H-20 bomber (with H-X, JH-XX)

JayBird

JayBird

Junior Member
SinoSoldier said:
Perhaps Yankee factored in the range of the cruise missiles. BTW, did he mention anything regarding a flight of new aircraft at SAC?
Click to expand...

That's a possibility that the H-6K flown 3,000-3,500 km and fire their cruise missiles and turn back to their original base if the article didn't clearly stated the H-6Ks flown 4,600 km to the destination. And Yankee clearly stated it's combat radius and not combat radius plus missiles range.

I don't think he can say anything about the first flight of the aircraft at SAC if other people can't say it even if he knows more than us. But the article I translated was kind of his response to the Chinese version of Su-34 rumor. He also posted that black model JH-XX pic we've seen many times before with the article that I didn't bother to re-post it again.;)
 
W

weig2000

Captain
JayBird said:
I don't think Yankee would make that kind of mistake when he clearly stated H-6K's combat radius is at least 4,600 km in his article. And if you can read the Chinese in the picture I posted eariler it also stated H-6K successfully attacked targets 4,600 km away during one it's longe range strike exercise mission last June.

It would be hilarious to flown the H-6K 4,600 km and landed on an airport near their targets, and then takeoff again and attack the targets near the airbase and considered that long range strike mission. What's the point of this long range attack exercise then if the H-6K have to landed near their targets first, if that's the case can H-6K do that in a real war scenario and landed on enemy aribase first to take a break and refuel before attacking their targets?

I honestly don't think Yankee is that bad that he can't tell the difference between the distance H-6K flown and it's combat radius. The guy is a well respected man and a professional.:)
Click to expand...

I can read the Chinese in the picture. It says nothing about the combat radius of H-6K. It says exactly what you translated above: it flew 4,600KM to attack targets. That's it. It did not say it flew 4,600KM to attack the targets there and flew back.

And there is nothing hilarious about flying 4,600KM to attack targets and then landed at an airport nearby if it could not fly back to its home base due to its range or radius limits.

Maybe H-6K indeed had a combat radius of 4,600KM, but you certainly can not get that information from the Chinese text in the picture. If Yankee insists H-6K have a combat radius that long, he must have gotten his information from other sources.
 
JayBird

JayBird

Junior Member
weig2000 said:
I can read the Chinese in the picture. It says nothing about the combat radius of H-6K. It says exactly what you translated above: it flew 4,600KM to attack targets. That's it. It did not say it flew 4,600KM to attack the targets there and flew back.

And there is nothing hilarious about flying 4,600KM to attack targets and then landed at an airport nearby if it could not fly back to its home base due to its range or radius limits.

Maybe H-6K indeed had a combat radius of 4,600KM, but you certainly can not get that information from the Chinese text in the picture. If Yankee insists H-6K have a combat radius that long, he must have gotten his information from other sources.
Click to expand...

My point about the chinese words in the pic was it doesn't make sense for the H-6K to flew 4,600KM in a long range attack mission exercise and then not flew back to the original base or your own side because you will have to do that in real war scenario. You can't land at an airport nearby if you are attacking other countries target far from home.( Most likely over the ocean) I thought the point of long range strike mission in this case is to simulate real war scenario.

I never said the pic article stated the combat radius of H-6K. I only said Yankee clearly stated it was combat radius. Here is his original words in Chinese. First sentence he stated according to official source. And I hope you didn't take offense to what I said.:p

(根据官方消息，换装D-30KP-2/WS-18发动机的轰-6K至少具备4600km的作战半径，外挂6枚AKD-20巡航导弹后实现这一指标绰绰有余。而海军即将装备的轰-6K改进型外挂6枚YJ-12重型空舰导弹的作战半径也和轰-6K相同。参考LRS-B，这个打击半径是足够的。)
 
Deino

Deino

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
OMG ... what a piece of BS !!!! :mad::eek:

A model of the new Chinese stealth bomber was recently shown on the military website Top81 Dingsheng, with the Chinese characters for the bomber called “Divine Eagle.”

Rick Fisher, a senior fellow at the International AHHssment and Strategy Center, said both China and Russia have advanced bomber programs, but that Moscow appears to have temporarily shelved its new bomber in favor of restarting production of Tu-160 Blackjack bombers.

“China’s Xian Aircraft Corp. is developing a new strategic bomber that may be a ‘flying wing’ design called H-20,” he said, based on Asian government sources. The bomber could be deployed by 2020. “In addition, China may be working on a new supersonic theater bomber, sometimes called H-18, but much less is known about this program,”
Click to expand...

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
and
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Can anyone tell them that the Divine Eagle is a UAV ... :confused:
 
JayBird

JayBird

Junior Member
Deino said:
OMG ... what a piece of BS !!!! :mad::eek:



Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
and
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Can anyone tell them that the Divine Eagle is a UAV ... :confused:
Click to expand...

From the past articles I read it seems like Rick Fisher's Chinese military knowledge is better than that. I don't think he was that ignorant calling Divine Eagle the Chinese bomber. Bill Gertz probably screw up with the information he got from Rick Fisher and quote him with the wrong/mistaken information. :D
 
Jeff Head

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
JayBird said:
Bill Gertz probably screw up with the information he got from Rick Fisher and quote him with the wrong/mistaken information. :D
Click to expand...
I doubt this very seriously.

Gertz definitely has his own slant on things...but he is also very knowledgeable. I do not think he would make such a mistake either.
 
JayBird

JayBird

Junior Member
Jeff Head said:
I doubt this very seriously.

Gertz definitely has his own slant on things...but he is also very knowledgeable. I do not think he would make such a mistake either.
Click to expand...

But the article linked by Deino is written by Bill Gertz. He obviously make a big mistake with Divine Eagle as bomber in the article because of his source or himself mixup with the names of the chinese projects.

He was quoting Rick Fisher in this article regarding the chinese future bomber development. That's why I figure he might've mistaken what Rick Fisher said to him and make a mistake and kind of mixup the Divine Eagle with the future chinese bomber when they exchange information or something.
 
Jeff Head

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
JayBird said:
But the article linked by Deino is written by Bill Gertz. He obviously make a big mistake with Divine Eagle as bomber in the article because of his source or himself mixup with the names of the chinese projects.

He was quoting Rick Fisher in this article regarding the chinese future bomber development. That's why I figure he might've mistaken what Rick Fisher said to him and make a mistake and kind of mixup the Divine Eagle with the future chinese bomber when they exchange information or something.
Click to expand...
My guess is that the mistake came from someone other than those two.

Or...it was a simple error.

Who knows?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top