PLA strike strategies in westpac HIC

tamsen_ikard said:

I think these are reasonable guesses and you can kinda eyeball the differences in how each missile look.

The main point is not that YJ-18C is bad. I am sure its a good missile. My question is mainly about why PLA chose not to pursue a JASSM like missile with very large wings. What were the trade-offs of both approaches. And if its beneficial for PLA to work on a JASSM like missile. Could they get better range, perhaps 3-4 thousand KM air launched missile with a JASSM like design but as big as YJ-18 in length.

Click to expand...

Blitzo said:

JASSM/LRASM are a smaller weapon than YJ-18C, which is why it is stubbier/shorter and comparatively makes its wings look larger.

AKF-98 (which we saw a few years ago, and which we know is in PLA service and also offered for export as CM-98) has a length/wingspan profile more similar to JASSM/LRASM, which makes sense because it is a shorter ranged and lighter weapon than YJ-18C.

Putting it another way, asking "why PLA isn't developing a missile like that" is a bit of a loaded question, because you make it sound like the JASSM/LRASM form factor is desirable or superior to something like YJ-18C (or indeed, like AGM-181 or Kh-101 or even what LRSO is expected to look like), whereas it is instead that JASSM/LRASM is just... a shorter ranged weapon.

Click to expand...

To elaborate, your view towards JASSM/LRASM being somehow "unique" is flawed to begin with, because there is nothing about its planform or its "wingspan to length" ratio that is unique or inherently superior.

It is merely one configuration among many for an air launched stealthy cruise missile that can be carried by tactical strike/fighter aircraft.
AKF-98 is one example of it (from China) as I mentioned before, but there are other examples such as:

Taurus KEPD (Germany)


Storm Shadow (UK/France)


(among others)



So if you want to talk about a PLA equivalent to JASSM/LRASM, what you're really asking about is a "stealthy multirole cruise missile that can be carried by tactical strike aircraft".... of which the AKF-98 is your answer.

If you're asking about "stealthy multirole cruise missiles" in general for the PLA, then both YJ-18C and AKF-98 fulfill your criteria.


If you're asking about a "stealthy multirole cruise missile with the specific wingspan/length ratio of JASSM/LRASM" then no such missile exists outside of that specific type (either in the PLA or elsewhere in the world), but then one would ask why on earth is that important to begin with??

Given the amount of missile development programs that the PLA lets you to see, even just from the 93 parade, I would tend to believe that they definitely toyed with the concept of JASSM/LRASM and made some feasibility or even development effort. However those would have been deemed not desirable or unfit for PLA service/doctrine. The guancha trio said that survivability of subsonic, even LO missiles, are low in peer engagements.

In other words, the Chinese have the option to choose from a much larger pool of missile flight profiles because of MIC capability and superior aerodynamic studies. And they simply did not choose them, instead of "they weren't developing" them. The same question/doubts have been casted in Chinese web space for years and it's honestly tiring.

The US military on the other hand, might only have JASSM/LRASM as meaningful options with a barely meaningful inventory. The question to be asked in reverse is: "Why isn't the US developing, or had available in great numbers, YJ21, YJ20, YJ15, YJ19, YJ17 equivalents? Do they not want to? Are they stupid?" Mind you that the US is still touting anti ship Tomahawk and ground NSMs in 2024 as "milestones", which seems like some sort of black comedy.

leonzzzz said:

Given the amount of missile development programs that the PLA lets you to see, even just from the 93 parade, I would tend to believe that they definitely toyed with the concept of JASSM/LRASM and made some feasibility or even development effort. However those would have been deemed not desirable or unfit for PLA service/doctrine. The guancha trio said that survivability of subsonic, even LO missiles, are low in peer engagements.

In other words, the Chinese have the option to choose from a much larger pool of missile flight profiles because of MIC capability and superior aerodynamic studies. And they simply did not choose them, instead of "they weren't developing" them. The same question/doubts have been casted in Chinese web space for years and it's honestly tiring.

The US military on the other hand, might only have JASSM/LRASM as meaningful options with a barely meaningful inventory. The question to be asked in reverse is: "Why isn't the US developing, or had available in great numbers, YJ21, YJ20, YJ15, YJ19, YJ17 equivalents? Do they not want to? Are they stupid?" Mind you that the US is still touting anti ship Tomahawk and ground NSMs in 2024 as "milestones", which seems like some sort of black comedy.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

US and the entire west is pretty much a goner when it comes to military tech at this point. Palmer Luckey is their new Mascot!
The only question that matters is how superior can China get in terms of tech, numbers and how soon can they dominate Western Pacific.

I will be more interested for example, if China can develop a supersonic LO missile with 1000KM range. That will be true game changer in terms of capabilities. So, something akin to a YJ-12, but stealthy will be quite interesting.

Another important missing capability are anti-ship supersonic/hypersonic missiles that can fit inside the internal bay of J-20 and J-35. I think that will be another big capability leap.

There are some anachronistic missiles in China's arsenal that do not fit the tech narrative though. For example, CJ-20A. A subsonic tomahawk like missile that will be shot down easily in a neer peer fight. Then there is the YJ-83. They are still populating Chinese Frigates, Corvettes and Missile boats as the main anti-ship weapon. I think they need to be replaced urgently with a supersonic/hypersonic or stealthy subsonic option.

tamsen_ikard said:

Then there is the YJ-83. They are still populating Chinese Frigates, Corvettes and Missile boats as the main anti-ship weapon. I think they need to be replaced urgently with a supersonic/hypersonic or stealthy subsonic option.

Click to expand...

(circled for comedic effect)

Then there is this thing called the Quicksink. It is basically a souped up JDAM used against naval surface targets. As it currently is, it has a range of 25KM. Yes, 25KM.

Just a few days ago the US was bragging about testing this piece of work (shit) with a B2. You heard that right. They flew a fxxking B2 25KM to the target and lobbed a JDAM on it and called it the PLAN killer.


As much as I want to shitpost this thing to the ground, I do admit it has its role because:
1. You can lob these at merchant ships, in areas where peer contention is low or non-existent.
2. If you lob these, you don't need to fire NSM/Tomahawk/JASSM or whatnot and save a fortune (and more importantly inventory)
3. You have a shitload of JDAM stockpile and you can convert a lot of these.
4. You get to bully non peer adversaries.

Now convert the Quicksink above with whatever legacy munition you think the PLAN still operate. And you'd be able to make the same argument, maybe even stronger argument. Cuz apparently the US military thinks these legacy munitions' equivalent (Tomahawk) could "spook the Chinese". So I want to believe they are just a little more potent than Quicksink.