My assumption this whole time about the idea of H-20 carrying "large payloads" has never been specifically for JL-1, but rather "JL-1 sized" weapons.
They could be anything from ALBMs, or large air launched wavegliders, or large air launched HCMs.
H-20 bomber (with H-X, JH-XX)
- Thread starter Deino
- Start date
My assumption this whole time about the idea of H-20 carrying "large payloads" has never been specifically for JL-1, but rather "JL-1 sized" weapons.
They could be anything from ALBMs, or large air launched wavegliders, or large air launched HCMs.
If it is a missile with "JL-1 performance", then there is no need for the extreme as "JL-1 size"
If you want a similar payload to JL-1, while being not inferior in range, speed or maneuverability, you may still need a rather large weapon of similar size even if you pursue a waveglider or HCM
There are significant tradeoffs between the characteristics for very long range and supersonic capability, even if we assume that variable cycle engines are used on a manned H-20.
---
Let's assume that the stealthy unmanned bombers cover the 2IC, with the J-36 (along with UADFs) providing air superiority.
If you wanted an even longer range air superiority aircraft (which presumably requires supersonic speeds) than the 3 engine J-36, then you're looking at 4 engines.
But that isn't enough to reach the next nearest potential bases in the 3IC, such as Hawaii 7000km+ away.
And I think we can discount the possibility of an even larger air superiority aircraft, on the grounds of cost, numbers and practicality
---
So beyond the 2IC, air superiority isn't an option.
So that means you need a stealthy bomber that can evade enemy air defenders, which shouldn't be too difficult given:
1. the vast expanse of empty Pacific Ocean
2. if the payload is standoff missiles.
In such a scenario, I don't see a supersonic H-20 being worth the tradeoff in terms of range.
---
Consider what happens with a bit more additional range and when combined with long-range missiles. It means the naval bases in Seattle and California can also be reached.
Last edited:
Like @Blitzo has been saying.
Hypersonic bomber is not realistic for what the H-20 (manned) will be.
While I do think it will be pursued, it is gonna be in another project and end up with another designation (who knows, it might be GH-XX with G signifying hypersonic and H for bomber).
And while we currently have Tengyun, which there were rumours that it might been transferred/changed to a military only project.
The timelines is more like, working prototypes in 2030s, maybe procurement and deployment around 2040 or 2040s?
Like, at least a decade after H-20.
Another thought.
When aircraft production numbers decrease, the R&D costs make up an increasingly larger share of the total cost.
---
Then consider that the US has a shortage of engineers and overall has very bloated cost structures in industry.
In comparison, China has a surplus of engineers, which means they cost much less and can staff/fund many projects simultaneously.
And overall, there is much more cost discipline, lower costs and competition in industry.
---
So as aircraft production numbers decrease and many more types of aircraft are required, China has an increasingly large advantage in costs, speed and ability to scale - when compared to the US.
When aircraft production numbers decrease, the R&D costs make up an increasingly larger share of the total cost.
---
Then consider that the US has a shortage of engineers and overall has very bloated cost structures in industry.
In comparison, China has a surplus of engineers, which means they cost much less and can staff/fund many projects simultaneously.
And overall, there is much more cost discipline, lower costs and competition in industry.
---
So as aircraft production numbers decrease and many more types of aircraft are required, China has an increasingly large advantage in costs, speed and ability to scale - when compared to the US.
Interestingly, Adorable Dolphin is rather dismissive of the notion on the JL-1 (Jing Lei-1) being able to fit inside the IWB(s) of the H-20.
The most immediate interpretation would be that the JL-1 is likely not going to make it onto the H-20. However, the second line is more of an open-ended question.
Per my view, it could mean either of these two:
1. The H-20 is not expected to carry the missiles with the performance and/or roles of the Jing Lei-category; or
2. The JL-1 already has a successor/derivative/parallelly-developed missile (let's call it JL-X for now, if there aren't some other unknown designations) that can be (if not also meant to be) carried by the H-20.
The latter is rather understandable, given that the JL-1 itself isn't exactly a brand new missile per some sources.
In the context of the latter - It could mean any of the following three possibilities, in my opinion:
#1 - The JL-X is about the same size or larger than the JL-1, and that the H-20 has bigger-sized IWBs to carry them; or
#2 - The JL-X is an squeezed version of JL-1; or
#3 - The JL-X is not just a squeezed version, but a further-upgraded and enhanced development from the JL-1 (which could be similar to the YJ-12 to YJ-15-progression, or the YJ-XX (HCM in UVLS cells) to YJ-19 progression).
The most immediate interpretation would be that the JL-1 is likely not going to make it onto the H-20. However, the second line is more of an open-ended question.
Per my view, it could mean either of these two:
1. The H-20 is not expected to carry the missiles with the performance and/or roles of the Jing Lei-category; or
2. The JL-1 already has a successor/derivative/parallelly-developed missile (let's call it JL-X for now, if there aren't some other unknown designations) that can be (if not also meant to be) carried by the H-20.
The latter is rather understandable, given that the JL-1 itself isn't exactly a brand new missile per some sources.
In the context of the latter - It could mean any of the following three possibilities, in my opinion:
#1 - The JL-X is about the same size or larger than the JL-1, and that the H-20 has bigger-sized IWBs to carry them; or
#2 - The JL-X is an squeezed version of JL-1; or
#3 - The JL-X is not just a squeezed version, but a further-upgraded and enhanced development from the JL-1 (which could be similar to the YJ-12 to YJ-15-progression, or the YJ-XX (HCM in UVLS cells) to YJ-19 progression).
I think a mistake that people have made on this forum when talking about the idea of H-20 carrying JL-1, is referring to it by name as JL-1 rather than talking about it as a "JL-1 sized weapon" or alternatively "large/long standoff weapon". It has inadvertently caused a degree of constraint in thinking.
I can only say that I for one when talking about the idea of H-20 being sized to carry JL-1 sized weapons, I was never actually specifically thinking about JL-1 as a weapon, but rather a generic payload with its given footprint.
Because ultimately what we care about isn't whether JL-1 specifically makes it aboard H-20 or not (personally I was always skeptical), it's about its internal weapons bay geometry.
What we should think about imo, is a long/large, standoff weapon that is the size of JL-1 or thereabouts, whether it's a next gen ALBM, or an air launched waverider, or a large air launched HCM? That is an entirely different story.
I'm not even sure if calling it "JL-X" is a good idea because that may end up causing a further constraint in thinking if people end up viewing it as an indirect indicator of just a "next generation ALBM".
So, for further/future discussion, imo we should be thinking it of as an "air launched large payload" -- which can be any variety (or all) of ALBM, air launched HGV, air launched HCM, and likely to consist of multiple models and successive generations, but all with the common feature of having a long/large footprint to fit the fixed/unchanging IWB geometry.