H-20 bomber (with H-X, JH-XX)
- Thread starter Deino
- Start date
SinoSoldier
Colonel
The rumor I posted from Weibo seems to be suggesting that SAC is pre-emptively researching the H-17, possibly with the hope of the PLAAF adopting it later on.
Also, how do we know the statement wasn't merely a personal thought from fzgfzy rather than a hint?
Can anyone help me out a bit a correct my summary? I'm a bit lost right now...
So in essence we have:
1. the new stealthy strategic bomber H-XX or H-20, under development from XAC - a subsonic flying wing design most likely
2. a smaller regional bomber once called JH-XX but later H-18 - a supersonic but larger design
3. this newly unveiled one, now called JH-XX but also H-17 - a supersonic but smaller design
Any corrections and help appreciated.
Deino
Lethe
Captain
It is in China's interest to maintain multiple competing design teams and production facilities for combat aircraft if it can afford to do -- and it probably can. If SAC is lagging behind CAC to the point of no longer being an effective competitor or alternative, then technology transfer and other reforms should be made to make SAC more competitive.
It is impossible to assess in detail the appropriate balance between the desired factors of efficiency, redundancy, and competition without access to far more data than is publicly available, and in any case the answers will change over time as e.g. the technological and industrial complexity of products increases. "Let a single winner emerge and gain an effective monopoly on combat aircraft design and production" is almost certainly not a desirable outcome, however.
Unlike other countries, China is free to look at what arrangements work best and best serve its interests, free from ideological attachments to notions of sacrosanct private property or "earned success". Of course the self-interest of e.g. CAC and SAC is still a factor, but it is the role of government to sit above such things and create and support outcomes that best serve the nation as a whole.
Last edited:
I'm sorry if my post was misleading. I meant smaller as in "not H-20". As far as I know, there are still two total (but I could be wrong).
That is certainly not what i'm suggesting at all. There is a middle ground to tread though. If SAC's recent products are less competitive, I do not want them to stop operations. I'm more in favour or sharing technology and talent between these SOEs but i'm against the nation buying and investing in a product that is inferior only to sustain operations of a company that has a less than ideal culture. My point is that SAC's survival is not (at least hopefully) dependent on securing PLAN contract. They ought to choose the best product for the conditions (like price, optimisation, time frame of delivery etc) rather than factor in a company's wellbeing. This seems to be hinted although i could have simply read things wrong. Whatever the case, SAC's wellbeing and survival should not be a factor at all. They are state owned and operated and at most, a change in culture would happen which probably ought to happen.
Looks like our mystery JH-XX.