H-6 Bomber Aircraft Discussions

sealordlawrence said:

Please google the following: Vickers Valiant, Avro Vulcan, Handley Page Victor, Short Sperrin, Vickers VC10 and Shorts Belfast.

Click to expand...

I was about to join the fray when I saw that you had pre-empted me. Pugachev's allegation is about the most ill informed comment I have seen. And you are even forgetting the DH Comet, which was after all the first transatlantic jet liner (but what the heck is the Sperrin? Hopefully not a bomber).

That said, I should also point out that Concorde was a Franco-British joint effort, proposed by the French whose share was probably somewhat larger (I am not talking about the engines) than the British, as is gently suggested by the spelling of the name.

franco-russe said:

I was about to join the fray when I saw that you had pre-empted me. Pugachev's allegation is about the most ill informed comment I have seen. And you are even forgetting the DH Comet, which was after all the first transatlantic jet liner (but what the heck is the Sperrin? Hopefully not a bomber).

That said, I should also point out that Concorde was a Franco-British joint effort, proposed by the French whose share was probably somewhat larger (I am not talking about the engines) than the British, as is gently suggested by the spelling of the name.

Click to expand...

All aircraft mentioned had take off weights of less than 80 tons. There was a French large aircraft, able to transport 180 passengers on two decks and with engines of the same type as the Boeing 377 Stratocruiser, with a take off weight of 77 tons. Concorde weighted at take off some 180 tons. So what do you think about these weights?
Btw, the Short Sperrin was the first British four engined jet bomber. Two were built in the early '50's. Max.take off weight some 52 tons.

Now I have seen the Sperrin on Wiki: What a horrible contraption! Just as well that the British never series-built it.

I was merely joking when referring to the TU-95. Of course China could not build such a huge plane in the 50's (though they did, as far as I know, manage to build the B-29 via its Soviet derivative, the TU-4). But the qualities that Bltizo was looking for seemed to be exactly those of the TU-95MS.

Actually Concorde was more British, the spelling was a courtesy as much as anything else. Both countries had significant input but the majority of know-how was British. Indeed the UK had far more knowledge about sustained supersonic flight.

The Sperrin was somewhat ungainly but it was always designed as first generation jet bomber as a backup to the more complicated V-Bombers.

Delft, your numbers refer to the B.1 variants not the later and much heavier B.2 variants. You also forgot about the VC10.

It is a bit silly to argue over these ancient matters, but the supersonic Lightning and Mirage III appeared in squadron service at precisely the same moment, Spring 1960. I would tend to think that your point of view is slightly biased (cf. the immense superiority of the OBERON over the FOXTROT).

sealordlawrence said:

Actually Concorde was more British, the spelling was a courtesy as much as anything else. Both countries had significant input but the majority of know-how was British. Indeed the UK had far more knowledge about sustained supersonic flight.

The Sperrin was somewhat ungainly but it was always designed as first generation jet bomber as a backup to the more complicated V-Bombers.

Delft, your numbers refer to the B.1 variants not the later and much heavier B.2 variants. You also forgot about the VC10.

Click to expand...

You're quite right.

franco-russe said:

It is a bit silly to argue over these ancient matters, but the supersonic Lightning and Mirage III appeared in squadron service at precisely the same moment, Spring 1960. I would tend to think that your point of view is slightly biased (cf. the immense superiority of the OBERON over the FOXTROT).

Click to expand...

No bias at all, historical fact. I said sustained supersonic flight, not the supersonic flight times of fighters with small fuel loads. And yes, the oberon class caned the Foxtrot for a multitude of reasons.

»Ø¸´: H-6 Bomber Aircraft Discussions

Latest H-6K update:

This aircraft is covered in sensors, beyond the solid nose, which one assumes houses a large radar scanner, it also has an optical sensor turret mounted under the nose and a further white radome mounted under the rear fuselage (any guesses on purpose? I was thinking classic blind bombing radar) and also has a large dome on the top of the rear fuselage which I think might be a satcom. There is also the collection of aerials just behind the cockpit.

Based on this I am changing my opinion about the H-6K, I originally thought this was basically a giant sensor and cruise missile platform, however it seems to be a bit more than that. Perhaps even a dedicated strategic (theatre) strike asset. I suggest that this raises the possibility of a new chinese heavy bomber quite dramatically.

It's assumed there is no IFR probe . Can someone explain why they would decide not to include this? No need for extended range? Too expensive for H6K,replacement will have it? I'm curious.

I'm just posting those pictures here now. The first two show a couple of H-6Ks in service with a particular bomber division (huitong claims 11x9x) which would be the 8th bomber division. This is according to scramble

Guangzhou Military Region
Wenshui
Pos: 37°24'32"N 111°58'00"E

Back to top
Google Maps
Division Regiment Aircraft Type(s) Serial range
8th Bomber Division
第8轰炸机师

Air Regiment
H6 1xx9x
It is believed that the 8th Division has vacated this airfield.







Maybe it does not have IFR probe because it's range is far enough as is and China sees no reason that it would longer range?

I think this platform could be used to test out some stuff that they would want to install on their next generation bomber. I still think it's basically a longer ranged cruise missile platform compared to previous H6.