Original video in question.
There are some great air to ground/air to air shots in there.
China Flanker Thread II
- Thread starter sumdud
- Start date
- Status
Original video in question.
There are some great air to ground/air to air shots in there.
Opaque nose or radome. That means its radar guided. Antiship missiles are active radar homing. They have been that way since Day One when you have Silkworms and Seersuckers. While water can still reflect radar, its not like the way a large ship full of metal can echo radar.
KD-88 should have some kind of window on the nose, as air to solid ground missiles require optical shape contrast and recognition, and having a TV or video camera on the nose. Active radar homing doesn't work very well with ground targets, as the entire ground itself reflects back the radar. Stationary targets don't doppler shift, because, they are stationary; radars can still detect an object if the object is moving fast against the ground background because of doppler shift that makes the waves reflected from the moving object have a different frequency from the background reflection. But a stationary bunker looks like a mound and radar cannot tell a bunker from a hill. So air to ground missiles use optic or thermal to see and recognize targets, with the help of the missile operator to identify and approve targets, that is until image and pattern recognition with AI is advanced enough to make human operators redundant.
Last edited:
Check out the load-out on these model J-16s used by pilots to practice tactics.
Probably not too significant because the missiles and payloads look more Russian than anything.
SAC Flankers don't have wingtip ECM pods. The inboard SRAAM looks like no Chinese SRAAM but close to R-73. The under airintake missiles are distinctively R-27.
The red missile is a Kh-31 or a YJ-91, but given the rest of the missiles the overall model is probably an off the shelf Su-30 model of average build quality.
More images are needed, from different angles, so we can deduce the dimensions (length and clearance from the wing) of the pylon. Just because the general shape is similar doesn't have to mean it's made for the same missile.
Though, a new pylon type an also mean a new, yet unseen, missile. Maybe not YJ12 but something smaller. Yet, evidently, larger than KD88 family, as otherwise a new pylon might not be needed.
To get back to those photos of seemingly YJ83K. I'd say we were looking at a training round. Not sure if colored rings represent training round or a live round but if there was a radar there, the nose of the missile would have a radome of slightly different color. In addition, the engine inlet doesn't seem to have an opening. And the whole missile is a bit too perfect, devoid of details.
Now, while it's perfectly possible it's indeed a training round meant to stand in for an antiship missile, there are other possibilities as well (listed in no particular order). It could be a training round for a variety of new variants of the KD88/YJ83 body types:
- a cheap stand off precision bomb with an engine. Some would say a missile, but French AASM is basically a rocket motor powered GPS/INS missiles in one of its variants yet it's still referred to as a bomb. if the same range is retained as in other variants, circa 250 km, it'd make it the longest reach such weapon but it may A) have less range due to internal differences, like for example a larger, heavier warhead?) and B) extra reach over the other long reach GPS/INS bombs such as AASM, JSOW and SDB I may make sense to PLAAF due to perceived difficulties of getting closer than 200+ km to target and expecting to survive often enough. Why retain the jet engine? Perhaps using a rocket motor would involve so many changes in design and development that it was deemed cheaper and faster to just go with the jet engine, even though a rocket motor is cheaper per item basis. And jet engine would likely still retain range edge over a cheaper rocket motor solution.
- same as above, but perhaps longer range could be achieved if no special seeker, aside from GPS/INS is used. Perhaps with a different, lighter warhead, ranges comparable to JASSM could be achievable. Of course, capability would not be the same, as JASSM also has a terminal optical seeker, but as far as I can tell, that one is more similar to what Tomahawk has. To basically be able to take snapshots of target so damage assesment can be made. In any case, there are tomahawk variants which don't use any sort of terminal seekers - so overall precision may still be acceptable.
- an expensive stand off precision bomb. Basically a new variant of KD88. But one which instead of an optical seeker uses a radar one. Sometimes such class of weapons do opt for radar seekers, as they can offer better all weather capabilities and can be less susceptible to various smoke screens and heat decoys. (while being more susceptible to radar jamming, of course. One might argue that due to their price, radar jammers would be less used by the enemy compared to smoke/IR decoys) Brimstone II, for example, has a variant which uses just a MMW radar, and yet the missile is to be used from over 40 km away, when fired from a fixed wing platform. Using GPS/INS to get to 40 km or so off the target should yield the same kind of precision as Brimstone can count on, as there's no reason the seeker can't find the final location of the target on its own. And brimstone has been used against buildings, not just just high contrast targets such as vehicles.
Russians have a history of using radar seekers for air to ground weapons as well. Kh-38MAE (which is actually not that much smaller and has similar shape layout) and Kh-59MK missiles.
Though, a new pylon type an also mean a new, yet unseen, missile. Maybe not YJ12 but something smaller. Yet, evidently, larger than KD88 family, as otherwise a new pylon might not be needed.
To get back to those photos of seemingly YJ83K. I'd say we were looking at a training round. Not sure if colored rings represent training round or a live round but if there was a radar there, the nose of the missile would have a radome of slightly different color. In addition, the engine inlet doesn't seem to have an opening. And the whole missile is a bit too perfect, devoid of details.
Now, while it's perfectly possible it's indeed a training round meant to stand in for an antiship missile, there are other possibilities as well (listed in no particular order). It could be a training round for a variety of new variants of the KD88/YJ83 body types:
- a cheap stand off precision bomb with an engine. Some would say a missile, but French AASM is basically a rocket motor powered GPS/INS missiles in one of its variants yet it's still referred to as a bomb. if the same range is retained as in other variants, circa 250 km, it'd make it the longest reach such weapon but it may A) have less range due to internal differences, like for example a larger, heavier warhead?) and B) extra reach over the other long reach GPS/INS bombs such as AASM, JSOW and SDB I may make sense to PLAAF due to perceived difficulties of getting closer than 200+ km to target and expecting to survive often enough. Why retain the jet engine? Perhaps using a rocket motor would involve so many changes in design and development that it was deemed cheaper and faster to just go with the jet engine, even though a rocket motor is cheaper per item basis. And jet engine would likely still retain range edge over a cheaper rocket motor solution.
- same as above, but perhaps longer range could be achieved if no special seeker, aside from GPS/INS is used. Perhaps with a different, lighter warhead, ranges comparable to JASSM could be achievable. Of course, capability would not be the same, as JASSM also has a terminal optical seeker, but as far as I can tell, that one is more similar to what Tomahawk has. To basically be able to take snapshots of target so damage assesment can be made. In any case, there are tomahawk variants which don't use any sort of terminal seekers - so overall precision may still be acceptable.
- an expensive stand off precision bomb. Basically a new variant of KD88. But one which instead of an optical seeker uses a radar one. Sometimes such class of weapons do opt for radar seekers, as they can offer better all weather capabilities and can be less susceptible to various smoke screens and heat decoys. (while being more susceptible to radar jamming, of course. One might argue that due to their price, radar jammers would be less used by the enemy compared to smoke/IR decoys) Brimstone II, for example, has a variant which uses just a MMW radar, and yet the missile is to be used from over 40 km away, when fired from a fixed wing platform. Using GPS/INS to get to 40 km or so off the target should yield the same kind of precision as Brimstone can count on, as there's no reason the seeker can't find the final location of the target on its own. And brimstone has been used against buildings, not just just high contrast targets such as vehicles.
Russians have a history of using radar seekers for air to ground weapons as well. Kh-38MAE (which is actually not that much smaller and has similar shape layout) and Kh-59MK missiles.
The active radar homing versions of the Kh-38 and Kh-59 are actually antiship missile variants of these missile families, which are mostly TV, laser, and satellite guided. The Kh-59MK for example, 200 of these were delivered to China for the Su-30MK2, which is PLANAF.
Yes there are bombs and missiles that use millimeter wave radars. Only radar frequency this short can be able to discriminate and image against multiple ground objects. You are counting on the reflection from a metal object, like tank, truck or pickup, against a background of rocks and plants reflecting radar. If the tank, pickup or truck is moving, so much the better, because the movement causes a doppler shift that makes the reflection of the moving object stand out from the background echoes. These things work best in places like deserts and open areas like plains.
But all radar guidance have issues against cluttered environments like mountains and cities because of the possibility of multiple reflections, such as having other metal objects and things that also strongly reflect radar. So a lot of these weapons are also dual mode, they have laser or optical guidance and need to include human in the control loop. These weapons are also small and short ranged. If the missile or bomb is going to be fire and forget, the launcher would have been close to the area, and either it already has visually identified the target, or something or someone already did the job for that, like drones or personnel on the ground.
A YJ-83 airframe launched from air can attain 255km, and that seems way overkill for killing tanks or trucks. It would probably be better if its like a smaller, shorter ranged missile like a C-701 or a bomb. A J-16 firing at standoff ranges with a KD-88 isn't going to see the target directly from the plane but requires the human operator to see and ID the target from the camera on the nose of the KD-88. If its a YJ-83 with a mm wave radar, that's launch and forget. What is there is to stop the missile from targeting the wrong target?
A YJ-83 is too standoffish with its range, and if you're going to ground attack off with such an airframe, its better to have a TV guidance on the nose. Hence the KD-88. If you're going to do a munition with mm wave radar with fire and forget, it would be better for it to be smaller, with the plane flying nearer the target for identification and cooperation with ground forces. Having a smaller munition means the plane can also carry a lot more of them, so it can deliver a saturation attack.
I too think radar guidance has in the past been lackuster for ground targets. But technology moves on and I don't think it's out of the question sufficient resolution could be achieved with radar to make it a valid option.
Of course, using radar seeker on a large stand off missile probably means that satnav has already gotten the missile to a location where the missile has to scan a fairly small area. If the target is a structure, the radar should be able to discern the part of the building and help the missile go right in the middle, or in a specific window or so on. There's also value in having a really long stand off range against some other targets such as sam system components, various EW radars, MLRS components etc. Engaging them from 200+ km might be worth the effort.
Again i am not saying IT IS that. I'm merely musing about possibilities. Actually, I think we also may be looking at a universal training round for all missiles of similar body type. So while PLAAF's J16s may have indeed gotten an antiship, it may also be a training stand in for a simple optically guided KD88.
I would just like to stop the discussion from going into wrong direction. My desire is to just mention possibilities, however likely or unlikely they are. Not to discuss something to death and go off topic and try to prove anything to anyone.
Of course, using radar seeker on a large stand off missile probably means that satnav has already gotten the missile to a location where the missile has to scan a fairly small area. If the target is a structure, the radar should be able to discern the part of the building and help the missile go right in the middle, or in a specific window or so on. There's also value in having a really long stand off range against some other targets such as sam system components, various EW radars, MLRS components etc. Engaging them from 200+ km might be worth the effort.
Again i am not saying IT IS that. I'm merely musing about possibilities. Actually, I think we also may be looking at a universal training round for all missiles of similar body type. So while PLAAF's J16s may have indeed gotten an antiship, it may also be a training stand in for a simple optically guided KD88.
I would just like to stop the discussion from going into wrong direction. My desire is to just mention possibilities, however likely or unlikely they are. Not to discuss something to death and go off topic and try to prove anything to anyone.
- Status