These are bold claims, to say the least. What makes you think supersonic missiles are not more survivable?
H-20 bomber (with H-X, JH-XX)
- Thread starter Deino
- Start date
Real life is much more uncertain than people like you make it out to be. Systems break, people fail to do their jobs, maintenance issues prevent optimal operation, weather can affect performance of certain systems, etc. Your post reads more like a Raytheon/Lockheed sales pitch than real world analysis.
Guys ... I request your opinion on an issue I have with this thread and ongoing discussion:
Even if the thread's title says "PLAAF JH-XX / H-X bomber project", and as such this most interesting discussion fits as on-topic, we all agree, that the H-20 is a real and ongoing project for the PLAAF's future stealthy strategic bomber, we cannot say with the same certainty the JH-XX is still active nor that it will definitely see service.
As such I'm considering to split this thread into two separate threads: One for the hopefully soon to be unveiled real H-20 and one for the rumoured JH-XX. The other option could be, to start a new on for the H-20 once it is unveiled, but I would love to separate between discussing facts for the H-20 and pure speculative issues for the JH-XX.
what do you think?
Even if the thread's title says "PLAAF JH-XX / H-X bomber project", and as such this most interesting discussion fits as on-topic, we all agree, that the H-20 is a real and ongoing project for the PLAAF's future stealthy strategic bomber, we cannot say with the same certainty the JH-XX is still active nor that it will definitely see service.
As such I'm considering to split this thread into two separate threads: One for the hopefully soon to be unveiled real H-20 and one for the rumoured JH-XX. The other option could be, to start a new on for the H-20 once it is unveiled, but I would love to separate between discussing facts for the H-20 and pure speculative issues for the JH-XX.
what do you think?
20 hypothetical JH-xx carrying 4 YJ-12 each is another layer of firepower in addition to the thousands of land, sea, subsurface, and surface launched anti-ship missiles that are subsonic, supersonic, sea-skimming, MaRVed, hypersonic etc etc. No CBG can survive that even with perfect interception rate of 1 interceptor defeating 1 incoming missile. They would need multiple CBG against the entire PLAN. Certainly nowhere near the entire 11 CBG but this is just PLAN at around first island chain.
Why on earth would China send only 20 JH-xx with 80 YJ-12 missiles out when they have tens of thousands of various anti ship missiles. If it comes down to such a total war scenario that is.
JH-xx (assumed platform) would have immense value over existing H-6 platforms, JH-7A, J-16, J-15, and J-35 ... and even over H-20 (assumed characteristics). A stealth supersonic bomber/strike aircraft would have quite a multiplier effect. H-20 can't fly as fast, the others aren't stealth or can't carry as much or the same ordinance.
Even a Tu-22M platform as non-stealth would have immense value. It's just not worth the cost. If it's between a fleet of 30 Tu-22M or 90 more DF-26, the DF-26 are going to be many times more effective. But a stealth supersonic bomber is another matter!
The US Navy in its entirety (all carriers and every single surface ship) has around 7000 long range interceptors on service ships, 5000 medium range (ESSM level) interceptors (combining overall total VLS with around 80% long range AD and 20% quad packed mid range AD). Let's assume the point defence CIWS are good for intercepting another 1000 incoming missiles, this combined is probably around what PLA has in anti-ship missiles that are not ASBM or HGV. It's a matter of contesting airspace and allowing airborne assets to participate in the sinking of surface ships. The PLAN would need to deal with USN subs and fighters to make use of the anti-ship missiles. Coastal based ones that aren't HGV or ASBM aren't in on any fighting in the first island chain. Of course PLAN subs and anti-sub warfare is also there as some unknown factor at the very least making a positive contribution on the Chinese side.
Even if the US sends the entire USN, there is far from any guarantee it wouldn't lose half the USN, even ignoring ASBM and HGVs.
Some people think F-35s are magic, perfectly invisible, infinite ammo, infinite fuel like some video game. Real war is about logistics and planning. An all out fast paced war would be very unlike what the US has been geared and experienced in for the last 50 years.
Hanging back isn't enough since DF-26 can basically smash them anywhere on the western half of the Pacific. HGV have some incredible range and only improving.
What China needs to do is continue build up so the PLAN can contest airspace as far out and away from coastal support as possible while also bringing the number of anti-ship missiles that can be carried out to that distant fight from a ratio of maybe 1:10 Chinese AShM to USN interceptor (for the USN Pacific fleet that is operational) to 1:5 and so on. Both surface fleets have focus on AD with PLAN having a bit more emphasis on non carrier ships contributing to anti-surface while USN's anti-surface is mostly tasked to carrier fighters. China needs to counter that F-35 threat to its surface fleet and out to the first island chain distance, the only way outside of HGV and ASBM taking out carriers, is by basically putting into service a similar number of J-35 and J-15B/D etc as the USN fighter fleet. Otherwise it would need to keep the fighting much more closer to the coast. China would need to about triple the size of PLAN to accomplish this with the other 4 newer hypothetical carriers being at least Nimitz sized! All this would take another 3 decades. But this is contending with USN basically anywhere on the Pacific and of course real war introduce factors and weapons that are hidden and unknown. So this is rather worthless but the point is the conventional counter to USN size and technological firepower is to negate that airborne threat by being able to counter it with the most reliable means - the same stuff... abc vs abc.
As things stand, China relies a lot on this fight being much closer to the Chinese coast and on various ASBM and HGV weapons and possibly other secretive A2AD equipment/weapons/technology.
Why on earth would China send only 20 JH-xx with 80 YJ-12 missiles out when they have tens of thousands of various anti ship missiles. If it comes down to such a total war scenario that is.
JH-xx (assumed platform) would have immense value over existing H-6 platforms, JH-7A, J-16, J-15, and J-35 ... and even over H-20 (assumed characteristics). A stealth supersonic bomber/strike aircraft would have quite a multiplier effect. H-20 can't fly as fast, the others aren't stealth or can't carry as much or the same ordinance.
Even a Tu-22M platform as non-stealth would have immense value. It's just not worth the cost. If it's between a fleet of 30 Tu-22M or 90 more DF-26, the DF-26 are going to be many times more effective. But a stealth supersonic bomber is another matter!
The US Navy in its entirety (all carriers and every single surface ship) has around 7000 long range interceptors on service ships, 5000 medium range (ESSM level) interceptors (combining overall total VLS with around 80% long range AD and 20% quad packed mid range AD). Let's assume the point defence CIWS are good for intercepting another 1000 incoming missiles, this combined is probably around what PLA has in anti-ship missiles that are not ASBM or HGV. It's a matter of contesting airspace and allowing airborne assets to participate in the sinking of surface ships. The PLAN would need to deal with USN subs and fighters to make use of the anti-ship missiles. Coastal based ones that aren't HGV or ASBM aren't in on any fighting in the first island chain. Of course PLAN subs and anti-sub warfare is also there as some unknown factor at the very least making a positive contribution on the Chinese side.
Even if the US sends the entire USN, there is far from any guarantee it wouldn't lose half the USN, even ignoring ASBM and HGVs.
Some people think F-35s are magic, perfectly invisible, infinite ammo, infinite fuel like some video game. Real war is about logistics and planning. An all out fast paced war would be very unlike what the US has been geared and experienced in for the last 50 years.
Hanging back isn't enough since DF-26 can basically smash them anywhere on the western half of the Pacific. HGV have some incredible range and only improving.
What China needs to do is continue build up so the PLAN can contest airspace as far out and away from coastal support as possible while also bringing the number of anti-ship missiles that can be carried out to that distant fight from a ratio of maybe 1:10 Chinese AShM to USN interceptor (for the USN Pacific fleet that is operational) to 1:5 and so on. Both surface fleets have focus on AD with PLAN having a bit more emphasis on non carrier ships contributing to anti-surface while USN's anti-surface is mostly tasked to carrier fighters. China needs to counter that F-35 threat to its surface fleet and out to the first island chain distance, the only way outside of HGV and ASBM taking out carriers, is by basically putting into service a similar number of J-35 and J-15B/D etc as the USN fighter fleet. Otherwise it would need to keep the fighting much more closer to the coast. China would need to about triple the size of PLAN to accomplish this with the other 4 newer hypothetical carriers being at least Nimitz sized! All this would take another 3 decades. But this is contending with USN basically anywhere on the Pacific and of course real war introduce factors and weapons that are hidden and unknown. So this is rather worthless but the point is the conventional counter to USN size and technological firepower is to negate that airborne threat by being able to counter it with the most reliable means - the same stuff... abc vs abc.
As things stand, China relies a lot on this fight being much closer to the Chinese coast and on various ASBM and HGV weapons and possibly other secretive A2AD equipment/weapons/technology.
Last edited:
Could be interesting to have one on H-20 when he goes out and one salivating on prospects about PLAAF JH-XX / H-X bomber project until we have confirmation. It's been a while that we are waiting for the unveiling of H-20, lot's of waiting means the existing thread have become more hopes than facts. Nice to have hopes but when the facts will come, we will need a new thread for sure.
