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

sheogorath

Major
Registered Member
. Technicals aside, China needs more B-52 style multi purpose bombers than a ultra high tech and ultra expensive cold-war style stealth bomber.

That ship has sailed, though. B-52's are modernized and kept around because they are already paid for many times over and the airframe has been flexible enough to handle improvements regarding weapons system and avionics and the US is still willing to put up with its 8 engines, which also is kind of a product of necessity, as the B-52 original rol as a low level bomber is completely gone.

It doesn't really make sense to design a B-52 in this time and age. Its probably cheaper overall to just make your VLO design as flexible and multirole as a B-52, as at least its survivability is more future proof than an airliner sized and shaped bomber.
 

FairAndUnbiased

Brigadier
Registered Member
That ship has sailed, though. B-52's are modernized and kept around because they are already paid for many times over and the airframe has been flexible enough to handle improvements regarding weapons system and avionics and the US is still willing to put up with its 8 engines, which also is kind of a product of necessity, as the B-52 original rol as a low level bomber is completely gone.

It doesn't really make sense to design a B-52 in this time and age. Its probably cheaper overall to just make your VLO design as flexible and multirole as a B-52, as at least its survivability is more future proof than an airliner sized and shaped bomber.

Anything subsonic, unmaneuverable, high RCS and with less than 2000 km weapons range isn't survivable enough IMO.
 

ACuriousPLAFan

Colonel
Registered Member
Even 1000 km range is too short for a non optimized plane for the PLA IMO. A F-22 already in the air on patrol outside radar range at 1000 km can detect and close the gap with a high RCS cargo plane at afterburner Mach 2 within 20 min, and the cargo plane would have no way to escape or fight back the way a fighter could. It's very hard for the cargo plane to escape a few AIM-120s while a real bomber or fighter can maneuver away, be not detected in the first place, or deploy countermeasures.
The 1000-kilometer range quoted in my post is based on the LRASM and JASSM missiles used in the Rapid Dragon missile system.

China already has cruise missiles that can reach targets beyond that distance -
DH/CJ-10K/20 can reach 1500-2000 kilometers.
DF/CJ-100 can reach 2000-3000 kilometers.
HN-3 can reach 3000 kilometers.
HN-2000, although having little available information, is said to have a range of 4000 kilometers.
etc.

On one hand, much of the fixed i.e. land-based targets which China is expected to encounter in case of war in the WestPac are within 2000 kilometers of the Chinese coastlines and the eastern borders, which mostly doesn't require the use of Rapid Dragon-type missile system.

On the other hand, Rapid Dragon-style missile system grants more flexibility in terms of deployment. They can be used for rapid deployment to locations with poor ground-based transportation (such as the Himalayan frontier) to launch missiles, and/or to launch missiles against time-sensitive targets. Sure, fighters and bombers can do the job better than airlifters, but the airlifter-based "temporary bombers" can either complement these proper units when required, or to fill the gaps needed for a rapid strike when proper units aren't available in the region at the time.

Furthermore, in order to utilize these kinds of airlifter-based "temporary transports", these airlifters would mainly operate within uncontested airspace i.e. territorial airspace and/or airspaces that have been secured by allied fighters and SAMs. I don't see how enemy fighters would dare to breach deep into territorial airspaces over the Chinese mainland just to shoot at Chinese airlifters without successfully disabling much of the area-denial platforms (which is already a gigantic task), so there's that.

Unlike for the US which has a huge domestic civil aviation industry, cargo planes are very expensive in China, more than fighters, and more limited in numbers.
Airlifters are military-focused, not civilian-focused.

Besides, expensive or not, having a large fleet of airlifters is an absolute prerequisite for the PLAAF to become a world-class air force. Plus, China has the economies of scale, meaning that they can build things at a cheaper price and at faster speed than their American counterparts.

Moreover, while the US has stopped the production of C-5 and C-17 completely (the C-130J is still being produced), China is working hard to pump out the Y-9 (and once the WS-20 is ready, the Y-20 too) like no tomorrow.
 
Last edited:

ACuriousPLAFan

Colonel
Registered Member
Once again, I'm not advocating Y-9 and Y-20 airlifter-based "temporary bombers" as a final solution for PLAAF's long-range air strike missions against enemy targets, but mainly acting as a supplement and an extra option for the PLAAF to do so.
 

FairAndUnbiased

Brigadier
Registered Member
The 1000-kilometer range quoted in my post is based on the LRASM and JASSM missiles used in the Rapid Dragon missile system.

China already has cruise missiles that can reach targets beyond that distance -
DH/CJ-10K/20 can reach 1500-2000 kilometers.
DF/CJ-100 can reach 2000-3000 kilometers.
HN-3 can reach 3000 kilometers.
HN-2000, although having little available information, is said to have a range of 4000 kilometers.
etc.

On one hand, much of the fixed i.e. land-based targets which China is expected to encounter in case of war in the WestPac are within 2000 kilometers of the Chinese coastlines and the eastern borders, which mostly doesn't require the use of Rapid Dragon-type missile system.

On the other hand, Rapid Dragon-style missile system grants more flexibility in terms of deployment. They can be used for rapid deployment to locations with poor ground-based transportation (such as the Himalayan frontier) to launch missiles, and/or to launch missiles against time-sensitive targets. Sure, fighters and bombers can do the job better than airlifters, but the airlifter-based "temporary bombers" can either complement these proper units when required, or to fill the gaps needed for a rapid strike when proper units aren't available in the region at the time.

Furthermore, in order to utilize these kinds of airlifter-based "temporary transports", those airlifters would mainly operate within uncontested airspace i.e. territorial airspace and/or airspaces that have been secured by allied fighters and SAMs. I don't see how enemy fighters would dare to breach deep into territorial airspaces over the Chinese mainland to shoot at Chinese airlifters without successfully disabling much of the area-denial platforms (which is already a gigantic task), so there's that.


Airlifters are military-focused, not civilian-focused.

Besides, expensive or not, having a large fleet of airlifters is an absolute prerequisite for the PLAAF to become a world-class air force. Moreover, China has the economy of scale, and can build things at a cheaper price and at faster speed than their American counterparts.

Plus, while the US has stopped the production of C-5 and C-17 completely (the C-130J is still being produced), China is still working hard to pump out the Y-9 (and once the WS-20 is ready, Y-20 too).
I was thinking more for the very long range missions deep in the Pacific (2IC), which is where the key battle will be. The nearby targets can be serviced by much cheaper land based missiles anyhow.

Airlifters are just too weak vs. stealth interceptors. I used F-22 in the example, but a J-20 CAP in the air detecting and intercepting a C-17 at full afterburner within 20 minutes as it approaches launch range and splashing it with a PL-21 from beyond the range of escort radar is just as likely. The reason that certain adversaries have to resort to this sort of strategy is because they can't meaningfully keep large amounts of maneuvering trucks around since China has land and they don't. It's just geography. Trucks are cheaper than planes, if they could use trucks they would.

In addition, while adversary will likely be using such capability to target fixed and soft civilian infrastructure for terror bombing, the PLA will need to target hardened and possibly mobile military targets. This means that some degree of either search or avoidance of enemy CAP will be necessary, a task better suited for dedicated combat aircraft.

Thirdly, the existing inventory of fighters far surpasses that of airlifters, and is likely to continue to be that way. USAF also has a fighter inventory that vastly surpasses that of airlifters with 1k F-16s vs. 200 C-130s.

This is why I think integrating very long range standoff munitions with PLAAF fighters, which should not be too difficult seeing as the US and Russians have already done so, is key. So far we've not seen for instance J-10s or J-16s carrying CJ-10s or HN-3s or any other 1000+ km class munition. When we do, then we know that they have the strike capability. Otherwise, only H-6K carrying these very long range missiles is insufficient for neutralizing 2IC targets. This is very low hanging fruit that we should be seeing evidence of.
 

externallisting

New Member
Registered Member
The 1000-kilometer range quoted in my post is based on the LRASM and JASSM missiles used in the Rapid Dragon missile system.

China already has cruise missiles that can reach targets beyond that distance -
DH/CJ-10K/20 can reach 1500-2000 kilometers.
DF/CJ-100 can reach 2000-3000 kilometers.
HN-3 can reach 3000 kilometers.
HN-2000, although having little available information, is said to have a range of 4000 kilometers.
etc.

On one hand, much of the fixed i.e. land-based targets which China is expected to encounter in case of war in the WestPac are within 2000 kilometers of the Chinese coastlines and the eastern borders, which mostly doesn't require the use of Rapid Dragon-type missile system.

On the other hand, Rapid Dragon-style missile system grants more flexibility in terms of deployment. They can be used for rapid deployment to locations with poor ground-based transportation (such as the Himalayan frontier) to launch missiles, and/or to launch missiles against time-sensitive targets. Sure, fighters and bombers can do the job better than airlifters, but the airlifter-based "temporary bombers" can either complement these proper units when required, or to fill the gaps needed for a rapid strike when proper units aren't available in the region at the time.

Furthermore, in order to utilize these kinds of airlifter-based "temporary transports", these airlifters would mainly operate within uncontested airspace i.e. territorial airspace and/or airspaces that have been secured by allied fighters and SAMs. I don't see how enemy fighters would dare to breach deep into territorial airspaces over the Chinese mainland just to shoot at Chinese airlifters without successfully disabling much of the area-denial platforms (which is already a gigantic task), so there's that.


Airlifters are military-focused, not civilian-focused.

Besides, expensive or not, having a large fleet of airlifters is an absolute prerequisite for the PLAAF to become a world-class air force. Plus, China has the economies of scale, meaning that they can build things at a cheaper price and at faster speed than their American counterparts.

Moreover, while the US has stopped the production of C-5 and C-17 completely (the C-130J is still being produced), China is working hard to pump out the Y-9 (and once the WS-20 is ready, the Y-20 too) like no tomorrow.
IDK why you're so obsessed with this idea as though it's never been something considered.

I have no idea what the equivalent name is but couldn't both sides militarise commercial shipping too?

Ultimately it hasn't been done by both sides because "reasons".

This might be a good place for you to start, jfc.
 

Deino

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
....

China already has cruise missiles that can reach targets beyond that distance -
DH/CJ-10K/20 can reach 1500-2000 kilometers.
DF/CJ-100 can reach 2000-3000 kilometers.
HN-3 can reach 3000 kilometers.
HN-2000, although having little available information, is said to have a range of 4000 kilometers.
etc.
...


In fact of these often-quoted ALCMs, only the KD-20 aka CJ-10 is confirmed ... all others are IMO failed predecessors, projects and wrong names for the same missile, especially the HN-series.
 

ACuriousPLAFan

Colonel
Registered Member
In fact of these often-quoted ALCMs, only the KD-20 aka CJ-10 is confirmed ... all others are IMO failed predecessors, projects and wrong names for the same missile, especially the HN-series.
Huh. Didn't know that CJ/DF-100 is fake, considering that they have been shown in the 2019 military parade in Beijing.

Also, thanks for the heads-up on the HN series. Though, I think it would be good for China to have cruise missiles with strike ranges equal to that of the Kh-55 or more.

IDK why you're so obsessed with this idea as though it's never been something considered.

I have no idea what the equivalent name is but couldn't both sides militarise commercial shipping too?

Ultimately it hasn't been done by both sides because "reasons".

This might be a good place for you to start, jfc.
Not sure where you get the idea that I'm "so obsessed with that idea"?
 
Last edited:

Deino

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
Huh. Didn't know that CJ/DF-100 is fake, considering that they have been shown in the 2019 military parade in Beijing.

Also, thanks for the heads-up on the HN series. Though, I think it would be good for China to have cruise missiles with strike ranges equal to that of the Kh-55 or more.


Not sure where you get the idea that I'm "so obsessed with that idea"?


Maybe here you are correct, but I‘m not aware there is an airlaunched variant, even if a anti-she variant of the KD-20 is also known as CJ-100.

IMO there is still great confusion regarding Chinese ALMs … @Patchwork_Chimera
 

BagPiper

New Member
Registered Member
I hate to be the bearer of bad news. In my honest opinion, H-20 is probably a vaporware. All current PLAAF aircrafts have had very solid pictures and academic literatures leaked prior to them been spotted in real life. But so far nothing concrete has been leaked for the so called H-20. It's likely just an overhyped topic stirred up by Chinese content creators and Western China-Watchers as a clickbait to boost their views.
I have been following it on and off for the past decade. It has surfaced in the mid 2000s when baseless rumours emerged. They all claimed the new stealth bobmer is near identical to B2 but beats it in performance. This is when China's per capita GDP was still around only $1500 and military spending still at near historical low. Then in the mid to late 2010s, with the Cambrian explosion style emergence of Chinese UAVs, rumours begin to claim that the new H20 is unmanned and likely to be based on one of those UAVs. There was a promotional video from the AVIC with its ending frames showing a B2 style shaped airframe covered by cloth. Eversince rumorus have been stirred up like crazy.
The "real H20" is likely just a larger unmanned bomber similar to one of those current UAVs. B2 and TU-160 were both created during the height of the Cold War when both sides tried to kill each other at all costs. Today's world is far more practical. China and US spend way more time killing each other on economies and trades than they do militarily. It's unlikely for China to design and build a multi billion dollar bomber to fly 15K+ KM from mainland China to the continental US to drop nukes.
What China needs for the coming 2 decades is to deter and fend off US and its allies in the Western Pacific. A TU-160/B1B style bomber or a large stealth UAV bomber is far more practical than a B2.
Even for countries like Russia and US with fancy bombers like Tu160 and B2, they still only use B52/Tu95 in standoffs.
 
Top