If glide bombs could go 200km at a practical size and payload, we would have seen them replace a lot more guided munitions in many Air Forces.
SDB equivalents with a range of 110-130km seen to be the maximum range.
H-20 bomber (with H-X, JH-XX)
- Thread starter Deino
- Start date
If glide bombs could go 200km at a practical size and payload, we would have seen them replace a lot more guided munitions in many Air Forces.
SDB equivalents with a range of 110-130km seen to be the maximum range.
Interesting point made by Lyle Goldstein in this Tweet:
However, his second sentence is where I digress - During a hypothetical war scenario in the Western Pacific, for the anti-air defense systems of the PLA - would the chances of them facing against USAF B-52s, B-1s, B-2s and B-21s be higher, or would the chances of them facing against long-range, stand-off missiles (whether those be of stealthy or non-stealthy design) launched from USAF B-52s, B-1s, B-2s and B-21s be higher?
Honestly speaking, I tend to fall towards the latter.
And that worries me more, because facing against only (at most) a few dozen bombers is actually way easier and less challenging than facing against (at least) tens - or hundreds - or even in the thousands of smaller-sized standoff missiles, possibly with stealth-up designs on them as well.
However, his second sentence is where I digress - During a hypothetical war scenario in the Western Pacific, for the anti-air defense systems of the PLA - would the chances of them facing against USAF B-52s, B-1s, B-2s and B-21s be higher, or would the chances of them facing against long-range, stand-off missiles (whether those be of stealthy or non-stealthy design) launched from USAF B-52s, B-1s, B-2s and B-21s be higher?
Honestly speaking, I tend to fall towards the latter.
And that worries me more, because facing against only (at most) a few dozen bombers is actually way easier and less challenging than facing against (at least) tens - or hundreds - or even in the thousands of smaller-sized standoff missiles, possibly with stealth-up designs on them as well.
Last edited:
I think it's the PLAN that might have to worry the most about US bombers. Loaded with stand-off missiles they can deliver devastating salvos against a whole fleet of ships well inside China's A2D zone:
I read some fringe proposals from the same author to modify the B-1s into something resembling what the B-1R were supposed to be by arming them with modified SM-2/SM-6 missiles with 400-600km range to serve as stand-off missileers while the F-22/F-35s perform target designation. With their high cruising speed (Mach 2+) and endurance, they could easily outrun most fighter aircraft when threatened. But that's unlikely to ever materialise. However, there has been much speculation that the B-21 will have some form of air-attack capability. And the US is in dire need of long range air superiority aircraft for a potential war in the Pacific.
I read some fringe proposals from the same author to modify the B-1s into something resembling what the B-1R were supposed to be by arming them with modified SM-2/SM-6 missiles with 400-600km range to serve as stand-off missileers while the F-22/F-35s perform target designation. With their high cruising speed (Mach 2+) and endurance, they could easily outrun most fighter aircraft when threatened. But that's unlikely to ever materialise. However, there has been much speculation that the B-21 will have some form of air-attack capability. And the US is in dire need of long range air superiority aircraft for a potential war in the Pacific.
That's where the hypersonic missiles come into play. A lot of our working assumption is that PLARF will be able to overwhelm USAF military bases in Japan/Guam and keep CSGs 800 to 1000 nm out. With that, there are limited places where American bombers can operate from and it's harder to plan attack missions. It's harder to keep a lock on target ships. Think about the much beloved LRASM. If you try to launch that thing from 1000 km away from target, it will take an hour to get there. A ship can move a long way in an hour. You might start off locking onto a 055 and end up hitting something else
Next gen drones, satellites etc come in here to ensure kill chain integrity.
Firing from further ranges increases engagement time available to stop the missile, and decreases accuracy somewhat. It also reduces strike intensity because you’re not able to deliver as much punch or explosive payload with stand-off range powered weapons as you would with closer range unpowered munitions. It’s not all wins or all lose between strike platforms firing closer vs firing further. There’s an optimization problem here.
There seems to be two schools of thought on this issue:
1) Using a missile to hit a moving target, such as a ship, that is 1,000 miles away is super duper difficult and unreliable.
2) Technology has advanced to the point where hitting a moving target from 1,000 miles away is basically a piece of cake.
I definitely fall into category 2)
Honestly I really do Not understand why so many people, seems like 50%, fall into category 1)
Because the chance for category 2 been intercepted by usn and usaf is almost 100%. for category 1 been intercepted is nearly 0, so all the efforts that need for increasing the hit is to shoot more missiles, which is much simpler then sending pilots for completing a suicide mission
Last edited:
The delineation is correct. The treatment of the delineation as a binary is incorrect.