PLAN Anti-ship/surface missiles
- Thread starter tphuang
- Start date
ladioussupp
Junior Member
According to JDW, YJ-18 is launched from VLS. Rudders after booster's exhaust help the missile turning to the aim. After that, booster separates from the missile and a turbojet is turned on. It maintains the missile flying at 0.8 mach over 180km. Once the fuel burns out, the turbojet propulsion section separates from the head section which contains a solid fuel rocket engine. The head section of YJ-18 can sustain 2.5-3 mach flight over 40 km terminal stage. In the this stage, YJ-18 can maneuver 10G to break through the close-in defense of target.
Most ship based missile defense system have about 40 km max range limit when engaging sea skimming targets, so it makes sense that it only needs to be supersonic for the last 40km leg.
Re: Type 055 DDG - PLAN's Next Generation Destroyer Thread
I'm curious as to just what kind of missile YJ-12 is. Supposedly it is similar to klub, or even a chinese copy of klub.
But at present information is sketchy and we don't even have a blurry photo of it.
I'm curious as to just what kind of missile YJ-12 is. Supposedly it is similar to klub, or even a chinese copy of klub.
But at present information is sketchy and we don't even have a blurry photo of it.
Skywatcher
Captain
Re: Type 055 DDG - PLAN's Next Generation Destroyer Thread
I thought the YJ-18 was the Klub analogue/clone?
The YJ-12, from what we've seen, has four intakes for its ramjet engine.
I thought the YJ-18 was the Klub analogue/clone?
The YJ-12, from what we've seen, has four intakes for its ramjet engine.
AssassinsMace
Lieutenant General
Here's supposedly a test of the YJ-18. You can see it doing anti-intercept maneuvering before it hits the target.
[video=youtube;o3taU59z05A]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3taU59z05A[/video]
[video=youtube;o3taU59z05A]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3taU59z05A[/video]
Very interesting info & analysis so far. But I would like to try and extract from those knowledgeable some more info on Chinese anti ship missiles combat use. I have already tried that with the air launched anti ship missiles in the H 6 thread but so far without luck.
AFAIK ship launched Chinese anti ship missiles were never fired in anger (correct me if I am wrong), but shore based ones very much so. These were however not of the latest variety but older ones based on Soviet P 15 / Styx technology albeit modified by the Chinese. I shall refer to all of them as the Silkworm missiles for the purpose of convenience even though I am aware this designation is not correctly applied.
If I am not mistaken their combat use was exclusively in the Persian Gulf in a number of wars. It seems both Iraq and Iran operated this weapon system. However as there is considerable info on Iranian use of this weapon during the 1980 – 88 war (more on this below) hardly anything is known about Iraq use of it during that conflict (it is a different story with 1991 Gulf War and subsequent conflicts – more on this below).
Speaking of Iranian use below several examples of the Silkworm’s combat use are provided. The list is not exhausting and other incidents as well as any details would be much appreciated.
From 1987 on the Iranians launched Silkworm missiles from the al – Faw (sometimes referred to as Fao) peninsula it captured from Iraq in 1986 against targets on Kuwaiti territory / territorial waters.
On 4 September 1987 a Silkworm missile – depending on the source – either hit a “structure” on Kuwaiti shore or alternatively crashed harmlessly. There were however no doubts when it came to subsequent attacks.
On 15 October 1987 the Liberian-flagged tanker Sungari, at anchor nine miles off Kuwait's Mina al-Ahmadi terminal was hit and damaged by a Silkworm missile fired by Iran from the Faw Peninsula.
In a similar incident on 16 October 1987, an Iranian Silkworm hit the tanker Sea Isle City which was moored about ten miles off Mina al-Ahmadi. The missile struck the superstructure, injuring 17 crewmen (2 severely) and putting the tanker out of operation for four months.
The oil terminal itself was hit on 22 October 1987 if I am not mistaken. The Silkworm’s active radar seeker picked up the reflection provided by this installation which stood out from the background sufficiently enough to offer a target to home onto. Since Sea Isle City was American-flagged the United States responded with the destruction of disused oil platforms in the Persian Gulf which Iran was using as observation posts to track merchant traffic. The Kuwaitis in turn used barges, old decommissioned vessels and similar craft to mount radar reflectors on them thus creating convincing targets to decoy away radar guided missiles. The said decoys reportedly indeed managed to lure away a number of Silkworm missiles.
During the Praying Mantis operation against Iran, two Silkworms were fired from the shore on 18 April 1988 against the frigate USS Garry, with both being decoyed away by the ship’s SRBOC chaff and went down into the sea astern of the ship. At least two more Silkworm missiles were fired at barges which were used by the USN as staging platforms in the Persian Gulf but both failed to hit their intended targets – anything more on this?
During the 1991 Gulf War several Silkworm shore batteries were targeted by Coalition air power. These included bombing by USN aircraft but also attacks by US Army Apache helicopters – anything more on this?
As far as it is known the Iraqis launched their Silkworms only once against Coalition vessels. The incident occurred on 2 Feb 1991 when two missiles were launched. Reacting to the threat the battleship USS Missouri fired her Mk 36 SRBOC chaff rockets while the frigate USS Jarrett opened fire with her Mk 15 Phalanx CIWS, this supposing resalting in a case of frat (but fortunately without serious consequences) with at least two rounds hitting the USS Missouri – one penetrated the outer plating and lodged itself in an internal bulkhead (mind you a battleship is not armoured all over) while the other went right through one of the funnels, in addition one crewmen suffered minor injuries from splinters. In the end neither Silkworm hit with one missile harmlessly crashing into the sea while the other was shot down by Sea Dart missiles fired by the destroyer HMS Gloucester.
The Iraqi costal missile installations were bombed during some of the ops to control & contain Iraq between the Gulf Wars.
During the 2003 war Iraqi Silkworms were used again but not against ships for targets on land were attacked instead. At 01:45 local time on 28 March 2003 an Iraqi Silkworm missile struck the Sharq Mall (a large shopping mall in the centre of Kuwait City) causing only small material damage while two people were slightly injured in the attack.
Four more Silkworms were fired inland towards a forward USMC HQ area in Kuwaiti desert (the 1st MEF Camp Commando) but all missed by a wide margin coming down in uninhabited areas fortunately without causing any casualties and apparently also without causing material damage (ballistic missiles were also launched but they are out of scope in this thread). Due to the rapid pace of the US/British advance on Basra, no more missiles were fired as the al-Faw launchers were overrun and the Iraqi coastal missile force was no more. When evaluating this one should keep in mind that by 2003 the Iraqi military was a spent force being a shadow of its former self.
Now one can with justice argue that Silkworm and by extension any of the Styx type missiles are obsolete and can be with relative ease either shot down or decoyed and their launchers destroyed. These are fair points but one still has to have those “hard kill” as well as EW capabilities in order to do that.
And a few more thoughts.
Such weapons can – and by extension newer incarnations of anti ship missiles – be used against various targets with a reasonable expectancy of success. For example aside from ships they could as illustrated above hit any structure / installation on the shore big enough to offer a radar reflection for the missiles seeker to home on.
On a different note concerning strategy / tactics - obviously the most praised result of any engagement utilising anti ship missiles would be to sink or at least disable a warship preferably a valuable one such as an aircraft carrier. However warships usually have the means to defend themselves and a high value asset like a carrier also has a strong escort. For this reason it might be much wiser to concentrate on other vessels.
Least it be forgotten that during the Falkland War the sinking of the container ship the Atlantic Conveyor by the Arg while accidental (the missile that hit it was intended for one of the RN carriers) was still a very heavy blow for the Brits. While this failed to tip the scales in favour of the Arg the loss of this vessels and the helicopters & stuff it had embarked was a heavy blow painfully felt by the Brits. The conclusion being that attacking more vulnerable (even if escorted) vessels with supplies such as replenishment ships, tankers, various transports etc. would be less glamorous than attacking warships but a) less dangerous for the attacker b) would have a somehow higher – in any case not lower – chance of success than attacking a warship and c) if successful could have a considerable effect on the fighting ability (or better said the ability to sustain a fight) of those attacked.
Going back to the issue of the Silkworm use during the Tanker War. The activity was closely monitored by the US Navy especially after the Americans agreed to the reflagging & escorting of tankers. So I kindly ask the former USN people on this forum – and there are a few including among the mods – to turn to their friends & colleagues about this. Tons of info is likely to be provided if the right questions are asked.
AFAIK ship launched Chinese anti ship missiles were never fired in anger (correct me if I am wrong), but shore based ones very much so. These were however not of the latest variety but older ones based on Soviet P 15 / Styx technology albeit modified by the Chinese. I shall refer to all of them as the Silkworm missiles for the purpose of convenience even though I am aware this designation is not correctly applied.
If I am not mistaken their combat use was exclusively in the Persian Gulf in a number of wars. It seems both Iraq and Iran operated this weapon system. However as there is considerable info on Iranian use of this weapon during the 1980 – 88 war (more on this below) hardly anything is known about Iraq use of it during that conflict (it is a different story with 1991 Gulf War and subsequent conflicts – more on this below).
Speaking of Iranian use below several examples of the Silkworm’s combat use are provided. The list is not exhausting and other incidents as well as any details would be much appreciated.
From 1987 on the Iranians launched Silkworm missiles from the al – Faw (sometimes referred to as Fao) peninsula it captured from Iraq in 1986 against targets on Kuwaiti territory / territorial waters.
On 4 September 1987 a Silkworm missile – depending on the source – either hit a “structure” on Kuwaiti shore or alternatively crashed harmlessly. There were however no doubts when it came to subsequent attacks.
On 15 October 1987 the Liberian-flagged tanker Sungari, at anchor nine miles off Kuwait's Mina al-Ahmadi terminal was hit and damaged by a Silkworm missile fired by Iran from the Faw Peninsula.
In a similar incident on 16 October 1987, an Iranian Silkworm hit the tanker Sea Isle City which was moored about ten miles off Mina al-Ahmadi. The missile struck the superstructure, injuring 17 crewmen (2 severely) and putting the tanker out of operation for four months.
The oil terminal itself was hit on 22 October 1987 if I am not mistaken. The Silkworm’s active radar seeker picked up the reflection provided by this installation which stood out from the background sufficiently enough to offer a target to home onto. Since Sea Isle City was American-flagged the United States responded with the destruction of disused oil platforms in the Persian Gulf which Iran was using as observation posts to track merchant traffic. The Kuwaitis in turn used barges, old decommissioned vessels and similar craft to mount radar reflectors on them thus creating convincing targets to decoy away radar guided missiles. The said decoys reportedly indeed managed to lure away a number of Silkworm missiles.
During the Praying Mantis operation against Iran, two Silkworms were fired from the shore on 18 April 1988 against the frigate USS Garry, with both being decoyed away by the ship’s SRBOC chaff and went down into the sea astern of the ship. At least two more Silkworm missiles were fired at barges which were used by the USN as staging platforms in the Persian Gulf but both failed to hit their intended targets – anything more on this?
During the 1991 Gulf War several Silkworm shore batteries were targeted by Coalition air power. These included bombing by USN aircraft but also attacks by US Army Apache helicopters – anything more on this?
