PLAN Anti-ship/surface missiles

I'd say the resolution is enough to claim there is a difference in the shape of the missile nose.
Assuming that is indeed what's going on, further questions can be posed:

Is there any other plausible reason for such a nose shape, other than a dual seeker head?

And if there is a tandem IIR and radar seeker - what is more useful:
1. To have the IIR as the primary seeker. (perhaps technology advanced enough for that. NSM certainly seems to be doing fine with just such a seeker) Thus using a smaller radar seeker. Again, if so - two paths come to my mind.
1.a. The radar seeker is millimeter wave. While giving it great resolution and good terminal precision, MMW offers poor range. Which would mean that the initial target lock would have to be done via IIR seeker.
1.b. The radar seeker is of lower frequency, perhaps similar to usual radar seekers that AShMs use. But as its array is smaller, due to extra space taken by the IIR, it's of poor resolution. Which would possibly relegate it only to initial detection of a contact. And then it's the IIR seeker that would have to take over and finish the homing.

2. To have the IIR seeker as the secondary seeker. Basically just means of getting better anti jamming guidance. But frankly, for that, the notch in the nose seems to big. If it was just a small secondary seeker where it's not even expected to make the early detection/track but only to help once the missile is close and jamming and decoys start working - then perhaps a simple protrusion in the missile body would have been enough. As that's leave maximum room for the primary radar seeker.

Totoro said:

I'd say the resolution is enough to claim there is a difference in the shape of the missile nose.
Assuming that is indeed what's going on, further questions can be posed:

Is there any other plausible reason for such a nose shape, other than a dual seeker head?

And if there is a tandem IIR and radar seeker - what is more useful:
1. To have the IIR as the primary seeker. (perhaps technology advanced enough for that. NSM certainly seems to be doing fine with just such a seeker) Thus using a smaller radar seeker. Again, if so - two paths come to my mind.
1.a. The radar seeker is millimeter wave. While giving it great resolution and good terminal precision, MMW offers poor range. Which would mean that the initial target lock would have to be done via IIR seeker.
1.b. The radar seeker is of lower frequency, perhaps similar to usual radar seekers that AShMs use. But as its array is smaller, due to extra space taken by the IIR, it's of poor resolution. Which would possibly relegate it only to initial detection of a contact. And then it's the IIR seeker that would have to take over and finish the homing.

2. To have the IIR seeker as the secondary seeker. Basically just means of getting better anti jamming guidance. But frankly, for that, the notch in the nose seems to big. If it was just a small secondary seeker where it's not even expected to make the early detection/track but only to help once the missile is close and jamming and decoys start working - then perhaps a simple protrusion in the missile body would have been enough. As that's leave maximum room for the primary radar seeker.

Click to expand...

The problem of IIR or any IR is that its a hit or miss with the weather. Clouds can obscure the target and water vapor absorbs IR very well.

The problem of mmwave is that its range is very short. I am not sure if the seeker uses mmwave. This seeker is already bigger than most SAM or AAM seekers and these use X-band. Its likely for me the AshM uses the X-band.

This dual seeker implies the missile is dual role. it can be used to hit both land and sea targets instead of carrying separate YJ-83s and KD-88s.

Interstellar said:

View attachment 76550

Click to expand...

That's a fantastic find. When was that promotional material first found/published? (was it really available all the way back in 2018 during Zhuhai?) And who published it? CASIC?

Pretty much a confirmation there are two seekers, though the line "can be replaced with other image seekers" is not necessarily super clear. Though, I guess, it does infer that one part of the combined seeker IS some kind of an imaging seeker.

Other interesting bits: suitable for vertical launch?! Does that mean it's only a matter of time before an image of a YJ83 variant being shot out of UVLS surfaces?

"multipurpose missile" - this would, at the very least, infer that it can also target fixed ground targets. As those are easiest to target. Or, if one assumes the active seeker and the target recognition software is capable enough - it could also infer that various other ground targets can be attacked, perhaps semi-mobile stuff like command/sensor/launcher trucks etc.

Max effective range of 290km is, I assume, when configured for air launch?

The canted seeker or YJ-83J corresponding to the CM-802B being fired from Type 056 is big development. This can correspond to any YJ-83 user as having the potential to hit land targets. Usually I would match the appearance of the YJ-83 with IIR, which we know has been photographed being fired from Type 056, as an anti-ECM counter, where radar based softkill measures such as ECM and decoys, would have gotten the better of the radar seeker and the missile switches to IIR to engage the target.

Tam said:

The canted seeker or YJ-83J corresponding to the CM-802B being fired from Type 056 is big development. This can correspond to any YJ-83 user as having the potential to hit land targets. Usually I would match the appearance of the YJ-83 with IIR, which we know has been photographed being fired from Type 056, as an anti-ECM counter, where radar based softkill measures such as ECM and decoys, would have gotten the better of the radar seeker and the missile switches to IIR to engage the target.

Click to expand...

Is the image recognition automatic or is there a human in the loop?

t2contra said:

Is the image recognition automatic or is there a human in the loop?

Click to expand...

Loop only works with a direct line of sight with the missile for the datalink. So it works best from an airplane. If you have to use it from a ship, that would require a drone acting as an intermediary router, so this is more unlikely. From a ship, the image recognition needs to automatic as you won't have line of sight direct data link as this is over the horizon.

Interstellar said:

View attachment 76550

Click to expand...

Sino NSM? Well recently most USN's LCS have been up-armed with the Kongsberg NSM. I guess 056 armed with something similar could balance out the LCS' capabilities in an affordable manner.

Still don't understand why China didn't get a stealth subsonic ASM like NSM or LRASM. I believe there is no tech issue for doing that.

Tiberium said:

Still don't understand why China didn't get a stealth subsonic ASM like NSM or LRASM. I believe there is no tech issue for doing that.

Click to expand...

Just a question: how much of a difference does stealth make to the detection range of a low flying missile by an opponent with modern radars and infrared detectors ?

Even without stealth the missile can only be detected by the target once it crosses the horizon some 25 to 30 km away, how much would stealth reduce the detection range ?

Or is the bigger advantage of a stealthy ASM that it is more difficult to target by the AA missiles fired to intercept it ?

Another advantage would be that stealthy missiles should also be harder to be spotted by AEW/AWACS -- though that would suggest it would make more sense to invest in stealthy ASM missiles for states who face opponents with lots of AEW/AWACS (like China against the US).

schenkus said:

Just a question: how much of a difference does stealth make to the detection range of a low flying missile by an opponent with modern radars and infrared detectors ?

Even without stealth the missile can only be detected by the target once it crosses the horizon some 25 to 30 km away, how much would stealth reduce the detection range ?

Or is the bigger advantage of a stealthy ASM that it is more difficult to target by the AA missiles fired to intercept it ?

Another advantage would be that stealthy missiles should also be harder to be spotted by AEW/AWACS -- though that would suggest it would make more sense to invest in stealthy ASM missiles for states who face opponents with lots of AEW/AWACS (like China against the US).

Click to expand...

It would matter particularly against fire control radars using the X-band. The numbers for such would be operational secrets so don't bother expect any answer.

Powerful S-band search radars would still be able to capture the intruder although the ranges would have to be much shorter than it would be for let's say, a fully loaded strike fighter. However, you still need the X-band radars to lock on to prosecute the kill, so the search radars will have to keep queuing the X-band radars at the target until somehow a lock is attained, which may not be as fast as a non stealthy target.

Get close enough the stealthy missile can get spotted by the EO/IR. You see the reason why ships are equipped with it, often attached to gunnery fire control radars and the CIWS like the Type 730/1130.

Another way is that the missile will be detected through its own radar emissions from its seeker. That's why ships are loaded with ESM, and the ESM mast is often placed at the highest spot in the ship for the maximum radar horizon. The guidance signals are analyzed and classified as threats and another ESM would do directional finding on the signals to find where the threat is coming from. The analyzed signals are used as the basis for the ECM jamming measures and the decoy launching system, where you have chaff specifically sized to different wavelengths. This explains the Type 726-1 ESM (signal analysis), 726-2 ESM (directional finder), 726-3 ECM (jammer) and 726-4 DLS for chaff and decoys.

Intercepting targets via their own radar emissions and infrared signatures is that the RIM-116 RAM is for and why the HQ-10 copies the concept.