Chinese Stealth bomber program - XAC H-X (H-20)

Someone in another forum pointed out an interesting possibility that the H-20 is suffering from "good idea fairies" much like several recent US programs. Essentially, China has the capability to build a B-2 or even a B-21 style bomber but officials keep tweaking the design, which means constant redesigns as well as testing and adding new technologies. This of course results in constant delays and cost overruns.

In short, the H-20 is China's constellation class.
 
The words of AFGSC commander Gen. Stephen Davis are, in my opinion, clearly a matter of describing the current status of China's bomber capabilities. Not the potential to develop it further, the timeline to develop it further and so on.

Even if H-20 prototype was unveiled to take its maiden tomorrow - and coupled with the mysterious H-X bomber drone - it still takes time to develop capabilities transforming China's bomber capabilities from a regional one to intercontinental one.

We'd be talking several years to finish testing and development, a few years to ramp up production to an acceptable level and even then few more years to accumulate the number of bombers to a useful fleet. We'd still be talking about a smaller fleet than the US one, but the idea is to develop a credible inter-continental round the clock bomber threat. That may be achievable with dozens of intercontinental bombers, not 150.

The H-X bomber drone may help speed up said accumulation though, if two different designs are produced at two different places. Certainly, the design seems large enough to serve as an intercontinental bomber, even if its payload may prove to be fairly modest.

But even then, one needs time to train for a bomber doctrine and said development time can only truly start its execution phase once you have enough bombers to actually do it. So, while that may start as soon as the first unit is being stood up, it'd surely take several years more to be fully fleshed out. So all in all - as said, even if H-20 prototype is unveiled tomorrow - it's doubtful a meaningful force would be available before mid to late 2030s.
 
Same thoughts here totoro about the meaningful force in service date of the mid to late 2030s for the H-20.
 
EmoBirb said:
Aside from cost I don't really see the drawbacks of a supersonic strategic bomber over a conventional one. Maybe payload? But subsonic stealth bombers aren't exactly payload wonders either.
Click to expand...
25 tons is nothing to sneer at when you're talking nukes.

Though I would expect the Chinese bird to have 6 weapons per rotary instead of 8 like the US.



AverageAmmonite said:
Someone in another forum pointed out an interesting possibility that the H-20 is suffering from "good idea fairies" much like several recent US programs.
Click to expand...
Entirely possible. They've openly admitted one significant redesign, after all.
 
Scott Kenny said:
25 tons is nothing to sneer at when you're talking nukes.

Though I would expect the Chinese bird to have 6 weapons per rotary instead of 8 like the US.
Click to expand...
Why? It's literally a form-factor, which we don't know.

Scott Kenny said:
Entirely possible. They've openly admitted one significant redesign, after all.
Click to expand...
Good idea fairies don't win without some sufficient justification, though.
 
Scott Kenny said:
The existing Chinese and Russian launchers hold 6, not 8.
Click to expand...
I don't remember any Chinese rotary launchers.
Existing Russian ones do carry 6, but they also carried 12 in the past(kh-15). It's just geometry - smaller weapons/deeper bays - more weapons. And other way around.
Scott Kenny said:
Just takes the senior person in charge getting the Good Idea Fairy.
Click to expand...
Yes, but if program development ran into dead end, or doesn't make sense otherwise?
It's sometimes hard to tell the difference from the outside.
 
NMaude said:
Did you actually read what I posted in that post?
Click to expand...
I did and did it a second time to realize I've misread your statement. I took it as cost and lacking stealth speaking against a super sonic stealth bomber. Which confused me as aside from the B-2 and F-117 all manned stealth aircraft in service have been supersonic. But now I realized you specifically meant the B-58. My bad, sorry.
 
Josh_TN said:
It seems super unlikely China does not care about its image when it spend vast amounts of political clout forcing other countries to accept its image.

We will see H-20 when the Chinese are capable of making H-20; they have hardly been shy about new technology. If anything there current activities seem far more calibrated to “hey! Look at me!”

We will see H-20 when China is capable of flying H-20.
Click to expand...

