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.
... 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.