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

ACuriousPLAFan said:

Because there will be chances where the H-20 would still have no choice but to fly through contested airspaces and/or over enemy-controlled territories where the enemy's aerial and surface-based IADS is still active, even as the PLAAF pilots, mission controllers and planners have zero intention of doing so.

In fact, it is absolutely impossible to guarantee that the H-20 would fly through airspaces that is completely free of enemy airborne and surface IADS assets, 100% of the time. Things can change for the best or worst at an instant on the battlefield pf today and going forward.

Hence, having at least certain degree of VLO capability as an option to rely upon is still very much better (and safer) than not having any at all.

Click to expand...

I don't see that as a compelling reason to compromise H-20's stealth and primary mission just so it could fit a larger missile that could easily be launched by other assets. Best way forward would either be building a H-6 mod like reviving the H-8 project or a dedicated bomber for ALCM carrying while H-20 should do what its meant to do.

ougoah said:

Stealth (penetration and survivability), speed (imparting energy and time to target), payload (volume and weight), Agility.

Four parameters to compromise. J-36 compromises out payload and some agility. J-50 compromises out payload to a greater degree. H-20 would compromise out speed and agility. JH-xx or non-stealth supersonic bomber as Beijing Hammer 2.0 would compromise out agility and stealth.

There's definitely other attributes to having a two platforms. It's a workaround on cost and powerplant limits to only a slight degree. No aircraft has all four in spades. B-21 compromises out payload (relative to B-2 H-20 and JH-xx), agility, and speed.

5th parameter is cost but J-36 is probably the only aircraft in the world that gets closest to the highest coverage. It has all of them to some decent degree but more payload than most fighters, similar speed, higher stealth, lower agility.

A hypothetical complementing bomber that is less stealthy or non-stealthy but supersonic and can carry at least 2 ALBMs, ALHGV, ALHCM would be also useful in other ways that H-20 isn't. Time to target and imparting energy. Having those two platforms simultaneously means all three major categories are covered (no bomber is going to be agile).

Click to expand...

If J-36 doesn’t need to compromise stealth for speed the H-20 doesn’t either, assuming cost isn’t a prohibitive issue.

For the role of lobbing air launched long range hypersonic munitions from thousands of km away, why even use a manned or LO platform at all? Why not design an unmanned platform that is essentially a jet powered reusable booster with loitering capability?

Tomboy said:

I don't see that as a compelling reason to compromise H-20's stealth and primary mission just so it could fit a larger missile that could easily be launched by other assets. Best way forward would either be building a H-6 mod like reviving the H-8 project or a dedicated bomber for ALCM carrying while H-20 should do what its meant to do.

Click to expand...

Sorry, but no. The Guancha Trios mentioned that it's no longer worth spending efforts and resources to revive the H-8 or even develop a B-52-counterpart for the present and going forward. That time has long passed.

The much better route to take right now would be to go all-in on the H-20 (with at least reasonable/sufficient VLO characteristics, signature management properties and ECM/ECCM capabilities) that would actually meet the needs of the PLAAF in order to survive and thrive in the battlefields of the future - Whether to lob standoff hypersonic missiles or to drop guided bombs over the enemy's heads.

【【军工组切片】施佬：搓什么运10？ 就该搓轰10！-哔哩哔哩】 (from 05:03 onwards)

latenlazy said:

If J-36 doesn’t need to compromise stealth for speed the H-20 doesn’t either, assuming cost isn’t a prohibitive issue.

Click to expand...

I doubt J-36 has B-21 level of stealth in either radar or IR.

ACuriousPLAFan said:

Sorry, but no. The Guancha Trios mentioned that it's no longer worth spending efforts and resources to revive the H-8 or even develop a B-52-counterpart for the present and going forward. That time has long passed.

The much better route to take right now would be to go all-in on the H-20 that actually meets the needs of the PLAAF that would survive and thrive in the battlefields of the future - Whether that be for lobbing standoff hypersonic missiles or to drop guided bombs over the enemy's heads.

【【军工组切片】施佬：搓什么运10？ 就该搓轰10！-哔哩哔哩】

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

(from 05:03 onwards)

Click to expand...

Then I would assume PLAAF will go *all* in, in the sense that there will be no compromises whether it be payload or stealth. But I would also assume PLAAF will be ready to eat the cost of procuring hundreds of H-20 because to do all that it sure will be expensive.

Tomboy said:

Best way forward would either be building a H-6 mod like reviving the H-8 project or a dedicated bomber for ALCM carrying while H-20 should do what its meant to do.

Click to expand...

It won't cost less than a stealth one, though.

Especially for China, which didn't do that type of plane by itself before, i.e. there will be development hell in process.

For US and Russia, it's lucky byproducts of investments made in other era (both somewhat compromised, but it's basket already on the table).
For China ... if really necessary (is it?), Y-20 variant will do.

latenlazy said:

If J-36 doesn’t need to compromise stealth for speed the H-20 doesn’t either, assuming cost isn’t a prohibitive issue.

Click to expand...

Yes but J-36 compromises payload (compared to bombers) to achieve both speed and ULO stealth.

H-20 has to compromise speed to preserve both ULO stealth and high payload commensurate with a strategic bomber (not a fighter or strike aircraft, a bomber!).

I just can't see H-20 being a ULO, supersonic strategic bomber with payload that can carry the larger ALBMs, ALHGVs, ALHCMs.

So yes, H-20 has to compromise something and those somethings could be where the second bomber picks up the slack and covers the bases. One platform cannot be all that. Even those concepts of supersonic stealth bombers compromise either stealth or high payload.

Tomboy said:

Then I would assume PLAAF will go *all* in, in the sense that there will be no compromises whether it be payload or stealth. But I would also assume PLAAF will be ready to eat the cost of procuring hundreds of H-20 because to do all that it sure will be expensive.

Click to expand...

The USAF procured ~100 B-1s during the 1980s heat of the Cold War and with plans to procure 130+ B-2s had the USSR not committed suicide. That's a total of 200+ bombers, not yet including the several 100s of B-52s still in service with the USAF at that time, had the Cold War not ended in the early-2000s.

As long as the PLAAF mission planners and the H-20 designers refrained from going on a ridiculous mission-creep shopping spree (supersonic/hypersonic-capable, CONUS round-trip without refueling-capable, sub-orbital/orbital-capable, must fit full-sized DF-26/27 inside its IWBs, etc etc), then it should be an achievable goal for ~100 units to be procured by the PLAAF.

ougoah said:

Yes but J-36 compromises payload (compared to bombers) to achieve both speed and ULO stealth.

H-20 has to compromise speed to preserve both ULO stealth and high payload commensurate with a strategic bomber (not a fighter or strike aircraft, a bomber!).

I just can't see H-20 being a ULO, supersonic strategic bomber with payload that can carry the larger ALBMs, ALHGVs, ALHCMs.

So yes, H-20 has to compromise something and those somethings could be where the second bomber picks up the slack and covers the bases. One platform cannot be all that. Even those concepts of supersonic stealth bombers compromise either stealth or high payload.

Click to expand...

Uhh there is no inherent compromise between stealth and payload or stealth and speed. The J-36’s payload is compromised by agility requirements, mainly preserving sufficient thrust to weight ratio.

Tomboy said:

I doubt J-36 has B-21 level of stealth in either radar or IR.

Click to expand...

You might be overestimating the B-21.

Tomboy said:

I doubt J-36 has B-21 level of stealth in either radar or IR.

Click to expand...

The former is dependent on the angle of the sensor, the latter is dependent on the speed of the aircraft (J-36) it is operating at. However it is pretty reasonable to say that J-36's planform and geometry is about as close as you can get to a true flying wing for a tactical air to air oriented aircraft.

Tomboy said:

Then I would assume PLAAF will go *all* in, in the sense that there will be no compromises whether it be payload or stealth. But I would also assume PLAAF will be ready to eat the cost of procuring hundreds of H-20 because to do all that it sure will be expensive.

Click to expand...

I think the best way to view it is that if you want to be able to conduct an aerial launch a long range hypersonic weapon against a high capability adversary, then you need capable VLO to even be able to get to your launch point (and return) safely as well as to not give the adversary early warning of your intention to conduct a strike and thus allow them to prepare/optimize their defenses.

Even assuming that such a mission is conducted in an environment where the PLA has been able to significantly degrade or outright eliminate US western pacific air forces and carriers and ground based air defense sites, Hawaii and Australia obviously remain relevant locations where sorties of ground based air forces and deployments of carriers can occur in a manner to harass, degrade or give early warning of a non-stealthy B-52 esque equivalent.


Putting it another way, if the goal of H-20 + long range hypersonic weapon is to enable the PLA to conduct comprehensive strike missions against central pacific, southern pacific or even eastern pacific targets, then VLO is going to be a requirement just to enable H-20 to get to its launch point undetected and then to get home safely, even if such missions occur at a stage of a high intensity conflict where the PLA manage to achieve air superiority in the western pacific.