H-6 Bomber Aircraft Discussions

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...

Ultra, the H-6 can reach the targets it is designed for. So, in the role it is designed for, and specifically now for the "K" it most certainly can be an effective weapon.

As to the rest of your comments, you are relatively new to SD.

PLEASE READ THE SD RULES OF BEHAVIOR.

Talk that leads to War Scenarios between the US and China (or other nations) is not allowed. You can talk about the equipment, its specifications and capabilities, and even about purely hypotheti9vcal OPFORs...but leave specific talk about China vs the US out of it.

Long experience shows us that such conversations leads to arguments, warnings, and suspensions.

We moderators will have to judge the veracity and the intent of your comments...but take this as a word to the wise.

Thanks.

Do not respond to the moderation portion (in bold blue) of this post.

Jeff Head

SD SUPER MODERATOR

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...

I thought I would use the opportunity of your post Bltizo, to post something I posted earlier on this thread. We tend to go full circle and get back to the same comments.

B-52s were built from 1954 into 1963. They were built for almost ten years and 742 aircraft were built. The last 14 aircraft built were constructed in the first half of 1963. That's over fifty years ago when the last ones were built.

Since that time it has all been maintenance, maintenance, maintenance...and modernization within that large airframe.

So, the important issue is not so much when they were last built...but how well were they built, how were they used, and how well were they maintained.

The fact that the B-52 is still flying in relative good numbers, and will continue flying now into the 2040s (another 30+ years), making them well over 85 year sold when they are retired, tells you that they were very well built, that they have not been abused, and that they have had very, very good maintenance. In addition, because of the continual upgrade to their sensors and weapons, they are still relevant.

Now, it is important to note that the new H-6Ks are not vintage aircraft. These are new build aircraft. They are not 40, or 50, or more years old. They are built to an older airframe design it is true, but they use newer, better material, and have new wiring, electronics, etc. Of course you can see the H-6 and TU-16 heritage in them. But in a role similar to the B-52...even though their number of ALCMs is much smaller than the B-52, they will still perform very well, particularly in numbers, in that standoff role within the parameters of their design (range, speed, altitude, etc.)

Here's a number of pictures of venerable older aircraft from the same era (in terms of design and builds (except for the H-6K))...the first three designs shown are still flying to this day:

Ultra said:

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

Click to expand...

UK built three V bombers in the '50's and '60's for delivering nuclear bombs from high altitude: Valiant, Victor and Vulcan. That mission was lost soon ( the U-2 incident in 1960 ) and the aircraft were repurposed for low level bombing but Valiant was too lightly build to make maintenance costs acceptable. Valiant was used from 1955 to 1965. Victor was used as bomber until 1969, when Polaris took over the nuclear role and was then used as tanker until 1993. Vulcan remained a bomber until its last use in the war with Argentina.
Victor will have had the same disadvantage as a tanker as H-6 in that role.

H-6 patrolling over Paracels? Looks like maybe Drummond Island?

Just found for the new CA issue ... surely most interesting !!!

SPECIAL REPORT: AT DAJIAOCHANG

Ivan Voukadinov presents an exclusive photo-report from Nanjing-Dajiaochang, currently home to an impressive force of PLAAF H-6 bombers

Click to expand...

Deino

H-6K

H-6K is Lethal by any standard

These typically are thought to be KD-20 missiles, but rumor is that the missiles on these H-6s are actually YJ-100s, an anti-ship variant with an 800 km range.

IMO there is no such missile ! It looks identical to all ALCMs we've seen so far and the official PLAAF-designation is even written on them: K/AKD-20 (GX) !

Yep, anti-ship ?? for the moment mainly rumors, but no surprising, usual with China