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

Gloire_bb said:

Then no immediate strike/reconnaissance at extended ranges. If fragile theater-level targeting chain is broken somewhere (because US and China are such a weak pickings, and for sure won't be ever able to do it). De facto it'll mean relative safety to the opponent.

Ability to strike within a certain circle *in principle* doesn't mean much by itself, especially since it's limited on all turns.
Pacific/China is stupidly huge, S/China are more than capable of disrupting strike enablers, and most of intermediate/longer ranged strikes are rather limited options anyway - in number, if anything.

p.s. B-21 is a 2-engined bomber.


It isn't likely to be that numerous, it's a huge expensive HALE.

And if it is - it can be simply intentionally cleaned off, including by the very same B-21. No security system is worse than a system that can be disrupted so easily as to produce false sense of secuirity.

Drone array - in conjunction with other means and cover - is a way to establish temporary information picture over desired region, proactively ensuring its operation for given period, and rolling it back when work is done.
If you leave it as it is, exposed - any opponent with initiative will clean it off, just because it's worth it.

Click to expand...

I’m not following you at all. How about starting by providing your answer to my question (first para)?

I’m also unsure why you’re quoting the B-21’s number of engines to me, when I’ve clearly referenced 4 engines in relation to what we expect of the H-20 (which you seem to think would also be used for BDA).

GTI said:

I’m not following you at all. How about starting by providing your answer to my question (first para)?

Click to expand...

(1)strike outside of normal reach of other airborne assets, including interdiction of mobile targets, targets of opportunity not worthy of IRBM strike, or ones not particularly vulnerable to such. That includes air targets, manned or not.
(2)reconnaissance with decision making node on spot, including deploying CCAs and/or transfering strike coordinates(or updates) OtA.
Shadowing of already tracked formations and targets of interest.
(3)controllable escalation, with opportunities ranging from demonstration of force to massed nuclear strikes.
Lack of bomber arm is one of the main reasons China isn't capable of waging nuclear war now(retaliation strike/first strike isn't war, it's just that - strike).

Overall, recent combat experience in different wars shows, that the only effective kind of air power is air power over enemy head. Deny this to yourself - and your opponent had his woes decreased tenfold.

GTI said:

I’m also unsure why you’re quoting the B-21’s number of engines to me, when I’ve clearly referenced 4 engines in relation to what we expect of the H-20 (which you seem to think would also be used for BDA).

Click to expand...

It was me taking fun of determining whether asset can be lost or not, based on the number of engines.
This shouldn't be.
Aircraft are in the end are relatively attritable assets. They shouldn't be lost easily, but only to the point of maintaining replacement ratio.
Pilots aren't some sort of Special Humans. If their risk allows saving lives, however indirect, of larger number of their compatriots on the ground - this risk should be taken.

iewgnem said:

For context CASI stand for USAF's "China Aerospace Studies Institute"
Being wrong by 20 years must be a record, when Gates said J-20 won't fly until 2020 he was only wrong by 10 years.
One has to wonder how someone gets a job at these organizations and how much of it is just a massive corruption operation.

Click to expand...

I am pretty convinced that outside a few enclaves in a few countries' intelligence agencies the understanding of China is very very poor. Furthermore, the said competent people aren't being listened to by people with power.

BoraTas said:

I am pretty convinced that outside a few enclaves in a few countries' intelligence agencies the understanding of China is very very poor. Furthermore, the said competent people aren't being listened to by people with power.

Click to expand...

It’s been known that arms of the US IC don’t communicate that much with each other. See 9/11 for example. They tried to break down these barriers with the establishment of the DNI but who the hell knows if it actually worked lol

FairAndUnbiased said:

why not 2 programs running in parallel, with 1 having an aerodynamically ambitious airframe that is more experimental and 1 having a conservative airframe that they know works?

And as the aerodynamically ambitious airframe proves its worth more and more, the advantages of the conservative airframe are reduced or even eliminated, resulting in the program 2 being reoriented towards using the formerly experimental, but now proven, airframe type?

Click to expand...

First that's not how modern aerospace engineering work at all. If it's just a matter of "can we make a tailless aircraft fly supersonic" you don't need to have a low rate production or near low rate production airframe fly extended period of time to finally show that the proof of concept works while wasting good money and engineering brains doing a backup conservative subsonic project.

