He is complaining about how Shanghai media is trying to throw dirt on Xi’An after Shanghai’s own botched COVID handling. Has nothing to do with military aircraft.
H-20 bomber (with H-X, JH-XX)
- Thread starter Deino
- Start date
He is complaining about how Shanghai media is trying to throw dirt on Xi’An after Shanghai’s own botched COVID handling. Has nothing to do with military aircraft.
SinoSoldier
Colonel
LOL oops
Forgot about that. I think it'd be hard for them to use WS-18 as interim solution and then WS-10 as production variant. Difference would seem to be too large.
Mostly based on USAF description of B-21. Based on the data they provided so far, payload should be smaller. I don't dispute that. I think that F-135 W/O afterburners would have higher thrust than the standard F-135 dry thrust (the same is true when they went from F110 to F118). So for B-21, you might get 2 engines of 140kN each, which would be not that far off 4 engines of 85kN each. I don't think B-21 will need better T/W ratio than B-2, so it could very well end up being 80% of B-2's weight. If we consider that electronics are likely miniaturized compared to 30 years ago and payload for B-21 is expected to be maybe half of B-2, internal fuel capacity for B-21 could easily be the same or larger than B-21. I also expect B-21 engines to have better fuel consumption rate, so the net result would be longer range.
That would make sense given the large antennas it will likely have and the space available to install supporting machineries.
That would sound very much like something mentioned for J-20 once WS-15 becomes available.
Unless this is for specific bombing missions, I'd think this would be a misuse of precious H-20 block hours in a prolonged war scenario.
Same as above. I think in most scenarios, something like H-20 is a nice to have, but not needed. You can have stealthy UAV AEW and J-20 two seaters do the same task. I see H-20 as something that would be a game changer in how it can take out targets far away. Like for example, attack take out bases in Guam or Japan. Using it to threaten Australia to stay out of conflict. In that scenario, I'm thinking about what kind of characteristics would accompanying aircraft need to have?
From my point of view, the key strength of the H-20 has to be its payload. Unlike the United States, which has global commitments and has to be able to target myriad locations from extremely long ranges, the Chinese only really need to target Guam or perhaps Hawaii with their bombers.
The important part of bombers vs cruise missiles is that for a sustained bombing campaign, bombers are far more cost-efficient, as bombers only need maintenance per sortie, whereas cruise missiles destroy their engines per round.
Having a large fleet of H-20 in the LO-VLO range is substantially useful as it allows China, especially once counter-stealth radars are bombed out, to provide a sustained bomb load to ANY of its neighbors, providing strategic threat and deterrence based on probable collateral damage from bombing campaigns.
It is stated that strategically, the H-20 has to reach the continental United States, but guess what? The B-2 has bomb bay fuel tanks as an option. The H-20 can always stuff some fuel tanks into its bays, have enough space for a thermonuclear payload, and presto, range is achieved.
The important part of bombers vs cruise missiles is that for a sustained bombing campaign, bombers are far more cost-efficient, as bombers only need maintenance per sortie, whereas cruise missiles destroy their engines per round.
Having a large fleet of H-20 in the LO-VLO range is substantially useful as it allows China, especially once counter-stealth radars are bombed out, to provide a sustained bomb load to ANY of its neighbors, providing strategic threat and deterrence based on probable collateral damage from bombing campaigns.
It is stated that strategically, the H-20 has to reach the continental United States, but guess what? The B-2 has bomb bay fuel tanks as an option. The H-20 can always stuff some fuel tanks into its bays, have enough space for a thermonuclear payload, and presto, range is achieved.
Personally that is why I am a little bit doubtful about WS-18 being a powerplant for H-20 -- the difference between integrating an engine like WS-18 and non-AB WS-10 for an aircraft like H-20 seems too complex for them to simply shoehorn in as an interim powerplant like on a transporter like Y-20 or even a stealth fighter like J-20.
It's difficult to have this discussion given we don't know how big the B-21 is expected to be, but one of the more consistent rumours have been that it will be about 2/3rds of the size of B-2. This speculative, and non-official size comparison rendering but posted on the US Air Force magazine I think depicts a reasonably sized aircraft that you could expect out of something that is powered by two non AB F135s:
I agree that 280kN total thrust for B-21 sounds plausible -- but that is still some 60 kN lower than the 340 kN total thrust of B-2 -- 82% of it.
In terms of electronics, while more modern (lighter, smaller) avionics systems do play a role in helping to lighten an aircraft, for such large aircrafts like bombers where most of their weight goes to payload and fuel and airframe structure rather than avionics, I do not think the gains in weight will be that significant for B-21 relative to B-2 -- at least if we are comparing it to something like a modern AEW&C versus older AEW&C.
I can see B-21 being somewhere between 66% to 75% of B-2 in MTOW, and could approach 80% of it in range (but significantly lower in payload, perhaps 50-60%) -- but I would be somewhat surprised if it is able to achieve an equal or superior range to B-2.
I don't think DEWs and the power necessary onboard is going to be tied with engine thrust...
I think it's more that in a future high intensity conflict, during any given mission for H-20 (or indeed, any other modern aircraft), every aircraft should be considered a major information/command node and be able to support high capacity data transmission, because any sort of proper real deal strike mission will inherently require multiple elements to carry it out successfully and those elements will require extensive datalinking between them.
Right -- obviously the range and payload of H-20 will be something very new for the PLA and arguably the largest advancement in fixed wing strike capability they have.
However, my point (and the point of the original PLA mil article), is that H-20 should have all of the modern requisite networking, EW, command/control, automation capabilities that you would expect out of an aircraft that enters service in the late 2020s.
Or, lets put it this way -- in the case of J-20, yes it is the PLA's first real stealth fighter, and it of course has the requisite stealth and weapons bay configurations and range and maneuverability to prosecute that air superioroity mission.
But it also has the active and passive sensors, data fusion, automation, datalinking, and EW capabilities which is a massive generation ahead of anything that the PLA had prior to it, which assists the aircraft in conducting its primary air superiority mission..... however all of those capabilities assist in the aircraft to greatly contribute to generalized informatized/network centric warfare, EW/EA, and command missions as well.
I am saying that for H-20, the same sort of expectations are likely to apply, perhaps even to a greater extent.
Doesn't WS-18 as a rumor mean a further increase in H-20's MTOW? It's also very likely to mean a further increase in H-20's range and payload. I mean they made WS-18 or its modifications as the target powerplant for H-20 from the beginning and not WS-10.
Last edited:
First, I am not sure how to interpret the WS-18/D-30 rumour. I'm not taking it that seriously atm.
Second, no, if it was the case, it doesn't mean there's an increase in H-20's MTOW. An aircraft is usually designed with an intended powerplant in mind, in this case for H-20 the very consistent long term rumours have been a non AB WS-10. Rumours about the possibility of D-30 is fairly recent, in the last year or two. It is unlikely to me that they would have redesigned the H-20 aircraft to be substantially heavier and then end up requiring them to use a powerplant with more thrust in the first place.
Overall I do not take the idea of H-20 using D-30/WS-18 with that much weight at the moment, so don't focus too much on it.
I don't see any reason why B-21 needs better T/W ratio than B-2, so would presume it's MTOW is going to be 75 to 80% that of B-2. If the payload is 50% of B-2 (as initial sources indicated), then internal fuel load should be greater than 75 to 80% of B-2. If B-21 is at 75% of B-2's weight, fuel tank could be 90%. Range is one thing I don't think USAF would sacrifice, because that would reduce operational flexibility. It would also not work with their phrasing of " The B-21 Raider is expected to operate with an ability to hold any target at risk, anywhere in the world, anytime,"
Where will the power come from?
I don't think I'm arguing against all of this. There is no question H-20 should be able to perform the role you talked about. However, I'm not sure you'd want to put H-20 in an high intensity environment as more of an EW and C4ISR asset when other less valuable assets could do the same role. If you don't have to do long range strikes (and if it doesn't put itself in great danger by operating in high intensity air combat environment), then that's a different story. I'd expect each H-20 to require significant down time after each strike mission based on what we know about other stealth aircraft. So even when they have a lot of H-20, block hours are important.
To utilize the great data fusion, command/control, EW capabilities of each H-20 block hours, you'd need UCAVs that can fly as far in high subsonic speed and maintain same level of stealth. So if we come back to next gen UCAV, that would mean a large flywing type of UCAV with maybe 1 WS-10 and much great internal payload than what we've seen with GJ-11. I'd be curious what GJ-11's range and loiter time is. And you'd want UCAVs to require less downtime than H-20.
I mean, I've heard that B-21 is intended to be capable of carrying one MOP which is a 14t bomb.
Maximum estimated payload for B-2 is supposedly 23t, which is some 61%.
I'm not sure what the requirement for T/W for the B-21 will be compared to B-2 -- for example a Boeing 737 has a slightly higher T/W ratio than Boeing 747. In the case of B-21, perhaps they have slightly more ambitious airfield takeoff requirements than B-2 which may demand a slightly higher T/W ratio.
My understanding of B-21's ability to strike anywhere in the world, is that it is intended to be so numerous and be able to deploy at such a large number of international airbases, that it can reach multiple targets in the globe from those air bases -- i.e.: thus having a lower demand of the aircraft's own inherent internal fuel range compared to B-2.
So, what I'm saying is that all of the "roles" I described, are all things that H-20 will have to perform as part of a "standard" bombing mission against a high intensity foe.
H-20 of course has the ability to perform those missions for standalone sorties if needed -- but the ability to support AEW&C level command/control, to perform EW/ECM level electronic attack and jamming, to command UCAVs in a complex fashion, to act as a high bandwidth data node, are all things that it will have to do as part of any sort of proper bombing mission against a high intensity foe.
Such a mission will not just be "take off, get into launch range of target, drop stand off long range cruise missiles, and RTB".
Instead, it'll be "take off, datalink with dozens if not hundreds of other simultaneously airborne manned and unmanned air superiority, strike, EW/ECM, AEW&C, ELINT aircraft in the entire hemisphere of the planet, provide and receive commands and data in a distributed fashion, provide handover and receive target information for many other friendly cruise missiles/ballistic missiles/HGVs that might be en route in the air at the time.... and then get to launch range of your designated target, and drop stand off long range cruise missiles (with datalinking and EW/ECM support and coordination from all of the aforementioned friendly assets, including to your long range cruise missiles), and then RTB while doing all of the same above.
IMO, what I described will be a very "bog-standard" normal future bombing mission for a high intensity conflict for an aircraft of H-20's generation.
I wouldn't focus too much on GJ-11 -- the trend towards developing larger, more stealthy, larger payload, longer range UCAVs, is one that is going to be with us for a long time.
For H-20, its data fusion, command/control, and EW, IMO should not be viewed as a unique set of capabilities that will be sortie specific, but as a set of capabilities that will be utilized in every mission as part of a theater wide multi-battlespace conflict involving hundreds of friendly manned and unmanned assets in the air simultaneously, many/most of which would be stealthy.
That is the kind of datalinking, command/control and EW environment your aircraft needs to seamlessly operate in.
====
As for the issue of "engines powering lasers" -- I'm going to continue the discusison in the 6th gen thread, see here:
PLA 6th generation fighter thread
Check Han laser . However the world leader is trumpf and ipg photonics. Han's Laser makes laser systems, and procures laser sources primarily from IPG photonics; they're not direct competitors, but different parts along the supply chain. Raycus is China's domestic competitor to IPG photonics...
www.sinodefenceforum.com