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

CMP said:

To pull things back on topic, I do have some comments/questions.

Given the H-20's likely range, it seems it will enhance China's regional power projection but not add to global power projection. At most, it may or may not help put northern Australia and Hawaii within reach. My reasoning for this is that China lacks the global base network from which to deploy air refueling tankers. Even if they did, those bases would be vulnerable, perhaps even indefensible, during any real war with the US and its vassals.

Given all that, it seems very clear to me that large numbers of B-21s are much more essential to US hegemony than H-20s are to China's defensive posture. It'll help increase the likelihood China can destroy regional logistics hubs that US hegemony will rely on against China, so obviously still important in that sense. Perhaps that could be one of the reasons that they are taking their time with the H-20? It seems like it is being treated as a 2nd tier priority as far as effort and resources channeled to it, which I agree with.

Thoughts?

Click to expand...

Blitzo said:

I don't see a comparison with B-21 as useful. H-20 and B-21 should both be viewed in their own terms, and imo there are absolutely ways in which H-20 could be vital to the PLA's ability to strike at locations outside of the 2IC (as you said, Hawaii or Australia), or to more heavily strike or re-attack targets within the 2IC and in -- and these capabilities are far from trivial, if anything they may also be decisive.

There are many reasons why H-20 could be emerging a bit "later" than we had initially expected. Any of them could all be equally valid as the other.

Click to expand...

Jason_ said:

On the contrary, China's location on the Eurasian continent makes a long range bomber far more useful for power projection. With access to Russian airspace, the H-20 can hit any target in Europe, Middle East and North America with fewer refuels compared to US bombers based on CONUS. Air to air refueling assets can be based in China or in Siberia. The distance itself would protect these tankers from fighters.

There is absolutely no doubt that H-20 is the number one priority for the PLAAF.

Click to expand...

CMP said:

By virtue of geography, Taiwan definitely cannot stop China from striking northern Australia with long range bombers. Taiwan, South Korea, and Japan are all in the way of China striking Hawaii though.

Click to expand...

siegecrossbow said:

In Yankee’s podcast he claimed that the so called JH-26 may not be a fighter-bomber, or strictly a fighter-bomber in the same sense that most military enthusiasts think.

Click to expand...

siegecrossbow said:

In Yankee’s podcast he claimed that the so called JH-26 may not be a fighter-bomber, or strictly a fighter-bomber in the same sense that most military enthusiasts think.

Click to expand...

lcloo said:

I would imagine that it would be a stealth aircraft with fighter capability with large belly weapon bay for long range anti-ship missiles, and has capability as a command plane for "loyal wingman" type of strike UCAV. Probably JH-26 would be much larger than JH-7A in size and range.

Probably it can also carry a couple or two stealth UCAV under its wings.

Just 100% my imagination LOL, since I have no idea what JH-26 looks like even in a concept rendering.

Click to expand...

Duke Xiao of Qin said:

How about the B-21?

Can it really threaten targets inside China ?

Click to expand...

siegecrossbow said:

He also hinted that it could serve as an arsenal plane and keep high valued enemy assets at bay.

Click to expand...