H-6 Bomber Aircraft Discussions

Discussion in 'Air Force' started by F40Racer, Sep 11, 2006.

  1. tphuang
    Offline

    tphuang Brigadier
    Staff Member Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2005
    Messages:
    7,551
    Likes Received:
    1,693
    Re: Question regarding the future of the H-6 bomber

    It's for this reason that I always hoped that China would at least find a successor to H-6. And honestly, the only thing China is interested in from the Russians is Tu-160, we know that's not going to be available. And it doesn't seem like they are finding anything to replace H-6 domestically either.
     
  2. maozedong
    Offline

    maozedong Banned Idiot

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2006
    Messages:
    885
    Likes Received:
    3
    Re: Question regarding the future of the H-6 bomber

    some body mentioned capet bombing and taiwan.
    let me remenber there are so many discuss in chinese newspapers,magazines and internet,mostlly from taiwan it's self.
    saying is taiwan after 800(later may more) ballistic missiles and thousands cruise missiles enough attack,the second attack by Su30mkk,JH7,J10,Q5 air to ground strike,is able to destory most taiwan's ground airdefence systems,in this time,H6 and Q5 deploy the carpet bombing is avilable and necessary,it may guarantee the PLA landing troop fast control the island.
    the operation is success or not depend on the first attack must destory all the air bases of taiwan,stop most of taiwan's air fighters take off from the bases.
    ofcause ,we can think about this, the military generals of taiwan already considered it long time ago.
    we can see all the fighters in taiwan are underground,and most air bases moved to eastside of taiwan.
    ofcause PLA generals already have plan for this.
    we "talking the defence in the paper",but so many chinese discuss about this.
    H6 still useful for a long time.
     
  3. oringo
    Offline

    oringo Junior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2006
    Messages:
    102
    Likes Received:
    2
    Re: Question regarding the future of the H-6 bomber

    Actually, according to this website, SU-34 can carry sunburns and club missles. I think they weigh about the same as KD-63, if not more. The combat radiu and airtime of SU-34 is also comparable to H-6; afterall it was designed to be a med/long-range bomber. SU-34 only has room for two pilots, but the comfort level is probably higher than that of H-6. The cockpit is pressurized and air-conditioned and equipped with a toilet. It was joked that the cockpit is roomier than Tu-160. Anyway, you probably already know all that. My point is that SU-34 might just be a serious replacement for H-6.
     
    #33 oringo, Oct 18, 2006
    Last edited: Oct 18, 2006
  4. crobato
    Offline

    crobato Colonel
    VIP Professional

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2005
    Messages:
    4,852
    Likes Received:
    4
    Re: Question regarding the future of the H-6 bomber

    That website has a lot of marketing (male cow's excrement). The Kh-41 project has been dropped long time ago because no one is financing and buying (they were expecting China who didn't bite). There is no airborne test of the Club either. The rest is valid. However, it offers nothing that the current Su-30MKK can't handle. Furthermore, the Su-30MKK integrated these weapons long ago---the Su-30MKK is the first Russian plane that is legally certifiable as a multirole fighter. And I don't think it entered service in 2004 as a few examples aer expected to be constructed later the decade.

    The development of the Kh-59MK antiship missile, export only, for the Chinese market tells you that China wasn't even looking airborne Sunburns and Klubs. The fact that this missile is cancelled---leaving the Su-30MK2s with only a short ranged AshM the Kh-31A---tells you a bit that China no longer has any appetite for Russian AshMs, and would prefer to make use of its own airborne variants of YJ-83, -62 and -63.

    The problem is, we don't know if the Russians would agree to integrating these weapons into their aircraft, or if the Chinese would be willing to share the control codes and protocols to the Russians to make it happen.

    So no, it's not a serious alternative to the current JH-7As and H-6s. Furthermore if the Chinese did buy the Su-34, they got no airborne AshM to use it (read above for the 3 projects that are cancelled) with except for the Kh-35 and Kh-31A, both of whom do not outperform any current Chinese airlaunched AshM. The Kh-59MK was probably cancelled because it does not outperform the airlaunched YJs, not to mention its engine layout, compared to the YJs, give it a bigger radar signature.

    The only serious missile that the Chinese may have been looking at is the Kh-55. We don't know if the Russians are willing to sell. The interest on the Tu-160 is part of this. Ukraine is said to have sold China six Kh-55s. Jane's reported/speculated on an H-6 variant designed to carry it called the H-6K.

    If Su-34 can be made to carry Kh-55, maybe China can consider. China was offered Tu-22M3 as the Russians can't sell their Tu-160 which is their crown jewels, so the Tu-22M3 is the next best thing. However, that is also rejected. Ukraine is said to have destroyed their remaining fleet of Tu-22M3 and Tu-160, though I wondered what "destroyed" really means *wink* *wink*.

    Nonetheless, China does not appear to be interested on Tu-22M3, despite such aircraft was brought into the Sino-Russian exercises in August 2004 to show to officials.

    I might say at this point, the road seems clear H-6 will stay around for a while, maybe even a decade or two, as a cruise missile carrier for indigenous ALCMs and AshMs, including successive variants of the YJ-83, -63 and -62.
     
  5. swimmerXC
    Offline

    swimmerXC Unregistered
    Staff Member Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2005
    Messages:
    2,152
    Likes Received:
    2
    Re: Question regarding the future of the H-6 bomber

    ...
    [​IMG]
     
  6. Twix101
    Offline

    Twix101 Junior Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2005
    Messages:
    161
    Likes Received:
    78
    Re: H-6 bomber thread

    ah ah this is a tanker !;)

    See the refuel Pod under the wing.
     
  7. wanderingmind
    Offline

    wanderingmind New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2006
    Messages:
    42
    Likes Received:
    0
    Re: H-6 bomber thread

    Myself, I personally foresee the H-6 staying around for quite a while. Right now, in the US, there's a lot of back-and-forth on the need for a "bomb truck" to service air support requests that call for more than a couple of 500-pounders and a go-fast machine. If the PLAAF is smart, they'll keep a few H-6's around equipped with that capability. In short, despite the wishes of the "fighter mafia," the need for a light/medium bomber keeps rearing its head in the combat arena. When will they learn?
     
  8. BLUEJACKET
    Offline

    BLUEJACKET Banned Idiot

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2006
    Messages:
    590
    Likes Received:
    0
    Re: H-6 bomber thread

    This is google English translattion of Chinese site.
    http://64.233.179.104/translate_c?h...%22H+6%22&hl=en&lr=lang_zh-CN&sa=G&as_qdr=all

    http://translate.google.com/transla...%22H+6%22&hl=en&lr=lang_zh-CN&sa=G&as_qdr=all

    http://64.233.179.104/translate_c?h...%22H+6%22&hl=en&lr=lang_zh-CN&sa=G&as_qdr=all

    http://64.233.179.104/translate_c?h...%22H+6%22&hl=en&lr=lang_zh-CN&sa=G&as_qdr=all

    New old Tu-16 video!

    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8281246714178674857&q=tu-16&hl=en
     
    #38 BLUEJACKET, Nov 14, 2006
    Last edited: Nov 15, 2006
  9. challenge
    Offline

    challenge Banned Idiot

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    1,662
    Likes Received:
    5
    Re: H-6 bomber thread

    few months ago, report that PLAAF is developing SAR for H-6,there's possiblity that SAR intent to cue FT-1 guide bomb.
     
  10. Scratch
    Offline

    Scratch Captain

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2006
    Messages:
    2,116
    Likes Received:
    1,091
    Re: H-6 bomber thread

    According to Jane's the H-6 is intended to carry a new airborne luncher carrying small sattelites into low orbit.
     
Loading...

Share This Page