The Chinese think differently than the West, and are also much more intentional about what they do, how they do it, and why. Sometimes in subtle ways that Westerners might not notice because of differences in culture. Understanding those nuances helps when observing geopolitical events (e.g. military developments).
 
Last edited:
EmoBirb said:
Is it though? The 'J-36' is already a fairly large, tri engine aircraft with two people inside. To me it seems like quite the task but not Impossible to scale up the design to a large quad engine jet, albeit with all intakes on the top side. Especially the first configuration of the CAC design, with it's exhaust configuration, might be very promising for a bomber.

Could you imagine that the first prototype may have carried out sub-scale real world validation for XAC in that regard? It could explain why the subsequent aircraft had a different exhaust configuration. But I'm not aware how much the individual design houses under AVIC cooperate. So maybe you can offer some insight there.
Click to expand...

J-36 is not that large -- its overall length and width is still that of a tactical aircraft.

Seeking a supersonic aircraft which is also stealthy, while also the size of a strategic bomber (think 35-40m length), would be technologically feasible but probably grossly expensive in developmental, procurement and operating terms.

That is what I mean by "a bit much".
 
Silly question:

Let's assume that the plane is going be supersonic. What kind of internal volume for fuel would we be looking at with a J36 planform scaled up to have a single Tu160-sized bomb bay?
 
Seragina said:
Considering minimum strategic range which I don't think is sufficient today fuel can't be less than 240 klb. I wouldn't be surprised if it's 300 klb or more.
Click to expand...
Nearly double that of a B-2? 300k was the fuel capacity of the XB-70 and it grossed well over half a million pounds.
 
Josh_TN said:
Austin has stated that B-21 will not require any “in theater logistics”, which I take to mean no air refueling.
Click to expand...

No, it means it won’t require specialized in theatre ground support structure like special climate controlled hangars to cure LO repairs.
 
quellish said:
No, it means it won’t require specialized in theatre ground support structure like special climate controlled hangars to cure LO repairs.
Click to expand...

I will take your word for it, but that seems like a misleading statement - are there any B-2 facilities anywhere outside of Whiteman except for a couple of bases with climate control shelters, none of which I thought were in the WestPac?
 
Ozair said:
B-2 has the B2SS that it operates from when deployed such as at Diego last year, https://www.twz.com/air/b-2-spirits...a-underscore-hardened-aircraft-shelter-debate
Click to expand...

That is what I am referring to; I believe there are four more or less permanently set up at Diego and a few somewhere in the UK. Other based might have climate control hangers that work as well, but I have not heard of any B-2 specific infrastructure abroad outside the relocatable hangers specific to it.
 
Sferrin said:
Nearly double that of a B-2? 300k was the fuel capacity of the XB-70 and it grossed well over half a million pounds.
Click to expand...
The price of going supersonic and physics (as asked for).

My two cents is they will go with a B-2 & F117 like pairing. I'm basing this on the fact that there's a dozen of research papers on several small tailless aircrafts similar to FATE.
 
Seragina said:
The price of going supersonic and physics (as asked for).

My two cents is they will go with a B-2 & F117 like pairing. I'm basing this on the fact that there's a dozen of research papers on several small tailless aircrafts similar to FATE.
Click to expand...
Ah. Did not see that. Wonder how much fuel this thing would have had:

B-1B & B-35.jpg
 
Josh_TN said:
I will take your word for it, but that seems like a misleading statement - are there any B-2 facilities anywhere outside of Whiteman except for a couple of bases with climate control shelters, none of which I thought were in the WestPac?
Click to expand...

Diego Garcia, Guam, other places
 
That is true TsrJoe, it would be better than plain guess work, I remember the same thing over on the B-21 thread before it was announced all the futuristic photoshopped designs that were totally wrong in the end. The same thing could happen again here with the H-20.
 
The K2 said:
Sooner than the Tupolev PAK-DA.
Click to expand...

Well that is likely functionally never, so not a hard metric to beat. Not sure where H-20 is; lots of rumors it is going through a total redesign. But I am sure it is just a matter of time.
 
Eh, it probably didn't fly yet. i would guess development simply lasted so long that both chinese design capabilities and goalposts changed. Maybe they realized they could achieve order of magnitude better stealth and longer range with a redesign.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom