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

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 go through a bit of a process where I also compare with other stealth fighters to reach a 60+ ton internal store MTOW, feel free to critique it

https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/plaaf-jh-xx-h-x-bomber-project.t6451/page-36#post-366899

latenlazy said:

Basically it would be a B-1 sized plane.

Click to expand...

Yup. And for a stealthy supersonic bomber to have a similar internal payload to JH-7A, or F-111/Su-34, means you'll be pushing up to somewhere between Tu-22M3 and F111, or about where B-58 is.

Lethe said:

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.

Click to expand...

I was having a similar discussion over on CDF just earlier about the rationale between a strategic vs regional bomber, here's part of one of my posts where I explain the rationale and reason behind a PLAAF strategic bomber:

... what a strategic bomber with intercontinental combat radius does allow is the ability to operate from airbases in China's heartland and reach out to US bases deep in the pacific and launch large numbers of powered or unpowered guided conventional munitions against them using only one or two aircraft.

Let's put it this way -- a true strategic bomber means you can have a single H-20 carry the equivalent of, let's say three H-6Ks worth of LACMs, with a combat radius that is twice as large as a H-6K, and this is all without getting into the VLO nature of H-20 as well.
So instead of needing three H-6Ks to carry that payload + the additional need for forward basing or air refuelling (H-6Ks can't air refuel currently anyway) + extensive CAP SEAD/DEAD and EW to allow them to reach a designated launch zone, you can have a single H-20 that carries the same payload to the same launch zone without needing air refuelling or forward basing or extensive CAP SEAD/DEAD and EW support.

Click to expand...

Now, a stealthy supersonic regional bomber would also be able to do that mission but obviously it would need more sorties for the same effect -- but when weighing up developing ONLY a regional bomber or ONLY a strategic bomber, we eventually have to face the fact that if a strategic bomber's sheer range is ever needed then a regional bomber simply isn't going to cut it.

Or putting it another way, both a strategic and regional bomber can conduct regional bombing and strike missions, but of those two only a strategic bomber can conduct (non-air refuelled) strategic ranged missions if required.


I do think developing a strategic bomber in the form of H-20 doesn't mean they can't later also develop a regional bomber like the JH-XX model, but I think if they had to develop just one of those two, I think going with H-20 makes sense.

"China’s most prestigious aviation magazine has published an artist’s depictions of the Chinese Air Force’s next-generation heavy strategic bomber.

The stealth bomber, known as JH-XX to aviation watchers, is a sleek, twin-engine aircraft quite different from U.S. stealth bomber designs. The Pentagon believes the plane will be capable of carrying nuclear weapons."

Bltizo said:

Or putting it another way, both a strategic and regional bomber can conduct regional bombing and strike missions, but of those two only a strategic bomber can conduct (non-air refuelled) strategic ranged missions if required.

Click to expand...

On the other hand, strategic bomber is the most expensive kind of combat aircraft, regional bomber is notably less so.
You just don't build a strategic bomber unless you really have weight fighting nuclear war as an option(not just deter it).

Gloire_bb said:

On the other hand, strategic bomber is the most expensive kind of combat aircraft, regional bomber is notably less so.
You just don't build a strategic bomber unless you really have weight fighting nuclear war as an option(not just deter it).

Click to expand...

China developed nuclear weapons as a deterrence. The nuclear deterrence means fighting a nuclear war is always an option. As such, if China has the strategic nuclear weapons in stock, they must have the delivery systems to back it up. Otherwise, their nuclear deterrence is an empty gesture at best.

I think there is good chance that China might opt for the more conventional design for its next gen bomber, not just because it is a design they are much more familiar with, but also it is very much in their nature to play both sides of the field (stealth and supersonic capability).

vesicles said:

China developed nuclear weapons as a deterrence. The nuclear deterrence means fighting a nuclear war is always an option.

Click to expand...

Nope, it's the opposite.
Deterrence arsenal is built precisely in a way to avoid fighting a nuclear war.
On the other hand, when nuclear war comes(if), it instantly becomes inadequate, because it's built as a tool of terror(making enemy civilians into hostages), not as a contingency plan. For nuclear warfighting it is simply lacking.

Chinese nuclear arsenal up to now remains a deterrence arsenal, and bulk of it(as well as c&c) is "use it or loose it" on top of that.

Viktor Jav said:

I think there is good chance that China might opt for the more conventional design for its next gen bomber, not just because it is a design they are much more familiar with, but also it is very much in their nature to play both sides of the field (stealth and supersonic capability).

Click to expand...

No offense, but have we thought of this through?

What kind of potential opponents would necessitate China to use a new strategic bomber? Certainly not your ragtag insurgent types, as they can be easily engaged by existing H-6 or JH-7 fleets. These bomber projects, emphasizing range and payload, are almost certainly designed to counter USN CSGs and permanent bases in the Pacific, against which a conventional bomber will not survive.

Hi is not viable to build a long range hypersonic missile to deliver a payload more then what
a stealth bomber will be carrying just my thought
Any learned member can shed some more information regarding my query
Thank you