Barak-8 is India's answer to Pakistan's Harpoon Anti-Ship Missile

[zebra7]

CM400AKG Hypersonic Aircraft Carrier Killer.....speed Mach-4+

 

[ghauri05]

@amardeep mishra Could you explain

ISPR saying it can hit the targets at Land and Sea does not means it can target the Moving target but the stationary target. I had already explain you in detail, that for targeting the Moving target with this Sub sonic Cruise Missile you would need continuous Monitoring, updates of the Target thru High speed two way Link. And Land and Sea target Means the stationary target whose coordinates and flight path is embebedded in the Missile prior to the launch, and the Missile sensors matches with the Maps in its memory to remain in its course of flight aka terracom. In case of SEA target e.g Island or Naval RIG there is no land picture for matching, in this case the magnetic imaging of sea is used instead of visual terrain map.[/QUOTE]
BHAI..aik baat to bata...sea me still target hone ka koi purpose??? koi ship ya sub...jo sea me still rehne k lye bani ho...???

 

[zebra7]

@amardeep mishra Could you explain

ISPR saying it can hit the targets at Land and Sea does not means it can target the Moving target but the stationary target. I had already explain you in detail, that for targeting the Moving target with this Sub sonic Cruise Missile you would need continuous Monitoring, updates of the Target thru High speed two way Link. And Land and Sea target Means the stationary target whose coordinates and flight path is embebedded in the Missile prior to the launch, and the Missile sensors matches with the Maps in its memory to remain in its course of flight aka terracom. In case of SEA target e.g Island or Naval RIG there is no land picture for matching, in this case the magnetic imaging of sea is used instead of visual terrain map.

BHAI..aik baat to bata...sea me still target hone ka koi purpose??? koi ship ya sub...jo sea me still rehne k lye bani ho...???[/QUOTE]
Oil Rigs

Naval bases

The missile by itself would be pretty useless. As implied by my response to the previous question, an entire “system of systems” is needed to make it work. Some countries might buy them just to impress their neighbors, but their combat effectiveness would be negligible unless the country also invested in the needed detection, data processing, and communications systems.



Read this and state what do you think of this

Dhanush (missile) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Read this link also

Training Tomahawk missiles to hit moving targets

While the Navy ponders whether to replace the Tomahawk missile or just update it, Raytheon is preparing a multi-mode seeker test that could allow the Tomahawk Block IV to hit moving targets.
The captive flight test would utilize a modified Tomahawk Block IV missile nose cone, and according to Raytheon, demonstrate the processor's ability to broadcast active radar along with passively receive target electromagnetic radiation. The eventual result – the Tomahawk Block IV cruise missile would be capable of striking sea- and land-based moving targets.

"Completion of this test and last year's passive seeker test will demonstrate that Tomahawk can hit moving targets on land and at sea," said Mike Jarrett, Raytheon Air Warfare Systems vice president. "Raytheon is working to quickly and affordably modernize this already advanced weapon for naval warfighters."

If you’ve turned on a TV or read a newspaper in the last 30 years, you’re probably familiar with the Tomahawk cruise missile. During Operation Desert Storm, their nightly escapades – in pristine night vision – dominated the news cycle. 288 Tomahawks were launched in the first Gulf War. They’ve seen action in every major and minor military action of the ‘90s, early aughts, and present-day conflicts, and we’ve the total program cost is around $11 billion, with a current price tag of $500,000/unit.

Raytheon plans on conducting its multi-mode seeker test in the second quarter of 2015, and they’ll equip the missile nose cone with active and passive radio frequency antennas integrated with Raytheon's new modular, multi-mode processor and fitted to a T-39 aircraft, which would simulate the flight of a Tomahawk. The test would pit the active radar of the “missile” against fixed and mobile land and sea targets.

If successful, the test would modernize this 30-year workhorse of the US and Royal Navies.

If you think that Pakistan have surpases USA, then you are right.

 

[maxpayne]

China Develops CM-400AKG Pakistan's Hypersonic Carrier Killer Missile For JF-17 - ASIAN DEFENCE NEWS

Thank you for a very joyous update!

 

[ghauri05]

BHAI..aik baat to bata...sea me still target hone ka koi purpose??? koi ship ya sub...jo sea me still rehne k lye bani ho...???

Oil Rigs

Naval bases

The missile by itself would be pretty useless. As implied by my response to the previous question, an entire “system of systems” is needed to make it work. Some countries might buy them just to impress their neighbors, but their combat effectiveness would be negligible unless the country also invested in the needed detection, data processing, and communications systems.

[/QUOTE]
The size of IN is too big, I don't think PN will waste time n resources on Oil Rigs. Naval bases our more equivalent to ground targets. So in Sea the main threat remains ships n subs.which are always movable

 

[maxpayne]

My dear don't fall for the stupid Indian theory, we are not exactly talking about land or stationary targets where fire is directed East to West and vice versa and it's not as if only the missile carrier will be the target.

Im not falling for any theory. Infact in serving in PN and know a little of these things. Anti-air missile like Barak should be taken seriously bcz it effectively counter our offensive capabilities. Plus we ourselves do not have any similar platform. What are ur comments abt Brahmos and how to protect ourself from it?

 

[Mrc]

If cm 400 akg is not very effective against fast moving naval target... than how much effective brahmos is against similar target given its also hypersonic?
US navy never went for a hypersonic anti ship cm, even for future they seem to be betting on naval attack version of tomahawk...

 

[zebra7]

The size of IN is too big, I don't think PN will waste time n resources on Oil Rigs. Naval bases our more equivalent to ground targets. So in Sea the main threat remains ships n subs.which are always movable

Dear Ghauri Your asked what are the the static sea based target and I gave you the example.

You fail to understand or you are not reading my posts. In one of my post I gave how China attain such capability to target, detect and monitors warships and IN ships. In the last Post I categorically mentioned

The missile by itself would be pretty useless. As implied by my response to the previous question, an entire “system of systems” is needed to make it work. Some countries might buy them just to impress their neighbors, but their combat effectiveness would be negligible unless the country also invested in the needed detection, data processing, and communications systems.

And How US rayethon is working in Tomhack 4 cruise missile to be able to target naval ships.

Now Us have best survellance and ISR capability in the world from airborne, uav, and satellite based ISR.

Questions for you

1. Does Pakistan have Airborne based ISR cabability for its Navy (Don't confused with PAF AEW AS)
2. Does Pakistan Navy possess airborne tankers for refueller to give long loterring range.
3. Does Pakistan Have Space based ISR capability and dedicated SIGNIT ELNIT, and IR or visual survellance satellite in India Ocean or near Pakistani shore.
4. Does Pakistan Possess fast Relaying Airborne or ground installation.
5. Does Pakistan Possess Long range Maritime strike Aircraft like J-11, Su 30 MKK or J7HB.
6. Does Pakistan Possess similar anti cruise missile Umberalla to protect its Naval ships.
7. Does Pakistani Airforce could support PNaval Wing.
8. Does JF-17 could breach MIG 29k or MKI naval cover.
9. Does PN have any counter measures for the Electronic Warfare of the IN warships.
10 Does PN could protect its bases from strandoff weapons like Brahmos, KH-55, KH-34, Dhanush Missiles.

If cm 400 akg is not very effective against fast moving naval target... than how much effective brahmos is against similar target given its also hypersonic?
US navy never went for a hypersonic anti ship cm, even for future they seem to be betting on naval attack version of tomahawk...

CM 400AKG is not supersonic in its complete flight profile, therefore to reach the target protected with the protection Umbrella, it has to depend on the STEALTH, that means it has to fly at very low level or in another work Sea Skimishing, that will lower its Strandoff Distance, and bring the airborne platform very close to the SAM range of the IN ships.
Problems for PN or PAF to target India would be

1. PN don't pocess strong survellance sensors, and costal radars.
2. PN don't possess Long range Marritime Strike fighter plane or Bomber. PN only have a Squardon of Mirrage 3 for maritime strike, which means its Mirrage with 2 Drop tank and 1 CM400 AKG or Harpoon in its centerline.
3. Indian Naval Ships Possess very strong Aesa Based EW countermeasures and electronic warfare capability
4. Indian Naval Ships would have cover from the IN naval wing aka Mig 29K with Look down and shoot down capability, which could target the cruise Missile from its A2A missile.
5. Indian Navy have 2 Carrier, which allow her to Open another front, and provide her flexibility.
6. India Navy have started arming its warships with Barak 1/2 and new Barak 8 SAM.


Now if you compare Indias capability to strike Pakistani Warships, and Naval Base.

1. IN now better survellence ISR capability, IN got GSAT-7, P-8i for ISR.
2. INaf have Jaguar Marritime, MKI, Tupolev bomber, P-8i
3. India have Brahmos, KH-34, KH-55 cruise missile, but PN don't have any counter measure to counter that.
4. Pakistan don't have early warning system to protect its naval ships.
5. Pakistan don't have fighter planes to fight MIG 29K before the maritime bombers or strike aircraft fires its cruise missile. aka Area Denial capability.
6. Pakistan don't have Long range SAM

 

[Mrc]

Ok my question was accuracy of super or hypersonic missile against fast moving target....
Which u did not understood or skirted past

 

[Basel]

To hit a moving ship at sea you going to need terminal guidance ..does raad has it if not cut the crap of hitting targets at sea which you rant all the time ....and your raad is not some super weapon that cannot be shot down ..CIWS and barak 1 is more than enough

And yes IN is indeed mighty we are not talking about coast guard here

Before opening your big mouth take a look what ISPR official statement is about Ra'ad they never say Babar CM can hit targets at sea, now understand the difference.

 

[Super Falcon]

We have nukes to wipe out when we loose the battle no one wins india wont push us to much other wise both coutries to been in history books

 

[Jat Boy]

India will not touch you unless provoked

SAID AJIT DOVAL indian NSA

 

[wiseone2]

Oil Rigs

Naval bases

The missile by itself would be pretty useless. As implied by my response to the previous question, an entire “system of systems” is needed to make it work. Some countries might buy them just to impress their neighbors, but their combat effectiveness would be negligible unless the country also invested in the needed detection, data processing, and communications systems.

The size of IN is too big, I don't think PN will waste time n resources on Oil Rigs. Naval bases our more equivalent to ground targets. So in Sea the main threat remains ships n subs.which are always movable[/QUOTE]

Why would you not hit enemy oil supplies ?

 

[CIABurnerAccount]

US navy never went for a hypersonic anti ship cm

Cost, not performance damned hypersonic anti-ship missiles in the US arsenal. The LRASM-B could be a reality, it was hardly unfeasible from a technological standpoint, but the project was cancelled at a time when budgetary concerns where problem for the US military, this being after the 2008 Financial Crisis.

CGI of LRASM-B

The Revolutionary Approach To Time-critical Long Range Strike, or RATTLRS, was another program.

Again, cost concerns, not performance, doomed this project.

even for future they seem to be betting on naval attack version of tomahawk...

It's an option, so too is the NSM for the LCS.

Harpoon NG is also being developed to compete against the Tomahawk and NSM, but the direction the US Navy is expected to go is the LRASM. This missile was developed from the JASSM.

Ultimately the direction, whether it's Tomahawk, LRASM, SLAM-ER, Harpoon NG or a combination including NSM for the LSC, LRASM for strike fighters and destroyers and Harpoon NG/Tomahawk for submarines depends first on the selection during the Offensive Anti-Surface Warfare (OASuW)/Increment 2 program, and the evolution of the US Navy's distributed lethality doctrine.

Ok my question was accuracy of super or hypersonic missile against fast moving target....

Just fine. During Operation Praying Mantis 4 RIM-66, Standard Missile 1, with a speed of Mach 3.5, were used to successfully engage the Joshan while it was maneuvering. These missile crippled, but didn't sink the Joshan. it was finished off by gun fire:

Joshan, an Iranian Combattante II Kaman-class fast attack craft, challenged USS Wainwright and Surface Action Group Charlie. The commanding officer of Wainwright directed a final warning (of a series of warnings) stating that Joshan was to "stop your engines, abandon ship, I intend to sink you". Joshan responded by firing a Harpoon missile at them. Simpson responded to the challenge by firing four Standard missiles, while Wainwright followed with one Standard missile. All missiles hit and destroyed the Iranian ship's superstructure but did not immediately sink it, so Bagley fired a Harpoon of its own; the missile did not find the target. SAG Charlie closed on Joshan, with Simpson, then Bagley and Wainwright firing guns to sink the crippled Iranian ship.

Hypersonic missiles, including anti-aircraft missile with anti-ship capabilities, have been used in combat to engage maneuvering targets.

 

[Mrc]

I cant believe that a country who spends 800 billion dollars a year on defence, just put to sea a 100,000 tons super carier worth 13 billion usd with plans to put another 12 at sea...builds b 2 bomber at 1 billion a piece and mainatins 50 of them; cancelled a project because of cost if it was any good

While india was able to build one

.