Chinese bombers are old! How not to develop a new one! Is it mainly the engine?

The main thing is that it is not necessary!

1. There are only 3 countries in the world that have bombers, that is, China, the United States and Russia!

2. The Chinese bomber-6 is not old, it has been built in the past 20 years, and the technology is constantly improving! It's just that the body is still the same as before!

3. There is no need to develop new ones, there is no technology, and there is no fund!

4. The Su-30 can carry 6 tons of bombs, and the H-6 can carry 9 tons! But the Su-30 is very capable of self-defense! The H-6 can't compare!

5. The engine is also an aspect.

6. The main reason is that China's anti-ship missile capability is very strong, which makes up for the lack of penetration capability of the H-6! It is enough to launch an anti-ship missile in a fighter zone, so there is no need to develop an updated bomber!

7. The technical reserve is insufficient, China has never developed a bomber!

8. Su-30 and Flying Leopard can replace most of the combat effectiveness of the H-6!

What's the use of developing a new one, it's okay to improve it, and now it's not going to war, you've finished developing it, and when the time comes to war, you're lagging behind again, you have to redevelop it, wasting financial resources, and if you start a war, China can now develop and produce, and if you say that China is not aggressive, what's the use of bombers, bomb yourself? Besides, the bombers are already very backward, and now the planes are full of missiles and the like. Like the American planes, they are all satellite-guided, who still uses bombers!

The engine is not a problem, although the Chinese aircraft engine is not good, but we can use the Russian engine, and the Chinese aircraft engine has also been successfully developed. It is also possible to copycat.

What are you talking about bombers? If it is medium-range, the Chinese Su-27 is enough. Long-range strategic bombers, China does not have that strategic need, what about the second artillery, where in the world can it not be bombed?

Today's bombers, especially tactical ones, have been replaced by multi-purpose fighters and strike aircraft. You say that China's bombers are old-fashioned, and you are talking about China's Tu-16.

The Flying Leopard is a fighter-bomber, it can be said that it is the latest bomber in China, is it old?

China does not have the basis for creating large aircraft. Not to mention bombers that are more complex than large aircraft. The engine is only one aspect.

Do you think it's easy? Strategic bombers in the world are only available to the United States and Maozi, and we do not have them. Not a problem of one engine, but a comprehensive systemic problem.

In the absence of great demand, the development of a new generation of strategic bombers is unlikely to be the highest priority.

There is nowhere to blow up. The officers gave bonuses to the money and ate better.

You're a pig, bombers are for bombing people, can you use bombers to bomb bunkers?

**Equipment is just a tool of war, see who uses it, aggression is an unjust act of man, what does it have to do with tools? Large strategic bombers are one of the pillars of a country's national defense forces, and our purpose is to deter others from invading us. I don't know who you listened to, that large bomber planes are used to invade foreign countries?

Tu-22 is long behind the times, Tu-22M is still possible, a refueling in the air can attack the US mainland, in fact, China does not need to develop air-based nuclear forces, China's total strength of the air force can not go up, only bombers are useless, only all balanced development of fighters, early warning aircraft, bombers, every part is strong. Bombers can have an effect.

This is the embodiment of our current real capabilities, and we don't want this kind of tattered tu22 to give us.

By the time China has the Tu-22, the aircraft may be outdated, and it is suggested that China should still engage in a joint research and development project with Russia (just like the American F35 fighter), China will pay for it, and Russia will provide technology, and it is estimated that it can get a bomber with superior performance in a relatively short period of time.

If people don't sell it, China's big Ben 6 will have to continue to be used, and it is estimated that our big plane will be able to roll off the assembly line in 2020.

For a long, long time, that plane can launch nuclear ** Russia is very reluctant to sell Don't look at China and Russia yet.

False: They are always on the lookout for us.

China's own advanced bomber is estimated to be at least 20 years later in the case of imported engines.

If we had made our own engines, it would have been at least 30 years, and our engine technology was very backward Tank engines.

It's all German, not to mention airplanes.

Large bombers still want to rely on Maozi to give?

Maozi has never sincerely given good things to China.

Figure 22If China really needs it. It's been down a long time ago.

Now it should develop the H-8 on its own. Not to continue to rely on foreign troops.

Sometimes not having it doesn't mean it can't be done.

Ask if there are 22

This needs to take into account the country's current strategic objectives.

Compared with 22, the current Universiade and big passengers are much more nervous.

At the moment, the combat radius of the H6K is already 4000 km.

Hanging on 6 YJ83s of more than 200 km is already able to meet our targets in the first island chain.

At present, the country's strategy is that there will be no strategic bombers similar to Lao Mei and Maozi!

What we need is medium-haul!

I'm talking about what it means to make a big splash.

Whatever we build, we must obey the national strategic goals, we are not a global strategy!

Figure 22 is a bit old, designed in 1955 and equipped with Soviet troops in 1962. Instead of equipping the Tu-22, it is better to develop its own strategic bomber, or to strengthen the capabilities of bomber development by purchasing the Tu-22. Don't think about Figure 160, it's a killer feature of the Russian Air Force and won't sell it to us.

The TU22 is good, but we can't use it as a workhorse.

The big bang must develop on its own.

The tu 22 tu 95 are all old-fashioned.

Independent research and development can gain a firm foothold.

The key is to get the engine out.

Firstly, they do not have enough funds to replace new bombers, and secondly, their use of old bombers is more of a deterrent, and their huge nuclear arsenal determines that no one dares to attack them, this is self-confidence.

There is no need, the Tu-95 heavy bomber is nothing more than running to the enemy's head with a belly of bombs and throwing it down, and there will be nothing new in research and development, so it can be used, and now the United States still has more than 70 B52 in service, the future development direction of bombers, hypersonic speed, low-altitude penetration and stealth, this kind of heavy bomber with a large bomb load is destined to be eliminated in the future, so there are no countries developing it now.

Upstairs is right, the design of the engine and the manufacturing and commissioning of Chengping are two different things, our engine may not be checked in the design, at that time Chengping due to insufficient manufacturing technology, the precision is not high, Want Want can not reach the design state, bringing poor performance, short life and other problems.

Your statement is amateurish. It is not that our aero engine cannot be developed, but that it cannot develop a high-performance aero engine, and the products of the world's three major aero power giants are very far behind. The development of aero engines is very difficult and involves almost all fields known to mankind, which is the best embodiment of a country's comprehensive national strength.

WS10 is too hang, and it has not been put into service in large quantities since its high-profile appearance in 03. WS15 is scheduled to be the power system of J20, WS10 has not been completely completed, let alone more than the advanced generation of WS15, and there are still a lot of tests that have not been completed.

Hangfa is not unable to develop, the principle of manufacturing everyone understands, there is no difference in the principle of various countries, the biggest difference in performance of Hangfa is life, it depends on its material manufacturing process, our manufacturing process is not good, this is not to say that I will definitely be able to take down the matter if I work hard, it is a long-term foundation of manufacturing culture, I hope to help you.