No way it's going to have a separate tail, even if only for political reasons.
Granted that it gives a short moment arm, I could see it if their flight control hardware and/or software isn't up to what Northrop did with the B-2A. Alternatively, they could be equivalent to the B-2A's GLAS (Gust Load Alleviation System) on it's aft center section.
Our B-2 FCAS control laws were quite sophisticated. The GLAS did use the aft center section surface but also the elevons as well. From what I remember the GLAS was primarily used for cancelling out the first wing bending moment and was not intended for ride control. I remember this from my days in the ASD-Pico FCHIL. Also saw some really cool flight test video of the GLAS in action at EAFB during the flight test program.
 
That would be surprising:
1. Chinese industry has no experience with high subsonic flying wings
2. Chinese industry has not yet reached parity with the US in term of stealth. Hence their RCS requirements might leave more room for a less complex shape in term of control governs

3. Chinese AF might have a request for the aircraft to operate from a larger number of airfields, hence from shorter runways. Let's not forget that there isn't geographically any point in China that the USAF bombers can't reach themselves.

The US had little experience with flying wings when it built the B-2, unless you're counting the YB-49. I wouldn't have thought fabricating an airframe of that shape would be challenging - do you think that they would issues with an airframe that lacked stabilizers and be limited to a design that featured such? I would not have thought flight control would be that challenging in this day and age and that an optimized shape would be desired explicitly because they have less experience in the coatings and other details associated with low RCS designs.

I can't speak to the third point; that depends totally on PLA-AF requirements. But I wouldn't have thought there would be any shortage of airbases for large strategic sized aircraft.
 
Well, when it comes to long range bombers, lightweight structure and having an efficient wing profile greatly complicate the game.
I am pretty sure that most Chinese universities could come around a flying wing design for GA or drone, at least with censored real performances, etc... Then a bomber able to carry a significant load across the Pacific and come back, in one piece, that's something else. Especially if airfield requirements are added and deterrence needed (credible published parameters are then paramount).
On top of that Stealth demands would only complicate the task.
 
I'm still going to be surprised if the airframe shape isn't more or less identical to the B-21. That shape just recommends itself to any large, subsonic, low RCS design.

China loves tails and canards. I imagine it'll be a flying wing with one or the other (or both lol).
 
Old bad PS. Bullshit
My gut feeling is that the H-20 will not have the deployable tail surfaces. It will probably look like this art floating on the Web. If the PLAAF does not unveil it before the B-21, the H-20 will probably make its first flight before it, followed by a second flight 5 years later.
 

Attachments

  • 2D188FAD-AFA9-4EB8-9AEA-4E8044EF95C3.jpeg
    2D188FAD-AFA9-4EB8-9AEA-4E8044EF95C3.jpeg
    160.2 KB · Views: 206
Last edited:
What could be the reason the basic planform would look any different than that?
ATB.JPG
 
Sorry if someone already posted this, but anyone have any info on this? Some told me it is H-20. And it will use 4x WS-15 (without afterburner i presume). main-qimg-d9a9fac3f39d366342475e544c26745a-lq.jpg main-qimg-d78abfa89b3f75d36c7037a536b0110b-lq.jpg
 
I would not believe anything about the H-20 at present Alifzero, since we do not know what the future bomber will look like yet alone when its first flight will be. China seems to be guarding the H-20 well at present. I have seen many videos on YouTube saying the exactly the same thing and doing Google searches as well.
 
I try reverse image search but nothing for the first image. Second image at the least give me some clickbaity article. So i decide to go here to get clarity
 
Sorry if someone already posted this, but anyone have any info on this? Some told me it is H-20. And it will use 4x WS-15 (without afterburner i presume).View attachment 707193View attachment 707194


To the image on top I cannot say anything but the image below is surely not the H-20 but a shape to test an UAV/UCAV at a RCS testsite at Gaobeidian taken in 2017 already!

RCS facility at Gaobeidian - old flying wing design 201707 xl.jpg
 
So it's a drone model. Did you already saw the first image somewhere?
Big thanks for responding.
To the image on top I cannot say anything but the image below is surely not the H-20 but a shape to test an UAV/UCAV at a RCS testsite at Gaobeidian taken in 2017 already!
 
Deino do you know if that UCAV that is in the Google Earth image is in service yet with the PLAAF? I would think that it would be a shame if it was just a mock up for RCS testing.
 
So it's a drone model. Did you already saw the first image somewhere?
Big thanks for responding.
To admit, I think I've seen it somewhere but for a part on the bomber it looked IMO not convincing enough. Maybe @Blitzo knows more?

Deino do you know if that UCAV that is in the Google Earth image is in service yet with the PLAAF? I would think that it would be a shame if it was just a mock up for RCS testing.

In fact, not really. There are a few with similar planforms like the CH-7, the Sky Eagle ...

1693836729511.jpeg

... and finally the CS-5000T (unveiled at Zhuhai last year) but none is in service and I'm not even sure if the CH-7 and CS-5000T even flew.

1693836615171.jpeg 1693836649722.jpeg 1693836669175.jpeg is the
 
A little off topic, but is any Chinese low RCS UAV in service? There seems to be no shortage of prototypes with a range of wing configurations.

IMO, a B-21 type configuration still minimizes the angles that are vulnerable and I’d be surprised if H-20 does not adopt the same geometry. Smaller aircraft types might struggle to use this plane form but it should not be problematic to scale to any bomber sized aircraft.
 
And what GJ-11 has to do with H-20?
 
And what GJ-11 has to do with H-20?
Apologies, I'm not completely up-to-date on Chinese UAVs. Didn't realise it was a UAV mockup. Assumed it was a Stealth Bomber mockup they had showcased. Deleting post.
 
1fae8.png
1f914.png
1f61d.png
1f923.png


IMG_1362.jpeg IMG_1361.jpeg
 
my very reliable source has confirmed those V tails can flap
 
very unique design, but im hoping its not an April fool's joke
 
Best day to roll out an actual warplane:

“Nah, it’s fake—a joke…zzzzz…”
 
April Fool’s Day guys come on…


Imagine what fun that would be if it were today on the 1st. April, the H-20 would actually have completed its secret first flight and exactly these photos would actually be real ... what fun! :p:D
 
The Chinese themselves are not familiar with the custom of April Fools' Day. It is mainly widespread in Europe and North America. If the joke is of Chinese origin, then this is particularly remarkable .
 
Would there be any logical reason for them to delay the reveal? I feel as though it would make sense to show off what they've been working on especially as the Raider has been going through it's flight test regime since mid-November. Delays?
 
That's not how China does things, photos come out as flight ops start happening.
 
Perhaps of interest?
Modern Weaponry
The Global Times acknowledged that news of the PLA Air Force's futuristic bomber was a hotly watched topic overseas, and especially among military enthusiasts in China. But its article—published later the same day following inquiries with the magazine in question—dismissed SCMP's report as "hype."
"The foreign media hype is complete fake news," the state-owned newspaper said, before revealing that both computer-generated images of the warplane were renditions by the same artist. There was also no mention of the H-20 or China's own attempts at creating a similar aircraft.
Modern Weaponry, which is a monthly magazine run by Chinese state defense contractor Norinco, carried its latest illustration on the cover of its June issue. It had previously featured the same artist's work in the April 2021 issue, said the Global Times.
"The Chinese government would not choose a military affairs magazine to make such an importance announcement," the author argued.
In its brief write-up about the June cover, Modern Weaponry fails to mention the Chinese military and instead describes U.S. and Russian efforts to create the world's next stealth bomber. It also mentions U.S. Air Force's B-21 Raider, currently being developed by Virginia aerospace company Northrop Grumman.


Of course there stands the eternal question of 'Which bit of what from whom is truth, halftruth, disinformation, or outright deception?'
 
Interesting shape. Looks like this below. Apparently first flight was today :)

main-qimg-0251f94591b6c5403614cab69613da18-png.683033

Dude, the fact that many miltwitter accounts on Twitter usually spread such obviously fan-made CGs as official work and say "wake up babe the new PRC propaganda just dropped" is super irritating to me. I mean that lack of awareness is just...

Like, 90% of time these artworks that are passed around as official on social media actually belong to local magazines, ffs. @Deino @siegecrossbow @Blitzo

Perhaps of interest?



Of course there stands the eternal question of 'Which bit of what from whom is truth, halftruth, disinformation, or outright deception?'
P.S. @southwestforests here's one of the basics of PLA-watching for you, newsweek is an untrustworthy source when it comes to the PLA.
 
I don't want to run back through this thread to grab that quote again... stupid touchpad doubletapping things...

====================

As to the size of the H-20, I am expecting something pretty close to B21 size, maybe a bit smaller. (B-21 comes in at somewhere between 10 and 15 tons bombload, depending on what you're assuming is loaded).

Something B52 or B2 sized (~50-60klbs) is very unlikely, and B1 sized (75klbs) is so unlikely it's virtually identical to zero.

Why? Look at all the bombers in the PLAAF. H6 derivatives, which pack ~12 tonnes of boom. I don't see the Chinese jumping to double the bombload of their current hardware, not when the US just cut the bombload of our front line bomber in half when we went from B2 to B21.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom