Subedei
Banned Idiot
Hmmmm, what's the standard progression of a contemporary air campaign?
H-6 Bomber Aircraft Discussions
- Thread starter F40Racer
- Start date
Hmmmm, what's the standard progression of a contemporary air campaign?
I've read somewhere that China is planning both a tactical bomber (within this decade) and a strategic bomber (beyond this decade). I guess your range specification is more relevant to a tactical bomber.
Ideally the combat radius requirements should be of 5,000 km, which covers the Asia and West Pacific area up to Second Island Chain, and the Northern Indian Ocean region. The technology risks/bottlenecks may well limit the first-generation long-range bomber to around 3,000 km combat radius, I suppose.
The strategic bomber of the B-1 and B-2 class should be considered after the tactical bomber. B-1 and B-2 are more of Cold War era platform, whereas the tactical bomber would be more of AA/AD nature. The need for a strategic bomber is not urgent and less obvious at this point. It also carries more technology risks.
The combat radius, bomb load and speed specifications for H-6, B-52, B-1 and B-2:
Bomber Combat Radius (km) Load (kg) Max Speed (km/h)
H-6 1,800 9,000 1,050
B-52 7,210 31,500 1,047
B-1 5,543 34,000 1,340
B-2 9,000(?) 18,000 1,010
Ideally the combat radius requirements should be of 5,000 km, which covers the Asia and West Pacific area up to Second Island Chain, and the Northern Indian Ocean region. The technology risks/bottlenecks may well limit the first-generation long-range bomber to around 3,000 km combat radius, I suppose.
The strategic bomber of the B-1 and B-2 class should be considered after the tactical bomber. B-1 and B-2 are more of Cold War era platform, whereas the tactical bomber would be more of AA/AD nature. The need for a strategic bomber is not urgent and less obvious at this point. It also carries more technology risks.
The combat radius, bomb load and speed specifications for H-6, B-52, B-1 and B-2:
Bomber Combat Radius (km) Load (kg) Max Speed (km/h)
H-6 1,800 9,000 1,050
B-52 7,210 31,500 1,047
B-1 5,543 34,000 1,340
B-2 9,000(?) 18,000 1,010
Quickie
Colonel
The combat radius stated for the H-6 can't be for the payload of 9000 kg. Even the JH-7A has similar combat radius for a not very smaller payload, and this is with the H-6 having 2.8 times the MTOW of the JH-7.
Basing on the available H-6 specs., I would estimate the combat range of the H-6 to be 2500km for a payload of 9000 kg.
Basing on the available H-6 specs., I would estimate the combat range of the H-6 to be 2500km for a payload of 9000 kg.
Last edited:
you do realize that the range you get for JH-7A or su-30 are not for the maximum payload, right? And even that has to do with flight profile. If JH-7A is carrying 4 YJ-83s + 2 PL-5s, it'd be lucky to have a combat radius of 1000 km.
Subedei
Banned Idiot
According to Moscow Defense Brief, "Chinese media sources put the new model’s [(H-6K)] combat range at 3,000-3,500km. There has been no official confirmation of the figure to date".
If these sources are accurate, then your estimate, based on specs, is close, as is my analysis, based on strategic objectives.
Quickie
Colonel
Yes, it's the norm the combat range is not usually specified for max payload. Flight profile isn't really relevant because this is assumed to apply equally to all the aircraft being compared. The drag caused by the external weapons load is also not taken into account in this case since all the aircraft being compared are assumed to have internal weapons load just for comparison sake.
Last edited:
how do you know flight profile isn't relevant? The combat radius they gave you is normally measured under the a fairly optimal flight profile to give a larger number they can put on brochures.
As for H-6K, while I don't know what its combat radius is, but it's gotta be a lot higher than JH-7A for the same payload. Now the older H-6s with those WP-8 engines, that's a different story.
Quickie
Colonel
What I meant is the flight profile for all the aircraft under comparison, if it's not specifically mentioned, is something one have to assume to be the same, most likely the one giving the better range.
The original Tu-16B carrying a pair of KS-1s is credited with a combat radius (not range) of 1800km. Now each KS-1 is >3000kg looks like a mini MiG 15 without a cockpit so it is entirely conceivable that a WP-8 powered H-6 carrying lighter more aerodynamic missiles should easily exceed this.
Given late mod WP-8 powered H-6's have lost their bomb bays if the space is now fuel tanks then it should be good for a few more hundred miles, so a turbofan powered H-6K should comfortably exceed that by a good margin. If you believe that an air launched CJ-10A is good for a 2000km range then Guam is already well within range (Guangzhou to Guam is only about 3500km) since I don't expect they'll be flying overhead and dropping iron bombs as I'd think any H-6 pilot would prefer not to be anywhere near Andersen AFB if they can help it!
So yes it would be nice to have newer stealthier faster toys but like the B-52 these 60 year war wagons are still viable, so if it does the job there are other priorities so why waste money?
Given late mod WP-8 powered H-6's have lost their bomb bays if the space is now fuel tanks then it should be good for a few more hundred miles, so a turbofan powered H-6K should comfortably exceed that by a good margin. If you believe that an air launched CJ-10A is good for a 2000km range then Guam is already well within range (Guangzhou to Guam is only about 3500km) since I don't expect they'll be flying overhead and dropping iron bombs as I'd think any H-6 pilot would prefer not to be anywhere near Andersen AFB if they can help it!
So yes it would be nice to have newer stealthier faster toys but like the B-52 these 60 year war wagons are still viable, so if it does the job there are other priorities so why waste money?