What's new

CM-400AKG: A tough job for the Indian Navy

CM 400 in it's terminal phase is not powered, so to be effective it needs to have mid course updates from launching platform when it is used against moving targets, otherwise being supersonic and un powered in the terminal phase when it's on board seeker activates it will find itself too far away to correct it's path and get back to targets latest position. if the launch platform gives a mid course updates then it has a better chance of success because it can make necessary corrections in mid course itself when it is powered and comparatively slower.
 
.
CM 400 in it's terminal phase is not powered, so to be effective it needs to have mid course updates from launching platform when it is used against moving targets, otherwise being supersonic and un powered in the terminal phase when it's on board seeker activates it will find itself too far away to correct it's path and get back to targets latest position. if the launch platform gives a mid course updates then it has a better chance of success because it can make necessary corrections in mid course itself when it is powered and comparatively slower.

If you don't mind bro,let me give you an advice:
Stop wasting your energy on this subject.

Please don't take any offence because none intended.
 
.
CM 400 in it's terminal phase is not powered, so to be effective it needs to have mid course updates from launching platform when it is used against moving targets, otherwise being supersonic and un powered in the terminal phase when it's on board seeker activates it will find itself too far away to correct it's path and get back to targets latest position. if the launch platform gives a mid course updates then it has a better chance of success because it can make necessary corrections in mid course itself when it is powered and comparatively slower.


I am unaware at what altitude the seeker will start working and start looking for target but lets assume at 10Km altitude the seeker kicks in and starts looking for a ship 20 meters tall...

The initial position of a ship at sea was fed into the Missile by a real time tracking radar,such as an awacs....The missile started navigating towards the target and at mach 4 (average speed of SY-400 the mother design of CM-400) it will take the missile less than 5 minutes to reach destination..A ship moving a t 30 Knots (Average speed of navy ships at sea) will have moved maximum of 3 miles in any direction during this time..
A seeker looking for a target at an altitude of 10,000 meters has a visible horizon of 19.839 miles..
That means the seeker has a visual circle of 19 miles in any direction for a target 20 meters tall, keeping the original position of target at center, fed into it by AWACS or Firing aircraft...So it wont be difficult at all for the seeker to seek out the target when it can seek easily in a radius of 19 miles and the target could only have moved about 3 miles..
No need of mid-course update from anything...
 
.
Sir its an honour to talk to a person like you but of all your saying that MIGs anlone cant force a naval blokade ok Fine but sir what you are forgeting is that pakistan is next doar to india and indian ground based radars scan and track all movemnts of airplanes and such of your air bases and while hidden deep inside indian teritorry and we have of the worlds best AWACS & Aerostat radars thanks to isreal & USA which will alert indian CGB well before your planes leave the pakistani airspace to attack indian CBG further more we have at least 150 upgraded JAGS for ground and sea assoult wich are based comfortablli close to mount a counter attck backed by 60 upgraded MIG 29 & almost equal no of upgraded Mirrage 2000 and how will you counter them and have spare JF17 for the naval assault as there current radars are not even at par with owr bisons not to forget the Mighty SU 30MKI which can easli carry 1 bhrmos + at least 6 BVR among other wepons and trust me we need onli two squads of those to neutralize all your defensive and offensive capabilities

so my point is that we dont need owr CBG to be at least 500 KMs from pakistani shore(as its MIGs with 850 KM fighting radius) can hold and blunt any ariel threat you might want to do and owr ground based assets wont be sitting and watching the whole episode

so my question to you SIR now is how will you come even close say 250 KMs to owr CBG and mind it we will have 3 very shortli VIRAT isnt going any where + VIKRMADITYA & in near future we will have owr desi VIKRANT as well + a sizable amount of latest SUBS of which the latest french scorpenes will be in western theater while the russian ones will take care of bay of bengal and indian ocean backed by the latest P8s

so my question is still how will pakistanies come close to owr shore /CBG to mount an attack withowt bieng detected and destroyed please answer me im waiting

Yes ' this enforcement by merely getting a dozen fighters in the air ' was the same as ' placing a couple of S300 system along the Pakistani border and enforce a No Fly Zone in the country ' theory , I laughed at some time ago . What you are forgetting mate that the same is true for India too , you are next door to us too . What you are stating , applies to you too . The same radar and AWAC's tracking can be done from here and alert the central command . Trust me , we have an airforce too which I am seeing constant absence of in people's argument . A war isn't fought by scrambling all of the aircraft in the arsenal at once and AA/AD ( Anti Access/Area Denial ) is more easy than trying to gain air superiority or enforce naval blockade during times of hostilities , let me assure you on that . Nobody's denying that the IAF doesn't have advantage over their counterparts , the point is that we have got other means to nullify that advantage . Ah this ' mightiness ' :D Let me correct you over the Brahmos part , not all SU30 MKI's can carry Brahmos without extensive structural modifications and even that you do not have any at the moment . The F16's BlK 52 are more than a match for the Flankers with extremely large RCS which makes detection far easier considering that even the JFT's KlJ-7 has a 135 KMs detection range for 5m2 target , the Sukhois are reported to be close to 15m2 , the F16's radar is of course far more better . So , nothing ' undefeatable ' as you suppose since it takes one hit of the BVR/WVR to bring a hostile down . Now , reading how just two squadrons of those invincible aircraft can bring the entire PAF down , I would think that either you know better than your planners who chose not to proceed with the ' surgical strikes ' plan and were surprised with the low response time of the PAF .

Had you read the previous post of mine , you wouldn't have been sticking with ' positioning ' a carrier some 500-600 km's away and then flying a dozen MiGs from there and doing wonders to Pakistan without facing any ' retaliation ' . Read it again .

Have you seen the location of ports and the Sea Lines of Communication of Pakistan ? . I suggest you have a look at the map again . You cant enforce a blockade from that far away . Iran and GCC countries are right next door and the Persian Gulf and Gulf of Oman where the country is expected to receive most of the help during the times of hostilities are no more than 350-400 KMs away and the exclusive economic zones and maritime boundaries of those countries mean that you cant station a CBG there that close to them . Out of the question keeping in mind the International laws and the influence of the Arabs . Minus those countries EEZ's and territorial water distance of 200 miles from the equation and the distance comes much close to 250 KMs value .


Neither will ours be , it goes both ways . Search the ' loiter time ' thing and the fuel spent when flying low or roaming an area and the need for constant refueling as will be the case with Mig29's . We do not have to come anywhere , simple thing , we have to wait for the Indian Navy to come close and try to block the SLOC's and then try to stop them . Sea denial is extremely easy and low cost strategy compared to dominance , which is what you are looking at . For the moment , you do not have a proper carrier , except the one being used for training which spends more of its time in docks getting refit because of its age . In the meantime , the PAF has ordered four more F22P's with improved SAMs/sensors complete with a dedicated maritime JFT squadron with C802/C803/CM400 AKG's bringing the total surface combatants to 14 augmented with 5 submarines more than capable of ensuring the denial of the seas . Your submarine fleet's strength is slated to be on an all time low by 2015 , search for it or I will provide a link . Not that easy , as you assume , you see .

We do not have to , that is the best part . Both sides will be vulnerable to attack , when assets come close . I am quite sure the JFT are more than capable of attacking surface ships and carrier when they are near 300 KMs to our coastline and this whole thing is not within the realm of fiction as some are trying to portray it , but more than possible .
 
.
. The F16's BlK 52 are more than a match for the Flankers with extremely large RCS which makes detection far easier considering that even the JFT's KlJ-7 has a 135 KMs detection range for 5m2 target , the Sukhois are reported to be close to 15m2 , the F16's radar is of course far more better .

I am laughing my head off :omghaha::omghaha:
 
.
I am laughing my head off :omghaha::omghaha:

You can do with that when all you had to contribute to this thread , was this . :D

Otherwise , The F16's radar is far better than KlJ-7 as I stated . You may want to have a look at specifications again .

If CM-400AKG really exists, then give source about its specification

And don't come with the answer that it is classified data, because if it is really classified then from the hell you came to know about it.

How is it supposed to be our fault if you cant do your own research on the topic and need to be spoon fed everything ? :azn:

Go to the CM400 AKG main thread and have a look at the statements , pictures and details from both Pakistani and Chinese officials . I posted just one statement confirming the integration of the weapon with JFT . Until then , continue parroting the ' doesn't exist ' thing , wont change the reality .
 
.
You can do with that when all you had to contribute to this thread , was this . :D

Otherwise , The F16's radar is far better than KlJ-7 as I stated . You may want to have a look at specifications again .
oops I thought you said F 16 radar is better than than MKI

So the MKI wont even know of the F-16 ???
 
.
I am unaware at what altitude the seeker will start working and start looking for target but lets assume at 10Km altitude the seeker kicks in and starts looking for a ship 20 meters tall...

The initial position of a ship at sea was fed into the Missile by a real time tracking radar,such as an awacs....The missile started navigating towards the target and at mach 4 (average speed of SY-400 the mother design of CM-400) it will take the missile less than 5 minutes to reach destination..A ship moving a t 30 Knots (Average speed of navy ships at sea) will have moved maximum of 3 miles in any direction during this time..
A seeker looking for a target at an altitude of 10,000 meters has a visible horizon of 19.839 miles..
That means the seeker has a visual circle of 19 miles in any direction for a target 20 meters tall, keeping the original position of target at center, fed into it by AWACS or Firing aircraft...So it wont be difficult at all for the seeker to seek out the target when it can seek easily in a radius of 19 miles and the target could only have moved about 3 miles..
No need of mid-course update from anything...

I am not saying the seeker is not capable(although that could also be a difficulty) I am saying because the missile at supersonic speed and not powered it has less capability to make such big flight path corrections in the terminal stages.if it was fed with a mid course update it has to do lesser flight path correction in the terminal stage.
 
.
@Secur
you continue to insist that Indian IGB can't stay 500km away and provide air cover.please reply to my detailed response to you in the previous post.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
.
neither am is I saying that naval blockade is done by mig's, but their primary task is to perform combat air patrol to protect aerial threats like your fighters and p3C Orions etc, so you can't send your anti sub warfare planes because they are extremely vulnerable against our fighter jets so they can only target surface ships, they can only operate on a secured air(like our p8i, Tu142, operate within the air cover of CBG), same is the case with your awac, they have to keep distance. I also see no reasons to believe migs can't operate from 500 km distance by utilizing it's drop tanks to extend range/loiter time. our frigates and destroyers will be keeping a 100 km distance from carrier and each other.so jf17 have to come a long way to reach our carrier.

Ok . Assuming the Mig29's are only there for CAP , do you think that PAF will leave the field wide open for them to do the task without any ' retaliation ' ? No , of course not . Add the loiter time plus the constant need to refuel either in the air or the carrier .

The simple point is that ' sea denial ' is low cost and comparatively easy and requires much less assets than ' enforcing blockades ' or pursuing the course of ' sea dominance ' . I had a good look at the numbers before saying that over the years ' PN had prepared well for that strategy and bought assets according to that ' and that they are more than capable of not letting that blockade happen .

@Secur
you continue to insist that Indian IGB can't stay 500km away and provide air cover.please reply to my detailed response to you in the previous post.

Mate , I answered @GURU DUTT just now on that 500 KMs thing .
 
Last edited by a moderator:
.
Ok . Assuming the Mig29's are only there for CAP , do you think that PAF will leave the field wide open for them to do the task without any ' retaliation ' ? No , of course not . Add the loiter time plus the constant need to refuel either in the air or the carrier .

The simple point is that ' sea denial ' is low cost and comparatively easy and requires much less assets than ' enforcing blockades ' or pursuing the course of ' sea dominance ' . I had a good look at the numbers before saying that over the years ' PN had prepared well for that strategy and bought assets according to that ' and that they are more than capable of not letting that blockade happen .



Mate , I answered @GURU DUTT just now on that 500 KMs thing .

But you didn't answer my assumption that how our AC can stay 500km away while the the front running CBG ships can be a at distance of 400 - 300 km away from your shore, and so on...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
.
koi photo nahin koi video nahin koi press conference nahin.. aaiwai khayali pulao paka rahe hai pakistani log :woot:
 
.
There are a couple of pictures providing specifications from Chinese sources on this forum , have a look . CASIC describes it as a super sonic anti-ship missile and the JFT project Director confirms that the missile indeed achieves a hypersonic speed at the terminal dive and hence the kinetic impact is enough to sink an aircraft carrier , which was later confirmed by a couple of sources .

The CM400 AKG is known to climb to a high altitude after the launch from a carrier , remain supersonic during that time and later turn ' hypersonic ' :what: The problem being ? What exact similarity are you seeing with depressed trajectory ballistic missiles here ? Or you are implying that both sources are somehow lying through the teeth ? :D

Frankly. In this case either something's been lost in translation or yes someone is exaggerating. With a conventional solid fueled article like this and conventional shaping sustaining hypersonic speeds in not even the concern..reaching such speeds itself is not possible. The CM-400AKG Wrecker is a derivative of the the YJ-12 BUT unlike the YJ-12 this article clearly uses a solid fueled propulsion and not the ramjet propulsion of the YJ-12. That is where the confusion is stemming from I believe.

Now I can still be wrong since a lot of people including you are expressly stating that it has a high alt cruise and then steep dive profile and is hypersonic only in its terminal phase. In which case I think we should refer to someone who honestly has more knowledge. @Oscar Sir perhaps...who can definitely feed us more than wikipedia and what not..I had the misfortune of trying to bring him under by quoting Carlo Kopp..got pawned I did. :ashamed: Lets see if he can shed some light.

On the Barak-2 engaging it..the engagement ceiling doesn't matter..IF the Barak-2 lives up to its claim of being able to hit it at 80Gs then it'll intercept even a Brahmos-2 which is supposed to have a completely hypersonic flight profile. After all..we have tested..on video.. cumbersome Prithvi interceptors taking out a re-entering BM. Still lets see if Oscar sir replies.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
.
@Secur

Oh and F-16 radars are not better than the N011M Bars is a PESA and massive..the F-16s you have do not have the radars to match it..on that you've gone squarely wrong. What is the KIJ-7? The radar on the Chinese Flankers..or were you trying to refer to our K-Fulcrums? The AN/APG-68 is a whole generation behind the Bars and simply not a match..or are your guys going for the RACR upgrade?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
.
@Secur

Oh and F-16 radars are not better than the N011M Bars is a PESA and massive..the F-16s you have do not have the radars to match it..on that you've gone squarely wrong. What is the KIJ-7? The radar on the Chinese Flankers..or were you trying to refer to our K-Fulcrums?

klj 7 is the radar on the jf17
 
Last edited by a moderator:
.

Latest posts

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom