Malaysia eyes Air Launched BrahMos?

[BDforever]

Not comparing, you stated that it ( the "it" here being Brahmos and ergo my mentioning of Brahmos) was not sea skimming- corrected that. You stated that the C803 has a speed of Mach-2, not entirely correct, since it only achieves said velocity in the terminal phase. Just putting out the right info yaara.

LMAO read it again, we were talking about CM400AKG

 

[DESERT FIGHTER]

1.Nirbhay travelled at least 25% of its range before crashing.Babur just 17 km in first,22km second.None of them something to brag about i admit.
2.Ok.
3.True,but again pakistan air defence network too is not complete and modern.
4.CM-400 AKG has range of 180 km to max 240 km.Brahmos 280-290.
Here's the gig,cm-400AKG is launched by jf-17 whose radar can pick up naval sized targets at aroudn 130 km..negating most of the range.
5.I have no doubt its capable missile..and no officer will trounce the missile his force just bought.Still there are limitations to the 'carrier killer',its not manueverable,and can't hit fast targets,the jf-17s radar and that it will have to face mig-29ks,Shipborne phased array radars like ones on kolkata class can track jf-17 RCS targets at 300 km-400km.There will aslo be airborne early warning aircraft like helix or an AWACS from IAF around CBG.
6.Yes the verson to be tested is around 750 km.But operational requirement is 1000 km and when inducted it will be that range..though as u say will take time.Pakistan clearly has taken a lead in this area with babur.
7.There is one difference between klub/yakhont and cm-400akg..it ability to conduct rapid evasive manuevering .Even CIWS can potentially shoot down high mach targets that don't manuevre.But yes no system is foolproof and can't be said absolutelty certain.But we will use layered system of decoys,barak-8,shtil-1,barak-1 and CIWS.

1)I dnt know abt Babur travelling 17 or 22km... but im sure its a success ... unless it wasnt it wouldnt had been put in service nor cannisterised or had a naval version under development with 1000+ range ( i provided the source to you in another thread).
3)And how is that sir... ?
4)Its range is 180- 250KM.... (i can provide sources if you want)..thts just 30-40km less than brahmos.
5)Each JF can carry 2x CM-400AKGs... also the rcs of a fully loaded JF-17 is pretty small...reducing the detection rage.. and JF-17 will be also backed by AWACs... (Also read the news abt GoP releasing 1.3-5 billion $ for the purchase of 36-50 J-10Bs in the relative threads... hopefully will be confirmed in a month or two)..
6)Sir all sources are quoting 700km not 750km..
7)Again not much is known abt CM400 anyways... also the news abt it gaining high altitude (barak-8 etc unable to reach the altitude) before impact n going into supersonic mode 5+mach would make it much harded to counter..(see the thread link i posted... pretty logical arguements)...

 

[Dillinger]

LMAO read it again, we were talking about CM400AKG

Ami pagal hoye gaechi, chokher drishti gayob hoe gache.

 

[Kloitra]

Interception depends on speed if the interceptor is in tail-chase mode. But most instances of
CM-400AKG popping up against IN CBGs will see the IN interceptors facing the missile - i.e. head-on
mode.

Speed is irrelevant because the radar calculates the incoming missile's trajectory and the interceptor
(say, a Barak-2) simply goes and stands in the way of AKG - hitting it and deflecting it/destroying it.

This is particularly true because there is no mention of evasive maneuvering capability on the AKG.

The advantage provided by the speed is impact velocity - an object coming at 500m/s does more
damage than one coming at 250m/s. And reaction time (but this is largely redundant
if the ship's radar's can see the planes coming from more than 400km away) The speed in itself does not help the missile dodge/escape
interceptors.

Speed reduces available reaction time.

Second, cruise missiles can change course, so there is no fixed trajectory to be determined. That is limited to unguided rockets or ballistic missiles.

Now combine the two, think of a supersonic missile suddenly changing its course, it would be much harder to intercept.

 

[DESERT FIGHTER]

There are 2 versions of Nirbhay - one 1,200km variant for ALCM role from Su-30MKI,
and one 750km variant for ALCM role from Jaguar DARIN-III & Rafale MMRCA.

The SLCM will end up with 1,200km range too.

Provide a source for your claim.

You can google the sources... also i couldnt find a source claiming 1200km ranged nirbhay.

I'm sure you know about the SY-400 tactical missile, don't you?

The CM-400AKG airframe is derived from that missile.

Now tell me, what is SY-400's max velocity when diving at the target from a vertical envelop?

It's between Mach 4 and Mach 5 as per most sources I came across.

So how come CM-400AKG achieve Mach 5.5 in a horizontal flight profile? Does it have a SCRAMJET
engine?

It is simply against the laws of physics

View this thread.. most of the answers to ur questions are given there anyways:

http://www.defence.pk/forums/indian-defence/256774-cm-400akg-tough-job-indian-navy-29.html

- the PAF officer is either confused or is trying to keep the
enemy guessing. The latter being the most likely aspect.

You must take such extravagant specs with a pinch of salt.

Again nobody except the PAF or the Chinese know abt it...

yes and another disadvantage is that it is not sea skimming. I think C803 sea skimming with a range of 300km at mach 2 is good option, BD is going for it.

Its already in the PAF,PN inventory..

 

[AUSTERLITZ]

1)I dnt know abt Babur travelling 17 or 22km... but im sure its a success ... unless it wasnt it wouldnt had been put in service nor cannisterised or had a naval version under development with 1000+ range ( i provided the source to you in another thread).
3)And how is that sir... ?
4)Its range is 180- 250KM.... (i can provide sources if you want)..thts just 30-40km less than brahmos.
5)Each JF can carry 2x CM-400AKGs... also the rcs of a fully loaded JF-17 is pretty small...reducing the detection rage.. and JF-17 will be also backed by AWACs... (Also read the news abt GoP releasing 1.3-5 billion $ for the purchase of 36-50 J-10Bs in the relative threads... hopefully will be confirmed in a month or two)..
6)Sir all sources are quoting 700km not 750km..
7)Again not much is known abt CM400 anyways... also the news abt it gaining high altitude (barak-8 etc unable to reach the altitude) before impact n going into supersonic mode 5+mach would make it much harded to counter..(see the thread link i posted... pretty logical arguements)...

1]Yes i'm sure babur had its kinks worked out,PA being professional force wouldn't put useless missile in service.In this area pak has large lead atm.As for nirbhay failure all i wanted to say was that its not end of the world simlar missiles like babaur had suffered same problems during their first test.I'm not dissing babur.
3]Pakistan doesn't really have SAMs optimised for intercepting cruise missiles.Whether HQ-9[based on s-300] is operational is doubtful,even if it does it provides limited defense against CMs,reason russians built pantsir specifically to intercept PGMS,CMs and protect s-300/s-400 battery.HQ-9 would be much more effective against aircraft.spada is not much use in this regard.
Spyder, and more importantly BARAK-LRSAM is a system derived from barak-8 with greater range was designed to intercept NLOS-BSM and especially cruise missiles[its main mission in naval role to intercept cruise missiles].Thats what i meant.
4]Yes,and thats still substantial.Gessler explained the rest above.
5]RCS of 'fully loaded' planes is always substantial,and these are ship based AESA radars.much more larger and powerful than aircraft based tiny aesa radars.Also a CBG can expect one AWACS support of its own,and definitely airborne AEW aircraft out to 150 km odd which will detect.Mig-29k will challenge any jf-17s.
6]Hmm-700 for now..but operational version has been throughout maintained at 1000 km.
7]Wrong ...high altitude is bad.U just made urself perfect picture on all radars.Sea skimming is the problem for radars and missiles.Also every missile has to come down eventually..and cm-400 gains its speed in this phase,i.e is goes hypersonic when it climbs down..if it stays up its subsonic.Because it can't manuevre and its high trajectory enabling it to be more easily detected on radar its easier to intercept than sea skimmer.

One last thing i see NO one has pointed out-and this is most important.
Its not as simple as launching jf-17s and saying go find and kill carrier,u have to locate the carrier battle group in the vast ocean either by aircraft or satellite and most difficult part distinguish carrier from rest of ships.U have to have a source that keeps feeding this information updated to missile while CBG is moving until missile is launched and pretty close to the ships when it can switch on its own seeker and guidance.

 

[Dillinger]

You can google the sources... also i couldnt find a source claiming 1200km ranged nirbhay.





View this thread.. most of the answers to ur questions are given there anyways:

http://www.defence.pk/forums/indian-defence/256774-cm-400akg-tough-job-indian-navy-29.html



Again nobody except the PAF or the Chinese know abt it...



Its already in the PAF,PN inventory..

We did read through the thread, the mach-5+ velocity was achieved during the terminal phase- that is the dive phase- it doesn't have a sustained velocity of that speed through its flight profile. That's the fist bit, second the speed itself is a non-issue, its range is insufficient against a CBG because of the BARCAP- a JFT driver flying into a mig screen is not exactly ideal. Furthermore I have already provided info on interception of similar inbounds at low altitudes with relatively primitive Indian interceptors with Russian RF seekers leave alone a far more advanced interceptor vehicle.

 

[Gessler]

Speed reduces available reaction time.

Second, cruise missiles can change course, so there is no fixed trajectory to be determined. That is limited to unguided rockets or ballistic missiles.

Now combine the two, think of a supersonic missile suddenly changing its course, it would be much harder to intercept.

AKG is not a cruise missile.

 

[Kloitra]

AKG is not a cruise missile.

Cruise missile - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A cruise missile is a guided missile, the major portion of whose flight path to its target (a land-based or sea-based target) is conducted at approximately constant velocity; that relies on the dynamic reaction of air for lift, and upon propulsion forces to balance drag.

AKG is guided, has a long cruise phase, is not ballistic in path so gets lift from air and uses propulsion for entire flight path, including the cruise phase.

Besides, thats not even the point. If a high speed incoming missile also has an ability to change course, it is hard to intercept.

 

[Dillinger]

Cruise missile - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


AKG is guided, has a long cruise phase, is not ballistic in path so gets lift from air and uses propulsion for entire flight path, including the cruise phase.

Besides, thats not even the point. If a high speed incoming missile also has an ability to change course, it is hard to intercept.

Correction, the AKG does indeed have a ballistic trajectory (not throughout its flight profile) rather than a cruise profile (it might sustain a level cruise after having attained a certain altitude but that will NOT impart any benefit as such, CMs are not dangerous because they cruise- they are dangerous when they cruise at an altitude that puts them within the radar clutter zone). In fact if you check the official releases on the system in the previous thread you will clearly find that it attains a very high altitude after launch- follows a trajectory and dives into the target. Secondly, the maneuvering is no issue at all, the interceptor vehicle its up against has a lateral acceleration of 80g- wrap your mind around that. A head on intercept does not require the interceptor to have a greater velocity than the inbound.

Let me clear this up. The reason a CM is more dangerous, the reason that all countries have resorted to CMs even if they be subsonic (usually with its terminal phase being supersonic) is that the low cruise profile brings it below the radar horizon (exploiting the radar clutter zone) ergo even the best systems from the MF-STAR to the SPY-2 can only detect such a threat 30-40km away. CM detection and interception (specially for high speed CMs) requires an AEW&C detecting the inbound further out and then providing a firing solution to the SAM. The same is not the case with the AKG, its high altitude flight profile makes it rather easy to detect, in fact all the way out to its launch point which falls within the MF-STAR's expressly stated detection range for high altitude ac/inbounds. Whether it changes course or maneuvers, the requirement is to actively illuminate the target with a missile fire-control director throughout the flight- and high lateral acceleration on the interceptor vehicle.

For all those who want to opine on how this will play out against a CBG, for the love of the lord first find out what a BARCAP, Outer air battle zone, silent SAM and missile trap tactics are.

 

[Gessler]

To what extent is AKG capable of changing it's course?

Is it capable of evasive maneuvers like the "S-Curve" done by BrahMos?

Speed reduces available reaction time.

This aspect is redundant in case of AKG because the launch platform itself would be
seen by ship-borne AESAs like MF-STAR out to 400km. When the missile comes within
range, the SAMs will infact be waiting for it.

Therefore there is no question of reaction time.

Secondly, AKG appears to be subsonic for most of it's flight profile and attains high-supersonic
speeds only in terminal stage. That gives us more time in the cruise stage.

 

[Dillinger]

To what extent is AKG capable of changing it's course?

Is it capable of evasive maneuvers like the "S-Curve" done by BrahMos?



This aspect is redundant in case of AKG because the launch platform itself would be
seen by ship-borne AESAs like MF-STAR out to 400km. When the missile comes within
range, the SAMs will infact be waiting for it.

Therefore there is no question of reaction time.

Secondly, AKG appears to be subsonic for most of it's flight profile and attains high-supersonic
speeds only in terminal stage. That gives us more time in the cruise stage.

Correction, from what has been seen so far by some of the references provided, it is not subsonic in its earlier flight phase (unless you have a reference stating otherwise- do provide it if possible). Regardless, all of that is academic at the moment since every single one who has played out any scenario involving the AKG against a CBG has done so without any knowledge of how a CBG operates. Let me provide a simple point, with a range of 180-250km it will force any carrying vehicle to engage with the BARCAP components on a fuel saving loiter along the primary threat axis at 350+ km out from the CBG. That alone will be enough of a deterrent against a JFT or J-10 (in the future), such strike elements cannot be afforded AEW&C cover since said platform cannot perform a race track patrol with sufficient detection depth (for all who may wonder why, pick up a map please).

