PLAAF JH-XX / H-X bomber project


BoraTas

Junior Member
Registered Member
And this bolt statement is based on what??
The same maths I posted in my previous comment. Just look at the B-2. It has 4 7.7-ton thrust engines and a MTOW of 170 tons. Even the WS-10A has a 14-ton thrust with afterburner. If we go pessimistic for dry thrust and take 60% of the wet thrust, we still end up with 8.4 tons. I will be surprised if the H-20 comes with a MTOW of less than 190 tons because even the WS-10A allows it. If the old news about WS-10 variants with 15.5-ton were true, then up to 210 tons are possible.
 

gelgoog

Captain
Registered Member
Once you establish that the H-20 uses the WS-10 it follows naturally that it is likely a quad engine since otherwise you don't get a meaningful payload over what a dual-engine J-16 would get already. Since it was leaked the H-20 is a flying wing there is only so much you can expect. i.e. it will be subsonic and long range. The WS-10 has roughly the same dry thrust as the B-2's engines. So you would expect a bomber made with that to have similar characteristics.
 
Last edited:

BoraTas

Junior Member
Registered Member
I seem to remember somewhere, although unreliable as a source, that the dry thrust for WS-10X is 89kN and it's higher as a percentage of the wet thrust than AL-31X because the WS-10 was derived from the CFM core.
The F-101 which developed into the CFM-56 and the F-110 which developed from the F-101 have a dry thrust to wet thrust ratio of around 60%. The B-2's engine, the F-118, was derived from the F-110 so it is related to the CFM-56 too. There are contradictions about the B-2's MTOW and the F-118's thrust. But if the wiki figures are true, I expect the H-20 to be close to 200 tons in MTOW.
 

latenlazy

Colonel
The same maths I posted in my previous comment. Just look at the B-2. It has 4 7.7-ton thrust engines and a MTOW of 170 tons. Even the WS-10A has a 14-ton thrust with afterburner. If we go pessimistic for dry thrust and take 60% of the wet thrust, we still end up with 8.4 tons. I will be surprised if the H-20 comes with a MTOW of less than 190 tons because even the WS-10A allows it. If the old news about WS-10 variants with 15.5-ton were true, then up to 210 tons are possible.
It doesn’t make sense to use those thrust margins to maximize payload. Bombers also need range. And using those thrust margins to both increase the payload and decrease your engine efficiency puts a double penalty on the range. That’s probably where your “contradictions” with the B2 are coming from.
 

eprash

Junior Member
Registered Member
200 Tons MTOW is way overkill unless PLA is planning it to have troop/cargo transport capability, highly doubtful Chinese leadership would tolerate that much of risk on their first endeavour
 
Last edited:

silentlurker

Junior Member
Registered Member
200 Tons MTOW is way overkill unless PLA is planning it to have troop/cargo transport capability, highly doubtful Chinese leadership would tolerate that much of risk on their first endeavour
Having your high-stealth high-maintenance expensive stealth bomber move cargo seems like burning money to stay warm
 

BoraTas

Junior Member
Registered Member
It doesn’t make sense to use those thrust margins to maximize payload. Bombers also need range. And using those thrust margins to both increase the payload and decrease your engine efficiency puts a double penalty on the range. That’s probably where your “contradictions” with the B2 are coming from.
My comments are about max take-off weight (MTOW), not payload. MTOW is the maximum weight the aircraft can take-off and fly safely. 200 tons payload would need 10 WS-15s :). You are true about payload. Everything same, lower payload means higher fuel fraction (carried fuel / MTOW) which leads to a higher range. Bombers and transports have much higher fuel fractions compared to fighters. By the way, 200 tons is by no means light for an aircraft. Even for a bomber. This is why I asked if there are any confirmed data about the H-20's MTOW.
 

Inst

Senior Member
The B-2 is capable of carrying fuel as part of its payload package, extending its range.

It'd be sensible for the H-20 to have extended range through modular internal fuel tanks if it's needed to strike targets like California, but have the bay capacity to increase its payload on hits vs American bases in Guam / Japan.

Having your high-stealth high-maintenance expensive stealth bomber move cargo seems like burning money to stay warm

Not necessarily. You might wish to move ZTZ-99s (or any future successor) in an area where less stealthy transport platforms would have trouble. But that requires a substantial redesign, and the most realistically you could want to move would be supplies for ground forces.
 

Atomicfrog

Junior Member
Registered Member
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.

View attachment 70272View attachment 70273View attachment 70274
Removing a good parts of wings area for liftoff and landing look counterintuitive to me...
 

Top