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

I dont think China has any technical difficulties in producing a bomber like B21.

If you think about what B21 really is, it is just a B2 + Boeing EA-18G Growler combination. It specifically said it could do all the things that B2 does. They also mentioned it has EW capability such as spoofing and jamming.

China already have a EW fighter jet such as J16 that does spoofing and jamming etc.

Now they just need a larger GJ11 and fit J16 technologies all into one.

All of the technologies in B21 are mature which already existed. They are not going to use experimental technologies in an expensive project.

An H-20 with four WS-10 engines using the flying wing configuration would have a huge range and payload advantage over the H-6K.
It is transformative and enables China to strike directly at Australia and the US using air refueling with gravity bombs or without refuel using air launched cruise missiles. The stealth capabilities of the flying wing design are IMHO secondary to its advantages in terms of range.

There is a possibility that H-20 production will be cut short at a certain number of units to focus on an alternative mass production design like the US B-21. This could be an optionally manned bomber with twin WS-15 engines. Another option would be a supersonic JH-XX design with twin WS-15 engines to ensure air dominance over the first island chain. It could be used as a multi-role anti-shipping and theater bombardment platform similar to how the Russians used the Tu-22M3.

gelgoog said:

enables China to strike directly at Australia and the US using air refueling with gravity bombs

Click to expand...

This is where I take some issue in that people should apply a consistent standard of expectation that VLO bombers on either side either can penetrate modern heavily defended enemy airspace/radars or can't. If the former, that means we should also expect the large fleet of B-21s to be repeatedly entering Chinese airspace with impunity and wreaking massive damage. If the latter, it means the H-20 will also be limited to a standoff missile truck role. It's one or the other. Personally I lean toward the latter.

I dont think both side could enter each other's defense territory and start bombing right away.

There will be layers of defense like an onion you have to go through. You have to peel layer by layer until you reach to the core.

ismellcopium said:

This is where I take some issue in that people should apply a consistent standard of expectation that VLO bombers on either side either can penetrate modern heavily defended enemy airspace/radars or can't. If the former, that means we should also expect the large fleet of B-21s to be repeatedly entering Chinese airspace with impunity and wreaking massive damage. If the latter, it means the H-20 will also be limited to a standoff missile truck role. It's one or the other. Personally I lean toward the latter.

Click to expand...

To get to Australia, the bomber will need to fly though neutral third countries that may lean one way or other once the missiles start flying. It just seems incredibly high risk with limited reward as due to the nature of VLO bombers once they are discovered they are basically at the discretion of anything to shoot down.

It is completely opposite to the Pacific where there are large areas that the bomber could fly over with limited monitoring.

bebops said:

I dont think both side could enter each other's defense territory and start bombing right away.

There will be layers of defense like an onion you have to go through. You have to peel layer by layer until you reach to the core.

Click to expand...

No platform is invisible. No defense is unbreakable. It's all a matter of specifics and degrees. How many sorties can you generate, how many targets can you hit, how many fires expended, how many assets lost per target per sortie per day, the same for replenishment rates, training of new pilots, etc, etc, etc. A million factors, all estimated and projected and extrapolated off your best intelligence and a lot of guessing.

Because nobody knows the real answer until you try it.

I do not expect H-20 to do a lot of damage, but its very existence should limit the options of enemy. Enemy needs constant air patrol and ADA network to sustain it. The point of arguement is if benefit is worth investment.

The good thing about bomber is you can fit alot of cruise missiles or long range missiles. you can keep lobbing cruise missiles into carrier group then return back to base. rinse and repeat. hopefully one or two cruise missiles will pass through their defense and hit a ship. the survivability is much higher than a navy ship or carrier group..

Any platform on the air or underwater have a greater survivability which included fighter jet, bomber, UUV, submarine.

Its good investment. A substitute for bomber is to build a very heavy drone which can carry hypersonic missiles and many cruise missiles.

The H-20 as much as having capability itself to perform strikes, will compel adversaries to spend resources to improve their air defence capabilities at home.

This should be at least a part of the calculations going in determining the usefulness of an aircraft like this, i.e. a four engined long range aircraft.

coolgod said:

In their latest episode, the Guanqi gang thinks the H-20 delayed or cancelled discussion are all rumors started by Americans. That said I don't trust them at all.

Click to expand...

I think it was started by PLA cyber operative to lessen the pressure on US hoping to turn B-21 into another NASA program (moon or mars), the point is "see the Chinese is slow and late, we can take our sweet time." Just kidding.