Chinese military industry has created another "destroyer of aircraft carriers"

In the waters of the South China Sea, the PLA conducted a military exercise of increased intensity with the participation of the latest aviation... Ren Guoqiang, Deputy Head of the Information Department of the Ministry of Defense of China, reported on the maneuvers.

Reported by the Chinese news The Paper portal.

One of the new products presented was the H-6J bomber. Its ability to carry YJ-12 supersonic anti-ship missiles on board significantly increases the combat power of the PRC's naval aviation. The exercise in the South China Sea was the first demonstration of the new aircraft.

The PLA has been in service with the H-6 series of bombers since 1969, being considered veterans of the Chinese military aviation. Since then, on the basis of the base model, several generations of aircraft of this series have been released for the Air Force and naval aviation.

When the third generation H-6K bomber was created for the Air Force, the development of the H-6J model for the PRC Navy was in full swing. It differs from the H-6K in some features of the internal equipment and outboard armament associated with the specific use of the aircraft.

The H-6J is capable of carrying six missiles, including the YJ-83 subsonic anti-ship missiles and the YJ-12 supersonic missiles. In the future, the possibility of equipping bombers with a YJ-18 missile, capable of operating in both supersonic and subsonic modes, is not excluded.

The range of supersonic anti-ship missiles exceeds 450 kilometers. This allows you to attack targets outside the detection zone of the ship's air defense systems and without endangering the bomber.

During the exercise, the H-6J operates in conjunction with the H-6G aircraft carrying powerful electronic warfare. This tandem allows you to effectively act against enemy aircraft carrier groups. The H-6G electronically suppresses air defense and carrier-based aircraft, and the H-6J strike ships with missiles from out of range of the ship's missile systems.

This tactic turns the new H-6J bombers, created by the Chinese military industry, into real “destroyers of aircraft carriers,” as they say in the PRC.

Comments

[Shkodnik65]

Of course, I could be wrong, but the plane bears similarities to the TU-16. Not a copy, of course, but there are common features.

[tihonmarine]

Quote: Shkodnik65

Of course, I could be wrong, but the plane bears similarities to the TU-16. Not a copy, of course, but there are common features.

Maybe he has been in service since 1969. Development began of course earlier and took everything Soviet as a basis.

[Piramidon]

Quote: tihonmarine

it has been in service since 1969. Development began of course earlier and took everything Soviet as a basis.

What developments? Chinese, or what? The development of the Tu-16 began back in 1948 in the USSR, at the Tupolev Design Bureau. First flight in 1952. And the Chinese did not develop anything, but only collected licensed copies of this aircraft, mainly from finished parts.

[tihonmarine]

Quote: Piramidon

What developments? Chinese, or what? The development of the Tu-16 began back in 1948 in the USSR,

And then the development of TU-16, everyone knows about it.
Here we are talking about the Chinese H-6 and further developments. In September 1957, Beijing acquired a license to build the Tu-16. In 59, China received two reference aircraft, one disassembled bomber and one assembly kit.
But other prototypes were Chinese. In 1964, employees of the Chinese company XAC began preparations for the construction of the first aircraft of a new model, dubbed the H-6A. The first H-6A, built using only Chinese components, took off in late December 1968.

[Piramidon]

Quote: tihonmarine

And then the development of TU-16, everyone knows about it.
Here we are talking about the Chinese H-6 and further developments.

H-6 is the Tu-16. What kind of "developments" could the Chinese have been leading up to 1969?
Your words?

it has been in service since 1969. Development began of course earlier

[A1845]

Quote: Shkodnik65

Not a copy of course

you will not believe, but this is exactly a copy. more precisely, already modernization

[Pereira]

Modernization by modernization, but under the tail there is a rudiment of the cockpit for the gunner.

[PSih2097]

Quote: Pereira

but under the tail one can see the rudiment of the gunner's cockpit.

well, maybe now a rearview radar has been stuffed there, or as an option, an electronic warfare station, seen in the photo from a different angle ...

[Errr]

Quote: PSih2097

Quote: Pereira

but under the tail one can see the rudiment of the gunner's cockpit.

well, maybe now a rearview radar has been stuffed there, or as an option, an electronic warfare station, seen in the photo from a different angle ...

There really is ECM (year Electronic CaunterMeasure) - A device designed to deceive radars, sonars, or other detection systems such as infrared (IR) or lasers. It can be used both offensively and defensively to deprive the enemy of target information. In addition, there is a missile attack warning system adjacent to the aforementioned ECM. Missile Aapproach Wlearning Ssystem (MAWS).

[Kostya Lavinyukov]

Especially sonars. In order to avoid the sinking of a splashed plane.

[tihonmarine]

Quote: A1845

you will not believe, but this is exactly a copy. more precisely, already modernization

Yes, the Chinese have all the copies, they copy everything, but they do everything in their factories. N-6 even under a license, and the rest is simply stolen and copied, it is cheaper, and no one will say a word to them.

[NIKN]

A copy, and in 1969 it was exact. Of course these are the wrong year. They did not particularly modernize it according to the airframe, but everything else is modern, including the engines.

[Dmitry Vladimirovich]

Quote: NIKNN

A copy, and in 1969 it was exact. Of course these are the wrong year. They did not particularly modernize it according to the airframe, but everything else is modern, including the engines.

In general, in museums in China, it is extremely rare that you come across something from non-Soviet weapons - this is either Japanese / American / German from the Chiang Kai-shek period and the war with Japan or an armored personnel carrier of the M-113 type during the period of cooling relations with the USSR.
And so - quite Soviet aviation:

There was also a Chinese Tu-16, but I was too lazy to shoot - unremarkable - an exact copy of the Tu-16.

[Piramidon]

Quote: Shkodnik65

Not a copy, of course, but there are common features.

This is a deeply modernized copy of the Tu-16.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: Shkodnik65

Of course, I could be wrong, but the plane has similarities to the Tu-16

It is Tu-16 with modernized "minced meat"

[Civil]

Tu-16 all the same, and what - they have the right. The PRC is the real successor of the USSR, both in ideology and in economic power ...

[K-612-O]

About the ideology, just do not need, the Communists there even with Deng Xiao Ping you will not find, he cleaned them all. Such a normal Chinese empire with a socialist touch and state capitalism

[Civil]

Quote: K-612-O

About the ideology, just do not need, the Communists there even with Deng Xiao Ping you will not find, he cleaned them all. Such a normal Chinese empire with a socialist touch and state capitalism

Yeah, probably "United China" rules? Was everything taken to the West too?

[Prisoner]

Externally, almost one to one Tu-16K-10-26.

[ancient]

Quote: Captive

Externally, almost one to one Tu-16K-10-26.

The front part of the aircraft is ABSOLUTELY different (not to mention the inner cockpit), completely different airborne systems (have you ever seen the dimensions of the EH radar?)

[Bez 310]

Quote: ancient

Have you ever seen the dimensions of the EH radar?

Not only saw the dimensions, but also worked
at this station.
https://vk.com/club189957947?w=wall-189957947_3%2Fall

[210ox]

Well, everything "new Chinese" is well forgotten "old Soviet". Undoubtedly, they caught the Badger's capabilities with new avionics.

[Atlant-1164]

looks very fresh, dynamic ..

[Errr]

Quote: Shkodnik65

Of course, I could be wrong, but the plane bears similarities to the TU-16. Not a copy, of course, but there are common features.

Yes, what a similarity there. Xian H-6 is nothing more than a licensed copy of the Tu-16.

[venik]

Quote: Shkodnik65

Of course, I could be wrong, but the plane bears similarities to the TU-16. Not a copy, of course, but there are common features.

=======
It's strange if he (N-6) didn't have similarities in Tu-16, since this is, in fact, it IS! More precisely, a licensed copy made in China.

[76rtbr]

Where are you from ?? from what planet, Luntik ??

[Auto Technical Center]

And this is a modification of the Tu 16. At one time, the Tu 16 were transferred to the PRC by the government of the USSR. It became the base for strategists being created in the PRC. It's just that we rushed to get rid of this car.

[TermNachTer]

It was stupidly ripped off from the Tu-16, it's just that it is now very much changed in comparison with the original and the electronic filling is new.

[A1845]

The cause of the great Tupolev lives and flourishes

[iouris]

In fact, Tupolev has an extremely indirect relationship to this aircraft.

[Pereira]

Oh! Discover the secret.

[Piramidon]

Quote: Pereira

Oh! Discover the secret.

Tupolev provided general leadership. The lead designer was Dmitry Sergeevich Markov.

[Pereira]

Those. Tupolev, no matter what? Zits-chairman?
Why not then list the entire composition of the design bureau, why dwell only on the leading designer? Or did Markov single-handedly pull the whole work out, and Tupolev only received prizes?

[PSih2097]

Quote: Pereira

Those. Tupolev, no matter what? Zits-chairman?

There was Tupolev Design Bureau and it created aircraft under the Tu brand, as in Sukhov Design Bureau - Su, in Mikoyan and Gurevich Design Bureau - MiG ...

[iouris]

Excuse me
It is not an "aircraft" that should be considered, but a "combat aviation complex" (LHC). "Airplane" ("hardware") is a simple system, the cost of which is relatively low. The LHC is a complex system, the properties of which are determined by onboard equipment and weapons. The on-board complex of the "Chinese" was created thanks to the emergence of very advanced technologies in the PRC.
In turn, this UHC is only a component of a more complex "interception" complex of aircraft carrier groups, which includes an aerospace component of tracking and target designation, a data transmission system, etc. This very complex system is the "destroyer", not the Tu-16. Another question is why the PRC has not yet created a more advanced carrier instead of the Tu-16.
"I understand everything: the thrust of the engines .... the lifting force ... But it's made of iron!"

[aszzz888]

The prototype of the grandfather Tu-16 continues its flight life. Yes, and along the way, the Chinese have a license to build it (maybe I'm wrong).

[Piramidon]

Quote: aszzz888

Yes, and along the way, the Chinese have a license to build it (maybe I'm wrong).

You are not mistaken. There is a license.

[Narak-zempo]

Quote: aszzz888

The prototype of the grandfather Tu-16 continues its flight life. Yes, and along the way, the Chinese have a license to build it (maybe I'm wrong).

Prototype? How to understand?

[_Ugene_]

Chinese licensed copy of the Soviet Tu-16 continues to live

[Free wind]

Xian N-6, produced in China under license.

[moreman78]

During the exercise, the H-6J operates in conjunction with the H-6G aircraft carrying powerful electronic warfare. This tandem allows you to effectively act against enemy aircraft carrier groups. The H-6G electronically suppresses air defense and carrier-based aircraft, and the H-6J strike ships with missiles from out of range of the ship's missile systems.

China is copying not only the plane itself, but also the TACTICS of its use! In the Soviet regiments of the MRA, this was exactly the case - 2 squadrons of missile carriers (Tu-16, and then Tu-22M) and 1 aerial reb (modifications of Tu-16).

[ancient]

Quote: moreman78

and then Tu-22M

This never happened on M2-M3 ... all 3 AEs were missile-carrying
In the shelves on the Tu-22K / KD / RKD that ... this division took place to be

[Bez 310]

Quote: ancient

This has never happened on M2-M3 ...

This is exactly what happened in the regiments of the MRA - 1, 2 ae - Tu-22m2 missile carriers, the 3rd AE - Tu-16 electronic warfare.

[ancient]

Quote: Bez 310

This is exactly what happened in the regiments of the MRA - 1, 2 ae - Tu-22m2 missile carriers, the 3rd AE - Tu-16 electronic warfare.

Disingenuous ... since all the MRA regiments that were retrained on the Tu-22M3 were armed with Tu-16 aircraft, where indeed the 3-AE was armed with "everything" (both Yolki and Bouquets and Search engines).
When we retrained on the M3, then yes there were a few Tu-16s, but all the modifications and then ... it was not at all long
For example, in 924 Guards Mrap Tu-16 there were only 4 units of "living" ... in 5 Guards. mrap yes ... there are more ... 15 pieces and then ... all modifications, including missile carriers., and in 943 guards mrap generally 2nd AE on Tu-22M2 and 3rd AE all on Tu-16KS- (10 and 26).
The only regiment in the Union Air Force, which for some (!) Time had a "regular" and in the "list" of the 3rd AE on Tu-16P aircraft and that due to the fact that ... , it was the 226th guards tbap. (and their parking lot remained ... at the same base of the 185 regiment)
On the approach with MK = 265 degrees on the left, this is the parking lot 226 oap, and on the approach with MK = 85 degrees. parking 185 guards tbap

[Bez 310]

Quote: ancient

Disingenuous ..

Why should I dissemble? We have Tu-22m2 + Tu-16,
in the 3rd AE there were 9 Tu-16 electronic warfare aircraft.
There have never been 3 AE missile carriers in all of them,
always the 3rd AE - electronic warfare on the Tu-16.

[ancient]

Quote: Bez 310

There have never been 3 AE missile carriers in all of them,

1.924 ogmrap.
2.943 mrap (although the 3rd remained on the Tu-16s, but ... on the K-10 and K-26, that is ... on the missile carriers)
and as a friendly advice "never..... don't say never "

[Bez 310]

I don’t know where you got this information, especially on the 924th regiment,
in which I had to fly.
There is no point in arguing with you, but Homa, the former
to the commander of the 924 regiment, I presented my thoughts on
strike on the KUG regiment, consisting of two AE Tu-22m2 and AE EW on
Tu-16.
And if somewhere in the 3rd nuclear power plant, the missile carriers surrendered,
this does not mean that they were taken into account in the organization of the strike.
Joint strike of Tu-22m and Tu-16K-10-26 (26) never
was considered.

[ancient]

Quote: Bez 310

I don’t know where you got this information, especially on the 924th regiment,
in which I had to fly.
There is no point in arguing with you, but Homa, the former
to the commander of the 924 regiment, I presented my thoughts on
strike on the KUG regiment, consisting of two AE Tu-22m2 and AE EW on
Tu-16.

To me, really, just the same and .. "not convenient" for you
What impact on the IBM could you "imagine" (??? ) his considerations Khomenko A.I., if the 924 gmrap in 1988, immediately after retraining from the Tu-16, began to receive the Tu-22M3 (bypassing the stage of mastering the Tu-22M2 ... at that time they were no longer released
The planes were received directly in Kazan ... the staff included 32 Tu-22M3s (3 escarpment + 5 Tu-16s).
In September 2002, the goals of the 5th MRAD were disbanded and the 924th regiment became a separate ... i.e. OMRAP and 2 squadrons (!!!) and so on until 2009 ... until they began to "transmit". reorganized and in the end in the spring of 2010 the regiment was completely disbanded .. the "remnants" were included in the 2Taburetkin base).
PS And one more thing ... ALL (!!!!) DBs as part of a compound, association and ... are singly "scheduled and chewed for each crew! ... and in several versions ... and are in" packages "No. 1- ...... .. "this documentation is designed and calculated .... not at your level"
The only thing that you "probably" could do (I do not know your position) is to report to the commander about the CHANGES in the packages based on instructions ABOVE "or filed by the chief of intelligence of the AD or regiment to change the tactical situation.
PSS And yet ... advice .... you should have understood from my very first lines ... that I mean this service "on Tu-22M2 and M3 ... ... I know almost EVERYTHING!
So let's ..... "tie up" .. give out what ... in ... "nature has never happened"

[Bez 310]

It's bad to be like this!
Where did Homa go from the regiment?
That's where he reported ...
Okay, let's tie it, no one needs it,
but I still do not understand what kind of "this
service "you know" almost EVERYTHING "?
I myself am not in any services especially
I don’t understand, and I’m doing all sorts of nonsense
just to keep the conversation going.

[Observer2014]

This tactic turns the new H-6J bombers, created by the Chinese military industry, into real “destroyers of aircraft carriers,” as they say in the PRC.

Let it, let it. If you're lucky, of course. And the team plus security will miss the attack. And so here's a video from the Iranians. Look carefully at what is on the deck? Especially on AWACS aircraft Plus, like in catapults, there are fighters for immediate take-off ... And this is not military action, but just patrolling.

[PSih2097]

Quote: Observer2014

And this is not fighting, but just patrolling.

rather, just a demonstration - like just try to twitch, and so we are peaceful, "white and fluffy" ...

[Avior]

... allows you to attack targets outside the detection zone of the ship's air defense systems and without endangering the bomber.

Only now the American aircraft carrier also has AWACS aircraft, and not only shipborne air defense systems, and fighter aircraft, and the AWACS detection zone is noticeably larger than that of shipborne weapons.

[ancient]

Quote: Avior

Only now the American aircraft carrier has more AWACS aircraft

And not only ... in addition to this E-3A there are several groups (pairs of fighters), in case of a threat ... they move to remote interception lines (800-850 km), and the subsequent ones rise to the air threat sectors (300-350 km).
So carriers detected at distant lines using all means of RTV and RTR, the likelihood of meeting interceptor fighters at 800-900 km lines is practically guaranteed

[alex aircraft]

Daa Tu 16 in the Chinese version continues to live! and this is good! a successful machine. one thing I don’t understand is what prevented the Union from replacing the am16 (rd 3) engines with more economical ones, as they did in the PRC by setting the option d 3.

[moreman78]

The USSR passed to the next generation - Tu-22M and "riveted" them in commercial quantities! Therefore, there was no point in modernizing the old Tu-16s.

[ancient]

Quote: moreman78

Therefore, there was no point in modernizing the old Tu-16s.

That is why they were constantly ... "modernized"
I will not list all the modifications, but believe me that in total, 1982 modifications of the Tu-46 were produced by 16, and by 1990 more than 50.

[moreman78]

So what? I know that very well! After adopting the Tu-22 and then the T-22M, the Tu-16 was mainly used only as an auxiliary. All these modifications are flying laboratories, a tanker, a rescuer, various reconnaissance personnel, a military, a measuring point, "Cyclone-N" and others. Many of them were generally created by converting from bombers and missile carriers to ARZ. So why create a new engine then? If the plans were not to further develop this aircraft.

[prior]

With such a development of military technology in Russia, as now, soon the Chinese will have nothing to copy.

[rocket757]

Aircraft carriers are no longer just a goal, to create "killers" for them, this is some kind of fix idea!

[iouris]

China is an ocean power, in addition, there is the problem of Taiwan.

[rocket757]

Not about that. The greatest danger is not the aircraft carriers ... the problem still needs to be addressed as a whole.

[PSih2097]

Quote: rocket757

Carriers are not the biggest threat

aircraft carriers are primarily a long-range air defense umbrella KUG / AUG

[rocket757]

Quote: PSih2097

aircraft carriers are primarily a long-range air defense umbrella KUG / AUG

Yes, yes, against which opponent is the umbrella? In vain the Sholey Yankees cling to the same "unsinkable aircraft carriers" of the island and other territories.
After the Second World War, a lot of time passed, the situation, tactics, technology changed a lot and no one dared to try to approach a well-defended coast, NOBODY, ANYWHERE! So sho the thesis that this is a GOOD, RELIABLE air defense, now has no confirmation.

[PSih2097]

Quote: rocket757

Yes, yes, against which opponent is the umbrella? In vain the Sholey Yankees cling to the same "unsinkable aircraft carriers" of the island and other territories.

so, let's figure it out:
1) the coastal range for us is for a bastion of 600 km, but we will count 400 for a confident defeat (but this is with us), for a yacht (export) 150 km ...
2) the flight range of the KR with the KUG / AUG how much? from 600 km.
3) there are no unsinkable ones, and if they were, then after Pearl Harbor and Crimea they ceased to be (the whole problem is in the determination of the Main Command and the determination of the attacked) ...

[rocket757]

Let's face it.
Why does everyone forget that modern coastal defense is a COMPLEX system! Which includes airfields with numerous aviation !!! Which covers multiple aircraft carriers combined!
Like this. Therefore, we either consider the REAL balance of power, or we are not wasting time.
In general, no one dares to attack a serious enemy, ready and decisive in defense. It makes no sense to consider situations for different banana republics. There are other layouts, which appear here and there.

[PSih2097]

Quote: rocket757

Why does everyone forget that modern coastal defense is a COMPLEX system! Which includes airfields with numerous aviation !!! Which covers multiple aircraft carriers combined!

Taiwan + 4th AUG / KUG + US ABs in Taiwan + South Korea for China it will be difficult ... Although most likely it will not.
And yes, I understand that it is a complex problem - but it will be solved only in stages, and not at once everything and everyone.

[rocket757]

Step by step how is it?
Then, at every stage of the attack, a serious adversary will have an appropriate answer. Despite the fact that to attack from the sea / water, it would doom yourself to huge losses, because the sea forces have never had such a variety of forces, means, and capabilities that the land forces have, especially far from their bases!
But this is all true, fantasies, as you correctly noted, the big powers do not count on a big fight. Too dangerous, too unpredictable.

[PSih2097]

Quote: rocket757

Despite the fact that to attack from the sea / water, it would doom yourself to huge losses, because the sea forces have never had such a variety of forces, means, and capabilities that the land forces have, especially far from their bases!

How many submarines / SSNs does America have in service, not counting the converted Ohio?

[Andy]

Quote: rocket757

Why does everyone forget that modern coastal defense is a COMPLEX system! Which includes airfields with numerous aviation !!! Which covers multiple aircraft carriers combined!

have you seen the abandoned airfields? and on the operating maximum twenty boards. no multiples, if not in the opposite direction. and the adversary will not go to fight with one aircraft carrier ...

[Zeev zeev]

And how many aircraft carriers did this "destroyer" send to the bottom?

[iouris]

It does not matter. The next generation will be more efficient, and the capabilities of the aircraft carrier groups will not change much.

[Zeev zeev]

They have already changed. Since the Cold War, missile defense and air defense systems have moved to a qualitatively new level.

[iouris]

And they will change. Even Engels wrote about the "competition between a shell and armor."

[donavi49]

As much as all other destroyers in the world = 0.

Judging by the direct military damage, the top3 destroyers are:
# 1 An unstable worker who really wanted to get home to watch baseball with beer and chips. However, a small unplanned smoke pollution turned into a write-off of a usable SSNS.

# 2 Optimizers, optimizations that did not consider it necessary to verify and train BZZh. As a result, the largest maintenance floating dock at the bottom, the timing for the largest surface unit of the Russian Navy has gone to a great distance.

# 3 Lovers of storing packaging and stuff on the ship and welding without proper security. Result - minus UDC under F35 / Harriers and all sorts of Osprey.

[5-9]

A destroyer is not a destroyer, but with supersonic anti-ship missiles, it poses a serious threat, which already a couple of thousand kilometers from the coast will need to be stopped by the round-the-clock watch of Hokai and at least one pair of Hornets with him

[vfc.lm]

The Chinese military industry would fantasize less, but would rather be engaged in the refinement of engines for its new deck ships.

[PSih2097]

Quote: vfc.lm

The Chinese military industry would fantasize less, but would rather be engaged in the refinement of engines for its new deck ships.

there are no new deck ships in China, but there is a copy of the T-10K prototype of the Su-27K / Su-33, bought from the Sumerians in pursuit of the deal with the Varyag.

[Gloomy skeptic]

Another 148th generation Chinese "litak"?
Is it not today that the State Council of the People's Republic of China officially allowed the use of the state food reserve for simple feeding of the population? People have nothing to eat, but they boast of airplanes !!!
Or since there is a plane, then it is not necessary for everyone to eat? What is the "destroyer" of aircraft carriers? No need to shaggy grandmother when they show the results of his work, then you can talk about something.
In the meantime, this is another cry of the yellow press. Well, at least once to see at least something made by the Chinese and are not obvious ersatz trash!

[akarfoxhound]

And in your opinion, each in the world produced in a series of anti-ship missiles must necessarily put an aircraft carrier to the bottom, otherwise it is no longer an anti-ship missile system? Interesting collision of thought, interesting ...

[Viktor Sergeev]

Has the author heard about AWACS on aircraft carriers? By the way, if the aircraft carrier group does not see this airplane, does this mean that it does not see the ships either?

[Old26]

Quote: Pereira

Those. Tupolev, no matter what? Zits-chairman?

At what. As General, he was responsible for the final result. But this does not mean that this or that aircraft was created by him. The general is more of an administrator (or as they like to say now - a top manager). And so in any industry, where there were General / Chief designers. The last known Ilyushin machines (created before Ilyushin's death) were created under the leadership of Novozhilov, the same TU-160 - under the leadership of Bliznyuk. Well, etc.

[Radical]

Chinese military industry has created another "destroyer of aircraft carriers"

Well, why not - the Chinese use the scheme for building the army and the defense industry of the Soviet Union of the pre-war period - not necessarily in quality, but in mass scale, and ease of maintenance and operation. The current commanders and chiefs, everything and everyone - the defense industry complex, the Ministry of Defense, the person who is called the Supreme Command of the Russian Federation can confirm, and most importantly, ensure such a state of the industry and the Armed Forces? The answer is no! But who can ask for this - this great secret is ...