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

by78

General
View attachment 142328

Guys, this is it. 100%.
中航工业1:160轰20飞机模型合金仿真隐身轰炸机H20退伍收藏纪念

Official AVIC press release denouncing the model as counterfeit and unauthorized. AVIC reserves the right to sue for trademark violation.

P.S. Please stick with what you're allegedly good at (i.e. Java programming) and leave PLA watching to others. You lower the IQ of this forum every time you post. By the way, where is your apology?


54243790045_e231f7e0fb_k.jpg
 
Last edited:

Orca_d9l

Just Hatched
Registered Member
This is an English language forum. Please provide a translation or summary. Who is this guy? What is he saying?

What is his track record? Is he trustworthy? Is he an insider? Or is he yet another one of the thousands of 傻逼 running his mouth on camera? If so, why should this particular 傻逼 deserve our attention?
The content creator is a complete idiot.
 

sdkan

New Member
Registered Member
This is an English language forum. Please provide a translation or summary. Who is this guy? What is he saying?

What is his track record? Is he trustworthy? Is he an insider? Or is he yet another one of the thousands of 傻逼 running his mouth on camera? If so, why should this particular 傻逼 deserve our attention?
He hinted that the h20 has already flown, not just once, anothertime in October 2024.

I don't know what his reputation is,

He has more followers on bilibili than a lot of professionals.
 

GTI

Junior Member
Registered Member
He hinted that the h20 has already flown, not just once, but again in October 2024.

I don't know what his reputation is,

He has more followers on bilibili than a lot of professionals.
Which means nothing.

While I accept we are in somewhat of a new era in PLA watching, can we please not stoop so low as to resort to this.

I think we will soon need a round of post-Boxing Day bans to re-instil some discipline and common sense.
 

by78

General
He hinted that the h20 has already flown, not just once, anothertime in October 2024.

I don't know what his reputation is,

He has more followers on bilibili than a lot of professionals.

Kim Kardashian has even more followers, would you trust her if she had something to say about the H-20? Would you consult Kanye or an oncologist if you had cancer?
 
Last edited:

sdkan

New Member
Registered Member
Kim Kardashian has even more followers, would you trust her if she had something to say about the H-20?

Would you consult Kanye or an oncologist if you had cancer?

What about houseflies? They eat feces, and there are trillions of them in existence at any given time. Do you think eating feces is a good dietary practice?

This is the forum,

No one's making you trust anyone
 

sdkan

New Member
Registered Member
This is a flagship thread of a forum that prides itself on professionalism and much higher standards for information dissemination. If you want a sewing circle, try Defence.pk, Reddit, X, or any of the Indian military forums.

All right

I didn't realize this was a professional forum
 

FairAndUnbiased

Brigadier
Registered Member
Good question and all.

So the US in the early 2000s started defining what the next gen bomber gonna be like and did alot of studies to choose the right requirements. Initially, the logical choice would be stealthy extended supercuising bomber that spends the least amount of time in contested airspace to complete its mission. What they found eventually was that an ultra stealthy stand-in bomber (staying extended time within contested airspace) that can immediately respond to pop up threats is more effective than a high speed bomber that has to be launched and rushed toward the target that may have already completed its mission and disappeared.

This means that this bomber has to be ultra stealthy against wide spectrum of detections (low frequency radars and infrared sensors) and long loitering time. This means subsonic long leading edge flying wing.

You may also ask why the ability to respond immediately to pop up threat is important - because that's where warfare is heading. The russian ukrainian war only reinforces this. From SAM systems to artillery, the driving requirements are mobility and less stationary times in order to hide from enemy's counterstrikes.

So you may ask how feasible is it for a bomber to lingering around after it has opened its bomb bay or launched a missile and immediately get picked up from dozens of advanced MLD's in the air. Well, the answer is not that if it is feasible but that it has no choice but to be feasible. That's the challenge to overcome for engineers in both the B-21 and the H-20 programs because to be effective, you need to fullfill this particular capability.
but that seems like a European ground war or Middle East assumed supremacy doctrinal requirement. It is indeed a reasonable requirement for the US to have. a ground war is defined by cover and concealment even at a tactical level, rapid response to threats that can attack then go back into hiding is highly useful.

How much of this is applicable to China's situation? unlike ground forces, surface fleets and military bases are not protected by cover/concealment tactically, they're protected by distance and interceptors. They're not really able to hide except at a strategic level. A destroyer isn't an artillery piece that can fire off a few shots then flee into a forest. It has a medium to gigantic RCS in a low clutter environment. You won't be surprised by a destroyer fleet suddenly coming out of the ocean. Unless the driving requirement for H-20 is Korean War 2, then what is the point?
 

ember

New Member
Registered Member
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.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
- 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?
Probably the best prediction in this thread. It's funny to look back at the "expert" consensus before the CHAD reveal, everyone was expecting a Chinese copy of the B-21 or B-2 at best. CHAD has proved that China is designing planes according to its own needs, not to the requirements of the US when they were still bombing goat herders in Afghanistan.

So what is the most basic requirement for a future strategic platform? The capability to wipe out the entire US Pacific Fleet. This is a conditio sine qua non, just like the destruction of the Spanish Armada and the Dutch navy turned both countries into harmless regional powers with no geopolitical significance.

How China will achieve this, whether with drones or a manned platform, is a problem for the engineers to solve.
 
Top