New thread when H-20 comes out.
This can also be renamed (maybe also allow it to talk about bombers like the H-20 and H-6 and their strategic use etc.
The GQM-163 target drone, operational since the early 2000s, can reach Mach 3-4 in high altitude and 2.6 when sea skimming. Intercepting this class of target has been the standard for SM-6, ESSM, RAM, etc.
The key metric, often neglected in missile defense discussions, is the number of engagement cycles. So let's say 10 missile appeared on the horizon, 20 km away from the ship, and your interceptor missile have a 80% pk. You want to make sure there is less than 10% chance one missile survives. If you just have one engagement cycle, then 80% kill rate is not good enough so you would launch 3 interceptor per missile to get a 99.2% hit rate. This cost 30 missiles with an 8% chance one missile survives, the overall kill rate for your interceptor is 33.3%. However, if you have time for two engagement cycles, you can choose to launch one interceptor per missile in the first cycle. With 80% kill rate, you expect 2 remaining missiles, which you then launch 3 interceptors against each in the second cycle. This cost 8+6=14 missiles with a 1.6% chance one missile survives, and the overall kill rate for your interceptor is 71.4%.
Therefore, anti-ship cruise missiles that allow for one engagement cycles are much more survivable than missiles that allow for two (33.3% vs 71.4%). Supersonic missiles are survivable in the age of SM-2s and AN/SPG-62s because when they become targetable within the radar horizon some 20km away, they are less than 1 min away from hitting the ship, which is enough for just one engagement cycle so the defending ship throw everything at them, leading to low average kill rate and hence high survivability.
This all changed with CEC. With CEC, the E-2D can spot the missile over a hundred km away and guide active radar homing interceptors to destroy them. For both supersonic and subsonic missiles, this means multiple engagement cycles, so the fewer engagement cycle advantage of supersonic missiles disappears.
Now this only applies to the USN. No other navies achieved CEC and supersonic missiles works just fine.
Yes, in real life many thing can go wrong. However, you can't plan on your opponent having a bad day when you launch your missiles. You need to assume they are at maximum capability, particularly when planning for future capabilities.
20 bombers in one sortie is A LOT. Only a fraction of the entire fleet is ready for a mission at a given time. For reference, the entire Russia Air Force has only 63 Tu-22M and 17 Tu-160.
Yes, and clearly, having an entirely new platform that requires its own set of support facilities would be logistically detrimental for the PLAAF, to say nothing about the cost used in developing this platform that could be fruitfully used in other projects.
It is a lot of bombers in a sortie. That's not the point.
Your post (below) suggests even 20 additional bombers carrying a total of 80 YJ-12 is useless because a CBG can shoot down all 80 missiles.
"Using a stealth medium supersonic bomber to launch anti ship cruise missiles would be the worst thing you can do. Even if you have 20 bombers each carrying 4 YJ-12s making it within 200km from a CBG, its perfectly realistic to expect the CBG armed with SM-6 and ESSMs to shoot down all 80 missiles."
That's like saying an entire carrier worth of F-35 is useless because the PLAN can shoot down all the missiles launched by them.
I'm making the point this is in addition to PLARF, PLAAF, PLAN capability and supersonic stealth bombers/ attack aircraft is something inherently useful and lacking in PLA.
How is "Using a stealth medium supersonic bomber to launch anti ship cruise missiles would be the worst thing you can do" ? Your provided answer (in the following sentence) is ridiculously illogical. Again if it's all out war, it's not only these hypothetical 20 bombers pulling this one attack in isolation. While it's mostly true that 80 YJ-12s by themselves could get all intercepted, is it also true for these 80 YJ-12 when they are a part of a combined attack that involves hundreds of ship and sub launched anti ship missiles, dozens of aircraft, ASBMs, and HGVs?
The real war is in the contesting of the air, how far each side could stretch their attacking platforms, etc. But in every case, an additional 20 supersonic stealth bombers firing 80 YJ-12s is a valuable contribution. This works against your assumption that "Using a stealth medium supersonic bomber to launch anti ship cruise missiles would be the worst thing you can do."
I support this, but and I mean BUT we're living in the real world where it means the JH-XX needs a lot of resources (development, production, maintenance, logistics, training etc.).
Which makes it so that no matter how I look at it, the JH-XX isn't good enough to make up for the resources needed for it (at least based on specs we can currently speculate it could theoretically have).
(and well we're not getting rumours about it like we get about H-20, so it seems like the PLAAF made the same decision, maybe in the future it's possible to make a JH-XX with better capabilities and possible with less 'resources' than today).