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

Blitzo said:

The survivability of B-21 is in context of it conducting much closer in raids.

The H-20 we are talking about would be conducting initial high end missions at distances of 2000-3000km away from its target.


As for planform, what you've depicted is somewhat close to what I also imagine but I think it is a little bit too extreme. Something like below (with approximate characteristics), with B-2 for scale.
It's just for illustrative purposes of something I have in mind, the exact detailed numbers aren't so important (for a 10mg or even 15m length weapon bay you could probably make do with a smaller aircraft, like 30m length, 24m span)

View attachment 158950

Click to expand...

A 30m length, 24m span planform alongside for comparison, while keeping the same IWB length options.
Needless to say it would be a bit tougher to do in such a planform, but it also depends on the depth of the main bay, which could still make it fairly viable to mount four engines and the requisite air intakes

leibowitz said:

What would be the rough range and payload of this aircraft?

Click to expand...

I haven't really thought that far ahead, but for the 35m long version it would be no less than a B-2, probably a bit more in terms of weight.

To be honest in many respects it wouldn't be too dissimilar in scale/size to the low altitude penetrator concept (an AoA related to the ATB that led to B-2), except this would be oriented for high altitude performance (dorsal intake, no ventral fins or any fins for that matter), and focusing on IWB length rather than bay depth, and of course also using a much more modern planform.

Wrought said:

Well no it clearly hasn't, seeing as we don't have a whole bunch of diamonds flying around right now. Even a less ambitious shape like J-36 is still considered a big deal.

Click to expand...

X-47A flew in 2003

Tomboy said:

View attachment 158954
X-47A flew in 2003

Click to expand...

X-47A remains somewhat unique, and few other test aircraft have adopted such a planform let alone aircraft intended for production.

And even X-47A is somewhat different to the planform you posted earlier which was of a rhombus shape than the more kite like geometry of X-47A.



That said, the X-47A planform is one which I think could be viable for the feature/requirement set we are talking about. But such a pure rhombus I find more doubtful.

Tomboy said:

View attachment 158954
X-47A flew in 2003

Click to expand...

X-47A was called The Kite because it's, well, a kite. Not a diamond. It also never moved past the experimental stage. And even then, its successor X-47B moved further from the diamond shape, not closer.

Blitzo said:

X-47A remains somewhat unique, and few other test aircraft have adopted such a planform let alone aircraft intended for production.

And even X-47A is somewhat different to the planform you posted earlier which was of a rhombus shape than the more kite like geometry of X-47A.



That said, the X-47A planform is one which I think could be viable for the feature/requirement set we are talking about. But such a pure rhombus I find more doubtful.

Click to expand...

Even the X-47 has more alignment angles than the B-2/21 hence worse overall stealth due to non symmetry of the planform. Anyhow the issue with symmetrical planforms like a pure diamond is CoM, if they could sort that out I don't see why not. Another issue I was told about designs like this whether symmetric or not is that it'll have worse range. Which is most flying wing these days are B-2 kind and not kite/diamond. H-20 has been in development for so long and I'm confident it won't disappoint.

FriedRiceNSpice said:

My point was that while H-20 should be designed for launching hypersonic weapons with 2000-3000km range, a different platform should be utilized for even larger air launched hypersonic weapons with potentially 5000-8000km range, and that such a platform would diverge significantly from the H-20 in terms design characteristics and requirements. I interpreted the original discussion as concerning the need for a bomber to carry missiles even larger than the Beijing heavy hammer (13m+ missile, which I believed would be substantially larger than what would be required for 2000-3000km ramge missile).

Click to expand...

Won't need to.

In fact, recalling Cute Orca's proposal/suggestion on Weibo from 2 months ago - Even with ~6500-7000 kilometers of (unrefueled) combat radius flying from China's Northeast (Dongbei) - Having said H-20 lobbing HCMs or HGVs with ~5000 kilometers of maximum strike range over northern Canada would enable the coverage of pretty much the entirety of CONUS (except the southern portions of the Florida Peninsula, as usual).

With the same combat radius:
1. The H-20 launched from Dongbei or refueled above the Sea of Japan would enable reaching the 3IC;
2. The H-20 launched from Xinjiang would enable covering the entirety of Europe; and
3.. The H-20 refueled over the South China Sea would enable covering the entirety of Australia -
All without deploying the ~5000 kilometers of HCM or HGV payloads yet.



Sure, ~5000 kilometers of maximum strike range for a HCM or HGV can sound pretty wild at first. But remember that the TEL-launched, rocket booster + ramjet-powered DF-100 that is ~10.5 meters in length can already achieve ~3000-4000 kilometers of maximum strike range. A similarly-sized (if not slightly bigger) target missile (which could be the HCM or HGV as per alluded by the Guancha Gang) that is launched with altitude (~30-40 thousand feet) and speed (~Mach 0.9) advantages certainly could achieve ~5000-6000 kilometers of maximum strike ranges.

ACuriousPLAFan said:

Won't need to.

In fact, recalling Cute Orca's proposal/suggestion on Weibo from 2 months ago - Even with ~6500-7000 kilometers of (unrefueled) combat radius flying from China's Northeast (Dongbei) - Having said H-20 lobbing HCMs or HGVs with ~5000 kilometers of maximum strike range over northern Canada would enable the coverage of pretty much the entirety of CONUS (except the southern portions of the Florida Peninsula, as usual).

With the same combat radius:
1. The H-20 launched from Dongbei or refueled above the Sea of Japan would enable reaching the 3IC;
2. The H-20 launched from Xinjiang would enable covering the entirety of Europe; and
3.. The H-20 refueled over the South China Sea would enable covering the entirety of Australia -
All without deploying the ~5000 kilometers of HCM or HGV payloads yet.

Click to expand...

What will happen when H20/B21 goes through Russian airspace?

I frankly wonder, why you need deep stealth with these weapon ranges.
If the goal is strike from afar, can go with more moderate stealth, but a far more volume-efficient configuration.

Gloire_bb said:

I frankly wonder, why you need deep stealth with these weapon ranges.
If the goal is strike from afar, can go with more moderate stealth, but a far more volume-efficient configuration.

Click to expand...

Because even when launching that far from the target, the actual transit journey to the launch point itself and back, may be in airspace which at best is monitored by adversaries or nations that can give adversaries early warning of an attack, or at worst be in airspace that is actively being patrolled and defended by adversary forces (even if one degrades those forces).

Glad to see my efforts are finally paying off in opening people’s minds to this entirely plausible possibility. If it eventuates, I’m changing my handle to “@PLAprophecies”

ACuriousPLAFan said:

In the meantime, based on the aforementioned descriptions, I do expect something resembling this (or a less radical, cranked kite flying wing design variation of this), taken from the PS/CG thread:

View attachment 158939

Click to expand...

I’m thinking something like this:
Or this:

Tomboy said:

I don't see that as a compelling reason to compromise H-20's stealth and primary mission just so it could fit a larger missile that could easily be launched by other assets. Best way forward would either be building a H-6 mod like reviving the H-8 project or a dedicated bomber for ALCM carrying while H-20 should do what its meant to do.

Click to expand...

Too slow to runaway and not stealthy enough to hide or buy more time to run away.

leibowitz said:

Is it possible that the H-20 might be SSTO?

Click to expand...

No, your mind is too open, close it a little!

latenlazy said:

Uhhh why would you need an H-20 to carry a missile with the range of an intercontinental missile? You always have intercontinental ground missiles for intercontinental missile attacks.

Click to expand...

You said this in reference to 2000 - 3000km? That’s nothing special for a cruise missile.