No clue, which is why I was asking for context earlier.
I understand it's from a video, but I haven't watched it myself yet
H-20 bomber (with H-X, JH-XX)
- Thread starter Deino
- Start date
No clue, which is why I was asking for context earlier.
I understand it's from a video, but I haven't watched it myself yet
Sure, I check the original post, you are right. From yankee’s word, we just know it is a new kind of supersonic fighter with nice stealth capability, spacious bomb bay and more than 5000km range. It can be a FB-111A like fighter/Bomber or next generation air dominance (AKA 6Gen Fighter). If we check the description of NGAD by US Air Force, the key points are almost same. After all, both sides need to face the vast Pacific Ocean.
Maybe, we can see 2 different designs
I found the original vide:
A very rough summary of the video:
#1. Yankee started the video by discussing the Ukrainian Air Force Day last Sunday, which extrapolates to the standoff strike munitions i.e. SCAP, Storm Shadow and JDAM, alongside mentions of the October 1996 aerial clash over the Aegean Sea which resulted in a Greek Mirage 2000 downing a Turkish F-16. The clash plays an important role in persuading France to help Greece upgrading their Mirage 2000s to be able to carry SCALP. Yankee also briefly talked about the Ukraine War, discussing about land-attack missions conducted by the Ukrainian fighters and attack aircrafts against Russian ground units.
#2. Yankee then relates the above discussion with the Mirage IV supersonic nuclear bomber, which isn't significantly better than the Mirage 2000N in terms of carrying nuclear payloads (both can carry only one ASMP nuclear-tipped cruise missile underneath their bellies) and having worse maneuverability than the latter, resulting in the retirement of the former in 1996 and the role of aerial nuclear delivery taken over by Mirage 2000N. Yankee also mentioned about the proposal by BAC to work with Dassault on the Mirage 4S with Spey engines in the early 1960s, before the UK's 1966 decision to procure F-111s instead (and then its eventual cancellation too) effectively scrapped the project.
#3. Towards the end of the video, Yankee mentioned:
- "For the only one of the 5 UNSC Permanent Members to never have a supersonic bomber, later on that P5 member can redefine supersonic bombers."
- "Let's assume that if there is a plane that can fly pretty fast and is stealthy, have a takeoff weight of several 10s of tons, with a range of not just 10000 lis, with weapons bay (no mention of one or more) that is very large and very deep. If the plane is used as a supersonic bomber, at the very least, that plane is going to be very useful." Judging by how Yankee delivers the two quoted sentences above, I think he is actually hinting about a subject.
~~~
Therefore, by summing up the entire video (with greater focus on #2 and especially #3), I think that:
1. The hinted subject is most likely a new/next-gen supersonic bomber for China, more specifically the JH-XX.
2. The "10000 lis" is most likely referring to 5000 kilometers. This is because the Chinese Red Army's "25000-li Long March" slogan actually refers to 12500 kilometers.
3. The H-20 is definitely not the hinted subject. This is because as a strategic bomber, the H-20 is certain to have a takeoff weight of 100s of tons, not just 10s of tons.
4. The 6th-gen fighter is also unlikely to be the hinted subject. This is because in #2, he mentioned about the F-111 (US), Mirage IV (France), Vulcan (UK) and Tu-16 (Russia) - All of them being attack aircrafts and/or tactical bombers.
Last edited:
Probably design that fall in that size range would need dedicated engines and was not economically sound. Something between a Tu-22 and Su-34 would need something bigger than ws-15 to be able to have the dash speed needed to flee interception after launching is payload.
Last edited:
(As an addition to the video summary post above: It should be noted that Yankee specified neither the number nor the type/category of engines for the hinted subject.)
Several ways to deal with this issue that I could think of WRT finding the most suitable engines for the JH-XX:
Option #1 - 2x WS-15A, i.e. similar to the ones used on the J-20. Going this way is the most straightforward, but need to accept some important drawbacks, including max speed and dash speed (e.g. Su-34); or
Option #2 - 2x WS-15B, i.e. further development of the WS-15A with greater thrusts than the ones used on the J-20. Requires further effort-consuming and time-consuming development, but saves on number of engines per airframe (e.g. FB-22); or
Option #3 - 3x WS-15A, i.e. similar to the ones used on the J-20, but adding one more engine for more thrust. An exotic design, hence the many risks associated with such engine configurations have to be dealt with (e.g. none); or
Option #4 - 4x WS-19A, i.e. similar to the ones used on the J-31/35. Individual WS-19A has smaller thrusts than individual WS-15A, but is made up for by having more of them per airframe (e.g. smaller-sized B-2).
To sum it up, all the options have their respective pros and cons to consider.
Then, it also depends on what the JH-XX's mission profile is more tailored towards. That is, is the JH-XX meant to be:
1. A fighter-bomber (i.e. JH-7-equivalent); or
2. A tactical/theater bomber (i.e. H-6-equivalent)?
On one hand, options #1 and #2 are more suitable for the fighter-bomber role. On the other hand, options #3 and #4 are more suitable for the tactical/theater bomber role.
So what do you guys think?
(One worthy note, though: Judging by Yankee's way of description, it does feels like the JH-XX is leaning more towards the tactical/theater bomber role than the fighter-bomber role. But that might just be my own observation.)
Last edited:
This may be a stupid question, but why don't any fighter/bombers use 3 engines if more power is needed why not 3x WS-15 to power JH-XX
I don't see the benefit in producing a new stealthy fighter-bomber with JH-7 range. It would only be able to cover the First Island Chain, which by 2030, would already face overwhelming Chinese Air and Missile forces. Call it 1000 5th gen stealth fighters with another 2000 4/4.5 Gen fighter bombers.
So you might as well use the existing fleet of 4/4.5 Gen fighter-bombers to carry external munitions on their wings, for targets in the First Island Chain.
---
On engine configuration, look at what 2x F-119 (WS-15 class) engines gets you with the FB-22.
There's a 56 tonne Max Take Off Weight, 3000km combat radius and 13 tonnes of weapons.
This already gives you a tactical/theater bomber capability. So would you need the other engine configurations?
It may or may not have the manoeuvrability of an air superiority fighter.
But consider that we've seen a pattern where initial Chinese aircraft development uses a proven engine design, whilst designing the airframe to accommodate the final desired engine. So 2x WS-15 engines could be the interim powerplant, with a variable cycle engine in development. The additional thrust could make it more suitable for air superiority missions and would also increase range further.
With variable cycle engines, it basically looks like an NGAD.
So there would be air superiority missions 3000km+ from mainland China, over Guam for example.
Last edited:
3x engines has been used before and is mechanically stable with a centerline 3rd engine. Even civil aviation used it in the 1970s and 1980s, so it is reliable enough. It is also compatible with S ducts for stealth.
It usually requires more fuel than 2 big engines though, but if you're constrained by already using the largest engine possible, I don't see an aerodynamic reason why it won't work
Again…higher bypass WS-15 should have no problem meeting this need.
FriedRiceNSpice
Captain
Wouldn't a centerline engine cut into space for the weapons bay significantly?