PLAN Anti-ship/surface missiles


Confusionism

New Member
Registered Member
I just found some very interesting things and it may provide us a rare viewpoint for DF-21C/D, this paper mentioned a seeker tested in J-8B platform. Since it is publicly published in 2003, I assume the test was before 2000.
View attachment 88724
View attachment 88723
The speed in 12,000m is 1300m/s with 42°, landing speed is 810m/s with 80°. Final deviation is 10m.
With a speed of Mach 3.8 at 12,000 meters and an angle of entry of only 42 degrees, and a deceleration to Mach 2.6 at 2,000 meters, this looks less like a ballistic missile and more like some kind of supersonic cruise missile.
 

SEAD

Junior Member
Registered Member
With a speed of Mach 3.8 at 12,000 meters and an angle of entry of only 42 degrees, and a deceleration to Mach 2.6 at 2,000 meters, this looks less like a ballistic missile and more like some kind of supersonic cruise missile.
At the beginning of this paper, authors mentioned this weapon is an “assassin’s mace of 2nd artillery”, an exclusive description for DF-21C/D in early 2000s.

As a reference, the speed of Pershing II in 12,000m is ~2.5Mach.
 
Last edited:

Confusionism

New Member
Registered Member
At the beginning of this paper, authors mentioned this weapon is an “assassin’s mace of 2nd artillery”, an exclusive description for DF-21C/D in early 2000s.

As a reference, the speed of Pershing II in 12,000m is ~2.5Mach.
I forget where I read this, correct me if I'm wrong, DF-21 similar missiles have terminal velocities around Mach 5, isn't a Mach 2-3 target a lot less difficult for Aegis to intercept?
 

Jason_

Junior Member
Registered Member
I forget where I read this, correct me if I'm wrong, DF-21 similar missiles have terminal velocities around Mach 5, isn't a Mach 2-3 target a lot less difficult for Aegis to intercept?
Interceptor missiles do not fly towards targets. Instead it predicts the interception point based on the target's trajectory and fly towards that point. A target that is rapidly slowing down complicates this prediction process and is hard to intercept even if it is slower than its original speed.
 

SEAD

Junior Member
Registered Member
I forget where I read this, correct me if I'm wrong, DF-21 similar missiles have terminal velocities around Mach 5, isn't a Mach 2-3 target a lot less difficult for Aegis to intercept?
Yes, it is.
But after all, this paper was published in 2003 so SM-6 would not be in service until 10 years later.
On the other hand, PLA just engaged their first J-10 and 052B in 2004, the world has fundamentally changed since then.

technically the main constraint for speed is the seeker which must keep tracking. That’s also why Pershing II was so slow, I do believe PLARF have much better seekers now.
 
Last edited:

tphuang

Brigadier
VIP Professional
Registered Member
any tech reasons? I would appreciate. After all an IR seeker have been in ASBM for 10 years and it’s a little bit weird to claim it’s worse than any hypersonic AShM seekers.
you mean supersonic AShM seekers? I'd expect it would be harder to get ASBM IR seeker to be as good because of the high re-entry speed, likely fewer mid course update and high heat upon re-entry while it's trying to find target in a large area.

afaik, it happens in all(or almost?) US official simulations after 2018.

No, CBGs can go back once the supporting system is degraded. That’s why long range platforms such as H-20 and 095 is so important.

If CBG cannot get close to mainland, then they will have limited ability to degrade the launch platforms and supporting systems.

I will explain more about EW vs. seekers.

1) For some tech reasons (too many details to explain), current EW platforms perform poorly to jam missiles come from vertical direction. Even with future improvements, it’s hard(imo impossible) to work as good as jamming horizontal threats.
It's also harder for a missile coming straight down to hit target vs one sea skimming.

2) IR or any optical imaging seekers benefit from the high altitude and sufficient space of ASBM warheads. Technically it’s possible to track a CVN >1000km away with an ASBM seeker sized lens/mirror but none sea skimmer can detect >30km targets with optical seekers.
Another thing about imaging seekers is that they are immunized from all jamming and decoys except laser. I believe that’s why USN was so urgent to equip their DDGs with laser dazzlers since those lasers are almost (yes they can interrupt but almost) meaningless for CM and far away from mature.
sea skimmer would depend on mid course update from reliable aerial assets. That would be more reliable than a ASBM seeker scanning a large area upon re-entry at very high speed. Now based on all Chinese sources, they clearly believe that ASBM seeker technology have solved all these problems and they are confident about it. But it would still be quite a shocker if that is more reliable than say aerial radars in their sea search mode.
 

SEAD

Junior Member
Registered Member
you mean supersonic AShM seekers? I'd expect it would be harder to get ASBM IR seeker to be as good because of the high re-entry speed, likely fewer mid course update
Do you mean blackout zone? The speed of a MRBM is not enough for any blackout, while for IRBM they can use Ku band, it’s reliable at IRBM speed. Or just follow some maneuvering trajectory to avoid both blackout zone and interruptors, I believe they may use both methods(mainly the latter one).
and high heat upon re-entry while it's trying to find target in a large area.
heat effects seekers in a way more like ‘yes or no’ rather than ‘easy or hard’. The large area is a real problem, but I assume it’s ok given midcourse updating. Once you can track the target (e.g. 1000km away), the large area is not a problem anymore in the rest of the journey.
If CBG cannot get close to mainland, then they will have limited ability to degrade the launch platforms and supporting systems.
B-21 will take center stage.
 
Last edited:

SEAD

Junior Member
Registered Member
while for IRBM they can use Ku band, it’s reliable at IRBM speed.
I’m sorry but I mean Ka band. Ku band is also ok but Ka is better. There’re also some other technologies to penetrate plasma cloud but they’re much more than enough for AShBM. Maneuvering must be the prior choice in practice.
If CBG cannot get close to mainland, then they will have limited ability to degrade the launch platforms and supporting systems.
B-21 will take center stage.
Or just destroying satellites, since OTH radars are not reliable with EW. PLA needs something like RQ-180 to keep surveying a large area even without satellites, and it’s another reminder for the importance of H-20, which can search and attack CBGs in a big area independently.
I cannot stop admiring VLO bombers. Given buddy refueling, H-20 can even penetrate air defense in peacetime and take some SIGINT operations in US mainland, that would be a treasure house of intelligence. Of course B-21 may also do some similar things in China.

As a conclusion, I always assume surveying a large area with sea-skimmer seekers is not so smart(LRASM) due to their low altitude, but AShBM seeker would benefit from altitude once other tech obstacles are cleared away.
 
Last edited:

ougoah

Brigadier
Registered Member
I’m sorry but I mean Ka band. Ku band is also ok but Ka is better. There’re also some other technologies to penetrate plasma cloud but they’re much more than enough for AShBM. Maneuvering must be the prior choice in practice.


Or just destroying satellites, since OTH radars are not reliable with EW. PLA needs something like RQ-180 to keep surveying a large area even without satellites, and it’s another reminder for the importance of H-20, which can search and attack CBGs in a big area independently.
I cannot stop admiring VLO bombers. Given buddy refueling, H-20 can even penetrate air defense in peacetime and take some SIGINT operations in US mainland, that would be a treasure house of intelligence. Of course B-21 may also do some similar things in China.

As a conclusion, I always assume surveying a large area with sea-skimmer seekers is not so smart(LRASM) due to their low altitude, but AShBM seeker would benefit from altitude once other tech obstacles are cleared away.

At the moment this role is serviced by/ could be serviced by the WZ-8, WZ-7, and whatever the 神雕 (Divine Eagle) HALE drone's designation is.

CH-7 would be a VLO flying wing MALE/HALE for the direct RQ-180 equivalent since WZ-8 hasn't got the loiter (assumed), WZ-7 hasn't got the stealth or speed of WZ-8, and Divine Eagle hasn't got the speed or stealth either but both those have great loiter. So loiter time, altitude, and speed are covered but none that combine those with stealth. I don't think a RQ-180 or CH-7 would have anywhere near the loiter capability of WZ-7 and DE.
 

SEAD

Junior Member
Registered Member
At the moment this role is serviced by/ could be serviced by the WZ-8, WZ-7, and whatever the 神雕 (Divine Eagle) HALE drone's designation is.

CH-7 would be a VLO flying wing MALE/HALE for the direct RQ-180 equivalent since WZ-8 hasn't got the loiter (assumed), WZ-7 hasn't got the stealth or speed of WZ-8, and Divine Eagle hasn't got the speed or stealth either but both those have great loiter. So loiter time, altitude, and speed are covered but none that combine those with stealth. I don't think a RQ-180 or CH-7 would have anywhere near the loiter capability of WZ-7 and DE.
Aspect ratio of CH-7 is too small for such a task. WZ-7 and DE are too vulnerable for crossing 1st island chain, while the range of WZ-8 is not enough for targets driving in several hundreds miles away from 1st island. None of them are ideal…even if WZ-8 can do it, they need a big amount to survey a large area, obviously that’s not what’s happening.
 

Top