As to what effect it will have on the CBG- it will force it to keep a certain amount of distance from the coast and operate more judiciously- that's all.

 

[faithfulguy]

I have been reading about potential Brahmos exports to Malaysia, Vietnam, Equador, etc for yars now - but nothing has ever materialized. And now we have reports on exports of a missile that hasn't even been tested yet.

Frankly, I am very sceptical.

After cry wolves so many time, its easy to lose the trust.

 

[Kloitra]

Correction, the AKG does indeed have a ballistic trajectory (not throughout its flight profile) rather than a cruise profile (it might sustain a level cruise after having attained a certain altitude but that will NOT impart any benefit as such, CMs are not dangerous because they cruise- they are dangerous when they cruise at an altitude that puts them within the radar clutter zone). In fact if you check the official releases on the system in the previous thread you will clearly find that it attains a very high altitude after launch- follows a trajectory and dives into the target. Secondly, the maneuvering is no issue at all, the interceptor vehicle its up against has a lateral acceleration of 80g- wrap your mind around that. A head on intercept does not require the interceptor to have a greater velocity than the inbound.

No, AKG doesn't have a ballistic trajectory. This is a ballistic trajectory:

A cruise missile generally follow this trajectory:

The missile has to make a compromise between four. Its weight, its range, its speed and altitude. If you want it light and long, you have to keep it slow and high. If you go for terrain hugging mode, you are bleeding energy fast. If you make it fast, than again its bleeding energy. Even BrahMos has high altitude for cruise phase:

BRAHMOS Supersonic Cruise Missile - BrahMos.com

Its cruising altitude could be up to 15 km and terminal altitude is as low as 10 meters.

The altitude is kept high for as long as possible.

Second, manoeuvring is an issue, cause how much the lateral acceleration can a interceptor have is not the only limiting factor. There is a delay of sensing, electronics, computation of new trajectory, and also, every maneuver reduces the already limited range of the interceptor. For a mach 4 interceptor vs mach .8 missile, 150 m would be covered in almost 0.1 seconds. Any change the incoming missile make would leave very little time for interceptor to adjust.

About the 80 g acceleration. Circular acceleration is v^2/r. It means for same radius circle, a mach 4 missile would have to have 25 times higher acceleration (g) than a mach 0.8 missile. That is, if a mach .8 missile makes a 10 g turn, the interceptor would have to have many times higher acceleration to keep up.

Let me clear this up. The reason a CM is more dangerous, the reason that all countries have resorted to CMs even if they be subsonic (usually with its terminal phase being supersonic) is that the low cruise profile brings it below the radar horizon (exploiting the radar clutter zone) ergo even the best systems from the MF-STAR to the SPY-2 can only detect such a threat 30-40km away. CM detection and interception (specially for high speed CMs) requires an AEW&C detecting the inbound further out and then providing a firing solution to the SAM. The same is not the case with the AKG, its high altitude flight profile makes it rather easy to detect, in fact all the way out to its launch point which falls within the MF-STAR's expressly stated detection range for high altitude ac/inbounds. Whether it changes course or maneuvers, the requirement is to actively illuminate the target with a missile fire-control director throughout the flight- and high lateral acceleration on the interceptor vehicle.

CM vs BM is debatable. What CM achieves with terrain hugging, BM does with sheer speed. The difficulty lies with CM is its detection which, as you mentioned, is solved by AEW&C. BM, you know its coming, and you just watch it hit you. If you think speed doesn't pose a problem, why would anti-ballistic systems would be such a difficult task? Ballistic missiles have a very simple and predictable path. Once you know the initial trajectory, you can predict entire flight path. Problem lies with their speed.

To what extent is AKG capable of changing it's course?

Is it capable of evasive maneuvers like the "S-Curve" done by BrahMos?



This aspect is redundant in case of AKG because the launch platform itself would be
seen by ship-borne AESAs like MF-STAR out to 400km. When the missile comes within
range, the SAMs will infact be waiting for it.

Therefore there is no question of reaction time.

Secondly, AKG appears to be subsonic for most of it's flight profile and attains high-supersonic
speeds only in terminal stage. That gives us more time in the cruise stage.

The selling point of BrahMos is its speed. And there is not much know about AKG, so all we can make are hypothesis.

 

[Agnostic_Indian]

@Kloitra
http://www.golivewire.com/forums/img.cgi?s=165382