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

Neurosmith

Neurosmith

Junior Member
Registered Member
The ultimate role of a long-range bomber is to be survivable whilst delivering payloads.

In the 1960s/70s survivability meant outrunning enemy fighters and/or overflying enemy SAMs, hence the development of high-altitude high-speed platforms like the XB-70. This in turn spurred the development of countermeasures, specifically high-flying SAMs and ever-capable interceptors.

So, in the 1980s bombers began leveraging research into stealth technology to gain a survivability advantage in an environment where SAMs were dominant. This also spurred the development of countermeasures - anti-stealth radars and sensors - and, like the SAMs of the 1960s/70s, began to erode the advantage that the bombers of its era carried.

This seems to be a cyclical thing and my guess is that we will reach an equilibrium between VLO and pure kinematics. The H-20 might straddle the spectrum between having VLO (but poor kinematics) and great kinematics (but poor radar and IR VLO), which could explain why it has been delayed.
 
S

sutton999

Junior Member
Registered Member
ACuriousPLAFan said:
Cute Orca on Weibo responding to someone's comment on Bilibili which claimed "Cute Orca says that the H-20 can supercruise":




So, eh. Make of it what you will.
Click to expand...
He seems angry. He doesn't want to be quoted leaking very sensitive information. In fact, he doesn't say that, only deductively implies it.

It is better to keep this ambiguity anyway.
 
Z

zyklon

New Member
Registered Member
GTI said:
Let’s be honest here, the long term viability of subsonic VLO flying wings is under serious question / threat.
Click to expand...

Very glad that there are more folks here who are rather doubtful of the continued viability of designs like the B-21!

GTI said:
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.
Click to expand...

Regardless of whether you're in the air, on land, or of the water, the ideal war fighting vehicle should be (i) undetectable by hostile sensors (stealth), and (ii) unreachable from hostile fire (speed + altitude for aircraft).

Obviously, nothing is undetectable or unreachable, and the closer you're to achieving those ends, the more capital you'll expend.

GTI said:
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
Click to expand...

In agreement here. Looking at the global progression of bomber development, the path appears to be as follows:

Subsonic non-VLO -> Supersonic non-VLO -> Subsonic VLO -> Supersonic VLO

Logically speaking, hypersonic VLO is up next.

However, there's only one, maybe two great powers, the US and China, with the potential resources that can reasonably develop such a capability.

Though, in reality, the hypersonic VLO bomber club may very well end up a club of zero with one or both electing to defer VLO for merely hypersonic given the financial and technical challenges that will have to be overcome to embrace both simultaneously.

One target at a time, right?

---

All jokes aside, and considering . . .

(1) What's hypersonic and especially difficult to reach?

(2) SpaceX's relatively low per kg launch costs, as well as efforts and progress in the same direction elsewhere.

(3) Musk's close ties to Trump, and the distaste they share for what we can perhaps describe as some of the DoD's more "conservative tendencies."

(4) The establishment of the United States Space Force in 2019 and People's Liberation Army Aerospace Force in 2024.

(5) RUMINT surrounding the X-47B and its Chinese analogs.

(6) People, who may be privy to non-public knowledge, cracking jokes about rods from god.

(7) Visible PLA interest and investment in hypersonic developments like the MD series.

Odds are whatever the US or China deploys next as a successor or complementary partial successor to the B-21 and H-20, respectively, will definitely be hypersonic and likely suborbital or orbital.

Granted it may or may not even look like a bomber as we recognize them now.

What alternative development path, that's capable of deploying payloads typically associated with bombers of the B-21 and H-20 tradition, and equally difficult or more difficult to engage, is more plausible given the financial and technological constraints in play?
 
E

EmoBirb

New Member
Registered Member
charles18 said:
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?
Click to expand...

I think what the subsonic VLO flying wing still provides is better stealth across the entire spectrum (supersonic aircraft heat up which makes them mort detectable in the IR spectrum) and arguably the lowest risk factor. Even if they can't just fly directly over a position and drop dumb bombs, they can still go deeper than conventional bombers to launch stand off weapons and thus reduce the time from launch to arrival, which generally equates to it being more difficult to intercept because the reaction time window is smaller.

