Seems like an odd thing for such an account to claim
H-20 bomber (with H-X, JH-XX)
- Thread starter Deino
- Start date
For China it would've worked out, and I think that should the opportunity ever existed - it would be an immediate buy. Unicorn engines are pro, not con (access), so is the potential giga-J-16(2x12m bays is almost stupid level of internal payload design freedom).
In retrospect, everyone would've won from keeping the line truly alive.
But until the late 2010s it just wasn't remotely possible. Now... probably too late, and frankly politically undesirable.
H-6 as heavy stand off carrier, H-20 as a strategic intruder is the way to go. A bit unusual compared to the other two (where the larger bomber ends up being the carrier, the smaller - the intruder), but why not.
These accounts, while presumably belonging to actual officials, tend to peddle nothing but slop. I wouldn't take anything they post seriously, least of all things relating to the PLA.
Personally, I think the H-6 itself is long in the tooth as a standoff carrier. As Chinese large aircraft construction matures, I would expect an even larger long range bomb truck to emerge, in the same payload class as the Tu95 or B52, but with better flight characteristics and cooperative engagement capacity
I'm skeptical. H-6K/J/Ns are quite new, have been procured in large numbers and, at least in the case of the H-6N, are still being procured.
XAC will be busy for the foreseeable future producing Y-20s and their special mission variants, KJ-600s and, soon, H-20s. H-20s themselves will have substantial carrying capacity, and as such I doubt we'll see any extra bomber type anytime soon.
It is the same around the world - it just isn't worth it to pay enormous amount of money and political capital (strategic bomber development is always huge pain). You won't get quantifiably better results.
Since 1990s, if you pay, you pay for a stealth aircraft(VLO). And truly deep stealth is basically antithetical to external payloads...not really good for truly oversized internal ones either.
H-6, as limited as it is, can easily deliver huge, MRBM-sized munition to a launch point. It's got fbw, modern power system(, modern cockpit - all ensuring sufficient growth potential to work with any reasonable aircraft munitions. D-30s give it reasonable fuel efficiency and operational safety.
This is enough for decades to come.
China has a lot of projects ongoing right now, an improved missile truck would probably be very far down the priority list. New strategic bombers would take a while to develop, be pretty expensive, and the marginal performance increase would be fairly minimal while taking up R&D resources that would probably be better spent on next gen projects. It would still be restricted to operating only in a permissive environment behind the lines (unlike H-20) so what are you really getting? A better payload and more range? For more payload you can just get more H-6 and given their restriction to only operating behind the lines more range is of limited value.
Is this a perfect solution? No, of course if the PLAAF had unlimited resources they would like a new H-6 replacement. But nobody has unlimited resources and you have to prioritize. Would you rather have the H-20 or a shiny new clean sheet H-6 replacement?
Last edited:
I think an air superior interceptor (also can destroy SAM and bomber and fighter jet) with loyalman is better than a truck bomber. A bomber like B52 included its missile cost alot of money. Losing so many missiles included the plane is not worth it.
IF you have an air superior interceptor, your purpose is to shoot it down before it gets close to the mainland. That is more cost effective.
IF you have an air superior interceptor, your purpose is to shoot it down before it gets close to the mainland. That is more cost effective.
Basically a Dmitry Medvedev China version. Government officials that like to say bullshit for the sake of it, and attention of course.
The point of bomb trucks like B52/H-6 is that they're cheap and they don't get shot down because they're operating far back in permissive environment to deliver a lot of stand off weapons like missiles. They should be operating so far back that they can't be targeted and fired upon because yes if they are targeted they are probably toast. This isn't WW2, these planes aren't going to be flying directly over their targets and dropping large payloads of dumb bombs, everybody knows that would be a suicide mission. H-6 would be firing missiles from 300km back and so is much less of an easy target.
Also I'm not really sure what exactly you're advocating for. What is an "air superior interceptor"? This plane can apparently destroy SAMs, bombers, and fighters while carrying a large bomb load like B52? I'm not sure any plane in service right now can destroy SAMs, typically you try to maneuver so they miss not destroy them physically. Maybe some next gen plane with lasers or something but those aren't operational right now. You say this is cheaper than a bomb truck like B52 considering missiles cost money but have you considered that your super plane with all these advanced capabilities will probably cost way more money than some missiles?
Shoot what down? Incoming USAF planes? USAF is doing the same thing as PLAAF is doing, neither side expects to overfly the enemy and rain dumb bombs down like it's WW2. Both sides are expecting at least for the initial stages to be exclusively using stand off weapons. If you're talking about shooting down incoming missiles well existing planes/GBAD can do that, you don't need this "air superior interceptor". That's also not really the job of H-6/H-20 and there's no reason why it should be. Not every platform needs to be capable of everything.
Last edited: