PLAN Anti-ship/surface missiles

taxiya said:

The thing is that PLA may name the same thing in totally unrelated ways. Take the so called CJ-10 for example. At the very beginning, it was seen labelled DH-10 (believed to be 东海－１０), then we see DF-10A (东风-10A) in the parade among the rocket force formation (2nd Artillery at that time). DF-10A's official designation would be E/Axx-10 where xx can be either DF or DD depending on the preference of PLA rocket force. We have also seen it labelled K/AKD-20 in air force service which is official designation that means 空/导弹空地-20. They are different variants of the same product, but naming totally unrelated. What is used publicly is CJ (long sword) is more likely a manufacturer name rather than a PLA name.

YJ-18 is however a PLAN name. There are more than two entities making anti-ship missiles, all their products are called YJ. So by only looking at the official names one would not know the lineage. Even if CJ-10 is chosen by PLAN, it would not be called CJ-10.

What I am saying is that, we can not know whether the supposed naval LACM is developed from CJ-10 or YJ-18 UNLESS somebody from the developer reveals something. And Yankeesama is not from either these two entities if I remember correctly.

CJ-10 may not be any bigger than Club (the supposed blueprint of YJ-18). One claim is 8.3x0.68m. Club is 8.9x0.649m with booster.​

Click to expand...

I think there's been some confusion as to the topic of what the naval LACM will be.

For quite a few years we thought that a navalized/VLS launched variant of DF-10 (with the air launched variant known as A/KD-20, and also in the past known as CJ-10, as you correctly pointed out) would be used for the Navy.


But instead, it seems like what ended up being developed was two main variants of YJ-18:
- the first main variant is the anti shipping variant of YJ-18 (in turn with surface ship VLS launched variants and submarine launched variants); which is derived from the anti shipping 3M-54 Klub.
- the second main variant is the land attack variant of YJ-18 -- however to call it a "variant" of YJ-18 is very deceptive because it's basically an entirely different missile from the anti shipping YJ-18 variant. Instead this missile is basically a Tomahawk missile. This YJ-18 variant is derived from the 3M-541 missile; and the 3M-541 I believe is also known as 3M14 also known as Kalibr.


There are also export variants of 3M-54 and 3M-541, known as 3M-54E and 3M-54E1.

The Klub and Kalibr are part of the same family in the sense that they share some common components such as booster and tail control surfaces to my knowledge; however they are very different in terms of the rest of the missile.
Klub is a much longer missile than Kalibr. From export brochures (first picture), the 3M-54E has a length of 8.2 meters, while 3M-541 E has a length of 6.2 meters.
3M-54/3M-54E/Klub of course has a shorter maximum range than 3M-541/3M-54E1/Kalibr, however Klub has the supersonic terminal stage.


From export product displays, we can also see that the 3M-54E is physically much longer than that of 3M-54E1 (second picture -- 3M-54E is closest to the camera, 3M-54E1 is second closest to the camera).


I forget what the exact designations of the Chinese YJ-18 variants are.

However, I believe based on what the various insiders have been saying about the YJ-18 having a "land attack variant" and how YJ-18 is derived from the 3M-54, I believe that the Chinese Navy's VLS ship launched LACM is not a variant of the land based/air launched DF-10/KD-20.

Instead, the Chinese Navy's VLS ship launched LACM is their "3M-541 equivalent of YJ-18". Whether this land attack YJ-18 (aka "Kalibr" equivalent) is called YJ-18B or YJ-18C or something is information we don't know yet.

We also don't know whether the land attack YJ-18 was an "indigenous derivative" of the original YJ-18 (which in turn was a derivative of 3M-54E/Klub that China imported many years back), or whether China had actually imported some 3M-54E1s themselves to reverse engineer themselves all those years ago.

Of course IMO it would be well within China's capability to develop a capable land attack variant of YJ-18 without requiring examples of 3M-54E1 themselves.

Bltizo said:

- the second main variant is the land attack variant of YJ-18 -- however to call it a "variant" of YJ-18 is very deceptive because it's basically an entirely different missile from the anti shipping YJ-18 variant. Instead this missile is basically a Tomahawk missile. This YJ-18 variant is derived from the 3M-541 missile; and the 3M-541 I believe is also known as 3M14 also known as Kalibr.
.....

However, I believe based on what the various insiders have been saying about the YJ-18 having a "land attack variant" and how YJ-18 is derived from the 3M-54, I believe that the Chinese Navy's VLS ship launched LACM is not a variant of the land based/air launched DF-10/KD-20.

Click to expand...

My main point is that, at the end what we can see is a tube shaped missile with a turbo engine and a booster of the size of some 8 meters long and diameter of some .6 meter. What is inside, what engines and electronics, which design institute made it are all unknown. These interiors are the key to determine the lineage being CJ-10 or YJ-18. But so far, we don't even know the developers of these two missile families.

I think people have got that point. To be able to determine the true lineage, let's just hope these "insiders" are someone who has the direct access to the program.

The reason of my post was that I am maybe a bit more sceptical of "insiders" in the internet/social media world, unless I can cross check their claims. I must admit that in case of YJ-18 I did not see anything to cross check, or just I didn't bother to follow the trend.

Another way to express myself:

If the navy LCAM uses the turbo engine from YJ-18, using a ground hogging radar and terrain following algorithm designed independently from CJ-10, then it is a YJ-18 variant.

On the other hand, if the engine, radar and algorithm are sourced from CJ-10, it is a CJ variant.

An important question is, is YJ-18 using a licensed Russian engine? is the radar and algorithm Russian design? Unlike J-11, 16 whose fuselage and therefor aerodynamics are Flanker, so regardless inside component being 100% Chinese, they are always a Flanker. A missile however, is just a tube with wings, it is the components to determine the lineage.

taxiya said:

My main point is that, at the end what we can see is a tube shaped missile with a turbo engine and a booster of the size of some 8 meters long and diameter of some .6 meter. What is inside, what engines and electronics, which design institute made it are all unknown. These interiors are the key to determine the lineage being CJ-10 or YJ-18. But so far, we don't even know the developers of these two missile families.

I think people have got that point. To be able to determine the true lineage, let's just hope these "insiders" are someone who has the direct access to the program.

The reason of my post was that I am maybe a bit more sceptical of "insiders" in the internet/social media world, unless I can cross check their claims. I must admit that in case of YJ-18 I did not see anything to cross check, or just I didn't bother to follow the trend.

Click to expand...

taxiya said:

Another way to express myself:

If the navy LCAM uses the turbo engine from YJ-18, using a ground hogging radar and terrain following algorithm designed independently from CJ-10, then it is a YJ-18 variant.

On the other hand, if the engine, radar and algorithm are sourced from CJ-10, it is a CJ variant.

An important question is, is YJ-18 using a licensed Russian engine? is the radar and algorithm Russian design? Unlike J-11, 16 whose fuselage and therefor aerodynamics are Flanker, so regardless inside component being 100% Chinese, they are always a Flanker. A missile however, is just a tube with wings, it is the components to determine the lineage.

Click to expand...

I understand where you are coming from.

I'm saying that based off the rumours of the last few years, it seems like the Navy has chosen a LACM that is derived from the YJ-18 similar to how the 3M-54E1 is an LACM in relation to 3M-54.

When I say they have an LACM variant of YJ-18, what I mean is that it likely has similarities not dissimilar to what you described above (outlined by me).
Given the relationship between 3M-54E1 and 3M-54, I hypothesize the LACM YJ-18 may likely have a number of similar features as well to the main YJ-18, such as:
- common booster
- common aft control surfaces
- common missile diameter
- common missile control systems of some sort (i.e.: control of the missiles in terms of the ship's combat management system)

Now, the LACM YJ-18 is also likely to be significantly different from the standard YJ-18 as well -- e.g.: it's likely to be significantly shorter, it will of course have a completely different forward airframe and almost certainly will have different guidance system as well (oriented for the land attack mission rather than the anti shipping mission). Some of those differences might have benefitted from technology developed for KD-20/DF-10.

But overall, I'm saying that based off the rumours, I think we can be somewhat confident at this stage that the naval LACM the PLAN have in service is not a "variant" of KD-20/DF-10, but rather a "variant" of YJ-18.
The fact that we haven't heard anything about developing KD-20/DF-10 as a navalized VLS variant but how we have consistently heard about a navalized VLS LACM YJ-18 variant is rather telling to me.

Hendrik_2000 said:

Via LKj86
The land-attack version of YJ-18

Click to expand...

But why was this images already posted then as a JL-2, later a JL-3 ... ???

By the way, this is allegedly an YJ-12E

Correct they just use stock photo not the real YJ18 But the news is more important

This YouTube video is taken from a Chinese news broadcast (CCTV?) and it has a wealth of images. One of the things I caught is this. File is too big up to be uploaded so I have to use Imgur. Note the missile to the left. I would presume that it is the subsonic LACM version of the YJ-18. Note that it is shorter than both the HQ-9B and the YJ-18, so this should fit within a 7 meter U-VLS. This appears around the 3 minute mark of this 5 minute video. The video also has all sorts of missile shootings from HQ-16s to HQ-9s.

Thanks for the video. The text near the most-left missile says "Ying Ji 18 land attack missile", i.e. you are right.

Hendrik_2000 said:

Well not sure if CJ10 can fit in the type 52D launcher It is fairly very long missile. Tam maybe can give better explanation
The other difference is CJ 10 is subsonic missile while YJ 18 supposed to be subsonic and then get into supersonic at terminal stage Should be shorter than CJ10

Click to expand...

Depends on who your sources are. Some internet sources put the length of the missile to be at 6.3 meters. If the missile is claimed to be based from the Kh-55 Kent, the Kh-55 is around 6 meters. The CJ-10 for me looks almost exactly like the YJ-62 except for the retractable air intake on the CJ-10 and the fixed intake on the YJ-62, and it can be that both are related as one missile, with the YJ-62 being the one for antiship, and the CJ-10 for land attack, similar to the TASM and TLAM versions of the Tomahawk. Even with booster, it can potentially fit the 7 meter length of the U-VLS. The 9 meter length of the U-VLS is extreme, its only purpose is for the YJ-18 anti-ship missile. But subsonic cruise missiles do not need to be that long. The Tomahawks are fired from the 6.8 meter length version of the MK. 41, and the SCALP cruise missiles are fired from the 7 meter versions of the Sylver VLS, known as A70.

So can the CJ-10 fit on the U-VLS? Yes of course. Then there is the YJ-100 that's also been mentioned about. But the PLAN appears to have made the decision to concentrate on the YJ-18 family, which means whether or not the CJ-10 will fit is no longer relevant, because the PLAN elected to put their eggs on another place. Instead of messing around with different missile designs, you have one family of missiles with a modular approach.

Think of it this way. The antiship missile YJ-18 is basically like taking a Tomahawk, take out the guidance and warhead, then strap on a Standard missile on the end of it. Yes its a solid rocket missile strapped to a air breathing cruise missile. Its a simple concept. When the missile reaches terminal stage, the "Tomahawk" stage drops off and the "Standard" blasts off and continues the final leg of the journey.

To make the subsonic cruise missile variant, you revert the missile back, you take out the rocket missile in front of it, then just strap the guidance system and warhead back. The missile becomes shorter, but you can see, between the antiship and the land attack variant, its the same missile from the point where you have the wings all the way to the back of the missile.

Given that the PLAN may have decided to throw its basket on the YJ-18 family, it may go all the way with its mimic of the Kalibr family. Which means a potential third variant of the YJ-18 --- this time you strap a torpedo as the second stage after the cruise missile stage. You have the ASW variant which you can fire off from the U-VLS.

Tam said:

This YouTube video is taken from a Chinese news broadcast (CCTV?) and it has a wealth of images. One of the things I caught is this. File is too big up to be uploaded so I have to use Imgur. Note the missile to the left. I would presume that it is the subsonic LACM version of the YJ-18. Note that it is shorter than both the HQ-9B and the YJ-18, so this should fit within a 7 meter U-VLS. This appears around the 3 minute mark of this 5 minute video. The video also has all sorts of missile shootings from HQ-16s to HQ-9s.

Click to expand...

I'm unable to locate the source of the original video, however the graphic shown in that part of the CCTV report was a fan made video originally.

However it was also one of the earliest depictions of a land attack YJ-18 variant in the same vein as the aforementioned 3M-54 and 3M-541 relationship (in fact it seems to depict the 3M-54 and 3M-541 directly in the video graphic), including accurate depictions of the respective lengths of the missiles.