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

The press release is about joint organization building, no mention of specific projects.

If that picture is anywhere close to reality, then I believe the theory of the next PLAAF ground striker being a JH-XX as a VLO fighter shaped supersonic capable striker is gaining some circumstantial support.

Intakes being put on the topside behind the cockpit is interesting. From my understanding that would reduce bottom side RCS, but also reduce frontal RCS as the cockpit partially blocks the intake line of sight.

From the visual proportion of cockpit size vs. overall plane length, it looks to be apprx. FB-111 / Su-34 size. That would give it proportional specs of apprx. 22000 kg empty, 23 m length, 16000 kg payload.

To effectively use this payload and be integrated with as many weapons as possible, the internal bay would need to be about 7 m long, 1 m deep, 2 m wide, to carry at least 3x long ranged cruise missiles side by side in the 6 m long, 0.5 m OD class. If it's taller it can use a rotary launcher but I think that height will be more restricted than width with the top intake configuration.

FairAndUnbiased said:

The press release is about joint organization building, no mention of specific projects.

If that picture is anywhere close to reality, then I believe the theory of the next PLAAF ground striker being a JH-XX as a VLO fighter shaped supersonic capable striker is gaining some circumstantial support.

Intakes being put on the topside behind the cockpit is interesting. From my understanding that would reduce bottom side RCS, but also reduce frontal RCS as the cockpit partially blocks the intake line of sight.

From the visual proportion of cockpit size vs. overall plane length, it looks to be apprx. FB-111 / Su-34 size. That would give it proportional specs of apprx. 22000 kg empty, 23 m length, 16000 kg payload.

To effectively use this payload and be integrated with as many weapons as possible, the internal bay would need to be about 7 m long, 1 m deep, 2 m wide, to carry at least 3x long ranged cruise missiles side by side in the 6 m long, 0.5 m OD class. If it's taller it can use a rotary launcher but I think that height will be more restricted than width with the top intake configuration.

Click to expand...

The discussion points about JH-XX go back to the early-mid 2010s -- in fact the first post of this very thread was relating to "JH-XX" of the time. One can click through the 50 or so pages to get a gist of the discussions at the time, and much of the topics are the same as what is still being talked about now.




However after all these years, about a decade, we still don't have any firm indicators as to whether this thing is being developed or not -- at best there is circumstantial indicators that there has been PLA interest in such a project, but that's nothing we didn't know for the last 4-8 years. The key question is whether the PLA has committed to developing and procuring it in the way that we know they have with H-20.


Or putting it another way, the H-20 is already set in place, we know that it's coming one way or another.

JH-XX is an unknown, and there isn't anything new in the last few months or years that has changed that assessment as of yet.

Is there even a use though for a JH-XX? I suppose the mission of a JH-XX would be to launch large anti-ship & land attack cruise missiles so it's internal weapons' bay would have to be able to fit missiles the size of the YJ-12 so the plane would be quite larger than the J-20.

America's NGAD is supposed to be much larger than the F-22 with the potential to carry a big payload and it's supposed to enter service at the end of this decade or the beginning of the next decade. If the Chinese aim is to equal the NGAD then the Chinese 6th gen fighter would also be VLO & much larger than the J-20 and we have news that they too are already working on a 6th gen fighter so it should be able to enter service at most few years after the NGAD. If the Chinese 6th Gen fighter can carry missiles similar in size to the YJ-12 or maybe a little smaller then developing a JH-XX would be entirely pointless.

The JH-XX would be made at a time when the WS-15 is in serial production. So the design can take advantage of an engine with higher power level than what was available when the J-20 was designed. This means you can make a larger and heavier aircraft.

Like you said it would also have larger internal storage. It might also be designed to be lower agility. Less mass devoted to structural reinforcement.

gelgoog said:

The JH-XX would be made at a time when the WS-15 is in serial production. So the design can take advantage of an engine with higher power level than what was available when the J-20 was designed. This means you can make a larger and heavier aircraft.

Like you said it would also have larger internal storage. It might also be designed to be lower agility. Less mass devoted to structural reinforcement.

Click to expand...

The power demand of a F/B or J/H is quite different from the fighter. For example, The FB-111A had a higher maximum takeoff weight of 119,250 lb (54,105 kg), but just had two TF30-P-7 with 12,500 lbf (56 kN) dry and 20,350 lbf (90 kN) after-burning thrust. Compared with most popular WS-15 data, 105kN dry and 156kN after-burning…it is almost doubled.

BTW, FB-111A had a maximum speed of Mach 2, 585 gallons (2,214L) fuel capacity and max 35,500 lb (16,100kg) payload…

obj 705A said:

Is there even a use though for a JH-XX? I suppose the mission of a JH-XX would be to launch large anti-ship & land attack cruise missiles so it's internal weapons' bay would have to be able to fit missiles the size of the YJ-12 so the plane would be quite larger than the J-20.

America's NGAD is supposed to be much larger than the F-22 with the potential to carry a big payload and it's supposed to enter service at the end of this decade or the beginning of the next decade. If the Chinese aim is to equal the NGAD then the Chinese 6th gen fighter would also be VLO & much larger than the J-20 and we have news that they too are already working on a 6th gen fighter so it should be able to enter service at most few years after the NGAD. If the Chinese 6th Gen fighter can carry missiles similar in size to the YJ-12 or maybe a little smaller then developing a JH-XX would be entirely pointless.

Click to expand...

Americans are aiming for around 1200 nautical miles unrefueled combat radius (on internal fuel only) for their NGAD. It wouldn't have a substantially large payload capacity (as compared to an F-22) because the accompanying CCAs are supposed to act as missile trucks.

Imho China needs a moderately-stealthy supersonic medium/tactical/theater bomber with NGAD-like combat radius (1200 nautical miles unrefueled on internal fuel only) as well as a highly-stealthy high-subsonic heavy/strategic bomber with a 2400 nautical miles unrefueled combat radius which is basically double that of the medium bomber and about the same as of B-2 Spirit and B-21 Raider.

ashnole said:

Americans are aiming for around 1200 nautical miles unrefueled combat radius (on internal fuel only) for their NGAD. It wouldn't have a substantially large payload capacity (as compared to an F-22) because the accompanying CCAs are supposed to act as missile trucks.

Imho China needs a moderately-stealthy supersonic medium/tactical/theater bomber with NGAD-like combat radius (1200 nautical miles unrefueled on internal fuel only) as well as a highly-stealthy high-subsonic heavy/strategic bomber with a 2400 nautical miles unrefueled combat radius which is basically double that of the medium bomber and about the same as of B-2 Spirit and B-21 Raider.

Click to expand...

Maybe a slightly bigger stealthy version of FB-111A is enough? Powered by two WS-15, max take-off around 60ton, with 10t+ internal bay capacity, 3000nm range…

ashnole said:

a highly-stealthy high-subsonic heavy/strategic bomber with a 2400 nautical miles unrefueled combat radius which is basically double that of the medium bomber and about the same as of B-2 Spirit and B-21 Raider.

Click to expand...

It's range will be more than 2400nm unrefueled. 2400nm is inadequate. If China develops a strategic bomber then the combat radius plus the range of the missile has to reach the US mainland. it would have to be closer to the range of a Tu-160 than it is to the B-2.

obj 705A said:

It's range will be more than 2400nm unrefueled. 2400nm is inadequate. If China develops a strategic bomber then the combat radius plus the range of the missile has to reach the US mainland. it would have to be closer to the range of a Tu-160 than it is to the B-2.

Click to expand...

You should learn about the difference between combat radius and combat range. The 2400 nm I mentioned for the B-2 is a conservative number assuming combat radius as just 1/3rd of the combat range and carrying a full weapons load (34000 lbs) with some loiter time over targets.

The scenario you mentioned, which is China targeting US West Coast, will DEFINITELY require air-refueling. Distance between China's coast to American West Coast is roughly 5500 nm. Assuming the bombers carry ultralong-ranged subsonic cruise missiles that go say 1500 nm to target West Coast infrastructure, the bomber will anyhow have to do a 8000 nm round trip.

ashnole said:

You should learn about the difference between combat radius and combat range. The 2400 nm I mentioned for the B-2 is a conservative number assuming combat radius as just 1/3rd of the combat range and carrying a full weapons load (34000 lbs) with some loiter time over targets.

The scenario you mentioned, which is China targeting US West Coast, will DEFINITELY require air-refueling. Distance between China's coast to American West Coast is roughly 5500 nm. Assuming the bombers carry ultralong-ranged subsonic cruise missiles that go say 1500 nm to target West Coast infrastructure, the bomber will anyhow have to do a 8000 nm round trip.

Click to expand...

Yeah I know what you meant by radius.

tanker aircrafts are not stealthy, they could easily be detected. Not only that but tanker aircrafts would give away the location of the H-20 bombers that they are supposed to refuel on their way to the US.
So that essentialy means China's nuclear triad would depend on large unstealthy tanker aircrafts.
The entire point of having the H-20 as a subsoinc stealth bomber instead of a faster none-stealthy one like the Tu-160 is so that it could cross the pacific without being detected while the 5th & 6th gen fighters would take out any enemy aircraft that could be patroling the area ahead of the bomber.

The US can get away with having less range on it's bombers than say the Tu-160 because they can spread out their bombers on the various islands and bases that they have in the Pacific. China doesn't have that luxury.

In any case do we have concrete evidence of the size of the H-20? It's size should be enough for us to determine wheather it's range is similar to the American stealth bombers or closer to the Tu-160.

By the way regarding the range of the Chinese cruise missiles. I don't believe the range is actually known, the Russian KH-102 has a range of more than 4000km. it is possible China has something similar or perhaps a bit less for the strategic bomber.