They are so close to China, H-6 + cruise missile is probably enough. H-20 + bomb is simply not cost effective. Take US for example, B-1B and B-52 are way more frequently used than B-2. B-2 is more like a mascot.
H-20 bomber (with H-X, JH-XX)
- Thread starter Deino
- Start date
That's because the only wars the US has fought for the last 60 years is against some plebs in caves with AA pieces from WWII and maybe some MANPADS if they're lucky.
Bombs are significantly more cost effective than cruise missiles. The D set-up is very interesting, even though it's obviously compromised stealth due to the tailfins, because it promises tremendous bomb loads compared to the relatively anemic B-2.
A 4-engined set-up there would be very useful if the 4-engined set-up with or without TVC can provide yaw control, allowing neglect of tailfins.
A 4-engined set-up there would be very useful if the 4-engined set-up with or without TVC can provide yaw control, allowing neglect of tailfins.
In any case, loitering will be way better than H-6.
The US shot 50-60 cruise missle on to a syrian airforce base 4 years ago. About 100 million $ in tomahawks. It was back in operations in a few days. GPS bombs run 30-50k each. H-20 cluster bombing/mining Taiwanese runways and bases would be a very cost effective solution, not to mention the 1000s of other targets around taiwan. THe threat of H-20 appearing from nowhere in the pacific and dropping loads if anti-ship missles would also keep us/adversary naval planners busy.
There are 18-19 b2 frames left, you have a few for training, a few being serviced, the majority for nuclear deterence strike and you end up with not many for possible conventional missions. I believe all of the B1 are for conventional bombing only as via nuclear treaty.
This and the fact that USAF is going to induce between 100 to 200 B-21 bombers, which are miniaturised and enhanced B-2s. H-20 rationale is similar to both B-2 and B-21, having a platform which is able to strike behind the FLOT and be able to retask its targets thanks to its sensors and the crew appreciation.
Hmm, remains to be seen if they will indeed go for the folding tails. Though, if the stealth impact can somehow be managed, that'd probably make a very efficient solution to takeoffs/landings.
I also expect the intakes to be different, with simpler lips and possibly starting more to the back.
And I definitely don't expect that many cranks in the leading and trailing edge of the plane. The image seems to have a slight crank at the leading edge, near the nose of the plane. Plus the trailing edge, around the engine exhaust, seems either to be curved or to have two cranks... Too many.
I also expect the intakes to be different, with simpler lips and possibly starting more to the back.
And I definitely don't expect that many cranks in the leading and trailing edge of the plane. The image seems to have a slight crank at the leading edge, near the nose of the plane. Plus the trailing edge, around the engine exhaust, seems either to be curved or to have two cranks... Too many.
by78
General
Nice drawing but so many weird angles...and the foldable tails are way overcomplicated. The j8 have been flying with foldable fins for ages, it's doable.