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

[Blitzo]

This image from a Chinese research article demonstrates clearly why B-21 is the shape it is.

That has some interesting implications for what H-20 may end up looking like... It'll sure be interesting if B-21 and H-20 both come out with similar planform

Where'd you find that picture from btw?

 

[sferrin]

H-20?

 

[Blitzo]

H-20?

www.chinese-military-aviation.blogspot.com/p/attack-aircraft-ii.html

The Chinese stealth bomber project at XAC, previously referred to as H-X or H-XX, or the "strategic project," but recently dubbed H-20 among PLA watchers as a designation.

It's been rumoured for quite a few years now, with advanced development and early construction of initial prototype said to be occurring. It reminds me of the mid to late 2000s when details of J-20 (then known as J-XX) began to be circulated.

 

[FighterJock]

It will be somewhat of a coincidence if the H-20 and the B-21 end up looking like each other.

 

[sferrin]

It will be somewhat of a coincidence if the H-20 and the B-21 end up looking like each other.

Oh I'm sure NONE of the mountains of data on B-2 they've managed to steal from the US will go into it.

 

[kaiserd]

It will be somewhat of a coincidence if the H-20 and the B-21 end up looking like each other.

Oh I'm sure NONE of the mountains of data on B-2 they've managed to steal from the US will go into it.

It's a bit simplistic to see every foreign contemporary of a US design with very similar requirements as a carbon copy. If I was designing a large stealthy long range subsonic bomber not sure a lot of configurations can match a flying wing; and if I was looking to reduce risk and reassure and get buy-in from industry, military and political decision makers I'd look very closely at existing successful contemporary designs.

I'm not at all trying to deny probable cyber espionage by China but probable that any bomber that emerges will be less a close relative of the B-2 or B-21 than, say, the Blackjack was to the B-1.

 

[sferrin]

It's a bit simplistic to see every foreign contemporary of a US design with very similar requirements as a carbon copy.

Who's doing that? Oh right, nobody.

 

[kaiserd]

It's a bit simplistic to see every foreign contemporary of a US design with very similar requirements as a carbon copy.

Who's doing that? Oh right, nobody.

Please don't quote me out of context; I was making a contribution, not looking for an argument.
I'd refer other contributors to my full entry.

 

[XP67_Moonbat]

Now, now girls.

 

[sferrin]

It's a bit simplistic to see every foreign contemporary of a US design with very similar requirements as a carbon copy.

Who's doing that? Oh right, nobody.

Please don't quote me out of context; I was making a contribution, not looking for an argument.
I'd refer other contributors to my full entry.

How is implying anybody here would make such a ridiculous argument "contributing" to anything?

 

[kaiserd]

It's a bit simplistic to see every foreign contemporary of a US design with very similar requirements as a carbon copy.

Who's doing that? Oh right, nobody.

Please don't quote me out of context; I was making a contribution, not looking for an argument.
I'd refer other contributors to my full entry.

How is implying anybody here would make such a ridiculous argument "contributing" to anything?

I obviously strongly disagree with how you are choosing to characterise my contributions.
I would ask you stop this line of, well, attack on me or I will be forced to take other action via the sites reporting arrangements.

I appreciate this must be annoying for everyone else - I'm not looking for a personal argument instead of a discussion of the topic....

 

[Grey Havoc]

I'm sure that no-one intended any offense to anybody, by implication or otherwise.

Back to the matter at hand: Are we looking at a possible PLAAF type, or given that the current president is reportedly trying to consolidate his power in part by buttering up the PLAN brass, a (at least initially) PLANAF land based asset?

 

[kaiserd]

I'm sure that no-one intended any offense to anybody, by implication or otherwise.

Back to the matter at hand: Are we looking at a possible PLAAF type, or given that the current president is reportedly trying to consolidate his power in part by buttering up the PLAN brass, a (at least initially) PLANAF land based asset?

Would be facinating if the case; a 21st century stealthy Backfire (at least in initial role).
If realised impact on US Navy would be profound.

 

[Blitzo]

Would be facinating if the case; a 21st century stealthy Backfire (at least in initial role).
If realised impact on US Navy would be profound.

"H-20" or H-XX most definitely is not a supersonic bomber, but rather a subsonic flying wing. There have been some possible rumours of a different supersonic capable stealth medium bomber possibly investigated at SAC, but there's nothing credible to support that it's going to be developed.

I'm sure that no-one intended any offense to anybody, by implication or otherwise.

Back to the matter at hand: Are we looking at a possible PLAAF type, or given that the current president is reportedly trying to consolidate his power in part by buttering up the PLAN brass, a (at least initially) PLANAF land based asset?

Doubt it. I expect H-20 will be an Air Force asset mostly, in the same way that most H-6s are Air Force and all the new H-6Ks are air force.

I also can't envision why the president would need to consolidate power by buttering up the navy's brass by offering them a stealth bomber, considering they've got so many other projects going on like new destroyers, frigates, carriers, large amphibs, subs, all going for them, not to mention MPAs, helicopters and aircraft for the carrier's airwing.

The stealth bomber project has also been a long term piece or work, by the sounds of it... I doubt the president would have needed to use it to butter anyone up, because the eventual development of the project would always have been a sure thing.


===

Btw what happened with all the previous posts in the B-21 thread?
And naming this thread B21 "vs" H-20 may also give the wrong signal... maybe if it were something like "new bomber projects: B-21, H-20, PAK DA"... so we can be inclusive for the Russians as well.

 

[kaiserd]

Would be facinating if the case; a 21st century stealthy Backfire (at least in initial role).
If realised impact on US Navy would be profound.

"H-20" or H-XX most definitely is not a supersonic bomber, but rather a subsonic flying wing. There have been some possible rumours of a different supersonic capable stealth medium bomber possibly investigated at SAC, but there's nothing credible to support that it's going to be developed.

I'm sure that no-one intended any offense to anybody, by implication or otherwise.

Back to the matter at hand: Are we looking at a possible PLAAF type, or given that the current president is reportedly trying to consolidate his power in part by buttering up the PLAN brass, a (at least initially) PLANAF land based asset?

Doubt it. I expect H-20 will be an Air Force asset mostly, in the same way that most H-6s are Air Force and all the new H-6Ks are air force.

I also can't envision why the president would need to consolidate power by buttering up the navy's brass by offering them a stealth bomber, considering they've got so many other projects going on like new destroyers, frigates, carriers, large amphibs, subs, all going for them, not to mention MPAs, helicopters and aircraft for the carrier's airwing.

The stealth bomber project has also been a long term piece or work, by the sounds of it... I doubt the president would have needed to use it to butter anyone up, because the eventual development of the project would always have been a sure thing.


===

Btw what happened with all the previous posts in the B-21 thread?
And naming this thread B21 "vs" H-20 may also give the wrong signal... maybe if it were something like "new bomber projects: B-21, H-20, PAK DA"... so we can be inclusive for the Russians as well.

Reference to Backfire was re: its anti-capital ship role not to any airframes theoretical supersonic capability (a bit like the B-1B not sure Backfire would have ever had the chance of using a paper supersonic capability against sophisticated air defences). To be clear VERY unlikely a new Chinese strategic bomber would be supersonic (especially if a flying wing).

In reality I would largely agree with you on chances of Navy ownership/ focus on anti-ship role; a realitively narrow role for a very pricey bit of kit (cheaper Flanker variant options to be had). But if operating a bit like US B-52s tasked to the sea control role a Chinese stealthy bomber armed with a rotary bay or bays full of capable long range anti-ship missiles would bring back the threat of surprise attack on US carrier task forces by masses of air launched anti-ship missiles that largely disappeared with all those regiments of Backfires.
Would be fasinating to see the US Navy response to such a threat.

 

[Blitzo]

Reference to Backfire was re: its anti-capital ship role not to any airframes theoretical supersonic capability (a bit like the B-1B not sure Backfire would have ever had the chance of using a paper supersonic capability against sophisticated air defences). To be clear VERY unlikely a new Chinese strategic bomber would be supersonic (especially if a flying wing).

In reality I would largely agree with you on chances of Navy ownership/ focus on anti-ship role; a realitively narrow role for a very pricey bit of kit (cheaper Flanker variant options to be had). But if operating a bit like US B-52s tasked to the sea control role a Chinese stealthy bomber armed with a rotary bay or bays full of capable long range anti-ship missiles would bring back the threat of surprise attack on US carrier task forces by masses of air launched anti-ship missiles that largely disappeared with all those regiments of Backfires.
Would be fasinating to see the US Navy response to such a threat.

I see what you mean now.

I think H-20/H-XX may definitely have provisions for anti ship missions, but its primary mission will probably be for land attack but with general anti surface capabilities present.

I'm more interested in whether H-20 will be designed with in terms of mission avionics, datalinking, and "multirole" functions and even optionally unmanned possibilities.
I expect the aircraft to be somewhat antiquated in some regards, especially powerplant -- for instance the initial prototypes may only use WS-18s, before eventually transitioning to non A/B WS-10s, which obviously would be less capable than any powerplant that B-21 will use.
But I'd be surprised if the Air Force had not also heavily considered the multirole applications of a future bomber beyond "merely" a stealth bomber, to include additional things such as EW, cyber, sensor node, and even A2A missile truck.

 

[hesham]

H-20 images by Bai Wei, based on research paper probably depicting one of H-20 design projects considered

 

[sferrin]

That looks like a toy.

 

[FighterJock]

According to Deino's news article in this months Air International, the PLAAF has said the new bomber could fly as early as 2018 and will be a subsonic flying wing design. I don't know much about timing but the PLAAF surprised us all at how quick they revealed the J-20.

 

[sferrin]

According to Deino's news article in this months Air International, the PLAAF has said the new bomber could fly as early as 2018 and will be a subsonic flying wing design. I don't know much about timing but the PLAAF surprised us all at how quick they revealed the J-20.

Oh I don't doubt it. They probably have everything there is to have on the B-2. Those black areas on the trailing edge looked like notches in the thumbnails, which look out of place on a stealth aircraft. Looking at the full size images one can just see the exhaust troughs.

 

[Deino]

Guys ... just keep calm and unexcited. These are as noted so far CG's based on a research paper and surely include not only a grain of salt, but more likely a rock of salt.

However the current PLAAF commander confirmed that a new long-range bomber is in development and given the Y-20 for comparison - even if surely a much more demanding program - the PLAAF usually only announces something that way, when they are confident to show something at least within the next two years.

If this is already a finished prototype (IMO not unlikely) or just a subscale model, I don't know ... but compare it to the:
- J-20 (officially revealed in 2009, flown in early 2011, service entry late 2016/early 2017)
- Y-20 (officially revealed in 2009, flown in early 2013, service entry mid 2016)

So make Your own guess...
- H-20 (officially revealed in 2016, flown between 2018-2020, service entry mid 20xx)

Deino

 

[sferrin]

I thought I saw somewhere they were looking for something more like Blackjack than a B-2 anyway.

 

[FighterJock]

I thought I saw somewhere they were looking for something more like Blackjack than a B-2 anyway.

I think that a Blackjack style stealthy bomber featuring delta wings instead of the variable geometry wings would work better for the PLAAF than a B-2 flying wing bomber.

 

[latenlazy]

I thought I saw somewhere they were looking for something more like Blackjack than a B-2 anyway.

Both were considered, and a stealthy supersonic bomber may still yet be in the works, but for now the focus is on a subsonic flying wing.

 

[XP67_Moonbat]

Meh..... nothing to see here.

 

[antigravite]

Hi,

A recent patent of interest (CN105398565) for a Chinese flying wing, B-2 styled, issued on March 16, 2016.

The applicant is a company called QINGAN GROUP CO LTD

Abstract.The invention relates to a rear wing modification mechanism for a flying wing aircraft, and is used for real-time limiting according to the changes of flight conditions in the flight process. A conventional flying wing aircraft is an aircraft which is not provided with rear wings, and the main parts of a fuselage are hidden in wings. The flying wing layout is the typical representative of integrating the wings and the fuselage. The integrated fuselage can greatly improve the stealth of the aircraft, but the flying wing aircraft lacks of vertical tails, so that the stability is poor when the flying wing aircraft takes off and lands. Under the premise that the stealth function of the flying wings is not reduced, the low-speed flight stability of the flying wings is improved. Modified V-shaped rear wings are additionally arranged for the flying wings, so that when the flying wing aircraft takes off and lands, the V-shaped rear wings are converted, and the low-speed stability of the flying wings is improved. When the flying wing aircraft enters a cruising phase, the rear wings and the wings are integrated, so that the stealth of the flying wing aircraft is improved.

Enjoy

A.

 

[antigravite]

Hi there,

Another B-2 style flying wing patent, this time from AVIC. Some of their research teams investigated the used of a plasma-based stall control mechanism for flying wings. Clearly, what they describe herein, are DBD (dielectric Barrier Discharges).
(BTW, This reminds me of some "older" works performed a decade ago or so at BAE SYSTEMS' SRC; patents were filed by Boeing Phantom Work scientists about the same time, although I'd have to check the exact date.)

A.

 

[FighterJock]

Interesting finds antigravite. It will be interesting to see what the final design of the H-20 will be come 2018. B)

 

[Blitzo]

Hi,

A recent patent of interest (CN105398565) for a Chinese flying wing, B-2 styled, issued on March 16, 2016.

The applicant is a company called QINGAN GROUP CO LTD

Abstract.The invention relates to a rear wing modification mechanism for a flying wing aircraft, and is used for real-time limiting according to the changes of flight conditions in the flight process. A conventional flying wing aircraft is an aircraft which is not provided with rear wings, and the main parts of a fuselage are hidden in wings. The flying wing layout is the typical representative of integrating the wings and the fuselage. The integrated fuselage can greatly improve the stealth of the aircraft, but the flying wing aircraft lacks of vertical tails, so that the stability is poor when the flying wing aircraft takes off and lands. Under the premise that the stealth function of the flying wings is not reduced, the low-speed flight stability of the flying wings is improved. Modified V-shaped rear wings are additionally arranged for the flying wings, so that when the flying wing aircraft takes off and lands, the V-shaped rear wings are converted, and the low-speed stability of the flying wings is improved. When the flying wing aircraft enters a cruising phase, the rear wings and the wings are integrated, so that the stealth of the flying wing aircraft is improved.

Enjoy

A.

Interesting.

Reminds me of that US patent for folding canards for a flying wing; this obviously serves a different role but the both being retractable control surfaces for a flying wing are similar. I wonder if they would actually be implemented in H-20 and B-21..

 

[flateric]

A recent patent of interest (CN105398565) for a Chinese flying wing, B-2 styled, issued on March 16, 2016.

The applicant is a company called QINGAN GROUP CO LTD

http://www.diigen.com/supplier/xian-qingan-group-aviation-mechanical-manufacture-co-ltd-china-6479312/
Address and More: No.2 Bonded Warehouse,Fengcheng 12 Road,Shaanxi Xi'an Export Processing Zone,Xi'an,Shaanxi

 

[antigravite]

A recent patent of interest (CN105398565) for a Chinese flying wing, B-2 styled, issued on March 16, 2016.

The applicant is a company called QINGAN GROUP CO LTD

http://www.diigen.com/supplier/xian-qingan-group-aviation-mechanical-manufacture-co-ltd-china-6479312/
Address and More: No.2 Bonded Warehouse,Fengcheng 12 Road,Shaanxi Xi'an Export Processing Zone,Xi'an,Shaanxi

Thx Flateric.

I'll look at this directory next time!!!

A.

 

[flateric]

well, actually may mean nothing at all

 

[Hyperwarp]

The 1st attachment was posted here by the either PaulMM or flateric. Care to elaborate? ;D

I added my fan to it too.

 

[Grey Havoc]

The 1st attachment was posted here by the either PaulMM or flateric. Care to elaborate? ;D

They probably bribed one of Orion's feline spies with catnip.

 

[Mat Parry]

The 1st attachment was posted here by the either PaulMM or flateric. Care to elaborate? ;D

If i may...

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,27162.msg279971.html#msg279971

For an explanation see the thread below, start from reply #556 (courtesy of the much missed quellish) and continue till ~#597

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,25915.msg274567.html#msg274567

 

[Grey Havoc]

http://www.defencetalk.com/china-confirms-it-is-developing-h-20-bomber-aircraft-68644/

 

[totoro]

Hopefully they won't name it H-20, there are far too many 20s in various projects nomenclatures already. What's with the obsession over the number 20?

 

[FighterJock]

Hopefully they won't name it H-20, there are far too many 20s in various projects nomenclatures already. What's with the obsession over the number 20?

I can fully agree with you on that point totoro, we have just had the J-20 and now they are calling the next bomber the H-20. I think they should call it the H-30.

 

[bananaman]

saw this coupled yrs ago....

 

[hesham]

saw this coupled yrs ago....

Nice find Bananaman.