054B/new generation frigate

Gloire_bb

Gloire_bb

Captain
Registered Member
Tam said:
I fail to see how a land attack YJ-18 would address that problem. A land attack YJ-18 would have been a Chinese 3M14. Instead of trying to take out a target that three 3M14 would barely do, should have used a single hypersonic missile in the first place.
Click to expand...
I suspect a single zircon(or kinzhal) is worth more than a few of dozens of 3m14s, and still is by no means guaranteed to single hit-KO such a target. Simply because it's thick and overredundant.

YJ-18-land will simply have range, a proper warhead, and just enough navigation and correction for such a weapon to be good.
Basically, sino-3m14. Nothing fancy, just important capability set and not a single 人民币 over.
 
Blitzo

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
Tam said:
I fail to see how a land attack YJ-18 would address that problem. A land attack YJ-18 would have been a Chinese 3M14. Instead of trying to take out a target that three 3M14 would barely do, should have used a single hypersonic missile in the first place.
Click to expand...

A land attack YJ-18 would be the equivalent of a Chinese 3M-14 or a Chinese Tomahawk.

The difference in cost between a subsonic LACM compared to a hypersonic/AShBM with land attack capability, is likely to be quite significant.
More importantly, there are also some targets which are better serviced by a subsonic LACM rather than a ballistic missile. They should be absolutely complementary in function, and I can see the PLAN procuring both types of weapons for the UVLS.
 
5unrise

5unrise

Junior Member
Registered Member
Gloire_bb said:
Hypersonics are expensive as of 2020s, often ridiculously expensive (easily multiple dozens of millions per shot). Very few targets are really worth it.
83 not only has a relatively weak warhead(also a wrong type of one), insufficient range and wrong optimization, but is also probably still far more expensive than this mission requires. It's fine for secondary capability for frigates, but for massed salvos it won't do.

I mean, even 3m14 (with ~500kg bomb equivalent warhead) is now showing itself to be too light for many types of targets (it recently took 3 attempts to finally shut down a railway bridge near Odessa - all 3 made good hits, just not enough kaboom).
Click to expand...

Hypersonics can potentially be used as a force multiplier - it can serve a breaching role to take down key radars and command and control centres in an integrated air defence system. This will allow the follow-up of large numbers of cheap, subsonic and low supersonic missiles to be much more effective.
Also, there is a more subtle impact I feel. The mere threat of hypersonics, or the potential for assets to be armed with hypersonics, forces an adversary to invest disproprotionately in defences to stop them. It could also have a psychological impact discouraging them from deploying expensive assets too close. Resources used to defend against hypersonics won't be invested in other assets that can more efficiently defend against cheaper missile arsenals, or in other military assets.
 
S

sndef888

Captain
Registered Member
I don't think ship launched land attack missile is going to be a PLA priority at the moment. In places where the PLA is expected to operate (SCS and ECS) the need for land attack can be filled by the air force and land based missiles like CJ-1000 and DF series.

The disadvantage of using a YJ-18 for such a role is that it's going to be overpriced, since they're going to have active radars/ECM/two-stage mechanism, compared to true LACMs like tomahawk which is basically just a flying tube with GPS, and if you fit a tomahawk equivalent in a destroyer you're using up precious VLS space, since an 052D only has 64 cells
 
Gloire_bb

Gloire_bb

Captain
Registered Member
sndef888 said:
I don't think ship launched land attack missile is going to be a PLA priority at the moment. In places where the PLA is expected to operate (SCS and ECS) the need for land attack can be filled by the air force and land based missiles like CJ-1000 and DF series.

The disadvantage of using a YJ-18 for such a role is that it's going to be overpriced, since they're going to have active radars/ECM/two-stage mechanism, compared to true LACMs like tomahawk which is basically just a flying tube with GPS, and if you fit a tomahawk equivalent in a destroyer you're using up precious VLS space, since an 052D only has 64 cells
Click to expand...
055s are natural LACM carriers, though.
They easily have enough cells to ensure TF air cover and still have more than enough cells to beat the (please insert a word here) out of a mid-sized nation in a single salvo.
 
T

Tam

Brigadier
Registered Member
sndef888 said:
I don't think ship launched land attack missile is going to be a PLA priority at the moment. In places where the PLA is expected to operate (SCS and ECS) the need for land attack can be filled by the air force and land based missiles like CJ-1000 and DF series.

The disadvantage of using a YJ-18 for such a role is that it's going to be overpriced, since they're going to have active radars/ECM/two-stage mechanism, compared to true LACMs like tomahawk which is basically just a flying tube with GPS, and if you fit a tomahawk equivalent in a destroyer you're using up precious VLS space, since an 052D only has 64 cells
Click to expand...

YJ-18 for land attack won't be using active radar and two stage mechanism. It's basically a Tomahawk with the YJ-18 airframe, just a single piece. 3M14 Kalibr below.

download (1).jpeg
 
T

Tam

Brigadier
Registered Member
Tam said:
YJ-18 for land attack won't be using active radar and two stage mechanism. It's basically a Tomahawk with the YJ-18 airframe, just a single piece. 3M14 Kalibr below.

View attachment 88241
Click to expand...

Also, the cruise missile will still use some TERCOM, and an AI plus sensor for target identification, which can be radar or infrared or optical. So it won't be cheap. The trend is towards dual use, the missile can be used for both sea and land targets instead of having dedicated versions like TASM and TLAM. The dual use Tomahawks will definitely cost more. The Russians are already using dual use Kh-35 Uran and Oniks missiles to great effect.
 
T

Tam

Brigadier
Registered Member
I am going to add that if there is a TLAM YJ-18, its going to lose the YJ moniker for a CJ or DF one.

The second is that the commonality between this land based cruise missile vs. the YJ-18 would only be in the second half of the missile, from the wings to the tail. Instead of having a second stage terminal rocket, the cruise jet portion extends further into an ovoid nose that contains warhead and guidance system. There is no terminal stage separation with supersonic sprint, the missile flies all the way to its target on subsonic speed.

The third is whether this missile already exists and serving with other branches, either in both air or land, but lacking a naval version. It should be under 9 meters in length with booster and well within the .85m diameter to fit the long U-VLS. Similar to the Russian 3M14, the warhead could be around 500kg. This cruise missile should be a recent one. When in flight, the wings would switch straight, no sweep back. The intake would be similar to the YJ-18, a fixed mouth opening on the bottom. The missile would have a CJ or DF moniker.

There is one missile that checks these boxes and that is the CJ-10, now DF-10. With booster, the missile's length is about 8.3 meters. The missile's diameter is around 0.68 meters. Weight is around 1800kg or 1900kg which is under the 2500kg expected of the YJ-18. With the range of 2000km, missiles fired from the east coast of China could reach well within the largest Japanese island of Hoshu. You can push that further when fired from the air using an H-6.


cover.jpgdh-10-image10.jpg

The range is probably why the missile for now isn't on a ship, as it is able to deal with threats in the first island chain being fired from land alone. But if the mission is to expand further, it is a good candidate to fill the long U-VLS, with it having all the proper dimensions.

DF-10A_surface_to_surface_cruise_missile_China_Chniese_army_PLA_defense_industry_military_equi...jpg

Calling it a land striking variant of the YJ-18 might be more misleading, compared to the proper way to call it, which is a navalized, VLS variant of the DF-10.
 
Jiang ZeminFanboy

Jiang ZeminFanboy

Senior Member
Registered Member
Tam said:
I am going to add that if there is a TLAM YJ-18, its going to lose the YJ moniker for a CJ or DF one.

The second is that the commonality between this land based cruise missile vs. the YJ-18 would only be in the second half of the missile, from the wings to the tail. Instead of having a second stage terminal rocket, the cruise jet portion extends further into an ovoid nose that contains warhead and guidance system. There is no terminal stage separation with supersonic sprint, the missile flies all the way to its target on subsonic speed.

The third is whether this missile already exists and serving with other branches, either in both air or land, but lacking a naval version. It should be under 9 meters in length with booster and well within the .85m diameter to fit the long U-VLS. Similar to the Russian 3M14, the warhead could be around 500kg. This cruise missile should be a recent one. When in flight, the wings would switch straight, no sweep back. The intake would be similar to the YJ-18, a fixed mouth opening on the bottom. The missile would have a CJ or DF moniker.

There is one missile that checks these boxes and that is the CJ-10, now DF-10. With booster, the missile's length is about 8.3 meters. The missile's diameter is around 0.68 meters. Weight is around 1800kg or 1900kg which is under the 2500kg expected of the YJ-18. With the range of 2000km, missiles fired from the east coast of China could reach well within the largest Japanese island of Hoshu. You can push that further when fired from the air using an H-6.


View attachment 88277View attachment 88278

The range is probably why the missile for now isn't on a ship, as it is able to deal with threats in the first island chain being fired from land alone. But if the mission is to expand further, it is a good candidate to fill the long U-VLS, with it having all the proper dimensions.

View attachment 88279

Calling it a land striking variant of the YJ-18 might be more misleading, compared to the proper way to call it, which is a navalized, VLS variant of the DF-10.
Click to expand...
df_100.jpg


Df100 is anti ship or also lacm?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top