H-20 bomber (with H-X, JH-XX)

tphuang

tphuang

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
VIP Professional
Registered Member
Even if they do produce large numbers of cruise missiles, the destructive power is still going to be a lot less than air dropped guided bombs of 250 or 500 kg. You are not going to destroy a hardened bunker or hangar with cruise missiles. There is a lot of utility in dropping massive amount of heavy munitions from over the top with a bomber.

Such is the utility of something like h20.
 
tphuang

tphuang

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
VIP Professional
Registered Member
Totoro said:
Raytheon had tested an 18 inch diameter, 1000 lb two stage warhead some 15 years ago. It penetrated 19.5 feet of concrete. It's likely that some of the current tomahawks use technology derived from those tests.
Click to expand...
That's good to know. But I still wonder why cruise missiles alone haven't been able to take out entire air bases and keep them offline for days. Like for example in the case of Syria back a few years ago or Russia more cently. It just seems to me that bombers can deliver damage a lot more cheaply and effectively than cruise missiles.
 
Blitzo

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
tphuang said:
That's good to know. But I still wonder why cruise missiles alone haven't been able to take out entire air bases and keep them offline for days. Like for example in the case of Syria back a few years ago or Russia more cently. It just seems to me that bombers can deliver damage a lot more cheaply and effectively than cruise missiles.
Click to expand...

Re-attack matters, and the cost and size of cruise missiles makes it difficult to do re-attack, meaning it is harder to keep an airbase out of operations with cruise missiles alone (though it can significantly affect their ability to sustain operations).
 
A

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
tphuang said:
That's good to know. But I still wonder why cruise missiles alone haven't been able to take out entire air bases and keep them offline for days. Like for example in the case of Syria back a few years ago or Russia more cently. It just seems to me that bombers can deliver damage a lot more cheaply and effectively than cruise missiles.
Click to expand...

How many cruise missiles can you afford?
Depending on the version, a JASSM or Tomahawk starts at $1 Million.

In comparison, a JDAM with the same warhead is around $40K, so you can buy 25 of these for the same money.
 
optionsss

optionsss

Junior Member
siegecrossbow said:
That I do believe. The Chinese have the money and after watching the Ukrainian fiasco, they are probably stockpiling 30,000 more.
Click to expand...
I am not so sure about these numbers. I think the current number of land attack cruise missile is 5000 or less
for PLA. That should be enough for a medium scale conflict. These things are expensive, gets out of date, and have an shelf life. I do believe China have the ability to ramp up production quickly, when necessary.
 
sferrin

sferrin

Junior Member
Registered Member
Totoro said:
Raytheon had tested an 18 inch diameter, 1000 lb two stage warhead some 15 years ago. It penetrated 19.5 feet of concrete. It's likely that some of the current tomahawks use technology derived from those tests.
Click to expand...
Broach. Several western cruise missiles have this option.

AndrewS said:
How many cruise missiles can you afford?
Depending on the version, a JASSM or Tomahawk starts at $1 Million.

In comparison, a JDAM with the same warhead is around $40K, so you can buy 25 of these for the same money.
Click to expand...
But you have to be able to deliver them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top