PLA Anti-Air Missile (SAM) systems

[ACuriousPLAFan]

I'm sure it's not misunderstanding. But the claim is from a later CCTV interview for the CJ-1000 crew, rather than directly from the parade. My bad. I've already reedited my last post.

You can watch the following CCTV interview video:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Also the CCTV transcript for it:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

It indeed claims it can attack systems in the air precisely.

The narrator said "体系节点目标", meaning "System Node Targets". For aerial context, this can certainly refer to enemy airbases and facilities & infrastructure (e.g. radar sites, communication antennas, SAM sites) which support the operations of the enemy air forces, not necessarily (and definitely not, IMHO) enemy aerial assets.

And sorry - Why would you need multiple-100 kilograms of warhead powered by a massive hypersonic cruise missile just to shoot down an enemy AEW&C aircraft, all when one or two ULRAAMs with only double-digit kilograms of warhead each is/are already sufficient to do the job?

Can you explain the rationale, or did my high school physics failed me here?

 

[Totoro]

well, I mean, it's theoretically possible. If the target isn't maneuvering, and is holding a constant speed, if it has sufficient enough radar cross section for the CJ1000's radar seeker to keep a lock onto it - there's nothing preventing such a missile from trying and even suceeding hitting an aircraft.
I mean, javelin and hellfire missiles have been used to keep a track and hit moving helicopters, despite that not being their main role.

 

[ougoah]

Yep, using CJ1000 against a predictable and large air target is like using artillery to hit a mosquito. Theoretically possible but a ridiculous idea. Any SAM with >5000km slant range is going to need a target valuable enough to justify over an airfield or warship. With where PLAAF is, it's far easier done by brute forcing at the worst.

 

[by78]

High-resolution images from the parade.

 

[tamsen_ikard]

I heard none of that. I believe you may have misheard.

Also, using a large cruise missile meant for attacking land or ship targets with its heavy warheads to intercept enemy warplanes is an absolutely massive waste of resources.

Not if its a billion dollar awacs and B-2 bombers.

 

[Andy1974]

It is wild that some here think shooting down large enemy aircraft like AWACS or P-8 from 5000km is a bad idea, because it wastes resources? Idiotic take.

Or saying its stupid to use it against an aircraft cause the warhead is too big? Maybe a big warhead is useful for a surface to air cruise missile traveling at Mach 7.

How much do you think a CJ-1000 costs compares to a P8?

How can you not see the worth in this? People here are so closed minded.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1963256746916422086

 

[Cloud_Nine_]

It is wild that some here think shooting down large enemy aircraft like AWACS or P-8 from 5000km is a bad idea, because it wastes resources? Idiotic take.

Or saying its stupid to use it against an aircraft cause the warhead is too big? Maybe a big warhead is useful for a surface to air cruise missile traveling at Mach 7.

How much do you think a CJ-1000 costs compares to a P8?

How can you not see the worth in this? People here are so closed minded.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1963256746916422086

I dunno...probably because PLAN and PLAAF exist?

For one, this was how the original report phrased it: "可对陆、海、空体系节点目标实施精确打击." Now, I am not the most proficient in mandarin but I am pretty sure air here is an adjective not object. I am not sure CJ-1000 can fly anywhere near 5000km either...

People aren't critical of whether CJ-1000 can or cannot strike airborne aircraft, they are critical of the idea of a situation so unique that you would need to call in a hypersonic cruise missile thousands of miles away instead of just redirecting a fighter jet nearby...Take a chill pill man.

 

[dingyibvs]

It is wild that some here think shooting down large enemy aircraft like AWACS or P-8 from 5000km is a bad idea, because it wastes resources? Idiotic take.

Or saying its stupid to use it against an aircraft cause the warhead is too big? Maybe a big warhead is useful for a surface to air cruise missile traveling at Mach 7.

How much do you think a CJ-1000 costs compares to a P8?

How can you not see the worth in this? People here are so closed minded.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1963256746916422086

I think the argument is that why not use a dedicated AAM for this purpose? If this missile were ship-based, then it'd make sense to be multirole as space is a premium, but being a land-based missile you could just have a few batteries placed in coastal provinces and you'd cover all of the 2IC.

I think it's a valid argument, though I wonder how much more expensive would this missile be compared to a dedicated AAM? It's entirely possible that due to the hypersonic speed, maneuverability requirements, and large warhead, that making it capable of hitting a large, slow-moving target did not require much development. In that case, if this is a weapon for solely very edge case scenario, and if it's not THAT much more expensive, is it still worth the cost to develop and field a dedicated AAM?

 

[Andy1974]

I think the argument is that why not use a dedicated AAM for this purpose? If this missile were ship-based, then it'd make sense to be multirole as space is a premium, but being a land-based missile you could just have a few batteries placed in coastal provinces and you'd cover all of the 2IC.

I think it's a valid argument, though I wonder how much more expensive would this missile be compared to a dedicated AAM? It's entirely possible that due to the hypersonic speed, maneuverability requirements, and large warhead, that making it capable of hitting a large, slow-moving target did not require much development. In that case, if this is a weapon for solely very edge case scenario, and if it's not THAT much more expensive, is it still worth the cost to develop and field a dedicated AAM?

Surely the answer is because you need to be close to the target to engage with an AAM or ship based missile?

This can shoot down the same large subsonic aircraft when launched from the mainland without risking any troops.

This should be the main weapon not an edge case, if it can really do what is claimed you don’t need to risk the PLAAF or PLAN, just use this for all the main long range targets.

It obviously has very large range and can destroy ships at sea, aircraft on the ground and even some in the air as well as any land based targets.

What more long range targets do you want to destroy?

The only question is can China make enough of them for a cheap price and I am sure the answer is yes.

Each truck has 2 missiles, so it’s actually a MLHCMS, multiple launch hypersonic cruise missile system capable of taking out any long range target at an affordable cost with zero risk to man or equipment.

Please tell me the downsides?

 

[Wrought]

Surely the answer is because you need to be close to the target to engage with an AAM or ship based missile?

This can shoot down the same large subsonic aircraft when launched from the mainland without risking any troops.

This should be the main weapon not an edge case, if it can really do what is claimed you don’t need to risk the PLAAF or PLAN, just use this for all the main long range targets.

It obviously has very large range and can destroy ships at sea, aircraft on the ground and even some in the air as well as any land based targets.

What more long range targets do you want to destroy?

The only question is can China make enough of them for a cheap price and I am sure the answer is yes.

Each truck has 2 missiles, so it’s actually a MLHCMS, multiple launch hypersonic cruise missile system capable of taking out any long range target at an affordable cost with zero risk to man or equipment.

Please tell me the downsides?

The idea is completely ridiculous.