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

Totoro

Major
VIP Professional
Some hypothetical speculation on next gen striker (Not bomber). I recently realized that pak-fa's layout is possibly the best layout for a stealthy strike aircraft required to carry long missiles. Unlike f22 or j20 which would, in my opinion, have to be upscaled quite a bit to be able to afford a 7 meter long (by 1,2 meters by 0,6 meters) weapon bay, pak-fa layout could do it with possibly half as big upscale, dimensions wise.

So two engines, spaced apart a little bit more than they are on pak-fa (but not by much, possibly just half a meter more), intakes raised compared to pakfa so their bottom is at level of aircraft's belly surface. Redesigned in shape, of course, probably more squarish like on f-22. Possibly not able to use DS intake due to that fact, as narrower but longer intakes like on j20 might be needed for that. But who knows. intake ducts would have to curve upwards, though, as there'd be little room to do so sideways, so engines would stick more up, like on yf-23. As i've seen many designs having center of lift below the center of mass of engines by such amount i don't think that'd be an issue.

Weapons bay positioned roughly where pak-fa's bay starts. One continuous bay, perhaps a meter shorter than pak-fas twin bays combined, but a bit wider and deeper. Nose section would not have to be terribly long so the whole plane would not have to be excessively long like with striker variant f-22 or j20.

Hopefully just a pelican tail would suffice, similar to yf-23 but who knows. Of course, the whole plane would still be bigger and heavier than pakfa or j20. Perhaps a fatter back, fatter front section for larger cabin, larger body cross section for that large weapon bay, wider engines, all that'd mean a lot more drag. While a lot more powerful engines might be needed as performance requiremeents would not be nearly so demanding for a striker we're still talking two hungry engines of 170ish kn thrust each. With requirement to go probably at least 50% farther, so pprobably over 15 tons of fuel, possibly close to 20 tons internally. I could see such a plane easely be in 25-30 ton empty weight bracket, so enlarged wings are a given. Overall mtow would then definitely go over 60 tons, though that'd be a figure not really used in regular missions - perhaps only for a loadout of added external fuel and external weaponry.
 

latenlazy

Brigadier
Some hypothetical speculation on next gen striker (Not bomber). I recently realized that pak-fa's layout is possibly the best layout for a stealthy strike aircraft required to carry long missiles. Unlike f22 or j20 which would, in my opinion, have to be upscaled quite a bit to be able to afford a 7 meter long (by 1,2 meters by 0,6 meters) weapon bay, pak-fa layout could do it with possibly half as big upscale, dimensions wise.

So two engines, spaced apart a little bit more than they are on pak-fa (but not by much, possibly just half a meter more), intakes raised compared to pakfa so their bottom is at level of aircraft's belly surface. Redesigned in shape, of course, probably more squarish like on f-22. Possibly not able to use DS intake due to that fact, as narrower but longer intakes like on j20 might be needed for that. But who knows. intake ducts would have to curve upwards, though, as there'd be little room to do so sideways, so engines would stick more up, like on yf-23. As i've seen many designs having center of lift below the center of mass of engines by such amount i don't think that'd be an issue.

Weapons bay positioned roughly where pak-fa's bay starts. One continuous bay, perhaps a meter shorter than pak-fas twin bays combined, but a bit wider and deeper. Nose section would not have to be terribly long so the whole plane would not have to be excessively long like with striker variant f-22 or j20.

Hopefully just a pelican tail would suffice, similar to yf-23 but who knows. Of course, the whole plane would still be bigger and heavier than pakfa or j20. Perhaps a fatter back, fatter front section for larger cabin, larger body cross section for that large weapon bay, wider engines, all that'd mean a lot more drag. While a lot more powerful engines might be needed as performance requiremeents would not be nearly so demanding for a striker we're still talking two hungry engines of 170ish kn thrust each. With requirement to go probably at least 50% farther, so pprobably over 15 tons of fuel, possibly close to 20 tons internally. I could see such a plane easely be in 25-30 ton empty weight bracket, so enlarged wings are a given. Overall mtow would then definitely go over 60 tons, though that'd be a figure not really used in regular missions - perhaps only for a loadout of added external fuel and external weaponry.
Intakes in fighters are mounted on the side or bottom in fighters to prevent air from being choked during extreme maneuvers. For a pure striker intakes can be mounted on top, leaving more space on the bottom for the weapons bay.
 

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
Makes me think the model with the upper mounted intakes from a few years ago would have made the perfect theatre supersonic stealth striker.
 

Deino

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
Yes ... me too is more than eagerly awaiting a first true image of the JH-XX/H-XX, but I'm sure we'll have to wait for a few more years.

Overall I think all these images simply show that they (XAC/no. 603 Inst.) are researching in that direction, that they are testing small models of flying wing configurations ...

Deino
 

Totoro

Major
VIP Professional
of course, if one wants to make it more of a bomber then a striker - top mounted intakes are perhaps the best way to go about it, as they would also aid RCS. But with typical take off weight of 50ish tons and mtow of 60ish tons i am still going for a true jh7 replacement, a plane that can still maneuver if needed.

also, i don't think intakes on top would help a lot with added weapon bay space. Main issue i see, if one wants to keep the plane relatively small, is squeezing the intake alongside the engines and inake part closest to engine. Having a long weapon bay put in front of the engines, like on j20 or f22 makes the whole plane longer, screwing with weight distribution and possibly requiring the whole plane to be bigger and heavier than it ideally needs to be.

maybe upper intakes put fairly close to the wing edge are still okay solution for a semi-maneuverable plane which doesn't go much over mach 1.5 or so. If so, it'd be worth to go that route for the RCS alone.

They can go for flying with for the h-x, but if they don't come up with proper medium speed supersonic stealthy striker capable of carrying at least two 6 meter long 1200 kg heavy weapons internally and reaching 2000 km radius (1800 subsonic high altitude, 200 km near max speed) in the next five or so years (prototype seen flying) then that's a ball dropped, in my opinion. Above figures are perfectly achievable, question is of size needed to achieve them.
 

Skywatcher

Captain
Makes me think the model with the upper mounted intakes from a few years ago would have made the perfect theatre supersonic stealth striker.

Given that that bomber seemed to have a full scale mockup built, it was probably a program of record at one time.

But if Henri K's summation of Chinese progress in hypersonics is right, then said supersonic bomber would have probably been dropped for a hypersonic cruise missile/H-X flying wing combo, to be followed by the Chinese equivalent to the SR-72.
 
Top