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

Inst said:

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

Click to expand...

Counter stealth is evolving and there isn't anything like a silver bullet solution. Photonic/quantum radar are experimental and far from providing militarily useful tracking and firing solutions. Maybe China has finally fielded early generation but if it were certainly effective, we'd be seeing some scrambling from behind the scenes and hints being dropped by the US that China is making this mad dash to upgrade its armed forces with this new piece of technology.

Right now, the real concern for stealth being overcome by counter stealth does not kill programs like H-20 and B-21.

Counter stealth satellites aren't making stealth fighters non-effective. A satellite doesn't guide your A2A missiles. Knowing a bit more about where the general presence of a stealth aircraft is, doesn't entirely remove that aircraft's utility. It might be a bit more effective against unescorted bombers but with VLO and even ULO fighters and UADFs escorting H-20, I don't see how a GJ-x is an alternative to the H-20. It's been discussed before but a strategic, manned ULO bomber is not a medium range, unmanned ULO bomber you would not be strapping nukes to because 1. communication and controls can potentially be disrupted and 2. you don't really have nuclear targets at those medium ranges.

GTI said:

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’.

Click to expand...

I don't realise that because that is just your opinion. There is no indicator or credible rumor at all that the H-20 is supersonic. None. Claiming that the delays mean the flying wing planform design was likely abandoned is intellectual dishonesty. There is no valid causation chain for that. You are imagining reasons for your pre-determined conclusions. You trying to imply I am unfamiliar with the thread or having a hard time imagining a big J-36 are hilarious when your only evidence is your own wishes.

Inst said:

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

Click to expand...

A Chinese B-2 wouldn't be easy for US to deal with. The Pacific is empty and the US doesn't have 2000 aircraft this side of the Pacific. It doesn't have a J-36 or KJ-3000 in the pipeline either. And giving hypersonic missiles a tiny bit bigger booster is a much more cost effective solution than... going supersonic with a 150+ tonne VLO design.

Inst said:

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.

Click to expand...

No one ever doubted going supersonic is better than not going.
It just costs a lot and adds engineering complications, and evidently H-20 is hard enough without additional pressures.

Inst said:

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

Click to expand...

Can we stop this again nonsense on a Mach 1.X capable Bomber until it is unveiled and THEN we can discuss based on facts, not an fantasy.

BoraTas said:

I don't realise that because that is just your opinion. There is no indicator or credible rumor at all that the H-20 is supersonic. None. Claiming that the delays mean the flying wing planform design was likely abandoned is intellectual dishonesty. There is no valid causation chain for that. You are imagining reasons for your pre-determined conclusions. You trying to imply I am unfamiliar with the thread or having a hard time imagining a big J-36 are hilarious when your only evidence is your own wishes.

Click to expand...

Are you actually following this thread? Did you even comprehend my comment?

1. We have credible rumours about fielding of missiles similar to [but likely slightly smaller than] JL-1 being in the H-20’s requirements set. We also have our Mk. I eyeballs and the copious evidence that PLAAF opts for hypersonic munitions somewhat more so than subsonic LO missiles.

2. Hypersonic missiles are loooooong. And physics is the same everywhere on earth (for the purposes of this). If you try and build a traditional B-2esque flying wing that can fit such missiles in its IWB, it would become impractically large. You can get a pencil, paper, set square, and try for yourself.

3. This means that, if you still want to achieve VLO, and carry hypersonic missiles (HGVs, HCMs), then the available planforms are; (a) Arrowhead (kite); some form of (b) double / compound delta (cranked arrow, J-36); or a (c) cranked kite (GJ-X style, or bat wing - god forbid). It lengthens the fuselage to accommodate the missiles, w/o having to build some comically large colossal B-2 analogue.

4. Planforms (a) and (b) are “not incompatible” [verbatim per my first comment] with supersonic flight, and could even achieve it in certain flight regimes, regardless of actually being designed for supersonic flight or not.

5. Points 1-3 are established consensus and / or the physics of the universe we live in. Or should I go and start quoting old comments from one of the 67,000 times this discussion has come up in this thread.

.

ougoah said:

"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.

Click to expand...

Modern Radars/Electro-Optical detection mechanism with Machine Learning based techniques have reached to the point where even ULO will have hard time avoiding detection in 50-100 KM range. Whatever the "Stealth level" of B-2 and F-22 was in the 90s is significantly less capable now due to all the advances in sensor technology.

Ultimately too much pursuit of stealth will have diminishing returns as compromises has to be made to achieve that stealth which can lead to lower speed, manuverability or lower payload.

I don't think a ULO flying Bomber releasing gravity Bombs completely avoiding detection is realistic in a neer peer war. Stealth Bombers must rely on standoff missiles as well, which means they need to have sufficient size to be able to carry large missiles.

GTI said:

Are you actually following this thread? Did you even comprehend my comment?

1. We have credible rumours about fielding of missiles similar to [but likely slightly smaller than] JL-1 being in the H-20’s requirements set. We also have our Mk. I eyeballs and the copious evidence that PLAAF opts for hypersonic munitions somewhat more so than subsonic LO missiles.

2. Hypersonic missiles are loooooong. And physics is the same everywhere on earth (for the purposes of this). If you try and build a traditional B-2esque flying wing that can fit such missiles in its IWB, it would become impractically large. You can get a pencil, paper, set square, and try for yourself.

3. This means that, if you still want to achieve VLO, and carry hypersonic missiles (HGVs, HCMs), then the available planforms are; (a) Arrowhead (kite); some form of (b) double / compound delta (cranked arrow, J-36); or a (c) cranked kite (GJ-X style, or bat wing - god forbid). It lengthens the fuselage to accommodate the missiles, w/o having to build some comically large colossal B-2 analogue.

4. Planforms (a) and (b) are “not incompatible” [verbatim per my first comment] with supersonic flight, and could even achieve it in certain flight regimes, regardless of actually being designed for supersonic flight or not.

5. Points 1-3 are established consensus and / or the physics of the universe we live in. Or should I go and start quoting old comments from one of the 67,000 times this discussion has come up in this thread.

Click to expand...

You are really doubling down on intellectual dishonesty with every single message of yours.

1- No we don't. There are no such credible rumors and, in fact, Cute Orca said the JL-1 was not going to be internally carried by the H-20. Which BTW is very understandable because launching 10+ tonne missiles from a VLO aircraft would be a horrible use of resources.

2- No, they are not that long. China fitted one in a torpedo tube and even more capable ones in the UVLS. The B-21 has bays that are 6 meters long and is not even that big of an aircraft. If you think China would want 12 meter bays in a VLO aircraft you simply need to read more about military aviation.

3-4: Both of these are flat out wrong. If China wanted very long bays (it won't) it could change the swept angle. Even the GJ-11 doesn't exactly conform with the B-2 in shape. The fourth point is ridiculous because going supersonic requires many adaptations. An entire set of new rules regarding airfoil shapes, inlets, control surfaces and new set of fuselage design considerations like supersonic area ruling, etc... This is all without the structural implications and the propulsion part. I haven't even started with munitions release in supersonic regime which itself is non-trivial and whose safety would have to be validated for every single munition the H-20 would get. "Pointy aircraft can fly supersonic anyway" is a child's understanding. It is similar to that "pointy is good" scene from the movie Dictator.

5- None of them were the established consensus. I also just refuted them for people who think those were the consensus. This is keep coming because some people wish it to be true and apparently have significant emotional investment in the H-20 being supersonic. Some even resort to long arguments with their own sets of "facts" to argue the H-20 is supersonic.

Couple thoughts

The reveal of the H-20 would carry enormous political weight, even more than the sixth gens, simply and partially because the H-20 is inherently intended to be nuclear capable.

After last year's reveal, the Guancha gang may have reconsidered their approach on certain information disclosures, especially when it comes to something this consequential. They likely don't want to be identified as the source of "foreign internet" rumours, particularly if those rumours end up being true

Is it Christmas?