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

Atomicfrog said:

A defensive oriented airwing doesn't need the H-20 to attack the US. It needs an H-20 to deny bases and carrier groups within second Islands chain with good loitering time and vast weapon bay. Going to the north to attack the US could be a thing with refueling but for what purpose ?

Click to expand...

H-20 is a strategic bomber not a tactical bomber. and it will be part of the nuclear triad alongside the type 094, type 096 and the DF-41to ensure MAD.
it doesn't need to have a 9000km combat radius to strike CONUS. the H-20 will not be dropping bombs but rather it will fire long range cruise missiles.

Wrought said:

While I'm ambivalent as to the utility of H-20 vs opportunity cost of other programs, Chinese efforts to harden infrastructure are both extensive and well documented.

Click to expand...

I mean okay fair enough, US military air bases are more vulnerable to attack than equivalent Chinese ones. The other points still stand. It's still not a good use of high value limited H-20 airframes.

BoraTas said:

These photos should be illustrative. These are airbases. There aren't many different bases in West Coast of CONUS to target.

Click to expand...

I mean sure but again it's unclear what benefit this would really provide. Short of nukes you're not really going to permanently destroy an air base. You can crater the runways and shut down operations for a while but again I just don't think it's worth it for PLAAF to send H-20s on a fairly high risk mission to disable an air base or two in continental US for a day or two and then follow it up with nothing.

BoraTas said:

Civilian infrastructure wouldn't be hit. If a nation is short in strike capacity, it strikes high-hedge military assets. Aircraft, ships, maybe munitions depots, etc...

Click to expand...

I suppose PLAAF could try to destroy airframes on the ground but with the amount of available warning and the distances involved I'm skeptical this is worthwhile. It all boils down to cost benefit, these are expensive high value airframes, stealth isn't perfect, and incoming standoff munitions can be shot down at least some of the time.

Maybe a day 1 surprise attack this would be worthwhile. However after that civilian airports would be taken over, airplanes dispersed, alert levels raised, etc. From sheer distance strikes from H-20 would be sporadic at best. Just like sending a handful of B-2s or B-21s alone against Chinese mainland targets would be ineffective and thus not attempted, the reverse is also true.

Wrought said:

As far as GBAD goes, the US is both overspecialized and lacking. Overspecialized in that it's majority BMD. Lacking in numbers, at least comparatively speaking. It's basically all concentrated in the US Army's Air Defense Artillery branch, which going off memory has:

- Four M-SHORAD battalions (and plans for another four)
- Three C-RAM battalions (and plans to transition to nine IFPC battalions)
- Fifteen Patriot battalions (and plans for one more)
- Seven THAAD batteries (and plans for one more)
- One GMD battalion
- Three LAAD battalions (technically under USMC, but hey)

Call it 33 GBAD battalions total, which are spread quite thinly across the entire world, from Germany to Guam. They're tasked with defending against everything from quadcopters to ICBMs. As per the Key West agreement with the Army, USAF does not operate any of its own GBAD.

Meanwhile PLAGF alone fields 78 battalions attached to combined arms brigades, plus another 13 dedicated brigades attached to group armies. And that's just the ground forces with short/medium stuff; we haven't even gotten to the 24 brigades under PLAAF which run the theatre-level IADS. A theatre which, needless to say, concentrates all of those assets in one country. There's really no comparison here; it's not even close.

Click to expand...

It is true that US GBAD battalions are spread out quite thinly but I maintain there is enough available to defend the US west coast that H-20 raids are not worth it. Also we're specifically discussing H-20 raids on US west coast here so counts of short/medium range systems aren't really that relevant, it's the theatre air defense that matters. This is why I compare Patriot to HQ-9 and HQ-9B to show that in terms of theatre GBAD US isn't really that lacking.

MC530 said:

Personal opinion: The route to the New World only represents a deterrent possibility. As we know, China and the United States are almost as wide. How much threat the number of 100 poses to targets 10,000 kilometers away is a very subtle thing.
Just proof that one day the stock markets in Shanghai and New York can be lowered?

Click to expand...

I'm sorry but I have no idea what you're trying to say here. It's purely for deterrence for the possibility of strikes on US mainland? I mean it might make the US spend more on hardening sure but I'm pretty skeptical that H-20 would be worth it just for that. As for the stock markets, a general war would do that H-20 or no H-20.

Watching a flagship thread being wrecked by personal ego pages after pages is extremely disgusting.

ENTED64 said:

I mean okay fair enough, US military air bases are more vulnerable to attack than equivalent Chinese ones. The other points still stand. It's still not a good use of high value limited H-20 airframes.


