Put it like that, are we sure H20 is a manned aircraft?
H-20 bomber (with H-X, JH-XX)
- Thread starter Deino
- Start date
bro you seriously think, H-20 will be unmanned..
We are never sure with anything for PLA watching, but at this stage there is no reason for us to strongly entertain the idea of H-20 being unmanned without significant corroborating noise/rumours, which we don't have.
Furthermore, the idea of this airframe being a bomber seems unlikely given its overall geometry (small central fuselage) -- there is barely any space for a meaningful weapons bay for a strike bomber, whether it's manned or unmanned.
The geometry and size of it is much more consistent with what we'd expect a large stealthy ISR UAV to be, and if it had a weapons bay it would have to be very small.
For the purposes of discussing this mystery airframe, I see no reason why it should be in the H-20 thread. I recommend others continue discussion of it in the UAV thread.
For what it's worth, Tyler removed the "H-20" part from the article.
Disregarding the prior post from TWZ, and just strictly talking about the H-20 - Let's just say that if the H-20 is also meant as a platform for nuclear delivery (as the aerial component of China's nuclear triad), then I suppose it's going to be manned rather than the opposite.
In the age of Hypersonic missiles, doing a nuke attack with bombers is extremely foolish and totally pointless in my opinion. I think this whole Nuclear triad idea is obsolete. If you are indeed trying to nuke your enemy, use missiles. If you really need to get close and don't want to use an ICBM, don't use a bomber, use a submarine.
It's all about putting the decision of pulling the trigger (or pressing the button) in the hands of humans.
The militaries certainly can train their machines to leave the decision to launch (at least certain types of) conventional weapons to unmanned (or even autonomous) systems in order to improve respinse time and minimize command backlog - But nuclear weapons (which are WMDs by nature) is another story.
Remember how the Russians shot down their own S-70 Okhotnik that went out of control in October last year? They had to shoot down their own drone using an Su-57 because they didn't manage to reestablish connection and control over the drone before it flew past the frontline and into Ukraine.
Imagine a drone is carrying nuclear weapons and tasked with conducting nuclear deterrence/"show-of-force" patrols along the Russia-Ukraine border - Or worse, Russia-NATO borders, and having the same problems as that ill-fated S-70. Even by leaving the risk of accidental nuclear detonation aside - Conventional explosives that could be accidentally set off would result in radiological disaster at the location/area where the drone crashed after running out of fuel, let alone the associated diplomatic disaster that will surely follow (if not a military response).
We already have plenty of nuclear close-calls throughout the entire Cold War. We don't need more.
Last edited:
Bombers can carry hypersonic missiles too, and they have the advantage that they're (relatively) highly visible, like a surface fleet, meaning they serve a great signaling value. For example, say the US is issuing nuclear threats like it's 1950 or 1954 again. Sending a couple H-20s to do fly-bys of the continental US sends a very powerful message to Washington.
ICBMs and SSBNs, by their nature, are quite inconspicuous, either deep underground, underwater, or dispersed in the middle of nowhere. They aren't nearly as scary to politicians as a bomber carrying up to 2 dozen nuclear munitions.
How is an unmanned nuclear bomber different from a nuclear ballistic missile that is also unmanned? As far as I am concerned, the moment the vehicle took off carrying nuclear weapon, the human decision has already been made.