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

BoraTas said:

This is never ever going to happen and you will get banned again with this kind of tech fantasism. China is not going to use the H-20 to drop gravity bombs on the CONUS. Even if such a bomber was feasible it would be so expensive that a tiny amount would get built, which is obviously crippling on every other mission type.

Supersonic speed is not realistic for the H-20 because it has a low use for it. Air to air capabilities would exist, like the B-21, but these will be very secondary and will primarily be for self-defense. AEW functionality or a CIC will not exist. These require structural features that are detrimental to the aircraft's primary mission set.

Click to expand...

While their posts are a bit of a jumble (and word salad), you need to slow down yourself as well. No pun intended.

We are not going to flog this dead horse again, but a VLO (I don’t partake in that ultra VLO nonsense) heavy bomber capable of supersonic flight (so, >= Mach 1) for at least some duration, in some flight regimes, is no where close to being “tech fantasism”. I have no idea why OP was banned, but you are in no position to be making such pronouncements (you’re not a mod, and you’re also incorrect). There are a good 40+ pages of this thread you can peruse, if this is new information for you.

Right now, the most confidence we have, is that if the program exists, then it will have a longer weapons bay than the B-2, because the PLA prefer hypersonic munitions over subsonic LO. Of the 3 most likely planforms (comparatively, not individually) that can accommodate such weapons bays in a non “tech fantasism” way (to use your terminology)… 2 of these 3 are not incompatible with supersonic flight. Remember, even the B-2 can hit Mach 0.95 in certain regimes.

*those 2 would be the “arrowhead” and “J-36 pro maxx (cranked kite)”

End of the day, at this point, we're just guessing. None of the concept sketches have to be the real thing; we're just guessing until there's some sort of first flight, which we had inklings of, but may not be in the next 8 weeks.

All I'll say further is that if it does turn out to be a pure B-2/B-21 clone, I'll be disappointed. The technology is there for a higher performance platform than just the B-2 or B-21, and for something sincerely disruptive. You can guess, based on the PLAAF 's trend, that it's going to be sixth generation (drone-centric), but until we have real pictures and real leaks it's just guesswork.

Putting my sci fi speculation hat on a bit, one way a subsonic flying wing may not give up on much mission capability relative to a supersonic bomber is if they’re buddied up with hypersonic drones. Basically the idea I had in mind would be a scenario where the bomber flies into a combat area undetected to scope out real time conditions for a strike mission, provide confirmation and conduct setup tasks (such as taking control over the local electromagnetic space) for hypersonic strike drones that are launched after and overtake the bomber’s route to kill all the access denial assets, and then follow up behind the drones to do clean up strikes and double taps. Highly speculative but a pretty interesting employment concept to think about imo.

GTI said:

While their posts are a bit of a jumble (and word salad), you need to slow down yourself as well. No pun intended.

We are not going to flog this dead horse again, but a VLO (I don’t partake in that ultra VLO nonsense) heavy bomber capable of supersonic flight (so, >= Mach 1) for at least some duration, in some flight regimes, is no where close to being “tech fantasism”. I have no idea why OP was banned, but you are in no position to be making such pronouncements (you’re not a mod, and you’re also incorrect). There are a good 40+ pages of this thread you can peruse, if this is new information for you.

Click to expand...

That discussion is indeed a dead horse. Just not in the way you think it is. There are no benefits at all to a low-supersonic bomber. It is the worst of the both worlds. It is something that significantly constrains the design choices but with no significant benefits in survivability or strike bandwidth. The person was banned in the past for exactly this behavior. He kept imagining "better" weapon systems and was pushy about them on multiple threads. I just wrote this again because I don't need to be a mod to state this. Some events are just foreseeable.

GTI said:

Right now, the most confidence we have, is that if the program exists, then it will have a longer weapons bay than the B-2, because the PLA prefer hypersonic munitions over subsonic LO. Of the 3 most likely planforms (comparatively, not individually) that can accommodate such weapons bays in a non “tech fantasism” way (to use your terminology)… 2 of these 3 are not incompatible with supersonic flight. Remember, even the B-2 can hit Mach 0.95 in certain regimes.

*those 2 would be the “arrowhead” and “J-36 pro maxx (cranked kite)”

Click to expand...

That is a very very selective perception There is no indication from anyone that the H-20 is supersonic. Ever since the H-20 was a thing, it was a subsonic, flying wing aircraft. Recently emerged patents like "high-bypass engine with a high-offset serpentine inlet" and the attached one here suggest a subsonic bomber. You are the side with the much higher burden of proof, considering the huge technical challenge and the lack of any indications. "2 of the planforms are not incompatible" is not an argument, sorry.

Something to note: A cursory glance at this thread has your posts being opinionated about this. A significant amount of them are like "let's not discuss this again". Don't try to market your opinions as the consensus. When I look at the thread I see no consensus.

BoraTas said:

That discussion is indeed a dead horse. Just not in the way you think it is. There are no benefits at all to a low-supersonic bomber. It is the worst of the both worlds. It is something that significantly constrains the design choices but with no significant benefits in survivability or strike bandwidth. The person was banned in the past for exactly this behavior. He kept imagining "better" weapon systems and was pushy about them on multiple threads. I just wrote this again because I don't need to be a mod to state this. Some events are just foreseeable.

That is a very very selective perception There is no indication from anyone that the H-20 is supersonic. Ever since the H-20 was a thing, it was a subsonic, flying wing aircraft. Recently emerged patents like "high-bypass engine with a high-offset serpentine inlet" and the attached one here suggest a subsonic bomber. You are the side with the much higher burden of proof, considering the huge technical challenge and the lack of any indications. "2 of the planforms are not incompatible" is not an argument, sorry.

Something to note: A cursory glance at this thread has your posts being opinionated about this. A significant amount of them are like "let's not discuss this again". Don't try to market your opinions as the consensus. When I look at the thread I see no consensus.

View attachment 166694

Click to expand...

How ironic that you're the one pushing your opinions as consensus, and what's more, strawmanning.

I am going back to "wait for it to fly", but I have to push back on the "uselessness" of a "low supersonic" bomber. You're injecting NATO perspectives when there's already the GJ-X in development, and you're strawmanning by claiming I'm suggesting a low supersonic bomber, when I'm seeing Mach 1.3 as a minimum.

I am suggesting, rather, sprint to Mach 1.5 or 1.8 before dropping the hypersonic, injecting additional speed, and the capability to egress safely, as much as older Backfires and Tu-160 could.

The entire issue is that what you're expecting and pushing for is two things, first, an aircraft in the NATO mode, which expects air superiority and wants volume of fire, second, a Chinese B-2 or B-21 knockoff, which will likely have worse stealth than a B-2 or B-21, especially since we're seeing departures from the flying wing geometry in all initial sketches.

Then there's the fact that the US is working on counter stealth satellites, as much as the Chinese have, so that the H-20's stealth is probably irrelevant.

If the Chinese are going for 5th or 5.5th generation bombers, analogues to the B-2 or B-21, they already are working on an unmanned version. If they want an el cheapo H-20, fine, it's easy for the West to deal with (which is what you want). If they are going to produce a 6th generation very-large-aircraft, it's a whole different ball game.

At the very least, it'd explain why the H-20 seems to be so delayed, because requirements changed mid-project.

Just wait for it to launch, and let the aircraft do the talking

BoraTas said:

That discussion is indeed a dead horse. Just not in the way you think it is. There are no benefits at all to a low-supersonic bomber. It is the worst of the both worlds. It is something that significantly constrains the design choices but with no significant benefits in survivability or strike bandwidth. The person was banned in the past for exactly this behavior. He kept imagining "better" weapon systems and was pushy about them on multiple threads. I just wrote this again because I don't need to be a mod to state this. Some events are just foreseeable.

That is a very very selective perception There is no indication from anyone that the H-20 is supersonic. Ever since the H-20 was a thing, it was a subsonic, flying wing aircraft. Recently emerged patents like "high-bypass engine with a high-offset serpentine inlet" and the attached one here suggest a subsonic bomber. You are the side with the much higher burden of proof, considering the huge technical challenge and the lack of any indications. "2 of the planforms are not incompatible" is not an argument, sorry.

Something to note: A cursory glance at this thread has your posts being opinionated about this. A significant amount of them are like "let's not discuss this again". Don't try to market your opinions as the consensus. When I look at the thread I see no consensus.

View attachment 166694

Click to expand...

Is it the content of this thread that you’re unfamiliar with, or that the number 2 is one less than 3 [planforms]?

The only consensus is about being able to fit long missiles (like I covered in my comment). The rest is up to physics. Blitzo has some good posts in this thread relating to the arrowhead, and the “J-36 maxx” option is easy to understand (at least it should be).

Now, I’m curious. You’ve posted a schematic / patent of the third of 3 most likely planforms. Do you yourself realise that the original pure flying wing H-20 planform is likely dead, and that the 3rd likely planform type would be some form of GJ-Xesque cranked wing (and hopefully not the bat wing) — because of that ‘weapons bay dilemma’.

Big Birthday is coming up. I take it that no surprise for us this year?

talonn said:

Big Birthday is coming up. I take it that no surprise for us this year?

Click to expand...

Yes

Seeing is believing. That's all you need to know.

GTI said:

While their posts are a bit of a jumble (and word salad), you need to slow down yourself as well. No pun intended.

We are not going to flog this dead horse again, but a VLO (I don’t partake in that ultra VLO nonsense) heavy bomber capable of supersonic flight (so, >= Mach 1) for at least some duration, in some flight regimes, is no where close to being “tech fantasism”. I have no idea why OP was banned, but you are in no position to be making such pronouncements (you’re not a mod, and you’re also incorrect). There are a good 40+ pages of this thread you can peruse, if this is new information for you.

Right now, the most confidence we have, is that if the program exists, then it will have a longer weapons bay than the B-2, because the PLA prefer hypersonic munitions over subsonic LO. Of the 3 most likely planforms (comparatively, not individually) that can accommodate such weapons bays in a non “tech fantasism” way (to use your terminology)… 2 of these 3 are not incompatible with supersonic flight. Remember, even the B-2 can hit Mach 0.95 in certain regimes.

*those 2 would be the “arrowhead” and “J-36 pro maxx (cranked kite)”

Click to expand...

"Ultra VLO" as you put it, or Ultra Low Observable (ULO) is quite simple. It differentiates from the generally applied VLO term for 5th gen fighters. ULO 6th gen fighters, at least the ones being prototyped by China have fewer moving control surfaces and control surfaces of much smaller area. J-36 also appears to make use of movable surface material so some gaps for control surfaces are hidden even better.

Can we still apply VLO term to J-36 and J-50 when they are clearly more all aspect stealth focused and obviously make use of technology about a decade more modern than when VLO fighters like F-35 and J-20 were developed?

Stealth bomber, at least with regards B-21 should employ the ULO moniker too. It's no secret it is stealthier than B-2 and the B-2 is possibly stealthier than F-22 and F-35. It's just a point of differentiation.