Well you made another interesting point of debate, Why these missiles have to be that long? They can be thicker and shorter and achieve the same range. Hypersonic glide vehicles are usually flatter as well. So, you don't need a deep weapons bay either. There are many ways to design the missile to fit the weapons bay.
H-20 bomber (with H-X, JH-XX)
- Thread starter Deino
- Start date
A round trip to hit the western coast of the continental US is about 20,000 km. A 16,000km long range bomber would already need munitions with at least 2,000 km range to land a connecting shot.
The theoretical subsonic H-20 I'm describing with similar design ratio's to the B-2 and B-21. Should be capable of a weapons bay 9-10m in length. Coupled with the >16,000 km range. With the known missiles of the PLA arsenal, this is completely doable.
The theoretical super cruising bomber with a range of mere half the pacific would require missiles requiring a range of at least 5,000 km.
Again I would like to state the benefits and tradeoffs of launching from a further standoff distance, the missile becomes much more complex and expensive, but it gives the bomber a safer launch distance. Another downside is once it's out of the bomb bay, it's susceptible to early detection and interception, versus if the bomber is able to carry the missile closer to the target it can reduce the reaction time of the defenders, at the cost of risk to the bomber itself.
The US will possess many detection assets across the pacific, a missile launch from the mid pacific could be easily tracked and give far more opportunities for interception.
Also, such long range missile is expected to be 13-15m long. The latest Chuahuahui made it clear that the PLAAF needs a heavy missile truck because H-6 is no longer sufficient for future missile due to limited payload. Whether H-20 is subsonic or supersonic, it should be expected to be a carrier unless they are working on another bomber specifically designed for this.
It doesn't have to make whole round trip, another option is to get aerial refueling while going there and coming back. If you are worried about tanker being non-stealthy. H-20 can also be designed to have buddy tanker option so that one bomber can refuel the other.
Going supersonic offers zero or negative survivability benefits for penetration in 2020s. It is literally the worst, dumbest option among alternatives like EW, active missile defense, neutralizing defenses with stand-off missiles, flying with escorting fighters, or even low altitude penetration.
Last edited:
Wood has a small RCS. I think we should just strap AAMs to WW2 era planes with wooden propellers to minimize RCS since kinematics is clearly unimportant.
Going supersonic is the only way to survive missile shots. That's how fighters evade BVR shots. Its very hard to shoot down a supersonic plane running away from you.
EW can be defeated, active missile defence is pipe dream technology, flying with escort fighters that can fly 14000 KM, Good luck with that.
You either go supersonic, or you go super-super VLO or you fire from a longer range. These are the 3 options available.
Uh huh. Not that simple.
Attachments
-
IMG_9956.jpeg
To be fair, b-21 is 4th in this picture.
3rd is mostly drones(though they tend to have sharper leading edge).