PLAN Anti-ship/surface missiles
- Thread starter tphuang
- Start date
I am not convinced the VLS shown at Zhuhai last year is necessarily the UVLS -- and if it does happen to be the UVLS I do not believe all of the weapons depicted in that diagram would be integrated for the PLAN either.
Instead, I believe it is a marketing display for prospective integration for export customers.
Integrating the new dual mode YJ-83 for the UVLS when the YJ-18 is already the primary AShM at this stage and when both possess a similar air breathing flight profile, doesn't make sense to me, unless the YJ-83 variant is capable of being accommodated in a shorter length variant than the 9m length.
But even then, the fact remains that neither YJ-18 nor the dual mode YJ-83 are replacements for the long anticipated and rumoured land attack YJ-18 variant, which should be a peer to Tomahawk and subsonic Kalibr LACM.
In fact, now that the supposed YJ-21 UVLS launched AShBM is revealed, I would say that among the weapons we should be actively anticipating to be revealed as integrated for the UVLS, are:
- LACM YJ-18 variant
- 3-5 quad pack MR SAM (could be FM-3000N, but I find it more likely to be a different missile)
- VL ASROC type weapon (either Yu-8, or a new design)
Other ones we expect but are less clear on for timing include a VLR SAM, an ABM weapon, and other anti ship weapons.
I am not convinced the VLS shown at Zhuhai last year is necessarily the UVLS -- and if it does happen to be the UVLS I do not believe all of the weapons depicted in that diagram would be integrated for the PLAN either.
Why bother with subsonic YJ18 derived (or other) LACM when hypersonic CM like CJ100 are available?
The canted nose missile, which I expect to be the YJ-83B, was shown on the shorter length VLS, while the two stage hypersonic missile was shown on the longer. The illustration here shows three sections on the VLS. The front or first section is shorter than the other two. The Quad pack, HHQ-9, the new MRSAM, and the YJ-83B are mounted on the shorter section, while longer section has the two staged missile. Note our hypersonic missile is right next to the YJ-83B. The finned MRSAM on the left will come into play with discussions on the 054B but that's another topic.
This certainly hints of land attack cruise missiles.
Last edited:
YJ-18 should have secondary land attack capabilities. While that is not optimal usage of YJ-18, it might be sufficient for what PLAN needs right now.
As I posted in the hypersonic development thread, I see basically 3 phases to Chinese AShM in the past 15 years.
1) the proliferation of long range high subsonic missiles like YJ-83s and YJ-62s. They were able to loading up those Type 022s with 8 YJ-83s each. Pretty intense stuff. In reality, I'm not sure how much damage they can put on a USN carrier group even if all the Type 022s launched 8 missiles each. Maybe a few escort, but I doubt they'd be able to put a carrier out of action.
2) the proliferation of long range high supersonic missiles like YJ-12 and YJ-18 on both bombers and surface warships. This is actually much more dynamic threat, since YJ-18 combines all the benefits of supersonic and subsonic missiles (long range, low profile and high supersonic terminal phase). Being able to carry them in UVLS means PLAN can launch saturation attacks with a whole bunch of supersonic missiles. This would trouble a carrier group a lot more, but I'm still not sure if they'd be able to put a carrier out of action.
3) the likely proliferation of air and sea launched ASBM and hypersonic anti-ship missiles. I expect them to continue developing these missiles to be ever harder to pick up and intercept. I think having multiple ASBM, HGV and HCM come at a carrier is a couple of magnitude more difficult to cleanly intercept than similar number of subsonic AShM. Just thinking about having a mach 5 missile coming straight down vs sea-skimmers flying parallel to target in subsonic speed. It is really hard to cleanly intercept the former without any debris causing damages. A clean hit might be able to even sink a carrier. Even if several subsonic cruise missiles hit a modern supercarrier, I don't think it would sink it.
You see a progression of PLAN anti-ship missiles getting progressively harder to intercept. And this happened in a short time. I'm not sure what the next step is except maybe flying even faster in terminal stage and becoming more maneuverable to invade defense and maybe flying profiles that would be harder to pick up and predict.
As I posted in the hypersonic development thread, I see basically 3 phases to Chinese AShM in the past 15 years.
