Chinese air to air missiles

tankphobia said:

I'm just spitballing here, but since latest PLA AA missiles can be remote guided, is there anything stopping the PLAAF from modifying a ground based missile, strap 20 on a H-6k and practically create massive magazine depth in an air engagement? As those ground based missiles if launched from the air could easily achieve 300km+ ranges. This would also apply to potential PL-21 where the bomber can comfortably hang far outside of enemy fighter ranges and still cover the entirety of Taiwan in terms of missile range.

This is basically the inverse of NASAMs.

Click to expand...

Far from a new idea actually. Isn't the US arming B-52s as basically AAM trucks.

H-6 don't have the payload capacity to really make this useful. Better to develop a ground up tactical sized bomber for this role. Also this idea was raised on this forum years if not a decade ago (just informing not to insult or anything) and if I recall, the concept has been around since Vietnam war. It was just much less technically feasible given limits of related tech back then. Sort of a ASBM/FOBS like issue decades ago when ideas were conceptualised.

A2A attrition is a staple of BVR calculus. No better mechanical way of achieving brute force advantage than to get something similar to a B-52 sized dedicated missile truck but instead of subsonic launch aircraft, have something that can lob at higher altitudes and above mach 1.

ougoah said:

H-6 don't have the payload capacity to really make this useful. Better to develop a ground up tactical sized bomber for this role. Also this idea was raised on this forum years if not a decade ago (just informing not to insult or anything) and if I recall, the concept has been around since Vietnam war. It was just much less technically feasible given limits of related tech back then. Sort of a ASBM/FOBS like issue decades ago when ideas were conceptualised.

Click to expand...

If H-6 has a bomb capacity of ~9 Tons based on Tu-16 stats, then it could lob up to 40 PL-15s at ~230 kgs each, that does not seem like a low number at all. A wing of 5 or so H-6s can lob up to 200 PL-15s, or 50 J-20's worth of munitions if using internal bay only. However a supersonic capable Tu-22 esq bomber will be more suited for this kind of bomb truck role.

tankphobia said:

If H-6 has a bomb capacity of ~9 Tons based on Tu-16 stats, then it could lob up to 40 PL-15s at ~230 kgs each, that does not seem like a low number at all. A wing of 5 or so H-6s can lob up to 200 PL-15s, or 50 J-20's worth of munitions if using internal bay only. However a supersonic capable Tu-22 esq bomber will be more suited for this kind of bomb truck role.

Click to expand...

9 tons is probably for the older H-6 variants. The newer variants, i.e. H-6K, H-6J and H-6N should be able to carry a higher tonnage of payloads.

Let's take the H-6K for example.

We do know that each H-6K can carry up to 6 KD-20 LACMs. Each KD-20 weighs ~2 tons. This means that theoretically speaking, each H-6K is capable of carrying up to ~12 tons of payload.

For the PL-15 with an individual weight of ~230kg, that means each H-6K can carry up to ~50 PL-15s.

Therefore, a flight of 6 H-6Ks (for reference) is capable of lobbing up to ~300 PL-15s against the enemy warplane formation.

Of course, we have to remember that carrying up to its maximum payload means a significantly-reduced combat radius for the H-6K. Therefore, for a WestPac scenario, I don't really envision the H-6Ks to carry PL-15s up till its maximum payload limit, unless absolutely necessary.

However, even with only half the maximum amount, ~150 PL-15s streaking towards you and your flightmates (as the enemy) at Mach 4 is still going to be terrifying, anyhow.

AAMs depend heavily on the kinematics of the carrier aircraft. The same missile launched at 0.5 Mach at an elevation of 10,000 ft will have a vastly smaller flight envelope than the one launched at 1.0 Mach at an elevation of 20,000 ft. If you want dedicated bomb truck, it should preferably be at least supersonic, like the B-1B.

siegecrossbow said:

AAMs depend heavily on the kinematics of the carrier aircraft. The same missile launched at 0.5 Mach at an elevation of 10,000 ft will have a vastly smaller flight envelope than the one launched at 1.0 Mach at an elevation of 20,000 ft. If you want dedicated bomb truck, it should preferably be at least supersonic, like the B-1B.

Click to expand...

That got me thinking, the extreme end point of faster+higher will eventually just become a rocket. Can tactical ballistic missiles be outfitted with AA submunitions? That would probably be impractically expensive, but it'll also be almost impossible to intercept and will cripple tankers/AWACs staying far in the rear provided you can provide appropriate tracking and targetting.

This is kind of rough as an estimate.

Tu-16 had 186.4 kN thrust with 9,000 kg bomb payload. H-6K has 236 kN thrust.
236/186.4*9000 is 11394 kg. i.e. 11 metric tons.

This is without taking into account airframe weight limitations, or advancements in materials used in the airframe leading to an increased payload. Using composites can lead to like 20% weight reduction. So the numbers you guys are saying of 12 metric tons of payload are pretty reasonable.

ougoah said:

Far from a new idea actually. Isn't the US arming B-52s as basically AAM trucks.

H-6 don't have the payload capacity to really make this useful. Better to develop a ground up tactical sized bomber for this role. Also this idea was raised on this forum years if not a decade ago (just informing not to insult or anything) and if I recall, the concept has been around since Vietnam war. It was just much less technically feasible given limits of related tech back then. Sort of a ASBM/FOBS like issue decades ago when ideas were conceptualised.

A2A attrition is a staple of BVR calculus. No better mechanical way of achieving brute force advantage than to get something similar to a B-52 sized dedicated missile truck but instead of subsonic launch aircraft, have something that can lob at higher altitudes and above mach 1.

Click to expand...

AAM truck concept is a bad concept. A bomber-like aircraft will always be at a huge disadvantage against a fighter when it comes to engagement envelope. A bomber is always engagable by the fighter before the other way around happens.

tankphobia said:

That got me thinking, the extreme end point of faster+higher will eventually just become a rocket. Can tactical ballistic missiles be outfitted with AA submunitions? That would probably be impractically expensive, but it'll also be almost impossible to intercept and will cripple tankers/AWACs staying far in the rear provided you can provide appropriate tracking and targetting.

Click to expand...

That is just a large SAM. Missiles like the 40N6 are huge and fly at a quasiballistic trajectory.

BoraTas said:

AAM truck concept is a bad concept. A bomber-like aircraft will always be at a huge disadvantage against a fighter when it comes to engagement envelope. A bomber is always engagable by the fighter before the other way around happens.

That is just a large SAM. Missiles like the 40N6 are huge and fly at a quasiballistic trajectory.

Click to expand...

Indeed, the was cancelled for similar reasons (lack of kinematic performance against hostile fighters) and thus the systems developed for it were later transferred to the F-111B and ultimately the F-14 Tomcat.

siegecrossbow said:

AAMs depend heavily on the kinematics of the carrier aircraft. The same missile launched at 0.5 Mach at an elevation of 10,000 ft will have a vastly smaller flight envelope than the one launched at 1.0 Mach at an elevation of 20,000 ft. If you want dedicated bomb truck, it should preferably be at least supersonic, like the B-1B.

Click to expand...

Flight envelope is important, however so is the actual availability of the airframe types that you have.

If a notional JH-XX was actually developed then one of its missions would certainly be to act as a missile truck.
Desirable characteristics for a modern missile truck for the 21st century should include: good range/endurance, VLO, payload capacity, altitude and speed. But we don't know if JH-XX is going to be developed to it's moot.

OTOH, we do know that H-20 is absolutely going to be developed, and it should have good endurance/range, VLO, payload capacity, altitude, while only missing out on speed.

All of which is to say, I strongly suspect the A2A missile truck role will be one of H-20's secondary missions.

Patchwork_Chimera said:

congratulations, you have invented the surface to air missile

Click to expand...

i you made me spit team onto my keyboard