H-6 Bomber Aircraft Discussions

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
Oh, think that the photo was not meant to clarify things at all. I believe that it was to try and make things look different than they were.

The photo made it look like the H-6K was closer to the Japanese territory and land mass than it actually was, and they had to do a PS job to do that.

It would have been easy to simply state what the land mass was and that would have clarified it more than sufficiently.

Instead they made this:

lrj30uk0h2jue-jpg.42719


Look like this:

H6fX9m0.jpg


The second would have been an aircraft flying either dangerously close to, or actually violating Japanese air space, while the other show the aircraft where it actually flew, higher and further away.

But that is simply my opinion. Poeple can believe whatever they want to about it.
 

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
That only makes it a poorly done "artist's impression" of an actual event rather than a fictitious event, it is not a genuine photo. On SDF it is important for a poster to point this out if they already realize it, otherwise others will find it necessary to point out lest there is confusion whether it is a genuine photo.

Not flying that close!

No operational bomber carries AAMs. It would simply be a waste of the missiles.

Bombers rely on the range of their missiles and fighter support to stay alive.

In a conflict scenario, no bomber would fly without fighter escort in or even near enemy territory.
Well said by both of you!

Bravo!
 

jobjed

Captain
Oh, think that the photo was not meant to clarify things at all. I believe that it was to try and make things look different than they were.
It did try to make things look different; it removes the clouds and zoomed in on the landmass to clarify what it was.

The photo made it look like the H-6K was closer to the Japanese territory and land mass than it actually was, and they had to do a PS job to do that.
Yes, that tends to happen when you zoom into something. Not sure if you've used a camera before but when you zoom on something, whatever you're looking at tends to appear closer.

They needed the zoom to make the land features clear. If they wanted to imply that China can hurt Japan as much as Japan had hurt China, a much more visceral and confronting image would've been produced. No, seriously, I can photoshop one right now if you want me to prove it.

It would have been easy to simply state what the land mass was and that would have clarified it more than sufficiently.
I'm also not sure if you've heard of the phrase "a picture's worth a thousand words." If you have the option of using words or pictures, always opt for pictures. That's human psychology 101.
 

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
It did try to make things look different; it removes the clouds and zoomed in on the landmass to clarify what it was.


Yes, that tends to happen when you zoom into something. Not sure if you've used a camera before but when you zoom on something, whatever you're looking at tends to appear closer.

They needed the zoom to make the land features clear. If they wanted to imply that China can hurt Japan as much as Japan had hurt China, a much more visceral and confronting image would've been produced. No, seriously, I can photoshop one right now if you want me to prove it.


I'm also not sure if you've heard of the phrase "a picture's worth a thousand words." If you have the option of using words or pictures, always opt for pictures. That's human psychology 101.
Careful jobjed...you are getting very lose to being insulting in you responses...and I will not tolerate that directed at me or anyone else on this forurm, on either side.

The idea about whether I have used a camera before is just ridiculous...and, as I said...insulting.

But it also, IMHO, goes to prove my point.

Whoever did the PS job was trying to make things look different that they actually were.

It was called out...as it should be here on SD.

Anyone could have simply said..."Oh, that land mass back there in the distance is the Japanese air base on Okinawa." That would have clarified things while maintaining what actually happened.

But they did not want that impression...if they did, then even with the PS, they could have simply put an honest caption that said.

"This photo PSd and changed to clarify the Japanese air base, which was actually MUCH further away when the aircraft actually flew by it."

But they did not do that...they put a picture out that made things appear differently than they were as was simply dishonest in so doing.

Let's just leave it at that.

There is no need to continue going back and forth over such a discussion. we have both said our part. Do not continue trying to push the point.
 

huitong

Junior Member
Registered Member
It did try to make things look different; it removes the clouds and zoomed in on the landmass to clarify what it was.


Yes, that tends to happen when you zoom into something. Not sure if you've used a camera before but when you zoom on something, whatever you're looking at tends to appear closer.

They needed the zoom to make the land features clear. If they wanted to imply that China can hurt Japan as much as Japan had hurt China, a much more visceral and confronting image would've been produced. No, seriously, I can photoshop one right now if you want me to prove it.

I'm also not sure if you've heard of the phrase "a picture's worth a thousand words." If you have the option of using words or pictures, always opt for pictures. That's human psychology 101.

I am 100% with you jobjed. You said exactly what I want to say, bravo! For the record, I made that image based on Google Earth for the reason you already said. But GE did have restrictions as to how much I could zoom in/out at a certain angle. Of course there are some discrepancies, but that was the best I could. Some people don't like it, that's fine for me too. Anyway I did NOT post that image at SDF in the first place to start a controversy.
 

Hendrik_2000

Lieutenant General
I don't think there is any need for panic It is normal development of Chinese airforce now that they have medium range bomber might as well use it for patrol
US flew bomber close to SCS so no difference. This article make comment on refueling and they just did that From Henri K. And of course in time of real crisis they will be escorted by fighter
The composite fueling boom, developed by CASC for a certain "large aircraft", was delivered for installation. H-6N? Y-20x?
DNe_wWVUEAAKu5H.jpg


Chinese bomber runs near Guam aimed at sending a message to US, analysts say
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

US defence officials tell military news website they’re worried about potential threat from Beijing

PUBLISHED : Wednesday, 01 November, 2017, 7:01pm
UPDATED : Wednesday, 01 November, 2017, 8:20pm

0b7d9b3e-bee6-11e7-b942-6d23cbdef96a_1280x720_202018.JPG


The H-6K Badger warplanes – with 1,600km range air-launched cruise missiles – are testing US defence zones around Guam, the Military Times quoted unnamed US defence officials in the region as saying on Tuesday.

China’s bomber runs targeting Guam were part of a range of activities making US forces in the territory worry about the potential threat from Beijing – even as North Korea pursues its nuclear weapons programme, the report said.

“It’s very common for [People’s Republic of China] aircraft to intercept US aircraft” these days, one of the officials said. “The PRC is practising attacks on Guam.”

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


China’s recent activities in the area suggested it was preparing to defend expanded boundaries, according to the officials.

“We now have, on a daily basis, armed Chinese Flankers and Japanese aircraft” coming in close proximity of each other, the officials said, adding that intercepts between the US and China were also increasing.

China’s defence ministry did not respond to a request for comment.

The H-6K, a strategic bomber that entered service in 2009, is designed for long-range and stand-off attacks and could strike US carrier battle groups and priority targets in Asia.

It has a combat range of 2,000km while the missile it carries extends the bomber’s strike range to 4,000km – meaning it can operate over the high seas.

The bombers were used to patrol the Scarborough Shoal area of the South China Sea – an area claimed by both Beijing and Manila – in July last year, according to Chinese state media.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Collin Koh, a maritime security expert at Nanyang Technological University in Singapore, said China was trying to strengthen its deterrence capability by pushing further into the western Pacific Ocean.

“I believe China is first and foremost keen to intensify measures closer to shore, but pushing the envelope further out into the western Pacific also serves the purpose of enhancing deterrence against the US, with an overall strategic aim of raising the costs of Washington if it chooses to intervene militarily in, say, Taiwan or the East China Sea,” Koh said.

China first revealed its new-generation H-6K strategic bomber at a military parade in 2015 marking the 70th anniversary of the end of the second world war. The new aircraft will be equipped with DH-20 land-attack cruise missiles, putting Australia within striking distance. At present, only Russia and the US can launch cruise missiles from the air.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


But military experts said shortfalls in the design would hold back its combat capabilities.

“Without mid-air refuelling and proper fighter escorts, these bombers are essentially sitting ducks out over the open western Pacific,” Koh said.

Given the limitations, Zhou Chenming, another military expert, said China was mainly using the warplane for nearshore operations.

“It’s absurd for China to deploy H-6Ks to attack Guam because Chinese missiles – or even nuclear weapons – can do the same job without dispatching personnel. Currently, those bombers mainly fly around Taiwan, sending a message to the island’s pro-independence forces,” Zhou said.
 
Top