What if mega bomber options and other what-if theories!
- Thread starter tamsen_ikard
- Start date
- Status
It probably can reach around the 8k if sacrificing the ability to perform maneuvers, but the PLA is unlikely to use it like that anyways.
A Twitter post claimed that the official broadcaster stated JL-1 has a range of 8000km, and this was then quoted by TWZ. However, no such statement was ever made in the broadcast.
I doubt it, it's a ballistic missile with a MARV. It spends most of its time outside the atmosphere and doesn't glide much, while you could probably get more range out of it if you attempt to pull up after reentry I doubt it'll add thousands of kilometers to its range.
It was someone on Weibo that spread the rumors, official cover on JL-1 was only that it was a long range missile which could mean max ranges within 5000-8000km. Someone simply just took the maximum possible range that still falls under this classification.
The one Ansarallah fires at Israel sacrifices range for terminal maneuver.
Why could the JL-1 not also do the same?
I fail to understand this persistent obsession with conventional strikes against CONUS (nuclear is a different story, of course). Even assuming you already field the requisite capabilities, the resources necessary to sustain such strikes are very significant. And there is certainly no shortage of targets in-theatre, as you already noted. Is it really the best use of finite resources to strike CONUS instead of Japan? Guam? Hawaii?
Geography is oft-cited as a major advantage w.r.t. supply lines and force projection and so forth. Surely the better approach is to embrace its advantages and fight battles closer to home. Win those battles, push forward and establish new bases, rinse and repeat. Cut off enemy SLOCs instead of immediately striking the enemy capital. Island hopping backed by superior industrial capacity is a tried-and-true path to victory.
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.
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.
I don't understand why a 300 ton H-20 is so infeasible to some people that its being categorized with 360K ton imaginary space carrier.
We already have 640 ton Antonov Mriya which flew 35 years ago. We have huge numbers of commercial Airbus A380 with 550 ton max take off weight flying every day.
So far, I have not seen any evidence from the naysayers as to why its so infeasible to them.
Whether a a particular airframe is technically feasible or not will depend on a few things, like material strength, engine availability, control system maturity and so on.
So far, I have not seen any technological bottleneck that China has to any of these aspects.
So, what is the factor that is making a 300 ton stealth plane infeasible?
Is it cost? I don't think cost will be an issue to China either.
So. I hope I can hear from experts here why they think such a plane is so difficult. I want to hear actual technical bottleneck.
We already have 640 ton Antonov Mriya which flew 35 years ago. We have huge numbers of commercial Airbus A380 with 550 ton max take off weight flying every day.
So far, I have not seen any evidence from the naysayers as to why its so infeasible to them.
Whether a a particular airframe is technically feasible or not will depend on a few things, like material strength, engine availability, control system maturity and so on.
So far, I have not seen any technological bottleneck that China has to any of these aspects.
So, what is the factor that is making a 300 ton stealth plane infeasible?
Is it cost? I don't think cost will be an issue to China either.
So. I hope I can hear from experts here why they think such a plane is so difficult. I want to hear actual technical bottleneck.
I think the only reason why China still does not a strategic bomber is that China or any other country in the world does not have the technology to build a bomber which can travel back and forth between US mainland and China without air-fueling.
Why does China need strategic bomber without air-fueling but US doesn't? Because China has no safe zones for air-fueling between US mainland and China, but US has so many. So before any new ground breaking technology which will enable planes to have a range of 20,000+ km emerges, China will not build any strategic bomber.
Plus, I don't see the advantage of bomber + ICBM over ICBM itself or submarine + ICBM.
Why does China need strategic bomber without air-fueling but US doesn't? Because China has no safe zones for air-fueling between US mainland and China, but US has so many. So before any new ground breaking technology which will enable planes to have a range of 20,000+ km emerges, China will not build any strategic bomber.
Plus, I don't see the advantage of bomber + ICBM over ICBM itself or submarine + ICBM.
It is usually true that missiles are cheaper than targets. But it is also true that targets usually require more missiles. So the calculations are tricky. This is where the importance of the target comes into play, and this is where strategy, politics and other aspects come into play. Well, I am not an expert...
- Status