China's indigenous bomber program

IMO the PLAAF should have a look at the Su-34. Unlike prior Russian aircraft that had very uncomfortable environment for its crew (noise level on Tu-95, lack of toilet on others), the Su-34 is said to have a large, spacious cockpit that's pressurized so you don't have to wear oxygen masks, side-by-side seating with large, comfortable K-36 seats that have built-in massage function, a toilet, a small kitchen, and even a bunkbed.

It doesn't qualify as a long-range bomber, but is sufficient more PLAAF's needs (Taiwan, Japan, South China Sea). The Su-34 also use some components from the Su-27 family, which reduces the logistics requirement on repair & maintenance.

Yea, I doubt China would renew the Y-10 program. And such bombers these days would have little usage other then as LACM launchers, and even here the JH-7A has a potential use for, at a smaller scale. But maybe a y-8 take on the job? We've heard that the MPA is capable of carrying weapons anyway.

Question: when did China get to produce EMB-145 parts locally?

Boy, the Su-34's cockpit keeps getting bigger, doesn't it? (Seriously, bunkbed? haven't heard of massaging seats.)

sumdud said:

Yea, I doubt China would renew the Y-10 program. And such bombers these days would have little usage other then as LACM launchers, and even here the JH-7A has a potential use for, at a smaller scale. But maybe a y-8 take on the job? We've heard that the MPA is capable of carrying weapons anyway.

Question: when did China get to produce EMB-145 parts locally?

Boy, the Su-34's cockpit keeps getting bigger, doesn't it? (Seriously, bunkbed? haven't heard of massaging seats.)

Click to expand...

Sri lankans used there Y-8 to do bombing missions apparently, but yeah, I'm not sure you'd want your Y-8 to carry weapons.

You can google up on EMB-145 and China to find all you need to know.

about su-34, I'm sure it's available, the problem is whether or not China needs it right now. China actually has a domestic program mimicking su-34 imo, that's why it probably sees no need to buy su-34.

tphuang said:

about su-34, I'm sure it's available, the problem is whether or not China needs it right now. China actually has a domestic program mimicking su-34 imo, that's why it probably sees no need to buy su-34.

Click to expand...

Now that's interesting. I had not heard of that, though I'm not really surprised at all. :china:

What do you mean by mimicking, do you mean making the J-11 frame bigger and designing a side-by-side seating for the cockpit? Or do you mean taking a totally different airframe (like JH-7A) and making it longer range? Or will it be a flying wing stealth bomber?

Given China's propensity to purchase things even if it has a domestic program going (just to be on the safe side), I would surmise that this domestic bomber program is fairly far along for them not to be interested in Su-34 at all.

Roger604 said:

Now that's interesting. I had not heard of that, though I'm not really surprised at all. :china:

What do you mean by mimicking, do you mean making the J-11 frame bigger and designing a side-by-side seating for the cockpit? Or do you mean taking a totally different airframe (like JH-7A) and making it longer range? Or will it be a flying wing stealth bomber?

Given China's propensity to purchase things even if it has a domestic program going (just to be on the safe side), I would surmise that this domestic bomber program is fairly far along for them not to be interested in Su-34 at all.

Click to expand...

well, I'm sure XAC has plans to upgrade JH-7A. If you think about it, Spey is probably a better engine for a bomber than AL-31 due to its better fuel efficiency. But in general, flanker is a better platform than JH-7. And it does appear that SAC has a project for developing a bomber out in the realm of su-34 from the comments of certain experience Chinese posters. Also, a whil back, Kanwa also reported that China is trying to develop something like su-34.

Wouldn't it be kind of strange though to have both JH-7 and its successors in service along with an Su-34 copy? They are both fighter bombers, and neither have the range of a Backfire C. Wouldn't it be wiser to drop the JH-7 successor and instead focus research efforts on something with more legs (since H-6 is pretty long in the tooth)?

We've had this sort of thing here before so it shouldn't be off topic too much. Just a fantasy plane, next gen bomber.

I tried to keep it real, not too high tech, keep it something that i believe china could actually build with current technology (save for engines, i'm not sure how long would it take them to ramp up ws10 tech to the size and output proposed here) Though i'm actually not too sure whether it would pay off to develop a supersonic bomber, this one is, just for fun of it. It's kinda sexier that way, plus i tried to give it a bit of cold war feel, aesthetics wise.

Stuff like weight and payload i interpolated from other planes of similar sizes and mission profiles, should be quite doable. A note: in addition to mentioned fuel capacity, it should be quite doable of making a fuel tank in the bomb bay, cutting the space in half but adding fuel. Some 7.000 more liters could be added that way. (of course, then there's no use for external tanks, as otherwise total weight would go over mtow)

Range is hard for me to guess, but judging on the size, and with decent engines, I don't see why ferry range of over 9.000 km shouldn't be doable. With full bomb bay, combat range should be between 3.500 and 4.000 km.

Large bomb bay allows for a variety of weapons to be carried, none of which have been actually developed, of course. A rotary launcher for 4 big, long, 2 ton missiles (speedy ramjets?) would totally be doable. Or 7 smaller, lighter ones a la tomahawk. Or maybe 12-14 or so short (3.4 m long), stubby subsonic gliders like jsow. Or like 42 simple 250 kg bombs.

I don't see any point to a large bomber. Most I'd go for is a strike version of the the stealthy J-XX fighter. It would be a 2 seater with conformal fuel tanks for increased range. If a low level mission profile is envisioned, it can have external hardpoints positioned to hide the bombs from the front and top aspects.

[quote name='Deino']
Are there any recent news about the H-6K (+ D-30 turbofan) and the new-bomber rumours ???

Cheers, Deino
[/quote]


Hmmm ... maybe this one ????

for more look here:


cheers, Deino

Roger604 said:

Wouldn't it be kind of strange though to have both JH-7 and its successors in service along with an Su-34 copy? They are both fighter bombers, and neither have the range of a Backfire C. Wouldn't it be wiser to drop the JH-7 successor and instead focus research efforts on something with more legs (since H-6 is pretty long in the tooth)?

Click to expand...

I'm thinking a JH-7(B?) type attacker would be for the near term, perhaps to keep the fleet modern for 5-10 years. Since we havn't even seen any models/mock-ups for the supposed Su-34 derivative attacker (I doubt it is a copy), that project is likely to come later down the line as contemporary to the J-xx.

I completely agree that the PLAAF should put a long-range supersonic bomber on it's wishlist. However, the need is not urgent. The H-6 has good range (perhaps the K version can approach 10,000 km), and arming it with modern standoff missles makes up for it's lack of speed. It's an old dog with new tricks. A new dog, on the other hand, might scare the neighbors.