Type 054B/next generation FFG thread


Tam

Brigadier
Registered Member
I am definitely curious about the CM-103 missile. CM or Cruise Missile indicates that it is a surface strike missile. Even though it looks like a ballistic missile, it is classified as a cruise missile, which can also indicate it takes a low radar horizon hugging flight profile. If it's a surface striker, is it antiship or land attack or both?
 

Gloire_bb

Senior Member
Registered Member
I could totally see the PLA adopting a new VLS ashm based on a stealthed YJ-83, since not every ship needs as long range/advanced/expensive of a missile as the YJ-18, not to mention it's easier to fit 7m uvls on a frigate
Since not every ship needs them, why not leave them slanted?
-no deck penetrations(literally any ship and land launcher can use it, and can be modified to do it quickly)
-no expensive modifications(add a relatively small and simple booster to an air-launched one and you're good to go)
Don't break that already works just fine, basically.

Also, I'd be careful which of the two missiles is actually more expensive, YJ-83K with its twin seeker, or YJ-18. I seriously suspect that it's the former.

I should add that these canted nose missile, supposedly a digital IIR seeker, isn't just for antiship but for precision attack on land targets which is right now, a large gap in the PLAN's capabilities, although I don't know or not, if this capability was deliberately left out for the land based rocket and cruise missile forces. The use of precision land attack missiles by the PLAN would mark a major change in their doctrine, and in my view, a much needed one.
it most probably isn't. While we didn't see it in use - we didn't see much of PLAN kalibr launches either (and we are certain those were bought).
We'll probably see it when the wartime comes.
 

Tam

Brigadier
Registered Member
Since not every ship needs them, why not leave them slanted?
-no deck penetrations(literally any ship and land launcher can use it, and can be modified to do it quickly)
-no expensive modifications(add a relatively small and simple booster to an air-launched one and you're good to go)
Don't break that already works just fine, basically.

Also, I'd be careful which of the two missiles is actually more expensive, YJ-83K with its twin seeker, or YJ-18. I seriously suspect that it's the former.


it most probably isn't. While we didn't see it in use - we didn't see much of PLAN kalibr launches either (and we are certain those were bought).
We'll probably see it when the wartime comes.


We already have pics of the YJ-83B in naval operation. We need to go back and review all the YJ-83 firing pics to find out if more pictures slipped under our nose. This was taken months even before the missile was publicly announced and this is from a Type 056A doing exercises.

795470EF-EE23-423C-B1EC-6CA3003001F8.jpeg


290km for an export missile sounds to me like a convenient figure to put in for MTCR good global citizen compliance. I would assume the domestic versions are over 300km.

This alone increases the stand off range of YJ-83 equipped ships, and allow them to hit land targets. Note that it mentions vertical launch.

I suspect the black band in the middle of the missile, which I saw on a number of YJ-83 firing pics recently, could be some kind of ground or surface scanning altimeter radar.


CM-802B.jpg


The length of the missile itself is around 5.15m, and with the booster at 6.86 meters. However this booster is for slanted firing. You would have to develop a new booster with a thrust vector, and cold launch the missile. Now I mentioned before the shorter U-VLS is likely 8m+ in total physical length or depth, with about 1 meter for the cold launch pop bottle, and the remaining 7 meters for the missile. So that could fit the 7 meter spec U-VLS, with 6.86 meters for the missile and booster and the cold pop launcher counted separately. The total missile weight and booster is 850kg, which is way less than the HHQ-9 at 1300kg, so there is room for a heavier booster.

But of course, there is always the chance that the VLS YJ-83B is currently only for export and the PLAN is satisfied with oblique or slant launch of the missile anyway.

The Russians have been showing the effective use of dual use antiship missiles, with Kh-35 Urans and Oniks being used to target Ukrainian arms depots and transportation centers with great effect. This is something that the PLAN might already be observing and taking notes.
 
Last edited:

Gloire_bb

Senior Member
Registered Member
We already have pics of the YJ-83B in naval operation. We need to go back and review all the YJ-83 firing pics to find out if more pictures slipped under our nose. This was taken months even before the missile was publicly announced and this is from a Type 056A doing exercises.
I meant the YJ-18 family land attack missile.
 

Tam

Brigadier
Registered Member
I meant the YJ-18 family land attack missile.

I am starting to see that this might be increasingly less likely despite that it would be easy to do. I suspect this alleged two stage hypersonic missile is dual use, can be used to target both ships and land. Its going to be the leading shoo in for the U-VLS land attack missile along with the YJ-83B, and used depending on the value and defenses of the target.
 

Gloire_bb

Senior Member
Registered Member
I am starting to see that this might be increasingly less likely despite that it would be easy to do. I suspect this alleged two stage hypersonic missile is dual use, can be used to target both ships and land. Its going to be the leading shoo in for the U-VLS land attack missile along with the YJ-83B, and used depending on the value and defenses of the target.
Hypersonics are expensive as of 2020s, often ridiculously expensive (easily multiple dozens of millions per shot). Very few targets are really worth it.
83 not only has a relatively weak warhead(also a wrong type of one), insufficient range and wrong optimization, but is also probably still far more expensive than this mission requires. It's fine for secondary capability for frigates, but for massed salvos it won't do.

I mean, even 3m14 (with ~500kg bomb equivalent warhead) is now showing itself to be too light for many types of targets (it recently took 3 attempts to finally shut down a railway bridge near Odessa - all 3 made good hits, just not enough kaboom).
 

Tam

Brigadier
Registered Member
Hypersonics are expensive as of 2020s, often ridiculously expensive (easily multiple dozens of millions per shot). Very few targets are really worth it.
83 not only has a relatively weak warhead(also a wrong type of one), insufficient range and wrong optimization, but is also probably still far more expensive than this mission requires. It's fine for secondary capability for frigates, but for massed salvos it won't do.

I mean, even 3m14 (with ~500kg bomb equivalent warhead) is now showing itself to be too light for many types of targets (it recently took 3 attempts to finally shut down a railway bridge near Odessa - all 3 made good hits, just not enough kaboom).

I fail to see how a land attack YJ-18 would address that problem. A land attack YJ-18 would have been a Chinese 3M14. Instead of trying to take out a target that three 3M14 would barely do, should have used a single hypersonic missile in the first place.
 

Top