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

Could a single-engine GJ-X realistically have an internal bay large enough for two YJ-12 cruise missiles... while also carrying enough fuel to match the combat radius of a J-20?

THX 1138 said:

Could a single-engine GJ-X realistically have an internal bay large enough for two YJ-12 cruise missiles... while also carrying enough fuel to match the combat radius of a J-20?

Click to expand...

Dimensions of the weapons bay will probably be the limiting factor.

That said, YJ-12 isn't necessarily a missile that will have a long shelf life with the PLA in the future, so I don't think it's something people should view as needing to design an aircraft around.

Blitzo said:

GJ-X would likely be somewhat larger than the GJ-11 -- something that's bigger than X-47B or S-70, but powered perhaps by a single uprated non-AB WS-10 engine (as opposed to four such engines on H-20). Such an aircraft would aim to have an unrefuelled combat radius of being able to launch a strike mission well over the 2IC from operating within central China, and able to operate autonomously in certain phases of the mission but the CONOPS would also involve semi man-in-the-loop for parts of the mission by either a J-20A or in future the J-XD next generation fighter (which is likely to have even greater range than J-20/A), that would operate many dozens or hundreds of kilometers behind them to control specific parts of the mission.
In terms of the size of GJ-X, it would be far smaller than a H-20 and H-6, and perhaps somewhat bigger than your average Flanker (shorter but greater wingspan).
In terms of payload, this "GJ-X" would aim to be able to carry perhaps 4-6 tons internally (less if it is conducting a longer range mission), with primary payloads being high performance stand off A2G weapons, but also a full range of guided unpowered weapons to conduct direct attack missions against a degraded IADS. (other payloads like AAMs, smaller UAVs etc may be secondary/tertiary payloads and I mention it for the sake of completeness). It would be equipped with appropriate sensors and datalinks for the strike mission as well.

Click to expand...

I'm thinking that such performance characteristics for a notional GJ-X are too ambitious for a single WS-10 class engine.

If we use the X-47B as a comparison, they've got a single 65kN engine which is somewhat less powerful than a standard WS-10. But the X-47B is being listed with only 2 tonnes of payload and 4000km total range.

For Wuhan-Guam missions, you're looking at a 7000km round trip if you want to use unpowered munitions.
But if they can use cruise missiles with a 1500km range, it's still a 4000km round-trip.

---

But if you're launching from 1500km away, then H-6s could do the same job.
The advantage of this is that there are already 200+ in service and the latest ones can presumably each carry a larger payload of 6 JASSM-XR cruise missile equivalents. And at a launch distance of 1500km from China, they can be escorted by J-20s operating from mainland China.

---

At the same time, you see the Valkyrie Loyal Wingman with a listed range of almost 6000km which would be enough for a round-trip between China-Guam. The Valkyries are essentially intelligent cruise missiles with an internal payload of 270kg.

---

So you could combine large numbers of long-range cruise missiles launched from H-6s, then follow up with Loyal Wingmen dropping unpowered munitions. Plus you've got other capabilities such as the DF-26 etc.

For missions to the 2IC (circa 3000km from mainland China), my gut tells me that such a cruise-missile focus is far more effective and also much lower cost than a H-20 programme. You get large amounts of munitions repeatedly delivered up to 3000km away. Plus air superiority at a distances at 1500-3000km from China. Within 1500km, I think it would be more like Chinese air dominance.

---
NB. There was a CCTV7 newsreel about a factory capable of producing components for 1000 cruise missiles per day. And at anywhere near this production level, the cost of a cruise missile would drop dramatically, whether they are in the form of a Valkyrie Loyal Wingman, or JASSM-type cruise missiles launched from trucks or aircraft.

Blitzo said:

The problem is that an optionally manned B-21 sized aircraft will still be:
- rather expensive (this limiting the number which can be produced)
- have more difficulty with basing options than an aircraft that is the size of a tactical combat aircraft (thus more vulnerable on the ground to strikes)

The idea of an H-6 sized supersonic stealthy bomber (basically, what has been often described as JH-XX) has the same problems:
- it'll probably be quite expensive, thus limiting the numbers which can be procured
- it'll be fairly large, limiting basing options


Putting it another way, my view is that the cost (and limited procurement size), and the size (and basing limitations) are probably among primary reasons why they aren't going for H-20.


If we want to discuss any fixed wing strike bomber solution, it should not possess those two weaknesses, while also fulfilling the other primary requirements that we expected H-20 to have (stealthy, survivable, capable of networking and sensing, capable of advanced munitions)

Click to expand...

One possibility that could solve the Expensive and Large problem, as well as the Limited Range problem would be to develop a flying wing drone with an RDE engine, which should give it greatly enhanced range and reduced costs,

I heard a University was going to start producing some of these engines next year, so maybe it’s ok to consider it as a possibility.

If you're launching long range missiles from within PRC airspace - why not just use a truck or TEL? It's orders of magnitude cheaper.

Since we're talking about hypothetical planes, I'd say China could profit from the following:
A single engine, afterburning WS15 powered unmanned strike jet. (I'll call it here JH-8)
And a twin engine, non-afterburning variant WS15 powered unmanned bomber.

The first design is to achieve some 4000 km of ferry range, possibly allowing for a 1500-1800 combat range including a short supersonic (mach 1.8 or so) dash. It would be built and sized around the engine and a single weapons bay forward of the engine. The intake would be on top of the plane, and large delta wings should hold lots of fuel. A pelikan tail or even no tail in the back.

The weapon bay would be sized for two 5.6 meter long air to ground weapons (or slightly longer if we wanna cram in several PL-17), roughly 40 cm in diameter.

Why do I believe that combo is doable? Lets compare the notional JH8 with the F-111
JH8
170 kn of thrust pushing a medium sized (28 ton?) plane to mach 1.8, carrying two large missiles.
Ferry range around 4000 km.
Total mission distance 3000 km, combat radius is 1500 km.
Dash speed 1.8 for a short while, a few hundred km?
High altitude flight all the way. (10-14 km?)
Around 10 tons of fuel needed?


F-111
ferry range 5600 on internal fuel (weapon bay tanks included) or 8000 km on max external fuel. (26 tons of fuel)

Mach speed: 224 kn of thrust pushing a large, wide 49 ton (Combat TO weight) to mach 2.2 (presumably when clean)

Specific mission example for longer range but slower speed
Ingress at mach 0.85, egress at mach 0.55
Total mission distance 2985 km.
Combat radius 1490 km.
dash speed for ingress mach 0.85, for 900-1100 km of the combat zone (unclear)
Combat zone flight is done at sea level!
4 external tanks used
2 b43 bombs under wings
2 more b43 bombs in weapon bay
(b43 is a 950 kg bomb)
22 tons of fuel carried.

alternatively,
if there is no combat zone but all flight is done at medium/high altitude,
carrying 24 bombs (each around 350 kg)
no external tanks used.
bomb bay tanks used.
16.6 tons of fuel carried

total mission distance 3500 km
combat radius 1750 km
combat speed (at one point) mach 2.0 but no distance was given for said speed.
ingress cruise altitude starting from 5300 m to 6800 m (weapons release).
egress end cruise altitude 11500 m.


(f111 weapon bay was sized for up to two agm-69 sram missiles. 1050 kg each, 4.2 meter long, 0.44 m diameter.)

F111 figures from SAC document for FB-111A, secretary of the AF.

Now, the notional JH8 would likely have to be some 20-21 meters long. With a wingspan of little over 14 meters.
Ideally under 15 tons of empty weight to be able to pull everything off.
Basically, comparable to J20 but with a somewhat slimmer fuselage. Possibly a bit larger wings. No canards, simplified tail,
no cockpit obviously. Simplified single intake. Take off distance would probably be fairly bad
as the plane would simply lack thrust, compared to its take off weight, but that's a trade off that should be worth accepting.

