PLAN Anti-ship/surface missiles

[plawolf]

I think it’s this picture in particular that is making people think these missiles are the real deal and not mock ups. And I just say I believe them.

The level of detail is utterly ridiculous for a part of the missile that isn’t easily seen and serves zero useful purpose to do for a mock up. They could have slapped a white plate on like some of the other mock ups and no one would have cared.

As for the pivotal question of why use a real missile and not a mock-up, well the obvious answer is opsec.

To make mock-ups, you need very detailed high res photos to send to the manufacturer to build them. That is an obvious risk factor. Yes that risk can be managed, but why take that risk at all?

The alternative is to have the factory making the real missiles make the mock-up to ensure no additional risk of security leaks, but that will eat up time and resources that could instead be making more live missiles. This might be fine for established missiles with plenty of existing stocks and no need to do overtime to meet PLA production demands, but it will be a bigger ask for a newer missile that the PLA wants to build inventory asap.

Alternatively, it could easily be that the YJ21 is a late addition to the parade line up, so there wasn’t time to make the mock ups beforehand.

Finally, they could have used a real booster with a mock-up missile.

 

[Dante80]

I think it’s this picture in particular that is making people think these missiles are the real deal and not mock ups. And I just say I believe them.

I mean, does this look real to you?

 

[plawolf]

I mean, does this look real to you?

I mean, does this look like the missile we are talking about to you?

 

[Dante80]

Apologies, I mistakenly thought you were talking about the missiles in general when you used the plural form, and brought up YJ-17 as an example.

You were specifically/exclusively talking about YJ-17 though.

 

[subotai1]

As for the pivotal question of why use a real missile and not a mock-up, well the obvious answer is opsec.

I think its a message. People can debate whether a mockup really represents a functional item forever. But showing the real thing, that's a warning.

 

[Gloire_bb]

I think it’s this picture in particular that is making people think these missiles are the real deal and not mock ups. And I just say I believe them.

The level of detail is utterly ridiculous for a part of the missile that isn’t easily seen and serves zero useful purpose to do for a mock up. They could have slapped a white plate on like some of the other mock ups and no one would have cared.

it's almost certain those are mockups and not actual missiles. If anything, b/c do you really want to carry hundreds of tons of rocket fuel (and warheads, in many of those they aren't meant to be stored separately) in the middle of Beijing in front of all the people? Not even touching absolutely unnecessary added weight, which streets of Beijing ... can handle, but this won't come free.

Rockets aren't toys in the end, and there is absolutely zero difference in terms of display. CCAs can be real; just don't fuel them.
I.e. what we see is just different quality of different mockups. If the concern is realism - then get one empty hull of production line, it'll look exactly as the proper weapon.

 

[dingyibvs]

I believe the missiles are all mockups. I see no compelling explanation or way to entertain the idea that for some reason YJ-17 is real, when the simplest explanation is that it's just some mockups were more detailed than others.
If we have indicators from the usual grapevine that the YJ-17 is real for some reason, then I'd be willing to entertain it, but for now the simplest explanation is the most logical.

The UADFs, GJ-21 and GJ-2 are likely real. That's not a huge controversy; in the past in 2019 they showed a real GJ-2 (and likely real WZ-8s) as well. As for why bother showing some real UCAVs and not others, who knows, it might be because they happen to have some on hand that they're happy to show them in real form rather than commission a mockup.

Seems like you're employing double standards. The same logic to justify why some UAVs may be real can be used with the missiles as well. You could've easily said "As for why bother showing some real UCAVs missiles and not others, who knows, it might be because they happen to have some on hand that they're happy to show them in real form rather than commission a mockup."

 

[Blitzo]

Seems like you're employing double standards. The same logic to justify why some UAVs may be real can be used with the missiles as well. You could've easily said "As for why bother showing some real UCAVs missiles and not others, who knows, it might be because they happen to have some on hand that they're happy to show them in real form rather than commission a mockup."

No, those aren't double standards.

Let me explain.
For the UCAVs/CCAs, the underlying expectation/belief was that they would all be mockups. The fact that it turns out some of them are real airframes, is a surprise. However, based on that new information which seems credible, we are able to entertain plausible explanations for why some of them are real and chosen to be put up. This is on top of the fact that in the past we have a precedence for them showing some UCAVs as real in past parades (GJ-2 and WZ-8 and BZK-005).

For the missiles, the underlying expectation/belief is also that they would all be mockups. The difference for why I see no good reason to entertain the idea of some of them being real, is because we have no credible information suggesting it to be the case (as we have with the UCAVs/CCAs this parade), as well as how the past precedent has no examples to my knowledge of them showcasing real missiles in past parades.


Putting it another way, the "speculation that some missiles may be real" to me would be an example of unrestrained speculation without a firm basis of credible grapevine indicators and also going against past precedent.

I agree that in theory we cannot exclude the possibility that YJ-17 (or whatever other missile) might conceivably be "real" (whatever that means, even if we take it to mean say a training round or what not), but to me that strikes as trying to prove a negative in an effort where there is no reason to entertain that possibility in the first place.