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

[Brumby]

I'd say supercruise would be an important aspect of JHXX but even without that, an afterburning achieved mach 1.8 or so would still very much keep the plane undetectable.

I would be cautious about going supersonic against modern IRST system. A mach 1.8 speed has a 3 X greater increase in detection range and a 10 X greater detection area when compared to subsonic speed.

Basically only planes in the air carry IRST sensors. So various ground based or ship based systems are not alerted any more than they'd be otherwise. Even with plane mounted IRST, if we're talking head on course, detection of something (not identification) would likely not occur at over 100 km away)

Unlike China and Russia, the US anti stealth effort has focused on developing its IR detection systems rather than using low frequency radars like UHF and VHF as they are bulky. The IRST21 Block I has already gone IOC with the USN and has a detection range in excess of 100 kms. The detection range info is based on the program manager's statement that the IRST has a greater detection range than the adversary's radar detection range. The IRST21 is designed to detect the J-20s of the world. Block I while is able to detect at significant range is unable to provide a firing solution due to ranging issues. This is being addressed in Block II which will begin prototyping next year with planned IOC in Sep 2021. Block II will enable a two ship formation to passively target via triangulation algo. The IRST21 is part of the planned Block 3 upgrade of the F-18 E/F with production beginning in 2020. While Block 3 will internally house the IRST, retrofits to Block 2 will be via an external pod.

Similar efforts of an external IRST pod is also in the pipeline for the F-15 and F-16.;

 

[Inst]

Thanks for the charts showing exactly how dangerous supercruise is when it comes to IR stealth, but the ability to quickly assume a position is important. Moreover, the ability to quickly and efficiently egress is another factor; rear radar stealth on aircraft tends to be atrocious so sacrificing IR stealth on the "flee" isn't that big of a deal.

 

[plawolf]

There are a multitude of advantages to having JHxx in addition to H20 in China’s future strike arsenal.

In addition to speed, a potential far more important factor in boosting response times would be deployable bases.

Just take the B2 as an example in point, there are only a handful of US bases worldwide that can support these planes.

That makes it possible to establish minimum response times to targets at a given distance. Clever analysts could then use that data to leverage all sorts of advantages.

For example, if H20s are only based at Xi’an, then an attacking hostile carrier ground could work out pretty precisely how much time on station they can spend within every distance from Xi’an, during which they would be safe from having to deal with H20s dropping supersonics on them at relatively close range.

A JHxx should be able to operate from any base spec’d to host J20s, which would give you a much bigger number of bases spread over a much bigger geographical area from which JHxx strikes could come from.

You could even have JHxx formations regularly in flight to patrol and redeploy between these bases to keep the enemy guessing.

Such a combination means that hostile carriers and surface combatants goes from having a minimum ‘safe’ grace period between detection and likely engagement to facing the possibility of being engaged almost as soon as they are detected. That grace period would be the difference between missions being deemed viable or suicidal, and/or the different between a successful strike against an enemy fleet and a waste of fuel.

Of course, this is based on a pretty conventional supersonic stealth Striker based on the J20. However, given Chinese advances with near orbital hypersonic vehicles, it’s not outside the realm of possibility that the JHxx could turn out to be a hypersonic wave rider striker based on an enlarged WZ8.

 

[Xizor]

There are a multitude of advantages to having JHxx in addition to H20 in China’s future strike arsenal.

In addition to speed, a potential far more important factor in boosting response times would be deployable bases.

Just take the B2 as an example in point, there are only a handful of US bases worldwide that can support these planes.

That makes it possible to establish minimum response times to targets at a given distance. Clever analysts could then use that data to leverage all sorts of advantages.

For example, if H20s are only based at Xi’an, then an attacking hostile carrier ground could work out pretty precisely how much time on station they can spend within every distance from Xi’an, during which they would be safe from having to deal with H20s dropping supersonics on them at relatively close range.

A JHxx should be able to operate from any base spec’d to host J20s, which would give you a much bigger number of bases spread over a much bigger geographical area from which JHxx strikes could come from.

You could even have JHxx formations regularly in flight to patrol and redeploy between these bases to keep the enemy guessing.

Such a combination means that hostile carriers and surface combatants goes from having a minimum ‘safe’ grace period between detection and likely engagement to facing the possibility of being engaged almost as soon as they are detected. That grace period would be the difference between missions being deemed viable or suicidal, and/or the different between a successful strike against an enemy fleet and a waste of fuel.

Of course, this is based on a pretty conventional supersonic stealth Striker based on the J20. However, given Chinese advances with near orbital hypersonic vehicles, it’s not outside the realm of possibility that the JHxx could turn out to be a hypersonic wave rider striker based on an enlarged WZ8.

But "hypersonic waverider striker" ought not be something associated with the JH-XX other than maybe its payload.
JH-XX, would ideally be within the Mach 1.6 to Mach 2 max speed and can be built within budget and by the capabilities accumulated so far by the Militiary industrial Complex of China.
In fact, JH-XX isn't a "challenging" project at all (like some foreign commentators/observers deem it) for China and the only thing that keeps China from having a JH-XX type aircraft is willpower and the purse.
I don't wish for everything and the kitchen sink to come with the aircraft. It could ( and should) be open to sourcing components from existing Chinese projects
Engines - WS-10B with afterburners
Landing gear from H6K or some transport aircraft
AESA Radar from J-20
The list could go on..
In fact, more than 75% of components-by-value could be sourced from existing Chinese aircraft types.

 

[AndrewS]

There are a multitude of advantages to having JHxx in addition to H20 in China’s future strike arsenal.

In addition to speed, a potential far more important factor in boosting response times would be deployable bases.

Just take the B2 as an example in point, there are only a handful of US bases worldwide that can support these planes.

That makes it possible to establish minimum response times to targets at a given distance. Clever analysts could then use that data to leverage all sorts of advantages.

For example, if H20s are only based at Xi’an, then an attacking hostile carrier ground could work out pretty precisely how much time on station they can spend within every distance from Xi’an, during which they would be safe from having to deal with H20s dropping supersonics on them at relatively close range.

A JHxx should be able to operate from any base spec’d to host J20s, which would give you a much bigger number of bases spread over a much bigger geographical area from which JHxx strikes could come from.

You could even have JHxx formations regularly in flight to patrol and redeploy between these bases to keep the enemy guessing.

Such a combination means that hostile carriers and surface combatants goes from having a minimum ‘safe’ grace period between detection and likely engagement to facing the possibility of being engaged almost as soon as they are detected. That grace period would be the difference between missions being deemed viable or suicidal, and/or the different between a successful strike against an enemy fleet and a waste of fuel.

Of course, this is based on a pretty conventional supersonic stealth Striker based on the J20. However, given Chinese advances with near orbital hypersonic vehicles, it’s not outside the realm of possibility that the JHxx could turn out to be a hypersonic wave rider striker based on an enlarged WZ8.

It takes hours to organise a manned air strike. Plus an aircraft would proceed at cruise speed anyway to its target. So whilst there is a difference in response times for a manned H-20 versus a manned JHXX, it doesn't matter too much.

For the 1st Island Chain, response times would be far superior for a one way missile or unmanned aircraft or enlarged WZ8. The cost of an unmanned system would be far lower as well.

For the 2nd Island Chain and US aircraft carriers, my guess is that a JHXX would need to range 1500-2000km offshore.

It's possible, but a manned stealth aircraft has to give up a lot of payload for that range, if it is a conventional fighter-bomber. A larger stealthy flying wing with more payload and sensors seems better, which means an H-20.

As for B-2 basing, remember they only have 20 aircraft, which only justifies a single airbase.

As for the number of H-20s that will be built, my lower estimate is 6 aircraft per year for 10 years, although it could be a lot more.

That would require 2-3 bases deep in the Chinese interior, which mitigates base vulnerability.

 

[Broccoli]

Bombers have usually been tools of deterrence posturing, especailly during cold war, and lately Russia has flown their larger bombers all over the world. It will be interesting to see how India reacts to H-20 as many local warhawks have demanded first strike capabilities against China & Pakistan.

I wonder if they plan to use B-61 type gravity bombs on these bombers or go with nuclear warhead armed cruise missiles?

 

[Biscuits]

Bombers have usually been tools of deterrence posturing, especailly during cold war, and lately Russia has flown their larger bombers all over the world. It will be interesting to see how India reacts to H-20 as many local warhawks have demanded first strike capabilities against China & Pakistan.

I wonder if they plan to use B-61 type gravity bombs on these bombers or go with nuclear warhead armed cruise missiles?

Doubt any serious Indian strategists think that, not even both the Soviet Union AND America considered themselves able to attempt first strike against China back in 80s when tensions were very high.

India’s best missiles barely reach the important areas even assuming everyone in the PLA missile defense takes a day off.

They’d need at the very least more and significantly better delivery weapons than the USA.

 

[Totoro]

There shouldn't even be a discussion of h20 or jhxx. both are needed and both have their role. Range is important and 2000-3000 km combat radius is always welcome but even within the 1000 km there's plenty of potential targets. Actually, most of targets would likely be inside 1000 km. Right now PLAAF has no real means of successfully performing strikes versus an US like opponent that far away on a regular basis unless A) they're done with stand off weapons (too expensive to be the main weapon type and certain target types not efficiently engaged by such weapons) or B) there's significant numerical superiority involved (unlikely and features possibly unsustainable losses in the long run)

 

[AndrewS]

There shouldn't even be a discussion of h20 or jhxx. both are needed and both have their role. Range is important and 2000-3000 km combat radius is always welcome but even within the 1000 km there's plenty of potential targets. Actually, most of targets would likely be inside 1000 km. Right now PLAAF has no real means of successfully performing strikes versus an US like opponent that far away on a regular basis unless A) they're done with stand off weapons (too expensive to be the main weapon type and certain target types not efficiently engaged by such weapons) or B) there's significant numerical superiority involved (unlikely and features possibly unsustainable losses in the long run)

Whilst I agree that the H-20 is definitely needed, I disagree on the requirement for a JHXX. I'll just boil it down to the most important arguments:

For land targets <650km on the 1st Island Chain, you're better off with land-based missiles or non-stealthy aircraft, because the Chinese Air Force can obtain something close to air superiority and degrade the air defences.

The rest of the land targets on the 1st Island Chain lie 800km-1300km away.
Given the large number of F-35s and Patriot systems available, this means the airspace will always remain contested and the Chinese Air Force will only be able to obtain temporary air superiority and degrade the air defences temporarily.

You really do need to degrade the air defences if you want to use cheap munitions like the SDB-II

For example, an LD-2000 costs $5M and carries 8 short-range missiles and enough gun rounds for 48 engagements. It's probably uses something like a stinger missile which costs $40K. That compares to $120K for a SDB-II.

A manned fast, manoeuvrable stealthy fighter-bomber JHXX can be tracked with volume search UHF radar and also Infrared for fire-control.

So medium range air defence also means that the JHXX can't get close enough to use cheap munitions anyway, These 2 reasons means expensive powered munitions are required (maybe equivalent to a supersonic JASSM)

Eg. I don't have Chinese costs, but a block 3 Tomahawk launched from a TEL is sufficient for land attack and costs $1.4M.
An air launched land-attack JASSM has a much shorter range, but still costs $0.8M.
So each land-based missile would be $0.6M more expensive.

Whilst I agree standoff weapons are expensive, I think they are the new norm for both the Chinese military and US military. Note that the US Air Force is planning on buying 4900 JASSM missiles, so are standoff weapons (whether air or land launched) really too expensive?

And if you take a notional JHXX (FB-22 equivalent), it would cost $150M+, which works out to a typical lifetime operating cost of $450M+
In comparison, the costs of acquiring and operating an equivalent TEL system are much less. A Himars truck only costs $5M, so lets say $50M over a lifetime which is certainly an overestimate.

So a JHXX would have to launch over 600 missiles before the cost-benefit works out. Depending on your payload assumptions (2 or 4 missiles), that's 150 or 300 missions that a JHXX has to survive before it works out cheaper.

If a JHXX operates against a military peer, there is no way it will survive even 100 missions.

---

For a JHXX or non-stealthy fighter bomber to deliver cheap munitions to the distant parts of the 1st Island Chain, requires air superiority. But that is a very long term goal which requires many more J-20s to be built first.

In the shorter term, better to go with land-based missiles OR use a H-20 which can get close enough to launch a lot of cheap munitions.

 

[Brumby]

You really do need to degrade the air defences if you want to use cheap munitions like the SDB-II

For example, an LD-2000 costs $5M and carries 8 short-range missiles and enough gun rounds for 48 engagements. It's probably uses something like a stinger missile which costs $40K. That compares to $120K for a SDB-II.

A manned fast, manoeuvrable stealthy fighter-bomber JHXX can be tracked with volume search UHF radar and also Infrared for fire-control.

I do not understand where you are trying to take your conversation.

There are pop up targets within denied airspace that are time sensitive. 4th gen platforms will not be able to execute those mission sets due to their questionable survivability against heavily defended targets. It is not just an issue of cost. Btw, SDB-II are used not because it is cheap but they serve their purpose. They are not dumb bombs with REKs. I am not aware that China has a product equivalent to the SDB-II You will need to educate me on that.

The piece I don't understand is why the need for a JHXX. The FC-31 or a J-20 fitted with air to ground capabilities could conduct those roles. Anyone?