CX-1 Air, land and Sea lunched Cruise Missile: What will it add to Pakistan armed forces?

[The SC]

we have also CM-400AKG with a top speed of mach-4 to mach-5 but a range of 241 KM

The CX-1 can be launched from Air, sea, land and submarines too..so it is a great addition..

 

[cirr]

Give China another 10 years, and any external threat to our Pakistani brothers will be squashed the way an annoying fly is.

 

[Ultima Thule]

The CX-1 can be lunched from Air, sea, land and submarines too..so it is a great addition..

too many missile for only one mission is not good sir

 

[The SC]

too many missile for only one mission is not good sir

Same mission but lunch possibilities are more extensive..maybe just add the CX-1 where you can't launch the CM-400KG..

 

[MadDog]

Give China another 10 years, and any external threat to our Pakistani brothers will be squashed the way an annoying fly is.

With the implementation of CPEC, Pakistan and China would ultimately share the same destiny and will complement each other strategically. Our enemies have funded proxies in Xinjiang, Balochistan and FATA, all of which have been badly crushed. I am sure the sight of Chinese warships in Gwadar and Arabian Sea would be the ultimate nightmare for Pakistan's enemies.

 

[Djinn]

if saudis can have it why cant we??

He was referring to DF-21D, Saudis have DF-21. DF-21D is capable of targeting moving objects.

 

[Akasa]

The new CX-1 supersonic anti-ship cruise missile (ASCM) from the China Aerospace Science and Technology Corporation (CASC). Already, scores of images of its full-size display mock-up show an uncanny resemblance to another famous supersonic ASCM, the Mach 2.8-3.0 speed Russian-Indian BrahMos. Both share the distinctive cone-inlet air intake, a two-stage structure and similar dimensions.

A wall poster claims CX-1 has a speed of Mach 2 to Mach 3, has a radar seeker and uses a Lo-High-Lo flight profile. Other Chinese reports say its range is between 50km and 280km. This means it is likely an export model to comply with the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR). It is initially being marketed as a ground-launched anti-ship cruise missile that can be used in concert with short-range ballistic missile and artillery rockets, cued by unmanned aerial vehicles. Later versions are expected to be vertically-launched from ships and perhaps submarines.

While there is no confirmation that Russia’s NPO Mashinostroyenia sold CASC the technology from its Yakhont supersonic ASCM as it did to India to provide the basis for BrahMos, this should not be surprising. India and Russia have Russian-made Novator 3M-54 Club supersonic terminal-stage ASCMs and Zvezda Kh-31 supersonic anti-radar/ship missiles. But China has also purchased or otherwise acquired the technology to produce its own versions, the larger and longer-range YJ-12, now in Chinese service, is based on Zvezda technology and the YJ-18 is believed to be a shorter range version of the 3M-54. So CASC’s CX-1 is likely China’s third “Russian” supersonic ASCM.

A November 8 Chinese state television report on naval weapons contained a very brief view of a new missile being vertically launched from one of the PLA Navy’s two weapons testing ships. While the missile bears a resemblance to CX-1 before nose-cap release and fin extension, Chinese commentators are not unanimous that this is CX-1. But if real, then it would follow that a longer range version may be nearing PLA Navy service entry as the CX-1 version may soon be ready for export.

http://aviationweek.com/blog/updated-zhuhai-surprise-china-s-third-russian-supersonic-ascm

There are quite a number of errors in this report.

There is zero evidence that Yakhont/BrahMos technology was used in the R&D of this missile; in fact, Sivathanu Pillai, an ex-DRDO researcher, has refuted this very claim. There are numerous discrepancies between the CX-1 and the Yakhont series, even within the realm of aesthetics and physical configuration, including the size (CX-1 is significantly larger than the Yakhont) and the shape of the nosecone, among others.

There is also no evidence that this weapon can be launched from an aerial platform. The sheer length and girth of the missile, higher than that of the YJ-12 (which is already pushing the dimensional limits of the H-6's payload), makes it almost impossible for it to be mounted on any aerial platform.

Finally, the Chinese military has given no hints that this weapon will enter service with them. There are already two existing missiles that match or outperform the CX-1 in the key specifications of speed and range, namely the YJ-12 and YJ-18, that are already in active duty.

This is more practical and suitable than Brahmos. The resemblance is due the fact it has a ramjet and all such missile will have the similar configuration with annular intake to achieve the required compression ratio at higher speeds. Furthermore, to limit the range below 300 km to comply with MTCR regime, it has the same sizing but the flight profile and speeds are different.

The missile is also significantly heavier and larger than the BrahMos, warranting a VLS with Mk. 41-sized cells or a shore-based launcher.

DF-21 is one of a kind on this planet. Not even US has been able to build something like this and you think China will simply give this technology to us.

Not exactly; the US experimented with maneuvering warheads (MaRVs) on their Pershing II MRBMs.

 

[Ultima Thule]

Same mission but lunch possibilities are more extensive..maybe just add the CX-1 where you can't launch the CM-400KG..

it is your opinion, i am not convinced, we already have that capability, for ship and submarine and also air we have harpoon, Exocet, C-802, C-803 and CM-400AGK so why we need the CX-1, please tell me

 

[khanmubashir]

But DF-21 is not available for export.

you dont need to buy whole missile we just need the maneuverable reentry vehicle that can b fitted on modified local missile boosters and coastal radars sys for track & guide which doesn't come under mtcr

 

[amardeep mishra]

There is zero evidence that Yakhont/BrahMos technology was used in the R&D of this missile; in fact, Sivathanu Pillai, an ex-DRDO researcher, has refuted this very claim. There are numerous discrepancies between the CX-1 and the Yakhont series, even within the realm of aesthetics and physical configuration, including the size (CX-1 is significantly larger than the Yakhont) and the shape of the nosecone, among others.

Hi dear @SinoSoldier
Keeping aside the remarks of Sivthanu Pillai,can you kindly point out "differences in brahmos and CX-1?I tried hard to find any,but apart from perhaps weight and diameter,i couldnt find any significant differences.
CX-1 is thicker by 100mm and heavier by 500kgs(land/naval launched version)
For instance here is a video for CX-1

and here is another video

Both the missiles use exactly the same air intake design- which is understandable from the point of view that both are super-sonic. The similarity isnt just limited to the design of annular air intakes,but it also extends to the design of wings,fins and tail(which is mounted on the booster). I do smell a rat here.

 

[The SC]

it is your opinion, i am not convinced, we already have that capability, for ship and submarine and also air we have harpoon, Exocet, C-802, C-803 and CM-400AGK so why we need the CX-1, please tell me

So why have all the others missiles then? It seems, according to you, that one type is enough!?
All I mean, is if needed the CX-1 should be added to Pakistan cruise missile arsenal..it is better than Brahmos -according to Chinese experts- and less expensive for sure..

There are quite a number of errors in this report.

There is zero evidence that Yakhont/BrahMos technology was used in the R&D of this missile; in fact, Sivathanu Pillai, an ex-DRDO researcher, has refuted this very claim. There are numerous discrepancies between the CX-1 and the Yakhont series, even within the realm of aesthetics and physical configuration, including the size (CX-1 is significantly larger than the Yakhont) and the shape of the nosecone, among others.

There is also no evidence that this weapon can be launched from an aerial platform. The sheer length and girth of the missile, higher than that of the YJ-12 (which is already pushing the dimensional limits of the H-6's payload), makes it almost impossible for it to be mounted on any aerial platform.

Finally, the Chinese military has given no hints that this weapon will enter service with them. There are already two existing missiles that match or outperform the CX-1 in the key specifications of speed and range, namely the YJ-12 and YJ-18, that are already in active duty.



The missile is also significantly heavier and larger than the BrahMos, warranting a VLS with Mk. 41-sized cells or a shore-based launcher.



Not exactly; the US experimented with maneuvering warheads (MaRVs) on their Pershing II MRBMs.

Not Yakhont technology, Mainly the Oniks (onyx) one, the Russian cruise missile on which the Brahmos is based..Thy call it Yakhont/Oniks now..

 

[Akasa]

Hi dear @SinoSoldier
Keeping aside the remarks of Sivthanu Pillai,can you kindly point out "differences in brahmos and CX-1?I tried hard to find any,but apart from perhaps weight and diameter,i couldnt find any significant differences.
CX-1 is thicker by 100mm and heavier by 500kgs(land/naval launched version)
For instance here is a video for CX-1

and here is another video

Both the missiles use exactly the same air intake design- which is understandable from the point of view that both are super-sonic. The similarity isnt just limited to the design of annular air intakes,but it also extends to the design of wings,fins and tail(which is mounted on the booster). I do smell a rat here.

The air intake is not exactly the same across both platforms.

Take a look here: http://www.china-defense-mashup.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/63454_387077_106066-300x160.jpg and here http://www.rocketryforum.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=101424&d=1350641847. It is apparent that the CX-1 nosecone is biconic while that of the BrahMos is not.

The similarities of the fins is not really indicative of any imitation; unrelated missiles such as the GQM-163 Coyote and the Kh-31 also exhibit similarities.

 

[Basel]

it is your opinion, i am not convinced, we already have that capability, for ship and submarine and also air we have harpoon, Exocet, C-802, C-803 and CM-400AGK so why we need the CX-1, please tell me

We need YJ-18 for new subs and ships and YJ-12 with ARM version for Air force. They are very potent weapons.

But CX-1 may be good for PA to take out targets rapidly specially radars, SAM sites etc, it will allow punch of subsonic + supersonic precision strike capability.

 

[amardeep mishra]

It is apparent that the CX-1 nosecone is biconic while that of the BrahMos is not.

@SinoSoldier
Thank you for pointing that out but That is again a very basic difference.It determines the nature of shock wave though. I am stunned as to why chinese designers "choose" the kind of profile exactly similar to brahmos. They could have choosen a different intake- afterall the purpose is to compress the air to desired level. I believe there would be some degree of cooperation between russian and chinese labs in this regard.As for the true range of brahmos,it is much higher than 300kms. However it is MTCR "limited" to 300kms. There is some sort of mechanical construct in the engine design that limits the range to the MTCR specifications. Otherwise,with the amount of fuel it carries,it can easily do 500kms.

 

[Akasa]

@SinoSoldier
Thank you for pointing that out but That is again a very basic difference.It determines the nature of shock wave though. I am stunned as to why chinese designers "choose" the kind of profile exactly similar to brahmos. They could have choosen a different intake- afterall the purpose is to compress the air to desired level. I believe there would be some degree of cooperation between russian and chinese labs in this regard.

The implications of their similarities are blown out of proportion. There are countless reasons, engineering or otherwise, why they settled on an aesthetically-comparable design; granted, it's not being ruled out that the Chinese did not seek to emulate the specifications and/or configuration of the BrahMos, but the allegation that they did so by using Russian technology is both unfounded and unlikely.