General incompetence.
H-20 bomber (with H-X, JH-XX)
- Thread starter Deino
- Start date
General incompetence.
Cross-posted from the Chinese airlifters thread:
That said, I wouldn't be surprised if the H-20 ends up being larger than the B-2 and is in the same MTOW range as the B-52 and B-1B (i.e. ~210-230 tons).
As for everything else regarding the H-20 (speed, design, altitude, operational methods, etc), I think the discussion and debate have long been settled in this thread. No contentions needed.
That said, I wouldn't be surprised if the H-20 ends up being larger than the B-2 and is in the same MTOW range as the B-52 and B-1B (i.e. ~210-230 tons).
As for everything else regarding the H-20 (speed, design, altitude, operational methods, etc), I think the discussion and debate have long been settled in this thread. No contentions needed.
I wouldn’t say “everything else is settled”, nor can we just so nonchalantly introduce the notion of a 230 ton H-20 and not consider the implications.
For example, what hanger and runways are going to accommodate a 230t MTOW *and* a B-2 style planform? (i.e., either the wing span gets eyebrow-raisingly large, or the planform differs, such as a GJ-X style cranked kite and lifting body).
I think what he means by "everything else is settled" is the idea/acceptance that a subsonic flying wing is still going to be the configuration of H-20, even if the specific details like size and flying wing style are yet to be determined. I consider that to be a fair basis of "everything else is settled".
The idea of a 230t MTOW H-20 compared to a previous consensus B-2 MTOW class H-20, is a slight departure, but also not that much of an increase in context of how big H-20 was already expected to be -- more importantly we have so little other definitive details of H-20 at this stage (especially in context of knowing that it's likely gone through at least one major revision), that spitballing out ideas including one of a "larger than previously estimated H-20" is not outside the realm of reason.
In some ways we are basically left speculating in the paddling pool of "large subsonic stealthy flying wing" and almost every permutation of that is fair game at this point.
I took use of the word - “design” - to include planform / “flying wing style”.
The three main ‘macro details’, of sorts, are; (1) size; (2) speed; and (3) planform / flying wing style. If only one of them is more or less settled, then it still leaves a whole lot up in the air - the H-20 could look like anything (out of a dozen or so designs that could fit the brief, if size and planform are variables):
Surely you can’t be hand-waving away size and planform? I would say those details are more ‘broad’ or ‘general’ - and are major details.
The three main ‘macro details’, of sorts, are; (1) size; (2) speed; and (3) planform / flying wing style. If only one of them is more or less settled, then it still leaves a whole lot up in the air - the H-20 could look like anything (out of a dozen or so designs that could fit the brief, if size and planform are variables):
- Massive B-2?
- GJ-X ProMaxx?
- Arrowhead?
- That hideous batwing inferred from the shadow in PLAAF’s GJ-11 promo video (I’m not sure if anyone [still / actually] thinks it’s a possibility)?
- Stretched out J-36?
- Something like those PAK-DA CGIs (fat body, lower-angled wing sweep, almost bordering on straight - hopefully no winglets/tails!)?
I’m thinking of a plane between 140t to 200t MTOW that’s used for carrying cargo (freight, people). The wing sweep is between 10 to 35 degrees aft and the wings could be mounted/joined either dorsally or ventrally to the fuselage. It could have between 2 to 4 engines (including 3). What plane am I thinking of?
At the current stage, with the limited amount of information we have, I don't think spending time on more discussions would actually bring us any fruitful results.
The most up-to-date information that we do have from the typically reliable/dependable sources on the Chinese internet so far can basically be summed up as follows:
- The H-20 is quite likely going to have a similar planform as the B-2 (i.e., pure flying wing), or some variants of it (e.g., some kind of cranked kite) if we want to keep our options open, which has been described as "could be disappointing to some PLA watchers/fanbois" by them;
- MTOW-wise, the H-20 is at least going to be as large as the B-2, if not somewhat larger (going by what they said about both the H-20 and the Sino C-5/An-124 having MTOWs in the "many 100s of tons" just recently).
- The H-20 is likely to appear before Zhuhai Expo 2026 at the earliest, and by the end of this decade at the latest.
Otherwise, I don't think there's much to squeeze out of it, and that's pretty much sufficient for us to be "settled" on this discourse for the time being, without wasting more energy and time on going nowhere. But if you refuse to be "settled", then you can take a trip to Yanliang and see it for yourself (but try not to get caught!).
Last edited:
Seriously? I am not the one stating that discussing / speculating on “almost every permutation is fair game”. It’s right there in my comment. It’s a waste of time.
There’s a big difference between “nothing to discuss because it’s pointless given too little is known”, and - “there’s nothing to discuss because everything is settled”. A flying wing or cranked kite, ranging from 170t to 230t MTOW, sits in the former category. Or are you just “settled” on a comparatively smaller range of permutations vis-à-vis 1 to 2 years ago? I for one am not “settled” with such variability (at least it’s great that subsonic isn’t one of them). I am “settled” to the notion that said variability / ambiguity makes (too much) discussion pointless.
We had some fairly specific details on the J-36 (55-60t MTOW, delta, 3 engines) and just look at all the options we came up with for what we thought the design might look like (a fun time nonetheless - shoutout to Nx4eu, Jason_ and others!).
And to have delayed the program, then according to credible rumours, go through a design revision — just to end up back with a B-2 pure flying wing — seems a bit weird to me, but still plausible. Im also struggling to parse your first dot point - did they really say/imply that fanbois would be disappointed at a B-2 pure flying wing planform, or rather a subsonic planform?
32 tonnes of payload and 14000km range looks pretty conservative considering these are the specifications for the B-52, which is not a flying wing, is an old heavy airframe and also has old inefficient engines.
(Note the B-52 engine replacement programme is supposed to increase range by 40%, which implies an increase in range to 20,000km.
That distance would be enough to cover most of the Continental USA from NorthEastern China. It would also cover all of Australia from China)
---
Such a 230 tonne Chinese stealth bomber would change the strategic calculus for both Australia and the US
(Note the B-52 engine replacement programme is supposed to increase range by 40%, which implies an increase in range to 20,000km.
That distance would be enough to cover most of the Continental USA from NorthEastern China. It would also cover all of Australia from China)
---
Such a 230 tonne Chinese stealth bomber would change the strategic calculus for both Australia and the US
Last edited:
Of the various you described, only an "arrowhead" and the PAK DA CGI configurations are outside of the bound of what I consider to be "subsonic stealthy flying wing" . The rest I view to be reasonable permutations that we cannot determine.
The way I see it, of the variables we are free to speculate on, includes:
- flying wing configuration (cranked kite versus continuous leading edge +/- trailing edge configuration)
- specific size, weight, wingspan, length and geometry in context of above
- specific engine and exhaust configuration/geometry (as well as intakes)
- other more "minor" details like MLG, sensor placement, canopy/cockpit geometry etc
But otherwise, a stealthy subsonic flying wing with a minimum MTOW that is at least >150t seems to be something that is within reason. And a 230t MTOW is a reasonable amount to consider imo (we're not talking about some sort of 400t monster or anything).
That's somewhat outside the bounds of the permutations that I view as consensus.
Not quite a generic vision of a subsonic stealthy flying wing.
Of course if the rumour base changes, then obviously we can adjust our expectations and consensus accordingly..