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

zyklon

New Member
Registered Member
You mean hypersonic non-VLO is next?

Building a hypersonic aircraft would be difficult by itself.

Yes, hypersonic non-VLO "bombers" are most likely what will emerge to complement and succeed the B-21 and H-20.

However, no idea if it'll look something along the lines of: i. the MD series and flown well below the von Karman line, ii. an enlarged X-47B or Shenlong, iii. SpaceX's Starship, or iv. something else altogether.

Not trying to get too off topic or speculative, but if the H-20 is indeed a supersonic VLO bomber, then some variety of hypersonic will make for the most logical next step.
 

Atomicfrog

Major
Registered Member
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.
Mig-31 use D-30 with afterburner... it's probably feasible to make it compatible. Still I find it odd, it's quite an old engine. They are trolling.
 

sunnymaxi

Major
Registered Member
Mig-31 use D-30 with afterburner... it's probably feasible to make it compatible. Still I find it odd, it's quite an old engine. They are trolling.
it was sarcasm.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Actually there is an old paper, published in 2020. The engines are apparently WS-18 derivatives for H-20 bomber. back then only these engines were available. WS-10 and later on WS-15 changed the plan.

details of that paper.
To provide some context for the academic paper.

According to the original poster
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, roughly translated:

1. The general stats of the warplane mentioned in the paper (168-ton designed MTOW, 78.5-ton empty weight, 72.2-ton fuel weight, 17-ton+0.2-ton payload capacity with a combat radius of 4500 kilometers) looks to be close/roughly similar to that of the B-2 Spirit strategic bomber of the USAF.
2. The required bench thrust given in the paper is 114.22kN, but the warplane seems to already have a new, target engine (in the pipeline?).
3. According to the paper, the original engines slated for the warplane has a cruising fuel consumption rate of 0.7kg/(kgf·h), and the cruising fuel consumption rate of D-30KP-2/WS-18 officially given by Saturn NPO is 0.705kg/(kgf·h). Both engine models seem to be comparable to one another.
4. The new, target engines meant to replace the original engines are stated to have a cruising fuel consumption rate of 0.0679kg/(N·h), which is equal to 0.665kg/(kgf·h).

Possible objectives of the academic paper in question:

1. The warplane was to be powered by D-30KP-2/WS-18 at the beginning of the design, and they have already considered to replace them with new, target engines later on.
2. The paper discusses the methods of determining the performance parameters of the new, target engines without significantly altering the structure (of the warplane).
3. In fact, one major contribution of the paper is to explore the avenue of changing the engines without redesigning/reconfiguring the inlets and nozzles of the warplane.



Of course, we won't know whether said warplane subject in this academic paper is fictitious (for concept evaluation purposes only) or real (meant to represent actual plans to a certain degree).

The stats for the engine thrust and MTOW look rather... off, somehow.

see this new Engine appeared in early 2023
View attachment 140090
remember this flight in early 2023.. Engine dimension indicate medium bypass ratio engine. either WS-10 or WS-15 variant. China don't have any application for this type engine other than large stealth bomber like H-20 ..
H-20 bomber will have WS-10/WS-15 family Engines..
 

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
IMO a hypersonic non-VLO bomber would be quite pointless. at that point you might as well just produce more MIRVed ICBMs which are much faster and cheaper than a hypersonic bomber and can be produced in larger numbers.

It goes back to how much is an ICBM versus a reusable hypersonic bomber.

---

If we use the Trident missile as an example, you could buy one for $40? Million.

Alternatively, suppose you have a reusable ICBM like a Falcon 9 or Starship.
The reusable Falcon 9 launch costs are currently $15 Million for 17 tonnes

So how many of these would you have to launch before a hypersonic bomber is more cost efficient?
 

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
I strongly think China will go all WS-15 lineup, because it makes maintenance much easier. US also did the same with F-135.

Not just maintenance. But also production costs etc

An H-20 would only be build in very limited numbers, so a separate engine programme would likely work out more expensive than going with the WS-10/15.
 
Top