China's indigenous bomber program

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...

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)

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?

.....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........

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.

crobato said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

crobato said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

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.

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.