Yep exactly. This then becomes a missile evolution path rather than an aircraft evolution. Why not both? PLARF certainly goes down the missile evolution path and all missile evolution paths. They are however distinct enough that PLA will have what you mentioned. In fact this is certainly the direction long range missiles will evolve towards. It will also have next generation aircraft that launch ordinance.
H-20 bomber (with H-X, JH-XX)
- Thread starter Deino
- Start date
Yep exactly. This then becomes a missile evolution path rather than an aircraft evolution. Why not both? PLARF certainly goes down the missile evolution path and all missile evolution paths. They are however distinct enough that PLA will have what you mentioned. In fact this is certainly the direction long range missiles will evolve towards. It will also have next generation aircraft that launch ordinance.
If you want the PLAAF to blow up its coffers, sure.
A tactical stealth strike mission involves more than lobbing long range missiles at a target. You have to execute discrete operations with good situational awareness to defeat potential countermeasures if you want to maximize your mission success odds. That’s why you still need a manned platform.
Well, I sure am interested to see how H-20 will turn out. Massive 10-15m long bays for the aforementioned air-launched HCM while also maintaining best in class stealth while also having global reach. I expect it to be different from the B-2/B-21 because there is no way a B-2/B-21 can fit both a long and massive bay while having wingspan under an acceptable length, doubt it'll be cranked arrow/beaked as studies show it is much less stealthy.
True no compromise between stealth and payload as the B-2 can attest. Stealth and speed is arguable. Pure flying wing (low speed) should be geometrically stealthier than something like J-36 (higher speed geometry) with two sweep angles. However this difference in ULO levels could be so marginal they can be overcome with materials. There are other elements in aircraft manufacturing that demand more attention than having one extra physical angle. These include gaps and gap management, moving surface management. J-36 is hingeless and utilises so many new breakthroughs in metamaterials, aircraft manufacturing techniques and moving surface/gap management. It could even be higher than B-21 since we don't know if B-21 employ hingeless and movable skins like J-36 already shown to be.
So even assuming no compromise between ULO stealth and payload and ULO stealth and speed ie you can make a supersonic "flat craft" like J-36. But there is compromise between bomber level payload + speed. There's obviously also compromise between agility and payload but bombers need not worry much for agility since that's asking for too much too soon.
H-20 will be able to only pick two of the three - ULO stealth, payload, speed. It can't have all three. Hence why I suggested that if it is true the PLA has two next gen "bombers" in development. They are H-20 which is ULO stealth and payload plus a hypothetical (J)H-xx which is payload and speed or ULO stealth and speed.
Surely zero chance. The SSTO or possibly was even only a TSTO aircraft they flew in 2021 and 2022 was NOT the H-20 but a dedicated space delivery vehicle and purely experimental. Take off from runway or vertically from rocket and landed via runway. Hence the uncertainty behind whether those tests were SSTO or TSTO and whether those test flights were of the same craft. Multiple engine types have been tested with that/those projects - combined cycle engines of the TRCC and TBCC types.
FriedRiceNSpice
Major
H-20 should have no problem carrying munitions with 2000-3000km range even without an oversized IWB. If we are talking about a platform for carrying even larger missiles, then such a missile would be expected to have ranges of 5000-8000km, at which point we are no longer talking about a tactical system.
It's dictated by the size of the payload, the range needed to get to the launch point, and the survivability of the platform.
- Payload size: a large weapon will need a large employment aircraft to house and carry it and get it into the air.
- Range to launch point: even assuming your payload has a relatively long range (let's say 2000km for the sake of argument), if your target is 8000km away, then your employment aircraft needs to be able to travel 6000km before it can launch the payload
- Survivability: your aircraft needs to be able to travel those 6000km in a manner where it is not intercepted, and ideally not detected so that the enemy doesn't have early warning to optimize/prepare their defenses against your payload.
Based on all of that, you inevitably will end up with a relatively large aircraft that has to be quite stealthy. We'll get to whether it is manned or unmanned later below in this post.
An aircraft which is not LO/VLO in nature is simply not useful even if it can physically accommodate the payload and has the range to the launch point, it will lack survivability against enemy early warning radars and CAP.
Putting it another way -- just because your employment aircraft doesn't have to do overhead bombing missions against an IADS, does not mean LO/VLO is not still vital. For the PLA, even if they are able to achieve air superiority over the western pacific, if they are wanting to conduct strikes against targets at Hawaii distances or Australia distances or even west coast of US distances, then part of their mission profile is going to be flying in more contested airspace even if it's over the open ocean rather than directly into the teeth of enemy IADS.
.... once the above prerequisites are all met, then it becomes a simple question of:
A) Do you want your employment aircraft to be a one way platform?
My Answer: a one way platform in theory could be cheaper and smaller as it doesn't have to return to home, but considering the above prior three prerequisites you still end up with a large and expensive aircraft so tossing those away as one way/single use platforms seems like a waste, meaning it should likely be a regular multi-use aircraft.
B) Do you want your employment aircraft to be manned or unmanned?
My Answer: considering all of the above characteristics, you're going to have a rather large, stealthy, capable aircraft, so putting in a cockpit for manned control of such a high value asset seems prudent. Furthermore, a manned crew in the aircraft also means you can use the aircraft for a variety of other mission profiles including being an airborne command/control asset, as well as ISR and EW. Which isn't to say that the aircraft cannot be designed to be "optionally manned" for certain specific mission profiles if needed. But it does mean that it should likely have a cockpit as a baseline feature.
Given all that, I don't really see a realistic way in which such an aircraft could not be a large, stealthy, manned bomber... which to be honest is not too different to what we always envisioned for H-20 to begin with anyhow.
The only difference now is that weapons bay length seems to be a driving design feature, which means a regular long wingspan flying wing won't work for it.
Carrying 2000-3000km range subsonic weapons is absolutely doable by a flying wing H-20 (B-2 esque geometry and size aircraft).
But, if you're wanting 2000-3000km range hypersonic weapons, especially weapons with a relevant/useful sized warhead and onboard ECM and ECCM, then that is a whole different matter.
To be honest, a modified, but enlarged planform that is like J-36 or X-47A in geometry could be somewhat viable for the aircraft we are thinking. And it could be only subsonic; adopting such a planform doesn't mean it will need to be supersonic capable at all.
It all comes back to this. Engines.
While China's caught up very quickly in aircraft engines of all types, particularly military ones, it still lags the US slightly to perhaps up to a decade.
US and China are both flying fuel combusting engines derived from last century. Combustion reaction engines will always be the primary limit to what we can do in aviation and there's no sight of anything revolutionary. People talk about flying saucers, anti-gravity this that and whatnot but if they existed, the world would undergo an industrial revolution we've never seen. Variable cycle engines will give these next generation aircraft a bit more push overall and a lot more efficiency - range. H-20 would have been designed around WS-15 I or II and intended for next gen engines like J-36. Even if it has the push and shape to go supersonic, it wouldn't be able to lob those heavy ALBMs we see strapped to H-6s. If there's a long and non-stealthy bomber that is designed to go supersonic and lob these large ALBMs strapped externally, it sure wouldnt be anywhere near stealthy. They can make it LO with effort but these two roles are so distinct.
While China's caught up very quickly in aircraft engines of all types, particularly military ones, it still lags the US slightly to perhaps up to a decade.
US and China are both flying fuel combusting engines derived from last century. Combustion reaction engines will always be the primary limit to what we can do in aviation and there's no sight of anything revolutionary. People talk about flying saucers, anti-gravity this that and whatnot but if they existed, the world would undergo an industrial revolution we've never seen. Variable cycle engines will give these next generation aircraft a bit more push overall and a lot more efficiency - range. H-20 would have been designed around WS-15 I or II and intended for next gen engines like J-36. Even if it has the push and shape to go supersonic, it wouldn't be able to lob those heavy ALBMs we see strapped to H-6s. If there's a long and non-stealthy bomber that is designed to go supersonic and lob these large ALBMs strapped externally, it sure wouldnt be anywhere near stealthy. They can make it LO with effort but these two roles are so distinct.
FriedRiceNSpice
Major
Wouldn't an air launched YJ-20 approach a maximum range of 2000km, and be able to be carried in an IWB of under 10m length?
I was under the impression the context of the discussion was for an aircraft capable of carrying even larger missiles than the so called Beijing hammer, which I would expect to have ranges exceeding 5000km.