RedMercury
Junior Member
Re: H-6 bomber thread
crobato, how far from a Su-34 would the J-11BS be?
crobato, how far from a Su-34 would the J-11BS be?
H-6 Bomber Aircraft Discussions
- Thread starter F40Racer
- Start date
Re: H-6 bomber thread
Farther than JH7a. Actually, payload wise, JH7a is quite comparable to su34, maybe carrying 500 kg less payload, at most. Range wise, yeah, su34 is better, some 30% better than jh7a; which while possible to improve upon with newer engines, I sort of doubt would be cost effective for china. Avionics can always be upgraded so what's left is the difference in pure aerodynamic performance, where again su34 is somewhat better.
Farther than JH7a. Actually, payload wise, JH7a is quite comparable to su34, maybe carrying 500 kg less payload, at most. Range wise, yeah, su34 is better, some 30% better than jh7a; which while possible to improve upon with newer engines, I sort of doubt would be cost effective for china. Avionics can always be upgraded so what's left is the difference in pure aerodynamic performance, where again su34 is somewhat better.
Chengdu J-10
Junior Member
Re: H-6 bomber thread
Also Su-34 a2a engagment is more effective in means of defending itself against advance adversaries. While the major thing the PLAAF notices is this in the JH-7/A but though the lack in defending itself against advance adversaries in a2a engagment. It is:
A) Domestic
B) Cheaper
C) Compatable with Chinese munitions
D) Supply n demand can be kept more effectively
SD-10/PL-12 on the JH-7/A regardless it can not defend in engagment effectively against the likes of Western forces truley.
"BACK TO H-6 PEOPLE"
Also Su-34 a2a engagment is more effective in means of defending itself against advance adversaries. While the major thing the PLAAF notices is this in the JH-7/A but though the lack in defending itself against advance adversaries in a2a engagment. It is:
A) Domestic
B) Cheaper
C) Compatable with Chinese munitions
D) Supply n demand can be kept more effectively
SD-10/PL-12 on the JH-7/A regardless it can not defend in engagment effectively against the likes of Western forces truley.
"BACK TO H-6 PEOPLE"
Roger604
Senior Member
Re: H-6 bomber thread
The Sinodefence page doesn't list the payload for JH-7A. Do you mean that it's around 7,500 kg? That would be impressive. And if they upgrade the engines, it would be a very good bomb truck.
The Sinodefence page doesn't list the payload for JH-7A. Do you mean that it's around 7,500 kg? That would be impressive. And if they upgrade the engines, it would be a very good bomb truck.
Re: H-6 bomber thread
Design wise, quite far actually. It appears to have a lot more changes than the Su-33UB which is also a side by side seater and often confused with the Su-34.
At this point in time, buying Russian fighters off the shelf won't meet PLAAF requirements. Much better if you have a coop agreement. The Russians will send kids of the fighter without avionics and radar, and the Chinese can fit their own avionics and radar, which can support Chinese missiles and munitions.
From what I gathered the JH-7 is 6500kg, and the JH-7A is 7000kg.
Design wise, quite far actually. It appears to have a lot more changes than the Su-33UB which is also a side by side seater and often confused with the Su-34.
At this point in time, buying Russian fighters off the shelf won't meet PLAAF requirements. Much better if you have a coop agreement. The Russians will send kids of the fighter without avionics and radar, and the Chinese can fit their own avionics and radar, which can support Chinese missiles and munitions.
Roger604 said:
From what I gathered the JH-7 is 6500kg, and the JH-7A is 7000kg.
Re: H-6 bomber thread
While this one has nothing to do with H-6s, it does put the H-6 into context. If the Russians plan to use Tu-95S all the way to 2040, I guess the H-6 design still has it purpose.
Russia resumes nuke bomber sorties
Story Highlights
Russian strategic bombers resume Cold War-style long-haul missions
Russian, U.S. crews "exchanged smiles" as bomber flew over U.S. Pacific base
Bombers enable Russia to launch nuke strike even if ground arsenals wiped out
MOSCOW, Russia (Reuters) -- Russia's strategic bombers have resumed the Soviet Union's Cold War practice of flying long-haul missions to areas patrolled by NATO and the United States, generals said on Thursday.
