SinoDefence Forum

Delbert

Which bombers do you suggest or propose?

I would suggest acquiring Russian TU-160 Black Jack.
Or the TU-22M Backfire bombers.

Just to serve as a replacement for the current Chinese bomber fleet.

If the TU-95 Bear was still attractive for you maybe it can also be taken into consideration for me.

Bltizo

Well the Tu-160 would be a good choice, if Russia was putting it on sale. I am pretty sure it isn't right now.
But if it was, it and the Tu-22M should probably be configured to Chinese weapons and maybe engines.
I'm not sure how the Tu-22M deal a couple years back went though.

The Tu-95's of the Russians are.. old. I personally think newer H-6's can do it's role pretty well at the mo.

Of course, if the "H-8" was real then I'd say the H-8. But it's pretty dry among most people so I think the H-8 stealth bomber's not an option =P

Semi-Lobster

The PLAAF has shown time and time again they are NOT looking for a supersonic heavy bomber aircraft, what is needed is a low speed, fuel efficient, high capacity bomber with a good loiter time for strategic bombing and ballistic missile launch platform capabilities. Neither the Tu-160 nor the Tu-22M offer these features as strengths and their variable geometry wings are maitenance intensive and add what many would deem, unnecessary weight to the aircraft.

yehe

the SU34 is intresting.

Delbert

Why? Doesn't PLAAF had any plans to field supersonic heavy bomber?

I think they must have at least some 50 aircraft. Just to serve as the back bone for PLAAF bomber fleet.

Just imagine you can send these aircrafts fully loaded and armed (Nukes or conventional weapons) on patrol over the Pacific Ocean, or Indian Ocean. It will surely rattle these nations like US and Japan.

This will surely put PLAAF in the world arena to have the most powerful or fearsome airforce's in the 21st century.

Scratch

Didn't the chinese several years ago try to acquire the Tu-22M(3), but were turned down by the russians? And I think later on, when the russians were willing to sell, there was no more chinese interest any more. I could be wrong on that, though.

I guess the PLAAF figured out it could do good for a while with modernizing it's H-6s, and the new J-11BS. And perhaps later on develop their own medium-heavy bomber.

Again, even the PLA has to set priorities, and a heavy, supersonic, long rang bomber is not the most urgent need right now.

TerraN_EmpirE

If anything I would think that the Long range bomber is actually the reverse of what's needed A Coin style light bomber/ Close air support aircraft might be more in line with current operation needs.

AssassinsMace

The Su-34 is great looking bomber but I wouldn't call it long range to what I've read. It certainly isn't at the same level as what you would call it long-range like the Blackjack and the Backfire if that's what you're looking for.

Semi-Lobster

A subsonic attack aircraft akin to the American A-10 or the Russian Su-25 with a good loitering performance and heavy A2G payload would be a far more cost effective replacement for the Q-5s than JH-7As and J-11s for the PLAAF. As of now though, no such aircraft seems to be on the horizon.

SampanViking

Is there a cost benefit to Heavy Bombers? Given that such aircraft would be used to launch cruise missiles at maximum range, I really would want to see the bottom line between any Bomber proposal and the cost of Long Range Missiles.

I have a suspicion that the Heavy Stealth Bomber concept is another example of glossy brochure pr convincing people that this is the standard to which all must aspire and be judged, when a close examination of the real figures will tell a very different story.

I wonder how many DF31a Rockets $1 Billion will buy you?

__________________
For uncensored Chinese Politics and Current Affairs join us all at New Century China Forum -http://www.newcenturychina.org/forums

Pointblank

The long loitering times of heavy bombers is especially useful for waiting for targets to appear. Faster way to conduct a snap attack due to closer proximity to target.

planeman

from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BdiNRzkbKPE

Bltizo

Ooh yeah that video. It's pretty dry though, I mean it would be nice if China was making a bomber like that. But a shame it isn't.

I think loading H-6's with FT bomb series and long range cruise missiles with nuke warheads for the latter will make a pretty good plane. A dozen or so supersonic bombers like the Tu-22M could be used for being like a bomb truck against A2G or A2A. Can escape the danger zone quickly just by going fast.

antiterror13

definitely long range bomber is not a priority for PLA ... and anyway most (if not all) long range bomber roles can be done by SRBM, IRBM or even ICBM ... cheaper, less risk and accurate

Bltizo

Well from what we can see, a long range bomber is not a priority.

Ballistic missiles can only do so much, I think having a bomber loiter over a battle field putting fire where needed also has it's advantages.

An upgraded H-6 could do this role. For it's "new bomber fleet" I think (apart from upgraded H-6) a range of multirole fighters with IFR could be more versatile than bombers (I'm particularly interested in JH-7/B). The problem is that china has no real indigenous tanker aircraft. H-6 tanker's load is simply too light. The C919 (near 737 size) would still be small as well I think. So China should really be investing in large transport aircraft - which we can see happening.

Note: The "upgraded H-6" should get FT bomb racks like we see on B-52's often. Or have them placed in internal bomb bays. I don't know why we hardly ever hear of H-6's deploying small PGM's. Maybe when Compass is well into it's life.