Please be more serious.
Doesn’t mean the H-20 can be a wunderwaffe for this “problem”.
H-20 bomber (with H-X, JH-XX)
- Thread starter Deino
- Start date
Yes, penetrating heavily defended airspace is exactly what stealth bombers are designed to do.
Depends on how much sensor coverage there is in the area you’re trying to penetrate. Stealth planes aren’t invincible magic, especially against another high tech power. Once again, please be more serious.
Funny that you assert this when the US literally used B-2s yesterday and insisted on total IADS destruction beforehand and fighter escort even against Iran, odd choice if they're truly so invincible.
The B-2 was literally designed to penetrate the airspace of the USSR, which was at the time protected by far the densest and most technologically advanced IADS in the world.
They didn’t have multistatic AESAs in the 1980s. The same air defense capabilities that make China extremely hard to penetrate even for a B-21 today applies the other way to for the H-20.
Last edited:
lol, people still think B-2 can just penetrate modern military airspace undetected.
this is a very interesting discussion from Cute Orca on H20 requirements and I think it does show B-2 raid got some ppl in China thinking
so the proposal here is something with extremely strong penetration capability, stealthy, weapon bay and combat radius. It would need to be able to fly out to 6000 km away to launch hypersonic missile that can go for 2500s @ mach6.5 (~5000km) range. If you launch from lightly defended Northern Canada, 5000km range missile would cover all of USA.
It is possible that the long wait for H-20 is just due to the much higher requirement placed upon it, now that J-36 can already cover missions within 2IC. In order to have something that can strike CONUS from mainland China, you need breakthroughs in material science, aerodynamic, propulsion and fuel.
this is a very interesting discussion from Cute Orca on H20 requirements and I think it does show B-2 raid got some ppl in China thinking
so the proposal here is something with extremely strong penetration capability, stealthy, weapon bay and combat radius. It would need to be able to fly out to 6000 km away to launch hypersonic missile that can go for 2500s @ mach6.5 (~5000km) range. If you launch from lightly defended Northern Canada, 5000km range missile would cover all of USA.
It is possible that the long wait for H-20 is just due to the much higher requirement placed upon it, now that J-36 can already cover missions within 2IC. In order to have something that can strike CONUS from mainland China, you need breakthroughs in material science, aerodynamic, propulsion and fuel.
If you fly high enough and fast enough, you can do away with stealth. Speed, Altitude, Intelligence, 2 out of 3 need you for life. Trust me bro?
6500-7000 kilometers of combat radius (since the circles' center points for the Sea of Japan and South China Sea cases are meant to be mid-air refueling spots where the bombers would be topped-up with fuel before heading off to their missions) means an unrefueled range of 13000-14000 kilometers - And this is by multiplying the combat radius by 2, for oversimplification's sake.
The actual range of the bomber is definitely going to be greater than 14000 kilometers. In contrast, the B-2's unrefueled range is only about 11000-12000 kilometers. I do see this being possible if the H-20 is fitted with higher-end medium-bypass or even lower-end high-bypass turbofan engines.
Just to add-on - There's one Guancha Trio's 军工组 podcast from sometime in March 2024 with China's bomber discussion, which is right after the PLAAF Deputy Commander's comments on the H-20.
I have no luck gaining access to the full-length video so far, so here are the few key points that I could see from two sliced videos of said podcast on Bilibili:
- What the PLAAF is looking for is not some type of "wunderwaffe", but war-fighting tools that can be work horses and be able to fulfill the requirements of the PLAAF.
- The H-6Ks/Js are essentially becoming semi-tactical bombers, as the PLAAF is increasingly using them as tactical-like aircrafts (类战术飞机) for certain instances. Hence, it is expected that the PLAAF would require the H-20s to have comparable readiness and sortie rates to the H-6Ks/Js, and be sufficiently flexible in its deployment operations (number of delivery units available, scale of payload delivery, varying directions of delivery etc).
- As of today, the fundamental architecture of China's nuclear triad is already pretty evident, and people shouldn't need to think about how China should develop yet another new type of "nuclear triad with Chinese characteristics".
- The H-20 developmental efforts should also be focused on being able to accomplish missions and meet requirements that the presently available H-6 is unable to achieve, instead of trying to invent something "new and unique with Chinese characteristics".
- Having strategic bombers as deterrence is also a key value on the geopolitical stage, not just for wartime applications in the military domain. Even something as old as the Russian Tu-95s are part of what's keeping the NORAD alive even today. That is, one of the main purposes is to force the adversary to dedicate precious resources for keeping and maintaining extensive defense/counter systems. A stealthy bomber will only be better than non-stealthy bomber in this regard.
In this regard, I do fully agree with Adorable Whale's proposal/suggestion on what the H-20 should/could be, which includes:
1. Only needs to be high subsonic (Mach 0.8-0.9)-capable.
2. Doesn't need to fly over CONUS to conduct missions, considering how standoff missiles are getting increasingly viable and widespread.
3. Must have greater combat radius and range with payload considerations.
4. Must have large-sized internal weapons bay for greater payload capacity.
5. Must be at least low-observable (LO)/stealthy.
In fact, here's what I think that people should take into consideration before anyone should continue with the discussion.
Have a look at this map (which is kinda hard to find for some reason).
Notice how the YJ-12 coverage density decreases as the range from the mainland increases? That's because the payload carried by every H-6 must decrease with the increase of range, especially when taking MTOW in mind (and that no H-6 variants besides the H-6N has mid-air refueling capability). The more you carry on your car, the worse your milage becomes - And this also applies with all aircrafts.
Of course, the map above is slightly older, as the H-6Gs should've been mostly replaced by H-6Ks by now. Still, the overall effect and message are the same, even as the H-6s carry other types of missiles (YJ-18, YJ-21, KD-20, you name it).
Therefore, before going any step forward with things like "muh H-20 should be supersonic and intercontinental" "muh H-20 should be sub-orbital hypersonic" "muh H-20 should be able to carpet-bomb industrial sites on CONUS" (not that all of these are much viable given the circumstances - The middle one is even more ridiculous if I'm being honest here) - The question that should be asked is "Can the H-20 carry the same number of YJ-12s/YJ-18s/YJ-21s/KD-20s as the H-6K/Js in their full payload capacities, while being able to fly over the 2IC without refueling?"
Because frankly speaking - The H-6K/Js could not. So instead of dreaming on how to make the H-20 into a wunderwaffe, the objectives of the H-20 should be to solve the more immediate problems facing the PLAAF right now. Yes, even if that means firstly by guaranteeing that the H-20 is able to carry the same amount of payload as the H-6Ks/Js at the latter's full payload capacity to fly over the 2IC, without refueling.
And given the reality at which the H-20s are expected to operate in, alongside all other requirements and constrains facing the PLAAF - Let's be realistic.
I have no luck gaining access to the full-length video so far, so here are the few key points that I could see from two sliced videos of said podcast on Bilibili:
- What the PLAAF is looking for is not some type of "wunderwaffe", but war-fighting tools that can be work horses and be able to fulfill the requirements of the PLAAF.
- The H-6Ks/Js are essentially becoming semi-tactical bombers, as the PLAAF is increasingly using them as tactical-like aircrafts (类战术飞机) for certain instances. Hence, it is expected that the PLAAF would require the H-20s to have comparable readiness and sortie rates to the H-6Ks/Js, and be sufficiently flexible in its deployment operations (number of delivery units available, scale of payload delivery, varying directions of delivery etc).
- As of today, the fundamental architecture of China's nuclear triad is already pretty evident, and people shouldn't need to think about how China should develop yet another new type of "nuclear triad with Chinese characteristics".
- The H-20 developmental efforts should also be focused on being able to accomplish missions and meet requirements that the presently available H-6 is unable to achieve, instead of trying to invent something "new and unique with Chinese characteristics".
- Having strategic bombers as deterrence is also a key value on the geopolitical stage, not just for wartime applications in the military domain. Even something as old as the Russian Tu-95s are part of what's keeping the NORAD alive even today. That is, one of the main purposes is to force the adversary to dedicate precious resources for keeping and maintaining extensive defense/counter systems. A stealthy bomber will only be better than non-stealthy bomber in this regard.
In this regard, I do fully agree with Adorable Whale's proposal/suggestion on what the H-20 should/could be, which includes:
1. Only needs to be high subsonic (Mach 0.8-0.9)-capable.
2. Doesn't need to fly over CONUS to conduct missions, considering how standoff missiles are getting increasingly viable and widespread.
3. Must have greater combat radius and range with payload considerations.
4. Must have large-sized internal weapons bay for greater payload capacity.
5. Must be at least low-observable (LO)/stealthy.
In fact, here's what I think that people should take into consideration before anyone should continue with the discussion.
Have a look at this map (which is kinda hard to find for some reason).
Notice how the YJ-12 coverage density decreases as the range from the mainland increases? That's because the payload carried by every H-6 must decrease with the increase of range, especially when taking MTOW in mind (and that no H-6 variants besides the H-6N has mid-air refueling capability). The more you carry on your car, the worse your milage becomes - And this also applies with all aircrafts.
Of course, the map above is slightly older, as the H-6Gs should've been mostly replaced by H-6Ks by now. Still, the overall effect and message are the same, even as the H-6s carry other types of missiles (YJ-18, YJ-21, KD-20, you name it).
Therefore, before going any step forward with things like "muh H-20 should be supersonic and intercontinental" "muh H-20 should be sub-orbital hypersonic" "muh H-20 should be able to carpet-bomb industrial sites on CONUS" (not that all of these are much viable given the circumstances - The middle one is even more ridiculous if I'm being honest here) - The question that should be asked is "Can the H-20 carry the same number of YJ-12s/YJ-18s/YJ-21s/KD-20s as the H-6K/Js in their full payload capacities, while being able to fly over the 2IC without refueling?"
Because frankly speaking - The H-6K/Js could not. So instead of dreaming on how to make the H-20 into a wunderwaffe, the objectives of the H-20 should be to solve the more immediate problems facing the PLAAF right now. Yes, even if that means firstly by guaranteeing that the H-20 is able to carry the same amount of payload as the H-6Ks/Js at the latter's full payload capacity to fly over the 2IC, without refueling.
And given the reality at which the H-20s are expected to operate in, alongside all other requirements and constrains facing the PLAAF - Let's be realistic.
Last edited: