What if mega bomber options and other what-if theories!

00CuriousObserver said:

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

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Comparing the Tu-16 with the Tu-95 is a mistake in the first place. Both aircraft are contemporary but one was designed to be a theater bomber and the other a strategic one.

gelgoog said:

Comparing the Tu-16 with the Tu-95 is a mistake in the first place. Both aircraft are contemporary but one was designed to be a theater bomber and the other a strategic one.

Click to expand...

Doesn't matter because H-6 is all China has assuming H-20 is far away and/or not a cruise missile carrier, hence it needs to fill the role that is filled by Tu-95/B-52 in VVS and USAF respectively. Not to mention officially speaking H-6K is a "Strategic bomber" and is currently the sole asset of China's aerial second strike option.

We will see if China follows the US or Russian bombing model. The US idea with the B-2 was it would be able to get close to drop gravity bombs over the target. The Soviets always expected to have a weaker air force than the opposing side and focused on using bombers as cruise missile launchers.

Another option is to use missiles that can be tossed out of transport planes, like the Rapid Dragon concept.

lcloo said:

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?

Click to expand...

Look at the overall situation, and let's work with the JL-1 having a range of up to 8000km

On Day 1, we could expect the Taiwanese Air Force to be non-operational.
That means the H-6 (with fighter escort) could fly past Taiwan and then launch the JL-1 against Hawaii.
Another example would be launching in the SCS, at American bases located in Australia.

Currently, China has no realistic way to reach these targets.

---

Yes, using JL-1 ALBMs will be expensive. CSBA previously published a cost estimate of $20 Million for an American version of a DF-26, which is a larger missile than the JL-1.

But look at the much larger cost of the potential targets.

At airbases, B-2 bombers cost $1000 Mn and the B-21 will be $500+ Mn
In port, there will be stationary carriers and destroyers also costing Billions

Given that the JL-1 is supposedly based on the DF-21, then it could have anti-ship seeker, like the DF-21D and DF-26. That's anti-ship ballistic missiles reaching 9000km+ from mainland China.

So it's worth fielding hundreds of JL-1 ALBMs for these targets.

Edit
Add the naval bases in Seattle and possibly San Diego as well

AndrewS said:

Look at the overall situation, and let's work with the JL-1 having a range of up to 8000km

On Day 1, we could expect the Taiwanese Air Force to be non-operational.
That means the H-6 (with fighter escort) could fly past Taiwan and then launch the JL-1 against Hawaii.
Another example would be launching in the SCS, at American bases located in Australia.

Currently, China has no realistic way to reach these targets.

---

Yes, using JL-1 ALBMs will be expensive. CSBA previously published a cost estimate of $20 Million for an American version of a DF-26, which is a larger missile than the JL-1.

But look at the much larger cost of the potential targets.

At airbases, B-2 bombers cost $1000 Mn and the B-21 will be $500+ Mn
In port, there will be stationary carriers and destroyers also costing Billions

Given that the JL-1 is supposedly based on the DF-21, then it could have anti-ship seeker, like the DF-21D and DF-26. That's anti-ship ballistic missiles reaching 9000km+ from mainland China.

So it's worth fielding hundreds of JL-1 ALBMs for these targets.

Edit
Add the naval bases in Seattle and possibly San Diego as well

Click to expand...

We have US leadership coming out and saying that Chinese missiles are 20 times cheaper.

So uh, dont use cost or estimated cost of US missiles and extrapolate costs of chinese missiles.

Michaelsinodef said:

We have US leadership coming out and saying that Chinese missiles are 20 times cheaper.

So uh, dont use cost or estimated cost of US missiles and extrapolate costs of chinese missiles.

Click to expand...

That was a specific example which is not relevant here. That would imply the JL-1 is $1 Million, which we know is ridiculous.

I'm using the $20 Million figure to demonstrate that the cost of missiles is magnitudes cheaper than their targets.

Continued

But that still leaves the vast majority of CONUS beyond the reach of Chinese conventional strike

From a deterrence point of view, there are still too many Americans who believe that because CONUS is untouched and the Chinese mainland is under attack, that the US can "win" a war against China.

Today, the state of Sino-American relations is pretty bad because there is a systemic rivalry in so many realms, and it's likely the situation will get worse as China continues to grow significantly faster than the US, and domestic US politics will keep blaming China.

So in order to increase deterrence, how does the Chinese military conduct conventional military strikes against CONUS?

---

An H-20 stealth bomber which is capable of launching 8000km JL-1 ALBMs would be one way to do this.
It should be able to reach a distance of 5000km+ from mainland China, then launch missiles that cover most of CONUS.

Again, you have many high-value targets which are worth the cost of H-20s launching ALBMs

---

(Note that the US already has the capability to conduct conventional military strikes against mainland China, because they have local bases in the 1IC and 2IC, along with an expeditionary Navy)

AndrewS said:

That was a specific example which is not relevant here. That would imply the JL-1 is $1 Million, which we know is ridiculous.

I'm using the $20 Million figure to demonstrate that the cost of missiles is magnitudes cheaper than their targets.

Click to expand...

While the american equivalent missile being 20 times might not hold for hypersonics.

Holding a baseline assumption that US equivalent hypersonic missiles are like 2-3 at minimum is perfectly reasonable.

Also, i dont think the JL-1 is gonna end up averaging 20m USD a piece (so 140m yuan to produce, probably more than a J20).