Your are still thinking this too much in that this is just a airliner, there really isn't anything stopping the PLAAF from having requirements of reinforced wings or having a specific amount of hardpoints which is also ideal for some other missions as well. Given that this aircraft is literally going to be purpose built for the PLA, depending on what the requirements are, they could easily choose having a reinforced wing and hardpoints over slightly better range and payload.
You missed my point.
Nobody said the PLAAF couldn't ask for reinforced wings on a special mission aircraft. The question is whether it makes sense to share wings between a bomber and a non-bomber.
If you reinforce the wings for heavy payloads (which, for the H-6K/G/N, means 2-4+ tons per hardpoint), you would need to add not just thicker wing spars, wing ribs, and heavier attachment points for the underwing weapon pylons, but also other internal structural reinforcements to ensure the wings don't snap when the aircraft conducts maneuvers during combat (e.g., evading missiles), albeit we certainly don't expect the bombers to be able to do a cobra.
Furthermore, a bomber's wing must be specifically engineered to handle the violent, instantaneous changes in wing bending moments and fatigue cycles when a 2-4-ton missile is dropped. A special mission aircraft maintains a relatively constant weight distribution throughout its mission duration, hence they don't need a wing built to withstand this kind of sudden structural shock.
Then there is the center-of-gravity (COG) issue and wing box integration. A bomber's COG is designed around carrying massive weight under the wings and/or inside a bomb bay. Conversely, special mission aircraft often carry massive, heavy electronics inside and outside (i.e., on top, at the bottom, and/or around) their fuselages. You can't just take a wing and wing box designed to balance low-hanging missiles and optimally attach it to a fuselage carrying a heavy top radome, for instance. The physics of balancing the aircraft are entirely different.
This is before we even get into wing geometries. A bomber requires specific wing sweep angles and a thinner airfoil (a lower thickness-to-chord ratio) optimized for a high-speed bombing-run dash or higher transit cruise speeds (even as both are done entirely in the high-subsonic regime). A special mission aircraft, however, is required to loiter on station for extended durations. That would often mean a lower sweep angle and a thicker airfoil for better lift at lower speeds and greater internal fuel volume, which directly translates to longer endurance. For reference, purpose-built bomber families like the B-52, Tu-95, and H-6 use a wing sweep of ~35 degrees, whereas special mission platforms based on the 737, 757, and A320 sit around ~25 degrees.
That weight penalty from sharing the same wing follows the special mission aircraft everywhere it flies. For a bomber, that reinforcement is mission-essential. For a special mission aircraft, it's a literal deadweight that burns additional fuel and reduces endurance for absolutely no operational gain. This rule applies the exact same way regardless of whether the platform is based on a civilian airliner or a purpose-built military airframe.
So no, a shared wing isn't reasonable. Not because it's technically impossible, but because it is structurally and aerodynamically inefficient in a way that entirely defeats the premise of saving costs during development, procurement, operation, and maintenance processes.
