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.
Last edited by a moderator: