After discussion with Deino, we have agreed to reintegrate the previously separated posts back with the H-20 thread.
However, this is done predicated on a few key things.
1) The recent discussion about the idea of a "revised H-20" based on being able to internally carry a couple of JL-1 sized air launched hypersonic weapons (whether it's ALBM or HGV or HCM), is derived from some credible noise on the Chinese grapevine. The veracity and concrete nature of such noise is yet to be verified, however given past PLA watching trends and rumours we can integrate the idea of "carrying a couple of JL-1 sized weapons internally" as a characteristic for a "revised H-20" design
2) Discussion around a "super heavy" bomber like a 300ton monster, on the other hand, is somewhat beyond the pale. Let's remember that B-2 is 170 tons, and the idea of H-20 being nearly twice as heavy as B-2, while also being stealthy, is excessive and we would need highly credible sources to provide rumours for us to take it seriously. All of which is to say, that kind of "free wheeling rumour" is too much and if people start throwing around ideas like being supersonic capable for a B-2 weight class or greater aircraft, that also becomes a waste of everyone's time. You know who you are.
3) Excessive focus on "striking CONTUS" and WWIII nuclear exchange scenarios. While we all appreciate that any sort of strategic bomber will have nuclear strike and long range intercontinental conventional strike as a mission, and such requirements will drive the way in which the "revised H-20" design may look like to a degree, if people are unable to exercise restraint and discipline around how they talk about this topic then it just ends up consuming the H-20 thread.
I encourage people to utilize the following characteristics as some approximate starting guiderails for discussion, as of September 2025 based on current credible rumours:
- "Revised H-20 design" able to carry a couple of long unitary payloads (JL-1 sized) is okay
- "Revised H-20 design" being about B-2 or slightly greater (say, up to maximum of 180-200ton MTOW) in mass is probably within reason
- Key characteristics including stealth, highly networked, maximizing range within its weight class, is also reasonable
However, things which are probably too much and should be avoided:
- Idea of being a super large bomber (like 300ton MTOW)
- Supersonic (or hypesonic !!!) speeds is somewhat unlikely at present to consider and would need heavy justification and design compromise in other domains (such as weight class)
- Use of unconventional or unrealistic powerplant/engines (high bypass turbofans for super large bombers, or ramjet/scramjet for high speed ideas)
- Idea of using a uber large non-stealthy transport design as a "rapid dragon" concept or designing a "modern B-52/B-1/Tu-160" is also unrealistic (overall, the talk of any sort of bomber aircraft which lacks VLO in this day and age is somewhat useless and unrealistic for purposes of this thread)
I will keep the H-20 thread locked for another day or so, to give everyone a chance to read this post.
And then I will unlock the H-20 thread.
I generally dislike giving "guidelines" around these flagship military threads, but it seems some people just lack common sense and a lack of restraint.
I won't name names right now, but you know who you are.
However, this is done predicated on a few key things.
1) The recent discussion about the idea of a "revised H-20" based on being able to internally carry a couple of JL-1 sized air launched hypersonic weapons (whether it's ALBM or HGV or HCM), is derived from some credible noise on the Chinese grapevine. The veracity and concrete nature of such noise is yet to be verified, however given past PLA watching trends and rumours we can integrate the idea of "carrying a couple of JL-1 sized weapons internally" as a characteristic for a "revised H-20" design
2) Discussion around a "super heavy" bomber like a 300ton monster, on the other hand, is somewhat beyond the pale. Let's remember that B-2 is 170 tons, and the idea of H-20 being nearly twice as heavy as B-2, while also being stealthy, is excessive and we would need highly credible sources to provide rumours for us to take it seriously. All of which is to say, that kind of "free wheeling rumour" is too much and if people start throwing around ideas like being supersonic capable for a B-2 weight class or greater aircraft, that also becomes a waste of everyone's time. You know who you are.
3) Excessive focus on "striking CONTUS" and WWIII nuclear exchange scenarios. While we all appreciate that any sort of strategic bomber will have nuclear strike and long range intercontinental conventional strike as a mission, and such requirements will drive the way in which the "revised H-20" design may look like to a degree, if people are unable to exercise restraint and discipline around how they talk about this topic then it just ends up consuming the H-20 thread.
I encourage people to utilize the following characteristics as some approximate starting guiderails for discussion, as of September 2025 based on current credible rumours:
- "Revised H-20 design" able to carry a couple of long unitary payloads (JL-1 sized) is okay
- "Revised H-20 design" being about B-2 or slightly greater (say, up to maximum of 180-200ton MTOW) in mass is probably within reason
- Key characteristics including stealth, highly networked, maximizing range within its weight class, is also reasonable
However, things which are probably too much and should be avoided:
- Idea of being a super large bomber (like 300ton MTOW)
- Supersonic (or hypesonic !!!) speeds is somewhat unlikely at present to consider and would need heavy justification and design compromise in other domains (such as weight class)
- Use of unconventional or unrealistic powerplant/engines (high bypass turbofans for super large bombers, or ramjet/scramjet for high speed ideas)
- Idea of using a uber large non-stealthy transport design as a "rapid dragon" concept or designing a "modern B-52/B-1/Tu-160" is also unrealistic (overall, the talk of any sort of bomber aircraft which lacks VLO in this day and age is somewhat useless and unrealistic for purposes of this thread)
I will keep the H-20 thread locked for another day or so, to give everyone a chance to read this post.
And then I will unlock the H-20 thread.
I generally dislike giving "guidelines" around these flagship military threads, but it seems some people just lack common sense and a lack of restraint.
I won't name names right now, but you know who you are.
