PLAN Anti-ship/surface missiles

tphuang

tphuang

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
VIP Professional
Registered Member
SEAD said:
I’m sorry but I mean Ka band. Ku band is also ok but Ka is better. There’re also some other technologies to penetrate plasma cloud but they’re much more than enough for AShBM. Maneuvering must be the prior choice in practice.


Or just destroying satellites, since OTH radars are not reliable with EW. PLA needs something like RQ-180 to keep surveying a large area even without satellites, and it’s another reminder for the importance of H-20, which can search and attack CBGs in a big area independently.
I cannot stop admiring VLO bombers. Given buddy refueling, H-20 can even penetrate air defense in peacetime and take some SIGINT operations in US mainland, that would be a treasure house of intelligence. Of course B-21 may also do some similar things in China.

As a conclusion, I always assume surveying a large area with sea-skimmer seekers is not so smart(LRASM) due to their low altitude, but AShBM seeker would benefit from altitude once other tech obstacles are cleared away.
Click to expand...

Of course H-20 is of great importance. It and Type 095 are the two most important projects for China. However, they have other platform that can detect a carrier group in the event that satellites are destroyed or interfered with. GJ-11 is just the first generation of future and more capable UCAVs that China will have. It has the range to find a carrier group and keep itself hidden. There will be AEW UAVs that have very long detection range and be very stealthy. WZ-8 was probably created for the role of finding a carrier group. It is really hard to detect.

Think about it this way with respect to WZ-8. If a carrier group stays 1500 km off mainland due to fear of Chinese hypersonic AShM, then H-6N can venture further out from mainland with J-20 escort. As such, WZ-8 can be launched several hundred km further out and reach greater distance away from China and force carrier group to stay even further away.

As for B-21, the question is how close to Chinese air space it can get or intrude without being detected. As stealth technology get better, counter stealth technology via VHF/UHF radar and multi-static radars and networking will also get a lot better. If carrier itself cannot get close to mainland, then B-21 might have to encroach Chinese air space without escort. That would seem to be a very risky strategy given the counter stealth advancement that China has made.
 
by78

by78

General
Footage of a recent test firing of an allegedly new(er) anti-ship missile. I can neither ID the missile nor find its designation. It's a slender looking thing with no visible control surfaces, or least none I can see from the footage. The launch container looks very similar, if not identical to the mystery missile that was test fired last year, so I assume they are probably one and the same. Back then speculations were rampant that this was a hypersonic missile, not sure if there's any truth to that. Does anyone have more information on this?


52091746632_069580d293_k.jpg
 
Last edited:
escobar

escobar

Brigadier
by78 said:
Footage of a recent test firing of an allegedly new(er) anti-ship missile. I can neither ID the missile nor find its designation. It's a slender looking thing with no visible control surfaces, or least none I can see from the footage. The launch container looks very similar, if not identical to the mystery missile that was test fired last year, so I assume they are probably one and the same. Back then speculations were rampant that this was a hypersonic missile, not sure if there's any truth to that. Does anyone have more information on this?


52091746632_069580d293_k.jpg
Click to expand...
ground launch YJ-18?
https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1528693951221616640
FTcDC7WacAAB3l6.jpgFTcDChlagAAiYuD.jpgFTcDCXxaQAA9PEd.jpg
 
D

dingyibvs

Junior Member
Is anyone aware of any attempt to standardize missile containers, and to some degree launch platforms in general, for land based missile systems? I don't see why there can't be a land version of the UVLS, allowing for more flexible use of launch platforms as well as better concealment of the munitions they carry. You can still have specialized launch platforms in addition so as not to unnecessarily limit the dimensions of land-based munitions, but if say 50% of the land-based SAMs +/- quad packing, CMs, SRBMs, etc. use the same launch platforms that could reduce cost and increase tactical flexibility.
 
BoraTas

BoraTas

Captain
Registered Member
dingyibvs said:
Is anyone aware of any attempt to standardize missile containers, and to some degree launch platforms in general, for land based missile systems? I don't see why there can't be a land version of the UVLS, allowing for more flexible use of launch platforms as well as better concealment of the munitions they carry. You can still have specialized launch platforms in addition so as not to unnecessarily limit the dimensions of land-based munitions, but if say 50% of the land-based SAMs +/- quad packing, CMs, SRBMs, etc. use the same launch platforms that could reduce cost and increase tactical flexibility.
Click to expand...
I am not sure about it. In the sea, the ship itself is much more expensive than the weaponry on it thus they are the bottleneck. And ships have a limited number of launchers that are hard to replace. So it makes a lot of sense to have a universal launcher despite their some advantages. On land, you use trucks. Trucks are much cheaper compared to missiles. So the number of launchers is almost never the bottleneck on land. Trucks are also generally easier to modify compared to ships. In this case, a universal launcher sounds like a luxury.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top