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

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
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.

Well I never said that H-20 is cancelled, what I'm saying is that in the near term, they may be pursuing an alternative solution for the "fixed wing long range penetrating strike bomber" mission rather than a large manned stealthy aircraft.


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.

Not quite -- high end destroyers offer certain capabilities that cannot be offered by smaller ships, including large and powerful radars, being able to operate beyond green water, large VLS capacity, and those are missions which are relevant for a high end western pacific/central pacific fight which cannot be fulfilled with other platforms (albeit we are likely to see LUSVs with VLS to augment this capability).

To me, the equivalent of H-20 (i.e.: large, expensive, likely to be procured in limited numbers and being presently inappropriate for the PLA's geostrategic situation) is aircraft carriers. Aircraft carriers hold a vital and unique role of course, but we see how the PLAN are not immediately moving into producing more carriers and are taking a measured approach, and I suspect part of that is because they recognize the geostrategic positioning is not favourable at the moment for carriers.
I see H-20 and carriers as similar in that way -- there will always be a mission and requirement for them, but the issue for us is whether it makes sense for them to procure them for the near term in the next 5-6 years for example.


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.

I don't see what a flight time of mere minutes has to do with anything. It isn't flight time which is important but rather the capability and positioning of the defenses and sensors as part of the IADS, and it should absolutely be assumed as a given that US defenses against SRBMs, IRBMs and HGVs will become more potent in the region compared to today.


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

View attachment 131011
A two tiered force made up of GJ-11 and H-20 is ideal.

A 2IC ranged bomber matters because Guam is and will remain a linchpin for US air and sea power in the western pacific outside of the 1IC, and PLA fires bandwidth and re-attack capability against a reinforced Guam at present and into the future will be limited. Furthermore, there are other smaller islands in the approximate 2IC distance range which the US is aiming to build up as smaller bases for air power. Finally being able to robustly project fires into 2IC distances means the ability to threaten US naval forces operating in that region more effectively, further reducing US air and sea power ability to be projected into the 1IC esque region.


The idea of wanting an unrefuelled range for Hawaii and Australia is understandable, but it requires the PLA to first be able to robustly and thoroughly strike and neutralize 2IC targets first (Guam, US naval forces), and that is something they cannot yet do.
 

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
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?

I'm not sure who or what has given you that impression.
It's not so much that VLO features will enable aircraft to be invulnerable, but rather that if you hold all else equal, in the modern age if you want to fight a high intensity conflict in a manner where your aircraft is operating in any sort of near proximity to enemy aircraft and IADS, then you need at minimum LO if not VLO.

See VLO as a form of EW -- just as you won't go into war without EW in a manner that is integrated to your system of systems (as well as your individual platforms), you cannot go to war without VLO.

As for the rest of your post, I'm not exactly sure who or what it's directed at? I don't think anyone has written stuff that your points 1 to 7 specifically addresses


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.

I'm trying to think about what the key reasons for the PLA potentially not going for H-20 in the near term might be, and vulnerability to being struck on the ground, as well as finite numbers (both being somewhat related to one another) are the big reasons I can think of.

It's all well and good to say that in an initial salvo exchange that the PLA may come out ahead, but we just don't know how it may actually go in the future. We have yet to see the full nature of revised US fires positions in the region, and the fact that extensive US conventional fires are located in region means that by definition there are higher value targets that fall within the range of US weapons, and even despite the density of PLA IAMDS and the scale of the PLA's own offensive fires, I consider the "cold start" nature of such a balance to be rather risky.
My view is that the PLA probably has to assume that some portion of US fires will get through and the PLA will not be able to rip the heart out US offensive fires with their own offensive fires immediately unless everything goes perfectly.

If US fires were located far more distantly, such as only at 2IC or even only at Hawaii distances, then that would be very different and I imagine the PLA would be much more comfortable with the idea of a four engine, subsonic flying wing H-20.


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 think the first aircraft you're describing would be considered more of a high end A2A UCAV/CCA/loyal wingman which has multirole/strike capabilities.
I'm not opposed to the idea of grouping all high end UCAVs together under the same conceptual umbrella in future but I'm not sure if we are there yet particularly if we're thinking about the way in which H-20 may be replaced in terms of the "long range penetrating strike" role.

For the second aircraft, having two non-AB WS-15 engines would make it a rather large aircraft, something B-21 sized, which is still rather big. I'm not opposed to the idea per se but it would still likely be a bit big to disperse and expensive relative to a large single engine aircraft.


Also, I'm not sure if conceptually the idea of powering these large UCAVs with WS-15 (AB and non-AB respectively) is a good idea given that WS-15 is bit more oriented to higher speeds and has lower bypass ratio than WS-10. Unless we're talking a future WS-15 with a different bypass ratio, or if your UCAV is intended to operate at higher, even supersonic speeds regularly.

That's why I've thought that uprated WS-10s may be a better powerplant to go with (not to mention it is also much more mature).
 
Last edited:

ZeEa5KPul

Colonel
Registered Member
I'm trying to think about what the key reasons for the PLA potentially not going for H-20 in the near term might be, and vulnerability to being struck on the ground, as well as finite numbers (both being somewhat related to one another) are the big reasons I can think of.

It's all well and good to say that in an initial salvo exchange that the PLA may come out ahead, but we just don't know how it may actually go in the future. We have yet to see the full nature of revised US fires positions in the region, and the fact that extensive US conventional fires are located in region means that by definition there are higher value targets that fall within the range of US weapons, and even despite the density of PLA IAMDS and the scale of the PLA's own offensive fires, I consider the "cold start" nature of such a balance to be rather risky.
My view is that the PLA probably has to assume that some portion of US fires will get through and the PLA will not be able to rip the heart out US offensive fires with their own offensive fires immediately unless everything goes perfectly.

If US fires were located far more distantly, such as only at 2IC or even only at Hawaii distances, then that would be very different and I imagine the PLA would be much more comfortable with the idea of a four engine, subsonic flying wing H-20.
More and more, I'm coming around to your way of thinking. Much as it galls me, the truth is China will have to be able to absorb some shots without being able to reciprocate on the US mainland. The crucial thing is that nothing too expensive or crucial be lost in the US's opening salvo. The best way to accomplish that is by not having anything too expensive or crucial to begin with.

Buying many more cheaper GJ-X UCAVs will still be very useful and will provide a very robust strike capability over the 2IC+ theatre. The great thing is a lot of the cost of developing a GJ-X has already been paid into the H-20 program. Improved autonomy and MUMT with Sino-NGAD (or J-XD as you call it) has opened up a lot of options. Ironically, this was the original intent of the JH-XX (a limited range theatre bomber).

I wonder if the GJ-X could be made with two engines and be similarly sized to the B-21. Does that blow up the cost and run into the limited number hangar queen H-20 problem?
 

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
More and more, I'm coming around to your way of thinking. Much as it galls me, the truth is China will have to be able to absorb some shots without being able to reciprocate on the US mainland. The crucial thing is that nothing too expensive or crucial be lost in the US's opening salvo. The best way to accomplish that is by not having anything too expensive or crucial to begin with.

Yes, the way I see it, the goal is to have a large quantity that can disperse as much as possible, while keeping each individual platform sufficiently large and capable to be relevant to the conflict you're fighting.
In fact I would say that approach can be seen in every military product that is being procured today.


Buying many more cheaper GJ-X UCAVs will still be very useful and will provide a very robust strike capability over the 2IC+ theatre. The great thing is a lot of the cost of developing a GJ-X has already been paid into the H-20 program. Improved autonomy and MUMT with Sino-NGAD (or J-XD as you call it) has opened up a lot of options. Ironically, this was the original intent of the JH-XX (a limited range theatre bomber).

I wonder if the GJ-X could be made with two engines and be similarly sized to the B-21. Does that blow up the cost and run into the limited number hangar queen H-20 problem?

I'm not sure if a twin engine (say, two non-AB WS-10s) would be appropriate as it would likely be at least as big as B-21 and it would be well and truly be much larger than a big tactical sized aircraft.
Unless you go for say, two non AB WS-13 sized engines, which is certainly an option.


Anyway, the goal of "greater quantity + greater ability to disperse" while retaining "useful capability for 2IC+ distances" I think is probably a useful way of thinking about what a "fixed wing penetrating strike bomber" may be, if indeed H-20 is being pushed back.
 

young

Just Hatched
Registered Member

JH-26: The New Era of Supersonic Stealth Fighter-Bombers​

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


in
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Reading Time: 4 mins read
A A

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

394
SHARES
3k
VIEWS
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!



Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Blurry image of an aircraft, suspected to be the legendary JH-26
The announcement of the JH-26 supersonic stealth fighter-bomber is imminent. News about the JH-26, a sibling of the J-20, has been circulating since the end of last year, and its official release is expected soon. Here, we provide a brief introduction. The designation JH-26 originates from a long-standing legend, as its combat radius reaches 3000 kilometers, akin to the DF-26 ballistic missile. Until its official model name is released, we will continue to use the designation JH-26. The continuous test flights of the dual-seat J-20 models and the integration of WS-15 engines in recent years indicate that the JH-26 has the necessary technological foundation.

YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE​

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Significance of Supersonic Stealth Fighter-Bombers​

The design of stealth combat aircraft revolves around internal weapon bays. For air combat-focused models, the internal weapon bay cannot be too large, as it would affect speed, maneuverability, and other performance metrics. Examples include the J-20 and F-22. Conversely, for ground-attack models, the weapon bay space needs to be larger to carry more munitions, which can compromise speed and maneuverability. The F-35A/C, for instance, is designed for ground attacks and can carry two 907 kg guided munitions in its weapon bay, but this makes it bulkier and relatively less agile.
Non-stealth fighters do not face this limitation; all munitions can be externally mounted, allowing for mission-specific loadout changes. This flexibility enables non-stealth fighters to perform dual roles, but stealth fighters cannot do this. Hence, the optimal approach is to have distinct models for air combat and ground attack missions. Originally, the F-22 was used for air superiority, and the F-35 for ground attacks. However, this combination is now challenged due to the limited number and aging of F-22s, which are declining in combat effectiveness. Pushing the F-35 into an air superiority role is somewhat of a mismatch.


Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
CG image of China’s rumored “sixth-generation fighter jet” circulating online
The US once envisioned an extended FB-22 based on the F-22, with a lengthened fuselage and weapon bay to retain supersonic capabilities while meeting mid-range bomber needs. The FB-22 could bridge the gap between fighter and long-range bomber capabilities, carrying 30 to 36 small-diameter bombs with a combat radius of 2600 kilometers.

Design Features and Capabilities of the JH-26​

The JH-26 needs a dual-seat configuration due to its long-range capabilities, allowing for over 8 hours of flight time. For single-seat fighters, continuous flight exceeding 4 hours leads to significant physical and mental exhaustion for the pilot. However, dual-seat fighters, with one pilot responsible for flight control and air combat and the other focusing on radar, electro-optical target detection, tracking, and weapon control, can alleviate this issue. This division of labor allows the JH-26 to quickly identify and destroy enemy targets in complex battlefield environments. Additionally, the JH-26 is equipped with a more powerful phased-array radar and comprehensive electronic warfare systems, capable of long-distance reconnaissance and electronic interference.
In the future, the JH-26 will also undertake more command and control tasks for unmanned combat aircraft. As combat platforms become increasingly automated and information-driven, future battlefields will rely more on unmanned combat aircraft. The JH-26, as a heavy stealth fighter-bomber with high automation and informatization levels, needs to effectively command and control various unmanned combat aircraft, enhancing the combat effectiveness of the entire aerial combat system.

Increasing Internal Weapon Bay Size​

According to available data, the J-20’s internal weapon bay measures approximately 4.6 meters in length, 2.3 meters in width, and 0.7 meters in depth. To accommodate more munitions, it can be expanded to 6 meters, with transverse partitions in the bay for added structural strength, capable of carrying 3-4 heavy guided bombs like the Tiange-1000 or 24-32 small-diameter bombs.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

China possesses the world’s largest 80,000-ton hydraulic press for forging high-strength, lightweight titanium alloy components. The F-111 fighter-bomber, by comparison, has a 5-meter-long weapon bay. Prioritizing ground attack over air combat, it accepts lower performance in air combat elements, with a maximum speed of 2M and a maximum overload of 6-7G. The goal is to achieve long-range, high stealth payload capacity.
The stealth design, dual-seat configuration, and increased range of the JH-26 require larger internal fuel tanks, increasing the wing area. For reference, the F-111’s maximum internal fuel capacity is 14.5 tons, with a maximum internal fuel range of 6000 kilometers and an operational radius of over 2100 kilometers. With aerial refueling, the range can extend to 10,000 kilometers, with a combat radius of over 3000 kilometers. Assuming an empty weight of 20 tons, an internal stealth payload of 4 tons, and 15 tons of fuel, the JH-26’s maximum stealth takeoff weight would be close to 40 tons, with non-stealth configurations reaching over 45 tons. The combat radius would not be lower than the F-111, but with superior speed and maneuverability.
With increased size and weight, the JH-26 will face engine thrust limitations. According to available data, the WS-15 high-thrust engine has officially entered service, providing a maximum thrust of 16 tons and an intermediate thrust of 10 tons in its first phase, achieving a takeoff thrust-to-weight ratio of 0.8.
The JH-26’s advantage lies in its integrated reconnaissance and strike capability. Conventional long-range missiles primarily target fixed objectives like airports, hangars, bridges, arsenals, fuel depots, communication and command centers, military headquarters, and transport hubs. These targets, accounting for 10%-20% of total targets, are well-protected with anti-missile systems and surrounded by numerous decoys. However, the JH-26 excels in engaging mobile, time-sensitive targets such as ground aircraft, helicopters, mobile radars, surface-to-air missiles, anti-aircraft artillery, armored convoys, and infantry.
The JH-26 retains supersonic combat capabilities, leveraging stealth to swiftly maneuver on the battlefield, using synthetic aperture radar to search for ground targets, and employing electro-optical systems for identification and tracking, guiding drones or precision-guided munitions for strikes.

Conclusion​

The focus on the F-35’s air combat capabilities is somewhat misplaced. Its greatest threat lies in its stealth reconnaissance and ground attack capabilities. Although it can only carry two 908 kg bombs, its increasing numbers make its precision strike capability a significant threat. However, once the JH-26 enters mass production, this dynamic will change completely. (Zhang Gong)

Share this:​

 

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member

JH-26: The New Era of Supersonic Stealth Fighter-Bombers​

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


in
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Reading Time: 4 mins read
A A

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

394
SHARES
3k
VIEWS
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!



Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Blurry image of an aircraft, suspected to be the legendary JH-26
The announcement of the JH-26 supersonic stealth fighter-bomber is imminent. News about the JH-26, a sibling of the J-20, has been circulating since the end of last year, and its official release is expected soon. Here, we provide a brief introduction. The designation JH-26 originates from a long-standing legend, as its combat radius reaches 3000 kilometers, akin to the DF-26 ballistic missile. Until its official model name is released, we will continue to use the designation JH-26. The continuous test flights of the dual-seat J-20 models and the integration of WS-15 engines in recent years indicate that the JH-26 has the necessary technological foundation.

YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE​

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Significance of Supersonic Stealth Fighter-Bombers​

The design of stealth combat aircraft revolves around internal weapon bays. For air combat-focused models, the internal weapon bay cannot be too large, as it would affect speed, maneuverability, and other performance metrics. Examples include the J-20 and F-22. Conversely, for ground-attack models, the weapon bay space needs to be larger to carry more munitions, which can compromise speed and maneuverability. The F-35A/C, for instance, is designed for ground attacks and can carry two 907 kg guided munitions in its weapon bay, but this makes it bulkier and relatively less agile.
Non-stealth fighters do not face this limitation; all munitions can be externally mounted, allowing for mission-specific loadout changes. This flexibility enables non-stealth fighters to perform dual roles, but stealth fighters cannot do this. Hence, the optimal approach is to have distinct models for air combat and ground attack missions. Originally, the F-22 was used for air superiority, and the F-35 for ground attacks. However, this combination is now challenged due to the limited number and aging of F-22s, which are declining in combat effectiveness. Pushing the F-35 into an air superiority role is somewhat of a mismatch.


Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
CG image of China’s rumored “sixth-generation fighter jet” circulating online
The US once envisioned an extended FB-22 based on the F-22, with a lengthened fuselage and weapon bay to retain supersonic capabilities while meeting mid-range bomber needs. The FB-22 could bridge the gap between fighter and long-range bomber capabilities, carrying 30 to 36 small-diameter bombs with a combat radius of 2600 kilometers.

Design Features and Capabilities of the JH-26​

The JH-26 needs a dual-seat configuration due to its long-range capabilities, allowing for over 8 hours of flight time. For single-seat fighters, continuous flight exceeding 4 hours leads to significant physical and mental exhaustion for the pilot. However, dual-seat fighters, with one pilot responsible for flight control and air combat and the other focusing on radar, electro-optical target detection, tracking, and weapon control, can alleviate this issue. This division of labor allows the JH-26 to quickly identify and destroy enemy targets in complex battlefield environments. Additionally, the JH-26 is equipped with a more powerful phased-array radar and comprehensive electronic warfare systems, capable of long-distance reconnaissance and electronic interference.
In the future, the JH-26 will also undertake more command and control tasks for unmanned combat aircraft. As combat platforms become increasingly automated and information-driven, future battlefields will rely more on unmanned combat aircraft. The JH-26, as a heavy stealth fighter-bomber with high automation and informatization levels, needs to effectively command and control various unmanned combat aircraft, enhancing the combat effectiveness of the entire aerial combat system.

Increasing Internal Weapon Bay Size​

According to available data, the J-20’s internal weapon bay measures approximately 4.6 meters in length, 2.3 meters in width, and 0.7 meters in depth. To accommodate more munitions, it can be expanded to 6 meters, with transverse partitions in the bay for added structural strength, capable of carrying 3-4 heavy guided bombs like the Tiange-1000 or 24-32 small-diameter bombs.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

China possesses the world’s largest 80,000-ton hydraulic press for forging high-strength, lightweight titanium alloy components. The F-111 fighter-bomber, by comparison, has a 5-meter-long weapon bay. Prioritizing ground attack over air combat, it accepts lower performance in air combat elements, with a maximum speed of 2M and a maximum overload of 6-7G. The goal is to achieve long-range, high stealth payload capacity.
The stealth design, dual-seat configuration, and increased range of the JH-26 require larger internal fuel tanks, increasing the wing area. For reference, the F-111’s maximum internal fuel capacity is 14.5 tons, with a maximum internal fuel range of 6000 kilometers and an operational radius of over 2100 kilometers. With aerial refueling, the range can extend to 10,000 kilometers, with a combat radius of over 3000 kilometers. Assuming an empty weight of 20 tons, an internal stealth payload of 4 tons, and 15 tons of fuel, the JH-26’s maximum stealth takeoff weight would be close to 40 tons, with non-stealth configurations reaching over 45 tons. The combat radius would not be lower than the F-111, but with superior speed and maneuverability.
With increased size and weight, the JH-26 will face engine thrust limitations. According to available data, the WS-15 high-thrust engine has officially entered service, providing a maximum thrust of 16 tons and an intermediate thrust of 10 tons in its first phase, achieving a takeoff thrust-to-weight ratio of 0.8.
The JH-26’s advantage lies in its integrated reconnaissance and strike capability. Conventional long-range missiles primarily target fixed objectives like airports, hangars, bridges, arsenals, fuel depots, communication and command centers, military headquarters, and transport hubs. These targets, accounting for 10%-20% of total targets, are well-protected with anti-missile systems and surrounded by numerous decoys. However, the JH-26 excels in engaging mobile, time-sensitive targets such as ground aircraft, helicopters, mobile radars, surface-to-air missiles, anti-aircraft artillery, armored convoys, and infantry.
The JH-26 retains supersonic combat capabilities, leveraging stealth to swiftly maneuver on the battlefield, using synthetic aperture radar to search for ground targets, and employing electro-optical systems for identification and tracking, guiding drones or precision-guided munitions for strikes.

Conclusion​

The focus on the F-35’s air combat capabilities is somewhat misplaced. Its greatest threat lies in its stealth reconnaissance and ground attack capabilities. Although it can only carry two 908 kg bombs, its increasing numbers make its precision strike capability a significant threat. However, once the JH-26 enters mass production, this dynamic will change completely. (Zhang Gong)

Share this:​


That website is not reliable and these are unfounded ideas without a basis in credible rumours at present.

Try to not directly copy and paste these sort of articles, without actually asking if they are considered credible.
 

Jason_

Junior Member
Registered Member
Well I never said that H-20 is cancelled, what I'm saying is that in the near term, they may be pursuing an alternative solution for the "fixed wing long range penetrating strike bomber" mission rather than a large manned stealthy aircraft.
Yes, and my argument is that there are no alternatives that makes as much sense as the H-20 originally imagined (i.e. sino-B2) and thus it is unlikely to be canceled or significantly revised.
Not quite -- high end destroyers offer certain capabilities that cannot be offered by smaller ships, including large and powerful radars, being able to operate beyond green water, large VLS capacity, and those are missions which are relevant for a high end western pacific/central pacific fight which cannot be fulfilled with other platforms (albeit we are likely to see LUSVs with VLS to augment this capability).

To me, the equivalent of H-20 (i.e.: large, expensive, likely to be procured in limited numbers and being presently inappropriate for the PLA's geostrategic situation) is aircraft carriers. Aircraft carriers hold a vital and unique role of course, but we see how the PLAN are not immediately moving into producing more carriers and are taking a measured approach, and I suspect part of that is because they recognize the geostrategic positioning is not favourable at the moment for carriers.
I see H-20 and carriers as similar in that way -- there will always be a mission and requirement for them, but the issue for us is whether it makes sense for them to procure them for the near term in the next 5-6 years for example.
The H-20 also offers certain capabilities that cannot be offered by smaller aircrafts (range, variety of integrated sensors, large/deep weapon bay for XXL weapons, nuclear missions, CONUS missions, prestige, etc.)
I don't see what a flight time of mere minutes has to do with anything. It isn't flight time which is important but rather the capability and positioning of the defenses and sensors as part of the IADS, and it should absolutely be assumed as a given that US defenses against SRBMs, IRBMs and HGVs will become more potent in the region compared to today.
The flight time of S/IRBM means that it is very feasible to coordinate time on target so that the H-20 penetrate at the same time as the missiles barrage or after the missiles take out significant parts of the IADS in which case the H-20 would target the remnants of the IADS or the rest of the air base.
A 2IC ranged bomber matters because Guam is and will remain a linchpin for US air and sea power in the western pacific outside of the 1IC, and PLA fires bandwidth and re-attack capability against a reinforced Guam at present and into the future will be limited. Furthermore, there are other smaller islands in the approximate 2IC distance range which the US is aiming to build up as smaller bases for air power. Finally being able to robustly project fires into 2IC distances means the ability to threaten US naval forces operating in that region more effectively, further reducing US air and sea power ability to be projected into the 1IC esque region.


The idea of wanting an unrefuelled range for Hawaii and Australia is understandable, but it requires the PLA to first be able to robustly and thoroughly strike and neutralize 2IC targets first (Guam, US naval forces), and that is something they cannot yet do.
Guam will not be the linchpin of US operations in the future because the US recognize its inherent limitations and vulnerability. The offensive component of the future US strategy will center on high sortie generation of B-21s from bases in Hawaii and Australia, which are currently outside the effective range of the PLARF.
Screenshot 2024-06-14 at 8.49.27 AM.png
I need to emphasize that nothing in the US arsenal poses any where close to as much threat to China as many squadrons of forward deployed B-21s. It is absolutely imperative that China develop a way to neutralize these bases. 5000km is ICBM territory and not cost effective for conventional ballistic missiles which means China needs an Australia-ranged bomber.
 

ZeEa5KPul

Colonel
Registered Member
The offensive component of the future US strategy will center on high sortie generation of B-21s from bases in Hawaii and Australia, which are currently outside the effective range of the PLARF.
DF-27.
I need to emphasize that nothing in the US arsenal poses any where close to as much threat to China as many squadrons of forward deployed B-21s. It is absolutely imperative that China develop a way to neutralize these bases. 5000km is ICBM territory and not cost effective for conventional ballistic missiles which means China needs an Australia-ranged bomber.
The GJ-X concept is very much an Australia-ranged bomber. If you can buy four or more for the price of one H-20, you could have a flight of three or four directed by one J-XD, two or three bombers and one refueller. That's more cost effective, more survivable, more flexible and delivers as much ordnance as one unrefuelled H-20.
 

ACuriousPLAFan

Brigadier
Registered Member
I'm not sure who or what has given you that impression.
It's not so much that VLO features will enable aircraft to be invulnerable, but rather that if you hold all else equal, in the modern age if you want to fight a high intensity conflict in a manner where your aircraft is operating in any sort of near proximity to enemy aircraft and IADS, then you need at minimum LO if not VLO.

See VLO as a form of EW -- just as you won't go into war without EW in a manner that is integrated to your system of systems (as well as your individual platforms), you cannot go to war without VLO.

Sure, I don't see how your points are contradictory to mine. I'd argue that while VLO isn't the elixir (仙丹) of warfare at present and future in the aerial domain for certain reasons, the VLO is still very much indispensable for certain other reasons.

In the meantime, what I'm trying to stress is that while people are enamored to discuss a lot about how the VLO (which as per your description is a form of EW) will be the dominant feature of how H-20 will conduct its missions - There are also some other types of offensive-type EWs that can work in tandem with the passive-type EWs (e.g. VLO) which I believe should deserve more attention than it is presently obtaining whenever discussions like this pops up. At least, that's my impression on the present discussion.

This isn't directed at you or anyone else, though. Just a general statement for everyone to ponder about.

As for the rest of your post, I'm not exactly sure who or what it's directed at? I don't think anyone has written stuff that your points 1 to 7 specifically addresses

Some are basically just my own thoughts + statements from credible Chinese military watchers on Weibo, while some others are indeed directed at a couple of the posts here (whether in this thread or other thread(s) that are related to the current discussion).

For the latter, I'm just too tired to quote their posts because it was late night when I was writing that post.

(Edit: One of which just conveniently presented himself just right underneath this very post.)
 
Last edited:

tamsen_ikard

Junior Member
Registered Member
View attachment 131020
I need to emphasize that nothing in the US arsenal poses any where close to as much threat to China as many squadrons of forward deployed B-21s. It is absolutely imperative that China develop a way to neutralize these bases. 5000km is ICBM territory and not cost effective for conventional ballistic missiles which means China needs an Australia-ranged bomber.

If Ukraine war has shown anything, its that Air Defense technology is extremely strong and subsonic missiles are 90% likely to be shot down. B-21 as a subsonic plane poses little threat to China's layered air defense. Jassm is so slow that it will be shot down even if its detected 5 miles from target. Stealth will be no magic bullet that will make JASSM survive.

China is continuing to strengthen its air defense layers with more and more capable missiles. PLAN navy ships are actually another layer of air defense on top of ground based ones. Chinese ships are like mobile air defense that can detect missiles and planes at key points before they can get close and shoot them down.

If H-20 ever becomes a reality, it should carry supersonic and even hypersonic missiles with manuverability, then its much less likely that those missiles will be shot down.

I still believe this JH-XX idea is the best option for China's current strategic needs, which is also argued in the previous post about the so called JH-26. Such a plane will be able to fly low, fly fast, attack air defense or other key targets with cruise missiles, and then leave.

Why being supersonic and manuverability is key, its because they can evade missiles with manuever and speed. This exactly what fighter planes do when a long range missile is shot at them. This is an ability H-20 or B-21 do not have. If they are shot, they are pretty much dead. Supersonic planes can essentially evade and outrun missiles. This gives them two defenses against enemy missiles and planes, one is stealth, two is speed and manuverability. They also have the ability to self escort by carrrying their own AA missiles.

JH-XX also has other uses other than just ground strike. They can work as ISR platforms close to enemy lines, Eletronic warfare platforms, They can control drone swarms. H-20 can also do these things, but again it will be very vulnerable due to slow speed.

Moreover, I think such a plane will be much cheaper than a flying wing H-20. Its smaller, and can use most of the tech used by J-20 or 6th gen fighter. It will just be a bigger J-20 with a big missile bay. It can even use the same engine. This way, it might be less agile than the J-20, but perfect as fighter bomber. In fact, why not just make J-20 bigger and use that as a fighter bomber. Essentially the FB-22 idea that US had in the past.

As for Ultra long range strike all the way to Australia or Hawaii, another option China can pursue is an ultra long range cruise missile. Essentially a small Kamikaze drone with 10K KM range. This is exactly what Ukraine is using against Russia for deep strike. China should make something but bigger.
 
Last edited:
Top