What's new

China's Mach 6 air-to-air missile (VLRAAM) at 200 miles successful | Popular Science

pakistanipower said:
its a anti AWACS and ISR missile, not intended to intercept fighter jets
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K-100_(missile)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-37_(missile)
Click to expand...

China one has already successfully tested against an airborne drone target while these missile you mention so far are just mock-up, proposal ,prototype and study only. The technical capabilities of making a missile able to hit airborne target 300km away is just far too great and not easy. They have not demonstrated in test so far.

I can bet China one will enter service in few years time.
 
.
Martian2 said:
US will probably develop its own Mach 6 air-to-air missile. SM-6 is useless for defense against VLRAAM.

The American SM-6 is probably useless against the Chinese VLRAAM.

The Chinese VLRAAM has a terminal velocity of Mach 6.
The SM-6 has a top speed of Mach 3.5.
As the Chinese VLRAAM accelerates downward towards the target with the help of gravity, the much slower SM-6 cannot match its speed.

The Chinese VLRAAM is fired by a fighter jet against another fighter jet. Since the SM-6 is carried on a very slow boat, the SM-6 will not be available at the location of a jet fighter engagement.

The Chinese VLRAAM has a range of 250-300 miles. The SM-6 has an official range of 150 miles. Since an SM-6 has half the range of a Chinese VLRAAM, the ship carrying the SM-6 would be well within the range of Chinese supersonic anti-ship missiles (and anti-ballistic missiles).

In conclusion, the American SM-6 is too slow and has too short a range against a maneuverable Chinese Mach 6 hypersonic missile. The SM-6 is not a viable defensive weapon. More likely, the US will need to develop its own Mach 6 air-to-air missile with very-long-range (VLRAAM) for jet fighter defense.
Click to expand...
I beg to differ:
  • The Chinese VLRAAM is (also, if not mostly) intended for use agains AEWC platforms rather than other fighters.
  • The kill probability (Pk) is determined by several factors, including aspect (head-on interception, side-on or tail-chase), altitude, the speed of the missile and the target, and how hard the target can turn. You are assuming a 'tail chase'. However, in a defensive situation involving an E2 Hawkeye, a 'head-on' aspect or even 'side-on' aspect is far more likely to be the case. Clearly, when the missile engages head-on, it doesn't need to match target speed.
  • Also, when at mach 6 and not yet in terminal phase, would the VLRAAM be very manoeuvrable? From what I gather, the missile is manoevrable using lateral thrusters only during terminal stage. "The VLRAAM also uses lateral thrusters built into the rear for improving its terminal phase maneuverability when engaging agile targets like fighters." This implies more limited manoeuvrability prior to terminal phase. See link below pic.
  • As for range of SM-6,
  • As for the location of E2 Hawkeye relative to a carrier group with its AAW escorts, you suggest effective missile coverage would be less than missile range. But how close do you think the SM-6 destroyers are to the carrier it self (i.e. what area does a group spread out into, because they don't sail close together as they do for photo's)? And, how far away from a carrier group do you think its organic AEWC asset will be flying its patrol laps?
  • Remember that the carrier group also brings active radar homing AMRAAM equipped tactical aircraft, such as F-35C and/or B (if also USMC LHA present), which possibly can also engage the VLRAAM during flight (in addition to the E2 Hawkeye being able to call in and direct its own active radar homing SM-6).
  • With F-35 also able to work with SM-6 equipped ships, one can ponder the question how long it will be before E-2 Hawkeye (or other AEWC assets) can also 'engage' using tactical aircraft as missile platform. Possibly with priority, overriding other engagements.
vlraam_study.png

http://www.popsci.com/china-new-long-range-air-to-air-missile
 
Last edited:
.
Beast said:
China one has already successfully tested against an airborne drone target while these missile you mention so far are just mock-up, proposal ,prototype and study only. The technical capabilities of making a missile able to hit airborne target 300km away is just far too great and not easy. They have not demonstrated in test so far.

I can bet China one will enter service in few years time.
Click to expand...
but India is getting K-100 sir its not a mock up ,proposal, prototype or case study missile only its real project sir with a investment from India
 
Last edited by a moderator:
. . .
pakistanipower said:
but we will have PL-15 in near future for JF-17 sir


I don't know sir ask our Chinese friends @Beast, @ChineseTiger1986 can China sell J-11 series to Pakistan without Russian permission?
Click to expand...
yes of course, they are all Chinese apart from J-11 and few J-11A. the rest are all with domestic components, has nothing to do with Russia's consent
 
.
pakistanipower said:
but India is getting K-100 sir its not a mock up ,proposal, prototype or case study missile only its real project sir with a investment from India
Click to expand...

How about this from the indians? They will be making one matching the Chinese-made soon, always!

10 years in making, Astra advanced air combat missile may be ready in 2016
Rajat Pandit| TNN | Nov 6, 2015, 07.01 AM IST
49682048.jpg


After the Akash surface-to-air missile (in pic), Astra is the next advanced tactical missile to be made fully indigenously.


NEW DELHI: The missile's "muscle-power", in terms of range, has already been successfully tested nine times from Sukhoi-30MKI fighter jets since last year. The "brains" will be tested next month. When the brains and brawn are tested together by mid-2016, India will finally be able to brandish its own Astra air-to-air missile.

India may have developed surface-to-surface nuclear missiles like the Agni-V, which can strike targets over 5,000-km away, but has struggled to develop a complex BVR (beyond visual range) air combat missile like Astra for over a decade now.

Once the all-weather Astra is ready, India will join a handful of countries like the US, Russia, France and Israel which have developed such sleek missiles capable of detecting, tracking and destroying highly-agile hostile supersonic fighters packed with ``counter-measures'' at long ranges. Indian fighters are currently armed with Russian, French and Israeli BVR missiles, which cost a packet in the absence of a cheaper indigenous alternative.

"The Astra missile, with a range from 44 to 60km, is coming up very well. I am confident it will be able to meet the revised project completion date of December 2016," said DRDO chief Dr S Christopher, talking to TOI on Thursday.

"After the Akash surface-to-air missile, Astra is the next advanced tactical missile to be made fully indigenously. We are also planning to integrate the missile with the Tejas light combat aircraft. The Astra-II will have a range of 100-km," he added.

49690033.cms


The Astra project was sanctioned in March 2004 at an initial cost of Rs 955 crore. But the missile missed several deadlines due to persisting technical glitches, and could actually be fired from a Sukhoi-30MKI for the first time in May last year.

Since then, the 3.8-metre long missile, which flies at a speed of over four times the speed of sound at Mach 4.5, has been successfully fired with "pre-fed, fixed target coordinates" nine times. Next month, the "captive trials" will begin to complete the "electronic loop" or prove the missile's brains with "target lock-on and destroy" capabilities.

For this, the missile will be armed with terminal radio-frequency seekers but without any warheads or propellants. The subsequent stage will see the missile being fired in "full configuration" at "actual manoeuvring targets" mimicking enemy fighters by mid-2016.

DRDO says Astra has "excellent" ECCM (electronic counter-counter measures) to tackle jamming by hostile aircraft, active radar terminal guidance and other features for "high single-shot kill probability" in both head-on and tail-chase" mode. The IAF is keeping its fingers crossed.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...may-be-ready-in-2016/articleshow/49682035.cms

images
 
. .
Penguin said:
I beg to differ:
  • The Chinese VLRAAM is (also, if not mostly) intended for use agains AEWC platforms rather than other fighters.
  • The kill probability (Pk) is determined by several factors, including aspect (head-on interception, side-on or tail-chase), altitude, the speed of the missile and the target, and how hard the target can turn. You are assuming a 'tail chase'. However, in a defensive situation involving an E2 Hawkeye, a 'head-on' aspect or even 'side-on' aspect is far more likely to be the case. Clearly, when the missile engages head-on, it doesn't need to match target speed.
  • Also, when at mach 6 and not yet in terminal phase, would the VLRAAM be very manoeuvrable? From what I gather, the missile is manoevrable using lateral thrusters only during terminal stage. "The VLRAAM also uses lateral thrusters built into the rear for improving its terminal phase maneuverability when engaging agile targets like fighters." This implies more limited manoeuvrability prior to terminal phase. See link below pic.
  • As for range of SM-6,
  • As for the location of E2 Hawkeye relative to a carrier group with its AAW escorts, you suggest effective missile coverage would be less than missile range. But how close do you think the SM-6 destroyers are to the carrier it self (i.e. what area does a group spread out into, because they don't sail close together as they do for photo's)? And, how far away from a carrier group do you think its organic AEWC asset will be flying its patrol laps?
  • Remember that the carrier group also brings active radar homing AMRAAM equipped tactical aircraft, such as F-35C and/or B (if also USMC LHA present), which possibly can also engage the VLRAAM during flight (in addition to the E2 Hawkeye being able to call in and direct its own active radar homing SM-6).
  • With F-35 also able to work with SM-6 equipped ships, one can ponder the question how long it will be before E-2 Hawkeye (or other AEWC assets) can also 'engage' using tactical aircraft as missile platform. Possibly with priority, overriding other engagements.
vlraam_study.png

http://www.popsci.com/china-new-long-range-air-to-air-missile
Click to expand...
You're just going to ignore that a Mach 2.5 SM-6 can't catch a Mach 6 Chinese VLRAAM?

