I am just thinking from the base requirement of fitting a JL-1 into the IWB of a stealth bomber. JL-1 is a massive missile and extremely long, fitting even one into the internal weapons bay will require a massive flying wing aircraft. If Yankee and others are implying that is the requirement, then logically the plane has to be significantly bigger than B-2.Yes for sure ... just something like this!
Honestly, do you ever think before you write and even more post such nonsense? In fact I'm slowly loosing my patience with you ...
H-20 bomber (with H-X, JH-XX)
- Thread starter Deino
- Start date
My rendition has the capability for 2x JL-1.
Please start to read threads a little.
The longer the IWB length requirement is, the less likely it is that the planform will be a traditional flying wing (unless they plan on building a gigantic unfeasible behemoth).
We already have 60 year old C-5 galaxy with 500 ton Max take off weight flying. We have GE9x like engine that is so massive that it is equal in diameter to a 737.
These are known technologies. So, I don't see any reason why a big stealth bomber cannot be built. We already saw China can build a flying wing drone that is as big as the B-2. Surely, they can build a manned bomber twice as size as that.
We already have the advanced materials for structural integrity and light weight construction. We already have additive manufacturing technologies.
The main problem is China's lack of large hi bypass engines. But I am sure they are working on such engines.
Once the engine problem can be solved, there is no technical bottleneck to building a 300 ton stealth bomber.
For reference, a quick search shows Tu-160 is about 270 tons maximum. So what would be so shocking that the H-20 could be in the same weight range? Unfortunately i don't have the knowledge, but other more tech savvy folks can extrapolate from this relatively known parameter, ie JL-1, you need a bay this big, you need this much fuel and this much power to give such a LO subsonic bomber intercontinental range, ultimately giving a rough size estimate.
@Nx4eu the big LO subsonic bomber you sketched recently was it sized for JL-1? If so what kind of parameters you came up with based on that, ie size/power/weight?
PS: Just checked the CGI thread and saw the reply above. It's "merely" 260 tons for 2xJL-1. I think nevermind fancy alien-looking supersonic triangular designs that some of us still secretly dream of, if the real H-20 would roughly look like and be as big as depicted by Nx4eu we'd be all over the moon.
@Nx4eu the big LO subsonic bomber you sketched recently was it sized for JL-1? If so what kind of parameters you came up with based on that, ie size/power/weight?
PS: Just checked the CGI thread and saw the reply above. It's "merely" 260 tons for 2xJL-1. I think nevermind fancy alien-looking supersonic triangular designs that some of us still secretly dream of, if the real H-20 would roughly look like and be as big as depicted by Nx4eu we'd be all over the moon.
Last edited:
The only limitation is People's conservative thinking. I am sure if J-36's dimensions were released 1 year ago, people here would not believe it and call it unfeasible. But we have a massive supersonic 3 engine air superiority fighter that is twice the size of J-20 flying.
People need to understand that China is technologically breaking barriers in ways US and the west cannot imagine. They are coming up with stuff that seems almost sci-fi few years ago.
Compare to that, 300 ton stealth Bomber is not big of a deal. Sure, it will be extremely costly. But I don't think its technically that challenging. All planes operate with same kind of principles. If China can build 220 ton Y-20, they can also build a flying wing with similar weight. Its just a different plane shape and different control surfaces.
They already have the stealth technology, they have the ram technology. They have experimented enough with flying wing designs that they can build the control surfaces.
A 4 engine WS-20 configuration can probably fly with 300 tons.
Overall, I don't see any technological limitations for building such a plane.
C-5M MTOW is 380t you retard. Really, why are you still not banned?
Well, to be fair:
If having VLO (if not going for ULO) capability is a paramount requirement, then a pure flying wing design (namely B-2/B-21-esque) is pretty much unavoidable.
In addition to the known bunker width restrictions at Neixiang, that means the H-20's wingspan couldn't be as large as intended if the swept wing angle is to be kept similar to those on the B-2 and B-21 (which is ~35 degrees). This only leaves the option of increasing the sweep wing angle to ~40+ degrees (per @Nx4eu's illustration) if not ~50+ degrees (per my illustration, and closer to the GJ-11/21).
So, yes, such a degree of increase in terms of dimension and MTOW is indeed unavodiable if such massive IWB(s) is/are required for the H-20.
However, this is not to say that the claim that the H-20 will have MTOW larger than 300 tons is going to be true, as this would impose significant penalties and limitations on the viability and effectiveness of the PLAAF in terms of the H-20's procurement, deployment, operation and maintenance.
Therefore, if this "version" of the H-20 is real, then I do expect MTOW which is either about that of the B-1B, or somewhere in between the B-1B ans the Tu-160M. No bigger than that.
Otherwise, a cranked-kite design with a sharp "beak" would have to do in order to accomodate the large IWB(s), all while keeping the dimension and MTOW of the H-20 down, though obviously accompanied with the downside of (somewhat) worse VLO/ULO capability than pure flying-wing designs.
If having VLO (if not going for ULO) capability is a paramount requirement, then a pure flying wing design (namely B-2/B-21-esque) is pretty much unavoidable.
In addition to the known bunker width restrictions at Neixiang, that means the H-20's wingspan couldn't be as large as intended if the swept wing angle is to be kept similar to those on the B-2 and B-21 (which is ~35 degrees). This only leaves the option of increasing the sweep wing angle to ~40+ degrees (per @Nx4eu's illustration) if not ~50+ degrees (per my illustration, and closer to the GJ-11/21).
So, yes, such a degree of increase in terms of dimension and MTOW is indeed unavodiable if such massive IWB(s) is/are required for the H-20.
However, this is not to say that the claim that the H-20 will have MTOW larger than 300 tons is going to be true, as this would impose significant penalties and limitations on the viability and effectiveness of the PLAAF in terms of the H-20's procurement, deployment, operation and maintenance.
Therefore, if this "version" of the H-20 is real, then I do expect MTOW which is either about that of the B-1B, or somewhere in between the B-1B ans the Tu-160M. No bigger than that.
Otherwise, a cranked-kite design with a sharp "beak" would have to do in order to accomodate the large IWB(s), all while keeping the dimension and MTOW of the H-20 down, though obviously accompanied with the downside of (somewhat) worse VLO/ULO capability than pure flying-wing designs.
Last edited:
There are other examples:
Overall, my point is that 300 ton planes are not that rare or difficult. Flying wing is just a different type of shape for a plane, but I don't think that is the technical limitation. Originally, the biggest limitation for a flying wing plane was how it could be controlled without a rudder. But, by now, taillless designs are mature technologies.
Modern fly by wire control systems can deal with instability inherent in a flying wing design. Moreover, we have advanced composite materials that can deal with higher structural loads.
Last edited:
you don't need large high bypass Engines for stealth bomber.. please differentiate between low and high bypass Engines.
for large VLO subsonic bomber. there is likely a medium bypass thrust Engines.. just build bigger machine for more thrust.
B-2 single engine produce only 17,500 lbf thrust..
China has designed medium bypass ratio Engine specifically for H-20 bomber.. most likely a powerful high thrust machine.