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

[DeltaGreen]

Known Facts:

1. The H-20 does indeed exist, but its development has been delayed due to redesign. This is unlikely attributable to design or industrial issues, but more likely because advancements in other areas have rendered the original design obsolete.

2. China already possesses the Malan GJ-X, an unmanned stealth flying wing bomber comparable in size to the B-21. This indicates that, in terms of requirements, a platform capable of executing conventional strike missions in 2IC– from bombs to stand-off air-launched weapons – is already in existence.


Widely Accepted Speculation:

1. The H-20 is a manned, stealth, subsonic bomber.

2. There are no credible rumours suggesting a flying wing configuration.


Credible Rumours:

ShiLao claimed: ‘Redesigning the H-20 because of the JingLei-1... is backwards... though not entirely incorrect.’



China's deficiencies:

Relatively low-cost strike capabilities beyond the second island chain, and enhanced nuclear deterrence against the US mainland (GJ-X for the second island chain).


Thus, I speculate the H-20's potential requirements include :

1. targeting the 2IC to 3IC, or areas near the 3IC;

2. nuclear deterrence against the Arctic and US West Coast.

 

[dasCKD]

I do worry about the H-20. Of course there's benefits to saving money and going back to the drawing board to revise the design to something optimal, but time isn't free. China made the correct choice with the J-20 when they built it early, even if the development complex of stealth aircraft in China was far from ideal back then, and learnt many lessons from operating the plane whilst the SU-57 languished in development hell. I hope that Xi'an, or whoever has responsibility over the H-20, isn't repeating the mistakes of the SU-57. Sometimes it's better to get a good enough plane this year than the perfect plane for today fifteen years from now.

 

[tamsen_ikard]

I do worry about the H-20. Of course there's benefits to saving money and going back to the drawing board to revise the design to something optimal, but time isn't free. China made the correct choice with the J-20 when they built it early, even if the development complex of stealth aircraft in China was far from ideal back then, and learnt many lessons from operating the plane whilst the SU-57 languished in development hell. I hope that Xi'an, or whoever has responsibility over the H-20, isn't repeating the mistakes of the SU-57. Sometimes it's better to get a good enough plane this year than the perfect plane for today fifteen years from now.

China was desperate to have a
Stealth fighter. A fighter that can match US and attain parity is existential for China.

Its not desperate to have a stealth Bomber. So, no they can take their sweet time on it, just like they are taking their sweet time on building up the carrier fleet.

 

[DeltaGreen]

I do worry about the H-20. Of course there's benefits to saving money and going back to the drawing board to revise the design to something optimal, but time isn't free. China made the correct choice with the J-20 when they built it early, even if the development complex of stealth aircraft in China was far from ideal back then, and learnt many lessons from operating the plane whilst the SU-57 languished in development hell. I hope that Xi'an, or whoever has responsibility over the H-20, isn't repeating the mistakes of the SU-57. Sometimes it's better to get a good enough plane this year than the perfect plane for today fifteen years from now.

If by bomber you mean a platform capable of delivering bombs and standoff weapons within the Second Island Chain, China appears to favour employing various drones for such missions. These drones are either sufficiently inexpensive to withstand losses in high-intensity conflicts across the Western Pacific, or sufficiently stealthy and advanced to possess strong survivability. They will project firepower within the Second Island Chain alongside carrier-based J-15Ts and the Rocket Force. Given their sheer numbers and accelerated iteration cycles, rapid development appears the more rational approach.

However, as a more advanced platform than the GJ-X, the H-20 may be assigned specific missions (more challenging than low-cost strikes against the second island chain) that only it can fulfil. With no likely replacement for the foreseeable future, a more cautious, comprehensive development strategy is arguably more appropriate.

 

[ACuriousPLAFan]

Widely Accepted Speculation:

1. The H-20 is a manned, stealth, subsonic bomber.

2. There are no credible rumours suggesting a flying wing configuration.

We certainly shouldn't discount the possibility of the H-20 having a flying wing (or variations of flying wing, such as a cranked kite), given the anticipated/expected characteristics and performances (including what you've just posted right above this post).

 

[DeltaGreen]

We certainly shouldn't discount the possibility of the H-20 having a flying wing (or variations of flying wing, such as a cranked kite), given the anticipated/expected characteristics and performances (including what you've just posted right above this post).

I'm no aerospace expert, I'm just speculating here, but would there be any potential feasibility for blended wing bodies or 'morphing' adaptive structures?

 

[taxiya]

Widely Accepted Speculation:

1. The H-20 is a manned, stealth, subsonic bomber.

Before apearance of J-36 I'd agree. But now I don't.

2. There are no credible rumours suggesting a flying wing configuration.

Depends on how you define flying wing. Is J-36 a fly wing? Except it has a greater sweep-back angle what else difference is there to exclude it from catagory of flying wing? IMO, any aircraft lacking surfaces except the wing is a fly-wing, just different wing shapes.

Credible Rumours:

ShiLao claimed: ‘Redesigning the H-20 because of the JingLei-1... is backwards... though not entirely incorrect.’

I won't take internet personality's word as credible. If H-20's original design (B2 like) is obsolete, then what is backwardness? A platform is always designed around the weapons it is carrying and the kind of mission dictates. It is the only correct way of doing things. I think he made a mistake by being stuck to the number 20 and "redesign", instead the right way of thinking is that PLAAF need A bomber to do A job, old B2 idea is outdated, so a new design comes.

 

[sunnymaxi]

Before apearance of J-36 I'd agree. But now I don't.

Depends on how you define flying wing. Is J-36 a fly wing? Except it has a greater sweep-back angle what else difference is there to exclude it from catagory of flying wing? IMO, any aircraft lacking surfaces except the wing is a fly-wing, just different wing shapes.


I won't take internet personality's word as credible. If H-20's original design (B2 like) is obsolete, then what is backwardness? A platform is always designed around the weapons it is carrying and the kind of mission dictates. It is the only correct way of doing things. I think he made a mistake by being stuck to the number 20 and "redesign", instead the right way of thinking is that PLAAF need A bomber to do A job, old B2 idea is outdated, so a new design comes.

fine. but Yankee/Shilao are not the random people.