J-15 firing PL-12 and YJ-83K supersonic anti-ship missile | CCTV

[J20!]

The manufacturer says the proper name for the J-31 is the FC-31. Does anyone else besides the Chinese government or manufacturer call it the FC-31? Not really.

The navalized DF-31 ICBM is named JL-2 SLBM.
The navalized DF-41 ICBM should be named JL-3 SLBM. Yet, the Chinese government or manufacturer calls it the JL-2A.

The original cigar-shaped-nose Chinese submarine was named Type 039.
Yet, the tear-drop-shape Song class diesel-electric submarine was named Type 039A. Many people acknowledge the old original Type 039 is obsolete and just call the Song as the Type 039.
The Yuan-class diesel-electric submarine has AIP and can stay underwater for 3 to 6 weeks. Yet, the Chinese government or manufacturer calls it the Type 039B. No one in the West is going to memorize the A, B, and C designations for Chinese submarines. Thus, we call it the Type 041 Yuan-class submarine with AIP.

I don't have a problem with your preference to call it by the technically-correct Chinese government designation. However, most people use the common designations because it makes more sense and it is easier to distinguish between the Chinese weapon systems.
----------

Off-topic: Do you really think that I care what No_Smoking or anyone else really thinks about me? This is a hobby. Give me a break.

I think only two people like me. Grey Boy 2 and possibly Chinese Tiger 1986. Everybody else doesn't seem to like me. I've never been popular for some reason.

Anyway, since I'm probably the only Taiwanese-American of ethnic Chinese descent armchair-general on the Internet, I don't expect people to like me.

Again, its not about preffecent but being accurate. Otherwise you could mislead others on the thread.

YJ83K is not a supersonic missile. Its export designation is not C803 its C802A..

Simple fact checking and accepting correction where necessary will take u a long way mate.

Defence FORUMS aren't for just sharing, but learning too. Don't be unnecesarily hard headed.

 

[Martian]

Again, its not about preffecent but being accurate. Otherwise you could mislead others on the thread.

YJ83K is not a supersonic missile. Its export designation is not C803 its C802A..

Simple fact checking and accepting correction where necessary will take u a long way mate.

Defence FORUMS aren't for just sharing, but learning too. Don't be unnecesarily hard headed.

I haven't misled anyone. I provided citations from Global Security and Deagel to back up my claims. You have provided no reputable citations to support your claims.

The C-803/YJ-83 is supersonic at Mach 1.5 in the terminal phase during the last 15km (or 9 miles) of its flight.
----------

Regarding technical accuracy, I think you're being selective.

The Chinese government and manufacturers refer to the J-10 as a third-generation fighter. They also refer to the J-20 and J-31 as fourth-generation fighters. This is technically accurate, because I think China skipped the first generation of fighter production.

However, many people (including myself) refer to the J-10 as a fourth-generation F-16 class fighter. We also refer to the J-20 and J-31 as fifth-generation stealth fighters in the same class as the F-22 and F-35.

The debate is whether you want clarity in communication or do you choose to follow the Chinese government's/manufacturer's obscure technical accuracy. I have always chosen clarity in communication. Thus, I have always referred to the J-10 as a fourth-generation fighter and the J-20/J-31 as fifth-generation fighters.

 

[J20!]

I haven't misled anyone. I provided citations from Global Security and Deagel to back up my claims. You have provided no reputable citations to support your claims.

The C-803/YJ-83 is supersonic at Mach 1.5 in the terminal phase during the last 15km (or 9 miles) of its flight

The article I gave you a link to has a clear Bibliography of its sources, so I'd rate it much higher than the small Global Security and Deagel pieces you sited. They are factually incorrect mate.

http://www.defensemedianetwork.com/...-missiles-the-yj-83-c803-and-the-family-tree/

Combining the technical limitations of the turbojet, nose cap, and scoop inlet makes it all but impossible for the YJ-83/C802A to be supersonic. And it should be no surprise at all that the CPMIEC brochure lists the C802A’s maximum speed as Mach 0.8 to 0.9 – identical to the earlier C802.

Whatever @Martian .. You obviously don't want to be corrected, so continue with the misleading nonsense.

C803

Since about 2002, the “C803” designation has worked its way into just about every Western naval systems book and article. And yet, in over ten years of reporting there has been no formal evidence to support its existence. If one examines the brochures, placards, and mockup displays that CPMIEC has put up at the various arm shows throughout the years, nowhere will the designation “C803” be found. Never. For example, Figure 12 shows a flat screen display at the CPMIEC booth at the Airshow China 2010 expo. The display lists, by range, all the ASCMs that China had on the market – the C701, C704, C802, C705, C802A, and the C602. Furthermore, there was a full mockup display of each of the above missiles on the exhibition hall floor, as well as a smaller scale model. A missile with the “C803” designation was conspicuous by its absence. The recent Zhuhai Airshow China 2012 also lacked any mention of the C803, even though numerous new missile variants were presented to the public for the first time.

