"Our bombers are lagging behind": joint combat patrolling with the Russian Federation criticized in China


On December 22, 2020, the strategic aviation of China and Russia conducted a joint air (combat) patrol. It exposed flaws in Chinese aircraft and drew criticism, according to the South China Morning Post in Hong Kong.


The mission was attended by two Tu-95MS of the Russian Aerospace Forces and four "Hun-6K" (Xian H-6K) of the PLA Air Force. The patrols were conducted over the waters of the Japan and East China Seas, as well as the western Pacific Ocean. Moscow and Beijing are subject to sanctions pressure from Washington, so the last event can be viewed as a demonstration of solidarity between the Russians and the Chinese. But the patrols also turned into outrage from Tokyo and Seoul. At the same time, experts, including Chinese, questioned Beijing's further military ambitions.


Compared to Chinese planes, Russian and American "strategists" fly farther and take more payload. Tu-95 can fly 15 thousand km, and its specific wing load is 606 kg / m2. Tu-160 can fly 12,3 thousand km, and the specific wing loading is 724 kg / m2. The American B-1 "Lancer" can fly 9,4 thousand km, and the specific wing load is 820 kg / m2.

At the same time, the PLA Air Force has up to 180 Hun-6 units, but only the Hun-6N version can be refueled in the air. Without refueling, bombers can fly at a range of up to 6 thousand km, which is a big disadvantage. At the same time, the specific wing loading is only 160 kg / m2.

Beijing is currently developing the next generation Hong-20 bombers. They are necessary to increase the country's influence in the world. These will be subsonic, stealthy "strategists" who will provide Beijing with real intercontinental potential and expand its reach far beyond China's borders. "Hung-20" will be able to fly 8,5 thousand km, and its payload will be 45 tons.

Defense analyst John Grevatt is confident that the Hung-6 bombers are preventing China from flexing its muscles.

These are the old Russian Tu-16 "Barsuk", which appeared in the 50s

- specified Grevatt.

At the same time, the Chinese military expert Song Zhongping also notes that the Hung-6 cannot be called a strategic bomber.

Our bombers are lagging behind. The Hung-6 cannot be regarded as a true long-range strategist

- summed up Zhongping.
Ad
The publication is looking for authors in the news and analytical departments. Requirements for applicants: literacy, responsibility, efficiency, inexhaustible creative energy, experience in copywriting or journalism, the ability to quickly analyze text and check facts, write concisely and interestingly on political and economic topics. The work is paid. Contact: [email protected]
17 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. amateur Offline amateur
    amateur (Victor) 26 December 2020 16: 52
    +3
    writes the South China Morning Post from hong kong.

    Referring to the Hong Kong media resource about China is the same as referring to Echo of Moscow in Russia (or perhaps to the notorious Peacemaker). But the Tu-16, no matter how it was renamed, remains the Tu-16 with its first flight in 1952.
    1. Piramidon Offline Piramidon
      Piramidon (Stepan) 26 December 2020 17: 51
      +2
      Quote: layman
      Referring to the Hong Kong media resource about China is the same as referring to Echo of Moscow

      Well, what is this resource wrong in this case? request Tu-16 has never really been a "strategist", just further bomber (missile carrier).
  2. Afinogen Offline Afinogen
    Afinogen (Afinogen) 26 December 2020 17: 51
    +1
    "Hung-20" will be able to fly 8,5 thousand km, and its payload will be 45 tons.

    Something I very much doubt that he will be able to take 45 tons on board. Tu-160 takes so much.
    1. boriz Offline boriz
      boriz (boriz) 27 December 2020 13: 55
      +2
      The Tu 160 is supersonic, and the Hun-20 is subsonic, so the efficiency is different.
      Well, the range, despite this, the Tu 160 is more noticeable.
      Therefore, the Hung 20 in terms of level is much inferior to the old Tu 160 already.
      The Chinese were not stupidly engaged in bombers, so there is no development experience.
      It will be interesting to compare Hun 20 and PAK YES, when specific performance characteristics appear on ours.
      Although there is practically no data on Hung 20.
      In different sources, the speed is both subsonic and Mach 2. Combat load and 10 tons and 20 tons.
      A payload of 45 tons stands for 25 tons of fuel + 20 tons of combat load.
      As for PAK DA, there are even more specifics: subsonic speed, range 15 km, combat load - 000 tons.
      In general, the Chinese are dark. They have bad business about bombers.
      1. Piramidon Offline Piramidon
        Piramidon (Stepan) 27 December 2020 15: 41
        +1
        Quote: boriz
        Hung 20 in terms of level is much inferior to the old Tu 160

