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

latenlazy said:

I was going to add this point in an edit, but didn’t expect you to reply so fast. A 60+ tonne MTOW with internal payload would be a lot bigger than an F-111 or Su-34, and probably closer to that 20 tonne theater bomber I was originally referring to. For reference the Su-34 does about 12 tonnes max payload and the F-111 did about 14 tonnes, and both have are around 45 tonnes at MTOW.

Click to expand...

Yeah, well the JH-XX model that we saw a few years back and which is also shown on the magazine cover IMO shows a stealthy supersonic theater bomber, whose internal payload will probably be about 8 tons with an internal MTOW of about 60 tons.

Such an aircraft will definitely be bigger than F-111 or Su-34.

Much of our discussion back in 2015 was about whether WS-10 variants could be used to power a 60 ton aircraft with sufficient kinematic capability for a modern combat environment, given the rest of the aircraft's parameters (namely VLO signature reduction)

Bltizo said:

Yeah, well the JH-XX model that we saw a few years back and which is also shown on the magazine cover IMO shows a stealthy supersonic theater bomber, whose internal payload will probably be about 8 tons with an internal MTOW of about 60 tons.

Such an aircraft will definitely be bigger than F-111 or Su-34.

Much of our discussion back in 2015 was about whether WS-10 variants could be used to power a 60 ton aircraft with sufficient kinematic capability for a modern combat environment, given the rest of the aircraft's parameters (namely VLO signature reduction)

Click to expand...

A 8-10 tonne internal payload is probably going to come close to 20 tonnes in max payload with external stores. If I wasn’t clear, that’s what I meant when I referred to a 20 tonne payload. I think there might be a bit of confusion about what we’re each referring to when we think about a hypothetical JH-XX in this current round of discussion. There’s the theater bomber concept that’s probably going to be around the 30+ meters long 60 tonne MTOW range, and then there’s the enlarged striker concept that’s closer to a Su-34 or F-11 in size and MTOW. I think the former will need the WS-15s, but the latter can do with WS-10s.

I remember those earlier discussions pretty well. My view on this hasn’t changed much the last few years.

Edit: I’ll also add that it’s probably unlikely that a bomber with 60 tonne TOW at max internal stores of 8-10 tonnes would also do 80 tonnes with external stores...because that would translate to 30 tonnes max payload.

latenlazy said:

A 8-10 tonne internal payload is probably going to come close to 20 tonnes in max payload with external stores. If I wasn’t clear, that’s what I meant when I referred to a 20 tonne payload. I think there might be a bit of confusion about what we’re each referring to when we think about a hypothetical JH-XX in this current round of discussion. There’s the theater bomber concept that’s probably going to be around the 30+ meters long 60 tonne MTOW range, and then there’s the enlarged striker concept that’s closer to a Su-34 or F-11 in size and MTOW. I think the former will need the WS-15s, but the latter can do with WS-10s.

I remember those earlier discussions pretty well. My view on this hasn’t changed much the last few years.

Click to expand...

Yeah mine hasn't really changed either.

I can't really see the use of developing a new Su-34 or F-111 sized striker, unless it is VLO stealthy -- i.e. able to carry Su-34 or F-111 sized payloads internally with the same kind of endurance/range of those aircraft.

Given that we're talking about a stealth airframe, the MTOW of an internal stores only JH-XX would probably be on the higher end of the 60-80 ton range.

Bltizo said:

Alas, it seems like only the H-20 is being pursued and the JH-XX is not.

Click to expand...

That it is not being pursued now does not mean that it will not be pursued in future. Clearly there are limited resources for development projects, and other priorities. Indeed, in the long-term it makes good sense to stagger the development of combat platforms over time to avoid the problems of block obsolescence and constrained pathways in future.

That said, if both a regional and strategic bomber were to be pursued, it would seem to make more sense to invest in the regional platform first, as that would line up better with China's evolving strategic priorities over time, while also being cheaper to build and therefore able to generate greater numbers. That H-20 is apparently going ahead as basically a Sino B-2 is therefore a mark against a dual bomber structure.

Of course there are reasons why a regional bomber might be deferred even if ultimately desired. One is that the strategic platform is more flexible, being able to operate regionally while a regional bomber platform could not operate globally. A more interesting possibility is that the bomber could've been deferred for technological reasons, i.e. the expected future emergence and maturation of certain technologies -- chiefly hypersonic technologies -- such that a supersonic VLO JH-XX would be rendered effectively obsolete within 15 years.

Lethe said:

That it is not being pursued now does not mean that it will not be pursued in future. Clearly there are limited resources for development projects, and other priorities. Indeed, in the long-term it makes good sense to stagger the development of combat platforms over time to avoid future problems of block obsolescence and constrained options in future.

That said, if both a regional and strategic bomber were to be pursued, it would seem to make more sense to invest in the regional platform first, as that would line up better with China's evolving strategic priorities over time, while also being cheaper to build and therefore able to generate greater numbers. That H-20 is apparently going ahead as basically a Sino B-2 is therefore a mark against a dual bomber structure.

Of course there are reasons why a regional bomber might be deferred even if ultimately desired. One is that the strategic platform is more flexible, being able to operate regionally while a regional bomber platform could not operate globally. A more interesting possibility is that a deferral could've been made for technological reasons, i.e. the expected future emergence and maturation of certain technologies -- hypersonics -- such that a supersonic VLO JH-XX would be rendered effectively obsolete within 15 years.

Click to expand...

If the PLA did not have any other means of conducting effective regional strikes, then the logic of pursuing a strategic bomber first precluding their pursuit of a regional bomber would be sound, but that is not the case. If we take the totality of the PLA's capabilities, the shortfall is easily in global strategic strike capabilities, especially of the deep penetration sort. That said, I think expectation of other technologies obsoleting the need for a supersonic stealthy regional bomber is plausible, *though* if we're talking specifically about hypersonics, advances in that domain can easily serve as a complement or a synergy rather than a substitute.

Skywatcher said:

Given that we're talking about a stealth airframe, the MTOW of an internal stores only JH-XX would probably be on the higher end of the 60-80 ton range.

Click to expand...

I think with more powerful engines and modern manufacturing you could probably get that down to the lower end of that range. After all, all the comparable analogs we could look at are designs hitting the half century mark.

Bltizo said:

Yeah mine hasn't really changed either.

I can't really see the use of developing a new Su-34 or F-111 sized striker, unless it is VLO stealthy -- i.e. able to carry Su-34 or F-111 sized payloads internally with the same kind of endurance/range of those aircraft.

Click to expand...

hmm what about a stealthy Backfire. Would that be considered useful?

latenlazy said:

I think with more powerful engines and modern manufacturing you could probably get that down to the lower end of that range. After all, all the comparable analogs we could look at are designs hitting the half century mark.

Click to expand...

Built ones.
I've already posted it earlier, su-34 essentially is a partial adoption of exactly this type of bomber(reused forward fuselage and offensive avionics).
It gives good impression of what's possible to achieve. And, frankly speaking, possibilities are impressive at very least.
But article 54s required two al-41 engines to work properly.
So atm it's a bit too large, known 5th grn fighter engines are not strong enough.

Dfangsaur said:

hmm what about a stealthy Backfire. Would that be considered useful?

Click to expand...

If it is as stealthy as I described in my previous post then yes of course, but it will have to be massive to carry Tu-22M3 sized payloads internally.

Bltizo said:

If it is as stealthy as I described in my previous post then yes of course, but it will have to be massive to carry Tu-22M3 sized payloads internally.

Click to expand...

Basically it would be a B-1 sized plane.