H-6 Bomber Aircraft Discussions

Speeder said:

--With experiences of Su-27, J-11B, Su-30 and J-15, to "REing" another "flanker" look-alike would not be as difficult as people might think of even without one Su-34 in hand, I pressume?

...a bit like if one who's been making burgers for Burger King for ages surely could take on that of McD given a notice(granted, it's not as simple as making burgers, but you get the drift), especially with the help of ample wind tunnels, supercomputers, a truck load of $$$ and, above all, SAC's irresistiblely age-long reputation of stalking Flankers as if there were no tomorrow, no?

Don't get me wrong, peronsally I think Su-34 is a far better option for the moment.

Click to expand...

... Well there is supposed to be a strike-flanker project called J-16, kind of like a souped up MKK, which could provide near Su-34 capabilities.

But there's no reason for PLAAF to go out of their way to go for a plane like Su-34 (do they even need it?) when SAC can come up with their own strike derivation of the flanker themselves.

Speeder said:

Don't get me wrong, personally I think Su-34 is a far better option for the moment.

Click to expand...

I could not agree more...

Bltizo said:

... Well there is supposed to be a strike-flanker project called J-16, kind of like a souped up MKK, which could provide near Su-34 capabilities.

But there's no reason for PLAAF to go out of their way to go for a plane like Su-34 (do they even need it?) when SAC can come up with their own strike derivation of the flanker themselves.

Click to expand...

Ja, that's what I meant - of course not buying Su-34 from Rus outright, just allow SAC to stalk another victim without licence.


So the rumor does have some basis, you say?


Emotionally i really hope the next one, whatever that is, out of SAC's so-called design house is not a flanker, again!

The good news as we all know is that SAC has made "China aviation =Copy without licence" a world-wide household name.


Yet again, on the other hand eternal beauty aside, Su-34 (J-16 or J-17 thus? ) has a relatively really great F/B function , unlike this new H6 which - in all honesty i am trying to put it in the most romantic light here - looks just like coming straight out of glorious Stalingrad along with the remaining Germans...

^ I think the rumor unlikely to be real.

SAC are already said to be developing a strike flanker (J-16) and that should be able to perform most of the functions of the Su-34. The PLAAF are also content with H-6K as a heavy cruise missile carrying platform (despite everything I don't think Su-34 can carry six 2500 km LACMs). There is no reason for another strike fighter like Su-34.

Personally I feel like the next new SAC aircraft we see will either be J-16 or the much discussed J-19/21

I do not see SU-34 as a strike fighter at all, but as a (light) bomber.

Not very odd, since it is designed to replace SU-24 (will take many years!).

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Su-34 have a payload of some 8 tons, similar to MKK/MK2/MKI?

I feel the main differences between the fullback and other strike flankers is it's greater range/endurance from its flight deck redesign and greater survivability. But it can carry the same variety of weapons as MKK/MK2, no?

And the roles of "light bomber" like Su-34/Su-24/F-111 of recent days and yesteryear has been complemented if not replaced by heavy strike fighters like F-15E/MKK imo. But something neither can do is carry a load of long range cruise missiles, and that's where H-6K will excel in.

franco-russe said:

I do not see SU-34 as a strike fighter at all, but as a (light) bomber.

Not very odd, since it is designed to replace SU-24 (will take many years!).

Click to expand...

The Su-34 should qualify as a fighter-bomber since it is actually quite nimble for a dedicated air to ground platform. The flanker airframe allows it to do some pretty amazing stuff when it isn't loaded.

Yes, I believe the weapons load of SU-34 is 8 tons.

For a fighter, it has a most unusual cockpit, with space for the two crew members to walk around, go to the loo and make coffee... The virtue of this light bomber, as I understand it, is its long range, ferry range 4,000 km.

I think the H6K must be fairly cheap to buy, despite the redesign and new engines. A Su34 has similar weapon load but far better survivability and multirole capabilities, however it simply can't match the range or endurance of a new H6K. With the D30K upgrade and possibly new material it's possible that the H6K will have a 2500-3000km combat radius, which is more than double the combat radius of a Su34.

Bltizo said:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Su-34 have a payload of some 8 tons, similar to MKK/MK2/MKI?

I feel the main differences between the fullback and other strike flankers is it's greater range/endurance from its flight deck redesign and greater survivability. But it can carry the same variety of weapons as MKK/MK2, no?

And the roles of "light bomber" like Su-34/Su-24/F-111 of recent days and yesteryear has been complemented if not replaced by heavy strike fighters like F-15E/MKK imo. But something neither can do is carry a load of long range cruise missiles, and that's where H-6K will excel in.

Click to expand...

There is a difference in range between su-34 carrying 8 tons and mkk/mk2 carrying 8 tons. If you look at the description for Su-34, it's variety of weapons is actually different from mkk and mk2.

H-6K and Su-34 clearly have two different roles. China's equivalent to Su-34 will be J-16 whenever it comes out. We will see how effective it is.

franco-russe said:

Yes, I believe the weapons load of SU-34 is 8 tons.

For a fighter, it has a most unusual cockpit, with space for the two crew members to walk around, go to the loo and make coffee... The virtue of this light bomber, as I understand it, is its long range, ferry range 4,000 km.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I think that's the good part for Su-34. Su-30mkk was originally designed to have longer range/endurance vs Su-27 and be a multi-role fighter jet, but it's really not that advanced in its avionics, weapon load and such. Su-34 was designed right from the start to be a fighter bomber. That's why it uses side-by-side seating and have a toilet and such. When you are on a long range missions, it helps to get up once in a while.


The thing about H-6K is that it's a bomb truck. It's probably the least capable bomb truck there is, but it can do the job of carrying LACMs and launching them better than anything else in PLAAF. I'm really not sure how many H-6K they will even produce when one considers the number of D-30s they procured and the production responsibilities of XAC, but it's good to have some around.

I haven't looked this up, does anyone know how large are the normal H-6 regiments?