PLAN Anti-ship/surface missiles
- Thread starter tphuang
- Start date
Need to point out again, the YJ-12 uses an integral rocket booster, much like the Moskit and the Kh-31, which the Chinese have and likely inspired the feature from. This means the ramjet chamber is initially filled with rocket propellant, and at this stage, the ramjet is simply a rocket. So all you need is a booster to pop the missile out of a VLS or slant canister into some distance off the ship, the rocket booster takes over, The rocket booster needs to push the missile over and into supersonic speeds, and for these type of missiles, this should be in the range of Mach 1.5 to 2.0. The rocket propellant burns out and empties the ramjet chamber, the air intakes would open, and the missile enters ramjet mode, and accelerates to Mach 3 to 4, where the ramjet efficiency is at its highest.
This principle is also used when air launched, the missile only has its integral booster, the integral booster is necessary to move the missile from subsonic into supersonic, then the ramjet takes over to race up to its optimal speed. The missile is just a much bigger version of the YJ-91 and the Kh-31 that works the same way.
Brahmos-Oniks-Yakhont also operate on this principle, using an integral booster, and will work off from a VLS.
There is no critical velocity needed for the transition between the external launch booster to the integral booster. The question now is whether there is enough fuel within the integral booster to reach the starting velocity for the ramjet.
Last edited:
I'm not sure if this is posted already somewhere.
Supersonic cruise missile for export, not sure why one article puts up a picture of the CX-1 antiship missile.
"Aircraft carrier killer" usually denotes anti-ship missile.
Supersonic cruise missile for export, not sure why one article puts up a picture of the CX-1 antiship missile.
"Aircraft carrier killer" usually denotes anti-ship missile.
Would HQ-9Bs be usable in anti shipping mode?
It has a 200km+ range at mach 4.2, carries a 180kg warhead and is presumably able to fly quite low, given that it is used to intercept sea skimmers.In comparison, the dedicated anti ship missile Brahmos has a range of 290km at mach 2.8 and a 200kg warhead.
Is it feasible for a 052D to carry only HQ-9s and lose the range and stealth on the YJ-18s in exchange for having faster missiles and more AA power?
It has a 200km+ range at mach 4.2, carries a 180kg warhead and is presumably able to fly quite low, given that it is used to intercept sea skimmers.In comparison, the dedicated anti ship missile Brahmos has a range of 290km at mach 2.8 and a 200kg warhead.
Is it feasible for a 052D to carry only HQ-9s and lose the range and stealth on the YJ-18s in exchange for having faster missiles and more AA power?
many SAMs in theory have an anti shipping capability as a secondary function, however the different kind of warheads that SAMs have vs dedicated AShMs means a warhead of equal size for an AShM will produce superior anti ship effects vs a SAM. SAMs tend to have a fragmenting warhead, AShMs with a penetrating HE.
It doesn't make that much sense for an 052D to only carry HQ-9s as YJ-18s will be superior at the anti shipping role every day of the week. Unless there's a particular reason for why 052D should be loaded out with all LR SAMs, I can't see why 052D would not carry a minimum anti shipping capability in the form of at least 4, more likely 8 YJ-18s as standard
It's an interesting question.
1. Any AA missile has a potential to be universal weapon. Many of them have this capability from day 0. For example, all Soviet/Russian naval ones do.
2.Anti-air warhead is less than optimal for sinking(or even disabling) larger ships. It is a good "mission killer", though.
3.Seeker and missile habits won't be optimal against surface target, if we're talking about missile with one. It will be simpler to fool with EW, hide from with multispectral screens and so on. It won't carry an ew suit of its own, as many heavy ascms do(towed decoys weren't invented for fighters!). It can miss target due to a dated targeting data, when a proper ascm would have found the target. And so on.
4. "Equal" range isn't that equal, strictly speaking. Many SAMs use energy saving trajectories to keep a bit of energy for attack. It's important, since they are solid fueled rockets. Heavy ascms fly proactively, and often very low. It allows not only to increase chances of success directly, but also, for example, allows proper strike/salvo patterns and fotmations. That's beyond SAMs.
And, aside from AA weapon effectiveness, there is yet another part.
Modern ASCMs are more and more effective against land targets.
Sure, supersonic missiles don't have the range of dedicated subsonic LACMs, but they still can be used quite effectively.
1. Any AA missile has a potential to be universal weapon. Many of them have this capability from day 0. For example, all Soviet/Russian naval ones do.
2.Anti-air warhead is less than optimal for sinking(or even disabling) larger ships. It is a good "mission killer", though.
3.Seeker and missile habits won't be optimal against surface target, if we're talking about missile with one. It will be simpler to fool with EW, hide from with multispectral screens and so on. It won't carry an ew suit of its own, as many heavy ascms do(towed decoys weren't invented for fighters!). It can miss target due to a dated targeting data, when a proper ascm would have found the target. And so on.
4. "Equal" range isn't that equal, strictly speaking. Many SAMs use energy saving trajectories to keep a bit of energy for attack. It's important, since they are solid fueled rockets. Heavy ascms fly proactively, and often very low. It allows not only to increase chances of success directly, but also, for example, allows proper strike/salvo patterns and fotmations. That's beyond SAMs.
And, aside from AA weapon effectiveness, there is yet another part.
Modern ASCMs are more and more effective against land targets.
Sure, supersonic missiles don't have the range of dedicated subsonic LACMs, but they still can be used quite effectively.
Last edited:
Most SAMs only have an initial boost phase, after that point, it is just carried by its momentum and could trade some altitude for speed. They usually have very little energy at the extremes of their range and kill probability drops off a cliff beyond a certain range and altitude. The Mach 4 speed is definitely not sustained throughout the missile's flight. AShM usually have a final boost which makes it the faster than its cruise speed. No way current SAMs including HQ-9 can truly replace any decent AShM. Not to mention flight profile, targeting, and warhead size. Against a weaker navy, possibly more useful but otherwise there's a good reason why different targets require completely different missile platforms.
One has to remember that antiship missiles by default, are all using active radar homing seekers or ARH. Meaning they carry the emitter on board. And that has been the basic concept all the way to the earliest, including Silkworms and Seersuckers. This enables them to be fire and forget, although more modern and longer ranged missiles, are now more like fire, then track updated in mid flight through a data link, then is only forget when the missile enters the terminal stage as it pops up over the horizon as the seeker goes active as it now has a LOS to the target.
SAMs like the HQ-9 work on SARH or TVM. That means the missile has no on board emitter of its own, and ship has to light the target with RF illumination for it to home in. For the HQ-9, or SAMs like the SM-2, Shtil, HQ-16, ESSM, S-400, to hit a surface target they all need to do it this way. The issue of this against a surface target is that the target needs to be line of sight with the ship, and so your effective range is only good up to the radar horizon only that can be reached by the shipboard emitters. Radar horizon means this is going to be short ranged, and its not going to engage over the horizon.
For the missile to have OTH, it needs to have an active seeker, like the Aster family, the Russian 9M96 family or the SM-6. Do note that by having a radar emitter on the missile means space used that is less for other things. And that can mean reduced warhead sizes. SM-6 is said to have only 64kg (wiki), which is small for a 1500kg missile. The HQ-16 is about 70kg for a 700kg missile. 9M96 family has 24kg size, while ESSM has 39kg. So if HQ-9 is turned into an active variant, without any change in size and weight, the warhead is going to end up smaller to allow for the emitter. If you are going to keep the warhead size, then it would be your propellant amount that will be reduced, which reduces your range or maximum speed. So in theory, HQ-9C, if that is the active variant of the missile, would be hard pressed to maintain the 180kg warhead, and may likely end up smaller. I have a theory that the 180kg warhead may only be for the first version of the HQ-9, where the larger blast can compensate for less accuracy and precision. Once the missile becomes more accurate and precise, the larger warhead may become redundant, you reduce the warhead size so you can increase propellant, which in turn can either give you a higher speed, for increased chances of interception, or a longer range. So its possible a longer ranged HQ-9 may have a smaller warhead for more propellant, and an ARH one an even smaller warhead. Other things like dual seekers, such as adding a heat seeker for OTH engagements, can potentially reduce the warhead size further.
Subsonic AshMs have a good ratio of warhead size to missile size. The Harpoon is about 221kg for warhead for a 691kg missile, the Exocet is about 165kg for a similar weight, and the YJ-83 either 165kg or a 190kg whicH I guess might be a roughly 700kg missile.
SAMs do travel at supersonic speeds, and one hitting a ship you will still incur kinetic damage. Due to the compression at the high speed impact, a warhead may explode with greater violence that is more like a larger warhead. Unspent rocket fuel will also add to the explosion. They will still hurt. SAMs used on surface ships are not a first option, but the option as a last resort still exists. Two AAW ships, once out of antiship missiles, can still duke it out by throwing SAMs at each other, which can end up as a win for the ship with more SAMs and will also involve SAM vs. SAM intercepts.
AshMs turned into LACMs are a different animal. Instead of ARH seekers, these missiles run on GPS, optical targeting and command guidance. Instead of radar, this means they got a TV camera on the nose, and there is someone controlling that thing.
SAMs like the HQ-9 work on SARH or TVM. That means the missile has no on board emitter of its own, and ship has to light the target with RF illumination for it to home in. For the HQ-9, or SAMs like the SM-2, Shtil, HQ-16, ESSM, S-400, to hit a surface target they all need to do it this way. The issue of this against a surface target is that the target needs to be line of sight with the ship, and so your effective range is only good up to the radar horizon only that can be reached by the shipboard emitters. Radar horizon means this is going to be short ranged, and its not going to engage over the horizon.
For the missile to have OTH, it needs to have an active seeker, like the Aster family, the Russian 9M96 family or the SM-6. Do note that by having a radar emitter on the missile means space used that is less for other things. And that can mean reduced warhead sizes. SM-6 is said to have only 64kg (wiki), which is small for a 1500kg missile. The HQ-16 is about 70kg for a 700kg missile. 9M96 family has 24kg size, while ESSM has 39kg. So if HQ-9 is turned into an active variant, without any change in size and weight, the warhead is going to end up smaller to allow for the emitter. If you are going to keep the warhead size, then it would be your propellant amount that will be reduced, which reduces your range or maximum speed. So in theory, HQ-9C, if that is the active variant of the missile, would be hard pressed to maintain the 180kg warhead, and may likely end up smaller. I have a theory that the 180kg warhead may only be for the first version of the HQ-9, where the larger blast can compensate for less accuracy and precision. Once the missile becomes more accurate and precise, the larger warhead may become redundant, you reduce the warhead size so you can increase propellant, which in turn can either give you a higher speed, for increased chances of interception, or a longer range. So its possible a longer ranged HQ-9 may have a smaller warhead for more propellant, and an ARH one an even smaller warhead. Other things like dual seekers, such as adding a heat seeker for OTH engagements, can potentially reduce the warhead size further.
Subsonic AshMs have a good ratio of warhead size to missile size. The Harpoon is about 221kg for warhead for a 691kg missile, the Exocet is about 165kg for a similar weight, and the YJ-83 either 165kg or a 190kg whicH I guess might be a roughly 700kg missile.
SAMs do travel at supersonic speeds, and one hitting a ship you will still incur kinetic damage. Due to the compression at the high speed impact, a warhead may explode with greater violence that is more like a larger warhead. Unspent rocket fuel will also add to the explosion. They will still hurt. SAMs used on surface ships are not a first option, but the option as a last resort still exists. Two AAW ships, once out of antiship missiles, can still duke it out by throwing SAMs at each other, which can end up as a win for the ship with more SAMs and will also involve SAM vs. SAM intercepts.
AshMs turned into LACMs are a different animal. Instead of ARH seekers, these missiles run on GPS, optical targeting and command guidance. Instead of radar, this means they got a TV camera on the nose, and there is someone controlling that thing.
Last edited: