PLAN Anti-ship/surface missiles

ougoah said:

Impossible to defend realistically because if they're able to fire off volleys of them, they won't be detectable by targeted ships until well inside the range of HHQ-16. And while they may be fired to intercept and provided there is good enough tracking by fire control radar even 20km out, we'd mostly be relying on HQ-10 and CIWS guns in terms of active defence.

YJ-18 is also a fantastic anti-surface weapon. Frontal RCS is still low correct and it is sea-skimming which means detected at radar horizon at best and by then it's just gone supersonic and accelerating towards mach 3. This isn't about the conversation though. LRASM combined with J-35 just makes sense.

Click to expand...

Let me first start off by saying that I think developing more stealth AShM is the right approach. That could be a whole new subsonic AShM that relies on passive sensors/advanced datelining. But they could also develop newer versions of YJ-18 that uses similar passive detection/communication and use more advanced material to reduce RCS. Either way, as radar technology continue to improve, the attacking weapons also need to become harder to detect than before.

Having said that, PLA is already probably world leading when it comes to detecting and tracking stealth flying object. And they are only going to be improving in their counter stealth technology over time. Whether they are facing a stealth supersonic AShM like YJ-18 or a really stealth + lo emission subsonic AShM like LRASM, their tracking capability will only continue to improve as more 5th gen aircraft joins service with more capable aerial ISR assets around them. All of these assets will be able to cue up air defense systems on the Type 055/052Ds so that they can engage targets much further out. That's why I'm not scared of saturation attacks by LRASMs. I think we are just in a cycle where both sides are continuously improving both the evasion and tracking technology in order to be able to penetrate the adversarial air defense first.

If we look at 10 years ago when CV-16 first joined service, I don't think its escort would've been able to stop saturation attack from USN carrier group. Maybe that would've been the case even 5 years ago. But since then, we have added Type 055, more capable ISR assets, CEC between carrier assets and ever improving command and combat system. And PLAN carrier group will keep getting better at air defense as quad backed MR SAM, 5th generation aircraft and new drones join service. As we look forward, I don't see USN able to improve its missile penetration capability more quickly than PLAN is able to improve its own missile defense capabilities. So, that's why I'm not concerned. Does that make sense?

ougoah said:

Impossible to defend realistically because if they're able to fire off volleys of them, they won't be detectable by targeted ships until well inside the range of HHQ-16. And while they may be fired to intercept and provided there is good enough tracking by fire control radar even 20km out, we'd mostly be relying on HQ-10 and CIWS guns in terms of active defence.

YJ-18 is also a fantastic anti-surface weapon. Frontal RCS is still low correct and it is sea-skimming which means detected at radar horizon at best and by then it's just gone supersonic and accelerating towards mach 3. This isn't about the conversation though. LRASM combined with J-35 just makes sense.



When have JASSMs been intercepted?

Sorry I wasn't aware LRASM doesn't cruise low. But it would be worthwhile for China to develop something that is similar to LRASM and serve as yet another high tier anti-surface threat. Now that China has J-35s.

Click to expand...

Frontal RCS of the terminal stage YJ-18 after it leaves the cruise missile stage would be very low given its wingless, a small physical diameter and a sharp point.

Not only is the missile fast but the point that it is rapidly accelerating from its point of separation from subsonic to mach 3 is going to throw off tracking algorithms on fire control systems that would assume a steady speed of approach. It would have an insane energy state to spend on evasive maneuvers like this snake pattern below.

Bltizo said:

I do not believe that missile is the PLAN's YJ-21/20/XX AShBM that we've seen to begin with.
The fin placement is different, as would be the extrapolated size of the booster.



Then there's no reason for further discussion.

If that VLS is indeed the PLAN's UVLS, the depicted weapons integrated with it on the Zhuhai placard and model represents weapons that they are depicting as being offered for integration, for export purposes. Some of those weapons are likely in PLA service as well. That does not mean all of the weapons depicted are intended for PLAN service.

Click to expand...

The missiles depicted do not suggest all are intended for export. Clearly the two stage hypersonic or interceptor missile won't be. Regardless of fin placement that's not something you would expect for export.

You are niggling about fin placement from artwork? Artwork is just artwork and its not meant to be blueprint precise since we are referring to something that's going to be used for presentations and is best conceptual and capturing the idea of it. The engineers would do the actual math and aerodynamics work to create the actual fin design and placement. Of course concept design and actual design won't be the same. I won't be deeply overthinking at an image that might have been used as a internal PowerPoint presentation used with company officers and officials, or presenting to PLAN brass, then conveniently reused for this display placard.

Tam said:

The missiles depicted do not suggest all are intended for export. Clearly the two stage hypersonic or interceptor missile won't be. Regardless of fin placement that's not something you would expect for export.

You are niggling about fin placement from artwork? Artwork is just artwork and its not meant to be blueprint precise since we are referring to something that's going to be used for presentations and is best conceptual and capturing the idea of it. The engineers would do the actual math and aerodynamics work to create the actual fin design and placement. Of course concept design and actual design won't be the same. I won't be deeply overthinking at an image that might have been used as a internal PowerPoint presentation used with company officers and officials, or presenting to PLAN brass, then conveniently reused for this display placard.

Click to expand...

If we are assuming that the drawings are not meant to be accurately representative of real products, then that is fine. But in that case, I'm not sure why we are discussing the details of the depicted weapons, because for all we know they could be anything.

(Heck the model of the VLS with missiles labelled "FM-3000N" are actually quite different to the FM-3000N that they showed on its own display as well, with the model missiles resembling ESSM and the placard resembling the baseline FM-3000N).


As for the two stage weapon itself not having export potential, I wouldn't assume that.
A significantly downgraded capability weapon with lower range, less sophisticated flight profile, could very much be viable for export. They've been willing to sell range restricted SRBMs after all.



So yes, I maintain my position that the depicted art of the VLS with its various payloads is not one we can interpret as being for the PLAN's own in service UVLS payloads.

Bltizo said:

If we are assuming that the drawings are not meant to be accurately representative of real products, then that is fine. But in that case, I'm not sure why we are discussing the details of the depicted weapons, because for all we know they could be anything.

(Heck the model of the VLS with missiles labelled "FM-3000N" are actually quite different to the FM-3000N that they showed on its own display as well, with the model missiles resembling ESSM and the placard resembling the baseline FM-3000N).


As for the two stage weapon itself not having export potential, I wouldn't assume that.
A significantly downgraded capability weapon with lower range, less sophisticated flight profile, could very much be viable for export. They've been willing to sell range restricted SRBMs after all.



So yes, I maintain my position that the depicted art of the VLS with its various payloads is not one we can interpret as being for the PLAN's own in service UVLS payloads.

Click to expand...

For export? There is no missile model of that two stage missile displayed on Zhuhai, and Zhuhai has many models, often missiles that are intended for export but is only in the conceptual stage. See the CM401 and HD-1 missiles for starters. They are showing models of ASBM on that fair.

I don't really care about your position when I have my position which I will stick to. So far that image showed what might be either a hypersonic missile or interceptor and you got a good followup on it in video.

I won't look deep and overthink on the VLS display and its just a display. All the missiles there are far from accurate plus they are not labeled anything from what I recall. At best they are meant to be representations.. The FM3000N is from the placard (range 45km is close to matching 555 in range, we assume as export it maybe slightly degraded).

Tam said:

For export? There is no missile model of that two stage missile displayed on Zhuhai, and Zhuhai has many models, often missiles that are intended for export but is only in the conceptual stage. See the CM401 and HD-1 missiles for starters. They are showing models of ASBM on that fair.

Click to expand...

Yes, there are multiple missiles shown in that VLS drawing which do not have models or individual designations displayed at the airshow, including that two stage missile. They are either standins or weapons under development for export.

Tam said:

I don't really care about your position when I have my position which I will stick to. So far that image showed what might be either a hypersonic missile or interceptor and you got a good followup on it in video.

I won't look deep and overthink on the VLS display and its just a display. All the missiles there are far from accurate plus they are not labeled anything from what I recall. At best they are meant to be representations.. The FM3000N is from the placard (range 45km is close to matching 555 in range, we assume as export it maybe slightly degraded).

Click to expand...

As I wrote in #1090, then I don't see any reason to further discuss this matter between us.

ougoah said:

When have JASSMs been intercepted?

Click to expand...

2018 Syria strikes.

Gloire_bb said:

2018 Syria strikes.

Click to expand...

Is there any evidence for this? I know that Russians claimed X and Y but without any photographic evidence of any JASSM wreckage, their claims should be taken with a daily value of salt.

My personal view: subsonic sea-skimming AShM has it’s place in the future, it’s just that, LRASM isn’t one of them, NSM/JSM ? Definitely!
1.LRASM isn’t as maneuverable as harpoon/Exocet, it’s survivability is based entirely on it’s stealth ,which really isn’t smart considering UAV/UGV &all kinds of satellite would carry tons of sensors out there, some of them are UHF/Mi band, but even with normal X/S band they can make it challenging , due to the fact that it’s stealth is optimized for waves coming from the front side
2. The size of this thing is just ...awkward, JSM could be carried by F-35A/C internally, for LRASM, you wouldn’t be any different from a F-18, and bombers, they could carry much bigger&heavier&powerful munitions, personal view:LRASM is neither small enough or big enough.
3. IIR sensors for end phase? Low power lasers are already in service, how hard can it be to blind it? And the other passive sensor is .....maybe good for now, but I’d like to see how it’s going to counter decoys like Nulka or something more advanced .
Anyway ,AGM-158 is great for land attack, I don’t think it suits the anti-ship role, you could always develop a LACM based on a AShM ,but not the other way around, the essence of AShM is to penetrate enemy’s last defense circle, and that capability, I’m afraid, couldn’t be added to

SinoSoldier said:

Is there any evidence for this? I know that Russians claimed X and Y but without any photographic evidence of any JASSM wreckage, their claims should be taken with a daily value of salt.

Click to expand...

Hard to tell. IIRC they said they did, but actual debris footage, which can be reliably attributed as 'shot down' (and not picked up around the target) belongs only to SCALPs, Storm Shadows, and (obvsly) Tomahawks.
I personally doubt such a big and obvious part of the strike (~25%!) was entirely missed, considering that launching aircraft were visible to Russians thus Syrians were warned, but there is indeed no way to prove it.