AVIC is shameless bruta capitalist.
Buyer: is this a real deal.
AVIC: it is as real as you want.
Buyer: but, but.
AVIC: You can buy this one now, and buy the real deal later.
H-20 bomber (with H-X, JH-XX)
- Thread starter Deino
- Start date
Buyer: is this a real deal.
AVIC: it is as real as you want.
Buyer: but, but.
AVIC: You can buy this one now, and buy the real deal later.
Well if they want a longer weapon bay for a given wingspan, why go for a flying wing and make it crooked? The flying wing was incredibly difficult to perfect and the Americans struggled with tens of prototypes and many decades going from the XB-35 to the RB-49 to the B-2, so to go for that then ruin it like in the photo makes no sense to me. A better solution is to go for something like that NGB concept that was cancelled in 2009, which is a conventional chined fuselage with VLO features.
If it were designed as a B2 competitor then I'd imagine it'd be much larger than the J-36, but not much larger than the B2. With 4 engines and more focus on electricity generation it'd be a weight class higher than the J-36 in terms of the EW equipment it can carry and power.
It could then provide EW cover for a fleet bombers e.g. GJ-11s. Or, to continue the naval analogy, it could also have an "Air Cruiser" variant providing theater aerial detection and anti-air defense for non-stealthy AWACS, tankers, transporters, etc. It would then use its bomb bay to carry loads of AA missiles designed to shoot down incoming missiles at longer range than just for self-defense.
Just bear in mind that AAMs launched from a supersonic platform will have more range than from a subsonic plane.
Sure, but a subsonic platform will have a lot longer loitering time.
@zyklon @Biscuits @kurutoga
I agree with you guys. Although I am a random shitposter, I've made a relatively accurate guess of the Chengdu advanced aircraft that just flew in this very thread. I think this gives me at least 1% credibility.
China has shown that it has its own doctrine and shapes technology around doctrine rather than throwing the biggest numbers at the wall. Historically, Chinese have regarded doctrine as more important than tech alone. While some call that a 1950's cope, it isn't. Recent developments show this. - yeah it's good... so what's it good at? Oh, shore bombardment...
As outsiders we only see the tip of the iceberg is but it is clear that speed and flexibility is a requirement. A very expensive manned plane has to do something that another asset cannot do. It has to be able to conduct organic recon, networked to other assets, attack moving targets, etc.
Based on the guessed doctrine, let me propose this set of observable characteristics with explanations:
I'd call it a stretched, enlarged, strike specialized J-36. I think the combination of VLO and supersonic flight would provide for a very survivable aircraft. It also reduces development cost as the basic concept and subcomponents are proven and only validation work is required, rather than conceptual and subcomponent level design.
This is just my guess. We'll see right?
I agree with you guys. Although I am a random shitposter, I've made a relatively accurate guess of the Chengdu advanced aircraft that just flew in this very thread. I think this gives me at least 1% credibility.
China has shown that it has its own doctrine and shapes technology around doctrine rather than throwing the biggest numbers at the wall. Historically, Chinese have regarded doctrine as more important than tech alone. While some call that a 1950's cope, it isn't. Recent developments show this. - yeah it's good... so what's it good at? Oh, shore bombardment...
As outsiders we only see the tip of the iceberg is but it is clear that speed and flexibility is a requirement. A very expensive manned plane has to do something that another asset cannot do. It has to be able to conduct organic recon, networked to other assets, attack moving targets, etc.
Based on the guessed doctrine, let me propose this set of observable characteristics with explanations:
I'd call it a stretched, enlarged, strike specialized J-36. I think the combination of VLO and supersonic flight would provide for a very survivable aircraft. It also reduces development cost as the basic concept and subcomponents are proven and only validation work is required, rather than conceptual and subcomponent level design.
This is just my guess. We'll see right?
Last edited:
I do like that and have been advocating for it for years, but that wouldn't be the H-20 though. You can't convert a subsonic flying wing into something like that, it'd have to be designed from the ground up as a supersonic striker.
Post in thread 'China Flanker Thread II' China Flanker Thread II
I think the reason the H-20 is being delayed for so long is because they looked at the CAC plane and went back to the drawing board. I would be surprised if a flying wing is going to be selected as the final H-20.