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

AndrewS said:

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.

Click to expand...

No aircraft can be developed from nothing nowadays. For JH-XX project, the posible developer is Shenyang or Chengdu. Xi´an now focus on H-20 and Y-20 variants, others do not have enough capability.

For Chengdu, One possible solution is a kind of FB-22 like JH-20. Based on dual seats model, sharing the same stealth design, engines, avionics, but changing the wing design, expanding the bay and fuel capacity.

For Shenyang, maybe a mix of J-16 and J-35. BTW, for years, there are rumours that Shenyang is developing a new fighter/Bomber.

No matter which one it is, based on its existing technical capabilities, comparing the examples of FB-22 and F-22, it should be able to achieve: 1. Good supersonic capability; 2. Nice stealth characteristics; 3, 10+ tons of ammunition; 4. A combat radius of more than 2,000 kilometers. This is exactly in line with the points mentioned by YanKee

FriedRiceNSpice said:

Wouldn't a centerline engine cut into space for the weapons bay significantly?

Click to expand...

depends, you can stack it on top in the standard trijet configuration, and in a fighter-bomber all the engines are in the back anyhow and take up the whole fuselage in that area.

A bit of a digression but can someone explain to me who exactly are Yankee and Shilao and why everyone is so excited about what they say?

Do they have an PR relationship with Chinese aerospace industry and/or military that would allow them to have greater knowledge of what's happening behind the closed door?

Do they have an established record of sharing information on programs that turn out to be correct?

Because frankly every time I pay attention to their statements being shared here they out to be either vague BS intended to draw more views/clicks or BS intended to create a mistaken impression that they're knowledgeable and competent. Perhaps it's just a coincidence and my bad luck but the principle of Gell-Mann amnesia applies and if someone fails to this extent in one area they fail in all areas and their successes are accidental. Statistical rules for trends and deviations always apply.

Here's an example:

ACuriousPLAFan said:

#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.

Click to expand...

I will give benefit of the doubt to @ACuriousPLAFan and assume his interpretation is correct. But if so then Yankee spreads egregious BS unacceptable for anyone with a reputation of being knowledgeable in this field.

Here's what happened:

When France decided to develop its own sovereign nuclear deterrent because of limited resources it decided on asymmetric strategy of deterrence of "Destroying all of France is not worth losing ten largest Soviet cities". To that purpose they needed a delivery mechanism that could strike at Moscow, Leningrad and Kiyv from bases in France and a payload of sufficient yield.

The payload was the freefall fission bomb AN-11, used in the first nuclear test in 1960. AN-11 weighed 1,5t and had yield of 60kt.

The delivery mechanism was the supersonic strategic bomber Mirage IV, developed in 1958 from Mirage III which just entered service in 1956.

Mirage IV and AN-11 became operational in 1964. In 1967 AN-22 an updated design with the same yield but weighing only 0,7t entered service which improved Mirage IV performance. There were approx. 40 bombs, one for every of the 36 Mirage IVA assigned to nuclear mission.

Mirage IV and AN-11/22 were the only strategic nuclear capability that France had from 1964 to 1971. 1960s were very tense period with Vietnam draining US potential in Europe and putting NATO effectiveness in doubt in the face of rapidly expanding Soviet potential - both nuclear and conventional.

In 1971 strategic capability changed radically with the introduction of the first SSBN armed with 16 M1 SLBM and first silo-based S2 MRBM. M1 had 500kt warhead and 2450km range. S2 had 120kt warhead and 3000km range.

By 1976 France had 4 SSBNs with 64 missiles and 36 missiles in silos and the already obsolete AN-22 became redundant as strategic deterrent. Consequently the role of aerial delivery shifted from strategic to tactical. This meant that range and yield were no longer primary considerations and in 1972 air force received AN-52 with yield of 25kt and mass of 0,46t which could be carried on smaller jets like Mirage III, Jaguar or Super Etendard.

At the same time due to proliferation of SAMs work has started on replacement for the freefall nuclear bomb - ASMP supersonic cruise missile. ASMP was planned to enter service in 1981 but did so only in 1986. The missile was initially carried by 18 of modernized Mirage IVP but the intended carriers were Mirage 2000N which entered service in 1988 and by 1996 replaced all Mirage IVP.

There was never any competition between Mirage 2000N and Mirage IV because they were different platforms for different roles in different eras:

• Mirage IV was designed as a strategic bomber for strategic deterrence for the 1960-70s carrying freefall munitions in penetration missions at ranges over 3000km w/o refueling.
• Mirage 2000N was designed as a tactical bomber for deterrence signalling for the 1980-90s carrying stand-off munitions at ranges under 1500km w/o refueling.

Ordinary Mirage IV carrying conventional ordnance was replaced by Mirage 2000D developed from Mirage 2000N but that was again caused by the loss of need for strategic bombers. Conventional Mirage IV existed only because of Mirage IVA. France didn't have a genuine doctrinal requirement for conventional long-range bombers so no suitable design was ever necessary and considering material constraints France would not waste resources.

Understanding this is elementary knowledge for anyone who wants to talk on military issues and earn a merit-based reputation.

If you don't know it, then research it - in 2023 it's all available on Wikipedia. If you somehow can't research it then STFU and don't spread BS for views.

Previously I caught them spreading BS about something relating to tanks in Ukraine conflict and wrote as much but my comment was deleted. I didn't care then but now this has become problematic. Why exactly do you care about "hints" from a person who can't do due dilligence on Wikipedia before speaking to hundreds of thousands of people in his audience? That's indicative of a personality type. People like that have zero credibility because they themselves can't tell when they lie for attention.

ACuriousPLAFan said:

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.

Click to expand...

There are only tactical and strategic bombers. The distinction between tactical and strategic is about target category or scale and not bomber range or payload.

Tactical bombers no longer exist because all jet fighters can carry sufficient payload.

"Theater bomber" is an incorrect term derived from "theater ballistic missile" which is an incorrect term for IRBM. "Theater" is how military divides responsibilities and is not the equivalent of operational scale.

Also all bombers in the future will carry air-to-air weapons at least for self defense but over time as long-range defensive counter air assets. This concept is widely being discussed and in the past there was a proposition e.g. to arm B-1B with SM-2/6 in air-to-air role. Payloads not platforms. With sufficiently energetic missile a bomber can be a fighter especially if it's VLO.

Atomicfrog said:

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.

Click to expand...

Performance of Tu-22M, Su-34 and JH-XX with 2 WS-15:


At Tu-22M level JH-XX can carry:


Tu-22M can carry 3 Kh-22/32 or 4 Kh-47M2 or 10 Kh-15
Su-34 can carry theoreticaly mass of 3 Onix missiles but likely not more than 2 as per Kh-31.

Clearly for JH-XX volume is a problem, not mass or quantity.

Considering that internal bays and lifting body combined in VLO design greatly improve flight characteristics compared to both Tu-22M and Su-34 at which point "something bigger than WS-15" is necessary?

I'm starting to understand why this Yankee guy is so popular.

MarKoz81 said:

A bit of a digression but can someone explain to me who exactly are Yankee and Shilao and why everyone is so excited about what they say?

Do they have an PR relationship with Chinese aerospace industry and/or military that would allow them to have greater knowledge of what's happening behind the closed door?

Do they have an established record of sharing information on programs that turn out to be correct?

Click to expand...

Both of those are true, with the proviso that what they do share is often limited and deliberately vague, meaning that it is rare that we get clear definitive indicators of something that let's us say "we can say XYZ project is under active development and we should expect it in the near future".

However some people also focus a bit much on even half-hearted indicators when statements are less concrete, leading to too much speculation here.


That's why I've written on multiple occasions that speculation needs to be properly directed, and to recognize when it is unwarranted. In this case, I think people are speculating a bit too much about the notional "JH-XX" and are talking about it as if it is a "confirmed" or expected project, which I do not think the statement from the video indicates.

MarKoz81 said:

A bit of a digression but can someone explain to me who exactly are Yankee and Shilao and why everyone is so excited about what they say?

Click to expand...

Yankee and Shilao work for Guancha, the only independent news site producing military contents in China.

MarKoz81 said:

Do they have an PR relationship with Chinese aerospace industry and/or military that would allow them to have greater knowledge of what's happening behind the closed door?

Click to expand...

Yes

MarKoz81 said:

Do they have an established record of sharing information on programs that turn out to be correct?

Click to expand...

Yes

MarKoz81 said:

Because frankly every time I pay attention to their statements being shared here they out to be either vague BS intended to draw more views/clicks or BS intended to create a mistaken impression that they're knowledgeable and competent. Perhaps it's just a coincidence and my bad luck but the principle of Gell-Mann amnesia applies and if someone fails to this extent in one area they fail in all areas and their successes are accidental. Statistical rules for trends and deviations always apply.

Here's an example:

I will give benefit of the doubt to @ACuriousPLAFan and assume his interpretation is correct. But if so then Yankee spreads egregious BS unacceptable for anyone with a reputation of being knowledgeable in this field.

Here's what happened:

When France decided to develop its own sovereign nuclear deterrent because of limited resources it decided on asymmetric strategy of deterrence of "Destroying all of France is not worth losing ten largest Soviet cities". To that purpose they needed a delivery mechanism that could strike at Moscow, Leningrad and Kiyv from bases in France and a payload of sufficient yield.

The payload was the freefall fission bomb AN-11, used in the first nuclear test in 1960. AN-11 weighed 1,5t and had yield of 60kt.

The delivery mechanism was the supersonic strategic bomber Mirage IV, developed in 1958 from Mirage III which just entered service in 1956.

Mirage IV and AN-11 became operational in 1964. In 1967 AN-22 an updated design with the same yield but weighing only 0,7t entered service which improved Mirage IV performance. There were approx. 40 bombs, one for every of the 36 Mirage IVA assigned to nuclear mission.

Mirage IV and AN-11/22 were the only strategic nuclear capability that France had from 1964 to 1971. 1960s were very tense period with Vietnam draining US potential in Europe and putting NATO effectiveness in doubt in the face of rapidly expanding Soviet potential - both nuclear and conventional.

In 1971 strategic capability changed radically with the introduction of the first SSBN armed with 16 M1 SLBM and first silo-based S2 MRBM. M1 had 500kt warhead and 2450km range. S2 had 120kt warhead and 3000km range.

By 1976 France had 4 SSBNs with 64 missiles and 36 missiles in silos and the already obsolete AN-22 became redundant as strategic deterrent. Consequently the role of aerial delivery shifted from strategic to tactical. This meant that range and yield were no longer primary considerations and in 1972 air force received AN-52 with yield of 25kt and mass of 0,46t which could be carried on smaller jets like Mirage III, Jaguar or Super Etendard.

At the same time due to proliferation of SAMs work has started on replacement for the freefall nuclear bomb - ASMP supersonic cruise missile. ASMP was planned to enter service in 1981 but did so only in 1986. The missile was initially carried by 18 of modernized Mirage IVP but the intended carriers were Mirage 2000N which entered service in 1988 and by 1996 replaced all Mirage IVP.

There was never any competition between Mirage 2000N and Mirage IV because they were different platforms for different roles in different eras:

• Mirage IV was designed as a strategic bomber for strategic deterrence for the 1960-70s carrying freefall munitions in penetration missions at ranges over 3000km w/o refueling.
• Mirage 2000N was designed as a tactical bomber for deterrence signalling for the 1980-90s carrying stand-off munitions at ranges under 1500km w/o refueling.

Ordinary Mirage IV carrying conventional ordnance was replaced by Mirage 2000D developed from Mirage 2000N but that was again caused by the loss of need for strategic bombers. Conventional Mirage IV existed only because of Mirage IVA. France didn't have a genuine doctrinal requirement for conventional long-range bombers so no suitable design was ever necessary and considering material constraints France would not waste resources.

Click to expand...

I find it incredible how you wrote all this in response to the translated summary of an original program that you never watched and then attacked the credibility of the author base on that.

The full quote from Yankee is:
... 23.5 meters long supersonic bomber Mirage IV. Despite being much large than the Mirage 2000, the Mirage IV, being a Mach 2 supersonic nuclear bomber designed in the early days of the Cold War, was not originally designed to carry missiles. As such, the Mirage IV has the same carrying capacity as the Mirage 2000 with only half its empty weight when it comes to carrying the 0.8t ASMP nuclear cruise missile. Both can carry only one on the centerline hardpoint. But the Mirage IV has vastly inferior maneuverability compared to the Mirage 2000, and so in 1996, the bomber variants of the Mirage IV were retired (recon variants continued to serve until 2005). The air nuclear deterrence role is left to the Mirage 2000N and France no longer operates bombers.

There is nothing inaccurate about what Yankee said.

MarKoz81 said:

Understanding this is elementary knowledge for anyone who wants to talk on military issues and earn a merit-based reputation.

Click to expand...

Reading comprehension and common sense are likewise necessary for anyone who wants to be taken seriously.

MarKoz81 said:

If you don't know it, then research it - in 2023 it's all available on Wikipedia. If you somehow can't research it then STFU and don't spread BS for views

Click to expand...

If you cannot speak Chinese, perhaps you should STFU and don't spread BS for views when it comes to what Yankee said or didn't say.

MarKoz81 said:

Previously I caught them spreading BS about something relating to tanks in Ukraine conflict and wrote as much but my comment was deleted. I didn't care then but now this has become problematic. Why exactly do you care about "hints" from a person who can't do due dilligence on Wikipedia before speaking to hundreds of thousands of people in his audience? That's indicative of a personality type. People like that have zero credibility because they themselves can't tell when they lie for attention.

Click to expand...

Eagerness to attack others even without clear knowledge of the situation. Seeking attention by listing long and irrelevant facts to show off supposed erudition. These are indicative of a personality type too.

Jason_ said:

Yankee and Shilao work for Guancha, the only independent news site producing military contents in China.

Yes

Yes

I find it incredible how you wrote all this in response to the translated summary of an original program that you never watched and then attacked the credibility of the author base on that.

The full quote from Yankee is:
... 23.5 meters long supersonic bomber Mirage IV. Despite being much large than the Mirage 2000, the Mirage IV, being a Mach 2 supersonic nuclear bomber designed in the early days of the Cold War, was not originally designed to carry missiles. As such, the Mirage IV has the same carrying capacity as the Mirage 2000 with only half its empty weight when it comes to carrying the 0.8t ASMP nuclear cruise missile. Both can carry only one on the centerline hardpoint. But the Mirage IV has vastly inferior maneuverability compared to the Mirage 2000, and so in 1996, the bomber variants of the Mirage IV were retired (recon variants continued to serve until 2005). The air nuclear deterrence role is left to the Mirage 2000N and France no longer operates bombers.

There is nothing inaccurate about what Yankee said.

Reading comprehension and common sense are likewise necessary for anyone who wants to be taken seriously.

If you cannot speak Chinese, perhaps you should STFU and don't spread BS for views when it comes to what Yankee said or didn't say.

Eagerness to attack others even without clear knowledge of the situation. Seeking attention by listing long and irrelevant facts to show off supposed erudition. These are indicative of a personality type

Click to expand...

are we on the H-20 , or something else??

davidau said:

are we on the H-20 , or something else??

Click to expand...

Plz See the title of this topic JH-XX also included…

Blitzo said:

Both of those are true, with the proviso that what they do share is often limited and deliberately vague

Click to expand...

From my experience those who tend to spread vague hints on a regular basis actually get less information but exaggerate what they know, because the others who can keep a secret actually can keep a secret. There is never need to be vague when you can simply be careful. The main reason why I despise "vague hint experts" is because they're almost without exception dishonest and manipulative bullshitters. And that's because one of the main tasks of military counter-intelligence is ensuring information doesn't flow out accidentally through insecure channels that develop spontaneously through interaction between military, industry and media. People who tend to behave this way in public, behave even more carelessly in private and private is where 99,9% of the actual leaks occur. Therefore how journalists behave in public is the best measure for gauging how they behave in private which is why as a rule such people are a waste of time. In fact they're often used as smokescreens because of how easily they can be used to divert attention.

Jason_ said:

Yankee and Shilao work for Guancha, the only independent news site producing military contents in China.

Click to expand...

Which only increases the likelihood of deliberate manipulation of audience for revenue since they're more dependent on it while PLA-dependent media have to maintain greater information discipline.

Jason_ said:

I find it incredible how you wrote all this in response to the translated summary of an original program that you never watched and then attacked the credibility of the author base on that.

Click to expand...

Credibility is not something a journalist is entitled to. It needs to be earned through appropriate conduct which is not the same as profitable conduct because whether credibility is profitable depends primarily on the profile of the media outlet/publication and its target audience. In some areas credibility is profitable in other areas it directly constrains profitability.

This is your translation:

Jason_ said:

... 23.5 meters long supersonic bomber Mirage IV. Despite being much large than the Mirage 2000, the Mirage IV, being a Mach 2 supersonic nuclear bomber designed in the early days of the Cold War, was not originally designed to carry missiles. As such, the Mirage IV has the same carrying capacity as the Mirage 2000 with only half its empty weight when it comes to carrying the 0.8t ASMP nuclear cruise missile. Both can carry only one on the centerline hardpoint. But the Mirage IV has vastly inferior maneuverability compared to the Mirage 2000, and so in 1996, the bomber variants of the Mirage IV were retired (recon variants continued to serve until 2005). The air nuclear deterrence role is left to the Mirage 2000N and France no longer operates bombers.

Click to expand...

This is ACuriousPLAFan's summary:

ACuriousPLAFan said:

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.

Click to expand...

Comparison of the three key statements in case you don't understand what my criticism points to specifically:

1. limited nuclear capability

Jason_ said:

Both can carry only one on the centerline hardpoint

Click to expand...

ACuriousPLAFan said:

both can carry only one ASMP nuclear-tipped cruise missile underneath their bellies

Click to expand...

2. maneuverability as cause of retirement

Jason_ said:

has vastly inferior maneuverability compared to the Mirage 2000, and so in 1996, the bomber variants of the Mirage IV were retired

Click to expand...

ACuriousPLAFan said:

having worse maneuverability than the latter, resulting in the retirement of the former in 1996

Click to expand...

3. replacement in nuclear role

Jason_ said:

air nuclear deterrence role is left to the Mirage 2000N and France no longer operates bombers.

Click to expand...

ACuriousPLAFan said:

role of aerial nuclear delivery taken over by Mirage 2000N.

Click to expand...

To restate:

1. Mirage IV could carry more than one ASMP but since doctrine and tactics don't require it modifications weren't ordered.

Mirage IV has 19t of total load (fuel, weapons, pilot etc) wich is twice the load of Mirage 2000N (9,4t). Of the 19t approximately 7t can be munitions. Structural strength of pylons allows for a maximum of three ASMPs to be carried since main underwing pylon was capable of four 1000lb bombs (1,8t). With modifications to the centerline pylon two missiles could be carried under fuselage to free-up two main underwing pylons for spare fuel tanks. The reason why it was never done is that ASMP is not the same as American or Soviet tactical nuclear cruise missiles. It has a specific unique application and never more than one per plane is necessary or optimal while carrier performance should be at maximum. Hence in pre-strategic role Mirage IVP carries only one missile so the rest of the load is taken up by fuel or nothing. In contrast Mirage 2000N can't carry more than one missile because it can't carry two on underwing pylons due to limited extra fuel capacity.

2. Maneuverability had never been a consideration in retirement or replacement of Mirage IV.

"Maneuverability" includes not just g-loads and turning radii but also velocity and thrust-to-weight. Mirage IV with maximum speed of 2,2Ma and ceiling of 20km has been replaced by Mirage 2000N while Super Entendard with maximum speed of 1,3Ma and ceiling of 15km which carried the ASMP for French Navy wasn't until Rafale M. Mirage IV was also modified to P (pénétration) version to carry ASMP which implied high speeds at low altitude in response to SAMs. The type of maneuverability which is required for such flight profile is very different from that provided by Mirage 2000N and the difference isn't that great.

3. Mirage 2000N was left with the role due to budget cuts.

In 1992 cuts forced the retirement of AN-52 bomb carried by Jaguars, Super Entendard, Mirage III and Mirage 2000N before it was certified to carry ASMP because the first Mirage 2000N carried only the AN-52. AN-52 was intended as low-yield (under 10kt to 25kt) tactical weapon with broader application and would likely stay in use if funding was provided. ASMP with yield of 100kt to 300 kt was intended as replacement of AN-22 and not the AN-52 and served a very specific and narrow role therefore Mirage IV was the natural carrier for organisational, doctrinal and training reasons that had little or nothing to do with the specifications of the aircraft itself - e.g. Mirage IIIE (ground strike) which was retired in 1994 and carried AN-52 could theoretically carry ASMP if upgraded. Only after the cuts ASMP became the only tactical nuclear weapon because French deterrence doctrine requires a doctrinally specific warning shot and doctrinally appropriate means to deliver it.

In sum all Yankee had to do was either:

• read up on (1) basics of military aviation, (2) specs of all ASMP carriers and (3) history of French nuclear weapons and convey the facts
• STFU and not spread BS for views

and I wouldn't say a thing. But he didn't do either so now everyone who wants to know can know who Yankee is in reality which is a good thing because establishing credibility for public communicators - and especially the lack of it - is fundamental.

There's literally nothing else to say here. EOT.

MarKoz81 said:

From my experience those who tend to spread vague hints on a regular basis actually get less information but exaggerate what they know, because the others who can keep a secret actually can keep a secret. There is never need to be vague when you can simply be careful. The main reason why I despise "vague hint experts" is because they're almost without exception dishonest and manipulative bullshitters. And that's because one of the main tasks of military counter-intelligence is ensuring information doesn't flow out accidentally through insecure channels that develop spontaneously through interaction between military, industry and media. People who tend to behave this way in public, behave even more carelessly in private and private is where 99,9% of the actual leaks occur. Therefore how journalists behave in public is the best measure for gauging how they behave in private which is why as a rule such people are a waste of time. In fact they're often used as smokescreens because of how easily they can be used to divert attention.

Click to expand...

Sorry, but you'll have to accept that's the best we have for PLA watching for these kind of projects.
You don't personally have to accept them, but the rest of us will, because that's how this has been done quite a few years (going on two decades now).

The point is that there are a number of individuals who have shown a track record for conveying reliable information on PLA projects which others have not, and thus their statements on PLA related projects have appropriately weighted significance to them which we incorporate into our projections.

MarKoz81 said:

Which only increases the likelihood of deliberate manipulation of audience for revenue since they're more dependent on it while PLA-dependent media have to maintain greater information discipline.

Click to expand...

This is always already factored into our projections and assessments of them.

The situation is that true jewels of PLA watching related developments are somewhat rare, and most of their content is discussing other matters like PLA related history, general military matters, and so on, and occasionally new PLA developments and projects are sprinkled in.
There are very few cases of deliberate manipulation or falsification by these individuals, in fact I'm not aware of any such cases at all by the sort of people we are talking about.

You neither know the language nor do you know these individuals and the years of interaction in the PLA watching sphere (including in Chinese), so you'll have to defer to the rest of us on this one.

MarKoz81 said:

Credibility is not something a journalist is entitled to. It needs to be earned through appropriate conduct which is not the same as profitable conduct because whether credibility is profitable depends primarily on the profile of the media outlet/publication and its target audience. In some areas credibility is profitable in other areas it directly constrains profitability.


This is your translation:


This is ACuriousPLAFan's summary:


Comparison of the three key statements in case you don't understand what my criticism points to specifically:

1. limited nuclear capability



2. maneuverability as cause of retirement



3. replacement in nuclear role



To restate:

1. Mirage IV could carry more than one ASMP but since doctrine and tactics don't require it modifications weren't ordered.

Mirage IV has 19t of total load (fuel, weapons, pilot etc) wich is twice the load of Mirage 2000N (9,4t). Of the 19t approximately 7t can be munitions. Structural strength of pylons allows for a maximum of three ASMPs to be carried since main underwing pylon was capable of four 1000lb bombs (1,8t). With modifications to the centerline pylon two missiles could be carried under fuselage to free-up two main underwing pylons for spare fuel tanks. The reason why it was never done is that ASMP is not the same as American or Soviet tactical nuclear cruise missiles. It has a specific unique application and never more than one per plane is necessary or optimal while carrier performance should be at maximum. Hence in pre-strategic role Mirage IVP carries only one missile so the rest of the load is taken up by fuel or nothing. In contrast Mirage 2000N can't carry more than one missile because it can't carry two on underwing pylons due to limited extra fuel capacity.

2. Maneuverability had never been a consideration in retirement or replacement of Mirage IV.

"Maneuverability" includes not just g-loads and turning radii but also velocity and thrust-to-weight. Mirage IV with maximum speed of 2,2Ma and ceiling of 20km has been replaced by Mirage 2000N while Super Entendard with maximum speed of 1,3Ma and ceiling of 15km which carried the ASMP for French Navy wasn't until Rafale M. Mirage IV was also modified to P (pénétration) version to carry ASMP which implied high speeds at low altitude in response to SAMs. The type of maneuverability which is required for such flight profile is very different from that provided by Mirage 2000N and the difference isn't that great.

3. Mirage 2000N was left with the role due to budget cuts.

In 1992 cuts forced the retirement of AN-52 bomb carried by Jaguars, Super Entendard, Mirage III and Mirage 2000N before it was certified to carry ASMP because the first Mirage 2000N carried only the AN-52. AN-52 was intended as low-yield (under 10kt to 25kt) tactical weapon with broader application and would likely stay in use if funding was provided. ASMP with yield of 100kt to 300 kt was intended as replacement of AN-22 and not the AN-52 and served a very specific and narrow role therefore Mirage IV was the natural carrier for organisational, doctrinal and training reasons that had little or nothing to do with the specifications of the aircraft itself - e.g. Mirage IIIE (ground strike) which was retired in 1994 and carried AN-52 could theoretically carry ASMP if upgraded. Only after the cuts ASMP became the only tactical nuclear weapon because French deterrence doctrine requires a doctrinally specific warning shot and doctrinally appropriate means to deliver it.

In sum all Yankee had to do was either:

• read up on (1) basics of military aviation, (2) specs of all ASMP carriers and (3) history of French nuclear weapons and convey the facts
• STFU and not spread BS for views

and I wouldn't say a thing. But he didn't do either so now everyone who wants to know can know who Yankee is in reality which is a good thing because establishing credibility for public communicators - and especially the lack of it - is fundamental.

There's literally nothing else to say here. EOT.

Click to expand...

Ultimately what Yankee stated is not inaccurate. I'll address your three points in context of the Yankee statement.

1. Mirage IV was structurally able to carry more than one ASMP but that capability was never enabled and thus it carried one ASMP, the same as a Mirage 2000N. Thus, stating that Mirage IV and Mirage 2000N both have the same "carrying capacity" in terms of the number of ASMP missiles that each is able to accommodate in service, is correct. For the purposes of the discussion, it is entirely inconsequential whether Mirage IV was or wasn't technically able to carry more than one ASMP, but rather that for the purposes of France, the requirement to "carry one ASMP" could be met by the much smaller Mirage 2000N as well as Mirage IV.

2. Yankee was not stating that Mirage IV's lack of maneuverability was some sort of inherent flaw or even a major cause for Mirage IV's retirement, but rather that "for the purposes of carrying a single ASMP," the Mirage 2000N also happened to have better maneuverability than Mirage IV which lacked it, and that in context of the other factors, one "benefit" that Mirage 2000N happened to have Mirage IV, was better maneuverability.

3. None of this refutes the overall point that it was indeed budget cuts which resulted in the retirement of Mirage IV (among a number of other platforms and capabilities), which left Mirage 2000N as a candidate for carrying ASMP.



It seems you've entered this conversation with some sort of desire to prove Yankee wrong or non-credible, but all of the points you've described, while not invalid, are far from a slam dunk "they are patently incorrect" but rather adding additional detail but none of which actually disproves what he stated.

Instead, you are reading additional detail which isn't there in the statement, and assuming that he is making inferences which are flawed whereas in reality they were never that detailed to begin with.


====

This entire discussion around Mirage 2000N and Mirage IV has been allowed as it hasn't derailed the thread too much, but if you continue to use it as an attack on Yankee's credibility in providing updates for PLA projects/developments (where the two frankly are not inherently related to one another to begin with) and unreasonably reading details in his statements which are not there, then there will be moderation action.

You asked a question as to on what basis individuals like Yankee are given weight and credibility to their words -- an answer was provided to you by myself and others. If you want to ignore it, that is fine, but continuing to post about it and fighting a battle that no one else is interested in and claiming how you can judge their credibility better than others here who have followed and tracked these individuals' statements for many years, is distracting, non productive and bordering on meaningless arguments and provocation.

I personally think you often make many good and informative points, but I advise you to better choose your battles.

MarKoz81 said:

From my experience those who tend to spread vague hints on a regular basis actually get less information but exaggerate what they know, because the others who can keep a secret actually can keep a secret. There is never need to be vague when you can simply be careful. The main reason why I despise "vague hint experts" is because they're almost without exception dishonest and manipulative bullshitters. And that's because one of the main tasks of military counter-intelligence is ensuring information doesn't flow out accidentally through insecure channels that develop spontaneously through interaction between military, industry and media. People who tend to behave this way in public, behave even more carelessly in private and private is where 99,9% of the actual leaks occur. Therefore how journalists behave in public is the best measure for gauging how they behave in private which is why as a rule such people are a waste of time. In fact they're often used as smokescreens because of how easily they can be used to divert attention.



Which only increases the likelihood of deliberate manipulation of audience for revenue since they're more dependent on it while PLA-dependent media have to maintain greater information discipline.



Credibility is not something a journalist is entitled to. It needs to be earned through appropriate conduct which is not the same as profitable conduct because whether credibility is profitable depends primarily on the profile of the media outlet/publication and its target audience. In some areas credibility is profitable in other areas it directly constrains profitability.

This is your translation:


This is ACuriousPLAFan's summary:


Comparison of the three key statements in case you don't understand what my criticism points to specifically:

1. limited nuclear capability



2. maneuverability as cause of retirement



3. replacement in nuclear role



To restate:

1. Mirage IV could carry more than one ASMP but since doctrine and tactics don't require it modifications weren't ordered.

Mirage IV has 19t of total load (fuel, weapons, pilot etc) wich is twice the load of Mirage 2000N (9,4t). Of the 19t approximately 7t can be munitions. Structural strength of pylons allows for a maximum of three ASMPs to be carried since main underwing pylon was capable of four 1000lb bombs (1,8t). With modifications to the centerline pylon two missiles could be carried under fuselage to free-up two main underwing pylons for spare fuel tanks. The reason why it was never done is that ASMP is not the same as American or Soviet tactical nuclear cruise missiles. It has a specific unique application and never more than one per plane is necessary or optimal while carrier performance should be at maximum. Hence in pre-strategic role Mirage IVP carries only one missile so the rest of the load is taken up by fuel or nothing. In contrast Mirage 2000N can't carry more than one missile because it can't carry two on underwing pylons due to limited extra fuel capacity.

2. Maneuverability had never been a consideration in retirement or replacement of Mirage IV.

"Maneuverability" includes not just g-loads and turning radii but also velocity and thrust-to-weight. Mirage IV with maximum speed of 2,2Ma and ceiling of 20km has been replaced by Mirage 2000N while Super Entendard with maximum speed of 1,3Ma and ceiling of 15km which carried the ASMP for French Navy wasn't until Rafale M. Mirage IV was also modified to P (pénétration) version to carry ASMP which implied high speeds at low altitude in response to SAMs. The type of maneuverability which is required for such flight profile is very different from that provided by Mirage 2000N and the difference isn't that great.

3. Mirage 2000N was left with the role due to budget cuts.

In 1992 cuts forced the retirement of AN-52 bomb carried by Jaguars, Super Entendard, Mirage III and Mirage 2000N before it was certified to carry ASMP because the first Mirage 2000N carried only the AN-52. AN-52 was intended as low-yield (under 10kt to 25kt) tactical weapon with broader application and would likely stay in use if funding was provided. ASMP with yield of 100kt to 300 kt was intended as replacement of AN-22 and not the AN-52 and served a very specific and narrow role therefore Mirage IV was the natural carrier for organisational, doctrinal and training reasons that had little or nothing to do with the specifications of the aircraft itself - e.g. Mirage IIIE (ground strike) which was retired in 1994 and carried AN-52 could theoretically carry ASMP if upgraded. Only after the cuts ASMP became the only tactical nuclear weapon because French deterrence doctrine requires a doctrinally specific warning shot and doctrinally appropriate means to deliver it.

In sum all Yankee had to do was either:

• read up on (1) basics of military aviation, (2) specs of all ASMP carriers and (3) history of French nuclear weapons and convey the facts
• STFU and not spread BS for views

and I wouldn't say a thing. But he didn't do either so now everyone who wants to know can know who Yankee is in reality which is a good thing because establishing credibility for public communicators - and especially the lack of it - is fundamental.

There's literally nothing else to say here. EOT.

Click to expand...

I'll summarize the key points by @Blitzo for you. Your arguments are sensible, but it's been presented ad nauseum on this board as well as other boards over the past 2 decades regarding PLA watching. Ultimately those of us who have been doing this for that many years because history have shown these "insiders" like Yankee to be the most accurate source we have on the PLA.

To draw an analogy, it's like the Greek philosophers vs. the scientific method. One is based on logic, the other based on empiric evidence. No matter how sound the logic is, if it is not supported by empiric evidence then the conclusion is false.