China's new BP-12 Tactical Ballistic Missile

[dingyibvs]

I am confusing too, what is the difference between a guilded rocket and a guilded missile? Is it war head or the guildance system that makes the diffference?

Like I said, a guided rocket is just a specific type of guided missile, kind of a blend of ballistic missile and cruise missile.

As far as the SY-400 is concerned, here's the designer's explanation for labeling it a rocket as opposed to a missile:

记者：为什么SY-400被称为远程火箭炮而不是地地导弹？

设计人员：因为这款导弹价格相当低廉，所以我们在向客户推销的时候，着重强调了这个概念像火箭炮一样便宜的导弹。

So basically, it's marketed as a rocket because it's cheaper than normal missiles.

Here's the whole interview if you're interested:

http://war.news.163.com/10/1119/09/6LRGIR5N00011MTO.html

网易军事频道记者在珠海航展现场，采访了航天科工集团SY400/BP-12A战术弹道导弹系统设计人员，


网易军事11月19日报道 18日下午，网易军事频道记者在珠海航展现场，采访了航天科工集团SY400/BP-12A战术弹道导弹系统设计人员，询问了更多关于SY400/BP-12A战术弹道导弹系统的细节问题，设计师就我们的提问进行了现场解答。

记者：谢谢您接受我们的采访，我们的读者对新展出的SY400/BP-12A战术弹道导弹系统很感兴趣，并有相当多的疑问，麻烦您对我们做一些介绍，好吗?

设计人员：好的，SY400/BP-12A战术弹道导弹系统是我们单位最新研制的一款新型对地打击系统，具有射程远，精度高，操作简单等特点。

记者：SY-400导弹看上去跟美国的标准导弹，俄罗斯的萨姆11导弹以及我国的HQ16导弹很像，都是细长的弹体，细长的边条翼，而这些导弹都是防空导弹，那SY400是不是也是基于防空导弹改进而来的对地攻击导弹?

设计人员：看上去相似的东西，其实未必相似，SY-400系统从一开始就是作为战术地地导弹设计的，边条翼主要是用来增加弹体升力，增大导弹的滑翔距离，提高射程，同时也起到一个加强筋的作用，加强纵向强度，以避免激烈的弹性振荡产生。

记者：为什么SY-400被称为远程火箭炮而不是地地导弹？

设计人员：因为这款导弹价格相当低廉，所以我们在向客户推销的时候，着重强调了这个概念像火箭炮一样便宜的导弹。

记者：我刚才在现场看了下这两款导弹，尾部都安装有燃气舵，但是看上去尾翼也是可动的空气舵面，这样设计是为了什么？

设计人员：SY-400和BP-12A，并不是纯粹的弹道导弹，在主动段结束以后，有一个很长的飞行距离，在这一段时间内，导弹发动机已经烧完了，燃气舵已经没有燃气可以偏转，那怎么修正这段时间产生的误差，就只有靠空气舵面了。这个燃气舵，其实只是垂直发射的配套系统，在垂直发射后偏转燃气导向目标方向。只这么操作一下之后，就会被抛弃掉，之后的控制都是依靠空气舵面。

记者：SY-400为什么和BP-12A导弹组合使用？

设计人员：主要是基于一个射程搭配，SY-400用于180公里内战术支援，因为战术目标比较多，所以用小一点的导弹，多装几发，可以多攻击几个目标。而BP-12A一般是用于战役火力支援，最大射程在300公里以内，这个主要是因为国际上有个大杀伤性武器限制条约，要限制出口导弹射程在300公里以内。

记者：我们注意到两个导弹使用共架的发射车？


设计人员：是的，提高通用性一直以来是各国武器发展的方向。比如说我有10辆发射车，要全用作近距离支援，我可以有80枚SY-400，用作远距离支援，可以有20枚BP-12A，要是10辆专用发射车，那就是5辆SY-400，5辆BP-12A了最多也就是40枚SY400,10枚BP-12A，任务灵活性下降了很多。

记者：这两款导弹的攻击性能如何？

设计人员：SY-400和BP-12A都采用GPS/INS制导，CEP在30米以内，如果用GPS军码系统，或者我们的北斗2军码系统，那精度还可以进一步提高。

记者：这款导弹现在的开发进度如何？

设计人员：已经进行了多次试射，效果良好。不过现在还没有确定的订单，所以一些用户需求还不明确，还需要客户提出具体的一些要求后，我们进行改进，才能实现定型。（文/邓肯 邱贞玮 网易军事独家稿件，转载请注明）

 

[gambit]

I am confusing too, what is the difference between a guilded rocket and a guilded missile? Is it war head or the guildance system that makes the diffference?

None.

A 'rocket' is an unguided vehicle. A 'missile' is a guided vehicle. Most people understandably associate a 'missile' with weaponry, but technically speaking, the US Space Shuttle is very much a 'missile'. It is the guidance system, not any an 'explosive' substance, that distinguish the types. For a vehicle whose mission is to destroy, the 'warhead' usually contain the guidance mechanism and an 'explosive' substance.

 

[Speeder 2]

well, if I understand martian 2 and gambit's posts correctly, this stuff belongs to ballistic rockets - so a "Jr. ballistic missile system" ?

In other words: basically put this bada$$ at the edge of Tibet, it then goes in a ballistic manner, and with 400km coverage we are looking at M Singh's bathroom, well, the bathroom and the suite actually, with 30m accuracy?

It's sweet!

 

[gambit]

Let us have some better details.

A 'rocket' is launched towards A general direction. A 'missile', which should contain a sensor system, a guidance system, and a flight control system, is launched towards a direction and its sensor working together with the guidance system provide corrective instructions to the flight control system. A 'missile' is much more complex than a 'rocket'. Sophisticate enough and it would not matter if the 'missile' is launched in the opposite direction of the intended target. Its guidance system would know its current location and orientation, its sensor would provide external correlative inputs, combined and there would be flight control instructions.

 

[Speeder 2]

So Gambit, it's in fact a modern version of German V2 : pure rocket, unguided, goes ballistically, cheaply produced though, only with 21th century type launching viehcle.

 

[no_name]

translation from articles posted by dingyibvs:

Advantages of the SY-400/BP-12A anti-ground strike system are long range, high precision and ease of operating the system.

Reporter: SY-400 in appearance is similar to US standard missile, the Russian SA-11 missile and our own HQ16 missile. They all have slender body, slender long dorsal fins, and yet these are all anti-air missiles. Does this imply that SY400 was modified from anti-air role to anti-ground role?

Designer: They may appear similar on surface, but SY-400 was designed from the start to be a tactical ground-ground guided missile. Dorsal fins adds lift to the missile body, increasing its cruising distance and therefore its range. They also increase stiffness of the rocket body, increase axial strength, and prevent excessive vibration resonance.

Reporter: Why is SY-400 referred to as a long range rocket and not a ground to ground guided missile?

Designer: Because the missile is very low in cost. When we advertise them to customers, we stressed their competitiveness in cost as similar to unguided rockets.

Reporter: I had a look at both missiles. They both have motor exhaust steering rudder, but they also have movable tail fins, why is that?

Designer: SY-400 and BP-12A have a long fight distance after initial boost phase. The exhaust rudder would have no use after powered flight. So direction correction will be handled by the tail fins. The exhaust rudder is only used because a vertical launch convention is adopted. Their only use is to point the rocket in the right direction just after launch (presumably when the rocket is not travelling fast enough yet for conventional tail fins to have much effect.) and are discarded soon after.

Reporter: Why is SY-400 used in conjunction with BP-12A

Designer: SY-400 is mainly used for tactical support within 180km range. Due to possibility of multiple targets to engage, the missiles were made smaller so more of them can be fitted to one launcher. BP-12A is campaign (theatre?) based fire support, with maximum range limited to within 300km (limited due to requirement for international export)

Reporter: We noticed that both missiles used the same launch vehicle.

Designer: Flexibility and modular design has been the trend in weapon development. If I have 10 vehicles, I can have 80 SY-400, or 20 BP-12A. If I have 10 specific vehicle, then maybe 5 for SY-400, 5 for BP-12A, which means only 40 SY-400 or 10 BP-12A at a time can be carried.

Reporter: What's the specs for the two missiles.

Designer：They both use GPS/INS for guidance (so no independent seeker or terminal quidance on board, lower cost? I guess like smart bomb you can call it smart rocket, lol), CEP is within 30metres. If use GPS military or our own beidou 2 military system, accuracy can further be increased. (subscription fees?)

Reporter: what's the current progress?

Designer: multiple tests have been conducted, with very good results. Due to having no orders being made yet, the specifie requirements were unknown. We need customers to propose their own requirements before the final design can be fixed.

 

[dingyibvs]

well, if I understand martian 2 and gambit's posts correctly, this stuff belongs to ballistic rockets - so a "Jr. ballistic missile system" ?

In other words: basically put this bada$$ at the edge of Tibet, it then goes in a ballistic manner, and with 400km coverage we are looking at M Singh's bathroom, well, the bathroom and the suite actually, with 30m accuracy?

It's sweet!

According to the interview, it's not strictly ballistic, but I suppose it's got enough ballistic qualities to it to call it a junior ballistic missile. The SY400 and the BP12 though, do not have 400km range since they're export-oriented and you can't export weapons with over 300km range. Again, according to the interview, the SY400 should have a 180km range while the BP12 should have a 300km range.

China will likely use the WS series of rockets in the scenario you presented, specifically the WS-2C and WS-2D.

 

[no_name]

So Gambit, it's in fact a modern version of German V2 : pure rocket, unguided, goes ballistically, cheaply produced though, only with 21th century type launching viehcle.

I think it's more like the US GPS guided smart bombs, only the package is now fitted onto normal rocket.

So not a complete guidance system onboard, just a GPS coordinate receiver that gets updated information and steer accordingly.

 

[gambit]

I think it's more like the US GPS guided smart bombs, only the package is now fitted onto normal rocket.

So not a complete guidance system onboard, just a GPS coordinate receiver that gets updated information and steer accordingly.

This is where the line between 'rocket' and 'missile' begins to blur. For many who are associated with weapons development, from design to testing, any design that has externally based geo/spatial information, qualifies the design as a 'missile'. The argument is that flight control stabilization to maintain a parabolic path, given known quantities like thrust and gravity, is already internal. The inclusion of an INS is merely a step-up from the basic 3-axes gyroscope/accelerometer configuration considering the INS receive no external correlative inputs such as GPS or astronav. Once an external correlative input is installed, such as GPS, the vehicle can use that input as an indirect sensor to compensate for any internally generated flight errors and therefore to improve accuracy/precision...

The analogy is a blind man receiving vocal instructions from observers. The details of those instructions inevitably affect his course corrections.

Personally...I would need a direct sensor, such as radar or at least infrared, coupled with an internal guidance/stabilization system, before I would consider a vehicle to be a 'missile'. The analogy is the blind man using his own cane, which is a direct feedback mechanism to him. The most sophisticated vehicle, and therefore the more expensive, would include radar which is an active sensor, a GPS or astronav corrected INS, and a millisecond response time capable flight control system.

 

[Akasa]

translation from articles posted by dingyibvs:
Designer: Because the missile is very low in cost. When we advertise them to customers, we stressed their competitiveness in cost as similar to unguided rockets.

Wow, Russell Peters was right. Chinese people ARE cheap. Even their military classification is based on price.

And BTW, SY-400 range is 400+ km.

 

[no_name]

Why go mental over it? You get what you are willing to pay. This is for export so are you saying the customers are cheap? If everything were expensive no one would be able to afford a military.

SY-400 theoretically can reach 400km, but I think they need to cap it below 300km for export variants.

 

[Akasa]

Why go mental over it? You get what you are willing to pay. This is for export so are you saying the customers are cheap? If everything were expensive no one would be able to afford a military.

SY-400 theoretically can reach 400km, but I think they need to cap it below 300km for export variants.

Cheap equipment does not necessarily mean it's a worthy buy. It leaves customers suspicious and it means that more money could have been used to improve its quality and care in development.

 

[CardSharp]

This is where the line between 'rocket' and 'missile' begins to blur. For many who are associated with weapons development, from design to testing, any design that has externally based geo/spatial information, qualifies the design as a 'missile'. The argument is that flight control stabilization to maintain a parabolic path, given known quantities like thrust and gravity, is already internal. The inclusion of an INS is merely a step-up from the basic 3-axes gyroscope/accelerometer configuration considering the INS receive no external correlative inputs such as GPS or astronav. Once an external correlative input is installed, such as GPS, the vehicle can use that input as an indirect sensor to compensate for any internally generated flight errors and therefore to improve accuracy/precision...

The analogy is a blind man receiving vocal instructions from observers. The details of those instructions inevitably affect his course corrections.

Personally...I would need a direct sensor, such as radar or at least infrared, coupled with an internal guidance/stabilization system, before I would consider a vehicle to be a 'missile'. The analogy is the blind man using his own cane, which is a direct feedback mechanism to him. The most sophisticated vehicle, and therefore the more expensive, would include radar which is an active sensor, a GPS or astronav corrected INS, and a millisecond response time capable flight control system.

The downside being any sensor you put in it is a one time investment. The US is a wealthy nation that spends a lot on its military but it might not be economical, for everyone to put expensive equipment on a way ride.

Also I wonder what you think about these this talk about India's participation in Red Flag.