Quickie
Colonel
It would be pretty bad.
Furthermore, a high mach plane would have smaller stubbier wings and tail fins. The line drawing and the other CG seem more closer to it.
H-20 bomber (with H-X, JH-XX)
- Thread starter Deino
- Start date
It would be pretty bad.
Furthermore, a high mach plane would have smaller stubbier wings and tail fins. The line drawing and the other CG seem more closer to it.
Probably somewhat poor, but I don't think this plane would be expected to do much high alpha maneuvers anyway.
I personally can't envision them desiring a supersonic bomber to go beyond mach 2 given how difficult it is to build a supersonic aircraft of that size let alone a VLO one. Let's call it a top speed under mach 2 and a supersonic cruise speed slightly over mach 1, which I think could be viable for the arrangement depicted.
Also, a large wingspan and large tails doesn't necessarily have to mean a lower top speed, see Su-27 with its very generously sized wings and tails which has a very impressive top speed compared to its stubbier peers.
Quickie
Colonel
It would really depend on the size of JH-XX. If it's much larger than the Su-27, then its wings and fins can't increase in size proportionally in order to have the same or higher mach speed.
The other possibility is that the smaller wings of the JH-XX (as suggested in the line drawing) points to it being designed to be a higher mach striker bomber with less emphasis on maneuverability.
The design in the last picture is a bit of a contradiction. The air intake position suggests a bomber that is not maneuverable which would then have to rely on higher mach to escape from danger, which a low aspect ratio smaller wing is more suited to.
Equation
Lieutenant General
I think ingratiation of egos can happen on either side of the China debate. I would be wary of it. And I do not think the PLA (or any serious security organization) is as motivated by pettiness as bored forum rascals like ourselves.
I think given what we know about the current state of the PLA's technological development (especially engines), I'm somewhat dubious that such a program has everything it needs to proceed just yet. There's also a problem of resource availability. AVIC is already very busy with the projects we do know about after all.
.
Well one can dubious all you want that doesn't mean that China can't produce an engine that's not available to the public. Too many has taken this "lack of indigenous engine" approach as an excuse to point out China inability to create because of it's Communist form government. In which we all know that types of government has nothing to do with innovation whats so ever. This mantra has been repeated far too many times in various forums and anti-China journalism.
I was not saying China *can't* produce an engine, but that decisions on such a project might be frozen until an adequate engine is ready.
Equation
Lieutenant General
I know that, I'm not accusing you or anything. But how do you know that for sure that they are being frozen until an adequate engine is ready? My point is certain assumption should be made with a grain of salt that therefore it needs some sources for backing.
I don't. That's why I called it a theory. The premise of it is that you need both large payloads and high speed in a body with two engines. The WS-10 probably doesn't fit that bill. Blitzo suggests they could introduce an interim underpowered design with a future engine upgrade, but my counterpoint is that such a design is unlikely to offer much more capability than what the PLA can already field. (The point about stealth getting you deeper and closer for stand off strikes is compromised by the speed problem, since you need to be able to dash back home too).
Given that we know roughly what kinds of payload and speed capabilities ws-10 class engines are able to field (Su-34), I don't think we have to speculate too much about potential compromises.
And let's be honest. There's only a handful of potential adversaries where China would need the capabilities we're discussing.
Yes, but for the purposes of our discussion which is basically about the opportunity-cost of designing and developing this hypothetical bomber, we have to know some of the more important details to properly know what the benefits of the aircraft will be (and what limitations it may have if using interim engines), as well as the time scale of development and cost.
For instance, I could say that fielding JH-XX with a pair of "enhanced thrust WS-10s" may be unable to allow it to supercruise or reach a top speed like if it were equipped with WS-15s, but is enough to allow it to still do supersonic dash at (let's pull a number out of a hat) mach 1.5 for a few hundred km. But OTOH if JH-XX cannot even go supersonic with interim engines then the benefits of the aircraft may be far less. Same goes for the time delay between using interim engines and intended engines where longer is worse (but how long is unacceptable?), and same goes for the difference in payload when using interim engines versus using intended engines (how much smaller of a payload when using interim engines would be considered too unacceptably small?)...
etc and so on.
I get that, but I think we can already surmise what the balance of trade offs are. If I recall, you started this conversation with the assertion of an 80 ton plane. I think even 40 tons would be pushing it with WS-10 class engines, and at 40 tons I don't think your payload would be significantly different enough to justify an entirely new design. The math is really straightforward here. If you have two 13-14 ton engines, which gives you 26-28 tons of thrust, powering something that would probably come in at 40 tons to do stand off missions, and you want it to do supersonic dash, you have a Su-34. The PLA already has a poor facsimile of the Su-34 in the JH-7. If you want it to be stealthy with an internal payload to match the Su-34's overall payload you will need to go heavier. If you want something for 80 tons, that math doesn't add up for me.
There's no way to square that you will have to compromise one of three things (payload, range, or speed) when you need all three things to perform any semblance of proposed mission profiles that would distinguish it from what the PLA can do with other planes. If you try to go for payload, you lose range and/or speed, which can compromise the ability to recover if the mission profile is deep penetration. If you try for speed/range, you sacrifice payload, which can disqualify the plane from the very point of its suggested purpose, which is to launch stand off weapons inside your adversary's early warning net.
Last edited: