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

Jason_ said:

That’s an F-22 which is not an all aspect wideband stealth aircraft. Only a large flying wing like the B-2 or the B-21 are all aspect wideband stealth. Flying wing drones like the GJ-11 are also all aspect stealth but its performance is worse at the very low frequencies (but still much better than any stealth fighter today).

VLO stealth bombers operates on fundamentally different paradigm from stealth tactical fighters like the F-22/F-35/J-20. A stealth fighter can be detected but is expected to survive using its own weapons and kinematics. A stealth bomber is designed to never be spotted at all. Hence the all aspect wideband stealth design to defeat long range surveillance radar. So the overflight situation won’t happen except by coincidence or by insane radar density.

That’s the GJ-11. Cheap, all aspect wideband VLO, exceptional range via clean flying wing design, high-high-high mission profile, and large fuel fraction. The value of kinematics is only justifiable if the performance of launched munition is greatly dependent on launch parameters (i.e. air to air missiles, rocket powered land attack missile like HARM). Otherwise, the penalty from supersonic flight on cost and mainteinance is prohibitive (see B-52 vs. B-1B).

Click to expand...

Its counterparts in the bomber fleet, the close to 70-year old B-52 and the B-1B cost $25 and $23.7 million to operate per aircraft in 2018, respectively.

Click to expand...

Squeaking in just under the JSTARS cost, The B-52 BUFF (look it up) runs $70,388 per flying hour.

The B-1 makes up sixty percent of the Air Force's bomber fleet and runs $61,027 per flying hour.

Click to expand...

But heavy use in U.S. Central Command for missions like close air support for ground troops — which the B-1 wasn’t built to do — came at a cost. Less than half of the Lancer fleet was combat-ready in 2019, for example, when only six bombers were available for regular operations.

“Continuous operations over the last 20 years have taken a toll on our B-1B fleet, and the aircraft we retired would have taken between $10 [million] and $30 million … per aircraft to get back to a status quo fleet in the short term until the B-21 comes online,” Global Strike said.

Click to expand...

Blitzo said:

Every time one of us asks on SDF or Twitter, the PLA adds another year to delay its emergence lol

Click to expand...

Jason_ said:

A flying wing with the B-2/21 planform with have all-aspect broadband stealth from VHF to Ka.

Click to expand...

Jason_ said:

VLO stealth bombers operates on fundamentally different paradigm from stealth tactical fighters like the F-22/F-35/J-20. A stealth fighter can be detected but is expected to survive using its own weapons and kinematics. A stealth bomber is designed to never be spotted at all. Hence the all aspect wideband stealth design to defeat long range surveillance radar. So the overflight situation won’t happen except by coincidence or by insane radar density.

Click to expand...

taxiya said:

Do you have some scientific papers defining what is qualified as "all-aspect broadband stealth"? B-2 kind of shape is better than F-22 due to lacking the control surfaces but has the dropback being much larger. I don't think one can make such statement just because of the fly-wing design.

We need some scientists and engineers to define the fundamentals.

Click to expand...

ACuriousPLAFan said:

Wouldn't that be basically JH-XX?

Click to expand...

FairAndUnbiased said:

yeah I really think that this is more likely.

cost reasons:

1. don't need new engine R&D, all the money and effort put into the WS-15 pays off here. See Su-34 (Su-27 engine),

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

2. don't need new radar R&D, you can use a fighter radar.
3. already have much of the aerodynamics and tooling figured out.

performance reasons:

1. kinematics to evade missiles fired at long range or hit and run against surface targets
2. kinematics to launch munitions like IRBMs, hypersonic missiles, very long range AAMs, etc. that are best launched from fast platforms
3. combination of stealth and kinematics to avoid retaliatory interceptors after munitions release guided by long wavelength radars + IRST equipped fighters

historical reasons:

PLA philosophy is 小步快跑 to fill capability gaps with something. Right now the PLA lacks a direct fire, manned long range striker that can launch advanced air to surface weapons and simultaneously act as a sensor node.

H-6, J-16 and JH-7 cannot close to YJ-12 launch range reliably against a hostile CBG with active CAP. They are also not integrated with advanced munitions like YJ-18 and YJ-21, and only H-6 is integrated with DF-21N.

DF-17, DF-21 and DF-26 can launch from 99% safety, but are indirect fire and require off-board sensors. They can't help look for targets, they are only shooters.

J-20 and J-35 cannot hold large, advanced strike munitions.

There is nothing that can scout silently or react quickly based on long range but low resolution data from OTH radar/GEO satellites, search for targets within a 500 km range, kill the target at maximum range, and survive.

Click to expand...

sunnymaxi said:

very interesting points and all legitimate as far as PLAAF concern..

so what do you think. JH-XX is still under consideration in PLAAF/AVIC ? Engine problem has been sorted out.

Click to expand...

FairAndUnbiased said:

I think that JH-XX might have been selected recently and has the above reasons going for it.

I'm not expert, but I think I have some logic for why it was a recent selection. Anyone who is more knowledgeable can correct me.

I think a bottleneck was the WS-15 which would allow a dual engine strike plane with good TWR. Engine R&D is always a huge bottleneck for a plane, so if you can reuse an engine directly it is the best solution.

Click to expand...

latenlazy said:

If they pursue a JH-XX I think it will be in parallel to and not exclusion of an H-XX.

Click to expand...

FairAndUnbiased said:

I think they will try the less ambitious project first, which is a JH-XX.

Because if you can't get something right that you have all the components for, you need to carefully rethink project management, risk and technological maturity, as well as look back at every single thing that used the components in the failed project because now that is under question too.

Click to expand...