PLAN Anti-ship/surface missiles


SEAD

Junior Member
Registered Member
IMO PLAN showed no interest in LRASM just because they don’t have enough platforms to launch them. The key idea of LRASM is overwhelming enemy air defense with its cheap(?) cost and huge amount, however even 100xH-6 can only take 400 missiles. Given this condition, increasing penetrating capability of single missile is much more reasonable(YJ-18).
 

Gloire_bb

Senior Member
Registered Member
IMO PLAN showed no interest in LRASM just because they don’t have enough platforms to launch them. The key idea of LRASM is overwhelming enemy air defense with its cheap(?) cost and huge amount, however even 100xH-6 can only take 400 missiles. Given this condition, increasing penetrating capability of single missile is much more reasonable(YJ-18).
LRASM is anything but cheap. It's actually easily more expensive than most - if not all - heavy supersonic ASCMs.
 

SEAD

Junior Member
Registered Member
LRASM is anything but cheap. It's actually easily more expensive than most - if not all - heavy supersonic ASCMs.
Really? I heard it’s only 50% higher than tomahawk. I assume a US version YJ-12/18 would be much more expensive than that.
 

FairAndUnbiased

Colonel
Registered Member
IMO PLAN showed no interest in LRASM just because they don’t have enough platforms to launch them. The key idea of LRASM is overwhelming enemy air defense with its cheap(?) cost and huge amount, however even 100xH-6 can only take 400 missiles. Given this condition, increasing penetrating capability of single missile is much more reasonable(YJ-18).
From this source LRASM is a high end weapon not a low end, volume based weapon at $4 million USD each.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Tomahawk is already $1.5 million USD and is slow, non stealthy.
 

tphuang

Brigadier
Staff member
Super Moderator
VIP Professional
Registered Member
While looking back on this thread, I see that the topic of YJ-18 vs LRASM has come up quite a bit. It seems to me that if you have a lot of fighter jet, ISR assets and CEC in your fleet, then it would be pretty hard for either missile to penetrate it unless they deploy massive numbers of them in saturation attacks. The supersonic one can be detected a lot earlier but doesn't give defense a lot of time once tracked. The subsonic one is really hard to get missile quality track but once you do have that, it's pretty easy to shoot down.

They have obvious picked YJ-18 as their surface launched missile at this point. And as we discussed, I think more work can be done here to further reduce its signature. But the question is what air launched missile can they use. I think something like LRASM is not really ideal for that role. It's simply too large and heavy. Even though US military says a B-1B can carry 24 LRASMs and super hornet can carry 4 LRASMs, their range would be so reduced that I don't see that happening in real operation scenario. On the other hand, YJ-18s are obviously not something you'd want to use on a future PLAN air wing. So, what would an ideal air launched ASM look like for the next 15 years? I think you'd want something closer to NSM than YJ-83K or LRASM. You want something that's small enough, where 2 of them can fit inside a J-35 weapon bay. You want something light enough that a J-15B can take off with 4 of them + 2 PL-10s and have reasonable range. It would probably be about 4m long and weigh about 500 kg (with 150kg warhead). You'd want a high subsonic sea-skimmer with 200 km range in lo-lo-lo profile. It would ideally use mostly passive sensors to find target like LRASM. It would not have those large fins like YJ-83K. The warhead isn't large enough to really hurt a large warship like AB class. I think a strike would have to be enough to take out most of the air defense capability of the opposing warship, so that follow on attacks can succeed in actually maiming the target ship.

Such a missile would probably give defense as little interception time as a supersonic missile.
 

SEAD

Junior Member
Registered Member
Since USN is planning to deploy SM-6 in civilian ships, do you think PLAN may deploy YJ-18/DF-21/the new YJ-21 in civilian ships as a response? That could make US CVNs in danger no matter where they are.
 

lcloo

Senior Member
Since USN is planning to deploy SM-6 in civilian ships, do you think PLAN may deploy YJ-18/DF-21/the new YJ-21 in civilian ships as a response? That could make US CVNs in danger no matter where they are.
No. Missile armed civilian ships are sitting ducks for air attacks. Moreover, this will put China's huge numbers of civilian merchant ships on all sea lanes globally in danger of being legitimized targets.
 

SEAD

Junior Member
Registered Member
No. Missile armed civilian ships are sitting ducks for air attacks. Moreover, this will put China's huge numbers of civilian merchant ships on all sea lanes globally in danger of being legitimized targets.
USN assumption for SM-6 deployment in civilian ships is that they can be hidden until attack, the same logic for any Chinese civilian ships with AShM. China has a much better position because 1) their missiles are more lethal then SM-6 and has a potential to sunk all US CVNs with 10 civilian ships in D-day 2) they operate much more civilian ships than US.
 
