PLAAF JH-XX / H-X bomber project


Bltizo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Xi Yazhou's take on H-20. His ideas seem fresh so might be worth considering.

First he points to the Soviet T-4MS supersonic bomber project:
View attachment 70259
This thing, had it been built and hit the on paper specification would have been superior to Tu-160 in almost every way. Same 45 tons of payload, getting to near mach 3 at top speed, more range than Tu-160 if cruising most of the way and still lighter than Tu-160. The secret is in its unique shape: flying wing body with short variable geometry wings. Xi notes that the long, slender shape (as opposed to B-2 and B-21) makes it suitable to carry very large air launched ballistic missiles of perhaps 8,000km range.

T-4MS and to a lesser degree Tu-160 had to have variable geometry wing because their mission called for penetrating extremely heavily defended airspace of a superpower at high supersonic speed while pissing out short range nuclear tipped missile ever which way to destroy every air defence in front of them until they reach their main target. If the requirement for supersonic flight can be removed than the same shape, that of a slender flying wing with short stubby wings would offer some unique advantages.

The vertical stabilizers, if carefully designed and using the right material could be made so that all aspect stealth of the aircraft can be maintained. Vertical stabilizers like that would offer this bomber much better aerodynamic control vs the method used by B-2, and thus make it much better suited to conduct bombing runs with precision-guided bombs when the bomber is not needed for strategic deterrence. When facing mass concentration of tightly clustered troops this bomber would be able to deliver devastating fire power without warning. Xi cheekily describe a scenario where a near future world power conducts a large scale amphibious assault on a scale not seen since the Normandy Invasion against an enemy who has concentrated his ground troops near the expected beachhead, unaware of an approach stealth bomber loaded with large number of JDAM type bombs.

Xi also points out that if equipped with synthetic aperture radar (eg, APQ-181 on the B-2) in the leading wing of the aircraft this bomber can also function in a recon role, mapping out terrain, locating targets and directing swarms of UCAVs while being unnoticed.

Thus by basing the design on T-4MS and sacrificing the supersonic flight in exchange for simplification with no variable geometry wings, Xi proposes that a bomber like this could fill all the requirements that a near future world power might require of this aircraft.

I recall at least one fan art of the H-20 with similar ideas:
View attachment 70262


No, a flying wing bomber that is tailless is still far more desirable from a VLO pov than a bomber with tails.

Further, whether a bomber is a flying wing or not has no relation to whether it is suitable for conventional PGM bombing or strategic nuclear bombing.

Suggestions about the bomber as ISR, EW, UAV control, are things we've talked about before as well...
I've wrote it as such from a couple of years ago as well.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


... Finally, I'm not sure why he is talking about H-20 in comparison with supersonic bombers.
It is basically confirmed that H-20 will be a stealthy subsonic flying wing, and the design should have been frozen long ago.

If he is proposing an entirely different bomber (like for the much evasive JH-XX whose existence is not confirmed) then that's something else entirely.
 

Temstar

Senior Member
Registered Member
No, a flying wing bomber that is tailless is still far more desirable from a VLO pov than a bomber with tails.

Further, whether a bomber is a flying wing or not has no relation to whether it is suitable for conventional PGM bombing or strategic nuclear bombing.

Suggestions about the bomber as ISR, EW, UAV control, are things we've talked about before as well...
I've wrote it as such from a couple of years ago as well.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


... Finally, I'm not sure why he is talking about H-20 in comparison with supersonic bombers.
It is basically confirmed that H-20 will be a stealthy subsonic flying wing, and the design should have been frozen long ago.

If he is proposing an entirely different bomber (like for the much evasive JH-XX whose existence is not confirmed) then that's something else entirely.
He's not saying H-20 would be supersonic, rather he's saying the shape of T-4MS (with the wings at maximum sweep and no provision for variable geometry) seem to fit H-20's mission requirements well.
 

gelgoog

Captain
Registered Member
He's not saying H-20 would be supersonic, rather he's saying the shape of T-4MS (with the wings at maximum sweep and no provision for variable geometry) seem to fit H-20's mission requirements well.

I agree that something like a blended wing body design would be more effective for China's needs than a flying wing. The flying wing has the advantage of range, but it isn't like China wants to be able to bomb the CONUS. The blended wing body will likely be able to carry more payload. That being said all the info we have is that the H-20 is supposed to be a flying wing type. The PAK DA might be a blended wing body or a flying wing. The B-21 is likely to be a flying wing.
 

plawolf

Brigadier
Just what would be the practical benefit of having a flying wing bomber have folding tails? No matter how I look at it, all I see are costs and drawbacks and no clear reason to have them.

On a tail-less J20 future variant it would make sense to give you full controllability and agility when needed while also giving you maximum stealth when you don’t need manoeuvrability. But a bomber, especially a subsonic flying wing stealth just have no real use for vertical tails to justify the costs in money, weight, maintenance and potentially compromised stealth.
 

Bltizo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
He's not saying H-20 would be supersonic, rather he's saying the shape of T-4MS (with the wings at maximum sweep and no provision for variable geometry) seem to fit H-20's mission requirements well.

In any case it is a little odd that he is floating such a configuration so late into the hour.

The configuration for H-20 right now is essentially confirmed to be a flying wing, so barring some unexpected surprise I'm not sure where his suggestion is coming from.



And I also don't see what's wrong with a standard flying wing for H-20s likely mission requirements are.
 

Bltizo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
Just what would be the practical benefit of having a flying wing bomber have folding tails? No matter how I look at it, all I see are costs and drawbacks and no clear reason to have them.

On a tail-less J20 future variant it would make sense to give you full controllability and agility when needed while also giving you maximum stealth when you don’t need manoeuvrability. But a bomber, especially a subsonic flying wing stealth just have no real use for vertical tails to justify the costs in money, weight, maintenance and potentially compromised stealth.

The only "benefit" for folding tails would be improved directional stability, which I imagine would be only used during the more risky takeoff and landing parts of a mission, where the issue of reduced stealth by having upright/unfolded tails would not be an issue (as the enemy shouldn't be in any position to have sensors near your airbase).

And for the majority of the mission the tails would be folded and reduced RCS.

That said I'm not sure how viable or desirable it would be for H-20. If it was pursued, I don't think it would necessarily adopt the configuration of the CGI shown.

This below is another configuration, which is more integrated with the rest of the aircraft but is behind the engine exhausts of all places which wouldn't work.

For a flying wing the best part would likely be to put any folding tails lateral to the topside air intakes instead.

hx possible 1 (1).pnghx possible 2 (1).pnghx possible 3 (1).png
 

Tiberium

New Member
Registered Member
If you don't need agility and have FBW you just don't heed shit like this.
Froim the series 'I see a patent, I should draw a bomber like this"
The folding tails is not for agility, but for taking off and landing.
Apparently chinese studied B-2 very closely and there are evidences that B-2 is very hard to take off and land.
 

Temstar

Senior Member
Registered Member
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Curiously in today's 观棋有语 Xi Yazhou specifically mentioned that he noticed his video on H-20 has caused a stir among people outside of China who does "bean counting PLA matters as a hobby". He said it can't be helped, as those people don't have many channels for information from within China.

I wonder if he's lurking here... This better not be a deliberate attempt at misinformation.

列车长,如果您或苏师傅想到国外转转,看看深海,我很乐意当导游。
 

siegecrossbow

Brigadier
Staff member
Super Moderator
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Curiously in today's 观棋有语 Xi Yazhou specifically mentioned that he noticed his video on H-20 has caused a stir among people outside of China who does "bean counting PLA matters as a hobby". He said it can't be helped, as those people don't have many channels for information from within China.

I wonder if he's lurking here... This better not be a deliberate attempt at misinformation.

列车长,如果您或苏师傅想到国外转转,看看深海,我很乐意当导游。

Hahahaha you must hate him so much that you want him to get banned too.

On a serious note I'm not sure if it is a good idea for guys like @huitong to hang around here anymore. Things are very strict on Weibo. I think the only PLA related content that you can post (videos/images) are from official channels.
 

Top