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

tankphobia

tankphobia

Senior Member
Registered Member
Philister said:
What I mean is, the massive sacrifice for VLO capability simply doesn’t worth it
1.survivability based on RCS/thermal reduction is a very shortsighted idea for the time being, sensor technology such as quantum radar/MIMO is going to boom in the next decade that’s for sure, AI will be able to analyze RCS patterns that drastically reduce the VLO capability, let alone the massive amount of space-based sensors that reusable rockets would brought us
2.Even so,a B-21 would still have much better survivability than a B-1B, but ,at what cost? The US once had a bomber fleet of 700 B-52s, that’s B-52 alone, of course that’s due to the fact that bombers were seen as the only reliable nuclear carrier at that time but a fleet of 700 B-52s is a formidable force on any level, they managed to bomb the shit out their enemies no matter how poorly GF performed, now with PGMs, bombers are only much more lethal than ever, and how many B-21s would US Air Force get?100?150?200 would be considered as bragging, that’s how expensive they are , purchasing and maintaining
3. With such great sacrifice , bombers with VLO capability are considered as a good nuclear capable platform or a counter-nuclear weapon, with such low quantity, it’s impossible to be randomly used as a tactical solution , but again, it’s very wrong, the “B-2 hunting TEL” thing was very stupid from the beginning (the US, never ever effectively performed any TEL hunting in both Afghanistan and Middle East, even with much better intelligence support and longer mission time& more personnel on the ground), and as nuclear weapons carrier , all the usage scenarios are plain daydreaming , bombers should focus more on tactical use hence the need to be cheaper. LO is more than enough for most of the missions, make a big X-47B if you really need to penetrate.
4. NG transporters/air refueling vehicles, like bombers,if not based on a universal platform, will be astonishingly expensive, air refueling vehicles are already very expensive even though most of them are currently based on civil jets. A NG universal platform for bombers/transporters/air refueling vehicles would drastically reduce the cost and make their quantity mean something again
Click to expand...
Militaries around the world seems to have diverged from WW2/cold war philosophy of equipment usage. Even the PLA itself has shrunk and reformed into a smaller, more elite force.

I don't think we'll see the days of the Vietnam war again where thousands of aircraft are shot down without batting an eye. Countries are somehow convincing themselves that a small force of expensive equipment is a better investment then a huge number of "good enoughs".
 
A

Atomicfrog

Major
Registered Member
tankphobia said:
Militaries around the world seems to have diverged from WW2/cold war philosophy of equipment usage. Even the PLA itself has shrunk and reformed into a smaller, more elite force.

I don't think we'll see the days of the Vietnam war again where thousands of aircraft are shot down without batting an eye. Countries are somehow convincing themselves that a small force of expensive equipment is a better investment then a huge number of "good enoughs".
Click to expand...
Small force of expensive equipments is nice when you have a very short confict. You need some top of the line equipment for sure but that equipment need to sit on a stockpile of rugged good enoughs to be viable in a long conflict. I cannot see H-20 replace all H-6 bombers like I cannot see H-6 doing penetration raid.
 
A

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
donnnage99 said:
that's what we thought about Russia. top down approach with little check and balance, accountability or transparency creates alot of fairy tale paper capabilities but not necessarily real world effectiveness.

every cost overrun, failed promises, or technical issue the f-35 program encountered were reported in news and brought up in congressional hearings. where's Chinese equivalence of independent reporting? last time I heard some comedian was fined millions for simply cracking a joke about the army.

truth of the matter is we have no idea how effective the chinese military industrial complex is at delivering. having consistency in governmental leadership does help create better projection and project security on the industry side and the fact that it's state owned can take away the profit margin but the con is that there's little check and balance, more mishap and cover ups.
Click to expand...

We do actually have some public indications of the Chinese MIC delivery effectiveness.

For example, as per the Pentagon, the PLARF conducts over 100 ballistic missile launches/tests per year. And we've seen them launch at dummy target at sea and also at ship mockups moving on railway tracks tracks. That's the limit of what you can test, without actually launching at a real enemy ship.

In the Air Force, we can see China launching full-scale mixed strike packages comprising up to 50 aircraft. The only way this sort of training could get more realistic is an actual war.

We can also see that even the fit and finish of Chinese 4th gen aircraft delivered is far better than their Russian equivalents in recent years. That should be indicative.

In the Army, we can see the Chinese Army have moved from Division-level maneuvre units to Brigade-sized units, like the US. In comparison, Russia moved to Battalion-sized units as the basic combat unit, which has proved unsuitable for prolonged combat situations.

And as per Patchwork's previous comments, the Chinese have a better joint battle network, as the US version (JADC2) isn't ready yet. Availability of the J-20 is estimated at approx 90%, which is a very high level of readiness.

In terms of funding, each Chinese military individual is way better funded than their Russian equivalent. If you run the numbers, Chinese individuals in the military receive twice as much total funding as Russians do. In fact Chinese funding levels per person are approaching European NATO levels.

Based on these data points (and others), I think it's prudent to assume the Chinese military is nothing like the Russian military
 
D

Derpy

Junior Member
Registered Member
tankphobia said:
Militaries around the world seems to have diverged from WW2/cold war philosophy of equipment usage. Even the PLA itself has shrunk and reformed into a smaller, more elite force.

I don't think we'll see the days of the Vietnam war again where thousands of aircraft are shot down without batting an eye. Countries are somehow convincing themselves that a small force of expensive equipment is a better investment then a huge number of "good enoughs".
Click to expand...
A small elite force draws less resources in peace time, this enhances economic growth which in the long term (decades) improves military capability.
If that small force is not enough for your perceived security needs then augmenting it with a conscription force is the best option, Israel comes to mind.
We might not see thousands of manned aircraft shot down in future wars but certainly drones.
 
tankphobia

tankphobia

Senior Member
Registered Member
Derpy said:
A small elite force draws less resources in peace time, this enhances economic growth which in the long term (decades) improves military capability.
If that small force is not enough for your perceived security needs then augmenting it with a conscription force is the best option, Israel comes to mind.
We might not see thousands of manned aircraft shot down in future wars but certainly drones.
Click to expand...
Does it really though? The US navy is a good example where the limited force has so much responsibility pushed upon it that the equipment and manpower is pushed to the limit, resulting in increased rates of accidents and poor morale.

At some point nations need to realise this era of peace will not last forever, bite the bullet and actually build needed hardware and train enough specialised personnel with the expection that attrition rate will be extremely high in a modern peer conflict.

We need high hundreds of H-20 and H-6 combined, if a CAP catching your bombing mission can wipe out a sizable fraction of total aircraft you're doing it wrong.
 
vincent

vincent

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Moderator - World Affairs
tankphobia said:
Does it really though? The US navy is a good example where the limited force has so much responsibility pushed upon it that the equipment and manpower is pushed to the limit, resulting in increased rates of accidents and poor morale.

At some point nations need to realise this era of peace will not last forever, bite the bullet and actually build needed hardware and train enough specialised personnel with the expection that attrition rate will be extremely high in a modern peer conflict.

We need high hundreds of H-20 and H-6 combined, if a CAP catching your bombing mission can wipe out a sizable fraction of total aircraft you're doing it wrong.
Click to expand...
Maybe the US shouldn't go all over the world picking fights with everyone?
Maybe most countries have realized wars are far too expensive and the payoffs don't cover the costs. China is not gonna invade other countries, neither do vast majority of countries of the world.
 
D

dingyibvs

Senior Member
It's hard to to find any info about the JH-XX. Since the Congressional report on the Chinese military stating 2 stealth bombers under development, has there been any rumor about the 2nd, non-H-20 bomber? A lot of discussion have been focused on their role as a bomber, and how in this role a stealthier H-20 with longer range and more numerous missiles may be better, but I wonder if technology has advanced enough that a very high speed, high altitude, stealth fighter-bomber can be this era's ultimate interceptors?

If say a group of 4.5/5th gen fighters are approaching, supported by tankers and AWACS, a squad of say 4-5 JH-XX's could be scrambled to meet them. They could perhaps approach to 200kms of the attacking group, fire off say 20 PL-15's and 4 PL-XX's each at incoming fighters and the support aircrafts behind them, respectively. Then they can turn around, hit the burners, and fly home with their speed and altitude advantage helping to avoid enemy missiles.
 
Blitzo

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
dingyibvs said:
It's hard to to find any info about the JH-XX. Since the Congressional report on the Chinese military stating 2 stealth bombers under development, has there been any rumor about the 2nd, non-H-20 bomber? A lot of discussion have been focused on their role as a bomber, and how in this role a stealthier H-20 with longer range and more numerous missiles may be better, but I wonder if technology has advanced enough that a very high speed, high altitude, stealth fighter-bomber can be this era's ultimate interceptors?

If say a group of 4.5/5th gen fighters are approaching, supported by tankers and AWACS, a squad of say 4-5 JH-XX's could be scrambled to meet them. They could perhaps approach to 200kms of the attacking group, fire off say 20 PL-15's and 4 PL-XX's each at incoming fighters and the support aircrafts behind them, respectively. Then they can turn around, hit the burners, and fly home with their speed and altitude advantage helping to avoid enemy missiles.
Click to expand...

[post moved from engine thread]

There's been no new credible info about JH-XX suggesting it is actively under development.

That said, the conops you describe is pretty reasonable, and it's one that has been written about by a few people (including myself, on multiple occasions) since almost a decade ago when that mysterious-possible JH-XX black model was posted online.


But without any credible indicators that it's actively in the works, and also considering we're now in 2023 and we'll be expecting a manned 6th gen fighter later this decade (which may well have some of the payload and range characteristics that has in the past been associated with theater bombers such as a notional JH-XX), all we can do is to wait on any news.



OTOH, in the case of H-20 (i.e.: a project that is confirmed and which we expect), I wouldn't be surprised if it had a secondary BVR A2A capability beyond its primary bomber/strike mission.
That secondary A2A capability would be primarily due to the fact that the "networking-of-everything" means that it should be able to operate as an A2A missile carrier with fairly substantial range/endurance for certain mission profiles, even if it lacks the kinematic characteristics that a hypothetical JH-XX would have in that role.
 
D

dingyibvs

Senior Member
Blitzo said:
[post moved from engine thread]

There's been no new credible info about JH-XX suggesting it is actively under development.

That said, the conops you describe is pretty reasonable, and it's one that has been written about by a few people (including myself, on multiple occasions) since almost a decade ago when that mysterious-possible JH-XX black model was posted online.


But without any credible indicators that it's actively in the works, and also considering we're now in 2023 and we'll be expecting a manned 6th gen fighter later this decade (which may well have some of the payload and range characteristics that has in the past been associated with theater bombers such as a notional JH-XX), all we can do is to wait on any news.



OTOH, in the case of H-20 (i.e.: a project that is confirmed and which we expect), I wouldn't be surprised if it had a secondary BVR A2A capability beyond its primary bomber/strike mission.
That secondary A2A capability would be primarily due to the fact that the "networking-of-everything" means that it should be able to operate as an A2A missile carrier with fairly substantial range/endurance for certain mission profiles, even if it lacks the kinematic characteristics that a hypothetical JH-XX would have in that role.
Click to expand...
I wonder if it's worthwhile to develop a highly specialized aircraft in addition to a somewhat more general fighter like proposed 6th gen fighter. Something like a JH-XX can therefore be highly, highly specialized to attack high value targets.

For example, it can mostly forego rear and top aspect stealth and focus solely on front and under aspect stealth, since what's behind it can't catch it, and there won't be anything above it. Its "bomb bay" can be located on top of the aircraft, "cold-launching" ordnance upwards and backwards. The bomb bay itself would be modular so the aircraft can be loaded with different ordnance. This would be a complex, costly affair, as you'd need a brand new launch system and all ordnance would need to be modified to be fired from it. But if you want the ability to launch ordnance from a relatively close range (say <200km) from extremely heavily protected targets and still get away alive, it might be worth the cost.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top