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

[Akasa]

wow, who resurrected a 3 years old thread. I don't actually remember what I said.

H-X is a stragetic bomber, its sole purpose is to reach out to the enemy you cannot touch with conventional way, Payload is not important to Strategic bomber, it was heavily armed to compensate long flight time, long flight time equal to less sortie.

China do not have enemy that stretch across the an ocean, the furthest one is Japan, which China can touch its asset with tradition Tactical bomber like Q-5 for JH-7, with the induction of other Multirole platform, such as J-10, J-15 and Su-30, basically they could have cover most tactical and strategic target. in their potential enemy such as Taiwan and Japan. They don't need a strategic bomber. Which will draw resource to escort and flying CAP and Ironhand mission where they don't need.

A strategic bomber confers more loitering time & geographic flexibility for any given mission, even if one isn't needed to reach the opponent's territory. You are assuming that in the case of a regional conflict, the PLAAF/PLAN would have unhindered access to airfields & tanks across the theater of operations, which is quite unrealistic and hence necessitates the need for a long-range strike aircraft that is survivable against the gamut of Japanese/Taiwanese air defense networks. Having a VLO bomber also alleviates the need for constant SEAD/CAP missions to increase its survivability.

 

[jhungary]

A strategic bomber confers more loitering time & geographic flexibility for any given mission, even if one isn't needed to reach the opponent's territory. You are assuming that in the case of a regional conflict, the PLAAF/PLAN would have unhindered access to airfields & tanks across the theater of operations, which is quite unrealistic and hence necessitates the need for a long-range strike aircraft that is survivable against the gamut of Japanese/Taiwanese air defense networks. Having a VLO bomber also alleviates the need for constant SEAD/CAP missions to increase its survivability.

The problem is, what you are assuming is that China can achieve at least Local Air Superiority (Even tho to use strategic bomber in any sort of sortie, you probably will need Air Domimance) for the strategic bomber to make sense. However, in reality, China can probably provide a local air superiority for these Strategic Bomber to operate, but that would have taken a lot of coastal asset for that to happen, and we are only talking about Chinese Coastal enemies, such as Taiwan and Japan. If we are talking about Target that would have an ocean across (Such as Guam, Hawaii or Indonesia), these bomber would be useless becasue there are no fighter escort and the PLAAF cannot contest Air Superiority once it out of PLAAF operational range.

For China, the best way to deal with Taiwan and Japan is to launch Tactical Sorties to first neutralize Taiwanese and Japanese Air Power, much like the Israeli did during 6 days war, then using its full strength of its Air Force to provide complete CAS role to the ground force or naval force. Getting a few bomber here and there will not change the strategic picture of presumed war in Japan and Taiwan. Firstly, Japan and Taiwan are too close for China to have missile to deal with Strategic Target, second, it won't mademuch of a different unless you start bombing Population Center. There aren't too many Strategic Target in those country to begin with.

So, basically, to support this argument, you are saying China need these bomber to go after close target, which close enough to be able to touch with Cruise Missile fire from both PLAN and PLAAF and Ballistic missile by the second arty corps, and only to be use within the range of PLAAF operational range, which is first Island chain. That's not logical if you ask me.

 

[Akasa]

The problem is, what you are assuming is that China can achieve at least Local Air Superiority (Even tho to use strategic bomber in any sort of sortie, you probably will need Air Domimance) for the strategic bomber to make sense. However, in reality, China can probably provide a local air superiority for these Strategic Bomber to operate, but that would have taken a lot of coastal asset for that to happen, and we are only talking about Chinese Coastal enemies, such as Taiwan and Japan. If we are talking about Target that would have an ocean across (Such as Guam, Hawaii or Indonesia), these bomber would be useless becasue there are no fighter escort and the PLAAF cannot contest Air Superiority once it out of PLAAF operational range.

