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

FairAndUnbiased

FairAndUnbiased

Brigadier
Registered Member
ACuriousPLAFan said:
Adding on to explanations by @Totoro and @Wrought:

Stealthy ≠ Invisible to the enemy
Stealthy = Less likely/more difficult to be detected when at shorter distances to the enemy

Being stealthy can indeed do wonders when everyone else has literally zero means of detecting you (that's basically how Saddam's various command centers in Baghdad gone up in smoke in the opening hours of the Desert Storm) - But that simply isn't the case anymore today.

Having the capability to (at least sometimes) reliably detect and track (V)LO targets is certainly a matter of fact for China today. Hence, it should be assumed that the opposing side (namely the US&LC) will also be equipped with similar, if not equivalent capabilities, if not already done so.

Therefore, instead of having H-20s going headlong through the networks of radar and sensor platforms that are lining the 1IC alone, it will have to be done with a throughout combination of efforts across a multitude of dimensions and spectrums through effective integration across various branches of the PLA.
Click to expand...
Yep having the hardware is only the first step. Using it right is a different matter and it doesn't have to just do with training hours but careful and creative mission planning.

Also assuming strong opponents will lead to vastly different mission requirements and solutions than assuming weak opponents.
 
J

Jason_

Junior Member
Registered Member
ACuriousPLAFan said:
Adding on to explanations by @Totoro and @Wrought:

Stealthy ≠ Invisible to the enemy
Stealthy = Less likely/more difficult to be detected when at shorter distances to the enemy

Being stealthy can indeed do wonders when everyone else has literally zero means of detecting you (that's basically how Saddam's various command centers in Baghdad gone up in smoke in the opening hours of the Desert Storm) - But that simply isn't the case anymore today.

Having the capability to (at least sometimes) reliably detect and track (V)LO targets is certainly a matter of fact for China today. Hence, it should be assumed that the opposing side (namely the US&LC) will also be equipped with similar, if not equivalent capabilities, if not already done so.

Therefore, instead of having H-20s going headlong through the networks of radar and sensor platforms that are lining the 1IC alone, it will have to be done with a throughout combination of efforts across a multitude of dimensions and spectrums through effective integration across various branches of the PLA.
Click to expand...
An all aspect wideband stealth system with -40db RCS from UHF to X band, combined with appropriate route planning and emitter location, will easily bypass all existing US defenses on the 1st Island Chain. It is also the ideal platform to neutralize these defenses in the first place. I don't think you recognize how much of an impact -40db will make. An radar system with a detection range of 400km would have a range of only 40km against a -40db target. The First Island Chain is over 4000km long and the US cannot maintain continous coverage with 40km detection range radars.

China can detect stealth like the F-22/F-35 because these tactical fighters have much higher RCS (>-10db) from UHF and below. They are not all aspect wideband stealth. As for B-2, we don't know how it perform against Chinese strategic HF systems.
 
A

ACuriousPLAFan

Colonel
Registered Member
Jason_ said:
An all aspect wideband stealth system with -40db RCS from UHF to X band, combined with appropriate route planning and emitter location, will easily bypass all existing US defenses on the 1st Island Chain. It is also the ideal platform to neutralize these defenses in the first place. I don't think you recognize how much of an impact -40db will make. An radar system with a detection range of 400km would have a range of only 40km against a -40db target. The First Island Chain is over 4000km long and the US cannot maintain continuous coverage with 40km detection range radars.

China can detect stealth like the F-22/F-35 because these tactical fighters have much higher RCS (>-10db) from UHF and below. They are not all aspect wideband stealth. As for B-2, we don't know how it perform against Chinese strategic HF systems.
Click to expand...
Apparently you didn't catch my point.

Also, stealth technology versus anti-stealth technology is a never-ending race between the two. As soon as one side makes a lead, the opposing side will race to catch up in order to effectively counter it, and the cycle repeats. So I wouldn't be so much as confident as you in this case.
 
J

Jason_

Junior Member
Registered Member
ACuriousPLAFan said:
Apparently you didn't catch my point.

Also, stealth technology versus anti-stealth technology is a never-ending race between the two. As soon as one side makes a lead, the opposing side will race to catch up in order to effectively counter it, and the cycle repeats. So I wouldn't be so much as confident as you in this case.
Click to expand...
There are two types of anti-stealth technology:
1. Trying to detect the aircraft in a way where it is not designed to be stealthy
2. Brute force with massive power-aperture product radars

Increasing power aperture product is extremely costly in term of both money and the necessary platforms. This is why so far, basically all anti-stealth technology that we know of is of type 1. These include low frequency radars that exploits Mie/Rayleigh scattering of aircraft geometric features of similar physical size as the radar wavelength, and IR sensors that detect the unavoidable heat signatures. A combinations of 1 and 2 is also possible when a low frequency radar acquires the target and then a high frequency AESA generate fire control solution via integration of long dwell time.

In the race between stealth and anti-stealth technology, all aspect wideband stealth achieved through a flying wing design is exactly the solution against exist anti-stealth radar system that operates at VHF and above. To counter that would likely require HF radars, which poses significant engineering and quality of detection challenges.

However, as I have written previously, mainland China has asymmetric geographical advantage in overcoming these challenges compared to open ocean with a handful of islands. This is exactly why a stealthy flying wing is the ideal platform for China.
 
B

bebops

Junior Member
Registered Member
should make AESA or HF, VHF low orbit satellite to detect stealth too. A constellation of them

I rather have an overlapping ways to detect stealth from sea, space, air, water combined.

Make a constellation of EW, jamming and spoofing satellite so missiles cant hit their target accurately or fell out of the sky.

EW platforms from air, space, sea, underwater for the win.
 
Gloire_bb

Gloire_bb

Captain
Registered Member
Jason_ said:
Increasing power aperture product is extremely costly in term of both money and the necessary platforms. This is why so far, basically all anti-stealth technology that we know of is of type 1.
Click to expand...
offtop: su-35sk is exactly a brute force anti-stealth stopgap/safeguard plane, and is/was treated as such by the majority of its customers (successful or failed). Necessary evil to counter decade of one-sided stealth proliferation, at least in DCA.
Its famous extreme acquisition range is a useful, but a by-product.

Jason_ said:
In the race between stealth and anti-stealth technology, all aspect wideband stealth achieved through a flying wing design is exactly the solution against exist anti-stealth radar system that operates at VHF and above. To counter that would likely require HF radars, which poses significant engineering and quality of detection challenges.
Click to expand...
Should be noted here, that when we're talking about strategic stealth bombers - we're talking about big planes.
Other things being equal, size ultimately does matter for radar return.

iBBz said:
Is it possible for a VLO bomber to fly through the island chains and back without being detected by the Philippines, Taiwan, Japan and SK without having to go through allied airspace such as Russia and Pakistan? Has this point been discussed here before?
Click to expand...
Well, it doesn't even take a stealth plane to achieve that, a normal plane will (still) do just fine down low.
Maybe USVs are changing this equation, but not yet.

Other than that - yes, and double so with some help from tactical landscape design on tripwire islands.
 
Last edited:
tankphobia

tankphobia

Senior Member
Registered Member
bebops said:
should make AESA or HF, VHF low orbit satellite to detect stealth too. A constellation of them

I rather have an overlapping ways to detect stealth from sea, space, air, water combined.

Make a constellation of EW, jamming and spoofing satellite so missiles cant hit their target accurately or fell out of the sky.

EW platforms from air, space, sea, underwater for the win.
Click to expand...
Is it also possible to use imaging satellite with object recognition algorithms to track stealth planes? Might be difficult for fighter jets but stealth bombers aren't exactly small or fast.

On a clear day the bomber should be very obvious against the ocean, there have been google map captures of B-2 before so it doesn't seem like a far fetched idea.
 
Gloire_bb

Gloire_bb

Captain
Registered Member
tankphobia said:
Is it also possible to use imaging satellite with object recognition algorithms to track stealth planes? Might be difficult for fighter jets but stealth bombers aren't exactly small or fast.

On a clear day the bomber should be very obvious against the ocean, there have been google map captures of B-2 before so it doesn't seem like a far fetched idea.
Click to expand...
And on a bad day?

Also, for things other than the first strike, I am a bit hesitant about how resilient the space layer will be.
In the Sino-American conflict, Space will be a theater of war. LEO constellations are momentarily ahead of the opposition(mostly because of the commercial revolution), but ASAT will catch up.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top