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

Status
Not open for further replies.

00CuriousObserver

Junior Member
Registered Member
Today while discussing the maiden flight of the second B-21 Yankee, Shilao and Ayi again implied that H-20's requirement grew out of needing to be able to fit something like JL-1 inside an IWB.

In fact they implied that PLAAF needed a large ALBM with great range like JL-1 because of relatively lack of performance of H-6 variants against B-52 and Tu-95. And in turn these large ALBM then created the updated requirements for H-20.

While I really appreciate the updates from the trio, I hope you guys can post as much of the transcript and translation as possible, or at least a timestamp, instead of just a summary. Their podcast is often very cryptic, where exact phrasings are important and are often open to interpretation.

Timestamp starts at around 34:00
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Yankee: JL-1 — the reason it's made so large is still because the bomber's basic performance sets the limit (he then talks about how the H-6 is inferior to B-52 and Tu-95)

Yankee (a bit later): Because JL-1 caused the H-20 to be redesigned.

Yankee: How should I put it…

Shilao: You've got it backwards.

Ayi: Yeah, it's indeed backwards.

Yankee: Well… it's technically correct.

Shilao: It's… technically correct… but it doesn't mean what you're implying.

Ayi: The exact words were "Because JL-1 caused the H-20 to be redesigned", that's not wrong

Yankee: Right, right, if you put it that way, it's correct.

Ayi: That's exactly what was said, not wrong.

Yankee: Yes, but… the direction is wrong.


They then agreed to leave the remaining details for later, so we don’t know conclusively what the relationship is. It’s not guaranteed that the H-20 will carry JL-1.
 

Deino

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
Guys, I'll be honest, but it's annoying! It's terribly annoying that in some flagship threads people constantly digress from the actual topic and talk about what-if fantasies like 36,000 t XXL-aircraft carrier or now in the H-20 thread: You are discussing a mega-XXL bomber carrying two JL-1 ALBMs for WW-3 - openly named that way - scenarios as if it is likely, realistic or already a given fact.

IMO we are already as far away from what's realistic for the H-20 like the aforementioned 360k t aircraft carrier and therefore all this fuss - IMO nonsense - is now moved into this thread as well as any political BS including openly discussing WW-3 scenarios was deleted.

Either you continue here or better leave it.

 

bsdnf

Junior Member
Registered Member
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Xi Yazhou's take on H-20. His ideas seem fresh so might be worth considering.

First he points to the Soviet T-4MS supersonic bomber project:
View attachment 70259
This thing, had it been built and hit the on paper specification would have been superior to Tu-160 in almost every way. Same 45 tons of payload, getting to near mach 3 at top speed, more range than Tu-160 if cruising most of the way and still lighter than Tu-160. The secret is in its unique shape: flying wing body with short variable geometry wings. Xi notes that the long, slender shape (as opposed to B-2 and B-21) makes it suitable to carry very large air launched ballistic missiles of perhaps 8,000km range.

T-4MS and to a lesser degree Tu-160 had to have variable geometry wing because their mission called for penetrating extremely heavily defended airspace of a superpower at high supersonic speed while pissing out short range nuclear tipped missile ever which way to destroy every air defence in front of them until they reach their main target. If the requirement for supersonic flight can be removed than the same shape, that of a slender flying wing with short stubby wings would offer some unique advantages.

The vertical stabilizers, if carefully designed and using the right material could be made so that all aspect stealth of the aircraft can be maintained. Vertical stabilizers like that would offer this bomber much better aerodynamic control vs the method used by B-2, and thus make it much better suited to conduct bombing runs with precision-guided bombs when the bomber is not needed for strategic deterrence. When facing mass concentration of tightly clustered troops this bomber would be able to deliver devastating fire power without warning. Xi cheekily describe a scenario where a near future world power conducts a large scale amphibious assault on a scale not seen since the Normandy Invasion against an enemy who has concentrated his ground troops near the expected beachhead, unaware of an approach stealth bomber loaded with large number of JDAM type bombs.

Xi also points out that if equipped with synthetic aperture radar (eg, APQ-181 on the B-2) in the leading wing of the aircraft this bomber can also function in a recon role, mapping out terrain, locating targets and directing swarms of UCAVs while being unnoticed.

Thus by basing the design on T-4MS and sacrificing the supersonic flight in exchange for simplification with no variable geometry wings, Xi proposes that a bomber like this could fill all the requirements that a near future world power might require of this aircraft.

I recall at least one fan art of the H-20 with similar ideas:
View attachment 70262
Let's review Xi Yazhou's hints a few years ago, for example, he mentioned the need to carry a long-range air-launched intercontinental ballistic missile with a range of 8,000+ kilometers, which is exactly the same as the official data of the JL-1, hmmm ;)

And don't forget, Yankee also let slip around the parade that the "PAK-DA" is not far from a test flight.
 
Last edited:

Deino

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
....

And don't forget, Yankee also let slip around the parade that the "PAK-DA" is not far from a test flight.


In that case he is totally wrong! The PAK-DA is years from first flight if it ever will happen.
 

Racek49

New Member
Registered Member
Well, I'm starting to get the impression that the idea of a Chinese variation of the B2 or B21 has definitely been abandoned. Their use would be significantly limited, because China does not have suitable bases located around enemy countries. And the US has enough missiles at its disposal for those bases.
Of course, an aircraft as an intercontinental missile carrier is a certain solution. However, it can hardly carry more than one missile and this also makes it ineffective, especially when it launches a missile from a distance of 8000 km. Of course, the armament of the TU 160 makes sense, but China is somewhat further from the US. The range of the H 20 would have to be enormous, at the expense of carrying capacity. And Russia has enemies all around, so the flexibility of defense must be greater.
Just such a simple layman's thought.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top