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

Wrought

Junior Member
Registered Member
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.

"Not even wrong" is my favorite description for such opinions. Lacking the foundation to contribute even a falsifiable hypothesis.
 

ougoah

Brigadier
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.

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.

It is difficult to explain the intricacies of the situation you've supposed.

In general, an agile fighter aircraft with enough fuel and the correct sensor capabilities can defeat SAMs with relative ease.

Ignore jamming, spoofing, and assorted tactics, a contest between an agile fighter with fuel and functioning decent RWR against a long range SAM system designed specifically to counter agile fighters (ie not really a missile like 40N6 which is supposed to ideally target large and slow aircraft), the fighter will have pretty much constant awareness of when the SAM is in the air, how fast it's coming, where it's coming from. The pilot with advice processed from onboard avionics would be able to comfortably defeat the SAM.

The only real strategic purpose of the SAM is to make air combat planning much more difficult and resource consuming for the side conducting air operations. It is an anti access area denial tool that will be constantly attacked. You can now see how the engagement between a fighter and a SAM site is really a question of networked force structures. A competent airforce can slowly chew away at SAM sites without even the need for stealth, modern cruise missiles and stand off weapons. It is a given and most of the competent and knowledgeable military watchers sort of accept this as a general rule of thumb. Attacking side has initiative and advantage to speak nothing of technologies compounding these advantages.

The historic conversation is a bit worthless. I won't bother explaining why I think most can figure those reasons out.

On the physics of this question - "Do aircraft have some natural built in superiority to missiles in endurance or evasion?"
agile fighters absolutely do. No doubt. By a significant margin. Answer is in the energy stored by the fighter vs the energy stored by the missile. The fighter has many, many times more total nominal energy and much better range. The only threat to the fighter is the distance at which the missile's presence is known and the distance at which the oncoming missile is launched. Indeed there are ranges at which no fighter can reliably escape an incoming SAM or A2A. And here is where the truly interesting (and un/fortunately confidential details come in to play... we obviously don't know enough to comment).

The question is really not one of mechanics but one of electronics. There's good reason for fighters to try and increase their payload capacity without sacrificing much performance and range. Increase their radar and sensor capabilities and spoofing - ECM, ECCM, decoys. There is a good reason why missile energy (a tautology for effective range) are kept secret around the world. China, USA, Russia are the only known countries to possess (ability to manufacture themselves and know the secrecies) of the latest energetic compound broadly named CL20. This was actually first theorised and synthesised by Chinese in China as much as wikipedia has been edited to ignore this. The rest is electronic miniaturisation, material technologies, aerodynamics etc which all these main players are roughly equal. What is not necessarily known with any confidence is the degree of electronic and software capability. However, if we take the academic and industrial abilities of US and China in regards to electronics, computing, and software, well their capabilities are generally head and shoulders above other players... most of whom have close to zero complete comprehensive self reliance and industrial or even academic awareness of. The skillset is stored in the archives of the highest echelons of respective militaries and the national academy of sciences in China's case and national labs and gov departments in US. Often in the minds of a handful of experts only.

Can missiles defeat fighters is a complex question. It depends where and under what circumstances, which missiles against which fighters and all the surrounding parameters of the engagement. Even the best airforces don't have perfect models to determine a definitive answer to such a broad question. A broad answer is that fighters generally have the advantage under usual circumstances between peer rivals.
 

CMP

Senior Member
Registered Member
To pull things back on topic, I do have some comments/questions.

Given the H-20's likely range, it seems it will enhance China's regional power projection but not add to global power projection. At most, it may or may not help put northern Australia and Hawaii within reach. My reasoning for this is that China lacks the global base network from which to deploy air refueling tankers. Even if they did, those bases would be vulnerable, perhaps even indefensible, during any real war with the US and its vassals.

Given all that, it seems very clear to me that large numbers of B-21s are much more essential to US hegemony than H-20s are to China's defensive posture. It'll help increase the likelihood China can destroy regional logistics hubs that US hegemony will rely on against China, so obviously still important in that sense. Perhaps that could be one of the reasons that they are taking their time with the H-20? It seems like it is being treated as a 2nd tier priority as far as effort and resources channeled to it, which I agree with.

Thoughts?
 

ansy1968

Brigadier
Registered Member
To pull things back on topic, I do have some comments/questions.

Given the H-20's likely range, it seems it will enhance China's regional power projection but not add to global power projection. At most, it may or may not help put northern Australia and Hawaii within reach. My reasoning for this is that China lacks the global base network from which to deploy air refueling tankers. Even if they did, those bases would be vulnerable, perhaps even indefensible, during any real war with the US and its vassals.

Given all that, it seems very clear to me that large numbers of B-21s are much more essential to US hegemony than H-20s are to China's defensive posture. It'll help increase the likelihood China can destroy regional logistics hubs that US hegemony will rely on against China, so obviously still important in that sense. Perhaps that could be one of the reasons that they are taking their time with the H-20? It seems like it is being treated as a 2nd tier priority as far as effort and resources channeled to it, which I agree with.

Thoughts?
The Chinese are helm in by multiple US bases surrounding them and the mission of H-20 is to penetrate those defense network and destroyed it. Not until Taiwan is taken that there is a opening for the H-20 to attack Guam, Australia and Hawaii, but for now using DF 16, 17 and 27 are more cost effective.
 

Atomicfrog

Captain
Registered Member
To pull things back on topic, I do have some comments/questions.

Given the H-20's likely range, it seems it will enhance China's regional power projection but not add to global power projection. At most, it may or may not help put northern Australia and Hawaii within reach. My reasoning for this is that China lacks the global base network from which to deploy air refueling tankers. Even if they did, those bases would be vulnerable, perhaps even indefensible, during any real war with the US and its vassals.

Given all that, it seems very clear to me that large numbers of B-21s are much more essential to US hegemony than H-20s are to China's defensive posture. It'll help increase the likelihood China can destroy regional logistics hubs that US hegemony will rely on against China, so obviously still important in that sense. Perhaps that could be one of the reasons that they are taking their time with the H-20? It seems like it is being treated as a 2nd tier priority as far as effort and resources channeled to it, which I agree with.

Thoughts?
With Russia, they could have tankers available for the north route to the US if they keep a compatible refueling system, they could even be refueled by Russian air forces if they need to. I just cannot see the purpose of it and I see H-20 to be more like another defensive layer and not an offensive system. It open the way to bomb bases that could be used against China.

US have a tendency to use his forces to achieve political gains/projection/larceny... China use economy for that purpose.
 

Jason_

Junior Member
Registered Member
To pull things back on topic, I do have some comments/questions.

Given the H-20's likely range, it seems it will enhance China's regional power projection but not add to global power projection. At most, it may or may not help put northern Australia and Hawaii within reach. My reasoning for this is that China lacks the global base network from which to deploy air refueling tankers. Even if they did, those bases would be vulnerable, perhaps even indefensible, during any real war with the US and its vassals.

Given all that, it seems very clear to me that large numbers of B-21s are much more essential to US hegemony than H-20s are to China's defensive posture. It'll help increase the likelihood China can destroy regional logistics hubs that US hegemony will rely on against China, so obviously still important in that sense. Perhaps that could be one of the reasons that they are taking their time with the H-20? It seems like it is being treated as a 2nd tier priority as far as effort and resources channeled to it, which I agree with.

Thoughts?
On the contrary, China's location on the Eurasian continent makes a long range bomber far more useful for power projection. With access to Russian airspace, the H-20 can hit any target in Europe, Middle East and North America with fewer refuels compared to US bombers based on CONUS. Air to air refueling assets can be based in China or in Siberia. The distance itself would protect these tankers from fighters.

There is absolutely no doubt that H-20 is the number one priority for the PLAAF.
 

CMP

Senior Member
Registered Member
The Chinese are helm in by multiple US bases surrounding them and the mission of H-20 is to penetrate those defense network and destroyed it. Not until Taiwan is taken that there is a opening for the H-20 to attack Guam, Australia and Hawaii, but for now using DF 16, 17 and 27 are more cost effective.
By virtue of geography, Taiwan definitely cannot stop China from striking northern Australia with long range bombers. Taiwan, South Korea, and Japan are all in the way of China striking Hawaii though.
 

Biscuits

Major
Registered Member
By virtue of geography, Taiwan definitely cannot stop China from striking northern Australia with long range bombers. Taiwan, South Korea, and Japan are all in the way of China striking Hawaii though.
There's nothing really preventing China from just overflying Taiwan on their way to Guam/Hawaii though. Who would complain over it? The half dozen African countries who recognize ROC saying we violate ROC airspace? Even if 90% of the world was against it, we can just veto in the UN...

SK is different, but I also don't think China needs to fly over their territory. During war, the most likely scenario is that SK closes its territory to all combatants. And China has good reasons to entertain SK neutrality. They can still skirt just outside SK, and it doesn't greatly impact the routes which planes have to take.

Before worrying about Hawaii, China would be focused on systematically destroying Japanese capabilities. For that, they can simply send planes out from the Taiwan and Manchuria direction, circumventing the Korean peninsula and having fairly direct, undefended pathways to the home islands.
 
Top