Read the forum code of contact
By: - 7th July 2015 at 14:26 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I would have thought something akin to a Tu-22m would have been ideal.
That would give complete control over all maritime approaches (South China Sea, East China Sea, Sea of Japan), as well as allowing for a credible threat on Japanese soil to deter the USAF using it as a base of operations.
Particularly given the mostly likely combatant (USN) will be fielding the F/A-18 E/F and F-35, neither of which are exactly prime exponents of the fleet defence interceptor role.
By: - 7th July 2015 at 14:41 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I would have thought something akin to a Tu-22m would have been ideal.
H-6K has more range than Tu-22M already. China is probably looking for something in the B-1B class.
By: - 7th July 2015 at 14:43 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
H-6K has more range than Tu-22M already. China is probably looking for something in the B-1B class.
Yes, but it goes around 1/2 the speed.
A group of Mach 1.6 Tu-22m vs. a USN carrier defended by Mach 1.uhm3 ish Subpar Hornets and Mach 1.6 ish F-35s? Could get very ugly very quickly.
By: - 7th July 2015 at 14:46 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
"Well, duh."
P.S. Lots of great H-6K shots coming out of the parade rehearsals:
By: - 8th July 2015 at 00:43 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The title of the thread and the article and the article of the first post are not that related... that said, there are articles recently with state media introducing the need for a long range bomber. The need for a long range bomber has been known for a while now, and we're patiently waiting for the stealthy flying wing to emerge. It's kind of like the mid 2000s period prior to J-20.
---
As much as I'm sure the air force would like a supersonic regional bomber, it seems like they're going for the flying wing instead... or first.
By: - 8th July 2015 at 00:55 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
One of the standout features of the H6-K for me is the rear turret, a feature that can directly trace its lineage back to the B-17 Flying Fortress of W2.
By: - 8th July 2015 at 00:57 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
One of the standout features of the H6-K for me is the rear turret, a feature that can directly trace its lineage back to the B-17 Flying Fortress of W2.
Err H-6K doesn't have a rear turret. I don't think any new build H-6s in the last decade have had rear turrets... and many on older variants were removed.
By: - 8th July 2015 at 08:52 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The title of the thread and the article and the article of the first post are not that related...
Thanks for highlighting the issue. I have corrected it.
By: - 8th July 2015 at 09:16 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Err H-6K doesn't have a rear turret. I don't think any new build H-6s in the last decade have had rear turrets... and many on older variants were removed.
You can still see very clearly where the turret has basically been faired over.
By: - 8th July 2015 at 09:31 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
One of the standout features of the H6-K for me is the rear turret, a feature that can directly trace its lineage back to the B-17 Flying Fortress of W2.
The Handley-Page V/1500 of World War One vintage had a rear gun turret - as did many other designs of that era.
Power operated turrets pre-date the B-17 by many years - so the lineage is further back than that.
Rear turrets were used on later variants of the Soviet Tupolev TB-3 bombers of the 1930's
Ken
By: - 8th July 2015 at 09:37 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
That particular distinctive style of rear turret was first seen on the B17, then the B29, the TU4 clone of the B29, the TU16, and then the H6 clone of the TU16.
By: - 8th July 2015 at 09:49 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
That particular distinctive style of rear turret was first seen on the B17, then the B29, the TU4 clone of the B29, the TU16, and then the H6 clone of the TU16.
China needs two separate designs...
1- modern Turboprop for long range / maritime loiter capability... something like a 21st century Tu-142.
2- maybe an unmanned high speed long range bomber
By: - 8th July 2015 at 11:43 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
You can still see very clearly where the turret has basically been faired over.
Well the tail structure of H-6K obviously still has traces of the rear turret geometry but that's probably because they saw no reason to redesign the tail structure. I think it's worth saying that H-6Ks are new build airframes as well, and that there was no "fairing over" of the aft turret on H-6K because it wasn't built with an aft turret to begin with.
Not like say, older variants like H-6G which were converted from airframes which did have aft turrets, or like current B-52s, which had their tail turrets removed starting by 1991 if I recall correctly.
Relevant picture of H-6K's tail.
By: - 8th July 2015 at 11:46 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
China needs two separate designs...1- modern Turboprop for long range / maritime loiter capability... something like a 21st century Tu-142.
2- maybe an unmanned high speed long range bomber
They already have Y-8Q for the MPA role...
I doubt the next generation bomber will be high speed, almost definitely going to be subsonic stealthy flying wing. it may be optionally manned going by intl trends.
By: - 8th July 2015 at 12:02 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Does China have something like Quickstrike naval mines? I've never seen aerial delivery of mines from PLAAF or PLAN H-6 and Y-8 types.
By: - 8th July 2015 at 13:08 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
To be honest, I don't see the need for them to have long ranged deep penetration strategic bombers at all.
Aside from empire builders and warmongers, who needs strategic bombers?
The resources would be better spent elsewhere on a tactical bomber/interdictor/maritime striker. (on something like I said, a modern day design of similar scope to the Tu-22m)
By: - 11th August 2015 at 18:52 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
To be honest, I don't see the need for them to have long ranged deep penetration strategic bombers at all.Because you can put it in the air and keep it in the air for along time with a large payload.Aside from empire builders and warmongers, who needs strategic bombers?
The resources would be better spent elsewhere on a tactical bomber/interdictor/maritime striker. (on something like I said, a modern day design of similar scope to the Tu-22m)
Adversaries do not have the capability or time to go hunting for unknown aircraft.
Posts: 130
By: A and D - 7th July 2015 at 12:36
China needs long-range strategic bomber to strike adversaries farther away
[ATTACH=CONFIG]238943[/ATTACH]
http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/air-force/2015/07/07/china-needs-long-range-bomber-state-media/29820795/