H-20 bomber (with H-X, JH-XX)
- Thread starter Deino
- Start date
Exactly my point: Since they were basing all their - IMO more stupid or lame comments - on Minnie Chan's SCMP report, their whole credibility is ruined and as such it is irrelevant what they say.
They're pretty decent commercial tech reviewers and the material is clearly tech review with entertainment as the backdrop. It's like watching Top Gear and expecting to see Engineering Explained content. Come on, stop judging these guys for what they're clearly in the business of doing.
Pardon, this part I do not understand? If they are indeed such credible, then they would be aware that this artwork is nothing but a fan-made one and the SCMP is BS ... so anything they say based on THIS artwork and THIS report is irrelevant!
I suspect a language barrier has formed between us. What I meant to communicate was that these gentlemen are not in the business of commenting on military matters and hardware. They don't expect themselves to be taken too seriously and if one chooses to, that's their business. Whether they are amazed and heap on ridiculous claims of capability or dismissive, it shouldn't matter. We shouldn't care about every opinion out there no matter how high profile. With tech reviewers, this isn't their field and they are commenting for entertainment.
Judge their smartphone reviews etc rather than their take on a CGI of a piece of vaporware.
Speaking of speed it is indeed a rather interesting topic because with the H-20 intended as part of China's nuclear triad it has to be able to penetrate the air defenses of continental US in order to complete its mission. With the US having the capability to detect stealth aircraft (though radars capable of detecting stealth aircraft will have a short detection range) and scramble advanced fighters/interceptors like the F-22, the H-20 will need to have enough speed as well to be able to complete its mission before getting intercepted.
B-2 is not a true flying wing either. It is also a tailless blended wing body aircraft. It just has a somewhat smaller body in relation to the wing compared to X-47.
There is a reason why vast majority of aircrafts kept a fuselage down the years if flying wing is so efficient. The reason is flying wing imposes a much more stringent relationship between usable internal volume and aerodynamic efficiency than aircraft with a fuselage. So even aircraft designs that claim to be flying wings, like the B-2, try to cheat by give itself a fuselage with a blended wing body. If you try to put enough volume into a true flying wing to make it practical for use, the wing would have to be excessively thick or excessively large and thus too draggy for near transonic flight.
The original flying wing strategic bomber, the Northrop YB-35 of 1946, was much closer to being a true flying wing without any blended body. Note how thick the wing has to be to accommodate the crew space, fuel and weapon load:
Even so it was not possible to accommodate all the weapon load in 1-2 large bomb bays, but has to be distributed into 8 small bomb bays distributed along the span of the flying wing. And due to the thickness of the wing, it could not compete with newer jet bombers coming online in speed even after it has been fully re-engineering with jet engines itself.
AFAIK, no one since YB-35 has ever flown anything very close to a true flying wing.
Last edited:
Supersonic flight creates an area of air that is heated due to compression. This is an excerpt from a CSBA study on future trends in air to air warfare - pages 37 and 38
The simplest conclusion from this is that either you move at high sub-sonic velocities avoiding supersonic flow - below Ma 0.8 - or you move at high supersonic speeds to capitalize on velocity and energy as combat parameters - that is Ma 2.0 and more. Once you add fuel and range requirements it is fairly obvious that only high subsonic profile is viable.
The shape that is shown on the images with long thin wings at low sweep angle is not a high-supersonic profile. So while theoretically the plane might be capable of supersonic flight it will not be its default mode of operation because there are no benefits to that.
There were benefits to high speed when missiles and detection were less developed than today. There's no way any aircraft can outrun a dedicated long-range missile, let alone a swarm of them which is linked with a network of sensors. At high supersonic speeds the target creates so much heat and has such a distinct trajectory that it isn't a challenge to write an algorithm that follows it with minimal error. Intelligent IR missiles would quickly put an end to this tactic which is why nobody is really eager to explore it. Low speeds, flares and maneuvering to evade small short-range missiles with small sensors is a viable solution because the capability of the missile is limited. High speeds and no maneuvering to evade a large long-range missile with good sensors is not a viable solution because the capability of the missile has no real upper limit. If you are targeting a strategic bomber then throwing a fighter at it like a Kamikaze is a viable solution.
It is kind of off-topic but it's always useful to remind people of history. F-35 shouldn't be used as example of anything else than what it is - a scam and a market coup. It is not a "be-all/end-all, signed: Pentagon" aircraft. It is "give us fighter monopoly in all but name, signed: Lockheed" aircraft.
The reason why F-35 has three distinct variants that pretend to be "one plane" so the manufacturer can lay a false claim to economies of scale was so that it would monopolize the fighter market for the winner and put the competitiors at a disadvantage. That was the plan for Lockheed to win the merger game in the 1990s and those decisions were taken in 1991.
This is why Lockheed was so strongly in favor of the program - it was the inspirator of the USMC's CALF (replacement for Harrier) which then was merged with US Air Force's JAST (replacement for F-16) due to Lockheed's efforts. There was no logic for it but defense budgets were slashed across the board and only Lockheed's F-22 and McDonnel's Super Hornet programs were continued so the JSF was promoted as the only viable direction. The reason why JSF was the only viable direction was because otherwise personnel and structure would have to be cut. When Pentagon was faced with that alternative they said "doesn't matter if it's another F-104 just keep the jobs in industry and in the military" and we'll get you the money. And Lockheed did just that.
With JSF intended to be a "single plane" there was no way for minor companies to compete which hastened mergers.
Mergers happen when company with more capital buys out company with less capital. The problem for Lockheed's competitors was that the only company with sufficient capital to play the merger game was Boeing which had no experience in designing fighters. Northrop had to reinvent itself after the failures of B-2, YF-23 and A-12 which were all political in nature. They couldn't compete with Lockheed due to politics and with Boeing due to size, so they took what they could and used it to collaborate with Lockheed.
Then the pressure on JSF to perform up to promises grew as the ATF program was slashed further. This is the history of the ATF:
1981-1986 - Pentagon plans for 750 ATFs at cost of $26.2 bn. and production beginning in 1994 to replace F-15A and C.
1990 - total number is reduced to 648 as a result of Dick Cheney's major program review which also revised Boeing C-17 from 210 to 120, Northrop B-2 from 132 to 75 ( 20 in 1992) and cancelled the A-12. You can already see that the political connections of Lockheed paid off already.
1997 - total number is again reduced to 339
2003 - total number is reduced to 277
2004 - the program is funded for 183 aircraft at cost of $62 bn. Again Lockheed's connections show because USAF requests 381 aircraft even though there is clearly no need for the plane with no peer opponent and F-35 in development. Upgraded F-15s would satisfy the actual needs (see: F-15EX) but F-15s were produced by Boeing.
Everything in the JSF/F-35 program is aimed at providing Lockheed with a de facto market monopoly.
That being said the F-35 clearly is a family of systems. It's just that it's all backwards.
Traditional family of systems begins with an airframe that is then adapted to different roles and can even be manufactured by other companies, while the complementing systems can be used in other aircraft.
The F-35 family tree begins with the business control and market share of Lockheed Martin corporation and then splits into three distinct families of aircraft - F-35A, F-35B and F-35C and the numerous special variants for export customers which differ by small details in low-order hardware and software - with IP protections embedded at every stage so Pentagon is kept hostage.
That's it. The F-35 doesn't make sense as a plane, as a platform, as a strategy, as propaganda - until you realize that it's not about military strategy and winning wars but business strategy and winning revenue and profits. For those who were living under a rock - the Pentagon wants to ditch the F-35 (NGAD, MR-X, F-15EX etc) but it can't precisely because the coup was successful.
Let't not use F-35 as a reference point for things which are not business coups and moneygrabs please.
End of off topic.