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

Study on the possible aerodynamic configurations and layouts of a stealthy strategic bomber:








If these photos are authentic, then China was or is looking into a blended-wing design. My attempts at translation are below. All units are metric. Feel free to add and correct as you see fit. I'm sure many of you speak much better Chinese than I do.

Photo #1:
1. Max takeoff weight = 200 tons
2. Useful load (?) = 50 tons
3. Max range (?) or Combat range (?) = 8000 km
4. Cruising speed = Mach 0.75 - 0.85
5. Cruising altitude = 9000 - 11000 meters
6. When cruising, the aircraft should have positive stability (?), with pitching moment approaching zero.
7. Internal-carriage volume (?) is no less than 300 cubic meters.
8. To ensure compatibility with existing infrastructure, max wingspan is to be no more than 70 meters.


Photo #2:
It shows the initial design concept. Table 3.9 lists the parameters as follows:
1. Length: 35m
2. Wingspan: 60m
3. Max 'thickness' of fuselage: 4.3m
4. Sweep: 45 degrees
5. Wing area: 910 sq. m
6. Wingtip cord (?): 4.0m


Photo #3:
This shows a revised design from the initial concept. Basically it says that the new design resulted from the following considerations and requirements:
1. Keeping the max. structural thickness at 0.5m.
2. Internal-carriage volume be kept at 360.5 cubic meters with carriage width of 10m and a minimum carriage height of 2.5m.
3. Internal-carriage volume being achieved without resorting to 'tapering' the shape of the carriage (i.e. making it into an odd shape in order to fit within fuselage).
4. Max. internal-carriage height not to exceed 4.1m, max length not to exceed 20m.
5. Internal-carriage must fit EIGHT 'max-class' cargo 'trailers', with each trailer having the dimensions of 2.99m x 2.44m x 2.44m and weighing 5670kg.

Quickie said:

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.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I was puzzled by this too. The dimensions of this concept is larger than B-2, and assuming a decent fuel fraction, 8000km 'max range'/ferry range does look ridiculously small. The document literally says 'max flying/cruising range', and I'm not sure how to translate that.

45-50 tons payload is more than Tu-160 can carry and double B-2 payload.

That could well explain lower than expected range specifications.

Lethe said:

45-50 tons payload is more than Tu-160 can carry and double B-2 payload.

That could well explain lower than expected range specifications.

Click to expand...

That's certainly possible, as the document doesn't specify the fuel and weapons load for the 8000km-range.

janjak desalin said:

Great Post!!!

I don't think this aircraft is the one referred to in the article I referenced, unless I'm interpreting far too great an emphasis on the stated lower payload limit of 10 tons. 50 tons is more than 10 tons, obviously, but it's so much more that I'd think that a platform with a 50 ton capacity would be more aptly described as one that can carry more than 40 - 45 tons.

As for the monster in your post, 50 tons at 5000 mile combat radius would put it at the top of the Strategic Bomber class in range, and second only to the B-1 in payload. And, that's only if the B-1 can can actually load out at 80% of its combined internal/external load. Of course, being that all the platforms I compared it to (B-52, B-1, and Tu-160) are 20th century technology, these incremental performance improvements might not be so significant when technological advances are considered.

Click to expand...

Chinese forums are saying that China is working on two stealth bombers, one supersonic 'mid-range' and one sub-sonic strategic. I wonder if the lower payload number is for the supersonic bomber, which IMH would make sense.

janjak desalin said:

As for the monster in your post, 50 tons at 5000 mile combat radius would put it at the top of the Strategic Bomber class in range, and second only to the B-1 in payload. And, that's only if the B-1 can can actually load out at 80% of its combined internal/external load.

Click to expand...

Internal payload of B-1B is 34 tons according to the Boeing website, and this is clearly the appropriate figure to use when making comparisons to a VLO aircraft with (probably) no provisions for external stores.

It is clear that the concept specifications call for a high internal payload capacity taking up a correspondingly large volume within the airframe. It follows that such a design would therefore have less volume available to store fuel. We can reasonably speculate that such a design would be intended first and foremost to operate throughout China's regional environment, perhaps with the ability to carry additional fuel tanks in the payload bays for longer-range missions, as can be done on the B-1B.

the paper is about a flying wing transport design ...

huitong said:

the paper is about a flying wing transport design ...

Click to expand...

A stealth transport? now we're talking! LOL

a stealthy bomber is a trasport aircraft with doors under its belly.