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

gongolongo

Junior Member
Registered Member
It will be interesting to see the combo of H-20 and hypersonic missiles. US focused on stealth. Russians focused on missiles. But combining them could have a better synergy. There is little warning, and it could be from anywhere. Once it is on the way there is little reaction time and you cannot shoot it down. Perfect for valuable targets like carriers and key bases. It would force enemy to over dedicate air defense and halt their offensive operations. As we know US rely on air power for this role which is expensive.
Unlikely any time soon or during initial release of the H-20. Chinese Hypersonic missiles tend to be based on ballistic missiles as glide vehicles for now. We haven't seen much evidence of air carried missiles and these things will take a very long time to develop.
 

tphuang

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
VIP Professional
Registered Member
It will be interesting to see the combo of H-20 and hypersonic missiles. US focused on stealth. Russians focused on missiles. But combining them could have a better synergy. There is little warning, and it could be from anywhere. Once it is on the way there is little reaction time and you cannot shoot it down. Perfect for valuable targets like carriers and key bases. It would force enemy to over dedicate air defense and halt their offensive operations. As we know US rely on air power for this role which is expensive.
I think we are more likely to see H-20 with VLO subsonic cruise missiles. Whatever hypersonic missiles they do design for H-20 need to be stealthy and fit nicely inside H-20. You don't want the missiles themselves to give away H-20 position
 

FairAndUnbiased

Brigadier
Registered Member
Technically what you said is correct regarding JH-XX's relation to the JH-7. But there's something else that should be in mind- the designated payload for the JH-XX.

If the JH-XX is meant to function as a strike fighter like the JH-7, then sure. However, her payload capacity could become lower than what is desired, since being part-fighter (and part-bomber) means that the airframe needs to have certain degree of maneuverability that normal bombers don't have. This is why you see the F-15 is capable of doing extreme-G nimble moves, but you don't see the B-1B doing the same.

Moreover, the requirement for the airframe to be VLO means that unlike the JH-7, all the missiles and/or bombs must be carried inside the weapons bay of the JH-XX when operating in high-risk and high-threat airspaces. To carry enough munition payloads inside the weapons bay that would justify JH-XX's role as a bomber, that means the plane itself would have to be bigger in dimension, and hence, affecting its overall maneuverability.

Personally, I would prefer that JH-XX be more of a tactical bomber. Instead of trying to be half-bomber and half-fighter, the JH-XX would focus on better stealth, supersonic speed and larger payload capacity than her fighter peers.

Plus, there's the missile truck role for the JH-XX to play a part in, whether the missiles are for ground attack or anti-air. The point is to have JH-XXs carrying huge loads of AAMs and patrol outside of the battlefield airspace. They would then launch AAMs against enemy warplanes detected in the battlefield airspace upon receiving command and/or request relayed from frontline allied fighters and/or allied AEW&C aircrafts, and have them guide those AAMs towards their targets.
Yeah the missile truck role for all types of missiles was what I was thinking of, just did not have the words. The maneuverability can indeed be tones down for that, and we would expect a first tailless design to be more challenging. High maneuverability in addition to RCS, speed, payload and range requirements may indeed be too challenging and costly.

I was thinking, with a larger plane than the J-16, would a larger nose radar also be possible? The larger nose radar would give it substantially greater detection range. It can act as a stealthy sensor node and armed recon platform as well, and be able to engage in ground strikes against moving targets as well. That would be a capability not yet seen, since a strategic bomber is too valuable to spend on a recon role, while a fighter has a relatively smaller and less capable radar.
 

Schwerter_

Junior Member
Registered Member
if this is a real aircraft that they're looking at making, it looks like it is a mid sized tactical striker/interceptor, like a PLAAF analog to the Mig-31 but stealthy. Would fit well into Shenyang's expertise. It could play a niche as a survivable and affordable medium range/payload ISR, strike and interceptor platform especially if they can get the unit price into the ~100M USD range. In my opinion it would also be a good attempt into a tailless design as a striker would not have the aerodynamic performance requirements of a fighter, but also would be closer aerodynamically to a fighter than a bomber.
Similar thoughts here. This has the potential (maybe?) of being a LO platform for carrying hypersonic weapons, like what we've been seeing H-6 varients do lately. Create a weapons bay big enough for one or maybe two
Yeah the missile truck role for all types of missiles was what I was thinking of, just did not have the words. The maneuverability can indeed be tones down for that, and we would expect a first tailless design to be more challenging. High maneuverability in addition to RCS, speed, payload and range requirements may indeed be too challenging and costly.

I was thinking, with a larger plane than the J-16, would a larger nose radar also be possible? The larger nose radar would give it substantially greater detection range. It can act as a stealthy sensor node and armed recon platform as well, and be able to engage in ground strikes against moving targets as well. That would be a capability not yet seen, since a strategic bomber is too valuable to spend on a recon role, while a fighter has a relatively smaller and less capable radar.
The sensor node is a very interesting application, but personally I would advise caution on trying to integrate too many roles onto a single platform, as it may lead to high R&D costs (both financial and time-wise), possible high purchase costs and potentially a platform that can perform many roles but not optimized for any one.

That said, using the same base platform and make different sub-variants focusing on different things is certainly doable, and imo a very attractive idea on such a relatively large and LO platform.
 

Schwerter_

Junior Member
Registered Member
wow I didn’t realize it saved my unfinished previous reply draft and sent that out as well….

what I meant in the first part is if it can hold one or two ALBM (like what we saw last November at Zhuhai on that H-6), it would have some quite serious potential at both deep strike and anti-ship missions.
 

TK3600

Captain
Registered Member
You could also say that the Russians are going for stealth too, with the PAK-DA stealth bomber project that they are working on right now.
American are doing hypersonics too but it is still vaporware as of now.
Yeah the missile truck role for all types of missiles was what I was thinking of, just did not have the words. The maneuverability can indeed be tones down for that, and we would expect a first tailless design to be more challenging. High maneuverability in addition to RCS, speed, payload and range requirements may indeed be too challenging and costly.

I was thinking, with a larger plane than the J-16, would a larger nose radar also be possible? The larger nose radar would give it substantially greater detection range. It can act as a stealthy sensor node and armed recon platform as well, and be able to engage in ground strikes against moving targets as well. That would be a capability not yet seen, since a strategic bomber is too valuable to spend on a recon role, while a fighter has a relatively smaller and less capable radar.
In other words a stealthy 5th gen mig31.
 

ACuriousPLAFan

Colonel
Registered Member
Remember this from early December 2022?
Until now, what we do know from non-official sources/estimations is that the H-20s (assuming only subsonic-capable) could have a maximum range of at least 10000-12000 kilometers. That means the effective combat range of the H-20s without refueling would only be somewhere in the 6000-7000 kilometer range at most.

The distances between PLAAF airbases located within China's interior and targets on CONUS would be at least 10000 kilometers, i.e. way beyond the expected combat ranges of the H-20s.

In order for the H-20s to be able to strike CONUS, there are 3 options:

1. Carrying ultra-long-range standoff (subsonic/supersonic/hypersonic) missiles with ranges of at least 4000 kilometers that would fill up the remaining gap between the maximum operating range of the H-20s and their targets; or
2. Mid-flight refueling of the H-20s - One refueling on their way to their targets, plus another refueling on their way back to their home bases in China; or
3. Combination of the above two.

YU-20 is surely a no-go for the PLAAF thanks to her not being designed with stealth capabilities in mind, which would definitely expose the YU-20s to immediate enemy detection and fire.

On the other hand, there are 3 major issues associated with aerial refueling UAVs like the MQ-25 Stingray for China's H-20:

1. China does not have air bases located across the Pacific to host them;
2. China does not have carriers that can operate deeper into the Pacific while still having sufficient cover and support from bases across the Pacific and from the Chinese mainland to host them;
3. Those UAVs would not carry enough fuel to refuel one H-20, let along a couple of them. If the UAVs are made larger in order to fully refuel the H-20s, the increasing size demanded of the UAV would render the need for aerial refueling UAVs rather pointless.

Therefore, alternative method of refueling the H-20s is required. But fitting individual H-20s with buddy refueling capabilities wouldn't do any better, since every H-20 involved only has rather limited onboard fuel for long-range strategic bombing runs.

Hence, it would be much better to have a specialized refueling variant of the H-20 (let's just call this variant HU-20). Compared to aerial refueling UAVs like the MQ-25, the HU-20s would have:

1. Much larger onboard carrying capacity for more fuel (~6 tons vs guesstimate 20-30 tons at the very least); and
2. Sufficient stealth capabilities to refuel the H-20s on their bombing runs without risking too much for the enemy to detect them.

The general idea for the HU-20 would be as follows:

1. The HU-20s takes off from their bases in China and join up with the H-20s on their way to their designated targets;
2. The HU-20s refuel the H-20s halfway of their journey;
3. Once the refueling are completed, the HU-20 turn around and return to their bases in China;
4. The H-20s continue towards their targets;
5. Once their bombing runs are completed, the H-20s turn around and return to their bases in China;
6. The HU-20s meet the H-20s halfway of their return journey and refuel the H-20s for the second time; and
7. The H-20s and HU-20s continue their return journey to their bases in China.

Welp, looks like the Americans have the same thought that they would like to put into place in the future:

Boeing (picture 1 and 2) and Lockheed Martin (picture 3) came up with concepts of stealthy tanker aircraft and transport aircraft based on the blended wing body (BWB) design in 2023 AIAA SciTech Forum and Exposition held in Washington DC last Monday.
boeingstealthbwb.jpg
boeingstealthbwb2.jpg
lockmartstealthbwb.jpg

There are several key goals for pursuing this kind of BWB design for the future tanker aircrafts and transport aircrafts by the US military:
1. Stealth - Reduce detectability and risk of enemy interception
2. Survivability - Able to operate in higher-risk environment
3. Payload capacity - More onboard payload capacity permitted
4. Fuel efficiency - Airframe design reducing fuel consumption
5. Range - Increased fuel efficiency enxpands effective operational range

In my opinion, these stealthy BWB tanker aircrafts would accompany US bombers and fighters across the Pacific and/or Arctic and refuel them en-route on their deep penetration strike missions and/or nuclear strike missions against military and civilian targets in China and Russia, for that matter. This is broadly similar to what I have described in the my previous post as per quoted above.

The increased payload capacity, fuel efficieny and range of these BWB tanker aircrafts would allow US bombers and fighters to massively reduce their dependence on refueling tankers stationed at air bases and airfields that are closer to China, i.e. along the First and Second Island Chains, which can be pretty vulnerable in case of war with China. This will certainly and significantly pile upon the challenges faced by the PLA, as they would have to extend their strike coverage even further out into the EastPac in order to cover US military installations along the Third Island Chain, including Hawaii.

In my previous post as per quoted above - Said stealthy tanker aircrafts, i.e. HU-20 by China is based on a modified version of the H-20 bomber. Although technically the concept should be sound and workable, yet it may still be a stop-gap measure only. The design requirements into making the H-20 would have reduced the meaningful payload capacity onboard the HU-20, when compared to proper refueling tanker aircrafts like the YU-20.

Therefore, at the same time as finding and improving upon methods to counter these stealthy BWB tankers aircrafts and transport aircrafts coming from the US, I think China should kickstart the research-and-development work for her own stealthy tanker aircrafts and transport aircrafts too. Sure, the stealthy BWB tanker aircrafts and transport aircrafts would have larger RCS than the VLO bombers (i.e. B-2, B-21, H-20), but they are still very effective at shrinking down their RCS compared to conventional airframe designs that we see across transport aircrafts and tanker aircrafts of today.

This is especially as we are expecting that China's wartime operational coverage in the Pacific (and Indian) Ocean(s) would be extended further and further towards the east, north and south in the future. China needs viable methods and mediums to achieve that aim, which I believe could be lying on stealthy BWB airframes.
 
Last edited:

FairAndUnbiased

Brigadier
Registered Member
Remember this from early December 2022?


Welp, looks like the Americans have the same thought that they would like to put into place in the future:

Boeing (picture 1 and 2) and Lockheed Martin (picture 3) came up with concepts of stealthy tanker aircrafts and transport aircrafts based on blended wing body (BWB) design in 2023 AIAA SciTech Forum and Exposition held in Washington DC last Monday.
View attachment 106103
View attachment 106104
View attachment 106105

There are several key goals for pursuing this kinds of BWB design for the future tanker aircrafts and transport aircrafts by the US military:
1. Stealth - Reduce detectability and risk of enemy interception
2. Survivability - Able to operate in higher-risk environment
3. Payload capacity - More onboard payload capacity permitted
4. Fuel efficiency - Airframe design reducing fuel consumption
5. Range - Increased fuel efficiency enlarges effective cruising range

In my opinion, these stealthy BWB tanker aircrafts would accompany and refuel US bombers and fighters across the Pacific and/or Arctic on their deep penetration strike missions and/or nuclear strike missions against military and civilian targets in China and Russia, for that matter. This is broadly similar to what I have described in the my previous post as per quoted above.

The increased payload capacity, fuel efficieny and range of these BWB tanker aircrafts would also result in US bombers and fighters effectively shrinking their dependence on refueling tankers stationed at air bases and airfields that are closer to China, i.e. along the First and Second Island Chains. This certainly will significantly add to the challenges faced by the PLA, as they would have to extend their strike coverage further out into the EastPac in order to cover the Third Island Chains, including Hawaii.

In my previous post as per quoted above - Said stealthy tanker aircrafts, i.e. HU-20 by China is based on a modified version of the H-20 bomber. Although technically the concept could be sound and workable, yet this may still be only a stop-gap measure. The design requirements into making the H-20 would have reduced the meaningful payload capacity onboard the HU-20, when compared to proper refueling tanker aircrafts like the YU-20.

Therefore, at the same time as finding and improving upon methods to counter these stealthy BWB tankers aircrafts and transport aircrafts coming from the US, I think China should kickstart the research-and-development work for her own stealthy tanker aircrafts and transport aircrafts too. This is especially as we are expecting the operational warzone in the Pacific (and Indian) Ocean(s) to be extended further and further out towards the east, north and south in the future.
this is dangerous, as even a moderate decline in RCS would greatly reduce tanker detection distance by hundreds of km which is all is needed to go from "too dangerous to operate" to "within tolerable risk".

maybe if a H-20U project is too ambitious, a payload module where some of the internal bays can be retrofitted with extra tanks to mix between a pure buddy tanker, an extended range lower payload version, and the base model, could be useful.

In addition, there can be more creativity in munitions, such as an extended range version of the Shahed. A 3500-4000 km flying range Shahed-ER style drone that can be dropped in the dozens would be devastating if launched from shore but even more devastating to a much wider variety of targets if launched from the air.
 

ACuriousPLAFan

Colonel
Registered Member
this is dangerous, as even a moderate decline in RCS would greatly reduce tanker detection distance by hundreds of km which is all is needed to go from "too dangerous to operate" to "within tolerable risk".
Yes, those stealthy BWB tanker aircrafts having larger RCS than the VLO bombers certainly is a big minus in terms of stealthiness and survivability in high-risk airspaces. However, those BWB tanker aircrafts are not going to accompany the VLO bombers all the way to their designated mission areas - They are only going to fly as far as they need to refuel those VLO bombers before they make a U-turn and head back to base. Only those VLO bombers will continue towards their target.

Instead of having to fly over Canada or Alaska, those BWB tanker aircrafts only have to fly to the Bering Sea, the Arctic Ocean or the Central Pacific at most, where US and allied military installations would be sparse and far apart, hence reducing the chances of interception by US, Canadian and/or Japanese fighters, for that matter.

maybe if a H-20U project is too ambitious, a payload module where some of the internal bays can be retrofitted with extra tanks to mix between a pure buddy tanker, an extended range lower payload version, and the base model, could be useful.
HU-20 isn't exactly ambitious or out-of-bound per se, but a new refueling platform resulted from the need of a stealthy refueling platform that would extend the H-20's combat range all the way to CONUS. But a modification option for some base variant H-20 units to be fitted with fuel tanks and refueling drouge only (instead of bombs or missiles) should do the trick as well.

In addition, there can be more creativity in munitions, such as an extended range version of the Shahed. A 3500-4000 km flying range Shahed-ER style drone that can be dropped in the dozens would be devastating if launched from shore but even more devastating to a much wider variety of targets if launched from the air.
Shahed-like loitering drones is useful for Ukraine, Iraq, Yemen and Syria, i.e. countries that has flimsy to zero effective anti-air defenses against larger warplanes, let alone drones. But for countries with fully established and integrated layers of SAM network and even dedicated anti-loitering drone systems like the US and China, deploying Shahed-like loitering drones against targets with substantial anti-loitering drone system coverage is going to be very difficult and suboptimal.

Besides, sending H-20s all the way from China and across the Pacific/Arctic just to attack targets on CONUS with Shahed-like loitering drones is going to be very wasteful. A better way of employing these loitering drones would be housing them inside containerized launchers, while being carried onboard normal container ships. They can be concealed amongst other normal shipping containers, which would then be activated to launch loitering drones once within range of its targets, which can be achieved when the container ships are around or within CONUS territorial waters.
 
Last edited:

Atomicfrog

Captain
Registered Member
A better way of employing these loitering drones would be housing them inside containerized launchers, while being carried onboard normal container ships. They can be concealed amongst other normal shipping containers, which would then be activated to launch loitering drones once within range of its targets, which can be achieved when the container ships are around or within CONUS territorial waters.
They could even send them to Mexico, Cuba and even Canada or the US and let them there with predetermined targets. before an attack. Some could even been let in place for a long time around CONUS.

A bunch of GERAN2 style drones coming from Jamaica, Mexico or Haiti could be quite hard to point finger on and still reach quite a lot of targets.

Even on heavily guarded border like Mexico, these would be hard to intercept. Small smuggling planes are passing a lot carrying migrant and drugs to the US.

H-20 and their tankers would have a long way to go, I could see them come from the north and south but not accross the Pacific. It would be quite hardcore even for these.
 
Last edited:
Top