Why global range? Once you reach everywhere between Hawaii and Iceland, US loses their global range.
Its always better to win where you need to win than being able to lose anywhere
H-20 bomber (with H-X, JH-XX)
- Thread starter Deino
- Start date
Its always better to win where you need to win than being able to lose anywhere
H-20 need to be able to hit CONUS to cripple their industrial/economical centers, or it becomes WW2 where the US can just constantly rebuild due to their homeland being completely safe from attacks. Otherwise, the only way China can do real damage to CONUS would be extremely expensive ICBMs or SSGNs with slow turnaround time (Not to mention that before 095 comes out China has basically no chance of sneaking a SSGN close to US shores and you need them in large numbers to sustain attacks).
China is never attacking CONUS. Too far to sustain the kind of persistent damage you need to do for the effort to be worthwhile and frankly unnecessarily escalatory. Also strategically pointless because the US could just do what China does and nest production deep into its territory, where it becomes impossible to consistently strike without being detected by ground based radars. If you capture Guam and convert it into a Chinese base that alone would seal the US out. And if you’re really stingy destroying the bases in Hawaii would be more than sufficient. Without those bases the US can’t reach China’s periphery in meaningful capacity regardless of any industrial regeneration (which frankly the US doesn’t have that much of these days anyways). Try to be more realistic and practical what the requirements and needs are.
TBH it is plausible that the H-20 program has already been iced in favor of hypersonic, suborbital and/or orbital platforms, especially given the second Trump administration's visible embrace of emergent space based defense technologies, which is really an affirmation of SPACECOM/USSF programs and proposals that have been around for years.
Needless to say, China has been paying attention to these DoD developments.
This might have been a controversial statement a few years ago, but at this point there should be no contention on the fact that China is looking to surpass the US militarily, rather than to merely "catch up." This is evidenced by numerous developments that the US has no answer for, be it the Type 055 (Zumwalt doesn't work), DF-17/27 (let's not even get started), HQ-19 (no THAAD-ER yet), HQ-29 (KEI cancelled), or J-36.
China parameters defense mega projects on the bases of capabilities analogous and/or adverse US programs are intended to achieve, not what they actually achieve.
If that remains the case, the emergence of a subsonic H-20 or any H-20 appears increasingly unlikely.
How is that escalatory if the US is already striking Chinese mainland, China needs to be able to do whatever the US do in return even if it means destroying every oversea base the US has from here to Hawaii and then strike targets in CONUS. Albeit IMO by the time comes China should have a numerical if not technological advantage over the US as I don't foresee such a major conflict happening in the next decade or two.
Capturing Guam and turning it into a Chinese base is far more difficult than just destroying the US base on it. IMO at the minimum H-20 should be able to reach the third island chain from the mainland and conduct strikes which already makes H-20's range global. Strikes on Guam sorta of makes H-20 increasingly redundant considering how many assets China has that could do just that efficiently, there's also no bunkers housing significant assets in the second island chain that require a bomber to toss a MOP equivalent directly over it.
I don't think a suborbital/orbital platform is any harder to defend against than a long-range BM especially with the abundance of ABM systems(and future space based systems) nor would it be much cheaper. Hypersonic platform is plausible, but the technology required is still years away from what public research we have.
War is about strategic objectives not tit for tat. You set out unwinnable objectives and you will find yourself in a losing situation.
Capturing Guam is far easier than trying to meaningfully attrit production capacity in a continental sized country on the other side of the world, especially without nearby bases. You have a lot more assets that can directly crowd into Guam, which is a much smaller and closer place. The same geographic disadvantages the US has attacking China in its neighborhood also applies to China trying to attack the continental US. The US isn’t going to be able to do meaningful damage to the Chinese mainland and the same will be true the other way. Trying to make meaningful damage to the US mainland a critical strategic objective is both foolish and unnecessary, especially if it’s purely through bombers with unrealistic ranges.
That's not true, US right now has the geographical advantages considering they surround China with bases. If the US decides to do a surprise first strike, they might be able to do actual damage to Chinese industrial and economical centers especially if some bases in the second island chain could survive the initial counterstrike. China should work on establishing bases in US's backyard, not being able to reach CONUS while Chinese mainland is easily within strike range of US forces is a significant weakness.
If China didn’t have continental depth to diffuse strike volumes and the thickest air defenses in the world you would almost have a point. The Chinese mainland is not as vulnerable as you think. Landing a few missiles in a few production sites doesn’t do that much damage. Mass strike volumes would actually have to make it to the ground first to do the sort of damage you’re arguing. Furthermore, while the US surrounds China with strike positions their positions are also extremely exposed to attack from China, and those US positions have much thinner defensive depth. China now has the local advantage in both offensive volumes to attrit US positions around its periphery and the defensive volumes to neutralize any US strike positions that can survive.
You confuse being able to reach a target with being able to damage it. Just because you can poke someone’s forehead doesn’t mean you can exert any force to actually harm them. Meaningful strategy is not just positions on a board. Actual volumes of capabilities and force you can bring to bear also matter in the analysis. This is not a board game.
Finally, threatening the US mainland doesn’t by itself actually enhance China’s security. What threatens China’s security first and foremost is chiefly the US’s local force deployments around China, not the US mainland. If you threaten the US mainland but don’t deal with Guam or Okinawa you haven’t actually accomplished squat for your security situation. So don’t get ahead of yourself. Make sure you can neutralize nearer threats before you look to attack further threats. No matter what you have to beat the nearer forces first if you want to make meaningful strategic gains. There’s no clever shortcuts if you don’t want to be strategically frail. Good strategic position is built on contiguous consolidation of your positions, not by leaping around without any well connected foundations in the part of the map you’re trying to attack.
A bomber that can reach deep into CONUS is not that strategically valuable if it’s the only asset you can get that far and there are no other assets that can provide it meaningful support. Even a very big bomber won’t have the ability to do much durable damage against the regeneration abilities of a continental sized territory. Don’t be fooled by what the US does to smaller far weakens countries around the world. When the big boys are fighting the bar for meaningful capabilities is very different.
Last edited:
Doolittle type attacks are one off show of force, not how you win a war, and you don't need to build a dedicated platform for it. H-20 need to be able to create the conditions for crippling American industrial and economic centers, it doesn't need to do so on day 1 taking off from mainland China. US didn't firebomb Tokyo taking off from CONUS either
More importantly the first priority should always be to destroy American ability to target Chinese mainland, and it just happens a platform that can do so can also create the condition for Chinese strike on CONUS.
I think everyone's still implicitly assuming China won't capture any US islands or bases and the goal of attacks are preformative.
If China is going after CONUS, you can bet China's taking over everything not on CONUS.