Please don’t post elsewhere, thanks
They mentioned that the designation for these modified LACM carrying H-6s will be H-6E. Any confirmation of that?
Date Posted: 17-Sep-2004
JANE’S MISSILES AND ROCKETS – OCTOBER 01, 2004
——————————————————————————–
China tests new land-attack cruise missile
China has test-fired a new land attack cruise missile (LACM) designated Dong Hai-10 (DH-10), or East China Sea-10, writes Wendell Minnick. A US defence source identified the DH-10 as a ground-launched second-generation LACM with a range of more than 1,500km. He said it is likely to be equipped with an integrated inertial navigation system/Global Positioning System, supplemented by a terrain contour mapping system and digital scene-matching terminal-homing system able to provide a circular error probable (CEP) of 10m.
China is also expected to field a second LACM within the next few years. The Ying Ji-63 (YJ-63), or Strike Eagle-63, is described by the source as a first-generation LACM with a range of 400-500km and the ability to carry a 500kg high explosive warhead at a speed of Mach 0.68. The missile is believed to be fitted with combined inertial and GPS mid-course guidance, plus some form of electro-optical terminal guidance. The latter is expected to provide a CEP of 10-15m, but it will probably be limited by weather. If it is a TV homing system rather than an autonomous scene-matching sensor, this will require a line-of-sight communications link with the launch aircraft or another platform.
The US source further pointed out that Harpy unmanned aerial vehicles obtained by China from Israel in 2001 are now operational.
These three sophisticated weapons pose new challenges to Taiwan, which has been engaged in extended debate over the ballistic missile threat from China. “Taiwan has not met the growing LACM threat head on,” the source complained.
The YJ-63 is likely to be launched from the Xian H-6 ‘Badger’ bomber, a copy of the Tupolev Tu-16. The naval version of this aircraft already has two wing-mounts for anti-ship missiles, but China is experimenting with additional pylons. One H-6 (No. 81217) has already been modified to incorporate four wing-mounted cruise missile pylons.
Defence sources stated that China has the capability to convert up to 25 H-6 bombers, so it could eventually be able to add 100 air-launched cruise missiles to the force of 200-300 short-range ballistic missiles expected to form the first wave of missiles launched during any Chinese attack on Taiwan. “Before too long, there will also be ship and sub-launched cruise missiles,” stated one source.
Some within the US Department of Defence argue that Taiwan should procure elevated sensors, such as tethered aerostats, to counter the LACM threat. The aerostat sensor could cue Taiwan’s HAWKs. Taiwan could also acquire Surface-Launched AMRAAM.
“Taiwan’s Patriots, both PAC-2 GEM and [the planned] PAC-3 can handle cruise missiles, but as long as you have got the sensors and early detection, HAWKs do just fine,” the source said. Patriot missiles are too expensive for use against cruise missile targets, he added, and are more suited to engaging ballistic missiles.
The US source made no mention of Taiwan’s alternative strategy of developing a limited strike capability, a policy not favoured by Washington.
The US is currently developing the Joint Land-Attack Cruise Missile Defence Elevated Netted Sensor system, which is due to be deployed in 2008-09. Other aerostats that could fulfil Taiwan’s needs are available on a shorter timescale. These include the aerostat surveillance systems released to Kuwait and Pakistan. The Kuwaiti system is based on a modified APG-63 Active Electronically Scanned Array radar, while the Pakistani system is equipped with the Lockheed Martin L-88(V)3 D-band surveillance radar.
*** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. It is being made available without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information in their efforts to advance their understanding of arms trade activities, for non-profit research and educational purposes only. I believe that this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of the copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use,’ you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
For more information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
By: edisonone - 12th October 2004 at 18:07
Don’t know types but says recent test runs??? CTTV, not CCTV….
By: YellowSun - 23rd September 2004 at 17:49
Right on
YS
By: google - 21st September 2004 at 00:09
Secondly – who said MUPSOW?! If concerns are valid and something derived from MUPSOW is at large in Pakistan as some believe, then there’s your link, perhaps?
YS
I said MUPSOW for 2 reasons; first, the slight physical resemblance, and secondly, the purported South African-Pakistan link.
By: Raygun - 20th September 2004 at 16:36
Maybe Sarge defected over and married a Japanese woman. :diablo:
The forward swept wings on the ALCM is a dead giveaway it exist only in some amature’s fantasy. Nobody is going to make a cruise missile that technologically challenging.
they not forward. swept wing’s. the flat nose is the front of the missles.not the pointed tail.
By: YellowSun - 20th September 2004 at 16:30
People, People!
Re: these ‘HN-3’ images
Of course they are CG, that is obvious from word one. The question is, do they represent something real or not. Dismissing them as “just CG” rather misses the point – everything starts out as just CG…
Two good points have been made – firstly, a FSW design ain’t no thang, we already have AGM-129 (and others). And, if this is an illustration of a concept that maybe represents work in progress – then if it doesn’t work just put proper wings on it and carry on…
Secondly – who said MUPSOW?! If concerns are valid and something derived from MUPSOW is at large in Pakistan as some believe, then there’s your link, perhaps?
YS
By: wd1 - 20th September 2004 at 15:33
uh… someone has made an FSW cruise missile before. the US AGM-129 ACM has been around for almost 15 years. looks like that’s what the chinese missile drew its inspiration from. check this out:-
By: Multirole - 20th September 2004 at 10:20
Maybe Sarge defected over and married a Japanese woman. :diablo:
The forward swept wings on the ALCM is a dead giveaway it exist only in some amature’s fantasy. Nobody is going to make a cruise missile that technologically challenging.
By: nirav - 20th September 2004 at 09:20
whats that in the pic ? “Fred flintstone” as a mascot for a stealth LACM? 😀
EDIT: no… its not Fred flintstone…..
its “SARGE” from the comic strip “BEETLE BAILEY” 😀
By: AirPower - 19th September 2004 at 22:31
Do people get off on all these CG images?
By: Arabella-Cox - 19th September 2004 at 18:32
Yes, looks like CG to me aswell.
By: google - 19th September 2004 at 17:47
It looks like the child of the SLAM-ER and/or the South African MUPSOW and German Taurus and possibly some Storm Shadow/Scalp mixed in as well.
EDIT* not real, probably some guy’s CG idea.
By: Srbin - 19th September 2004 at 17:32
OMG, stealth LACM.
If thats true then it will be even tougher to spot it on a radar. Not only that but AWACS patrolling all of Taiwan 24h continously is going to be expensive and hard.
By: crobato - 19th September 2004 at 17:23
OMG, stealth LACM.
By: Raygun - 19th September 2004 at 16:13
holi cow this best looking lacm yet to date’s.but lose the wierd paint job’s. look liked something santa clause would be riding in.lol. anymore pictures.I heard they alot more.it’s won’t be too long we start seeing pictures of the steathy J-XX fighter’s.
By: wd1 - 19th September 2004 at 12:46
looks stealthy.
By: Deino - 19th September 2004 at 09:09
Maybe the mentioned missile is this one … the HN-3 posted in “edisonone’s” post called: “Army? Navy?? Airforce???? I call it technology!“
Deino 🙂
By: wd1 - 19th September 2004 at 07:19
I tend to think the problem with AWACS aircraft in this case is not radar capability but loiter-time. An aerostat is capable of remaining on station for extended periods while conventional AEW aircraft would have to be relieved from their patrol every few hours. Maintaining an uninterrupted look-out even in absence of heightened political tension would be bloody expensive that way.
but maintaining a continuous 24hr AWACS patrol would not be too difficult for small areas like okinawa and guam; keeping one AWACS aloft at all times would do. that’s what we do in singapore at least, compare the 200km radar radius of our E-2Cs with our 60km-by-50km territory! i agree defending a larger area like taiwan would be problematic though. good move for them to acquire those two more E-2Cs for a total of 6. the radar operators will no doubt be keeping an eye out for tiny 600kmh blips flying at low level 🙂
if the chinese build their LACMs like the americans build their tomahawks, each will cost something like 9 million yuan… woohooo. the cheaper labour will bring down costs of course 😀
By: crobato - 19th September 2004 at 06:45
One thing we have completely no information is concerning any sub-launched CM. It would be a natural evolution and probably the most dangerous.
It could already be in reach using a land based missile based on the YJ-83 type. The Yuan if it has torpedo tubes the size of a Kilo would allow an even larger missile of the size of the 3M14E in the other thread—if the 3M14E itself is not chosen.
By: koxinga - 19th September 2004 at 03:50
One thing we have completely no information is concerning any sub-launched CM. It would be a natural evolution and probably the most dangerous.
By: Arabella-Cox - 19th September 2004 at 00:50
I tend to think the problem with AWACS aircraft in this case is not radar capability but loiter-time. An aerostat is capable of remaining on station for extended periods while conventional AEW aircraft would have to be relieved from their patrol every few hours. Maintaining an uninterrupted look-out even in absence of heightened political tension would be bloody expensive that way.
Sign In
September 17, 2004 at 7:22 pm