H-6 Bomber Aircraft Discussions


BaiyueRaeuz

Just Hatched
Registered Member
Very ugly

Very long and thin has no critical mass, like a broom stick

poor performance overall

H-20 needs entering
China is in no urgent need for H-20, as the newest H-6 variants (J/K/N) can satisfy PLA's current needs for airspace defense, shoal patrol, and possible small-scale regional conflicts perfectly, to say the least. Despite their outward appearance haven't changed that much from the original Tu-16, the inside has completely changed, from engines to radar to electronic equipment.
 

KFX

New Member
Registered Member
China is in no urgent need for H-20, as the newest H-6 variants (J/K/N) can satisfy PLA's current needs for airspace defense, shoal patrol, and possible small-scale regional conflicts perfectly, to say the least. Despite their outward appearance haven't changed that much from the original Tu-16, the inside has completely changed, from engines to radar to electronic equipment.
If Beijing was keen on maintaining a defensive posture then H-20 would not be urgent. If, however, they are seriously contemplating a move on Taiwan, then a strategic asset like H-20 would be of great value both from a deterrence perspective and if, God forbid, a shooting war erupts. Xi Jinping seems determined to make his mark on history by taking Taiwan, and this is driving not just H-20 but China's other programmes. H-20 is coming...we'll see it within a few years - but not at Zhuhai!
 

BaiyueRaeuz

Just Hatched
Registered Member
If Beijing was keen on maintaining a defensive posture then H-20 would not be urgent. If, however, they are seriously contemplating a move on Taiwan, then a strategic asset like H-20 would be of great value both from a deterrence perspective and if, God forbid, a shooting war erupts. Xi Jinping seems determined to make his mark on history by taking Taiwan, and this is driving not just H-20 but China's other programmes. H-20 is coming...we'll see it within a few years - but not at Zhuhai!
Even for the possible conflict with taiwan, H-20 would be somewhat of an overkill, as China has tons of rockets and short to medium range ballistic missiles.
It's only when China really wants to become a globally dominant military power like the US that the H-20 bomber becomes necessary.
 

daifo

New Member
Registered Member
Just having an ability for playing just defense is a losing proposition in modern warfare. In the link article
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, just 2 B1 Bomber can pop up from the horizon and easily take out a entire carrier battle group with 50 lrasm.

The ability and a threat of stealth H-20s dropping loads of lrasm on a approaching fleet or a nuclear armed patrol during tense flair ups would provide a greater deterrent for a foe from trying to attack China.


If Beijing was keen on maintaining a defensive posture then H-20 would not be urgent. If, however, they are seriously contemplating a move on Taiwan, then a strategic asset like H-20 would be of great value both from a deterrence perspective and if, God forbid, a shooting war erupts. Xi Jinping seems determined to make his mark on history by taking Taiwan, and this is driving not just H-20 but China's other programmes. H-20 is coming...we'll see it within a few years - but not at Zhuhai!
 

caohailiang

New Member
Registered Member
Even for the possible conflict with taiwan, H-20 would be somewhat of an overkill, as China has tons of rockets and short to medium range ballistic missiles.
It's only when China really wants to become a globally dominant military power like the US that the H-20 bomber becomes necessary.
if you want to deter an approaching US CVBG in a Taiwan scenario, H20 with internally carried AShM could be really scary, but H6, well, not so much - as they can be detected from 300+ nm away
 

caohailiang

New Member
Registered Member
Just having an ability for playing just defense is a losing proposition in modern warfare. In the link article
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, just 2 B1 Bomber can pop up from the horizon and easily take out a entire carrier battle group with 50 lrasm.
not disagreeing your point but i don't think 50 lrasm could destroy a Chinese CVBG (with maybe 4x052D+2x055+4x054A) , 150 could probably do the job
 

Insignius

Junior Member
It really depends on how fast the Chinese CVBG can launch their missiles to intercept these 50 LRASM at the last 30km or so once they enter radar horizon. The stealth design of the LRASM would prevent any OTH targeting, even at the off-chance that they can be detected before (LRASMs could potentially be much stealthier than the F-22).
HQ-16 and HQ-9s need sufficient radar reflection on the LRASM to target them, so this means that only the higher powered FCR directors onboard the ships have any chance to target these vampires when they popping over the horizon and essentially entering visual range.
At 30km, only a short amount of time is left to intercept these missiles, which requires very strong multi-target guidance and high launch rate (as it is usual to launch 2 interceptors per target), with no guarantee of interception due to terminal phase evasion maneuvers of the LRASMs. Even a few hits against the carrier or against escort ships will cause significant damage and might even mission kill the vessels, making them vulnerable to follow on attacks. And we havent even included the presence of forward deployed F-35s using their radars to jam the CVBG's radars, which would make detecting, targeting and intercepting these LRASMs even harder.

LRASMs and other stealth missiles indeed pose a grave danger to the PLAN in the absence of fleet early warning aircrafts equipped with counter-stealth radars and ARH SAM that can be CEC'ed by counter-stealth early warning aircrafts to target these stealthy missiles at OTH range.

A notional Chinese stealth bomber equipped with a large amount of stealth missiles would definitely be the hard-counter against any US Navy intervention alongside the ASBM. Imagine a few H-20s carrying dozens of stealthified YJ-18s: Their stealth design prevents early detection, degrates OTH targeting even in the presence of the E-2Ds, while their terminal stage rocket boosted penetrator would remove the LRASM's only real drawback - its slow speed and vulnerability at visual range/terminal stage - by boosting the missile to Mach 3+, leaving literally no time for the defenders to intercept.
If 50 LRASM could potentially cripple a Chinese CVBG, A H-20 with 20 or so stealth YJ-18 could do the same to a US CVBG.
 
Last edited:

caohailiang

New Member
Registered Member
LRASMs and other stealth missiles indeed pose a grave danger to the PLAN in the absence of fleet early warning aircrafts equipped with counter-stealth radars and ARH SAM that can be CEC'ed by counter-stealth early warning aircrafts to target these stealthy missiles at OTH range.
i agree with your arguments on LRASM, it is grave threat no doubt. OTOH, i dont think quantifying the problem can be achieved by a list of arguments at this level. The number i propose( some 150) is from simulation result of CMANO civilian version, which some may dismiss as a fanboy tool but i personally dont have anything better. If anyone would suggest a better one I really appreciate.

sorry for being off topic.
 

Insignius

Junior Member
CMANO is fine. Even though data cant be confirmed since it is mere OSINT estimation, the general model itself is quite good.
In reality vs. CMANO, the LRASM seems to be less god-tier as depicted in the database: In CMANO, for example, the AShMs cruise at seaskimming altitude all the way, while in reality, they typically only do that for the last few dozen kilometers. The LRASM too will cruise at higher altitudes, making it slightly easier for any counterdetection assets to see them and discriminate them from the sea-clutter.

On the other hand, CMANO does give a pretty high/optimistic PoH for SAM vs incoming missiles, as well as a robot-like OODA-loop performance for a ship's crew. So, it might cancel each other out. Generally, I totally approve using CMANO/CMO as a tool for rough guestimation.

No matter what, I think having a swarm of some 20 missiles of any kind coming at you will pose a grave danger in reality.

China should definitely look at adopting a vast quantity of more stealthy and/or RCS-reduced munitions ASAP. With those in service, even older platforms like the H-6s could stay highly relevant in a future conflict. If CMANO/CMO teaches one anything, I guess, it is that possessing advanced and capable munitions and ordnance are vastly more important than having advanced platforms.
What use is a H-20 if all you can drop are iron bombs or non-stealthy KD-20 ALCMs that get chewed up by SAM systems as old as Taiwanese I-HAWKs? On the other hand, a 30yo rusting Ticonderoga equipped with a nominally inferior radar to the newest Type 346B still vastly outperforms the Type 055 by virtue of having the option to load up stealthy VLS-launched LRASM, while the Type 055 still uses big and non-stealthy YJ-18 cruise missiles that only have their speed but also get chewed up by SM-6s the moment they get detected by E-2Ds.
 

Top