PLAAF Munitions

Totoro said:

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.

Click to expand...

Potential opponents where China could even now achieve air superiority, at least near its borders, include Taiwan, Vietnam, India, anything in the SCS, DYT, and North Korea. Given the preponderance of locations where China could potentially use shorter-ranged PGMs right now, it must be a matter of financial priorities rather than doctrinal limitations that have resulted in only a limited proliferation of PGMs in the PLAAF.

Iron Man said:

Potential opponents where China could even now achieve air superiority, at least near its borders, include Taiwan, Vietnam, India, anything in the SCS, DYT, and North Korea. Given the preponderance of locations where China could potentially use shorter-ranged PGMs right now, it must be a matter of financial priorities rather than doctrinal limitations that have resulted in only a limited proliferation of PGMs in the PLAAF.

Click to expand...

I think it's probably a combination of doctrine and funding.

On the one hand, while there are definitely some situations where they could have a fighting chance of achieving air superiority (as well as a sufficient degree of SEAD/DEAD) and thus use DA PGMs in the strike role, I think it is only in the last few years that they've had the ability to achieve a sufficient degree of air superiority and possibly SEAD/DEAD against a handful of potential opponents.

[To be honest I wouldn't even be that sure about being able to achieve SEAD/DEAD against the ROC military's air defences at this stage.]


From there, when we consider that the air force and navy are likely still focused on developing the capabilities of contesting air superiority against more high end foes and seeking the naval strike and stand off strike capabilities that have a better chance against said high end foes, I think it makes sense that despite the potential conflict scenarios where DA PGMs could be very useful, procurement of this capability is probably not that high on the PLA's priority list.


.... however I personally would be in favour of the Air Force raising a single unit or two of JH-7/As or other strike capable fighter to develop and test robust DA PGM tactics and doctrine for using DA PGMs in general strike roles as well as to develop the tactics and doctrine for using them in CAS roles. At this stage I believe the Air Force has the right idea to put DA PGMs relatively low on the list of their priorities, but they should expend some money to get a small part of their fleet to be intimately familiar with DA PGMs and the utilization of such weapons, so that when they eventually do decide to procure DA PGMs, they are able to use the experience of that unit to hopefully rapidly scale and build up larger service wide competency. And of course the other role would be if a conflict occurred where the military suddenly realized they needed the a mature DA PGM capability, that special unit can partially fill the role for that conflict.

There are rumors (coming form a credible OP, apparently) that the PL-XX VLRAAM has a range of 700 km as opposed to 400 km previously estimated.



Also, could somebody please translate the top part of the passage that talks about J-20 & J-11D? Thanks in advance.

Wow, though at that range, actually finding a target could be a big challenge.

SinoSoldier said:

There are rumors (coming form a credible OP, apparently) that the PL-XX VLRAAM has a range of 700 km as opposed to 400 km previously estimated.

View attachment 40720

Also, could somebody please translate the top part of the passage that talks about J-20 & J-11D? Thanks in advance.

Click to expand...

It said the ASEA developed by the 14th Institute for the J20 and J11D can achieve 400km track range on 5 meter squared targets like the Russian Irbis-E with some software changes. The Chinese radars may even be able to achieve greater range since the T/R modules they use are far superior to what the Russian are using.

However, a capability to lock-on and launch missiles like the K100 at targets at 400km has limited utility for the Chinese, since the new PLXX missile has 700km range, so cannot rely on the fighter's owe radar to achieve max range.

plawolf said:

It said the ASEA developed by the 14th Institute for the J20 and J11D can achieve 400km track range on 5 meter squared targets like the Russian Irbis-E with some software changes. The Chinese radars may even be able to achieve greater range since the T/R modules they use are far superior to what the Russian are using.

However, a capability to lock-on and launch missiles like the K100 at targets at 400km has limited utility for the Chinese, since the new PLXX missile has 700km range, so cannot rely on the fighter's owe radar to achieve max range.

Click to expand...

Thanks.

plawolf said:

However, a capability to lock-on and launch missiles like the K100 at targets at 400km has limited utility for the Chinese, since the new PLXX missile has 700km range, so cannot rely on the fighter's owe radar to achieve max range.

Click to expand...

If this range is real, how might this missile be used at full range ?

Even at Mach 3 it would need about 15 minutes to reach the target and even a tanker would fly 100km in this time, so it would need regular updates until it could use it's own radar to follow the target.

Or would the idea be to target the radar emissions of an AWACS ?

schenkus said:

If this range is real, how might this missile be used at full range ?

Even at Mach 3 it would need about 15 minutes to reach the target and even a tanker would fly 100km in this time, so it would need regular updates until it could use it's own radar to follow the target.

Or would the idea be to target the radar emissions of an AWACS ?

Click to expand...

Co-operative engagement, relying on data links and off-board sensor platforms for targeting data.

You could potentially have J20s and/or UAVs getting close, and/or AWACS hanging back to provide long range target information had have a H6 carry several dozen PLXX missiles to launch 700km from a target and then turning back for home before the enemy even sees the H6s on their radars.

plawolf said:

Co-operative engagement, relying on data links and off-board sensor platforms for targeting data.

You could potentially have J20s and/or UAVs getting close, and/or AWACS hanging back to provide long range target information had have a H6 carry several dozen PLXX missiles to launch 700km from a target and then turning back for home before the enemy even sees the H6s on their radars.

Click to expand...

How hidden would a J20 stay if it provides this kind of targeting which I guess would need to be updated multiple times during the approach of the missile ?

schenkus said:

How hidden would a J20 stay if it provides this kind of targeting which I guess would need to be updated multiple times during the approach of the missile ?

Click to expand...

I doubt there is anyone who can definitively answer that question. It will depending on a whole host of key factors, such as how well the J20's AESA radar's LPI mode works; how well opfor's RWR and EW suits work; how securely the J20's datalink works etc.

How to use the J20 to minimise the likelihood of detection while maximising their impact on the battlefield will be something the first J20 pilots and the best minds the Chinese have available will be working extensively in the coming years to find out.

It took the US about a decade to be able to use the raptor to full effect, and I don't think it would be unreasonable to say that would be the benchmark amount of time the Chinese would also likely need to fully master the J20.

Unlike the poor F22, I would expect the J20 to get a comprehensive upgrade and improvement programme to support it throughout its life, so the PLAAF may well be chasing a moving target with mastery of the J20, as successive blocks get all the latest innovations and breakthroughs incorporated into them, giving the PLAAF pilots the welcome challenge of learning how best to use those new tools and features to full effect.

If they have not done so already, I would expect the PLAAF to pitch the J20 against all existing fighters, AWACS as well as ground and sea based radars to see under what circumstances would LPI emissions from the J20's radar, and the J20 itself becomes detectable to different radars.

Then it becomes a mini-arms race, with one side of the PLA trying to figure out how to reduce the likelihood and ranges at which the J20 becomes detectable; while the other side works to see how they can increase the likelihood and ranges at which they can detect LO opfor targets.

The Su35 purchase may well also have been done partly to help provide the J20 with as close to a foreign 5th gen as possible as a benchmark comparison.

So, after testing the J20's ASEA's LPI mode, it would be very useful to repeat the test with the Su35's radar in LPI mode to see what the differences are.

Similarly, you can have a J20 light up the Su35 with its AESA in LPI mode to see if and at what ranges the Su35's EW suite realises it his being scanned. Could reverse the roles and see how the J20's EW suite responds to LPI scans from the Su35 etc.

When they find differences and unexpected results, that's when the hard work will begin to find the root causes and to use tactics and/or design changes to mitigate them.

Now I hope it starts to make sense why it might take a decade for the PLAAF to achieve full mastery of the J20.