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

[SQ8]

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.

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. Lets see if he can shed some light.

You give me too much credit.. My knowledge is different because I specifically avoid wikipedia.. along with single opinions like those of Mr Kopp.. who for all the good information he has put up.. skews it to reflect his views.. for a man spurned on the project of his life.. you can understand why.. moreover, he is a controversial figure in the industry and not much quoted or cared for outside of Australia. His counterparts in the US are Winslow Wheeler and like him.. disregarded as farces by Military professionals(except perhaps the Russians or Chinese whom he praises to push his point).

The CM-400 looks clearly a missile destined for a high kinetic terminal velocity.. It also may be capable of continuous high speed but that would detrimentally effect its range. So I suppose it matters on the efficiency of the engine.. and what profile it is supposed to fly. At lower throttle the missile might have a fairly good range.. and be able to hit hypersonic speeds. The shape becomes a concern in case you were looking to shove air inside it like the YJ-12 or Brahmos.. but generally the shape of the CM-400 is pretty ok to go hypersonic.. case in point.. the soviet KH-15 missile... It was much heaver than the CM-400 and still cruised at Mach 5.

The problem for all these really fast missiles is response time.. For something like the C-802 launched picked out by radar at say.. 50km.. the target has about 180 seconds or so to react.. engage.. chaff etc.
for something like the Brahmos or CM-400.. even if they are picked out say earlier.. 100 Km out..
You are looking at 90 seconds to track, engage.. and deploy countermeasures.
The truly deadly missile was the SS-19.. used swarm logic..

@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?

Just because the radar is mechanically steered does not automatically imply complete oblosence. The APG-71 of the F-14 was certainly better than the Zaslon PESA on the Mig-31 in many respects. That being said, it is the size of the dish and power of the Bars that simply gives it a better chance to "Burn" through jamming and otherwise. It doesn't mean that the APG-68 cant do its job well or hold its own.. it means that given a combined environment with heavy ECM and maneuvering.. the radar with more power will burn through jamming better than the one without it. An AESA radar is the true "next step" in this regard as its antenna's arent bound to work in cohesion with others and can truly make a fool out of the opponents electronics.

but for the sub-continent scenario, with opposing forces literally minutes away from each other.. the APG-68 or KLJ-7 may be outmatched but are adequate enough to be able to detect , lock and fire in the ranges they will be engaging the seeing the enemy in.

The recent airspace violation is a clear example.. just a small miscalculation had the IAF aircraft violating airspace.. and they were within 4-5 minute burner range of two different PAF airbases. Thus, even with larger radars or ten more missles.. they were still in danger of being locked on and engaged at those ranges easily.
Its the classic situation of having a sniper but having the enemy smack at you.

Where the Radars of the MKI will truly give the advantage.. is either when they fall back.. or against the northern threat they face.

 

[Dillinger]

You give me too much credit.. My knowledge is different because I specifically avoid wikipedia.. along with single opinions like those of Mr Kopp.. who for all the good information he has put up.. skews it to reflect his views.. for a man spurned on the project of his life.. you can understand why.. moreover, he is a controversial figure in the industry and not much quoted or cared for outside of Australia. His counterparts in the US are Winslow Wheeler and like him.. disregarded as farces by Military professionals(except perhaps the Russians or Chinese whom he praises to push his point).

The CM-400 looks clearly a missile destined for a high kinetic terminal velocity.. It also may be capable of continuous high speed but that would detrimentally effect its range. So I suppose it matters on the efficiency of the engine.. and what profile it is supposed to fly. At lower throttle the missile might have a fairly good range.. and be able to hit hypersonic speeds. The shape becomes a concern in case you were looking to shove air inside it like the YJ-12 or Brahmos.. but generally the shape of the CM-400 is pretty ok to go hypersonic.. case in point.. the soviet KH-15 missile... It was much heaver than the CM-400 and still cruised at Mach 5.

The problem for all these really fast missiles is response time.. For something like the C-802 launched picked out by radar at say.. 50km.. the target has about 180 seconds or so to react.. engage.. chaff etc.
for something like the Brahmos or CM-400.. even if they are picked out say earlier.. 100 Km out..
You are looking at 90 seconds to track, engage.. and deploy countermeasures.
The truly deadly missile was the SS-19.. used swarm logic..



Just because the radar is mechanically steered does not automatically imply complete oblosence. The APG-71 of the F-14 was certainly better than the Zaslon PESA on the Mig-31 in many respects. That being said, it is the size of the dish and power of the Bars that simply gives it a better chance to "Burn" through jamming and otherwise. It doesn't mean that the APG-68 cant do its job well or hold its own.. it means that given a combined environment with heavy ECM and maneuvering.. the radar with more power will burn through jamming better than the one without it. An AESA radar is the true "next step" in this regard as its antenna's arent bound to work in cohesion with others and can truly make a fool out of the opponents electronics.

but for the sub-continent scenario, with opposing forces literally minutes away from each other.. the APG-68 or KLJ-7 may be outmatched but are adequate enough to be able to detect , lock and fire in the ranges they will be engaging the seeing the enemy in.

The recent airspace violation is a clear example.. just a small miscalculation had the IAF aircraft violating airspace.. and they were within 4-5 minute burner range of two different PAF airbases. Thus, even with larger radars or ten more missles.. they were still in danger of being locked on and engaged at those ranges easily.
Its the classic situation of having a sniper but having the enemy smack at you.

Where the Radars of the MKI will truly give the advantage.. is either when they fall back.. or against the northern threat they face.

So then this missile in question can achieve hypersonic speeds in its terminal phase? For real? Then it is a threat indeed..although single systems do not change a battle..I am not aware of the package that the PAF or PN will use in the scenarios that other posters are bickering about.

So, in your opinion this missile could definitely take away an Indian CBGs capability to operate offensively near Pakistani shores completely? How do you see such a scenario playing out.

Thanks sir. Just calling out to the seniors since I didn't have adequate information or knowledge.

 

[Secur]

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.

Frankly , mate , it isn't possible that both the deputy project director of JFT - the very people who manage the whole thing and the Chinese manufacturers - the very people who make the missile and Jane's - a world renowned credible source has missed the translation and got the specifications and nature of the missile wrong . Trust me , both the countries involved aren't known for either disclosing much or exaggerating . You would be surprised to know , how little the information leaks out of the project or how most information is gathered from the air shows where the JFT is marketed for export . Our mode of operation is very different from yours . We rarely acknowledge anything to the point that A100's purchase couldn't be confirmed till it was seen in Azm-e-Nau III exercise by Pakistan army . A lot of information isn't there and from what I think , it wouldn't be disclosed . But still we know about the nature , speed , its operational status and the flight profile .

Pakistan Air Force (PAF) has become the first export customer for supersonic CM-400AKG missile. The Deputy Project Director of the JF-17 Thunder/FC-1 Xiaolong fighter jet program, Air Commodore Mahmood Khalid has said, "This is a mature weapon that has been fully tested. It is not conceptual. It is in service. It hits the target at Mach 4 or above and its kinetic impact alone is enough to destroy any high-value target, like an aircraft carrier. The CM-400AKG is a very high-speed missile that is very difficult to intercept."


Doesn't a ballistic missile attain such speeds at some time during the flight ? You mention the conventional shape limited ability to sustain hypersonic speeds but it doesn't get to Mach 5 or above until the terminal dive as I explained before . The advancement in material sciences may have played a part here too . The CM400 AKG isn't believed to be based on YJ-12 but on SY 400 strategic rocket system . I think @AhaseebA can clarify the ' limitations ' part .

 

[Secur]

but for the sub-continent scenario, with opposing forces literally minutes away from each other.. the APG-68 or KLJ-7 may be outmatched but are adequate enough to be able to detect , lock and fire in the ranges they will be engaging the seeing the enemy in.

Isn't it true , sir , that hypothetically JF-17 can detect the Flanker much earlier owing to the latter's massive RCS widely believed to be in the range of 15m2 and knowing the KlJ-7's detection range of 135 km at 5m2 ? Even though , the AWACs will nullify that advantage .

 

[Dillinger]

Frankly , mate , it isn't possible that both the deputy project director of JFT - the very people who manage the whole thing and the Chinese manufacturers - the very people who make the missile and Jane's - a world renowned credible source has missed the translation and got the specifications and nature of the missile wrong . Trust me , both the countries involved aren't known for either disclosing much or exaggerating . You would be surprised to know , how little the information leaks out of the project or how most information is gathered from the air shows where the JFT is marketed for export . Our mode of operation is very different from yours . We rarely acknowledge anything to the point that A100's purchase couldn't be confirmed till it was seen in Azm-e-Nau III exercise by Pakistan army . A lot of information isn't there and from what I think , it wouldn't be disclosed . But still we know about the nature , speed , its operational status and the flight profile .

Pakistan Air Force (PAF) has become the first export customer for supersonic CM-400AKG missile. The Deputy Project Director of the JF-17 Thunder/FC-1 Xiaolong fighter jet program, Air Commodore Mahmood Khalid has said, "This is a mature weapon that has been fully tested. It is not conceptual. It is in service. It hits the target at Mach 4 or above and its kinetic impact alone is enough to destroy any high-value target, like an aircraft carrier. The CM-400AKG is a very high-speed missile that is very difficult to intercept."


Doesn't a ballistic missile attain such speeds at some time during the flight ? You mention the conventional shape limited ability to sustain hypersonic speeds but it doesn't get to Mach 5 or above until the terminal dive as I explained before . The advancement in material sciences may have played a part here too . The CM400 AKG isn't believed to be based on YJ-12 but on SY 400 strategic rocket system . I think @AhaseebA can clarify the ' limitations ' part .

We had best "navalise" the ADD and PAD interceptors then..its the only sure shot way of taking out such systems...sadly despite multiple successive tests the babus here don't seem to be interested..we have the radar and the kill vehicle. Even better if we replace all the components with composite advancements from our later projects..and yet still the babus must give the nod.

 

[Secur]

We had best "navalise" the ADD and PAD interceptors then..its the only sure shot way of taking out such systems...sadly despite multiple successive tests the babus here don't seem to be interested..we have the radar and the kill vehicle. Even better if we replace all the components with composite advancements from our later projects..and yet still the babus must give the nod.

The ABM system take time to develop and even more when it is your first time , mate . You have come so far and you still have a long way to go but I seriously doubt the effectiveness of such systems when the Russians and Americans do not put their faith on it and they have thought and researched on it from a long time . I know of the multiple successive tests but the real world scenarios are much different from ' Prithvis ' simulating a hostile . The one thing that I believe has suffered due to the stubbornness of IAF is Tejas itself - the requirements being constantly raised despite knowing the ' limitations ' and infancy of the Indian aerospace industry , it would have been ready a long time ago . But still if a weapon system is ready , why should the bureaucrat give the nod and not the army , navy or airforce depending on the system ?

At times , I wish I knew and understood a little more about your politics when you talk this way , honestly

 

[Dillinger]

The ABM system take time to develop and even more when it is your first time , mate . You have come so far and you still have a long way to go but I seriously doubt the effectiveness of such systems when the Russians and Americans do not put their faith on it and they have thought and researched on it from a long time . I know of the multiple successive tests but the real world scenarios are much different from ' Prithvis ' simulating a hostile . The one thing that I believe has suffered due to the stubbornness of IAF is Tejas itself - the requirements being constantly raised despite knowing the ' limitations ' and infancy of the Indian aerospace industry , it would have been ready a long time ago . But still if a weapon system is ready , why should the bureaucrat give the nod and not the army , navy or airforce depending on the system ?

At times , I wish I knew and understood a little more about your politics when you talk this way , honestly

The first phase of said ABM system is already well proven. It is just ineffective against MIRVs and missiles with a range greater than 3000km. Remember, US and Russia don't put too great a stock in ABMs because they face SLBMs from subs and missile systems with a range greater than 10000km. For the purpose of intercepting a 250Km missile the PAD is more than well suited..we have tested it more than 8 times till now..every time it has successfully killed a "re-entering" RV...how difficult do you think it will be for it do the same with a missile going hypersonic, mind you the said missile is still slower than the speed at which RVs hit re-entry. The Prithvis were still providing the same extremely high speeds required to establish acquiring efficiency, target acquisition algorithm validity and (of great importance) the performance of the fuse. So its a valid test...keep in mind that the US doesn't exactly lob supersonic ASMs at its own ships to validate the Aegis. Such tests will always have some element missing..but enough tests and strict compliance can establish pretty accurate "real world" results.

So ya, in context of pitting these systems against a barrage of Hatfs I wouldn't be too confident but against this particular system..it can do the job. Besides we are already in the 2nd phase, the systems I've mentioned are not on paper but tested and proven systems. The tests have been extensively documented on tape and you can find them right here on PDF. No wonder we actually gave the AEGIS offer active consideration..otherwise we'd stay far away from it given the strings it would come with..no firm movement on it though..yet. The AAD's slant range has been conclusively documented at 200Km+ itself and its still the lesser system of the two when compared to the PAD. Both systems match the Brahmos in dimensions except for weight so a VL module for ships won't be difficult. BUT..they are costly..as costly as a few modules of the Barak-2 probably. As I said..we have the kill vehicle and the radar..the question is will we now finally let the navy get its hands on it? The babus have withheld all integration for the phase-1 till the PDV comes out, this decision has again been documented. Its not the forces which aren't going for them but the MOD which refuses to relent till phase-2 is completed. They honestly believe that going full steam ahead with this project will ensure complete safety from Chinese BMs. Which should tell you something about how smart they are.

Lets see how it pans out.

 

[SQ8]

So then this missile in question can achieve hypersonic speeds in its terminal phase? For real? Then it is a threat indeed..although single systems do not change a battle..I am not aware of the package that the PAF or PN will use in the scenarios that other posters are bickering about.

So, in your opinion this missile could definitely take away an Indian CBGs capability to operate offensively near Pakistani shores completely? How do you see such a scenario playing out.

Thanks sir. Just calling out to the seniors since I didn't have adequate information or knowledge.

It doesnt cut or completely remove anything. It is a system that is supposed to work in cohesion with other systems.
Other systems that form part of the entire headache that the Indian military will have to face in order to achieve their objectives.
Will it prevent them from achieving those objectives? If time is no limit?.. quite unlikely..
But given the limited nature of supposed war with nuclear weapons, and with international response.. it may delay the IN from achieving its desired objectives within the timeframe set by the national defense command.

Isn't it true , sir , that hypothetically JF-17 can detect the Flanker much earlier owing to the latter's massive RCS widely believed to be in the range of 15m2 and knowing the KlJ-7's detection range of 135 km at 5m2 ? Even though , the AWACs will nullify that advantage .

Hypothetically , a lot is possible. But the JF-17 and the MKI will not exclusively face each other nor will they face alone.
A multitude of systems.. known as the war-fighting machines of both nations will face off and it is their combined effectiveness and assets present in that theater that will decide the conflict.

A four-ship of flankers can easily by brought down by F-7PG's if the latter has greater SA due to an AEW assets.
Similarly , even the venerable Bison can kill a block-52 with much ease if it uses the right tactics.

Not even the F-22 is invulnerable..if its pilot makes a mistake then even a plain old F-5 can kill it.
That being said, aircraft like the F-22.. the PAK-FA and so on.. have enough power and technology on their side that even IF the pilot makes a mistake there will be enough chance for him to survive due to the aircraft.

The much pooh poo'ed video of Red Flag simply because it hurt glass ego's shows this. Even though the MKI is a superior aircraft to the F-15.. it gets beaten by a handicapped F-15 simply due to its pilots not knowing what to do with it.

 

[Secur]

Fine, let us assume you are right. And have a scenario.
1. A target is detected.
2. Fighter is scrambled from a base. Approximate area of target is known.

Now, let's work on this. And maybe, I am wrong, so more informed posters can correct me/us/
3. The missile needs to be targeted with one its guidance systems. The CM-400AKG is a fire and forget missile and is not known to have a data link (again feel free to correct me here). Available guidance is GPS, on-board radar and digital imaging.

a. If you are going to program it based on GPS - based system. Then you are dependent on the.. Then your launch could be at max range. Of-course, for this you need to know the co-ordinates of the target. The active radar could then be switched on when it is closer to the target. Pilot safe, launch accomplished?

b. On-board radar- Supposed to have an active radar. Now, the radar of the Jf-17 is approx 135-150 kms for ground targets. Take in the added clutter when you are flying over sea. (Hence, I would be skeptical in your assumption of saying the missile being launched has a better radar capability than the aircraft launching it. Hence, my assumption that the missile seeker will kick in only for terminal phase. Ofcourse, this is my assumption.) Now, my question here is simple. What will be the launch distance for the pilot to be successful? About the guidance part from the aircraft. Whatever, I could find, it keeps saying fire and forget. I have not been able to find anything which says the missile has a data link, unlike 2 other variants of the YJ-12 which are supposed to exist.

c. Digital imagery - This can be used for terminal guidance, but, I fail to see how this will be useful for a launch scenario.

With the above scenarios, the only way to succeed is to use the gps based guidance with the active radar kicking in for the terminal phase or the imagery. Again, hope I am not being a pest. I am plainly playing out scenario to understand better. Let us not get into whether the anti-missile defence will defeat or not defeat the missile. Let's only look at launch and how it will get a successful lock and guidance to target.

cheers!

Let us make one more assumption , more of a proven thing actually .

The detection of target isn't a problem owing to its size and significance and that its slow compared to other sea threats . There's a reason why they are known as ' bomb magnets ' .

The missile needs to be targeted completely with either one of its guidance system / radar / seeker whatever term you want to use hence the ' fire and forget ' mentioned by CASIC confirming the missile's ability to fly ' autonomously ' under all weather conditions though it wouldn't be that accurate or either be guided in flight by the carrier's radar till the end for precision or use both to reach its target ( terminal guidance still has to be provided by the on board radar ) but not remain ' autonomous ' in such a scenario . In all of these , the last one provides better accuracy and precision . I do not think the data link is absent , despite the emphases on ' fire and forget ' , taking into account other weapon systems of similar kind and the one from which it is modified from .

There's a simple problem with sole GPS guidance that the aircraft carrier itself isn't stationary but moving even if at a slower speed . This would mean that the missile needs to be updated with new co-ordinates on the location of the target continuously . The Pakistanis do not trust the GPS system expecting it to be shut down during times of hostilities hence the newly signed deal for Beidou guidance which can cover the whole region for now . Plus , the signals can be jammed during flight . However , if I assume the satellite guidance to be reliable enough and add the active seekers turning on during the terminal phase along with visual match , then yes it will be the best option .

Yeah , widely understood to be active radar but I think INS is must-thing here even though CASIC mentions ' different seeker configurations for different missile profile ' since the missile can be used for A2G/SEAD too and not just for anti-ship role as most members are missing here so it would be unfair to limit it only to an active one , because even IR seekers can be used . The range of KlJ-7 ( JFT's radar ) is 135 km for a 5m2 target , we aren't looking at a target this small , to give an idea the ' Flankers ' have an estimated RCS of 15m2 meaning they can be detected much earlier , the same will be the case with the carrier with it being much larger hence the aircraft can pinpoint it from far away than the estimated 135 km range here . You didn't need to assume and disagree since I never said that the missile's radar is superior to the aircraft's one , read my post again , mate . There's not a definite answer to that question first of all , but considering the maximum range of the CM400 AKG at 180-250 km though I believe it is being underrated due to the MTCR limitations and the KlJ-7 detection being much higher than previously assumed range of 135 km , I would put it modestly at approximately 125 - 175 km to have a high probability of hit and kill considering both limits of the missile's range . The CM400 AKG quasi ballistic missile isn't a variant of YJ-12 but that of SY 400 strategic rocket system .

True about the digital imagery part , that was never supposed to guide it all the way .

No , a more valid theory would be to consider the carrier's guidance + that of missile's itself to be more successful than GPS since it can be jammed easily . Correct me if I am wrong here . Ah , no , nothing like that . I like to learn from others and my mistakes and engage in positive discussions . Go with that , no problems , the ' whether it can be shot down or not ' has just too many variable to get even a remotely close answer .

 

[Anony]

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...

Firstly there is no reliable source to confirm the existence of the missile, now by saying this I don't mean that CM-400AKG doesn't exist but it may not have the range as stated or specification as stated because any ground attack missile which has a range of 220km-240km and is supersonic, can't weight less than 1.8t-2t even if it carries only 100kg-150kg warhead.

Secondly, AWACS can't provide initial guidance to the missile as the frequency in which it works are only suitable for aerial target and can't work in a crowded cluster.Moreover these are designed to detect targets and not to lock on the target. So what I mean is only fighter carrying it(jf-17 in this case) can provide initial guidance. And on top of it Klj-7 radar surely can detect ships from 130km its maximum look down range is between 85km-90km for ship borne targets and 35km for targets having RCS of 3m2. Following is the official link.

JF-17 Avionics | JF-17 Thunder

Thus, I just want to state that maybe CM-400AKG has a range of about 80km-100km with 100kg warhead which is also what 900kg weight of missile signifies. And there is no good in it if missile range is 200km but can be fired from only 80km.

Thirdly seeker of missile can only guide the missile for the final 10km-20km range, and when the missile is at this range the altitude of flying can't be 10km and even if, the apogee is not 19km because missile is angled towards the target and not vertical.Though this is not my point of discussion so no issues.

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 .

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 .

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 .

Guys he was not talking about AWACS but ground based radar like 'Greenpine' and 'LRTR' which has a detection range in excess of 650km which is not present with the Pakistan's Army or PAF. And even if I talk about AWACS, our fleet has a detection range of greater than 400km but Pakistan's fleet has detection range of 250km.

Only AESA radars can be termed better than BARS of Su-30mki. No other radar comes close. BARS of Sukhoi can easily track target in greater than 135km range for RCS of 1m2-2m2. It is hybrid radar of X band and L band and almost impossible to jam. It generates power of 8ghz-12ghz good enough to jam any non-AESA radar.

It's true our submarine fleet will fall to only 12 in 2015, but that will yet be much more than your 4-5 fleet submarine. And for your information a CBG group consist of 1 AC, 2-3 destroyers, 4 frigates, 4 corvettes and 3-4 submarines. Together they will have more than 650 missiles among which 500 are air-defecne missile. Our kolkata class destroyers will have 64 cell of Barak -8 and 32 cell of Barak-1.

 

[Safriz]

^^^ Ships cannot hide at sea....unless there is heave precipitation and large waves created by a storm..there is hardly any clutter for radars at sea..
For a radar looking down srom altitude...detecting solid metal targets such as destroyers and ACC even during heavy storms is very easy..
Probably you ate confusing land with sea..
on land ther is lots of permanent clutter such ad buildings trees and mountains..... sea is very clear flat and featureless...

The missile is for sea or near shore targets....both areas are clutter free...

 

[Secur]

^^^ Ships cannot hide at sea....unless there is heave precipitation and large waves created by a storm..there is hardly any clutter for radars at sea..
For a radar looking down srom altitude...detecting solid metal targets such as destroyers and ACC even during heavy storms is very easy..
Probably you ate confusing land with sea..
on land ther is lots of permanent clutter such ad buildings trees and mountains..... sea is very clear flat and featureless...

The missile is for sea or near shore targets....both areas are clutter free...

Try to explain that to him that a carrier doesn't have an RCS of 3m2 or 5m2 when even a Flanker has something in the range of 15m2 whilst I leave for University .

 

[Anony]

Frankly , mate , it isn't possible that both the deputy project director of JFT - the very people who manage the whole thing and the Chinese manufacturers - the very people who make the missile and Jane's - a world renowned credible source has missed the translation and got the specifications and nature of the missile wrong . Trust me , both the countries involved aren't known for either disclosing much or exaggerating . You would be surprised to know , how little the information leaks out of the project or how most information is gathered from the air shows where the JFT is marketed for export . Our mode of operation is very different from yours . We rarely acknowledge anything to the point that A100's purchase couldn't be confirmed till it was seen in Azm-e-Nau III exercise by Pakistan army . A lot of information isn't there and from what I think , it wouldn't be disclosed . But still we know about the nature , speed , its operational status and the flight profile .

Pakistan Air Force (PAF) has become the first export customer for supersonic CM-400AKG missile. The Deputy Project Director of the JF-17 Thunder/FC-1 Xiaolong fighter jet program, Air Commodore Mahmood Khalid has said, "This is a mature weapon that has been fully tested. It is not conceptual. It is in service. It hits the target at Mach 4 or above and its kinetic impact alone is enough to destroy any high-value target, like an aircraft carrier. The CM-400AKG is a very high-speed missile that is very difficult to intercept."


Doesn't a ballistic missile attain such speeds at some time during the flight ? You mention the conventional shape limited ability to sustain hypersonic speeds but it doesn't get to Mach 5 or above until the terminal dive as I explained before . The advancement in material sciences may have played a part here too . The CM400 AKG isn't believed to be based on YJ-12 but on SY 400 strategic rocket system . I think @AhaseebA can clarify the ' limitations ' part .

Thanks for the post. The source prove almost all my point what I have been stating except one:

1. It is not in the class of Brahmos, or any cruise missile.

2. It follows ballistic trajectory and thus easier to counter and easy picking for SA-N-12 SAM of Indian Navy in long range or SA-16 in short range where both the SAM travels at speed greater than Mach 2.

3. It's weight is 400kg not the warhead warhead it carries. It will have same warhead used for aerial target and that warhead weight will be nominal.

4. A missile hitting a ship at Mach 4 with fragmentation type warhead is not good enough to drown even a corvette, let alone a AC.


---------------------CARRIER KILLER------------------

 

[Agnostic_Indian]

Isn't it true , sir , that hypothetically JF-17 can detect the Flanker much earlier owing to the latter's massive RCS widely believed to be in the range of 15m2 and knowing the KlJ-7's detection range of 135 km at 5m2 ? Even though , the AWACs will nullify that advantage .

I believe it's 105 for 5m2, the other fighter I think is for blk2.

 

[Major Sam]

Firstly there is no reliable source to confirm the existence of the missile, now by saying this I don't mean that CM-400AKG doesn't exist but it may not have the range as stated or specification as stated because any ground attack missile which has a range of 220km-240km and is supersonic, can't weight less than 1.8t-2t even if it carries only 100kg-150kg warhead.

Secondly, AWACS can't provide initial guidance to the missile as the frequency in which it works are only suitable for aerial target and can't work in a crowded cluster.Moreover these are designed to detect targets and not to lock on the target. So what I mean is only fighter carrying it(jf-17 in this case) can provide initial guidance. And on top of it Klj-7 radar surely can detect ships from 130km its maximum look down range is between 85km-90km for ship borne targets and 35km for targets having RCS of 3m2. Following is the official link.

JF-17 Avionics | JF-17 Thunder

Thus, I just want to state that maybe CM-400AKG has a range of about 80km-100km with 100kg warhead which is also what 900kg weight of missile signifies. And there is no good in it if missile range is 200km but can be fired from only 80km.

Thirdly seeker of missile can only guide the missile for the final 10km-20km range, and when the missile is at this range the altitude of flying can't be 10km and even if, the apogee is not 19km because missile is angled towards the target and not vertical.Though this is not my point of discussion so no issues.



Guys he was not talking about AWACS but ground based radar like 'Greenpine' and 'LRTR' which has a detection range in excess of 650km which is not present with the Pakistan's Army or PAF. And even if I talk about AWACS, our fleet has a detection range of greater than 400km but Pakistan's fleet has detection range of 250km.

Only AESA radars can be termed better than BARS of Su-30mki. No other radar comes close. BARS of Sukhoi can easily track target in greater than 135km range for RCS of 1m2-2m2. It is hybrid radar of X band and L band and almost impossible to jam. It generates power of 8ghz-12ghz good enough to jam any non-AESA radar.

It's true our submarine fleet will fall to only 12 in 2015, but that will yet be much more than your 4-5 fleet submarine. And for your information a CBG group consist of 1 AC, 2-3 destroyers, 4 frigates, 4 corvettes and 3-4 submarines. Together they will have more than 650 missiles among which 500 are air-defecne missile. Our kolkata class destroyers will have 64 cell of Barak -8 and 32 cell of Barak-1.

Oh thats your authenticity you are taking data from wordpress blog AKA official wensite of JF 17. O man take life.

I believe it's 105 for 5m2, the other fighter I think is for blk2.

Your believe doesnt matter to us. facts matter. as recently it increased to >135 for 5m2 target. please update your self.