        This Hung exists so far only in drawings on rice paper, and you are already comparing performance characteristics. request
        1. boriz Offline boriz
          boriz (boriz) 27 December 2020 15: 50
          +2
          So this is not me comparing. Chinese general.
          And I wrote that even the non-existent Hung is inferior to the Tu 160 (which has been in serial production since 1984)
          And about Hung, I wrote that this is, for now, a purely virtual phenomenon. Although the Chinese general uses his "performance characteristics" for comparison.
          About PAK YES, at least there is something, and they really began to build it.
  3. Warrior Offline Warrior
    Warrior 26 December 2020 18: 26
    +3
    China is NOBODY without Russia, and with Russia an invincible global POWER.
    Therefore, the Americans are AFRAID that Russia will help China against the United States ...
    And then Japan is generally the END
  4. steelmaker Offline steelmaker
    steelmaker 26 December 2020 21: 45
    0
    They themselves confessed. "Not a horse feed." Since the 70s they have been copying, the institutions have been created, but they have only reached the level of the USSR in the 70s. But the Chinese guys are stubborn. If we continue to stand still, they will not only catch up with us, but also overtake us. As with lunar soil. 2 kg. deliver to the ground, this and the USSR could not.
    1. boriz Offline boriz
      boriz (boriz) 27 December 2020 14: 06
      +2
      In terms of bombers, the Chinese are far from the level of the USSR in the 70s.

      If we continue to stand still,

      And who said that we are standing? I think that PAK DA will appear before Hong 20. And Hungu will be very far from PAK.
    2. shinobi Offline shinobi
      shinobi (Yuri) 28 December 2020 00: 54
      +1
      Comparing the lunar program of the USSR and modern China, conscience does not eat? The USSR was a pioneer in everything, and the soil, by the way, was dragged to the ground by robots. Even if not in such an amount at a time as the Yankees or now the Chinese.
    3. Nick Offline Nick
      Nick (Nikolai) 28 December 2020 05: 12
      +1
      Quote: steel maker
      If we continue to stand still, they will not only catch up with us, but also overtake us. As with lunar soil. 2 kg. deliver to the ground, this and the USSR could not.

      The USSR delivered lunar soil to Earth more than half a century ago. So, the Chinese are half a hundred years behind. The weight of the soil is of no fundamental importance. A few grams are enough for study. In order to find out what the ocean consists of, it is enough to scoop one test tube out of it
    4. alexey alexeyev_2 (Alexey Alekseev) 29 December 2020 10: 36
      0
      I wonder how much he will allocate for Russia to study. And will it highlight?
  5. Traktorbekov Urulu (Maksim) 26 December 2020 21: 54
    0
    The question is haunted: since when did bombers (including strategists) begin to patrol the water area? I understand - fighters. Or anti-submarine. AWACS aircraft - no questions at all. But bombari ?!
    1. updidi Offline updidi
      updidi (Alexander Kazakov) 27 December 2020 11: 41
      +2
      During the Cold War, the United States even lost nuclear warheads while patrolling bombers. Before there were reliable intercontinental ballistic missiles.
      And now yes - there is no special need for this. It is rather a manifestation of intentions and partnership in this case.
      1. boriz Offline boriz
        boriz (boriz) 27 December 2020 13: 05
        +5
        Now the need has just appeared again. Ours and without China have long ago restored the practice of such flights.
        And the ICBM has nothing to do with it. Air-based CDs (including anti-ship ones) have been in service with the USSR since the 50s. One of the main tasks of strategic and long-range bombers is to destroy the AUG. Tu 22 was called an aircraft carrier killer.
        Well, such CDs can work on ground targets. The arrival time is shorter and the missile launch site (like silos or mobile missile positions for the ground-based version) cannot be destroyed with an ICBM salvo. So, under the USSR, patrolling was carried out intensively until the collapse of the USSR.
        And by participating in a joint patrol with China, ours demonstrated their support for China. And for this, China owes us.
    2. shinobi Offline shinobi
      shinobi (Yuri) 28 December 2020 01: 00
      +1
      So, as it were, this is a common practice. It never stopped. The only unusual thing is that a joint patrol, yes. This has not yet happened. And so, two heavy missile carriers with nuclear weapons hang out along the northern borders constantly. How many I will not say at all.
  6. Petr Vladimirovich (Peter) 27 December 2020 10: 54
    +1
    Moreover, the specific wing loading is only 160 kg / m2.

    Well, that's good.