I'll use this comment as general reference:
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 term "geostrategy" is not a combination of "
geography" and "
strategy" but of "
geopolitics" and "
strategy" so it always refers to
strategy being informed
geographical as well as
political context. Carriers however are not a
geostrategic consideration but purely a
geographic consideration. Whenever geography allows for establishing of land bases they are always preferable to carriers due to their lower cost, greater flexibility, greater capacity for sortie generation and greater resiliency.
US uses carriers because they can't afford to have land bases everywhere, as well as are constrained by legal matters of deploying assets under department of the navy vs maintaining an airbase and deploying air force personnel (see: legal requirements of deploying marines vs army before 9/11). Because carriers are used as symbolic representation of US power in propaganda people who are less informed on the matter assume that having a carrier is a
pre-requisite of having ability to project power, when in reality it is the
consequence of being able to project power at a certain level which makes it possible to support a very inefficient floating airbase to achieve strategic goals.
China's artificial islands are a good example. Why waste money on a carrier when you can build an island? Note that the island costs more but the money is not
wasted on it.
The US is located more than 3000km from Europe, 2000km South America and 5000km from Asia. It can either maintain permanent airbases or build a carrier which is inefficient but cheaper in absolute terms because it will only be deployed some of the time.
It's a geographical calculation, not a strategic or tactical one.
North America needs carriers because that's the cheapest way to project power at the
rest of the world. China doesn't need carriers because it doesn't need North America while everywhere else is reachable by land one way or another. Even South America is better approached through a series of military alliances allowing for creation of bases, with support of the host nation rather than expeditionary carrier fleets.
A similar situation occurs with strategic bombers. The development of US bomber doctrine - which happens in the 1930s - was dictated by geography. Bombers were thought to be the ultimate technological tool of winning war without having to deploy troops, especially at the time when US Army was small compared to what it became after US entry into WW2. This is why the US continues to approach so many conflicts in this manner (see: Yugoslavia). It's the consequence of their strategic culture shaped by geography. The US is a remote as well as an extensive country, therefore distance and overcoming it is very strongly present in their thinking. They have an aversion to deploying large armies because US deploying large armies even to neighbouring countries is more challenging logistically than say Russia deploying large army to neighbouring countries. That's because Russia - despite its superficial characteristics - is a less
extensive and less
remote society than the US. The territory is huge. The distribution of populations is much more contained compared to the US. Even China is not as extensive because due to greater population the distribution is more contiguous. The US has 15-20% of its population on the distant West Coast and the rest is spread in clusters over similar area as China's east. That must have an effect on the way people view the world, and it does.
And if we realise that strategy is all about influencing humans and consequently start thinking in terms of human geography - population and its spatial distribution - then having carriers or long range bombers becomes a very questionable choice.
Just consider that in a purely hypothetical scenario Chinese army can literally
march over land to anywhere in Asia, Europe and Africa. Suez Canal is 350m wide. The Bering Strait is 100km wide.
America simply doesn't have another way of accessing the "World Island" other than by sea or air. And that leads to the necessary development of naval and aerial modes of transport which open possibilities of using them as more economical power projection tools.
H-20 will be more relevant as a long range multi-role VLO platform rather than just a strategic bomber. Even B-21 isn't intended to serve as a traditional bomber. That role has largely became obsolete by the time B-2 entered service and B-2 was already attempting to address issues of tactical obsolescence. Increasingly I'm thinking "long range heavy fighter" rather than "strategic bomber". For both.
So many people are psychologically fixated on V-2 when V-1 was the actual revolutionary innovation as demonstrated by the numbers in so many post-war studies.
It's counter intuitive because humans have emotional reaction to the notion of getting injured - we're not lizards or amphibians who can sacrifice and then re-grow a body part - so we don't process "higher loss for higher gain" the same as "no loss for lower gain". Which is why warfare is so challenging logically, especially for regular members of society. Mathematically - when treating warring societies as mathematical systems - the optimal scenario is to kill many of your soldiers in order to kill even more of enemy soldiers. The alternative is more palpable but less effective.
And let's not forget that since 2022 we have an example of a country managing to retain core function and fighting under constant bombardment. Similarly Germany from 1942 to 1944 was managing to hold its own and even increase production if at high cost. "Air power wins wars" is just a marketing slogan for US aerospace industry.
The Sino-American strategic contest won't be settled by aircraft carriers or stealth bombers. The only traditional weapon system that will have a significant role is the submarine because it influences movement of resources at a much greater ratio than either of the other two. Submarines largely won the Pacific theatre for USN and would win the Atlantic i.e. blockade Britain for Germany if numbers were sufficient at an earlier stage and were followed by a proper strategy.
Obsessing about carriers and bombers is trying to make the American feel insecure by driving a bigger car than he has. It achieves nothing of substance and betrays an underlying even greater insecurity.
Ultimately this type of strategic contest is settled by Balboa's law: "
it's not about how hard you hit, but how hard you can get hit and move forward". Another counter-intuitive principle governing the universe is that natural selection is not about methods of
elimination but methods of
survival. Sun Tzu understood that. Shame that so many here don't.
