What's new

China's New Stealth Bomber: H-X / H-20

We should delete this H-X/H-20 stealth bomb thread, coz ppl just post fake news & fake pics here ... but i had proved the photo not PSed.

The Image is fake. If you zoom in to maximize resolution, you will see the "H-20" have a white layer surrounding the bomber, indicate the background pixel of the bomber does not match the background pixel of all the rest. Which indicate the subject within the white layer was key into the picture from another picture and another background. Normally, only leading edge that reflex the light will give out a white glow, not the whole thing because sun shrine on one direction, and that would shadow the item.

Enlargement of the H-20 Photo (You can see the white layer on all the leading edge of the bomber (especially behind the bomber), even tho the aft of the bomber should not have reflective edge because sunlight was blocked by the parts that facing the sun.

H-20 Enlarge.png


Look at a Clear Enlarged B-2 Image flying with a B-52 (Look how the image got darker at the back of the bomber?) That's because that is the shadow of the B-2 trailing the sun. You can clearly see the sun position in respect to the bomber at the time the photo is taken, it was on 1-3 o'clock position of the bomber.

B2 Enlarge.png


For definite prove (100% prove) you can put the image into a pixel comparison program and you will get a definite answer, but judging from the visual cue, I would say the image is 80% to 90% fake, because of the light and the contrast of the object.
 
.
Exactly there is no sense making this aircraft when you have ICMBs. In real effect even the USAF still uses the b52 and b1, which are quite capable of doing the job.

This is just to project thier so called peaceful rise :lol:

Strategic Bomber only ever make sense if 2 conditions are set.

1.) You have enemy you want to bomb but you cannot touch them with your conventional fighter/fighter-bomber.
2.) You have an established system to provide support and escort to these bomber, which mean overseas airbases, mid-air refueller and long range fighter escort and so on)

For number 1. All the potential enemy of China is right next to China, India, Vietnam, Japan, Guam, they are all within reach for Conventional Bomber. If the Chinese is making these bomber to try and bomb US, which would mean Thermonuclear War. And unless China decided to bomb England, France or Middle Eastern Country for whatever reason, these bomber is not going to be used for anything.

For number 2. Strategic Bomber require many forward deployed asset, in the US military, Strategic Bomber (apart from B-2) are seldom place and launch their sorties from CONUS. B-52 is permanently based in Guam, B-1 is based in England, Hawai'i and Japan. That's because it's not economical even if it is doable to launch sorties from CONUS (But to clear out, they do launch sortie from CONUS) China does not own any overseas bases, which mean every sorties the Chinese launch using these bomber would have to launch from Chinese mainland itself, that would require a lot of refueller to refuel the bomber in and out of the mission, also, you will need to refuel the escort all the way from China and back, unless the bomber go solo, which is very much a target unless China is certain overall air superiority can be achieve over objective area, mind you, you still need to forward deploy your fighter to do that. Which mean you can't achieve Total Air dominance because every fighter you launch to gain air superiority, you launch them in China. It's like US sending B-2 or B-1 bomber and Bomb China without escort fighter flying from Guam, Japan or so on. I would have image the B2 or B-1 would have been cut to ribbon unless US can gain Air Superiority over China.

Which left one possible solution remain as to why China want these bomber. They are using it as nuclear deterrent platform, the problem is, again, without fighter escort, these bomber would not do much and would be intercepted quite easily and also for that matter, it would be more perferrable to use sub-launch tactical missile instead of air-launch tactical missile to begin with, so it's kind of pointless as to why China is making these, beside telling the world, I can make them, but they are not fully supported, hence of no use on any given war the Chinese may or may not fight.
 
.
Strategic Bomber only ever make sense if 2 conditions are set.

1.) You have enemy you want to bomb but you cannot touch them with your conventional fighter/fighter-bomber.
2.) You have an established system to provide support and escort to these bomber, which mean overseas airbases, mid-air refueller and long range fighter escort and so on)

For number 1. All the potential enemy of China is right next to China, India, Vietnam, Japan, Guam, they are all within reach for Conventional Bomber. If the Chinese is making these bomber to try and bomb US, which would mean Thermonuclear War. And unless China decided to bomb England, France or Middle Eastern Country for whatever reason, these bomber is not going to be used for anything.

For number 2. Strategic Bomber require many forward deployed asset, in the US military, Strategic Bomber (apart from B-2) are seldom place and launch their sorties from CONUS. B-52 is permanently based in Guam, B-1 is based in England, Hawai'i and Japan. That's because it's not economical even if it is doable to launch sorties from CONUS (But to clear out, they do launch sortie from CONUS) China does not own any overseas bases, which mean every sorties the Chinese launch using these bomber would have to launch from Chinese mainland itself, that would require a lot of refueller to refuel the bomber in and out of the mission, also, you will need to refuel the escort all the way from China and back, unless the bomber go solo, which is very much a target unless China is certain overall air superiority can be achieve over objective area, mind you, you still need to forward deploy your fighter to do that. Which mean you can't achieve Total Air dominance because every fighter you launch to gain air superiority, you launch them in China. It's like US sending B-2 or B-1 bomber and Bomb China without escort fighter flying from Guam, Japan or so on. I would have image the B2 or B-1 would have been cut to ribbon unless US can gain Air Superiority over China.

Which left one possible solution remain as to why China want these bomber. They are using it as nuclear deterrent platform, the problem is, again, without fighter escort, these bomber would not do much and would be intercepted quite easily and also for that matter, it would be more perferrable to use sub-launch tactical missile instead of air-launch tactical missile to begin with, so it's kind of pointless as to why China is making these, beside telling the world, I can make them, but they are not fully supported, hence of no use on any given war the Chinese may or may not fight.

Precisely the exercise is futile and would deplete so much resources, it would also expose their asset's to being targeted over a Vast distance... as i said earlier this is just to project power and nothing more.
 
.
Could it be this one ??? Shown as the UAV Star Glory during Zhuhai 2016.

UAV Star Glory ... unknown Zhuhai 2016.jpg


PS: ... and also the dimensions would fit !

UAV Star Glory ... unknown Zhuhai 2016 data.jpg
 
. .
This is a drone, Payload at 400 kg, unlikely to be any type of strategic bomber.

Plus It's actually smaller than X-47B.

Yes, as such it is indeed in the wrong thread but it was not me who suggest it as the H-20.
IMO it was clear from the beginning that it is either a subscale RSC-mode or a drone ... only.
 
.
A PS to that post from 7th August concerning that unique RSC-model or UAV/UCAV spotted at the "National Target Signature Research and Experimental Center" at Gaobeidian.

Allegedly a higher resolution image was posted at Twitter today, however I'm not sure if the image has not been manipulated? The edges of the wings look IMO a bit strange in comparison to the first image.

strange UAV + J-20 at National Target Signature Research and Experimental Center - 4.jpg
 
. . . .
But surely this thing at that RCS-teststand is never the real deal. It's simply much too small for a long-range bomber.
 
. . . .
but these are fan-made CG', that are floating thru the net since years !!

IMO not very reliable.
 
.

Latest posts

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom