H-20 bomber (with H-X, JH-XX)

[Jason_]

I have to bring up this graph I made a while ago and posted before.


It is very clear from this graph that the most reasonable range requirement for a PLA long range bomber is unrefueled range to reach 3IC (unrefueled means no refuel outside Chinese airspace). A unrefueled range to reach 3IC directly translates to refueled range to reach CONUS if refueling is done over the Arctic Circle. This level of range is obviously achievable and not remotely a "wunderwaffe."

Finally, people need to the dispel the notion that CONUS is protected by some mythical force field. The density of IADS is lower on CONUS than on 1IC with no differences in technology. If you think the H-20 can penetrate Japan, then it can penetrate CONUS.

 

[Amistrophy]

(I'll try to keep this focused on China to avoid Deino's wrath.)

It's not impossible that PLAAF would seek to leapfrog established paradigms, but more often we see incremental and/or parallel development. that balances capability against risk and cost. 055 is basically a Burke IIA that was designed in and for the 21st century. Even the most radical and innovative developments such as the recently unveiled J-36 and J-XDS are backstopped by the maturation and future development paths of J-20 and J-35, the latter pair allowing the former to take on higher levels of risk.

(type 055 was developed around the same time AB Flight III design was being finalized, and both are much more comparable to each other in terms of technology and role than the cut down IIA.)

It’s because of the maturation of China’s Stealth TacAir that we’re expecting leapfrogging capability in the strategic bomber fleet. Same that the experience and maturation of the J-20 project drives J-35/36/50, some of those same developments will be used to push H-20.

Simply put, the foundation from which all this speculation arises is simply that the PLAAF won’t want to induct an aircraft that is effectively obsolete at introduction.

If a J-36-like platform can easily counter it in combat or comparable capability it, ie.
if H-20 lacks super-cruise, extensive range, etc (stealth is basically a prerequisite to exist at all)

then the PLAAF would find very little appeal in procuring that aircraft.

The next gen bomber has to be adequately survivable against next generation IADs and fighters, either in technology and/or doctrinal employment.
It also should fulfill strategic deterrence capabilities.

That’s essentially where all the speculation comes from.

We've all been impressed by the speed and scale of China's transformation into a first-rate military power. But sometimes there is no 4D chess and a large capability void…

In a sort of odd fashion, it’s because of this capability gap that H-20 is being considered something “other”.

If it was just going to be a B-2-like, then China would already have it. The requisite know how and much more is already there.


Edit: As Jason above has added: the main factor here is that it simply makes zero sense to have anything *less*

 

[Moonscape]

We've all been impressed by the speed and scale of China's transformation into a first-rate military power. But sometimes there is no 4D chess and a large capability... void... is just what it appears to be.

Clearly, the H-20 was planned to have been released earlier, and then something happened which took it back to the drawing board. Then the key questions are, (1). what triggered the design review, and (2). how will the design be changed to compensate.

I can think of a few possibilities for (1), but the most likely is the Russia-Ukraine conflict. (2) is harder. My wild guess is, the relative inability for Russia bombers to dominate the battlefield even after significant degradation of Ukrainian air defense probably signaled a need for greater stealth (since even partially degraded AD can inflict damage) and greater versatility (in-air drone deployment may be just as useful as dropping bombs or cruise missiles).

 

[ACuriousPLAFan]

I have to bring up this graph I made a while ago and posted before.

It is very clear from this graph that the most reasonable range requirement for a PLA long range bomber is unrefueled range to reach 3IC (unrefueled means no refuel outside Chinese airspace). A unrefueled range to reach 3IC directly translates to refueled range to reach CONUS if refueling is done over the Arctic Circle. This level of range is obviously achievable and not remotely a "wunderwaffe."

Finally, people need to the dispel the notion that CONUS is protected by some mythical force field. The density of IADS is lower on CONUS than on 1IC with no differences in technology. If you think the H-20 can penetrate Japan, then it can penetrate CONUS.

In that case - What would be the effective (or meaningful) payload capacities at such ranges? How much would each of this type of H-20 cost the PLAAF to procure, operate and maintain? How many of this type of H-20 can the PLAAF afford to have? What would be their readiness and sortie rates?

 

[Jason_]

In that case - What would be the effective (if not meaningful) payload capacity at such ranges? How much would each of this type of H-20 cost the PLAAF to procure, operate and maintain? How many of this type of H-20 can the PLAAF afford? What would be their readiness and sortie rates?

Obviously, these are guesses, but I envision the H-20 to be a 4-engine bomber with B-21 planform and a MTOW of around 200 tons (a bit bigger than B-21). Effective payload is something around 8-16 long range missiles (depending on how the IWB is structured) or up to hundreds of small bombs. The other questions are unanswerable/depends on too many factors.

 

[ACuriousPLAFan]

That's exactly why I said the things that I've said earlier.

 

[Gloire_bb]

If it was just going to be a B-2-like, then China would already have it. The requisite know how and much more is already there.

Developing big planes for China is a very recent skill.

Developing big combat planes with advanced planeforms is a skill China hasn't demonstrated yet. H-20 will be first.

"B-2"(with or without 2010-30s stealth) isn't a simple milestone, when your experience at large aircraft is 3 important, but half-steps.
No one would help China with H-20 before (and Russia broke up with the west far too late).

 

[latenlazy]

Finally, people need to the dispel the notion that CONUS is protected by some mythical force field. The density of IADS is lower on CONUS than on 1IC with no differences in technology. If you think the H-20 can penetrate Japan, then it can penetrate CONUS.

You think America can’t add density of coverage if it thinks it can be attacked directly? Weird proposition. An H-20 will never have to penetrate Japan unassisted. It will have full SEAD support that close to the Mainland.

 

[tphuang]

Developing big planes for China is a very recent skill.

Developing big combat planes with advanced planeforms is a skill China hasn't demonstrated yet. H-20 will be first.

"B-2"(with or without 2010-30s stealth) isn't a simple milestone, when your experience at large aircraft is 3 important, but half-steps.
No one would help China with H-20 before (and Russia broke up with the west far too late).

B-2 planform for China at this point really is very old. Their requirements is far higher than that.

Again, I must stress material science/material science/material science. If you do not understand the amount of material science improvement they've had in the past 10 years, then you simply won't have an accurate assessment of what they can build.

 

[Gloire_bb]

B-2 planform for China at this point really is very old. Their requirements is far higher than that.

3 large Chinese planes represent, respectively, initial design from Antonov, a loose amphibian development of a transport(repeating similar possibility from the very same antonov), and a medium civilian aircraft of a most conservative design possible.

Moreover, all 3 just about entered service.

Again, I must stress material science/material science/material science. If you do not understand the amount of material science improvement they've had in the past 10 years, then you simply won't have an accurate assessment of what they can build.

You can have all the material science, and still fail at a very basic design of a plane. It isn't insulting, it's respecting the task.

Mitsubishi did just that rather recently, for example, on a very straightforward task.

Intercontinental flying wing, compromised by deep VLO requirements, is a kind of aircraft where you can fail. Not appreciating it is not helpful.