Talk:Xian H-6K
 | Text and/or other creative content from Xian H-6K was copied or moved into Xian H-6 with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
 | A fact from Xian H-6K appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 8 January 2010 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
Proposal to merge with H-6 article
editH-6K is an upgraded H-6, it doesn't need its own article. The info here should really be moved to the H-6 main article.--Hj108 (talk) 15:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Transcluded discussion from WP:AIR
edit- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
- Discussion has been archived, please refrain from any further editing on the archive page. Further talk can occur elsewhere if necessary. --Benlisquare (talk) 11:52, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Note: The below discussion is transcluded from the Aircraft project. To add to it, please comment here
- Notice: Discussion on the Aircraft project has been archived. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 11:46, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
What???
editI am having a hard time understanding why a country that is turning out good quality, modern military hardware would want to re-develop or modify a design that is over 50 years old? The original Tu-16 wasn't that great of a weapons platform, so I don't know why a nation that is capable of building modern airliners and modern fighters would choose to redesign or upgrade a marginal aircraft from 50 years ago? To me it would seem more logical to purchase or license the Tu-22M or Tu-160, rather than try to polish this ancient turd! You have to question whether this isn't a ruse?70.100.21.226 (talk) 04:15, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
- And how, my friend, would we purchase the license for the Tu-160? It isn't as easy as entering a shop and asking for a cappuccino, especially for Russia's currently most advanced bomber aircraft (also given China's ability and history of reverse engineering and copying, such as with the S-300 and AK-74). -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 04:24, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
- why a nation that is capable of building modern airliners and modern fighters would choose to redesign or upgrade a marginal aircraft from 50 years ago?
- Seriously, since when? China never overcome the engine bottleneck on their aircraft designs, thus most of their designs are contraint to old airframes that uses old engines. The newer designs are using expensive second rated Russian engines, which limit the production to no more than a hundrend pieces. Yeah, China is capable of designing modern aircraft, but since when they are capable of building it? Jim101 (talk) 17:35, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
(undent) While this conversion may be interesting, I'd like to remind you that Wikipedia is not a discussion forum. WP:NOT#FORUM -SidewinderX (talk) 03:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC)