Xian H-6 Bomber Projects and Developments

Upppsss ... I think I know these profiles and the text ! ::)

Deino
 
The plane at the top is the Xian H-6I, which was to test the possibility of equipping an H-6 with 4 engines, the one in the middle is the Xian H-7 (WS-6J powered version), while the bottom plane is a version of the Xian H-7 with six turbofans. The H-7/H-8 designations were in some books misused for the H-6I, but the H-6I was a different plane than the H-7 design, and Andreas Rupprecht's book Dragon's Wings adds more info about advanced derivatives of the H-6.
 
www.navalnews.com

The Unusual Carrier Killer Capability Of The Chinese Navy’s Strategic Bomber - Naval News

Facing aircraft carriers from the U.S. Navy, Royal Navy, Indian Navy and Japanese, China is looking for a counter. The Chinese Navy (PLAN) has developed a unique 'Carrier Killer' weapon for its H-6 strategic bomber.
www.navalnews.com www.navalnews.com

China-H6-Bomber-Cutaway-ASBM-scaled.jpg
 
Still wonder why China does not develop rotary launcher or basically enlarge the internal bay of the H-6 family bomber to allow internal carriage of cruise missile. Or maybe make a smaller cruise missile to fit in it.

Say the enlarged bay that allows carriage of maybe just 4 KD-20 class missile.. that makes the warload potential to be like 10 Cruise missiles.

I think not using the internal bay for guided munitions is really a lost opportunity.
 
I wonder why China is still developing versions of a 70-year-old design instead of coming up with something a bit newer and better...
 
Well it works.

The evolution of H-6 is more akin to Tu-95's. The latest one only bears similiarities in design and general looks. Other than that everything else is newer and better.
 
If the US had kept a slow, steady production line open, into the 90's, I have little doubt we would still be delivering airframes today. That option wasn't available after the line closed.
 
Is this an actual aircraft or a what-if? It's hard to see how the project would make sense - the entire wing and carry-through structure would have to be redesigned and the relocated thrust-line would probably require changes to the tail. If you're redesigning the wing structurally, it probably wouldn't make sense to keep the 60 year old aerodynamics. So what you have left over is the fuselage fore and aft of the wing - a clean sheet design would make more sense.
And before anyone brings up the Nimrod 2000 or B-60 to demonstrate that this level of redesign can make sense, those didn't really work out well did they?
 
Loooovely CGI of a truly beautiful aircraft. Aerodynamically-wise it is still pretty good, and with modernized engines and avionics... why not ?
 
The reality is that Russia won't let the Chinese have Backfires or Blackjacks so where else can they go to get a long range bomber design.
 
Are there any other pictures of the H6I?
This was equipped with 4 Spey engines, and apparently flew in the late 70's.
 

Attachments

  • tumblr_inline_paiwkowzK21t90ue7_500.jpg.3d75b49dba68959e467c088090d56121.jpg
    tumblr_inline_paiwkowzK21t90ue7_500.jpg.3d75b49dba68959e467c088090d56121.jpg
    19.2 KB · Views: 210

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom