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

sunnymaxi said:

it is Chengdu Aerospace Corporation that is working on 6th generation fighter jet..

Shenyang is busy with J-35 and JH-XX if this recent rumors are true..

Click to expand...

Didn't Shenyang also working on 6th-gen fighters as well? The J-31/35 developmental work should be coming to a close by this point, and I highly doubt that the PLAN wouldn't want their own counterpart to the USN's 6th-gen F/A-XX.

FairAndUnbiased said:

60 tons full or empty? My estimate is for a 47 ton fully loaded plane: 22000 kg empty, 16000 kg fuel, 9000 kg max payload. Which is basically a Mig-31.

If we're talking 60 tons full , then we're looking at something like ~28000 kg empty, ~20000 kg fuel, ~12000 kg max payload.

That's about 1/2 the size of a Tu-22M or B-1B both in weight ~25-30 tons empty and dimensions ~25-30 m long.

Curiously, I can't find any aircraft historically produced in this weight and dimension range. The closest is the FB-111H with a 25 m long fuselage and H-6 with a 34 m length. Is there a reason for that?

Click to expand...

Are the ~9000 kg and ~12000 kg payload capacities for the JH-XX in stealth mode (all inside the weapons bay) or in beast mode (both inside the weapons bay and underneath the wings)?

In the meantime, I think that 50+ or even 60+ tons of max takeoff weight would be a more realistic range for a fighter-bomber/tactical bomber of the 2020s & 2030s than just 40+ tons.

ACuriousPLAFan said:

I did not claim that the JH-XX is a "bomber-fied" variant of the J-20. This is similar to how the JH-7/A is not a "bomber-fied" variant of the J-8II, for instance.

In the meantime, the maximum takeoff weights of the above listed fighters and fighter-bombers, for reference:
1. F-111 = 45.3 tons
2. FB-111A = 54.1 tons
3. Su-27 = 30.5 tons
(Su-30 & Su-35 = 34.5 tons)
4. Su-34 = 45.1 tons
5. F-22 = 38.0 tons
6. FB-22 = 54.4 tons

Click to expand...

Right. I didn't mean that JH-XX is actually derived from J-20, an idea which seems to be entirely unsupported. All I meant is that such a "bomber-fied J-20" is at least notionally feasible and could result in an aircraft with basic specifications (empty weight, fuel capacity, payload) that would be on the lower end of what we might anticipate for a medium/theatre bomber, along the lines of the numbers from horobeyo (which seem to be his own invention?) that you posted and critiqued earlier.

Of course this is all rather back to front. In the real world there is a desired mission profile or at least a set of desired capabilities and characteristics and the aircraft emerges from that. But it is certainly interesting to see what other solutions have previously been arrived at in this space, both aircraft that actually existed like FB-111A and those that never made it off the drawing board like FB-22 or TSR-2.

FairAndUnbiased said:

this is just a thought exercise to see what is roughly possible in terms of dimensions, masses, etc. from known, proven designs.



60 tons full or empty? My estimate is for a 47 ton fully loaded plane: 22000 kg empty, 16000 kg fuel, 9000 kg max payload. Which is basically a Mig-31.

If we're talking 60 tons full , then we're looking at something like ~28000 kg empty, ~20000 kg fuel, ~12000 kg max payload.

That's about 1/2 the size of a Tu-22M or B-1B both in weight ~25-30 tons empty and dimensions ~25-30 m long.

Curiously, I can't find any aircraft historically produced in this weight and dimension range. The closest is the FB-111H with a 25 m long fuselage and H-6 with a 34 m length. Is there a reason for that?

Click to expand...

I was thinking 60 tons full. I think interestingly enough that’s about the size range of the SR-71, which used to have an attack aircraft variant (A-12 oxcart), though obviously the optimization for a JH-XX airframe would be vastly different.

EDIT: Sorry that should have by the YF-12 and the role was interceptor. But still, similar dimensions.

ACuriousPLAFan said:

Are the ~9000 kg and ~12000 kg payload capacities for the JH-XX in stealth mode (all inside the weapons bay) or in beast mode (both inside the weapons bay and underneath the wings)?

In the meantime, I think that 50+ or even 60+ tons of max takeoff weight would be a more realistic range for a fighter-bomber/tactical bomber of the 2020s & 2030s than just 40+ tons.

Click to expand...

I was thinking a rotary launcher that fits 9000 kg inside the bays with external hardpoints solely reserved for drop tanks. The survivability requirements of the mission i.e. striking certain extremely hardened mobile targets from beyond CAP range or striking certain politically important distant regions, could mean that once it leaves Chinese airspace it has to be VLO or risk being shot down.

FairAndUnbiased said:

I was thinking a rotary launcher that fits 9000 kg inside the bays with external hardpoints solely reserved for drop tanks. The survivability requirements of the mission i.e. striking certain extremely hardened mobile targets from beyond CAP range or striking certain politically important distant regions, could mean that once it leaves Chinese airspace it has to be VLO or risk being shot down.

Click to expand...

Indeed. I'm thinking that the JH-XX will also be used for strike missions against Diego Garcia and northern Australia (thus reserving the H-20 for cross-Pacific expeditionary strike missions against 2.5IC and 3IC), which necessitate flying over potentially unfriendly foreign territories before they could release their payloads.

Also, the J-20's internal weapons bay is definitely not just 1 meter wide. The guesstimated figures which I could find indicates around 2.2 meters. Perhaps you could adjust your calculations somewhat.

ACuriousPLAFan said:

Indeed. I'm thinking that the JH-XX will also be used for strike missions against Diego Garcia and northern Australia (thus reserving the H-20 for cross-Pacific expeditionary strike missions against 2.5IC and 3IC), which necessitate flying over potentially unfriendly foreign territories before they could release their payloads.

Also, the J-20's weapons bay is estimated to be around 2.2 meters wide, definitely not just 1 meter. Perhaps you could adjust your calculations somewhat.

Click to expand...

If its 2.2 m wide, then it might be able to accommodate a 6x rotary launcher with ~ 1.5 m OD. But then weight, not dimensions, becomes a limitation. The more missiles on a rotary launcher the heavier duty it has to be. 6x3000 km class missiles would be ~15000 kg, plus a heavy duty rotary launcher might need to be 1000 kg+.

FairAndUnbiased said:

If its 2.2 m wide, then it might be able to accommodate a 6x rotary launcher with ~ 1.5 m OD. But then weight, not dimensions, becomes a limitation. The more missiles on a rotary launcher the heavier duty it has to be. 6x3000 km class missiles would be ~15000 kg, plus a heavy duty rotary launcher might need to be 1000 kg+.

Click to expand...

A ~1.5-meter OD rotary launcher can only carry at most 5x Kh-55-sized missiles at ~0.53-meter of OD each? That would be ~12.5 tons (~12500 kilograms) of payload.

So the PLAAF is looking at something along the lines of the cancelled (or black?) Northrop F/B-23 Rapid Theatre Attack.

The F/B-23 RTA was designed for a nominal main mission of 1750 nautical mile radius, entirely flown at Mach 1.6 at above 50000 feet with a 9000-pound weapons payload.

Theres a report decade ago,çhinese engineers team manage to exam ukraine tu160 ,possibility including the techical drawing .before itvwas hand back to russia.