For China, the best way to deal with Taiwan and Japan is to launch Tactical Sorties to first neutralize Taiwanese and Japanese Air Power, much like the Israeli did during 6 days war, then using its full strength of its Air Force to provide complete CAS role to the ground force or naval force. Getting a few bomber here and there will not change the strategic picture of presumed war in Japan and Taiwan. Firstly, Japan and Taiwan are too close for China to have missile to deal with Strategic Target, second, it won't mademuch of a different unless you start bombing Population Center. There aren't too many Strategic Target in those country to begin with.

So, basically, to support this argument, you are saying China need these bomber to go after close target, which close enough to be able to touch with Cruise Missile fire from both PLAN and PLAAF and Ballistic missile by the second arty corps, and only to be use within the range of PLAAF operational range, which is first Island chain. That's not logical if you ask me.

The general doctrine around the B-2 and similar future bombers is that they are more survivable as an independent unit than their fighter counterparts (and I would argue cruise missiles as well). With a single B-2 you do not need additional fighter escort or ground-based SAM coverage, which frees up those assets to conduct other important operations. This means that stealth bomber aircraft would be useful in striking very-high-value targets (think of what the F-117s did during the Gulf War) without forcing the military to commit a much larger fighter/bomber contingent.

Therefore, I'm not discounting the importance of conventional fighter & attack aircraft or ballistic/cruise missiles in the eventuality of a Taiwan/Japan conflict but highlighting the significant tactical flexibility and "punch" a bomber like the B-2 brings to a conflagration. If a country has a weapon that allows for strikes deep into enemy territory, that itself has the potential to become a game changer.

 

[jhungary]

The general doctrine around the B-2 and similar future bombers is that they are more survivable as an independent unit than their fighter counterparts (and I would argue cruise missiles as well). With a single B-2 you do not need additional fighter escort or ground-based SAM coverage, which frees up those assets to conduct other important operations. This means that stealth bomber aircraft would be useful in striking very-high-value targets (think of what the F-117s did during the Gulf War) without forcing the military to commit a much larger fighter/bomber contingent.

Therefore, I'm not discounting the importance of conventional fighter & attack aircraft or ballistic/cruise missiles in the eventuality of a Taiwan/Japan conflict but highlighting the significant tactical flexibility and "punch" a bomber like the B-2 brings to a conflagration. If a country has a weapon that allows for strikes deep into enemy territory, that itself has the potential to become a game changer.

The problem is, B-2 is not even being used by the US at that level. That's why we only have 22 B-2 to begin with, not because they are hyperexpensive, but simply we do not believe it worth that much to be able to make it a game changer.

The problem with this is, for China, this is going to multiple if China start fielding these type of bomber, because 1.) PLAAF is a smaller and weaker organisation than USAF. 2.) China does not have a distant Enemy that warrant such a strike.

What you are saying is correct, anything that can potentially deep strike an enemy could be a game changer, but for China, EVERYTHING they have can potentially deep strike an enemy, because their enemy is close, not like Russia to US during Cold War. You can use anything in PLAAF, PLAN and Second Artillery Corp to target and cover the whole Islands of Japan and Taiwan. Adding B-2 like bomber will not make much of an impact to enemy like this. Simply because anything, from J-10 firing cruise missile to Su-30 or J-31 can reach and perform these kind of strike. Why not focus on resource on those rather than make B-2 like bomber? And you know what? The time when China starting to field these bomber in reasonable number. There are most definitely already have a way to defeat stealth, that is the exact reason why US does not bother to make anymore than 23 B-2.

Yes, think of F-117, why not do something along the line of F-117, that I will understand, but a B-2 type? It would simply a waste of money to do that. B-2 never gave any tactical punch to the USAF, it was always (as far as I was in the Armed Force) a combination of A-10, F-15E and F-16, B-2 never contribute to this on the scale of Warhogs Strike Eagle and the Falcon.

