Well for the purpose of building a standoff weapon launch platform, a supersonic conventional strategic bomber does have its place. Obviously stealth would be better, however if PLA has an urgent need for such platform, I can see them going after a conventional design.
H-20 bomber (with H-X, JH-XX)
- Thread starter Deino
- Start date
Wait. But doesn't that go against most of the rumors and news we've been getting about a B-2/B-21 esque bomber design for the H-XX? Wasn't the H-18 supersonic bomber already ruled out? China choosing a conservative and inferior design for such a critical platform is unlikely IMO ... they know the PLAAF needs an entirely new stealth bomber given their current fleet of H-6s. Besides, they have considerable stealth shaping experience from their drones and J-20.
Except China has taken this long to develop a stealth bomber. Why would they cut corners now just to save a little development?
Last edited:
+development of supersonic bomber is at least just as expensive.
It's possible to cut some corners only if you developed such aircraft (designed to perform sustained flight on the very edge of performance envelope) before, and even thrn it's a mess (all supersonic bombers saw a very troubled development).
If you didn't (and China didn't) it's at least as much of a mess.
Making both at the same time is very hard, and not as cost effective: you won't stay stealthy at supersonic speed anyways, but all your coatings, seals and equipment will have to withstand temperature(including expansion) , pressure loads and so on on top of basic stealth and supersonic problems.
If you're building, say, your dedicated main carrier killer/(or similar)- it's probably worth it.
If not - ain't worth it.
It's possible to cut some corners only if you developed such aircraft (designed to perform sustained flight on the very edge of performance envelope) before, and even thrn it's a mess (all supersonic bombers saw a very troubled development).
If you didn't (and China didn't) it's at least as much of a mess.
Making both at the same time is very hard, and not as cost effective: you won't stay stealthy at supersonic speed anyways, but all your coatings, seals and equipment will have to withstand temperature(including expansion) , pressure loads and so on on top of basic stealth and supersonic problems.
If you're building, say, your dedicated main carrier killer/(or similar)- it's probably worth it.
If not - ain't worth it.
I don't think so. The USAF and VVS/VKS have both demonstrated that their strategic bombers have been used in conventional wars, including against lower tier foes as well.
Strategic bombers are strategic not simply because of their ability to carry nuclear weapons, but in a high intensity conflict they are strategic because of their range and payload.
They did, but only as a kind of justification, why nation's mosr expensive and advanced strike assets sit somewhere and do nothing on nuclear alert.
But if you'll see all strategic bomber history, they first obtained nuclear capability, and only afterwards (not always) added conventional one.
Furthermore, typically only part of the force is used, and the least useful one at that.
Say, during Vietnam War older b-52Ds were prefered, despite availability of much newer G/H and mach 2 capable Hustlers.
Same with B-1B, which received even dumbest bombs many years after their introduction, and mostly because of strong push to mske them do something useful during the Gulf War.
Current Soviet/Russian strategic bombers started receiving conventional capability only in this century(!), in form of Kh-555 missile.
But if we're putting conventional bomb truck role to the front, strategic bombers(developing new one, not using already existing ones)are just too expensive for the task. If it's so important, use MPAs, they are sort of large bombers too.
kwaigonegin
Colonel
I think you are both right. Strategic bombers by definition are nuclear armed or can be nuclear armed. Nations possessing such bombers also have in their inventory either guided or non guided nuclear weapons.
There are a limited number of countries who possess such weaponry but not an airborne delivery method.
Strategic bombers are obviously also bomb trucks and equally capable of delivering conventional ordnance when called upon due to their range and payload capacity but make no mistake, their raisons d^tre is the delivery of nuclear weapons as the third arm of the nation’s nuclear triad.
They did, but only as a kind of justification, why nation's mosr expensive and advanced strike assets sit somewhere and do nothing on nuclear alert.
But if you'll see all strategic bomber history, they first obtained nuclear capability, and only afterwards (not always) added conventional one.
Furthermore, typically only part of the force is used, and the least useful one at that.
Say, during Vietnam War older b-52Ds were prefered, despite availability of much newer G/H and mach 2 capable Hustlers.
Same with B-1B, which received even dumbest bombs many years after their introduction, and mostly because of strong push to mske them do something useful during the Gulf War.
Current Soviet/Russian strategic bombers started receiving conventional capability only in this century(!), in form of Kh-555 missile.
But if we're putting conventional bomb truck role to the front, strategic bombers(developing new one, not using already existing ones)are just too expensive for the task. If it's so important, use MPAs, they are sort of large bombers too.
Indeed?
Then, why does the USAF's requirements for the B-21 place nuclear capability as:
So why is the B-21, the USAF's new strategic bomber "only" intended to be certified to employ nukes a whole TWO YEARS after IOC? Considering IOC
Or, why the B-21 is described as "a long range survivable conventional and nuclear strike platform" (note how the word "conventional" is placed in front of "nuclear")???
I'm sorry if I'm laying this on a bit thick here, but if you truly believe that the primary purpose of a strategic bomber in this day and age is nuclear strike then I don't know what to tell you.
The role of strategic range and capacity conventional bombing in a conventional high intensity war should be considered as important as that of nuclear strike.
I'm not saying that the nuclear delivery capability is important.
I do believe that the nuclear delivery mission is as important as delivering conventional munitions.
But based on that belief, it also means that I cannot accept the idea that the primary purpose of a strategic bomber in this day and age is that of nuclear delivery and that delivering conventional munitions is only some kind of secondary role.
In #865, Gloire_bb is suggesting that the only reason a nation would seek to develop a strategic bomber is for nuclear delivery. I think the conventional delivery capability is a reason that is as equally as important.
Because nuclear matter is a poisonous topic?
Wait for IOC. Before IOC it's as valuable as this pic:
Harpoons, Phoenixes(!) and other dreams.
Not what it can't happen. It can(and it will clearly mark what primary consideration is China, not Russia, btw). But past experience tells to actually see it first.
Because nuclear matter is a poisonous topic?
Wait for IOC. Before IOC it's as valuable as this pic:
Harpoons, Phoenixes(!) and other dreams.
Not what it can't happen. It can(and it will clearly mark what primary consideration is China, not Russia, btw). But past experience tells to actually see it first.
"Past experience" of strategic bomber development is only the Cold War -- a period of time where both sides basically equipped all the primary strategic capable weapons with nuclear warheads as one of their primary missions if not their first primary mission. Strategic bombers, cruise missiles, IRBMs, all had a nuclear role or as their only primary role.
Trying to use the Cold War era of how strategic capable weapons were given missions to today, I think is flawed, don't you?
Otherwise, based on that logic we would have to think that DF-21D, DF-26, DF-16, KD-20 etc should all be primarily equipped with nuclear warheads, rather than conventional, which we know is not the case.
I'm surprised that you're still defending this position, because from what I can see, you are saying that for strategic bombers today, the nuclear mission still takes overwhelming precedence over conventional strike.
I'm saying that strategic bombers today should have both the conventional strike and the nuclear delivery mission as equal priorities at best.
I'm not sure how you can still believe your position is defensible.