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

[james smith esq]

I don't think we can be so certain as to what China sees as her needs. Perhaps her planners foresee scenarios in the not-so-distant future that there needs to be an intercontinental bomber to strike faraway targets without the need of using foreign airfields and without setting off ballistic missile alarms. I don't want to speculate what these faraway targets might be, as that would quickly escalate into a heated off-topic discussion.

Almost any target outside the range of 4500 km combat radius bombers with 2500 km range cruise missiles would likely escalate to strategic weapons rather quickly as I just don’t see PLAAF striking either ZA or BR for any strategic purposes.

 

[SinoSoldier]

Nice try, except in your original post, you stated "Fzgfzy seems to be saying that there are two JH-XX bomber designs". You didn't at all mention "H-1X".

Could you point out where in fzgfzy's posts that he used the term "JH-XX"? Furthermore, could you define for me the differences between the "JH" and "H" designations?

I ask because I don't you think you understand these basic terminologies, or if you do, you are intentionally playing fast and loose and treating SDF as a gossip column.

My point still stands, I categorically reject your original contention that "Fzgfzy seems to be saying that there are two JH-XX bomber designs". That is to say, based on fzgfzy's posts, one cannot reasonably infer that presently two JH-XX designs exist.

I regret to inform you, my goal posts have remained steadfastly the same, that is I reject your contention that "Fzgfzy seems to be saying that there are two JH-XX bomber designs".

You didn't use the worlds "were", "may have been", "at one point", and so on. You used the word "are", which is present-tense.

At this point it's becoming vividly evident that you're more concerned with ending this debate on your terms than actually getting to the bottom of the issue (which we already have). Your original inquiry was about whether there exists or existed two designs which, after much dissection of fzgfzy's dialogue with other members, have been agreed upon in the previous posts. Nowhere did you explicitly ask whether these designs were still being developed simultaneously and whether I held such an opinion. Notwithstanding, I even stated that there were two possibilities; (1) the designs are concurrent, and (2) one is an evolution of the other. This statement alone should make it clear that I have not yet committed to either possibility.

And, to play the Devil's advocate, if at some point there were two designs, then technically there still are two designs (unless SAC took the initiative to shred & destroy one) - it's just that one of them is possibly being pursued.

P.S. I'm not sure why you brought up the JH-XX / H-XX naming issue because they're placeholders used by observers/forumers to facilitate discussions.

NiceSo did you confuse "Northwest" with "SAC"?

Yes, it seems that I did.

Whoa whoa whoa, hold your horses and be careful with your words, lest more confusion ensues.

What do you mean by "this project"? What project are you referring to? Please be precise with your language.

The regional bomber that fzgfzy apparently referred to as the "H-1X", possibly being pursued in parallel to the H-20 flying wing.

NiceEh, no. Here are the relevant posts from fzgfzy regarding the photo below:

Redeye123：这是你讲的鸭嘴兽吗？
超级大本营CDF：我讲的更漂亮

精准微操蒋中正：这个就是你之前说轰1X？？
超级大本营CDF：不是的，我说的在西北方向，而且更科幻更漂亮

Begin translation:
Redeye123 asks: Is this the 'platypus' you talked about?
超级大本营CDF replies: What I talked about was more beautiful than this.

精准微操蒋中正 asks: Is this what you referred to previous as the H-1X?
超级大本营CDF replies: No. H-1X is from the northwest and is more futuristic-looking/more science-fiction-like than this.

End translation.

Please note: 1) '超级大本营CDF' is 'fzgfzy', and 2) 'northwest' refers to XAC, or Xi'an Aircraft Corp.

===========================================================

All we can logically infer from the above are the following:
1) The mockup in the photograph is not the 'platypus'.
2) The mockup in the photograph is not the H-1X from XAC.

What we cannot logically infer are the following:
1) The mockup in the photograph and H-1X belong to the same project, which is to say, they are competing designs for the same project.
2) H-1X is the Platypus.

Based on fzgfzy's posts, how have you concluded the following?
1) The 'platypus' and H-1X are one and the same.
2) The mockup in the photograph represents SAC's competitor to XAC's H-1X.
3) H-1X and the SAC's mockup in the photograph belong to the same project.

Let's take a step back:
(1) I did not say that the SAC mockup and the platypus/H-1X were competitors; I merely entertained the possibility thereof
(2) I explicitly stated that it was possible that the H-1X or Platypus are successors to the SAC design

FZGFZY refers to both the "H-1X" and the "Platypus" as a "more beautiful" design (I see that you've conveniently left that portion out in your translation for the H-1X reply) which would lead one to suspect that he is referring to the same thing. Are you saying that there could've been three designs (which would be stretching FZGFZY's replies a bit)?

 

[james smith esq]

[...]We don’t learn algebra or calculus at the age of 14-18 because we will use it then, but in anticipation for if we take on such careers in the future.

And wise procurers don’t expend precious resources on weapons they ‘might’ use to repel an Alien attack to the neglect of weapons they will probably use to repel an A————n attack.

Some folks here need to better familiarize themselves with the geographic dimensions of strategy. And, they’re some ‘wonder weapon’ lovin’ folks!

 

[Yodello]

PLAAF has absolutely no need for an inter-continental bomber. China is a continental power; it is directly adjacent to the continental heartland. A 4500 km combat radius will be sufficient to all relevant contingencies.

Are Chinese planners really so immature that they ascribe to a ‘bigger is better’ philosophy or is this simply the penile envy of immature commentators that project such thinking onto others? I’d much prefer weapons systems designed to the specific strategic concerns of a nation to those designed to impress the impressionable. I mean, is anybody really impressed with RuAf’s 6 Tu-160s?

Oh, China definitely has the need for an Inter-Continental Bomber, so that it has the means to strike at U.S assets in the American Homeland, should the U.S escalate a conflict by targeting Chinese Assets in Chinese Islands. China should and must have this capability, not to use it first, but to be able to retaliate and inflict a proportionate damage to its foes in time of conflict. It is in China's interest to have the best of everything, from Technology, to Industry, to Economy, to war-fighting Machines. China must keep pursuing to have the best and most powerful weaponry it can possibly make. No need to listen to idiots who suggest otherwise.

 

[by78]

Almost any target outside the range of 4500 km combat radius bombers with 2500 km range cruise missiles would likely escalate to strategic weapons rather quickly as I just don’t see PLAAF striking either ZA or BR for any strategic purposes.

A Chinese strategic bomber doesn't have to fly with cruise missiles; otherwise, it'd be a terribly inflexible platform. You are also assuming China would avoid at all costs a strategic conflict. I think China would avoid it if at all possible, but if push comes to shove, she'd be better off prepared for that eventuality. Look, just because a country wants to avoid a nuclear exchange at all costs doesn't mean that country has no need for nuclear weapons; and just because I want to avoid a gunfight doesn't mean there is absolutely no need for me to have a firearm.

 

[SinoSoldier]

Could you link us to the AviationWeek article?

It was a tweet from James Drew which he later deleted. He later stated that it was a "prank" and the "surprise" was actually a personal promotion or something along those lines (IIRC).

 

[SinoSoldier]

PLAAF has absolutely no need for an inter-continental bomber. China is a continental power; it is directly adjacent to the continental heartland. A 4500 km combat radius will be sufficient to all relevant contingencies.

Are Chinese planners really so immature that they ascribe to a ‘bigger is better’ philosophy or is this simply the penile envy of immature commentators that project such thinking onto others? I’d much prefer weapons systems designed to the specific strategic concerns of a nation to those designed to impress the impressionable. I mean, is anybody really impressed with RuAf’s 6 Tu-160s?

An intercontinental bomber would complete China's nuclear triad and takes pressure off her land- and sea-based deterrence (which are not that impressive). Current H-6 fleets are unable to provide an intercontinental nuclear strike capability.

 

[Sunbud]

And wise procurers don’t expend precious resources on weapons they ‘might’ use to repel an Alien attack to the neglect of weapons they will probably use to repel an A————n attack.

Even the Americans were smart enough to NOT fund ‘Star Wars’!

Basically most of the world’s weapons stockpiles and nuclear arms which ‘might be used’ are therefore pointless. Why bother with spending all that money on the military or developments worldwide if they just ‘might be used’, or fire extinguishers just incase there ‘might be’ a fire.

Also, no point blowing things completely out of proportion and out of context by bringing aliens into the equation just to try to force your point across.

 

[james smith esq]

Basically most of the world’s weapons stockpiles and nuclear arms which ‘might be used’ are therefore pointless. Why bother with spending all that money on the military or developments worldwide if they just ‘might be used’, or fire extinguishers just incase there ‘might be’ a fire.

Also, no point blowing things completely out of proportion and out of context by bringing aliens into the equation just to try to force your point across.

you refer to calculus, i refer to aliens. in what proportion, and in which context is calculus relevant? let me guess, it SEEMS more intelligent. Seemers only impress the impressionable.

 

[james smith esq]

(...) No need to listen to idiots who suggest otherwise.

13, tiny member, or just have the inferiority complex that’s usually associated with those?