PLAAF Munitions

Totoro

Major
VIP Professional
Thanks! I rememeber now there were also J8 images testing LS6 but that's also a plane testing a manufacturer bomb. q-5 was also a promo bomb tested. I'd prefer serial made bombs on a regular unit plane.

Are there more images of the jh7 with ft-1? This one is a close up, no context is given. It does look like the manufacturer's promo bomb, though.

Why is it so hard to find CLEAR image of bomb that's not a test piece? It's not some super secret tech compared to LGB or stand off missiles.
 

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
Thanks! I rememeber now there were also J8 images testing LS6 but that's also a plane testing a manufacturer bomb. q-5 was also a promo bomb tested. I'd prefer serial made bombs on a regular unit plane.

Are there more images of the jh7 with ft-1? This one is a close up, no context is given. It does look like the manufacturer's promo bomb, though.

Why is it so hard to find CLEAR image of bomb that's not a test piece? It's not some super secret tech compared to LGB or stand off missiles.

probably because the Chinese military has yet to commit to purchasing a family of direct attack PGMs outside of LT-2 -- putting it another way, it's hard to find a clear image of a PGM that's not a test piece on an in service regular unit plane, probably because regular unit aircraft are not equipped with direct attack PGMs. Instead, JH-7/As seem to opt for stand off range KD-88s and derivatives, and only use LT-2s for certain roles.
It makes a lot of sense if you think about it.
 

SinoSoldier

Colonel
Thanks! I rememeber now there were also J8 images testing LS6 but that's also a plane testing a manufacturer bomb. q-5 was also a promo bomb tested. I'd prefer serial made bombs on a regular unit plane.

Are there more images of the jh7 with ft-1? This one is a close up, no context is given. It does look like the manufacturer's promo bomb, though.

Why is it so hard to find CLEAR image of bomb that's not a test piece? It's not some super secret tech compared to LGB or stand off missiles.

Maybe, perhaps just maybe, the PLAAF hasn't found a need to use extensive satellite-guided munitions. Besides the occasional weapons qualification trial, in which I'm sure the PLAAF has evaluated these bombs, there isn't much merit to honing one's ground-attack skills with guided weaponry (especially satellite-guided ones).
 

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
Maybe, perhaps just maybe, the PLAAF hasn't found a need to use extensive satellite-guided munitions. Besides the occasional weapons qualification trial, in which I'm sure the PLAAF has evaluated these bombs, there isn't much merit to honing one's ground-attack skills with guided weaponry (especially satellite-guided ones).

I don't think it has to do with "honing skills" -- after all, launching a PGM accurately onto a target from a strike fighter by a pilot alone might be easier than trying to drop a gravity bomb onto a target with the same accuracy, but the ISR, coordination with ground forces, and learning to use the hardware for launching a PGM are skills in of themselves as well.

Instead, I think the PLAAF has yet to buy many direct attack PGMs because those sort of weapons do not fit with the current balance of capabilities that they have versus what they are expected to face. What I mean by this is that direct attack PGMs tend to have a maximum range of a dozen kilometers or so, which can be extended to 60km or more when using wing kits. Considering the kind of foe that the PLAAF will likely be facing in their likely contingencies, the likelihood of their current and immediate future strike fighters being able to get within that range of a ground target without being intercepted by opposing CAP or shot down by opposing IADS is fairly low.


Until the day when the PLAAF is able to field counter air and SEAD/DEAD capabilities that are sufficient to allow them to get into range of targets and to launch direct attack PGMs, it makes no sense for them to invest in equipping their regular units with such weapons -- money which could be better spent on stand off range A2G munitions or A2A weapons or whatever other purpose one may want to think of.
 

Totoro

Major
VIP Professional
Well, certainly one plausible answer is that PLAAF simply doesn't use satellite guided bombs.

Another possibility, albeit theoretical, is that LT series has gotten dual guidance. Probably not, but it wouldn't be without precedent. RAF is using, to my knowledge, only Paveway IV bombs, with dual guidance and don't use any JDAMs at all. But we'd probably see some features of LT bombs if that was the case. All the images so far point towards just a simple laser guidance, without visible satnav receiver arrays.
 

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
Well, certainly one plausible answer is that PLAAF simply doesn't use satellite guided bombs.

Another possibility, albeit theoretical, is that LT series has gotten dual guidance. Probably not, but it wouldn't be without precedent. RAF is using, to my knowledge, only Paveway IV bombs, with dual guidance and don't use any JDAMs at all. But we'd probably see some features of LT bombs if that was the case. All the images so far point towards just a simple laser guidance, without visible satnav receiver arrays.

See, I don't think that explains the full spectrum of the PLAAF's "direct-attack-PGM-lessness".

To me, the question isn't about why the PLAAF doesn't use satellite guided bombs.
It's about why the PLAAF doesn't seem to use any direct attack PGM outside of the 500kg LT-2.


They have multiple companies which offer a wide variety of 500kg, 250kg, 100kg direct attack PGMs of different families that offer satellite guidance, laser guidance, both types of guidance, with wing kit, or no wingkit, or with diamond back wingkit.

Yet they stick only with the 500kg LT-2, despite the fact that smaller weight weapons are often a good choice for direct attack strike as well, and sometimes is preferable as it allows an aircraft to strike multiple targets in one sortie.


So I think the explanation is a bit more fundamental -- the PLAAF simply doesn't see a need for having a large family of direct attack PGMs at this moment or in the foreseeable future. I think they're keeping the LT-2 simply because it offers a cheap, relatively primitive PGM that they can have some kind of PGM experience to build on for later once they decide to go more all in on a family of direct attack PGM or when they eventually decide to build up a more robust CAS capability.

But right now, I think the only direct attack PGM the PLAAF uses is the LT-2, and that is by design, and I think it's not an illogical procurement choice for them to have made.
 

Totoro

Major
VIP Professional
in *my* opinion, guided bombs aren't about CAS. They're about cost effective destruction of fixed or relocatable (but not mobile) targets. Which in *my* opinion form something like 90% of all targets in all missions. And for me it is very weird that plaaf, which has specialized planes like jh7, and in the future j16, that will train almost exclusively for ground strike missions, purposefully chose not to be able to engage such targets in a cost efficient way. KD88 is fine, but it can't do all the jobs (lacks the punch and penetration) and what jobs it can do - it can't do for the same pricetag compared to a simple satnav bomb. There's also a matter of targeting. KD88 is meant to engage far away targets. Or fixed targets. A plane with a targeting pod can engage other targets as well.

q5 was always something of a dinosaur, not just tech wise but doctrine wise. to fly over the front line, go very low and drop dumb bombs or fire rockets onto the enemy. adding lt-2 helped a little in its mission range but realistically it wouldn't profit much from modern bombs and missiles (except for a maverick type missile which PLAAF also lacks) Q5 was always a pure CAS plane as its too short legged and vulnerable to go beyond the front line.

But like i said, there are a bunch of targets beyond ones on the frontline. Artillery, tanks and other platforms can provide support on the front line. But interdiction of enemy supply lines? Reinforcements? Supply depots? Infrastructure targets? Bases and so on? They all require a cheap means of destruction, and satellite guided bomb is cheapest way to go about it. With modern jammers, with j10 and j16 in ever increasing numbers, there is no reason those planes and even jh7 can't go deeper in certain missions and destroy those targets. Sometimes enemy defenses will be too powerful. But missions are usually planned to go after target sets that are achievable. Even US couldn't count on being able to defend all its assets at once with such air defenses that deeper strikes would be a no-go. Not to mention other possible adversaries.

I understand Blitzo's position and it may very well be how PLAAF sees it. I just think, if that indeed is the case, it will be better for PLAAF to change it within years, as foundations for it are there. Maybe it's only a matter of political inertia.
 

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
in *my* opinion, guided bombs aren't about CAS. They're about cost effective destruction of fixed or relocatable (but not mobile) targets. Which in *my* opinion form something like 90% of all targets in all missions. And for me it is very weird that plaaf, which has specialized planes like jh7, and in the future j16, that will train almost exclusively for ground strike missions, purposefully chose not to be able to engage such targets in a cost efficient way. KD88 is fine, but it can't do all the jobs (lacks the punch and penetration) and what jobs it can do - it can't do for the same pricetag compared to a simple satnav bomb. There's also a matter of targeting. KD88 is meant to engage far away targets. Or fixed targets. A plane with a targeting pod can engage other targets as well.

q5 was always something of a dinosaur, not just tech wise but doctrine wise. to fly over the front line, go very low and drop dumb bombs or fire rockets onto the enemy. adding lt-2 helped a little in its mission range but realistically it wouldn't profit much from modern bombs and missiles (except for a maverick type missile which PLAAF also lacks) Q5 was always a pure CAS plane as its too short legged and vulnerable to go beyond the front line.

But like i said, there are a bunch of targets beyond ones on the frontline. Artillery, tanks and other platforms can provide support on the front line. But interdiction of enemy supply lines? Reinforcements? Supply depots? Infrastructure targets? Bases and so on? They all require a cheap means of destruction, and satellite guided bomb is cheapest way to go about it. With modern jammers, with j10 and j16 in ever increasing numbers, there is no reason those planes and even jh7 can't go deeper in certain missions and destroy those targets. Sometimes enemy defenses will be too powerful. But missions are usually planned to go after target sets that are achievable. Even US couldn't count on being able to defend all its assets at once with such air defenses that deeper strikes would be a no-go. Not to mention other possible adversaries.

I understand Blitzo's position and it may very well be how PLAAF sees it. I just think, if that indeed is the case, it will be better for PLAAF to change it within years, as foundations for it are there. Maybe it's only a matter of political inertia.

Just for the record, I'm not saying that direct attack PGMs are only about CAS. However I do think they are a meaningful part of their utility. I agree that the ability to destroy targets with relative cost effectiveness is a big part of direct attack PGMs which is probably the biggest use of them in modern warfare.


However, that cost effectiveness comes at a risk, which is putting your launch platform within a relatively close range of your target, which may be defended by IADS and CAP.



For the PLAAF, I think until recently the very idea that they could compete with their likely opfor's fighters and to defend their own airspace took the biggest priority, and the idea that they could even try to conduct any direct attack PGM missions, which would inevitably necessitate getting past the opfor's own CAP and IADS, was laughable.

In other words, for any air arm to want to be able to conduct direct attack PGM missions against an opposing force's ground target, they need to optimally achieve two things:
1: air superiority over the enemy's air forces
2: SEAD/DEAD of the enemy's ground based IADS


In the near future I think the PLAAF will have their hands full with those two things, with all the R&D, procurement and training that goes with it. Procuring direct attack PGMs, targeting pods, and integrating them and training with them as part of their striker fighters' routine weapons suite without first having a credible chance of attaining 1 and 2, IMO would very much be putting the cart before the horse.

From there, I think we can kind of see why their emphasis on stand off munitions makes a lot of sense. On the one hand, they're obviously not as cost effective as DA PGMs, nor are they provide as "assured" of destruction of the target as DA PGMs... but on the other hand it allows them to still have the ability to strike at some of the opponent's ground targets while putting their launch platforms at far lower risk or at least reducing the distance they need to cross.
 
Top