China compared Hong-6 strategic bombers with Russian counterparts

After a joint patrol of Russian and Chinese strategists in the Asia-Pacific region, China compared the Hung-6 strategic bombers with their Russian and American counterparts. The Hong Kong edition of the South China Morning Post writes about it.

According to Chinese military experts, the joint patrolling of two Tu-95MS of the RF Aerospace Forces and four Hun-6K PLA over the waters of the Sea of ​​Japan and the East China showed the shortcomings of the Chinese bombers. Compared to their Russian counterparts, Chinese bombers have a shorter flight range and payload.

Despite the fact that the PLA is armed with 160 to 180 Hong-6 bombers, considered modern aircraft in China, their capabilities do not reach Russian or American long-range bombers. The Khun-6 has a range of 6 thousand km and a wing loading of 160 kg / m2, while the Russian strategist Tu-95MS has 15 thousand kilometers and 606 kg / m2, Tu-160 has 12300 kilometers with a wing loading of 724 kg / m2, American B-1 "Lancer" - 9400 kilometers and 820 kg / m2.

In addition, only the latest version of the Hun-6N bomber has the ability to refuel in the air.

The Chinese bomber Hun-6 is based on the old Russian Tu-16 Barsuk bomber, which was commissioned in the 50s. Although China has modernized it, it is still the old model. Chinese bombers cannot fly as far without refueling and carry the same cargo as Russian and American bombers

- said John Grevatt, military aircraft specialist and defense analyst in the Asia-Pacific region for the defense industry at Janes.

At the same time, experts say China is developing a next-generation strategic bomber, the Hun-20. This stealth subsonic bomber is expected to give China new capabilities and expand its reach.

According to available information, the Hun-20 will be able to carry four supersonic or stealth cruise missiles. The estimated flight range of the new strategist is about eight and a half thousand kilometers, the payload is 45 tons.

Comments

[lopuhan2006]

Well, don't call it strategic then !!!! How tired it is!

[XXXIII]

Quote: lopuhan2006

Well, don't call it strategic then !!!! How tired it is!

You can call tactical bombers, in general, the name changes little.)) In general, China has a different strategy, but it would have been necessary to buy Russian swans, business that. Strategic ally no matter how.))

[FIR FIR]

Quote: XXXIII

Quote: lopuhan2006

Well, don't call it strategic then !!!! How tired it is!

You can call tactical bombers, in general, the name changes little.)) In general, China has a different strategy, but it would have been necessary to buy Russian swans, business that. Strategic ally no matter how.))

They won't even sell the Tu-22M3, let alone the Tu-160.

[XXXIII]

Quote: FIR FIR

They won't even sell the Tu-22M3, let alone the Tu-160.

I look at you in charge, you know what will be sold, what will not.))
ps. They just don’t need it, it will cost a lot, making their own is cheap.

20.02.2018
At that time, the Russian side tried in every possible way to offer us a kind of "two-stage" program, namely, first to pay in advance for 12 supersonic Tu-22M3 bombers. Due to the fact that the production line was already closed, China had only to choose from the existing aircraft of the Russian army.

[Revolver]

Quote: XXXIII

They just don’t need it, it will cost a lot, making their own is cheap.

The Chinese have no competence to do their own. And it is unlikely to be soon.

[XXXIII]

Quote: Nagan

Quote: XXXIII

They just don’t need it, it will cost a lot, making their own is cheap.

The Chinese have no competence to do their own. And it is unlikely to be soon.

There will be documentation, they will do it, there will be no documentation, I will copy it. don't know Chinese chtol ?!))

[Revolver]

Judging by the fact that they put Russian engines on their SU-27 clones, and on their own developments, too, they could not copy it.

[XXXIII]

Quote: Nagan

Judging by the fact that they put Russian engines on their SU-27 clones, and on their own developments, too, they could not copy it.

Well, the main thing was trying.))

[alexmach]

and so it was necessary to buy Russian swans, business then. Strategic ally no matter how.))

Yeah, yeah. But who will sell them then? This is not to mention the fact that production for themselves has not yet been fully restored and not a single machine built from scratch has yet been delivered.
According to rumors, the Chinese once wanted to buy the design documentation for the TU-22m3 .. but they were refused

[XXXIII]

Quote: alexmach

According to rumors, the Chinese once wanted to buy the design documentation for the TU-22m3 .. but they were refused

Because they understood that, at their expense, the Russian Federation would restore production, such investments seemed to them not profitable, and not to us. Then the Russian Federation would put its on the market as its own, but the Chinese would have to sell copies, and copies are not in great demand. And I don't know what surprises you, a lot of military equipment, weapons, are sold or made in cooperation.))

[Grigory_45]

Quote: XXXIII

and so it was necessary b, bought Russian swans

who else would sell them to them))

[XXXIII]

Quote: Gregory_45

Quote: XXXIII

and so it was necessary b, bought Russian swans

who else would sell them to them))

Lost money will be sold, big money.))

[Grigory_45]

Quote: XXXIII

Quote: Gregory_45

Quote: XXXIII

and so it was necessary b, bought Russian swans

who else would sell them to them))

Lost money will be sold, big money.))

is it generally allowed, the sale or transfer of strategic weapons carriers to third countries?

[XXXIII]

Quote: Gregory_45

is it generally allowed, the sale or transfer of strategic weapons carriers to third countries?

Only the top management has such rights.)) It is clear that no one will sell analogs-portotypes, but only truncated versions. Selling a product and a project entirely with documentation are completely different things. Judging by that news, they originally planned to sell 12 copies, but the Chinese wanted to get the documentation as well. The deal did not take place, apparently for this reason. But the products themselves were ready to sell. So nothing terrible happened here.

[Revolver]

Quote: XXXIII

Lost money will be sold, big money.))

Do you think that among those who are allowed to make such decisions, there will be those who want to sell their homeland? It is one thing to rollbacks and cuts according to cunning and not very schemes, and it is quite another to sell your homeland stupidly. And God is with them, with moral foundations and bonds, but betrayal of the Motherland, you know, is fraught with very serious criminal consequences. And even if in time to dump into a conditional Mexico, there may be a conditional comrade Mercader with an ice ax, or, in modern times, more likely with an optical sight and a laser pointer.

[XXXIII]

Quote: Nagan

Do you think that among those who are allowed to make such decisions, there will be those who want to sell their homeland?

If there are such, then this is no longer a sale, but the transfer of secret documents, without official approval, an article.

[u-345]

Quote: XXXIII

In general, China has a different strategy, but it would have been necessary to buy Russian swans, business that.

- He will eat something, but who will give him ?! :)
(C)

[XXXIII]

Quote: u-345

Quote: XXXIII

In general, China has a different strategy, but it would have been necessary to buy Russian swans, business that.

- He will eat something, but who will give him ?! :)
(C)

Oh well, everything, NZ. What do you think the empire will not sell its military-industrial complex products to the whole world, export. Oh nafig, there would be demand.))

[Starover_Z]

China compared Hong-6 strategic bombers with Russian counterparts

Quote: lopuhan2006

Well, don't call it strategic then !!!! How tired it is!

Ambition however. But the fact that the Chinese and suddenly admitted their worse is something! On the New Year in honor of such an event, Neptune should come, not Santa Claus!
And in fact, their Hun-6 is just a long-range bomber, and they wanted a strategist.

[Bshkaus]

To bombard Siberia is more than enough. And the carrying capacity is compensated by the quantity. Although otherwise I agree - "old", because the philosophy of the bomber of the 50s of the last century and the TX embedded in it do not correspond to the realities of the 70s-80s of the last century. If there was a potential for modernization, it would not have been written off in the USSR.

[AC130 Gunship]

Why not? He can get Alaska

[Vasiliev S.]

The author is trying to tell us that a high specific load is good ?!

[Pereira]

What? The lower the specific load, the smaller the turning radius. In maneuvering combat, Hun will do everyone. Will go into the tail and shoot from the cannons.

[Observer2014]

Quote: Pereira

What? The lower the specific load, the smaller the turning radius. In maneuvering combat, Hun will do everyone. Will go into the tail and shoot from the cannons.

[fa2998]

This is sarcasm? Then put a smiley. What is the meaning of an article in which an airplane from the 50-60s is compared with airplanes of later generations. Such were written off 30 years ago.

[Pereira]

My humor is not meant for those who need an emoticon to understand.
I generally despise emoticons, have never used and do not intend to.

[antivirus]

conclusion - to modernize air cannons, not CD and nuclear weapons.
China has just got claims to the US (and strategic plugging in other parts of the world) to the USA, in 5-10 years strategists for 10-20 thousand km will appear
No faster than the USSR versus the United States.




the first line is a joke for the smart without a sense of humor

[Uncle Vanya Susanin]

I generally despise emoticons, have never used and do not intend to.

Considering that you have an auto park in the form of a stylized emoticon, this is original

[Pereira]

This is not an emoticon. I just can't draw. Couldn't I draw a square pirate's face?

[paul3390]

Well - Tu-95 and B-52, too, excuse the know-how of recent years ...

[Sibguest]

Yes, that's what a strategic bomber exists for: "In a maneuvering battle, go into the tail and shoot with cannons."
Observer2014 from your Mishan "thinking" already lost consciousness .... from laughter.

[Pereira]

I see you know the subject ..

[IL-18]

Quote: Pereira

The lower the specific load, the smaller the turning radius. In maneuvering combat, Hun will do everyone.

It remains to modernize it according to the biplane scheme, and China is ahead of the rest.

[Narak-zempo]

Quote: VasilievS

The author is trying to tell us that a high specific load is good ?!

"Increasing the load per 1 m2 of the wing is an inevitable and progressive phenomenon" (N. Polikarpov)

[Vasiliev S.]

F-104 - 716 kg / m²
F-105 - 621 kg / m²
F-15 - 358 kg / m²
F-22 - 374 kg / m²

Americans disagree

[venik]

Quote: VasilievS

F-104 - 716 kg / m²
F-105 - 621 kg / m²
F-15 - 358 kg / m²
F-22 - 374 kg / m²
Americans disagree

======
EVERYTHING that you have listed is FIGHTERS! With "bombers" - a completely different "compote"!

[Vasiliev S.]

So above the words of Polikarpov, clearly referring to fighters, pmm
In any case, I don’t know its design bombers.

[Pereira]

Correctly Polikarpov wrote. The higher the load, the higher the speed.
I would venture to suggest that this was said by him in the midst of a controversy between the designers of biplane and monoplane, choosing between maneuverability and speed.
And, as we know, the rate on speed in WWII won in the end.

[Narak-zempo]

This was already in 1942, when Yakovlev and TsAGI assessed the load on the I-185 wing as unacceptably high.

[Pereira]

Most likely it was. And it's still correct.
I-180 - 150 kg, FV 190 - 240 kg.

[Ros 56]

Why not? After all, this is an indirect indicator of the speed of the aircraft.

[Sibguest]

Sergei, the author does not "rub in" but reports an extremely important indicator for this type of aircraft: the total mass (including the warhead) based on the wing area - that is, the dimensions of the aircraft.

[rotmistr60]

Chinese bombers have a shorter range and payload.

Finally, the Chinese reacted more objectively to the comparative characteristics of their own and Russian aircraft, which are already obvious. And that often sounded unfounded (at least from their side) critical remarks about our technology. Here they will develop the announced Hun-20 and happily calm down, which is unlikely.

[Mountain shooter]

Quote: rotmistr60

Here they will develop the announced Hun-20 and happily calm down, which is unlikely.

First, let them develop their engines for it. And they will put on the series ... While they have problems with this ...
They wanted to buy equipment from the Germans for technological operations with blades, but they were not sold ...

[rocket757]

Okay, they missed the generation of bombers, not critical .... will do the next.
How they do it, we'll see.

[cniza]

And they already have experience in this, using the example of spacecraft ... Greetings!

[rocket757]

Welcome
In the field of aircraft construction, they are at the beginning of the journey .... creating their own design school takes time and a lot of other resources.
So far, we see imitation, repetition, nothing outstanding.
However, to repeat qualitatively, especially after the leaders, this is already something.

[RUSS]

How can you compare not compared? Analogue is a complete similarity, and where is this similarity between our and Chinese bombers?

[Krasnoyarsk]

Quote: RUSS

How can you compare not compared? Analogue is a complete similarity, and where is this similarity between our and Chinese bombers?

I meant - analogue by purpose - a strategic bomber.
Don't say the H-6 is not strategic. Well, not a front-line one.

[Vladimir Mashkov]

Quote: RUSS

How can you compare not compared? Analogue is a complete similarity, and where is this similarity between our and Chinese bombers?

Totally agree with you! Hung-6K is further bomber, playing a role (due to absence) strategic. And compare small further bomber with strategic - just incorrect!

[Jacket in stock]

Yes, how did they compare their N-6 with completely non-analogues.
This is notoriously a smaller aircraft, with corresponding small capabilities.
What's the point in such opuses at all?

[YOUR]

I don’t understand why and why the author and not only this one inserts, in addition to our abbreviations, the names of the Tu-16 military equipment, the American names Badger.

[Vasiliev S.]

Nooo, pmsm is normal here - he quotes amerikos, you can't distort ...
Another thing is a lightweight article of some kind

[sergo1914]

There is no need for Chinese Huns to compare with our Huns. We will have more huns.

[Al_lexx]

"commented John Grevatt, military aircraft and defense analyst for the Asia-Pacific defense industry at Janes."
You don't have to be a specialist here. Everything is at the level of third grade arithimetics, secondary school.
Once again, we are reading an article about nothing.

[Viktor Sergeev]

How do you compare strategists to an ancient long-range bomber?

[Pavel57]

And what has not been compared with the Tu-22m, which China was offered to buy?

[Vasyan1971]

in China, the Hung-6 strategic bombers were compared with their Russian and American counterparts.

Che? These are Chinese huns - analogues!

The Chinese Hun-6 bomber is based on the old Russian Tu-16 Barsuk bomber, which was commissioned in the 50s.

[Curt]

The technical characteristics are not important here. We don't have 20 Tu-160s either. And they have this rubbish as much as 180. 1 did not reach the 2nd did not reach the 3rd collapsed, 20 were shot down. And the rest will fly and do what they were created for. And we have shot down 10 Tu-160s and we are all without strategists (Tu-95 really remained, but this is a mammoth)

[u-345]

There are no 20 B-2s in the USA
:(
The B-52 is true, but it's still a mammoth.
There are a few more Lancers ...

But since "technical characteristics are not important!" victory for China!

[mark1]

China compared Hong-6 strategic bombers with Russian counterparts

But this is in vain - Hun-6 has no analogues in the world. the last "analogs" were cut in the 90s

[set of sets]

,, The Chinese bomber Hun-6 is made on the basis of the old Russian Tu-16 Barsuk bomber, commissioned in the 50s. ,,

I wonder if the Chinese have a completely their own aircraft? Or some copies ,, modernized ,,?

[askort154]

It's good that Tupolev no longer hears that his handsome Tu-16 was called in the 21st century - "Hun"!

[AlexVas44]

Quote: fa2998

.What is the meaning of the article, in which the aircraft from the 50-60s is compared with the aircraft of the later generations. Such were written off 30 years ago.

Tu-95 is from the same generation, although the classes are different. And in general, of course, comparisons, to put it mildly, are completely incorrect.

[Ross xnumx]

At the same time experts say China is developing a next-generation strategic bomber Hun-20... This stealth subsonic bomber is expected to give China new capabilities and expand its reach.
According to available information, the Hun-20 will be able to carry four supersonic or stealth cruise missiles. The estimated flight range of the new strategist is about eight and a half thousand kilometers, the payload is 45 tons.

I just oohun "Opupevayu". I read, and the words themselves break out of my mouth:
"That's it," Hun "... It is still unknown when it will fly, but the terrible one ..."
The fact that the Chinese industry can allow the release of military products for any purpose, and even in any quantities, leads to sad thoughts ...

[Mavrikiy]

They like to cast a shadow over the fence. "There is an engine - there is a plane." But there is no trial, only drooling and snot (reminded: Oh, what a woman, I would have such).
Hung-6 two engines of 9000 kgf each, Tu-160 four engines of 18000 kgf each .....

[askort154]

Mavrikiy ....Hung-6 two engines of 9000 kgf each, Tu-160 four engines of 18000 kgf ...

Sorry, but these parameters are not correct. The true indicator of any type of aircraft is thrust-to-weight ratio. Thrust-to-mass ratio.

[Mavrikiy]

Quote: askort154

Sorry, but these parameters are not correct. The true indicator of any type of aircraft is thrust-to-weight ratio. Thrust-to-mass ratio.

There are no "true aircraft indicators" .... To put it mildly ..... Therefore, a bunch of aircraft characteristics are compared, including the wing area. There is an engine - there is an opportunity, thrust-to-weight ratio is a derivative.

[bar]

The Khun-6 has a range of 6 thousand km and a wing loading of 160 kg / m2, while the Russian strategist Tu-95MS has 15 thousand kilometers and 606 kg / m2

And what is there to compare?

[Avrora17]

China compared Hong-6 strategic bombers

What is there to compare Hung, he is also Hung in Africa))) The Chinese are certainly great fellows and there is a lot of money, but it's better not to compete with Russia .. The Americans owe you a couple of trillion, so pay attention to them and compare your weapons ..

[outsider]

- Stupid article and there is nothing to comment on from the word "in general" ...

[faiver]

Some kind of bad comparison, cars of different classes, this is how they liked to compare the T-34 and the Tiger, from the same opera ...

[501 Legion]

According to available information, the Hun-20 will be able to carry four supersonic or subtle

I'm not an expert, but four is not enough

[AC130 Gunship]

The Chinese are learning and progressing very quickly. Already 2 (two) different types of 5th generation fighters are being serially produced. Their old Badgers fly on new engines, with new electronics and new missiles. In fact, this is a direct competitor of Tu22m3, which has undergone modernization

[75 Sergey]

China is not going to go to war with America, but it is enough for India and Russia.