PLAN Anti-ship/surface missiles

I don't acknowledge anything about YJ-18 until I see more info on the missile. I believe it's a next generation AShM, but how that would look like is all speculation at the present time. There is no reason that it has to look like 3M54.

The 3rd one looks like it's from some demonstration video. The first and second one could be current YJ-12 or some early model. All the original photo shows me is a supersonic missile in YJ series that's larger than YJ-91. It could be YJ-12 or it could be something else. All the ballistic missiles had the exact designation spelt out. Why did this missile not?

tphuang said:

I don't acknowledge anything about YJ-18 until I see more info on the missile. I believe it's a next generation AShM, but how that would look like is all speculation at the present time. There is no reason that it has to look like 3M54.

Click to expand...

I never said YJ-18 has to look like 3M-54, I just said that it has a similar flight profile to it, i.e.: subsonic cruise stage and supersonic terminal stage.

The 3rd one looks like it's from some demonstration video. The first and second one could be current YJ-12 or some early model. All the original photo shows me is a supersonic missile in YJ series that's larger than YJ-91. It could be YJ-12 or it could be something else. All the ballistic missiles had the exact designation spelt out. Why did this missile not?

Click to expand...

All the naval missiles in the parade did not have their designations labelled. All were labelled either "YJ" or "HHQ". So it makes sense that YJ-12 was not labelled with their designations given it was a naval missile. Why they didn't have designations of naval missiles, I do not know. Maybe they ran out of white paint by the time they wanted to stencil the designations of the naval missiles.


And you're still not acknowledging that the missile in the three photos that I posted all had "YJ-12" labelled on them, nor are you acknowledging the fact that those missiles are identical to the missiles in the parade. Putting these two things together should provide a viable justification for calling the missiles in the parade YJ-12.
I'm also sure that you're aware that the missile in question has been called YJ-12 since the first pictures of it emerged a few years back, so I'm not sure why you're only asserting that it is YJ-12 now when a consensus exists rather than challenging it earlier.

For what its worth, Andrew Erickson is calling the parade missile YJ-12.


Erickson also linked to a Chinese language itinerary that was published before the parade that calls the missile YJ-12.

shen said:

For what its worth, Andrew Erickson is calling the parade missile YJ-12.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Erickson also linked to a Chinese language itinerary that was published before the parade that calls the missile YJ-12.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

Yep.

But even if there was no itinerary, I think there was enough preexisting evidence to justifiably call the missile YJ-12 as well.

Bltizo said:

I never said YJ-18 has to look like 3M-54, I just said that it has a similar flight profile to it, i.e.: subsonic cruise stage and supersonic terminal stage.
All the naval missiles in the parade did not have their designations labelled. All were labelled either "YJ" or "HHQ". So it makes sense that YJ-12 was not labelled with their designations given it was a naval missile. Why they didn't have designations of naval missiles, I do not know. Maybe they ran out of white paint by the time they wanted to stencil the designations of the naval missiles.
And you're still not acknowledging that the missile in the three photos that I posted all had "YJ-12" labelled on them, nor are you acknowledging the fact that those missiles are identical to the missiles in the parade. Putting these two things together should provide a viable justification for calling the missiles in the parade YJ-12.
I'm also sure that you're aware that the missile in question has been called YJ-12 since the first pictures of it emerged a few years back, so I'm not sure why you're only asserting that it is YJ-12 now when a consensus exists rather than challenging it earlier.

Click to expand...

As I said, 3rd one was from some simulation video. The first 2 look to be test models and the final version could be given YJ-12 or something different designation. It could also look different in service. I can accept that the one in the parade has a good chance of being given YJ-12 designation but I'd like to wait and see. As for the so called consensus, there was many consensus on the so called C-803 missile which turned out next existed. So I'd rather not use online consensus as the final word.

tphuang said:

As I said, 3rd one was from some simulation video. The first 2 look to be test models and the final version could be given YJ-12 or something different designation. It could also look different in service. I can accept that the one in the parade has a good chance of being given YJ-12 designation but I'd like to wait and see.

Click to expand...

