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
- Status
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).
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:
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.
There's no magic in designing big stealth bomber, the question is wisdom of doing it.
Tu-160 size is unnecessary outgrowth of specific anti-ship weapon(kh-45), which was cancelled before its first flight.
Specifying deep VLO bomber for intermediate range ALBM is frankly weird.
Tu-160 size is unnecessary outgrowth of specific anti-ship weapon(kh-45), which was cancelled before its first flight.
Specifying deep VLO bomber for intermediate range ALBM is frankly weird.
Last edited:
The claim that ALBM development was spurred by the inability of the H-6 airframe to provide the same capability as the B-52 or Tu-95 is reasonable, I think. If the H-20 was developed as a B-2 counterpart, to strike CONUS it would need to cross through US allied air defense networks in the 2IC, or Russia. Over in the strategy threads I have seen some fan-made graphics showing H-20s or H-6s taking off from Russia, but resting the fate of an entire strategic capability on a foreign country does not sound like something China would do, no matter how friendly that country appears to be at the moment. In a worst case scenario Russia might be unfriendly some day.
Using ALBMs to avoid the densely defended northerly routes across the Pacific makes sense, given the PLA's penchant for self-suffiency. ALCMs just would not cut it; Tu-95s and Tu-160s still have to penetrate North American airspace to launch their missiles, it's not like they can hit CONUS from inside Russian territory. ALBMs also have better survivability, as while a barrage of cruise missiles could be intercepted by NORAD's various fighters, Golden Dome is just a pile of paper. ALBMs could get through literally unopposed (after being launched).
Building a flying wing with these weapons bay dimensions is not feasible. The wings would need a great deal of stiffness, which means more weight for reinforcement and less fuel. I think we're looking at a planform with a higher aspect ratio, something like the dart Rick proposed. That has the added benefit of enabling supersonic flight while being compatible with ELO.
I thought it was a fan art until this was revealed by the news media.
To be honest, they can send a bunch of modules (similar to space station) then connect it together like lego. Soon enough, a behemoth structure has formed.
US wants to take their war to space, so this is the best response from China.
The point of ALBM is:
(1)significantly extend range,
(2)delegate penetration to missile at the same time, as H-6 isn't survivable and can be tracked by anything which has LOS of it, from afar. Even at low altitude over sea.
This isn't mission that requires a deep stealth bomber. It requires "just" passing by Japan southern island chain(or north of home islands, or over empty eastern Russia), preferably at low altitude (to make coastal radars irrelevant). For that we need reconnaissance, strikes at key fixed radars(tower mounted ones), and medium range fighter escort in and out; even H-6 can do this well enough. After we pass Japan, interceptors aren't effective anymore(they don't have neither speed nor fuel to catch transsonic bomber in a rear chase), ALBM itself can be launched from a huge arc away from CONUS, spanning good ~10k km. This is beyond any effective fighter patrol.
Whole mission profile is perfectly viable with current force structure.
Starting in early 2030s, add in J-36s, which can do roaming interceptions beyond japanese islands, and add taste to interceptors' life.
Then we come to new aircraft.
What is VLO flying wing (i.e. all aspect, broadband stealth VLO)?
1, aircraft that can expect that it can't be tracked over long distances by means of airspace observation. That includes lower frequency radars.
2, aircraft that can normally expect to be aware of normal means of airspace observation long before those will be able to spot it by itself.
3, very efficient aircraft. We often forget, that before stealth, flying wing is just damn efficient at flying...provided you don't want long deep bays (see where it goes?).
4, through those 3 advantages, VLO bomber can employ smaller, shorter range effectors together with onboard means of reconnaissance, targeting and post strike evaluation, wastly increasing value of each succesful flight.
TLDR: this is penetration aircraft, built specifically - for a lot of investment - to operate over States. Which is reasonable, b/c for all their forward-deployed toughness, contintental US are suprisingly soft. There's ironically some merit in B-2 like sacrifice towards low altitude flight, because it just makes things easier near island chains. But if you're sure you're to remain stealth enough over the spawn of design life - no need really.
If you want "just" a better ALBM carrier - you aim for what Blitzo brought in many pages ago. I.e. this thing:
It will pass by Japanese island chain (especially since its it's stealth is mostly directed upwards!), and through very shape of the aircraft it's going to be massively easier to fit one long bay. Range requirement is greately reduced just because we rely on stand off. But again, that's just one launch attempt of light warhead per sortie, without even pen aids. No combat search, no strike evaluation, just 1-2 launches "somewhere", crew has no idea where even.
Last edited:
- Status