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

Re: PLAAF new JH-XX / H-X bomber soncepts

I am with the cat on this one, it seems more hype then anything right now and the way the Chinese government pulled the curtain on the J20 and J21 makes me think that if they had a stealthy bomber then the PLAAF should have done the roll out when Obama visited not to long ago.

Re: PLAAF new JH-XX / H-X bomber soncepts

My take is that we wait for another two weeks or so. If we don't get conclusive evidence by then we should close the thread down for being B.S. rumor. If we get more information on it later, we can reopen the thread.

Re: PLAAF new JH-XX / H-X bomber soncepts

Hyperwarp said:

• 
  [*=1]I just browsed through Paralay's PAK-DA collection and there are some similarities. I hope some douche is not playing with us by PSing some early PAK-DA sketches:

​
​

Click to expand...

No I doubt it, the profile on these in comparison to the blurry pics are too curvy and round.

Re: PLAAF new JH-XX / H-X bomber soncepts

siegecrossbow said:

My take is that we wait for another two weeks or so. If we don't get conclusive evidence by then we should close the thread down for being B.S. rumor. If we get more information on it later, we can reopen the thread.

Click to expand...

There is no reason the thread can't be left open to go silent naturally due to lack of things to discuss.
And when/if new photos do emerge it will naturally start again.

If it's closed, it just adds another delay for anyone wanting to quickly post photos etc, and they may just end up making a new thread for it instead.

Anyway this thread was originally opened for the mystery black model. Given at the least huitong agrees H-18 exists, I see no reason why we shouldn't have a place to discuss it

Re: PLAAF new JH-XX / H-X bomber soncepts

Well in the case of a similarity between the two there may be logic involved.
one) because of the technology shares of previous decades a lot of indigenous Chinese equipment still will retain a Russian flavor, this is because the PLA had to shape some of its doctrine to match the Russian designs they used for a long time.
Two) they may still be sharing parts, Russian built engines are still prevalent in Chinese military aviation.
three) common mission, form follows function just look at the Russian vs American shuttles, aircraft carriers, tanks and submarines their most efficient form, makes them almost identical in the case of stealth aircraft, when you compare the modern stealth platforms seen in the US,Russia and China they share a lot of architecture. And if the Chinese and the Russians both chose to try for a super sonic stealthy bomber, then logically they would both start with what they know. So since there fifth generation share some similarities so to would there bombers.

that all said I am skeptical that they could have something ready this soon, that we have not seen it already and that it was not shown off for the world as a subtle message to possible threats to Chinese interests.

Re: PLAAF new JH-XX / H-X bomber soncepts

I think you are overthinking the similarities a little.

Fact is, there are only so many geometries a supersonic bomber can hold.

Re: PLAAF new JH-XX / H-X bomber soncepts

Covered that in number two, the most efficient configuration. But then why choose a super sonic? I mean if you can do a super sonic stealthy bomber you can do a cheaper subsonic stealthy bomber. The answer is the mission role, that is defined by doctrine.

Re: PLAAF new JH-XX / H-X bomber soncepts

TerraN_EmpirE said:

Covered that in number two, the most efficient configuration. But then why choose a super sonic? I mean if you can do a super sonic stealthy bomber you can do a cheaper subsonic stealthy bomber. The answer is the mission role, that is defined by doctrine.

Click to expand...

Doctrine, or strategic/tactical needs. I myself am doubtful that China absolutely needs a stealthy supersonic bomber, but if they had one it would be a massive game changer.

Re: PLAAF new JH-XX / H-X bomber soncepts

TerraN_EmpirE said:

Covered that in number two, the most efficient configuration. But then why choose a super sonic? I mean if you can do a super sonic stealthy bomber you can do a cheaper subsonic stealthy bomber. The answer is the mission role, that is defined by doctrine.

Click to expand...

Stealthy supersonic bomber that can reach second island chain would be far more useful for the PLA than a subsonic stealthy bomber even if the latter is far larger.

Usually it's difficult to integrate speed and stealth especially on large aircraft, you choose one or the other.
If it's speed but no stealth, then you effectively have a Tu-22M3 or B-1, Tu-160 type plane. Massive punch, long range, and can escape from interception, but easily detected.
If it's stealth but no speed, then you have B-2, a difficult to detect bird but lacks the performance to GTFO if it's caught by enemy aircraft.

PLA will face both CVBGs and JSDF fighters and AEWC between first and second island chains. Airspace will be saturated with fighters and surveyed by all manner of radar. To deliver a payload through all that and get the plane back out alive, they need stealth and speed.


Thankfully they don't need such an aircraft to have strategic range, and can keep its combat radius relatively confined to the second island chain (air refuelling would of course increase it), so the engineering challenges of combining stealth and speed aren't as great (but will still prove formidable).

A stealthy high speed long range striker holds many missions:
-anti CVBG/shipping. A four plane formation carrying each with a few YJ-12s internally can ruin a CVBGs day.
-long range strike. internally carried LACMs and stand off weapons could penetrate a highly defended airspace and strike at targets. If we are looking at Japanese held islands with AShM or SAM launchers, a stealthy striker can get in and get out with near impunity against current and future generation systems. A modern Tu-22M3 or F-111 with modern stand off weapons and ECM are already formidable opponents, if the same kinematic performance and payload can be packaged in a VLO plane then interception becomes all the more difficult
-long range interceptor duties/missile truck. I'm sure an internal bomb bay can carry many PL-12s. Linked with a large attack AESA (assuming it has an air to air mode), such a plane with a large radius of action can support front line CAP with missiles. A stealthy, slightly smaller B-1R in effect.
-then there are more mundane missions like recon, ew, testing new generation weapons, etc.

Re: PLAAF new JH-XX / H-X bomber soncepts

Right it offers them Maritime strike, in the event of the PRC forcing it territory claims that means anti ship operations, a doctrine narrowed from the Russian play book but updated with low observable.