As far as it is known the Iraqis launched their Silkworms only once against Coalition vessels. The incident occurred on 2 Feb 1991 when two missiles were launched. Reacting to the threat the battleship USS Missouri fired her Mk 36 SRBOC chaff rockets while the frigate USS Jarrett opened fire with her Mk 15 Phalanx CIWS, this supposing resalting in a case of frat (but fortunately without serious consequences) with at least two rounds hitting the USS Missouri – one penetrated the outer plating and lodged itself in an internal bulkhead (mind you a battleship is not armoured all over) while the other went right through one of the funnels, in addition one crewmen suffered minor injuries from splinters. In the end neither Silkworm hit with one missile harmlessly crashing into the sea while the other was shot down by Sea Dart missiles fired by the destroyer HMS Gloucester.
The Iraqi costal missile installations were bombed during some of the ops to control & contain Iraq between the Gulf Wars.
During the 2003 war Iraqi Silkworms were used again but not against ships for targets on land were attacked instead. At 01:45 local time on 28 March 2003 an Iraqi Silkworm missile struck the Sharq Mall (a large shopping mall in the centre of Kuwait City) causing only small material damage while two people were slightly injured in the attack.
Four more Silkworms were fired inland towards a forward USMC HQ area in Kuwaiti desert (the 1st MEF Camp Commando) but all missed by a wide margin coming down in uninhabited areas fortunately without causing any casualties and apparently also without causing material damage (ballistic missiles were also launched but they are out of scope in this thread). Due to the rapid pace of the US/British advance on Basra, no more missiles were fired as the al-Faw launchers were overrun and the Iraqi coastal missile force was no more. When evaluating this one should keep in mind that by 2003 the Iraqi military was a spent force being a shadow of its former self.
Now one can with justice argue that Silkworm and by extension any of the Styx type missiles are obsolete and can be with relative ease either shot down or decoyed and their launchers destroyed. These are fair points but one still has to have those “hard kill” as well as EW capabilities in order to do that.
And a few more thoughts.
Such weapons can – and by extension newer incarnations of anti ship missiles – be used against various targets with a reasonable expectancy of success. For example aside from ships they could as illustrated above hit any structure / installation on the shore big enough to offer a radar reflection for the missiles seeker to home on.
On a different note concerning strategy / tactics - obviously the most praised result of any engagement utilising anti ship missiles would be to sink or at least disable a warship preferably a valuable one such as an aircraft carrier. However warships usually have the means to defend themselves and a high value asset like a carrier also has a strong escort. For this reason it might be much wiser to concentrate on other vessels.
Least it be forgotten that during the Falkland War the sinking of the container ship the Atlantic Conveyor by the Arg while accidental (the missile that hit it was intended for one of the RN carriers) was still a very heavy blow for the Brits. While this failed to tip the scales in favour of the Arg the loss of this vessels and the helicopters & stuff it had embarked was a heavy blow painfully felt by the Brits. The conclusion being that attacking more vulnerable (even if escorted) vessels with supplies such as replenishment ships, tankers, various transports etc. would be less glamorous than attacking warships but a) less dangerous for the attacker b) would have a somehow higher – in any case not lower – chance of success than attacking a warship and c) if successful could have a considerable effect on the fighting ability (or better said the ability to sustain a fight) of those attacked.
Going back to the issue of the Silkworm use during the Tanker War. The activity was closely monitored by the US Navy especially after the Americans agreed to the reflagging & escorting of tankers. So I kindly ask the former USN people on this forum – and there are a few including among the mods – to turn to their friends & colleagues about this. Tons of info is likely to be provided if the right questions are asked.
Last edited by a moderator:
POKL, you really need to format your comments better.
Also, are all of these comments yours? Are you cutting and pasting information from other sources? It has been my experience that when seeing formatting like this, a lot of times it is because it has been cut and pasted.
If you are bringing other information from other people or articles onto SD, you need to cite it and reference it...with a link back to the source. To not do so, and to word it in such a way that makes it appear tro be your own work is plagerism, is against SD Forum Rules, and is something you can and will be discplined for if you do so.
If it is all your own work and words...that's fine. But do try and format it better with paragraph breaks and the like so it is easier to read. It may be one of the problems you are having getting people to respond.
Be sure and Read the SD Forum Rules of Behavior.
Last edited: