Chinese stealth bomber design unoficially leaked ?

alberchico · Sun Apr 08, 2018 11:34 pm

http://china-defense.blogspot.com/2018/ ... on-of.html

It would be a gorgeous aircraft if this is the final version but it seems way too advanced for China to design and build:

Ozair · Mon Apr 09, 2018 12:01 am

alberchico wrote:
http://china-defense.blogspot.com/2018/04/here-it-is-first-artists-impression-of.html

It would be a gorgeous aircraft if this is the final version but it seems way too advanced for China to design and build:

While a nice looking graphic there are some obvious planform issues with the design (acknowledging it’s a rough graphic...) and the design appears more orientated towards a large fighter concept than a long range bomber. It also depends on where a new Chinese bomber fits in, as a B-6 replacement or filling a larger strategic role in the vein of a B-2 or B-52? I’d expect a new bomber coming out of China to be closer to a flying wing. I see little reason today to go supersonic on a new bomber concept given the impending advent of hypersonic missiles, which moves the speed to the weapon away from the platform. Using a flying wing derivative will maximise fuel and ordnance while minimising overall RCS.

I also don’t see either as being beyond the capability of the Chinese to build though, at least from an airframe perspective. A wholly domestic engine remains the sticking point but a subsonic bomber airframe has fewer requirements for engine performance against a fighter jet.

JackMeahoff · Mon Apr 09, 2018 2:42 am

Ozair wrote:
alberchico wrote:
http://china-defense.blogspot.com/2018/04/here-it-is-first-artists-impression-of.html

It would be a gorgeous aircraft if this is the final version but it seems way too advanced for China to design and build:

While a nice looking graphic there are some obvious planform issues with the design (acknowledging it’s a rough graphic...) and the design appears more orientated towards a large fighter concept than a long range bomber. It also depends on where a new Chinese bomber fits in, as a B-6 replacement or filling a larger strategic role in the vein of a B-2 or B-52? I’d expect a new bomber coming out of China to be closer to a flying wing. I see little reason today to go supersonic on a new bomber concept given the impending advent of hypersonic missiles, which moves the speed to the weapon away from the platform. Using a flying wing derivative will maximise fuel and ordnance while minimising overall RCS.

I also don’t see either as being beyond the capability of the Chinese to build though, at least from an airframe perspective. A wholly domestic engine remains the sticking point but a subsonic bomber airframe has fewer requirements for engine performance against a fighter jet.

When will the Chinese create their own indigenous technology for once instead of stealing it from the West?

VSMUT · Mon Apr 09, 2018 11:05 am

I really don't think the Chinese are likely to unveil their new bomber in a magazine...

JackMeahoff wrote:
When will the Chinese create their own indigenous technology for once instead of stealing it from the West?

They have been creating their own indigenous technology since the 40s. Stealing or buying from other nations (and primarily the USSR/Russia BTW, not the west) was a deliberate decision in order to catch up with everyone else. If they didn't do it like that, they would still have been stuck with generations old technology today. In most cases, competing home-grown designs were put up, but it was decided that the meager resources were better spent on tried and tested designs. One such design was the Nanchang J-12, which lost out to cheaper and tested MiG-21 derivatives:

The Q-5 Fantan is another great example on how they spent a minimal amount of resources to build a cheap ground attack jet. In this case they mated a MiG-19 rear fuselage and wings with a new nose section. This wasn't because they lacked the ability to do their own jet, but because they didn't have the resources to do a new project from scratch:

Another point is that many designs differ quite a bit from the lack of design drawings. They only received about half the design drawings for many jets such as the MiG-21, so internally they differ quite a lot.

45272455674 · Mon Apr 09, 2018 11:46 am

alberchico wrote:
http://china-defense.blogspot.com/2018/04/here-it-is-first-artists-impression-of.html

It would be a gorgeous aircraft if this is the final version but it seems way too advanced for China to design and build:

Where have I seen great elements of this design from before... hmmm.

Nicoeddf · Tue Apr 10, 2018 9:34 am

JackMeahoff wrote:

When will the Chinese create their own indigenous technology for once instead of stealing it from the West?

What do you expect them to do? Put the Cockpit at the rear-end of the craft and the gear on top of the fuselage, just so it doesn't look similar? Physics don't change when you reach China, you know?

BartSimpson · Tue Apr 10, 2018 10:16 am

Nicoeddf wrote:
JackMeahoff wrote:

When will the Chinese create their own indigenous technology for once instead of stealing it from the West?

What do you expect them to do? Put the Cockpit at the rear-end of the craft and the gear on top of the fuselage, just so it doesn't look similar? Physics don't change when you reach China, you know?

Why not? The only thing they have to learn then is to fly in reverse and to land upside-down. But then again, people would accuse them to steal flying techniques from other nations.

tommy1808 · Tue Apr 10, 2018 11:31 am

JackMeahoff wrote:
When will the Chinese create their own indigenous technology for once instead of stealing it from the West?

While i think that cover is simply cover-art with no basis in reality, but you may want to check out how many engineers they have, and how many engineering students they have in programs.

Whatever head-start we can currently maintain, they can throw enough man-years at it to overtake in the not so distant future. Huawai has about as many engineers as Broadcom and Qualcomm combined have employees from Janitor to CEO. They don´t wait around for those R&D dwarfs coming up with something new to copy.

You´d be well advised other areas of technology they are interested in won´t look much different.

Best possible outcome is that the PRC turns democratic and fills the role of the USA without being too self-centered. They will out-GDP, out-Engineer and Out-Spend anyone that doesn´t have a billion+ labor force at its disposal within all our lifetimes. .

best regards
Thomas

mham001 · Tue Apr 10, 2018 5:37 pm

VSMUT wrote:
This wasn't because they lacked the ability to do their own jet, but because they didn't have the resources to do a new project from scratch:

Just as a point of order, wouldn't lack of resources mean they lacked the ability?

VSMUT wrote:
Another point is that many designs differ quite a bit from the lack of design drawings. They only received about half the design drawings for many jets such as the MiG-21, so internally they differ quite a lot.

Thanks for the interesting pictures but all that is child's play to the reality today.

March 24, 2016 By Pierluigi Paganini
Chinese hackers have allegedly stolen as much as 50 terabytes of data from the US Defense contractors, including the details of the fighter’s radar systems, engine schematics, “aft deck heating contour maps,” designs to cool exhaust gasses and the method the jet uses to track targets.

The purpose of the Chinese Government is to acquire intellectual property on advanced technologies, benefiting Chinese companies on the market and narrowed the gap in the research of advanced technological solution. Military experts speculated that the stolen blueprints could help the country to develop a new generation of advanced aircraft fighter, so-called “fifth-generation” fighters.
https://securityaffairs.co/wordpress/45 ... ctors.html

VSMUT · Tue Apr 10, 2018 8:10 pm

mham001 wrote:
VSMUT wrote:
This wasn't because they lacked the ability to do their own jet, but because they didn't have the resources to do a new project from scratch:

Just as a point of order, wouldn't lack of resources mean they lacked the ability?

Or maybe the finite resources were needed in other areas, rather than just pouring them all into the military-industrial complex in true American style? Roads, railways, dams, ports, airports, factories, housing, powerplants etc. doesn't build itself, and in a communist country, the state is responsible for building those. They came out of WWII and the civil war with a completely devastated country, and pre-WWII China was much less industrialized than any of the other major players. They had much more ground to cover in all areas. They didn't get marshall aid either, and faced a constant threat of US-Taiwanese aggression at the same time. From 1960 they even had to fight the Soviets.

Tugger · Tue Apr 10, 2018 8:36 pm

tommy1808 wrote:
They will out-GDP, out-Engineer and Out-Spend anyone that doesn´t have a billion+ labor force at its disposal within all our lifetimes. .

Unlikely.

The biggest problem the Chinese have is that success must be "Chinese", leaders must be Chinese, corporations must be Chinese, products must often be Chinese (or they drive to develop Chinese variants to replace). This is a major failure point for any nation if they disallow the best and brightest from achieving the top echelons in society. Yes prejudice of all types are at play in most any country but in China it is extreme.

Tugg

Sooner787 · Wed Apr 11, 2018 8:15 pm

cpd wrote:
alberchico wrote:
http://china-defense.blogspot.com/2018/04/here-it-is-first-artists-impression-of.html

It would be a gorgeous aircraft if this is the final version but it seems way too advanced for China to design and build:

Where have I seen great elements of this design from before... hmmm.

If imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, the Northrop Grumman YF-23 team
must be purple with praise

Ozair · Wed Apr 11, 2018 10:17 pm

A couple of new articles have surfaced on the Chinese bomber concept; apparently some are alleging it looks similar to an aircraft from the Ace Combat 3 game...

China's New Stealth Bombers to Carry More Deterrent Power

Chinese military magazine Aerospace Knowledge recently sighted the H-20, the new generation of Chinese bomber aircraft, which was confirmed by experts to be a stealth aircraft and also more powerful as it could be equipped with nuclear and conventional weapons.

China's new generation H-20 has been under development by the Shanghai Aircraft Design and Research Institute since 2008, reported Russian media rg.ru on Monday, saying the research is highly confidential in China and no details had previously been leaked.

China needs long-range advanced bombers that can carry up to 10 tons of weapons without aerial refueling, an unnamed military expert was quoted by the report as saying.

"The new generation of bombers can carry more bombs than the H-6K bombers, has the advantage of stealth features, and is able to strike targets from standoff ranges," Song Zhongping, a military expert and TV commentator, told the Global Times on Tuesday.

Song said that China has made technological breakthroughs in its new generation of aircraft and also possesses proprietary technology, while stressing that "the new generation of bombers should be high-tech aircraft."

"The new generation will be released in two years and enlist in the army within four to five years," Song said.

"The exposure indicated that the technology has entered its mature stage," Song noted.

The expert believed that the bomber is now even able to conduct test flights.

The H-20 could improve the air force in both defensive and offensive capabilities, which will "enable the army to possess stronger nuclear and conventional deterrence," Song said.

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articl ... power.html

Popular mechanics also has some info including a better render of the concept. https://www.popularmechanics.com/milita ... er-render/

Faro · Fri Apr 13, 2018 7:31 am

Funny how popular the general YF-23 has become...

Faro

neutrino · Tue Apr 17, 2018 3:25 pm

JackMeahoff wrote:
When will the Chinese create their own indigenous technology for once instead of stealing it from the West?

Been there done that, multiple times over.
Paper making, printing, gunpowder, magnetic compass and lots more. Who do you think are the originators?
The Middle Kingdom was the leading force in science & technology till the west's Industrial Revolution.
Let Joseph Needham educate you.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_and_Civilisation_in_China
Also; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Chinese_inventions

Then the Dragon fell into a deep slumber from which it has recently reawakened.
It has started to catch up, and in some areas have already surpassed the rest of the world.
Just one example:
https://sputniknews.com/science/201803101062401247-china-anounces-6g-network/
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-03-13/how-china-s-huawei-killed-117-billion-broadcom-deal-quicktake
And for your info, from the latter article, "With 2017 sales of about 600 billion yuan ($95 billion), Huawei generates more revenue than Home Depot or Boeing --"

LightningZ71 · Tue Apr 17, 2018 6:36 pm

China is quickly growing their economy into a juggernaut on the scale of the US in the final years of the cold war. They are very well vertically integrated across the board, having to import very little, and what they do need to import, they are rapidly taking ownership of every link in the chain. It won't be long before their ability to take unilateral action on a global basis is unhindered by their own capabilities. The West has allowed this to happen through their own desire to earn as much margin as possible on every manufactured good, effectively spending the money to rapidly industrialize China in the process. Now it faces the fact that China will soon be able to dictate terms on all of their deals and will be able to choose not to involve themselves in any foreign market that is not favorable to them.

The only way that this doesn't end in China doing to the world what the US has been accused of doing to the world over the last few decades is if the rest of the world realizes what's happening and figures out a way to work together for their own common interests.

keesje · Wed Apr 18, 2018 12:56 pm

JackMeahoff wrote:

When will the Chinese create their own indigenous technology for once instead of stealing it from the West?

