He's probably just saying something like "multirole fighters are better than bombers" (on a cost basis) -- a plane that can perform S/DEAD, shoot down other fighters, and incoming bombers by flying out to meet them.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
H-20 bomber (with H-X, JH-XX)
- Thread starter Deino
- Start date
Preferring multirole fighters is not unreasonable but H-6 fills a pretty different role. Even pretty heavy weight multirole planes like J-16 cannot carry stuff like the big ALBMs. Also you need multiple J-16 to carry the same number of missiles and it's not really clear that would be cheaper.He's probably just saying something like "multirole fighters are better than bombers" (on a cost basis) -- a plane that can perform S/DEAD, shoot down other fighters, and incoming bombers by flying out to meet them.
And also people are always forgetting range... A smaller multirole aircraft cannot do the same job than a H-6 do without multiple refueling... H-6 crew have also the capacity to do longer flight without the drawback of being in a cramped cockpit.Preferring multirole fighters is not unreasonable but H-6 fills a pretty different role. Even pretty heavy weight multirole planes like J-16 cannot carry stuff like the big ALBMs. Also you need multiple J-16 to carry the same number of missiles and it's not really clear that would be cheaper.
A J-36 with three WS-15 engines will probably have similar payload capability to a B-2.
The only question is if China considers extra range necessary or not.
The B-2 has a listed payload capacity of at least 18 tons, and estimates put that up in 20+ tons range. The J-36 certainly didn't have similar payload capacity as the B-2.
The B-21 is closer, and that's assuming that the IWB on both the J-36 and B-21 are identical.
The J-36 can likely replace H-6 in regional bomber role.
Complement yes, replace no.
Nothing in the PLAAF has the weapon payload capacity that could rival the H-6K/Js, especially with range being considered.
An H-20, to have a niche, would need intercontinental range. I think this makes the six engine design likely to be an option.
Just for note - The B-2 has 4x F118 engines, which are considered low/low-medium bypass.
Provided that the H-20 has the same number of engines, and assuming that those engines have medium/medium-high bypass (as previously alluded by that high-bypass engine S-intake tender document) and similar general design (VLO flying wing), then the H-20 would have a significant range upgrade over the B-2.