H-6 Bomber Aircraft Discussions

huitong said:

Even through the true designation is still unknown, YJ-21 is the closest thing so far I can get, like the air-launched YJ-12 vs ship launched YJ-12A. It appears, however, the major difference between the two variants is that the ship launched YJ-21 uses a shorter one-stage rocket booster while the air-launched YJ-21 uses a longer two-stage (?) rocket booster, suggesting their tactical objectives are somewhat different.

Click to expand...

However, are the upper stage/re entry vehicles of those two missiles even the same?

They are superficially similar as they are biconical in nature and have fins -- but many weapons are like that, such as CM-401, DF-26 etc.

But they are all unique systems.








In the case of the YJ-21 and the H-6N ALBM, while the two weapons both have a similar RV/upper stage, if we look carefully at the proportions, their sizes and the fin size, they seem to be entirely different from one another.

The YJ-21 has a longer and more tapered RV compared to the H-6N ALBM, which we can see by measuring where the fins are located on each weapon and the distance to the nosetip of each missile.






Wouldn't it be much safer to avoid using the YJ-21 name for the H-6N ALBM, and to acknowledge that it is a different weapon whose name we don't yet know?

Let's recall a few years ago when the PL-15 name was applied to both the currently known PL-15, but also to the PL-X VLRAAM, leading to substantial confusion as to the capability of both weapons that still persists in some places, to today!

Deino said:

Wow!

View attachment 87321

Click to expand...

looks like the PLAAF is finally turning around to the idea that the most force economic way to use an air force is to shot down the enemy before they get air born , for almost 2 decade the PLAAF thinking was a one of defensive , it nice to see the higher level thinking is chancing

Bltizo said:

The YJ-21 has a longer and more tapered RV compared to the H-6N ALBM, which we can see by measuring where the fins are located on each weapon and the distance to the nosetip of each missile.

Click to expand...

But are we even sure this is YJ-21?

Bltizo said:

However, are the upper stage/re entry vehicles of those two missiles even the same?

They are superficially similar as they are biconical in nature and have fins -- but many weapons are like that, such as CM-401, DF-26 etc.

But they are all unique systems.



View attachment 87432

View attachment 87435


In the case of the YJ-21 and the H-6N ALBM, while the two weapons both have a similar RV/upper stage, if we look carefully at the proportions, their sizes and the fin size, they seem to be entirely different from one another.

The YJ-21 has a longer and more tapered RV compared to the H-6N ALBM, which we can see by measuring where the fins are located on each weapon and the distance to the nosetip of each missile.

View attachment 87434
View attachment 87433



Wouldn't it be much safer to avoid using the YJ-21 name for the H-6N ALBM, and to acknowledge that it is a different weapon whose name we don't yet know?

Let's recall a few years ago when the PL-15 name was applied to both the currently known PL-15, but also to the PL-X VLRAAM, leading to substantial confusion as to the capability of both weapons that still persists in some places, to today!

Click to expand...

I will update the name as soon as more info becomes available. I did put a question mark next to it, suggesting the name is a speculation only.

huitong said:

I will update the name as soon as more info becomes available. I did put a question mark next to it, suggesting the name is a speculation only.

Click to expand...

Ultimately your website is your own, but having seen how "temporary" names can end up becoming "semi-permanent" names and end up resulting in significant confusion, I believe that if a name is speculative or unlikely, then it is better to leave a system without a name.

A few years ago, there was a mix up in the community regarding the attribution of the PL-15 designation to the PL-15 which we currently know, and the Pl-X VLRAAM. In some places, people still use the PL-15 designation with the PL-X's specifications, believing they refer to the same missile. It's atrocious.



One or two other places on the English language internet has already begun to call the H-6N ALBM as "YJ-21" and I fear that the lack of caution could result in years and years of confusion and clarification.

Given the readership of your website to others, I strongly believe that it would be prudent to rename the H-6N ALBM as "H-6N ALBM" rather than "YJ-21" or "YJ-21 variant/related missile," so as to avoid potential confusion, when at this stage we do not have clear indicators that YJ-21 refers to the H-6N ALBM (and it instead refers to the UVLS launched missile).

I rest my case.

Heavy pylon used by h-6, it seems that the magazine has been explicitly cancelled and turned into a fuel tank

test1979 said:

Heavy pylon used by h-6, it seems that the magazine has been explicitly cancelled and turned into a fuel tank
View attachment 87652

Click to expand...

Wow ... seems to be from the same series of images albeit showing for the first time clearly the attachment points! So far I know only this one, which now turned out to be psed!

Officials have given the H-6K clear data, with a maximum bomb load of 12 tons and 40 tons of fuel. Compared to the TU-16's maximum 9 tons, the fuel is 35 tons.Considering that the fuel difference is only 14%, the H-6K should retain the abdominal magazine

This disclosure also probably means the H-20 is close to entering service. Or that they want to disclose the figures as deterrence.
The extra payload is better than I expected. I did not factor in the increase in maximum payload due to new engines.
I guesstimated 20% increase in payload and it is over 30%. The increase in fuel space was also expected given they removed a lot of internal systems like the tail turret or the navigator position so this aircraft had a lot of empty space to fill in. But it is good to have concrete numbers.

test1979 said:

Officials have given the H-6K clear data, with a maximum bomb load of 12 tons and 40 tons of fuel. Compared to the TU-16's maximum 9 tons, the fuel is 35 tons.Considering that the fuel difference is only 14%, the H-6K should retain the abdominal magazine
View attachment 87813

Click to expand...

Nothing is officially confirmed! CCTV usually uses data sanctioned by the PLA - as such "it can be used" but it does not men it is confirmed to be true!

gelgoog said:

This disclosure also probably means the H-20 is close to entering service. Or that they want to disclose the figures as deterrence.
The extra payload is better than I expected. I did not factor in the increase in maximum payload due to new engines.
I guesstimated 20% increase in payload and it is over 30%. The increase in fuel space was also expected given they removed a lot of internal systems like the tail turret or the navigator position so this aircraft had a lot of empty space to fill in. But it is good to have concrete numbers.

Click to expand...

Never ever ... it will probably revealed soon - At least I hope soon enough to be included in my next project - but it surely never is "close to entering service"! At best by Indian standard maybe ...