PLAN Anti-ship/surface missiles

sutton999 said:

Non specific, likely means airial target. I would say airbases are land target.

Click to expand...

I'm much more tempted to interpret it as "nodes of aerial systems".

Considering the PLA does systems destruction warfare, I wouldn't be surprised if this is just an unnecessarily technical way of describing nodes of different domain systems (land, air, sea etc), rather than actual targets in the air flying.

It's not a super intuitive way of describing it, as one would think that describing it as "enemy surface targets" would be better, but from a systems confrontation point of view I can see how it makes sense.


The alternative idea of having a primary surface to surface missile system also have a surface to air role (which it would be rather poorly optimized for, even though it technically could be done), just seems like a less likely interpretation and raises more eyebrows.

"Node targets of land, sea, air system" - Installations supporting land, sea, air systems such as bases, C2 installations, ports.

They are all land targets, and the CJ-designation (land attack cruise missile) does not exactly suggest some sort of dual role capability like SM-6. They probably include large naval formations in the role, but I struggle to see how they're going to hit any sort of aircraft with this monster. It was shown in the strategic strike bracket, which did not include anything else targeting aircraft either, as far as I recall.

Edit: Well nevermind, Blitzo was quicker than I.

I have to revise my own view—CJ-1000 might actually be capable of striking aerial node like early warning aircraft and tankers.

Previously, we dismissed ramjet missiles as incapable of anti-air engagement because ramjet engines lack the maximum speed compare to the rocket engines, and can't sustain significant overG

However, scramjets possess abundant DeltaV. If we consider it as a giant super Meteor or 21st-century version of the Bomarc, the whole thing makes much more sense

Moreover, as a high penetrate capacity missile, it should use means such as side thrust rocket engines to improve terminal maneuverability. These can be used in anti-air maneuvers.

We don't know its guidance method. But cruise missiles typically imply high-precision guidance. Assuming it can be relay-guided via CEC and possesses optical or radar terminal guidance, it absolutely possesses the capability to shoot down large military aircraft.

Yes, it is not economically feasible to do so, but it is feasible in principle.

para80 said:

Not aerial targets. "Node targets of air systems." Meaning airbases.

Click to expand...

Blitzo said:

I'm much more tempted to interpret it as "nodes of aerial systems".

Considering the PLA does systems destruction warfare, I wouldn't be surprised if this is just an unnecessarily technical way of describing nodes of different domain systems (land, air, sea etc), rather than actual targets in the air flying.

It's not a super intuitive way of describing it, as one would think that describing it as "enemy surface targets" would be better, but from a systems confrontation point of view I can see how it makes sense.


The alternative idea of having a primary surface to surface missile system also have a surface to air role (which it would be rather poorly optimized for, even though it technically could be done), just seems like a less likely interpretation and raises more eyebrows.

Click to expand...

Yankee hinted at the capability of attacking actual in air targets in his latest article:


“Poorness limits imagination”

Compared with the global nuclear missile forces and the all-encompassing drone arrays, the “traditional weapons” on parade are often subjected to even harsher scrutiny from picky audiences. Even the Type-100 tank and its support vehicles, which incorporate many new concepts, remain under debate as to whether they truly represent the future of land warfare. And the claim that the Changjian-1000 hypersonic cruise missile has air-to-air strike capability is another interesting example.

Although this statement was made public in interviews released right after the parade, to this day there are still military enthusiasts who try to downplay it: “Air system nodes means fixed targets like airfields and radar stations, absolutely not AWACS aircraft.” What they don’t realize is that equipping (hyper/)supersonic cruise missiles with some degree of air-to-air capability was already a dream back when the Changjian-100 supersonic cruise missile was being studied. It was only abandoned then because the technology of the time couldn’t support it, forcing the designers to drop that requirement.

Behind the phrase “Poorness limits imagination,” on the one hand, may be a habit of thinking small—believing that applying such advanced technology to missiles seems “not worth it.” On the other hand, it reflects a lack of understanding of the decades since the 1999 embassy bombing, during which generations of soldiers and defense workers, no matter their circumstances, never forgot their determination to “drive strong enemies east of the island chains.” If one weapon isn’t enough, then develop several more; if one generation cannot fulfill the mission, the next will carry it forward.

I also remember the trio talking specifically about this in either the podcast or the livestream, but I cannot find it right now.

00CuriousObserver said:

Yankee hinted at the capability of attacking actual in air targets in his latest article:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

“Poorness limits imagination”

Compared with the global nuclear missile forces and the all-encompassing drone arrays, the “traditional weapons” on parade are often subjected to even harsher scrutiny from picky audiences. Even the Type-100 tank and its support vehicles, which incorporate many new concepts, remain under debate as to whether they truly represent the future of land warfare. And the claim that the Changjian-1000 hypersonic cruise missile has air-to-air strike capability is another interesting example.

Although this statement was made public in interviews released right after the parade, to this day there are still military enthusiasts who try to downplay it: “Air system nodes means fixed targets like airfields and radar stations, absolutely not AWACS aircraft.” What they don’t realize is that equipping (hyper/)supersonic cruise missiles with some degree of air-to-air capability was already a dream back when the Changjian-100 supersonic cruise missile was being studied. It was only abandoned then because the technology of the time couldn’t support it, forcing the designers to drop that requirement.

Behind the phrase “Poorness limits imagination,” on the one hand, may be a habit of thinking small—believing that applying such advanced technology to missiles seems “not worth it.” On the other hand, it reflects a lack of understanding of the decades since the 1999 embassy bombing, during which generations of soldiers and defense workers, no matter their circumstances, never forgot their determination to “drive strong enemies east of the island chains.” If one weapon isn’t enough, then develop several more; if one generation cannot fulfill the mission, the next will carry it forward.

I also remember the trio talking specifically about this in either the podcast or the livestream, but I cannot find it right now.

Click to expand...

Is Yankee reading SDF and making fun of us?

00CuriousObserver said:

Yankee hinted at the capability of attacking actual in air targets in his latest article:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

“Poorness limits imagination”

Compared with the global nuclear missile forces and the all-encompassing drone arrays, the “traditional weapons” on parade are often subjected to even harsher scrutiny from picky audiences. Even the Type-100 tank and its support vehicles, which incorporate many new concepts, remain under debate as to whether they truly represent the future of land warfare. And the claim that the Changjian-1000 hypersonic cruise missile has air-to-air strike capability is another interesting example.

Although this statement was made public in interviews released right after the parade, to this day there are still military enthusiasts who try to downplay it: “Air system nodes means fixed targets like airfields and radar stations, absolutely not AWACS aircraft.” What they don’t realize is that equipping (hyper/)supersonic cruise missiles with some degree of air-to-air capability was already a dream back when the Changjian-100 supersonic cruise missile was being studied. It was only abandoned then because the technology of the time couldn’t support it, forcing the designers to drop that requirement.

Behind the phrase “Poorness limits imagination,” on the one hand, may be a habit of thinking small—believing that applying such advanced technology to missiles seems “not worth it.” On the other hand, it reflects a lack of understanding of the decades since the 1999 embassy bombing, during which generations of soldiers and defense workers, no matter their circumstances, never forgot their determination to “drive strong enemies east of the island chains.” If one weapon isn’t enough, then develop several more; if one generation cannot fulfill the mission, the next will carry it forward.

I also remember the trio talking specifically about this in either the podcast or the livestream, but I cannot find it right now.

Click to expand...

Yes, livestream in September 4th. The trio also mocked Western claims that the PLA is developing ultra-long-range surface-to-air missiles with ranges of 1,000 to 2,000 km, saying, "Are these all CJ-1000s? Still makes sense lmao"

Jokes aside, the use of ramjets for anti-air missile is well-documented. Yankee mentioned the Bomarc and Brass Knight, while Ayi cited the Meteor as examples. From a theoretical perspective, scramjets are indeed an option for surface-to-air and air-to-air missiles to achieve ultra-long ranges.

By the way, regarding the YJ-15, many blogger said that its maximum speed is higher than the YJ-12, very close the boundary of Mach 5

00CuriousObserver said:

Yankee hinted at the capability of attacking actual in air targets in his latest article:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

“Poorness limits imagination”

Compared with the global nuclear missile forces and the all-encompassing drone arrays, the “traditional weapons” on parade are often subjected to even harsher scrutiny from picky audiences. Even the Type-100 tank and its support vehicles, which incorporate many new concepts, remain under debate as to whether they truly represent the future of land warfare. And the claim that the Changjian-1000 hypersonic cruise missile has air-to-air strike capability is another interesting example.

Although this statement was made public in interviews released right after the parade, to this day there are still military enthusiasts who try to downplay it: “Air system nodes means fixed targets like airfields and radar stations, absolutely not AWACS aircraft.” What they don’t realize is that equipping (hyper/)supersonic cruise missiles with some degree of air-to-air capability was already a dream back when the Changjian-100 supersonic cruise missile was being studied. It was only abandoned then because the technology of the time couldn’t support it, forcing the designers to drop that requirement.

Behind the phrase “Poorness limits imagination,” on the one hand, may be a habit of thinking small—believing that applying such advanced technology to missiles seems “not worth it.” On the other hand, it reflects a lack of understanding of the decades since the 1999 embassy bombing, during which generations of soldiers and defense workers, no matter their circumstances, never forgot their determination to “drive strong enemies east of the island chains.” If one weapon isn’t enough, then develop several more; if one generation cannot fulfill the mission, the next will carry it forward.

I also remember the trio talking specifically about this in either the podcast or the livestream, but I cannot find it right now.

Click to expand...

I found a clip:


I would categorize this as them strongly hinting at it, and not explicitly confirming it.

bsdnf said:

By the way, regarding the YJ-15, many blogger said that its maximum speed is higher than the YJ-12, very close the boundary of Mach 5

Click to expand...

Uhh on what basis