How does a slow moving SM-6 interceptor catch a rocket-engine powered Chinese Mach 6 VLRAAM?

It can't.
----------

This is very simple, but I will explain it so that we are all on the same page.

Fighter aircraft is deployed in front of carrier groups to protect the carrier.

Let's say an F-18 Hornet or F-35C is 100 miles in front of a carrier group.

A Chinese VLRAAM is heading for the F-18 or F-35C at Mach 6 (within the 150-300 mile range of the VLRAAM missile).

What happens when you fire an SM-6 to intercept?

The Chinese VLRAAM has to travel an average of 200 miles to its target.

The SM-6 has to travel 100 miles for intercept.

However, the Chinese VLRAAM is traveling at Mach 6. The SM-6 can only travel at Mach 2.5.

200 miles / 1.27 miles per second (or Mach 6) = 157 seconds

100 miles / 0.53 miles per second (or Mach 2.5) = 189 seconds

As you can see, the SM-6 can never intercept a Mach 6 Chinese VLRAAM at 100 miles away from a carrier. It will reach the location 32 seconds too slowly.
 
Last edited:
.
Martian2 said:
You're just going to ignore that a Mach 2.5 SM-6 can't catch a Mach 6 Chinese VLRAAM?

How does a slow moving SM-6 interceptor catch a rocket-engine powered Chinese Mach 6 VLRAAM?

It can't.
Click to expand...
You do know the difference between head-on (> <) and tail-chase (> >)? In a game of chicken, for hit probability, it doesn't matter if one car drives slower than the other.

Are you going to ignore SM-6 is also capable of performing terminal phase (quasi) ballistic missile defense i.e. defence against (quasi) ballistic missiles in their terminal, or final, stage of flight over land or sea? How do you think it does that, given the SM-6s low low low speed interceptor? Or are you suggesting such targets are much slower than the Chinese VLRAAM?

http://www.raytheon.co.uk/news/feature/homeland_protection.html


"Following SM-6’s interception of a ballistic missile target, three additional test events were conducted. During the series, the US Navy fired two additional SM-6s in anti-air warfare roles. Both missiles successfully engaged cruise missile targets. The US Navy also fired a Standard Missile-2 Block IV that successfully intercepted its target, validating this weapon’s current capability to stop short-range ballistic missiles in their terminal phase of flight."
http://www.forceindia.net/IndustrySeptember201510.aspx
 
Last edited:
.
Penguin said:
You do know the difference between head-on (> <) and tail-chase (> >)? In a game of chicken, for hit probability, it doesn't matter if one car drives slower than the other.

Are you going to ignore SM-6 is also capable of performing terminal phase (quasi) ballistic missile defense i.e. defence against (quasi) ballistic missiles in their terminal, or final, stage of flight over land or sea? How do you think it does that, given the SM-6s low low low speed interceptor?
Click to expand...
Try reading the mathematics. The SM-6 cannot reach the intercept point at 100 miles out. It will be 32 seconds too slow.

In reality, Combat Air Patrols are typically 200 nautical miles from the carrier group. There is no chance of an intercept. The SM-6 is too far away from the patrol aircraft.

"Combat Air Patrol (CAP) craft and early warning aircraft (AEW). These units operate at 200 nautical miles (370 km) or more out from the main body."
 
Last edited:
. .
Penguin said:
You do know the difference between head-on (> <) and tail-chase (> >)? In a game of chicken, for hit probability, it doesn't matter if one car drives slower than the other.

Are you going to ignore SM-6 is also capable of performing terminal phase (quasi) ballistic missile defense i.e. defence against (quasi) ballistic missiles in their terminal, or final, stage of flight over land or sea? How do you think it does that, given the SM-6s low low low speed interceptor? Or are you suggesting such targets are much slower than the Chinese VLRAAM?

http://www.raytheon.co.uk/news/feature/homeland_protection.html


"Following SM-6’s interception of a ballistic missile target, three additional test events were conducted. During the series, the US Navy fired two additional SM-6s in anti-air warfare roles. Both missiles successfully engaged cruise missile targets. The US Navy also fired a Standard Missile-2 Block IV that successfully intercepted its target, validating this weapon’s current capability to stop short-range ballistic missiles in their terminal phase of flight."
http://www.forceindia.net/IndustrySeptember201510.aspx
Click to expand...
Are you really that stupid?

If you fire a missile right at the ship, obviously a slower SM-6 can potentially intercept an incoming missile coming right at it.

However, as I have said repeatedly, the Chinese VLRAAM (which is an AIR-to-AIR missile) will be fired at an American aircraft and NOT a ship. The Chinese VLRAAM will not be coming directly at an Aegis ship. It is targeting an American AIRCRAFT.

No one is disputing that an SM-6 could potentially shoot down a faster incoming ANTI-SHIP missile that is flying directly at an Aegis ship.

I will repeat myself one last time. An SM-6 CANNOT intercept an air-to-air missile that is fired at a distant American aircraft. Unless the American aircraft is flying very near the Aegis ship, an SM-6 cannot intercept a Chinese VLRAAM. However, it is pointless for American aircraft to fly next to American ships because it defeats the point of carrier air defense.
 
Last edited:
.
Martian2 said:
You're just going to ignore that a Mach 2.5 SM-6 can't catch a Mach 6 Chinese VLRAAM?

How does a slow moving SM-6 interceptor catch a rocket-engine powered Chinese Mach 6 VLRAAM?

It can't.
----------

This is very simple, but I will explain it so that we are all on the same page.

Fighter aircraft is deployed in front of carrier groups to protect the carrier.

Let's say an F-18 Hornet or F-35C is 100 miles in front of a carrier group.

A Chinese VLRAAM is heading for the F-18 or F-35C at Mach 6 (within the 150-300 mile range of the VLRAAM missile).

What happens when you fire an SM-6 to intercept?

The Chinese VLRAAM has to travel an average of 200 miles to its target.

The SM-6 has to travel 100 miles for intercept.

However, the Chinese VLRAAM is traveling at Mach 6. The SM-6 can only travel at Mach 2.5.

200 miles / 1.27 miles per second (or Mach 6) = 157 seconds

100 miles / 0.53 miles per second (or Mach 2.5) = 189 seconds

As you can see, the SM-6 can never intercept a Mach 6 Chinese VLRAAM at 100 miles away from a carrier. It will reach the location 32 seconds too slowly.
Click to expand...
I think you ignore that I was discussing E2 Hawkeye using SM-6 for self-defence. Which will not be out in front of/with tactical aircraft. Tactical aircraft would have their AMRAAMs to work with. So, your model above is wrong in that is doesn't model the scenario I was discussing. Also, you assume a carrier screen is close together, rather than spread out, with many many nmi between ships, thus potentially placing an SM-6 shooter (DDG) much close to an aircraft than your scenario assumes.
 
.
Penguin said:
I think you ignore that I was discussing E2 Hawkeye using SM-6 for self-defence. Which will not be out in front of/with tactical aircraft. Tactical aircraft would have their AMRAAMs to work with. So, your model above is wrong in that is doesn't model the scenario I was discussing. Also, you assume a carrier screen is close together, rather than spread out, with many many nmi between ships, thus potentially placing an SM-6 shooter (DDG) much close to an aircraft than your scenario assumes.
Click to expand...
Come on. You didn't even read the Popular Science article.

"This is a big deal: this missile would easily outrange any American (or other NATO) air-to-air missile."

American AIM-120D AMRAAMs only have a range of about 100 miles.

China's VLRAAM has a range of 200-300 miles.

China's VLRAAM has a far longer range, much faster speed, and a much larger AESA radar (with backup infrared and optical sensors).

"Another key feature: its large active electronically scanned (AESA) radar, which is used in the terminal phase of flight to lock onto the target. The AESA radar's large size—about 300-400% larger than that of most long range air-to-air missiles—and digital adaptability makes it highly effective against distant and stealthy targets, and resilient against electronic countermeasures like jamming and spoofing."

China's VLRAAM clearly gives the Chinese Air Force a significant advantage.
 
Last edited:
.

Similar threads

A
PAKISTAN'S BLACK AERO AIR DEFENCE MISSILE SYSTEM: BHARAT MATA'S NIGHTMARE
Replies
0
Views
482
AbdulQadir7
A
SBD-3
How the JAS 39 Gripen Fighter Crushed China's Air Force in a Wargame
Replies
0
Views
2K
SBD-3
SBD-3
F-22Raptor
US Air Force next generation nuclear cruise missile has already conducted 9 successful flight tests
Replies
0
Views
626
F-22Raptor
F-22Raptor
D
Arrow 3 air defense system notches first successful intercept
Replies
2
Views
717
MajesticPug
M
beijingwalker
China is building a vast, sky-blackening air armada, China's growing air power threatens to outmatch American fighter strength in the near future
Replies
3
Views
1K
Shahzad Riaz
Shahzad Riaz

Latest posts

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Military Forum Latest Posts

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom