PLA bomber/strike doctrine force+composition discussion (non H-20)
- Thread starter AF-1
- Start date
asif iqbal
Lieutenant General
agreed H20 where is it >? that rumour that it made its maiden flight was a fanboy ?
This "more munitions per pilot trained" is something new for me, care to elaborate why it is important?
D
Deleted member 13312
Guest
A H-6 type aircraft maximum load= 6 missiles
a B-52/ Tu-95 maximum load = 16-20 missiles.
More missiles= more targets engage. And if you can get a pilot to target double the numbers of a H-6, you are starting to see a very huge return there.
H-6K has 3 crew members, while B-52H and Tu-95MS have 5-7. The weapon-crew ratios are not much different, considering the internal bomb bay of H-6K is not "utilized" in bean-counting as the other two planes.
Last edited:
The size between an H-6K and a B-52 or Tu-95 is very significant, one only needs to look at their MTOWs.
Saying the PLAAF "missed out" on the 1950-1970 bomber era is bit flawed -- it's more accurate to say that the PLA's overall military industry during most of the cold war was obviously entirely behind the leading military powers of the time, and reverse engineering the Tu-16 to the H-6 was the realistic peak of what they could do at the time.
They simply didn't have the technology and industry or funds to develop a truly intercontinental range bomber like B-52 or Tu-95.
Post cold war, the H-6K and variants modernization of the H-6 platform obviously presents the lowest cost, lowest risk and greatest return on investment overall. They simply didn't have an existing intercontinental weight bomber to work with.
... of course, they now should have the technology to build an intercontinental weight strategic bomber like near the B-52 or Tu-95 weight class if they really wanted to.
But does anyone think developing a new non-stealthy, subsonic intercontinental weight strategic bomber would be a wise use of funds for the PLA? It would obviously be much more wise to invest those funds into a modern and competitive stealthy bomber instead -- which is exactly what the PLA are doing.
Saying the PLAAF "missed out" on the 1950-1970 bomber era is bit flawed -- it's more accurate to say that the PLA's overall military industry during most of the cold war was obviously entirely behind the leading military powers of the time, and reverse engineering the Tu-16 to the H-6 was the realistic peak of what they could do at the time.
They simply didn't have the technology and industry or funds to develop a truly intercontinental range bomber like B-52 or Tu-95.
Post cold war, the H-6K and variants modernization of the H-6 platform obviously presents the lowest cost, lowest risk and greatest return on investment overall. They simply didn't have an existing intercontinental weight bomber to work with.
... of course, they now should have the technology to build an intercontinental weight strategic bomber like near the B-52 or Tu-95 weight class if they really wanted to.
But does anyone think developing a new non-stealthy, subsonic intercontinental weight strategic bomber would be a wise use of funds for the PLA? It would obviously be much more wise to invest those funds into a modern and competitive stealthy bomber instead -- which is exactly what the PLA are doing.
The PLA's present procurement today is made in mind with an understanding of current technology availability and current/foreseeable threat profiles, while balancing what future technology they will have and future threat profiles.
It's all well to say that non-stealthy bombers are outdated trucks and that future bomber fleets should be fully stealthy, but it will take many years to achieve that. For the PLA, it will obviously take a number of years until they reach a relevant number of H-20s.
In the interim, should the PLA and other air forces simply ditch their non-stealthy bombers? Do modern non-stealthy bombers offer no relevant capabilities in medium or high intensity environments at all? Should nations simply retire those aircraft and wait for years until stealthy bombers arrive?
Or, do you keep those non-stealthy bombers in service and upgrade them with new self defense systems and more importantly give them new, longer ranged weapons to have a chance at striking even defended targets at standoff distances, and gradually phase them out as your new stealthy bombers enter service?
Cause that is what basically the US, Russia and China are doing.
For China specifically, I think they will continue H-6 variant production for a few more years before finishing it up. H-6K/J/N variants still offer some capability that other aircraft do not have, and while they may not be survivable in certain circumstances in a high intensity environment, they can still be relevant if adequately upgraded with new weapons in time. They are also likely relatively cheap, reliable, and offer regional ranged strike capabilities to supplement the PLA's other regional strike capabilities as well, even if they only operate from within Chinese air space.
That metric is not critical in a long war.
The cost of the pilots is negligible compared to the airplane purchase and ongoing maintenance.
Look up any number of Bomber examples for yourself.
A much better criteria for a long war is the following [cost per munition] x [number of munitions used]
What you've posted is accurate, but also not relevant to the operational requirements of the Chinese military.
The entirety of the 1st Island Chain lies within 1500km of the Chinese mainland.
Ground launched cruise missiles like the Tomahawk/DH-10/CJ-10 have enough range for all these land targets and for additional manoeuvring.
Air-launch has few advantages, but comes at significantly higher cost.
D
Deleted member 13312
Guest
To be fair the B-52H has a dedicated EW officer which I think that it is essential for all bombers in modern warfare. Plus the majority of China's H-6s are not Ks, which has a crew of 4 incomparison to the B-52H's 5. For the Tu-95 there is not much that can be said as it missed the modernization train that the B-52 got on which it gets only but recently in the Tu-95MS, deleting non-essential officers like the tail-gunner and communication's officer. The crew number differences aren't that great when compared to the H-6.
Plus I am doubtful that the H-6K's internal bomb bay is large enough to be adapted for a rotary launcher like that of the B-52 and Tu-95, it might be able to carry some, but definitely not as much as the latter 2. And if they could they would have done so already.
In a long war, every crew member counts.
Actually I will say it matters even more in a long war. Modern skilled pilots are much more harder to train compared to earlier periods like WW2, in a long conflict, and it takes much longer to train one than building a bomber. You only get so many people who are capable of flying military aircraft that has to be further divy up for transportation, fighter and bomber duties. If you can get one pilot to do a job that requires at least 2, that is already a multiplication of force.
Costs of munitions and construction of weapons becomes increasingly negligible in a long war in comparison to available manpower which is something that takes a fixed time to replace no matter what one does, Germany near the end of WW2 was dead broke but it still churn out weapons like crazy but they lack the people to use them.
They are have to start from a predictable starting point which is the Chinese mainland, plus in comparison to manned bombers. Once launched, cruise missiles are entirely dependent on their own onboard programming which is susceptible to electronic warfare and the likes, plus bombers can be easily rediverted for other missions if necessary whereas missiles once launched are gone forever.
Last edited by a moderator: