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

Blitzo

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
Jeff Head said:
My guess is that the mistake came from someone other than those two.

Or...it was a simple error.

Who knows?
Click to expand...

Hehe we on SDF sometimes get our names wrong as well, sometimes due to typos, sometimes due to honest mistakes.

With all the new projects that may be coming out of the Chinese military aviation industry, one can forgive even a professional for getting a name wrong... Especially when many names are often dubbed by internet forum watchers like us, rather than released by the Chinese military in an official capacity.
 
Deino

Deino

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
Bltizo said:
Hehe we on SDF sometimes get our names wrong as well, sometimes due to typos, sometimes due to honest mistakes.

With all the new projects that may be coming out of the Chinese military aviation industry, one can forgive even a professional for getting a name wrong... Especially when many names are often dubbed by internet forum watchers like us, rather than released by the Chinese military in an official capacity.
Click to expand...


Agreed ... as such my first post was not really fair !:oops:
 
N

newguy02

Junior Member
Registered Member
Huitong updated the H-20 section:

"The latest report (November 2015) suggested that the aircraft could feature twin dorsal S-shaped stealth engine intakes similar to those of B-2."

So judging by this we could guess that the overall design is basically completed.
 
janjak desalin

janjak desalin

Junior Member
Bltizo said:
Actually, J-31 was the term used by all of us before it was revealed to be FC-31.[...]
Click to expand...
If I remember, correctly, at the outset, there were some that designated it the J-25. This might have even been the first designation given.

(Sorry, didn't recognize that I was replying to a month old comment.) Don't know why my browser takes me to older pages when I click on a thread.)
 
T

taxiya

Brigadier
Registered Member
Found this news
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

中航飞机研发中心：抢占前沿 追求卓越
“协同设计”引发飞机
总体设计的变革
马界祥



2015-11-26 09:37:46

中航飞机研发中心是我国目前唯一集歼击轰炸机、轰炸机、民用飞机、运输机和特种飞机设计研究于一体的国家级大中型军民用飞机设计研发基地，而总体气动设计研究则是中航飞机研发中心的“龙头”单位，是型号研制的原点、设计技术的聚点。

中航飞机研发中心总体气动设计研究所主要承担着军用、民用、通用、特种飞机的气动布局设计、人机工效综合设计、重量与平衡设计、隐身技术设计、短舱及进排气系统设计、气动计算分析、风洞试验技术、静气弹分析、载荷设计计算、操稳和性能设计分析、总体布置与外形设计、技术状态管理等工作。在几十年的型号研制历程中，他们先后完成了歼轰7系列、空警2000、运7系列、运8系列、轰6系列、“小鹰”500等重大型号的总体方案设计，以及若干重大预研课题的总体、气动研究，基本掌握了覆盖大中型飞机总体气动方案设计、计算、试验、分析全过程的关键技术，目前总体气动所包含14个主干专业、74个子专业，形成了先进、完整的设计体系。

多年来，总体气动人不懈努力、孜孜以求，先后攻克了大型飞机总体布局设计、大型飞机超临界机翼设计、全三维数字化设计及电子协调样机、多乘员多任务系统驾驶舱综合设计、背负式锯齿型并列双发大S弯进气道等一系列国内领先的关键技术，不断提升总体气动设计能力。同时，他们还与俄罗斯TsAGI，欧洲ETW、DNW、CIRA等国外研究机构开展了广泛的技术合作与交流，不断开拓技术视野，促进总体气动设计技术与国际接轨，使研发中心的总体气动设计能力始终居于行业前列。

在国家重大专项研制中，他们以型号研制为契机，通过型号研制提升综合技术手段与水平。在认真思考、总结以往设计经验的基础上，他们本着提高设计协作、减少中间消耗、增加推进力度、规范工作过程的原则，积极探索更加先进、更适合现代飞机设计的手段和方法。经过近5年的艰辛求索，研发出具有独创技术理念的“飞机总体协同设计系统”。

在“飞机总体协同设计系统”的研发过程中，总体气动所组织资深专家与技术人员，从设计流程、手段、人效、数据四要素出发，充分借鉴波音、空客、NASA Ames等研究设计机构的特点与做法，摒弃国内现有的生产线式研发平台的技术弊端，采用以数据中心为核心的柔性流程设计，将规范化和人效作用有机结合，使专业间从以往的串联设计走向了多学科协同设计，满足了现代飞机设计的技术特征，达到了国外最先进的第三代平台的技术水平。

要实现目标协同、过程协同和结果协同，而“飞机总体协同设计系统”就是实现这些协同的必要手段和平台。

经过型号的应用与测试，在国家重大专项研制过程中采用该系统后，设计效率提高了35%以上，设计协调性提高了20%上，数据的追溯性、有序性提高了25%以上。

这是当前飞机总体设计的一场变革。它实现了总体设计从“方案牵引型”向“协同设计型”的转变，有力提升了我国飞机总体设计的协调性和规范性，使飞机总体方案设计从技术跟踪时代进入全面研发时代，也使我国当前的飞机设计水平迈上了新的高度。
Click to expand...

The bold text says "solved......dorsal mounted saw-tooth shapped (highly) s(shapped)-(air)duct for twin engines and other key technologies".
I see this as an evidence of the stealthy bomber project is real and probably not just on paper, but rather on sub-system building and verification at least at this moment.
 
W

weig2000

Captain
taxiya said:
Found this news
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!



The bold text says "solved......dorsal mounted saw-tooth shapped (highly) s(shapped)-(air)duct for twin engines and other key technologies".
I see this as an evidence of the stealthy bomber project is real and probably not just on paper, but rather on sub-system building and verification at least at this moment.
Click to expand...

Not really surprising that China has been developing its stealth strategic bomber, but it's good to gradually see signs of such a program underdevelopment:

China Daily's long report on the needs for Chinese strategic bomber and interviews with the country's PLAAF insiders this year; Xi Jiping's touring of Xi'an Aircraft Co and sitting in a H6K cockpit. And now this official report on the preliminary research and prototyping of the key technologies...
 
janjak desalin

janjak desalin

Junior Member
janjak desalin said:
defencetalk.com has posted an article entitled:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, read here:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Though somewhat confusing as this article cites a Kanwa article which cites the China Daily, this article states that China Daily reported that in a "...recent military meeting...", it was "... agreed that a long-range strategic bomber would enable the air force to attack farther out into the Pacific Ocean, as far as the 'second island chain'.” Additionally, China Daily is cited as reporting that "The Chinese military defines a long-range strategic bomber as one that can carry more than 10 tons of air-to-ground munitions and with a minimum range of 8,000 kilometers (5,000 miles) without refueling."

Although I am not an adherent of the 'Second Island Chain" school of thought, I do understand their geo-strategic significance. Nevertheless, the two statements attributed to the Chinese military, above, to me are, incongruous. Consequently, I'll exploit that incongruity to wade into an earlier argument in this thread, the regional vs strategic bomber debate. Put simply, I'm a proponent of the regional bomber as the most relevant option. My definition of a regional bomber is a bomber with a range of 2500 statute miles This is roughly analogous to a casual definition of an intermediate range bomber. I won't rely on any literal explanations of why I believe this, but will simply post two google earth images of a 2500 mile radius superimposed upon four strategic locations in China. One point in the west and three in the east.[
Click to expand...
-3.jpg -4.jpg​

janjak desalin said:
From these images, it is plain to see that, in the east, the Second Island Chain (read Guam) is well within the 2500 mile radius, in the southeast, all of China's strategic objectives in this region are covered, and, in the west, all of China's strategic objectives as are also well within this range.

We should consider that US strategic ranges are based on it's position distal to the geo-political/economic heartland. Shouldn't China's strategic ranges should similarly be based on its distance proximal to the heartland? For those that are proponents of the strategic bomber concept, superimpose a 5000 mile radius upon the geographic extremes of China and see how little more is gained by doing so.
Click to expand...
It has taken me this long to go back and recognize that the statement, "The Chinese military defines a long-range strategic bomber as one that can carry more than 10 tons of air-to-ground munitions and with a minimum range of 8,000 kilometers (5,000 miles) without refueling", does not say a minimum combat radius of 8000 km (5000 miles) without refueling. Thus, the incongruity I interpreted was, in fact, in my interpretation, itself. Consequently, it may be that my graphic, illustrating a bomber with a 2500 mile combat radius (~5000 mile range) may, very well, indeed, be fairly consistent with the PLAAF conceptualization.
If so, I want a job!
 
Last edited:
Quickie

Quickie

Colonel
by78 said:
Cancel. To be posted later.
Click to expand...

3. Max range (?) = 8000 km ------> This should be the combat range? 8000 km is too small a ferry range for an aircraft of that size.

Edit: Then again, 8000 km combat range a bit over the top.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top