PLAN Anti-ship/surface missiles

G

gelgoog

Lieutenant General
Registered Member
AndrewS said:
I'm doubtful that a new and separate JH-XX will actually appear.
...
Say the H-20 costs $500M like the B-21. So for the cost of a single H-20, you might as well continue to buy 6 H-6s instead.
After 5 years, you'll have another 30 H-6Ns
Click to expand...

I think to see a viable JH-XX you would need to see a similar effort developing some sort of engine for it. Russia is supposedly doing high level development of an engine for the PAK-DP (MiG-31 successor). It is based on the Izd. 30 engine core and might have some sort of support for high regime supersonic flight. Russia's requirements are different than China's though. China might go for a high range, lower speed platform, but probably still supersonic otherwise little point in it vs H-20. I would imagine a modified variable cycle WS-15 might provide the required level of performance but I suspect that won't be available until late in this decade.

The H-20 won't cost the same as the B-21 since the cost of the inputs and labor in China is much lower than in the US. Expect to adjust those numbers downwards by the PPP value or even more than that. It might be more expensive in man hours to build than the H-6 because it will be a quad engine. But at worst it might cost twice as much. Not six times more.

@antiterror13
With regards to WS-18 engine the last I heard here was that it supposedly was in production and being used in the H-6 and H-20 bombers. From what I understand it is supposed to have similar performance to the Russian engine they previously used. Otherwise there is little information available. It is not like China has exported these aircraft either. The most accurate information we have on Chinese weapon systems is that made available in military weapons shows when the weapon becomes available for export.
 
Last edited:
A

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
gelgoog said:
The H-20 won't cost the same as the B-21 since the cost of the inputs and labor in China is much lower than in the US. Expect to adjust those numbers downwards by the PPP value or even more than that. It might be more expensive in man hours to build than the H-6 because it will be a quad engine. But at worst it might cost twice as much. Not six times more.
Click to expand...

For land systems and ships, yes, labour costs are a big factor.
Plus the known equipment costs in China are far lower than their US equivalents

---

However, for airborne systems, it looks like similar costs between China and the USA
For example:

The reported J-16 Flanker cost is about 10% less than the latest F-15 Eagle
The reported J-20 cost is about 10-20% less than the F-22

---
Anyway, back on topic
 
A

Andy1974

Senior Member
Registered Member
AndrewS said:
@caohailiang
@drowingfish

Another example might be the H-6 versus the GJ-11.

The GJ-11 should have a payload of 2 tonnes and a range of 4000km (based its X-47B counterpart).
That is enough to cover the 1st Island Chain which includes Northern Japan.

Crucially, the GJ-11 is a flying wing design, so it should be able to evade low-frequency radar and use unpowered bombs like a Chinese version of the SDB-1 or JDAM. Both of these weapons only cost $40K compared to a minimum of $800K for a land attack cruise missile like the Tomahawk, JASSM or CJ-10.

If a GJ-11 carries 250kg JDAMs, it can attack 8 targets at a total cost of $0.32M in munitions.
A single H-6 bomber can carry 6 cruise missiles at a total cost of $4.8M+ in munitions.
You can see the munitions costs for an H-6 are going to be vastly higher.
And that doesn't take into account the higher procurement and operating cost of the H-6 versus the GJ-11.

So if you have large numbers of land targets within the 1st Island Chain, you can see that the GJ-11 is preferable to the H-6.

That is part of the rationale why I don't think we will see large numbers of new H-6s being produced
Click to expand...
The PLA is not run by accountants.
 
G

gelgoog

Lieutenant General
Registered Member
I doubt this since China can manufacture all of the inputs in their military aircraft. Those considerations with regards to fraction of cost assume a Western style aircraft development where you outsource weapons development to private subcontractors. Just look at Russian aircraft prices to the Russian government vs export prices vs Western aircraft prices as an example of this. For some reason people can't believe Su-57 aircraft cost is roughly the same as Su-35 cost or that the Russian government pays that price. Typically about a third of the export price and the export price is a lot less than a comparable Western platform. China has a similar state run MIC and has similarly low wages and highly indigenous MIC capable rate.

This is a bit off topic I guess but the launch platform of the missiles also warrants discussion. Particularly a supersonic aircraft which might be used to provide the initial boost for a hypersonic weapon.
 
Last edited:
A

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
gelgoog said:
I doubt this since China can manufacture all of the inputs in their military aircraft. Those considerations with regards to fraction of cost assume a Western style aircraft development where you outsource weapons development to private subcontractors. Just look at Russian aircraft prices to the Russian government vs export prices vs Western aircraft prices as an example of this. For some reason people can't believe Su-57 aircraft cost is roughly the same as Su-35 cost or that the Russian government pays that price. Typically about a third of the export price and the export price is a lot less than a comparable Western platform. China has a similar state run MIC and has similarly low wages and highly indigenous MIC capable rate.
Click to expand...

I wasn't referring to development costs, but flyaway costs for J-16/F-15 and J-20/F-22

The issue is that labour costs don't actually matter that much in aerospace. That is different from shipbuilding and land systems

Also remember that the F-35 is about the same flyaway cost as the F-15/J-16 as well.

gelgoog said:
This is a bit off topic I guess but the launch platform of the missiles also warrants discussion. Particularly a supersonic aircraft which might be used to provide the initial boost for a hypersonic weapon.
Click to expand...

That's a valid point.
But remember supersonic aircraft come with their own drawbacks in terms of payload, range and cost.

With the H-6 launched [CH-AS-X-13 ALBM], it's supposed to have a range of 3000km.
That compares with 1500km for the land-based DF-21D version
 
D

drowingfish

Junior Member
Registered Member
AndrewS said:
@caohailiang
@drowingfish

Another example might be the H-6 versus the GJ-11.

The GJ-11 should have a payload of 2 tonnes and a range of 4000km (based its X-47B counterpart).
That is enough to cover the 1st Island Chain which includes Northern Japan.

Crucially, the GJ-11 is a flying wing design, so it should be able to evade low-frequency radar and use unpowered bombs like a Chinese version of the SDB-1 or JDAM. Both of these weapons only cost $40K compared to a minimum of $800K for a land attack cruise missile like the Tomahawk, JASSM or CJ-10.

If a GJ-11 carries 250kg JDAMs, it can attack 8 targets at a total cost of $0.32M in munitions.
A single H-6 bomber can carry 6 cruise missiles at a total cost of $4.8M+ in munitions.
You can see the munitions costs for an H-6 are going to be vastly higher.
And that doesn't take into account the higher procurement and operating cost of the H-6 versus the GJ-11.

So if you have large numbers of land targets within the 1st Island Chain, you can see that the GJ-11 is preferable to the H-6.

That is part of the rationale why I don't think we will see large numbers of new H-6s being produced
Click to expand...
GJ-11 and H-6 are not mutually exclusive. there are many things GJ-11 cannot do that H-6 can e.g. launch of ballistic missiles, launch of heavy long range anti-ship missiles, launch of WZ-8 etc. for land targets in the first island chain a GJ-11 type is indeed preferable, but out on the pacific H-6 is much more useful.
 
A

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
drowingfish said:
GJ-11 and H-6 are not mutually exclusive. there are many things GJ-11 cannot do that H-6 can e.g. launch of ballistic missiles, launch of heavy long range anti-ship missiles, launch of WZ-8 etc. for land targets in the first island chain a GJ-11 type is indeed preferable, but out on the pacific H-6 is much more useful.
Click to expand...

Of course.

But the number of potential land targets is far greater than a small number of naval targets.

Hence I disagreed with the assertion that a large number of new H-6s would be built.
 
D

drowingfish

Junior Member
Registered Member
caohailiang said:
you are mixing a lot of things together

H6 use CJ10 as main weapon and indeed is in many occasions wasting a lot of range on that missile when hitting targets in the first island chain, but that is not the problem of H6 but rather lack of a proper standoff weapon with some 400nm range, which can be conceivably made within 1 ton of weight and have the H6 to carry 10 or 12 of them in one sitting, and still enjoy flexibility (to take off from WTC base and strike JP for example). How many such missile could J16 carry? what would be the J16 range when carrying those? the difference in power projection capability of these platform is simply not comparable

maybe lacking such a weapon is a mindful choice of PLA, there are 100nm range KD88 for tactical strikers (use case: TW, Korea, Vietnam, maybe Kyushu) and 1000nm CJ10 for H6 (use case: other parts of Japan, Philippines, Guam) , they are simply for different set of targets.

to your other points:
land based cruise missile just dont have the same tactical flexibility that ALCM has. one example is you can have H6 standing by at a few hundreds nm away and ready to launch follow up strike, and that strike will arrive within an hour, you simply cannot do that with land based missile. another example is, you cannot have a land based DF10 unit stationed in Guangdong hit targets in Misawa, but ALCM no matter where they are stationed, they can

and come on, there are so many targets north of 35 parallel that are better to strike from NE of China instead of SE of China, and in an all out war nobody is limiting valid targets to military bases
Click to expand...
to add to your point I believe PLA does have missiles with that in-between range, it is YJ-62. h6 carry those all the time. although I am not sure if pla has land-attack versions of it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top