China's indigenous bomber program

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"
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.

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.

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.

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?

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.)

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.

MIGleader said:

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.

Click to expand...

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?

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.

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

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

sumdud said:

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

Click to expand...

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'