The sentiment is? Really? ... who said this?
Well, from all we know it "the H-20 is (indeed) going to be a flying wing" and as such any such discussion on a fighter like design is moot.
H-20 bomber (with H-X, JH-XX)
- Thread starter Deino
- Start date
The sentiment is? Really? ... who said this?
Well, from all we know it "the H-20 is (indeed) going to be a flying wing" and as such any such discussion on a fighter like design is moot.
That "revise design" has been discussed in this thread not long ago. It calimed that one or two prototype of H-20 have been actually produced only to be found overweighting or underpowered, as if PLAAF, XAC designers and engineers are brainless chicken running without knowing where-to.
The military changing design spec isn't something new or rare, but it would be amateur to proceed producing something before the specifications are frozen.
BTW, there is no reliable evicenc that story of CV 003 changing design from steam cat to EM cat is true, it is just an unfounded rumor by self claimed insider. Even if it is true, it is a totally different scenario from the H-20 story because it is not delaying due to "not meeting requirement" which is an stupid unprofessional mistake.
There are just too many netizens playing insiders for click-bait these days.
Yes I remember these claims which were in fact so much absurd that they are almost again funny!
Wasn't one claim, they changed the number of engines from two to four due to over-weight and more issues?
Ship and plane design processes are also just very different. The former is more flexible to revisions than the latter.
Lethe
Captain
A subsonic flying wing design minimises signatures and cost while maximising range and payload. What's not to like?
CBO's 2006 for USAF's future bomber program estimated that, holding combat radius fixed, incorporating even a limited Mach 1.5 dash capability halves the payload relative to a subsonic design and increases per-unit cost by 15-20%. Alternatively, holding range and payload fixed and incorporating a sustained supersonic cruise capability more than doubles the cost of the aircraft.
I agree with everything you said, I just think relying on LO for survivability alone is reckless and shortsighted.
That's why I also think JH-XX makes more sense for China than H-20. They cannot rely on a one trick pony of Stealth when anti-Stealth Radar, IRST is becoming more powerful. China's main opponents US, Japan, Taiwan will certainly try to counter China's stealthy planes with anti-Stealth Radar and other methods. So, a subsonic stealthy plane may eventually become a handycap.
Although ideally the best of both worlds will be a TU-160 type plane which is large, long range, supersonic and also Stealthy. That will be the ultimate bomber for the modern age.
Nobody is relying on (V)LO for survivability alone. Not even the US with their B-2s and the upcoming B-21s.
Even with supersonic dash capability - Present-day LRAAMs (e.g. PL-15, PL-17 and PL-21) are already capable of chasing after supersonic planes of today, as their speed is typically in the Mach 4-5 range. Going into the foreseeable future, newer LRAAMs might even be capable of going "true" hypersonic (i.e. Mach 6 and above).
What matters most is the entire broad system of countermeasures that are meant to mitigate and minimize such vulnerabilities. Otherwise, why should Xi'an even bother with developing the H-20?
Last edited:
Supersonic Agile planes are much more capable of outmanuvering missiles to bleed its energy. This is how modern fighters and fighter bombers deal with BVR missiles. BVR battle is not just about seeing enemies on Radar and shooting missiles. Its also about manuvering towards the ground to confuse missiles, using terrain, using chaffs and flares and also using specific manuevers to force the missiles manuever much more than the plane. Slowly BVR missiles lose energy and lose track.
Supersonic and Agile planes atleast have abilty to do these things. Subsonic slow moving bombers are pretty much sitting ducks when a BVR missile is shot against them.
Also another point is that most supersonic planes can actually outrun missiles, if they choose to flee the battlefield. Cause Missiles constantly lose energy due to air resistance and are only hypersonic in the middle-phase of their flight. Subsonic planes cannot even flee the battlefield and outrun missiles.
Yea something like a something larger YF-23. It would give the PLA and asymmetrical and unique capability.
Shouldn't have said alone, but rather as their main method of defence is to stay hidden. I am aware of how capable these missiles are, but I imagine if a bomber is able to fly at supersonic speeds, the dispatched squadrons chasing it would find it much more difficult to get in range to release their missiles. I am by no means an expert on military strategy, its just a thought.