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

[SilentObserver]

I’m not sold on this particular representation. Its dimensions don’t seem to fulfill those necessary for even a regional, let alone a strategic, bomber. As I’ve suggested before, I think the PLAAF needs a platform with a 2500 mi combat radius and a 20,000 kg payload, and this depiction, to me, doesn’t suggest that capability.

This is supposedly named "H-18", its more of a tactical bomber, not H-20 which is the strategic bomber.


The "H-18" design was previously revealed in exhibitions. Going by rumours, the H-18 program's future is uncertain.


I think H-20 strategic bomber on the other hand is a better kept secret and its likely that its design hasn't been revealed to the general public. Chinese military commentators on TV had talked about 10,000 km (6200 miles) + range for the future strategic bomber but that is speculation. It is unlikely the magazine cover is referring to the strategic bomber itself as the section that talks about that bomber uses another plane as the filler (bottom left panel).


The H-20 is likely to be more similar to this design. 4 engines, 2 rotary bomb bays, flying wing.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[latenlazy]

This is supposedly named "H-18", its more of a tactical bomber, not H-20 which is the strategic bomber.
View attachment 46173

The "H-18" design was previously revealed in exhibitions. Going by rumours, the H-18 program's future is uncertain.
View attachment 46174

I think H-20 strategic bomber on the other hand is a better kept secret and its likely that its design hasn't been revealed to the general public. Chinese military commentators on TV had talked about 10,000 km (6200 miles) + range for the future strategic bomber but that is speculation. It is unlikely the magazine cover is referring to the strategic bomber itself as the section that talks about that bomber uses another plane as the filler (bottom left panel).
View attachment 46176

Can we get a bigger version of that TVC article.

 

[SinoSoldier]

Let's cut through all the BS because tabloids are picking this up quicker than most:

• There is no indication that the H-18 (aka the bomber depicted by the magazine) is under development; I'm not sure why the "semi-official" magazine used it as a cover photo
• The actual article in the magazine supposedly uses a completely different CGI, which really testifies to the article's lack of credibility
• The current belief, as supported by numerous credible sources, is that the H-20 is a flying-wing design
• There was indeed a competition between the flying wing design and a less-stealthy supersonic bomber, but the latter is not the same bomber as the depicted one (the losing design was supposed to be TU-160/B-1 sized)

I have no idea why this magazine is getting so much attention lately, but clearly it is misleading a lot of folks both here on SDF and the media.

 

[Dfangsaur]

It’s way too small to be a strategic bomber.

but would you say the same shape of the airframe is good though? reminds me of YF-23.

 

[vesicles]

Let's cut through all the BS because tabloids are picking this up quicker than most:

• There is no indication that the H-18 (aka the bomber depicted by the magazine) is under development; I'm not sure why the "semi-official" magazine used it as a cover photo
• The actual article in the magazine supposedly uses a completely different CGI, which really testifies to the article's lack of credibility

I have no idea why this magazine is getting so much attention lately, but clearly it is misleading a lot of folks both here on SDF and the media.

I’ve gone through the cover carefully and cannot find any mentioning of what the planes are. They never say it’s the “H-18”. It’s a CGI that goes with the bold message, which says China marches to 20 army group (no idea what that means...)”.

Since they never claim the covering CGI to be anything, their credibility is a non-issue.

 

[jobjed]

I’ve gone through the cover carefully and cannot find any mentioning of what the planes are. They never say it’s the “H-18”. It’s a CGI that goes with the bold message, which says China marches to 20 army group (no idea what that means...)”.

Since they never claim the covering CGI to be anything, their credibility is a non-issue.

It means China's marching towards proliferation of the 20 series; J-20, Y-20, Z-20, H-20, etc.

 

[vesicles]

It means China's marching towards proliferation of the 20 series; J-20, Y-20, Z-20, H-20, etc.

Thanks!

Even with that, it still doesn’t mean that they intended to imply that the image is meant to be the H-20... it could be a CGI for any X-20’s.

And it certainly does not mean the H-18.

Strictly speaking, the CGI is a UFO, an unidentified flying object.

 

[SinoSoldier]

Thanks!

Even with that, it still doesn’t mean that they intended to imply that the image is meant to be the H-20... it could be a CGI for any X-20’s.

And it certainly does not mean the H-18.

Strictly speaking, the CGI is a UFO, an unidentified flying object.

It's ambiguous at best, because the article talks about the development of the next-generation bomber but the magazine cover is intentionally enticing readers-to-be with an outdated and irrelevant CGI.

 

[Skywatcher]

Huh, that magazine has a picture of the XB-70 Valkyrie (or maybe the Sukhoi T4).

 

[vesicles]

It's ambiguous at best, because the article talks about the development of the next-generation bomber but the magazine cover is intentionally enticing readers-to-be with an outdated and irrelevant CGI.

A magazine contains many articles. You cannot pin one article to the cover. And the cover has the subtitle that the Chinese is collecting a whole bunch of new planes that end with “20”. That even includes the stealth fighter the J-20 and the transporter Y-20. So the cover is not meant to refer exclusive to bombers. clearly, the cover is not meant to imply any particular plane, be it the H-18 or the H-20. Even less like the H-18 since it is not even a “20” plane.

No need to put words in their mouths. It’s a CGI that was meant to entice readers. Leave it at that.