H-6 Bomber Aircraft Discussions

Lethe · Jul 23, 2017

szbd said:
ancient bomber design of the1950s have a unique advantage: economic performance on long range high altitude subsonic cruise. Cheap to maintain, fly, and long service life. If you wanna use SDBs by direct aiming, you'd better get a stealthy flying wing; while if you wanna fire some big missile 1000km away, these old designs are the best choice.

H-6K and B-52 still have utility as ASCM carriers, but that does not mean they are ideal platforms for the task. If you were designing a dedicate ASCM carrier from scratch you would create a platform with modern engines (at least PS-90A standard) and modern aerodynamic design to maximise range/endurance. Even without VLO requirement, it's quite possible that a flying wing would be the optimal configuration for the task.

szbd · Jul 23, 2017

Lethe said:
H-6K and B-52 still have utility as ASCM carriers, but that does not mean they are ideal platforms for the task. If you were designing a dedicate ASCM carrier from scratch you would create a platform with modern engines (at least PS-90A standard) and modern aerodynamic design to maximise range/endurance. Even without VLO requirement, it's quite possible that a flying wing would be the optimal configuration for the task.

1. flying wing with external load is a disaster for flight control and you simply won't get an optimized ASCM platform without external load.
2. Flying wing has much bigger potential on stealth, so it's a waste to use it for ASCM.

Jeff Head · Jul 23, 2017

Phead128 said:
These bombers look so ancient. While PLA has made great strides recently like sexy looking birds, it really is lagging behind in terms of bomber force. Any new updates on its replacement?

Actually, if you know much about the H-6 and what it was based on (The Russian TU-16) these H-6Ks are very nice looking.

They are new build aircraft, with ton of improvements and a lot better look.

They carry the latest Air to Surface missiles and can carry up to six of them, and they are packed witgh the latest electronics.

They are not built to penetrate defended air spaces. They are built to launch from hundreds and hundreds of miles away, at standoff distances.

And for this role they are ideally suited...like the US B-52s remain effective.

so, for attacking bases or ships at sea from a long distance, they are a very powerful and modern tool.

Jeff Head · Jul 23, 2017

Deino said:
View attachment 40753

Yes, Taiwan's indigenous AIDC F-CK-1 Ching-kuo fighter intercepted the H-6Ks and Japan's F-15Js did so.

Wholly expected.

IMHO, this is simply tactics that the Chinese are using to show that they are capable of putting strong aircraft in the air at long distance from the mainland, and then Taiwan and Japan, once they detected them, showing that they can send fighters up to intercept them.

Of course, neither the H-6Ks were armed for combat, and the ROCAF and JADF were not overly aggressive, or armed for any long distance combat from what I could see.

antiterror13 · Jul 24, 2017

Jeff Head said:
Actually, if you know much about the H-6 and what it was based on (The Russian TU-16) these H-6Ks are very nice looking.

They are new build aircraft, with ton of improvements and a lot better look.

They carry the latest Air to Surface missiles and can carry up to six of them, and they are packed witgh the latest electronics.

They are not built to penetrate defended air spaces. They are built to launch from hundreds and hundreds of miles away, at standoff distances.

And for this role they are ideally suited...like the US B-52s remain effective.

so, for attacking bases or ships at sea from a long distance, they are a very powerful and modern tool.

Just want to add excellent analysis from Jeff above. The main diff between H-6K and B-52x ... B-52x can carry more than 4x weapon (weight)

FORBIN · Jul 24, 2017

Hyperwarp said:
Yes it most certainly has an internal bomb-bay-

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Right now i have see only free fall bombs

FORBIN · Jul 24, 2017

Jeff Head said:
Actually, if you know much about the H-6 and what it was based on (The Russian TU-16) these H-6Ks are very nice looking.

They are new build aircraft, with ton of improvements and a lot better look.

They carry the latest Air to Surface missiles and can carry up to six of them, and they are packed witgh the latest electronics.

They are not built to penetrate defended air spaces. They are built to launch from hundreds and hundreds of miles away, at standoff distances.

And for this role they are ideally suited...like the US B-52s remain effective.

so, for attacking bases or ships at sea from a long distance, they are a very powerful and modern tool.

He can also to be armed with 4 KD-63 range 200 km surely less expensive than KD-20 and disponible in more big qty with 200 km it is out of range of the majority of SAM.

Gloire_bb · Jul 24, 2017

antiterror13 said:
The main diff between H-6K and B-52x ... B-52x can carry more than 4x weapon (weight)

Main difference is the size. Main and principal capability difference is range+endurance combination. Tu-95ms can't carry that much more than H-6K, yet it's unquestionably a whole class above.
P.s. and, ofc, nuclear capability. Currently h-6k doesn't perform this role, AFAIK.

szbd said:
1. flying wing with external load is a disaster for flight control and you simply won't get an optimized ASCM platform without external load.
2. Flying wing has much bigger potential on stealth, so it's a waste to use it for ASCM.

ASCM platform(or, for the matter, any subsonic platform in non-friendly airspace) needs stealth a lot. Considering what they're meant to intrude&attack(and, in many cases, search on their own) some of the best-defended airspaces around - they've to survive.

Jeff Head said:
They are new build aircraft, with ton of improvements and a lot better look.

It depends. Basic Tu-16 was, IMHO, one of the most beautiful heavy bombers in history. H-6k with fatter engine nacelles and simplified bodyform looks much less elegantly, even if more up-to-date.

delft · Jul 24, 2017

szbd said:
1. flying wing with external load is a disaster for flight control and you simply won't get an optimized ASCM platform without external load.
2. Flying wing has much bigger potential on stealth, so it's a waste to use it for ASCM.

Flying wings would carry their load internally and save on drag and weight compared with the old bombers. But they would need to be designed and developed.

Jeff Head · Jul 25, 2017

Gloire_bb said:
Main difference is the size. Main and principal capability difference is range+endurance combination. Tu-95ms can't carry that much more than H-6K, yet it's unquestionably a whole class above.
P.s. and, ofc, nuclear capability. Currently h-6k doesn't perform this role, AFAIK.

ASCM platform(or, for the matter, any subsonic platform in non-friendly airspace) needs stealth a lot. Considering what they're meant to intrude&attack(and, in many cases, search on their own) some of the best-defended airspaces around - they've to survive.

It depends. Basic Tu-16 was, IMHO, one of the most beautiful heavy bombers in history. H-6k with fatter engine nacelles and simplified bodyform looks much less elegantly, even if more up-to-date.

Each has his own tastes.

But the H-6K to me looks far better than the old TU-16...and as a standoff platform, ot launches from enough distance away that it does not have to penetrate directly into the targets air space.

Now, if that target is a carrier or an air base with a good AEW aircraft up and decent CAP, both barrier and close in...then that becomes a target that is less suitable for an H-6K.

H-6 Bomber Aircraft Discussions

Lethe

Captain

szbd

Junior Member

Jeff Head

General

Jeff Head

General

antiterror13

Brigadier

FORBIN

Lieutenant General

FORBIN

Lieutenant General

Gloire_bb

Captain

delft

Brigadier

Jeff Head

General