wat lol You mean the other way around. According to Google the unrefueled range of a B-2 is about 11,000km, which means 22,000km round trip.
H-20 bomber (with H-X, JH-XX)
- Thread starter Deino
- Start date
The unrefuelled combat radius would be about half the unrefuelled range.
The combat radius of B-2 is about 5500km, which if H-20 was similar to that would still be rather potent but insufficient to hold at risk the whole of Alaska or west coast of the US from the PRC mainland.
That said I do also think a H-20 with a combat radius of 5500km would be very useful, or vital even for the PLA of today and the near future, but such an aircraft will not be capable of striking Alaska/west coast from mainland bases.
"Its unrefueled range is approximately 6,000 nautical miles (9,600 kilometers)."
"Performance: minimum approach speed 161 mph, typical estimated unrefueled range for a hi-lo-hi mission with 16 B61 nuclear free-fall bombs 5,000 miles, with one aerial refueling more than 10,000 miles."
"Unrefueled combat radius: approx. 5,000–6,000 nautical miles"
A few days ago, Trump sent at least four B-2s to Diego Garcia to deter Iran, which is 3,800 kilometers away. But the problem is that this location, with aerial refueling, can indeed threaten China, including Chengdu, with the combat radius of the B-2. In this way, China can effectively deter its opponents by deploying a stealth bomber with equal combat capabilities.
The significance of large stealth bombers is not only a real deterrent, but also an effective tool for psychological and diplomatic pressure, judging from recent examples. To some extent, it is a miracle project that demonstrates the country's national strength.
As for the difficulty and delay of the H-20, the most reliable guess is that the project has undergone a major change in requirements. At the beginning, it was most likely to be a benchmark against the B-2, but on the one hand, the opponent has changed, and the B-21 has appeared; on the other hand, the team has also changed. With the J-36, the first and second island chains also have reliable attackers. This will inevitably lead to a major change in the goals of the H-20 project and the resulting delays.
Yeah exact details of how detectable these planes are is classified so it's impossible to say. However given how fast RF engineering has been progressing relative to improvements in stealth materials and such I'd err on the side of them being relatively more detectable than they were in years past.
Again, I don't really think a handful of H-20s even if they could strike West Coast would really be that threatening to the US mainland. Just like a handful of unsupported B-2s going straight for Beijing would be foolhardy, the same is true of a handful of unsupported H-20s going straight for Seattle. I don't think this is their intended mission. As for possible nuclear missions, I've always though the nuclear triad was overblown and the existing ICBM/SLBMs are plenty.
Unlike Guam, I'm pretty skeptical of how relevant Diego Garcia would be. The location would require B-2s or their munitions to fly over Bangladesh, Myanmar, or Thailand all of which are much less friendly to the US than Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan. I don't really think those countries would allow overflights in a major war scenario so Diego Garcia loses a lot of relevance. Maybe USA does it anyway but I just don't see the cost benefit being worth it. Besides the PLA rocket force could hit Diego Garcia as well so H-20 would hardly be the only factor.
This is a good point, against anybody other than USA it could be a very threatening asymmetric capability.
This might be the case but if this is true it's weird that they've basically just kept on teasing it this whole time like it's just around the corner. Further it's not like the PLA didn't know about J-36 or B-21 being in the works. I'm not sure why the emergence of either would lead PLA to greatly change requirements in 2021 or so.
Replying only with links and quotes implies that you think I am not aware of those specifications or pages.
I am very aware of them, and the way you are replying conveys the impression that I'm poorly read, and it's not conducive to constructive discussion.
At the very least offer to try and justify why you think those websites numbers are credible. But that's fine, I'll explore everything myself, below:
Now, the first link is the most accurate, as it describes the actual range of the aircraft itself (as opposed to combat radius). It is the official USAF website, and as always what is more interesting with its numbers is what it doesn't provide rather than what it provides.
The second link is certainly an attempt to try and marry the payload of the aircraft but making the same mistake you have -- i.e.: interpreting the oft-listed range of the aircraft with "combat radius". Air and Space forces are not non-credible, but their provider of "official specifications" has their mileage vary. (Heck even their listing describes the estimated combat mission profile as "typical estimated unrefuelled range" rather than radius, as chances are even they know that putting the word "radius" means something very different)
The third link is outright rubbish, in the sense that Army recognition is not a credible website. I think back 10 years ago, army recognition and navy recognition were under different management and of decent quality but these days they are not what they once were.
Northrop Grumman, the manufacturer/designer behind B-2 have this to say
"The B-2 can travel 6,000 nautical miles without refueling and 10,000 nautical miles with only one refueling. It can reach any point in the world within hours."
Such a description is rather explicit and consistent with the actual USAF website of the B-2 -- that it is able to travel that distance without refuelling and with one refuelling respectively.
That gives us a combat radius (unrefuelled) or some 3000nmi. The best way of trying to square the estimates of its combat radius/range is looking at long range B-2 missions in modern history and mid air refuelling occasions they needed. One we know most about is the 44 hour sortie from Missouri, over the Pacific and Indian Ocean, to Afghanistan, and landing at Diego Garcia, back in 2001:
If we do some basic estimates of the distances traversed between refuellings, launched from Missouri, there were then air refuellings over:
- California (some 1500nmi from Missouri)
- Hawaii (some 2000nmi from California)
- Guam (some 3300nmi from Hawaii)
- Strait of Malacca (some 2700nmi from Guam)
- Diego Garcia (some 1800nmi from Strait of Malacca)
- and then finally from Diego Garcia, to Afghanistan and back (landing) which is some 2400nmi each way, aka 4800nmi between Diego Garcia and Afghanistan
As we can see, not all refuellings were of equal distance between each refuelling point, likely based on availability of land based tankers between refuelling points, and the permissiveness of the environment of each refuelling point.
But if the B-2's unrefuelled combat radius was 5000-6000nmi (implying its one way unrefuelled range is 10,000-12,000nmi), then we would not have seen anywhere near the frequency/pattern of refuelling that was carried out for that sortie. Considering each air refuelling mission is a rather major procedure for an actual combat sortie of a valuable, VLO strategic bomber like B-2, if the unrefuelled combat radius was 5000-6000nmi, then the USAF absolutely could have omitted refuelling over California and the Strait of Malacca, and simply only refuelled over Hawaii, Guam and Diego Garcia.
One other factor to consider is that a 5000-6000nmi combat radius would allow B-2s based at Hawaii to carry out strike missions against the PRC mainland without needing refuelling (and with a bit of fuel to spare). Such a capability or mission profile as far as I am aware has never been suggested as viable by individuals in the official space or the so called osint space, without having the necessity of tankers. Which is to say, if the B-2 really did have a 6000nmi combat radius in a way that was so obvious, then it would long have been spoken of as a capability and threat profile.
Tying this all back, my suspicion for why "combat radius" is sometimes mistakenly cited as 5000-6000nmi is because there is deliberately no official numbers for combat radius provided either by the USAF or by Northrop. Range is much more vague and nebulous and can vary based on mission loadout or flight profile, but having an absence of "combat radius" has led some websites to make their own assumptions that 5000-6000nmi represents "combat radius" and putting in assumed mission loadouts and flight profiles.
But if B-2 did have a 5000-6000nmi combat radius then the real world employment of it and refuelings of it which we've seen in modern history just don't make sense.
Not sure where the USAF guy who wrote that B-2 fact sheet page learnt his mathematics or physics from, but 6000 nautical miles is actually equal to 11112 kilometers, not 9600 kilometers. Or perhaps he has mistaken nautical miles with miles, because 6000 nautical miles is indeed equal to 9656 kilometers, which is close - But again, novice mistake for a supposedly official webpage of the world's most powerful air force.
As for that Army Recognition page, here's what's being listed:
I don't think whoever wrote that understands that range is not the same as radius.
To be fair I can somewhat forgive that in the sense that things like range and combat radius are somewhat sensitive and giving out numbers that are inconsistent but within the same magnitude of each other is probably deemed sufficient from their pov (potentially even a mild mind game for adversaries given it is officially from the USAF).
But yes, the Army Recognition page is rubbish and that website has been so for yeras.
Just a few months before the Zhuhai Expo last year, Adorable Whale mentioned that the H-20 could take to the skies before or by November 2026 (i.e. Zhuhai Expo 2026), i.e. about 19 months away.
That's pretty much the only lead we have on the status of the H-20 that can even be considered rather "solid" so far.
The J-36 is big, but not big enough.
As for the capability to reach CONUS (or any places/targets beyond 2IC) - If the H-20 is a Chinese counterpart to the B-2, then the H-20 certainly needs to be refueled at least once during its mission run. This is unless the H-20's IWB is large enough and long enough to carry an air-launched IRBM with a conventional or glidebody warhead, which will negate the need for the H-20 to get close to CONUS in order to deliver its payload.
Of course, the latter is more of a hypothetical scenario, given that we don't have any substantial clues on the H-20's actual specifications and performance parameters for the time being.
Last edited:
Tbf even just in anti shipping duties the H-20 will be superior to j-36 + CCAs. By sending less aircraft with bigger payload capacity, it will be far easier to hide the launch of the strike package. Sending 20 airplanes with 2 cruise missiles each would increase the chance it is picked up via satellite imagery vs 5 H-20 with 8 missiles each. More range also means you can launch from airbases far in the rear not normally monitored by enemy.