China's indigenous bomber program

[Totoro]

Current PLAAF and PLANAF bomber fleet is comprised of old H6 aircraft, we all know that. No matter how useful those planes are, fact is that they all have a limited lifespan, and after all these decades they're already quite used. Also, fact of the matter is they're old tech, offering sort of abysmal performace when compared to a modern day bomber. So, it is obvious china wants to replace them with new planes, sooner or later.

In the short term, buying foreign bombers does have its advantages and will probably be done. But looking at the problem more long term, with China's continued economic and technological growth and also having in mind that dependance on other party's tech/supplies can be risky - it is obvious china will some day go for it's own, indigenously designed and built bomber aircraft.

So far everything seems clear, somethign i'd hope most of you would agree on with me. Now i'll proceed with my private view on the course that such a bomber developtment program should take.

I think it would be a mistake to go for a high tech, pushing the envelope plane, even in chinese terms. The much talked about j-xx plane programme is pretty much that - it seems to be designed as a giant leap in terms of abilities and tech that is required to pull all that off. Such approach takes literally decades and while in the end it may supply you with tremendous plane, it also means you have those two or more decades worth of risk not having any significant improvements in your abilities.

So i suggest this: Pick a design route that shows most promise and room for improvement and start small. In this case, designing a bomber, i hope china goes with a blended/flying wing design. Of course, making a B2 copy would pretty much be the equivalent of 20 or more year development process. So why not start with older and tried out design that is known for a fact to work well? I am talking something not unlike the old british avro vulcan bomber.

Perhaps with less of delta and bit more of a classical swept wing, bigger wingspan and less of a protruding nose section. Classical T shaped tail section can remain if no horizonal tail surfaces proves too much of a challenge. Remember, point is to keep it simple. Use mostly off the shelf tech, engines that are already available, materials that are available (meaning not more composites than j10 has, for example), etc. Even with such an approach, the leap in capabilities over the H6 bomber would be huge.

Development time would be short, i'm thinking just years, development cost fairly low. Goal would be to make a limited production run and start testing the final product. Perhaps like 10-12 aircraft would enter PLAAF and be used to gain knowledge, offer new ideas in design from the usage, just evaluate the plane in the best way possible - by using it.

Of course, with the start of production of first generation bomber, development would not stop. On the contrary. Various improvement would be made, very likely helped by the input of actual service of first gen bomber. During this process foreign bought bombers could and probably would also be used, actually they'd form the majority of the force until the indigenous bomber program matures.

Every 6-8 years an improved design could/would be brought to manufacture, every incarnation featuring better tech. stronger engines, more composites, better avionics suite, changes on the outer design itself - aiming at getting rid of the classic style tail, first perhaps just the vertical stabilizator in the second generation, then maybe smaller twin stabilizators aiming for more stealth in third generation, then no tail surfaces at all in fourth.

Of course goals put in front of the program would be bigger, more stealth, more payload, bigger range. But it'd all be in relatively small increments. First generation could for example carry 12 tons to japan and back without refuelling, third generation could do the same to guam. last generation should be able to be a true intercontinental bomber.

Eventually, after some 18-24 years there china would/could posess a stealthy flying wing plane with impressive abilities. Its steady development would be more certain than one huge leapfrog discussed in the beginning of this post, and the final result would most probably be superior too, since there are decade(s) of actual experience behind this continuously evolving design. Just like the US... they couldn't have built the B2 like it is now without first building the stratofortress, the hustler, the aardvark, nighthawk, lancer before it. Most importantly, during those 18-24 years there would be bombers to count on. Not just the previously bought foreign ones, but the dozen or so first gen indigenous ones, further dozen second gen, another dozen third gen and so on. Small series, small batches. Not unlike the incremental improvements that PLAN is getting on their small (usually two ships per generation) batches of new vessels.

Since speed and range are on a certain level mutually exclusive, long term program like this would produce a high subsonic bomber, again just like B2. I am however thinking that any sort of conflict in the early years, when china still doesnt have a major projection of power beyond its borders, could benefit more from speed than range. Therefore i would suggest that the foreign bought bombers be supersonic, not unlike commonly suggested su-34 and backfire (backfires maximum range would probably not be used anyway, so good deal of the time in air the plane could use its great max speed, a very useful thing in hit and run raids china would most probably be involved in any kind of pre 2030 war against a strong enemy)

[MIGleader]

so are you leaning towards a b-52 style aircraft or a b-1 style aircraft? personally, the b-1 style offers more perforamnce. speed is more important to the attack role, although its useless for evasion. stealth is a must have.
the solution: a tu-22 force purchased from russia, custom tailored to the plans and plaafs needs. new attack and targeting systems, newer weapon carrying abilites, upgraded avionics and navigation, and composite construction for rcs reduction. a coat of ram can be applied. the tu-22 clearly doesnt have much of a future with the russian af, so why not with china? the refuel probe can be deleted, as its not needed. it also males some more distant neighbors feel safe.

the reason for this is that an indegedous programm may take too long. pioneering swing-wing technology and the engienes should take years.

[Roger604]

Maybe we can get the swing-wing and engine tech from EADS as well as Russia once the embargo is lifted? :china:

[sumdud]

Nah. The bomber is going more and more out of fashion as the large strike fighters and fighter bombers take their jobs.

I think purchasing Tu-22Ms and then replacing their radar and systems to China's missiles are the best way out.

But if you want to go indigenious, I suggest start designing a large multipurpose platform. As bombers become a thing of the past, launching not much but JDAMs and ALCMs, a large multipurpose platform that becomes a bomber can also be modified and be built into planes of other purposes, like EW, AWACS, etc.

[Totoro]

I am not leaning towards either b52 or b1 style bomber. if anything, it'd be closest to b2. I consider swing wing to be a thing of a past, especially for long range intercontinental missions. Plus, its rather uncompatible with lowering the RCS, an immobile blended wing design will always be more stealthy than swing wing one.

And i agree with sumdud, it'd also be multifunctional. larger plane like a bomber can store larger and more powerful radars. I didnt mention it in the first post but it seems only natural to be for such plane to sport a very wide arc front radar and a tail radar, covering more or less 360 deg. Also, being stealthy, itd be rather good platform to launch very heavy ultra long AAMs, thatd otherwise be hard to be installed on j10 size planes. Basically, the big advantage is size. Of course it should be modular and be able to serve as second-tier awacs, ECM platform, long range awacs killer, cruise missile/ satellite killer launch platform, even carpet bombing platform if seen fit.

tu22m is a fine plane but whole point is to have china work on its own designs and tech. If it keeps buying other party's equipment it will never be able to get on par with the others, it will always b at least half a step behind. Not to mention tech level in general would be lower, tech that could perhaps be used in various other fields. Again, thats the half of it - not just to have a bomber - but to learn and get smarter from the process of making it.

[Wingman]

You know how expensive the B2 is?!?! About $2 billion!! It's expensive because of its stealthy design, and not only does it sacrifice money for that, it also sacrifices speed.

Swing wing bombers are designed for speed. Bombers can't fly fast unless their wings are more sweeped, unlike the B2, but if their wings are sweeped they will have difficulty during takeoff and landing, that's why variable geometry wings are designed, so that they can have less sweep and more lift during takeoff/landing.

One of the only reasons you would not use variable geometry winged bombers nowdays is if you want to make them stealthy, but if you want to go into stealth that's going to cost you billions, China doesn't have that kind of money to spare on this kind of stuff.

But anyway, I agree with Sumdud. Bombers are going to be obsolete one day. One of the reasons bombers were designed in the past was because bombs were way inaccurate and have little explosive power, so the idea was to drop tons of them. Now, as technology advances, missiles are becoming faster, more accurate, and have more powerful warheads. Two JH-7s with total 8 YJ-82Ks is much better than some H-X bomber carrying say 20. They're much smaller and harder to detect than a huge bomber (unless you make it a stealth bomber which would cost billions like I mentioned before)

Bombers are also sitting ducks in the air, unlike fighter-bombers which can turn away faster and run, or defend themselves if needed.

[Mr_C]

You know how expensive the B2 is?!?! About $2 billion!! It's expensive because of its stealthy design, and not only does it sacrifice money for that, it also sacrifices speed.

Swing wing bombers are designed for speed. Bombers can't fly fast unless their wings are more sweeped, unlike the B2, but if their wings are sweeped they will have difficulty during takeoff and landing, that's why variable geometry wings are designed, so that they can have less sweep and more lift during takeoff/landing.

One of the only reasons you would not use variable geometry winged bombers nowdays is if you want to make them stealthy, but if you want to go into stealth that's going to cost you billions, China doesn't have that kind of money to spare on this kind of stuff.

But anyway, I agree with Sumdud. Bombers are going to be obsolete one day. One of the reasons bombers were designed in the past was because bombs were way inaccurate and have little explosive power, so the idea was to drop tons of them. Now, as technology advances, missiles are becoming faster, more accurate, and have more powerful warheads. Two JH-7s with total 8 YJ-82Ks is much better than some H-X bomber carrying say 20. They're much smaller and harder to detect than a huge bomber (unless you make it a stealth bomber which would cost billions like I mentioned before)

Bombers are also sitting ducks in the air, unlike fighter-bombers which can turn away faster and run, or defend themselves if needed.

I beleive it is also a simple mathmatical strategy. For example u have a bomber carrying 20 missiles but if this bomber gets shot down u loose all 20 missiles. But if u have 3 JH-7 carrying 8 missiles each, the enemy will have more targets (the JH-7) to worry about and if one gets shot down u still have some missiles left to do the job.
Perhaps that maybe one of the reasons why the PLAN is not building any cruiser size warships.
But isn't the advantage of a strategic bomber is that it has a very long flying range?

[Totoro]

Of course china wouldn't spend 2 billion or 1 billion or even half a billion per plane. I was refering to the design and overall capabilities coming from that design when i used B2 as a good way to go. Flying wing (like b2 is) is the way to go. It absolutely can not be beat when it comes to flight efficiency. You get longer range, bigger payload, and the shape itself is inherently more stealthy than b52 type or b1 type plane.

Bombers will be with us for a long time. Even with US, when UCAVs come into service, i am confident there will one day be a large bomber UCAV for intercontinental missions. I already said it - it's all about size. It is more efficient to have a large aircraft (providing you can defend it) for deep strike missions.

What if you wanna fire off 200 antiship missiles at a target? do you wanna coordinate 100 j7a planes from various airfields, with it tyign up your ground attack forces, use up tons us fuel - or do you want to use 20 bombers for the very same mission, save loads of fuel, be stealthier about it? Again, i am not saying chinese bomber would be stealthy like B2 is today, but a slick flying wing design with internal weapons bay is inherently stealthier than j7 type plane with externally carried weapons.

And what happens if enemy keeps pounding you from a base 5 thousand km away? where your attack aircraft even when launching stand off missiles cant reach? or will you get in range with your bombers and take care of the target?

While i agree bombers are more or less through as delivery systems for short range bombs, supporting the ground troops, they still cant be beat in range, payload and thefore efficiency. For strategic deep strikes they are the way to go, complementing the cruise missiles.

Finally, the swing wing issue. Its a coin with two sides. You could say a straight wing sacrifices speed but you can also say that swept wing sacrifices range. Or, let me be more clear, it sacrifices fuel efficiency. It is very simple. if you want a bomber with short to medium range - go for swing wing design. If you want an intercontinental one - less swept wing and moderate speed is the most economic and reasonable choice. Backfire, lancer, tu160, they still fly most of their missions with more straight wing. And a swing wing system is not only bad for RCS but it is heavy and takes up space.

[renmin]

I think China should focus more on strike bombers like the su-34. Speed is isential to aircraft today because of the advanced AA systems. I belive carpet bombers are a thing of the past.

[Wingman]

Of course china wouldn't spend 2 billion or 1 billion or even half a billion per plane. I was refering to the design and overall capabilities coming from that design when i used B2 as a good way to go. Flying wing (like b2 is) is the way to go.
That's one of the reasons why the B2 is so expensive! Flying wings are a radical design and are very difficult and expensive to develop and test.
You could say a straight wing sacrifices speed but you can also say that swept wing sacrifices range. Or, let me be more clear, it sacrifices fuel efficiency. It is very simple. if you want a bomber with short to medium range - go for swing wing design. If you want an intercontinental one - less swept wing and moderate speed is the most economic and reasonable choice. Backfire, lancer, tu160, they still fly most of their missions with more straight wing. And a swing wing system is not only bad for RCS but it is heavy and takes up space.
Think of it as this way. Take your fat slow non-swing wing bomber and give it the ability to sweep its wings. It gains the ability to fly faster and everything else stays essentially the same. No it won't lose lift because higher speed produces higher lift. No it won't be able to carry less payload because it won't lose lift. No it won't lose fuel efficiency, in fact it will gain fuel efficiency because of lower drag!! No it won't become less stealthy (at least not by much). Unless you have a multi-billion-dollar-flying-wing-stealth-bomber it doesn't make any difference if you lose a little bit of stealth. It does make a lot of difference if your bomber slow, because that makes it a lot more vulnerable. Most swing-wing bombers can fly at Mach 2, enough to outrun fighters and get the hell back home in one piece.

As for one big bomber vs. multiple smaller fighter-bombers, that one big bomber is going to be a lot less survivable than the fighter-bombers. If a missile comes at you from long range, you need to turn away from it and run. Bombers need like half a minute to do just that, and by that time they're dead. Fighter-bombers are more manoeuvrable and therefore can avoid missiles more easily.

[Totoro]

That's one of the reasons why the B2 is so expensive! Flying wings are a radical design and are very difficult and expensive to develop and test.

One of the reasons, yes. But by far not the biggest reason. Just like US did, one has to take several steps to get to true flying wing. If you read my initial post here you will see i proposed a blended wing desing, something akin to avro vulcan, as a first step. First flying wings were expensive cause they were exactly that - first. It is not a revolutionary tech anymore and it will be even less so in 20 - 25 years by which time the blended wing design would fully give way to a true flying wing.


Think of it as this way. Take your fat slow non-swing wing bomber and give it the ability to sweep its wings. It gains the ability to fly faster and everything else stays essentially the same.


I don't agree. Flying wing is thicker and using swing wing on it would be a huge undertaking. The space lost and weight waisted would be tremendous. And stealth would suffer more than you think. One of the big reasons why f117 and b2 have lowered RCS is cause they have a relatively smooth, flat undersides, without any gaps in the airframe. Of course, for that to be maximized, they fly high, so the enemy large radar's beams come from a lower angle.



No it won't lose lift because higher speed produces higher lift. No it won't be able to carry less payload because it won't lose lift. No it won't lose fuel efficiency, in fact it will gain fuel efficiency because of lower drag!!


Once again, higher speed is used a small portion of the time in long range missions. All the swing wing bombers cruise under the speed of sound, with wings swept more forward. If they went faster, drag would increase immensely and fuel efficiency would drop sharply. At same subsonic speed, a more conventional fuselage with swept wing design, compared to a flying wing of same wingspan suffers more drag. Only when going at higher speeds does drag increase more for the thicker flying wing design then for the more conventional design. Also, it is not important if you can get lift for 200 tons at speed of mach 2, what is important is what lift you can get at take off speed, or at best, at in-air-refualling speed. Keep in mind air density also affects lift, the higher you go, less lift you will get. So basically at a given high altitude you have to either go fast or have a wing design that will give you more lift. And no, less air density doesnt give enough of a drag relief to make it worthy to fly fast, otherwise you'd have tu160, tu22, lancer etc cruise at 2 mach normally, 100% of their flight time.



No it won't become less stealthy (at least not by much). Unless you have a multi-billion-dollar-flying-wing-stealth-bomber it doesn't make any difference if you lose a little bit of stealth.


You say it wont lower the RCS by much, i say it will. I guess we disagree on that one beyond any way to reason with each other. Besides, every little bit of stealth helps. Of course it would be silly to embark on a expensive maximize-the-stealth project like B2 was back in the 80s, but as stealth tech is more common and more known, it does get cheaper to apply it. So while the chinese bomber might be have like 150% of B2s RCS, it will have that for 10% of the price.



It does make a lot of difference if your bomber slow, because that makes it a lot more vulnerable. Most swing-wing bombers can fly at Mach 2, enough to outrun fighters and get the hell back home in one piece.


It makes it more vulnerable, yes. Which is why i also said it wouldnt hurt to make it a multi purpose platform. Sure, in a dogfight it wouldn't have a chance but it could easely be fitten with long rang BVR missiles. With it being more stealthy than attacking fighter planes - it'd have a fair chance. And of course im not proposing to go over the target to drop bombs. It would be more of a stand off weapon launch platform. When a day comes that its economically and technically feasible to use just cruise missiles to go around the world - bombers will cease to exist. Until that time comes, having a bomber carry shorter range cruise missiles is the way to go.


As for one big bomber vs. multiple smaller fighter-bombers, that one big bomber is going to be a lot less survivable than the fighter-bombers. If a missile comes at you from long range, you need to turn away from it and run. Bombers need like half a minute to do just that, and by that time they're dead. Fighter-bombers are more manoeuvrable and therefore can avoid missiles more easily.

stealth adds to survivability. stealth requires internal stores. internal stores require lots of space. lots of space require a large airplane. large airplane carrying ground attack missiles is called a bomber. But thats even a secondary point. Main point for a bomber is range. how will you get your small-ish fighter bomber to fly half around the world? Of course if your doing a short range mission youll use attack planes. But the bomber remains the only option for intercontinental missions. Notice how i said getting the su34 would be a good idea for china as it just starts developing the bombers? its cause right now china has less need for intercontinental strikes. but that may change with time and as that need rises, it is only smart to have a long range bomber developed.

[Su-34]

A Strategic Bomber has one advantage that tactical bombers do not have. A strategic bomber is larger, allowing it to carry more cruise missiles than tactical bombers. A strategic bomber can be called an "LACM carrier". Ground Launched Cruise Missiles are good, but the long flight range of a SB indirectly extends the range of a cruise missile. or example, if PLAAF launches LACMs from their SBs over the Pacific Ocean, it can cover more range than LACMs fired from Chinese coasts.

Although 093 SSN carries LACMs, it does not hurt for China to have a variety of platforms to launch LACMs, right?

[Wingman]

I don't agree. Flying wing is thicker and using swing wing on it would be a huge undertaking.
I'm talking about swing-wing conventional design bombers vs non-swing wing conventional design bombers. Not flying wings. Of course flying wings can't have swing-wings, that'd be really hard to design.
If they went faster, drag would increase immensely and fuel efficiency would drop sharply.
That's what the swing-wings are there for: you sweep them! Yes that would cause a temporary loss in lift but as they increase in speed due to the reduced drag, they recover that lift. The result is a higher cruise speed than a non-swing wing bomber which is incapable of sweeping its wings to reduce drag
Besides, every little bit of stealth helps.
I don't think it will. Unless you want to spend a lot of money reasearching stealth for a B2 type bomber it really doesn't make much difference whether you have a non-stealthy flying wing desgin or non-stealthy convential design. If your non-stealthy convential design can be detected by, say an AESA radar at 150km, and a non-stealthy flying wing at 100km, it still won't be any good. It's only useful if you can push its detectability to way under the range of enemy missiles, say 50km for the AMRAAM, and that's hard and expensive, espeicially for a bomber because they're usually quite huge and easily detectable. Take the F-22 for example, it's tiny compared to a bomber and it can fly over SAMs at high altitude undetected. But as soon as it opens its weapons bay, it can be spotted by radar from quite a distance away. Every little part sticking out just totally kills your stealth.
It makes it more vulnerable, yes. Which is why i also said it wouldnt hurt to make it a multi purpose platform. Sure, in a dogfight it wouldn't have a chance but it could easely be fitten with long rang BVR missiles.
That beats the whole point of having stealth on a bomber! If a bomber can fire AAMs it must have an AA radar and be able to search and lock on to enemy fighters, which would in turn give it away. No there won't be AWACS support in a deep strike mission.

How about a scenario: bomb a target 5000km away protected by fighters flying CAP. No fighter/AWACS support because it's too far.
B2 bomber: flys in, destroys target, flys away without being detected
Swing wing high speed bomber: cruises to within ~300km to target, then accelerate to Mach 2. Fighters detects bomber but could not reach within AAM range before bomber releases cruise missiles at about 150km, turns around, and flys away at Mach 2
Non-stealth flying wing bomber: two possibilities - a) does not reach cruise missile range before being intercepted by fighters. b) manages to stay undetected until it launches cruise missiles, then tries to run away from fighters but gets intercepted due to low speed

[PLA-MKII]

My opinion:

1. Variable Wing Geometry
2. Internal Bay
3. Two Al-31 size engines
4. Low Drag design

Basically an enlarged Su-24

[MIGleader]

enlarged? the su-24 does not have an internal weapons bay. well, you cant simply enlarge an existing attacker to be a bomber. none of todays strategic bombers were developed from fighters. the plaaf will have to start from scratch, somethig its not rather good at.

how about something like the xb-70? super long range, speed, and armament. of course, certain problems will have to rectified, such as the cost issue. ecm may also be required for survival in todays worl of sams.

[Totoro]

I'm talking about swing-wing conventional design bombers vs non-swing wing conventional design bombers. Not flying wings. Of course flying wings can't have swing-wings, that'd be really hard to design.

Then we're talking bout two completely different things. I never mentioned a conventional design. I merely stated that for easier development purposes one could try going from a blended wing design (more conventional, but still far away from b52) and then in few steps get to true flying wing, the main goal.


That's what the swing-wings are there for: you sweep them! Yes that would cause a temporary loss in lift but as they increase in speed due to the reduced drag, they recover that lift. The result is a higher cruise speed than a non-swing wing bomber which is incapable of sweeping its wings to reduce drag

nothing to argue there against you. i agree. i just hope you dont imagine the flying wing im talking about as a straight wing. It'd be swept back somewhat, as much as it can so it can reach high subsonic speeds. Anything transonic would just give too much drag to make it worth it. So im guessing the angle at which my flying wing would be swept is something again close to a b2.


I don't think it will. Unless you want to spend a lot of money reasearching stealth for a B2 type bomber it really doesn't make much difference whether you have a non-stealthy flying wing desgin or non-stealthy convential design.

i guess we have to agree to disagree on how much would it cost to design a plane with 150% of RCS of a B2 within 25 year time period from today. Maybe itd be even easier than i think, making even more stealthy. Maybe even if it gets as stealthy as b2, it wont matter so much cause antistealth techs will get so good in 25 years time. I am claiming that based on what we know right now - stealth is a good thing to strive for. It may make the project more expensive but as long as it doesnt significanty take away from the abilities of a plane - its a good thing. And flying wing is simply the best design to apply stealth to as its inherently more stealthy.


If your non-stealthy convential design can be detected by, say an AESA radar at 150km, and a non-stealthy flying wing at 100km, it still won't be any good. It's only useful if you can push its detectability to way under the range of enemy missiles, say 50km for the AMRAAM, and that's hard and expensive, espeicially for a bomber because they're usually quite huge and easily detectable. Take the F-22 for example, it's tiny compared to a bomber and it can fly over SAMs at high altitude undetected. But as soon as it opens its weapons bay, it can be spotted by radar from quite a distance away. Every little part sticking out just totally kills your stealth.

I think ive said in previous paragraphs and posts enough to explain my view on just how hard and expensive stealth is. Sure, it is harder and more expensive. No one is saying you can invest like two billion bucks and get a b2. But its not as expensive and hard as it was in the 80s. And it will be less hard and less expensive in another 20 years time. I stress again that if antistealth tech progresses enough to negate stealth - everything would have to be reconsidered.

As for the scenarios you mentioned - what difference does that make? You're firing off misisles at least 300-400 km away anyway if we're talking awacs killer mission. 500-1000 for cruise missile attacks. with less awacs flying around theyd have better chances getting through undeteced anyway.

Going over the target directly, right through enemy sensor and sam network will get you killed, be you in f22 or b2 or my proposed bomber. Of course im talking about a capable enemy, japan or US, not like Iraq. So now you may ask - why even make my plane stealthy then? Cause it always helps. even a 100 km you can get closer to the enemy without being detected is a lot. you may not be able to fly over the target, but there will be more holes to get as close to target as possible. or, if not, itd mean you forced the eenmy to concentrate radar assets, use up more awacs, etc. And once again - flying wing is less pain in the butt to apply stealth to than a b1 or tu22 type planes.




That beats the whole point of having stealth on a bomber! If a bomber can fire AAMs it must have an AA radar and be able to search and lock on to enemy fighters, which would in turn give it away. No there won't be AWACS support in a deep strike mission.


I hope by deep strike mission you dont mean flying deep into enemy's sensor/sam network. If the enemy is, say, US that'd be just plain silly.
And yes there will be awacs support as bombers wouldnt fly solo. And if you remember, among things i suggested is mounting a capable radar on the bomber as well. while it wont have quite the power and range of an, say, E3, even 300 km detection will do just fine, doable for E3 sized and shaped plane. It is quite useful to mount a powerful radar on a stealth platform, especially so if the illuminator is not attacking. Actually i am somewhat sure next generation of US awacs planes will feature extensive low factor RCS features. When their radar is on - thatd be useless, but what happens when theyre threatened? then every little bit of stealth helps.





How about a scenario: bomb a target 5000km away protected by fighters flying CAP. No fighter/AWACS support because it's too far.
B2 bomber: flys in, destroys target, flys away without being detected
Swing wing high speed bomber: cruises to within ~300km to target, then accelerate to Mach 2. Fighters detects bomber but could not reach within AAM range before bomber releases cruise missiles at about 150km, turns around, and flys away at Mach 2
Non-stealth flying wing bomber: two possibilities - a) does not reach cruise missile range before being intercepted by fighters. b) manages to stay undetected until it launches cruise missiles, then tries to run away from fighters but gets intercepted due to low speed

cruise missile range of 150 km? i choose not to go along with that and im sticking to my 500-1000 km cruise missiles. Why put such a small weapon on a bomber sized aircraft? Price isnt an issue, everything else can be the same, just more fuel, more weight, more space. A flying wing can certainly afford to give that extra weight and space.

Ok, so my slow plane's max speed is just lowly 1000 kmh. So even if by some miracle the plane is detected at 500 km away from the target, there is no way it will actually be caught. even at mach 2, afterburning their way to it like crazy, fighters would need over 20 mins to get in position to assure a hit with their amraams. No fighter can afford to afterburn for 20 mins straight, flying some 700 km out in the sea. even a f22 supercruising at 1.5 mach (thats still bigger fuel consumption than if it went, say mach 1.1) would need some 40 mins to get in amraam launching range. thats some 1000 km away, too far.

How bout this scenario? One has to fly non stop, without in air refuelling, to the target 10 000 km away and deliver 10 tons worth of cruise missiles. Do you use a higher drag and lower lift conventional fuselage plane with swing wings or do you use a flying wing desing? Even with drag put aside, same wingspan of a flying wing design compared to conventional design (lets say wings are as straight as they can be, not swept back) will give you some 40% more lift.

In the end, ive got nothing against swing wing planes. its a great idea and a proven to work concept. but there are certain mission types where its simply not the best choice for 'em. Stealth and stand off attacks would be one of them. swing wing is good for deep strikes, or should i say - it was good for deep strikes, before sensor/sam networks became too good. there's a reason why theres no more planes like aardvark, tornado, mig23/27, f14 being designed. There's a reason why b1a was cancelled (besides price) and b1b came to be.

[PanAsian]

I have to say that the conventional heavy bomber is like the aircraft carrier. It is a purely long-range offensive weapon which is priceless yet extremely vulnerable and requires a strong escort force. It is not required and in fact does not meet China's short to medium term military needs, and is especially undesirable considering the financial burden involved.

It makes much more sense to focus on a force of first rate fighter bombers as had been stated. However, following the heavy bomber route at most it makes sense to develope a bomber version of a multi-purpose heavy airframe... afterall, given the PLAN's weak bluewater power projection abilities a decent long range offensive airpower can serve as a limited substitute deterrent.

[Wingman]

im sticking to my 500-1000 km cruise missiles
That's the problem right there. There aren't cruise missiles with that kind of range, at least not land attack ones. Only anti-ship cruise missiles have that kind of range. Cruise missiles with thousands of km range are expensive and heavy, even heavy bombers can carry only a few. Missiles like those are only ideal against ships because ships are few in number and well defended while the number of ground targets are in the tens of thousands. For ground targets it's better to rely on cheaper and shorter range cruise missiles and bombers that can survive a mission.

Forget all this talk about detecing bombers at x km. If a slow bomber can be detected at all throughout its mission, it will either be killed before hitting its target or after (we're talking about ground strikes here). Like I mentioned it's extremely hard to make bombers stealthy, because they're huge. Just by having a blended wing design won't make your bomber stealthy enough to get within LACM range without being detected. Even if it could, it won't stay undetected when it opens its weapons bay (dead giveaway for ground radars). As soon as its detected, fighters will be scrambled to intercept it. Even if it manages to evade detection again it would only be a matter of time before fighters pick it up again, because it's slow and can't get far from where it was last detected. In fact, fighter radars on newer US fighters have a scan mode specifically for picking up large targets like bombers from hundreds of km away.

And if you remember, among things i suggested is mounting a capable radar on the bomber as well.
Yes I'm aware of that, and that's precisely the problem! You said you want your bombers to be as stealthy as possible. Using a radar like that just kills its stealth. Do you know what an RWR is? It notifies fighters of incoming radar signature and where they come from. As soon as that bomber turns on its radar, the fighter's RWR lights up and it will turn in the bomber's direction and search for the bomber. As for long range AAMs, they're very expensive (one of the reasons why the F-14 was retired), let's just leave it at that.

[Totoro]

Right now, yes, it would be beyond any doubt more cost effective and useful for china to focus on heavy attack plane in the class of a, say, su34. But a home made bomber needs decades to develop properly, which is why a bomber program should be started tomorrow if one wants to have a capable very long range bomber by, say, 2030. Yes, it could be bought from the russians but china is only getting stronger both technologically and economically. Dependence on foreign stuff is not advised, so it seems only natural to me that after a certain time china produces all of its military equipment domestically. today its still not quite on that level but in some 20 years - it very well might be.

To wingman:

We are just going into this discussion from vastly different suppositions, mostly concerning the type of attack. If you don't believe a 500-1000 km range lacm would be used then we have nothing really to talk about anymore. I'll comment on your last post but i don't think i'll comment on new ones as it's clear we're disagreeing beyond any chance to get to a common ground. Plus we've started to go in circles.

That's the problem right there. There aren't cruise missiles with that kind of range, at least not land attack ones. Only anti-ship cruise missiles have that kind of range. Cruise missiles with thousands of km range are expensive and heavy, even heavy bombers can carry only a few. Missiles like those are only ideal against ships because ships are few in number and well defended while the number of ground targets are in the tens of thousands. For ground targets it's better to rely on cheaper and shorter range cruise missiles and bombers that can survive a mission.

Range requires space and weight. Money wise, that's by far the cheapest part of a missile, compared to the engine, guidance and targeting system, etc. Basically you're paying just for extended/enlarged fuselage, maybe bigger wings. Mission wise, when one has a plane that can carry 20-30 tons of payload half the way around the world it is my opinion it can very well afford to carry tomahawk sized missiles. Especially if its survival was affected by it.

Some of current cruise missiles:
storm shadow has range of 250 km, its five meters long and weighs 1,3 tons. Taurus has 350 km range its five meters long and weighs 1,4 tons. land attack version of klub cruise missile has 350 km range JASSM has 370 km range and is 4,3 meters long and weighs one ton. tomahawk has over a 1000 km range and is less than 6 meters long, weighs 1,4 tons. kh-55 has 2500 km range, weighs 1,7 tons and is little less under 9 meters long. Latter ones use high flight profile of course, their range too would be lower if they used low profile like storm shadow, taurus, etc.




Like I mentioned it's extremely hard to make bombers stealthy, because they're huge. Just by having a blended wing design won't make your bomber stealthy enough to get within LACM range without being detected.


Size is one of the smaller factors influencing stealth. One could actually argue that since one needs a smooth surface outside, flat underside, everything to be carried internally - a smaller craft is harder to make stealthy. And i never said just a blended wing or flying wind design will make the plane really stealthy. it would be somewhat more stealthy, yes. but then you also apply other tech. And again, no it would not cost a billion per plane. Also, im still sticking to my range of cruise missiles, not yours.



Even if it could, it won't stay undetected when it opens its weapons bay (dead giveaway for ground radars). As soon as its detected, fighters will be scrambled to intercept it. Even if it manages to evade detection again it would only be a matter of time before fighters pick it up again, because it's slow and can't get far from where it was last detected. In fact, fighter radars on newer US fighters have a scan mode specifically for picking up large targets like bombers from hundreds of km away.


if it's 100 km away from the target and the fighters protecting the target - probably. if its 200 km away, there's already more time to change location, once the bomb bay door is closed. from 300 km onwards, i believe its next to impossible for fighters to locate it, without help of ground based multistatic network of long wave radars. at some 500 km away, no matter if the bomber screams out its position it will still be fast enough to escape.


Yes I'm aware of that, and that's precisely the problem! You said you want your bombers to be as stealthy as possible. Using a radar like that just kills its stealth. Do you know what an RWR is? It notifies fighters of incoming radar signature and where they come from. As soon as that bomber turns on its radar, the fighter's RWR lights up and it will turn in the bomber's direction and search for the bomber. As for long range AAMs, they're very expensive (one of the reasons why the F-14 was retired), let's just leave it at that.

using radar kills stealth while its being used. If youre 200-300 km away and you turn off your radar, you have time to relocate and make your pursuers have to look for a needle in a haystack. Now, with just one plane, that doesnt help much as it has more or less just that one chance of turning its radar on and off. but with lets say 3 of them, spread out by some 100 km or more, each of them can illuminate the target one after another for one single pulse, lets say every 20 seconds a new pulse, so the attacking long range AAM can track the awacs even when it has its radar off. Once in gets to some 50 km range, it can lock on the awacs on its own.

long range AAM are more expensive, of course. which is why theyre used on strategic targets, not on fighters. F14 was retired cause its old, its maintenance costs a fortune and starting up a new product line would just be not cost effective. Similar thing with phoenix missile itself. I am pretty confident that when/if US finds out f22 isnt stealthy enough to go after enemy awacs, US will field a long range AAM. ramjet amraam is already in the works.

[Wingman]

Range requires space and weight. Money wise, that's by far the cheapest part of a missile, compared to the engine, guidance and targeting system, etc.
Greater range requires more sophisticated guidance system, which you said is expensive (and I agree). In fact guidance is the most expensive part of a missile. Missiles with thousands of km range needs extremely sophisticated guidance in order to be accurate, and that costs a fortune.

Tomahawk (1100km range) costs $1.4 million each
JASSM (370km range) costs $700000
JSOW variant A (200km range) costs only $246000
Taurus is also roughly $700000
I don't know how much the Storm Shadow costs but low cost is one of its requirements

Using expensive long range missiles against ships is reasonable, but ground targets are much more numerous. If you use such expensive missiles against ground targets the cost really racks up fast.

Also, because of the sheer number of ground targets and the fact they're spread out instead of all in one small area, it's much more feasable to fly numerous sorties with smaller strike fighters rather than few large bombers.

IMHO I wouldn't be expecting the PLAAF to be developing flying wing bombers with thousand-km range cruise missiles.

[sumdud]

Well, if you get a newly designed strategical bomber, you are probably not going to put stuff outside, so swing-wing is no problem there. I am not sure of the bomb bay size of a wing body. It really depends on your size and dimensions and stuff, and I am not going to go into it. But wing-bodies definitely have stealth(Just look at XB-49 and 58? The flying wings before it). Swing wing bombers like the Blackjack and Lancer are stealthy, but they are radar bumblebees compared to the Spirit.

But if the bomber becomes obselete, and you are not looking for a stealth platform, it's a goner.
I think if we design a new bomber, it will need a large nose. (I am guessing that we draw the flat bottom wing first, and then put everything on top?)
As for the missile, if you don't want to open the bomb bay doors, then think about what you do once daily as a part of nature. I am looking at the A-5. Maybe you can launch the missile through the back. If you wish to conceal yourself more, launch it with cold gas like how a submarine launches its missiles.
Also, does the B-2 have the luxuries of the Su-32? You don't want to give your crew fatigue and have them suddenly crash off 2 billion dollars.
As for supersonic speed? You aren't going to use it a lot, your crew knows better than to waste gas that way. But supercruise would be nice for the crew and for the mission.

So my recommended requirements:
Large nose
Adaptable
An "ezzho" :D
High cruise speed
Relatively stealthy (Yes, I am talking about a compromise, the H-6 is going to be gone very soon. We don't really have the time.)
Luxuries
Long range (A must)

PS: The B-70's range sucks, it only goes to 4288 miles. The B-52 has true long range.

[MIGleader]

china may not be seeking range as part of a strategic bomber. 4000 km should be the limit, for many neighbors would feel uncomfortable.
the tu-22 seems to fit all of your requirements sumdud, exept comforts.(but how hard can it be to install foam reclining chairs, a bathroom, and a kitchen with all that space?)

4000km bomber+1500 km cruise missle is indeed quite a long arm after all. but the bomber also need to be able to carry yhe yj-63 and kh-31. the tu-22m, after all, was designed to strike cvbgs fast and hard.

[sumdud]

4000km? I don't know. That's the range of the Su-32.
If you want to go, go all the way.
4000 km seems to be little.
Plus, 2000km radius would already put you over Japan, so what's the difference of 4000km and......8000 km range really? I'd say a longer range is better.

[MIGleader]

an 8000 km range would put australia and guam at discomfort, seeing how thyeve already shown dis-satisfaction with MKKs refueling.

can china even develop an 8000 km plane on its first try? its seems pretty dificult, especially since china has never built a strategic bomber before?

[sumdud]

Hmm.......Never thought about that...... China never did make large planes...... The biggest was probably the Y-8 and Y-10, neither big.......
And that's going to be small compared to a modern bomber.........

I guess China better start building larger planes. (Don't know how much research that'll take.)

[SteelBird]

For long term, China needs a long range bomber. But not something similar to B2 or B52. They're both will be outdated when missile and radar technics grows. But some bomb that fly fast and high. Steathy is some temporary strick only.

[Su-34]

china may not be seeking range as part of a strategic bomber. 4000 km should be the limit, for many neighbors would feel uncomfortable.
the tu-22 seems to fit all of your requirements sumdud, exept comforts.(but how hard can it be to install foam reclining chairs, a bathroom, and a kitchen with all that space?)

4000km bomber+1500 km cruise missle is indeed quite a long arm after all. but the bomber also need to be able to carry yhe yj-63 and kh-31. the tu-22m, after all, was designed to strike cvbgs fast and hard.

Well i guess if the USA deploys space-based weapons and Mach 10 LACMs with ranges of 10,000kms China might not feel restrained to build 8,000km range bombers and 4,000km range LACMs....:rofl: It's not fair that the USA can have hi-tech weapons while China is "questioned" by the USA as to why it needs to modernize its military.

To Donald Rumsfeld:

You said you don't understand why China is modernizing its military. As for that question, I ask you, why does the United States need to modernize its military, when you already have the world's largest Navy and Air Force? Why does the USA need a US$ 400 Billion defence budget? And for that matter, why is the sky blue?

[MIGleader]

Its the same reason why the U.s can have 10000 ICBMs while china has only 100, and yet rumsfeld advocates thew threat of china;s nuclear arsenal. ill be happy if chian can develop any strategic bomber, regardless of range.

[sumdud]

Well, we all know that sometimes the US government can be a little bossy.

BUT DON'T GET OFF TOPIC!!!!!!
:off:

[Kampfwagen]

Nah. The bomber is going more and more out of fashion as the large strike fighters and fighter bombers take their jobs.


Word to that.

Big bombers are becoming obscolete. The biggest problem with big bombers was that they were designed for total war engagements against large civilian populations. This, especialy with the politicaly sensitive enviornment we now live in is a gigantic no-no.

And since the Vietnam war, it's been proven time and time again that destruction on a massive scale wont solve the problem of getting rid of a well fortified enemy. And since there is no longer a need to bring massive nuclear ordinance against a target from bombs that no middle-sized bomber or fighter bomber could carry, there is really no reason for having large bombers.

Dedicated Strike-Fighters and Fighter Bombers however, can be pretty accurate when it comes to striking specific targets. A single Bunker Buster from an A-10 or F-117 has been known to be ten times more effective than any standard carpet or continual saturation bombing.

Big bombers are going to be going the way of the Tank and the Battleship soon, I can gurantee it, unless something happens that no-one can predict that would require any of the above 'talents'

[crobato]

The big nuclear bomber arose from both the US and the Soviet Union as part of interbranch rivalries in the fifties.

To sum it all up, the ICBM made everything obsolete. And with that, the various service branches are coping up excuses to cope with this "threat" or they would themselves be obsolete and have their budgets cut. It is more of a quest to seek relevance, than of strategic value since the ICBMs alone could have destroyed the world a few times over.

The navies created SSBNs and SLBMs.

The air forces, big strategic nuclear bombers.

It is not necessary that China, in the quest for her arms modernization, should thread on the same path...and dead ends...the two other superpowers did.

[Deino]

It only fits closely to this topic ... but maybe it will have some influence on the desissions for a "Future Chinese Bomber" ... esp. as China is mentioned as one reason:

Killer Drone, Dead; New Bomber Lives

Joint Unmanned Combat Air Systems -- the shared Air Force and Navy program to develop a killer drone -- has been cancelled, Inside Defense is reporting. "Instead, the Defense Department will begin work this year on a next-generation long-range strike aircraft, accelerating its bomber modernization plans by nearly two decades in an effort to quickly enhance the Air Force’s effectiveness across the Asia-Pacific region."

J-UCAS was supposed to produce an armed drone that could knock out enemy air defenses, conduct surveillance, jam enemy radars. On the side, it might do some strike missions. But it would mainly pave the way for manned aircraft.

This new project would focus more directly on taking the enemy out, Inside Defense says.

"The action to accelerate work on a new bomber tracks closely with a recommendation last fall for a new, long-range strike aircraft program made by Andrew Marshall, the Pentagon’s director of net assessment, who called for developing capabilities necessary to deter China."

That means striking at targets thousands of miles from any U.S. bases, Robert Work, with the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, noted in a recent presentation. "Reach — the combination of range and persistence — is especially important in the Pacific theater of operations."

"U.S. Strategic Command, which has responsibility for an evolving concept dubbed 'global strike,' strongly advocated the need for a new bomber" to obtain that reach, according to Inside Defense.

Source: http://www.defensetech.org/archives/002079.html#comments



The biggest problem (for my opinion) is the fact that China - despite great progress during the last decades - still lacks the ability to develop three such high-end poroduct completely allone: XXJ - sometimes rumoured in two scales (one from Shenyang in the class of the F-22 and a smaller one , the "stealty" J-10C from Chengdu !?!?) and a new bomber.

As a result I belive the most probable would be not a true "strategic" bomber but more like a "regional bomber" in form of a Su-34-derivate or -development !

But as said ... just my opinion !

Cheers, Deino

[Totoro]

Purpose of a bomber has long ceased to be to deliver destruction on a massive scale. Bomber of today, in my eyes, is simply an aircraft with immense range to strike strategic targets. And to get such range, you have to make it big. And since you're flying half way around the world, what's the purpose of being able to strike with just two bombs on one target? Why not make it even slightly more big and make it carry enough weapons to strike 4, 8 or more targets? Or, if its a well protected target, one all those weapons on that single target, where previously you'd need 5 bombers to attack it. It requires more manpower (for maintenance back home too!), more fuel, more spare parts, etc. Plus its easier to hide one aircraft than five, if you have the chance to make it stealthy. If not, then yeah, you'd probably have better chance of survival with 5 planes. (still more expensive than one)

If there's ever full scale war between US and China, it sure would help china to at least have the range to strike the likes of Guam and Diego Garcia, or even Alaska or Midway, etc. (whether those strikes would be succesful is a different matter)

[PLA-MKII]

enlarged? the su-24 does not have an internal weapons bay. well, you cant simply enlarge an existing attacker to be a bomber. none of todays strategic bombers were developed from fighters. the plaaf will have to start from scratch, somethig its not rather good at.

how about something like the xb-70? super long range, speed, and armament. of course, certain problems will have to rectified, such as the cost issue. ecm may also be required for survival in todays worl of sams.


My opinion again:

1. Variable Wing Geometry
2. Internal Bay
3. Two Al-31 size engines
4. Low Drag design (similar to Su-24 / MiG-23s / JH-7 / Tornado)

Projected combat radius of 3000 miles, max mach speed of 1.8..
small internal bay..
The plane would sacrifice thrust to weight ratios thus not having an a2a combat potential.

The SU-24 for instance had a very long fuselage and swept wings allowing much less drag and therefore speed and range at the expense of maneuverability. A conventional bomber would not be survivable in the battlefield, my plane on the other hand would have far less payload.

To minimize the budget of the plane we would take whatever parts we can from similar projects like the F-111 did... using Al-31 / WS-10A engines, landing gear and many other parts from the JH-7A including perhaps the entire forward section. and tail section.Lengthened fuselage and variable geometry wings would though need to be fabricated.

Not a true bomber by even a long shot but a "bomberish" serious attack aircraft... :)

[Totoro]

This is slightly off topic but does anyone have some info on the H-6H bombers? Or, if thats not their designation, im talking bout the version with four underwing pylons for cruise missiles. I was under impression that those were older H-6 bombers that have been refurbished but folks at china-defense.com are saying they are in fact newly produced planes, that the whole production line has been restarted. Is that true? If so how many have been delivered and how many more are planned for delivery?

[MIGleader]

Actually, it is a completely new plane, with models delivered in the 1990s. the h-6f is the refurbished one, with new guidance ann pulse doppler radar.

the h-6h carries the kd-63 anti ship cruise missle. i dont beilive there are actually that many of them, a dozen at the most. the plane only first flew in 1998, and entered service in 2004-2005. all of its 23mm guns have been replaced with elctronics.

[sumdud]

Well, the upgrades are indigenous, so it will be allowd here to an extent. (I'd rather open another thread.) And isn't KD-63 a LACM?

If you want to use a bomber to launch a strike against a fleet, you can:
have a scout plane fly ahead of everyone else and search for the fleet.
Or
armed the plane with not just the ASMs but also a semi-ballistic missile.
Basically, the missile flies into the upper atmosphere forward of the plane to where the missile leaves behind a locating module. This module will search for the fleet as it descends slowly with its parachute, and if it finds the fleet, it will track it, and inform the planes of them. I am talking of a long range ballistic missile here, of course.

[Totoro]

That approach is doable, but it'd require a fair deal of such missiles with tracking modules to cover a large area. Furthermore, it is questionable how long such modules would survive, once deployed, as they'd turn into primary targets since hiding a naval task force would be of greatest importance. Still, i imagine it would help at least narrow down the possible area where enemy fleet is hiding. But that's the locating part. Versus ROC navy it could probably even be used for targeting but i doubt it'd work for targeting versus USN. Still, once you have a general location where you have to send your fighters and bombers to - that's half the work done already.

kd-63 is indeed said to be a lacm, not anti ship missile. H-6D is carrying the yj-6 antiship missile which kd-63 is a derivation of.

But let me ask another thing. Since there's still no mention of any newly designed / bought bombers why not try for a slightly more advanced H-6 version? Use the current assembly line, but use newer materials, better aluminium alloys, even some composites where available (nothing too advanced, nothing that needs its own research and development, just borrow the tech from j-10 program). Get a higher level of automatization, redesign the cockpit for 3 people instead of 5. And, most importantly, get rid of wp-8 turbojets and replace them with new generation turbofan engines. (i guess that'd require biggest structural redesign but it'd be worth it)

I imagine one could save at least a ton of weight (current empty H-6 bomber is around 36 tons), and that's not counting the extra benefit of more fuel efficient engines. So instead of carrying 3 tons of payload with 1800 km combat range, it could perhaps be 5 tons or more for like 2000 km combat range. And that'd make quite a difference, being able to carry 4 asm / lacm, yet be stationed deep in mainland china, out of reach of tomahawks (usaaf used air launched lacms are a different story but their inventories are and have always been miniscule compared to USN tomahawk inventory) Sure, there's always b2, but deeper a plane must go into the heart of air defence/air warning network - bigger the chance is it'll be detected and brought down.

[Roger604]

Purpose of a bomber has long ceased to be to deliver destruction on a massive scale. Bomber of today, in my eyes, is simply an aircraft with immense range to strike strategic targets. And to get such range, you have to make it big. And since you're flying half way around the world, what's the purpose of being able to strike with just two bombs on one target? Why not make it even slightly more big and make it carry enough weapons to strike 4, 8 or more targets? Or, if its a well protected target, one all those weapons on that single target, where previously you'd need 5 bombers to attack it. It requires more manpower (for maintenance back home too!), more fuel, more spare parts, etc. Plus its easier to hide one aircraft than five, if you have the chance to make it stealthy. If not, then yeah, you'd probably have better chance of survival with 5 planes. (still more expensive than one)

If there's ever full scale war between US and China, it sure would help china to at least have the range to strike the likes of Guam and Diego Garcia, or even Alaska or Midway, etc. (whether those strikes would be succesful is a different matter)

I think both you and Wingman make some very good points.

We all agree that in the short-term, China needs fighter-bombers that can cover ranges up to around the second island chain (Guam). This is best done by either purchasing Su-34 or Tu-22. These would play the role of the 'carrier-killer'.

The only question is whether or not for the long-term, China should invest resources into developing long-range bombers to deliver stand-off weapons. Do these things have a future?

IMHO: It would be a good idea to create a long-range indigenous bomber program as a test-bed for technologies (like stealth) rather than push for mass production and deployment as soon as possible. We don't have a pressing need for them.

[sumdud]

I thought the H-6 line was stopped in the 80s?
one thing on there has got to be replaced. The wing root engines are gas guzzlers and old...... I am thinking maybe we can replace them with pylon-RR mk-202. (The original engine that was to replace the WP-8, not sure about number, though.)

The plane is really skinny for a plane though.......
But 5 tonnes with 2000km is good for a plane its size.
(36 tonnes, that's not a lot in modern terms.)
I don't know about the bomb bay, but the wing should if possible be fitted with more(preferably lighter turbojet, I mean the SY series/derived, the HYs are heavy is heck.) missiles of various roles.

[SteelBird]

Hi, How do you guy think about these two aircrafts? they are claimed to be Jxx in some sites. Have you ever seen them? However, no comment about them. To me, the golden one look similar F-22, and the silver one look somehow similar to MiG Mapo 1.44

[renmin]

Hi, How do you guy think about these two aircrafts? they are claimed to be Jxx in some sites. Have you ever seen them? However, no comment about them. To me, the golden one look similar F-22, and the silver one look somehow similar to MiG Mapo 1.44These same pictures have been presented before in the PLAAF picture thread. They are FAKE. All CGIs. Plus, as said before by MiGLeader, The PLAAF would not reveal a true picture of their project at such an early stage.

[PLABUDDY]

Thank you for the pictures. Those are computer generated images of future J-xx. :china:

[sumdud]

..................Off topic, we are talking about BOMBERS here. :nono:

[Totoro]

I thought the H-6 line was stopped in the 80s?
one thing on there has got to be replaced. The wing root engines are gas guzzlers and old...... I am thinking maybe we can replace them with pylon-RR mk-202. (The original engine that was to replace the WP-8, not sure about number, though.)

The plane is really skinny for a plane though.......
But 5 tonnes with 2000km is good for a plane its size.
(36 tonnes, that's not a lot in modern terms.)
I don't know about the bomb bay, but the wing should if possible be fitted with more(preferably lighter turbojet, I mean the SY series/derived, the HYs are heavy is heck.) missiles of various roles.

Apparently the production is still ongoing as we speak, with the latest version h-6h airplanes first delivered in 2004. I'm just not sure how many are produced, i'm suspecting the numbers are pretty low, perhaps as few as one a month. I am sure PLAAF also needs to replace older ones from the 60s too, some of those airframes must be used up like hell so i don't really see the total number of H6 is service to increase.

But, here's the thing. The specifications on the h6 are all over the place. I checked all over the net, besides the figures offered here at sinodefence, i compared the original tu-16 specs - and it seems h6 is even more inferior to 50s/60s russian tu-16. I am guessing the biggest blame there goes to chinese engines, being huge gas guzzlers, like you said. specs for tu-16B (which seems to be most comparable with h-6) go up to 12 tonnes max payload or 6 tonnes with maximum amount of fuel for 1800 km combat range. Other versions like tu-16c can deliver 4,5 tonnes to over 2400 km. And that's all done with fairly old turbojet engines.

It is therefore clear that a turbofan, even a low bypass one (perhaps ws-10a?, it has little less dry power but the savings in fuel should still be considerable) would improve payload/range immensely, let alone a high bypass engine. Perhaps they should just rip off the system and engines off a B737 and put em up on the h6, it'd still be miles superior to existing engines. :D Seriously though, wings look high enough to me to carry the engines on short pylons underneath. I just don't know how much work that'd require, redesigning the wing root, since whole point is not to have to go through long development cycle.

Right now, some 33 tonnes of fuel are carried to achieve the mentioned 1800 km combat range. Sounds like an awful waste of fuel. :(

[Gollevainen]

There is several mentionings that in the seventies Chinese installed Spey turbofans for testing purposes onboard H-6s. I don't know what was the results of these test nor ever seen any picture of the engine arragment (so i cannot say wheter it was a blended like the orginal engine configuration or more of wing mounted) or about the project in general which means this rumours aren't 100% thurstable least not to me.

The main site also have a section for cancelled bomber projects which were in effect a H-6 type of hull fitted with underwing Speys (six in total). These projects like so many other chinese aircraft pograms were cancelled and nothing came from them. Also when searching material concerning the Chinese first indegenious turbofan engine, WS-6 (note, not WB-6), it was also mentioned to be possiple engine for future bomber project but i have nothing more about it.

It's quite sad as so many promising and interesting chinese aircraft programs have been cancelled for varios reasons:( ...well we all can still dream, right;)

[Totoro]

That B737 idea isn't so crazy, actually. Lets take two B737 models for comparison. First is b737-300, model that first flew in 1984, so early 80s tech. Second is b737-700, first time flew in 1997, so its mid 90s tech.
Their length is very comparable to h-6, boeing 300 has 29 meter large wingspan while boeing 700 has same wingspan as h-6. Furthermore, boeings have larger, wider bodies, bigger tail section, bigger engines mounted on pylons, etc. Now, of course it's impossible to accurately guess drag but it's safe to say that boeings, while having considerately bigger frontal surface made drag, have less skin friction drag, less induced drag, better shape overall. For the sake of this post, i'll assume drag levels are similar.

To make long story short: B700 has like 102% maximum range of H-6 while carrying 500% bigger payload. Its empty weight is same as H-6 but it achieves the said range carrying just some 66% of the amount of fuel H-6 does for its range. Engines provide 89 kn thrust, quite comparable with h-6's 93 kn, i'd say. If one could use same level tech engines on h-6, that's 15 tonnes of payload delivered 6000 km away. No matter how you look at it, thats at least 2000 km combat range, with nice reserve to fly faster if needed. Just for extra information, B700 normally uses up 2070 kg of fuel per hour at normal flight conditions for such longest range scenario.

But lets say such mid 90s tech engines just isnt available to china. B300 weighs 33 tons, or little under 4 tonnes less than h-6. its max range is 80% of that of h-6, but it carries 14.5 tons of payload to that range. Knowing that it carries 16.3 tons of fuel, one can calculate that it'd need 20.35 tons of fuel for h-6's range. That'd lower its useful payload to just over 10 tons, but that still beats h-6's figure of mere 3 tons. For comparison, b300 engines use 2250 kg of fuel per hour at normal regime for max range.

Even old B737-200, which first flew in 1967 and its engines are mid 60s turbojets and not turbofans has 4900 km range for some 12.3 ton payload and its engines use little over 2800 kg of fuel per hour for that max range.

Conclusion is, of course, same as in the earlier posts (only then i was just talking out a gut feeling and now i made a little bit more precise guestimate) - just by using different engines h-6 can be turned into a great platform, carrying 10 tons (sinodefence says 9 tons is max, perhaps structure cant support more?) to at least 2000 km away, perhaps as far as 2500 km depending on the flight regime. 3 tons could be delivered to over 8200 km distant place (ferry range), or like 3000-3500 km combat range. Pretty impressive figures and definitively enough for a stop-gap measure plane until true indigenous, next gen bomber flies.

[MIGleader]

So the key issure is a new engine? well its both harder and easier than it looks. China in the 1990s attemted to develop a large transport airframe with airbus and boeing. it was rumored(cant remeber where) that the airframe would also serve for a bomber.

the spey is 1970s technology, and is not viable solution today. airbus's rolls royce Trent 900 engine(still under development) is a good choice(as are hundreds of other commercially available jetliner engines). two of these is adequate to power an intercontinental flight, no extra engine pylons are needed. but the engine is huge in diameter, and would require extensive(i mean years of) modifications to the h-6.

another choice is GE's CF34-10A engine, already powering the arj-21. 18500 kg of thrust. four might be needed

so its pretty much a compromise between size and power.

[tphuang]

engine definitely is and always will be one of the biggest problems for the Chinese aviation industry (much larger than the so called weakness in electronics). I think a derivative of WS-10A could be used for a future bomber. Considering that the core of the engine used for F-16 and B-1B are very similar, I think it's definitely do-able.

[Totoro]

the spey is 1970s technology, and is not viable solution today. airbus's rolls royce Trent 900 engine(still under development) is a good choice(as are hundreds of other commercially available jetliner engines). two of these is adequate to power an intercontinental flight, no extra engine pylons are needed. but the engine is huge in diameter, and would require extensive(i mean years of) modifications to the h-6.

another choice is GE's CF34-10A engine, already powering the arj-21. 18500 kg of thrust. four might be needed

so its pretty much a compromise between size and power.

Sad thing is - even speys would be better that what h-6 fleet is using now. :( But even those are not really backward engineered properly and china bought used ones from UK for jh-7s. When hearing such things it really makes me doubt the ws-10a is gonna be ready anytime soon.

But lets assume china does get a good turbofan. Should it redesign the wing so the new engines are put in the place of old turbojets, in the root wings? Obviously, itd be much larger housing, requiring some extensive wing redesign. Should the wing be redesigned so the root engine housing is thrown away, and fully straight wing is used, with a pylon for the turbofan hanging underneath the wing? Or, no matter how weird it sounded, should the old engine be thrown out but the wing with the housing should be left intact - perhaps just filling out the housing with extra fuel - all the while the new turbofan is hung underneath the wing? It'd mean more drag, absolutely, lower max speed, but i have a feeling the extra efficient engines would still make it worthwhile. Advantage is that the wing would require least modifications, basically just rewiring the electronic and fuel system so they connect to the underwing pylon instead od wing root.

another intersting question - just what is the diameter of h-6 bomb bay and, even more importanly - how long is the bomb bay? With more efficient engines, less space used up for fuel, perhaps the bay could be lenghtened so missiles could be stored interally, lowering drag and making up for the extra drag suffered by underwing engines?

As for arj program helping the bomber program - that crossed my mind too. the mentioned engine provides 82 kn of thrust, not quite the same as the existing engine's 93 kn max thrust but comparable enough. With greatly decreased fuel consumption (less weight) and use of newer alloys (sprinkled with some composites where cheap to apply) they could do the job, just two of them.

BUT. That's a GE engine. American. To my knowledge, it wont be produced in china but it will be shipped to china, only to be installed on the produced planes. And we know china's backward engineering capability when it comes to turbofans is pretty lousy. I'm starting to think that, right now, until a proper indigenous turbofan is ready (is china even working on high bypass turbofans? ws 9 and ws 10 are both low bypass) it would be a safer bet to go for a prop engine. it'd kinda waste the existing wing but... if enough power can be gained from it - why not? Can't be less fuel efficient than what's on h-6 now.

[rommel]

Well, for powerfull engine, there's the engine designed by P&W and GE, the GP2700 which has 70,000 lb to 84,000 lb of trust... But it's a big engine, 3m of diameter... Still, I think that China could buy some of these and installed them on the H-6... or maybe PW4000, which are already on many Airbus and Boeing, so China wouldn't have hard time maintain them correctly...

[MIGleader]

Well totoro, i dont think the readyness of ws-10a was the factor deciding the jh-7a's choice of spey, a redesigned airframe and avionics would take too long to redesign.

we have alot of talk of foreign engines, which the plaaf does not find fitting for advanced weapons. the engine must be russian(when hell freezes over...), or it must be indegedous. But does china have a suitable engine of its own? perhaps strip them off of existing airbus's and boeings?(an illegal diversion of technology, but no ones going to notice. if they notice, they probably wont do anything)

[sumdud]

If they notice that you are stealing the technology again, China will be in big trouble, AGAIN.

Imagine the local headlines going "China stealing technology for long range deadly bombers." I/

And if you are going to use an oversized engine, why'd you try to fit it in that hole? Just sling it on a pylon....... Redesigning the hole is costly and I find it stupid.(And dangerous, can't imagine the wing being connected by a bunch og overheated moving parts.....)

The engine choices are doable, and I suggest putting them in a pylon. That hole.....it's gotta go...... Maybe the engine can sit on top of the wing while the gear are below, so that you don't get gravel running into your engine.

But if all goes wrong, I'll support putting WS-9s on there as planned in the 70s. Same size, good enough efficiency. Large payload?

[dannytoro]

.....I see Sumdud still hates bombers-lol. I think China could easily launch it first Bomber. If they concentrate on a simple sweptwing planform, they already have the basis of Spey technology to make a nice longe range platform with a dash capability much like Blinder. I'd go with a much easier route like underslung engines for easy maintence, so long as the intakes were offset to maximize stealth ability. The whole key would be heavy payload, hardpoints for large external ASM and even add on ECM, and quick change modular capabilty. As sexy as a mach two bomber sounds, it's really not that much more useful then say a mach 1.6 bomber, and it's a heck of alot cheaper to design a mach 1.6 bomber........

[crobato]

My personal opinion is that China does not have the internal volume to justify the cost of an indigenous bomber. Like, how many do you expect to field? How many regiments? I look at the existing H-6 fleet or even the Q-5 fleet and I don't see how. If you don't have the quantities, you are better off buying from the outside.

[tphuang]

My personal opinion is that China does not have the internal volume to justify the cost of an indigenous bomber. Like, how many do you expect to field? How many regiments? I look at the existing H-6 fleet or even the Q-5 fleet and I don't see how. If you don't have the quantities, you are better off buying from the outside.
well, I think Q-5 could be replaced by attack helicopters or L-15s or even JH-7a for certain tasks. The question for plaaf is this:
what can a long range bomber do that a fighter-bomber like JH-7 or future variants of J-11/su-30 cannot do? And are those things important to have in plaaf?

Kanwa has an article on Russians' sales pitch of backfires. I'm eagerly waiting to see what Kanwa has to say.

[crobato]

One thing about Q-5 vs. WZ-9C/10 is that while both will accomplish the same ground support, both operate from different branches, so they are not in a sense comparable. Just like A-10 vs. Apache.

Like the USAF, anything that has wings falls under the Air Force.

But if it has a rotor on it, then it's the Army that controls it.

The Q-5 is there because China does not have a dedicated CAS aircraft like the A-10 or Su-25. The thing is, it may not be wise to develop such a dedicated CAS plane when the future of this very niche itself is being questioned.

The Q-5 will go on and on filling that niche until that niche becomes obsolete, and in that sense, it won't be replaced. In the end, the Q-5 will die with that niche.

On the Backfires, not too long ago there is this story that Russians won't sell the plane to China because they feel threatened about Chinese in their borders with Backfires. Now they're banging on China's door when China is no longer interested?

Also China won't buy Backfires for the same reason why China junked all their variable wing geometry projects in the first place. Yup, you guessed it.

[Roger604]

Also China won't buy Backfires for the same reason why China junked all their variable wing geometry projects in the first place. Yup, you guessed it.

Hmm.... could you elaborate on the reason? Why did China junk all their variable wing geometry projects?

[Sea Dog]

I actually was under the impression that China wasn't really interested in variable geometry aircraft. What projects did they have in mind? Before it was produced, I though the JH-7 might become a vairable geometry design and was surprised it didn't turn out that way. Doesn't matter anyway as JH-7 is looking like a formidable weapons platform that will fill China's need in that role.

[sumdud]

China designed swing-wings? Can't think of any but the Q-6. (And swing-wings and attacks planes don't match.)

I don't mind swing-wings on bombers though, since you aren't going to put much out there.

As for the A-5 and how attack planes are being merged w/ fighter jets, the A-5 was never much of a true attack plane, having speed rather than armor.....
I guess China should sell it out to bidders as a fighter? (Boy, that thing aint got a radar in the nose........) 10 HP and 2 tonnes, enough for AAMs......

Wonder how the lack of armor will affect "instant ground attacks" though.

[crobato]

Hmm.... could you elaborate on the reason? Why did China junk all their variable wing geometry projects?

Mainly for the same reason we are looking to retire or have retired every swing plane in the planet from the F-111 to the F-14 to the MiG-23s and the Concord. It is also for the same reason why every country on Earth has not followed up on their VG designs. In fact, as we moved from the generation that made swing wings, the next generation afterwards were all fixed wing.

The complexity makes the swing wing planes difficult and costly to maintain, and somewhat fragile.

China studied VG from various procured examples of MiG-23s, mainly from Egypt (said MiG-23s are now in display in the Minsk theme part). Originally the intention was not just the Q-6, but even a variable wing version of the JH-7. There may be more.

China rightly dumped the idea when she found out the complexity of such, went completely straight wing on the JH-7, which was inspired by the Su-24. Note how China has not procured the Su-24 either, even though that would also have been a logical plane in China's forces.

You know, the Russians are just looking for a reason to make extra money and unload their Backfires to someone gullible enough.

[Roger604]

That's a persuasive analysis. So what should China do to acquire an aerial anti-ship capability beyond the range of the JH-7A's?

[tphuang]

That's a persuasive analysis. So what should China do to acquire an aerial anti-ship capability beyond the range of the JH-7A's?
you don't think YJ-83 has a long range? It also has the ability to fire YJ-91 and Kh-31. I would say the most important task right now is to develop a radar to replace JL-10A. I'd like to see something that has even better range vs ship targets and better resolution and such.

Actually, the one thing I'm wondering about it whether or not China will try to get su-34.

[darth sidious]

you don't think YJ-83 has a long range? It also has the ability to fire YJ-91 and Kh-31. I would say the most important task right now is to develop a radar to replace JL-10A. I'd like to see something that has even better range vs ship targets and better resolution and such.

Actually, the one thing I'm wondering about it whether or not China will try to get su-34.


YJ-91 whats that ??????? can you care to enlighten us on this missile
EDIT (here's your info, didn't want to post an oneliner responding):http://www.sinodefence.com/missile/airlaunched/kh31.asp

[crobato]

That's a persuasive analysis. So what should China do to acquire an aerial anti-ship capability beyond the range of the JH-7A's?

It already has. It's called the H-6H loaded with YJ-62/63 missiles.

How far?

Sea to sea version of the YJ-62 is said to be 280km. That's usually code speak for "it's really over 300km but I have to say under it so I can export it without breaking MTCR rules."

Air to sea version of an AshM usually flies significantly farther than the sea to sea based version for obvious reasons. So you add it up.

China may still be considering the Kh-59MK from the Russians, which has a range of 285km (remember the code speak). It would have to consider more purchases of the Su-30MK2 or MK3, or the Su-34 as a suitable platform for that missile.


From darth
YJ-91 whats that ??????? can you care to enlighten us on this missile
EDIT (here's your info, didn't want to post an oneliner responding):http://www.sinodefence.com/missile/airlaunched/kh31.asp

Basically it's a Chinese copy of the Kh-31P but with a different seeker of Chinese origin with possible Israeli influence.

[MIGleader]

you don't think YJ-83 has a long range? It also has the ability to fire YJ-91 and Kh-31. I would say the most important task right now is to develop a radar to replace JL-10A. I'd like to see something that has even better range vs ship targets and better resolution and such.

Actually, the one thing I'm wondering about it whether or not China will try to get su-34.

probably not in large numbers. The su-34 is just entering service with russia. It really depends the needs of the pla. the plan would operate su-32s, the naval su-34. But is an su-32 needed when you have a improved jh-7a(comming out in the future).

If the jh-7b fails to meet requirements, then the plan might persue the su-32,or the su-32 may serve as a stopgap measure if futher development is required.

as for the army, id like to see them get som new helicopters before mmoving on to attackers

[Roger604]

you don't think YJ-83 has a long range? It also has the ability to fire YJ-91 and Kh-31. I would say the most important task right now is to develop a radar to replace JL-10A. I'd like to see something that has even better range vs ship targets and better resolution and such.

Actually, the one thing I'm wondering about it whether or not China will try to get su-34.

Question: what is the range of the JH-7A armed with YJ-91, 83, or Kh-31?

Can it reach from the coast line of Fujian past the east coast of Taiwan?

[Sea Dog]

Question: what is the range of the JH-7A armed with YJ-91, 83, or Kh-31?

Can it reach from the coast line of Fujian past the east coast of Taiwan?

I've seen certain stats that say JH-7 with two YJ-82 loaded on two pylons, plus two wing tip missiles (air-to-air), and fully fueled can achieve a combat radius of 900 Km.

YJ-82 has a launched weight of 715 Kg, while YJ-91 shows 610 Kg. So you can assume a little more range added onto the 900 Km cited for JH-7 carrying YJ-82. That's plenty of range to get to a launch point East of Taiwan.

[tphuang]

This is a little Kanwa news on China and Tu-22M3. It's no surprise to me that the Russians haven't found any interest from China on the sale of Tu-22M3:
a few key reasons:
1. political issues with USA/Japan since this is a strategic weapon to some
2. second hand bombers
3. use of Russian weapons
4. fighter-bombers are already in PLA
http://img437.imageshack.us/img437/710/8138660142zu.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
http://img285.imageshack.us/img285/2461/8138667489pa.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
http://img285.imageshack.us/img285/2830/8138675760wx.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

[Vlad Plasmius]

The missile can be fired from far off enough to prevent the aircraft firing from getting shot down. I'm not sure on YJ-82 or YJ-83, but the YJ-83 supposedly has a range of 150 kilometers or about 93 miles, which is pretty close to being on the coast of China, but that's distance between the coastlines. However, there's a good chance of the JH-7A being able to get close enough and not be worried about Taiwanese air defences.

[tphuang]

actually YJ-82 has a range of 120 KM and YJ-83 has an air-launched range of 250 KM and a sea-launched range of probably 180 to 200 km.

[Sukhoi Freak]

my choice would be either a fighter bomber or just a ground attack fighter like the A- 10 or Su-25. I aggree the bombers are things of the past. Now a cruise missile can do the job of a battleship or bomber. So instead of China developing huge bombers, we shold build smaller. :o

[KYli]

I wonder why. I hope it is not that they don't have a good alternatives.


中國生產轟6M打造航母殺手
2006-5-10

美國軍事觀察家撰文指出，中國最近已重新啟用生產線生產「轟-6M」型轟炸機，而這種轟炸機將成為中國軍隊的「空中航母殺手」。

【大公報訊】據消息稱，美國全球安全組織以及華盛頓國際戰略協會的資深中國軍事專家彼得五月三日及七日先後 兩次撰文披露，中國日前突然重啟「轟-6」轟炸機生產線。該型機是前蘇聯「圖-16」的中國版本，一九六八年開始在中國重新設計生產，但到上個世紀九十年代全部停產。

「轟-6M」攜四枚攻艦導彈重新啟動的「轟-6」生產線當然不是重新生產老飛機，而是生產改進型的「轟-6M」型。改型機最早是二○○二年珠海航展上亮相，同時還有該型機的模型。「轟-6M」的意外亮相立即引起了各方的猜測，他們注意到「轟-6M」的機翼下攜有四枚空對艦導彈，當時有國外專家分析說，導彈細長的彈體和其他外型特徵說明它屬 於「鷹擊-8」系列，性能接近於美國的AGM-84E導彈或者AGM-142導彈，其發動機是渦輪噴氣式，加上彈體更輕，因此它的射程會更遠。

但珠海航展後，「轟-6M」就從人們的視界中消失了，一直到最近才得知中國的生產線即將重啟。據華盛頓國際戰略協會的中國軍事專 家稱，「轟-6M」自重七十二噸，雙發動機，航程五千公里，將交給海軍航空兵使用，目的是搜尋並摧毀敵方水面艦隻。現在 外界未能掌握中國軍方會生產多少架，但估計應該是十多架。

「鷹擊-83」導彈專打航母據美國全球安全組織的專家觀察，「轟-6M」將攜載4枚YJ-83（「鷹擊-83」）新型反艦巡航導彈。

據《華盛頓時報》比爾．蓋特茨介紹，中國的「殲／轟-7」在華北渤海灣試射了YJ-83反艦巡航導彈。試驗結果令美國情報官員震驚。直到不久前，美情報官員預計YJ-83的射程為七十五英里，但新試驗的導彈射程為一百五十五英里（二百五十公里），超過美國海軍「標準二型S M2」防空導彈。美國五角大樓官員認為，這種導彈是北京針對航空母艦和其他軍艦發展遠程打擊能力的 一部分。

《華盛頓時報》援引美國官員的話說，這類導彈說明，中國方面在打擊敵方艦隊方面已經擁有了新的戰鬥力。美方 相信YJ-83是C-801超音速反艦巡航導彈的變種，由於速度快，艦隊很難擊落它。

「海上長城」突出「三打三防」

據介紹，YJ-83導彈又稱為C-803，是一種低超音速掠海反艦導彈，被稱為「海上屠夫」，由解放軍海防導彈研究院在一九九九年十月一日五 十周年國慶閱兵大典前研製成功，並在國慶閱兵時以實體亮相。它也被解放軍稱為是「爭氣彈」。國防專家說，Y J-83還有在飛行中接受目標信息的能力。詹姆斯基金會中國軍事專家費舍說，YJ-83新導彈將裝備到JH-7a改進型戰鬥轟炸機上。費舍說，該導彈有二百五十公里的射程，解放軍可以在美國海軍防空導彈標準 SM-2火力範圍之外發射。美國「標準-2」導彈裝備在台灣的美製「紀德級」驅逐艦上。

據美國媒體報道，中國正在建立「海上長城」，海面武力包括艦對艦、艦對空和空對艦導彈；「隱形戰線」包括電 子戰：示假、干擾、電子對抗、電子偽裝等手段將用來破壞對方的精確制導武器和雷達。作戰技能則突出「三打三 防」：打隱形飛機、巡航導彈、直升飛機、防精確打擊、電子干擾和偵察監視。

[Kampfwagen]

my choice would be either a fighter bomber or just a ground attack fighter like the A- 10 or Su-25. I aggree the bombers are things of the past. Now a cruise missile can do the job of a battleship or bomber. So instead of China developing huge bombers, we shold build smaller. :o

It would seem to me like a smart idea to probably get a few Su-25's from Import and then produce them localy. It would certantly cost alot less than developing a standard multi-role bomber.

[FreeAsia2000]

You know, the Russians are just looking for a reason to make extra money and unload their Backfires to someone gullible enough.

I read that some of Russia's bombers managed to sneak under american
radar near the alaska area.

It was supposed to be an upgraded backfire

[sino52C]

Bombers are still useful, if you can afford to keep them.

The US B-1s and B-52s are still useful for dropping JDAMS and launching cruise missiles, even after 60+ years of its inception for the B-52. China should continue to build the H-6H.

I do like the B-1s, VG, fast, long range, heavy armament, low observable. If china can have something like a B-1, it will be more than ready to face any forseenable enemies.

[MIGleader]

Bombers are still useful, if you can afford to keep them.

The US B-1s and B-52s are still useful for dropping JDAMS and launching cruise missiles, even after 60+ years of its inception for the B-52. China should continue to build the H-6H.

I do like the B-1s, VG, fast, long range, heavy armament, low observable. If china can have something like a B-1, it will be more than ready to face any forseenable enemies.

Bomber development present extreme risk. A bomber such as the b-52 is only good against a third-world nation which lacks a good air-cover and advanced SAMs. SAM technology evolves much faster than a bomber can be designed. Even a change of seeker on an old SAM can render a billion-$ bomber project obsolete. This was proven with the U.s Valkyrie project.

[Totoro]

True, today it seems its worthwhile to go down two routes if you're making a bomber - one being a low tech fairly cheap cruise missile carrier, other being a high tech expensive plane designed to penetrate enemy defenses unharmed. B-52 and b-2 are perfect examples of those two.

It would be prudent for china to have means of striking guam and diego garcia. Bombers carrying cruise missiles would offer such a capability. Alternatively, one could design a two stage cruise missile, with a huge fuel tank, so it could be fired from trucks in mainland china. With gps guidance the vast distance would not influene the accuracy. If gps signal would be jammed though - it could prove quite risky as INS guidance would be surely inadequate over such distance, and tercom unusable over water. Having a fleet of bombers still seems easier.

[chicket9]

I agree, China should keep its H6H and in fact keep on producing them.

Maintaining a force of 100 in the PLAAF is quite good, this bomber is proven for its durability, it has decent endurance and a high weapons payload.

With the latest modern versions it could launch cruise missiles and I'm sure with more upgrades could drop PGMs.

I see it useful as a counter insurgency aircraft where any real air defence threat is going to be insignificant. Like Xinjiang and could be used to in Central Asia.

Though very vulnerable, if air superiority can be gained, the effectiveness of these bombers in close support and high altitude bombing roles is undeniable, such as in Vietnam, and can be used over Taiwan.

The Navy should also maintain its H6D-H versions, with cruise missile and AShM capability. At least upgrade their radars so they may serve as patrol aircraft and provide some coverage for littoral craft in mid course guidance for long range missiles like the YJ-82/3 variants.

[Finn McCool]

Without large numbers of precision weaponry, heavy bombers are useless; they are worse than useless, merely targets that can't hit anything themselves. Vietnam was the last war with an opportunity to carpet bomb things. Until China stockplies an arsenal of precision weapons, like JDAMs, it should stick with what it has. However, TU-22s would be useful because of the ASM role. However, for ground attack, a strike aircraft like an A-10, Tornado or Jaguar would suffice at present. The JF-17 could fufill this role, and probably will. (I feel kind of guilty, I haven't really read anything on the JF-17.)

And yes, Free Asia was right. Recently several Russian TU-22s were able to penetrate US air defences around the North Pole. The Air Force found out about it later, and investigated. I forget what they said the problem was, but the point is made, heavy bombers still do have their use-delivering curise missles and precision munitions.

[DPRKPTboat]

Well actually the Soviets did use Tu-22s for carpet bombing during the Afghan war, mostly in the Soviet attack in the Banjar Valley. But I personally think that high level carpet bombing from heavy bombers is a World War 2 tactic. Modern air defences would detect the bombers easily, and they would be easy prey for SAMs and AAA (Thats why the bombing raids on Germany by the USAF in that war suffered heavy casualties). Nowadays, the techinque of low-level bombing is most preferable, since you can advoid enmey air defences quite easily that way. But I think heavy bombers still have a place there. They could also be useful as missile carriers - the B-1B is useful for launching tomahawks outside enemy air defence - I imagine the H-6 could launch a similar attack with the KD-63 - I can imagine that being the most popular Chinese tactic if the PLAAF ever undertakes a U.S. - style precision bombing campaign. Maybe the new Chinese bomber will be able to launch more KD-63s than the H-6.

[Deino]

Could this be a suggestion of a feasible Chinese replacement for the H-6 ???

http://img242.imageshack.us/img242/6568/atbconceptasah6replacementuv9.jpg

It’s one of several studies from Boeing during the early days of the ATB-project, which led to the B-2 and I was quite surprised how simple and conventional this study was.

Source: http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=602.0

Any ideas or comments ! With the technology capbilities of today this should be possible .... :confused:

Cheers, Deino

[planeman]

Could this be a suggestion of a feasible Chinese replacement for the H-6 ???

http://img242.imageshack.us/img242/6568/atbconceptasah6replacementuv9.jpg

It’s one of several studies from Boeing during the early days of the ATB-project, which led to the B-2 and I was quite surprised how simple and conventional this study was.

Source: http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=602.0

Any ideas or comments ! With the technology capbilities of today this should be possible .... :confused:

Cheers, DeinoThe above picture, which shows clear commonality with the Boeing 737, reminds us that a 'modern' bomber with similar speed/range performance to the B-52/Bear/Badger would benefit from modern airliner design. In fact a Boeing or Airbus with bomb bays in place of the cargo holds would be in almost every respect better than the equivilent B-52 or Badger. Quite why China is still building Badgers is beyond me, honestly.

[sumdud]

It would make good logistics too, but China doesn't make commerial airliners and definitely not engines...... Even if you use the Y-8 as a start, stretch it, etc, you still need to find engines, and I doubt those will come through.
They'd work well as LACM launchers if they exist though. (Anything closer to a protected target would need either fighter-bombers or stealth bombers.)

[renmin]

It would make good logistics too, but China doesn't make commerial airliners and definitely not engines...... Even if you use the Y-8 as a start, stretch it, etc, you still need to find engines, and I doubt those will come through.
They'd work well as LACM launchers if they exist though. (Anything closer to a protected target would need either fighter-bombers or stealth bombers.)China can indeed make engines and pretty well. The problem is with China's quility of their mateirials used to make a engine which comes to the reason why engines are exported from Russia. China makes commercial liners, plenty actually, but they aint good at it. The commercial liners built are probbably the the size of a A320! I think china would be focusing on somethin, more militariestic. More faster and large too.

[tphuang]

China can indeed make engines and pretty well. The problem is with China's quility of their mateirials used to make a engine which comes to the reason why engines are exported from Russia. China makes commercial liners, plenty actually, but they aint good at it. The commercial liners built are probbably the the size of a A320! I think china would be focusing on somethin, more militariestic. More faster and large too.
China would be in joy if they can make something to the size of A-320. Their current capability lies in the EMB-145 (45-50 seats) and also MA-60 (50-60 seats). Their current major project is ARJ-90 and that only setas about 90.

[sumdud]

China doesn't make any commercial high-bypass engines for commercial airliners, only fighter jet engines, and those don't fit the role. China is trying to make commercial grade turbofans, yes, but we haven't seen or heard about them much.
The joint Airbus cooperation from the 1990s had failed pretty early.
The ARJ-21 is still in progress.
The airliners that China make, like the Y-12 and MA-60 (Civil-Y-7) use turbofan engines.
The cloest to a civil-turbofan that China has now I think are the RR Speys that originally were suppose to replace the WP-8s on the H-6s, but ended up instead on the JH-7A.

China has EMB-145s? They bought those right?
Haven't heard of the ARJ-90.

[adeptitus]

It would make good logistics too, but China doesn't make commerial airliners and definitely not engines...... Even if you use the Y-8 as a start, stretch it, etc, you still need to find engines, and I doubt those will come through.


CAAC & SAIC was able to reverse enginner the Boeing 707 some 30 years ago as the Y-10. The prototype was powered by P&W turbofan engines, which would've been replaced by WS-8 later.

Unfortunately the project was cancelled due to economic and political reasons. More info on this wiki entry:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanghai_Y-10

IMO if the PRC wanted to make commerical airlines powered by reverse-enginnered CFM56 engines today, they can do it. But it's prolly cheaper and more politically viable to import from US or France, since these are "big ticket" purchases used to improve relations.

Problem with commercial jet development is that they're usually mired in politics. Back in 1990s Taiwan's TAC was negotiating with McDonnell Douglas for MD-12, BAe for regional jet, Dassault & Fokker for another regional jet deal, Brazil's Embracer for yet another regional jet, and even Indonesia's IPTN to make the N-250 turboprop airliner... Taiwan's DPP opposed these 50-50 joint ventures as a waste of money, so in the end MD went to China and Taiwan was left making parts for Swearingen's SJ-30 corp jet.

BTW, can anyone identify this:
http://www.anyboard.net/gov/mil/anyboard/uploads/02067359251.jpg

[DPRKUnderground]

The PLAAF has been looking at the Tu-22 for quite some time. Russia isn't selling. An indigenous design based on the Tu-22 might work. Obviously the specifications would be a low-alittude supersonic bomber, like the B-1B and Tu-22. China could even buy an old Tu-22 from Libya for study. But an indigenous bomber project would take a long time.

[tphuang]

what the heck are you talking about? Russians offered both Tu-22M and Tu-95 at the beginning of 2005. China has shown zero interest in it.

To sumdud, yeah, it's ARJ-21, don't know what I was thinking. As for EMB-145, they have license production and supposedly a 49% partner in the program or so