands plus Iwo Islands (including Iwo Jima) to the north. Afterwards, they would skirt around Hawaiian Archipelago to the south before reaching CONUS.

Second route is as follows:

This route would require the H-20s to go even further south by skirting around the Philippines after passing through the Luzon Strait and avoiding the Mariana Islands. The H-20s would then have to avoid the Pacific island nations by (possibly even) flying south of the equator before turning northeast towards CONUS.

Both routes would require in-flight refueling as they cover much longer distances than the previously mentioned routes. Besides, both routes would have way more chances to be exposed to interception as they cross the Pacific.

Maikeru said:

All things considered, I suspect SSGNs are a better way of attacking CONUS conventionally than H20, unless Russia and China enter into some sort of formal NATO-style alliance which permits PLAAF to use Russian bases.

Click to expand...

China at present does not have enough 094s to be converted into SSGNs. The 094s would have to wait until 096s are available in sufficient numbers to take over the role of China's sea-based nuclear deterrence before they can be converted into SSGNs. That is, if they aren't becoming too old by then.

The sole 092 would be too old to be anything useful by then, might as well convert her into a sacrificial drone sub to bait the enemy forces during wartime with her loud noise alongside the 5 old 091s.

Has anyone seen yet? Is this an old teaser trailer? Never came across this before.

theforgotten0007 said:

Has anyone seen

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

yet? Is this an old teaser trailer? Never came across this before.

Click to expand...

The part of the video showing "H-20" is not official in any way.

Not worth looking at, in fact I would advise you to actively scrub your memory of the video because remembering it will likely be detrimental.

Wasn't sure where to post it. Decided on H-20 thread because the potential implications of different production rates are more interesting from China's perspective.

Comparison of speculative production rates of H-20 and B-21 and the retirement rates of other USAF bombers.
"Ratio" refers to proportion of H-20 to B-21. "total" refers to all USAF bombers.

I assumed H-20 production rate at 2 in the first 3 years, 4 in the next 6 years and 6 per year afterward. I also assumed first flying prototype in 2025 - two years after B-21 - and first serial production aircraft in 2027 with initial entry into service in 2028, although 2029 is more likely.

A decade (2027-2036) long period of lower production is justifiable in my view, as there is no equivalent of prior experience that Northrop had with B-2. Perhaps the scaling will occur faster. Any information about J-20 development would probably be of significant value but I am not familiar with the timeline so I'll leave it to those more knowledgeable.

B-21 produced at 6 airframes annually


B-21 produced at 8 airframes annually


The procurement of ~100 B-21s with a life-cycle of 30 years was priced at approximately 200 billion current USD (in 2017 or 18). That is a figure which will limit any potential increase in number of aircraft unless other savings are achieved. B-21 will be more expensive to maintain than B-52 or B-1 even with numerous improvements over B-2. A figure of 120-140 is probably too much, especially considering the uncertainty of future budgets.

I view H-20 as primarily serving as a counter to B-21 both in direct and indirect capacity. I don't expect it to be built in numbers greater than will be necessary from the operational standpoint. And that considering the distances involved might mean as few as one H-20 per two B-21. How many H-20 will be procured as direct replacement of H-6 remains to be seen, as many of the roles of a pure stand-off carrier can be taken over by heavy drones in the future.

I omitted Russian bombers because I don't see them as a reliable factor in any future scenario that PLAAF could consider. PAK-DA is still theoretical. Tu-160 is at B-1 level (no matter what Russian propaganda claims) and Tu-95MSM will be at B-52 level approximately. Those are not assets useful in scenarios other than defense of own territory starting from 2030 onward.

Anyway, that's just a starting point for speculations and discussions once we have more information.

MarKoz81 said:

B-21 will be more expensive to maintain than B-52 or B-1 even with numerous improvements over B-2.

Click to expand...

If that is true it just shows how the US cannot even make a cost effective design anymore. There is no good reason why an eight engine aircraft like the B-52 should have lower maintenance costs than a twin engine aircraft like the B-21. If this is attributable to stealth coatings, taped over access panels, and the like it only shows how stealth, at least how the US implements it, is a boondoggle and a massive waste of money.

MarKoz81 said:

I omitted Russian bombers because I don't see them as a reliable factor in any future scenario that PLAAF could consider. PAK-DA is still theoretical. Tu-160 is at B-1 level (no matter what Russian propaganda claims) and Tu-95MSM will be at B-52 level approximately. Those are not assets useful in scenarios other than defense of own territory starting from 2030 onward.

Click to expand...

Tu-160:
Empty weight: 110,000 kg
Powerplant: 4 × NK-32 afterburning turbofan engines, 137.3 kN thrust each dry, 245 kN with afterburner
Maximum speed: Mach 2.05

B-1:
Empty weight: 87,090 kg
Powerplant: 4 × GE F101-GE-102 afterburning turbofan engines, 77.4 kN thrust each dry, 136.9 kN with afterburner
Maximum speed: Mach 1.25

Tu-160 has nearly twice the thrust and speed. Thrust and mass fraction directly relate to bomb load in such an aircraft.

As for the PAK-DA it has been funded, they are building two prototypes, and the engine is in the test stand. At this point it is about as theoretical as the H-20. The H-20 should come out earlier since it likely will use existing engine designs and the program was started earlier. H-20 will massively increase Chinese capabilities vs H-6K with regards to bomb load, range, penetration capabilities. It will be a quantum leap forward while B-21 is a downgrade in terms of capabilities from B-2. B-21 is basically a cost reduced version of the B-2. The main advantage is it is expected to be produced in higher numbers. As a B-1 replacement the B-21 will likely not have improved bomb load, will have lower maximum speed, and might have higher range and loiter time.

gelgoog said:

If that is true it just shows how the US cannot even make a cost effective design anymore. There is no good reason why an eight engine aircraft like the B-52 should have lower maintenance costs than a twin engine aircraft like the B-21. If this is attributable to stealth coatings, taped over access panels, and the like it only shows how stealth, at least how the US implements it, is a boondoggle and a massive waste of money.



Tu-160:
Empty weight: 110,000 kg
Powerplant: 4 × NK-32 afterburning turbofan engines, 137.3 kN thrust each dry, 245 kN with afterburner
Maximum speed: Mach 2.05

B-1:
Empty weight: 87,090 kg
Powerplant: 4 × GE F101-GE-102 afterburning turbofan engines, 77.4 kN thrust each dry, 136.9 kN with afterburner
Maximum speed: Mach 1.25

Tu-160 has nearly twice the thrust and speed. Thrust and mass fraction directly relate to bomb load in such an aircraft.

As for the PAK-DA it has been funded, they are building two prototypes, and the engine is in the test stand. At this point it is about as theoretical as the H-20. The H-20 should come out earlier since it likely will use existing engine designs and the program was started earlier. H-20 will massively increase Chinese capabilities vs H-6K with regards to bomb load, range, penetration capabilities. It will be a quantum leap forward while B-21 is a downgrade in terms of capabilities from B-2. B-21 is basically a cost reduced version of the B-2. The main advantage is it is expected to be produced in higher numbers. As a B-1 replacement the B-21 will likely not have improved bomb load, will have lower maximum speed, and might have higher range and loiter time.

Click to expand...

You talk as if today USA produce an identical copy of B-52 it wont be overpriced.

Actually isn't that exactly what F-15X is? Rebuild of existing designs. It proves the issue of cost is not in stealth design but in the defense industry.

MarKoz81 said:

B-21 will be more expensive to maintain than B-52 or B-1 even with numerous improvements over B-2.

Click to expand...

You might want to expand of that statement because it doesn't really make any sense at first glance!