Some observations and inferences mentioned by the Guancha Trios based on the recent observation of that WZ-X at Malan in one of the latest ChaHuaHui podcast on Bilibili (minute 23:30 - minute 48:40):
(Please note that they likely aren't necessarily talking about H-20 in-particular.)
Several key points:
#1 - The drone testing and evaluation base at Malan actually has multiple massive hangars with large main spans (widths). They described the spans of those hangars as "shocking".
#2 - China has no problem with developing and building something like the B-2 today (or, alternatively, a H-20-sized aircraft/manned and unmanned flying-wing aircraft with huge wingspans, ranges in the 5 digits of kilometers, and endurance in the 2 digits of hours).
#3 - The above point (#2) is especially when compared to the past when factors like flight control, engines, material science etc's development/maturity are yet to become satisfactory enough to enable such large-sized flying-wing aircrafts.
#4 - The flying-wing design is actually better suited for strategic reconnaissance/ISR UAVs than bombers, relatively speaking (where the various requirements for an ISR UAV isn't as "demanding" as a bomber would - Refer #7 and #8).
#5 - In flying-wing designs, it is actually preferable for the powerplant(s) (i.e. engines) to be placed as close to the aircraft's centerline axis as possible, due to the effects from the differential in engine power outputs on opposing sides (in multi-engine aircrafts) being actually much more impactful/damning in a flying-wing aircraft.
#6 - The IWBs on bombers should be future-proofed (or alternatively, should take future weaponry development in mind), where both payload weight capacity and payload size capacity is crucial (they listed the example where despite the Tu-22M is larger and much heavier than the Tu-16, they both have largely similar IWB sizes).
#7 - Having a bomber based on the flying-wing design means that multiple compromises would have to be made (to put it simply: flying wing design means shorter fuselage -> shorter IWB length -> IWB have to be expanded sideways -> engines have to be placed further away from aircraft centerline axis -> Problems/risks associated with #5, alongside impacts on cruising efficiency).
#8 - On the other hand, a flying-wing design reconnaissance/ISR UAV do not have the associated issues as mentioned above (#7) (namely, engine can be placed along the centerline axis, no IWB demand, radar/EO/IR sensor windows can be conformal to the aircraft body/skin, reduced thickness of the aircraft body etc), meaning that they are technically easier to be designed and developed.
#9 - "Modularity" (i.e. changing/swapping modules for different mission profiles) isn't as nice as it sounds.
#10 - Last-but-not-least, there is one key mention: One of the Horten Brothers' designs (I interpret this refers to the best if not one of the best) isn't being carried forward and realized in Germany or the United States, but in China. (I'm not sure which specific design(s) did they refer to.)
(For #7 - Just take a look at the engine and IWB layout arrangements of the B-2 versus the B-21.)
(Please do correct me if there are any information/points that I missed or mistaken from the podcast on that segment.)
One funny note - The Guancha Trios actually mentioned how
@Deino is "calming" the outside (West-based) observers on the WZ-X (basically those observers were like "Look! Large flying-wing aircraft! H-20!", and
@Deino be like "No no no, notice how the aircraft is much shorter in length? It's not a H-20, but a UAV").