I was not talking about only the third picture, but rather all three (i.e.: including the first two), and both of them have missiles with YJ-12 literally labeling their airframes, and we have missiles in the parade which look virtually identical to the ones from those photos.

I'm not sure why you would entertain the idea that they have changed the designation of the missile from YJ-12 to YJ-18, especially seeing as there are no rumours to suggest it. That's ignoring all the reliable rumours suggesting what kinds of missiles YJ-12 and YJ-18 are meant to be.

So at this stage I think it's perfectly justified to call the missile in the parade YJ-12, based on the information we have at present. We might get new information tomorrow which changes the justification, in which case that's no problem -- the consensus will change, but at this point up to the present all the information points to it being YJ-12.
If your only points against the missiles being YJ-12 is that they might have changed the designation of the missile (without any rumours to suggest that any such thing has occurred), or that we don't have 100% confirmation, then I have to say those are rather weak arguments.

As for the so called consensus, there was many consensus on the so called C-803 missile which turned out next existed. So I'd rather not use online consensus as the final word.

Click to expand...

I think this is the fundamental difference in our views towards PLA watching.

I think it's perfectly fine to have a consensus and to use that as the present accepted state of things, with the knowledge that the consensus may change based on new information. There is never a "final word" because new information is constantly emerging and new rumours and information should constantly be assessed.
You seem much more averse to speculation and averse to changing opinions on things, especially in the last few years. I remember when your blog and your posts here were much more active towards the potential possibilities of development and the way you critically examined the possibilities.

Bltizo said:

I was not talking about only the third picture, but rather all three (i.e.: including the first two), and both of them have missiles with YJ-12 literally labeling their airframes, and we have missiles in the parade which look virtually identical to the ones from those photos.

I'm not sure why you would entertain the idea that they have changed the designation of the missile from YJ-12 to YJ-18, especially seeing as there are no rumours to suggest it. That's ignoring all the reliable rumours suggesting what kinds of missiles YJ-12 and YJ-18 are meant to be.

So at this stage I think it's perfectly justified to call the missile in the parade YJ-12, based on the information we have at present. We might get new information tomorrow which changes the justification, in which case that's no problem -- the consensus will change, but at this point up to the present all the information points to it being YJ-12.
If your only points against the missiles being YJ-12 is that they might have changed the designation of the missile (without any rumours to suggest that any such thing has occurred), or that we don't have 100% confirmation, then I have to say those are rather weak arguments.

I think this is the fundamental difference in our views towards PLA watching.

I think it's perfectly fine to have a consensus and to use that as the present accepted state of things, with the knowledge that the consensus may change based on new information. There is never a "final word" because new information is constantly emerging and new rumours and information should constantly be assessed.
You seem much more averse to speculation and averse to changing opinions on things, especially in the last few years. I remember when your blog and your posts here were much more active towards the potential possibilities of development and the way you critically examined the possibilities.

Click to expand...

My point is that I regard those evidences as not particularly strong and that YJ-18 could very well look almost the same as YJ-12. And there have been plenty of time when waiting a few more month provides enough clues to tell us more.

Two high quality pics of YJ-12 from the parade. It looks much bigger with the soldiers right next to it in comparison. But doesn't seem like they are real missiles because there seem to be not much weight looking at the track tires. (From 噱头 FYJS)

Impressive but I'm pretty sure they are mock ups and not the real thing with some alternation in design. The air intake going all the way to the bottom really doesn't make any sense.

SamuraiBlue said:

Impressive but I'm pretty sure they are mock ups and not the real thing with some alternation in design. The air intake going all the way to the bottom really doesn't make any sense.

Click to expand...

They are almost definitely mock ups; most if not all of the missiles on display were likely mock ups.

The air intake probably doesn't continue all the way to the bottom, I imagine it's just the outside structure which continues all the way to the bottom/nozzle. The four intake themselves probably snakes towards the centre of the actual missile, to provide for the ramjet, similar to the Kh-41 arrangement. Doesn't take a lot of imagination to consider a plausible reason why it looks like the air intake continues to the bottom.