I do hope you (and the retired general) are right...
Last edited:
H-20 bomber (with H-X, JH-XX)
- Thread starter Deino
- Start date
I hope so
But I am just a messenger, only Col is the source
lcloo
Captain
If you want to check out on Du Wen Long, he appears regulary as invited guest commentator on CCTV4 International Chinese language channel （CCTV4国际） in TV programs known as
今日环球 Global World Today
今日关注 Observation Today
深度国际 International in Depth
As to his credibility - I leave it to you to judge.
今日环球 Global World Today
今日关注 Observation Today
深度国际 International in Depth
As to his credibility - I leave it to you to judge.
Quickie
Colonel
The above person is just as familiar in China's military scene but he is not that other person.
我个人是认为他的信息没有价值，他大多是讲一些泛泛的废话
That is indeed a valid concern.
However, this is more of a spear-vs-shield scenario:
- Modern long-range SAM systems are capable of detecting and intercepting enemy targets at ranges as far as 200-300 kilometers away, if not farther away. Such capability can be further enhanced and reinforced with more ISR support in types, vectors and depths, whether those be land-based (land-based radars and sensors), sea-based (AEGIS-equipped warships) or air-based (AEW&C aircrafts and fighters). They can employ soft-kill means (i.e. EW jamming, decoys) to reduce chances of enemy munitions hitting friendly assets as well.
- In the meantime, with VLO design and sufficient EW & decoy support to disable/deceive enemy detection systems, attacking aircrafts are capable of getting closer to the enemy targets before releasing their payloads, and/or that their payloads (LO or otherwise) will be able to get closer to their targets before the enemy radars and sensors can pick them up. There is also the option to deploy ECM and decoy munitions that can accompany strike munitions on their way to their targets to further degrade enemy defense capabilities.
Hence, it really depends on a multitude of factors at play.
However, speaking of solely strike platforms - If the risks of conducting strikes using JDAM-type munitions are judged to be too high for certain targets and/or areas, given what Yankee has mentioned about the JH-XX - Having manned platforms accompanied by (and piloting) a number of VLO UCAVs each is certainly the way to go forward. Those UCAVs can travel 100-200 kilometers forward of their manned counterparts and drop JDAM-type munitions once arriving at mission area while being controlled by manned platforms that are sticking back at safer standoff distances with their longer-range strike munitions (subsonic, supersonic or hypersonic missiles).
The good thing is that now China has the GJ-11 with 2 tons of max payload capacity and a purported max range of 4000+ kilometers. In the meantime, to pile on top of said strike option, China would need:
1. GJ-11 to enter PLAAF service (not just PLAN); and
2. GJ-11 to be equipped with mid-air refueling capability (plus a Chinese counterpart to the MQ-25 would be a welcoming bonus); and/or
3. A new flying-wing UCAV model with improved VLO characteristics, greater endurance and a larger payload capacity.
During wartime, risks have to be taken on a multitude of occasions. There is a need to strive a balance between strike effectiveness and budgetary constrains.
Last edited:
China's next gen bomber is similar to B2 and B21. The size is between B2 and B21, due to different strategic and tactical requirements from the U.S, China's next bomber needs to have longer range and carry more loads than B21. What really interesting is its AI assisted system and advance optical sensor system``````
How can a plane?
A) weigh less
B) carry more
C) fly further
You have to make a choice, give up something to gain something else
Nope.....you cannot have D) all of the above.
That is impossible.
He didn’t say the plane will weight less than B21