PLA bomber/strike doctrine force+composition discussion (non H-20)

PikeCowboy said:

1) Having a bigger bomber means you'll have relatively more bomber pilots available per mission load delivered. You were talking about pilots being cheaper than bombers so I interpreted that to mean youre advocating for cheaper H6's at the cost of pilot survivability.

2) You might not have the range for cruise missiles to make independent maneuvers if your target was Japan, SEA/SCS targets, or a fleet at sea. Furthermore we dont even known if cruise missiles such as the CJ are capable of independently navigating a loop around to TW eastern coast and turning back to hit eastern coast targets.

My point is that PLAN needs a b1/tu160 equivalent to go with its stealthy H20

Click to expand...

This entire discussion about developing a new B-1/Tu-160 bomber to replace H-6s and to supplement H-20s is crippled by one simple underlying problem -- opportunity cost.

I think everyone should first take a step back at why the PLA went for developing successive new variants of H-6s rather than developing a brand new heavy bomber like B-1 or Tu-160.
The reason is because developing an entire brand new large aircraft of that class takes time, resources, money, and expertise.

Obviously it goes without saying that a B-1 or Tu-160 is superior to an H-6K/J/N.

But for the PLA, going into the 2000s and going into the 2010s and now going into the 2020s, when we look at how much time, resources, money and expertise the PLA had to throw around in terms of their various major aviation projects, is developing a heavy, non-stealthy, clean sheet new design bomber, really that wise of an investment when they have so many other ongoing projects either in development or projects that they are actively seeking to ramp up development for?

People have mentioned how the H-6K is too small or not sufficiently survivable for the future aerial warfare scenario -- but does anyone really think a new PLA equivalent to B-1 or Tu-160 would be much more survivable in less than a decade's time? Is the level of capability and survivability offered by a brand new non-stealthy heavy bomber design really worth it given how many other major projects the PLA has cooking?

On the other hand, when we look at the H-6K/J/N, its costs are all likely to be far lower, while offering an interim regional capability.
Obviously it isn't a heavy bomber nor does it offer supersonic dash capability like B-1 or Tu-160, but it offers a capable regional strike capability and the ability to carry relatively oversize loads that the PLA's other combat aircraft cannot.

More importantly -- it can do all of the above with likely relatively low cost, low risk, with relatively low consumption of expertise and aerospace industry resources to allow them to work on other projects that are likely far more important to the PLA, such as J-20, Y-20, J-XY, and most relevant for bomber force development; H-20.




So does PLA "need" a B-1 or Tu-160 equivalent?
That's the wrong question to ask.

IMO the question should be "is the opportunity cost of developing a B-1 or Tu-160 logical?"

Bltizo said:

But for the PLA, going into the 2000s and going into the 2010s and now going into the 2020s, when we look at how much time, resources, money and expertise the PLA had to throw around in terms of their various major aviation projects, is developing a heavy, non-stealthy, clean sheet new design bomber, really that wise of an investment when they have so many other ongoing projects either in development or projects that they are actively seeking to ramp up development for?

Click to expand...

Developing a new non-stealthy heavy bomber is certainly a bad idea, but it would be a good idea to get Tu-95/160 production lines from Russia, or even just buy the planes.

Bltizo said:

People have mentioned how the H-6K is too small or not sufficiently survivable for the future aerial warfare scenario -- but does anyone really think a new PLA equivalent to B-1 or Tu-160 would be much more survivable in less than a decade's time?

Click to expand...

Absolutely. Both H-6Ks and Tu-160s are survivable. These are stand-off weapons carriers, they don't get anywhere near enemy air defenses. The supersonic flight speed is especially useful against time-sensitive targets like ships.

ZeEa5KPul said:

Developing a new non-stealthy heavy bomber is certainly a bad idea, but it would be a good idea to get Tu-95/160 production lines from Russia, or even just buy the planes.

Absolutely. Both H-6Ks and Tu-160s are survivable. These are stand-off weapons carriers, they don't get anywhere near enemy air defenses. The supersonic flight speed is especially useful against time-sensitive targets like ships.

Click to expand...

Can Russian still build tu-160 now days? I thought all tu-160 were brought from Ukraine?

They have refurbished some and built a new batch with claims of more coming but haven’t seen any serious new numbers of Blackjacks.

These days new bombers seem to be devolving into two classes. The Tactical bomber is more and more supplanted by multirole fighters.
This leaves the Penetration bomber and the Arsenal bomber.
The Penetration bomber is a high end machine with high end price dropping cheap weapons.

the Arsenal bomber is a cheap machine with expensive weapons with long ranges.

The heart of this is stand off or stand on.

B2, B21, PAKDA, Tu160 and H20 (yes you could add more but increasingly they are obsolete) sit in the penetration bomber range they aim to enter enemy airspace drop primarily gravity based weapons on enemy targets. To achieve this vs modern air denial they look to Speed stealth range in some combinations. The factors that have driven the combination is the Air denial technology they face off against. Once upon a time B29 was a Penetration bomber but improved air denial made that impossible.

Arsenal planes use standoff weapons primarily cruise missiles. They focus on being weapons that allow you to take out enemy targets from beyond the frontier of enemy air denial zones. This means they can sit at low risk and inflict damage on the enemy like flying TELS. B52, Tu95, H6 sit in this class. Because of their weapons they can be built off older bombers or even modified commercial aircraft concepts have been floated or modified airliners. Super sonic or VLO don’t factor as they aren’t supposed to be in threat airspace.
Although for China the Island Chains the later doesn’t matter it does for farther chains or vs global range threats of a would be Regional/Super power. They can also be used for mop up. Penetration bombers are high maintenance systems. Well Arsenal birds could be retailed to conventional munitions and used in non denial air space. This is why B52 has seen action in the Middle East. Cheaper to drop gravity bombs with guidance kits on Toyota’s and AK humping infantry off a 75 year old turboprop or turbofan jet than the latest stealth or Supersonic machine.

^ thank you for that categorization penetration vs arsenal, it's a very helpful conceptualization.

I would like to make a point that altitude is still a viable component for the penetration bomber and I believe that, that's where people are going with variable cycle engines and near space or space planes.

Edit: not that I believe, but rather that it is

ZeEa5KPul said:

Absolutely. Both H-6Ks and Tu-160s are survivable. These are stand-off weapons carriers, they don't get anywhere near enemy air defenses. The supersonic flight speed is especially useful against time-sensitive targets like ships.

Click to expand...

I'll address this part of your reply first.

Judging survivability is not that simple.

For the standoff weapon carrier role, the survivability of aircraft like H-6K or Tu-160 is a function of the range of the standoff weapon they can carry versus the location of the target you're trying to hit in relation to your protected/"safe" airspace.

If the goal is to hit targets within 1500km of China's coast, then H-6K or Tu-160 armed with KD-20s are still relatively survivable even if the regional air environment is non-degraded. If the goal is to hit targets 4000km from China's coast and the regional air environment is non-degraded and you're still limited to 1500km ranged weapons, then your aircraft will have to travel some 2500km beyond China's protected/"safe" airspace and therefore be much less survivable.

Developing a new non-stealthy heavy bomber is certainly a bad idea, but it would be a good idea to get Tu-95/160 production lines from Russia, or even just buy the planes.

Click to expand...

The same problem of opportunity cost still exists.

Is investing in a new production line for Tu160s (or even Tu-95s? no I think that would be a terrible investment) worth the opportunity cost, given the actual monetary cost of procuring such a production line and the time and aerospace production capacity/expertise to run it?
Even buying off the shelf Tu-160s (assuming Russia was even willing to sell) still poses the issue of opportunity cost -- how many aircraft will be needed for even an operationally relevant force, and how much will it cost to buy and support a fleet of that size?
Then let's remember that Russia isn't exactly known for selling weapons at a cheap price or in a necessarily easy to upgrade and maintain state (will the PLA have to do work arounds to integrate their own weapons, etc), and all this for a non-stealthy heavy bomber that will not be survivable outside of protected/safe airspace?? Dubious, very dubious.

Basically, I see no rationale to buy or develop a new non-stealthy heavy bomber for the PLA at this time given the realities of their regional airspace situation as well as given the limitations of their own aerospace industry and limitations of funding.

As far as bomber procurement and development goes, I think their route of developing advanced H-6 variants in the K/J/N variants and investing in H-20 instead is very sensible out of the various options that they had in the past.


Let's not forget that in the 2000s there were speculation whether the PLA would buy Tu-22M3s and even the idea of buying Su-34s, and the same problems about opportunity cost existed then as well.
But now that H-20 is somewhere on the horizon, those problems surrounding opportunity cost are even more prevalent when talking about the idea of buying Tu-160s which are even more obsolete for the PLA going into the 2020s than the idea of buying Tu-22M3s for the PLA going into the mid/late 2000s at the time.