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

I think most internet assumptions on H-20 comes purely from a desire to match B-2 and not anything strategic or tactically useful.

Its not to say a platform matches B-2 wouldn't have it's uses, but we have to keep in mind the ATB program that resulted in B-2 was started in 1979, before the age of long range precision standoff munitions, before counter-stealth existed, and before anyone even dreamed of combat drones.

Real world defence programs (ignoring whatever US navy or Trump wants to do these days) develops requirements first before the platform, and the requirements for a subsonic long range stealth bomber is already meet by GJ-X, and the requirements for high speed stealth strike can be mostly meet by J-36, so its unlikely H-20 will substantially overlap in that role.

If we look at requirements China might have for a large manned platform that's not already meet, IMO some possibilities are:
- Long range aerial / drone fleet command
- Stealth LPI AWAC
- Stealth tanker
- Point defence capability / energy weapons
- Survivibility that's well above what can be achieved by just stealth in the modern day.

If you then look at other Chinese large aircraft programs from H-6 to Y-9 to Y-20, it's highly likely H-20 will also have multiple variants for different roles, which means it won't be a single-mission aircraft like B-2

Whatever it is, I think it's fair to say it's unlikely to be just a heavy subsonic manned stealth bomber

iewgnem said:

I think most internet assumptions on H-20 comes purely from a desire to match B-2 and not anything strategic or tactically useful.

Its not to say a platform matches B-2 wouldn't have it's uses, but we have to keep in mind the ATB program that resulted in B-2 was started in 1979, before the age of long range precision standoff munitions, before counter-stealth existed, and before anyone even dreamed of combat drones.

Real world defence programs (ignoring whatever US navy or Trump wants to do these days) develops requirements first before the platform, and the requirements for a subsonic long range stealth bomber is already meet by GJ-X, and the requirements for high speed stealth strike can be mostly meet by J-36, so its unlikely H-20 will substantially overlap in that role.

If we look at requirements China might have for a large manned platform that's not already meet, IMO some possibilities are:
- Long range aerial / drone fleet command
- Stealth LPI AWAC
- Stealth tanker
- Point defence capability / energy weapons
- Survivibility that's well above what can be achieved by just stealth in the modern day.

If you then look at other Chinese large aircraft programs from H-6 to Y-9 to Y-20, it's highly likely H-20 will also have multiple variants for different roles, which means it won't be a single-mission aircraft like B-2

Whatever it is, I think it's fair to say it's unlikely to be just a heavy subsonic manned stealth bomber

Click to expand...

I think the biggest gap that China still needs to fulfill is range of Bombers. China lacks a Bomber that has the range to attack CONUS and thus put costs on US if there is a war and US attacks anything within the mainland soil.

It should have sufficient range to be able get close to CONUS, fire up its missiles and return. This range requirement can be reduced with Aerial refueling but it still needs to atleast match B52 and TU-95 ranges if it is to attack CONUS.

If H20 is just B2 sized and B2 ranged, then it will much shorter ranged than B52 and Tu-95 in its continental range. The recent large B21 sized drone we saw will not have the range to reach CONUS. So, it is not replacement for H20.

So, I think that is the key gap that China must fulfill. I feel the H20 will be large enough to have CONUS range and that will be the key difference between GZ-X and H20.

tamsen_ikard said:

I think the biggest gap that China still needs to fulfill is range of Bombers. China lacks a Bomber that has the range to attack CONUS and thus put costs on US if there is a war and US attacks anything within the mainland soil.

It should have sufficient range to be able get close to CONUS, fire up its missiles and return. This range requirement can be reduced with Aerial refueling but it still needs to atleast match B52 and TU-95 ranges if it is to attack CONUS.

If H20 is just B2 sized and B2 ranged, then it will much shorter ranged than B52 and Tu-95 in its continental range. The recent large B21 sized drone we saw will not have the range to reach CONUS. So, it is not replacement for H20.

So, I think that is the key gap that China must fulfill. I feel the H20 will be large enough to have CONUS range and that will be the key difference between GZ-X and H20.

Click to expand...

IMO this is a logical fallacy.
Continental subsonic strike missions takes so long they're aren't tactically useful, only symbolic.
If the goal is to symbolically impose immediate cost on CONUS like the Doolittle raid you can already do that by sending GJ-X on a one-way mission, or just use conventional ICBMs, after all if US is attacking Chinese mainland then we're already assuming nobody's mistaking homeland strikes as nuclear.
In either case it doesn't make sense to build a flagship platform for a just symbolic action.

What actually matters, strategically and tactically, is the ability to push the front eastwards until Hawaii, or west to the Atlantic coast.
What's actually needed is the ability to establish air and sea dominance to cut off US abiltiy to resupply Pacific islands and allow PLA to isalnd hop until US is contained to just CONUS.

Once you've island hopped to Hawaii, then China can go to town on CONUS without any meaningful American ability to retaliate.

China's goal isn't deterrence against US aggression by imposing cost, China's goal is hard destruction of US ability to continue aggression regardless if their want to continue or not.

Personally, I also think the requirement of a manned super/subsonic stealth bomber is gone with unmanned aircraft GJ-X

Nuclear triad is not necessary in my opinion with sufficient number of ICBM and SLBM.
However, if necessary, make a variant of J-36 to be nuclear capable. Won’t have the range for CONUS but can blow up Hawaii, South Korea, Japan and Philippines, (India too if they do something stupid. ) This allows the rest of the nuclear arsenal to focus farther targets.

Striking CONUS with limited conventional warheads isn’t going to tilt it into China’s favour. I can’t think of any targets that are THAT crucial. With the recent military converted container ship being revealed. A few of them packed with preprogrammed anti-surface missile or long range suicide drones like Geran/Shahed can unleash havoc across USA’s coast and it would be much MUCH effective and cheaper. With so many ships with unknown origins, flags, and owners. And even if one or two is caught and sunk, there can be many more and distracting for USN and their intelligence.


Some here argue is a prestige symbol but for a top tier aviation, but that is something Trump would do such as the Golden Dome and USS PEDO. (And very subjective and fanboyism that certain projects determines a branch to be top tier)
We don’t need such vanity projects and I am happy to see that PLA haven’t introduced any vain military projects into service and I hope they continue that path.

That said, I am happy to be wrong if PLAAF thinks is that important or have roles for it to be filled. I currently see it as an intelligence bait for USA.

Tomboy said:

View attachment 166956
Xian is done this year, so don't get your hopes up for anything

Click to expand...

Well, there is still January, and we know that the H-6K made its maiden flight in January 2007.

Nevertheless, I am sticking to my postulation that the GJ-X has supplanted much of what military observers traditionally expected of the H-20's role and that the actual H-20 - if there is one - would be a very different platform. From a technical perspective, the GJ-X should have equal or better fuel & weapons payload compared to the B-21, based on their similar dimensions and the fact that the GJ-X does not need to spare room for a cockpit and its ancillary components. From a logistics perspective, it would be much more useful for the PLAAF to have significant quantity of long-range, stealthy GJ-X than a small force of manned H-20 bombers.

Interestingly, the smaller and more versatile B-21 is supposed to fulfill the requirement that the B-2 couldn't: quantity. So it is almost as if the Chinese are adopting a similar philosophy but with an unmanned platform instead.

iewgnem said:

What actually matters, strategically and tactically, is the ability to push the front eastwards until Hawaii, or west to the Atlantic coast.
What's actually needed is the ability to establish air and sea dominance to cut off US ability to resupply Pacific islands and allow PLA to "island hop" until US is contained to just CONUS.

Once you've island hopped to Hawaii, then China can go to town on CONUS without any meaningful American ability to retaliate.

Click to expand...

I agree Hawaii is key to (winning or losing) WW3 and of course Guam.
China will need to perform an amphibious landing and hold onto these islands.
Much like how a frog can cross a large pond by jumping off lily pads, the H20 bomber can just "island hop" across the entire Pacific ocean using Guam and Hawaii as "lily pads".

Therefore the H20 bomber does not need super duper range. It just needs good enough.

H-20 H-XX is becoming game of chicken or egg ie which one came first. UAVs has eaten a portion of H-20/H-XX like subsonic LO side. Other side Phoenix can arise or not we all are eagerly awaiting. Rumors to fly in 2025 didn't eventuate physically. Same looks like in 2026. See what comes out in 2027.

H-20 or H-XX would take more time. Look at Y-20B, YY-20B and Y-15 are still taking time so is J-20A/S with WS-15. Literally it would take more time to designing, manufacturing and testing. Cosider the induction time frame for actual operationally active regiments.

How credible or legit is this? Allegedly via both CCTV and Xinhua News Agency's social media accounts!

Deino said:

How credible or legit is this? Allegedly via both CCTV and Xinhua News Agency's social media accounts!

View attachment 167531View attachment 167530View attachment 167529

Click to expand...

They are all credible and not faked screenshots. And yes this publicity is quite unprecedented. At the very least this shuts down the discussion on whether the H-20 program still exists, if not even suggesting a close timeline to reveal.

leonzzzz said:

They are all credible and not faked screenshots. And yes this publicity is quite unprecedented. At the very least this shuts down the discussion on whether the H-20 program still exists, if not even suggesting a close timeline to reveal.

Click to expand...

A friend replied additionally:

The account that published the video is indeed from Xinhua News Agency and CCTV.
However, the video is in an interview format. The speaker is Du Wenlong, a well-known military commentator. He does not represent the official stance of any government agency.

Xinhua News Agency and CCTV sometimes use this method to release "misinformation." For example, they frequently featured a resident military expert, Zhang Zhaozhong, in their previous programs. However, events have often proven his opinions to be completely wrong.
This isn't because Zhang Zhaozhong was uninformed and speaking nonsense, but precisely because he knew the truth that he deliberately spoke misleadingly. This is a form of information warfare.

Therefore, this news story should be treated with caution.

Click to expand...