A Russian bomber flew over a U.S. military base on the Pacific island of Guam on Wednesday and "exchanged smiles" with U.S. pilots who had scrambled to track it, said Maj. Gen. Pavel Androsov, head of long-range aviation in the Russian air force.
"It has always been the tradition of our long-range aviation to fly far into the ocean, to meet [U.S.] aircraft carriers and greet [U.S. pilots] visually," Androsov told a news conference.
"Yesterday we revived this tradition, and two of our young crews paid a visit to the area of the [U.S. Pacific Naval Activities] base of Guam," he said.
President Vladimir Putin has sought to make Russia more assertive in the world.
Putin has boosted defense spending and sought to raise morale in the armed forces, which were starved of funding in the chaos that followed the fall of the Soviet Union.
Androsov said the sortie by the two turboprop Tu-95MS bombers, from a base near Blagoveshchensk in the Far East, had lasted for 13 hours. The Tu-95, codenamed "Bear" by NATO, is Russia's Cold War icon and may stay in service until 2040.
"I think the result was good. We met our colleagues -- fighter jet pilots from [U.S.] aircraft carriers. We exchanged smiles and returned home," Androsov said.
U.S. officials told CNN, however, that the two bombers came no closer than 100 miles to any U.S. aircraft and no closer than 300 miles to the Navy ships, and that there was no visual contact.
Ivan Safranchuk, Moscow office director of the Washington-based World Security Institute, said he saw nothing extraordinary in Moscow sending its bombers around the globe.
"This practice as such never stopped, it was only scaled down because there was less cash available for that," he said. "It doesn't cost much to flex your muscles ... You can burn fuel flying over your own land or you can do it flying somewhere like Guam, in which case political dividends will be higher."
The bombers give Russia the capability of launching a devastating nuclear strike even if the nuclear arsenals on its own territory are wiped out.
During the Cold War, they played elaborate airborne games of cat-and-mouse with Western air forces.
Lt. Gen. Igor Khvorov, air force chief of staff, said the West would have to come to terms with Russia asserting its geopolitical presence around the globe.
"But I don't see anything unusual, this is business as usual ... like it is normal for the U.S. to fly from its continent to Guam or, say, the island of [Diego]Garcia," Khvorov said, referring to a remote Indian Ocean atoll used as a military base by the U.S.
On Wednesday,young pilots of strategic bombers passed a series of tests, including missile launches. "We fired eight cruise missiles, and all hit bull's eye," Khvorov said.
He said one crew had taken off from Engels in southwestern Russia, hit a target in the north and then flown thousands of kilometers before finally landing in the Far East.
Engels is home to Russia's supersonic Tupolev Tu-160 strategic bombers, in service since 1987 and codenamed "Blackjack" by NATO while called "White Swan" by Russian pilots.
The generals said under Putin long-range aviation was no longer hindered by a lack of fuel, the aircraft enjoyed better maintenance and the crews much higher wages -- not the least because the Kremlin leader once made a five-hour sortie as part of a "White Swan" crew.
"The president learned about the pilots' work the hard way," Khvorov said. "This one flight yielded an awful lot."
While this one has nothing to do with H-6s, it does put the H-6 into context. If the Russians plan to use Tu-95S all the way to 2040, I guess the H-6 design still has it purpose.
Russia resumes nuke bomber sorties
Story Highlights
Russian strategic bombers resume Cold War-style long-haul missions
Russian, U.S. crews "exchanged smiles" as bomber flew over U.S. Pacific base
Bombers enable Russia to launch nuke strike even if ground arsenals wiped out
MOSCOW, Russia (Reuters) -- Russia's strategic bombers have resumed the Soviet Union's Cold War practice of flying long-haul missions to areas patrolled by NATO and the United States, generals said on Thursday.
A Russian bomber flew over a U.S. military base on the Pacific island of Guam on Wednesday and "exchanged smiles" with U.S. pilots who had scrambled to track it, said Maj. Gen. Pavel Androsov, head of long-range aviation in the Russian air force.
"It has always been the tradition of our long-range aviation to fly far into the ocean, to meet [U.S.] aircraft carriers and greet [U.S. pilots] visually," Androsov told a news conference.
