PLAN Anti-ship/surface missiles

S

SanWenYu

Captain
Registered Member
gelgoog said:
You can use a scramjet missile to hit aircraft. But aircraft move fairly quickly. At extreme ranges of thousands of km it is doubtful such a weapon would be viable.
Click to expand...
What Yankee hinted is that CJ-1000 can hit targets in air under certain conditions. He did not specify the distance. Neither did he imply that PLA will rely on CJ-1000 for air defence at extreme distances.

"让（高）超声速巡航导弹具备一定对空打击能力，是从当初论证长剑-100超声速巡航导弹时就有的梦想，只是限于当时的技术条件无法实现，导致最终放弃了这一指标而已"

I see this as a last resort for rare occasions in which you only have a CJ-1000 launcher within the reach and you have intelligence relays to not lose track of the target until it is hit.
 
T

tamsen_ikard

Senior Member
Registered Member
SanWenYu said:
What Yankee hinted is that CJ-1000 can hit targets in air under certain conditions. He did not specify the distance. Neither did he imply that PLA will rely on CJ-1000 for air defence at extreme distances.

"让（高）超声速巡航导弹具备一定对空打击能力，是从当初论证长剑-100超声速巡航导弹时就有的梦想，只是限于当时的技术条件无法实现，导致最终放弃了这一指标而已"

I see this as a last resort for rare occasions in which you only have a CJ-1000 launcher within the reach and you have intelligence relays to not lose track of the target until it is hit.
Click to expand...
The threat that it even exists will throw out US military planners thinking of using slow moving tankers and bombers to attack China. They will start to rule out certain standoff strike missions. This is what deterrence looks like.
 
A

ACuriousPLAFan

Brigadier
Registered Member
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...
00CuriousObserver said:
I found a clip:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

I would categorize this as them strongly hinting at it, and not explicitly confirming it.
Click to expand...
bsdnf said:
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.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but can anyone make sense of this?

Why is Yankee (or the Guancha Gang in general) simultaneously dismissing the suggestion/notion of China developing the 1000-2000-kilometer ULRSAM, while also still strongly hinting at the capability of the CJ-1000 hitting aerial targets?

If anything - Shouldn't a dedicated (i.e. designed-from-the-ground-up) ULRSAM be much more capable at engaging aerial targets than a cruise missile with surface strike as its primary mission, instead of the other way around?
 
BoraTas

BoraTas

Major
Registered Member
ACuriousPLAFan said:
If anything - Shouldn't a dedicated (i.e. designed-from-the-ground-up) ULRSAM be much more capable at engaging aerial targets than a cruise missile with surface strike as its primary mission, instead of the other way around?
Click to expand...
Honestly, the use of CJ-1000 in combination with the AEW fleet to prosecute the B-52 and C-17 makes sense. Especially the B-52 currently provides most of USAF GSC's strike capability against China. In all domains, bombers are special because they have speed, range and a decent payload. The B-52 is particularly special because the B-1 fleet is a mess because of their past use for CAS in Afghanistan and the B-2 fleet simply lacks the numbers and payload capacity. The C-17 is also getting the Rapid Dragon for a bomber-like use.

If I come to the CJ-1000 itself, it physically should have the capability. Software and command system implementation would be development challenges.

Speed: At Mach 7 plus it can definitely catch-up to the bomber. The B-52 would launch its JASSMs from about 800 km off the PRC shores. At an average relative speed around Mach 6, it takes about 9 minutes for it to cross the distance. Mach 7 is also faster than most AAMs and SAMs.

Altitude: All hypersonics fly high at 20+ km altitude unlike subsonic LACMs.

Seeker: It would have a large AESA. Modern radar behavior is software defined. The tasks that require dedicated aircraft in the past are just software packages in 2025. An air search function could be implemented. 9 minutes mean a lot of displacement. But the B-52 and C-17 have massive signatures and the missile will have a datalink anyway.

Maneuverability: This is a wildcard. China loves maneuverability in non-counter air missiles. The YJ-18, YJ-31, HJ-10, etc had their maneuveability marketed. I bet the CJ-1000 was designed with significant maneuverability to increase its chances against the Patriot and SM-6 et al. Which might be enough for bomber interception.

To sum up, I believe the proposition is viable.
 
T

tamsen_ikard

Senior Member
Registered Member
BoraTas said:
Honestly, the use of CJ-1000 in combination with the AEW fleet to prosecute the B-52 and C-17 makes sense. Especially the B-52 currently provides most of USAF GSC's strike capability against China. In all domains, bombers are special because they have speed, range and a decent payload. The B-52 is particularly special because the B-1 fleet is a mess because of their past use for CAS in Afghanistan and the B-2 fleet simply lacks the numbers and payload capacity. The C-17 is also getting the Rapid Dragon for a bomber-like use.

If I come to the CJ-1000 itself, it physically should have the capability. Software and command system implementation would be development challenges.

Speed: At Mach 7 plus it can definitely catch-up to the bomber. The B-52 would launch its JASSMs from about 800 km off the PRC shores. At an average relative speed around Mach 6, it takes about 9 minutes for it to cross the distance. Mach 7 is also faster than most AAMs and SAMs.

Altitude: All hypersonics fly high at 20+ km altitude unlike subsonic LACMs.

Seeker: It would have a large AESA. Modern radar behavior is software defined. The tasks that require dedicated aircraft in the past are just software packages in 2025. An air search function could be implemented. 9 minutes mean a lot of displacement. But the B-52 and C-17 have massive signatures and the missile will have a datalink anyway.

Maneuverability: This is a wildcard. China loves maneuverability in non-counter air missiles. The YJ-18, YJ-31, HJ-10, etc had their maneuveability marketed. I bet the CJ-1000 was designed with significant maneuverability to increase its chances against the Patriot and SM-6 et al. Which might be enough for bomber interception.

To sum up, I believe the proposition is viable.
Click to expand...


Imagine a ultra long range hypersonic cruise missile that has range to hit Hawaii. Chinese satellites or Drone survellience detect US planes taking off from bases in Middle-east, Diego Garcia or Hawaii, launches Hypersonic cruise missiles to shoot them down. US planes get shot down in their own air space. If they can do this for CJ-1000, they can do this for CJ-1 milion.
 
Tomboy

Tomboy

Senior Member
Registered Member
tamsen_ikard said:
Imagine a ultra long range hypersonic cruise missile that has range to hit Hawaii. Chinese satellites or Drone survellience detect US planes taking off from bases in Middle-east, Diego Garcia or Hawaii, launches Hypersonic cruise missiles to shoot them down. They get shot down in their own air space. If they can do this for CJ-1000, they can do this for CJ-1 milion.
Click to expand...
There is no way CJ-1000 can reach Hawaii or anywhere else in the third island chain even for ground targets.
 
T

tamsen_ikard

Senior Member
Registered Member
Tomboy said:
There is no way CJ-1000 can reach Hawaii or anywhere else in the third island chain even for ground targets.
Click to expand...
I didn't mean for CJ-1000, I meant some hypothetical CJ-1 million coming in the future with Ultra long range. The same tech that applies to CJ-1000 could be applied to a missile with even longer range. And the way PLA is incrementing each new cruise missile by multiplying by 10, the next next version of CJ missile could be CJ-1 million :p

Just imagine where long range air interception tech could be in the future. They main problem is guidence and detection. If Planes can be detected using Satellite or drone survellience and can guide missiles with powerful data links, then ultra ultra long range air interception becomes possible. You can have a scenario where you can shoot enemy planes IRBM/ICBM range away just after they take off.
 
Last edited:
A

ACuriousPLAFan

Brigadier
Registered Member
BoraTas said:
Honestly, the use of CJ-1000 in combination with the AEW fleet to prosecute the B-52 and C-17 makes sense. Especially the B-52 currently provides most of USAF GSC's strike capability against China. In all domains, bombers are special because they have speed, range and a decent payload. The B-52 is particularly special because the B-1 fleet is a mess because of their past use for CAS in Afghanistan and the B-2 fleet simply lacks the numbers and payload capacity. The C-17 is also getting the Rapid Dragon for a bomber-like use.

If I come to the CJ-1000 itself, it physically should have the capability. Software and command system implementation would be development challenges.

Speed: At Mach 7 plus it can definitely catch-up to the bomber. The B-52 would launch its JASSMs from about 800 km off the PRC shores. At an average relative speed around Mach 6, it takes about 9 minutes for it to cross the distance. Mach 7 is also faster than most AAMs and SAMs.

Altitude: All hypersonics fly high at 20+ km altitude unlike subsonic LACMs.

Seeker: It would have a large AESA. Modern radar behavior is software defined. The tasks that require dedicated aircraft in the past are just software packages in 2025. An air search function could be implemented. 9 minutes mean a lot of displacement. But the B-52 and C-17 have massive signatures and the missile will have a datalink anyway.

Maneuverability: This is a wildcard. China loves maneuverability in non-counter air missiles. The YJ-18, YJ-31, HJ-10, etc had their maneuveability marketed. I bet the CJ-1000 was designed with significant maneuverability to increase its chances against the Patriot and SM-6 et al. Which might be enough for bomber interception.

To sum up, I believe the proposition is viable.
Click to expand...

I don't believe you have (fully) answered my question.

I was talking (and asking) about the dedicated ULRSAM proposition which the Guancha Gang seems to dismiss/mock about, in contrast to the CJ-1000, which they did in opposition.

Moreover, nobody has answered this: What's the efficacy and need of using a multi-100s of kilograms (if not a one-ton) warhead to target an aircraft, when much lighter warheads on dedicated ULRSAMs (which would also be much lighter overall as well, which can also teanslate to better kinematic performances) can do better?

In fact, I'd like to invite the Guancha Gang to answer this question as well.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top