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

Known Facts:

1. The H-20 does indeed exist, but its development has been delayed due to redesign. This is unlikely attributable to design or industrial issues, but more likely because advancements in other areas have rendered the original design obsolete.

2. China already possesses the Malan GJ-X, an unmanned stealth flying wing bomber comparable in size to the B-21. This indicates that, in terms of requirements, a platform capable of executing conventional strike missions in 2IC– from bombs to stand-off air-launched weapons – is already in existence.


Widely Accepted Speculation:

1. The H-20 is a manned, stealth, subsonic bomber.

2. There are no credible rumours suggesting a flying wing configuration.


Credible Rumours:

ShiLao claimed: ‘Redesigning the H-20 because of the JingLei-1... is backwards... though not entirely incorrect.’



China's deficiencies:

Relatively low-cost strike capabilities beyond the second island chain, and enhanced nuclear deterrence against the US mainland (GJ-X for the second island chain).


Thus, I speculate the H-20's potential requirements include :

1. targeting the 2IC to 3IC, or areas near the 3IC;

2. nuclear deterrence against the Arctic and US West Coast.

I do worry about the H-20. Of course there's benefits to saving money and going back to the drawing board to revise the design to something optimal, but time isn't free. China made the correct choice with the J-20 when they built it early, even if the development complex of stealth aircraft in China was far from ideal back then, and learnt many lessons from operating the plane whilst the SU-57 languished in development hell. I hope that Xi'an, or whoever has responsibility over the H-20, isn't repeating the mistakes of the SU-57. Sometimes it's better to get a good enough plane this year than the perfect plane for today fifteen years from now.

dasCKD said:

I do worry about the H-20. Of course there's benefits to saving money and going back to the drawing board to revise the design to something optimal, but time isn't free. China made the correct choice with the J-20 when they built it early, even if the development complex of stealth aircraft in China was far from ideal back then, and learnt many lessons from operating the plane whilst the SU-57 languished in development hell. I hope that Xi'an, or whoever has responsibility over the H-20, isn't repeating the mistakes of the SU-57. Sometimes it's better to get a good enough plane this year than the perfect plane for today fifteen years from now.

Click to expand...

China was desperate to have a
Stealth fighter. A fighter that can match US and attain parity is existential for China.

Its not desperate to have a stealth Bomber. So, no they can take their sweet time on it, just like they are taking their sweet time on building up the carrier fleet.

dasCKD said:

I do worry about the H-20. Of course there's benefits to saving money and going back to the drawing board to revise the design to something optimal, but time isn't free. China made the correct choice with the J-20 when they built it early, even if the development complex of stealth aircraft in China was far from ideal back then, and learnt many lessons from operating the plane whilst the SU-57 languished in development hell. I hope that Xi'an, or whoever has responsibility over the H-20, isn't repeating the mistakes of the SU-57. Sometimes it's better to get a good enough plane this year than the perfect plane for today fifteen years from now.

Click to expand...

If by bomber you mean a platform capable of delivering bombs and standoff weapons within the Second Island Chain, China appears to favour employing various drones for such missions. These drones are either sufficiently inexpensive to withstand losses in high-intensity conflicts across the Western Pacific, or sufficiently stealthy and advanced to possess strong survivability. They will project firepower within the Second Island Chain alongside carrier-based J-15Ts and the Rocket Force. Given their sheer numbers and accelerated iteration cycles, rapid development appears the more rational approach.

However, as a more advanced platform than the GJ-X, the H-20 may be assigned specific missions (more challenging than low-cost strikes against the second island chain) that only it can fulfil. With no likely replacement for the foreseeable future, a more cautious, comprehensive development strategy is arguably more appropriate.

DeltaGreen said:

Widely Accepted Speculation:

1. The H-20 is a manned, stealth, subsonic bomber.

2. There are no credible rumours suggesting a flying wing configuration.

Click to expand...

We certainly shouldn't discount the possibility of the H-20 having a flying wing (or variations of flying wing, such as a cranked kite), given the anticipated/expected characteristics and performances (including what you've just posted right above this post).

ACuriousPLAFan said:

We certainly shouldn't discount the possibility of the H-20 having a flying wing (or variations of flying wing, such as a cranked kite), given the anticipated/expected characteristics and performances (including what you've just posted right above this post).

Click to expand...

I'm no aerospace expert, I'm just speculating here, but would there be any potential feasibility for blended wing bodies or 'morphing' adaptive structures?

DeltaGreen said:

Widely Accepted Speculation:

1. The H-20 is a manned, stealth, subsonic bomber.

Click to expand...

Before apearance of J-36 I'd agree. But now I don't.

DeltaGreen said:

2. There are no credible rumours suggesting a flying wing configuration.

Click to expand...

Depends on how you define flying wing. Is J-36 a fly wing? Except it has a greater sweep-back angle what else difference is there to exclude it from catagory of flying wing? IMO, any aircraft lacking surfaces except the wing is a fly-wing, just different wing shapes.

DeltaGreen said:

Credible Rumours:

ShiLao claimed: ‘Redesigning the H-20 because of the JingLei-1... is backwards... though not entirely incorrect.’

Click to expand...

I won't take internet personality's word as credible. If H-20's original design (B2 like) is obsolete, then what is backwardness? A platform is always designed around the weapons it is carrying and the kind of mission dictates. It is the only correct way of doing things. I think he made a mistake by being stuck to the number 20 and "redesign", instead the right way of thinking is that PLAAF need A bomber to do A job, old B2 idea is outdated, so a new design comes.

taxiya said:

Before apearance of J-36 I'd agree. But now I don't.

Depends on how you define flying wing. Is J-36 a fly wing? Except it has a greater sweep-back angle what else difference is there to exclude it from catagory of flying wing? IMO, any aircraft lacking surfaces except the wing is a fly-wing, just different wing shapes.


I won't take internet personality's word as credible. If H-20's original design (B2 like) is obsolete, then what is backwardness? A platform is always designed around the weapons it is carrying and the kind of mission dictates. It is the only correct way of doing things. I think he made a mistake by being stuck to the number 20 and "redesign", instead the right way of thinking is that PLAAF need A bomber to do A job, old B2 idea is outdated, so a new design comes.

Click to expand...

fine. but Yankee/Shilao are not the random people.

taxiya said:

the right way of thinking is that PLAAF need A bomber to do A job

Click to expand...

I fully agree.
Based on my personal assessment, the capabilities PLAAF currently desires but lacks are:
1. The ability to conduct nuclear strikes against Alaska and the U.S. mainland using bombers.
2. Cost-effective capabilities to strikemilitary targets near the third island chain (the Rocket Force can certainly do this, but it's too expensive).
3. The ability to command and coordinate drones and CCA near the second island chain. This would enable more effective generation and application of firepower.

Is there might be other possibilities?

taxiya said:

A platform is always designed around the weapons it is carrying and the kind of mission dictates.

Click to expand...

I fully agree.
This gave me an idea, and I tried to think about the H-20 delay from this perspective:

I believe the H-20 delay stems from redesign rather than capability shortcomings. Building on this, I hypothesize two possibilities:

1. Breakthrough progress in a specific subsystem enabling substantial capability enhancement—such as significantly improved stealth or extended range.
The counterargument to this possibility is: Would the redesign triggered by this subsystem upgrade truly cause such a prolonged delay for the H-20?

2. A shift in mission objectives.
For instance, the H-20 was originally intended to perform duties similar to the B-21, but unexpected advancements in artificial intelligence, CCA, and unmanned aerial vehicles rendered that role obsolete. The H-20's mission has shifted to becoming a force multiplier for those UAVs and a type of early warning aircraft.
Another possibility is that the H-20's positioning has shifted from being a B-21 equivalent to a B-2-class aircraft.


The ammunition development argument seems less credible to me. Since this munition was specifically developed for the H-20, even significant progress in its development would not justify delaying the H-20 program.

taxiya said:

But now I don't.

Click to expand...

So what other possibilities remain?

DeltaGreen said:

I fully agree.
Based on my personal assessment, the capabilities PLAAF currently desires but lacks are:
1. The ability to conduct nuclear strikes against Alaska and the U.S. mainland using bombers.
2. Cost-effective capabilities to strikemilitary targets near the third island chain (the Rocket Force can certainly do this, but it's too expensive).
3. The ability to command and coordinate drones and CCA near the second island chain. This would enable more effective generation and application of firepower.

Is there might be other possibilities?


I fully agree.
This gave me an idea, and I tried to think about the H-20 delay from this perspective:

I believe the H-20 delay stems from redesign rather than capability shortcomings. Building on this, I hypothesize two possibilities:

1. Breakthrough progress in a specific subsystem enabling substantial capability enhancement—such as significantly improved stealth or extended range.
The counterargument to this possibility is: Would the redesign triggered by this subsystem upgrade truly cause such a prolonged delay for the H-20?

2. A shift in mission objectives.
For instance, the H-20 was originally intended to perform duties similar to the B-21, but unexpected advancements in artificial intelligence, CCA, and unmanned aerial vehicles rendered that role obsolete. The H-20's mission has shifted to becoming a force multiplier for those UAVs and a type of early warning aircraft.
Another possibility is that the H-20's positioning has shifted from being a B-21 equivalent to a B-2-class aircraft.


The ammunition development argument seems less credible to me. Since this munition was specifically developed for the H-20, even significant progress in its development would not justify delaying the H-20 program.

So what other possibilities remain?

Click to expand...

My view is that the mission objectives have changed for the H-20.

If you have enough J-36 and aircraft carriers (along with UADFs), you can obtain air superiority over the 2IC.

So there is no need for a China to develop a B-21 class stealth bomber that can penetrate hostile airspace to attack targets in the 2IC.

But obtaining air superiority to the 3IC (and beyond) isn't feasible to the distance involved.
So a penetrating stealth bomber would be useful for these distances.