China Flanker thread
- Thread starter renmin
- Start date
- Status
Chengdu J-10
Junior Member
One possible reason why they are sticking to the H-6 instead of the Tu-22 might be. The change in the PLAAF, the Tu-22 had the speed to drop and go without too much problems while the H-6 was slower so they would or might experience some problems (enemy fire). But since the PLAAF have acquired some top notch fighters: Su-27, Su-30, J-10 and the upgraded J-7, J-8 they have the improved ability of defending the H-6 now. While in the past they had little power in defending the H-6, resorting in the idea of purchasing the Tu-22 due to its speed and range. Just a thought OK
RedMercury
Junior Member
Problem with Tu-22 is that there are no new-builds, nor is Russia able to build any new ones at short notice. So China would be getting used planes. Who would want such aging equipment. Also, the variable geometry wing is a huge maintenance burden.
Built a huge delta and high speed heavy bomber with 3 WS-10A? Something like a enlarge version of J-8II with internal missile bay....
eecsmaster
Junior Member
by the time you roll out your first flying prototype, most of the original backfires would be in scrap yards.
That's also a possibility.
But the biggest possibility is that with long range standoff weapons, H-6s do not need to fly into hostile air space to launch their weapons. This makes supersonic bomber moot.
Chengdu J-10
Junior Member
I was thinking about the Soviet Union and China battle between their borders, after the Soviet-Sino relationship slip. The H-6 might of been initially to launch attacks out of Chinese terriotory. Hostile air was present during the time were the borders lay. This could've been a scenario, but the PLAAF realised that it was insufficient and reckless to do so.
The H-6 wasn't good enough for that scenario. Remember, what made these old bombers "safe" again was due to the introduction of long range stand off missiles, which H-6s won't be getting until decades later from this time period.
At that time, bombing is the old fashioned way, carpet bombing over your heads, or by low level interdiction. H-6 is poor for that. This is when planes like the Su-24, F-111, even the Tu-22s become justified. They were meant to fly fast and low into enemy airspace, do their job and get out as quickly as possible.
China certainly at that time didn't have anything worthy. The H-6s are too slow and the Q-5s are too short ranged. Hence the development of the JH-7.
The low level interdiction role is becoming moot. Note that this happens to be a cornerstones of the Cold War NATO's air tactics, and planes like Tornados, Jaguars and Phantoms trained for it.
It's a better strategy on paper than on real life. When F-111s bombed Khadaffy, the US lost one F-111 and a few others may have been damaged. Gulf War 1 also threw cold water on the concept as some Tornadoes were lost. MANPADS and other small SAMs continue make this a dangerous occupation even as more established air defenses were peeled off via SEAD/DEAD operations.
Kosovo changed things again, because now, we are back to bombing from high again. Instead of low level PGM strike using LGBs, EO weapons like Mavericks, we now have high level near PGM strike via JDAMs.
JH-7 concept as a striker originated in the Su-24/F-111 era, albeit mixed with Jaguar and Tornado concepts (ironically the last two are also Rolls Royce powered). There was little doubt for me the JH-7 was influenced by British concepts of low level strike at that time. However, we have moved from such concepts by at least one generation in doctrine.
As standoff platforms, where at best, you fire cruise missiles or GPS guided weapons from a high altitude, you really don't need JH-7 or even Su-30MKK type of design. Ironically it has come full circle back to the traditional jet bomber with long wings. Long wingspans make the plane handle better than jet fighters at high altitudes---high up, even a B-52 can out turn a MiG-21. Old style turbojets are also more efficient than new school turbofans right up high. For launching cruise missiles and JDAM like bombs, who is to say that an Su-30MKK or a JH-7A is better than an H-6? Likewise with a B-52 bomber against Strike Eagles or F-16Cs.
In essence you have no reason for a B-1b or Tu-160 bomber either. These were also conceived in the concept of low level interdiction. Today, they're just another high level bomber that isn't as efficient in the task as something originally concieved for it.
- Status