Yes, it's all exact copies of a .. well it is anyway!

I think the OP configuartion has been swarming around for some time.

Raptormodeller · Tue Apr 24, 2018 10:01 am

Looks like they took the YF-23 and F-111 and let them mate. Nice result.

RJMAZ · Tue Apr 24, 2018 12:02 pm

This design makes no sense. The intakes above the chines means this aircraft will have severely limited agility. The tail, wings and chines point to high agility. They are both incompatible design features so this is definitely fake.

meecrob · Thu Apr 26, 2018 10:59 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
This design makes no sense. The intakes above the chines means this aircraft will have severely limited agility. The tail, wings and chines point to high agility. They are both incompatible design features so this is definitely fake.

My thoughts exactly. The Chinese might be a few years behind the west in aircraft design, but clearly they are not inept enough to design a plane with "shoulder" intakes. I think these pics are just media pieces to create discussion about how their industrial capacity has been improving. I bet my life savings the real plane will look nothing like this.

Edited to add: anyone remember the Revell F-19 kits?

Arniepie · Fri Apr 27, 2018 8:29 am

keesje wrote:
JackMeahoff wrote:

When will the Chinese create their own indigenous technology for once instead of stealing it from the West?

Yes, it's all exact copies of a .. well it is anyway!

Well the J20 is nothing more than the Russian designed Mig39 project with a blended body and some stealthifying changes, most notably the engine
inlets.

As for the other Planes you mentioned ,not a single one isn't a clear rip off of some existing design.
I won't put it past them to come up with a homegrown Chinese designed and manufactured aircraft (and most important subsystems like engines , avionics, etc...) somewhere in the future, but for now they are not there just yet.

keesje · Fri Apr 27, 2018 11:19 am

Arniepie wrote:
keesje wrote:
JackMeahoff wrote:

When will the Chinese create their own indigenous technology for once instead of stealing it from the West?

Yes, it's all exact copies of a .. well it is anyway!

Well the J20 is nothing more than the Russian designed Mig39 project with a blended body and some stealthifying changes, most notably the engine inlets.

And you think developing an aircraft works like that? :eyebrow:

Then you are probably one of the school feeling the tu-144 was a Concorde copy and the F15 a MIG25 copy..

..FGS not the F15.. :scared:

PC12Fan · Sun Apr 29, 2018 3:05 am

For all we know, they just gained access to old pics of what eventually evolved into the ya-23 since it’s initial development was to be a bomber platform anyways.

God I’d love to see the 23 fly again

VSMUT · Sun Apr 29, 2018 4:14 am

RJMAZ wrote:
This design makes no sense. The intakes above the chines means this aircraft will have severely limited agility. The tail, wings and chines point to high agility. They are both incompatible design features so this is definitely fake.

meecrob wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:
This design makes no sense. The intakes above the chines means this aircraft will have severely limited agility. The tail, wings and chines point to high agility. They are both incompatible design features so this is definitely fake.

My thoughts exactly. The Chinese might be a few years behind the west in aircraft design, but clearly they are not inept enough to design a plane with "shoulder" intakes. I think these pics are just media pieces to create discussion about how their industrial capacity has been improving. I bet my life savings the real plane will look nothing like this.

It's a bomber, agility would probably not be high on the list of requirements. The B-2 and F-117 both feature shoulder intakes for stealth reasons (and the B-21 too). It's not horribly far fetched that a Chinese design team would reach the same conclusion, considering that the roles would probably be very similar.

But I would personally join the bet that this isn't anywhere near what the real thing will look like. I'm guessing a flying wing design.

Arniepie wrote:
Well the J20 is nothing more than the Russian designed Mig39 project with a blended body and some stealthifying changes, most notably the engine
inlets.

Because as we all know, blending a body, stealthifying an aircraft and fitting an entirely new air intake is just a "quick and easy thing to do"... :lol:

keesje wrote:
Then you are probably one of the school feeling the tu-144 was a Concorde copy and the F15 a MIG25 copy..

And the J-10 is a copy of the F-16 because the fin root is vaguely similar, and also a copy of the Lavi because they share the same basic configuration but are otherwise completely different aircraft in every way... :duck:

WIederling · Sun Apr 29, 2018 8:53 am

Anybody thought about the Chinese posting these pictures to get
the "global know it all force" to point out all the errors and providing fixes?
:-)

Ozair · Thu May 10, 2018 9:51 pm

I'm not sure whether this qualifies as trolling or imitation...

China might have teased its H-20 stealth bomber by trolling the US — here's what we know about it

China may have released a video teaser of its H-20 stealth bomber and trolled the US's stealth bombers in the process, according to The Drive.

China's state-run aviation and defense company, Aviation Industry Corporation of China, recently posted a video celebrating the 60th anniversary of the founding of Xi'an Aircraft Industrial Corporation, a subsidiary of AVIC, The Drive reported.

The video, which China Daily tweeted, ends with a shadowy wide shot of bomber-looking aircraft covered in a sheet with text reading "The Next" appearing on the screen.

The shot looks eerily similar to a Northrop Grumman advertisement of the B-21 Raider, which ran during the 2015 Super Bowl, The Drive reported, adding that China Defense Online may have also added the ending itself. As such, it's unclear if it's legit.

Still, China has been in search of a long-range bomber.

In 2015, Chinese defense experts said China needed to develop a long-range bomber that could strike targets far from its coast, AFP reported at the time.

Then in 2016, General Ma Xiaotian, a PLA Air Force commander, said China was researching the development of such a bomber, according to Popular Science.

The Drive also reported that conception of the H-20 may have even come before that, citing Airforce Monthly as saying that XAC had built small models of it, but in 2011, the program came to a halt.

In any event, the Pentagon confirmed in 2017 report that China was "developing a strategic bomber that officials expect to have a nuclear mission," also noting that "[past] PLA writings expressed the need to develop a 'stealth strategic bomber,' suggesting aspirations to field a strategic bomber with a nuclear delivery capability."

To that end, the H-20 needs to be capable of carrying a 10 ton payload and have a range of 5,000 miles, The Drive reported.

Popular Science reported that the H-20, in order to strike different continents, needs a 6,200 mile range and carry a 10-20 ton payload, which would most likely require four WS-10 turbofan engines.

Whatever the specifications would be, a researcher working with the US Air Force told Business Insider that the H-20 is a four engine stealth bomber and that the details have not been "revealed except it is to have a dual [nuclear and conventional] role."

The researcher also said that China has built three static H-20 airframes without electronics and engines.

The Drive reported that the H-20's main weapon would probably be KD-20 cruise missiles, and Popular Science reported that it would carry the KD-20s in its internal weapons bays.

The H-20 might eventually even carry "GB-6A stealth cruise missiles and hypersonic scramjet missiles," and act as a command and control aircraft, Popular Science reported.

The "deployment and integration" of a nuclear bomber "would provide China with its first credible nuclear 'triad' of delivery systems dispersed across land, sea, and air," the 2017 Pentagon report on China's military said.

http://nordic.businessinsider.com/china ... ?r=US&IR=T

Obviously different to the design at the start of the thread and appears, if real, to be a flying wing as I suggested in reply #1.

wingman · Thu May 10, 2018 11:32 pm

Well, I guess I'd opt for 21 actual stealth bombers already nearing their replacement cycle and being replaced by a next generation stealth bomber over a troll photo. One of them is bound to produce better results if ever required.

Alfons · Fri May 11, 2018 10:02 am

Funny. In the picture above, the sides are mirrored. You just see the half.

Ozair · Wed Oct 10, 2018 8:55 pm

Some additional info has been published on the much hyped and expected new Chinese Bomber. It is probably a bit early for an actual graphic of the aircraft being released but going by the time it has taken to test the J-20 we'd be looking at somewhere between 6-8 years for the aircraft to enter service.

China's Hong-20 stealth bomber trial flight expected very soon

The trial flight of China's new-generation stealth bomber Hong-20 may take place soon, military experts said on Tuesday after China's official television station confirmed the name of the bomber. Disclosing the new bomber is a potential deterrence, Song Zhongping, a military expert and TV commentator, told the Global Times on Tuesday.

"Usually the development of equipment and weaponry of the People's Liberation Army is highly confidential," he said.

Revealing the bomber name before trials shows the Chinese aviation industry is gaining more confidence, said Shanghai-based news site thepaper.cn.

China Central Television confirmed in a documentary in August that "the development of new long-distance strategic bomber, Hong-20, has made great progress."

It was the first time "Hong-20" appeared officially. "Hong" is the first character of hongzhaji, "bomber aircraft" in Chinese.

Song said the public unveiling of the bomber suggested that it might have finished testing the hydraulic pressure, electricity supply and avionics systems.

"The trial flight will come soon," he said.

China's Hong-20 bomber has been under development at the Shanghai Aircraft Design and Research Institute since 2008, Russian newspaper Rossiyskaya Gazeta previously reported.

"The new generation of bombers can carry more bombs than previous H-6K bombers, have the advantage of stealth features and are able to strike targets from standoff ranges," Song said in a previous interview in April.

The Hong-20 could improve both defensive and offensive air force capabilities and "enable the army to possess stronger nuclear and conventional deterrence," Song said.

http://www.airrecognition.com/index.php ... -soon.html

A concept aircraft looking strikingly like US concepts.

DigitalSea · Wed Oct 10, 2018 9:41 pm

I wonder if China's push to publicly field hypersonic weapons and stealth aircraft would motivate the US to take the cloak off of some of their non-ISR black projects.

Tugger · Thu Oct 11, 2018 3:32 am

Ozair wrote:
A concept aircraft looking strikingly like US concepts.

Oz, I expect better! The pic is a "concept" it is not the actual design or aircraft. Concepts in the media follow the "most believable" which means "what everyone expects/accepts". The reality... well we have no idea what the reality is. And that is the question.

Tugg

trpmb6 · Thu Oct 11, 2018 1:33 pm

I would like to note, designs can converge when you have similar requirements.

Ben Rich told a story in his book, "Skunk Works"

I'm paraphrasing a little bit, but basically it goes like this: He had a meeting with a high level DOD/Pentagon official (Possibly secretary of defense?) at his Lockheed Skunk Works office. Upon entering the office the official immediately exclaimed, "Wait how did you get Northrop drawings???" Pointing at the drawings on Rich's desk. He immediately realized the mistake he had made as he saw the puzzled look on Ben's face. Ben Rich goes on to explain in his book, again paraphrasing, that it was at that point that he knew that stealth designs more or less all converged. That the requirements presented meant there was really only one way to achieve it.

The rest is history, Northrop won the contract for the B-2 and it's what we see flying today. The designs both companies produced weren't much different it turns out.

Ozair · Thu Jan 17, 2019 9:08 pm

So reportedly China has two stealth bombers in development, a large strategic bomber we were aware of and a smaller medium range fighter-bomber. Perhaps the smaller bomber is where the concept art came from for the first post of this thread. It makes sense for China to work on two bombers, one likely a flying wing with long range and large payload and the other a comparatively shorter ranged aircraft but likely with higher speed and perhaps better self defensive capabilities. You could almost say the suggsted fighter-bomber may be similar in concept to the US PCA in having longer range within a larger airframe than comparable strike fighters.

Intelligence Report Confirms Two Chinese Stealth Bombers

A new report by the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) offers the first official acknowledgment of the existence of two stealth bomber development programs by China’s air force.

A previously-confirmed Chinese strategic bomber and a newly acknowledged stealth “fighter-bomber” are both now under development, the DIA says in a China Military Power report released Jan. 15.

The Pentagon first acknowledged a strategic bomber program exists in a 2017 report to Congress. The admission came a year after a senior Chinese air force official publicly confirmed the effort to develop a new strategic bomber variously called H-X and H-20.

For several years, Chinese and foreign media have speculated about the existence of a separate stealth bomber development project sometimes called the JH-XX, a replacement for the Mach 1.8-class Xian JH-7 fighter-bomber.

The new DIA report also describes the second project as a “medium”-range stealth bomber. In a chart showing the “aircraft systems characteristics” of the Chinese air force fleet, a “next gen” fighter bomber is shown as a development project with an active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar, long-range air-to-air missiles and precision-guided munitions.

The same chart also describes the “long-range bomber” now in development as equipped with an AESA and precision-guided munitions, but not long-range air-to-air missiles.

“These new bombers will have additional capabilities, with full-spectrum upgrades compared with current operational bomber fleets, and will employ many fifth-generation fighter technologies in their design,” the DIA report states.

The initial operational capability for both bombers is expected “no sooner” than 2025, the DIA reports, although it caveats that forecast by adding “probably.”

China has unveiled two stealth fighters—the J-20 and FC-31—and numerous designs for radar-evading unmanned aircraft systems over the last decade. China also has introduced a series of fourth-generation fighters, including the J-10, J-16 and newly acquired Sukhoi Su-35, over the same period.

Although a previous Pentagon report to Congress in August described the Chinese fighter fleet as possessing about 2,000 combat aircraft, the new report by the DIA lowers the estimate by 15% to around 1,700 aircraft.

By contrast, China’s bomber fleet has relied upon Xian’s JH-7 and H-6 bombers for decades, with recent upgrades adding to the range and weapons mix of the H-6. AVIC also displayed a model of a JH-7 at Airshow China in November. It was displayed with the designation “JH-7E,” which appeared to indicate a new configuration or perhaps an export variant.

As the H-20 and JH-XX enter service in the next decade, the DIA expects China’s next-generation bomber force to perform a nuclear strike mission and complete a Western-style nuclear triad by augmenting the capabilities of Chinese submarines and ground-based rocket forces.

“As of 2017, the Air Force had been reassigned a nuclear mission, probably with a developmental strategic bomber,” the DIA report says.

China’s stealthy new fighter-bomber also could introduce a unique capability among world air forces. The DIA indicates that China’s air force is developing a medium-range aircraft with stealth characteristics.

The U.S. Air Force has analyzed similar concepts such as the FB-22 and the initial design of the Long Range Strike-Bomber, but never launched development of such an aircraft. Since the retirement of the medium-range General Dynamics F-111, Western and Russian air forces have depended on comparatively short-range fighter-bombers with little passive ability to avoid radar detection, such as the Boeing F-15E and Sukhoi Su-34.

http://aviationweek.com/defense/intelli ... th-bombers

For those interested, this is a link where you can download the DIA report released on Chinese Military Power, https://seawaves.com/2019/01/16/defense ... ary-power/

RJMAZ · Sun Jan 20, 2019 7:32 am

https://www.janes.com/article/85813/chi ... t-aircraft

A two seat version of the J-20 might be the basis for the smaller bomber we have heard about.

The Su-34 is a twin seat version of the Su-27 and gained 25% more internal fuel for a significant range boost. A similar upgrade to the J-20 while reducing agility would make an amazing fast small bomber.

SuperiorPilotMe · Sun Jan 20, 2019 10:29 pm

neutrino wrote:
JackMeahoff wrote:
When will the Chinese create their own indigenous technology for once instead of stealing it from the West?

Then the Dragon fell into a deep slumber from which it has recently reawakened.
b]--"

The Chinese were “slumbering” only because of the Japanese occupation, in turn made possible because the Chinese were in a going-nowhere civil war. Then as soon as the Japanese left they resumed that going nowhere civil war until the Communists finally won.

Then the “Cultural Revolution” killed much of their brain trust and kept the rest in a virtual or even literal arrestive state.

Then they caught up super-fast once that nonsense was finally over.

keesje · Mon Jan 21, 2019 11:04 am

RJMAZ wrote:
https://www.janes.com/article/85813/china-may-be-developing-first-two-seat-stealth-combat-aircraft

A two seat version of the J-20 might be the basis for the smaller bomber we have heard about.

The Su-34 is a twin seat version of the Su-27 and gained 25% more internal fuel for a significant range boost. A similar upgrade to the J-20 while reducing agility would make an amazing fast small bomber.

I've been amazed since the appearance of the J20 that it was positioned as an interceptor. It's a huge machine with a huge fuselage able to carry a lot of fuel / internal weapons. A two man cockpit doesn't surprise me at all.

It will create demand in the surrounding countries (Japan, Taiwan, S Korea) for real powerful interceptors. Together with the Su-57 being neither gone nor inferior and the US First policy, things will probably start moving.

S Korea, Japan, UK, France, Germany have started investing seriously in recent years. Other countries (Spain, Canada, Sweden) are re-considering their options. I expect 2-3 multinational alliances developing 6th gen fighter bombers in the next decade. The French / German program seems secured. Maybe the Brits & Japanese will join forces and others could join. LM smells the "risk" and offered a hybrid F35/F22 solution to Japan.

Ozair · Mon Jan 21, 2019 9:57 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
https://www.janes.com/article/85813/china-may-be-developing-first-two-seat-stealth-combat-aircraft

A two seat version of the J-20 might be the basis for the smaller bomber we have heard about.

The Su-34 is a twin seat version of the Su-27 and gained 25% more internal fuel for a significant range boost. A similar upgrade to the J-20 while reducing agility would make an amazing fast small bomber.

Certainly possible although I’m not sure how much of a range improvement the J-20 would get. The Su-34 does carry more fuel but doesn’t get, as far as I can tell, much of a range improvement over the Su-27 noting the likely different loadouts of the respective aircraft.

If the J-20 gets a 20% increase in range but would require a larger weapons bay to accommodate dedicated internal A2G weapons that becomes a more significant redesign that Janes is suggesting.

keesje wrote:
I've been amazed since the appearance of the J20 that it was positioned as an interceptor. It's a huge machine with a huge fuselage able to carry a lot of fuel / internal weapons. A two man cockpit doesn't surprise me at all.

The J-20 doesn’t have an overly large internal weapons bay by comparison, it is just a big airframe. It appears to be very similar to the F-22 in both depth, door arrangement and layout.

keesje wrote:
It will create demand in the surrounding countries (Japan, Taiwan, S Korea) for real powerful interceptors. Together with the Su-57 being neither gone nor inferior and the US First policy, things will probably start moving.

It is highly unlikely that outside of PCA any other nation other than China and perhaps Russia will develop a dedicated interceptor. The export market is way too small and the costs and customisation too great to make that development even remotely fiscally responsible.

keesje wrote:
S Korea, Japan, UK, France, Germany have started investing seriously in recent years.

Other countries (Spain, Canada, Sweden) are re-considering their options. I expect 2-3 multinational alliances developing 6th gen fighter bombers in the next decade. The French / German program seems secured. Maybe the Brits & Japanese will join forces and others could join. LM smells the "risk" and offered a hybrid F35/F22 solution to Japan.[/

Actually no they haven’t. S Korea continues to develop the KF-X but isn’t spending vast sums of money doing so and the end result is likely a gen 4++ design. Japan is looking away from domestic development given the cost involved. The UK has the Tempest with a negligible development budget assigned to the program while France and Germany haven’t allocated any significant budgetary sums to their programs yet and they remain somewhat in limbo given there are no defined requirements yet. Even more so given the plan today isn’t a joint development but both sides come up with designs in a couple of years and see what happens. The result of the UK and Franco/German programs is likely not going to be a 6th gen platform anyway but a capability equaliser or incremental improvement on F-35/F-22 designs that is heavily focused on multi-role capability.

As for Spain, Canada and Sweden, Keesje you are creating fiction… Spain will likely join the Franco/German program as news reports have indicated but that airframe will not be a replacement for their Hornet fleet. Canada has a program ongoing and no reporting indicates they are re-considering their options. Sweden is wedded to the Gripen E for the next 30 years but may join another program to secure domestic industry given the Gripen will be unlikely to realistically compete globally on capability.

RJMAZ · Tue Jan 22, 2019 1:47 am

The french/german design will be hamstrung by having to land on small french carriers. It will never be able to have the range of the F-35 and will be lucky to have half of the range of PCA.

Best case scenario is it will offer slightly higher speed over the F-35 with similar range. But it will have to cost.morw than double the price due to the low economy of scale. Export potential will be close to zero based on the price.

I think the J-20 bomber idea wont need a larger weapons bay. China could easily make a 500lb class ground attack weapon to fit where each air to air missile goes. So the aircraft could run 75% A2G and 25% A2A weapons for example, or 50/50 if required.

To maintain centre of gravity with a larger nose they can add fuel on the shoulders at the rear of the aircraft with a new upper skins to maintain VLO. The same main structure, wing, landing gear and engines can be shared with normal J-20.

Ozair · Tue Jan 22, 2019 4:12 am

RJMAZ wrote:
The french/german design will be hamstrung by having to land on small french carriers. It will never be able to have the range of the F-35 and will be lucky to have half of the range of PCA.

Agree, I think they will drop that requirement (without at the moment actually having any requirements…) once the Germans insist on the design not being hamstrung by it.

RJMAZ wrote:
I think the J-20 bomber idea wont need a larger weapons bay. China could easily make a 500lb class ground attack weapon to fit where each air to air missile goes. So the aircraft could run 75% A2G and 25% A2A weapons for example, or 50/50 if required.

I think a 2000 lb weapon is required for a deep strike mission including bunker bust. You won’t get the penetration required from a 500lb weapon and by the look of that bay it won’t be deep enough to handle that weapon size (for example a Mk84 has an 18in diameter while the Mk 82 only has 10 inch diameter). It also looks like they may struggle to fit three BVR AAMs in each bay. They could as you suggest also design some specific weapons for the aircraft and customise the size of a 2000lb weapon similar to a BLU-109 (14.6 inch diameter). The alternative is external carriage but that defeats the objective of the aircraft.

seahawk · Tue Jan 22, 2019 6:38 am

The German/French project will be to the F-35 just like the Eurofighter/Rafale are to the F-15. Slightly more advanced, much more expensive and 20 years late. In other words an utter failure.

RJMAZ · Tue Jan 22, 2019 9:00 am

Ozair wrote:
I think a 2000 lb weapon is required for a deep strike mission including bunker bust. You won’t get the penetration required from a 500lb weapon and by the look of that bay it won’t be deep enough to handle that weapon size (for example a Mk84 has an 18in diameter while the Mk 82 only has 10 inch diameter). It also looks like they may struggle to fit three BVR AAMs in each bay. They could as you suggest also design some specific weapons for the aircraft and customise the size of a 2000lb weapon similar to a BLU-109 (14.6 inch diameter). The alternative is external carriage but that defeats the objective of the aircraft.

You are looking at it from a USAF perspective. China won't be going to other countries and busting bunkers. What percentage of targets require a 2000lb weapon? I'd say less than 10%. Hand that role over to the bigger bomber.

The role of a J-20 bomber would be more likely to swarm carrier battle groups. Using speed to get past the F-35C's and saturate the carriers defenses.

The PL-21 missile is much bigger than the AMRAAM so the weapons bay of the J-20 is longer than the F-22. A custom built weapon designed around the PL-21 missile size would approach 1000lb.

China will need an anti-radiation missile for the J-20. I suspect they could put a multi mode seeker on it to also do anti-ship

To be honest we are well overdue for multirole missiles. An actice radar A2A missile requires a very similar seeker to an anti-radiation missile. An anti-ship missile could also use the the same seeker to detect and image the ship using SAR. It is a certainty the USAF will have a multi role missile in 10 years time.

keesje · Tue Jan 22, 2019 10:59 am

Ozair wrote:

keesje wrote:
I've been amazed since the appearance of the J20 that it was positioned as an interceptor. It's a huge machine with a huge fuselage able to carry a lot of fuel / internal weapons. A two man cockpit doesn't surprise me at all.

The J-20 doesn’t have an overly large internal weapons bay by comparison, it is just a big airframe. It appears to be very similar to the F-22 in both depth, door arrangement and layout.

Are we looking at the same aircraft? I think that requires a lot of fantasy / generalization..

Actually no they haven’t.

They definitely do. Alliances are created as we speak. They want credible defense in a changing world. We won't 5 separate programs, but likely a few. Those nations are looking where to find the lowest risk and most bang for the buck. The America First strategy of the current government is likely causing fall-out for LM / Boeing.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/analysis-tokyo-contemplates-its-future-fighter-pla-453253/
http://defense-studies.blogspot.com/2019/01/indonesia-resumes-payment-for-fighter.html
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-germany-france-military/germany-france-eye-first-contract-for-new-fighter-jet-in-early-2019-idUSKCN1NQ1ON

Ozair · Tue Jan 22, 2019 11:48 am

keesje wrote:
Ozair wrote:

keesje wrote:
I've been amazed since the appearance of the J20 that it was positioned as an interceptor. It's a huge machine with a huge fuselage able to carry a lot of fuel / internal weapons. A two man cockpit doesn't surprise me at all.

The J-20 doesn’t have an overly large internal weapons bay by comparison, it is just a big airframe. It appears to be very similar to the F-22 in both depth, door arrangement and layout.

Are we looking at the same aircraft? I think that requires a lot of fantasy / generalization..

Keesje, use a little common sense... The image I linked shows the weapons bay carrying two PL-12 missiles. here is another image in case you don't understand that.

The PL-12 is around 3.85m long and has a diameter of 8 inches potentially plus fins. Those are two PL-12 in each bomb bay. See how they take up most of the space... See how they only fit two in there... See how if they staggered the fit the same as the F-22 that they might be able to squeeze a third, maybe...

That is a pretty tight fit for length so we can tell the bay is likely not much longer than about 4 meters.

So Keesje, please tell me how the bay is going to fit a longer weapon such as a YJ-83 or similar land attack cruise missile. It likely is going to struggle, as the F-22 does, to carry a weapon larger than 1000lb. What will the J-20 use to attack targets deep behind enemy lines, like command bunkers and other fortified structures that require a penetrating warhead?

keesje wrote:
They definitely do. Alliances are created as we speak. They want credible defense in a changing world. We won't 5 separate programs, but likely a few. Those nations are looking where to find the lowest risk and most bang for the buck. The America First strategy of the current government is likely causing fall-out for LM / Boeing.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/analysis-tokyo-contemplates-its-future-fighter-pla-453253/
http://defense-studies.blogspot.com/2019/01/indonesia-resumes-payment-for-fighter.html
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-germany-france-military/germany-france-eye-first-contract-for-new-fighter-jet-in-early-2019-idUSKCN1NQ1ON

Did you actually read the links? They don't support your statement.

The first link makes it clear Japan is concerned about spending too much money and about whether they can develop the technology, how does that support they are looking to spend more?

The second link is exactly as I stated, South Korea is building a gen 4++ domestic aircraft (with Indonesia funding 20%). How does that support your statement? The aircraft will not be competitive on the international market when it finally arrives in 2030.

The third link clearly shows there is still disagreement on the way forward as well as the workshare between France and Germany. Funding a demonstrator is also a long way from an airframe that is a production representative aircraft including all its subsystems. This whole concept is likely going to be challenged shortly by a German recession that will probably drag the rest of Europe down with it with France being in no better economic shape.

As for America first, yeah sure LM and Boeing are struggling, I'm not sure how you define struggling though as their balance sheets and order books speak clearly the opposite. F-15s continue to sell and outsell its European comtempories, new F-16s continue to sell and LM is going to deliver 130+ F-35s next year, almost the entire run of the Rafale in one year, to a dozen countries.

But let's bring this back to a Chinese bomber. Clearly they have two in the works as per the US DoD. We know one is likely to be a large flying wing while the other is a mystery. It could be a J-20 modified or a whole new jet similar in concept to the first post of the thread. Either way, exciting to see what they are going to come up with and unviel over the next couple of years.

keesje · Tue Jan 22, 2019 12:38 pm

I don't understand all you specific remarks to J-20 weapon bays & missiles I never mentioned and apparently don't understand.. I just said it's a big aircraft with a lot of space for fuel and weapons :veryhappy:

China has been flight testing attack drones over the last 6 yrs, probably for doing the dirty work. It would explain the J-20 two man cockpit that is apparently under development. The typical "bomb truck" approach is maybe not where the J-20 is aimed for next decade.

https://www.businessinsider.com/chinas-newest-combat-drones-take-the-stage-at-the-countrys-largest-airshow-2018-11?international=true&r=US&IR=T#ch-7-1

Slug71 · Tue Jan 22, 2019 4:45 pm

Ozair wrote:
keesje wrote:
Ozair wrote:

The J-20 doesn’t have an overly large internal weapons bay by comparison, it is just a big airframe. It appears to be very similar to the F-22 in both depth, door arrangement and layout.

Are we looking at the same aircraft? I think that requires a lot of fantasy / generalization..

Keesje, use a little common sense... The image I linked shows the weapons bay carrying two PL-12 missiles. here is another image in case you don't understand that.

The PL-12 is around 3.85m long and has a diameter of 8 inches potentially plus fins. Those are two PL-12 in each bomb bay. See how they take up most of the space... See how they only fit two in there... See how if they staggered the fit the same as the F-22 that they might be able to squeeze a third, maybe...

That is a pretty tight fit for length so we can tell the bay is likely not much longer than about 4 meters.

So Keesje, please tell me how the bay is going to fit a longer weapon such as a YJ-83 or similar land attack cruise missile. It likely is going to struggle, as the F-22 does, to carry a weapon larger than 1000lb. What will the J-20 use to attack targets deep behind enemy lines, like command bunkers and other fortified structures that require a penetrating warhead?

I'm not sure if it's meant for external hard points or the weapons bay will be modified, but the J-20 is supposed to be a launch platform for the larger PL-21. Looks like the might be able lengthen the bays slightly. But not much.
I suppose theres also the possibility that the 2-seat variant might be a little larger overall than the single seat.
It seems like if the side internal bays were removed, some extra depth might be possible for the weapons bay too.

estorilm · Wed Jan 23, 2019 2:55 pm

Slug71 wrote:
Ozair wrote:
keesje wrote:

Are we looking at the same aircraft? I think that requires a lot of fantasy / generalization..

Keesje, use a little common sense... The image I linked shows the weapons bay carrying two PL-12 missiles. here is another image in case you don't understand that.

The PL-12 is around 3.85m long and has a diameter of 8 inches potentially plus fins. Those are two PL-12 in each bomb bay. See how they take up most of the space... See how they only fit two in there... See how if they staggered the fit the same as the F-22 that they might be able to squeeze a third, maybe...

That is a pretty tight fit for length so we can tell the bay is likely not much longer than about 4 meters.

So Keesje, please tell me how the bay is going to fit a longer weapon such as a YJ-83 or similar land attack cruise missile. It likely is going to struggle, as the F-22 does, to carry a weapon larger than 1000lb. What will the J-20 use to attack targets deep behind enemy lines, like command bunkers and other fortified structures that require a penetrating warhead?

I'm not sure if it's meant for external hard points or the weapons bay will be modified, but the J-20 is supposed to be a launch platform for the larger PL-21. Looks like the might be able lengthen the bays slightly. But not much.
I suppose theres also the possibility that the 2-seat variant might be a little larger overall than the single seat.
It seems like if the side internal bays were removed, some extra depth might be possible for the weapons bay too.

For such a huge plane, the space-management of the overall design doesn't exactly seem ideal. I guess overall size isn't too different than the F-22, but it is about 5' longer overall. I wonder if it will be capable of a similar loadout to the Raptor's A2G, 2x AIM-9, 2x AIM-120, 2x 1000lb'ers.

On a side note, has anyone actually seen any launch from those "hinged" side launchers? Doesn't seem ideal.. I'm sure it has to sit there for a second and verify everything is closed/locked before it fires. Oh man, if you have a mechanism fail now you're stuck with a big unstealthy missile on the side of your plane lol.

Slug71 · Wed Jan 23, 2019 3:43 pm

estorilm wrote:
Slug71 wrote:
Ozair wrote:

Keesje, use a little common sense... The image I linked shows the weapons bay carrying two PL-12 missiles. here is another image in case you don't understand that.

The PL-12 is around 3.85m long and has a diameter of 8 inches potentially plus fins. Those are two PL-12 in each bomb bay. See how they take up most of the space... See how they only fit two in there... See how if they staggered the fit the same as the F-22 that they might be able to squeeze a third, maybe...

That is a pretty tight fit for length so we can tell the bay is likely not much longer than about 4 meters.

So Keesje, please tell me how the bay is going to fit a longer weapon such as a YJ-83 or similar land attack cruise missile. It likely is going to struggle, as the F-22 does, to carry a weapon larger than 1000lb. What will the J-20 use to attack targets deep behind enemy lines, like command bunkers and other fortified structures that require a penetrating warhead?

I'm not sure if it's meant for external hard points or the weapons bay will be modified, but the J-20 is supposed to be a launch platform for the larger PL-21. Looks like the might be able lengthen the bays slightly. But not much.
I suppose theres also the possibility that the 2-seat variant might be a little larger overall than the single seat.
It seems like if the side internal bays were removed, some extra depth might be possible for the weapons bay too.

For such a huge plane, the space-management of the overall design doesn't exactly seem ideal. I guess overall size isn't too different than the F-22, but it is about 5' longer overall. I wonder if it will be capable of a similar loadout to the Raptor's A2G, 2x AIM-9, 2x AIM-120, 2x 1000lb'ers.

On a side note, has anyone actually seen any launch from those "hinged" side launchers? Doesn't seem ideal.. I'm sure it has to sit there for a second and verify everything is closed/locked before it fires. Oh man, if you have a mechanism fail now you're stuck with a big unstealthy missile on the side of your plane lol.

Definitely seems like the space management is less than ideal.

Here's a good article explaining the bays

https://theaviationist.com/2013/03/26/j20-rails/

In this clip around the 25sec mark you can get a decent glimpse of the bay doors in operation.

https://youtu.be/-TfJmDbfTfY

estorilm · Thu Jan 24, 2019 3:20 pm

Slug71 wrote:
estorilm wrote:
Slug71 wrote:

I'm not sure if it's meant for external hard points or the weapons bay will be modified, but the J-20 is supposed to be a launch platform for the larger PL-21. Looks like the might be able lengthen the bays slightly. But not much.
I suppose theres also the possibility that the 2-seat variant might be a little larger overall than the single seat.
It seems like if the side internal bays were removed, some extra depth might be possible for the weapons bay too.

For such a huge plane, the space-management of the overall design doesn't exactly seem ideal. I guess overall size isn't too different than the F-22, but it is about 5' longer overall. I wonder if it will be capable of a similar loadout to the Raptor's A2G, 2x AIM-9, 2x AIM-120, 2x 1000lb'ers.

On a side note, has anyone actually seen any launch from those "hinged" side launchers? Doesn't seem ideal.. I'm sure it has to sit there for a second and verify everything is closed/locked before it fires. Oh man, if you have a mechanism fail now you're stuck with a big unstealthy missile on the side of your plane lol.

Definitely seems like the space management is less than ideal.

Here's a good article explaining the bays

https://theaviationist.com/2013/03/26/j20-rails/

In this clip around the 25sec mark you can get a decent glimpse of the bay doors in operation.

https://youtu.be/-TfJmDbfTfY

Good stuff, thanks for the links!

I can't really help but laugh though - I don't see it as an improvement on US design, in fact I think the Chinese didn't have a choice based on available space and development of a trapeze system.

The bottom line is that opening the doors twice exposes the J-20 AT LEAST as long as a sidewinder launch on an F-22 IMHO. I'd understand the issue if the trapeze was slow, but it's LIGHTNING (no pun intended, har har.. since the F-35 uses it too) FAST.

Does it really matter if the door is open? Presumably - the entire duration of the doors being closed "as an advantage" would also have a big missile sitting there. If the missile isn't there, then the doors are shut just like the F-22/F-35. Z

Personally I think developing a pneumatic trapeze launcher was far more complicated and required a little more space for the pivot arms. I'll give the Chinese credit for an elegant engineering solution though.

The main bomb bays are an entirely different issue - as I said in some of the other threads, I was lucky enough to crawl around inside one of the F-22's bays last year, and it looked like you could fit a car in it. I just can't imagine the J-20's is nearly as large or as deep based on the images available.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net