Yes. But more importantly, if for some reason a subsonic bomber cannot do some mission, a supersonic bomber wouldn't be able to either.
Last edited:
H-20 bomber (with H-X, JH-XX)
- Thread starter Deino
- Start date
Nonsense. It is absolutely essential for China to have the capability to hold at risk any target on CONUS and be able to attack it with sustained and high volumes of conventional fire. The ability to symmetrically respond to US strike to mainland China is the best deterrent against US strike. If the US has a sustained way of attacking mainland China (e.g. B-21), whereas China only has an single-use capability (e.g. conventional ICBM) to retaliate, it would incentivize the US to prolong the war. Furthermore, it is in China's strategic interest to force the US to spend more money on homeland defense rather than expeditionary capabilities.
By the way, the US cannot "nest production deep into its territory." This is not a video game where you can build factories anywhere.
Last edited:
The fact that China has a huge B-2 size drone but not actual H-20 seems a clear indication to me that. they clearly could have created a B-2 size subsonic bomber if they wanted but somehow do not think its necessary or want something even better. The only thing better than a subsonic bomber is a supersonic one. Or a subsonic bomber so big that it will dwarf B-2 and likely have enough range to hit CONUS.
Guys ... I must admit you are discussing since pages anything else like certain flight & mission profiles, engines options, historical issues and so on, but barely ANYTHING directly related to the H-20!
May I kindly ask you to continue - and if wanted I'll move anything so far - all this in an appropriate thread, but not here as long as it is NOT directly related to the H-20?
Thanks in advance.
May I kindly ask you to continue - and if wanted I'll move anything so far - all this in an appropriate thread, but not here as long as it is NOT directly related to the H-20?
Thanks in advance.
Of course not, but war isn't about building wunderwaffens that can do one job, the only actual way to destroy NORAD, ignoring if there's even a point in doing so, is to win the war and either put boots on ground or make its dismantling a condition for surrender.
Its not about supersonic or subsonic, its about range requirements and lack thereof for reaching CONUS from China. What China need is a platform that can be built in numbers and help to establish air and sea superiority over everything up to the east Hawaii, which allows PLA to clear out and launch amphibious landings on those islands including Hawaii (the same applies to Alaska and Aleutian islands). The ability to do so opens up the door to CONUS operations, not just one off performative, but Tokyo firebombing type attacks on CONUS, while not having this ability means only Doolittle type performative attacks that can already be achieved by conventionally tipped missiles.
It's not to say a platform that can have global range isn't nice to have, but that role can be fufilled by orbital bombers after it matures in 10-20 years. The problem with trying to do so with a subsonic or even supersonic platform is it requires too much sacrifices in other domains like payload and cost to the point of making it unable to fully contribute to the war that matters.
Most of the US’s military production is in the Midwest and East Coast. If you want “China to have the capability to hold at risk any target on CONUS and be able to attack it with sustained and high volumes of conventional fire” the way to do it wouldn’t be to depend on a pie in the sky bomber that can circumnavigate the globe without refueling and fly thousands of miles over the continental US without being detected. The B-21 is only able to threaten China because of US bases in the Pacific. Without that it wouldn’t be a meaningful threat. It’s not like the B-21 has the kind of range you’re demanding the H-20 has. If China is to do the thing you want them to do they would also need bases closer to the US. A stealth bomber isn’t a magical “push button to strike at anything anywhere in the world with infinite salvo depth and lightning tempo and no local support” platform. You guys should look more closely at the actual details here rather than make imaginary tit for tat wishlists.
(I know Deino has put his foot down but if possible I’d like to appeal to not have this post deleted because I think there are some fundamentals about how people understand this kind of subject matter that might be useful to hash out).
"not here as long as it is NOT directly related to the H-20?"
---
Once again, the eternal return of the same old thing.
- If someone talks about the aircraft, and say something that you don't like, you'll say it's speculative.
- If someone talks about the concept and its mission, you'll say this thread is about the aircraft.
The only fun thing is watching your constant tantrums.
Explain to us how to talk about an aircraft about which little or nothing specific is known if we can't even talk about the most important thing: its mission.
---
Once again, the eternal return of the same old thing.
- If someone talks about the aircraft, and say something that you don't like, you'll say it's speculative.
- If someone talks about the concept and its mission, you'll say this thread is about the aircraft.
The only fun thing is watching your constant tantrums.
Explain to us how to talk about an aircraft about which little or nothing specific is known if we can't even talk about the most important thing: its mission.
None of the 400+ previous pages are "directly related to the H-20," which, as you know, have not been revealed in public. I don't see how the last few pages are any different or which thread is more appropriate for these sort of discussions. Maybe you can rename this thread as: speculations on the PLAAF long range bomber program; and when the H-20 is actually revealed, there can be a new H-20 thread similar to the new thread when the J-36 was first revealed.
The H-20 is not a wunderwaffen. It is the Chinese counterpart to the B-2/21 which had existed for three decades and used operationally with great success. Destroying NORAD is your rhetorical question. A bomber capable of penetrating/destroying NORAD would also be able to attack critical CONUS assets like naval/air bases, logistic hubs, command and control facilities, etc. Destroying these assets will cripple the US' capacity for aggression against China or other friendly nations.
???
You are literally arguing my point for me. China needs to have the ability to sustainably deliver large quantities of payload to CONUS->the best option for this are bombers->H-20 should be designed around a CONUS mission set->stealth subsonic flying-wing has the best combination of cost, capability, payload, risk, etc.
It's not to say 6th generation fighters aren't nice to have, but that role can be fulfilled by AI powered drones after it matures in 10-20 years.
It's not to say SSNs aren't nice to have, but that role can be fulfilled by UUVs after it matures in 10-20 years.
It's not to say long range air to air missiles aren't nice to have, but that role can be fulfilled by lasers after it matures in 10-20 years.
It's not to say advanced AEW aren't nice to have, but that role can be fulfilled by LEO satelite arrays after it matures in 10-20 years.
.......
Thankfully the PLA doesn't think like that.
Last edited:
Who said anything about "without refueling?" The H-20 will refuel over the Arctic on CONUS missions.
Yes, I agree the US will come to regret their B-21 design once China demonstrates the capability to neutralize forward bases.
Yeah. Russian airbases in the far East and in the Arctic would be great for prepositioning tankers.
Right now, the PLA cannot even strike at most part of the world with any salvo depth (excluding nukes). Which is why the H-20 as originally envisioned is irreplaceable.