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

Lethe · Jan 12, 2025

I found CBO's 2006

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

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.

mack8 said:
Would China be best served by merely mirroring what the US is doing ( ie subsonic H-20), or be bolder and more innovative to gain an advantage (supersonic H-20)?

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.

tankphobia · Jan 12, 2025

zyklon said:
How about a FOBS, but instead of a fractional orbit, full orbits?

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.

zyklon · Jan 12, 2025

Lethe said:
I found CBO's 2006
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
for USAF's then future bomber program a useful starting point for thinking about the benefits and trade-offs of supersonic vs. subsonic performance profiles for bomber aircraft.

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.

Lethe said:
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.

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.

tankphobia said:
FOBS are full orbits. It just means they choose when to deorbit and hit the target.

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.

tankphobia said:
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.

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.

tankphobia said:
There's no reason to do it for a plane as as previously said, just build BMs at that point.

Please allow me to borrow three words from the DoD: Prompt Global Strike.

Deino · Jan 12, 2025

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!

totenchan · Jan 12, 2025

iewgnem said:
Well, Yangwei did say, on video, at a university talk, regarding B-21 that "in my opinion ours is better"

He did not say this. He was talking specifically about the digital design process.

Jason_ · Jan 12, 2025

zyklon said:
Why is the possibility of a supersonic H-20 silly?

Because being supersonic add nothing of value to the H-20 while adding tremendous and prohibitive costs.

zyklon said:
With that said, what's to say the H-20 cannot diverge significantly from the B-2 and B-21?

The laws of physics.

zyklon said:
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.

Good. A dollar spent on NORAD is one less for other programs.

zyklon said:
Should that occur, will a subsonic H-20 still suffice against NORAD by the time it reaches FOC?

Yes.

coolgod · Jan 14, 2025

coolgod said:
My bold prediction: Trump and Putin will attend this year's 80th anniversary of the Chinese victory over Japan Parade on Sept 3rd.

Logic: Trump and Xi have to meet again soon, Trump needs to meet with Putin too, what better political excuse then to celebrate over old comradery. Xi wants to demonstrate China's military power and Trump loves military parades, he will use this parade as a justification for a military parade for America's 250th anniversary in 2026. Putin needs a neutral third country to meet with Trump, what better place than China.

All the hints dropped about China playing an integral role in ending the Ukraine war is obvious, remember Orban's trips? China has also been dropping hints about China-US past cooperation regarding WWII. This American Evan Keil has been getting high profile events with China, he published a video of an old album showing Nanjing Massacre and he got rewarded with a priceless China State pottery. He then toured China and visited all the memorials related to WWII. Now he's invited to China's New Year Gala.

Maybe this is where we will see H-20's first flight

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1878915521619620007

For reference: this was the 70th anniversary of the Chinese victory over Japan Parade.

View attachment 143392

I made a prediction that Trump and Putin will attend China's 80th anniversary of the Chinese victory over Japan Parade on Sept 3rd this year. I also think the H-20 will be revealed during that parade. What do you guys think about this timeline? Didn't China debut new planes during the 2015 Parade also? Does China have a history of revealing early models of equipment during parades?

phrozenflame · Jan 14, 2025

coolgod said:
I made a prediction that Trump and Putin will attend China's 80th anniversary of the Chinese victory over Japan Parade on Sept 3rd this year. I also think the H-20 will be revealed during that parade. What do you guys think about this timeline? Didn't China debut new planes during the 2015 Parade also?

Bad optics for Trump especially if Xi hasn't visited US before that event and we'd also be seeing intensification of consent manufacturing for war given the people in cabinet. We're going to get alot of hate coming towards China, which will be competing with hate against Muslims as the cabinet is also highly subservient to AIPAC.

BoraTas · Jan 14, 2025

valysre said:
What are the aerodynamics of a supersonic flying wing like?

The same as all aircraft. The wings would be more swept or more backwards tapered. They will also be smaller and have a smaller aspect ratio. The fuselage would be as slender as possible and area ruled as cross-sectional area is double punished in the supersonic regime. The intakes would need to be longer and bigger, as such intakes have better pressure recovery in high speeds. If the desired top speed is much above M1.6, a multi-shock inlet would be needed.

As can be seen on the slide, shorter and more swept wings experience much less drag coefficient increase in transonic and supersonic regimes. But they produce less lift, thus are actually less efficient below the transonic regime. Therefore, an aircraft can only be optimized for a single regime. If one wants the maximum efficiency and internal space, subsonic is the only option. Because a subsonic-optimized aircraft in subsonic regime is much more efficient than a supersonic-optimized aircraft in supersonic regime.

mack8 · Jan 16, 2025

In relation to a supersonic H-20, a poster found the design i was referring to that i couldn't find. IF the H-20 is indeed supersonic as recent rumours suggest, it MIGHT look like this.

Chengdu next gen combat aircraft (?J-36) thread

Have we seen this picture before? It's from (知乎). Right now, Im not sure where the article in the picture comes from, but it should be from an internal aviation journal or report. It mentions that CAC proposed the J-36 design concept as early as 2009. Then, some research institute, possibly...

www.sinodefenceforum.com

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

Lethe

Captain

tankphobia

Senior Member

zyklon

Junior Member

Deino

Lieutenant General

totenchan

Junior Member

Jason_

Junior Member

coolgod

Brigadier

phrozenflame

Junior Member

BoraTas

Major

mack8

Junior Member

Chengdu next gen combat aircraft (?J-36) thread