A big part of those stresses are focused on the variable-sweep wing mechanism, not to mention modern manufacturing and material science improvements.
H-20 bomber (with H-X, JH-XX)
- Thread starter Deino
- Start date
The B-1B, alongside the Tu-160 and Tu-22M are the only supersonic bombers in service today. All three of them have variable swept wings.
If the H-20 focuses heavily on achieving VLO, then having variable swept wings is a big no-no.
This would require the H-20 to have designs that roughly resemble Model (d) shown in an academic paper from some years ago.
The B-1B design deliberately reduced it's speed in order for greater stealth performance, the original B-1A design with a MTOW of 179t was capable of a top speed of Mach 2.20. The B-1B had a speed reduction due to changes like changing the variable geometry intake with fixed Intake ramps, this all while using the same engines.
Let’s be honest here, the long term viability of subsonic VLO flying wings is under serious question / threat.
Look at the risk that platforms like the J-36 present to platforms like the B-21.
Speed (and altitude) was the name of the game. Missiles got better, so stealth (LO) became key. Stealth is now threatened by advances in radar, computation and UAVs (acting as distributed, multistatic, sensor mesh networks) - so the answer is a combination of stealth, altitude and speed.
This is what I had started positing a couple of weeks ago (hopefully peoples’ thinking has caught up). While a VLO subsonic flying wing is still great for now, how would it fare against a US equipped with J-36, J-50 and accompanying CCAs, UAVs etc.?
An important part of this is considering what roles would be strictly unique to H-20 (i.e. no other platform or combination of platforms can do the same job). Unless you’re trying to do carpet bombing at scale using non-powered non-standoff freefall bombs - then there are no targets that a J-36 + UCAVs + PLARF + 09-IIIB LACMs cannot take care of… except for targets in Hawaii, Alaska and CONUS.
So in my mind, the unique role that only the H-20 can fill, is strategic strike (conventional or nuclear) against targets in Hawaii, Alaska and CONUS - also including serving as a forward sensor platform to enable long-range fires by PLARF and PLAN (SSGNs). This doesn’t mean it can’t do other roles within the 1st, 2nd and “2.5” Island Chains.
You have (1) low cost, (2) high complexity, and (3) high quantity - but you can only have two of them at the same time. So the ranked choice for the most effective option (for the above unique role) would be as follows:
1. Hypersonic VLO bomber (highest cost, highest complexity, lowest quantity < 100)
2. Supersonic VLO bomber (higher cost, higher complexity, lower quantity ~100)
3. Subsonic VLO bomber (high cost, high complexity, low quantity > 100 but not really more than 200)
After that, you’d probably be looking at:
4. Hypersonic non-VLO bomber
5. Supersonic non-VLO bomber
6. Subsonic non-VLO bomber
Because of their multirole nature, it would probably be best to have more J-36 and UCAVs (e.g. CH-7 and other large RQ-180 style UCAVs that can carry out meaningful strikes)… and then have a more focused and specialised H-20.
A J-36 with extra fuel in its IWB (if possible) plus 2 large flying wing UCAVs (to carry the munitions) would probably be able to strike CONUS anyway, provided the US does not have their own versions of J-36 and J-50.
Look at the risk that platforms like the J-36 present to platforms like the B-21.
Speed (and altitude) was the name of the game. Missiles got better, so stealth (LO) became key. Stealth is now threatened by advances in radar, computation and UAVs (acting as distributed, multistatic, sensor mesh networks) - so the answer is a combination of stealth, altitude and speed.
This is what I had started positing a couple of weeks ago (hopefully peoples’ thinking has caught up). While a VLO subsonic flying wing is still great for now, how would it fare against a US equipped with J-36, J-50 and accompanying CCAs, UAVs etc.?
An important part of this is considering what roles would be strictly unique to H-20 (i.e. no other platform or combination of platforms can do the same job). Unless you’re trying to do carpet bombing at scale using non-powered non-standoff freefall bombs - then there are no targets that a J-36 + UCAVs + PLARF + 09-IIIB LACMs cannot take care of… except for targets in Hawaii, Alaska and CONUS.
So in my mind, the unique role that only the H-20 can fill, is strategic strike (conventional or nuclear) against targets in Hawaii, Alaska and CONUS - also including serving as a forward sensor platform to enable long-range fires by PLARF and PLAN (SSGNs). This doesn’t mean it can’t do other roles within the 1st, 2nd and “2.5” Island Chains.
You have (1) low cost, (2) high complexity, and (3) high quantity - but you can only have two of them at the same time. So the ranked choice for the most effective option (for the above unique role) would be as follows:
1. Hypersonic VLO bomber (highest cost, highest complexity, lowest quantity < 100)
2. Supersonic VLO bomber (higher cost, higher complexity, lower quantity ~100)
3. Subsonic VLO bomber (high cost, high complexity, low quantity > 100 but not really more than 200)
After that, you’d probably be looking at:
4. Hypersonic non-VLO bomber
5. Supersonic non-VLO bomber
6. Subsonic non-VLO bomber
Because of their multirole nature, it would probably be best to have more J-36 and UCAVs (e.g. CH-7 and other large RQ-180 style UCAVs that can carry out meaningful strikes)… and then have a more focused and specialised H-20.
A J-36 with extra fuel in its IWB (if possible) plus 2 large flying wing UCAVs (to carry the munitions) would probably be able to strike CONUS anyway, provided the US does not have their own versions of J-36 and J-50.
Last edited:
Ayi and Orca agreed it is powered by 4 x D-30kp-2 engines.
Doubtful that they would still use D-30KP-2 for the H-20, when there is the WS-18 (likely reverse-engineered-but-significantly-improved over the D-30KP2) already in widespread use with the H-6K/J/N and Y-20A fleets.
Also, the D-30KP-2/WS-18 is not an afterburning-capable engine. That means the H-20 will not be supersonic-capable, this claim is indeed accurate.
Last edited:
I agree if they believe it's powered by the D-30KP-2 how could they come to the conclusion that it is a supersonic capable bomber? This variant was not made for supersonic flight.
sarcastically
I agree.
This isn't the 1980's. A subsonic VLO flying wing is no longer some sort of super secret high tech aircraft that can dominate the skies anywhere anytime any condition with impunity. Much like VHS tapes and VCR players....those days are long gone. I'm not saying subsonic stealth bomber technology is completely obsolete, yes they still have a role to play. However they will need to be more careful of where when and under what conditions they are allowed to operate to maintain their survivability.
Maybe the future of air combat is no longer a test of speed, agility, or stealth, but instead a pissing contest to see who can shoot longer range missiles who knows?