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

FriedRiceNSpice said:

Wouldn't expect a seasoned PLA-watching veteran like yourself to believe that such a question can be answered

Click to expand...

Agreed, but - at least me - we all were surprised, that the J-36 & J-XDS came out before the H-20 regardless all claims posted thru all the years "soon there will be" and whatever!

As such, I'm well aware this question won't be answered, but alone to get a "feeling" when this realistically could happen? As for the J-36 I think we got first credible hints from reliable posters that a Christmas surprise is likely about half a year before!? ... and for the H-20 we hear similar claims including a chronology of milestones - see @huitong's site - since years, but still nothing or at least not to the same credibility like we got about 6 months before the J-36 was seen for the first time.

00CuriousObserver said:

Shilao: 扔掉的东西不知凡几 - so much has been thrown away (likely referring to how much the plane has undergone redesigns and changes)

Click to expand...

Adding a bit more context to this, Shilao was very sad in tone when he said this, basically in a heartbroken way. Yankee followed up with "no no no don't think about the stuff that was thrown away". There was an emphasis here. The idiom 不知凡几 means "so much that we've lost count, that we don't even know anymore"

---

Vis-a-vis H-20 itself, it seems like these two objectives exist:

1. To serve as a strategic bomber capable of striking the CONUS

2. To better conduct conventional strikes against 2IC, Darwin, Diego Garcia, etc (bonus: Israel and half of Europe are also within range)

The latter is quite achievable, but the former requires a range capable of penetrating into CONUS -- that's the challenge. I would imagine that's a key reason why development has taken so long. In past discussions, two main ideas have been suggested for achieving this: mid-air refueling, for example near the North Pole, or the use of ALBMs.

FriedRiceNSpice said:

A strategic bomber is a much more sensitive project than a fighter, so naturally OPSEC would be much tighter. Revealing a strategic bomber is altogether a completely different matter from revealing a fighter. It would be incorrect to make any assumptions about the H-20's development progress purely based on the fact that so little information is revealed about it. It is highly possible that public revealing may not happen until after the service entry.

Click to expand...

Yeah, H-20 is like submarine in the navy. Just like Type 055 and Type 054B received a lot of publicity while Type 095 and Type 096 still shrouded in secrecy.

00CuriousObserver said:

Adding a bit more context to this, Shilao was very sad in tone when he said this, basically in a heartbroken way. Yankee followed up with "no no no don't think about the stuff that was thrown away". There was an emphasis here. The idiom 不知凡几 means "so much that we've lost count, that we don't even know anymore"

---

Vis-a-vis H-20 itself, it seems like these two objectives exist:

1. To serve as a strategic bomber capable of striking the CONUS

2. To better conduct conventional strikes against 2IC, Darwin, Diego Garcia, etc (bonus: Israel and half of Europe are also within range)

The latter is quite achievable, but the former requires a range capable of penetrating into CONUS -- that's the challenge. I would imagine that's a key reason why development has taken so long. In past discussions, two main ideas have been suggested for achieving this: mid-air refueling, for example near the North Pole, or the use of ALBMs.

Click to expand...

If you want range you have to make it bigger -- a large elongated cranked kite is better, as a single sweep angle flying wing become impractically large and also leave out useful space for fuel given the aft sweeps on that type of planform. And a diamond would of course be hopeless.

If you want speed — refer above.

And if you want to launch ALBMs with >2000km range from an IWB you need to make it longer — this won’t work with a flying wing, again the only real option is a cranked kite of some sort. And if this already forces you to trade the slightly better stealth (supposedly) of flying wings, you might as well make it faster too (and no, I don’t mean hypersonic, or even mach 2).

GTI said:

And a diamond would of course be hopeless.

Click to expand...

Ironically, a large flying diamond with relatively low aspect ratio do in fact solves all your problems. Flying diamond would mean superior stealth to even B-21 style flying wing and offer large internal volume for both more fuel and outsized payloads.

Of course such a aircraft would be ridiculously unstable but I don't think it'll be a complete show stopper considering CAC and SAC people got J-36 and J-XDS flying properly.

Tomboy said:

Ironically, a large flying diamond with relatively low aspect ratio do in fact solves all your problems. Flying diamond would mean superior stealth to even B-21 style flying wing and offer large internal volume for both more fuel and outsized payloads.

Of course such a aircraft would be ridiculously unstable but I don't think it'll be a complete show stopper considering CAC and SAC people got J-36 and J-XDS flying properly.

Click to expand...

On top of that, a diamond/delta shaped H-20 can be kept within the dimensions of the Y-20 while still achieving the range and payload objectives. Which means XAC/PLA do not have to build a whole bunch of new production and maintenance facilities just to house a flying wing with ridiculously large wing span.

GTI said:

If you want range you have to make it bigger -- a large elongated cranked kite is better, as a single sweep angle flying wing become impractically large and also leave out useful space for fuel given the aft sweeps on that type of planform. And a diamond would of course be hopeless.

If you want speed — refer above.

And if you want to launch ALBMs with >2000km range from an IWB you need to make it longer — this won’t work with a flying wing, again the only real option is a cranked kite of some sort. And if this already forces you to trade the slightly better stealth (supposedly) of flying wings, you might as well make it faster too (and no, I don’t mean hypersonic, or even mach 2).

Click to expand...

Also an extra thing I just remembered, that document calling for verification of a high bypass turbofan with large S duck design if confirmed to be related to H-20 would mean the (near) death of any kind of speculation on a supercruising H-20 design as high bypass turbofan (generally) lack the specific thrust to support supercruise. Theoretically you could potentially build a supercruising engine with a high bypass ratio but that'll require variable cycle technology, so its not completely off the table with China actively developing variable cycle engines but IMO very unlikely. But now that I think of it assuming this procurement announcement do indeed point to H-20 then IMO H-20 will be a subsonic flying wing or potentially flying diamond. In that case I just don't see the point of a cranked arrow design, according to that study posted here a few pages back such a design would be on nearly an order of magnitude less stealthy than a B-2/B-21 style flying wing without bring much to the table unless they *really* need the extra fuel capacity and/or payload capacity but in that case might as well go for a flying diamond especially in an age right now where the survivability of the B-21 is being called into questioning building something less stealthy while still being subsonic just makes no sense to me.


Edit: Heres the study


View attachment 140089

Deino said:

Agreed, but - at least me - we all were surprised, that the J-36 & J-XDS came out before the H-20 regardless all claims posted thru all the years "soon there will be" and whatever!

Click to expand...

The unusually extended period of rumours and speculation around the existence of an H-20/H-XX bomber suggests to me that the project has likely been substantially reworked over time, perhaps even on multiple occasions, whether in response to changing operational requirements and doctrinal ambitions, developments in propulsion technology (e.g. is the long-rumoured configuration of four WS-10-derived engines still the optimal solution for an aircraft that is unlikely to be operational before the 2030s?), developments in other critical technologies such as those implicated in signature management, developments in anticipated threat capabilities, etc.

ying1978 said:

On top of that, a diamond/delta shaped H-20 can be kept within the dimensions of the Y-20 while still achieving the range and payload objectives. Which means XAC/PLA do not have to build a whole bunch of new production and maintenance facilities just to house a flying wing with ridiculously large wing span.

Click to expand...

If that illustration is anywhere close to being indicative (let alone accurate), then those missiles definitely aren't YJ-20/21.

In fact, those missiles are way bigger than the YJ-20/21 - At around DF-17-sized, per my rough measurement.

ACuriousPLAFan said:

If that illustration is anywhere close to being indicative (let alone accurate), then those missiles definitely aren't YJ-20/21.

In fact, those missiles are way bigger than the YJ-20/21 - At around DF-17-sized, per my rough measurement.

Click to expand...

I think the illustration is meant to show whatever the H-6N carries on its ventral hardpoint, not the YJ-21 (which I believe is actually called KD-21??).

I.e. the CH-AS-X-13 (NATO designation), or KF-21 / whatever the PLA designation is.