H-6 Bomber Aircraft Discussions
- Thread starter F40Racer
- Start date
The Pentagon has been chomping at the bit for a shift in stance on China policy for at least a decade now, and they finally have an administration amenable to what they want.
H-6K on Dyagilevo air base near Ryazan, Russia.
Hendrik_2000
Lieutenant General
Australia paranoid and scare mongering about H6K What is good for the geese it is good for the gander
“The PLA will surely develop its air force with long-range strike capability,” . “The Pentagon suspects that the PLA is training for strikes against US bases in the Pacific region. It shows that the US bases in the region are very likely training for actions against the Chinese mainland and are worried that the bases will face retaliation during wartime.”
Beijing has rejected US claims that it is sending nuclear-capable bombers on ‘practice attacks’ on its and allied facilities
CHINA has attacked a Pentagon warning that its nuclear-capable bombers are practising to strike US and allied targets in the Pacific as ‘irresponsible’. But the bombers are still flying.
Jamie Seidel, AFP
News Corp Australia NetworkAUGUST 19, 20186:07PM
, released by the US Department of Defence, states China is now “willing to employ coercive measures — both military and non-military — to advance its interests and mitigate opposition from other countries.”
Chinese foreign ministry spokesman Lu Kang rejected this as “presumptuous and irresponsible”, stating it was “in total disregard of facts”. Beijing’s military development was defensive in nature and intended to safeguard its territorial integrity, he added.
“We urge the US side to abandon the outdated cold-war and zero-sum mentality … (and) stop issuing such irresponsible reports year after year,” . “We also request that the US stops releasing the related reports and safeguards the stable development of the two countries’ military with real actions.”
A H-6K bomber, a newly-built updated version of a 1950s Russian design, is escorted on a long-range mission around Taiwan by Chinese heavy fighters. Picture: XinhuaSource:Supplied
MESSAGE IN A BOMBER
The Pentagon believes the People’s Liberaby Army Air Force (PLAAF) is seeking to demonstrate its “capability to strike US and allied forces and military bases in the western Pacific Ocean, including Guam.”
The reports China began its long-range bomber flights in 2013. It has since push out further into the Pacific Ocean, encircled the island nation of Taiwan, loitered off Japan and Korea — and penetrated as far as the US central Pacific island of Guam.
RELATED:
Last year, six Chinese H-6K bombers flew through the Miyako Strait in the southwest of the Japanese islands, and then for the first time turned north to fly east of Okinawa, where 47,000 US troops are based.
This year, H-6K bombers conducted touch-and-go training exercises on the illegal island fortresses built up in the South China Sea’s disputed reefs.
“Over the last three years, the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) has rapidly expanded its overwater bomber operating areas, gaining experience in critical maritime regions and likely training for strikes against US and allied targets,” the report reads.
It also expresses concern that Beijing is extending its nuclear ‘umbrella’ over the annexed South China Sea.
“The PLA has long been developing air strike capabilities to engage targets as far away from China as possible,” the Pentagon report says. “(The bombers) could, if deployed to airfields in the Spratly Islands, extend their range through the Balabac Strait into the Celebes Sea or through the Sunday or Malacca Strait to fly into the Indian Ocean.
“The deployment and integration of nuclear capable bombers would, for the first time, provide China with a nuclear ‘triad’ of delivery systems dispersed across land, sea, and air,” the report reads.
A Chinese H-6K bomber patrols the islands and reefs in the South China Sea. Despite having its claim rejected by an international court, Beijing is asserting its ownership of the entire disputed waterway between Vietnam, Malaysia and the Philippines. Picture: XinhuaSource:Supplied
‘GUILTY CONSCIENCE’
Beijing says the Pentagon’s report reveals more about the US than it does China.
“The PLA will surely develop its air force with long-range strike capability,” . “The Pentagon suspects that the PLA is training for strikes against US bases in the Pacific region. It shows that the US bases in the region are very likely training for actions against the Chinese mainland and are worried that the bases will face retaliation during wartime.”
RELATED:
Despite repeatedly raised concerns about its bomber and fighter activity near Taiwan, Philippines, Korea and Japan in recent years — the editorial asserts: “There are many other countries and targets within the radius of Chinese air force’s long-range operations, but none of them show signs of worry. Why is it that only the US bases in the Pacific are worried about PLA’s potential threat? The US’ guilty conscience is self-evident.”
Beijing said it was not concerned at the Pentagon’s assessment of its capabilities. Instead, it was the profiling of China as a threat.
“The US’ technical analysis of the PLA capability is one thing, the Pentagon’s publication of the analysis to hype the “China threat” is another … When the US appears so bold to hype the threat, it proves Washington has totally lost its moral high ground and conscience.”
The editorial also addressed fears that President Xi was planning to move militarily against Taiwan, the last holdout of the Chinese Republican government kicked off the mainland during the Communist revolution.
Meanwhile, another Global Times article expressed concern that the Pentagon report was intended to increase anti-China sentiment.
“It aims to treat China as an imaginary enemy and creates a confrontation between China and the US. Actually, China’s defence policies are defensive in nature,” .
“It aims to promote anti-China sentiment in the US. As the US policies toward China are different from the previous (administration’s), the defence report adds fuel to the fire,” added Li Haidong, a professor at the China Foreign Affairs University’s Institute of International Relations.
A H-6K bomber is flankeed by two J-15 heavy fighters at high altitude during a recent military exercise. Picture: XinhuaSource:Supplied
TARGET TAIWAN
The Global Times editorial states the ability to invade and conquer Taiwan was the “top strategic task” of Beijing’s military. The notion of Taiwan’s continued independence will simply not be tolerated by the Chinese Communist Party:
“As for reunification of Taiwan with the Chinese mainland by force, it is the last resort of the mainland for solving the Taiwan question but also one of the top strategic tasks of the PLA in its capability building.
RELATED:
“The prerequisite for peaceful reunification of Taiwan is the mainland’s capability of using force to launch the action. Otherwise all wonderful wishes are reduced to empty talk. The more unquestionable the mainland’s capability of reunification of Taiwan by force is, the less likely the ‘Taiwan independence’ forces are able to stir trouble.”
“The PLA will surely develop its air force with long-range strike capability,” . “The Pentagon suspects that the PLA is training for strikes against US bases in the Pacific region. It shows that the US bases in the region are very likely training for actions against the Chinese mainland and are worried that the bases will face retaliation during wartime.”
Beijing has rejected US claims that it is sending nuclear-capable bombers on ‘practice attacks’ on its and allied facilities
CHINA has attacked a Pentagon warning that its nuclear-capable bombers are practising to strike US and allied targets in the Pacific as ‘irresponsible’. But the bombers are still flying.
Jamie Seidel, AFP
News Corp Australia NetworkAUGUST 19, 20186:07PM
, released by the US Department of Defence, states China is now “willing to employ coercive measures — both military and non-military — to advance its interests and mitigate opposition from other countries.”
Chinese foreign ministry spokesman Lu Kang rejected this as “presumptuous and irresponsible”, stating it was “in total disregard of facts”. Beijing’s military development was defensive in nature and intended to safeguard its territorial integrity, he added.
“We urge the US side to abandon the outdated cold-war and zero-sum mentality … (and) stop issuing such irresponsible reports year after year,” . “We also request that the US stops releasing the related reports and safeguards the stable development of the two countries’ military with real actions.”
A H-6K bomber, a newly-built updated version of a 1950s Russian design, is escorted on a long-range mission around Taiwan by Chinese heavy fighters. Picture: XinhuaSource:Supplied
MESSAGE IN A BOMBER
The Pentagon believes the People’s Liberaby Army Air Force (PLAAF) is seeking to demonstrate its “capability to strike US and allied forces and military bases in the western Pacific Ocean, including Guam.”
The reports China began its long-range bomber flights in 2013. It has since push out further into the Pacific Ocean, encircled the island nation of Taiwan, loitered off Japan and Korea — and penetrated as far as the US central Pacific island of Guam.
RELATED:
Last year, six Chinese H-6K bombers flew through the Miyako Strait in the southwest of the Japanese islands, and then for the first time turned north to fly east of Okinawa, where 47,000 US troops are based.
This year, H-6K bombers conducted touch-and-go training exercises on the illegal island fortresses built up in the South China Sea’s disputed reefs.
“Over the last three years, the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) has rapidly expanded its overwater bomber operating areas, gaining experience in critical maritime regions and likely training for strikes against US and allied targets,” the report reads.
It also expresses concern that Beijing is extending its nuclear ‘umbrella’ over the annexed South China Sea.
“The PLA has long been developing air strike capabilities to engage targets as far away from China as possible,” the Pentagon report says. “(The bombers) could, if deployed to airfields in the Spratly Islands, extend their range through the Balabac Strait into the Celebes Sea or through the Sunday or Malacca Strait to fly into the Indian Ocean.
“The deployment and integration of nuclear capable bombers would, for the first time, provide China with a nuclear ‘triad’ of delivery systems dispersed across land, sea, and air,” the report reads.
A Chinese H-6K bomber patrols the islands and reefs in the South China Sea. Despite having its claim rejected by an international court, Beijing is asserting its ownership of the entire disputed waterway between Vietnam, Malaysia and the Philippines. Picture: XinhuaSource:Supplied
‘GUILTY CONSCIENCE’
Beijing says the Pentagon’s report reveals more about the US than it does China.