Maybe @gambit can shred more light on how B-2 bring Tactical Edge on battlefield? Beucase as far as I saw it on the ground, it didn't.

 

[Akasa]

The problem is, B-2 is not even being used by the US at that level. That's why we only have 22 B-2 to begin with, not because they are hyperexpensive, but simply we do not believe it worth that much to be able to make it a game changer.

The problem with this is, for China, this is going to multiple if China start fielding these type of bomber, because 1.) PLAAF is a smaller and weaker organisation than USAF. 2.) China does not have a distant Enemy that warrant such a strike.

What you are saying is correct, anything that can potentially deep strike an enemy could be a game changer, but for China, EVERYTHING they have can potentially deep strike an enemy, because their enemy is close, not like Russia to US during Cold War. You can use anything in PLAAF, PLAN and Second Artillery Corp to target and cover the whole Islands of Japan and Taiwan. Adding B-2 like bomber will not make much of an impact to enemy like this. Simply because anything, from J-10 firing cruise missile to Su-30 or J-31 can reach and perform these kind of strike. Why not focus on resource on those rather than make B-2 like bomber? And you know what? The time when China starting to field these bomber in reasonable number. There are most definitely already have a way to defeat stealth, that is the exact reason why US does not bother to make anymore than 23 B-2.

Yes, think of F-117, why not do something along the line of F-117, that I will understand, but a B-2 type? It would simply a waste of money to do that.

Well, frankly the B-2 hasn't been used in a large-scale high-intensity conflict (besides a few pot shots in Libya & similar countries) so we don't know how exactly the USAF envisions its role, but we can use the F-117 during the Gulf War as a case study. The Nighthawk was assigned to attack & decimate Iraqi command & control installations, R&D facilities, and key infrastructure that the US thought was related to Iraq's alleged WMD program. These targets were much more heavily-defended than other targets and would've required significant quantities of military personnel & materiel to deal with. Nevertheless, the advent of the F-117 meant that these targets no longer required the aforementioned commitment to be destroyed, and hence saving the USAF a lot of financial resources, time, and equipment. In fact, the F-117 destroyed more than 31% of all neutralized Iraqi targets during the Gulf War despite accounting for only 2.5 percent of all coalition combat aircraft. I'd imagine that the gap would be even greater with highly-sophisticated aircraft like the B-2.

Did the United States also use conventional equipment like F-15Es, cruise missiles, & CAS aircraft? Absolutely. And I'd expect any modern nation to do so in a regional conflict. But an asset like the B-2, a force multiplier in more ways than one, would be an enormous godsend for any military, especially one that is numerically inferior to a hypothetical opponent (back to your PLAAF vs USAF comparison). In operation, utilizing a force multiplier is essentially equivalent to having built 100+ (arbitrary number) additional 4th generation fighter/attack aircraft but with far fewer personnel being put in harm's way.

Finally, it should be mentioned that the US is developing the B-21 to replace the B-2, thus demonstrating that the brass has not taken long-range stealth bombers off the table with respect to present and near-future USAF doctrine.

 

[jhungary]

Well, frankly the B-2 hasn't been used in a large-scale high-intensity conflict (besides a few pot shots in Libya & similar countries) so we don't know how exactly the USAF envisions its role, but we can use the F-117 during the Gulf War as a case study. The Nighthawk was assigned to attack & decimate Iraqi command & control installations, R&D facilities, and key infrastructure that the US thought was related to Iraq's alleged WMD program. These targets were much more heavily-defended than other targets and would've required significant quantities of military personnel & materiel to deal with. Nevertheless, the advent of the F-117 meant that these targets no longer required the aforementioned commitment to be destroyed, and hence saving the USAF a lot of financial resources, time, and equipment. In fact, the F-117 destroyed more than 31% of all neutralized Iraqi targets during the Gulf War despite accounting for only 2.5 percent of all coalition combat aircraft. I'd imagine that the gap would be even greater with highly-sophisticated aircraft like the B-2.

Did the United States also use conventional equipment like F-15Es, cruise missiles, & CAS aircraft? Absolutely. And I'd expect any modern nation to do so in a regional conflict. But an asset like the B-2, a force multiplier in more ways than one, would be an enormous godsend for any military, especially one that is numerically inferior to a hypothetical opponent (back to your PLAAF vs USAF comparison). In operation, utilizing a force multiplier is essentially equivalent to having built 100+ (arbitrary number) additional 4th generation fighter/attack aircraft but with far fewer personnel being put in harm's way.

Finally, it should be mentioned that the US is developing the B-21 to replace the B-2, thus demonstrating that the brass has not taken long-range stealth bombers off the table with respect to present and near-future USAF doctrine.

First of all, you do know F-117 and B-2 have different role in war, right?

Again, I do understand the need for China to develope a F-117ish tactical stealth bomber, be that the coming FC-31 or a new concept. That's fine. The problem is that B-2 does not do what F-117 do in Desert Storm, the original envision by the USAF for B-2 is to drop nuclear weapon in stealth over Russia, to complete the 3 cycles (air, sub-subsurface, ICBM) of delievery (I forgot the name of the cycle) What B-2 do now is more or less what B-52 do during Vietnam War. Plus the ability to drop Bunker Buster Bomb.

For China, the need of B-2 type to run as a bomb truck is quite low, because, as I said, you don't need that kind of concentration of firepower in one area you need, that's the reason why there are only a few sorties of either B-52 or B-2 was ever called in Iraqi and Enduring Freedom.

For High Priority Target, (or Tier 1 target) in war, those were taken out by the Tactical bomber or tactical sorties. Which at this moment, as I type, were to be taken care by A-10, F-15E and basically any aircraft that can come in and drop a JDAM.

For China, the need of strategic bombing is not needed because all of their potential target is nearby. The need of tier 1 targetting can be done by future stealth fighter, the need of a Strategic Bomber can only be used in a low intensity conflict, which usually China outnumber their enemy.

So the only way that make sense for this Bomber is to try and bomb the United States mainland (as the only country that miltarily stronger than China) But doing that will undoubtly trigger WW3. So...That would not be anything but a white elephent for China.

For US, they need strategic bomber, one reason is, they can support them in forward deployment, they have an extensive refueling system, forward deploy base. And most importantly, they have global engagement that needed thsoe bomber because they may not have a forward support base on the next war they are fighting, the last attempt of the strategic bomber used in a strategic role is Operation Black Bucks (1-7), which the RAF uses the vulcan bomber from Acension island to bomb target in Falklands. And even that sorties are stretching the length and sserve nothing but a demostration to the RAF. For China, continue down this road would mean nothing more than a hanger queen and waste of money.

 

[IblinI]

Maybe after 2030 .It will be conducting its first flight

You will definitely seeing it in the next two years.

 

[cirr]

After putting into use of the digital prototyping design platform. preparations have also been completed for the implementaion of the digital prototyping quality control platform（for a certain type of aricraft).

中国航空报讯：经过春节前后一个多月的连续奋战，中航工业一飞院信息化“鹰”团队终于完成了某型号数字样机质量控制平台上线准备工作。数字样机质量控制平台的开发，是一飞院在飞机数字化设计方面取得的新突破。

技术创新的背后是持续不断的探索。早在“十二五”期间，一飞院就通过对国际先进数字样机体系的跟踪研究，将数字样机审查体系建设列入专业建设重点项目，并持续开展了两年多的技术研究，详细调研了各个专业的样机审查需求，结合数字样机仿真技术，完成了整个数字样机质量控制体系的策划和验证平台构建。

2016年底，在完成基础研究并进行了专业间项目合作、典型部段验证、培养先锋用户等宣贯推广工作后，一飞院在某型号样机协调会上决定，将该项技术创新成果在型号研制中推广应用，并紧急成立了项目攻关团队——“鹰”团队，要求该团队迅速建立型号数字样机质量控制平台，实现科研成果向型号应用的转化。

为此，“鹰”团队开启了“超级加班”模式，他们的2017年元旦假期几乎都是在办公室度过的。元旦之后的半个多月，团队成员每天晚上加班至深夜。经过团队成员的奋力冲刺，终于完成了平台上线前的各项工作。春节后一上班，样机审查与质量控制实施方案就在总师系统的型号讨论会上获得通过。至此，型号工程应用平台上线准备工作全部就绪。

即将上线的数字样机质量控制平台，将与一飞院数字样机设计平台共同构筑起完整的数字样机“双V”研发体系。它是数字化条件下实物质量控制与预测设计的必备手段，是质量控制程序全面落实到具体设计活动的重要保证，也是一飞院在全三维数字样机设计平台基础上取得的新的技术突破。数字样机质量控制体系的应用，将使得一飞院型号研制质量管控实现大的跨越和提升。

 

[randomradio]

wow, who resurrected a 3 years old thread. I don't actually remember what I said.

H-X is a stragetic bomber, its sole purpose is to reach out to the enemy you cannot touch with conventional way, Payload is not important to Strategic bomber, it was heavily armed to compensate long flight time, long flight time equal to less sortie.

China do not have enemy that stretch across the an ocean, the furthest one is Japan, which China can touch its asset with tradition Tactical bomber like Q-5 for JH-7, with the induction of other Multirole platform, such as J-10, J-15 and Su-30, basically they could have cover most tactical and strategic target. in their potential enemy such as Taiwan and Japan. They don't need a strategic bomber. Which will draw resource to escort and flying CAP and Ironhand mission where they don't need.

Sorry, I never noticed.

Anyway, a bomber provides the ability to have multiple approach vectors, so a bomber taking off from West China can fly over to Turkmenistan or Iran and fire off missiles towards Delhi.

Similarly, a bomber from Hainan can fly over South East Asia and hit Peninsular India, which is shielded from direct attacks from North or NE India because of the integrated air defence.

So it will force countries to spend more money on covering all its flank and dispersing resources to other areas.

Bombers also put naval fleets in danger. An Indian fleet that's to the north of Australia heading towards the Pacific is within range. It will force the navy to circle around Australia instead.

 

[jhungary]

Sorry, I never noticed.

Anyway, a bomber provides the ability to have multiple approach vectors, so a bomber taking off from West China can fly over to Turkmenistan or Iran and fire off missiles towards Delhi.

Similarly, a bomber from Hainan can fly over South East Asia and hit Peninsular India, which is shielded from direct attacks from North or NE India because of the integrated air defence.

So it will force countries to spend more money on covering all its flank and dispersing resources to other areas.

Bombers also put naval fleets in danger. An Indian fleet that's to the north of Australia heading towards the Pacific is within range. It will force the navy to circle around Australia instead.

Well, you are assuming on 2 things.

1.) The enemy do not know where you are at all times.
2.) The vectors are multi-approachable.

The first one is quite self explained. Basically, if the enemy know where you are at all times, it sort of defeat the purpose why you are going the other direction.

The second one is about how you approach a target. I have called several airstrike on target and have learn some of the basic JTAC stuff when I was doing Pathfinder School as part of my Airborne Training. What you said not quite matter in war.

The first thing is, there are something called Loitering area, or Staging Point, where your asset amassed. Where you come from and how you vector in your bomber is not a primary concern, but rather if i don't have asset on my staging point, I cannot call any airstrike.

The second thing is, you most likely only have one way to go at a target, unless you are thinking of a One way trip. What you are thinking is what will happen before the bomber go into and attack a target, what happen to afterward? After your strike, you will most likely been detected (unless your ADS crew is really that dumb) and to egress, you will need a pre-planned route. Which either the ADS on that route is light or the ADS has been supressed in that area. And since you need a specific door to get out of the target area, that mean there are only a certain angle you can come in.

Also, not to mention the multiple vectors thing can be done with Tactical Bomber with decent internal fuel bay and/or mid-air refueling, you won't need large bomber to go with a multi-vector strike.

 

[Deino]

You will definitely seeing it in the next two years.

What makes You so sure of it ??

If You compare the H-20's development with the Y-20 - which surely is less complex - then there are reports about:

- 2010 early: full-scale mock-up completed
- 2012 early: rumours that the #01 prototype under construction
- 2013: three prototypes (#01 - #03) finished with the #02 being the static test airframe.
- 2012 late: first low speed taxiing
- 2013 early: first flight

This would correspond to close 3 years from design finalisation to first sight aka taxi test. Even if we don't know how far the H-20's design is completed, but if they are indeed as noted by others like @cirr, they are probably at the stage of detailed design and 3D digital mock-up "construction"; not sure if it can be translated into "full-scale mock-up completed" !??

Anyway it does not sound as if the design has been completed and construction of a prototype begins soon, but even if it would still mean about three years from now on or about 2020.

So to assume to see that bird within two years is IMO a bit far fetched or over-optimistic.
But I would be glad if I'm wrong.

Deino

 

[randomradio]

Well, you are assuming on 2 things.

1.) The enemy do not know where you are at all times.
2.) The vectors are multi-approachable.

The first one is quite self explained. Basically, if the enemy know where you are at all times, it sort of defeat the purpose why you are going the other direction.

The second one is about how you approach a target. I have called several airstrike on target and have learn some of the basic JTAC stuff when I was doing Pathfinder School as part of my Airborne Training. What you said not quite matter in war.

The first thing is, there are something called Loitering area, or Staging Point, where your asset amassed. Where you come from and how you vector in your bomber is not a primary concern, but rather if i don't have asset on my staging point, I cannot call any airstrike.

You don't need an asset at a staging point if you are using satellites to hit fixed targets.

The second thing is, you most likely only have one way to go at a target, unless you are thinking of a One way trip. What you are thinking is what will happen before the bomber go into and attack a target, what happen to afterward? After your strike, you will most likely been detected (unless your ADS crew is really that dumb) and to egress, you will need a pre-planned route. Which either the ADS on that route is light or the ADS has been supressed in that area. And since you need a specific door to get out of the target area, that mean there are only a certain angle you can come in.

The bomber has plenty of time to leave. We are not talking about dropping LGBs, we are talking about long range cruise missiles. Both Turkmenistan and SE Asia are far from any kind of interference from fighters. The bomber would have long left the area after having fired its missiles.

It allows China to bypass our most sophisticated defences.

Also, not to mention the multiple vectors thing can be done with Tactical Bomber with decent internal fuel bay and/or mid-air refueling, you won't need large bomber to go with a multi-vector strike.

You can't. The airspace is big. Urumqi to Turkmenistan is 2500Km, a return trip makes it 5000Km. Then you need fuel for on station, emergency, reserve etc. As mentioned earlier, a bomber is about payload as well, it should be able to fire off multiple 1000+Km cruise missiles into India.

And the very fact that the bomber is stealth allows it to fly over other countries without being intercepted anyway. A regular tactical fighter carrying all sorts of external loads cannot.

Let's not forget that its primary use is still a nuclear bomber, like the B-2.

 

[jhungary]

You don't need an asset at a staging point if you are using satellites to hit fixed targets.

You do need a staging point to "Stack" your asset, in JTAC and CCT term, you will need your target to hit quickly and smoothly, and you will need to direct your asset on target.

Traditionally, you stack with your quickest TTL asset on the lower level (below 5000 fts) and you want your higher TTL asset on higher level. If you don'thave a staging point, you would need to call your Airstrike from your base, unless your base is quit near, you will have to wait. Normally, any terminal controller will tell you to group the asset inside a staging point.

The bomber has plenty of time to leave. We are not talking about dropping LGBs, we are talking about long range cruise missiles. Both Turkmenistan and SE Asia are far from any kind of interference from fighters. The bomber would have long left the area after having fired its missiles.

It allows China to bypass our most sophisticated defences.

A.) You don't get to choose what you want to drop. You will need to thinkof both Cruise Missile and Bombs, it's quite stupid to make a bomber just for you to drop Cruise Missile.

B.) If you are talking about Cruise Missile, then where you vector your bomber is not important, as once they are dropped, you cannot stop it from penetrating the target airspace.

C.) You don't need a strategic bomber to drop cruise missile, you can do it with any tactical bomber.

You won't be able to bypass sophisticated ADS, if this is sophisticated, which usually mean they are distributed, then where you vector your bomber in is a moot point, as you still face the same ADS. It's not like I am driving a tanks, where I can go around and hit the enemy tank on the side, you are talking about Missile Defence, which have a 360 defence circle.

You can't. The airspace is big. Urumqi to Turkmenistan is 2500Km, a return trip makes it 5000Km. Then you need fuel for on station, emergency, reserve etc. As mentioned earlier, a bomber is about payload as well, it should be able to fire off multiple 1000+Km cruise missiles into India.

And the very fact that the bomber is stealth allows it to fly over other countries without being intercepted anyway. A regular tactical fighter carrying all sorts of external loads cannot.

Let's not forget that its primary use is still a nuclear bomber, like the B-2.

umm, no...what you said is only correct if you only have 1 Airbase service the 5000km borders, even with smaller airspace you still have room to manuver, and if the airspace is big, you can always re-route and re-vector in any sort of tactical fighter to an area. With or Without refuelling.

I don't understand what's with this Missile BS you guys seems to be hyping about. First of all, you cannot drop a 1000+ km range Cruise Missile from a stealth bomber, the reason they are stealth is because they are using internal bomb bay. When you start hanging these big 1000+ range cruise missile on the wingtip Which will defeat the purpose of Stealth Bomber (B-2 cannot load up with Cruise Missile in the internal bomb bay). Even if the Chinese bomber can load up with long range cruise missile, that won't be in any significant number anyway. And then you will need to ask yourselves, Would that be wise to risk a multi-millions bomber to deliever just a few missile? Or rather you can do it with a few cheaper tactical fighters?

And if you are talking about Nuclear Weapon, China have no first use policy, they won't need a stealth bomber as a deliever platform, also, even if they do, it won't quite matter as that will trigger a full scale thermonuclear war, by then, it is the missile in the silo that count, not the bomber.

 

[randomradio]

You do need a staging point to "Stack" your asset, in JTAC and CCT term, you will need your target to hit quickly and smoothly, and you will need to direct your asset on target.

Traditionally, you stack with your quickest TTL asset on the lower level (below 5000 fts) and you want your higher TTL asset on higher level. If you don'thave a staging point, you would need to call your Airstrike from your base, unless your base is quit near, you will have to wait. Normally, any terminal controller will tell you to group the asset inside a staging point.

You don't need JTAC or TTL assets to hit factories, air bases etc. You punch in the coordinates into your missiles and send them out.

Cruse missiles, ballistic missiles also don't need forward controllers, you need recce aircraft and satellites.

I am referring to the military industrial hinterland in India, where most of our military stuff is made. That's cities like Pune, Bangalore, Chennai etc.

A.) You don't get to choose what you want to drop. You will need to thinkof both Cruise Missile and Bombs, it's quite stupid to make a bomber just for you to drop Cruise Missile.

Then you won't hit our military industrial complex.

If you want to get to the mainland, you will have to stay out of reach of the navy's and the air force's tactical fighters and sea based ADS.

For China to develop a bomber alone means India will need a more sophisticated ADS for Peninsular India. So now we have to throw money on more land based and sea based defences.

You are also forgetting that China and Russia aren't friends. So it isn't just Japan and Taiwan, there's also US, Russia and India that they have to deal with.

B.) If you are talking about Cruise Missile, then where you vector your bomber is not important, as once they are dropped, you cannot stop it from penetrating the target airspace.

Your missile needs to come within range first. That's what the bomber is for.
Hainan to Bangalore is 3500Km. Cruise missiles will have to fly over ASEAN, and their own defences will activate against such an attack, particularly Vietnam's. But if the Chinese develop a bomber that can bypass ASEAN air defences and attack Bangalore from Myanmar, which is just 1500Km away, the attack will be far more effective. And the bomber will be carrying enough missiles to put a dent.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...orld-he-can-strike-from-1-700-miles-away.html

C.) You don't need a strategic bomber to drop cruise missile, you can do it with any tactical bomber.

A simple tactical bomber won't get close. And even if it did, its payload is too small.

You won't be able to bypass sophisticated ADS, if this is sophisticated, which usually mean they are distributed, then where you vector your bomber in is a moot point, as you still face the same ADS. It's not like I am driving a tanks, where I can go around and hit the enemy tank on the side, you are talking about Missile Defence, which have a 360 defence circle.

Peninsular India has very poor ADS. And even if it ever did get ADS, it will not be as sophisticated or numerous as North India.

umm, no...what you said is only correct if you only have 1 Airbase service the 5000km borders, even with smaller airspace you still have room to manuver, and if the airspace is big, you can always re-route and re-vector in any sort of tactical fighter to an area. With or Without refuelling.

You can't. We are not talking about your airspace, we are talking about operating in neutral airspace. Any other tactical fighter will be discovered, considering it can even fly to that range.

Always remember that bigger the size of the aircraft, the more stealthy it can be against radar.

I don't understand what's with this Missile BS you guys seems to be hyping about. First of all, you cannot drop a 1000+ km range Cruise Missile from a stealth bomber, the reason they are stealth is because they are using internal bomb bay. When you start hanging these big 1000+ range cruise missile on the wingtip Which will defeat the purpose of Stealth Bomber (B-2 cannot load up with Cruise Missile in the internal bomb bay). Even if the Chinese bomber can load up with long range cruise missile, that won't be in any significant number anyway. And then you will need to ask yourselves, Would that be wise to risk a multi-millions bomber to deliever just a few missile? Or rather you can do it with a few cheaper tactical fighters?

The B-2 won't. But the Russians and Chinese don't think that way. They want to use long range missiles on their stealth aircraft, so does India.

Kh-55. Internal configuration. 3000Km.

Kh-101. 3000Km.

You can pack more lower ranged missiles. Please consider Russian/Chinese doctrine, not just American.

Tactical fighters can't carry long range weapons internally. And a few cheaper tactical fighters won't get close because they are going to be less sophisticated.

And if you are talking about Nuclear Weapon, China have no first use policy, they won't need a stealth bomber as a deliever platform, also, even if they do, it won't quite matter as that will trigger a full scale thermonuclear war, by then, it is the missile in the silo that count, not the bomber.

NFU is a paper policy, it's not binding. When countries go nuclear, you think treaties matter?

A stealth bomber is made for a full scale thermonuclear war. It's not made for a short conventional war. That's why it's called a strategic bomber. The B-2 in particular was built for carrying nuclear weapons for use against the Soviet Union.

Although we have been discussing the conventional use of the bomber, the actual role of this new bomber is obviously strategic. There's no point arguing along the lines of "but they have ICBMs" because the Russians and Americans have far more ICBMs and still use stealth bombers.

 

[Deino]

Can we stick to the topic please ?? You are more discussing certain operational considerations and specific bomber-related issues ... but not really H-XX related stuff !

Deino