SinoDefence Forum

tphuang · 10-18-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by planeman

The stats suggest that:
YJ-62
Length: 6.1m (withou booster); 7m (with booster)
Diameter: N/A
Wingspan: N/A
Launch weight: 1,140kg (without booster); 1,350kg (with booster)

Klub (3M-54E)
Length (m) 8.220
Diameter (m) 0.533 (21' for torpedo tubes)
Weight (kg) 2,300

BUT, from the phot evidence of the 052Cs shows that the YJ-62 tubes are MUCH fatter than 21' (about that of the YJ-63 tubes) making them take up more space. http://www.sinodefence.com/navy/navalmissile/yj622.asp Also, because they are mounted in incline launchers they take up more deck space, which has a greater effect on the number of weapons carried.

In my previous concept I envisaged a folding fin YJ-62 type of weapon making it take up the same amount of deck space as the YJ-63/Harpoon etc. A diagram of the weapons layout of my previous design:
http://i11.tinypic.com/4g9a8ba.jpg
As you can see the two quad YJ-62 launchers are mounted behind the bridge firing out over the side of the ship. Behind that the vertical launch modules are mounted, limited in depth by the boat stowage below.

A revised layout has a large missile deck within the ship, of similar dimensions to the vehicle deck on the fast ferries on which the hull is based. The missile deck is shown as having four quad YJ-62 launchers, two firing port and two starboard (you can only see two because the others are directly behind them, firing out the other side). This arrangement takes up a large amount of internal space but allows for the non-compact missile launchers seen on the 052C.
http://i11.tinypic.com/2hnc935.jpg
The missile deck could be cleared for alturnative weapons fits, or "commando" configuration.

In this version I have used the deck space saved by the elimination of the SSM launchers behind the bridge to relocate the vertical launch modules into a single bigger module in the centre of the ship.

The ship's launch would have to be relocated, so the boat shed under the hanger deck could be enlarged.

Did I say anywhere that 052C uses that YJ-62?

The stuff that China exports is certainly not the stuff it uses. I had previously thought the missiles on 052C are similar in size and appearance to the export YJ-62. However, if you can show that the tube is much thicker, then that just means the missile on 052C would carry more fuel, larger seeker and such.

tphuang · 10-18-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by Transient

I thrashed the 054A for having less ASW capability than the Formidable, as is evidently so. I didn;t trash it specifically for not having a TAS.

If in its operating environment, TAS is not that useful, then why should that be used as a strike against it.

Quote:

Uh, China isn't exactly known in military procurement circles as a 'reference customer the way Singapore is. Besides, even if the indigenous TAS is fitted, do you think it can match the standards of western equivalents? I don't think so, but you are free to assume whatever you want, as you seem to do.

huh? What does that have to do with anything? The point as I state is that both navy equip sonar more suitable for their environment. Which actually explains why the bow mounted sonar on 054 is so tiny. But you for some reason see the need of saying that China would know less about its needs.

Quote:

I have shown that the Formidable is more capable than the 054A by virtue of its ability to target and ID the enemy silently with its VDS, as well as its superior organic heli, the SH-60. I will elaborate later.

As we explained to you many times, targetting is not an issue for 054A. It installed Bandstand for a good reason, + it will use other targetting assets in PLAN.

Quote:

You rely on assumptions and rumours. They may be right, they may not be right. At the end of the day, you are just choosing the parts you'd like to be true. And yet you demand concrete proof from others.

I didn't demand anything. I was congradulating you for finding some source. as shown with Chinese military, internet sources are far from accurate.

Quote:

You working for the PLAN? Do you know all their purchases?

Exports get reported. You may have noticed all of the news articles I post. If they are exporting many sets of shtil, we would know by now. JDW is reporting Tor-M1 negotiation with China. That's right, no deal has been signed yet and there is already reports on it. And we hear every S-300 deal whether land or ship based. Do you think shtil is different? And just that you know, I catch everything out of Interfax.

Quote:

The more you talk the less you show about how much you understand about the concept of 'stealth'. Stealth is not a stand alone measure. Stealth is part of a repertoire of measures, ALL working towards the end goal of improving survivability. Hard-kill, soft-kill, LO measures, they are all part of the survivability toolbox. Stealth does not negate the use of other measures, and hence there is no reason why stealth cannot be mentioned beside hard-kill and soft-kill measures, especially when stealth can affect the effectiveness of soft-kill measures.

Stealth improves survivability through two ways. One is by making the ship harder to find, and thus target. Another is by improving the effectiveness of its soft kill suite because they do not have to mimic a ship with a large RCS. As you should be able to see, these two advantages the Formidable has over the 054A give it an edge in Survivability with respect to ASuW. Another thing is that the Formidable is better able to target the enemy with its VDS and more capable heli, the SH-60. These advantages all taken together makes the Formidable a clear winner in ASuW.

So, you basically stated what stealth means with warships, but haven't combatted my argument at all. Let me go back to your original statement:
"Formidable being a stealth design will have a higher chance of effectiveness when using soft kill measures. This also affects its ability in ASuW, because it is harder to find."
So basically, you are using stealth design (the hull) as an advantage over 054A. Now, I've shown you that even though 054A is less stealthy in terms of hull alone than Formidable, it's not an issue, because a much weaker version of C-802 had no problem finding an even stealthier hull. Now, for some reason you have to lecture me on other methods of soft kill when I was the first one to bring it up. It's like comparing a F-15 to a F-16. F-15 is larger than F-16, but an AAM with a modern seeker will have no problem finding both. Similarly, Formidable may have a smaller RCS, but it's not small enough that a modern seeker would not be able to find it. So, it's not really that much of an advantage, certainly not enough to tilt a confrontation. The other methods of soft kill are far more relevant as far as I'm concerned.

Quote:

EW planes are much further away than the ASTER is to the ASM missiles. That decreases the EW effectiveness. In fact, when facing an aircraft, the aircraft is likely to have an easier time jamming the SARH seeker of the missile since the illuminator's radar waves have travelled a further distance than the Aster's.

you are still jamming a much more powerful radar that is also given targetting information from the search/tracking radar (which is most likely AESA radar, whose frequency hopping capability makes it much harder to pick up, let alone jam), making it much harder to jam than the small seeker of a missile operating alone.

Quote:

All I said was that you were pulling figures from your posterior. Since they were from your S, any debate around them is like flies around whatever comes out from your bum.

hmm, why don't you tell us how many missiles you think 32 HH-16 and 32 aster 15 can intercept? To give you a basic idea, the Russians advertise 9M317 to be able to score hits on missiles 43 to 80 something percent of time. FM-90N claims a 80% hit probability against missiles.

Quote:

In two specific angles only, yet you gave the impression that 4 FCRs could be used under all circumstances?

Let's take a look at the 4 FCRs carefully. The two near the hangar can theoretically illuminate target in all angles, since there really isn't any superstructure blocking. As for the two FCRs in the front, they are blocked in less than 90 degree of the angle (this should be pretty obvious). Let's just say they are each blocked for 75 to 90 degree from a certain direction. That means in 150 to 180 degree out of 360 degrees, 3 out of 4 FCRs can illuminate target. In the remain 180 to 210 degree out of 360 degrees, all 4 FCRs can illuminate target. Alternatively, the only way that a massive strike would leave a FCR completely out of it is if they all come from that range of 75 to 90 degree angle.

Quote:

And what has that got to do with the Formidable?

were you not reading my previous posts? PLAN has some type of Aegis like system in its navy among its modern ships. Formidable does not.

adeptitus · 10-18-2006

Just a quick correction on my part -

I went to Rosoboronexport Naval Systems Export Catalogue:
http://www.rusarm.ru/cataloque/navy/navy.pdf

It seems that the Russians have different IDs for the Club-S/N missiles than Jane's. The Russians use "E" for submarine version and "TE" for ship VLS version.

Club-S:
3M-54E supersonic SSM
3M-54E1 subsonic SSM
91RE1 Subroc

Club-N:
3M-54TE supersonic SSM
3M-54TE1 subsonic SSM
91RTE2 ASROC

The export catalog doesn't have 3M-14E LACM listed, but we can assume it'd follow same naming convention of 3M-14E sub-launched and 3M-14TE VLS launched.

planeman · 10-18-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by tphuang

Did I say anywhere that 052C uses that YJ-62?

The stuff that China exports is certainly not the stuff it uses. I had previously thought the missiles on 052C are similar in size and appearance to the export YJ-62. However, if you can show that the tube is much thicker, then that just means the missile on 052C would carry more fuel, larger seeker and such.

I think it's widely agreed that the SSM tubes onboard the 052C are YJ-62*. The tubes are definately noticibly thicker than those of YJ-83 (/Harpoon/Exocet et al). Whilst the Tomahawk like YJ-62 is almost certainly fatter than the YJ-83, and potential much longer ranged, I think it's safe to say that the large diameter of the tubes is primarily because they are round and the rear fins do not fold:

In the diagram above a missile of the same diameter and wingspan is viewed from the front:
A. Mounted in a square box launcher like the YJ-83, Exocet MM-38, OTOMAT etc
B. Mounted in a round tube like the YJ-62
C. Mounted in a tube but has folding fins, increasing compactness like the Harpoon, MM-40 Exocet etc.

Here's a diagram showing the relative sizes of the missiles being discussed, with boosters - obviously it's not 100% accurate but it's not far off either:

Note how the booster fins of the YJ-83 fold, but the main wings of the shipboard version do not. whereas on the Klub both the forward and rear fins retract into the body meaning that although the body is longer and fatter, it can actually be fitted into a thiner launch container than either the YJ-83 or YJ-62.

A folding fin version of the YJ-82/83 must exist, but only seems to have been used on submarines. This may be because the wing folding increases weight and/or has an effect on drag, reducing the range of the missile.

*Please ignore where I've accidently called it YJ-63, I meant 62

tphuang · 10-18-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by planeman

I think it's widely agreed that the SSM tubes onboard the 052C are YJ-62*. The tubes are definately noticibly thicker than those of YJ-83 (/Harpoon/Exocet et al). Whilst the Tomahawk like YJ-62 is almost certainly fatter than the YJ-83, and potential much longer ranged, I think it's safe to say that the large diameter of the tubes is primarily because they are round and the rear fins do not fold:
http://img96.imageshack.us/img96/3328/missiles1nx4.jpg
In the diagram above a missile of the same diameter and wingspan is viewed from the front:
A. Mounted in a square box launcher like the YJ-83, Exocet MM-38, OTOMAT etc
B. Mounted in a round tube like the YJ-62
C. Mounted in a tube but has folding fins, increasing compactness like the Harpoon, MM-40 Exocet etc.

Here's a diagram showing the relative sizes of the missiles being discussed, with boosters - obviously it's not 100% accurate but it's not far off either:
http://img148.imageshack.us/img148/3745/missilesxm3.jpg

Note how the booster fins of the YJ-83 fold, but the main wings of the shipboard version do not. whereas on the Klub both the forward and rear fins retract into the body meaning that although the body is longer and fatter, it can actually be fitted into a thiner launch container than either the YJ-83 or YJ-62.

A folding fin version of the YJ-82/83 must exist, but only seems to have been used on submarines. This may be because the wing folding increases weight and/or has an effect on drag, reducing the range of the missile.

*Please ignore where I've accidently called it YJ-63, I meant 62

Every so called source are using the export statistics of YJ-62 on the missile on 052C. I personally think that if C-802 series is the export version of YJ-8 turbojet series, then YJ-62 has to be the export version of some domestic series too. Now, the domestic version may also be YJ-62, but I would expect there to be some differences. For example, YJ-83 is terminally supersonic, but C-802 is entirely subsonic.

The given length for YJ-62 is around 7 m, so it should be slightly longer than C-802A and its diameter is 54 cm (so around that of Klub). To me, that means YJ-62 should be able to fit into a similar width tube but shorter tube than klub.

planeman · 10-18-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by tphuang

Every so called source are using the export statistics of YJ-62 on the missile on 052C. I personally think that if C-802 series is the export version of YJ-8 turbojet series, then YJ-62 has to be the export version of some domestic series too. Now, the domestic version may also be YJ-62, but I would expect there to be some differences. For example, YJ-83 is terminally supersonic, but C-802 is entirely subsonic.

The C-803 is simply an incremental improvement of the C-801, C-802 etc. The difference in speed and range is due to the new powerplant. The C-802 was developed BEFORE the YJ-83, not as an export version. In the case of the YJ-62 all versions are almost certainly microjet powered.

Export satistics? Whilst guidence etc will invariably differ, the general dimensions of the missile are unlikely to change.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tphuang

The given length for YJ-62 is around 7 m, so it should be slightly longer than C-802A and its diameter is 54 cm (so around that of Klub). To me, that means YJ-62 should be able to fit into a similar width tube but shorter tube than klub.

Sinodefence estimates the length of the YJ-62 as just over 6 meters, 7 meters with booster. The popularly quoted length of the YJ-83 seems to ignore the booster, because at about 6 meters it is approximately the same length as the Exocet (5.8m) from which it was developed. If the 6m length INCLUDES the booster then how would it fit in the 165kg warhead (same as Exocet), plus seeker and sufficient fuel etc. Just looking a photographs it is obvious that the YJ-83 is significantly longer than 6m with its booster.

Re diameter. Please do read my above post. The Klub's diameter is given as 0.533m - 21"; the diameter of a conventional torpedo tube on a sub. The Klub maximises it's diameter by having all its fins retract into the body. The smaller diameter sub-launched version of the YJ-83 can fit within the 21" tube because it has folding fins.

Another factor is the air intake, It does not appear that the YJ-62's intake retracts which would be a vital feature if it was to fit into a snug fitting tube.

adeptitus · 10-19-2006

My revised CFX(ASW)

The external apperance of the CFX(ASW) resembles an enlarged 054A with extended aft deck and elevated center super-structure. The exteded aft deck is used for ASW equipment, while the elevated center super-structure is used to house 2 x 4-cel Kalibr-NKE VLS system (they make both 4-cel and 8-cel versions of Club-N VLS).

Since this is an ASW ship, its primary mission will be ASW, built with mostly imported Russian systems. The core of the ASW detection capability will come from the Zarya-ME sonar system with underkeel array, towed array, and dipping array sonar. The "Purga" integrated fire control system will be used to control ASW weapons, including missiles, rockets, and decoys.

The ship's secondary mission will be anti-surface and anti-air. For anti-surface, the Kalibr-NKE system will offer the option of SSM or LACM loads. For anti-air, the ship will be equipped with SA-N-12 SAM and Type 730 CIWS.

The ship will be equipped with a varity of rockets. The RKPTZ-1E is UDAV-1E replacement, with ASW, torpedo barriage, and acoustic decoy rockets. The PK-10 decoy system will dispense chaff/flares decoys.

Weapon systems:
2 x 4-cel Kalibr-NKE VLS system, for 91RTE2 ASROC or 3M-54TE/TE1 SSM
RKPTZ-1E ASW system with 2 x KT-153E 10-barrel RL w/auto-reloader
PK-10 decoy system with 2 x KT-216 RL (or 2 x 18 barrel Chinese RL)
1 x 4-cel Paknet-E/NK anti-torpedo system
1 x 4-cel MPT-34E light ASW torpedos (or 2 x 3 tube Chinese Yu-7)
Pallada dipping sonar w/2 x DT-65 anti-diver grenade launcher
Shtil-1 or SA-N-12 VLS SAM with 24 missiles
2 x Type 730 CIWS guns (or Kashtan w/2 combat modules)
1 x 76mm gun
1 x Ka-28 ASW Helicopter + hanger

"Triple layer" capability:

ASW detection
ASW Helicopter with dipping sonar
Hull-mounted sonar
Towed sonar

ASW combat
91RTE2 ASROC
ASW Torpedo (from ship MPT-34E & helicopter dropped APR-3E)
ASW Rocket

ASW defense
Paknet-E/NK anti-torpedo rocket
Torpedo barriage rocket
Acoustic decoy rocket

Anti-air defense
Shtil-1 / SA-N-12 SAM
Type 730 CIWS
Chaff/flare decoy rocket

The air-defense capability can be improved by installing Kashtan system. However the PLAN doesn't currently operate such a system, and with HQ-7 and Type 730 CIWS avail, they might not see the necessity of importing it. If there's room left on the ship, we could install a HQ-7 SAM system.

To improve the ship's ASW capability, we could also replace the torpedos with PMK-2 ASW Mine system. If the ship is required to have SSM capability, we could load a mix of 4 x ASROC and 4 x SSM's in the Club-N VLS system.

tphuang · 10-19-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by planeman

The C-803 is simply an incremental improvement of the C-801, C-802 etc. The difference in speed and range is due to the new powerplant. The C-802 was developed BEFORE the YJ-83, not as an export version. In the case of the YJ-62 all versions are almost certainly microjet powered.

there is no such thing as C-803. C-802 is not YJ-82 and C-803 is not YJ-83. This is a very common misconception. C-802 is an export missile. That's what it is, for some reference:
YJ-82 is actually the submarine launched version of YJ-8. It's found on no PLAN ships, only in subs.
YJ-81 is airlaunched version of YJ-8.
YJ-8 series is comparable to C-801 series imo
YJ-83 series is comparable to C-802 series imo

Quote:

Export satistics? Whilst guidence etc will invariably differ, the general dimensions of the missile are unlikely to change.

as I said, C-802 series is most comparable to YJ-83 series, but they are not the same.

Quote:

Sinodefence estimates the length of the YJ-62 as just over 6 meters, 7 meters with booster. The popularly quoted length of the YJ-83 seems to ignore the booster, because at about 6 meters it is approximately the same length as the Exocet (5.8m) from which it was developed. If the 6m length INCLUDES the booster then how would it fit in the 165kg warhead (same as Exocet), plus seeker and sufficient fuel etc. Just looking a photographs it is obvious that the YJ-83 is significantly longer than 6m with its booster.

it would be appreciative if you can show which picture you are talking about. I'm always open to new ideas. I don't think China ever released the stats of YJ-83.

Quote:

Re diameter. Please do read my above post. The Klub's diameter is given as 0.533m - 21"; the diameter of a conventional torpedo tube on a sub. The Klub maximises it's diameter by having all its fins retract into the body. The smaller diameter sub-launched version of the YJ-83 can fit within the 21" tube because it has folding fins.

Another factor is the air intake, It does not appear that the YJ-62's intake retracts which would be a vital feature if it was to fit into a snug fitting tube.

YJ-62 weren't developed for 533 mm launcher, but if they really wanted to, I suppose they could possibly develop something for submarines based on it.

crobato · 10-19-2006

YJ-81 is the original series. 47km,

C-801 and FL series are export versions of the above.

YJ-81K should be YJ-81G, this is the one with the foldable wings, extended range to 90km and also used on planes..

YJ-82 is probably PLA designation for C-802. Ths is the first one with the turbojet. Range is up to 120km. Originally introduced for such ships like the Luhai, it is quickly phase out in favor of the YJ-83.

C-802 is export version of the above. C-802A is the same but range extended to 180km.

YJ-83 is based on the YJ-82 with a longer body for more fuel, more efficient and powerful turbojet, and the addition for datalink for OTH midphase guidance. Range is between 160-180km (likely for lo-lo-lo approach) to 250km (lo hi lo, hi hi lo).

Subs used YJ-82 because subs cannot do datalink midphase guidance.

planeman · 10-19-2006

Tphyuang, you are being pedantic and neatly tapdancing around the obvious. As is so often the case you are not basing your conclusion on sound observations.

What exactly is your point? Are you suggesting that the C-802 and YJ-83 do not share the same basic fuselage and wings? saying the C-802 and YJ-83 are destinct, is fair enough, but your line of reasoning seems akin to arguing that the Toyota RAV-4L is a completely different car to the Toyoto RAV-4. I can't believe I've wasted my time illustrating such a universally accepted notion, that the C-802 and YJ-83 share the same airframe:

. EDIT. Yep I agree with Crobato that the YJ-83 is longer than C-802, although not by a huge amount.

tphuang · 10-19-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by planeman

Tphyuang, you are being pedantic and neatly tapdancing around the obvious. As is so often the case you are not basing your conclusion on sound observations.

What exactly is your point? Are you suggesting that the C-802 and YJ-83 do not share the same basic fuselage and wings? saying the C-802 and YJ-83 are destinct, is fair enough, but your line of reasoning seems akin to arguing that the Toyota RAV-4L is a completely different car to the Toyoto RAV-4. I can't believe I've wasted my time illustrating such a universally accepted notion, that the C-802 and YJ-83 share the same airframe:
http://img101.imageshack.us/img101/8839/c802jv9.jpg

. EDIT. Yep I agree with Crobato that the YJ-83 is longer than C-802, although not by a huge amount.

please, spell my username correctly first. Or call me by my real name Feng. What ever.

What's my point, C-803 does not exist. C-802 series is most comparable to YJ-83 series. Which you seem to agree with. And the fact that they are not exactly the same should give YJ-83 better flight performance despite having the same appearance. YJ-83 could be using better burning material, better seeker + many different things. Which goes back to the original point, the export version is not exactly same as PLAN version. Now, if you see discrepancy in measurement between what is reported in export shows and what you see on PLAN ships, the discrepancy is probably because they are not exactly the same missile. If you can show that in the case of YJ-62, that's even better. In which case, I thank you for doing it, since that would give us more in sight on what 052C is equipping.

planeman · 10-19-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by tphuang

Now, if you see discrepancy in measurement between what is reported in export shows and what you see on PLAN ships, the discrepancy is probably because they are not exactly the same missile.

I think you are the only person who imagines any descrepency. The length quoted for most missiles is without booster, there's nothing unusual about that. It goes for the YJ-83, YJ-62, Harpoon, Exocet etc.

If you think that the YJ-62 are in any way "compact" you must be in cloud cookoo land, or as we call it around here, Planet Tphuang.

tphuang · 10-19-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by planeman

I think you are the only person who imagines any descrepency. The length quoted for most missiles is without booster, there's nothing unusual about that. It goes for the YJ-83, YJ-62, Harpoon, Exocet etc.

Do you understand "Now, if you see discrepancy in measurement between what is reported in export shows and what you see on PLAN ships, the discrepancy is probably because they are not exactly the same missile."
notice, where I said "if you see discrepancy", not "I saw discrepancy". Did I put anywhere that I saw discrepancy. I said, if you think there is differences in measurement, then there might be something there. Go ahead, tell us what you think their measurements are.

Quote:

If you think that the YJ-62 are in any way "compact" you must be in cloud cookoo land, or as we call it around here, Planet Tphuang.

as we call it around here? Who are "we"? Since you have buried up your anger for so long, why don't you list things you are not so happy with me about? I'm ready for a little amusement before I sleep.

Finn McCool · 10-19-2006

Calming things down and getting back on the subject of frigates, I would make the general conclusion that frigates can have two emphasises. They can be either primarily for ASW or for AAW. In a fleet action, not costal defence, frigates perform the role of point defence, often traveling somewhat ahead of the rest of the fleet acting as "eyes" spotting incoming missles, aircraft, etc. and "ears" providing an outer layer of ASW defence and trying to discover the enemies subs which are performing much the same scouting function. Thus, my ideal frigate would be loaded with high quality AAW sensors. Why? Because with sensor range comes survivability. It allows the sip and the entire fleet to dectet and deal with threats faster. Also, since the frigate serves as more of a scout, it can leave AShW to the DDGs. Therefore it doesn't need a whole lot of ASMs. Of course, it would be possible to have a frigate with no ASMs and a larger amount of SAMs, so it can be used to extend the fleets interception envelope out futher. That would be something an ideal frigate would do. It provides point defence to the rest of the fleet, thus it would be logical to get rid of ASMs and have alarger component of longer range SAMs.

Since we have reevaluated a frigate's true purpose in fleet warfare and seen that we can make changes to the missle arrangment because of it, we can now but more emphasis on a the ASW component of the frigate's armory. For me, this is the ideal frigate's primary purpose along with acting as eyes and extending the fleet's SAM interception range.

Thus, my ideal frigate would not even need to carry ASMs, but would have a good complement of torpedos, an ASW helicopter and towed array and bow sonar, along with two CIWS systems, a fancy radar suite and a long to medium range SAM. This reflects its purpose of scouting for airborne and undersea threats and proving point defence for both.

crobato · 10-20-2006

AAW is much better for destroyers and larger ships than it is for frigates, dues to the size of the systems involved. I would leave ASW and AsuW for the frigs, and perhaps point defense AAW. Its easier to develop a common missile family for both ASW and ASuW work, and use both missile variants on a common VLS launching system.

SinoDefence Forum

Ideal PLAN Frigate

Ideal PLAN Frigate

DefenceTalk Military Pictures

vBulletin Tweet Poster