“The PLA will surely develop its air force with long-range strike capability,” . “The Pentagon suspects that the PLA is training for strikes against US bases in the Pacific region. It shows that the US bases in the region are very likely training for actions against the Chinese mainland and are worried that the bases will face retaliation during wartime.”
RELATED:
Despite repeatedly raised concerns about its bomber and fighter activity near Taiwan, Philippines, Korea and Japan in recent years — the editorial asserts: “There are many other countries and targets within the radius of Chinese air force’s long-range operations, but none of them show signs of worry. Why is it that only the US bases in the Pacific are worried about PLA’s potential threat? The US’ guilty conscience is self-evident.”
Beijing said it was not concerned at the Pentagon’s assessment of its capabilities. Instead, it was the profiling of China as a threat.
“The US’ technical analysis of the PLA capability is one thing, the Pentagon’s publication of the analysis to hype the “China threat” is another … When the US appears so bold to hype the threat, it proves Washington has totally lost its moral high ground and conscience.”
The editorial also addressed fears that President Xi was planning to move militarily against Taiwan, the last holdout of the Chinese Republican government kicked off the mainland during the Communist revolution.
Meanwhile, another Global Times article expressed concern that the Pentagon report was intended to increase anti-China sentiment.
“It aims to treat China as an imaginary enemy and creates a confrontation between China and the US. Actually, China’s defence policies are defensive in nature,” .
“It aims to promote anti-China sentiment in the US. As the US policies toward China are different from the previous (administration’s), the defence report adds fuel to the fire,” added Li Haidong, a professor at the China Foreign Affairs University’s Institute of International Relations.
A H-6K bomber is flankeed by two J-15 heavy fighters at high altitude during a recent military exercise. Picture: XinhuaSource:Supplied
TARGET TAIWAN
The Global Times editorial states the ability to invade and conquer Taiwan was the “top strategic task” of Beijing’s military. The notion of Taiwan’s continued independence will simply not be tolerated by the Chinese Communist Party:
“As for reunification of Taiwan with the Chinese mainland by force, it is the last resort of the mainland for solving the Taiwan question but also one of the top strategic tasks of the PLA in its capability building.
RELATED:
“The prerequisite for peaceful reunification of Taiwan is the mainland’s capability of using force to launch the action. Otherwise all wonderful wishes are reduced to empty talk. The more unquestionable the mainland’s capability of reunification of Taiwan by force is, the less likely the ‘Taiwan independence’ forces are able to stir trouble.”
We don't. We could try to estimate it, but only very roughly.
Tu-16 is usually credited with ferry range from 6000 to 72000 km. (that is a problem in itself, that we can't be sure of Tu-16 basic range)
D30 engine is credited with having specific fuel consumption of 0.5 to 0.7 kgf/hr. Takeoff/cruise
Tu-16's engines are credited with SFC of 0.9 kgf/hr. But we have no data what profile that is.
Very roughly speaking, IF H6K weighs the same as older H6, it could have 50% more range.
But the very fact D30 do have more thrust likely points to H6K being redesigned so it has a bigger mtow, carrying more payload, possibly plane being a bit heavier (so it can hold extra payload) and possibly even carrying a bit more fuel.
So if H6K needs to use more thrust for same flight as older H6, then it might not have 50% extra range but less. On the other hand, if it's also designed to hold a bit more fuel, that might compensate for extra thrust needed.
very, very roughly speaking, it is plausible H6K might have up to 9900 km of ferry range (6600*1.5) Of course, actual combat radius is much less. Also depends on a bunch of stuff, but it's likely not more than a third of ferry range figure. Meaning some 3300 km. If it's carrying 6 cruise missiles externally (and possibly more inside?) then it's possibly even less. Possibly under 3000 km?
Tu-16 is usually credited with ferry range from 6000 to 72000 km. (that is a problem in itself, that we can't be sure of Tu-16 basic range)
D30 engine is credited with having specific fuel consumption of 0.5 to 0.7 kgf/hr. Takeoff/cruise
Tu-16's engines are credited with SFC of 0.9 kgf/hr. But we have no data what profile that is.
Very roughly speaking, IF H6K weighs the same as older H6, it could have 50% more range.
But the very fact D30 do have more thrust likely points to H6K being redesigned so it has a bigger mtow, carrying more payload, possibly plane being a bit heavier (so it can hold extra payload) and possibly even carrying a bit more fuel.
So if H6K needs to use more thrust for same flight as older H6, then it might not have 50% extra range but less. On the other hand, if it's also designed to hold a bit more fuel, that might compensate for extra thrust needed.
very, very roughly speaking, it is plausible H6K might have up to 9900 km of ferry range (6600*1.5) Of course, actual combat radius is much less. Also depends on a bunch of stuff, but it's likely not more than a third of ferry range figure. Meaning some 3300 km. If it's carrying 6 cruise missiles externally (and possibly more inside?) then it's possibly even less. Possibly under 3000 km?
I remember one quote saying that the H-6K had an extra fuel tank in place of the bomb bay to increase range. Don't know if this is true or not. Supposedly it was made to fire stand-off weapons like large cruise missiles:
That site states a combat radius of 3500 km. This is close to your estimates.
Also, if the airplane was manufactured with more modern materials, like composites and aluminium-lithium alloy, the empty mass of the airplane might have been reduced compared to the original Tu-16. The new engines alone weigh almost a ton less each. This can be used to increase the fuel mass fraction of the airplane without degrading payload capacity as much.
Last edited:
H-6K retains the internal weapons bay. That site is wrong, or at least out of date. Many many years ago it was thought that H-6K replaced the bay with a fuel tank. It's since been proven false multiple times.
In the long run I think the Chinese need to change the airframe to store more fuel. Depending on the mission requirements, if it's naval strike, or strategic bombing, the bomber profile is set. IMHO either a supersonic bomber for the naval strike mission or a flying wing for the strategic bombing mission. China seems to have opted for the flying wing with the H-20 but it remains to be seen what they'll do with the JH-7 replacement. Will it be just the J-16 or will they have another bomber platform?
Russia has decided to resume manufacturing the Tu-160 which is a Mach 2 airplane twice the size of the B-1. Honestly I think it's nuts and that they would be better served with something Tu-22M size with half the thrust. Also it's a variable geometry aircraft, which increases low-level flight speeds and loiter time, but it makes the airframe more complicated to maintain.
China is further away from Moscow and Washington than Washington is from Russia (when you use a polar route). So in that regard I think the flying wing project makes more sense for China because it can store more fuel. However there is IMHO a distinct problem of a lack of long distance anti-shipping airplanes in the Chinese arsenal which can operate beyond the 2nd island chain and trivially intercept naval surface targets there. For this I think a large supersonic platform is required so I don't understand why China isn't considering this right now. The problem with a subsonic like the H-6K is that it lacks in response time and it becomes an easy target for aggressor fighter planes without proper fighter cover because of its low speed.
Back in WW2 one of the largest problems the Germans had was sea control against a superior naval force and one of the most effective anti-shipping platforms they had was the Fw 200 Condor. It was even more cost-effective than the Uboats. This was basically a pre-war civilian airliner converted to the anti-shipping mission. China could do that too, I guess, but I think a Tu-22M like aircraft (albeit with a modern engine, airframe, and electronics) would be better suited for this role.
The other airplanes do not have the range or speed combined that is required for the sea control mission over the Pacific I think. Also it's just plain too expensive and time consuming to beat the US at their own carrier game.
You could basically use two widebody aircraft engines with an afterburner as the powerplants for the aircraft. So it would require minimal additional investment in that regard once China's civilian airliner industry matures some more.
Russia has decided to resume manufacturing the Tu-160 which is a Mach 2 airplane twice the size of the B-1. Honestly I think it's nuts and that they would be better served with something Tu-22M size with half the thrust. Also it's a variable geometry aircraft, which increases low-level flight speeds and loiter time, but it makes the airframe more complicated to maintain.
China is further away from Moscow and Washington than Washington is from Russia (when you use a polar route). So in that regard I think the flying wing project makes more sense for China because it can store more fuel. However there is IMHO a distinct problem of a lack of long distance anti-shipping airplanes in the Chinese arsenal which can operate beyond the 2nd island chain and trivially intercept naval surface targets there. For this I think a large supersonic platform is required so I don't understand why China isn't considering this right now. The problem with a subsonic like the H-6K is that it lacks in response time and it becomes an easy target for aggressor fighter planes without proper fighter cover because of its low speed.
Back in WW2 one of the largest problems the Germans had was sea control against a superior naval force and one of the most effective anti-shipping platforms they had was the Fw 200 Condor. It was even more cost-effective than the Uboats. This was basically a pre-war civilian airliner converted to the anti-shipping mission. China could do that too, I guess, but I think a Tu-22M like aircraft (albeit with a modern engine, airframe, and electronics) would be better suited for this role.
The other airplanes do not have the range or speed combined that is required for the sea control mission over the Pacific I think. Also it's just plain too expensive and time consuming to beat the US at their own carrier game.
You could basically use two widebody aircraft engines with an afterburner as the powerplants for the aircraft. So it would require minimal additional investment in that regard once China's civilian airliner industry matures some more.
Last edited: