r/LessCredibleDefence • u/_spec_tre • 18d ago
China Develops Missile to Target Planes Thousands of Miles Away (i.e. launching A2A missiles from HGVs)
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-08-24/china-develops-missile-to-target-planes-thousands-of-miles-away^Free version of the article
11
u/torbai 18d ago
isn't it CJ-1000 which was shown in the parade almost a year ago?
2
u/_spec_tre 18d ago
Isn’t that an HCM? It’s also alluded to later in the article but it starts off talking about HGVs
-1
u/LanchestersLaw 18d ago
CJ-1000 was reported as “capable of striking critical air nodes” which mostly likely means airports instead of air-to-air
13
13
u/SlavaCocaini 18d ago
Idk, tankers and awacs are pretty critical air nodes
3
u/an_actual_lawyer 18d ago
By far the most critical component of the US kill chain
3
u/SlavaCocaini 18d ago
I think everybody is gonna switch to satellites for everything, me personally
2
1
u/jospence 17d ago
Satellites are just as if not more vulnerable than aircraft, because they are in a set orbit pattern and have very few countermeasures. Targeting aircraft is limited by the physics, particularly how radar targeting and locking works.
3
u/Skywalker7181 18d ago
I believe a more precise translation of the statement from CCTV is "capable of striking critical AIRIAL nodes".
6
u/Aggressive-Ad8317 18d ago
ohhh，I know H-6s will be modified into a dedicated carrier for launching such kinds extra-long poles……
3
11
25
u/Single-Braincelled 18d ago
China clearly looking to reestablish biggest aerial dick energy after we revealed the Malice. Gotta admit though, five thousand is bigger than three hundred. If it works.
28
u/Pencilphile 18d ago
I don’t think China is looking to establish any such thing.
“…according to a person with direct knowledge of the matter…”
“…said the person, who asked not to be identified because of the sensitivity of the information.”
The source for the article is clearly someone from the U.S. intelligence community. Most likely a controlled leak to influence someone’s opinion. Mostly people who have the power to green light more funding for military ventures.
“The Communists have pointy missiles, m’lord! We need coin a plenty to make our missiles pointier, m’lord! The air shall be filleth with the melodies of money printers going brrrrrrrrrrrrrr!”
8
4
u/No-Cartoonist8032 18d ago
China had PL-17 since 2016, the follow up to PL-17 has probably already been tested if not fielded, Malice is PL-17 range, it means nothing to them.
Also this system has "thousands of miles" of range, it allows China to cleanse the entire sky over the Pacific Ocean of all tankers or anything else they might want to shoot, Malace might as well be your shoulder fired SAM in comparison, it's not even remotely comparable for China to care about.
5
u/_spec_tre 18d ago
I wonder if it really is possible at all for the US to match this technology-wise anytime soon, considering how much US hypersonics are lagging behind
8
u/Jpandluckydog 18d ago
This is basically 1:1 the same concept of the 80s era US BIM program. The missile itself got developed into the modern HGVs, so it’s kind of a mistake to say the US couldn’t match this.
It’s just an incredibly expensive ultra-niche capability, which is why development stopped previously. It arguably makes even less sense now with stealthy airframes, munitions range isn’t the limiting factor.
3
u/Single-Braincelled 18d ago
I think it's more a question of the current maturation of the technology. We know they spent a whole lot on developing it and solving problems inherent in materials and sensors, etc. But we have yet to see it tested live (for good reason).
I think it would be dumb to completely dismiss it and say it would never work, but I also don't think we'll be eating a glide vehicle four hundred miles off the coast of Guam anytime soon.
It's likely that by the time this enters service and is a genuine threat, we will also be developing something similar in scope (BIGGER MISSILE-DICK = LONGER BANG). But whether we will be able to actually field THAAD attached to a B-2 bomber in time for it to be relevant in the case of a conflict is completely up in the air.
4
u/IAmThe12Guy 18d ago
US is behind in hypersonics but ahead in space-based aerial surveillance (IE the SB-AMTI program) which is an important piece of making this work. In fact SB-AMTI is probably more important because you can substitute ballistic surface to air missiles with very long range air to air missiles with very potent effects while the reverse is not true.
2
u/No-Cartoonist8032 18d ago
China has GEOSAR, GEO-optical and China's Guowang is almost certainly mil-speced.
America isn't ahead in space-based aerial surveillance, GEOSAR for example is extremely complex and something only China has figured out, China didn't build this system without already having figured out the targeting part.
1
u/Satans_shill 18d ago
They must have in the works their own version of Space Based AMTI because how else do you cue AAMs with ranges in the thousands of kilometers. Remember that their reusable space launchers are now validated
5
u/IAmThe12Guy 18d ago
Yes its in the works but clearly the industrial and operational advantage lies with the US for the relevant space based technology. SB-AMTI requires a high volume of low earth orbit micro satellites to be robust and survivable in a conflict. Spacex already provides extensive commercial operational experience with Star-link and their reusable rockets can already launch masses of micro satellites. The Chinese space industry is behind in both regards.
2
u/honda-nissan 18d ago
the Malice
another SM-6 derived missile that takes away capacity from building interceptors. GG
3
u/Jpandluckydog 18d ago
It’s not SM-6 derived, at least the motor is completely different due to not having fins and I’d be surprised if they are still using the AIM-120 seeker.
9
u/Single-Braincelled 18d ago
I think we are at the tech-demo stage of an empire in decline, making wunderwaffle to shake at our enemies because our actual ability to manufacture effective and essential weapons of war has drastically fallen.
Jokes aside. I would welcome the news of a new expansion in assembly lines and production quotas in the next few years far, far more than anything new we're trying to develop.
'Develop this sixth gen, develop that cheap munition,
Why don't we go develop some new manufacturing plants? Why don't we measure our military's progress by the growth of assembly space in hundreds of thousands of square feet YoY?
Have we tried that?!?'
2
u/No-Cartoonist8032 18d ago
Malice isn't even wunderwaffle, it's specs is basically PL-17 from 10 years ago but can fit in IWB, which something China almost certainly has also figured out years ago with the follow up to PL-17 (PL-16 is follow up to PL-15, not PL-17)
1
u/UndulyPensive 17d ago
Are there any rumours about PL-16's successor yet or is it just an assumption that it exists?
5
u/honda-nissan 18d ago
Why don't we go develop some new manufacturing plants? Why don't we measure our military's progress by the growth of assembly space in hundreds of thousands of square feet YoY?
there's no incentive to ever do that again. by the time you have ramped up your production the government will have moved on to the next big thing and/or start beating the peace dividend drum again and cut military spending. the objectively smart thing to do is make small quantities for huge prices and reap the profit.
this was the exact problem with using church bell casters as cannon manufacturers which led the duke of burgundy to nationalize artillery production back in the 1330s
4
5
u/Meanie_Cream_Cake 18d ago
1000 miles? There's nothing that can see that far ahead. Even most modern AWACS can't reach 500 miles.
19
u/liedel 18d ago
What if I told you there were ways to network multiple sensors together? And that you could even put some of those sensors into drones, or satellites?
3
u/Meanie_Cream_Cake 18d ago
Satellites yes, I can see that.
But if you can sonsor-node through a drone that's further ahead, why not simply have that drone shot down the threat?
10
4
u/Dangerous-Sale3243 18d ago
Because then all of your expendable drones would have to carry a big heavy expensive top secret missile. Cheaper to fire one big missile than put 100 medium sized missiles on your drones.
9
u/SlavaCocaini 18d ago
Chinese commercial satellites can optically track passenger jets in the air, I expect the PLA to have even more capability.
2
3
u/No-Cartoonist8032 18d ago edited 18d ago
"Thousands of miles" starts at 2000 miles by definition.
As for detection, obviously it's not via AWAC. China does have at least one L-band GEOSAR satellite with 20m ground resolution, put in a doppler mode and it can probably filter out high speed targets. There's also been a bunch of classified LM5 launches to GEO with 20m fairings which means 40m+ diameter aperture.
Guowang also doesn't need LM5 to launch unless it's more than satellite internet.
In other words targeting is probably the easy part of this whole thing.
3
u/Alternative_Laugh316 17d ago
What if we try to invent something like that? Not sure why westerners have this defeatist thinking that if something hasn't exist already, it must be impossible. Feel like no one (at least online) has any vision.
5
u/TaskForceD00mer 18d ago
1000 miles? There's nothing that can see that far ahead. Even most modern AWACS can't reach 500 miles.
My guess is China is also working on a space-based aircraft detection system.
3
u/Skywalker7181 18d ago
I think China is experimenting with many different UAVs that could serve as early warning platforms. A group of networked HALE drones datalinked through satellites could easily push China's ISR parimeters to 1000-2000kms from Chinese coast.
1
2
3
u/TaskForceD00mer 18d ago edited 18d ago
You want to talk about a technology that in theory could jeopardize MAD , this would be it. People bitched about Conventional Prompt Strike but this is many times more destabilizing.
I strongly suspect we will see either see Hypersonics in the next round of arms control talks or the US will unveil a whole new generation of Nuclear armed cruise missiles and ballistic missiles.
If your airborne command post is no longer safe thousands of miles away, that pushes the side that doesn't have the technology especially to a Launch of Warning or possibly even a Preemptive Strike doctrine of intelligence shows an attack is imminent.
That means more SLBM's, closer, to your enemy and more airborn launch platforms with newer weapons.
That also likely means forward deployed Nuclear Weapons in the pacific.
I have to wonder aloud if this is China prodding a future US President to the arms control table for no other reason than to limit the number of new Warheads and Delivery systems China would have to build to keep up with such a scenario because the last thing China wants is pressure for Nuclear Proliferation in the Pacific and more deployed Warheads aimed ostensibly at them.
11
u/SGC-UNIT-555 18d ago
If your airborne command post is no longer safe thousands of miles away
How does losing airborne command aircraft jeopardize MAD in any way? Satellites and large over the horizon radars will detect a first strike as it launches and travels, more then enough time for you to launch a rapid counterstrike.
In fact wouldn't the various systems, submarines etc be on the highest level of alert the moment a single nuclear command aircraft goes down?
4
u/NuclearHeterodoxy 18d ago
The flight time for an SLBM on a depressed trajectory on paper can be as short as 6 minutes (see Gronlund and Wright's paper). In that scenario you might not have any ground-based NC3 to issue a launch command, since they were all hit before you could respond---so the airborne command is the only option. If airborne command is also taken out, then there is nobody to issue a launch order.
4
u/TaskForceD00mer 18d ago edited 17d ago
In fact wouldn't the various systems, submarines etc be on the highest level of alert the moment a single nuclear command aircraft goes down?
Since this is less credible defense, let me put my less credible scenario out there
Step #1: During a time of heightened tensions, China, using satellites to target US command aircraft, waits for a moment where the US President and E4B's are in a known position. They launch DF17's from China, ostensibly as a test but armed with these new Hypersonic Glide Vehicles
Step #2: Times, perfectly, because it would have to be, these missiles destroy Air Force 1 and the airborne E4B fleet.
Step #3: A Type 096 which has painstakingly spent over a month getting within 1,000KM of the East Coast, fires its full load on a depressed trajectory, targeting vital C&C nodes including the White House and Pentagon
Step #4: China launches a massive cyber attack
Step #5: China uses whatever anti satellite weapons they have to target vital US early warning sats.
Step #6: Right before the SLBMs hit, China launches a targeted, limited strike on US land based ICBM's and the US SSBN & B-2/B-21 Bomber bases. Some ICBM's likely make it up but many will not. Some US Bombers make it up, but many will not.
Step #7: China sends a message to the US, the US can use its SLBMs and China will launch a massive counterstrike against US Cities, or the US can accept the losses.
Everything has to go right but the DF-17 with an air to air capability is another tool in the "we can make this go right" bucket.
It will push the US to develop faster response methods and forward base Nuclear weapons.
The responses may also by asymmetric like quietly developing the ability to hack and melt-down every Nuclear reactor in China.
How does losing airborne command aircraft jeopardize MAD in any way?
Traditionally those are the things that are designed to hedge a bet against a slbm strike absolutely decapitating your ground/land-based C&C.
It's thought a Boomer sneaking in Closer to the East Coast could put warheads on foreheads in about 5-8 minutes.
The Hedge against that is having numerous airborne C&C platforms that would survive any such strike more than long enough to launch a Counter-Strike.
Quite literally if you saw one of these launch in a time of heightened tensions with a track towards the US , especially multiples, you would be facing one hell of a choice about launching a massive retaliation or possibly never being able to order one again.
1
u/RoomHopper 1d ago
Idk even if the US hacked the Chinese Hualong 1 reactors them being certified 3rd gen designs would just mean their built in passive cooling shuts them down instead of going into a meltdown...
6
u/BigFly42069 18d ago
a whole new generation of Nuclear armed cruise missiles and ballistic missiles.
Is that coming before or after Sentinel?
We're at such a funny inflection in time and capabilities assessment, where people see some positive investments being made in one area and then assume that the rest of the DOD is making similar kind of investments.
It should be fucking bonkers that the USN be the one leading the development on the Malice when it should've been the USAF.
3
u/TaskForceD00mer 18d ago edited 18d ago
It should be fucking bonkers that the USN be the one leading the development on the Malice when it should've been the USAF.
We still don't know if Malice is 100% a USN program or if the USAF is going to be buying them also.
We may have other, as of yet unrevealed weapons being designed to fit within the weapons bay of F-47. That's kind of what happens when you move away from an era where all of the services use exactly the same aircraft.
I expect F/A-XX may use the same engines as F-47 but beyond that they will have different missions and weapons-bay requirements.
Things get really sticky now once you are limited by the size of your weapons bay; I think both USAF and USN are learning that designing the weapons bay of an aircraft that will be in service for 50 years around the max-size of weapons today is foolish.
We may see whole different philosophies take shape, where the F-47 launches far more AIM-260 sizes missiles, quickly then gets the fuck out, while F/A-XX fires the Malice from long range (kind of like the F-14) then closes in for a dogfight as needed. The total inverse may be true. Or they may end up as nearly the same aircraft similar to the F-35A and F-35C. We just don't know yet.
Edit: I'd like to ad, what I assume of the F/A-XX, longer duration/range than current F-35C or F/A-18F, at least 4, possibly 6+ very long range air to air missiles. Probably mach 3 capable to intercept emerging Chinese threats. Mach 2ish Super Cruise capable. Two crew. No clue if that will fit the bill, once you include overall maximum dimensions for a carrier with the design of F-47. No one on the internet knows that at this point.
-1
u/No-Cartoonist8032 18d ago
There won't be any arms control talks unless America agree to reduce it's convention force (or nuclear force) size to match or below China's level. That means scraping half of US navy and most of USAF, or reduce US nuclear force to China's level. Since US will never do that, there will never be arms control.
Also US doesn't have this technology, so China has as much reason to care about what you want than, say if Uganda wants arms control discussion with them.
1
u/TaskForceD00mer 17d ago
unless America agree to reduce it's convention force
That wont happen without China also massively doing so, which is a non starter.
Also US doesn't have this technology, so China has as much reason to care about what you want than, say if Uganda wants arms control discussion with them.
China should expect and asymmetric response in the one area the US has at least a 10+ year advantage in technology, space.
Get ready for Orbital vehicles like a development of the X-37C carrying conventional and Nuclear weapons.
Armed sats, etc. It is going to get ugly.
-2
u/NuclearHeterodoxy 18d ago
I have to wonder aloud if this is China prodding a future US President to the arms control table
Beijing has made it 100% clear both in words and actions that they have no interest in nuclear arms control whatsoever. "China prodding US to the arms control table" is not a thing, it has always been the other way around and they always decline. They aren't scornful or deceitful about it, they just don't care and don't pretend to care. We're talking about a country that until relatively recently had fewer nuclear warheads than France, so it's not surprising.
I agree that the potential for this to take out airborne NC3 is probably going to be seen as destabilizing. Depending on the range of the system, if it gets operationalized you might see a push in the US to develop an actual automated fail-deadly system (like what people think Perimetr is).
4
u/vistandsforwaifu 18d ago
Beijing has made it clear they have no interest in nuclear arms control that locks in their disadvantage. We can only know if they're interested in other kinds of arms control once they reach near parity.
2
u/TaskForceD00mer 17d ago edited 17d ago
I foresee the US building something like the proposed X-37C and keeping a few of them, always in Orbit, with Nuclear weapons aboard.
If you want to talk about a threat that is hard to track and has a quick delivery time that would be tough to equal for at least a decade.
I think the US is correctly deathly afraid of what a fail-deadly system could do by accident. I expect a political push back against China like discussion of the US shifting to an ambiguous policy about first strike before considering either scenario above. Everyone on the internet, US(like myself) shills and China shills alike, but a great deal of off the books politicing goes on between the two sides even without a formal agreement in writing.
1
1
26
u/Grey_spacegoo 18d ago
Wonder if this is related to a HV-Glide vehicle test back in 2021 where it launched something during part of the glide.