H-20 bomber (with H-X, JH-XX)
- Thread starter Deino
- Start date
Why is the possibility of a supersonic H-20 silly?
The J-20, and now the J-36, are both clear and visible examples of Chinese originality, and their willingness to embrace designs that diverge from the "gold standards" typically associated with and set by American designs.
With that said, what's to say the H-20 cannot diverge significantly from the B-2 and B-21?
I don't know if the current CG of NORAD would agree with that, and if he did, he'll certainly leverage such a truth for more funding for significant upgrades from Congress.
Should that occur, will a subsonic H-20 still suffice against NORAD by the time it reaches FOC?
Lethe
Captain
I found CBO's 2006 for USAF's future bomber program a useful starting point for thinking about the benefits and trade-offs of supersonic vs. subsonic performance profiles for bomber aircraft.
My impression: the real challenge is cost. Range can be fudged by trading off against payload, and payload can be fudged by throwing more aircraft at the target. But inventory numbers are about cost. Holding range, payload and cost constant, the supersonic inventory is going to be significantly smaller than an otherwise equivalent subsonic inventory, and therefore both more vulnerable to a disabling first strike and less resilient in the face of attrition. Alternatively, range, payload and inventory numbers can be held constant while allowing the total cost of the program to balloon, implying reduced capabilities elsewhere. Are the incremental benefits of a supersonic flight profile worth it? I am skeptical.
The Soviets were more innovative than the Americans in many aspects of submarine design. Not real clear that it was to their benefit in the end.
My impression: the real challenge is cost. Range can be fudged by trading off against payload, and payload can be fudged by throwing more aircraft at the target. But inventory numbers are about cost. Holding range, payload and cost constant, the supersonic inventory is going to be significantly smaller than an otherwise equivalent subsonic inventory, and therefore both more vulnerable to a disabling first strike and less resilient in the face of attrition. Alternatively, range, payload and inventory numbers can be held constant while allowing the total cost of the program to balloon, implying reduced capabilities elsewhere. Are the incremental benefits of a supersonic flight profile worth it? I am skeptical.
The Soviets were more innovative than the Americans in many aspects of submarine design. Not real clear that it was to their benefit in the end.
Last edited:
FOBS are full orbits. It just means they choose when to deorbit and hit the target. Such weapons are banned under treaty to limit the wesponisation of space. Otherwise nuclear powers would just park a dozen warheads in orbit and land them with almost no warning.
There's no reason to do it for a plane as as previously said, just build BMs at that point.
I recall running into this report years ago. Great to see it unearthed again!
Best to be cautious with some of the numbers and projections, but the report does make for good food for thought on what options are in play.
Towards the final days of the USSR, Tupolev was pushing some very ambitious programs, including at least one SSTO bomber project.
Considering what's visible from China's unclassified programs, there's no way the Chinese aren't toying with similar concepts on the classified side.
IIRC, the Soviets tested a FOBS based on the SS-18 ICBM or its predecessor at some point in the 1960s, but it was not deemed a violation of the Outer Space Treaty because the system did not make a full orbit around the earth.
The Outer Space Treaty prohibits the deployment of nuclear weapons in orbit, it does not prohibit the deployment of non-nuclear munitions.
Moreover, considering the current condition of global affairs, the Space Treaty may very well go the way of the ABM and INF treaties.
Please allow me to borrow three words from the DoD: Prompt Global Strike.
Guys ... let's keep it simple: This is the H-20 thread and yes, discussing any rumours from credible posts is fine, but endlessly discussing any random claim - like now a 4 to even 6 engines supersonic bomber - and then starting a whole discussion on how much superior it is to the B-21 in endless posts is OFF-TOPIC! Even more so anything on any US PGS!
From now on, stick to the topic and stop with this endless off-topic nonsense!
From now on, stick to the topic and stop with this endless off-topic nonsense!