He's probably just saying something like "multirole fighters are better than bombers" (on a cost basis) -- a plane that can perform S/DEAD, shoot down other fighters, and incoming bombers by flying out to meet them.
H-20 bomber (with H-X, JH-XX)
- Thread starter Deino
- Start date
Preferring multirole fighters is not unreasonable but H-6 fills a pretty different role. Even pretty heavy weight multirole planes like J-16 cannot carry stuff like the big ALBMs. Also you need multiple J-16 to carry the same number of missiles and it's not really clear that would be cheaper.
And also people are always forgetting range... A smaller multirole aircraft cannot do the same job than a H-6 do without multiple refueling... H-6 crew have also the capacity to do longer flight without the drawback of being in a cramped cockpit.
The B-2 has a listed payload capacity of at least 18 tons, and estimates put that up in 20+ tons range. The J-36 certainly didn't have similar payload capacity as the B-2.
The B-21 is closer, and that's assuming that the IWB on both the J-36 and B-21 are identical.
Complement yes, replace no.
Nothing in the PLAAF has the weapon payload capacity that could rival the H-6K/Js, especially with range being considered.
Just for note - The B-2 has 4x F118 engines, which are considered low/low-medium bypass.
Provided that the H-20 has the same number of engines, and assuming that those engines have medium/medium-high bypass (as previously alluded by that high-bypass engine S-intake tender document) and similar general design (VLO flying wing), then the H-20 would have a significant range upgrade over the B-2.
I don't think it is impossible for H-20 to be capable of striking CONUS if you really think about it for the people that say such a requirement is ridiculous. A flight from Beijing to San Francisco is approx. 6500 miles or 10500km a round trip would be 21000km maybe shave 3000km off round trip for an air launched BM, that's still 18000km. If H-20 can cruise at Mach 0.8 18000km would take over 20 hours, they'd definitely need atleast one crew rotation for such a trip. Having extra accommodation for a set of extra crew would mean quite a large and spacious aircraft which could potentially mean more fuel capacity coupled with advanced high bypass engines(Potentially being a advanced WS-20 derivative) being more efficient and possibly a MTOW in the Tu-160 level should be able to allow strikes deep within CONUS with long range cruise missiles with a single refueling either on the way there or on the way back. Especially B-52H with it's decade old engines still have a ridiculous 14000km range and is expected to grow further with the reengining program hence I don't think it's impossible for the H-20 to have a similar if not longer range due to more advanced technology being used and also more importantly not being stuck with a nearly 80 year old airframe.
I would imagine that such a base would be in Heilongjiang, not Beijing, as you would save 1600km in distance doing so.
What are the chances of basing bombers in Russia? (With proper air defence LMAO)
It would be a real advantage if managed to get it done.
That'll be kinda of terrible tho, since to get anywhere you'd have to fly over western Europe which is bad as its pretty heavily monitored unless in the future China got EU to be a ally but then why not just base bombers in europe directly.
Uh, no, they'd fly over the Arctic and Canada to attack CONUS.
I mean sure if Russia would spare some land in their arctic region directly above China. IMO it would work, but on what condition will Russia accept a large Chinese airbase on their land