H-6 Bomber Aircraft Discussions
- Thread starter F40Racer
- Start date
Semi-Lobster
Junior Member
There's still a niche for high altitude, heavy bombers. If the US experience in Afghanistan, especially the opening months, has shown, sometimes you just really need to blow things up with lots and lots of bombs. The ability to obliterate heavily fortified or dug in enemies is an important asset. Aircraft such as the B-52 have extraordinary range and payload. Bombers also have a very good loiter time and can provide continuous close air support to ground forces like a dedicated ground attack aircraft or strike fighter can; only with a far larger inventory of weapons than a smaller aircraft like the AGM-86 ALCM.
Sure there are stealth UAVs but those a all, precision aircraft.
sealordlawrence
Junior Member
Is it just me or are there two H-6Ks in those photos? Both have multiple underwing hard points and both have what I assume to be a satcom dome. In addition the intakes look the same as does the nose profile even though the one at the rear is covered with a sheet???
Does china have a domestic engine programme that could replace the DK-30 in time?
As for the purpose of this aircraft, conventional bombing, even deep penetration does not appear to be central part of its philosophy. Instead it looks like a sensor / shooter node for a realtime battle network. The satcom would allow the aircraft to target the missiles after it has launched and, depending what is in that nose cone, transmit data back into the network. This would allow it to hit fixed or mobile targets (such as ships) based on real time intelligence. It does not, however, look like it was designed to fly low under radar to makes it way to Moscow to deliver a nuclear weapon.
Does china have a domestic engine programme that could replace the DK-30 in time?
As for the purpose of this aircraft, conventional bombing, even deep penetration does not appear to be central part of its philosophy. Instead it looks like a sensor / shooter node for a realtime battle network. The satcom would allow the aircraft to target the missiles after it has launched and, depending what is in that nose cone, transmit data back into the network. This would allow it to hit fixed or mobile targets (such as ships) based on real time intelligence. It does not, however, look like it was designed to fly low under radar to makes it way to Moscow to deliver a nuclear weapon.
Last edited:
lcloo
Captain
H-6 is increasingly configured as cruise missile carrier and as such it is able to launch attacks at stand-off distance, thus its usefulness has been further extended.
Working as together with PLAN ships and 022 missiles boats, it's load of 6 cruise missiles can add a lot to the number of missiles in a saturation attack agaist a hostile fleet.
Working as together with PLAN ships and 022 missiles boats, it's load of 6 cruise missiles can add a lot to the number of missiles in a saturation attack agaist a hostile fleet.
Unfortunately the H-6 does not fulfill that niche well. It's combat radius is actually less than the J-11 (1,800km vs 2,000km) and its payload is only a hair more (9,000kg vs 8,000kg). I guess it could provide CAS in the same way a loitering B-52 loaded with LGB's could, but the J-11 could do almost as well without having to maintain a completely separate series of aircraft. It's only real niche nowadays is antishipping with the H-6K's ability to lift 6 cruise missiles at the same time, which no fighter can do.
Semi-Lobster
Junior Member
Good point, I keep forgetting how much LARGER the B-52 is compared to the H-6 which is only a medium range bomber. The JH-7A actually has a payload that is about equal to the H-6 as well. The JH-7A is also still considered 'underpowered' and a better engine could increase their ability to carry ordinance ever more.
Last edited:
There is not a chance on this planet J-11 (or any flanker for that matter) has a combat radius of 2000 km with 8000 kg of payload.
JH-7A has a combat radius of around 1100 km carrying 4 YJ-83s (3000 KGs). And J-11 has a smaller combat radius x payload factor than JH-7A. You can also check the figures for F-14, F-15. The maximum combat radius is never quoted with having maximum payload. H-6K has the ability to carry 6 CJ-10K. It's in fact designed to carry larger cruise missiles. I don't know what it's combat radius is with 6 CJ-10K or 6 YJ-83K or 4 CJ-10K, but it's definitely significant more than JH-7A. Basically, H-6K gives China an additional choice in hitting US military targets in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guam
The other one looks like H-6K to me too. They have a couple of domestic engine programs. There is one WS-18 that is based on D-30KP2, but will have better fuel consumption numbers due to more advanced material. Another that is based on the core of WS-10A that will aim to have comparable fuel consumption number to PS-90A. And they have another civilian high bypass engine program that they are working with MTU on. I'm not sure if that will have military applications.
I wrote this a while ago.
Yeah I didn't think about that. That's probably true. On the other hand it's not likely a plane like the H-6K will get anywhere near Iraq or Guam before it's shot down, though I can imagine Afghanistan since it directly borders China. They will probably be tracked and intercepted as soon as they leave Chinese airspace given the US almost certainly has radars it either directly controls or can tap into in places like Afghanistan, Taiwan, Phillipines, and Okinawa. The only way a force of H-6K's will get into a position to launch cruise missiles against a place like Guam is by already having defeated the USAF and USN in that region.
To attack a place like Iraq, some gutsy -stan country will have to allow China to overfly and possibly launch a standoff attack from within their airspace. The likelihood of that is close to zero. If you remember the lengths Reagan had to go to in order to arrange a flight of F-111's from the UK to go around the entire European subcontinent through the Straits of Gibraltar to teach Qaddafi a lesson in manners, just because Spain and France refused overflight privileges. China doesn't even nearly have that kind of pull with its neighbors.
H-6's used to attack distant international targets are asking to be shot down. They are not stealthy. They are large and easily trackable. They are slow. They cannot evade any fighter attack. A single enemy fighter that gets through an escort screen (if there can even be one at that range) will kill as many bombers as it has missiles to fire. I think the H-6's are much better and more safely used in the antishipping role, or in a land attack role against nearby targets in Korea and Japan, where the concentration of escorting friendly fighters can be much thicker than what you would be left with trying to reach out as far as Guam, or even within a 1,000km of Guam tbh.