H-6 Bomber Aircraft Discussions
- Thread starter F40Racer
- Start date
Is there any reason that China have absolutely NO bomber air craft development at all? When you look at Russia and US, their bomber development are almost as rapid as jet fighters.
Why is China not investing any money into replacing the Tu-16, that will be like China is still flying J-7 today.
Why is China not investing any money into replacing the Tu-16, that will be like China is still flying J-7 today.
I really don't know where bombers fit in a modern war doctrine. They'll really be fat slow ducks flying across the sky waiting to be shot down by SAM systems. Of course they can be used against rag tag armies but China is not interested in fighting a war in the Middle East or Africa.
Nonetheless, if China really was interested in bombers, their lack of development may be linked to their lack of expertise in developing large aircraft and their engines. China already has a large transport project and a large airliner project so a large bomber project might seem redundant or excessive.
Subedei
Banned Idiot
Actually, the H-6 (Tu-16) has been in continual development. And while this may not serve our desires, as we'd like to see China advance in this domain as they have in fighter development, I do believe that the H-6K is the ultimate evolution of this platform and will form the basis for the capabilities of the next generation platform. Also, remember that China's defense policy is still guided by considerations of defense. Long-range strategic bombers aren't quite defensive platforms.
That being said, when development of a new platform does progress, I'd expect the targeted combat radius to be more in the area of 5000km. This range would allow complete coverage of two areas of primary interest to Chinese strategists, those being, the Second Island Chain in the Pacific, and the 'String Of Pearls' that runs from the South China Sea through the Gulf of Thailand, Andaman Sea, Bay of Bengal, the Laccadive and Arabian Seas, the Gulf of Aden, to the Red Sea. The reason I suggest this range and not the 2-3000km, suggested by hmmwv below, is that I'd expect Chinese planners to assess the probability that some strategic missions would be best accomplished by a payload of LGBs.
I think that China is wisely preparing it's defensive capabilities first. Although their fighters are multi-role platforms, their primary function, presently, is to provide China with an effective active component of their air-defense complex. Let them get the J-10, 11, 15, and 16 programs (with domestic engines) into full production, and the J-20, and 31 programs into the pre-production phase, then let's see what they have in store for regional air-power projection.
Last edited:
Don't forget Y-20, which has the same priority as J-20 for PLAAF. Y-20 not only provides PLAAF with strategic air lift capability, but can also serve as platform for AWACS, fuel tanker and other special-purpose aircraft. These are the areas that PLAAF is still very weak and has a higher priority than strategic bomber.
The experience gained in developing Y-20 and various H-6 improvements can help the development of the next-generation strategic bomber. Remember China does not have much experiences in designing and developing large airframes.
The experience gained in developing Y-20 and various H-6 improvements can help the development of the next-generation strategic bomber. Remember China does not have much experiences in designing and developing large airframes.
Subedei
Banned Idiot
i agree that the experience gained from these programs will prove useful in the development of a new long range bomber, but, not so much as regards the airframe. i think that the airframe will be of a drastically different shape than those conventional planforms. my intuition tells me that the airframe of china's future bomber will be based on a compound-delta planform, with the cockpit integrated into the inner part of the delta-wing. similar to the avro vulcan, but with more streamlined and stealthier shaping. don't ask me why, it's just intuition. it's possible, also, that they could be ambitious and attempt a flying wing planform.
and, yes, we agree that this is not a priority currently, as china should have the capacity to logistically support long range policies and operations fully before attempting to execute them.
Subedei
Banned Idiot
After more thorough consideration of the combat radius of PLAAF's next generation long-range bomber within the context of China's regional strategic considerations, I've lowered my guesstimate to between 3500 and 4000km with an absolute minimum of 3500km. The key consideration in this re-assessment was the strategic significance of Guam, which I believe is primary. I believe the capacity to put Guam into play in the Second Island Chain trumps any strategic considerations at the Western terminus of the String Of Pearls. Thus, I think that a platform with a range to cover Guam would be a priority and that extending ranges up to 5000km would be accomplished by in-flight refueling.
Last edited:
And you think a slow bomber can evade the advanced SAM systems that surround Guam?