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

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
Trying to use a hypothetical notion of survivability is analytically ambitious and prone to murky conclusions, but at the same time this conversation stemmed from whether using the WS-10s as interims would be viable, which kinda hinges on addressing is exactly that question.

Well yes, and as I said on the last page:
If you can accept that position, then the next logical question (which neither of us can really answer and I don't expect us to seriously know) is to consider just how much stealth would contribute to JH-XX's ability to conduct egress and what the minimum degree of kinematic capability it would need on top of its stealth to successfully egress... and whether WS-10s could potentially successfully meet that minimum kinematic capability.

However the above is very much a separate and much more complicated discussion which is not really possible to go through, compared to the simpler question I was advancing before and which we now both agree on.
 

latenlazy

Brigadier
Well yes, and as I said on the last page:


However the above is very much a separate and much more complicated discussion which is not really possible to go through, compared to the simpler question I was advancing before and which we now both agree on.
Well, it is if we look at what existing planes are capable of and assessing whether their performance would be adequate or not, hence the T:W ratio comparisons.
 

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
Well, it is if we look at what existing planes are capable of and assessing whether their performance would be adequate or not, hence the T:W ratio comparisons.


well no, because only looking at T/W doesn't tell us how much stealth contributes to survivability as well, nor do we know how capable the opposing side's air defences are projected to be.
In other words, to know what the minimum kinematic capability of JH-XX should be, we need to first project a realistic defended airspace scenario, and then to consider how much stealth contributes to its survivability, and then finally look at what the kinematic requirements will be on top of stealth to reach a desired level of survivability against the defended airspace.
If we don't know:
-one: what the defended airspace will look like and
-two: how much stealth will contribute to JH-XX's survivability against it...
...then we can't begin to project what kind of T/W and minimum kinematic capability JH-XX will need.

It is the lack of knowledge of those two things, which makes me say we can't seriously hold a discussion as to what the minimum kinematic capability JH-XX will need.
 

latenlazy

Brigadier
well no, because only looking at T/W doesn't tell us how much stealth contributes to survivability as well, nor do we know how capable the opposing side's air defences are projected to be.
In other words, to know what the minimum kinematic capability of JH-XX should be, we need to first project a realistic defended airspace scenario, and then to consider how much stealth contributes to its survivability, and then finally look at what the kinematic requirements will be on top of stealth to reach a desired level of survivability against the defended airspace.
If we don't know:
-one: what the defended airspace will look like and
-two: how much stealth will contribute to JH-XX's survivability against it...
...then we can't begin to project what kind of T/W and minimum kinematic capability JH-XX will need.

It is the lack of knowledge of those two things, which makes me say we can't seriously hold a discussion as to what the minimum kinematic capability JH-XX will need.
That's fair, but it's not like we can't look at factors that may suggest one direction or another on kinematic requirements, which is kinda what we've ended up doing for most of this prolonged discussion.
 

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
That's fair, but it's not like we can't look at factors that may suggest one direction or another on kinematic requirements, which is kinda what we've ended up doing for most of this prolonged discussion.

Hmm. I think it's easier to talk about kinematic requirements when it is in a relative sense, aka comparing a stealthy vs non-stealthy plane in the same circumstance, because that way we don't need to specify the exact circumstance or the exact degree of stealth, nor do we need an absolute number for kinematic capability.

But either way, I feel like we've finally come to a true agreement after this very long but interesting discussion.
 

SinoSoldier

Colonel
Major rumor...

"It was rumored that a new heavy
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
(J-18?) based on J-16 is being developed at 601/SAC since early 2010s. It features a widened twin-seat cockpit similar to Russian Su-34 and adjustable leading edge vortex controllers similar to Russian T-50. First flight was rumored to have taken place on October 27, 2015 but this has not been confirmed."

Henri K. posted the following image:
EjGJChb.jpg
 

Insignius

Junior Member
The LERX looks too strange to be real. But the BSS' think that it is.

On the other hand... Why would a faker do such a strange shop, if he wants to make people believe in it?
 
Top