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

Yeah. I agree. The J-20 cannot carry the PL-21 internally I think. It probably cannot carry large winged glide bombs internally either.
Some kind of stealth J-16 replacement is required.

A new fighter bomber aircraft designed from the onset to use the WS-15 engine or an enhanced version of it could be able to carry a lot more payload in a larger aircraft than the regular J-20 that was designed to use the AL-31 initially.

Unlike the US, China doesn't have as many forward operating bases. So its tactical aircraft need to be able to do power projection better than US designs.

This would be something similar to the US FB-22 concept design.

gelgoog said:

Yeah. I agree. The J-20 cannot carry the PL-21 internally I think. It probably cannot carry large winged glide bombs internally either.
Some kind of stealth J-16 replacement is required.

A new fighter bomber aircraft designed from the onset to use the WS-15 engine or an enhanced version of it could be able to carry a lot more payload in a larger aircraft than the regular J-20 that was designed to use the AL-31 initially.

Unlike the US, China doesn't have as many forward operating bases. So its tactical aircraft need to be able to do power projection better than US designs.

This would be something similar to the US FB-22 concept design.

Click to expand...

Since all LO planes have bays that are very wide but not as deep, I think there should be new bomb or cruise missile types that conform to these bay shapes to the point where the entire thing is occupied in order to maximize payloads and turn fighters into multirole and light bomber aircraft. Here's a quick example on a J-20

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...

I think if this thing materializes it could be describe more like a 5.5 gen strike aircraft with a primary mission set being tactical battle space management, with the ability to conduct and provide support for deep strike and rapid strike missions.

latenlazy said:

I think if this thing materializes it could be describe more like a 5.5 gen strike aircraft with a primary mission set being tactical battle space management, with the ability to conduct and provide support for deep strike and rapid strike missions.

Click to expand...

Yes I think in this day and age, if you are developing a new manned, high end-ish combat aircraft (of any kind, whether a fighter, bomber, striker, fighter bomber etc), it should be assumed that high end command, ISR/ELINT, EW, networking capabilities etc, are all built in as standard missions that cannot be divided from their payload and physical/kinetic mission profile (unless your industry is behind the times or you lack funding).

The "mini-AEWC/mini-jammer/mini-command/mini-datalinking node/mini-ISR/ELINT"-ification of every high end manned combat platform should be an expected trend into the future.

Blitzo said:

Yes I think in this day and age, if you are developing a new manned, high end-ish combat aircraft (of any kind, whether a fighter, bomber, striker, fighter bomber etc), it should be assumed that high end command, ISR/ELINT, EW, networking capabilities etc, are all built in as standard missions that cannot be divided from their payload and physical/kinetic mission profile (unless your industry is behind the times or you lack funding).

The "mini-AEWC/mini-jammer/mini-command/mini-datalinking node/mini-ISR/ELINT"-ification of every high end manned combat platform should be an expected trend into the future.

Click to expand...

With AI coming at the corner, you can clearly do that kind of multitasking in a smaller platform than the ones existing today. Waiting a bit to be sure that the platform could be achieved is way more important than spawning something that will become irrelevant in 10 years.

iBBz said:

Since all LO planes have bays that are very wide but not as deep, I think there should be new bomb or cruise missile types that conform to these bay shapes to the point where the entire thing is occupied in order to maximize payloads and turn fighters into multirole and light bomber aircraft. Here's a quick example on a J-20View attachment 125506View attachment 125507View attachment 125508View attachment 125509

Click to expand...

But what is the expected use case for JDAM/UPMK-style munitions in a Pacific conflict? Such short range renders any aircraft, even VLO ones, extremely vulnerable to all manner of air defences. Is it really worth risking expensive platforms just to deliver bigger warheads? Surely it would be more efficient to simply acquire and expend larger quantities of standoff munitions.

Wrought said:

But what is the expected use case for JDAM/UPMK-style munitions in a Pacific conflict? Such short range renders any aircraft, even VLO ones, extremely vulnerable to all manner of air defences. Is it really worth risking expensive platforms just to deliver bigger warheads? Surely it would be more efficient to simply acquire and expend larger quantities of standoff munitions.

Click to expand...

Speaking of which, designing powered standoff munitions to fit within the weapons bay shouldn't be too difficult, one existing example would be Russia's Kh59mk2 which has a pretty much square cross-section, folding wings and fits within su-57's main bay

Wrought said:

But what is the expected use case for JDAM/UPMK-style munitions in a Pacific conflict? Such short range renders any aircraft, even VLO ones, extremely vulnerable to all manner of air defences. Is it really worth risking expensive platforms just to deliver bigger warheads? Surely it would be more efficient to simply acquire and expend larger quantities of standoff munitions.

Click to expand...

Some of the current glide bombs with conventional tear drop shapes can reach well over 100km with wings. The object I quickly modelled is supposed to be a cruise missile, but notice the wide fuselage dictated by the weapon bay shape. If designed properly, body lift can be introduced in a very efficient manner enabling a glide bomb that can go farther. Since VLO planes are able to get closer to the contact line than conventional platforms can before being detected, a glide bomb like that may come in handy in a conflict against an enemy that can defend their airspace. Whether that is worth it or not depends on what other alternatives exist and which one costs the least. It might even be useful for a JH-XX depending on what its bay ends up looking like.

Schwerter_ said:

Speaking of which, designing powered standoff munitions to fit within the weapons bay shouldn't be too difficult, one existing example would be Russia's Kh59mk2 which has a pretty much square cross-section, folding wings and fits within su-57's main bay

View attachment 125513

Click to expand...

@gelgoog mentioned the X-69 being introduced by the Russians in Ukraine in the Ukraine war thread earlier today. It looks very similar to this missile apart from the nose. I agree with you on these things not being difficult to design. This missile carried inside a Su-57 will likely prove to be a very useful strike platform.

Deino said:

could, may, will .. ? But how likely is it that it really exists? A lot we read since years and especially with nothing visible since years, I slowly have the feeling this JH-26 is more an academic study and concept than a real project

Click to expand...

May I come back to this - in fact IMO - first question to be answered?!

Schwerter_ said:

Speaking of which, designing powered standoff munitions to fit within the weapons bay shouldn't be too difficult, one existing example would be Russia's Kh59mk2 which has a pretty much square cross-section, folding wings and fits within su-57's main bay

View attachment 125513

Click to expand...

It is helpful for maintain pressure on weakened opponents. But I envision primary purpose to be for stand off munition delivery in VLO platform. A H6+++ if you will. Imagine the same YJ-12 ashm fired from long range, but this time fighters need to intercept VLO platforms. It becomes much less predictable. It would force US to dedicate a lot of effort to play safe with strategic assets beyond ASBM range, or risk catastrophic damage. This is a major negotiation leverage.