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

Re: PLAAF new JH-XX / H-X bomber soncepts

Totoro said:

radar stealth is just as necessary for strike platform as it is for fighter platforms. In some cases it's even more necessary. History of radar stealth suggests so - f117 (striker), b2 (bomber), f22 (fighter), f35 (equally striker and fighter)

In striker role, jh7 isn't really much worse than j16. While in some areas is does fall behind - no in flight refuelling (but china has no meaningful tanker fleet anyway and no perspective/desire to substantially increase it in the next decade or so), can't do self escorting as well as j16 (in reality no one ever does that, sends strikers on their own. there's always packages of strikers and fighter escorts. US does it, IAF does it, everyone does it that way)

jh7 aiframes are young. J16, when they start coming online in year or two, won't be replacing existing jh7. They will be replacing either j7 or q5. But franco russe says so far q5 regiments were replaced exclusively by jh7 and j7 regiments were replaced by su30. Since there were new jh7 seen at xian, its still in production. It seems most logical to assume jh7 production will go on and it will keep replacing remaining q5 regiments. At the same time, throughout this coming decade, j16 will be replacing j7 regiments (or possibly some oldest j8 regiment).

i simply don't see plaaf looking at j16 as jh7 replacement. It may see it as party taking over some of its duties, or better to phrase it - sharing some of its duties, but a proper jh7 replacement is going to have to come in a form of something else. In today's world a proper striker MUST be a plane with low radar cross section. Otherwise f35 wouldn't be the way it is. f117 wouldnt have been the way it was, etc.

strike ucavs will eventually come, for sure. in 10 or 15 years some first regiments may come online. But that's just part of the strike requirements. for real time target search and target assesment, as well as better reactions over enemy territory meaning better survivability, manned planes will still remain in action for some decades after that. unmanned option in a plane with a cockpit seems like a pretty decent idea, once one gets over a certain size treshold. It seems US will be going that route with their striker/bomber. If chinese striker is large enough, it may be worthwhile to go that route as well.

And jh7 replacemnt is definitely going to be larger than jh7. adding stealth, adding fuel to get that stealthy airframe and a big load of weapons 1500+ km away - that's going to be a pretty big plane. Perhaps some will not label it a bomber, but it will at the very least be bigger than f111/su24/su34, and perhaps by a considerable margin (50% or so).

what's the alternative? non stealthy j16 serving as main striker for another 30 or so years? Such a platform would get decimated in modern high threat enviroment. some large stealthy bomber to complement it and replace h6? Which will be expensive enough that less than 100 will probably be operational. That's really not nearly capable enough strike force for china's future air power.

Click to expand...

Hmm, I see. It might just be a semantic disagreement then. I don't see something 50% bigger than the F-111/Su-34 as something that replaces the JH-7, but something that can take over and expand on some of the JH-7's roles, while adding on a significant set of new capabilities and mission options.

If we look at what the JH-7 is, it's fundamentally a platform that emphasizes ground attack and precision strike roles while also being a bomb truck much like a J-16, F-15E, F-111, or Tornado. One of the reasons why I suggested the J-16 is meant to replace the JH-7 is because of this almost complete overlap of capabilities and roles. The only thing the JH-7 has over the J-16 is probably cost. When it comes down to it everything the JH-7 can do, the J-16 will be able to do as well.

What you're talking about is something that can replace the precision strike roles of the JH-7 while also expanding area penetration and accessibility, but wouldn't be able to perform the same CAS and ground attack roles the JH-7 can (I imagine that's what the J-16 is for). I think if we're both talking about something 50% larger than the F-111 we're getting into H-6 replacement/peer territory. If that's the case though, I don't see this supersonic stealth bomber as a replacement for the JH-7 as much as a replacement/peer for the H-6, with the ability to perform some of the less precision and ground oriented mission roles of the JH-7, especially as guidance capabilities evolve.

In other words, the way I understand the development of the PLAAF's force composition, the J-16 replaces the JH-7 as a ground attack and precision strike platform for smaller targets, while the hypothetical supersonic bomber would be able to perform the JH-7's strike role for larger targets deeper into enemy territory. As for the need for real time target search assessment, I imagine that's why we're seeing so many surveillance UAV prototypes. As communications and sensor technologies improve, this is one aspect of manned missions that I see becoming mechanized and automated. In a sense, it might be better to not talk about a specific JH-7 replacement, because the JH-7 won't be so much replaced as squeezed out as the PLAAF's capabilities continue to modernize.

EDIT: Darnit, while I was gathering my thoughts and organizing my response Blitzo beat me to the punch.

EDIT2: Finally, to clarify my original point about strike platforms not needing stealth, what I was getting at was that whether stealth is necessary or not wholly depends on the kinds of strike capabilities you want. I'm not sure you need stealth to perform most of the intended mission roles of the JH-7, which was why I pointed to the J-16. If we're talking about expanding what a JH-7 type plane could do though, then stealth would have to be part of the conversation. That said, I stand by the notion that a stealthy supersonic platform 50% bigger than the F-111 is more of an H-6 peer than a JH-7 peer. An H-6 sized stealth bomber wouldn't be able to get as granular as a JH-7, but you might not need that kind of precision deep across enemy lines. The idea of a strike UCAV would be for that very purpose though, which would make a stealthy platform JH-7 to F-111 sized somewhat redundant.

Re: PLAAF new JH-XX / H-X bomber soncepts

Huitong has added H-18 to its website.



What i find strange is that it also lists H-20, another stealth bomber, apparently based on the B2. Is china developing 2 stealth bombers at the same time??

Re: PLAAF new JH-XX / H-X bomber soncepts

kroko said:

Huitong has added H-18 to its website.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

What i find strange is that it also lists H-20, another stealth bomber, apparently based on the B2. Is china developing 2 stealth bombers at the same time??

Click to expand...

Earlier rumours suggested that it was an either or proposition, but it's feasible for China to pursue both. I think skepticism rests with whether the PLAAF really wants to take up so many ambitious force modernization projects at once, and if they really need what both kinds of platforms. IF PLA is pursuing both though that tells us a lot about what kind of air force they want. It might also be telling us that the H-20 might end up being bigger and/or have longer legs than we thought to prevent too much overlap and redundancy of roles.

Bltizo said:

Speed is necessary for the inevitable escape. Chances are once you've dropped your load you will be detected and IDed. CAP and SAMs will chase you like hell hounds. That's where supersonic dash comes into play. If you can turn tail quickly and reach Mach 2 and hold it, then no AMRAAM or SM-6 will be able to properly chase you down, assuming they get a positive lock in the first place. Pursuing fighters may true to continue lobbing missiles, but neither superbug or JSF can hold supersonic speeds for very long and indeed the former will be hindered at high speed due to external ordnance.
Optimally this striker should have supercruise capability between Mach 1 and 2, with a supersonic dash capability of Mach 2-3. But that's probably too much for a plane that size, so supersonic dash of Mach 2 will have to be enough.

Click to expand...

I was joking with a friend earlier that precisely because of this kind of threat supercruise might have to return as a requirement for the USAF.

Re: PLAAF new JH-XX / H-X bomber soncepts

kroko said:

Huitong has added H-18 to its website.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

What i find strange is that it also lists H-20, another stealth bomber, apparently based on the B2. Is china developing 2 stealth bombers at the same time??

Click to expand...

We should differentiate between a "stealth bomber" and a "stealth striker".

Think of H-20 as a B-2/subsonic LRS-B, and think of H-18 as the aborted "interim bomber" of the USAF -- one of the proposals being a much lengthened YF-23, called FB-23. Such an aircraft may have proven to be the best comparison with H-18. USAF ended up cancelling the interim bomber because they desired a single larger bomber with greater range. PLAAF may be able to have a home for both a theater ranged bomber and a larger strategic bomber, only both will probably be bought in smaller numbers than the USAF's LRS-B

latenlazy said:

I was joking with a friend earlier that precisely because of this kind of threat supercruise might have to return as a requirement for the USAF.

Click to expand...

I think it's a little bit late now for USAF to change their LRS-B requirements to include supercruise. Not to mention the inherent engineering difficulties of making a strategic ranged bomber have both stealth and supersonic flight.

That said, if Lockheed's SR-72 succeeds it could very well become the base for a very potent hypersonic striker. Problem is, it will be many years until such a plane can be fielded in operationally relevant numbers, if at all.


I wish I had friends IRL that could understand a joke about military weapons procurement shambles :S

Re: PLAAF new JH-XX / H-X bomber soncepts

kroko said:

Huitong has added H-18 to its website.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

What i find strange is that it also lists H-20, another stealth bomber, apparently based on the B2. Is china developing 2 stealth bombers at the same time??

Click to expand...

There is nothing strange about it. Both bombers would serve different needs. The near term one is to enable China to reach out and strike American assets such as carrier battle groups. This would be an aircraft that has both speed and stealthiness. The long term one is to be able to strike targets on continental America. This would be a strategic bomber that resembles the B-2.

Re: PLAAF new JH-XX / H-X bomber soncepts

Via Hongjian / CDF .... come on, when I wake up tomorrow, just a tiny image !! PLEASE !!!

Re: PLAAF new JH-XX / H-X bomber soncepts

(deleted)

Re: PLAAF new JH-XX / H-X bomber soncepts

Centrist said:

This is crazy

JF-17 Block II, JF-17B
J-10B, J-10C
J-11D,
J-15B
JH-7B
J-16
J-21
J-21 Naval?
J-20
J-20 Naval
H-18?
H-20

Why so many redundant projects? Why does China need a JF-17B AND a J-16? Why need an H-18 AND H-20?

Click to expand...

JF-17 block II/B is an export project
J-10B/C is simply next generation J-10
J-11D... well no one really knows if J-11D will flower into production or if it even exists
J-15B, at this stage it sounds just like a J-15 with improved avionics, little to no structural changes
JH-7B, just JH-7A with IFR probe and better avionics, and no one knows if it will enter production (i.e.: no pictures)
J-16, is a large strike fighter to replace older MKKs, Su-27s, not to mention Q-5s and JH-7s
No one knows if J-21 if PLA sponsored yet
Naval J-20 and J-21 competition still seems ongoing

H-18 and H-20 fill very different roles.


I'd argue J-16 and JH-7B may fill the same role, and I don't think there's a need for a J-11D either.
But every other project seems valid. In fact H-18, if it is a long range, stealthy, supersonic striker, may prove to be among the most crucial and useful of the above.

A few of the above projects may not reach production anyway.

Re: PLAAF new JH-XX / H-X bomber soncepts

Bltizo said:

I think it's a little bit late now for USAF to change their LRS-B requirements to include supercruise. Not to mention the inherent engineering difficulties of making a strategic ranged bomber have both stealth and supersonic flight.

That said, if Lockheed's SR-72 succeeds it could very well become the base for a very potent hypersonic striker. Problem is, it will be many years until such a plane can be fielded in operationally relevant numbers, if at all.


I wish I had friends IRL that could understand a joke about military weapons procurement shambles :S

Click to expand...

I meant for fighters to counter a Chinese supersonic bomber (since the interception/interdiction mission roles basically got absorbed into the F-22, which then got cancelled) XD.

Re: PLAAF new JH-XX / H-X bomber soncepts

new generations of planes get heavier. especially including this recent jump with added stealth.
someone compared f15 and f22 as being of similar size. that's very much not the case. meters mean little in aviation. weight means a lot more. and f22a is 50% heavier/bigger than f15c. f35 is again a plane that is going to be a true role successor to f16. it is over 50% heavier than f16.

i put 50% bigger striker than f111 as top limit, based on the recent pixellated drawing. but plane could be lighter. 20-50% heavier plane would work out to 55-70 tons mtow. that is, on average, two thirds of h6 weight class. so it cant really be regarded as true replacement nor peer airplane.

which is exactly why there seem to be two projects. because difference between supersonic striker and subsonic flying wing can't be just 20-30 %. That wouldnt make economic sense. That's why i expect the supersonic plane to be closer to 60 tons, and flying wing to be 100 tons or more. 100+ tons would make for a proper h6 replacement. whereas all the tech in the world cant make a 60 ton supersonic plane more fuel efficient than h6k. h6k would still outrange it, as it doesnt need to be designed around supersonic dash.

now, what we'll call it - a bomber or a striker, will it get a "jh" designation or just "h", that is completely irrelevant. it may be important for politics and so on, but for operations it doesnt mean a thing. actually, politics wise, both internal (to explain to the party why the need for TWO bombers, and to show the world that china isnt a threat) it would seem much wiser to label the smaller of the two planes as JH-something and call it a jh-7 replacement.