Long reach ... A view of China’s new strategic bomber, the H-6K. Source: PLA
Posted on 11/25/2014 4:23:08 AM PST by sukhoi-30mki
AN air base being built on a disputed island chain is raising eyebrows as its puts Chinese strategic bombers in range of Australia for the first time.
Defence Publication IHS Janes says analysis of satellite photographs shows China is turning Fiery Cross Reef in the contentious Spratly Islands into a land mass big enough to hold a military air base.
The construction work shows China is enforcing its claim on the mineral and oil-rich chain of islands which are also claimed by Taiwan, Malaysia, Vietnam, Brunei and the Philippines. Beijing claims nearly all of the resource-rich South China Sea.
The vast land reclamation project is one of several pursued by China but the first that could accommodate an airstrip, says US military spokesman Lieutenant Colonel Jeffrey Poole.
“It appears that’s what they’re working toward,” Poole told AFP.
China does not appear to be hiding its intentions. Computer generated images of its proposed base have been circulating in local media for much of the year.
Stepping stone to Australia If China truly is building an air base — and Janes says land 3km long and 200 to 300m wide has been reclaimed since August is “large enough to construct a runway and apron” — it even has implications for Australia.
Despite being some 3200km distant, Taiwanese media has pointed out that China’s long range bomber — the Xian H-6K — can deploy with cruise missiles capable of striking “all US military facilities in Australia”.
The H-6K, which is based on the Russian Tu-16 “Badger” design from the 1960s, entered service in 2009. China claims it has a combat radius of 3500km. The heavily reworked design is said to have replaced its bomb bay with extra fuel tanks, while six weapons — such as the nuclear capable CJ-10A cruise missiles
(Excerpt) Read more at couriermail.com.au ...
Long reach ... A view of China’s new strategic bomber, the H-6K. Source: PLA
Funny, that “new” bomber looks strangely like a 1950s vintage Russian Tu-16 Badger.
Just like the article says ...
Bill Clinton and his buddies at Loral gave the Chicoms the ability to lob their nuclear bomb tipped missiles anywhere on planet earth or the moon.
The airbase is of minor import except as political fodder
It’s a 50s design....but, the Chinese are said to be still producing it with new engines, cockpit and cruise missile capability.
In terms of production age, you could argue its younger than even the B-2!
http://web.archive.org/web/20061130101018/http://www.janes.com/defence/news/jmr/jmr060929_1_n.shtml
Maybe Australia would like to buy a few used bombers from us.Its unfortunate for them that they decided to get rid of their F-111 Aardvarks.
Their Aardvarks with tanker support would put that Chinese base in danger as well.
Proven airframe design. The Russians may have built their planes weird, but they do fly and fly well. with modern engines and avionics, it’s essentially a new aircraft anyway.
The only plus is that, since it’s a known design, its performance envelope is also well-known (other than engine performance). So it won’t be any harder to shoot down than the Russian version, and any NATO-trained fighter pilot should already have those data in memory.
Take out the airbase and its a 1 way trip.
don’t need a two way trip with missles.
Bombers still need a base to land or refuel.
Don’t need bombers if you have missiles
The missiles are air launched from the new bomber that has range to Australia only with the new island in play. Take out the island and the bombers have no place to land to refuel. I don’t believe the Chinese have the logistical support aircraft for inflight refueling.
The Chicoms have rockets that they have used to orbit Chicomonauts and send probes to the moon That means ICBMs Not a new term. Airplanes are nice and have their place but ICBMs rule
The Xian HY-6 is a tanker variant of the Xian H-6.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xian_H-6#Aerial_refuelling_versions
One of the worst errors is to underestimate your enemy.
Agreed. I was merely pointing out the article was stating about the new bomber, cruise missiles, and the island. If China strikes even w ICBMs, the U.S. would be forced to retaliate due to the SEATO treaty.
Were I an Australian, especially in the equivalents to the State and Defense Departments, my country's strategic problems would keep me awake at night.
“China desperately needs Lebenstraum.”
China does not need more “Lebensraum”. China needs energy resources and the South Chinese Sea could exactly provide this.
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.