China's indigenous bomber program
- Thread starter Totoro
- Start date
my choice would be either a fighter bomber or just a ground attack fighter like the A- 10 or Su-25. I aggree the bombers are things of the past. Now a cruise missile can do the job of a battleship or bomber. So instead of China developing huge bombers, we shold build smaller. 
I wonder why. I hope it is not that they don't have a good alternatives.
中國生產轟6M打造航母殺手
2006-5-10
美國軍事觀察家撰文指出，中國最近已重新啟用生產線生產「轟-6M」型轟炸機，而這種轟炸機將成為中國軍隊的「空中航母殺手」。
【大公報訊】據消息稱，美國全球安全組織以及華盛頓國際戰略協會的資深中國軍事專家彼得五月三日及七日先後兩次撰文披露，中國日前突然重啟「轟-6」轟炸機生產線。該型機是前蘇聯「圖-16」的中國版本，一九六八年開始在中國重新設計生產，但到上個世紀九十年代全部停產。
「轟-6M」攜四枚攻艦導彈重新啟動的「轟-6」生產線當然不是重新生產老飛機，而是生產改進型的「轟-6M」型。改型機最早是二○○二年珠海航展上亮相，同時還有該型機的模型。「轟-6M」的意外亮相立即引起了各方的猜測，他們注意到「轟-6M」的機翼下攜有四枚空對艦導彈，當時有國外專家分析說，導彈細長的彈體和其他外型特徵說明它屬於「鷹擊-8」系列，性能接近於美國的AGM-84E導彈或者AGM-142導彈，其發動機是渦輪噴氣式，加上彈體更輕，因此它的射程會更遠。
但珠海航展後，「轟-6M」就從人們的視界中消失了，一直到最近才得知中國的生產線即將重啟。據華盛頓國際戰略協會的中國軍事專家稱，「轟-6M」自重七十二噸，雙發動機，航程五千公里，將交給海軍航空兵使用，目的是搜尋並摧毀敵方水面艦隻。現在外界未能掌握中國軍方會生產多少架，但估計應該是十多架。
「鷹擊-83」導彈專打航母據美國全球安全組織的專家觀察，「轟-6M」將攜載4枚YJ-83（「鷹擊-83」）新型反艦巡航導彈。
據《華盛頓時報》比爾．蓋特茨介紹，中國的「殲／轟-7」在華北渤海灣試射了YJ-83反艦巡航導彈。試驗結果令美國情報官員震驚。直到不久前，美情報官員預計YJ-83的射程為七十五英里，但新試驗的導彈射程為一百五十五英里（二百五十公里），超過美國海軍「標準二型SM2」防空導彈。美國五角大樓官員認為，這種導彈是北京針對航空母艦和其他軍艦發展遠程打擊能力的一部分。
《華盛頓時報》援引美國官員的話說，這類導彈說明，中國方面在打擊敵方艦隊方面已經擁有了新的戰鬥力。美方相信YJ-83是C-801超音速反艦巡航導彈的變種，由於速度快，艦隊很難擊落它。
「海上長城」突出「三打三防」
據介紹，YJ-83導彈又稱為C-803，是一種低超音速掠海反艦導彈，被稱為「海上屠夫」，由解放軍海防導彈研究院在一九九九年十月一日五十周年國慶閱兵大典前研製成功，並在國慶閱兵時以實體亮相。它也被解放軍稱為是「爭氣彈」。國防專家說，YJ-83還有在飛行中接受目標信息的能力。詹姆斯基金會中國軍事專家費舍說，YJ-83新導彈將裝備到JH-7a改進型戰鬥轟炸機上。費舍說，該導彈有二百五十公里的射程，解放軍可以在美國海軍防空導彈標準SM-2火力範圍之外發射。美國「標準-2」導彈裝備在台灣的美製「紀德級」驅逐艦上。
據美國媒體報道，中國正在建立「海上長城」，海面武力包括艦對艦、艦對空和空對艦導彈；「隱形戰線」包括電子戰：示假、干擾、電子對抗、電子偽裝等手段將用來破壞對方的精確制導武器和雷達。作戰技能則突出「三打三防」：打隱形飛機、巡航導彈、直升飛機、防精確打擊、電子干擾和偵察監視。
中國生產轟6M打造航母殺手
2006-5-10
美國軍事觀察家撰文指出，中國最近已重新啟用生產線生產「轟-6M」型轟炸機，而這種轟炸機將成為中國軍隊的「空中航母殺手」。
【大公報訊】據消息稱，美國全球安全組織以及華盛頓國際戰略協會的資深中國軍事專家彼得五月三日及七日先後兩次撰文披露，中國日前突然重啟「轟-6」轟炸機生產線。該型機是前蘇聯「圖-16」的中國版本，一九六八年開始在中國重新設計生產，但到上個世紀九十年代全部停產。
「轟-6M」攜四枚攻艦導彈重新啟動的「轟-6」生產線當然不是重新生產老飛機，而是生產改進型的「轟-6M」型。改型機最早是二○○二年珠海航展上亮相，同時還有該型機的模型。「轟-6M」的意外亮相立即引起了各方的猜測，他們注意到「轟-6M」的機翼下攜有四枚空對艦導彈，當時有國外專家分析說，導彈細長的彈體和其他外型特徵說明它屬於「鷹擊-8」系列，性能接近於美國的AGM-84E導彈或者AGM-142導彈，其發動機是渦輪噴氣式，加上彈體更輕，因此它的射程會更遠。
但珠海航展後，「轟-6M」就從人們的視界中消失了，一直到最近才得知中國的生產線即將重啟。據華盛頓國際戰略協會的中國軍事專家稱，「轟-6M」自重七十二噸，雙發動機，航程五千公里，將交給海軍航空兵使用，目的是搜尋並摧毀敵方水面艦隻。現在外界未能掌握中國軍方會生產多少架，但估計應該是十多架。
「鷹擊-83」導彈專打航母據美國全球安全組織的專家觀察，「轟-6M」將攜載4枚YJ-83（「鷹擊-83」）新型反艦巡航導彈。
據《華盛頓時報》比爾．蓋特茨介紹，中國的「殲／轟-7」在華北渤海灣試射了YJ-83反艦巡航導彈。試驗結果令美國情報官員震驚。直到不久前，美情報官員預計YJ-83的射程為七十五英里，但新試驗的導彈射程為一百五十五英里（二百五十公里），超過美國海軍「標準二型SM2」防空導彈。美國五角大樓官員認為，這種導彈是北京針對航空母艦和其他軍艦發展遠程打擊能力的一部分。
《華盛頓時報》援引美國官員的話說，這類導彈說明，中國方面在打擊敵方艦隊方面已經擁有了新的戰鬥力。美方相信YJ-83是C-801超音速反艦巡航導彈的變種，由於速度快，艦隊很難擊落它。
「海上長城」突出「三打三防」
據介紹，YJ-83導彈又稱為C-803，是一種低超音速掠海反艦導彈，被稱為「海上屠夫」，由解放軍海防導彈研究院在一九九九年十月一日五十周年國慶閱兵大典前研製成功，並在國慶閱兵時以實體亮相。它也被解放軍稱為是「爭氣彈」。國防專家說，YJ-83還有在飛行中接受目標信息的能力。詹姆斯基金會中國軍事專家費舍說，YJ-83新導彈將裝備到JH-7a改進型戰鬥轟炸機上。費舍說，該導彈有二百五十公里的射程，解放軍可以在美國海軍防空導彈標準SM-2火力範圍之外發射。美國「標準-2」導彈裝備在台灣的美製「紀德級」驅逐艦上。
據美國媒體報道，中國正在建立「海上長城」，海面武力包括艦對艦、艦對空和空對艦導彈；「隱形戰線」包括電子戰：示假、干擾、電子對抗、電子偽裝等手段將用來破壞對方的精確制導武器和雷達。作戰技能則突出「三打三防」：打隱形飛機、巡航導彈、直升飛機、防精確打擊、電子干擾和偵察監視。
Kampfwagen
Junior Member
Sukhoi Freak said:my choice would be either a fighter bomber or just a ground attack fighter like the A- 10 or Su-25. I aggree the bombers are things of the past. Now a cruise missile can do the job of a battleship or bomber. So instead of China developing huge bombers, we shold build smaller.
It would seem to me like a smart idea to probably get a few Su-25's from Import and then produce them localy. It would certantly cost alot less than developing a standard multi-role bomber.
FreeAsia2000
Junior Member
crobato said:
I read that some of Russia's bombers managed to sneak under american
radar near the alaska area.
It was supposed to be an upgraded backfire
Bombers are still useful, if you can afford to keep them.
The US B-1s and B-52s are still useful for dropping JDAMS and launching cruise missiles, even after 60+ years of its inception for the B-52. China should continue to build the H-6H.
I do like the B-1s, VG, fast, long range, heavy armament, low observable. If china can have something like a B-1, it will be more than ready to face any forseenable enemies.
The US B-1s and B-52s are still useful for dropping JDAMS and launching cruise missiles, even after 60+ years of its inception for the B-52. China should continue to build the H-6H.
I do like the B-1s, VG, fast, long range, heavy armament, low observable. If china can have something like a B-1, it will be more than ready to face any forseenable enemies.
MIGleader
Banned Idiot
sino52C said:
Bomber development present extreme risk. A bomber such as the b-52 is only good against a third-world nation which lacks a good air-cover and advanced SAMs. SAM technology evolves much faster than a bomber can be designed. Even a change of seeker on an old SAM can render a billion-$ bomber project obsolete. This was proven with the U.s Valkyrie project.
True, today it seems its worthwhile to go down two routes if you're making a bomber - one being a low tech fairly cheap cruise missile carrier, other being a high tech expensive plane designed to penetrate enemy defenses unharmed. B-52 and b-2 are perfect examples of those two.
It would be prudent for china to have means of striking guam and diego garcia. Bombers carrying cruise missiles would offer such a capability. Alternatively, one could design a two stage cruise missile, with a huge fuel tank, so it could be fired from trucks in mainland china. With gps guidance the vast distance would not influene the accuracy. If gps signal would be jammed though - it could prove quite risky as INS guidance would be surely inadequate over such distance, and tercom unusable over water. Having a fleet of bombers still seems easier.
It would be prudent for china to have means of striking guam and diego garcia. Bombers carrying cruise missiles would offer such a capability. Alternatively, one could design a two stage cruise missile, with a huge fuel tank, so it could be fired from trucks in mainland china. With gps guidance the vast distance would not influene the accuracy. If gps signal would be jammed though - it could prove quite risky as INS guidance would be surely inadequate over such distance, and tercom unusable over water. Having a fleet of bombers still seems easier.
I agree, China should keep its H6H and in fact keep on producing them.
Maintaining a force of 100 in the PLAAF is quite good, this bomber is proven for its durability, it has decent endurance and a high weapons payload.
With the latest modern versions it could launch cruise missiles and I'm sure with more upgrades could drop PGMs.
I see it useful as a counter insurgency aircraft where any real air defence threat is going to be insignificant. Like Xinjiang and could be used to in Central Asia.
Though very vulnerable, if air superiority can be gained, the effectiveness of these bombers in close support and high altitude bombing roles is undeniable, such as in Vietnam, and can be used over Taiwan.
The Navy should also maintain its H6D-H versions, with cruise missile and AShM capability. At least upgrade their radars so they may serve as patrol aircraft and provide some coverage for littoral craft in mid course guidance for long range missiles like the YJ-82/3 variants.
Maintaining a force of 100 in the PLAAF is quite good, this bomber is proven for its durability, it has decent endurance and a high weapons payload.
With the latest modern versions it could launch cruise missiles and I'm sure with more upgrades could drop PGMs.
I see it useful as a counter insurgency aircraft where any real air defence threat is going to be insignificant. Like Xinjiang and could be used to in Central Asia.
Though very vulnerable, if air superiority can be gained, the effectiveness of these bombers in close support and high altitude bombing roles is undeniable, such as in Vietnam, and can be used over Taiwan.
The Navy should also maintain its H6D-H versions, with cruise missile and AShM capability. At least upgrade their radars so they may serve as patrol aircraft and provide some coverage for littoral craft in mid course guidance for long range missiles like the YJ-82/3 variants.
Without large numbers of precision weaponry, heavy bombers are useless; they are worse than useless, merely targets that can't hit anything themselves. Vietnam was the last war with an opportunity to carpet bomb things. Until China stockplies an arsenal of precision weapons, like JDAMs, it should stick with what it has. However, TU-22s would be useful because of the ASM role. However, for ground attack, a strike aircraft like an A-10, Tornado or Jaguar would suffice at present. The JF-17 could fufill this role, and probably will. (I feel kind of guilty, I haven't really read anything on the JF-17.)
And yes, Free Asia was right. Recently several Russian TU-22s were able to penetrate US air defences around the North Pole. The Air Force found out about it later, and investigated. I forget what they said the problem was, but the point is made, heavy bombers still do have their use-delivering curise missles and precision munitions.
And yes, Free Asia was right. Recently several Russian TU-22s were able to penetrate US air defences around the North Pole. The Air Force found out about it later, and investigated. I forget what they said the problem was, but the point is made, heavy bombers still do have their use-delivering curise missles and precision munitions.