1) the proliferation of long range high subsonic missiles like YJ-83s and YJ-62s. They were able to loading up those Type 022s with 8 YJ-83s each. Pretty intense stuff. In reality, I'm not sure how much damage they can put on a USN carrier group even if all the Type 022s launched 8 missiles each. Maybe a few escort, but I doubt they'd be able to put a carrier out of action.
2) the proliferation of long range high supersonic missiles like YJ-12 and YJ-18 on both bombers and surface warships. This is actually much more dynamic threat, since YJ-18 combines all the benefits of supersonic and subsonic missiles (long range, low profile and high supersonic terminal phase). Being able to carry them in UVLS means PLAN can launch saturation attacks with a whole bunch of supersonic missiles. This would trouble a carrier group a lot more, but I'm still not sure if they'd be able to put a carrier out of action.
3) the likely proliferation of air and sea launched ASBM and hypersonic anti-ship missiles. I expect them to continue developing these missiles to be ever harder to pick up and intercept. I think having multiple ASBM, HGV and HCM come at a carrier is a couple of magnitude more difficult to cleanly intercept than similar number of subsonic AShM. Just thinking about having a mach 5 missile coming straight down vs sea-skimmers flying parallel to target in subsonic speed. It is really hard to cleanly intercept the former without any debris causing damages. A clean hit might be able to even sink a carrier. Even if several subsonic cruise missiles hit a modern supercarrier, I don't think it would sink it.
You see a progression of PLAN anti-ship missiles getting progressively harder to intercept. And this happened in a short time. I'm not sure what the next step is except maybe flying even faster in terminal stage and becoming more maneuverable to invade defense and maybe flying profiles that would be harder to pick up and predict.
It's a CASIC display and CASIC designed and made the U-VLS. AJK-16 on the other hand is by SAST who usually have their own display section.
Last edited:
1, more than an order of magnitude(!) cheaper(actually ~1.5 or more. HCMs really bite ur wallet hard),
2, way more mass-producible (if you can spam 1970s turbofan, autopilot, and inertial unit - u can spam the whole thing)
3, several times smaller for the given range/warhead,
4, stealthy (no target warning by rising over the horizon, permits long weird flightpaths, overcast may hide the launch completely),
5, safer to use(no shiny launch right over the launch point, immediately showing everyone where the attacker is)
...and more
I'm well aware of what was shown to be depicted in the image for the VLS shown at Zhuhai last year.
What I am challenging is:
1. Is the VLS shown at Zhuhai last year, actually the PLAN's UVLS that is installed on 052D and 055? If it is not actually the same VLS type as the PLAN's UVLS, then any speculation about the integrated weapons displayed on the system shown at Zhuhai has zero bearing on what systems are actually installed on the PLAN's UVLS
2. If the VLS shown at Zhuhai last year is the PLAN's UVLS that is installed on 052D and 055, do we have any reason to believe that the depicted weapons that are "integrated" with the VLS at Zhuhai are actually weapons that the PLAN are going to integrate in their own UVLS?
I do not believe we have any credible evidence for either of those questions.
We cannot simply assume that just because a system shown for export that looks very similar to the PLAN's own in service system is actually the same system, nor can we assume that even if they are the same system, that all of the payloads depicted are actually ones the PLAN is actively interested in pursuing, nor do we know that the payloads depicted are the full extent of the payloads the PLAN are interested in (they may well be interested in additional payloads that are NOT depicted).
Let us not make the same mistake of the early 2010s when many of us were incorrectly calling the HQ-10 CIWS SAM as "FL-3000N" simply due to their very similar external appearances -- when in reality years later, it turned out that they were entirely separate systems, just functionally and externally very similar!
Many reasons:
1. CJ-100 is far too big to be carried by the PLAN's UVLS aboard 052D and 055
2. A subsonic LACM can achieve an effective long range in a far smaller size
3. A subsonic LACM is also far cheaper to achieve the same effective range or payload
4. Possessing multiple weapon types across multiple different flight profiles, speeds, and ranges, and signature levels, allows you to engage targets more effectively by complicating enemy defenses. It also allows you to service different targets using appropriate weapons. An imperfect but easily understandable analogy, is if you think about guns. Just because a 50 caliber heavy sniper rifle exists, doesn't mean that you don't need general purpose machine guns, light machine guns, sniper rifles, designated marksman rifles, assault rifles, submachine guns, and pistols and shotguns, all of which have their own role. It is the same with missiles.