Chinese Tomahawk enigma

Can someone please explain to me just what is going on?


Going by photos, there are at least three distinct Chinese "Tomahawk" cruise missile families:

1. SS-N-27 Klub imported from Russia for Kilo class subs
2. C-602/YJ-62
3. Another one that looks like C-602 but has different fins

It's the third one that confuses me.

This is it:

Notice the folding rear fins and fact that they are at 45 degrees relative to the intake. That rules out the Klub although the radome looks Klub-like.

The C-602/YJ-62 on the other hand has the rear fins alined top-bottom-sides relative to the intake - like a "+" instead of an "x" if you follow what I'm trying to say:

Note also that the fins on all the C-602 models at airshows are all aligned this way and show no sign of a bullet fairing for the fold.

The launch photos of Chinese cruise missiles, of which there are at least two, one being used "officially" at airshows, also confuse the issue....

This one has the "x" aligned rear fins:
It also appears to have the bullet fairings on the rear fins for the fold...

And this one....

...the "+" alignment.

Several things bring me to conclude that the missiles on the Type-052C are C-602/YJ-62 not the mystery missile:
1. The "x" finned missile has folding rear fins so would have a more compact container
2. The container in the last photo I posted matches those on the Type-052C very well.

Before we go there, we can also rule out the smuggled Kent cruise missiles because they have a distinctly different fin/engine arangement and were air-launched:


Thoughts:
1. The fins could spin giving different alignments in different photos???? unlikely and photos don't substantiate that.

2. The models and public launch phot have been censored to give the idea of "+" fins - but why???? The real defence analysts would see through it anyway - just because the missiles in the two launch pictures are painted very similarly wouldn't work - not least because it is the alignment of the paint jobs that prove the fin alignment differences.

3. Competing/development designs?

4. Two distinct variants for different uses ... but why have different fins?????

5. A design progression where the "x" fins didn't work out so they changed to non-folding "+" fins which probably give more range (less drag?, less weight?) but take up more space?

I am very confused:coffee: .

Pretty nice catch...there's a nice nut for us to chew for while we wait somethign new to come to around....

but here's my input.

Unfortuanetly, with chinese military issues, we always need to examine the possipilty of Photo shopping, eq picture manipulation.
But in this case, its the normal Eye that fools us.
If you look it carefully its zoom, you could almoust tell that the eye is fooled by the angle and the intake is in fact in the position that would mean the fins to be 'X' -position....Here's a zoom of that pic to prove it.


So that leave us with only one pic of claimed Yj-62 (C-602) with the '+' position fins. And that is an exhibition modell...so I would say that who ever made that modell, wasent aware of the missiles actual concept, or deliberatly wanted to disslude the viewer...

Golly, not to knock your effort, but I think all those pretty red go-faster stripes they paint on the missiles is making you go cross eyed, lol. So.... I think you're off on that assessment of that photo - look at the paint job on the missile more carefully:

This analysis aligns the rear fins relative to the forward fins:


Also, count the ">" like arrows on the rocket booster.....

Another analysis that raises more questions than it solves....

This image superimposses the missile over the launch tubes - perspective would make the missile look smaller than it really would be....

But clearly the rear fins on the "+" version must fold or retract in some way.....?

Well pthe lines do seem bit confusing, but they just migth fool us. The most striking feature is that the intake should be much more hide behind the missiles body, if it would be '+' type missile flying in that angle... If you roll the circular body of the missile so that the 'speed lines' would appear to be falsely in the bottom of that angle wiev of the missile body....wouldn't the + fins move into position falsely presenting X type???

But the image is too blurry, it should be clearer to make any final decissions, now it only raises questions....More I stare it, more it starts to look to be too weird to be either of the case. In all the other pics there are two >> marks in the booster analong to the centerline of the missile body, but in the one we are looking, there is only one pig one?? Is it from the bottom of the booster reviealed from that angle???

But then again, even if there is two patern of fins in the missile, I wouldn't automatically jump into conclusion that there are different missiles around... one could be prototype/show case decoy and the other the production model. Remember, we are talking about weapon that no one admitts to be extince and all we can do is to make assumptions over it by pics...we should wait for more pics...

Lol, here's another attempt to show the alignment of the rear fins in the airshow photo:

Well the lightening only prooves to me that it cannot be + fins...the intake should not be so visible in that angle...also, If it would be +type fins, the horizontal fins should be bigger than they look in that picture...

But

To my eye, the paint job seems to be wrong, either it to be the X fins or + fins. In both cases the stripes should be shown in much even position towards the missile body than they are in this that we speculate about....so could it be PS work in the end??

the intake should be visible from a variety of angles due to the fact it has a wide tunnel and intake.

The poster is a flat picture that was flashed photo from an angle. The poster picture itself was taken by a telephoto lens, which means flattened perspective. You have two layers of distortion working here.

There may have been a reason to change the fins to + for the export version (C-602).

It can dissort, yeas but not that way that it would prove that picture having + fins. We need more evidence, that one is too ...compromised, if one wants to say...

There is a fourth and fifth cruise missile family that has not been considered yet. This fourth is the one the DH-10 (Dong Hai or East Sea 10) belongs to. This one being the actual surface to surface standoff cruise missile.

The fifth is the stand off missles called KD-63 or YJ-63. This is more of an evolution of the Styx/Seersucker family, with a turbofan and EO seeker. Launched from aerial platforms like the H-6H, they're intended to hit high value targets with precision from standoff distances.