Can anyone tell me what type of this antiship missile is?

[TheTheoryOfMilitaryLogistics]

They say this is YJ-12,but YJ-12 is so fast that I don't think it can do such a "S" maneuver.

 

[Eagel star]

I think its yj 18 because it is supersonic in its terminal stage

View attachment 318014
They say this is YJ-12,but YJ-12 is so fast that I don't think it can do such a "S" maneuver.[/QUOTEhttps://www.google.com.pk/search?q=yj+18&client=tablet-unknown&prmd=vin&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj2jLXb1vXNAhUCuhoKHesNBmoQ_AUICCgC&biw=1024&bih=600#imgrc=XvozCjC5aEM0CM%3A

 

[TheTheoryOfMilitaryLogistics]

I think its yj 18 because it is supersonic in its terminal stage

Buddy,I think it must be subsonic missile,such a "S" maneuver is not suit to supersonic.Of course,it's just my own guess.

 

[Eagel star]

I think it must be subsonic missile,such a overload maneuver is not suit to supersonic.

China anti settalite missile also have s shape moving

 

[hirobo2]

View attachment 318014
View attachment 318025
They say this is YJ-12,but YJ-12 is so fast that I don't think it can do such a "S" maneuver.

I'm not a military expert of any sorts, but did that missile hit the target? It looked to me like it passed over the boat and blew to bits in the waters on the other side...

 

[TheTheoryOfMilitaryLogistics]

I'm not a military expert of any sorts, but did that missile hit the target? It looked to me like it passed over the boat and blew to bits in the waters on the other side...

Yeah,the target ship is so thin that the missile went through the hull.

 

[lcloo]

The fuse obviously has been set to explode deep inside thick walled ships like large destroyer/cruiser/LHA/LPD/aircraft carrier.

This target ship in this video is a landing craft/ship. Not sure which type though.

 

[S10]

There seems to be an over-penetration. It went through the ship completely before exploding, which actually reduces the damage done. Perhaps it's time to consider shorter time on the delayed fuse.

 

[Nigel Farrage]

I'm not a military expert of any sorts, but did that missile hit the target? It looked to me like it passed over the boat and blew to bits in the waters on the other side...

Normally it's not a functional ship being used as target but heap of containers placed on top of a scrap ship's deck..
Missile hits the container and passes through.

 

[Akasa]

Note that the "detonation" and the resulting fireball is actually the fuel igniting; the missile was most likely carrying a dummy warhead.

 

[gambit]

I'm not a military expert of any sorts, but did that missile hit the target? It looked to me like it passed over the boat and blew to bits in the waters on the other side...

Yes, the missile hit the target.

Am going to explain to you how R/D testing work and you will NEVER receive the same info from the Chinese camp here.

To start off, and this will make you see R/D testing, specifically weapons development, different from any perspective you may have now: ALL TESTS ARE RIGGED TESTS.

When I said 'all', I do not mean literally all tests. What I mean is that in the entire R/D chain of tests, introductions of variables that would and/or could affect the performance of the item are gradual.

Take car crash testings, for example. First you test only frontal. But is the frontal collision the only mode of collisions in the real world ? Of course not. So why do you test only frontal collisions, for now ? To take baseline data on how your car perform on the frontal collision mode. How much does the frame deform and to which direction ? How much influence does metallurgy have in that deformation ? And the list is long just on the frontal collision mode. Then once you believe that you have done all you can on the frontal collision mode, you move to the oblique angles. Then side collision. Then rear. And so on.

What this mean is that you introduce the real world one factor at a time. In the real world, your car may experience multiple collision modes inside one mishap. Your car may hit the front car, the car behind could not stop quick enough and the driver turned his steering wheel to avoid your car, but he hit your car any way. So now your car experienced one frontal collision mode and one oblique collision mode in the rear. What if this mishap is in an intersection ? Now your car may experience a side collision. In your testing regime, if you introduce all these potential modes at the same time, you would be overwhelmed by so much data that you may end up designing a poor frame from wrong analyses.

No different in idea than designing a new tire. You test your compound to see if it can withstand varieties of friction from different known road surfaces. Then your tread designs under dry surfaces. But what does 'wet' mean ? Wet in rain or snow ? And so on.

Weapons development is no different in idea, but with one major difference. Many tests are DESTRUCTIVE tests. Return to car crash testing for a moment. When you crash A into B, the goal is not to destroy B. That is what I mean by 'destructive'. A weapon is a thing design to render another thing from being fully functional in purpose. In weapons development, precisely because you have to destroy, any test that involves the final destruction of the test subject must be carefully planned so you can collect vital data because you may not have another chance. Your budget may give you only one test subject so if that test subject failed because of other factors, not of your weapon, you may end up giving your military a flawed weapon.

If your missile is designed to destroy a tank via its own sensor package, first you test to see if that sensor package can detect the signature of a tank, signatures such as shape (visual) or infrared and/or radar (EM). But these signatures can change with perspectives. Take shape (visual) for now. A tank's shape is different from the side, front, and top views. If your sensor package is in the visual spectrum, like an ordinary camera, can it recognize these different shapes and still call it correctly -- a tank ? If you have 100 tanks at your disposal, you would have greater latitudes for error corrections than if you have only 10 tanks. What if you have only one tank for destructive test ?

Since this tank buster missile have its own sensor package, why not separate the testing regime into two: one to develop sensor reliability and one to develop destructibility ? That make sense. With sensor development, you do not need to hit a real tank. With your camera, you just need to have that camera recognize a 'tank' within a certain statistical bound. On the other team, they are working on explosive compound, as in how to make the most bang in the smallest package. Then you plan for integration between sensor, propulsion, and explosives.

Next are environmental variables. The real world does not care if your missile is a tank buster or a ship killer. You can avoid fighting in the rain but you cannot make the rain go away. You can fly around the mountain, but you cannot make the mountain move out of your flight path. Any missile that cannot deal with environmental variables will fail and fail at the worst time. Even today, an infrared sensored missile can still be misled by the sun. Some variables, such as flares, are still too difficult to compensate.

Looking at this Chinese missile test, as little info as we have, based on my experience, I can see plenty of rigged items and there is nothing wrong with that. This maybe just a sensor package test where the missile is supposed to recognize and home in on certain types of signatures. Am willing to say it is non-visual and non-IR spectrum, so that make it radar. But there are no countermeasures.

What is a countermeasure ? From the designer's perspective, hydrometeors (rain, snow, and fog) are just as valid a countermeasure as jamming from the target. In other words, a countermeasure, regardless of origin, is something that will negative affect the reliability of the sensor. Rain, snow, and fog produces visual and non-visual countermeasure signatures. This test does not have countermeasures, but it does not mean there were none such tests.

Expensive books have been written just on the subject of weapons development and I had spend some money on them at one point in my life. These books are not publicly available due to the nature of their contents but only within professional circles. What I explained above would barely qualified as 'Introduction' to the engineer new to the weapons R/D life. What I want for the readers is to be critical of such published materials.

Hope this helped.

 

[Kiss_of_the_Dragon]

Yes, the missile hit the target.

Am going to explain to you how R/D testing work and you will NEVER receive the same info from the Chinese camp here.

To start off, and this will make you see R/D testing, specifically weapons development, different from any perspective you may have now: ALL TESTS ARE RIGGED TESTS.

When I said 'all', I do not mean literally all tests. What I mean is that in the entire R/D chain of tests, introductions of variables that would and/or could affect the performance of the item are gradual.

Take car crash testings, for example. First you test only frontal. But is the frontal collision the only mode of collisions in the real world ? Of course not. So why do you test only frontal collisions, for now ? To take baseline data on how your car perform on the frontal collision mode. How much does the frame deform and to which direction ? How much influence does metallurgy have in that deformation ? And the list is long just on the frontal collision mode. Then once you believe that you have done all you can on the frontal collision mode, you move to the oblique angles. Then side collision. Then rear. And so on.

What this mean is that you introduce the real world one factor at a time. In the real world, your car may experience multiple collision modes inside one mishap. Your car may hit the front car, the car behind could not stop quick enough and the driver turned his steering wheel to avoid your car, but he hit your car any way. So now your car experienced one frontal collision mode and one oblique collision mode in the rear. What if this mishap is in an intersection ? Now your car may experience a side collision. In your testing regime, if you introduce all these potential modes at the same time, you would be overwhelmed by so much data that you may end up designing a poor frame from wrong analyses.

No different in idea than designing a new tire. You test your compound to see if it can withstand varieties of friction from different known road surfaces. Then your tread designs under dry surfaces. But what does 'wet' mean ? Wet in rain or snow ? And so on.

Weapons development is no different in idea, but with one major difference. Many tests are DESTRUCTIVE tests. Return to car crash testing for a moment. When you crash A into B, the goal is not to destroy B. That is what I mean by 'destructive'. A weapon is a thing design to render another thing from being fully functional in purpose. In weapons development, precisely because you have to destroy, any test that involves the final destruction of the test subject must be carefully planned so you can collect vital data because you may not have another chance. Your budget may give you only one test subject so if that test subject failed because of other factors, not of your weapon, you may end up giving your military a flawed weapon.

If your missile is designed to destroy a tank via its own sensor package, first you test to see if that sensor package can detect the signature of a tank, signatures such as shape (visual) or infrared and/or radar (EM). But these signatures can change with perspectives. Take shape (visual) for now. A tank's shape is different from the side, front, and top views. If your sensor package is in the visual spectrum, like an ordinary camera, can it recognize these different shapes and still call it correctly -- a tank ? If you have 100 tanks at your disposal, you would have greater latitudes for error corrections than if you have only 10 tanks. What if you have only one tank for destructive test ?

Since this tank buster missile have its own sensor package, why not separate the testing regime into two: one to develop sensor reliability and one to develop destructibility ? That make sense. With sensor development, you do not need to hit a real tank. With your camera, you just need to have that camera recognize a 'tank' within a certain statistical bound. On the other team, they are working on explosive compound, as in how to make the most bang in the smallest package. Then you plan for integration between sensor, propulsion, and explosives.

Next are environmental variables. The real world does not care if your missile is a tank buster or a ship killer. You can avoid fighting in the rain but you cannot make the rain go away. You can fly around the mountain, but you cannot make the mountain move out of your flight path. Any missile that cannot deal with environmental variables will fail and fail at the worst time. Even today, an infrared sensored missile can still be misled by the sun. Some variables, such as flares, are still too difficult to compensate.

Looking at this Chinese missile test, as little info as we have, based on my experience, I can see plenty of rigged items and there is nothing wrong with that. This maybe just a sensor package test where the missile is supposed to recognize and home in on certain types of signatures. Am willing to say it is non-visual and non-IR spectrum, so that make it radar. But there are no countermeasures.

What is a countermeasure ? From the designer's perspective, hydrometeors (rain, snow, and fog) are just as valid a countermeasure as jamming from the target. In other words, a countermeasure, regardless of origin, is something that will negative affect the reliability of the sensor. Rain, snow, and fog produces visual and non-visual countermeasure signatures. This test does not have countermeasures, but it does not mean there were none such tests.

Expensive books have been written just on the subject of weapons development and I had spend some money on them at one point in my life. These books are not publicly available due to the nature of their contents but only within professional circles. What I explained above would barely qualified as 'Introduction' to the engineer new to the weapons R/D life. What I want for the readers is to be critical of such published materials.

Hope this helped.

To keep the long text short, this missile has impress you isn't it? with such devastating hit, the shock waves will literally kill all the sailors in the ship even if they're not kill by explosion.

 

[gambit]

To keep the long text short,...

In other words, it was too difficult for you. But it was never intended for you guys any way.

...this missile has impress you isn't it?

From a professional perspective, why not ? At least I have a good foundation to be impressed. For you guys, all it takes are good graphics.

...with such devastating hit, the shock waves will literally kill all the sailors in the ship even if they're not kill by explosion.

All the sailors ? This just goes to show everyone that they should not take the PDF Chinese cohort seriously when it comes to military and technical issues.

 

[cnleio]

YJ-12 supersonic anti-ship missile in recent PLAN SCS drill. CCTV news said.

 

[TheTheoryOfMilitaryLogistics]

YJ-12 supersonic anti-ship missile in recent PLAN SCS drill. CCTV news said.

No，no，that is not true,the gif of YJ-12 is this:

Pay attention to the speed，the terminal speed of YJ-12 exceeds 4 maches,it is unnecessary to do a "S-shape movement."

YJ-12 has a aircraft track.

I think its yj 18 because it is supersonic in its terminal stage

Buddy,you are the closest to the correct answer.

This a screen shot few years ago,it is possibly YJ-18.