Take of speed: Mach 1.
H-20 bomber (with H-X, JH-XX)
- Thread starter Deino
- Start date
- Status
I think you need to try and improve your knowledge and understanding of technology / military technology.
And also read the threads you participate in, carefully, before commenting.
It’s getting to the point where your comments are so inane (and easily solvable with 5 mins reading of prior posts) that they temporarily derail threads or ongoing conversation.
If a traditional flying wing needs to have a long weapons bay, then it starts to get very unrealistically wide. A lot of that is basic geometry, you can get a set square and try yourself.
this sub is literally 50 years behind air combat understanding with the obsession of supersonic speed. Please go back to the 1960's.
lcloo
Major
Just a thought, not neccessary related to H20. Since by general consensus, the Sept 3rd parade is for weapons/platforms already in service, so JL-1 ALBM is in service either at evaluation/operational testing stage or already in regular service stage, what aircraft was or would be used for evaluation & testing stage? How was the prototype launched for flight testings from an aerial platform before entering service?
There are only 3 large aerial platform that we know, IL-76, Y20 and H6N. If either of these 3 aerial platform are not ideal carrier for JL-1, Why the service induction of JL-1 ALBM now? If the original platform (H20?) is postponed due to the need to re-design due to new requirement, and if a war suddently break out how would JL-1 be deployed before H20 becomes FOC?
Does this mean the "original designed" H20 was already near maiden flight stage before it was postponed ? Or there is an expectation that there might not be a major delay in time for the appearance of "re-designed" H20?
There are only 3 large aerial platform that we know, IL-76, Y20 and H6N. If either of these 3 aerial platform are not ideal carrier for JL-1, Why the service induction of JL-1 ALBM now? If the original platform (H20?) is postponed due to the need to re-design due to new requirement, and if a war suddently break out how would JL-1 be deployed before H20 becomes FOC?
Does this mean the "original designed" H20 was already near maiden flight stage before it was postponed ? Or there is an expectation that there might not be a major delay in time for the appearance of "re-designed" H20?
Last edited:
I believe a modified H-6 would be able to do the job. The "Beijing Hammer" ALBM has a striking resemblance to the JL-1. Perhaps there's a slot in the H-6 belly, or the JL-1 has folding fins. But I feel like the JL-1 is the official designation to the Beijing Hammer.
I can see some grey fins here.
H-6N is specifically built for this it seems
While I really appreciate the updates from the trio, I hope you guys can post as much of the transcript and translation as possible, or at least a timestamp, instead of just a summary. Their podcast is often very cryptic, where exact phrasings are important and are often open to interpretation.
Timestamp starts at around 34:00
Yankee: JL-1 — the reason it's made so large is still because the bomber's basic performance sets the limit (he then talks about how the H-6 is inferior to B-52 and Tu-95)
Yankee (a bit later): Because JL-1 caused the H-20 to be redesigned.
Yankee: How should I put it…
Shilao: You've got it backwards.
Ayi: Yeah, it's indeed backwards.
Yankee: Well… it's technically correct.
Shilao: It's… technically correct… but it doesn't mean what you're implying.
Ayi: The exact words were "Because JL-1 caused the H-20 to be redesigned", that's not wrong
Yankee: Right, right, if you put it that way, it's correct.
Ayi: That's exactly what was said, not wrong.
Yankee: Yes, but… the direction is wrong.
They then agreed to leave the remaining details for later, so we don’t know conclusively what the relationship is. It’s not guaranteed that the H-20 will carry JL-1.
It could also simply mean JL-1 exists now, it took over some of the mission requirements from H-20 and hence is now redesigned to account for that. Also, if H-20 do turn out not to be a cruise/ballistic missile carrier would there be another H-30 or whatever that is a Tu-95/B-52 equivalent? H-6 is extremely lacking is basically everything compared to the most modern Tu-95/B-52.
- Status