H-20? Need An Eye Doctor

[angster]

So I came to this picture:
http://static.atimes.com/uploads/2017/11/14606002.jpg

Run it through below, didn't find anything unusual:
https://29a.ch/photo-forensics/#forensic-magnifier

[mikmykWS]

Pretty cool. Probably can implement once more stats arrive.

Mike

[tjhkkr]

That is pretty neat looking bird.
Still, though I like the 'nose' cone, I wonder how much that impedes stealth!

[M1A2G]

This photo was PS from H-6,not the real H-20.

[tjhkkr]

ORIGINAL: M1A2G
This photo was PS from H-6,not the real H-20.

Forgive me: what does PS mean?

[tjhkkr]

ORIGINAL: tjhkkr

ORIGINAL: M1A2G
This photo was PS from H-6,not the real H-20.

Forgive me: what does PS mean?

[:D]

Never mind, I figured it out... I originally thought it MIGHT mean port/starboard. I know better now.

[tjhkkr]

http://www.atimes.com/article/beijing-a ... -new-h-20/
Here is the whole article... It does claim it is the H-20. It does not look like any of the other depictions of the H-20.

The intakes are so big; they may be willing to compromise SOME stealth for the sake of improved speed.

[Dysta]

I was thinking if this thread is making PS jokes, then I realized some foreign medias don’t recheck sources properly.

H-20 can be so many things, even back then it is looks like a Tu-22 or a large UCAV, but they are all photoshopped and made a death trap for many sensational journalists. China is surely trying to develop their next-gen bomber, but so far the H-6K/N is the only bomber they can make so far.

[angster]

Yeah that photo sure fooled me. Guess we'll have to wait a few more years to see the real thing.

[Rory Noonan]

Checked out ok on that forensic photo link you provided; but then so did a couple of test .jpgs that I PS'd to hell

Shame, the forensic photo thing looked really cool.

[gosnold]

Air intake placement is suspicious for a stealth bomber. It should have been over the wings. That's one indication the photo is probably fake.

[Filitch]

ORIGINAL: gosnold

Air intake placement is suspicious for a stealth bomber. It should have been over the wings. That's one indication the photo is probably fake.

Hmmm...

[gosnold]

That's not a bomber.

[Filitch]

I think that principles of stealth are equal for fighters and bombers

[gosnold]

The requirements are different, so the compromises between stealth and aerodynamics are different. A bomber does not need to use high angles of attack, a fighter does. Since the wings mask the airflow if the intakes are above the wings, this configuration cannot be used for a fighter. It can be used for a bomber with the added benefit that the wing hide the intakes from ground radars.

[Filitch]

You are right about airflows and angels of attack. I think only about visibility of intakes from radar side.