H-6 Bomber Aircraft Discussions

Totoro said:

Very unlikely. A missile of these dimensions likely weighs 10 tons. Possibly a ton or so more with the structure holding it up.

Considering that likely weight of YJ-12 is likely around 2 tons each, there's simply not enough lifting power to do it all.

It's likely this big missile configuration is also very draggy, so the last thing needed is more drag.
Besides, a mission that includes both attacking a ship 2000+ km away and attacking ships 500 km away, from a single plane, is more or less impossible to imagine. If such a need arises, it'd most likely be done by two sets of platforms.

Click to expand...

I am thinking maybe this is a missile targeting US airbase for bombers in alaska or australia.

If you look at the picture from "Naval and Merchant Ships" Oct issue, the AL- AShBM is much shorter than DF21d.

caohailiang said:

I am thinking maybe this is a missile targeting US airbase for bombers in alaska or australia.

If you look at the picture from "Naval and Merchant Ships" Oct issue, the AL- AShBM is much shorter than DF21d.

Click to expand...

I mean if you want a missile hit that far away, an air launch one is making a lot of sense, firstly it would probably cost much less per shot, secondly it would avoid any strategic mis-judgement from your opponent

caohailiang said:

I am thinking maybe this is a missile targeting US airbase for bombers in alaska or australia.

If you look at the picture from "Naval and Merchant Ships" Oct issue, the AL- AShBM is much shorter than DF21d.

Click to expand...

Well if you put the missile on an aircraft you don't need as high powered of a first stage to reach the same range.
The aircraft itself provides some of the initial delta-v and the thinner air, if released at altitude, means you get more range.
It would have been even better if the launch platform could reach higher speeds still but the H-6 bomber isn't supersonic.

caohailiang said:

I am thinking maybe this is a missile targeting US airbase for bombers in alaska or australia.

If you look at the picture from "Naval and Merchant Ships" Oct issue, the AL- AShBM is much shorter than DF21d.

Click to expand...

Actually the picture from "Naval and Merchant Ships" is a CG and was therefore simply based on speculations. Most of all it had these huge tail fins, the real missile does not have.

Since fixed targets might be better served by non time critical delivery platforms like bigger missiles on ground launchers, taking their sweet time to come to a specific location in china and strike, and since this is after all a naval aviation bomber - i will assume the missile seen is an anti-ship one.

With that assumption, just what are the implications?

Ground launched DF21d can already reach close to 2000 km off the Chinese shore. (lets not split hairs on exact figures)

This missile might be either of similar range potential, if it'd be ground launched, to a df21 or it's slightly smaller.

The fact it's air launched would add several hundred km to its range, over a ground launch. So its already at least on par if not a few hundred km (or even 500 km?) ahead of ground launched df-21d, range wise.

When one adds the location of the launch, happening anywhere from 200-ish km to 500+ km away from Chinese shores, the missile may have a reach of at least 2200+ km but also possibly 2900+ km, away from Chinese shores.

Now, the DF-26 antiship variant already has greater reach than that. So why is this missile even needed?

Possible answers:
DF-26 is for some reason too expensive, compared to other missiles.
DF-26 launch is too detectible by various sensors, as the missile is big.
DF-26 is simply in such huge demand for other roles (conventional strike on fixed targets) that there's no way to build enough of the antiship variants in a needed timeframe. Or even, if there's no dedicated variant, there are not enough missiles out there to be used against ships, as a steady barrage of missiles on fixed targets is set as a greater priority mission set.

Another set of implications. First with the DF-26 going well over 3000 km, and now with this missile plausibly reaching over 2500 km away from chinese shores, if the targets are ships, meaning objects that are quite relocatable - then having such missile would be a waste unless there was a way to reliably find and track targets. Which begs the question - has the Chinese confidence in tracking opponent ships' at such distances from Chinese shores (2500+ km) risen to such levels that we're now seeing a proliferation of such very long reach antiship missiles?

Totoro said:

Possible answers:
DF-26 is for some reason too expensive, compared to other missiles.
DF-26 launch is too detectible by various sensors, as the missile is big.
DF-26 is simply in such huge demand for other roles (conventional strike on fixed targets) that there's no way to build enough of the antiship variants in a needed timeframe. Or even, if there's no dedicated variant, there are not enough missiles out there to be used against ships, as a steady barrage of missiles on fixed targets is set as a greater priority mission set.

Click to expand...

I have a simpler answer -- which is that simply having more platforms in various domains to deploy from, with their respective difference in mobility and flexibility, is beneficial to complicate an opfor's defenses and to maximize your own flexibility and freedom of action.

If the goal is to overwhelm an enemy's defenses, in an ideal world you would have missiles of a variety of different speeds, sizes, flight profiles, and launch directions and locations all happening simultaneously (preferably with simultaneous arrival on target in context of course of massive EW/ECM support and with massive aerial and space ISR superiority as well), to defeat an enemy's defenses.

Now, obviously that's an ideal world that is difficult to execute, but that doesn't mean one cannot aspire to certain elements of it...

Bltizo said:

I have a simpler answer -- which is that simply having more platforms in various domains to deploy from, with their respective difference in mobility and flexibility, is beneficial to complicate an opfor's defenses and to maximize your own flexibility and freedom of action.

If the goal is to overwhelm an enemy's defenses, in an ideal world you would have missiles of a variety of different speeds, sizes, flight profiles, and launch directions and locations all happening simultaneously (preferably with simultaneous arrival on target in context of course of massive EW/ECM support and with massive aerial and space ISR superiority as well), to defeat an enemy's defenses.

Now, obviously that's an ideal world that is difficult to execute, but that doesn't mean one cannot aspire to certain elements of it...

Click to expand...

I wonder exactly how many of these H-6/ALBM combinations will actually be built and deployed? H-6N strikes me as a very flexible platform. Will all H-6Ns have ALBM functionality? Or will it only be a select few H-6Ns in a strategic (nuclear) role? And if this system has an anti-shipping mission, Beijing will have to be damn confident that it has a sensor array in place that can formulate a robust kill chain.

One clear benefit of this H-6/ALBM system will be the ability to deploy anywhere with a decent airfield. In a conflict, you could have missile reloads scattered among military airbases and even commercial airports. The H-6N can launch a missile, land somewhere totally unpredictable, re-load, and get airborne again.

KFX said:

I wonder exactly how many of these H-6/ALBM combinations will actually be built and deployed? H-6N strikes me as a very flexible platform. Will all H-6Ns have ALBM functionality? Or will it only be a select few H-6Ns in a strategic (nuclear) role? And if this system has an anti-shipping mission, Beijing will have to be damn confident that it has a sensor array in place that can formulate a robust kill chain.

One clear benefit of this H-6/ALBM system will be the ability to deploy anywhere with a decent airfield. In a conflict, you could have missile reloads scattered among military airbases and even commercial airports. The H-6N can launch a missile, land somewhere totally unpredictable, re-load, and get airborne again.

Click to expand...

These are definitely not strategic nuclear delivery bombers. Maybe useful against nearby targets in case of nuclear war but only India is a nuclear power within reach of H-6. There is no real point to deliver nuclear strikes against any other potential adversary. For actual nuclear targets, H-6whatever will never even get close enough. The ALBM is unlikely to be nuclear. Nuclear opens up pandora's box and the entire point of H-6 deployed towards focusing on the eastern and south eastern directions are more focused on air launching anti-surface weapons (mostly anti-ship) in a clear effort to target carriers. ALBM may be useful against American bases all around China and maybe developed against surface vessels.

Totoro said:

Possible answers:
DF-26 is for some reason too expensive, compared to other missiles.
DF-26 launch is too detectible by various sensors, as the missile is big.
DF-26 is simply in such huge demand for other roles (conventional strike on fixed targets) that there's no way to build enough of the antiship variants in a needed timeframe. Or even, if there's no dedicated variant, there are not enough missiles out there to be used against ships, as a steady barrage of missiles on fixed targets is set as a greater priority mission set.

Another set of implications. First with the DF-26 going well over 3000 km, and now with this missile plausibly reaching over 2500 km away from chinese shores, if the targets are ships, meaning objects that are quite relocatable - then having such missile would be a waste unless there was a way to reliably find and track targets. Which begs the question - has the Chinese confidence in tracking opponent ships' at such distances from Chinese shores (2500+ km) risen to such levels that we're now seeing a proliferation of such very long reach antiship missiles?

Click to expand...

I don't get it, what can't the reason simply being that the PLA or PLAAF want another threat from the air? so that they could be more flexible in the war

Of course it can be the reason. Bomber launched missile is indeed more flexible than a truck launched one. And in some regard bombers are more protected as platforms, compared to trucks. (in some other senses they're not)