PLAN Anti-ship/surface missiles

Gloire_bb said:

（1）SM-6 strike use is accepted norm, moreover, it's specifically procured by other services as strike weapon only.
（2）Since WW2 it's quite well known, that (1) overly specialized ammunition is a sure way to fire something else when you actually need it(German experience), and (2) it's best to have as much most useful type as possible, any performance gains in tertiary roles aren't worth it on normal missions.
No, it isn't going to make plan work easier. Quite the opposite, overwhelming US SSG becomes significantly harder.

Click to expand...

SM-6 is a very expensive missile at $5-6 million per round. It's also procured in quite low numbers; 139 per year as of FY2026—and that's assuming Congress helps them. If the US is burning its limited stocks of exquisite BMD on strike missions, then I fully expect PLAN to celebrate because it means all of their YJ-17s and YJ-20s and so forth will be shooting fish in a barrel.

Wrought said:

SM-6 is a very expensive missile at $5-6 million per round. It's also procured in quite low numbers; 139 per year as of FY2026—and that's assuming Congress helps them. If the US is burning its limited stocks of exquisite BMD on strike missions, then I fully expect PLAN to celebrate because it means all of their YJ-17s and YJ-20s and so forth will be shooting fish in a barrel.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

What is happening? Did they jack up the price and government not willing to keep up? Or are they getting their existing budget slashed?

Wrought said:

SM-6 is a very expensive missile at $5-6 million per round. It's also procured in quite low numbers; 139 per year as of FY2026—and that's assuming Congress helps them. If the US is burning its limited stocks of exquisite BMD on strike missions, then I fully expect PLAN to celebrate because it means all of their YJ-17s and YJ-20s and so forth will be shooting fish in a barrel.

Click to expand...

Their other state of the art missile are anything but cheap either way. Opportunity cost matters more in this case.
Also, YJ-17/20 equally come at the expense of self-defense missiles. And the big 'if' in the room is how truly valuable surface heavy asuw weapons are.

TK3600 said:

What is happening? Did they jack up the price and government not willing to keep up? Or are they getting their existing budget slashed?

Click to expand...

USN put the request in the reconciliation bill for whatever reason. No idea why.

Gloire_bb said:

Their other state of the art missile are anything but cheap either way. Opportunity cost matters more in this case.

Click to expand...

JASSM costs about $1 million while LRASM is about $3 million, and the US is procuring far more of both. Way cheaper missiles in way higher numbers. And the opportunity cost here is CVNs going to the bottom, which is frankly worth more than whatever they're shooting at. SM-6 is literally the only thing USN has to defend against HGVs.

FriedRiceNSpice said:

Would it be more efficient to at least have two different types of seekers/warheads?

Click to expand...

Likely no.
- Air breathing systems are limited in top speed by thrust, not by how much fuel they can carry.
- In a missile of this size, a several hundred kilos of explosives wouldn't make any difference because the missile has a range in thousands of kilometers. It outranges China's practical aircraft detection capabilities and all American air launched munitions already.
- The seeker would be the same anyway. As said, radars are software defined in 2025. Frequency wise, there are no problems. 10-15 GHz band was popular for anti-ship missiles for a long while. Because it provides good resolution even with Harpoon/Exocet/YJ-83-size seekers and it is the highest band before the rain fade becomes a real problem. AAMs used seekers up 26 GHz. Because they are smaller and need a higher resolution. But the CJ-1000 is bigger thus would actually do better with a lower frequency seeker.

From what I understand the US Navy is basically replacing the SM-6 with the Patriot PAC-3 MSE. It is the SM-3 that is ABM capable.

gelgoog said:

From what I understand the US Navy is basically replacing the SM-6 with the Patriot PAC-3 MSE. It is the SM-3 that is ABM capable.

Click to expand...

SM-3 is exo-atmospheric. PAC-3 MSE is replacing SM-2, and is complementary with SM-6.

“It’s a good long-range missile,” Mang says of the SM-6. However, for closer-in threats, the SM-6 presents a challenge in that it is first boosted out to altitude. “You’re going way down range,” Mang observed. “If you want to hit targets down low, you have got to kind of come way downhill and hit it.”

The result is something of a gap in air defense coverage, where the SM-6 has some challenges, especially due to maneuvering threats. It’s in this part of the envelope that the PAC-3 MSE excels, its agility enhanced by its miniature attitude control motors.

Click to expand...

latenlazy said:

Don’t see why not. It’s not like your combat aircraft has to close the whole distance when it can equip its own long range missiles.

Click to expand...

It would take them way longer to reach within firing range, by which time the target could be long gone. Ideally you'd have both as options, then if the J-36 is within reasonable range then use the J-36, which may also take out some escorts as well. If the J-36 is not within reasonable range, then use the CJ-1000. Again, I think it's for a niche application. It's not meant to replace any role other platforms play, but merely to supplement them. In wartime there should be a curtain of unmanned ISRs in front with a 2nd line of manned and unmanned fighters patrolling behind. But the Pacific Ocean is vast, there'll be times when mismatches between detection and firing solutions occur, and the CJ-1000 can fill some of those holes.

Wrought said:

SM-3 is exo-atmospheric. PAC-3 MSE is replacing SM-2, and is complementary with SM-6.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

So PLAN also uses HHQ-9C to complement HHQ-9B but they could carry two missiles per cells.

Guys ... we are here in the PLAN Anti-ship/surface missiles thread and not PAC-3 vs HQ-whatever?

​