China's indigenous bomber program

Totoro · Jan 13, 2006

Wingman said:
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.

Wingman said:
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.

Wingman said:
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.

Wingman said:
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.

Wingman said:
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.

Wingman said:
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 · Jan 13, 2006

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 · Jan 13, 2006

Totoro said:
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 · Jan 13, 2006

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 · Jan 13, 2006

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 · Jan 13, 2006

Wingman said:
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.

Wingman said:
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.

Wingman said:
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.

Wingman said:
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.

Wingman said:
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.

Wingman said:
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 · Jan 13, 2006

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 · Jan 13, 2006

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 · Jan 14, 2006

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.

Wingman said:
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.

Wingman said:
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.

Wingman said:
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.

Wingman said:
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 · Jan 14, 2006

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.

China's indigenous bomber program

Totoro

Major

Su-34

New Member

Wingman

Junior Member

PLA-MKII

Just Hatched

MIGleader

Banned Idiot

Totoro

Major

PanAsian

Major

Wingman

Junior Member

Totoro

Major

Wingman

Junior Member