H-6 Bomber Aircraft Discussions

According Hui Tong 4 new H-6K identified 03, 09, 11, 13 total now 18, but there are other ofc.


One H-6 Rgt have 15/18 Bombers. The two H-6K units : 24Rgt/8 Div, 28/10 are full now.

Production seems to be about 6 H-6K by year.

Jeff Head said:

​

So, all of the naval H-6 aircraft for the PLAN have been modified/updated to H-6G?

Click to expand...

In my last numbers about one year i have again 5 old D use by SSF Rgt, 23th/8th Div based to Guiping/Menshu with 10 G and the 6 tanker HU-6D, Deino can tell us something for it please.

I got a question - why is China still trying to improve H-6 - a 55 year old design that the Russian already retired 21 years ago?? It is like trying to improve horse carriage when we have cars.....

It just seems China hold on to the old for far far far too long - its like the J-7 (Mig-21) that was outdated decades ago, China only ceased production LAST YEAR (2013)!!?! WTF?

So when is China going to finally put H-6 into retirement home and start designing a more contemporary bomber?

I am just asking because I think China is at the cusp of designing its own bomber. It is able to design the Y-20, the ARJ-21 and C919 (I know they are transport aircraft, but they are kind of related), so I think China is almost ready to design its own modern strategic bomber.

Jeff Head said:

Old Victor Bomber of the Royal Air Force

Click to expand...

Now that Victor Bomber is a beauty!! I wonder why UK retired it.

H-6 is still a useful airframe, simple.

USAF is still going to continue B-52s in service, and PLAAF is going to keep building H-6Ks given it's probably more sensible than upgrading older H-6 variants.
They are useful cruise missile carriers, likely with lower maintenance cost, high availability, high endurance.

We are all expecting a stealth bomber in the next few years, but H-6s will remain in the PLAAF arsenal for many years.

Ultra said:

I got a question - why is China still trying to improve H-6 - a 55 year old design....

....Now that Victor Bomber is a beauty!! I wonder why UK retired it.

Click to expand...

I just feel you are kind of contradictory when you said those two statements in the same post, bear in mind that the victor was introduced in 1958. The F-22 would have to retire in 50 years time even if they still look beautiful.

Bltizo said:

H-6 is still a useful airframe, simple.

USAF is still going to continue B-52s in service, and PLAAF is going to keep building H-6Ks given it's probably more sensible than upgrading older H-6 variants.
They are useful cruise missile carriers, likely with lower maintenance cost, high availability, high endurance.

We are all expecting a stealth bomber in the next few years, but H-6s will remain in the PLAAF arsenal for many years.

Click to expand...

Well, the thing about H-6 is that, it is fairly short range - with combat radius of only 1800 km - it can only threaten the FIRST island chain - not even the second island chain; not a credible enough threat which means American has nothing to fear on the continental US by the H-6. What China need is a bomber capable of reaching continental US - the Russian has assortments of them (Tu-95, Tu-160, Tu-22) that can reach continental US.

But I do agree with the economics of it, it is cheap and proven airframe. But a weapon that can't reach the target is an ineffective weapon.

Ultra said:

Well, the thing about H-6 is that, it is fairly short range - with combat radius of only 1800 km - it can only threaten the FIRST island chain - not even the second island chain; not a credible enough threat which means American has nothing to fear on the continental US by the H-6. What China need is a bomber capable of reaching continental US - the Russian has assortments of them (Tu-95, Tu-160, Tu-22) that can reach continental US.

But I do agree with the economics of it, it is cheap and proven airframe. But a weapon that can't reach the target is an ineffective weapon.

Click to expand...

With air launched cruise missiles its radius of action is significantly enhanced; at least doubled.

And China doesn't need its bombers to reach the continental US, at least not within the next few decades. The geostrategic positioning of forces simply makes it unfeasible, even if they had a stealth bomber. If they want to reach the continental US, they'll be aiming to use nukes. For that, ICBMs can do the job just fine, and should be the preferred choice.

China needs its bombers to be able to act within the second island chain, and with that, H-6K is perfectly suited.

They don't need their bombers to reach the continental US.

Ultra said:

Well, the thing about H-6 is that, it is fairly short range - with combat radius of only 1800 km - it can only threaten the FIRST island chain - not even the second island chain; not a credible enough threat which means American has nothing to fear on the continental US by the H-6. What China need is a bomber capable of reaching continental US - the Russian has assortments of them (Tu-95, Tu-160, Tu-22) that can reach continental US.

But I do agree with the economics of it, it is cheap and proven airframe. But a weapon that can't reach the target is an ineffective weapon.

Click to expand...

Just wondering how old are you Ultra and what country are you from?

antiterror13 said:

Just wondering how old are you Ultra and what country are you from?

Click to expand...

Is my age and location even relevent?