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

Lethe

Captain
Rumours from the last few years are unchanged in claiming 4 WS-10s without afterburner, which would definitely put it in B-2 intercontinental weight class, but it might change.

I'm also interested in whether the project for the supersonic capable stealthy bomber concept (from SAC?) has been shelved or not, because it appeared to have been the size of a regional bomber

I think it would be better for China to first develop a smaller, "regional" platform because such an aircraft would be cheaper to produce and operate, and would therefore allow for more rapid recapitalisation and expansion of the roles currently serviced by H-6. Such an aircraft would also have the advantage of raising less alarm in distant regions currently unthreatened by China's rise such as Africa, the Americas, Europe, the Middle East and even Russia, and of course provide invaluable experience and lessons learned for a future "global reach" platform.

Most significantly, I would argue that China's enduring geopolitical circumstances ultimately favour such a split bomber force: a regional bomber in greater numbers to address the dense regional environment which will dominate security considerations over the next generation, and a larger strategic bomber to be fielded in smaller numbers at a later date, when China has more experience and resources, and a more global outlook and footprint. Contrast to the United States which has no comparable regional challenges and therefore no need for a regional bomber.
 
Last edited:

latenlazy

Brigadier
such an aircraft would be cheaper to produce and operate, and would therefore allow for more rapid recapitalisation and expansion of the roles currently serviced by H-6.
Exactly why a new strategic bomber is getting more attention than a new regional bomber. Because they already have the H-6.
 

Lethe

Captain
Exactly why a new strategic bomber is getting more attention than a new regional bomber. Because they already have the H-6.

Because increasing range/payload by 50-100%, many generations of improvements in sensors and electronics, and adding survivability through VLO -- these would just be minor refinements over existing capabilities. o_O
 

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
I like it... looks like a 21st century stealthy interation of the one eleven aarddvark with double delta.

It's based off this famous picture.

Interestingly we've only ever had this single picture of not only the model but also from whatever exhibition it was displayed at. The censors were active in removing related posts to this picture on the Chinese BBS initially, if I remember correctly, which is why quite a bit of attention was given to it.

XmOg0D8.jpg


The picture looks to me like a F-111 to Tu-22M sized regional bomber (which the model definitely suggests I think) and it was briefly dubbed JH-XX (hence the title of this thread) while H-X is the flying wing. Note there appears to be a side bay in addition to the main landing bay, which was speculated to carry MRAAM, maybe for self defence

The JH-XX model appears similar to the concept of YF-23B, actually.

Unfortunately we have no idea whether the PLA were interested in this concept.


I think it would be better for China to first develop a smaller, "regional" platform because such an aircraft would be cheaper to produce and operate, and would therefore allow for more rapid recapitalisation and expansion of the roles currently serviced by H-6. Such an aircraft would also have the advantage of raising less alarm in distant regions currently unthreatened by China's rise such as Africa, the Americas, Europe, the Middle East and even Russia, and of course provide invaluable experience and lessons learned for a future "global reach" platform.

Most significantly, I would argue that China's enduring geopolitical circumstances ultimately favour such a split bomber force: a regional bomber in greater numbers to address the dense regional environment which will dominate security considerations over the next generation, and a larger strategic bomber to be fielded in smaller numbers at a later date, when China has more experience and resources, and a more global outlook and footprint. Contrast to the United States which has no comparable regional challenges and therefore no need for a regional bomber.

Like latenlazy said, I think the H-6K currently fills the regional bomber role quite well.
Of course, developing a successor that is stealthy, possibly with slightly enhanced payload and range would be very useful especially if the PLA wants to have a larger number of stealth bombers in service, but I also think there is something to be said for developing a true global bomber as such an aircraft will likely serve in the PLA for quite a few decades, and in that time a true global air strike capability will probably rise in need for the PLA.

Also, a larger bomber can carry a bigger payload with greater range without refuelling meaning more flexibility for a bomber based deep in the Chinese heartland to hit targets far out in the western pacific, with less vulnerability than if it was situated closer to the coast.

That said I can see the argument for both a regional vs global bomber, and both have their benefits and drawbacks. If I had to choose I would have to flip a coin.

However I think what would be useful is a stealthy regional bomber with supersonic dash (or supersonic cruise would be even better) in lieu of the JH-XX model for anti shipping missions and striking targets that are well defended with CAP and IADS, while the slower and stealthier H-X (whether it be global or regional sized) is used for dropping more munitions against targets with already degraded defences.
 

Lethe

Captain
That said I can see the argument for both a regional vs global bomber, and both have their benefits and drawbacks. If I had to choose I would have to flip a coin.

I would argue that in the long-term, both are needed (as opposed to the US which does not need a regional bomber) so the only choice is which to build first. In terms of risk, cost, medium- vs. long-term strategic requirements, budgets over time and force modernisation imperatives, I believe there is a strong case for building the regional bomber first, and the strategic bomber later (+10yrs).

However I think what would be useful is a stealthy regional bomber with supersonic dash (or supersonic cruise would be even better) in lieu of the JH-XX model for anti shipping missions and striking targets that are well defended with CAP and IADS, while the slower and stealthier H-X (whether it be global or regional sized) is used for dropping more munitions against targets with already degraded defences.

I agree that such an aircraft would be very useful. I can certainly envision China developing a larger, strike-optimised version of J-20 in the coming years as a replacement for JH-7, along the lines US once considered for FB-22. But I would consider this as an additional "layer" in the broader strike capability matrix, rather than replacing the requirement/role of a regional bomber.
 

latenlazy

Brigadier
Because increasing range/payload by 50-100%, many generations of improvements in sensors and electronics, and adding survivability through VLO -- these would just be minor refinements over existing capabilities. o_O
No, because the H-6 is adequate for current needs as a regional bomber, but nothing is filling the need for a strategic bomber.
 

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
I would argue that in the long-term, both are needed (as opposed to the US which does not need a regional bomber) so the only choice is which to build first. In terms of risk, cost, medium- vs. long-term strategic requirements, budgets over time and force modernisation imperatives, I believe there is a strong case for building the regional bomber first, and the strategic bomber later (+10yrs).

I wonder if there would be any money or incentive left to develop a strategic bomber if one already has a regional bomber.

If the regional bomber features a different set of capabilities, such as being supersonic capable, then I strongly agree that developing both a supersonic stealthy regional bomber and a subsonic stealthy global strategic bomber would make sense.

However if the regional bomber is simply a smaller version of the strategic bomber then I think it might be better to forgo one entirely for the other.



I agree that such an aircraft would be very useful. I can certainly envision China developing a larger, strike-optimised version of J-20 in the coming years as a replacement for JH-7, along the lines US once considered for FB-22. But I would consider this as an additional "layer" in the broader strike capability matrix, rather than replacing the requirement/role of a regional bomber.

I actually think an FB-22 like variant of J-20 won't be that useful to the PLA, as such an aircraft would be limited to carrying fairly small diameter weapons in the size of SDBs and JDAMs, rather than the kind of large diameter cruise and anti ship missiles with stand off range, which is of greater utility against modern air defences.

Besides, J-20s should have a sufficiently large weapons bay and a long enough range to conduct regional bombing missions using SDBs into westpac against semi-permissible airspace, but for anti shipping missions against CSGs and against well defended IADS with CAP, a larger aircraft with stand off weapons and supersonic dash capability is needed.

That is why I was so interested in the black model -- a part of me hopes that it is still under development at SAC under high secrecy.
 
Top