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

A

Akkarin

New Member
Registered Member
If striking Hawaii is one of the main objectives of the H-X then my speculations are of course wrong, but I already stated that. More specifically, I used this as my starting point:

Akkarin said:
1. US range requirements (i.e. US asia bases->chinese interior) are the same as Chinas range requirements (i.e. chinese interior->US asia bases)

2. The WS-15 has similar dry thrust and efficency as the F-135

3. Chinas acquisition program is also driven by costs and the need to build a large number of bombers.
Click to expand...

Considering that a 4 engine B-2 like aircraft is massively more expensive and much more likely to suffer from an procurement death spiral than a 2 engine B-21, I find it likely that china would also go with that option.

The whole Hawaii talk comes dangerously close to breaking board rules so I am not sure we should continue that discussion. However if a mod gives us the go-ahead I would be glad to explain myself.
 
Jeff Head

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
Akkarin said:
If striking Hawaii is one of the main objectives of the H-X ...

The whole Hawaii talk comes dangerously close to breaking board rules so I am not sure we should continue that discussion. However if a mod gives us the go-ahead I would be glad to explain myself.
Click to expand...
That is correct.

Let's not even go down that path.

Thanks.
 
Blitzo

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
tphuang said:
let's walk before run. I think if H-X can be at the same level as B-1B, then that will already be a significant achievement. If Russia offered Tu-160 to China right now, China would be extremely happy.
Click to expand...

Well H-X probably isn't going to look anything remotely like B-1B or Tu-160 at all, so I have a feeling the Chinese military wants something a bit more survivable instead of merely a big and long range bomb or missile truck.

If Russia did somehow offer Tu-160s to China I imagine they would probably be politely rejected, as they would be white elephants, and maintenance costs would probably be astronomical, even if we ignore costs of upgrading them to PLA standards and actually producing the aircraft to begin with.
 
Last edited:
Blitzo

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
Akkarin said:
Considering that a 4 engine B-2 like aircraft is massively more expensive and much more likely to suffer from an procurement death spiral than a 2 engine B-21, I find it likely that china would also go with that option.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say that necessarily.

B-2 suffered from production death spiral for a whole bunch of reasons, but the fact that it was powered by four engines and what that meant for its corresponding size, probably wasn't one of them. It was the relative immaturity of the new technology which probably caused costs to inflate, especially RAM and other VLO technology.

Similarly, the ambitious cost control goals for B-21 is probably less dependent on its absolute size or engine number, and more related to using more mature, more sustainable and more off the shelf technologies and subsystems compared to B-2 at the time.

So I think the important things to look at is the maturity of the various subsystems of the aircraft, especially RAM and VLO systems, more than the absolute size of the aircraft or the number of engines powering the aircraft.


In regards to H-X, the question I would be interested in is where the combined VLO capabilities of AVIC are at for H-X. If they are still "only" at B-2 levels of maturity or maintenance needs, then the aircraft may indeed be quite expensive. But if their recent experience with a variety of stealth fighters and demonstrators (all of course backed up by their own internal R&D) means they have been able to advance to more modern VLO and RAM tech closer to what may be envisioned for B-21, then the H-X may be more "affordable".
 
Blitzo

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
SinoSoldier said:
I was under the impression that, judging from the vast array of "leaked" rumors and potential schematics, the H-X is pretty much decided to be a 4-engine flying wing design.
Click to expand...

Yes, I think the consensus right now is definitely a four engine flying wing design.

My reply to Akkarrin was about why four engines vs two engines should not be perceived as the main reason for differences in projected cost of B-21 vs B-2
 
Jeff Head

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
Whatever it turns out to be...seeing the SIno Flying wing stealth bomber is going to be interesting.

It will have its own uniquely Chinese design features to it...I can almost guarantee it.
 
W

weig2000

Captain
Since H-20/H-XX is a strategic defense program, we can have some educated guesses about its high-level characteristics based on China's strategic requirements, and the existing Chinese and foreign bombers.

I think there are three high-level requirements: range, stealth, and payload, in that order.

Range is the most important criterion, given China's strategic environment, the locations of potential threat in Western Pacific and Indian Ocean, and the fact that China has no oversea bases. H-6K has a combat radius of 3,500 km. The new H-20/H-XX's combat radius needs to be substantially longer (i.e., at least 1,000 km longer) to reach the targets at and beyond 2nd island chain. Based on this, I'd say ideally H-20/H-XX needs to have a maximum combat radius of 5-6,000 km. This is similar to that of B-2A or B-1B.

Stealth is really about survivability. While some people talk about going the supersonic route (say B-1B or Tu-160). There are pretty board consensus that stealth flywing or B-2 and B-21 type are the better choice. This is reinforced by the recent disclosure that China has been doing R&D in the area of S-shape air inlet with twin engine configuration and seemed to have made considerable progress.

Payload is also one important high-level requirement, although it's probably flexible than the other two. I'd say anywhere between 15-25 tons would be acceptable.

It follows from the above analysis that H-20/H-XX will be very much China's B-2 or B-21. In fact, I would say it's much closer to B-2 than B-21 based on the range requirements. Some people have argued that since the US is developing B-21, it makes sense for China to follow suit and develop something more like B-21. I think that argument is rather superficial and misleading. The US needs B-21 because it already has B-2 (and B-1B). It needs a lower-cost version of B-2, in a sort of hi-low mix, so they can be deployed in larger quantity. B-21's shorter range is not a huge problem for the US because of its many oversea bases and extensive refueling capability. China already has H-6K, which has similar range to B-21 and is the "low" part in a high-low mix. What China needs is the "high" part of the mix.

Another way to look at the B-2 vs B-21 for China is look at the potential engine choices. There is simply no engine powerful enough for a twin-engine Chinese B-21. On the other hand, it is quite feasible for China to have a four-engine H-20/H-XX (for example, a WS-10 variant w/o AB).

Based on the above analysis, my conclusion is that H-20/H-XX is very likely a stealth flywing design and it is much closer to B-2 than to B-21.
 
Blitzo

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
weig2000 said:
Since H-20/H-XX is a strategic defense program, we can have some educated guesses about its high-level characteristics based on China's strategic requirements, and the existing Chinese and foreign bombers.

I think there are three high-level requirements: range, stealth, and payload, in that order.

Range is the most important criterion, given China's strategic environment, the locations of potential threat in Western Pacific and Indian Ocean, and the fact that China has no oversea bases. H-6K has a combat radius of 3,500 km. The new H-20/H-XX's combat radius needs to be substantially longer (i.e., at least 1,000 km longer) to reach the targets at and beyond 2nd island chain. Based on this, I'd say ideally H-20/H-XX needs to have a maximum combat radius of 5-6,000 km. This is similar to that of B-2A or B-1B.

Stealth is really about survivability. While some people talk about going the supersonic route (say B-1B or Tu-160). There are pretty board consensus that stealth flywing or B-2 and B-21 type are the better choice. This is reinforced by the recent disclosure that China has been doing R&D in the area of S-shape air inlet with twin engine configuration and seemed to have made considerable progress.

Payload is also one important high-level requirement, although it's probably flexible than the other two. I'd say anywhere between 15-25 tons would be acceptable.

It follows from the above analysis that H-20/H-XX will be very much China's B-2 or B-21. In fact, I would say it's much closer to B-2 than B-21 based on the range requirements. Some people have argued that since the US is developing B-21, it makes sense for China to follow suit and develop something more like B-21. I think that argument is rather superficial and misleading. The US needs B-21 because it already has B-2 (and B-1B). It needs a lower-cost version of B-2, in a sort of hi-low mix, so they can be deployed in larger quantity. B-21's shorter range is not a huge problem for the US because of its many oversea bases and extensive refueling capability. China already has H-6K, which has similar range to B-21 and is the "low" part in a high-low mix. What China needs is the "high" part of the mix.

Another way to look at the B-2 vs B-21 for China is look at the potential engine choices. There is simply no engine powerful enough for a twin-engine Chinese B-21. On the other hand, it is quite feasible for China to have a four-engine H-20/H-XX (for example, a WS-10 variant w/o AB).

Based on the above analysis, my conclusion is that H-20/H-XX is very likely a stealth flywing design and it is much closer to B-2 than to B-21.
Click to expand...

I generally agree.

Although I'd hazard to say that I expect H-X to be more similar to B-2 in terms of size, but that it will likely have been developed with the intention of being more sustainable and affordable than B-2 was, using the same kind of newer stealth technologies and advancements in other recent stealth projects. These technologies may not be as mature as what would be fielded on B-21, but I imagine the Air Force would have made every effort to reduce the maintenance requirements and increase availability of H-X as part of the design process, to avoid B-2's key pitfalls.

I also expect H-X to also be more future proof than B-2, and integrate certain EW/ECM and possibly cyber capabilities in the future as well, as with B-21.



Also, I think we can all basically ignore any discussion about a supersonic H-X as not being part of the real situation. All rumours point to a flying wing, and have done so consistently for quite a few years now. Even without the logical arguments for why a flying wing fits China's requirements so much better than a supersonic bomber, we have all rumours saying flying wing and none suggesting a supersonic bird.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top