PLAN Anti-ship/surface missiles

Tam said:

You think that comparing a half seeker to a full one is irrelevant but it is completely and absolutely relevant. The array size and number of elements is absolutely important to its performance. Being sufficient is not enough. Military procurement means you also have to judge across a wide range of similar proposals using alternative means and select which provides the superior performance. Not because it's 'enough.

Click to expand...

It is not relevant, because if the performance of a modern seeker using half the radome is able to meet the requirements of a ARH seeker on a modern YJ-83 variant missile, then why do you need a full nose radome seeker?

Tam said:

CM-802B placard never mentioned an ARH seeker. Period. I remember FD2000 placards mention a composite guidance system and it turns out it's ARH + command guidance in midphase.

IIR guidance is best used against land targets, and AESA is too much of a cost to be wasted on a building when you can do it without the radar.

Click to expand...

It directly mentions a "combined seeker," period.

Not "combined guidance" or "composite guidance".


Seeker, not guidance.

Just a couple things that came to mind

1 a. Is it really cost-effective to add on an IR seeker to an already built missile?
b. @Blitzo, you believe that the bolt-on seeker is full ImIR rather than heat-seeking IR

2. How relevant is the work done on PL-XX to this discussion? AAM is usually smaller than this kind of missile, but PL-XX is suspected to have dual ImIR and AESA seekers (similar to the aforementioned Stunner/David's Sling). Of course AAM does not require any look down capability.

Blitzo said:

It is not relevant, because if the performance of a modern seeker using half the radome is able to meet the requirements of a ARH seeker on a modern YJ-83 variant missile, then why do you need a full nose radome seeker?





It directly mentions a "combined seeker," period.

Not "combined guidance" or "composite guidance".


Seeker, not guidance.

Click to expand...

If the performance of half a radar seeker meets the requirements you won't even need the IIR at all.

If the performance of a full seeker not only meets the requirements but exceeds it by a significant amount, logic dictates that you must choose the superior alternative.

And please, mainland Chinglish is weird and ambigious, coming from people who don't speak native English. You always have to account that their English sucks and can be misinterpreted. Combined seeker doesn't mean dual seeker. It can mean a single seeker with combined functions, e.g. Antiship and Ground Attack.

supersnoop said:

Just a couple things that came to mind

1 a. Is it really cost-effective to add on an IR seeker to an already built missile?
b. @Blitzo, you believe that the bolt-on seeker is full ImIR rather than heat-seeking IR

2. How relevant is the work done on PL-XX to this discussion? AAM is usually smaller than this kind of missile, but PL-XX is suspected to have dual ImIR and AESA seekers (similar to the aforementioned Stunner/David's Sling). Of course AAM does not require any look down capability.

Click to expand...

Its not cost effective to add AESA on a ground attack missile with IIR. You are destroying buildings that cost far less than a missile so don't try to make the missile cost far more than it should.

Homing is far more responsive to maneuvering targets than IIR. IIR works by continually analyzing and processing the image then going through a processing and a logic loop. Infrared homing simply steers the missile to a hot spot. IR seeker is used when the ARH head encounters jamming and the jamming succeeds although AESA itself is difficult to jam. Another use of IR is when the situation around the target has excess clutter like during littoral conditions, such as rocks on a shallow sea bed or protruding islands that can produce their radar returns.

IR itself has less range than radar due to water vapor absorbing IR frequencies and there is plenty of that in the ocean.

Tam said:

Wow you really don't know how a radar seeker works don't you?

If the performance of half a radar seeker meets the requirements you won't even need the IIR at all.

If the performance of a full seeker not only meets the requirements but exceeds it by a significant amount, logic dictates that you must choose the superior alternative.

And please, mainland Chinglish is weird and ambigious, coming from people who don't speak native English. You always have to account that their English sucks and can be misinterpreted. Combined seeker doesn't mean dual seeker. It can mean a single seeker with combined functions, e.g. Antiship and Ground Attack.

Click to expand...

You are very much lack of Chinese culture, especially the subtlety. Anglos need tens of years to grasp the gists of of the fundamentals of Chinese language. An average educated Chinese learns 10, 000 characters, by heart and in wrting. How many do you know and learn??

davidau said:

You are very much lack of Chinese culture, especially the subtlety. Anglos need tens of years to grasp the gists of of the fundamentals of Chinese language. An average educated Chinese learns 10, 000 characters, by heart and in wrting. How many do you know and learn??

Click to expand...

If you have seen enough Chinese companies, not just mainland but also HK, Taiwanese, you will see plenty of mistakes in their English, and its often seen in their product brochures. English has plenty of context thats already unconsciously understood by native speakers but not non native ones.

Patchwork_Chimera said:

While EW is sort of a black box, and so I won't get into anything specific, I'd like to note that the upcoming SEWIP and its SLQ-32(V)6 make multi-modal guidance very useful. A seeker only needs to be able to acquire and home onto a target, and if a full-size seeker is overcompensating for a non-jamming target, but isn't capable of out-EPing a jamming target, multi-modal guidance is the happy medium.


I think you're overestimating it lol, I picked it up in a couple years when I was younger, and our linguists pick it up in a year flat, with fluency in 1.5-2 years easy.

Click to expand...

Against small, stealthy ships, like say, a Tuo Chiang corvette, you would need more powerful seekers to deal both with the reduced RCS but also their lower ship profile and the sea clutter. That's why there is no such thing as 'enough' as ships continually reduce their own RCS ala stealthy frigates and corvettes, and combine that with their onboard ECM.

Patchwork_Chimera said:

I think you're overestimating it lol, I picked it up in a couple years when I was younger, and our linguists pick it up in a year flat, with fluency in 1.5-2 years easy.

Click to expand...

Which makes me wonder why tf twitter's "china watchers"(distinct from PLA watchers) make no effort to learn the language.

Rhetoric question. I know there is no money to be made in accurate reporting on China in general

Patchwork_Chimera said:

I think you're overestimating it lol, I picked it up in a couple years when I was younger, and our linguists pick it up in a year flat, with fluency in 1.5-2 years easy.

Click to expand...

Linguists aren’t really a fair point of comparison because they’ve already spent years building knowledge and intuition for the universal structure and logic of languages. How well a person picks up Chinese, and how long it takes for a person to pick it up, depends in part on the teaching method. Most teaching methods aren’t good, including the teaching methods Chinese instructors have come up with to teach foreigners.

Patchwork_Chimera said:

I think you're overestimating it lol, I picked it up in a couple years when I was younger, and our linguists pick it up in a year flat, with fluency in 1.5-2 years easy.

Click to expand...

Formal fluency in the language isn't enough for real understanding.

The First Emperor and the Qin Dynasty is about the same age as the Roman Empire.
And modern-day China has (roughly speaking) - twice the land area and twice the population of all of Europe.

You'd have to learn the Chinese equivalent of 2000 years of European civilisation regarding philosophy, society, culture, wars, history etc etc, in order to get all the references.

Then a lived experience to really understand how modern day Chinese society works and thinks.

---
And because the vocabulary is much more limited, there is much more ambiguity in the language.
Plus culturally, Confucian societies are far less blunt and forthright. Just look at how Japanese is for example.

So if you're unpacking the China-Japan relationship, you'd have to look at the term "Small Japan". This has 3 straightforward meanings in terms of population, geography and economics. But then there is a 4th meaning which is specific to Confucian culture and the senior/junior hierarchy. There's a whole set of obligations and expectations which would take forever to explain.

And on top of that, you've got a convoluted China-Japan relationship literally spanning 2000 years as well.

Anyway, back on topic