Assuming your theory, these are not just 2 completely different designs competing (the j-36 and H-20). They are 2 designs that completely define different operational planning at strategic level and effect every other programs, training, etc. You don't fly a competition on 2 entirely different operational visions for the next 30 years like that. You define what that vision is based on what you study to be technologically feasible, then you allow companies to compete for that same role/mission.

Second, one does not make the other obsolete. Subsonic bomber is still stealthier from IR perspective and longer loitering time that can stay in theater and respond to pop up threats which is the defining feature of modern warfare which is extremely dynamic.

donnnage99 said:

First that's not how modern aerospace engineering work at all. If it's just a matter of "can we make a tailless aircraft fly supersonic" you don't need to have a low rate production or near low rate production airframe fly extended period of time to finally show that the proof of concept works while wasting good money and engineering brains doing a backup conservative subsonic project.

Assuming your theory, these are not just 2 completely different designs competing (the j-36 and H-20). They are 2 designs that completely define different operational planning at strategic level and effect every other programs, training, etc. You don't fly a competition on 2 entirely different operational visions for the next 30 years like that. You define what that vision is based on what you study to be technologically feasible, then you allow companies to compete for that same role/mission.

Second, one does not make the other obsolete. Subsonic bomber is still stealthier from IR perspective and longer loitering time that can stay in theater and respond to pop up threats which is the defining feature of modern warfare which is extremely dynamic.

Click to expand...

ok then there's every possibility H-20 got cancelled or was only a proof of concept study.

Moreover, has it ever occurred to the proposers that "the H-20 should be some kind of hypersonic sub-orbital strike spacecraft" that the H-20 shouldn't only be used for strategic strikes against wartime industries and critical military infrastructures & facilities on CONUS, but also tactical strikes against enemy military bases & installations and naval fleets that are closer to home?

The costs involved to reliably procure, operate and maintain for a hypersonic strategic strike platform definitely aren't going to be cheap, no matter how advanced China's warfighting industries are, and no matter how much the economies of scale tilts in China's favor. Sooner or later, the consuming of the war chest are gonna stack up.

During a peer-to-peer conflict, the H-20s won't be sitting inside their reinforced hangars and wait for a decisive moment or even doomsday. They're very much going to join in the fight against the enemy forces, sooner or latter. In fact, Chinese military doctrine explicitly forbids viewing any of its conventional weapon systems and platforms as to be used only during "decisive battles" (决战兵器), and all those weapon systems and platforms are to be viewed as attritable, if not expendable, in China's overall war effort.

That means the H-20 shouldn't be viewed as indispensable. Pilling up hypersonic capabilities et cetera, and

Sure, a subsonic (or even a supersonic), 4-engined H-20 will overlap with the J-36 in certain domains, but consider this - If the J-36 can carry 2x YJ-2X HGV missiles with 2000 kilometers of range, the H-20 can:
1. Carry 4x, 6x if not even 8x of the same YJ-2X missiles; and/or
2. Carry 2x or 4x much longer/larger HGV missiles with 3000-4000 kilometers of strike range; and
3. Fly much further than the J-36 -
Simply thanks to its larger internal volume (hence larger IWBs and fuel tanks) and a more efficient (simple/cranked beak flying wing) design.

These advantages cannot be described as simply 1+1=2, but more like 1+1>2.

ACuriousPLAFan said:

That means the H-20 shouldn't be viewed as indispensable. Pilling up hypersonic capabilities et cetera, and you're going to end up with the exact opposites of what the PLA is aiming to achieve in an all-out, peer-to-peer war.

Click to expand...

Sentence completed.

ACuriousPLAFan said:

Moreover, has it ever occurred to the proposers that "the H-20 should be some kind of hypersonic sub-orbital strike spacecraft" that the H-20 shouldn't only be used for strategic strikes against wartime industries and critical military infrastructures & facilities on CONUS, but also tactical strikes against enemy military bases & installations and naval fleets that are closer to home?

Click to expand...

"Starting to think the MD-22 evolving platform is the true H20 project."

The keyword is evolving, a family of hypersonic 2+1 engine drones instead of one kind of manned bomber.

The MD family will be more comparable to the Dongfeng series.

Real?