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

[Josh_TN]

Obviously the redesign of the H-20 is a result of design testing?

No idea. I think the rumor was that the requirements changed, but I have not really paid attention to. I assume there are posts up thread that discuss this far better than I have.

 

[EmoBirb]

H-20 comes when it comes, same with PAK DA or WS-15 or whatever anyone is desperately waiting for. H-20 can fly tomorrow, or in a week from now or in 15 years. The timelines of the manufactures don't have to adhere to that of enthusiasts.

 

[Scott Kenny]

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.

That's certainly the only reason I'd want to scrap everything and start over on the redesign.

 

[totoro]

It doesn't have to be a total redesign. Maybe the outward dimensions and shape remains the same, who knows? But if one applied new engine tech, new construction methods and materials, new radar absorbing materials - then internal detailed engineering could've changed. Enough so for several more years of this so-called increment 2 bomber design. Resulting in both a bit more room for fuel, smaller fuel consumption, potentially lower empty weight - all possibly contributing to longer range. We'll see. If there's no manned bomber in the next few years I'd say it becomes more likely China decided to cancel the project and rely solely on unmanned large platforms.

 

[snne]

It doesn't have to be a total redesign. Maybe the outward dimensions and shape remains the same, who knows? But if one applied new engine tech, new construction methods and materials, new radar absorbing materials - then internal detailed engineering could've changed. Enough so for several more years of this so-called increment 2 bomber design. Resulting in both a bit more room for fuel, smaller fuel consumption, potentially lower empty weight - all possibly contributing to longer range. We'll see. If there's no manned bomber in the next few years I'd say it becomes more likely China decided to cancel the project and rely solely on unmanned large platforms.

Exactly. People always overlook the fact that China already has a B-21-sized bomber UAV in testing (alongside a larger RQ-180 analogue with a possible small IWB)…

FYI guys, this bad boi is B-21 sized; something of this capability is not imagined when someone hears the word "UCAV"...

Think about that, think about its consequences in the Pacific Theatre, and how it influenced the H-20’s redesign into a CONUS bomber.

China currently lacks the means to strike in volume beyond the West Pacific, hence why this aircraft's as significant as the 6th gens...

The US have bases everywhere, and the Chinese don't. They can attack the Chinese mainland with bombers as is and the Chinese can't return the favor without causing M.A.D. . This is a massive advantage that enables a smaller and thus a stealthier bomber. OTOH the Chinese need to have a bomber with a long reach to deliver payloads to the CONUS, that alone is a design risk.

Anyway, yes there's still a chance that the H-20 may end up being intended for use mainly within the 3rd island chain; but the majority of seasoned PLA-watchers expect something more akin to the B-2 in terms of size and this is also suggested by the info that we've so far gotten.

How so? I get that the payload is a combination of fuel and bombs/missiles but the GJ-X is quite literally a B-21-sized UCAV, almost certainly with a comparable bomber-sized IWB. By contrast, what the PLAAF really needs from the H-20 isn't heavier/larger (weapons) payload, but rather bigger combat radius and more sensors (in addition to a cockpit). This isn’t just a guesstimate either; it’s what we've been hearing for a while now.


Theoretically, the US in this current situation could just "lob" JASSM-ERs at the mainland (right in China’s backyard!) with impunity, while China would have to rely on expensive ICBMs to deliver a payload to the CONUS (which would trigger a nuclear retaliation!). Don’t you think any country with adequate resources would want to level out the playing field? It won't have to cross the Pacific in a straight line either...

Spoiler:

(From China's view) without showing ordinary Americans and decision-makers that the war could come to their doorsteps if they don’t keep a leash on their hawkish-leaders, there wouldn’t be much incentive for them to avoid a war (keeping nukes and economic impact out of this scenario).

Frankly, I’m tired of having to repeat this conversation over and over again. If the H-20 were truly meant to answer the B-21, then the GJ-X (what you see above) simply wouldn’t exist. So yes, it’s perfectly logical for them to revise the H-20’s requirements (and by extension, its design). In fact, that’s exactly what reliable insiders like Yankee and co. have been saying for the past 2 years.

 

[FighterJock]

So how did the H-20 come into being then if China already has a large UAV in the B-21 size, this simply does not make any sense.

 

[Ainen]

So how did the H-20 come into being then if China already has a large UAV in the B-21 size, this simply does not make any sense.

Well, there are two ways to come to big VLO strike platform.

One is to ask existing heavy aircraft manufacturer to come up with a modern heavy VLO bomber from their experience. It's H-20, and the starting point is H-6.
Another is to progressively up the drone game - big VLO drone is ultimately the same thing as medium VLO drone, just...bigger.

Two paths can be related, they can be not; they can reinforce each other, they can exist in parallel.

 

[Sferrin]

Well, there are two ways to come to big VLO strike platform.

One is to ask existing heavy aircraft manufacturer to come up with a modern heavy VLO bomber from their experience. It's H-20, and the starting point is H-6.
Another is to progressively up the drone game - big VLO drone is ultimately the same thing as medium VLO drone, just...bigger.

Two paths can be related, they can be not; they can reinforce each other, they can exist in parallel.

Not to go OT but that's got me wondering if we'll see unmanned versions of the B-21.

 

[snne]

So how did the H-20 come into being then if China already has a large UAV in the B-21 size, this simply does not make any sense.

Because it won't be B-21-sized, it will serve a different purpose and have an almost entirely different CONOPS, that's why...

 

[FighterJock]

Thanks snne.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Not to go OT but that's got me wondering if we'll see unmanned versions of the B-21.

Unlikely, there's not a lot of cost savings or performance gain by dropping all the life support stuff out of an aircraft that big.

Ignoring the US not wanting nukes delivered by drones, of course.

 

[Josh_TN]

It has been covered in this thread; it was not cost effective to make a separate unmanned version. I think optionally Mann might still happen.

 

[DJK]

Because it won't be B-21-sized, it will serve a different purpose and have an almost entirely different CONOPS, that's why...

Or it might be the same reason that everyone else says B-21 has to be manned. Too much risk putting nukes on a UCAV. So that would make H-20 the nuclear bomber. Adds the same dimension to nuclear triad that USA has with air launched/dropped nukes.

 

[FighterJock]

Agreed about the nuclear capable UCAV far too risky for a totally unmanned UCAV to be carrying a nuclear bomb, so the H-20 is the obvious choice for now for the PLAAF.

 

[Hydroman]

Exactly. People always overlook the fact that China already has a B-21-sized bomber UAV in testing (alongside a larger RQ-180 analogue with a possible small IWB)…

But how many of these new Chinese platforms may only be demonstrators, I can't see China going into production involving all of these new platforms, I think there is some smoke and mirrors going on hear. Germany during WW2 as an example, had all kinds of new types of aircraft but at the end of the day most were just one or two-off prototypes.

 

[snne]

But how many of these new Chinese platforms may only be demonstrators, I can't see China going into production involving all of these new platforms, I think there is some smoke and mirrors going on hear. Germany during WW2 as an example, had all kinds of new types of aircraft but at the end of the day most were just one or two-off prototypes.

Besides you clearly being new to PLA watching, another part of your argument that does not make sense is the comparison to Germany. Frankly, if we were to make a more fitting and widely accepted analogy; modern China would be the US, whereas the modern US would be Imperial Japan.

Since you are new to PLA watching, I recommend taking a thorough look through the pages of this blog: https://chinese-military-aviation.blogspot.com/p/fighters-ii.html?m=1There has not been a military jet in modern Chinese history that failed to successfully enter serial production and large scale induction.

We also tend to get most of our information either through satellite imagery or carefully managed insider “leaks” that are deliberately fed over time (we often confirm developments long after they have already happened). This is not like following any other military developments where you constantly get a bombardment of groundless military industrial base promos or incompetent officials exaggerating capabilities.

But how many of these new Chinese platforms may only be demonstrators, I can't see China going into production involving all of these new platforms

Mate, they literally have half the industrial base of the world and also possess the largest non-overfinancialized economy. They have their talent base flowing into engineering fields in the millions, and their smartest people tend to choose those careers over finance. They are viewed as an exitential threat and are constantly pressured into making mistakes by the largest military power / global hegemon in the world (and its regional puppets), so naturally there is a massive demand for self-protection (their military budget has remained around ~1.5% of GDP for basically forever now).

When it comes to the characteristics of each next generation aircraft they are developing, even the biggest idiot can see they are designed with complementary roles in mind (such as the “J-36” and “J-50”), alongside the large unmanned drones and the H-20 (the entire reliable insider base also keeps supporting this notion fact). The J-36 is a specialized high speed, high altitude network node of a "cruiser" for the 2IC environment that can also target high value assets such as B-21s, tankers, and AEWs, whereas the “J-50” is the all-rounder 6th gen platform for larger scale induction by both the PLAAF and PLANAF.

GJ-X is essentially an unmanned B-21 equivalent designed to operate between the 2nd and 3rd ICs, enabling sustained strikes on US bases in the region beyond Japan in coordination with J-36' and PLARF. If push comes to shove, it will also serve as a retaliatory platform without triggering M.A.D. (while reminding the US mainland that it too can be affected by a hypothetical war).

WZ-X is pretty much an RQ-180 analogue with a possible small IWB; but FYI, they also have a high speed, 50-tonne MTOW recon aircraft too )



So please, instead of jumping to assumptions, make the smarter move next time and actually read up on the subject before trying to convey an opinion. (No disrespect here btw)

 

[tico]

But how many of these new Chinese platforms may only be demonstrators, I can't see China going into production involving all of these new platforms, I think there is some smoke and mirrors going on hear. Germany during WW2 as an example, had all kinds of new types of aircraft but at the end of the day most were just one or two-off prototypes.

PLA has extremely strict requirements for cost control. Even now, actual aircraft bidding competitions like the FY-23 and YF-22 remain unimaginable for them. When you spot a full-scale prototype or demonstrator at the test site, it must have gone through repeated deliberations and is almost certain to enter service.

 

[Tomboy]

WZ-X is probably never going to be made in large quantities anyways, maybe a dozen or two. GJ-X is the interesting one here, if it's the PLAAF's answer to the conventional strike portion of B-21's role than it could foreseeably be made in the hundreds and partially replace H-6K/Js in high risk missions. H-20 would then basically be relegated to mostly strategic bombing like nuclear missions to replace the current H-6Ns which also limits H-20's numbers, IMO likely only a few dozen will be produced at best, similar to planned B-2 numbers at the end of the 80s.

 

[Richard N]

1/160 China H-20 Strategic Stealth Bomber Fighter Prototype Military Plane Model

https://www.ebay.com/itm/4070657257...EtsnWgMZXfeeyoQtBlisH1z7w=|tkp:Bk9SR4TW_PXuZw

 

[Scott Kenny]

WZ-X is probably never going to be made in large quantities anyways, maybe a dozen or two.

Not like the US had a lot of RQ180s, either (at least 10). Or U-2s before it (102 built, ~45 currently in service). Or even a lot of SR-71s (32) or A-12s (13).

GJ-X is the interesting one here, if it's the PLAAF's answer to the conventional strike portion of B-21's role than it could foreseeably be made in the hundreds and partially replace H-6K/Js in high risk missions.

Depends entirely on how trusting the Chinese are of their autonomy programs and control datalinks.

H-20 would then basically be relegated to mostly strategic bombing like nuclear missions to replace the current H-6Ns which also limits H-20's numbers, IMO likely only a few dozen will be produced at best, similar to planned B-2 numbers at the end of the 80s.

You do know that the planned production of B-2s was 132, right? It was the collapse of the Soviet Union in the 1990s that saw production strangled.

 

[ncc81701]

1/160 China H-20 Strategic Stealth Bomber Fighter Prototype Military Plane Model

Yeah if this is real it wouldn’t be able to take off. The CG to where the landing gears are have way too much moment arm. Flying wings doesn’t have a lot of pitching moment authority and already have a hard time rotating to take off; this thing with its landing gear and tail placement wouldn’t be able to rotate at all.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Yeah if this is real it wouldn’t be able to take off. The CG to where the landing gears are have way too much moment arm. Flying wings doesn’t have a lot of pitching moment authority and already have a hard time rotating to take off; this thing with its landing gear and tail placement wouldn’t be able to rotate at all.

That's not necessarily a problem, see Grandpa BUFF for an example of a plane that does not rotate on takeoff.

 

[Sferrin]

Besides you clearly being new to PLA watching, another part of your argument that does not make sense is the comparison to Germany. Frankly, if we were to make a more fitting and widely accepted analogy; modern China would be the US, whereas the modern US would be Imperial Japan.

 

[Sferrin]

Not like the US had a lot of RQ180s, either (at least 10). Or U-2s before it (102 built, ~45 currently in service). Or even a lot of SR-71s (32) or A-12s (13).



Depends entirely on how trusting the Chinese are of their autonomy programs and control datalinks.



You do know that the planned production of B-2s was 132, right? It was the collapse of the Soviet Union in the 1990s that saw production strangled.

Would have gone nicely with the 241 B-1As they'd planned to produce.

 

[SUPER=BUG]

When do you all think this kind of stealth bomber will appear?

 

[Richard N]

Yeah if this is real it wouldn’t be able to take off. The CG to where the landing gears are have way too much moment arm. Flying wings doesn’t have a lot of pitching moment authority and already have a hard time rotating to take off; this thing with its landing gear and tail placement wouldn’t be able to rotate at all.

If any airplane sitting on it's gear has its wing at a positive angle of attack, it does not need to rotate to take off. You leave the elevator at neutral and throttle up to takeoff speed and the airplane will lift off on its own. I fly takeoffs with tailless models this way all the time.

 

[Ainen]

When do you all think this kind of stealth bomber will appear?

We don't have any good way to know.
Tealeafs indicate reveal (likely, first flight) starting from today to any point later this or next year. Or maybe even 2028.
Then, all is up to the tempo and success of a flight test program.

Overall, it's a ~2032-2035 combat capability(IOC)...probably.

 

[Tomboy]

You do know that the planned production of B-2s was 132, right? It was the collapse of the Soviet Union in the 1990s that saw production strangled.

Yeah, I know, I expect PLA to eventually fully develop it's nuclear triad which involves massively expanding the stragetic bomber fleet from effectively zero right now to the high tens if not low hundreds along with replacing all the 09IVs with 09VIs as soon as possible given those are effectively moving target practice with missiles too short legged to hit most of CONUS from relatively safe seas.

 

[martinbayer]

When do you all think this kind of stealth bomber will appear?

April First, 20XX...

 

[FighterJock]

Let's just say sometime next decade.

 

[ncc81701]

That's not necessarily a problem, see Grandpa BUFF for an example of a plane that does not rotate on takeoff.

Yeah, then you need long ass runways to take off. This limits the number of bases from where you can take off. It’s not as much of a problem in the 50s when you didn’t have a constant stream of satellites looking over a handful of strategic bases. I would argue that being limited to runways with very long runways these days is very much an issue.

There are other reasons why this isn’t real as well (unless whomever design this is an idiot or have unreasonable design requirements imposed upon them). By putting your main landing gears that far aft and that far outboard, you create huge load path issues. On any airplane your primary structural member is going to be your main wing spar. This will be near the C/4 of the wing. You want the shortest load path from the landing gears to the main spar while being as close to the aft most CG as possible. This is because when you land, all the load taken up by the wings will have to be transferred to the main landing gears. The further apart the main gears are from the wing spar, the heavier your structure will need to be in order to take that load. If you don’t then you’d have to make other sacrifices like reduce bring back weight (which defeats the purpose of a cavernous weapons bay depicted). Finally the trailing edge is relatively thin, this makes it much harder to put in a sufficiently thick structural member to take up the landing gear loads. So if this is real then the only explanation is they didn’t know what they are doing or they are faced with moronic design requirements. Neither of these are likely IMO; thus the conclusion that this is no way representative of what a H-20 would look like.

 

[Josh_TN]

I think we are probably reading a little too much into this model. I would be surprised if H-20 deviated from the B-21 “four spike” layout. I do not think there is a major advantage to using a cranked kite wing form on a platform of this size.

 

[flateric]

I think we are probably reading a little too much into this model.

This model is absolute BS

 

[Deino]

Interesting rumour vis Huitong‘s CMA-Blog …

 

[EmoBirb]

So the exhaust isn't serrated, that's how I'm reading it. Rather than a straight trailing edge like the A-12

 

[Deino]

So the exhaust isn't serrated, that's how I'm reading it. Rather than a straight trailing edge like the A-12

Honestly, I would read too much into these at beast very early design detail and wait anti we see the real deal.

 

[snne]

So the exhaust isn't serrated, that's how I'm reading it. Rather than a straight trailing edge like the A-12

Hui Tong doesn't edit out the earlier bits; he leaves everything in chronologically.

I actually like this method tbh, but it can get confusing for people who haven't visited his blog before.

 

[Scott Kenny]

So the exhaust isn't serrated, that's how I'm reading it. Rather than a straight trailing edge like the A-12

That is a terrible design for reducing RCS.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Oops, missed this.

Yeah, then you need long ass runways to take off. This limits the number of bases from where you can take off. It’s not as much of a problem in the 50s when you didn’t have a constant stream of satellites looking over a handful of strategic bases. I would argue that being limited to runways with very long runways these days is very much an issue.

It's China, giving practically every single base those very long runways is not an issue.

There are other reasons why this isn’t real as well (unless whomever design this is an idiot or have unreasonable design requirements imposed upon them). By putting your main landing gears that far aft and that far outboard, you create huge load path issues. On any airplane your primary structural member is going to be your main wing spar. This will be near the C/4 of the wing. You want the shortest load path from the landing gears to the main spar while being as close to the aft most CG as possible. This is because when you land, all the load taken up by the wings will have to be transferred to the main landing gears. The further apart the main gears are from the wing spar, the heavier your structure will need to be in order to take that load. If you don’t then you’d have to make other sacrifices like reduce bring back weight (which defeats the purpose of a cavernous weapons bay depicted). Finally the trailing edge is relatively thin, this makes it much harder to put in a sufficiently thick structural member to take up the landing gear loads. So if this is real then the only explanation is they didn’t know what they are doing or they are faced with moronic design requirements. Neither of these are likely IMO; thus the conclusion that this is no way representative of what a H-20 would look like.

Okay, that's a much better argument for that not being a likely representative model.

 

[snne]

That is a terrible design for reducing RCS.

You do realize Hui Tong’s texts are basically a chronological compilation of every semi-trustworthy rumor we’ve heard about the H-20, right? Just because two words happen to appear close to each other in a paragraph doesn’t necessarily mean much, especially since we’ve been hearing all kinds of stuff about the H-20 for a very long time.

Basically, latest word from the credible rumor mill suggests that the H-20 is shaping up to be a larger bomber, because it has to be able to execute a round trip to CONUS (and they already have an unmanned B-21 equivalent for 2nd/3rd I.C. missions under operational testing/evaluation!!)

The progress made with GJ-X and J-36 has decreased the urgency for the H-20, so they’ve taken their time with its development rather than rushing it into testing and induction ASAP...