Posted on 04/01/2016 6:21:59 AM PDT by C19fan
Why Isn’t China Building a New Bomber? AVIATIONCHINA April 1, 2016 Dave Majumdar 0 The National Interest32 China is developing two new stealth fighters, stealthy unmanned aircraft, new cruise and ballistic missiles; however, Beijing thus far has not attempted to develop a new bomber. Instead, the People’s Liberation Army Air Force relies on the upgraded Xian H-6K — a derivative of the antiquated Soviet Tu-16 Badger — which is armed with a host of cruise missiles.
But given the size of the Pacific and the ranges both American and Chinese aircraft would have to fly over in the event of a conflict, it would be logical for Beijing to develop a long-range bomber that could strike at some of the more distant U.S. bases or to attack U.S. Navy carriers at sea.
(Excerpt) Read more at warisboring.com ...
I’ll admit to not knowing much about the subject, but I’m curious how different commercial airliner engines are from bomber engines. Couldn’t the former be utilized?
I suspect the problem is not of building an appropriate airframe, but of integrating systems on one.
Additionally, bombers are both expensive AND vulnerable. Missiles are far cheaper. Mod an airliner or airlift frame into a “missile truck” for stand-off operations is a more viable approach. . . we even were talking about it, in the 80s and 90s. . .
Doesn’t China’s deal with Boeing require that factories and the airplanes must actually be built in China? Once they have THAT, they can get anything they want, including bombers. They can let Boeing build them, or even kick Boeing out and build whatever they want. Trump was right. Our negotiators get their butts handed to them in every deal they make.
Or maybe the negotiators don’t lose anything. THEY receive a large, fat manila envelope over the transom. It’s America (We ThePeople) that lose our butts.
They have no experience building them. I’m more surprised they don’t try to purchase Russian ones.
Bombers are not overly useful except against 2nd tier nations.
Dropping tons of dumb bombs is a thing of the past.
Plus, why damage the merchandise, when you’re already halfway to owning it?
(sadly)
Russians have a few old Backfires they could sell them I am sure...
Depending on IRBM/ICBMs instead of bombers?
Maybe they’re putting all their eggs in the EMP-via-satellite basket.
“Bombers are not overly useful except against 2nd tier nations.”
Not true, especially stealth bombers. Electronic countermeasures can also be very effective.
“Dropping tons of dumb bombs is a thing of the past.”
GPS guided bombs are only incrementally more expensive than “dumb bombs”. It would be entirely possible today for a bomber to include a sensor for detecting targets and setting the coordinates in real time. Imagine one flying over and shortly thereafter a bomb detonating on every foxhole and command post. The coordinates could also come from separate recon assets.
Bombers also carry standoff weapons. A B-1, for instance, can carry various cruise missiles, as well as the small diameter bomb (SDB). It can carry up to 96 SDBs (the B-52 carries 80) and each can strike targets from as much as 60 miles standoff range. There is a GPS variant, as well as a variant that homes in on possibly mobile targets using a thermal sensor.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_Diameter_Bomb
The bomber is FAR from obsolete, even against first-tier opponents. On the nuclear front, bombers are the only force that can be recalled if activated.
The Clintons will sell it to them.
Just have to get Hillary into the Oval Office.
Air launched cruise missile platforms. Air launched silkworms, etc. No need for a new bomber.
This is true, and has long been used as an argument for a bomber component of the force. However, what it fails to say is that the only time you'd want to recall the bombers is if they've been activated by a false alarm. Why activate them? Because they're vulnerable on the ground. It's essential to launch them, even for a possible false alarm, rather than have them destroyed on the ground by a genuine attack.
This is not to say that bombers are not an important component of the force. They are an important part. However, the arguments for them shouldn't be weak or false ones. Ability to recall is an implicit admission of the vulnerability of the bombers before launch.
“Ability to recall is an implicit admission of the vulnerability of the bombers before launch.”
Land based ICBMs are just as vulnerable before launch, and unlike bombers can’t just orbit waiting for orders. Launching bombers isn’t the same as sending them towards targets.
One use of bombers is to launch them to show your opponent that things are about to go south. Being faced with actual arms on the way may be enough to force him to back down. Bombers are slow enough to give that opponent enough time to think things over...
They are investing in Rockets and Drones. When China Moves it will be quick and dirty. First target—Taiwan, the Vietnam. Maybe North Korea (to put in a stable leader).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.