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

ACuriousPLAFan said:

Speaking of the engines, and assuming that the H-XX is indeed powered by 4 high-thrust low/medium-bypass non-afterburning (AB) turbofan engines in similar flying wing configurations as the B-2:

Even better would be if (or hopefully, when) the H-XX has the non-AB variant of WS-10 swapped with the non-AB variant of WS-15 upon entering serial production stages.

Let's say that the WS-15 has the same performance parameters as the F119 that powers the F-22, which means a military/dry thrust of around 105-110KN. That would equal to about 420-440kN of thrust from having four of them onboard.

In retrospect, the F118s on the B-2 (which is the non-afterburning variant of the F110) has a thrust of 77-85kN each, meaning a combined thrust of 308-340kN.

Needless to say, the H-XX could indeed be quite larger and have considerably heavier MTOW (200+ tons) than even the B-2.

Apart from what you've mentioned (power generation, radar, EW, computing systems etc), that also means a much larger internal volume for bigger/more fuel tanks (meaning greater ranges and loitering durations in the theater of war), plus longer and deeper (main) IWBs for carrying large ballistic/hypersonic missiles with strike ranges of around 2000-4000 kilometers.

Might even open the possibility of deriving a stealth tanker variant from the original combat variant of the H-XX, though that's still somewhat on the hypothetical side of things.

Click to expand...

it's possible that they could got for WS-15.

Although, I would argue it's better if they can develop a non-afterburner version of WS-10 that's just more fuel efficient. They could get something that generates maybe 90kN each or 360kN in total that can do much longer combat radius (think 4500 to 5000 km).

Basically if you can get carrier group out to maybe East of Guam and then refuel H-20 about 3500 to 4000 km from Hawaii, then you can hit the fleet stationed around Pearl Harbour with stand off missiles. I guess you can also get it to carry smaller hypersonic missiles in IWB, but some of the fire power from these long range platforms are not just from themselves or the CCAs, but also the ground and naval launched hypersonic missiles. Once you get those hypersonic aerial vehicles into service, you can get them to launch hypersonic munitions (based on gliding + motor) that will be very hard to intercept.

A large part of H-20 will be its EW capability, so I place less premium on what it can carry, but more on how it affects adversary defense.

As for tankers, I think if you are going to do stealth tanker, it's expected then to operate from contested air space, then you need to make it carrier capable. Otherwise, why not just use YY-20A? Are you going to really fly a H-20 sized tanker 4000 km out to refuel? that takes so much time and uses a lot of fuel

tphuang said:

Once you get those hypersonic aerial vehicles into service, you can get them to launch hypersonic munitions (based on gliding + motor) that will be very hard to intercept.

Click to expand...

They won't be cheap to procure and operate. Though, we could see warplanes like this becoming more commonplace as associated technologies become more mature.

tphuang said:

As for tankers, I think if you are going to do stealth tanker, it's expected then to operate from contested air space, then you need to make it carrier capable. Otherwise, why not just use YY-20A? Are you going to really fly a H-20 sized tanker 4000 km out to refuel? that takes so much time and uses a lot of fuel

Click to expand...

Let's assume that the H-XX is a carbon copy of the B-2. The B-2 has a fuel capacity of about 75.8 tons, whilst having a MTOW of 170.6 tons.

The MQ-25, meanwhile, only has a transferrable fuel capacity of 6.8 tons at 900+ kilometers from its base carrier, despite having a MTOW of 21.8 tons. That's 31.2% of the MTOW dedicated for refueling other aircrafts - And that's is nowhere near being close to enough to refuel the B-2 for missions at extended/expeditionary distances.

To put it simply - The carrier-based aerial refueling UAV will need to be significantly bigger.

Going to the limit - Assuming a MTOW of 40 tons (which is around the MTOW of the J-XDS), and with 35% of the MTOW dedicated to transferrable fuel, that means a total of 14 tons of transferrable fuel.

Sure, you could also negate the shortcomings with numbers - But there are also other warplanes of the PLAAF and PLANAF that requires mid-air refueling to extend their combat radii AND mission durations as well, including but not limited to fighters that are escorting the H-XXs, plus other fighters (and even heavier U(C)AVs in the future) that are conducting other missions on the ocean.

However, there is also another factor at play - Those PLAN carriers won't be at sea all the time, and they certainly won't be at the right place all the time. So you can't just solely rely on carrier-based tanker UAVs, because there are always chances where the carriers basing those tanker UAVs isn't close enough if not isn't available when the H-XX needs them.

That's why having land-based tankers that can reach further out of bases on the Chinese mainland is crucial.

Of course, what I've suggested (stealthy tanker based on the H-XX) is more in the hypothetical realms, given that we have no such real-life examples in history so far. Technically speaking, the PLAAF could have the H-XXs topped-up by the YY-20s while still flying in the relatively safer skies within the 1IC and even up till the middle between 1IC and 2IC (assuming air superiority over the 1IC is secured), have them go to the 2.5IC or 3IC and lob their payloads against targets along the 3IC or beyond, before coming back to be refueled again in the same area and heading back to land at home bases.

ACuriousPLAFan said:

They won't be cheap to procure and operate. Though, we could see warplanes like this becoming more commonplace as associated technologies become more mature.

Click to expand...

They are high end drones that will be the future and much cheaper than the manned 6th gen aircraft.

They are the phase 1 of where the global military is going after 6th gen get introduced.

ACuriousPLAFan said:

Let's assume that the H-XX is a carbon copy of the B-2. The B-2 has a fuel capacity of about 75.8 tons, whilst having a MTOW of 170.6 tons.

The MQ-25, meanwhile, only has a transferrable fuel capacity of 6.8 tons at 900+ kilometers from its base carrier, despite having a MTOW of 21.8 tons. That's 31.2% of the MTOW dedicated for refueling other aircrafts - And that's is nowhere near being close to enough to refuel the B-2 for missions at extended/expeditionary distances.

To put it simply - The carrier-based aerial refueling UAV will need to be significantly bigger.

Click to expand...

of course I would not want something as small as MQ-25. After all, US military is also stuck with F-35C+ B-21 and I don't want something that small either.

Ideally, it will be something that can be powered by 2 WS-10/15 sized engine. Maybe carry 20ton of fuel.

There is no point having tanker drones that carries less fuel than J-15.

ACuriousPLAFan said:

Going to the limit - Assuming a MTOW of 40 tons (which is around the MTOW of the J-XDS), and with 35% of the MTOW dedicated to transferrable fuel, that means a total of 14 tons of transferrable fuel.

Click to expand...

I would hope higher than that if they can remove the human part of it. Something 45 ton MTOW with 20 ton of fuel would be pretty good. Should be able to take off from carrier with catapult.

ACuriousPLAFan said:

Sure, you could also negate the shortcomings with numbers - But there are also other warplanes of the PLAAF and PLANAF that requires mid-air refueling to extend their combat radii AND mission durations as well, including but not limited to fighters that are escorting the H-XXs, plus other fighters (and even heavier U(C)AVs in the future) that are conducting other missions on the ocean.

However, there is also another factor at play - Those PLAN carriers won't be at sea all the time, and they certainly won't be at the right place all the time. So you can't just solely rely on carrier-based tanker UAVs, because there are always chances where the carriers basing those tanker UAVs isn't close enough if not isn't available when the H-XX needs them.

That's why having land-based tankers that can reach further out of bases on the Chinese mainland is crucial.

Click to expand...

And we already have that in YY-20A, that's going to be far cheaper than H-20

ACuriousPLAFan said:

Of course, what I've suggested (stealthy tanker based on the H-XX) is more in the hypothetical realms, given that we have no such real-life examples in history so far. Technically speaking, the PLAAF could have the H-XXs topped-up by the YY-20s while still flying in the relatively safer skies within the 1IC and even up till the middle between 1IC and 2IC (assuming air superiority over the 1IC is secured), have them go to the 2.5IC or 3IC and lob their payloads against targets along the 3IC or beyond, before coming back to be refueled again in the same area and heading back to land at home bases.

