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

In a balance between speed, stealth and payload's own range (air launched HGV or HCM), China's apparently insisting on having all three. This is of course within the context of strike platforms to the 2IC and for some platforms also a part of the Chinese nuclear triad (missile/FOBS, SSBNs and strategic range stealth bombers).

H-6 is the one that needs its weapon to have considerable performance of its own. Stealth is H-20 and of course a GJ-X. GJ-x doesn't need to be strategic range if you just need it to operate in 2IC, unless you can guarantee tanker operations across the pacific and/or north pole. Would be nice to one day have unmanned strategic ranged bombers but that's looking too far ahead. Missing component is speed. If H-20 and GJ-X can carry smaller HGVs and HCMs that fit within internal bays, then the speed issue isn't one. Is it easier for China to field a supersonic GJ-X or H-20 or produce more types of air launched HGVs and HCMs? I think the answer is obvious.

JL-1 is entirely a weapon designed for the H-6 only. As recently speculated on this thread, it will not be the weapon for H-20. We can forget about sizing up the H-20 based on the JL-1's dimensions.

Why we limit ourselves on the potential payloads of H20 to JL-1 type missiles? We know China is very advance in hypersonic cruise missiles, and they are smaller than rocket-based ones. When firing at high altitude with high subsonic speed, a much smaller hypersonic cruise missile should be able to achieve the same range as a JL-1 size missile.
With that in mind, H20 with internal weapons bay(s) that is shorter than JL-1 is quite feasible.

00CuriousObserver said:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

鹰眼军视 mentioned today in response to GJ-X's emergence:

A certain type of manned stealth strategic bomber, now entering the final stage of its prototype phase, has as one of its key missions the undertaking of an air-based nuclear deterrence role. However, in human history there is no precedent for employing a new-generation unmanned stealth strategic strike aircraft to deliver nuclear weapons. Replacing manned stealth strategic bombers with unmanned stealth strategic strike aircraft faces multiple obstacles:

1. Issues of international morality and ethics

2. Ensuring the safety and reliability of nuclear deterrence

3. Questions of nuclear deterrence efficiency and strike costs

Therefore, at present there is no possibility for unmanned stealth strategic strike aircraft to perform nuclear deterrence missions. The manned stealth strategic bomber remains irreplaceable.

Large flying wing–configured manned aircraft no longer face technological obstacles.

---

The "Squidward" stuff are likely fluff so he doesn't get in trouble.

As for his credibility, I found this where he claimed Shenyang's 6th gen existed back in October

PLA next/6th generation fighter thread

Translation stated the proposal for 6th gen, fighter from shenyang are more advance,it incorporate AI tech.

www.sinodefenceforum.com

View attachment 161024
View attachment 161023

Click to expand...

When you are in technological disadvantage, you tend to argue in terms of “ethics” or “moral values”

If the H-20 is intended to carry nuclear strikes at CONUS, can we assume it'll be a one way trip? That will simplify the range requirement.

I believe both the French and Soviets had at some point planned for one way nuclear bombing missions.

JL-1 8000km is pretty insane. It can basically be an ICBM, go straight from Chinese airspace to almost continental US. There is no deep penetration needed, the bomber can stay in 1st island chain. No reason it is a one way trip. In fact the bomber is just a reusable first stage missile that safely return to the country. It is barely a 'bomber' anymore, it do not drop anything, it shoots.

Lets say we have JL-2 instead. Because JL-1 is already kinda old, and H-20 is not even out. It is plausible we would have a new missile that better fits weapon bay of steath aircraft, while retaining most of JL-1 capability, if not better. And there is no pressure to make those, there is still many years til H-20 enter service!

I think it is better if people stop using the name JL-1 specifically, and use a more generic term, like large air launched payload or something ("LALP"?) to signify that the discussion is not centered around the JL-1 missile but rather any and all long/large unitary standoff payloads

wuguanhui said:

If the H-20 is intended to carry nuclear strikes at CONUS, can we assume it'll be a one way trip? That will simplify the range requirement.

I believe both the French and Soviets had at some point planned for one way nuclear bombing missions.

Click to expand...

I'm pretty skeptical PLAAF would invest the huge resources necessary to develop a modern manned VLO bomber purely for nuclear strike mission. If nukes are flying then them coming from silos, TELs, subs, or stealth bombers is pretty secondary at that point. So the main purpose of H-20 should still be understood as a conventional strike platform and one way trip missions won't happen. The only reason such tactics were pursued in the 1950s to begin with was because ICBMs were not sufficiently ready so it was a desperation measure more than anything else.

alright, so I think it's interesting to consider what additional capabilities they can put into H-20 that does not already exist in J-36 or the large bomber type of UCAV that we saw recently or may discover in the future.

Since it is most likely manned, there are penalties with regard to what that entails. So, it is likely larger than anything we've seen. I think the fuselage would need to be a lot larger than GJ-X to accommodate the pilot related stuff and an even larger IWB + likely 4 engines.

It is likely to be able to reach supersonic speed. Range is unclear. Depends on how larger this will turn out to be.

I'm sure they will be able to hold at 1 MOAB type of bunker buster or maybe even 2 (so 20t payload and possibly even higher)

It would need to be able to carry 1 large ALBM internally that can be nuclear tipped. If it can launch at supersonic speed and the missile goes ballistic path, maybe 7000 km range (how far can a DF-26D sized missile launched from high altitude flying at mach1.4 go?) Maybe if it follows HGV trajectory, then range will be shorter like 5000-6000 km. IDK.

TK3600 said:

JL-1 8000km is pretty insane. It can basically be an ICBM, go straight from Chinese airspace to almost continental US. There is no deep penetration needed, the bomber can stay in 1st island chain. No reason it is a one way trip. In fact the bomber is just a reusable first stage missile that safely return to the country. It is barely a 'bomber' anymore, it do not drop anything, it shoots.

Lets say we have JL-2 instead. Because JL-1 is already kinda old, and H-20 is not even out. It is plausible we would have a new missile that better fits weapon bay of steath aircraft, while retaining most of JL-1 capability, if not better. And there is no pressure to make those, there is still many years til H-20 enter service!

Click to expand...

You are mistaken of original JL-1 (which was for Type 092) in late 80s. This JL-1 is totally different, only air launched and whole new missile and very modern

antiterror13 said:

You are mistaken of original JL-1 (which was for Type 092) in late 80s. This JL-1 is totally different, only air launched and whole new missile

Click to expand...

Jing Lei-1. From now on I will refer to it as such to avoid confusion with submarine missile.