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

Syrida2887

New Member
Registered Member
It's basically cuts since August from Guancha Trio programs like Chahuahui 察话会, weekly military review 一周军评 and various weibo posting from Ayi, Orca and etc. I will bet most of these (if not all) individual pieces had been discussed on this thread somewhere already. But this is a really nice compilation that gathers them together.

Various hints about timing, strategy/doctrine, range (CONUS or not CONUS), and classification.
You know, these well-informed people usually know the relevant news 10-20 days in advance, but they usually use various vague descriptions and hints to keep people's appetite, just like last December.。
 

leonzzzz

New Member
Registered Member
they usually use various vague descriptions and hints to keep people's appetite
I personally don't think this is ideal (nothing really is). It is taking considerable portion of effort from this forum just to dissect/analyze what they say, knowing that something they say were either intentially misleading or vague riddles. (especially in the case of Ayi, he is a little out there sometimes)

However I still think this is better transparency than before, and as a matter of fact they are probably the semi-official spokesperson of PLA development, knowingly allowed by secrecy officers.

It's still better than Trump's unhinged illogical spewing nonsense like the 2 engine F35 or "let's go back to steam CATs", or just the state of US MIC in general.
 

mack8

Junior Member
Let's see! Ayi doesn't agree with you, it's interesting who will emerge more informed:)
Leaked docs clearly show Izd.810 is supposed to carried by PAK-DA, so there is that for starters. Another interesting parallel is that both programs seem to have been delayed, i recall when claims were made in various western magazine that the H-20 will fly by 2020. In the case of H-20 the delay being apparently redesign/rethinking, while PAK-DA's might had to do with priorities or just the shift to the right that seem to happen with most modern programs.

At any rate, if H-20 flies as rumoured by the end of this year and PAK-DA follows not far behind, say sometime next year, that would be so much schadenfreude to be had in addition to nerds like us having the airgasms of our lives. As the saying goes, let's see who has the last laugh.
 

mack8

Junior Member
This, while pertaining to USAF musings, i think aligns reasonably well to my argument for an unmanned, supersonic, LO, regional bomber kind of airframe as an AAM truck to work with the H-20 along others. Yes, the americans are talking about subsonic, but i see no reason why China should not one-up them. Besides, such a supersonic, supercruising airframe would work wonderfully with the supercruising J-36/J-50.

Of course, as it is now GJ-X could serve as a missileer as well, but that would merely equal potential US capabilities in this regard. Like with the UADFs, China should look to outmatch the US whenever possible, in order to compensate for inferiority in other categories.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

PS: Not sure if this is more fitting for the UCAV thread, though as everything is interconnected these days it might pertain to both.
 

oldtowncrab

Just Hatched
Registered Member
Well, the very real possibility of that PSed satellite photo being meant for spoofing cannot be discounted. I would advise caution.



Still, taking a closer look at this PSed photo and making some rough measurements by taking the Y-20's wingspan at 50 meters, here are the results:

View attachment 161685

Provided that the overall configuration and dimension shown by the PSed photo are close to the real thing, then we can say this aircraft is likely slightly larger than the B-2, most likely with the same wing sweep angle as the B-2, and could fit IWB(s) with a maximum length of:
1. ~9 meters (if overall aircraft length is 3x IWB length, B-2-esque);
2. ~10.8 meters (if overall aircraft length is 2.5x IWB length); and
3. ~13.5 meters (if overall aircraft length is 2x IWB length, B-21-esque).

To be on the conservative/safer side, I'd settle with the first two options for the time being.

And once again, I would like to stress that please do take all the above information with a grain of salt for the time being.
Ignoring that this is PS, if H-20 ends up with a cranked-kite wing i will eat my sock

With GJ-X serving strike roles out to 2IC (and limited strikes against 3IC maybe, don't yell at me), H-20 is very likely configured for unescorted deep strike against 3IC and CONUS. That is a mission that requires very low observability against even low frequency radar, something a cranked-kite wing cannot achieve.
 

tamsen_ikard

Senior Member
Registered Member
Ignoring that this is PS, if H-20 ends up with a cranked-kite wing i will eat my sock

With GJ-X serving strike roles out to 2IC (and limited strikes against 3IC maybe, don't yell at me), H-20 is very likely configured for unescorted deep strike against 3IC and CONUS. That is a mission that requires very low observability against even low frequency radar, something a cranked-kite wing cannot achieve.
Deep strike with Stealth alone against a near peer adversary is unrealistic in the modern age. Radars and other sensors are only getting more and more sophisticated. You can probably get reasonably close and launch a stand-off missile with a high stealth flying wing platform. But expecting anything more will be very dangerous.

So, China will have to consider more than just extreme stealth when designing its Bomber. There will be considerations in terms of weapons load, range, Bomb Bay size, speed and many other factors. With all these factors into account, Cranked-kite could be the design they go for or other exotic designs.

My hunch is that China's Bomber will not look like the B-2 or B-21 in terms of shape even if its a flying wing design. There will be huge differences due to its own unique requirements.
 
Top