I don't really think the Su-34 would be efficient or deliver anything of an improvement over the H-6 if the purpose of the PLAAF for a bomber is either/or a standoff cruise missile or antiship launcher, and a JDAM bomb launcher.
It even has its own disadvantages at height due to being turbofans and the lack of wingspan. It has less space, so less crew and equipment. You can put a large chin radar on the H-6 as they do know with the H-6H/M versions, but on the Su-34, the platypus bill still limits you to a fighter size radar array.
For the resources spent trying to acquire the Su-34, you can spend it improving the J-10/J-11 or increasing their quantities, so they can do a much better job in protecting the H-6s.
If China needs another bomber, it should be more of a B-52 like plane, large with long wingspans, high payload and enough hardpoints to carry numbers of cruise missiles and antiship missiles. The B-52H would be most impressive for the PLANAF for example, like those that were once deployed with the 43rd Bombardment Wing in Guam during the eighties. These planes could carry as much as 8 (or is it 12) Harpoons.
I'm not really as much in favor of creating a B-2 like stealth bomber. For what you are trying to achieve in stealth is too much. I think its better to just focus on the basics---as much payload as you can lift, as much hardpoints to put bombs and missiles, as much loiter range to stay on the air as long as possible, and as much space to crew and equipment, so the plane can serve as its own search and targeting station. If you want to focus on stealth, focus stealth on the cruise missile itself, not on the bomber.
Not only will that be cheaper, but the cruise missile will be uninterceptible. What's the point of a stealthy bomber if the missiles itself are not stealthy and can be shot down.
I don't think the Su-34 is as defensible as any Su-30 when it encounters aerial opposition. In any case, its better to build a doctrine around circumeventing that aerial opposition rather than fight through it.
It even has its own disadvantages at height due to being turbofans and the lack of wingspan. It has less space, so less crew and equipment. You can put a large chin radar on the H-6 as they do know with the H-6H/M versions, but on the Su-34, the platypus bill still limits you to a fighter size radar array.
For the resources spent trying to acquire the Su-34, you can spend it improving the J-10/J-11 or increasing their quantities, so they can do a much better job in protecting the H-6s.
If China needs another bomber, it should be more of a B-52 like plane, large with long wingspans, high payload and enough hardpoints to carry numbers of cruise missiles and antiship missiles. The B-52H would be most impressive for the PLANAF for example, like those that were once deployed with the 43rd Bombardment Wing in Guam during the eighties. These planes could carry as much as 8 (or is it 12) Harpoons.
I'm not really as much in favor of creating a B-2 like stealth bomber. For what you are trying to achieve in stealth is too much. I think its better to just focus on the basics---as much payload as you can lift, as much hardpoints to put bombs and missiles, as much loiter range to stay on the air as long as possible, and as much space to crew and equipment, so the plane can serve as its own search and targeting station. If you want to focus on stealth, focus stealth on the cruise missile itself, not on the bomber.
Not only will that be cheaper, but the cruise missile will be uninterceptible. What's the point of a stealthy bomber if the missiles itself are not stealthy and can be shot down.
I don't think the Su-34 is as defensible as any Su-30 when it encounters aerial opposition. In any case, its better to build a doctrine around circumeventing that aerial opposition rather than fight through it.
