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

sunnymaxi said:

this is serious information. can i get the link of this account bro

Click to expand...

Here:

But once again, I am highly doubtful of the supersonic capability claim on the H-20. Even without the complex flight control issues associated with flying wing aircrafts at supersonic speeds, the amount of fuel required for maintaining long duration supersonic flight would have detrimental impact on the payload capacity and range of the H-20, which would be unfavorable if the H-20 is to take on the missile truck role in the PLAAF.

Unless... the team in Xi'an is somehow able to merge the stealth capability of model C and supersonic capability of model D into one H-20 airframe, all while not sacrificing much from both models:

I have no idea when did I got this diagram, but AFAIK I got this diagram from somewhere in this forum.

And again, my point on the stealth + supersonic capabilities on the H-20 should be counted as pure speculation.

ACuriousPLAFan said:

Speaking of the "... it (H-20) will be very different from the B-21 in the way it is used, and that will likely lead to something that is still quite different in the end although it also values stealth" statement, I found this post from another Weibo user which may be indicative of something about the H-20.

View attachment 102913

Rough translation of the post above:


Until we can see the H-20 with our own eyes, I would remain doubtful of the supersonic flight capability claim. However, the mention of being a launch vehicle for hypersonic weapons does merit some attention and credibility. Although in order to achieve that, the H-20 would need to have larger dimensions than their American counterparts.

Gotta say that if the H-20 can have both VLO and supersonic capabilities on the same airframe, it would be a really astounding achievement for Xi'an, PLAAF and the military aviation world as a whole. But that's just pure speculation for now.

Click to expand...

I have no idea how much this guy's knows, but these would be a complete waste on h20. I would be very disappointed if they de emphasize stealth in favor of carrying hypersonic weapons and supersonic flight profile.

There are too many fanboys out there looking for additional attributes on a strategic bomber. Those things are not needed. You need 3 things: stealth, range and payload. Any design decision should be toward maximizing those 3 things. Don't make it more complicated.

Frankly, I find even folding tails to be unnecessary.

It makes no sense for H-20 to be a supersonic aircraft I think. Given the era when it was designed it likely uses WS-10 engines. All the targets which China might want to use the bomber on will be quite far away from the mainland so they need huge range in that bomber. That implies a flying wing design which seems to be near unanimous belief is the case for H-20.
I could see the supersonic design show up but for that China would need to have a VCE engine I think. Otherwise the range will be severely limited unless they use a variable geometry blended wing body similar to Tu-160 or B-1. But China has no experience building such aircraft. So I think it will be subsonic flying wing first. And maybe supersonic with VCE engine later.

ACuriousPLAFan said:

Here:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

But once again, I am highly doubtful of the supersonic capability claim on the H-20. Even without the complex flight control issues associated with flying wing aircrafts at supersonic speeds, the amount of fuel required for maintaining long duration supersonic flight would have detrimental impact on the payload capacity and range of the H-20, which would be unfavorable if the H-20 is to take on the missile truck role in the PLAAF.

Unless... the team in Xi'an is somehow able to merge the stealth capability of model C and supersonic capability of model D into one H-20 airframe, all while not sacrificing much from both models:
View attachment 102921
I have no idea when did I got this diagram, but AFAIK I got this diagram from somewhere in this forum.

And again, my point on the stealth + supersonic capabilities on the H-20 should be counted as pure speculation.

Click to expand...

The diagram is from "不同气动布局轰炸机电磁隐身性能对比研究", it can be downloaded from

According to the paper, model D is supposed to be after B-3 (conceptual supersonic fly-wing bomber of US). It has two canted vertical stabilizers. Model C is after B-2. Comparing the four layouts, C and D have about equal RCS size in the front and side, D is a little worse from behind due to the less angular tail lines.

Although this does not mean that H-2 is supersonic, it does mean that supersonic fly-wing is a serious idea.

There is another paper "无尾布局后体超声速航向增稳设计方法" which studies super-sonic fly-wing directional stability. It's studying model is fighter sized. However, the principle is the same. The idea is that instead of a smooth back, the upper side of the engine compartments form ridges that create air pressures on the sides to act as vertical stabilizers.


I think it is due to these papers that many people think that it is possible that H-20 may be supersonic which can not be ruled out until we see the real thing or some official revelation.

It is impossible for a pure fly-wing to go supersonic, but we don't know if H-20 is a pure fly-wing either.

It would be a rather major surprise if H-20 at this point so late in the hour, was actually intended to be supersonic capable, which naturally means it would be not a flying wing.

It would be the equivalent of being in 2009 and suddenly hearing that J-XX/20 would not be a canard delta heavyweight fighter.

From the paper, it doesn't seem flying wing and supersonic are mutually exclusive to one another in the mind of Chinese designers, unless flying wing is strictly defined as in the shapes of B-2 and B-21.

taxiya said:

From the paper, it doesn't seem flying wing and supersonic are mutually exclusive to one another in the mind of Chinese designers, unless flying wing is strictly defined as in the shapes of B-2 and B-21.

Click to expand...

Yes, when I say flying wing I mean "subsonic flying wing". B-2/21, GJ-11, or X-47B pattern.

For a supersonic design that is technically a flying wing, I think "supersonic tailless" is a better name for it, to differentiate it from the typical shorthand of what people consider with the term "flying wing".

ACuriousPLAFan said:

For a bomber to work as a missile truck, it has to be able to carry huge amounts of payload.

Good examples of this would be the B-1B (34 tons), B-52 (32 tons) and Tu-160 (40 tons).

Bombers like the B-2 could only carry 18 tons of payload at most. B-21 would have an even lower (estimated) 13-15 tons of payload capacity, so I wouldn't refer both of them as viable missile trucks.

At present, China does not have any bombers that could play the missile truck role - the H-6 only has a payload capacity of around 9 tons, which is smallest among her strategic bomber peers.

To be frank, in the 1970s and 1980s, China did brush pass a bomber proposal which technically can be regarded as China's own (albeit smaller) missile truck bomber, i.e. Xi'an H-8, with a payload capacity of around 18-20 tons. Below is an illustration of the H-8 design variants by @Deino.
View attachment 102912

Unfortunately, the proposal never progress beyond blueprints.

Therefore, in order for China's upcoming H-20 to work in the missile truck role, I think that her payload capacity must be larger than that of the B-2. That means either:
1. The bomb/missile bays have to be bigger (and hence, larger overall dimension for the H-20); or
2. Some of the payloads have to be carried underneath the wings of the H-20 (which would compromise its stealth capabilities).

For the second option, missiles with enhanced stealth capabilities like the YJ-98 and (rumored) HN-2000 can be considered. However, the solution would not be optimal for H-20's intended role as an all-round VLO stealth bomber.

If both options are not possible, the only way is to start the production run on the Xi'an H-8 at the same time as the H-20. But that would be rather unfeasible.

Click to expand...

I think we should slow down a bit and not get ahead of ourselves.

The "H-8" concept that was investigated decades ago is not pertinent or relevant to the discussion about H-20 and its potential role as a missile truck.
It's an ancient concept and is not under development, so it is like the equivalent of the US talking about producing a "B-1R" in this day and age.
If we want to talk about H-20's role as a missile truck itself, that is very reasonable -- but let's not talk about other past concept aircraft, it just muddies the waters (even as a hypothetical)


Now, in the case of H-20 -- if it is a subsonic stealthy flying wing of a similar size to B-2 (which is what we all basically have expected for the last few years), I see no reason why a B-2 sized aircraft could not be a missile truck.
The B-2 has its weapons bay arguably more configured for direct attack munitions than for missiles, but even the B-2 itself can carry sixteen JASSMs internally.

Sixteen JASSM sized (or slightly larger, if the weapons bay is oriented correctly) weapons carried internally in a stealthy flying wing airframe of the B-2 size is about as good as you're practically going to get for that kind of airframe.
For B-2, I would argue carrying sixteen JASSMs is very much the aircraft operating in a "missile truck" role.


In the case of H-20, I expect a new stealthy KD-20 sized heavy ALCM to be developed (among other new weapons of course), and if H-20 is able to carry 12-16 internally, and IMO that would certainly fulfill the definition of a missile truck for a stealth bomber.



A stealth bomber like B-2, B-21, and H-20 are inevitably going to have different payload expectations compared to conventional bombers like B-52, B-1, Tu-160 etc, but their effectiveness in employing those ALCMs will also be greatly enhanced by virtue of their VLO status.

Blitzo said:

I think we should slow down a bit and not get ahead of ourselves.

The "H-8" concept that was investigated decades ago is not pertinent or relevant to the discussion about H-20 and its potential role as a missile truck.
It's an ancient concept and is not under development, so it is like the equivalent of the US talking about


If we want to talk about H-20's role as a missile truck itself, that is very reasonable -- but let's not talk about other past concept aircraft.


Now, in the case of H-20 -- if it is a subsonic stealthy flying wing of a similar size to B-2 (which is what we all basically have expected for the last few years), I see no reason why a B-2 sized aircraft could not be a missile truck.
The B-2 has its weapons bay arguably more configured for direct attack munitions than for missiles, but even the B-2 itself can carry sixteen JASSMs internally.

Sixteen JASSM sized (or slightly larger, if the weapons bay is oriented correctly) weapons carried internally in a stealthy flying wing airframe of the B-2 size is about as good as you're practically going to get for that kind of airframe.


In the case of H-20, I expect a new stealthy KD-20 sized heavy ALCM to be developed (among other new weapons of course), and if H-20 is able to carry 12-16 internally, and IMO that would certainly fulfill the definition of a missile truck for a stealth bomber.



A stealth bomber like B-2, B-21, and H-20 are inevitably going to have different payload expectations compared to conventional bombers like B-52, B-1, Tu-160 etc, but their effectiveness in employing those ALCMs will also be greatly enhanced by virtue of their VLO status.

Click to expand...

Had ever anybody implied if H-20 possibly has buddy refueling capability? That would be very useful.

If built in numbers, a strike force of 5 fully loaded B2 sized stealth bombers can carry up to 80 stealthy Cruise missiles, that number is probably sufficient to penetrate American fleet defenses, even if they defend against the first wave the second wave would go past their depleted missile stocks.