H-6 Bomber Aircraft Discussions

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.

Originally Posted by Subedei

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 range 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 i.e. 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.

Originally Posted by weig2000

...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.

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Subedei

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.

And you think a slow bomber can evade the advanced SAM systems that surround Guam?

Originally Posted by jobjed

And you think a slow bomber can evade the advanced SAM systems that surround Guam?

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

Originally Posted by Subedei

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Quickie

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Quickie

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.

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.

Originally Posted by tphuang

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Quickie

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.

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.

Originally Posted by tphuang

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.

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?