Click to expand...

I think at this point, it is worth the discussion of how Chinese aircraft will get refueled in an ultra long mission. Both H-20 and J-36 are large enough where the crew can do a long mission and hopefully will have enough space to not have to wear a diaper.

And If J-36 can project air dominance up to 3000 km away (or over friendly skies) then you can probably refuel J-36 and H-20 close to that far out without putting YY-20A in danger. But something like H-20 will be hard to refuel just based on the size of its internal fuel tank. No questions.

But these are good problems to have.

tphuang said:

They are high end drones that will be the future and much cheaper than the manned 6th gen aircraft.

They are the phase 1 of where the global military is going after 6th gen get introduced.

of course I would not want something as small as MQ-25. After all, US military is also stuck with F-35C+ B-21 and I don't want something that small either.

Ideally, it will be something that can be powered by 2 WS-10/15 sized engine. Maybe carry 20ton of fuel.

There is no point having tanker drones that carries less fuel than J-15.


I would hope higher than that if they can remove the human part of it. Something 45 ton MTOW with 20 ton of fuel would be pretty good. Should be able to take off from carrier with catapult.


And we already have that in YY-20A, that's going to be far cheaper than H-20


I think at this point, it is worth the discussion of how Chinese aircraft will get refueled in an ultra long mission. Both H-20 and J-36 are large enough where the crew can do a long mission and hopefully will have enough space to not have to wear a diaper.

And If J-36 can project air dominance up to 3000 km away (or over friendly skies) then you can probably refuel J-36 and H-20 close to that far out without putting YY-20A in danger. But something like H-20 will be hard to refuel just based on the size of its internal fuel tank. No questions.

But these are good problems to have.

Click to expand...

With long range AAMs and long range all aspect stealth aircrafts, and IMO it would be unwise to assume that your adversary won't develop those capabilities, all non-stealth aircrafts need to operate far behind the line of encounter. In other words, I wouldn't rely on the J-36 achieving air dominance within a 3000km radius. Having only the YY-20A as your refueler the means you will not be able to refuel 3000kms out.

dingyibvs said:

With long range AAMs and long range all aspect stealth aircrafts, and IMO it would be unwise to assume that your adversary won't develop those capabilities, all non-stealth aircrafts need to operate far behind the line of encounter. In other words, I wouldn't rely on the J-36 achieving air dominance within a 3000km radius. Having only the YY-20A as your refueler the means you will not be able to refuel 3000kms out.

Click to expand...

then 2500 km out. There must be a safe distance out there for your YY-20A that's presumably a few hundred km shorter than if you had a more survivable option.

The fuel tank of H-20 is so large that it would take several tanker drones to refuel it.

H-20 and B-21 get mentioned a lot in the J-36 thread, but i'll add here a thought of mine. I think China could steal another march on US if they make H-20 a supersonic platform. I imagine it more or less as an upscaled J-36, four engines, dorsal intakes, maybe trade a bit of performance for more range but still be a supercruiser. This will completely outclass the B-21 and leave the US commited to an inferior platform, or scrap it and start again, both disastruous options for them. This supersonic H-20 would enjoy most of the traits of the J-36, meaning harder to catch, more energy imparted to AAMs and ALBMs etc. exactly the things B-21 can't do. AND it would make a great B-21 hunter if it comes to that, alongside the J-36.

Anyway one of the reasons i'm mentioning this is because i saw just the concept i'm imagining, ie an aproximately triangular aircraft not unlike the J-36, with dorsal intakes, in a paper posted somewhere here on SDF when the CHADs came out, but it's burried now under thousands of posts. I think it was from either a Shenyang or Chengdu paper on 6th generation concepts from about 2010 or so. Does anyone know what i'm refering to?

mack8 said:

H-20 and B-21 get mentioned a lot in the J-36 thread, but i'll add here a thought of mine. I think China could steal another march on US if they make H-20 a supersonic platform. I imagine it more or less as an upscaled J-36, four engines, dorsal intakes, maybe trade a bit of performance for more range but still be a supercruiser. This will completely outclass the B-21 and leave the US commited to an inferior platform, or scrap it and start again, both disastruous options for them. This supersonic H-20 would enjoy most of the traits of the J-36, meaning harder to catch, more energy imparted to AAMs and ALBMs etc. exactly the things B-21 can't do. AND it would make a great B-21 hunter if it comes to that, alongside the J-36.

Anyway one of the reasons i'm mentioning this is because i saw just the concept i'm imagining, ie an aproximately triangular aircraft not unlike the J-36, with dorsal intakes, in a paper posted somewhere here on SDF when the CHADs came out, but it's burried now under thousands of posts. I think it was from either a Shenyang or Chengdu paper on 6th generation concepts from about 2010 or so. Does anyone know what i'm refering to?

Click to expand...

I'm not sure exactly which post you are referring too, but I find the layout presented here to be interesting. Although I personally believe the H-20 is a subsonic flying wing.

A longer supersonic layout also presents the possibility for a longer weapons bay. Something often attributed to the cranked kite design in CG's of the H-20. However compared to the B-21's design with a uniform leading edge, studies have shown those sorts of wings are less stealthy. This is why I believe the H-20 is likely similar in shape to the B-21 and not exotic like shown below, or have folding stabilizers like in fan CG's.

by78 said:

The image is an illustration from a research paper. This is unlikely to have anything specific to do with the H-20 project, but it is nonetheless interesting due to layout D, which shows what's likely a supersonic design.

Click to expand...

mack8 said:

H-20 and B-21 get mentioned a lot in the J-36 thread, but i'll add here a thought of mine. I think China could steal another march on US if they make H-20 a supersonic platform. I imagine it more or less as an upscaled J-36, four engines, dorsal intakes, maybe trade a bit of performance for more range but still be a supercruiser. This will completely outclass the B-21 and leave the US commited to an inferior platform, or scrap it and start again, both disastruous options for them.

Click to expand...

For the thousandth time, supersonic bomber is not automatically superior to a subsonic bomber. Both have unique traits, strengths/weaknesses that fullfill different needs. A supersonic platform is less stealthy in term of IR, or even EF (J-36 still has 6 rcs spikes compared to b-21's 4 spikes) shorter range, shorter loitering time (this is important as trend towards making large stealthy platforms secondary and third roles as airborne command center and intelligence gathering platform). This isn't about china vs US. It's physics.

donnnage99 said:

For the thousandth time, supersonic bomber is not automatically superior to a subsonic bomber. Both have unique traits, strengths/weaknesses that fullfill different needs. A supersonic platform is less stealthy in term of IR, or even EF (J-36 still has 6 rcs spikes compared to b-21's 4 spikes) shorter range, shorter loitering time (this is important as trend towards making large stealthy platforms secondary and third roles as airborne command center and intelligence gathering platform). This isn't about china vs US. It's physics.

Click to expand...

Right, so I think if the capacity allows then there should be 2 separate aircrafts. A JH-XX for supersonic deep penetration strikes and a multirole subsonic H-XX as a stealthy bomber, AWACS, refueler that can loiter at designated positions, perform its task (stealth will be lost once it releases bombs, turn on its radars, or release the refueling probe), then retreat stealthily.

dingyibvs said:

Right, so I think if the capacity allows then there should be 2 separate aircrafts. A JH-XX for supersonic deep penetration strikes and a multirole subsonic H-XX as a stealthy bomber, AWACS, refueler that can loiter at designated positions, perform its task (stealth will be lost once it releases bombs, turn on its radars, or release the refueling probe), then retreat stealthily.

Click to expand...

If the capacity allows (or more like regardless of), there should only be one major platform for land-attack/anti-ship-focused missions, not two.

Also, the JH-7/A was born in the era where China finds itself severely lacking in the department of land attack and anti-ship capabilities that doesn't require deploying H-6s every time.

Now, with rapidly growing numbers of J-16s in service and with J-36 + new strike UCAVs arriving in the future, there is no longer any need for a new "JH" fighter-bomber type of warplane.