Chinese air to ground weapons (missiles, PGMs, etc)

Blitzo said:

LT-3 is a 500kg PGM, with dual mode guidance (satellite and laser), and it lacks a gliding wing kit.
You might be thinking about LS-6.

Different PGM weight classes and configurations have different uses.
I think flight testing and integration of certain weight classes naturally should only be done for some aircraft types (e.g.: if they procured a 1000kg PGM, those should probably only be integrated on J-16 and JH-7A), but for other categories like 500kg, 250kg and 100kg PGMs, those should be usefully integrated among all major multirole strike capable aircraft and modern bombers (assuming the PLA buys the latter two in large numbers at some point).

More importantly, buying 250kg and 100kg PGMs should occur simultaneously with buying MERs to allow larger magazine size per sortie.




Those are 250kg bombs, which we can deduce by their size and shape.

And yes, there are multiple PLA aircraft (JH-7As, J-10s, Flankers and H-6Ks) that already are structurally able to carry 250kg bombs on appropriate MERs which demonstrates their structural compatibility with 250kg PGMs.

For me, if a J-10 family aircraft can carry six 250kg PGMs (four on the wing dual racks, two on the rear fuselage stations), two pods (targeting pod and ECM pod on the two forward fuselage stations), and three EFTs and two SRAAMs, to me that would be a very competent precision strike loadout that is largely competitive with the F-16 in an equivalent configuration.


See this post (and the subsequent exchange) a week or so ago, which probably addresses various questions that you might have:

Lessons for China to learn from Ukraine conflict for Taiwan scenario

Which I was firmly against at the time. 1991 Gulf War was justifiable, 2003 not. Also I'm not American. There's a moral principle here - "two wrongs don't make a right". Indifference is what the US and the West has brought upon the world. Two wrongs don't make a right but the first wrong is...

www.sinodefenceforum.com

Click to expand...

siegecrossbow said:

As per Yankee there could have been some limitations placed on the J-20, but he can't speculate. Either way having a non-stealth fighter beat a stealth fighter will keep the J-20 pilots on their toes and keep them from becoming complacent.

Click to expand...

Jingle Bells said:

Good news, watch the following video:

It looks like an MER/TER may have already entered PLAAF actives service. The footage is from 1:55 to 1:58.
Here is a screen shot at 1:58:
View attachment 112633

It looks like a TER-9/A. Although it is unfortunate that it is shown with no bombs attached to it.
What do you think?

Click to expand...

Jingle Bells said:

For sure!
Although I am more interested in the MER/TER shown in the footage. Everyone else seems to be more interested in the J-20 vs J-16 drill. I want to see what @Blitzo thinks about the MER/TER. I am not very sure what kind of munition will be more suitable for that MER/TER design. I think the GB series (YL-V401, or CS/BBD3 250kg PGB) may fit it better than the LT/LS series. Although, I REALLY love the LS-6/500 ER, because it's a perfectly low cost stand-off munition that carries a big punch (500kg class warhead). Imagine the J-15, J-16 or JH7/A2 carrying 6 to 8 of these plus AAMs and ECM pods, with the help of MER/TER; that would be a terrifying volume of fight.

Click to expand...

Blitzo said:

Okay I've had a look at the original footage (about 9:30 on the video)

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

And it looks like it is indeed a TER with lugpoints actually visible including the outboard side one facing the camera (and presumably the inboard side one too).

View attachment 112635View attachment 112636

The side lugpoint position looks like it is just a bit more "rear" than the ventral lugpoint.

Illustrating below, red is the ventral lugpoint and green is the side lugpoint.
Better pictures will confirm this but this is my current working theory.

View attachment 112637


I suppose now the question is waiting to see what they can actually carry.

Click to expand...

Jingle Bells said:

Also, it looks like the two hang points underneath the two intakes are twin hang points, looks like they are for PL-15s or PL-12s (I think).
circled in the picture below:
View attachment 112648View attachment 112649

Click to expand...

Blitzo said:

What makes you think they are for BVRAAMs?

I did observe them, but they look like they're A2G dual racks that we've seen before.

In the past they've been observed on Flankers carrying unguided rocket pods.
Given their position below the air intake, I doubt it would be intended to carry rocket pods in that instance as the rocket exhaust would feed right into the intake stream, so I suspect they're for carrying 250kg bombs as well.
(The J-11B in the pic below has the dual racks on the wings with rocket pods and conveniently has a 250kg class bomb next to them for sizing)

View attachment 112650View attachment 112651

Click to expand...

Jingle Bells said:

I am not sure. The dual rack on that J-16 certainly does NOT look like the dual rack for rockets pods shown in the J-11 picture. But it is true that there have been dual racks for rockets pods like that in previous shared pictures in the forum. Of course, the positioning underneath the intakes indicates that it is likely neither for rockets nor missiles, to prevent choking.
So yes, it is most likely for bombs.

Click to expand...

Blitzo said:

I think it's the same type, it's just that the dual racks can be equipped with additional interface pylons for other types of payloads (see picture below, of J-16 carrying the same dual rack with additional pylons for different rocket pods).

There's no reason they couldn't carry missiles in the under-intake stations, after all Flankers routinely do so all the time whether it's for A2A missiles or A2G missiles.


As for the caution around dual racks -- let's be honest, everyone's been waiting for J-16s or PLA flankers to carry dual racks or multiple racks for AAMs/BVRAAMs for ages now.
That's even more reason to be restrained to not get over enthusiastic and to carefully consider if we've seen them elsewhere before for other applications.

Click to expand...

Jingle Bells said:

So, basically, your thought is that those particular dual racks are likely not configurable for A2A missiles like PL10, PL12 and PL 15, and their positions underneath the intakes rules out the possibility for rocket pods. So it's most likely that they are there for carrying bombs?

Click to expand...