Malaysia eyes Air Launched BrahMos?

[skysthelimit]

@skysthelimit @Kloitra @Secur @Agnostic_Indian Furthermore compare the air-frame of the AKG and the SY-400 SRBM.

This isn't just a passing resembance, the air-frame is exactly the same with only the control surface arrangement being different between the two versions of the AKG (the AGM version is an exact replica of the SY-400 while the ASM version has a different design for the forward control surfaces). The reason why people have opined that its a YJ-12 derivative* is because of its (AKG) flight path. In SY-400's case the AKG not only shares the same flight path (minus the boost phase) but also the same air-frame.

* (something that people have picked up from wiki and thus are assuming it to be a CM like the YJ platform. None of them bothered to open the link shown as reference for stating that the AKG is a YJ derivative, had they done so they would find that the link cited doesn't state that at all. Here's the cited link- China Develops CM-400AKG Pakistan's Hypersonic Carrier Killer Missile For JF-17 | ASIAN DEFENCE NEWS. That's the thing with Wiki- it can provide highly accurate information BUT only if you actually read the cited link AND check its veracity)

Dude, they may be identical twins for all it matters. But the fact is, Ballistic Missiles follow a ballistic path (duh!) which is roughly a parabola, with an initial boost phase and is effectively unpowered for the rest of the path (except for minimal terminal guidance). But a Cruise Missile like AKG will be powered throughout its path irrespective of the altitude it maintains. Are you arguing that this is not true?

And Dillinger, why are going on about AKG in a Brahmos thread? Create a new thread if you want to discuss this.

 

[Dillinger]

Dude, they may be identical twins for all it matters. But the fact is, Ballistic Missiles follow a ballistic path (duh!) which is roughly a parabola, with an initial boost phase and is effectively unpowered for the rest of the path (except for minimal terminal guidance). But a Cruise Missile like AKG will be powered throughout its path irrespective of the altitude it maintains. Are you arguing that this is not true?

And Dillinger, why are going on about AKG in a Brahmos thread? Create a new thread if you want to discuss this.

The topic was brought up by other members. Again, you are missing the point- there are DTBMs and Quasi-SRBMs (in fact the Indian B0-5 itself is a quasi BM- had you known this you would have understood that a BM based air launched AGM is not going to follow a ballistic path because it doesn't need to nor does it need to gain a very great altitude because it is precision guided tactical weapon) that do not follow a strictly ballistic trajectory. I already pointed out to you that the AKG is not a CM- it has not even been designated as such- unless you have a better idea of what it is than CASIC then that's another case. Perhaps you don't understand that picking up a BM air-frame with a solid fueled engine is NOT the way to build a CM. Please look up the performance parameters for a solid-fuel rocket motor- otherwise this will turn into an exercise in futility. The AKG is running on a pulsed rocket motor or at least one that can be throttled and its tactical range and small warhead discount the need for a pure ballistic trajectory and un-powered re-entry.

On point look up the 9K720 Iskander which follows a relatively flat trajectory- i.e. not a purely ballistic one, doesn't leave the atmosphere, is powered into a 90 degree dive on its target at low altitude and is still firmly categorized as a TBM.

In fact the closest counterpart of the AKG is the AS-16 Kickback which has a speed in excess of mach 4.5 and terminal speeds reaching mach 5, a solid fuel rocket for propulsion, is an air launched article and has a range of 300km. In fact its flight path is EXACTLY the same as that of the AKG. It is firmly classified as an air to surface missile and NOT as a CM- so unless GRAU got the designation wrong too then your point is rendered invalid. A ballistic trajectory is followed not because someone is obsessive about sticking to semantically accurate applications of the term but for the reason of function and necessity- an air launched variant on the other hand does not require to follow a ballistic trajectory nor will it be a CM either though.

 

[Secur]

@Dillinger @skysthelimit @Kloitra @DESERT FIGHTER

To make it brief for you of what we know , about the weapon system from the Pakistani and Chinese sources until now , you boys are so keen on discussing .

It is widely known that it is a quasi-ballistic missile which isn't hypersonic during its whole flight time but during the terminal dive reaching speeds of around < Mach 5.5 , leave the kinetic impact energy part for now . After the launch , it attains a high altitude and flies at supersonic speeds during the flight and later terminates with hypersonic dive at the target . Besides , its ' fire and forget ' and fully capable of flying autonomously under AW conditions , the CASIC offers different seeker configurations . It is speculated to be derived from SY-400 rocket system . The cruise altitude of the CM400-AKG is reported to be >50 KM . In my personal opinion , It is neither a cruise missile nor a purely ballistic one.

@Dillinger

You are getting it wrong , Brahmos and CM400-AKG are different missiles for different roles . The latter utilizes sheer speed and perform limited maneuvers for low response for the defensive systems whilst at the same time , keeping the cost down to the point that it can be deployed in large numbers , for salvo attacks . According to the Jane's International , the missile was designed for the JFT and the aircraft can carry 2 of them without any structural modifications at all which is a tremendous advantage in itself . The system in question was bought by Pakistan to diversify its anti-ship arsenal , even though the missile makes for a good enough weapon for land targets too , the Pakistan Navy already has C802/C803 for sea skimming ( upto 7 meters ) , low radar reflectivity and strong ECCM , you talk of . You do not have the required carrier at the moment nor the naval air power to achieve the BARCAP , my friend , by the time you get it , PN air arm will get two squadrons of JFT equipped with C802/C803 and CM400 AKG for maritime defense roles , the cat and mouse game will continue .

 

[Dillinger]

@Dillinger @skysthelimit @Kloitra @DESERT FIGHTER

To make it brief for you of what we know , about the weapon system from the Pakistani and Chinese sources until now , you boys are so keen on discussing .

It is widely known that it is a quasi-ballistic missile which isn't hypersonic during its whole flight time but during the terminal dive reaching speeds of around < Mach 5.5 . After the launch , it attains a high altitude and flies at supersonic speeds during the flight and later terminates with hypersonic dive at the target . Besides , its ' fire and forget ' and fully capable of flying autonomously under AW conditions , the CASIC offers different seeker configurations . The cruise altitude of the CM400-AKG is reported to be >50 KM . In my personal opinion , It is neither a cruise missile nor a purely ballistic one.

@Dillinger

You are getting it wrong , Brahmos and CM400-AKG are different missiles for different roles . The latter utilizes sheer speed and perform limited maneuvers for low response for the defensive systems whilst at the same time , keeping the cost down to the point that it can be deployed in large numbers , for salvo attacks . According to the Jane's , the missile was designed for the JFT and the aircraft can carry 2 of them without any structural modifications at all which is a tremendous advantage in itself . The system in question was bought by Pakistan to diversify its anti-ship arsenal , even though the missile makes for a good enough weapon for land targets too , the Pakistan Navy already has C802/C803 for sea skimming ( upto 7 meters ) , low radar reflectivity and strong ECCM , you talk of . You do not have the required carrier at the moment nor the naval air power to achieve the BARCAP , my friend , by the time you get it , PN air arm will get two squadrons of JFT equipped with C802/C803 and CM400 AKG for maritime defense roles , the cat and mouse game will continue .

Dude, 4 fulcrum-Ks is all that is required in rotation, flying in fuel saving loiter for a BARCAP. A complement of 20 Fulcrum-ks, carrier based Kamov AEW&C and shore based AEW&C aircraft is all that is needed for flying a BARCAP.

Nor was I comparing the roles of BrahMos and the AKG- I just gave a brief on it to BDforever who had commented on lack of sea skimming mode on the AKG- with related disadvantages and advantages (like high alt flight path keeping it out of the reach of most SAM systems). That led to that long exchange on various flight paths and terminal phase characteristics. Something that everyone seems to forget is that our CBG will as it is maintain a certain distance from the coast due to your land based C-602 ASCMs. A BARCAP dosen't require a dozen aircraft in the air- considering that the threat axis that can be employed by PAF/PN is very limited and that all BARCAPs are oriented along the primary threat axis- and Fulcrum-K has the required combat radius to maintain a BARCAP. You can verify this quite easily. The game of cat and mouse is obviously going to continue- but a carrier killer this weapon is not. Although we should take this to a different thread @Secur- before we flood it with other posters pitching in and my OT posts.

 

[Secur]

@Dillinger

If you are trying to paint a no-win scenario , then I must tell you that I dont believe in one , leave it for another thread , mate You know what I think might be the reason for all the confusion , because the lines between cruise and ballistic missiles have somehow blurred with the latter taking a few features of the former . Yeah , I was happy to see the positive and healthy discussion/debate that was going on here in a civil manner , now that would be a completely different thing that it wasn't related to the thread

 

[Dillinger]

@Dillinger

If you are trying to paint a no-win scenario , then I must tell you that I dont believe in one , leave it for another thread , mate You know what I think might be the reason for all the confusion , because the lines between cruise and ballistic missiles have somehow blurred with the latter taking a few features of the former . Yeah , I was happy to see the positive and healthy discussion/debate that was going on here in a civil manner , now that would be a completely different thing that it wasn't related to the thread

Its not a no-win scenario at all. Its not as if the Fulcrum-Ks will reach karachi or Gwadar without your shore based sensors detecting them- nor will your ADGE be taking a nap. The point is that under current circumstances, penetration of the BARCAP is not probable. Air craft inventories will change by the next decade- weapons will probably remain the same- but the scenarios will change too. A J-10B would have the sufficient CR to try and bypass the BARCAP given its current composition since we need something better than the Kamov-31 and cannot perpetually depend upon shore based AEW&C support- although the geography strongly supports such a scheme.

Don't believe in a no-win scenario hunh- James Tiberius Kirk?

 

[DeathInvader]

BD also getting Su30 by 2016-2017, will you sell us BrahMos ?

Buy it from ebay

 

[sancho]

You are getting it wrong , Brahmos and CM400-AKG are different missiles for different roles . The latter utilizes sheer speed and perform limited maneuvers for low response for the defensive systems whilst at the same time , keeping the cost down to the point that it can be deployed in large numbers , for salvo attacks . According to the Jane's International , the missile was designed for the JFT and the aircraft can carry 2 of them without any structural modifications at all which is a tremendous advantage in itself . The system in question was bought by Pakistan to diversify its anti-ship arsenal , even though the missile makes for a good enough weapon for land targets too , the Pakistan Navy already has C802/C803 for sea skimming ( upto 7 meters ) , low radar reflectivity and strong ECCM , you talk of .You do not have the required carrier at the moment nor the naval air power to achieve the BARCAP , my friend , by the time you get it , PN air arm will get two squadrons of JFT equipped with C802/C803 and CM400 AKG for maritime defense roles , the cat and mouse game will continue .

Don't you get bored to claim the same wrong things again and again in every Brahmos thread? Especially based on Jane's, that most Pakistani members here consider as not reliable?
CM400-AKG is not a supersonic missile, since it is subsonic for most of it's flightpath, so it utilizes speed unlike Brahmos, that can reach long distance targets within minutes. The only commonality both has is, the high kinematic energy in the actual strike.
Moreover, the missile definitely is not designed for JF 17, since any Chinces fighter could carry it, but even funnier is your claim that it has anything to do with anti ship, since not even the Chinese sources says that, only the Jane's article that sold it as a carrier killer, to make it more sensational.
And from a tactical point it makes even less sense, since India don't need carriers and naval fighters to attack Pakistans coastlines, when IN has Kilo subs with land attack capability, IA has land based Brahmos and not to mention IAF's fighters that are far closer than any carrier would be.
So before PN might be able to use fighters against IN carriers, their airbases will most likely be attacked anyway, because PN don't have the defence capability to take on IN, let alone the land based assets of IA and IAF too.

I bet when I search for the last 10 Brahmos threads in this section, I will find your comments to it and CM400-AKG as well right? What does it tell about you or your aims?

 

[Secur]

I bet when I search for the last 10 Brahmos threads in this section, I will find your comments to it and CM400-AKG as well right? What does it tell about you or your aims?

Yeah , India wins again as I was expecting for someone to come and say , didn't really think that it would be fellow Jr.TT who couldn't do his own research . Not interested in refuting anything since well its ' head I win , tail you lose ' scenario being put down . I didn't make it up , now did I ? How come it is my fault , if every single Chinese , Pakistani and Jane is not credible for you ?

You bet I didn't bring this topic up here nor in any Brahmos thread , search for the last 100 , go ahead , off topic things are what I hate the most , had to comment though since the members were discussing in a positive manner . Now , you haven't got a problem with that , have you ?

 

[sancho]

Yeah , India wins again as I was expecting for someone to come and say , didn't really think that it would be fellow Jr.TT who couldn't do his own research

As you often prove, Jr TTs can be trolls as well and de-rail threads from topic with the same fake points again and again, but repeating them doesn't make them true!
I don't care much about discussion with you who wins, nor about about the missiles, but you always use any Brahmos thread to make an Brahmos vs CM400-AKG, or India vs Pakistan out of it. The title however clearly shows, that it's about Malaysia and the possibility of buying the air launched Brahmos. So any member is welcomed to add to this topic, while especially Jr TTs shouldn't de-reail it and create off topic discussions and blame games!

Btw, unlike you, I took the Chinese sources as the base and not a cheap article in Jane's that summed up some of their speculations. That's why I consider the CM400-AKG as an air to ground missile, while the C802 is the anti ship missiles just like the Chinese do.

 

[Secur]

As you often prove, Jr TTs can be trolls as well and de-rail threads from topic with the same fake points again and again, but repeating them doesn't make them true!

There's a report button below my posts , click it , post the reason and then click ' Submit ' . Simple .

You claimed something about me posting stuff about CM400-AKG , right ? Except for this one , where I only commented because some members weren't clear about the nature of the missile classifying it as ' cruise missile ' , I challenge you to find a single Brahmos thread where I have done so . Go ahead !

Prove what you have said here in your posts .

but you always use any Brahmos thread to make an Brahmos vs CM400-AKG, or India vs Pakistan out of it

I bet when I search for the last 10 Brahmos threads in this section, I will find your comments to it and CM400-AKG as well right? What does it tell about you or your aims?

Don't you get bored to claim the same wrong things again and again in every Brahmos thread?

Or do yourself a favor and check whom I quoted and what was the first thing I said . FYI , this is my post here .

@Dillinger

First of all , where did CM-400 AKG got into a Brahmos thread again ?

Are you sure that quasi-ballistic isn't the word , you are looking for , in all these posts ?

Cruise missiles do not have to change their trajectory throughout the flight profile to be known as such , maneuverability isn't the whole criteria for a missile to be classified as such .

So , much for playing blame games , right ?

 

[Dillinger]

@sancho Oh yaara @Secur didn't bring up the topic at all. In fact it was started by others and you'll find more posts on AKG under my handle than his in this thread. Someone brought up the advantages and disadvantages of a sea skimming flight profile (noting its absence in the AKG) up and that's when I jumped in. A lot of people were throwing about relatively inaccurate info so I tried to clear some stuff out and that required quite a bit of elucidation regarding CBG SOPs, flight paths and BM/CM arguments, Secur just summed it up yaara. A little bit of josh e khitabat is expected man, you won't see him trying to bury his head in the sand if presented with factual information nor does he take said information in without questions and validations. Peace yaaron.