Last edited:

Gloire_bb

Senior Member
Registered Member
I think you'd want something closer to NSM than YJ-83K or LRASM. You want something that's small enough, where 2 of them can fit inside a J-35 weapon bay. You want something light enough that a J-15B can take off with 4 of them + 2 PL-10s and have reasonable range. It would probably be about 4m long and weigh about 500 kg (with 150kg warhead). You'd want a high subsonic sea-skimmer with 200 km range in lo-lo-lo profile. It would ideally use mostly passive sensors to find target like LRASM. It would not have those large fins like YJ-83K. The warhead isn't large enough to really hurt a large warship like AB class. I think a strike would have to be enough to take out most of the air defense capability of the opposing warship, so that follow on attacks can succeed in actually maiming the target ship.
Hah, that's an interesting set of requirements.
Basically, you've described a sort of sino-JSM - thou that thing isn't exactly optimal for J-35 bay, and in terms of shape it'll be an interesting choice between maneuverability, volume and stealth. (Kh-59mk2 immediately comes to mind when you want to squeeze every ounce of weight from a rectangular bay - but that thing, in turn, isn't really an ASCM)

J-15B is hardly a limiting factor here: this plane may very well end up at around freaking ~19/39t empty/MTOW, i.e. it will in principle fly with 4 LRASM-type weapons to a very significant range, especially if launched with a catapult.

In the end, one of more important aspects of heavy ASCM is the ability to reliably take modern surface combatants out of the picture in one hit. When your second stablemate is a full-size heavy fighter, I don't think it's a problem.
 

BoraTas

Senior Member
Registered Member
I would like to see this. This is a fantasy but I think most of you would agree. All missiles are as multi-pupose as possible.

1- Conventional but high-end ASCM. The YJ-18 fills this role right now. I hope it also has land-attack capability and can engage moving targets on the land. A lower signature YJ-18 can be procured in the future.

2- A long range surface-to-air missile with limited ABM capabilities and that is maneuverable enough for fighters. The HQ-9 fills this role.

3- A long range LACM with 1800 km range at least (range of land-based aviation for Japan, Australia and US territories + 200 km inland strike). It should have a 400 kg+ warhead and should be reasonably cheap to accommodate the number of land-based targets. Moving target capability depends on the budget. This should work in tandem with the YJ-18. The YJ-18 with its terminal dash and maneuverability should take out high-value and defended targets. The LACM will take out less defended targets.

4- 4 pack medium-range SAM. Should be optimized for low-flying targets. Low minimum range, active-radar guidance and data link are musts. If the budget allows it, it can double as an ASuW missile to deal with asymmetric threats Taiwan can possess. The rumored 555 is a candidate for this role.

5- A cheap 9 pack land-attack guided rocket. This is important for the Taiwan or SCS scenario. Mainland based rocket launchers may be inadequate. Its range should be at least 80 km (the range of most shore based ISR assets according to the US Navy). This would provide a tool to support landings to the PLAN in a much more effective and safe way compared to 130 mm guns.

6- An ASW missile. Newer torpedoes are achieving 45 nm range at 45 knots. Its range should be at least 60 km. As far as I know, the Yu-8 doesn't achieve that range. Maybe PLAN wants a longer range weapon. This may be the reason for the non-existence of UVLS Yu-8 as far as we know it. The ASW rocket should be guided and must have a data link to keep up with the moving submarine.

7- A MaRV ballistic missile with moving target capability both on sea and land. The new missile we saw probably fills this role.

8- A very long range SAM for shooting down tankers, JSTARS, AWACSes, bombers, and transports. It can also have significant ABM capabilities like the S-500. A 150+ km range for tactical BMs would be great. That would also automatically mean point defense capability up to ICBMs. So this is a missile with an emphasis on speed, altitude and range with little concern for cost. We used to hear about the HQ-9C and we still hear about the HQ-19. The HQ-19 fills the ABM requirement and the HQ-9C was supposed to have a 500 km range. I would like the see the role combined to a single missile for flexibility reasons. This missile is very important for the future. The PrSM will come to the island chains in 5 years. This missile may also become useful for shooting down high-speed recon aircraft like the WZ-8 or the proposed SR-72. Proposed autonomous airships (1 year endurance with 3 ton sensor payload) can be shot down from distance using this too if they become a reality.

9- A long range exoatmospheric ABM. Mid course defense against IRBMs and area defense against ICBMs. Also doubles as an ASaT. Probably a low priority right now. A navalized HQ-26 can fill this role if the HQ-26 is really an SM-3 equivalent.

10 and 11- A hypersonic cruise missile and/or HGV. If the technology and budget allow it these should have moving target capability both on sea and land. Such an HGV is a pipe dream as of 2022 but the 055 will probably stay in the inventory until the 2060s. An HCM is possible though. These are for shooting at AEGIS ashore, THAAD and carrier groups.

12- Triple purpose loitering munition. IIR, passive radar guidance and 300 km/h cruise speed should be the specs. Think of a larger Harop with a higher ceiling (for anti-drone use). 1000 km range. It would act as a loitering LACM, SEAD munition and anti-UAV weapon. China already has similar things. 300 km/h top speed is for catching MALE and tactical class UAVs which usually have top speeds around 250 km/h. HALE class and jet UAVs would warrant an HQ-9 anyway.

I think these would give the PLAN all missiles it needs to fight in all scenarios from supporting amphibious assaults to countering USN carrier groups to shooting down satellites and ICBMs. Of course, there is also a need for a missile in the point-defense SAM role which the HQ-10 already fills.
 

Top