PLAN Anti-ship/surface missiles

BoraTas · 2025-09-07T21:39:27-0400

ACuriousPLAFan said:
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 (if not a one-ton) warhead to target an aircraft, when much lighter warheads on dedicated ULRSAMs can do better?

In fact, I'd like to invite the Guancha Gang to answer this question as well.

Easy. There are cases multi-purpose items can save costs. A different development project requires separate engineering; and the establishment of new manufacturing lines, new training programs, new base infrastructure for maintenance etc... There are also operational flexibility benefits in having a unit capable of different tasks.

Blitzo · 2025-09-07T21:41:26-0400

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.

Honestly, if that is the case then I have to assume there must be subvariants of this missile because, the warhead that would be needed for a surface target or a warship would be rather different to that which would be needed for an aerial target.

It also raises some rather uncomfortable questions about what sort of role such a weapon would even have in a modern IADS, and whether regular CJ-1000 units are expected to be linked into the overall IADS picture in such a manner where they should be expected to be able to engage aerial targets as well as regular surface/ship target set.

ZeEa5KPul · 2025-09-07T21:50:11-0400

Blitzo said:
Honestly, if that is the case then I have to assume there must be subvariants of this missile because, the warhead that would be needed for a surface target or a warship would be rather different to that which would be needed for an aerial target.

I don't think that's the case. I read it more that the missile is maneuverable and network integrated enough that it can take a shot at a heavy, lumbering aircraft like a tanker or an ELINT and have some decent chance of hitting. It's far from what the missile is designed for, but it's specced up and capable enough that using it for this is somewhat feasible.

Blitzo said:
It also raises some rather uncomfortable questions about what sort of role such a weapon would even have in a modern IADS, and whether regular CJ-1000 units are expected to be linked into the overall IADS picture in such a manner where they should be expected to be able to engage aerial targets as well as regular surface/ship target set.

That's probably reading too much into a throwaway "this is so cool it can also do this (kind of)" statement.

00CuriousObserver · 2025-09-07T21:56:49-0400

ACuriousPLAFan said:
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?

Mocking it isn’t the same as dismissing it. It was more like, "remember those reports? It's all this. Aha! Makes so much sense!"

I personally wouldn’t really call that “mocking”.

ACuriousPLAFan · 2025-09-07T22:02:03-0400

BoraTas said:
Easy. There are cases multi-purpose items can save costs. A different development project requires separate engineering; and the establishment of new manufacturing lines, new training programs, new base infrastructure for maintenance etc... There are also operational flexibility benefits in having a unit capable of different tasks.

Right, but it is likely to not be optimal for its role as a ULRSAM (similar to how the SM-6 is also capable of anti-ship strikes apart from anti-air and terminal ballistic missile defense, though not excelling in the former), isn't it?

To be honest, taking that CJ-1000 is indeed capable of shooting down larger/heavier enemy air assets (bombers, tankers, transporters, special mission aircrafts etc) - I do feel that there's something more that's missing from the equation.

While I do admit to take the L in this context, and that CJ-1000 is indeed anti-air capable - I still don't think that it's the best/most optimal option for the PLA for taking down enemy large aerial assets in the 4-digit kilometers of ranges. Color me highly skeptical, but I strongly believe that there should be (if not must be) something else for the PLA which are more suited than and superior to the CJ-1000 (if not being outright dedicated) for such roles.

00CuriousObserver · 2025-09-07T22:10:53-0400

I am looking forward to the PL-2X or PL-3X scramjet A2A missile.

Blitzo · 2025-09-07T22:11:06-0400

ZeEa5KPul said:
I don't think that's the case. I read it more that the missile is maneuverable and network integrated enough that it can take a shot at a heavy, lumbering aircraft like a tanker or an ELINT and have some decent chance of hitting. It's far from what the missile is designed for, but it's specced up and capable enough that using it for this is somewhat feasible.

That's probably reading too much into a throwaway "this is so cool it can also do this (kind of)" statement.

The noise from yankee et al on this is frankly a bit fuzzy on this thing.

My position on it is similar to what you describe, but in his writeup he almost conveys it as if it is a secondary role for it rather than just "if things happen to work out this missile can hit an aerial target of opportunity".

BoraTas · 2025-09-07T23:40:26-0400

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.

Something to add, a big warhead decreases the need for maneuverability by making more distant explosions still lethal.

enroger · 2025-09-08T03:48:30-0400

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.

Not me of course because I'm a rich MF (in my dreams)....

Seriously, I do consider ultra-long range anti-air (be it HCM or just plain old ballistic missile) a possibility. The major obstacle is whether detection/early warning capabilities can keep up. In particular against B2/B21 cruise missile raid, which should be the primary target for such a system. Which requires early warning system to pick up stealth bomber targets while they're still a thousand km away from their target. That probably means space based sensor, or some sort of near space systems like radar blimps.

Cost is not a consideration because I'm rich AF.... Also a B2/B21 is orders of magnitude more expensive and worthwhile, not to mention their potential targets are even more important to protect.

ougoah · 2025-09-08T04:15:13-0400

A hypothetical air launched ULRAAM that is equipped with a scramjet engine would be far more useful than applying the CJ-1000 in a SAM role.

The CJ-1000's primary role would be anti-surface. SAMs and surface to surface missiles have very little overlap in booster, warhead and guidance (and any other internals) optimisation. If you dont have an issue with the speed, control and guidance of a HCM to hit a large and slow but still moving target in the air, then you can make a missile that is more optimised in the anti-air role. You wouldn't make it out of a anti-surface missile.

Unless there is another variant of the CJ-1000 family, a HQ-1000 applying the same technologies but optimised for anti-air, the CJ-1000 should be considered a surface to surface missile only. If you had all that tech, just make a H-6 or J-16 and in future, J-36 and H-20 launchable ULRAAM that applies scramjet. If there is a hypersonic ultra long range anti-air missile whether it is in SAM or AAM form (or both), it would not be the CJ-1000. It'll simply apply similar tech. So why we continue thinking of the CJ-1000 as this/these hypothetical missiles is strange. A DF-26 with MaRV can potentially be used to hit a AEWC aircraft too. We shouldn't consider a DF-26 a SAM if a MaRV SAM is a workable concept.

I've no doubt at all that PLA is interested in fielding a hypersonic, air breathing AAM and SAM. We should just call it as such since the fundamental tech required for this is all there. If they add a booster large enough, these missiles could have 2000km+ range.

PLAN Anti-ship/surface missiles

BoraTas

Major

Blitzo

General

ZeEa5KPul

Colonel

00CuriousObserver

Junior Member

ACuriousPLAFan

Brigadier