I mean sure but again it's unclear what benefit this would really provide. Short of nukes you're not really going to permanently destroy an air base. You can crater the runways and shut down operations for a while but again I just don't think it's worth it for PLAAF to send H-20s on a fairly high risk mission to disable an air base or two in continental US for a day or two and then follow it up with nothing.


I suppose PLAAF could try to destroy airframes on the ground but with the amount of available warning and the distances involved I'm skeptical this is worthwhile. It all boils down to cost benefit, these are expensive high value airframes, stealth isn't perfect, and incoming standoff munitions can be shot down at least some of the time. Just like sending a handful of B-2s or B-21s alone against Chinese mainland targets would be ineffective and thus not attempted, the reverse is also true.


It is true that US GBAD battalions are spread out quite thinly but I maintain there is enough available to defend the US west coast that H-20 raids are not worth it. Also we're specifically discussing H-20 raids on US west coast here so counts of short/medium range systems aren't really that relevant, it's the theatre air defense that matters. This is why I compare Patriot to HQ-9 and HQ-9B to show that in terms of theatre GBAD US isn't really that lacking.


I'm sorry but I have no idea what you're trying to say here. It's purely for deterrence for the possibility of strikes on US mainland? I mean it might make the US spend more on hardening sure but I'm pretty skeptical that H-20 would be worth it just for that. As for the stock markets, a general war would do that H-20 or no H-20.

Click to expand...

Keep in mind that having to defend CONUS is going to take air defense assets from the front to far enough so that they are irrelevant.

Past H-20 concept is just obsoleted by 6th gens. The idea was an all aspect stealth plane that can penetrate nearly all air defenses, which would make it ideal to hunt down enemy air defense batteries.

China doesn't really have an issue with bombing volume, what it wants is a way to ensure that enemies will lose their high value radars/IADS needed to defend against being bombed. The different penetration aircraft (especially J-36) achieve that goal.

Obsession with sustain bombing US mainland makes no sense. The logical strategy is to island hop, and all the munitions that would be used on bombing west coast is much better spent speeding up the island hopping, which is what would give China actual ground for victory.

Besides, US' strength is it's peacetime standing military. Even if China achieve the same level of withering bombing to the west coast as they can do today to Japan or SK, it would not affect US' big reserves in weapons. It would only partially cripple US' ability to produce more, but the kicker is that US never had that impressive ability to do that to begin with, especially since during a war, US would lose access to all semiconductor besides really large legacy nodes.

From the clues we're getting by military watchers in China, H-20 program still exists. But the program has likely changed in nature. Imho H-20 2.0 will be much more focused on command and control facilities and MUMT. Air cruiser or even air CV (I don't mean actually carrying smaller aircraft, just that it could coordinate 100s of drones) compared to J-36's air destroyer concept.

China (& maybe also Russia) has the most investments in Anti-Air Defense. US has not so much investments & advancements for intercepting stealth aircrafts, also hypersonic missiles. For decades, China & Russia are more of defense position, US are more of offense position, especially in terms of air superiority. We can see things are changing now.

Wrought said:

While I'm ambivalent as to the utility of H-20 vs opportunity cost of other programs, Chinese efforts to harden infrastructure are both extensive and well documented.

Click to expand...

What happened recently tell us one thing, China will not always follow others' steps. Instead of just "copying" B-2/B-21, China may want to give H-20 some 6th gen capacity they innovated on J-36. With development of anti-stealth approaches, a simple copy of B-2/B-21 can't survive in a war after 2030s. J-36 & requirements-modified H-20 may has some tricks/tech to escape most advanced anti-stealth radar. Copy a bomber of 1990s/2010s won't help to win a war in 2030s+. On the other hand, with J36 existed, H-20 can be designed as a more dedicated bomber.

ENTED64 said:

It is true that US GBAD battalions are spread out quite thinly but I maintain there is enough available to defend the US west coast that H-20 raids are not worth it. Also we're specifically discussing H-20 raids on US west coast here so counts of short/medium range systems aren't really that relevant, it's the theatre air defense that matters. This is why I compare Patriot to HQ-9 and HQ-9B to show that in terms of theatre GBAD US isn't really that lacking.

Click to expand...

Short/medium-range systems are perfectly capable of intercepting cruise missiles, with obvious utility for point-defense roles. As I mentioned earlier, Patriot is optimized for BMD as for example in the context of Ukraine.

KIRBY: The Patriot battery system, the Patriot missile system is really designed to go after ballistic missiles. And it's not as effective on cruise missiles, and it's certainly not going to be effective against drones. So it's doubtful you could say if they had the Patriots it would make a huge difference in this particular type of barrage, because this was largely cruise missiles and drones.

Click to expand...

An effectively dense and multilayered IADS combines capabilities across the spectrum to defend against all manner of attack profiles. It's called an integrated system for a reason. Downing the bomber itself is ideal, of course, but neutralizing its salvos is also acceptable. US GBAD is severely lacking on the lower end of that spectrum (unlike the PLA), hence why I called them overspecialized.

ENTED64 said:

I mean okay fair enough, US military air bases are more vulnerable to attack than equivalent Chinese ones. The other points still stand. It's still not a good use of high value limited H-20 airframes.


I mean sure but again it's unclear what benefit this would really provide. Short of nukes you're not really going to permanently destroy an air base. You can crater the runways and shut down operations for a while but again I just don't think it's worth it for PLAAF to send H-20s on a fairly high risk mission to disable an air base or two in continental US for a day or two and then follow it up with nothing.


I suppose PLAAF could try to destroy airframes on the ground but with the amount of available warning and the distances involved I'm skeptical this is worthwhile. It all boils down to cost benefit, these are expensive high value airframes, stealth isn't perfect, and incoming standoff munitions can be shot down at least some of the time.

Maybe a day 1 surprise attack this would be worthwhile. However after that civilian airports would be taken over, airplanes dispersed, alert levels raised, etc. From sheer distance strikes from H-20 would be sporadic at best. Just like sending a handful of B-2s or B-21s alone against Chinese mainland targets would be ineffective and thus not attempted, the reverse is also true.


It is true that US GBAD battalions are spread out quite thinly but I maintain there is enough available to defend the US west coast that H-20 raids are not worth it. Also we're specifically discussing H-20 raids on US west coast here so counts of short/medium range systems aren't really that relevant, it's the theatre air defense that matters. This is why I compare Patriot to HQ-9 and HQ-9B to show that in terms of theatre GBAD US isn't really that lacking.


I'm sorry but I have no idea what you're trying to say here. It's purely for deterrence for the possibility of strikes on US mainland? I mean it might make the US spend more on hardening sure but I'm pretty skeptical that H-20 would be worth it just for that. As for the stock markets, a general war would do that H-20 or no H-20.

Click to expand...

Nuclear MAD is one of H-20's unique feature. J-36 has no potantial to threat continental US.

IMO another unique feature, which is not mentioned here so far, is to push US carriers much futher than now. H-20 can operate far from mainland, come to somewhere near US' CVNs around 2IC (even 3IC), and launch huge mount of hypersonic missiles or stealth curise missiles, like LRASM. At 2IC/3IC, J-36's payload capacity is much weaker than a real long-range bomber. Missile saturation attack is an effective way to deter carriers.

H-20, if project still exists, is designed for 2030s. At that time, Asia may be more in China's control. Time to think of long-range power projection.

I think people are vastly overestimating the weapons payload for the J-36. Yes, it is large for fighter standards, but it is no H-20 or even H-6.

ENTED64 said:

Then any guesses as to the why the long delay?


I'm pretty skeptical that on the whole Chinese military infrastructure is significantly more hardened than US equivalent. A lot of targets are essentially civilian infrastructure such as ports, bridges, etc. Those are likely the same in both nations. As for actual military bases or airfields I don't really see any evidence that Chinese ones are somehow unusually better than American ones at damage control or being hardened. Neither do I see any evidence that Chinese military factories are more hardened than American ones. Do you have any evidence or citations for your assertion? Regardless the sheer number of targets in USA is staggering, a handful of H-20s would be a drop in the bucket. And again I maintain this is a pretty poor use of H-20, the PLAAF would be much better served using it closer to China.

As for land based air defense, it's not like USA doesn't have any, there are 15 Patriot battalions in service. That's like 400-500 launchers. That's not counting USN ships and such. So it's hardly like the US is particularly lacking in ground based air defense, in fact if we consider Patriots vs only HQ-9 and HQ-9B, the US probably has more.

Regarding the secondary effects, it's hard to predict how these things will play out. I'm very doubtful point 1 will apply, if the US is really committed to a major war with China then H-20s and/or few targets on the West Coast being blown up will not change that. However point 2 is plausible but again hard to predict and I'm not convinced US military infrastructure is much more vulnerable than Chinese equivalent.

Click to expand...

Lack of HAS is a well known gap for the US in INDOPAC.

If you are unaware of this basic knowledge, then please be quiet, stop posting, learn something, and start up again.

Too many flagship threads are getting littered with nonsense from members who’ve joined post-December 26th.

Mods, you used to give people a week + ban to reflect on their drivel. I implore you to reconsider starting that up again.