"Yesterday we revived this tradition, and two of our young crews paid a visit to the area of the [U.S. Pacific Naval Activities] base of Guam," he said.
President Vladimir Putin has sought to make Russia more assertive in the world.
Putin has boosted defense spending and sought to raise morale in the armed forces, which were starved of funding in the chaos that followed the fall of the Soviet Union.
Androsov said the sortie by the two turboprop Tu-95MS bombers, from a base near Blagoveshchensk in the Far East, had lasted for 13 hours. The Tu-95, codenamed "Bear" by NATO, is Russia's Cold War icon and may stay in service until 2040.
"I think the result was good. We met our colleagues -- fighter jet pilots from [U.S.] aircraft carriers. We exchanged smiles and returned home," Androsov said.
U.S. officials told CNN, however, that the two bombers came no closer than 100 miles to any U.S. aircraft and no closer than 300 miles to the Navy ships, and that there was no visual contact.
Ivan Safranchuk, Moscow office director of the Washington-based World Security Institute, said he saw nothing extraordinary in Moscow sending its bombers around the globe.
"This practice as such never stopped, it was only scaled down because there was less cash available for that," he said. "It doesn't cost much to flex your muscles ... You can burn fuel flying over your own land or you can do it flying somewhere like Guam, in which case political dividends will be higher."
The bombers give Russia the capability of launching a devastating nuclear strike even if the nuclear arsenals on its own territory are wiped out.
During the Cold War, they played elaborate airborne games of cat-and-mouse with Western air forces.
Lt. Gen. Igor Khvorov, air force chief of staff, said the West would have to come to terms with Russia asserting its geopolitical presence around the globe.
"But I don't see anything unusual, this is business as usual ... like it is normal for the U.S. to fly from its continent to Guam or, say, the island of [Diego]Garcia," Khvorov said, referring to a remote Indian Ocean atoll used as a military base by the U.S.
On Wednesday,young pilots of strategic bombers passed a series of tests, including missile launches. "We fired eight cruise missiles, and all hit bull's eye," Khvorov said.
He said one crew had taken off from Engels in southwestern Russia, hit a target in the north and then flown thousands of kilometers before finally landing in the Far East.
Engels is home to Russia's supersonic Tupolev Tu-160 strategic bombers, in service since 1987 and codenamed "Blackjack" by NATO while called "White Swan" by Russian pilots.
The generals said under Putin long-range aviation was no longer hindered by a lack of fuel, the aircraft enjoyed better maintenance and the crews much higher wages -- not the least because the Kremlin leader once made a five-hour sortie as part of a "White Swan" crew.
"The president learned about the pilots' work the hard way," Khvorov said. "This one flight yielded an awful lot."
Re: H-6 bomber thread
during the arm limitation talk or SALT with the soviet, US discover that KH-55 cruise missile,unlike tomahawk cruise missile , has no DISMAC .accuracy quote at 25 CEP.
it is possible Chinese version of KH-55 may fitted with optical tracking for digital scene matching.
during the arm limitation talk or SALT with the soviet, US discover that KH-55 cruise missile,unlike tomahawk cruise missile , has no DISMAC .accuracy quote at 25 CEP.
it is possible Chinese version of KH-55 may fitted with optical tracking for digital scene matching.
Re: H-6 bomber thread
Here's a link with some info on the Kh-55 sale:
I find the comparison between Kh-55 and Tomahawks quite interesting.
It's probably not too difficult to update a 1975-era missile with newer guidance package. But I'd also ask that if the range of the missile is up to 2,500-3,000 km, you could theoretically just launch from land-based vehicles from your own territory? Taiwan/Japan/etc. aren't THAT far away.
Here's a link with some info on the Kh-55 sale:
I find the comparison between Kh-55 and Tomahawks quite interesting.
It's probably not too difficult to update a 1975-era missile with newer guidance package. But I'd also ask that if the range of the missile is up to 2,500-3,000 km, you could theoretically just launch from land-based vehicles from your own territory? Taiwan/Japan/etc. aren't THAT far away.
Attachments
-
Kh-55.jpg