Yes but you're both ignoring the structural problems with holding 50x or x number of missiles like that. Some loads can be carried at certain points etc etc. Payload capacity does not translate directly in this way. Number, centre of gravity, shape etc are all important parameters to consider. No chance a H-6 even with payload capacity of 15T can hold anywhere close to 50 PL-15 AAMs even if volume and aerodynamics isn't an issue to consider. You can't place loads along the fuselage and wing wherever you please. I'd say even with a lot of work on modifying a dedicated missile truck H-6 variant, it would cap out around 20 PL-15s at best. Absolutely a terrible platform for this purpose even if we ignore volume problem and less than ideal launch kinematics.
Why not do an air launched version of this. Essentially this is just a drone missile truck if we make it air launched. So many ways to improve BVR attrition performance of integrated airborne platforms. All have long been looked into since the 1960s by every major player. None are quite as realistic back then as they are now. B-52 and B-21 taking these missile truck roles only recently.
PLA may want H-20 (possibly JH-xx) would no doubt be open to these roles but I suspect there are far superior ways to improve BVR attrition than this method which I'd like to call mechanical brute forcing. It's simply too resource intensive when next generation weaponry should be (and no doubt are) aimed at eroding opposition networks and their sensor + kill chains while preserving your own. This is where the real fight is lost and won. Suffice to say, it is 90% electromagnetic domain and cyber.
What's being discussed wrt micro missiles and missile trucks are Cold War era paradigms kinda like thinking about how to improve your bow and arrow when machine guns are a thing on the battlefield (while machine guns aren't well known by the wider public and certainly not well published). While USAF and PLAAF are no doubt investing in these concurrently, these players would have long since understood the true hierarchy of importance in every dimension of modern BVR combat and acted accordingly.
Exactly. Almost a conservation of energy law type of thing. On balance, it is useful but in relatively limited situations. If you make a mach 2+ capable supercruising bomber somehow and with enough capacity to lob dozens of AAMs at medium range, that platform is far better used to attack opposition key targets. The role of BVR really should be for fighters, possibly larger and heavier fighters going "beast mode" at most to strike airborne key targets like tankers and AWACS. Heavy tactical strike aircraft and tactical bombers really should be aimed at far more strategically important targets. Having them become dedicated missile trucks to win some BVR attrition role means one less being used on airfields, radar sites, carriers etc etc. Which are more important and serve as critical long term supporting structures?
It's quite clear why these major airforces haven't gone down this missile truck route. Although loyal wingman drones obviously are a new variable in the BVR attrition calculus and an exciting field.
Last edited:
