I'm not sure about the bolded parts.
Unless your JH-XX is some kind of an orbital/sub-orbital plane than can travel as fast as the Maverick's Darkstar, there are always SAMs and AAMs that can travel faster than it and be able to catch it.
H-20 bomber (with H-X, JH-XX)
- Thread starter Deino
- Start date
Unless your JH-XX is some kind of an orbital/sub-orbital plane than can travel as fast as the Maverick's Darkstar, there are always SAMs and AAMs that can travel faster than it and be able to catch it.
No changes that I'm aware of.
I.e.: we know nothing about when to definitively expect it, so we just sit and wait until something happens lol
Theoretically, but in practice by the time you see it then fire the missile, most projectiles won't be able reach the speed and altitude and cover the distance before running out of fuel. This is the same reason the SR-71 was never shot down, and this aircraft should be stealthier.
FriedRiceNSpice
Captain
What mission profile would such a platform fulfill that H-20, various missiles, and future unmanned platforms would not be able to fulfill at similar or lower cost?
In an all out war against a peer competitor, there would be significant pressure on datalinks, so any long range control over any unmanned system be it missiles or UAVs will be vulnerable to kill chain disruption. H-20 would be hunted down once it fires, unmanned platforms may not be reliably controlled at long range. This system would allow for firing of ordnances at much closer range, thus significantly simplifying the kill chain, and still be survivable.
Given that it would only be used against very high value targets, e.g. CBGs, large aircraft strike groups, command centers, etc. it could even use expensive Kamikaze UAVs to augment the kill chain. An UAV with similar speed, RCS, carries a powerful radar/IR sensor to guide the ordnance until their own active homing systems can takeover, for example. It would not be expected to survive the attack, though it can be made with enough fuel to return to base at a slower speed so peace time training wouldn't be so wasteful.
FriedRiceNSpice
Captain
This may not be the best thread to go further into this topic, but I would expect the next generation of UCAVS to be able to operate with a much higher degree of autonomy than the current/previous generation of UAVs. I envision two general classes of UCAVs, payload platforms for serving as autonomous bomb trucks, and sensor/communications platforms that would serve as nodes for a resilient and robust ISR/command and control network. These platforms could be overseen and directed by H-20s/J-20s/6th generation manned fighters operating further back from the edges of the network.
As for H-20s, one of their primary mission profiles is for deep penetration of the enemy battlespace - if H-20s could not reliably do so in a survivable manner, there would be no need to invest in such an expensive platform. By promoting a high speed tactical bomber instead, you are essentially betting that the higher speed of such a platform would allow it to be more survival than the H-20's all aspect stealth, in which case you would be betting against the major militaries of the world. Even if you really do want to develop such a platform, why does it need to be a supersonic manned platform? Instead, a larger WZ-11 like platform with longer range and a greater payload (as well as ability to take off from airfields without needing to be launched by H-6s) would be able to fly at much higher speeds., which brings us back to UCAVs. If it's loitering ability that's desired, for striking at targets of opportunity, then any high speed platform is not going to have the endurance and uptime required, again putting you back into a domain ruled by H-20s and UCAVs.
The rationale for a notional JH-XX exists, but as always it becomes a matter of opportunity cost.
In past years, the discussion about whether a JH-XX makes sense for the PLA to pursue essentially always boils down to whether developing and procuring JH-XX fulfills a specific mission that their other confirmed/anticipated projects cannot already do.
For the relevant stealthy confirmed/anticipated aerospace projects, we can include:
- J-20 family (J-20, J-20A, J-20B), confirmed
- H-20, confirmed
- Carrier based J-XY/35, confirmed
- Manned 6th gen fighter (likely to have longer range/endurance and payload than J-20), anticipated
- A variety of stealthy strike and A2A UCAVs, anticipated
(Then there are other non-stealthy aircraft and long range missiles already in service, which while the are far less survivable than stealthy types, they would still likely play a role in augmenting fires, like H-6K/J/N family, J-16 family, DF-21D and DF-26, and other emerging long range strike systems like DF-27, new ALCMs and so on. They aren't as directly relevant, but in terms of long range theater strike capabilities they do have a role to play)
The question thus becomes whether the PLA's money and the PRC's aerospace resources would be better spent to increase production and procurement of those already confirmed/anticipated projects, or to pursue development of a new JH-XX type, and how vital the niche is that the JH-XX would be expected to fill. After all if it is too specific and too niche, then it might be better off just to buy more of the existing aircraft types and develop munitions to fill the task.
What I describe above, is the same kind of impasse for the "will they procure JH-XX or not" question that we've been at since about 2018. Amusingly, not much has changed in this regard.
This JH-XX could be used for long distance maritime strike. Having a large supersonic bomber type aircraft would enable the use of higher speed anti shipping missiles. The faster the carrier platform is, the less energy the missile will have to expend to reach its target velocity.
Another possibility is direct strikes against second island chain targets without refueling, and third island chain targets with refueling.
One possible requirement is a larger weapons bay capable of launching longer range precision weapons.
However now that the J-20S has come out, and the WS-15 is available, I wonder if there is any added benefit in designing a specific twin engine bomber airframe. The J-16 could easily be replaced with some J-20S variant.
Another possibility is direct strikes against second island chain targets without refueling, and third island chain targets with refueling.
One possible requirement is a larger weapons bay capable of launching longer range precision weapons.
However now that the J-20S has come out, and the WS-15 is available, I wonder if there is any added benefit in designing a specific twin engine bomber airframe. The J-16 could easily be replaced with some J-20S variant.
A distributed, robust communications network is essential, of course, and it's the case for all platforms. However, this is something that all militaries realize and everyone will be investing significant resources to both developing it and countering it. Similarly for an all-aspect stealth bomber. It's difficult for me to say that in the pursuit of these systems that China possesses any significant advantages, which leads to my next point.
My ideas for the JH-XX arises primarily by looking at areas where China has an advantage and how China may leverage it into superior weapons systems. China's most likely peer competitor is, of course, the US, who has more advanced capabilities in most arenas. The way I see it, there are a few areas where China has an advantage in.
1) While the US has obligations and enemies (as in those who might come into military conflict with) across the world, while China really only has one. Something like my proposed JH-XX in American hands would be useless in 90% of the conflict it may be involved in due to poor cost/performance ratio, but for China it would be useful in the only major conflict it may be involved in. In other words, it's a system that could be cost effective for China to build, but not cost effective for the US to match.
2) The weapons system China has probably the biggest lead in is hypersonics, owing to its wind tunnels that would take others many years to match. However, without an intact kill chain, hypersonics can may be more useful as a strategic rather than a tactical weapon. An aircraft that can reliably strengthen the kill chain by firing and perhaps guiding weapons from fairly close range could greatly alleviate this issue.
It's possible that the lack of any substantial news despite some fairly authoritative news of the project's existence is due to the technology not being there yet rather than the absence of a need of such a system.