H-6 Bomber Aircraft Discussions

Bltizo said:

Nah the latest iteration (H-6K) can carry 6 tomahawk ranged cruise missiles and has been re engined, rebuilt and has new avionics so it has much greater range and capability in general -- so it can certainly act as a potent stand off platform.
The H-6K retains its internal weapons bay as well and has an optics ball on the underside of the aircraft. I feel it could act as a loitering precision bomb truck for support of ground forces (once air superiority has been secured) with little modification, and the additional wing pylons for cruise missiles should be able to support racks of pgms as well.

While older H-6s will be phased out, the H-6K still has a viable future though I agree China needs a larger tanker (transport) aircraft. A stealthy bomber like the B-2 would be nice but is a way off yet. They might even go directly for orbital/suborbital bombers instead.

Click to expand...

I did not realize the K variant can carry up to 6 cruise missiles, a little hard to imagine where they gonna hang them all. 2 on the hard points on either side of the wing and 4 in the bay? i've seen some pictures of the H-6's bomb bay, it is surprisingly small, and it doesn't seem like it can carry more than half dozen 2000lb bombs so i'll be surprised if they can fit 1 cruise missile in the bay...

as for adding more pylons to the wing, it is a tall order, you can't simply add pylons to the wing, structural wise it is not possible unless a redesign work on the wing is done to strengthen the additional hard points.

usaf0314 said:

I did not realize the K variant can carry up to 6 cruise missiles, a little hard to imagine where they gonna hang them all. 2 on the hard points on either side of the wing and 4 in the bay? i've seen some pictures of the H-6's bomb bay, it is surprisingly small, and it doesn't seem like it can carry more than half dozen 2000lb bombs so i'll be surprised if they can fit 1 cruise missile in the bay...

as for adding more pylons to the wing, it is a tall order, you can't simply add pylons to the wing, structural wise it is not possible unless a redesign work on the wing is done to strengthen the additional hard points.

Click to expand...

Yes the weapons bay itself is relatively small, which won't be used for carrying cruise missiles -- in fact I don't think any badger has been used for that role.
The H-6K is a completely redesigned H-6, and I think one of the core demands was the inclusion of six pylons, each capable of carrying a CJ-10K. So yes the structure would've been redesigned for this task. Just looking at the aircraft only its overall configuration is similar to the original badger.



So in my mind it should be capable of carrying at least a triple rack of medium sized PGMs on each pylon, and the weapons bay, while small, can also carry a respectable load of PGMs.

Bltizo said:

Yes the weapons bay itself is relatively small, which won't be used for carrying cruise missiles -- in fact I don't think any badger has been used for that role.
The H-6K is a completely redesigned H-6, and I think one of the core demands was the inclusion of six pylons, each capable of carrying a CJ-10K. So yes the structure would've been redesigned for this task. Just looking at the aircraft only its overall configuration is similar to the original badger.

So in my mind it should be capable of carrying at least a triple rack of medium sized PGMs on each pylon, and the weapons bay, while small, can also carry a respectable load of PGMs.

Click to expand...

interesting, i've seen the picture somewhere before, but never noticed the 6 hard points. the wing looks thicker and have a longer root cord than before, this would certainly strengthen the wing considerably.

usaf0314 said:

interesting, i've seen the picture somewhere before, but never noticed the 6 hard points. the wing looks thicker and have a longer root cord than before, this would certainly strengthen the wing considerably.

Click to expand...

Really? this plane's been known since the mid 2000s.

Anyway here's a picture of the H-6K carrying three cruise missiles on one wing.



If each cruise missile is about 1.5 tons like a tomahawk without booster, then you get a 9 ton payload. Not sure what the range of such a load out would be, but I imagine the H-6K would have to fly near the first and possibly second island chains to let off their loads at a useful (ie, not max) range.

Given china's come out recently with hosts of GPS, laser and EO guided bombs from large 500 kg all the way to 50 kg SDB, the potential for anywhere from three up to a dozen PGMs on a pylon is salivating, if not perhaps a bit unpractical.

Anyway here's how the bombs are arranged inside... Imagine replacing each of those with a PGM instead

Speaking of the H-6K, how much differences are there in the modification? I knew it now has a solid nose, strengthened wings, and increased payload and range，but is it really an entirely new and completely competitive system as strategic bomber for a modern air force?

Also, how many of the Ks are in service? Are they replacing the entire fleet?

The rear end has a solid cone now -- most of this info you can find on sinodefence's dated pages and huitong's entries.
But H-6 is far from the B-52's weight class, so it isn't in the same "league". But they are similar in that both are cold war era designs rebuilt or redesigned to be competitive for the 21st century. I'd also say that H-6K, being a completely new aircraft and not rebuilt, could be more "advanced" (avionics, self defense, cockpit) than the last B-52 upgrade, the H.
I'm especially interested in what flight control system the K has. As an aircraft redesigned in/for the 21st century I imagine it should have some form of FBW. Also I wonder if the H-6K's optics ball has a laser targeting ability in addition to standard IR/EO tracking. I believe B-52H needs to carry a litening pod to autonomously carry out LGB strikes.

I personally think people are underestimating the potential of the H-6K -- it gives the PLAAF a fairly survivable, modern, stand off platform and bomb truck. Potentially a large flexible strike platform, which is something they've never had before.

report 2 years ago, about the PLAAF has introduced rotary phylon.this allow the bomber to drop guide bomb one bomb one target,instead of dumping the entire bomb load.
but judging from bomb bay, it simple do no have any space for rotary phylon,unless H-6K has bigger space or rotary weapon phylon is much smaller.

H-6


H-6 tanker with new solid nose

[Note: Thank you to No_name for the picture link and TPHuang for the caption.]

----------


H-6K can carry three cruise missiles under one wing.


Another look at the H-6K pylons, each likely capable of carrying a CJ-10K air-launched cruise missile.

[Note: Thank you to Bltizo for the post.]

dude, the first one is not a bomber, it's tanker. It serves for PLAAF as you can see with the number. It is also the new type with solid nose.