Chinese Strategic Bombers

Some pictures of the latest H-6N bombers.

The Chinese sure are cranking up a lot of these H-6Ks and derivatives. They are really preparing for any eventuality and this clearly means if they do get involved in a conflict they won't just be passively defending. These have been developed to blow up the infrastructure of the US and its allies all over the second island chain like Okinawa, Guam, etc.
The composite construction and more modern engines on this versus the Tu-16 means they have the range to perform those types of missions. The radar dome on it probably means they can engage surface targets like naval ships with their cruise and ballistic missiles as well. In case of conflict these aircraft are supposed to be used to wipe the slate clean and remove any US presence on their side of the Pacific.

lancelot wrote:The Chinese sure are cranking up a lot of these H-6Ks and derivatives...

It's no Tu-160 but it's still way more than most nations have

If it works it works

The actual design is old, but that does not mean the aircraft they are making now follow the old recipe.

The original aircraft was designed and built in a period when jet engines were not that great... not particularly powerful and not particularly fuel efficient either, and reliability wasn't amazing.

With a modern engine its performance could be seriously improved.

It wont make it supersonic or anything but flight range can be dramatically extended and its operational flight altitudes could be increased...

How far away would they be with their own Zircon or Kinzhal, and even Yakhonts would be potent weapons even in this day and age.

GarryB wrote:How far away would they be with their own Zircon or Kinzhal, and even Yakhonts would be potent weapons even in this day and age.

Kinzhal would probably have reduce range because this is subsonic. But the H-6N supposedly can carry some sort of ballistic missile. It can also carry the DF-100 cruise missile which should have 2000-3000km range and operate at Mach 4.

lancelot wrote:

GarryB wrote:How far away would they be with their own Zircon or Kinzhal, and even Yakhonts would be potent weapons even in this day and age.

Kinzhal would probably have reduce range because this is subsonic. But the H-6N supposedly can carry some sort of ballistic missile. It can also carry the DF-100 cruise missile which should have 2000-3000km range and operate at Mach 4.

'Supposedly'

Either case, this plane wouldn't be flying in US or Japanese or whatever airspace to use its weapons so it isn't necessary to fly the planes close to where they would strike, making them more than adequate for the task.

Well yes, just as it is launched from a Tu-16 it would lose a lot of speed and range, but then the Tu-16 could also carry a much bigger and heavier version... if you put a large solid rocket booster on the back end of it you could still fly to 12km altitude and release the weapon and the solid rocket booster to accelerate it to higher and faster than a MiG-31 could achieve so you could end up with even better speed and range and it already has the built in capability of detecting enemy air defences and evading them... so you wouldn't need to do much more.

The basics of the situation is that the Tu-16 was a reasonably decent subsonic bomber and as long as you don't try to make it supersonic or anything then upgrading everything, especially the engines can seriously improve its still subsonic performance.

The core factor here is price the operating costs of a supersonic bomber are not trivial... there is a reason the US didn't keep the Hustler very long was its enormous costs and yet it still wasn't fast enough to be safe from SAMs.

A Tu-16 bomber is never going to be a Tu-160 or even a Tu-22M or B-1B, but in terms of costs you could probably operate 3 or 5 for the same price depending on the supersonic type.

For the anti ship role numbers are important too.

Extra engine power wont help with higher speed but will let it operate with heavier weapons and achieve longer range performance.

GarryB wrote:For the anti ship role numbers are important too.

IMO, they could make good EW & ASW planes too. With their 108km/h speed advantage, it'll be possible to reach operating areas in the E/SCS & W. Pac. a lot quicker than Y-8/9s can, & they can patrol at reduced speeds to save fuel.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaanxi_Y-9#Specifications_(Y-9)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xi%27an_H-6#Specifications

https://www.eurasiantimes.com/china-dares-us-b-21-raider-with-its-8500-km-ranged/

The H-6K/N is not a regular Tu-16. It uses the D-30KP-2 turbofan engine. Not the AM-3 turbojet.
The D-30KP-2 uses 30% less fuel and has 38% more thrust than the AM-3.

So it should have 30% more range and be able to carry 38% more payload at takeoff just because of the engines alone. But there are also claims it uses composites instead of aluminium in its construction, and they added extra internal fuel tanks to it. That they removed the bomb bay, put a huge fuel tank in it, and use it to launch externally mounted cruise missiles.

The truth is the actual range and payload is unknown and likely higher than just the engine change alone would provide.
Do not believe the numbers on Wikipedia for either since the real information was never published.

A kh-101 launched from tu-160 is the same as a kh-101 launched from a tu-16.

I agree with the sentiment, but a Tu-160 can fly 6,000km to being over the north pole and can then launch a Kh-102 (the nuclear armed model) and turn and run at supersonic speed for 2,000km so any F-35 will have no chance of intercepting them any more, and still fly 4,000km to base and rearm and refuel.

More importantly a Tu-160 can carry a Kh-102 internally... 12 of them. The Tu-16 would carry them externally... perhaps four or six.

The difference becomes more stark when you look at hypersonic missiles, the Russians are working on an 11m long two stage scramjet powered hypersonic missile with a flight range of about 11,000 km... The Tu-160 will be able to carry 12 of them if needed.

But the Tu-16 is a good MPA platform and certainly a good bomber too... as long as you control the sky. Standoff missiles would enable it to take out targets it can't safely fly over.

With missile having thousands of km range you don't care what launches them.

Most targets wont know or care how far the missile travelled to reach them.

A subsonic flying wing can be all fuel and payload and lift which should make it easier to achieve longer range and better payload... and of course warfare has changed... an S-70 with a flight range of 5,000km and high subsonic speed plus stealth and probably capacity of 4-5 tons internally would actually make it a rather potent bomber too.

The Tu-16s advantage would be rather large bomb bay (it was designed for enormous first gen nuclear weapons... the Soviets put it to use in Afghanistan in the 1980s to drop FAB-9000 bombs), but also external weapons pylons which can handle all sorts of large funny shaped missiles.

Il-76 could be their new strategic bomber if they wanted.

I suspect they will go with a subsonic stealthy flying wing type because the shape is aerodynamic and lends itself to low RCS and good flight performance anyway.

IMO the expencive H-20 project is mainly for PR, deterrance & prestige, to make the PRC in the same legue with the US & RF.
They could develop a 4 engine B-1B/52-like bomber for extra range & payload for a lot le$$. The Y-20, not to mention a few  IL-76s they still have, could be streched & modified into a "bomb truck" as a stop gap.
It reminds me of the USSR's leadership race to develop direct counterparts to almost everything the West had aimed at them before the 1991 breakup.