I honestly fail to see how even the next generation of combat aircraft will change that, unless a complete breakthrough has been achieved with their onboard radar and most importantly the seekers of their missiles, which imo is the point where such scenarios often fall apart. And that's where I see the advantage of the subsonic flying wing, low IR signature, improved for all aspect low obserability and other factors make them even with several radars in the sky more difficult to detect. Especially a more modern breed like the B-21 or the previous notion we had about the H-20. Given that there are 40 years of technological progress over the B-2.

HOWEVER!

Where I really see the advantage of the supersonic design is that it possibly can comfortably trade a higher thermal signature in order to provide vastly superior launch conditions for super/hypersonic ALCMs and ALBMs. The launch of those would be quite energetic and would ultimately make such missiles more effective. Especially if the bomber can supercruise I think it's a big advantage for response time and missile performance.

So essentially it's a toss between being sneaky and slipping deeper into contested air space, launch, then trying to get out alive.

vs

Being every so slightly less sneaky and slipping less deep into contested air space, but really tossing these high speed cruise and ballistic missiles in the direction of the opponent and dashing back home.

I can see the value in both, and so did probably the respective designers. Which concept is more suited for modern aerial warfare can't really be judged at the moment though.

However if the H-20 is truly supersonic as suggested, than it's really big news. Also a big "Eff you" at the people who thought the age of the supersonic bomber was over.
 
L

latenlazy

Brigadier
EmoBirb said:
I think what the subsonic VLO flying wing still provides is better stealth across the entire spectrum (supersonic aircraft heat up which makes them mort detectable in the IR spectrum) and arguably the lowest risk factor. Even if they can't just fly directly over a position and drop dumb bombs, they can still go deeper than conventional bombers to launch stand off weapons and thus reduce the time from launch to arrival, which generally equates to it being more difficult to intercept because the reaction time window is smaller.

I honestly fail to see how even the next generation of combat aircraft will change that, unless a complete breakthrough has been achieved with their onboard radar and most importantly the seekers of their missiles, which imo is the point where such scenarios often fall apart. And that's where I see the advantage of the subsonic flying wing, low IR signature, improved for all aspect low obserability and other factors make them even with several radars in the sky more difficult to detect. Especially a more modern breed like the B-21 or the previous notion we had about the H-20. Given that there are 40 years of technological progress over the B-2.

HOWEVER!

Where I really see the advantage of the supersonic design is that it possibly can comfortably trade a higher thermal signature in order to provide vastly superior launch conditions for super/hypersonic ALCMs and ALBMs. The launch of those would be quite energetic and would ultimately make such missiles more effective. Especially if the bomber can supercruise I think it's a big advantage for response time and missile performance.

So essentially it's a toss between being sneaky and slipping deeper into contested air space, launch, then trying to get out alive.

vs

Being every so slightly less sneaky and slipping less deep into contested air space, but really tossing these high speed cruise and ballistic missiles in the direction of the opponent and dashing back home.

I can see the value in both, and so did probably the respective designers. Which concept is more suited for modern aerial warfare can't really be judged at the moment though.

However if the H-20 is truly supersonic as suggested, than it's really big news. Also a big "Eff you" at the people who thought the age of the supersonic bomber was over.
Click to expand...
Speed has defensive value, not just offensive value.
 
M

MC530

New Member
Registered Member
In fact, we can easily find that the improvement of modern optical capabilities is gradually becoming less and less friendly to supersonic aircraft. Then the only way left for supersonic aircraft is supersonic speed and ultra-high altitude, such as the MD series or X37B or Shenlong-directly maneuvering in adjacent space or space, which can easily avoid interference from most defensive weapons. At this time, whether VLO becomes no longer important.
VLO aircraft can carry more payloads for standoff strikes, which will be a completely different technical route.
 
A

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
zyklon said:
Very glad that there are more folks here who are rather doubtful of the continued viability of designs like the B-21!



Regardless of whether you're in the air, on land, or of the water, the ideal war fighting vehicle should be (i) undetectable by hostile sensors (stealth), and (ii) unreachable from hostile fire (speed + altitude for aircraft).

Obviously, nothing is undetectable or unreachable, and the closer you're to achieving those ends, the more capital you'll expend.



In agreement here. Looking at the global progression of bomber development, the path appears to be as follows:

Subsonic non-VLO -> Supersonic non-VLO -> Subsonic VLO -> Supersonic VLO

Logically speaking, hypersonic VLO is up next.
Click to expand...

You mean hypersonic non-VLO is next?

Building a hypersonic aircraft would be difficult by itself.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top