China says developing new type of long-range bomber

File: Xian-H20-Whif-1.jpg (97KB, 1663x611px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 1663x611px

>"We are now developing a new generation of long-range bomber, and you'll see it in the future," Ma said, according to the paper, without elaborating.

Design of the CG is based on a leaked research paper's RCS study for different flying wing bombers.

The plane with the lowest RCS is assumed to have been chosen.

File: 1359363143_89407.jpg (25KB, 666x270px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 666x270px

>>31215069
And of course this leaked model here.

A B-2 knockoff like the FC-31 is an F-22/F-35 knockoff.

File: Xian H-6K.jpg (165KB, 1125x591px) Image search: [Google]

165KB, 1125x591px

neat/10

It'll be interesting to see exactly what China builds and how they plan to use it. Isn't their current fleet of H-6Ks little more than an intermediate range cruise-missile carrier for maritime strike?

File: 29270263441_30a255127b_o.jpg (277KB, 1800x778px) Image search: [Google]

277KB, 1800x778px

>>31215148
H-6K seem to be multi-purpose bombers already.
They are usually equipped with KD-20 LACMs, but also use iron bombs of all kinds.

File: 2016-09-02-La-Chine-confirme-le-développement-du-bombardier-lourd-05-1024x576.jpg (88KB, 1024x576px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 1024x576px

http://www.eastpendulum.com/chine-confirme-developpement-bombardier-lourd

Good article on the notional H-20 bomber. Main advantage over the H-6Ks would be its range to comfortably reach Hawaii from Anqing AB.

Ah it's our weekend fiddy thread

File: Chinese Stealth bomber mockup.jpg (69KB, 960x812px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 960x812px

>>31215040
>>31215069
>>31215084


Awww, I was hoping it was going to be this sleek looking fucker.

>>31215278
H-18.

This project is possibly still alive, since it is a maritime strike bomber. China has requirement for both a B-2 and a stealthy Tu-22.

>>31215040
>china
>developing anything
Looks like Northrop should invest in better security and employee screening.

>>31215040

The rule is that no announcement from Russia or China should be taken seriously unless they actually have a prototype constructed. Same applies to the US, really.

File: Xian H-6I.jpg (47KB, 450x191px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 450x191px

>>31215193
Well of course it *can* carry iron bombs just like the Tu-16, but any practical operational use seems to be centered around the use of cruise missiles.

>>31215278

China wants two different bombers.

A heavy long-range bomber for nuclear deterrence and a supersonic bomber for attacking carrier strike groups.

File: jh7-2.jpg (27KB, 1022x683px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 1022x683px

>>31215278
>>31215296
That something along the lines of a next-gen JH-7 or something bigger?

>>31216700
>A heavy long-range bomber for nuclear deterrence

What's the point of this? Everyone else realized this was pointless decades ago.

>>31216675
Honestly, it probably shouldn't even be taken seriously until said project enters serial production.

Great news.

First the An-225 deal and now this.

The PLAAF sure will have a huge boost in near future.

>a cheap copy with no engines to power it

Neat

>>31215193
Looks like China uses both the Russian FAB bombs, as well as the US Mk-82 styled ones.

>>31216719

Both the US and Russia maintain large inventories of heavy bombers for nuclear deterrence.

>>31216746
Engine options for bombers like these are actually pretty simple for China to find. Compared to fighter jets that need high performance engines that are very demanding technology wise, China could power their B-2 lookalike with four standard WS-10 turbofans, the same engines that already power over 200 of their Flankers.

>>31215040
Are they actually going to be able to get it to fly properly?

I thought flying wings like the B2 were super unstable to fly without complex fly by wire controls. I don't doubt that China could replicate the controls, but do they have enough experience with flying wings to make them work right?

>>31215601
To be fair, when you're designing VLO aircraft there's only so many shapes that work. There probably isn't a great deal of variety available or even needed when it comes to the intersection between efficient flying wing design and good VLO design.

There's also no need to reinvent the wheel. For a nation like China who is playing the technological catchup game, it makes more sense to study what works and get a good understanding of that before you try and make some crazy 6th gen vaporware monstrosity that you don't fully understand.

>>31216766

All they have to do is test out the controls on a scaled down model.

File: lijian2.jpg (51KB, 608x372px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 608x372px

>>31216766
China has tested the tailless flying wing design on their Sharp Sword UCAV demonstrator before.

>>31215210
Why does everyone try to attack hawaii.

File: 1385023839_28843.jpg (82KB, 950x575px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 950x575px

>>31216788
First flight was 2013

>>31215040
whats the point, missiles and satellites have made bombers obsolete for anything but warfare against arabs, which any old plane can already do no problem

>>31216766
The B-2 is unstable in yaw, but there are ways around this. Neither the XB-35/B-35 or the YB-49 had computerized control systems.

>>31216719
The US still uses heavy bombers. As does Russia. Heavy bombers are awesome. I don't know what you are talking about. They can deliver strategic nuclear bombs. Everything else in the inventory could be overkill.

They also are very useful in conventional fights.

>>31215040
>2016
>not making a full diamond

wait till you see it men

>>31216843
B-21 will be diamond?

>>31215040
Finally, China is acheiving 1980s-level tech.

I'm already shaking in my loafers!

File: Pearl Harbor RIMPAC 2016.jpg (898KB, 4000x1005px) Image search: [Google]

898KB, 4000x1005px

>>31216800

They're jealous of the crowded white sand beaches, horrendous traffic, and overweight Hawaiian women the sailors and airmen stationed there get to enjoy.

>>31216818
Strategic bombers are great platforms for missiles you drip.

Will it have to change engines after every sortie?

File: KD-20_GP.jpg (234KB, 1024x1132px) Image search: [Google]

234KB, 1024x1132px

Isnt the H-6K with those 2500km ranged KD-20 cruise missiles enough?

This Badger upgrade can carry six of them, which isnt bad.

>>31215040
>Chinese shills shit talk stealth technology and murrican aircraft design for years
>Now they're trying to copy one of their bombers from almost 30 years ago

I-it's not like I like you or anything, g-gweilo

File: 2016-09-02-La-Chine-confirme-le-développement-du-bombardier-lourd-07.jpg (147KB, 1131x705px) Image search: [Google]

147KB, 1131x705px

>>31216765

It would initially use four D-30KPs and later four non-afterburning WS-10 (WS-20), developed for the Y-20 airlifter.

File: fb-23_fb-23.jpg (65KB, 699x466px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 699x466px

>>31216849
We have no idea what shape the B-21 will be, people assume a cranked kite shape because of what Northrop has been developing, but for all we know it could be based on the YF-23.

>>31217082
China deeply respects the USA, even if they hate them guts for containing them and siding with the Japs.

File: 160226-F-YZ123-004.PNG.jpg (23KB, 670x377px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 670x377px

>>31217136
They released this image. Maybe it is a distraction, maybe not.

File: tumblr_n3in9wETMO1txx6x7o2_1280.jpg (25KB, 557x416px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 557x416px

>>31217164
That looks familiar to the "not B-2" shown before the B-2 became public.

I can't wait to see what blueprints the chinese have stollen and attempted to bootleg next.

>>31215148
TFW you are sitting around in the pacific in youre destroyer at 3am and all of a sudden you hear..VAMPIRE VAMPIRE VAMPIRE!! over the com system.

>>31216788
You mean France's Neuron with a shitty engine

>>31216827
He's talking about ICBMs. They're more cost effective and faster than conventional bombers. Can't be shot down by SAMs, too. The world prefered to make them instead of developing new bombers in the cold war, incase you forgot. A couple awesome planes in development got scrapped as funding was diverted to missiles.

I'm really fucking scared, guys. China is going to destroy us all. We're doomed.

File: Syndrome-s-Eyes-the-incredibles-26317612-1265-521.jpg (98KB, 1265x521px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 1265x521px

>>31217472
>Can't be shot down by SAMs, too.

>>31217472

It's called a triad for a reason buckaroo.

when it doubt copy something the US was doing 30 years ago

>>31217504
Oh please mistah Syndrome, tell me how your SAMs in eastern soviet countries will intercept missiles coming from space.

The reason we introduced ICBMs for nuclear strategies was in large part due to soviet SAMs demonstrating that they could reach any NATO bomber and were dotted along the obvious routes the bombers would need to take.

Another benefit was that ICBMs didn't need to be timed to fall in sequence, since there wouldn't be hundreds of pilots dropping them that could take each other out with the blasts as they all traveled to different targets. ICBMs could all be launched at their targets at once.

>>31216800
Because it worked so great for Japan way back when.

>>31217576

Bombers fill a different purpose in the nuclear triad than ICBM's.

>>31217605
The purpose of getting shot down, you mean.

>>31217621

First you should ask yourself why the USA has held on to it's heavy bomber fleet and has plans to build more in the near future.

Then ask yourself why Russia has held on to its heavy bomber fleet and has plans to build more in the near future.

And then finally you should think about why China wants into the game as well.

>>31217621
Or they're for launching missiles you moron.

>>31217576
>Oh please mistah Syndrome, tell me how your SAMs in eastern soviet countries will intercept missiles coming from space.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-ballistic_missile#Russian_Federation

>>31217211
Yes, before it was modified to bomb at low altitudes as well.

>>31217472
They don't fill the same role.

>>31217681
I mean, the US wants to build stealthy bombers for a conventional war against countries with robust IADS like China and Russia. Our primary means of deterrence are our SSBNs and land based ICBMs, not bombers.

>>31216800
>why does everyone try to attack malta

>>31218045
stfu until you've read On Thermonuclear War

>>31215214
Ahh yes new military information with sources.

How awful!

>>31218045

The USA has a nuclear triad. ALCM's are 1/3 of the triad. ICBM's are 1/3 of the triad. SLBM's are 1/3 of the triad. Same applies to Russia. China doesn't have this, but they want it.

>>31216807
is.....is that all smog?

>>31218161

Many cities in China have truly terrifying levels of air pollution.

>>31215040
>USA says the B2 is outdated
>building new one to the modern times
>china, "we are building a b2 clone"

so radar cross section is only like 1/10 the stealth equation
the bigger threat is infrared sensors

>>31217082
nations say stealth is pointless
while the secretly try to make stealth aircraft

this chinese b2 copy isn't gonna last very long when the b2 (1980s) is able to be seen on modern radar fairly easily.

File: 983963431.jpg (25KB, 479x269px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 479x269px

>>31218883
> the b2 (1980s) is able to be seen on modern radar fairly easily.

>>31218883
>is able to be seen on modern radar fairly easily.
[citation required]

The B-2 is still the undisputed king of all-aspect, all-frequency and IR VLO, especially when adjusted for mass.

File: 1471581459736.gif (2MB, 350x262px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 350x262px

>>31218883

>the b2 (1980s) is able to be seen on modern radar fairly easily.

>>31218161
I had a teacher that lived in Beijing in the late 80's through the early 90s. He said when he first got there, the skys were always clear. When he left, it was always a haze.

File: YF-23_003_1.jpg (455KB, 1778x1194px) Image search: [Google]

455KB, 1778x1194px

>>31217136
you have no idea how much of a boner a bomber version of the YF-23 would give me.

>>31219227
A bomber doesn't need the manueverability of the vertical stabilizers and they're a huge liability in RCS shaping, especially in L-band.

Your dream is dead. EM physics shot it in the head.

>>31215069
>you'll see it in the future
so they're already counting on it having ineffective stealth?

>>31219385
Didn't it have better stealth characteristics than the F-22, though?

>>31219558
>Didn't it have better stealth characteristics than the F-22, though?
Firstly, only in some aspects. It had a worse frontal aspect return than the F-22 (exposed compressor blades from frontal-low).

Secondly, it doesn't matter. The B-2 kicks the shit out of both the F-35 and F-22 in RCS for wavelengths longer than X, and is only slightly worse in X.

>>31219603
Okay, thanks. I'm a different anon, btw.

>>31216731
Impressive

Truly only China has the intellectual capacity to join stealth and cargo together into a super Stealth Mriya that can drop cargo stealthily and no one will know.

>>31217318
Your errection spring up as you fire off an SM-6 killing it effortlessly.

>>31215040
>develop
If by that they mean make a shitty xerox, than yeah sure.

File: 1415664753082.jpg (41KB, 500x447px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 500x447px

>>31217504
Somewhat related question I have.

How did Syndrome do everything without getting a ramming by some superpower?

I mean he flew a fucking robot several miles to the US and it didn't get intercepted at all, then said robot has some sort of magical armor that can't be pierced by tank shells?

File: play it cool.jpg (97KB, 493x881px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 493x881px

>>31220016
Just a kid's movie man. Better than most, but still a kid's movie.

>>31220016

The answer is simple, if the military solved the problem there would be no movie. It's like asking why the military in Aliens only sent a team of like 10 guys and 1 girl who is believed to be insane to investigate.

>>31220042
Fuckin' saved.

desu, developing aircraft is probably their best defense.

Say the United States were to declare war on them. As of now they would immediately get BTFO at sea. Then you would have Americans controlling the costs and able to launch planes from carriers over Chinese territory from any sort of direction.

So if the Chinese develop ways to get at aircraft carriers, that can really help them even the odds in the land war and air control. If they even just take down one Nimitz-class aircraft carrier, that can help china a lot. They have no chance at defeating Americas navy, they probably have no plans at controlling the sea if war with the US broke out, they probably just want to make the land and air war is easier for them.

>>31220016
If there were cops and military, then they wouldn't need super heroes. Obviously, 10,000 years of human civilization without any form of law enforcement has results in super heroes via natural selection. The only reason it looks like modern America in the movie is because the story takes place after the second Dark Ages, known as Fallout 4.

>>31219814
>a bunch of calculating happens

MISS!

File: article-2217846-054B599D0000044D-458_634x345.jpg (81KB, 634x345px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 634x345px

Will the UK ever regain it's bombers and move towards the triad?

>>31220016
He used special jet fuel.

>>31215040

>Won't bother hiding the design because it's just the B-2 anyway.

>>31216800
Pearl Harbor was where the US Pacific Fleet was based. It's still a major naval base.

>>31223689
Never, the TSR-2 was the last chance to stay at the cutting edge in aviation but Labour and the US fucked it up by offering the F-111K.

On another note i read in an article the H-6 is actually similar in some ways to the Vickers Valliant.

>>31223689

Nope, the money isn't there, and the SSBN is the only part of the nuclear triad that makes sense for a small island country with no intention of a first strike capability.

There isn't really a new bomber program for the UK to buy into, and any order will be too small to justify developing their own.The closest the UK may come to a new bomber is if the unmanned stealthy Future Combat Air System program involving both the UK and France stays funded. Though what payload and range it might have is likely to be closer to the F-35 than a true bomber.

The thing about ripping off a superior nation, you're always a step behind them, always chasing, never leading.

>>31216766
I'm going to give China some credit on this front - they manged to get the J-10 to fly well despite it using the same very unstable design as the Eurocanards (all of which require complex fbw)

>>31219227
>BOI

>>31225304
>with no intention of a first strike capability.
Not for nothing, but SSBNs executing a low-deflection SLBM strike represents a pretty potent and low-warning first strike if necessary.

It's not the primary reason for them being there, but the capability inherently exists in the platform.

>>31226918

I meant that statement to point out that for a country as small as the UK, any second strike capability based on the land is not credible.

There aren't large low-population areas to disperse and conceal; bombers, silos, or TELs, and there isn't the depth for sufficient warning against a first strike launched from international waters. While UK nuclear armed strategic bombers could still be used in a first strike, they would be unlikely to survive an enemy first strike.

File: H-6K + 6x CJ-10K.jpg (23KB, 640x402px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 640x402px

>>31225102
The H-6K is basically a Vickers Valliant in class.´

>>31227323
>There aren't large low-population areas to disperse and conceal; bombers, silos, or TELs, and there isn't the depth for sufficient warning against a first strike launched from international waters.
Certainly a fair assessment. If the Scots weren't often so bonkers about anti-nuke demonstrating (my pop has pics of him trading the bird with protesters while at Holy Loch all the way back in the 70's), there are several geologically beefy islets up north that might be utilized. The geology up there and potential for submerged silos built well into solid bedrock using SLBM designs might be interesting. However, the money is probably far better spent on more/better SSBNs in a limited defense-funding climate. Need those SSBNs, SSNs, Type-45s, Type-26s, QE-class ships and F-35s a lot more at his point.

>>31216958
>crowded white sand *tourist beaches
All other points agreed, the island is overcrowded as fuck and I would never go back to live there, but it's pretty easy to find a quiet beach even on Oahu by just avoiding the named areas. While I was there I found a excellent patch on the north shore with calm crystal clear water that never had more than a dozen or so people along the entire stretch, thanks to homes providing cover.

>>31215040
> China says
Instantly discredited.