Sorry, I typed this before you posted #3336 and didn't see it.
Not sure how reliable, but I got a PM today from a Chinese follower who noted, that I shouldn't expect the H-20 to be unveiled within the next 5 years since the PLAAF's priorities are the J-20, the Y-20/YY-20 - allegedly an even larger transport (what makes me suspicious) and development of the 6th generation fighter type, which will eventually appear quite close to the H-20.
So what do you think?
It is very plausible.
The case for urgent deployment of a strategic VLO bomber by PLAAF mirrors the case for PLAN's aircraft carriers. It is mainly based on emotional reasoning rooted in the instinct behind animal threat displays: "
my opponent has X therefore I must have X to match his display".
This instinct is highly irrational, because it is governed by the limbic system (emotional part of the brain) rather than the frontal cortex (cognitive part of the brain) but at the same time it is the limbic system governing our fight/flight/etc modes which provide the basis for all behaviour. In other words even though having X is counter-productive and may cost you success in a technological war not having X may cost you the motivation to fight that the limbic system provides so you won't
want to fight in the first place. It's a paradox because we are apes who haven't evolved for technological competition but ended up in it.
You can see that type of emotional reasoning even among experienced professionals. This is the issue of morale. For example CAS is not very effective in terms of target elimination but it has a massive psychological effect that often decides the outcome of the engagement on the ground. Similarly the constant overestimation of the effect of air power stems from the psychological effect of visible enemy/friendly presence in the sky which triggers an atavistic response associated with predators. This is why artillery triggers a different response than aviation. It's difficult to get PTSD from aviation because we understand enemy aircraft as predators. Artillery is meaningless so it shocks the system very quickly like motion sickness.
People want the H-20 because they want the
confidence that it will give them. Not necessarily the payload.
The logic for delaying H-20 is based on understanding how geography shapes the battlespace.
The US needs a long range bomber because of distance alone. Bombers are optimal because they maximize payload per plane over distance which in turn provides for minimal cost of delivery of one missile/bomb. There's nothing magical about bombers. They're just efficient bomb trucks. This is why Rapid Dragon was developed.
The VLO aspect of B2 came from its intended role as penetrating bomber tasked with destroying ICBMs which couldn't be done with cruise missiles. B-2 was not a cruise missile carrier. The VLO aspect of B21 and H-20 comes from advancement in radar technology which puts the same restrictions on missile carriers that bomb carriers faced 20-30 years ago. There is nothing magical about VLO. It's to put present day bombers where B-52s were 40 years ago.
So when resources need to be committed the question that needs to be asked is not "
how does PLAAF benefit from having a VLO bomber" but "
how much will it cost me to have VLO bomber in terms of other warfighting systems."
Not chest-thumping and war-crying but pencil-pushing and penny-pinching.
From this perspective H-20 is not a priority because China does not need to strike CONUS or US bases in Australia or Hawaii. China doesn't need to attack US at all because the US will damage itself just by entering the war.
The US is an overleveraged entity that has its current position explicitly due to its power projection which is facilitated primarily by its navy. This power projection enables the US dollar which in turns enables the funding for war. If the US commits its navy to countering China it can't commit its navy to sustaining its economic position. This is the reason behind the recent pressure on allied countries to realign in economic terms. The era of globalization was the era of US global naval supremacy which made US the ultimate arbiter of all trade disputes. With the loss of naval supremacy trade and resources need to be secured by other means and the best one is moving them to areas where USN retains power projection. The US is becoming more aggressive because it's getting weaker, not stronger.
But countries at war are volatile markets so as soon as US enters the war with China capital will inevitably start to flow to more secure markets wherever they may be. The US will try to drag everyone into the war to deny safe haven status for capital but even then the US will be under pressure to force China to accept a settlement quickly because the US is incredibly overexposed so as long as China stays in the fight the US has to expend resources it no longer has - because now it plunders the global economy just to stay afloat.
For any prolonged conflict the US can't outproduce China in naval terms but it can try to outproduce China in aviation terms. Therefore bombers are US attrition strategy.
Attrition
always matters.
So the question of bomber vs alternative is reduced to what is more effective in keeping China in the fight:
- more top defensive capability to counter US and allied air power in the region
- more top offensive capability to deliver limited and mostly psychological damage to enemy territory that may have the unintended effect of strengthening the resolve of Americans?
I think the answer is obvious.
Furthermore:
- J-20 and YY-20 are both necessary for air superiority - USAF operates 450-500 heavy aerial refuelers (KC-135/KC-10/KC-46) for ~2000 combat jets and ~300 heavy aux planes.
- Y-20 is a general heavy lifter in 65+ t range which provides rapid logistical capacity at long range - USAF operates over 270.
- C-5 equivalent is for transporting oversize cargo - necessary for sustaining distant bases in the theater at short notice.
Logistics always trumps tactics in war. Just
starting super-lifter program will make Pentagon think of allocation of resources.
This is why I don't see either H-20 or CV/CVNs becoming a priority in the next five years. The fundamentals must be addressed first. The YY-20 alone is the single most important asset - even more so than J-20.
You need to test the reliability of said follower, but he may be onto something. I'd like to see H-20 as anyone here but I don't think it's good
deterrence investment, especially right now.
