PLAN Anti-ship/surface missiles

by78 said:

Click to expand...

I think it’s this picture in particular that is making people think these missiles are the real deal and not mock ups. And I just say I believe them.

The level of detail is utterly ridiculous for a part of the missile that isn’t easily seen and serves zero useful purpose to do for a mock up. They could have slapped a white plate on like some of the other mock ups and no one would have cared.

As for the pivotal question of why use a real missile and not a mock-up, well the obvious answer is opsec.

To make mock-ups, you need very detailed high res photos to send to the manufacturer to build them. That is an obvious risk factor. Yes that risk can be managed, but why take that risk at all?

The alternative is to have the factory making the real missiles make the mock-up to ensure no additional risk of security leaks, but that will eat up time and resources that could instead be making more live missiles. This might be fine for established missiles with plenty of existing stocks and no need to do overtime to meet PLA production demands, but it will be a bigger ask for a newer missile that the PLA wants to build inventory asap.

Alternatively, it could easily be that the YJ21 is a late addition to the parade line up, so there wasn’t time to make the mock ups beforehand.

Finally, they could have used a real booster with a mock-up missile.

plawolf said:

I think it’s this picture in particular that is making people think these missiles are the real deal and not mock ups. And I just say I believe them.

Click to expand...

I mean, does this look real to you?

by78 said:

Click to expand...

Dante80 said:

I mean, does this look real to you?

Click to expand...

I mean, does this look like the missile we are talking about to you?

Apologies, I mistakenly thought you were talking about the missiles in general when you used the plural form, and brought up YJ-17 as an example.

You were specifically/exclusively talking about YJ-17 though.

plawolf said:

As for the pivotal question of why use a real missile and not a mock-up, well the obvious answer is opsec.

Click to expand...

I think its a message. People can debate whether a mockup really represents a functional item forever. But showing the real thing, that's a warning.

plawolf said:

I think it’s this picture in particular that is making people think these missiles are the real deal and not mock ups. And I just say I believe them.

The level of detail is utterly ridiculous for a part of the missile that isn’t easily seen and serves zero useful purpose to do for a mock up. They could have slapped a white plate on like some of the other mock ups and no one would have cared.

Click to expand...

it's almost certain those are mockups and not actual missiles. If anything, b/c do you really want to carry hundreds of tons of rocket fuel (and warheads, in many of those they aren't meant to be stored separately) in the middle of Beijing in front of all the people? Not even touching absolutely unnecessary added weight, which streets of Beijing ... can handle, but this won't come free.

Rockets aren't toys in the end, and there is absolutely zero difference in terms of display. CCAs can be real; just don't fuel them.
I.e. what we see is just different quality of different mockups. If the concern is realism - then get one empty hull of production line, it'll look exactly as the proper weapon.