The idea, really, is to have a cheaper plane than the J20, to be made in fairly large quantities. To complement the J20 and J31 when configured for strike missions. J20 and J31 would likely lack range and would be unable to carry the biggest weapons. Though j20 might
be able to carry more payload weight wise internally.
JH8 would not be designed to deliver a lot of payload but to deliver specific weapons a long way.

Then the twin non afterburning engine unmanned bomber would fill out the rest. It'd be designed for both long range and a lot of payload. While still being somewhat affordable and producable in large (200+) quantities. It'd probably fall behind whatever is planned
for a four engine flying wing, but perhaps 15 000 km of ferry range and 10 tons of bombs is not that crucial for China at this point anyway.

For fun, rough sketch of the jh8 proposal included.

I definitely like the GJ-X concept, and it should be pursued regardless of the status of the H-20. They would work great in tandem, with GJ-Xs taking on the bulk of the missions in the western and central Pacific, and the H-20 handling strikes on the US homeland.

@Blitzo, your thesis for substituting the H-20 with the GJ-X in at least the near term rests on the assumption that the small numbers and basing inflexibilities of the H-20 leave it vulnerable to US strikes in the opening phases of a conflict. I think it's worth examining that assumption more closely - would there be sufficient US assets remaining in theatre after the overwhelming opening PLARF salvo to threaten the H-20s? Would the enemy IADS survive to a sufficient degree to attrite H-20s during subsequent phases? I think the answer to both questions is no.

The only complication I see is SSNs, which would survive the PLARF mauling. The viability of the H-20 would depend on how well Chinese IADS can destroy the SSNs' incoming fires, and how well the PLAN can hunt and kill them.

Nevertheless, I definitely think a very large flying wing, 2IC+ ranged UCAV with high levels of autonomy is a crucial asset for the PLAAF. Better yet would be if the putative GJ-X could be modularly configured to be a refuelling aircraft, which would enable a flight of them to strike Hawaii as you mentioned.

Edit: I also think that it's a good idea for the H-20 to take a pit stop for a while. 4 non-AB WS-10s is a less than ideal powerplant solution, and I'm sure the Chinese aerospace industry of 2024 can come up with something much better.

This rumor contradicts everything we know. Shilao&co had remarked in their podcast that:
1. The national priority for the PLAAF is to become a strategic airforce. Strategic airforce explicitly means nuclear capable bombers.
2. The PLA developed a nuclear ALBM for the H-6N just so the PLAAF can practice nuclear missions in preparation for the H-20.
3. The H-20 program at this stage has cost more than the J-20 program at the equivalent stage in terms of years into development.

A delay is possible but cancellation is absurd.

Blitzo said:

However, if we accept the idea that H-20 as we know it has been pushed back, I see a few possible reasons for it

1. There is still a need for H-20 (a large, manned long range strike bomber), however in the immediate term future (next five to ten years) it is not the best use of resources to achieve the long range strike mission.

2. Related to the above, if they are not pursuing H-20 in the immediate future, I do believe there will still be new long range strike aircraft that will be pursued for this decade, which can take on aspects of H-20's mission at lower cost or lesser risk.

3. H-20 itself may have been a highly valuable asset produced in limited numbers. We have all operated under the assumption that H-20 would be a large, four engined stealthy flying wing (powered by four non AB WS-10 class engines) -- such a singular aircraft would be very capable yes, but it would also be expensive and large. Being expensive means that the ability to produce a large number of them will be difficult -- even if they produced 100+ airframes, that ultimately is not that many individual airframes in a large scale high end conflict.

4. H-20 would also likely be somewhat limited deployability/distributive capability. For the PLA, with current geostrategic positioning of US forces in the region, their air bases may be vulnerable to strikes. Furthermore, the fact that such an aircraft would be quite large, means that you will likely be limited in terms of basing and support requirements -- i.e.: it reduces your ability to distribute and deploy your airframes in a more agile way. In other words, the pursuit of a large aircraft that is procured in relatively low numbers (yes, I consider 100+ airframes to be somewhat limited), for the PLA at present may be an unforced error due to the vulnerability of losing them on the ground against opfor strikes, some of which are likely to get in even in context of formidable PLA air and missile defenses.

Click to expand...

Everything said here can apply to high end destroyers (and even more so aircraft carriers). Yet, China is producing more 055/052Ds and not drone 056/022s.

Blitzo said:

5. A subsonic, stealthy flying wing will find it difficult to penetrate an integrated air defense in early phases of a conflict due to said IADS being unmolested and un-degraded, which is likely to further contribute to a degree of losses. My view here, is that there is a possibility that H-20s that do get into the air in the early phases of a conflict may suffer some losses if they try to strike mission if the surrounding environment (1IC, 2IC) have yet to be properly sanitized of opfor combat air patrol and if IADS (both ground and naval/ships) have yet to be sufficiently degraded, even if they use stand-off weapons. Of course, it is likely that some missions will still succeed, but the issue is in attrition of said limited fleet size. The answer to this for H-20 may be to simply try and wait it out until enemy CAP and IADS are sufficiently degraded to perform their strike missions, but that leads to the problem of where to reliably base them where they can have minimal risk against opfor strikes.

Click to expand...

Given that a S/IRBM have a flight time of mere minutes, I don't think "unmolested and un-degraded IADS" can exist on the American side in any war scenario. Unless you are suggesting a Pearl Harbor-style sneak attack in which case by definition the alertness of the defense would be relatively minimal.

Blitzo said:

Summing it all up, my view is that the H-20 concept which we knew, may simply have be a bit too expensive (aka too few in number), a bit too big, and a bit too inflexible (from a deployability pov), and too vulnerable to attrition in the early phases of a conflict, for the PLA to be willing to invest in it at this time.

So, what's the alternative solution the PLA may go for, for the long range strike mission? Well I'm sure everyone will agree that missiles of a variety will be used, launched from ground based TELs, from H-6K/N family aircraft within the relative safety of PRC airspace, and from PLAN ships and future submarines.
However that still leads us to the gap for a fixed wing, penetrating long range strike aircraft which needs to be filled.

My hypothesis (or rather, the solution I personally find most likely), is they will go for an unmanned route -- a large, stealthy, fixed wing UCAV, likely subsonic.
I will call it "GJ-X" for now.

GJ-X would likely be somewhat larger than the GJ-11 -- something that's bigger than X-47B or S-70, but powered perhaps by a single uprated non-AB WS-10 engine (as opposed to four such engines on H-20). Such an aircraft would aim to have an unrefuelled combat radius of being able to launch a strike mission well over the 2IC from operating within central China, and able to operate autonomously in certain phases of the mission but the CONOPS would also involve semi man-in-the-loop for parts of the mission by either a J-20A or in future the J-XD next generation fighter (which is likely to have even greater range than J-20/A), that would operate many dozens or hundreds of kilometers behind them to control specific parts of the mission.
In terms of the size of GJ-X, it would be far smaller than a H-20 and H-6, and perhaps somewhat bigger than your average Flanker (shorter but greater wingspan).
...
In short, what I am envisioning as a likely alternative to H-20 for the "fixed wing penetrating, long range strike aircraft" role can be described as:
"Aerial distributed lethality, optimized for 2IC to central pacific distances"

Click to expand...

A 2IC-ranged bomber does not make sense given how few targets there are in Guam. For a long range bomber, China should be aiming for an unfueled range reaching Hawaii and Australia, with refueled range to reach CONUS. See rough diagram below

A two tiered force made up of GJ-11 and H-20 is ideal.

ZeEa5KPul said:

The only complication I see is SSNs, which would survive the PLARF mauling. The viability of the H-20 would depend on how well Chinese IADS can destroy the SSNs' incoming fires, and how well the PLAN can hunt and kill them.

Click to expand...

I don't think the PLA would have much trouble intercepting even maximal salvos of non-LO, subsonic Tomahawks fired from just outside the 1IC, since it's not just ground based IADS but also aircraft which can intercept.

Perhaps if they can eventually adapt some LO LACM to be fired from Virginias that may change, who knows.

Some random thoughts after reading what have been written vis-a-vis how the H-20 (and China's present bomber fleet development) should have been (or not been) in the past couple of pages:

1. Missile trucks like the H-6Ks and H-6Js carrying multiple standoff CM/SM/HM/BMs per airframe is far from a stupid idea. In fact, the presence of large numbers of H-6J and H-6Ks virtually guarantees having a 1000-2000 kilometers of strike range across pretty much the entirety of the 1IC from the relative safety of the Chinese airspace.

2. The same goes for H-6Ns carrying singular but large HM/BM per airframe. A land-launched DF-17 at 15 tons has an effective strike range of ~3000-4000 kilometers. An air-launched variant of the DF-17, albeit needs to be smaller in size and weight, can easily reach equivalent, if not larger strike ranges, all thanks to the help by the launch speed and altitude.

3. Stealth is not a "Stealth ON = Invisibility ON" and "Stealth OFF = Invisibility OFF" function. It does not work that way, despite what pro-Murica pundits have been claiming how the B-2 can just "stealth up" by simply pressing some confidential buttons. And the era where VLO bombers can drop unguided bombs right over anyone's head without ever getting detected is already over.

4. Despite this, stealth is still a very crucial component for modern day warplanes. Warplanes with (V)LO characteristics mean that they can be reliably and effectively detected much later by (and much closer to) the enemy than warplanes without (V)LO characteristics. This also negatively affects the enemy's ability to secure and keep a continuous lock on the warplanes by virtue of having smaller and less consistent radar signatures, which also works in favor with the distance away from the enemy detection systems.

5. Trying to equate supersonic speed >> (V)LO characteristics to greater chances of survival against enemy SSMs and (especially) AAMs doesn't always hold up these days, especially considering how AAMs these days can easily reach at least Mach 4-5, plus the potential to go even higher as newer and future AAM capabilities become more extreme. It'll be like a muscle car trying to outrun a supercar.

6. The Rapid Dragon-type palletized and disposable weapons module system is not a stupid idea - But it seems to have been more suitable when applied by China than by the US&LC, especially considering the characteristics of the Pacific Frontier. Of course, China needs to massively expand her medium and large airlifter fleets first.

7. Why do people here often neglect the fact that in the systemized warfare-dictated plans and doctrines that have pretty much become the Holy Bible for the PLA today, that warplanes (including bombers) will not be fighting and surviving thanks to their (V)LO features only?

8. Regarding what a certain anonymous US intelligence guy uttered some weeks ago (namely, the US views the H-20 as likely to fall short of the B-2 and B-21 in terms of capabilities) - For at least some viable reasons, perhaps China won't even need the H-20 to be exactly equal to US platforms in terms of capabilities, as the PLAAF and PLA CMC may only need the H-20 to be just good enough, capable enough and survivable enough to perform during wartime conditions according to the requirements and needs that are specifically tailored to China's case. Of course, this is not to say that the H-20 is definitely worse than the B-2 and B-21 (since we have absolutely zero idea about how true that particular claim is anyway), but this particular statement is something which I believe is actually worth to consider about.

9. A large-wingspan, VLO, subsonic, single large-thrust engine-powered or two middle-thrust engines-powered U(C)AV family is definitely very much in China's (and especially the PLAAF's) interests, not just as missile trucks that can be autonomously flown or controlled as wingman drones by manned fighters and/or bombers, but also for long-range/expeditionary, non-combat roles (e.g. reconnaissance, surveillance, communications relay, EW, buddy tankers, etc).