H-6 Bomber Aircraft Discussions


Bltizo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
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.

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.



1468640_800-1-min-750x563.jpg

20220420_134523.jpg


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.

20220420_071129.jpg
20220420_071536.jpg



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!
 

kriss

Junior Member
Registered Member
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.
But are we even sure this is YJ-21?
 

huitong

Junior Member
Registered Member
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!

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.
 

Bltizo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
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.

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.
 

gelgoog

Colonel
Registered Member
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.
 

Deino

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
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


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!

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.


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 ...
 

Top