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

ACuriousPLAFan

Colonel
Registered Member
Supersonic Agile planes are much more capable of outmanuvering missiles to bleed its energy. This is how modern fighters and fighter bombers deal with BVR missiles. BVR battle is not just about seeing enemies on Radar and shooting missiles. Its also about manuvering towards the ground to confuse missiles, using terrain, using chaffs and flares and also using specific manuevers to force the missiles manuever much more than the plane. Slowly BVR missiles lose energy and lose track.

Supersonic and Agile planes atleast have abilty to do these things. Subsonic slow moving bombers are pretty much sitting ducks when a BVR missile is shot against them.

Also another point is that most supersonic planes can actually outrun missiles, if they choose to flee the battlefield. Cause Missiles constantly lose energy due to air resistance and are only hypersonic in the middle-phase of their flight. Subsonic planes cannot even flee the battlefield and outrun missiles.
Sure, being supersonic and agile can indeed maneuver to bleed out the energy of the intercepting AAMs, provided that the tactics and timing are right.

However, and similarly - The enemy side too can (and is/have) devising(ed) tactics and methods of their own in order to counteract and neutralize your counteractions. Who said that the enemy must fire their LRAAMs (and SAMs) at their maximum possible range, to begin with? You can choose how to fight - So can the enemy.

Besides - And arguably quite important - Trying to go with strategic bombers that have all of the following features:
1. Large;
2. Heavy;
3. Long-range;
4. Supersonic;
5. Stealthy; and
6. Able to carry payloads equivalent to other strategic bombers (20+ to 30+ tons) -
Means that each of those bombers are going to cost an arm and a leg to procure, operate and maintain. Neither the US nor China are able to procure them at scale, because doing that will be very cost-prohibitive and economically-unfeasible.

In the meantime, I suppose you missed the "entire broad system of countermeasures that are meant to mitigate and minimize such vulnerabilities" phrase. There are way more things than just being a VLO design.
 
Last edited:

tamsen_ikard

Junior Member
Registered Member
Sure, being supersonic and agile can indeed maneuver to bleed out the energy of the intercepting AAMs, provided that the tactics and timing are right.

However, and similarly - The enemy side too can (and is/have) devising(ed) tactics and methods of their own in order to counteract and neutralize your counteractions. Who said that the enemy must fire their LRAAMs (and SAMs) at their maximum possible range, to begin with? You can choose how to fight - So can the enemy.

Besides - And arguably quite important - Trying to go with strategic bombers that have all of the following features:
1. Large;
2. Heavy;
3. Long-range;
4. Supersonic;
5. Stealthy; and
6. Able to carry payloads equivalent to other strategic bombers (20+ to 30+ tons) -
Means that each of those bombers are going to cost an arm and a leg to procure, operate and maintain. Neither the US nor China are able to procure them at scale, because it's just so cost-prohibitive and economically-unfeasible to have them.

In the meantime, I suppose you missed the "entire broad system of countermeasures that are meant to mitigate and minimize such vulnerabilities" phrase. There are way more things than just being a VLO design.

You are indeed correct that trying to have every capability is too expensive. So, there has to be compromise. Then the question is which list of capabilities will provide the most utility with least amount of cost. Because China's main battle is in the first island Chain, and also that battle is against highly technologically advanced opponents like US, Japan, Korea, Taiwan. So, it might be better for China to trade off on range and payload to focus on Speed and agility for better survivability.

So, JH-XX is the better option for China based on the potential use cases it faces and also the threat environment.

H-20 is also useful but maybe less so and thus, could be acquired later or not at all.

This is just my argument. But it will depend on the PLA planners. They may think H-20 is the capability they want. So, we will see which one they choose.
 

latenlazy

Brigadier
You are indeed correct that trying to have every capability is too expensive. So, there has to be compromise. Then the question is which list of capabilities will provide the most utility with least amount of cost. Because China's main battle is in the first island Chain, and also that battle is against highly technologically advanced opponents like US, Japan, Korea, Taiwan. So, it might be better for China to trade off on range and payload to focus on Speed and agility for better survivability.

So, JH-XX is the better option for China based on the potential use cases it faces and also the threat environment.

H-20 is also useful but maybe less so and thus, could be acquired later or not at all.

This is just my argument. But it will depend on the PLA planners. They may think H-20 is the capability they want. So, we will see which one they choose.
H-20 expands China’s strategic reach by a lot. JH-XX is a better reinforcement of China’s current strategic scope. There are lots of ways to do the latter and much fewer ways to do the former.
 

Zichan

Junior Member
Registered Member
Supersonic Agile planes are much more capable of outmanuvering missiles to bleed its energy. This is how modern fighters and fighter bombers deal with BVR missiles. BVR battle is not just about seeing enemies on Radar and shooting missiles. Its also about manuvering towards the ground to confuse missiles, using terrain, using chaffs and flares and also using specific manuevers to force the missiles manuever much more than the plane. Slowly BVR missiles lose energy and lose track.

Supersonic and Agile planes atleast have abilty to do these things. Subsonic slow moving bombers are pretty much sitting ducks when a BVR missile is shot against them.

Also another point is that most supersonic planes can actually outrun missiles, if they choose to flee the battlefield. Cause Missiles constantly lose energy due to air resistance and are only hypersonic in the middle-phase of their flight. Subsonic planes cannot even flee the battlefield and outrun missiles.
An agile long range heavy bomber is technically impossible. You have to sacrifice at least one parameter.

The USAAF once explored the possibility of modifying the B-1 into a B-1R by sticking F-22 engines onto it and giving it a top speed of Mach 2.2. This “bomber” would be equipped with very long range air to air missiles: one proposal was to modify SM-2 missiles for air launch, so that the new SAMs have a minimum of 450km range. The B-1R would fly at stand-off range and lob missiles designated by forward operating spotters, most typically a VLO platform. Should the bomber ever come under threat, it could sprint out of danger at Mach 2.2 for far longer than any fighter could hope to sustain in a chase. Or at least that was the sales pitch.
 

charles18

Junior Member
Registered Member
Supersonic Agile planes are much more capable of outmanuvering missiles to bleed its energy. This is how modern fighters and fighter bombers deal with BVR missiles.
If a missile is trying to hit an aircraft and the aircraft is trying to evade, who wins?
Let's see here:
35% of an aircraft's total weight is fuel. For missiles it's 70%
Therefore missiles have a higher fuel to total weight ratio.

If we are comparing who has more "gas in the gas tank" relative to total weight.....missiles are the clear winner.
In a confrontation between peer competitors, I'd put my money on the missile.
 

latenlazy

Brigadier
If a missile is trying to hit an aircraft and the aircraft is trying to evade, who wins?
Let's see here:
35% of an aircraft's total weight is fuel. For missiles it's 70%
Therefore missiles have a higher fuel to total weight ratio.

If we are comparing who has more "gas in the gas tank" relative to total weight.....missiles are the clear winner.
In a confrontation between peer competitors, I'd put my money on the missile.
Missiles have to burn a lot of that fuel to close distance.
 

ougoah

Brigadier
Registered Member
If a missile is trying to hit an aircraft and the aircraft is trying to evade, who wins?
Let's see here:
35% of an aircraft's total weight is fuel. For missiles it's 70%
Therefore missiles have a higher fuel to total weight ratio.


If we are comparing who has more "gas in the gas tank" relative to total weight.....missiles are the clear winner.
In a confrontation between peer competitors, I'd put my money on the missile.

Yo this is epically incorrect.

Assuming the bolded part is generally true. This would be like saying, an average healthy 20 year old human can comfortably carry 60% of their body mass over a distance 10x their height while an ant can comfortably carry 3000% of their body mass over a distance 1000x their length, therefore the ant can carry more nominal mass.

That 35% of the aircraft's total weight is quite a lot more fuel than even 100% of a missile's mass. And this is an understatement.

Even if we are simply comparing who has more gas in the tank, 35% of 10,000kg is a lot more than 100% of 200kg.

Plus you should realise that the missile (assuming single burn rocket motor type MRAAM) has only one pulse of thrust accelerating it to something like mach 4 in typical ideal situations. It's losing net energy after that even if it trades potential energy for kinetic, it's net energy is lost as heat (and others). The aircraft (especially if agile and a kinematic performer) is able to drop altitude and drag the missile down and then raise its altitude, this is where the missile could be completely kinematically defeated. Sustained acceleration and turning vs single pulse and momentum. All the while the missile's only realistic way of performing target seeking is by constantly updating new interception point which means it's losing a tonne of energy the faster the aircraft is traveling and the more often it is changing direction while it is maintaining speed.
 

CMP

Senior Member
Registered Member
Yo this is epically incorrect.

Assuming the bolded part is generally true. This would be like saying, an average healthy 20 year old human can comfortably carry 60% of their body mass over a distance 10x their height while an ant can comfortably carry 3000% of their body mass over a distance 1000x their length, therefore the ant can carry more nominal mass.

That 35% of the aircraft's total weight is quite a lot more fuel than even 100% of a missile's mass. And this is an understatement.

Even if we are simply comparing who has more gas in the tank, 35% of 10,000kg is a lot more than 100% of 200kg.

Plus you should realise that the missile (assuming single burn rocket motor type MRAAM) has only one pulse of thrust accelerating it to something like mach 4 in typical ideal situations. It's losing net energy after that even if it trades potential energy for kinetic, it's net energy is lost as heat (and others). The aircraft (especially if agile and a kinematic performer) is able to drop altitude and drag the missile down and then raise its altitude, this is where the missile could be completely kinematically defeated. Sustained acceleration and turning vs single pulse and momentum. All the while the missile's only realistic way of performing target seeking is by constantly updating new interception point which means it's losing a tonne of energy the faster the aircraft is traveling and the more often it is changing direction while it is maintaining speed.
Most of the human population can't pass first semester of college physics or calculus, let alone anything more advanced than that. You are putting too much effort into explaining something to someone that probably can't understand you anyways.
 

charles18

Junior Member
Registered Member
Yo this is epically incorrect.
In all fairness you have a point:
but...
I'm going to put aside the technical discussions and give you my basic opinion....for what it's worth.

Yes it's true ever since ww2, there have been very few US military jet planes that have been shot down by enemy anti-aircraft weapon systems.
Why is this the case, Do aircraft have some natural built in superiority to missiles in endurance or evasion? I believe the answer is NO.
There is nothing within the laws of physics or engineering that favors aircraft over missiles. In fact the opposite is probably true.

The reason for the US military's success is simply because the USA became wildly economically successful so therefore the US military got to enjoy the biggest budget and the most capable weapons that money can buy. Obviously if you get to outspend your nearest rival by a ratio of at least 4 to 1 you'll have more capable weapons. It's that simple.

If a jet plane or jet planes get into a confrontation with an anti-aircraft weapon system perhaps a SAM system, who wins?
Assuming 2 nations with comparable military budgets go to war.....I'll put my money on the anti-aircraft weapon system.
 

CMP

Senior Member
Registered Member
In all fairness you have a point:
but...
I'm going to put aside the technical discussions and give you my basic opinion....for what it's worth.
Technical discussions and technical analysis are what makes this forum stand out from almost all others. If you're going to put aside the technical discussion because you're incapable of engaging with it, and yet also unwilling to defer to it, then your basic layman's opinion is likely not welcomed by the vast majority of this forum.

One last general rule of thumb for you:

Technical analysis does not mean one is going to reach the right conclusion, but it does mean that one has done all their homework. If you're trying to argue against or dismiss someone who has done all their homework, and you have not done any of yours, you should probably be silent and just lurk/read. No one wants uneducated/poorly educated layman opinions.
 
Last edited:
Top