Figure 10: The C802A missile mock-up displayed at the Airshow China 2010 expo is the export variant of the YJ-83, not the the C803 as reported in numerous PLAN related books and journals. Chinese internet photo courtesy of Christopher P. Carlson

 

[J20!]

For those willing to get accurate information:

This is the YJ83, export designation C802A - the surface launched varient. It equips various surface vessels in the PLAN and many exported warships eg, the Algerian C28A corvette, Pakistan's F22P Frigates, C13B corvettes in Bangladeshi service.

Its air launched varient is the one being launched by the J15 in the GIF's Martian posted. Its designated YJ83K in PLAN service and C802AK for export. It features on the J15, Jh7A and JF17's in Pakistani service:

The air-launched land attack variant is called KD88 in PLA service with the export designation C802AKG:

Again, this article is pretty exhaustive and comprehensive in its reporting on the YJ8 Family of cruise missiles, I highly recommend it:

http://www.defensemedianetwork.com/...-missiles-the-yj-83-c803-and-the-family-tree/

 

[Martian]

The article I gave you a link to has a clear Bibliography of its sources, so I'd rate it much higher than the small Global Security and Deagel pieces you sited. They are factually incorrect mate.

http://www.defensemedianetwork.com/...-missiles-the-yj-83-c803-and-the-family-tree/



Whatever @Martian .. You obviously don't want to be corrected, so continue with the misleading nonsense.

DefenseMediaNetwork is not a mainstream reputable news source. It is a minor newsletter.

It is only the opinion of Christopher Carlson, who based his entire analysis on the external observation of the YJ-83/C-803. It is entirely amateurish and worthless.
----------

Global Security and Deagel are correct that the YJ-83/C-803 is supersonic in its terminal phase, because all modern Chinese cruise missiles have this capability.

The YJ-18 is supersonic and MANEUVERABLE in its terminal phase.

The CM-400 AKG is a Mach 4 terminal phase cruise missile.

The YJ-83/C-803 is also a Mach 1.5 terminal phase cruise missile. Otherwise, it is a pointless weapon that would be easily shot down by American Phalanx CIWS.

If your claim that the YJ-83 is only purely subsonic at Mach 0.9 is true then China's Military must be completely incompetent.

On the other hand, a supersonic terminal phase YJ-83/C-803 is consistent with the latest trend in Chinese cruise missiles, which are supersonic in their terminal phase. China's technology has now moved on to add MANEUVERABILITY for the warhead. In the future, we expect China to possibly deploy cruise missiles with multiple warheads.

Your claim that the YJ-83/C-803 is purely subsonic is contrary to the advancements in China's cruise missile technology and there is a strong likelihood that you are wrong.

 

[Martian]

China's cruise missile technology is very easy to understand.

YJ-83/C-803: earlier primitive Mach 1.5 terminal-phase cruise missile
CM-400 AKG: more advanced Mach 4 terminal-phase cruise missile (technological advancement to Mach 4)
YJ-18: supersonic terminal-phase AND MANEUVERABLE WARHEAD
Future: supersonic terminal-phase and probably MIRVed warhead

China is not going to field a subsonic anti-ship cruise missile that an American Phalanx CIWS can easily shoot down.

 

[J20!]

DefenseMediaNetwork is not a mainstream reputable news source. It is a minor newsletter.

It is only the opinion of Christopher Carlson, who based his entire analysis on the external observation of the YJ-83/C-803. It is entirely amateurish and worthless.
----------

Global Security and Deagel are correct that the YJ-83/C-803 is supersonic in its terminal phase, because all modern Chinese cruise missiles have this capability.

The YJ-18 is supersonic and MANEUVERABLE in its terminal phase.

The CM-400 AKG is a Mach 4 terminal phase cruise missile.

The YJ-83/C-803 is also a Mach 1.5 terminal phase cruise missile. Otherwise, it is a pointless weapon that would be easily shot down by American Phalanx CIWS.

If your claim that the YJ-83 is only purely subsonic at Mach 0.9 is true then China's Military must be completely incompetent.

On the other hand, a supersonic terminal phase YJ-83/C-803 is consistent with the latest trend in Chinese cruise missiles, which are supersonic in their terminal phase. China's technology has now moved on to add MANEUVERABILITY for the warhead. In the future, we expect China to possibly deploy cruise missiles with multiple warheads.

Your claim that the YJ-83/C-803 is purely subsonic is contrary to the advancements in China's cruise missile technology and there is a strong likelihood that you are wrong.

1. That defencemedianetwork.com article provides citations for its report and shows actual displays from the manufacturer, which deagel and Global security do not. Unless you're claiming to know better than the manufacturers of the YJ83/C802A?

The MANUFACTURER quotes it's speed at 0.8-0.9mach. Stop being deliberatley obtuse.

2. Calm down @Martian

Who told you that? YJ83 can operate in an extreme ecm environment whilst performing very complex high g maneuvers at very low altitude.

Navies all over the world use Sub-Sonic ASM's. The US uses Harpoon and has upgraded that missile system for years on end. The French still use Exocet. The British still use Harpoon. The Naval Strike Missile is subsonic too. All of these missiles are exported world wide and are quite competitive. Even the new Tomahawk based ASM will still be subsonic, so I don't understand your hysteria.

 

[Martian]

The manufacturer listed the "cruise speed," not the terminal-phase speed. Those are two very different things.

Think about "J20!'s" absurd and ridiculous claim.

It is a known fact that China has the technology to enable a cruise missile to sprint supersonically in the terminal phase. This is a well-known fact of the YJ-18 anti-ship cruise missile.

"J20!" is claiming that China is intentionally withholding the supersonic-terminal-phase capability from its YJ-83/C-803 cruise missiles carried on the Type 056 corvettes.

He claims China is moronically carrying subsonic 0.9 Mach missiles on the Type 056 corvettes patrolling the South China Sea. There is a video of an American Phalanx CIWS on YouTube easily shooting down a subsonic cruise missile.

Now, I ask you. Why in the world would China intentionally withhold supersonic-terminal-phase capability from its most advanced YJ-series cruise missile?

YJ-81
YJ-82
YJ-83

The answer is that China wouldn't do such a stupid thing. A subsonic YJ-83 is totally ineffectual on the modern battlefield. Global Security and Deagel are correct that the YJ-83/C-803 is supersonic in the terminal phase.

 

[Martian]

Let me address "J20!'s" other point. He said the US has subsonic Tomahawks and thus it's normal for China to have subsonic YJ-83/C-803 anti-ship missiles. This is COMPLETELY WRONG.

The United States is aware of its useless Tomahawks against Chinese CIWS. Instead, the United States has modified its SM-6 missiles to attack ships. You'll notice that the SM-6 is Mach 3.5 (see citation below).

The US doesn't care that Tomahawks are useless against Chinese ships equipped with CIWS. However, China does not have an SM-6 equivalent at this time.

Thus, the most likely scenario is that Chinese Type 056 corvettes are equipped with YJ-83/C-803 anti-ship cruise missiles with a supersonic terminal phase. Otherwise, the Chinese are sitting ducks.
----------

Navy Sinks Former Frigate USS Reuben James in Test of New Supersonic Anti-Surface Missile | USNI News

"The former frigate USS Reuben James (FFG-57) was sunk in January during a test of the Navy’s new anti-surface warfare (ASuW) variant of the Raytheon Standard Missile 6 (SM-6), company officials told USNI News on Monday.
...
'We are going to create a brand-new capability,' Carter told reporters in San Diego on Wednesday. 'We’re modifying the SM-6 so that in addition to missile defense, it can also target enemy ships at sea at very long ranges.'
The modification – part of a $2.9 billion missile purchase over the next five years – will give the Navy’s fleet of guided missile cruisers and destroyers a Mach 3.5 supersonic weapon with a range of more than 200 nautical miles."

 

[J20!]

@Martian. To quote no_smoking, you're being an "idiot".

YJ83's design CLEARLY does not support supersonic speeds. You may not like it, but those are the facts. The only ASM in the PLAN's inventory that is subsonic at its cruise stage and supersonic at its terminal phase is the YJ18 as remarked by the USNI.

Where on the YJ83/C802A's missile body does it have a "rocket" for your claimed 1.5mach speed?

Claiming that subsonic ASM's are obsolete is even more ridiculous. That would invalidate the ASM inventories of a majority of the world's navies. NSM, Harpoon, Naval Tomahawk, Excocet, KH35,etc.etc. Those missiles constitute a huge part of the world navies' ASM inventories. I'll trust those naval experts over your fanboy OPINIONS.

 

[Martian]

@Martian. To quote no_smoking, you're being an "idiot".

YJ83's design CLEARLY does not support supersonic speeds. You may not like it, but those are the facts. The only ASM in the PLAN's inventory that is subsonic at its cruise stage and supersonic at its terminal phase is the YJ18 as remarked by the USNI.

Where on the YJ83/C802A's missile body does it have a "rocket" for your claimed 1.5mach speed?

Claiming that subsonic ASM's are obsolete is even more ridiculous. That would invalidate the ASM inventories of a majority of the world's navies. NSM, Harpoon, Naval Tomahawk, Excocet, KH35,etc.etc. Those missiles constitute a huge part of the world navies' ASM inventories. I'll trust those naval experts over your fanboy OPINIONS.

You can't tell the difference between a warhead and missile body. You're wasting my time.

The YJ-18 also has a subsonic cruise speed, but a supersonic Mach 3 terminal-phase warhead.

I agree with Deagel's claim that the YJ-83/C-803 has a subsonic cruise speed, but a supersonic Mach 1.5 terminal-phase warhead.

"Published on Sep 19, 2013
Some Chinese media websites release a clip showing PLA might have been successful in making a Eagle Strike missile dubbed YJ-18. It will travel at subsonic speed initially, and at Mach 3 when approaching the target within last 46 kilometers. What's amazing is that the missile can change its path showing 'S' pattern making it hard to intercept, even for Aegis class ships as claimed by the report."