Chinese Bombers: H-6N Carries Ballistic Missiles

Military aircraft - Post cold war aircraft, including for example B-2, Gripen, F-18E/F Super Hornet, Rafale, and Typhoon.
  • Author
  • Message


Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 452
  • Joined: 07 Nov 2007, 10:55

Unread post25 Sep 2019, 20:42

I didn't see an existing thread on Chinese bombers, so I started a new one. While not brand new information, this article shows photos of a new bomber variant designed to carry (likely anti-ship) ballistic missiles. Obviously this is a new form of carrier, and possibly airfield, killer. We will see if AEGIS anti-ballistic missile systems can keep up with all the inbound ordinance! ... c-missiles
User avatar


Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1414
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2015, 05:35
  • Location: Australia

Unread post26 Sep 2019, 10:03

Likely a booster for their hype-weapon glider payload.
Accel + Alt + VLO + DAS + MDF + Radial Distance = LIFE . . . Always choose Stealth


Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 110
  • Joined: 04 Jul 2015, 01:58

Unread post29 Sep 2019, 04:05

The problem with your claim about inbound ordinance is that the H-6N costs money, and so does the DF-21. If we go by the B-47 (regional strategic bomber) as a reference point, the B-47 is roughly around 20 million in today's dollars, and a modernized version would cost even more. The DF-21s are estimated to cost 10 million a pop.

So what you have now is a choice between firing three DF-21Ds or hoisting a single DF-21D (E?) aboard a H-6N.

The H-6N definitely extends capability; the air-launch means that the missile will have more range, and the range of the H-6N itself extends targeting range further. But if the DF-21D can be reliably shot down or spoofed by Western point defense, what's the point? If it can be shot down only, but not spoofed, you're better off with shorter range and more missiles than boosting it with a H-6N.

Return to Modern Military Aircraft

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 25 guests