H-6 Bomber Aircraft Discussions

Re: Question regarding the future of the H-6 bomber

i doubt the H-6 has any use without total air supiriority. today, the trend is not a group of large bombers with fighter escourts but more single aircraft strike. such as in the case of F-117, B-2 and the Su-34(?). these deep strike aircraft are what the PLAAF is missing from there inventroy. (well, maybe the su-30 does have some ability)

(lol i hope i did a ok job of my first thread )

Re: Question regarding the future of the H-6 bomber

The H-6s are intended to be used more as cruise missile carriers, so because of standoff ranges, it's not likely to get into harm's way.

For deep strike, there are the Su-30s and the JH-7/-7As.

Re: Question regarding the future of the H-6 bomber

speculator said:

i doubt the H-6 has any use without total air supiriority. today, the trend is not a group of large bombers with fighter escourts but more single aircraft strike. such as in the case of F-117, B-2 and the Su-34(?). these deep strike aircraft are what the PLAAF is missing from there inventroy. (well, maybe the su-30 does have some ability)

(lol i hope i did a ok job of my first thread )

Click to expand...

Su30 for china is Su30mkk,it is only a kind of multi role heavy fighter,it's navel variant Su30mkk2,with enhanced anti-ship strike capablilty,service in PLA navy.
Su34 is real fighting bomber,much more heavy loading for weapons and fuel,it's capable carry lot's of deffint kind of missiles and bombs.Su34 can launch long range cruise missile far for thousands km,all of these the Su30 can not compair with it,and Su34's range is much longer then Su30.
as we posted here before,H6 is progressed to LACMs-the plafrom launch long range cruise missiles,and it is inflight refuelling tanker.
H6 still has some use with air supiriority.but those long range bomber like Tu- 22m that china may not want to buy it,the reson I already posted before.
one thing I want to tell you US F117 is retired after US F22 service in USAF.but B52 bomber is still service in USAF.

Re: Question regarding the future of the H-6 bomber

speculator said:

i doubt the H-6 has any use without total air supiriority. today, the trend is not a group of large bombers with fighter escourts but more single aircraft strike. such as in the case of F-117, B-2 and the Su-34(?). these deep strike aircraft are what the PLAAF is missing from there inventroy. (well, maybe the su-30 does have some ability)

(lol i hope i did a ok job of my first thread )

Click to expand...

I think only the US has that capability. In 1991, it took the US 6 aircraft to destroy 1 target, now it takes 1 aircraft to destroy 6 targets. A single B-2 can destroy dozens of targets by itself. This is mainly due to the maturity of US weapons guidance system. I don't think CHina is up to that level of accuracy to be able to ensure target destruction by a single low yield bomb.

I believe China still uses a "strike package" attack, with many aircraft used to destroy a target. (Air escort, Sam Suppression, attack)

Su30 for china is Su30mkk,it is only a kind of multi role heavy fighter,it's navel variant Su30mkk2,with enhanced anti-ship strike capablilty,service in PLA navy.
Su34 is real fighting bomber,much more heavy loading for weapons and fuel,it's capable carry lot's of deffint kind of missiles and bombs.Su34 can launch long range cruise missile far for thousands km,all of these the Su30 can not compair with it,and Su34's range is much longer then Su30.
as we posted here before,H6 is progressed to LACMs-the plafrom launch long range cruise missiles,and it is inflight refuelling tanker.
H6 still has some use with air supiriority.but those long range bomber like Tu- 22m that china may not want to buy it,the reson I already posted before.
one thing I want to tell you US F117 is retired after US F22 service in USAF.but B52 bomber is still service in USAF.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, the SU-34 is not in service with any country, Russia including. The Su 30 is a true multi-role fighter, it is at home fighting in the air and in air to ground. The SU-34, with its ackward side by side sitting, is not conducive for air to air combat.

Besides the B-52, the other long lived bomber is the Tu-95 Bear. Its uses are missile carrier, maritime survellance, and carpet bomber. Oh, carpet bombing still has many uses. Assuming air superiority is achieve, carpet bombing wrecks havoc on enemy ground formations forcing them to disperse their forces. This makes it easier for ground forces to destroy them in detail by engaging them in smaller parts than the entire whole.

Re: Question regarding the future of the H-6 bomber

the Russia try to use Su34 instead of those long range Bombers,but they still have some deffint oppinion on that.
the russian defence minister said in Beijing they would like to sale Su34 to china,but we don't know china like to buy or not.
Su34 absolutely has air to air strike capabililty,it equiped R-77,R-73 air to air missiles,one Gsh-301 air strike gun,one thing I should mansion is Su34 equiped air to air "back vision search radar",capable of air to air strike the target behind.
this year Su34 will service in Russian airforce,to 2010 will equip one regiment.
all information is from chinese magazine "Ordnance Knowledge"-2006.7
[email protected]

Re: Question regarding the future of the H-6 bomber

Not counting Chinese service, the Tu-16 Badger is also one long lived bomber. It lasted from the early fifties right to the dissolution of the Soviet Union and then some years after until the post SU military budget can no longer support them.

Being a medium bomber, it's not the best bomber for carpet bombing however, not unlike heavy bombers like the B-52 or Tu-95.

It is unfortunate the PLAAF never had the Tu-95. They would have enjoyed the benefits of this versatile bomber.

Contrary to what most people or common opinion would expect, I think what China needs more now is a versatile bomber that has lots of loiter time as against a strike or multirole fighter bomber. China already has the JH-7A and Su-30s to play that role. While the Su-34 is one sexy aircraft, it won't offer anymore more than what a JH-7A or Su-30 could do. I don't think Su-24 or Tu-22/22M would do it either.

A bomber with lots of loiter time is what you need for a plane that can double as a maritime patrol aircraft, ship and sub hunter, standoff missile launcher, recon, ELINT/EW, or even an AWACS. To put it in perspective, the fact that China decided to revive and restart the manufacturing of such an old design like the Tu-16 tells you that much more modern designs cannot fill the loiter role successfully. Even then, that China took the step of converting the An-12/Y-8 design into loiter intensive roles tell you that even the H-6 is still somewhat marginal for roles requring maximum loiter time. I won't be surprised to see Y-8s turned into anti shipping aircraft or even gunships.

Re: Question regarding the future of the H-6 bomber

I think that the era of carpet bombing in a regional war is over. Hence the only role left for H-6 is cruise missle carrier. And that's until China has a smaller, more fuel-efficient, more versetile striker (e.g. Su-34). It would be unwise for China to develop something like Tu-95 or B-2 to replace her H-6 fleet because 1) cost 2) China's strategic military objectives are still mainly for defence, and developing a long range strategic bomber certainly is not for defence purpose. After all, only super powers like US or USSR needed them for first nuclear strikes.

If China decides to import Su-34, I think that would mean the end of H-6 as a cruise-missle carrier. Converting H-6 to fulfill EW missions may be feasible, though Y-8 is probably a better platform for EW missions.

Re: Question regarding the future of the H-6 bomber

oringo said:

I think that the era of carpet bombing in a regional war is over. Hence the only role left for H-6 is cruise missle carrier. And that's until China has a smaller, more fuel-efficient, more versetile striker (e.g. Su-34). It would be unwise for China to develop something like Tu-95 or B-2 to replace her H-6 fleet because 1) cost 2) China's strategic military objectives are still mainly for defence, and developing a long range strategic bomber certainly is not for defence purpose. After all, only super powers like US or USSR needed them for first nuclear strikes.

If China decides to import Su-34, I think that would mean the end of H-6 as a cruise-missle carrier. Converting H-6 to fulfill EW missions may be feasible, though Y-8 is probably a better platform for EW missions.

Click to expand...

You underestimate the effectiveness of carpet bombing. The last time it was use was in 1991 gulf war. It basically destroys the morale of front line troops. USAF would drop leaflets about the time and place of the carpet bombing and the thousands of Iraqi soldiers station there would surrender before it happens. A 3 ship B-52 formation can totally obliterate an area 1 mile wide and 3 miles long.

Re: Question regarding the future of the H-6 bomber

IDonT said:

You underestimate the effectiveness of carpet bombing. The last time it was use was in 1991 gulf war. It basically destroys the morale of front line troops. USAF would drop leaflets about the time and place of the carpet bombing and the thousands of Iraqi soldiers station there would surrender before it happens. A 3 ship B-52 formation can totally obliterate an area 1 mile wide and 3 miles long.

Click to expand...

No I didn't. Carpet bombing won't have a theatre like 1991 Gulf War any more, where the majority of the SAM and radar systems were taken out. Sending an H-6 to carpet-bomb Patriot-equipped Taiwan is equivalent to suicide.

Btw, if you want to destroy enemy frontline morale, another way is to use multiple-launch rockets. They can achieve the same effect with less efforts. They are cheaper to operate, too. China has quite a few of those in her pockets.

Re: Question regarding the future of the H-6 bomber

If China decides to import Su-34, I think that would mean the end of H-6 as a cruise-missle carrier. Converting H-6 to fulfill EW missions may be feasible, though Y-8 is probably a better platform for EW missions.

Click to expand...

I don't think so. A plane like the H-6 is likely to carry larger and more cruise missiles without handling difficulties than an Su-34. This is not a matter of engine power, this is a matter of wing design. The H-6 has more space to put various equipment on board. It also allows for more crew. The plane can still carry more fuel and can spend more time to loiter.

The Su-34 fills more of the same space as the JH-7A, not the H-6, although I suspect China is also seriously considering the Su-27KUB.