PLAN Anti-ship/surface missiles

P

POKL

New Member
Points taken.

The thing is that since English is not my native language I write the whole thing in Word first for the purpose of spelling check and than copy – paste it.

As for sources. I should have stated it right from the start in the H 6 thread, that most of the info presented there was from ACIG (that is the Air Combat Information Group site & forum) but I have pointed this out in my reply to the First SAM kill thread in the history section.

Concerning the info included in my previous post. Factual info must by definition be obtained from a source unless one was a direct witness to the events described (I was not). The sources used include but are not limited to The US Naval Institute website, The Washington Institute for Near East Policy website, The Middle East Institute website and there are other websites with some info on the Tanker War (I wish there was more detailed info available, especially on the use of Chin AShM, and to obtain it was the original idea behind my previous post), the US involvement in the Persian Gulf in the 1980s (though again not as much as I would like) and there are really tons of websites with info on both (1991 & 2003) Gulf Wars plus online news archives of the New York times and other newspapers were also utilised. So yes, google is my friend – though – and here is the point I would like to make compiling facts and info in order to include it in ones written work is not plagiarism but research. Correct me if I am wrong on this one.

As for my analysis - a few more thoughts - these are indeed my thoughts.

Now I hope I have dispersed you doubts – if not I will be glad to provide further information / clarification.

Regards
 
Jeff Head

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
POKL said:
Points taken.

The thing is that since English is not my native language I write the whole thing in Word first for the purpose of spelling check and than copy – paste it.
Click to expand...
That's fine, but really has nothing to do with formatting the material once you put it on SD to be more legible. We have a "review" option when posting just for this purpose.


POKL said:
The sources used include but are not limited to The US Naval Institute website, The Washington Institute for Near East Policy website, The Middle East Institute website and there are other websites...

As for my analysis - a few more thoughts - these are indeed my thoughts.

Now I hope I have dispersed you doubts – if not I will be glad to provide further information / clarification.

Regards
Click to expand...
POKL, it does not have anything to do with "my" doubts.

It has to do with the rules of the forum. If you have not read them, please do...and familiarize yourself with them, and follow them.

In the future, when you quote from a source, please show the quotes, and then link to each of those sources so other members can also see and read it and come to their own conclusions regarding the material.,

Clearly, your analysis of the source information is your own, and is something we encourage. We just want to know what parts are your analysis and what parts are from the source. That way everyone can make their own decision on the info, and respond accordingly.

So, please, in the future, link to those sources.

Thanks.
 
A

antiterror13

Brigadier
PLA YJ-12 missile the most dangerous threat to US Navy: US expert

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


PLA YJ-12 missile the most dangerous threat to US Navy: US expert
Staff Reporter 2014-07-05 15:25 (GMT+8)

In an article written for the Washington-based military website, War on the Rock, Robert Haddick, an American military analyst said that the People's Liberation Army Navy's YJ-12 anti-ship cruise missile is the most dangerous threat to the US Navy in the Western Pacific.

On page 40 of the Military and Security Developments Involving the People’s Republic of China 2014 published by the Pentagon for congress indicated, this cruise missile provides an increased threat to naval assets, due to its long range and supersonic speeds. In addition, the YJ-12 is capable of being launched from PLA Navy Air Force's H-6 strategic bombers. Haddick said, therefore that the YJ-12 poses more of a risk that the DF-21 anti-ship ballistic missiles.

Citing a study conducted by the US Naval War College in 2011, Haddick said that the YJ-12 has a range of 400 kilometers. This makes the YJ-12 one of the world's longest-range anti-ship cruise missile. Haddick said that the range of the US Navy's Harpoon missile is only 124 kilometers. The extended range allows the PLA Navy's aircraft to launch the YJ-12 beyond the engagement range of the Navy's Aegis Combat System and the SM-2 surface-to-air missiles that protect US aircraft carrier strike groups.

The missile can be even more dangerous when they are deployed in Su-30 and J-11 fighters from the PLA Navy's two Flanker regiments. With a combat radius of 1,500 kilometers, the Chinese fighters can carry between two and four missiles into the battlefield. Haddick said that the US carrier strike group will have to defend itself against over a hundred supersonic ASCMs approaching from several directions at a wave-top height, allowing the group's close-in air defenses less than 45 seconds to respond.
 
asif iqbal

asif iqbal

Lieutenant General
Re: PLA YJ-12 missile the most dangerous threat to US Navy: US expert

antiterror13 said:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


PLA YJ-12 missile the most dangerous threat to US Navy: US expert
Staff Reporter 2014-07-05 15:25 (GMT+8)

In an article written for the Washington-based military website, War on the Rock, Robert Haddick, an American military analyst said that the People's Liberation Army Navy's YJ-12 anti-ship cruise missile is the most dangerous threat to the US Navy in the Western Pacific.

On page 40 of the Military and Security Developments Involving the People’s Republic of China 2014 published by the Pentagon for congress indicated, this cruise missile provides an increased threat to naval assets, due to its long range and supersonic speeds. In addition, the YJ-12 is capable of being launched from PLA Navy Air Force's H-6 strategic bombers. Haddick said, therefore that the YJ-12 poses more of a risk that the DF-21 anti-ship ballistic missiles.

Citing a study conducted by the US Naval War College in 2011, Haddick said that the YJ-12 has a range of 400 kilometers. This makes the YJ-12 one of the world's longest-range anti-ship cruise missile. Haddick said that the range of the US Navy's Harpoon missile is only 124 kilometers. The extended range allows the PLA Navy's aircraft to launch the YJ-12 beyond the engagement range of the Navy's Aegis Combat System and the SM-2 surface-to-air missiles that protect US aircraft carrier strike groups.

The missile can be even more dangerous when they are deployed in Su-30 and J-11 fighters from the PLA Navy's two Flanker regiments. With a combat radius of 1,500 kilometers, the Chinese fighters can carry between two and four missiles into the battlefield. Haddick said that the US carrier strike group will have to defend itself against over a hundred supersonic ASCMs approaching from several directions at a wave-top height, allowing the group's close-in air defenses less than 45 seconds to respond.
Click to expand...

Not quite sure about this article a US carrier strike group has a coverage of 280 miles that's 450km with E-2D that's the advanced Hawkeye we are talking pretty much the air space in open ocean of 300 miles is covered

I highly doubt the missile with 400km range will be launched from 400km away can Su-30 radar see that far? If not it will require guidance from another source again bringing into question the range issue

Many in the US like to prop these issues up for reason wouldn't read too much into this

Back in the days Soviet Union had bombers equipped with massive anti ship missiles flying around the world sole reason was to engage and destroy the USN carriers this is nothing new
 
T

Totoro

Major
VIP Professional
i highly doubt yj12 has a ramjet powered supersonic 400 km range. especially if its meant to be carried by jh7, let alone a smaller aircraft. images so far have been rather inconclusive. whats more, back in 2011 when the study was made i dont think we even had images of yj12, only rumors.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top