PLAN Anti-ship/surface missiles

Phead128 said:

When I grew up in 2000's , I always read of how the Moskit sunburn missile was the fastest anti-ship missile that is undefendable...

But how does Moskit sunburn compare now to YJ-12 or other Chinese anti-ship missiles? Is Moskit now obsolete tech and why?

Click to expand...

Its way bigger than a YJ-12 and has a much lower range. But range is result of two things. The first being from the quality of the jet fuel and how much joules you can get out of it. The latest JP formulations are much better than in the '80s and '90s. Notice how even the YJ-82/83 has grown from 80km, then 120km, then 180km, then 230km then 290km. At 4,500kg, the Moskit is way bigger than let's say the Oniks, which is at 3000kg. Yet the Oniks boast about 600km range (shorter in the previous years) while the Moskit grew from 80km to 120km then to 240km. You wonder how far a Moskit can go if its ramjet can be re-tuned for newer formulations. The YJ-12 is said to be lighter (wiki claims 2,500kg) and it may be lower than that. The fact that it is carried on the H-6 as many as four in one sitting makes me think the YJ-12's weight might be lower.

The other difference is the flight profile. It used to go between A to B in low low low only. Then you added a low, high, low profile, with the high flight for high altitude cruising, only descending as it approaches the final phase. The higher a ramjet is allowed to fly, the longer its cruise range but it will have to get back to Earth somehow.

The remaining stock of Moskits should be good enough to arm the last two Sovremennys that has not been refitted, until they are refitted. We have seen one Moskit used as a static decoration in a naval base, and it may end up being used for target practice like what China did with their obsolete HQ-2 SAM inventory for whatever is left that remains after exercises when the last two Sovs are refitted.

The Moskit is done for its career and its usage trajectory is on the way down as the PLAN expends the remainder through exercises.

Tam said:

LRASM passive mode or any passive mode for an antiship missile can only work in the mid phase. Terminal phase should be active mode only because passive mode is too inaccurate. Passive mode will only bring the missile to the general area where the target is, but to get that 1m to 3 meter accuracy of the target, you need to have an active. LRASM surely has an active mode. The passive mode I am in doubt and its probably using an external station (plane or ship). The problem of passive is that you have a signal rich environment, you are going to have to analyze each of them, that's like analyzing every hay in the haystack, to find the needle. When you find the needle, its better to have a person look at it to determine if that's really a needle and not another piece of hay.

Its possible for a ship or plane to work in passive mode (ESM).

Click to expand...

Than how do you define the terminal phase? Is 30km the terminal phase or is the 10km the final? If 30km is the terminal phase, that is what mid-range SAM designed, and if the missile is sub-sonic, there is enough time for shield system to react. Let alone Phanlax or RAM.

KevinG said:

Than how do you define the terminal phase? Is 30km the terminal phase or is the 10km the final? If 30km is the terminal phase, that is what mid-range SAM designed, and if the missile is sub-sonic, there is enough time for shield system to react. Let alone Phanlax or RAM.

Click to expand...

Depending on flight height and the target height, 30km is a roundabout figure for terminal phase (40km to 20km). The key features of the terminal phase is that the missile now rises above the radar horizon and the radar seeker has a clean line of sight to the target, so the active radar seeker goes live, which is the other feature of the terminal stage.

Passive updates makes more sense in the mid phase, which is to say, it begins as soon as the missile drops off its booster, jet engines alight and it begins its cruise phase to the target. If the missile is traveling 300km, it would encompass most of the journey until the terminal phase. If the missile is updating passively via target ship's radar, the missile is being brought to the general area close enough for the active missile seeker's range which can be up to 30 to 40km. That's the "catch basket" and the purpose of midphase guidance is to bring the target to the missile's catch basket. Once the target is in the basket, the active radar seeker concludes the final stage from the circumference of the catch basket to the center and exact location of the target. I should add that its the Soviets, now the Russians that first added passive guidance to their missiles and the latest Kh-35 also features that.

So yes, there is enough time to go against subsonic missile for the close range defense to act on. You get the speed of Mach 0.6 for example, against 30km. That is around 0.2 km per second, so about 150 seconds to reach its target. Supersonic missile at Mach 3 should only give you 30 seconds.

The HD-1 supersonic cruise missile. Due to its small size and weight, HD-1 can be launched from small surface ships and light fighters such as the JF-17. The HD-1 is capable of sea skimming at 5-10 meters, which coupled with its high speed, makes it difficult to intercept by ship-based air defense systems. Moreover, the missile has good air defense suppression capabilities, since it can be launched well outside enemy air defense zones. When launched at high altitudes, the HD-1 can cover a distance of more than 300km.

Tam said:

LRASM passive mode or any passive mode for an antiship missile can only work in the mid phase. Terminal phase should be active mode only because passive mode is too inaccurate. Passive mode will only bring the missile to the general area where the target is, but to get that 1m to 3 meter accuracy of the target, you need to have an active. LRASM surely has an active mode. The passive mode I am in doubt and its probably using an external station (plane or ship). The problem of passive is that you have a signal rich environment, you are going to have to analyze each of them, that's like analyzing every hay in the haystack, to find the needle. When you find the needle, its better to have a person look at it to determine if that's really a needle and not another piece of hay.

Its possible for a ship or plane to work in passive mode (ESM).

Click to expand...

The problem with supersonic (and hypersonic) anti-ship missiles is that they need precise target designation. This designation must be made by external means, such as aircraft. To do this, the designator aircraft (which may or may not be the same as the one that launches the missile) must approach within 400 km of the targets, which puts them within the safe perimeter of an aircraft carrier.

Against isolated ships, not covered by an aircraft carrier, then supersonic missiles are more effective in penetrating the "hard kill" defenses of surface units than a "conventional subsonic".

But they are more sensitive to “soft kill” defenses.

The LASM is an autonomous stealth subsonic missile that does not need precise assignment from an external source. If she exists, great, if not, he turns around.

Lacking precise designation it can be released within an area known to have enemy ships (eg using the ELINT satellite system) and is able to search and select the target on its own. It does this stealthily, as an autonomous drone with a high level of artificial intelligence and operates in a pack, exchanging information with other missiles.

In the final approach to the target it implements a very low altitude flight, maneuvers and starts interfering with the point defense systems radars using active ECM.

Its set of sensors is probably formed by a high definition image camera, an IR image camera, an active millimeter radar and a passive radio frequency system that is “listening” to the ships' radars.

Basically, the passive RF system is the main sensor, which detects a possible target by the characteristics of its RF emissions and triangulates it with other missiles in the “pack”. Long-range detection is via radar and confirmation of target type is via the visual/IR imaging system.

Conceptually, LASM is more advanced than supersonic anti-ship missiles and has greater ability to penetrate the defenses of an aircraft carrier and is at least as good as a supersonic for penetrating the point defenses of isolated ships.

This missile, however, its ability to interfere with the radars of point defense systems using active ECM should not be very powerful, as there is no sensor small enough to fit in the search head and at the same time emit a strong signal. The missile for having a reduced RCS requires little power to protect itself electronically. And even with low power, its use is of short range. Within a perimeter of at most 10 or 15 km, which compensates for the reduced power. It is worth noting that there are other ECM devices that are miniaturized and not inferior: Nulka, BriteCloud, MALD-J. In confirming the LASM having a radar it can be AESA and be capable of itself being the active transmitter of the ECM.

This is a missile type fully capable of causing great concern to a task force that does not have dedicated airborne AEW&C resource, the Type 003 with the ability to board and catapult the KJ-600 is perfectly capable of countering the threat of the LRASM.
This missile may have some use against the Chinese today, but in the future when all aircraft carriers board AEW&C and the spearhead of a naval presence is a task force centered on a CVN, the missile requirement to fulfill the concept of countering the Chinese will be discarded, having some limited usefulness against the Russians.

The situation with the Chinese developing LRASM is the same problem as the Americans against the PLAN, as the Americans already have these airborne devices in the task forces, it would be a development that would not make sense from an Indo-Pacific point of view, the PLAN needs to find new forms and concepts that force the American armed forces to find some technological solution not yet available in their arsenal.

Tam said:

Its way bigger than a YJ-12 and has a much lower range. But range is result of two things. The first being from the quality of the jet fuel and how much joules you can get out of it. The latest JP formulations are much better than in the '80s and '90s. Notice how even the YJ-82/83 has grown from 80km, then 120km, then 180km, then 230km then 290km. At 4,500kg, the Moskit is way bigger than let's say the Oniks, which is at 3000kg. Yet the Oniks boast about 600km range (shorter in the previous years) while the Moskit grew from 80km to 120km then to 240km. You wonder how far a Moskit can go if its ramjet can be re-tuned for newer formulations. The YJ-12 is said to be lighter (wiki claims 2,500kg) and it may be lower than that. The fact that it is carried on the H-6 as many as four in one sitting makes me think the YJ-12's weight might be lower.

The other difference is the flight profile. It used to go between A to B in low low low only. Then you added a low, high, low profile, with the high flight for high altitude cruising, only descending as it approaches the final phase. The higher a ramjet is allowed to fly, the longer its cruise range but it will have to get back to Earth somehow.

Click to expand...

The upper range for YJ-12 weight that I've found is 3000 kg. That's the entry in CMANO DB, which usually sources Jane's publications.

Comparing to Moskit is not entirely apples to apples, as its 120km range is while flying under 20m at Mach 2.8 all the way to target.

The 400km range figure for YJ-12 is when air launched from a high flying aircraft and cruising at high altitude. When launched from a ship and cruising at similar altitude and speed as Moskit, it's range will be much less.

AFAIK, LRASM does not have an active radar seeker. It is after all derived from the JASSM-ER, which too didn't have one.

Matheus S said:

The problem with supersonic (and hypersonic) anti-ship missiles is that they need precise target designation. This designation must be made by external means, such as aircraft. To do this, the designator aircraft (which may or may not be the same as the one that launches the missile) must approach within 400 km of the targets, which puts them within the safe perimeter of an aircraft carrier.

Against isolated ships, not covered by an aircraft carrier, then supersonic missiles are more effective in penetrating the "hard kill" defenses of surface units than a "conventional subsonic".

But they are more sensitive to “soft kill” defenses.

The LASM is an autonomous stealth subsonic missile that does not need precise assignment from an external source. If she exists, great, if not, he turns around.

Lacking precise designation it can be released within an area known to have enemy ships (eg using the ELINT satellite system) and is able to search and select the target on its own. It does this stealthily, as an autonomous drone with a high level of artificial intelligence and operates in a pack, exchanging information with other missiles.

In the final approach to the target it implements a very low altitude flight, maneuvers and starts interfering with the point defense systems radars using active ECM.

Its set of sensors is probably formed by a high definition image camera, an IR image camera, an active millimeter radar and a passive radio frequency system that is “listening” to the ships' radars.

Basically, the passive RF system is the main sensor, which detects a possible target by the characteristics of its RF emissions and triangulates it with other missiles in the “pack”. Long-range detection is via radar and confirmation of target type is via the visual/IR imaging system.

Conceptually, LASM is more advanced than supersonic anti-ship missiles and has greater ability to penetrate the defenses of an aircraft carrier and is at least as good as a supersonic for penetrating the point defenses of isolated ships.

This missile, however, its ability to interfere with the radars of point defense systems using active ECM should not be very powerful, as there is no sensor small enough to fit in the search head and at the same time emit a strong signal. The missile for having a reduced RCS requires little power to protect itself electronically. And even with low power, its use is of short range. Within a perimeter of at most 10 or 15 km, which compensates for the reduced power. It is worth noting that there are other ECM devices that are miniaturized and not inferior: Nulka, BriteCloud, MALD-J. In confirming the LASM having a radar it can be AESA and be capable of itself being the active transmitter of the ECM.

This is a missile type fully capable of causing great concern to a task force that does not have dedicated airborne AEW&C resource, the Type 003 with the ability to board and catapult the KJ-600 is perfectly capable of countering the threat of the LRASM.
This missile may have some use against the Chinese today, but in the future when all aircraft carriers board AEW&C and the spearhead of a naval presence is a task force centered on a CVN, the missile requirement to fulfill the concept of countering the Chinese will be discarded, having some limited usefulness against the Russians.

The situation with the Chinese developing LRASM is the same problem as the Americans against the PLAN, as the Americans already have these airborne devices in the task forces, it would be a development that would not make sense from an Indo-Pacific point of view, the PLAN needs to find new forms and concepts that force the American armed forces to find some technological solution not yet available in their arsenal.

Click to expand...

Some points.

You assume that a KJ-600 radar is capable of detecting LRASMs
But that also means a surface ship (with more powerful radars) can definitely detect an LRASM once it crosses radar horizon (30km)
A surface ships also has the power and the differing radars to burn through any jamming that an LRASM can perform.

At 30km, a subsonic LRASM would face at least 4 engagement rounds from SAMs.
And if these SAMs have a pk = 0.7 (70%), then 99.1% of all incoming SAMs will be shot down.

If an LRASM misses and has to turn around, there should be more than enough time for at least 2 SAM engagement rounds.
You end up with 91% of these missiles being shot down.

I just don't see LRASMs being very effective.

---

We can also ask if LRASMs are so effective, why hasn't the PLAN developed an LRASM?
It's perfectly within their technological capabilities given their numerous stealth programmes.

If LRASMs were effective (and the PLAN should know because they would definitely have tested this), it would be so much easier to build swarms of LRASMs rather than expensive hypersonic weapons which are so much more difficult to develop and then target.

Based on the CBSA figures for US weapons, a 3000km range LRASM is estimated at $7M per missile. That compares to a $18M estimate for a 2000km ASBM.

So if LRASMs were effective, trucks in Mainland China could just spam launch long-range LRASMs with no targeting data. Then they could fly 3000km all the way to Guam, where they would be almost guaranteed to encounter a ship.

It's also instructive how the US Navy is desperately trying to field long-range hypersonic weapons, and is not developing an LRASM with a range greater than 600km.

It all adds up to the conclusion that LRASMs are not effective.

nlalyst said:

The upper range for YJ-12 weight that I've found is 3000 kg. That's the entry in CMANO DB, which usually sources Jane's publications.

Comparing to Moskit is not entirely apples to apples, as its 120km range is while flying under 20m at Mach 2.8 all the way to target.

The 400km range figure for YJ-12 is when air launched from a high flying aircraft and cruising at high altitude. When launched from a ship and cruising at similar altitude and speed as Moskit, it's range will be much less.

AFAIK, LRASM does not have an active radar seeker. It is after all derived from the JASSM-ER, which too didn't have one.

Click to expand...

JASSM is intended against fixed ground targets. You don't need an active radar seeker for that. Its the same reason why the TASM, even if it is derived from the Tomahawk LCM, has an active missile seeker while the land missile doesn't. For that matter, the Harpoon has an active radar missile seeker but its land attack variant, the SLAM, doesn't. Same pattern goes with the YJ-83 and its land attack variant, the KD-88. Kh-31A which is the antiship missile variant has an active seeker, but its parent missile, the Kh-31P, is a passive missile intended to work as an ARM against stationary targets.

Passive isn't accurate enough against moving targets, and on top of that, homing in on long frequency over long ranges with a tiny array, leads to high angular errors, which has to be corrected with an active seeker. Long frequency also has poor directional gain, not to mention, prone to clutter and ambient reflection, from atmospheric layers, to the water surface. You might want to lock on to high frequency instead, however, X-band doesn't travel far, especially when its not directed at you at a high power, like illuminating you for a missile. Passive is also hurt if the target is at EMCON or using LPI radars.

400km for the YJ-12 is indeed at high altitude, but it can dive before it enters the terminal stage and approach the target at sea skimmer height.

Tam said:

JASSM is intended against fixed ground targets. You don't need an active radar seeker for that. Its the same reason why the TASM, even if it is derived from the Tomahawk LCM, has an active missile seeker while the land missile doesn't. For that matter, the Harpoon has an active radar missile seeker but its land attack variant, the SLAM, doesn't. Same pattern goes with the YJ-83 and its land attack variant, the KD-88. Kh-31A which is the antiship missile variant has an active seeker, but its parent missile, the Kh-31P, is a passive missile intended to work as an ARM against stationary targets.

Click to expand...

I think we had this discussion before? USN employs SLAMER-ATA and NSM/JSM, all of which are passive (IIR) and can strike moving ships at sea. Even the venerable Penguin comes in passive variants. The latter was originally introduced because active radar missiles had poor performance in littoral environments.

Tam said:

Passive isn't accurate enough against moving targets, and on top of that, homing in on long frequency over long ranges with a tiny array, leads to high angular errors, which has to be corrected with an active seeker.

Click to expand...

This is the source of confusion. IR/IIR is passive guidance. There's a plethora of anti-air passive missiles that work quite well against targets orders of magnitude more maneuverable than a large ship.

AndrewS said:

Some points.

You assume that a KJ-600 radar is capable of detecting LRASMs
But that also means a surface ship (with more powerful radars) can definitely detect an LRASM once it crosses radar horizon (30km)
A surface ships also has the power and the differing radars to burn through any jamming that an LRASM can perform.

At 30km, a subsonic LRASM would face at least 4 engagement rounds from SAMs.
And if these SAMs have a pk = 0.7 (70%), then 99.1% of all incoming SAMs will be shot down.

If an LRASM misses and has to turn around, there should be more than enough time for at least 2 SAM engagement rounds.
You end up with 91% of these missiles being shot down.

I just don't see LRASMs being very effective.

---

We can also ask if LRASMs are so effective, why hasn't the PLAN developed an LRASM?
It's perfectly within their technological capabilities given their numerous stealth programmes.

If LRASMs were effective (and the PLAN should know because they would definitely have tested this), it would be so much easier to build swarms of LRASMs rather than expensive hypersonic weapons which are so much more difficult to develop and then target.

Based on the CBSA figures for US weapons, a 3000km range LRASM is estimated at $7M per missile. That compares to a $18M estimate for a 2000km ASBM.

So if LRASMs were effective, trucks in Mainland China could just spam launch long-range LRASMs with no targeting data. Then they could fly 3000km all the way to Guam, where they would be almost guaranteed to encounter a ship.

It's also instructive how the US Navy is desperately trying to field long-range hypersonic weapons, and is not developing an LRASM with a range greater than 600km.

It all adds up to the conclusion that LRASMs are not effective.

Click to expand...

Yes, if a surface ship has powerful enough radars, it can detect the LASM as soon as it reaches the radar horizon, but in the scenario where the surface ship is isolated from the task force, it cannot engage with relative success. on account of the missile's characteristics.

An interesting and unprecedented feature is that it is capable of implementing ECM if it is “enjoined” by a fire control radar in the terminal phase. One of the requirements of this American program is that the missile does not need external support, or needs minimal external support. It should be independent of GPS and update via data-link after launch, regardless of target distance and being subsonic. Everything indicates that it has a suite of multiple sensors based on electronic scanning radars, thermal image sensors, passive electromagnetic emission sensors, etc, in a very high degree of AI similar to that of an autonomous UAV. But that doesn't stop it having an interference-resistant GPS combined with an advanced inertial system and a two-way data-link. It will, but in case the systems are corrupted it will fend for itself.

No doubt it will have a secondary role against targets on land, including being able to attack tactical point targets (mobile) and berthed ships. As for supersonic speed considerations are pertinent, but the fact is that if LRSM version B were chosen it would have the same range as the subsonic version, and it would be supersonic using probably a ramjet thruster, of course, with a lower level of stealth. Don't ask me how the Americans were going to perform this miracle that may have been responsible for not being chosen.

LASM will have a datalink and the range allows it to do autonomous target search. I imagine it would circle a target area. In the case of an intelligent subsonic missile like the LASM, this search zone should be somewhere around 50 to 100 km in radius. The missile is launched and goes to an area where there are sure to be valid targets (enemy ships) and when it gets there it implements the "vagrancy" mode where it starts to scan the environment with its sensors and selects the target and then goes to he.

As the launch will take place beyond the horizon, it is difficult for the target to be sure it is under attack, even because an aircraft like the P-8 or a Global Hawk can use passive sensors and may be outside the target ship's radar range, not to mention on American satellites equipped with synthetic aperture radars, with the potential to assign targets to ships. As for the LRSM sensors to alert the target, as I said, it should use a combination of active and passive sensors and would only use radar in case of bad weather or some infrared countermeasure.

As it is a sea-skimming missile, in the terminal phase it flies at low altitude, maneuvers and starts interfering with radar using ECM. A missile like the LRASM can create one or more fake missiles to circumvent the defensive radar system, using its ECM capability, and can even penetrate the defenses of an aircraft carrier depending on the airborne configuration of each CSG, but it is such a good missile as a supersonic to penetrate the point defenses of isolated ships. The missile addresses characteristics of sea-skimming, stealth, great maneuverability and a huge potential to operate autonomously.

It is noteworthy that the F-35/LRASM combination is one of the most lethal anti-ship systems in existence today. Although fully capable of operating autonomously, LRASM missiles launched from the F-18, B-1B and in the future P-8 and B-21 and from naval surface and submarine units when combined with the fighter F-35 for real-time targeting and tracking is simply devastating to enemy naval units.

Your assertion that for a missile to be effective, the PLAN would have to be developing it doesn't make any sense. The ASuW doctrine of Americans and Chinese are conceptually different, therefore, it would not even be a validating argument to claim that the LASM missile is not useful in an ASuW environment.

Later this year, BAE Systems was awarded a contract to produce new, next-generation seekers for the LRSM at a lower cost, this will help reduce overall missile costs and give the missile more efficiency and less reliance on external data.

Again, a missile such as LRASM is still ineffective for task forces centered on aircraft carriers with escorts consisting of cruisers (heavy destroyers) as well as destroyers, anti-aircraft capable frigates and AEW&C assets, as the missile would already be detected beyond the radar horizon and would be constantly located once its detection was made, this would eliminate the surprise effect of sea-skimming as well as its stealth-missile characteristic, and its ability to stealthily circle a zone around the target would already be ruled out.