CM-400AKG: A tough job for the Indian Navy

[Secur]

not really. What you are talking off is range. seeker acquisition will be much lower. Now, I am not going to debate on effectiveness and whether the ac will get knocked off.

If an aircraft launches the missile, it needs to guide the missile till its own seeker kicks in. And this is definitely not 180/250 kms. Feel free to correct my assumption. Your assumption of imaging also works on terra not in aqua environments. simple things like wave height, tidal variations are not predictable.

What was the ' not really ' thing here ? That was the information provided by CASIC , the company which manufactures the weapon system in question . Yes , it is the range part of approx <=250 km , the seeker acquisition range would of course be much lower , I do not doubt that . But the question is by how much ? I do not expect such information to be available in the public domain .

Precisely . There are a lot of factors at play , a lot of perimeters unknown . We can only debate on the knowledge already known or try to approximately estimate such things .

 

[Secur]

@gambit

What exactly would you put the ' seeker acquisition range ' of the CM400 AKG from the data at hand ?

 

[Agnostic_Indian]

I know about the decommissioned INS Vikrant and the only current AC in IN's service INS Viraat which spends most of its time in docks getting refits because of the age of the warship and hence only good for training for future AC's . The Admiral Gorshkov hasn't been delivered yet and it will take years to form a modern carrier group complete with Mig29K's . The PN will continue to modernize in the meantime , the race continues as always . Same isn't true for CM400 AKG which is just a modified version of another Chinese system SY 400 devised for naval warfare , now we didn't develop it but acquired it from Beijing hence no one needs it to ' test fire ' after purchasing it and knowing the Chinese , they will never disclose the complete information or show the test footages , they like to operate in almost total radio silence with brief information leaking from insiders , that is their MO . But still comparatively a lot of information is available on this missile . Now , for ' the missile isn't ready ' part , trust me I have no interest arguing with denialists when the JFT's project director says that it is fully mature weapon which has been integrated with the aircraft and is currently in service .

The CM400 AKG will have every chance of reaching your carrier if it comes close to Pakistani coastline for enforcing blockade , we are just too close for you to enjoy that advantage . This probability of discarding a threat altogether , trust me , doesn't work fine for strategists . Besides , the carrier battle group remains vulnerable to a salvo of these ' quasi-ballistic missiles ' . The missile flies at the supersonic speeds during its flight and goes hypersonic at the time of impact hence the sheer focus on ' kinetic impact ' . The force multipliers aren't expected to provide the ' lock ' on the ships but rather the general idea of their position and threat level . The missile will fail itself ? Am I seeing some new underestimation of the Beijing's weapons capabilities ? A lot of variables will be at play , if it was that simple of every missile being brought down by SAM's , there would have been no need for these missile to be developed . As I am aware , you are currently developing the Brahmos II capable of hypersonic speeds , what for ? Since the SAM's on our ships can bring it down going by your own logic . If you have terrain hugging and stealth in mind , I suggest you read a bit about C80xx series of anti-ship missiles . Completely different type but some of the features are same or even at times , greater .

our carrier would be at least 500+ km away from your shore. in front and surrounding will be our frigates with barak 8 and barak 1. now either your have to come closer to 135km minimum to detect our frigate and can fire it around 100-110 km distance at optimum conditions. our frigates has got 400km range radars and carrier has got 800 km range radar as posted by DARKY. so we can easily scramble our mig 29k's to intercept the jf 17's before they reach 135km range.
your second option is to fire the missiles based on general direction given by your awac.for your awac to pick up our ships from clutter It has to come at least around 200km range( sea/ground targets are difficult to track, what we are having is stealth frigates ) your awac coming 200km range will make it vulnerable the attack of our mig 29k's just like our front line frigates are vulnerable to your CM400. but a awac escaping a fighter jet is much difficult than a frigate with it's multi layer Sams, guns, ECM escaping your missile. even if you managed a shot from long distance it will be easier to counter because of time, distance,guidance error advantage.

lastly on our ac being docked, we have been operating it so we can adapt to quickly to new carrier operations, besides we have been practicing with mig 29k for demo carrier operations so that when it actually comes we can make it easier.
now your cm400 +jf17 combo also needs field trials, practices, etc to make it mission ready.

 

[surya kiran]

What was the ' not really ' thing here ? That was the information provided by CASIC , the company which manufactures the weapon system in question . Yes , it is the range part of approx <=250 km , the seeker acquisition range would of course be much lower , I do not doubt that . But the question is by how much ? I do not expect such information to be available in the public domain .

Precisely . There are a lot of factors at play , a lot of perimeters unknown . We can only debate on the knowledge already known or try to approximately estimate such things .

Not really, was for the part of fire and forget. It's not that simple when you fire one and its on its way. It needs to be guided and the guidance is provided in the early part either by the aircraft launching or a third mechanism. Hence, its not necessarily fire and forget. Now, this means it needs to be guided till its own seekers kick in for the terminal guidance. So, if the person guiding the missile is disengaged or destroyed, assumption is that it won't be accurate. Now, if the missile has a seeker range for terminal guidance at 70 kms. Then that's a long way the launching fighter needs to hold course for guidance against any armed opponent.
@gambit and you can feel free to correct me if I am wrong.

 

[Secur]

our carrier would be at least 500+ km away from your shore. in front and surrounding will be our frigates with barak 8 and barak 1. now either your have to come closer to 135km minimum to detect our frigate and can fire it around 100-110 km distance at optimum conditions. our frigates has got 400km range radars and carrier has got 800 km range radar as posted by DARKY. so we can easily scramble our mig 29k's to intercept the jf 17's before they reach 135km range.
your second option is to fire the missiles based on general direction given by your awac.for your awac to pick up our ships from clutter It has to come at least around 200km range( sea/ground targets are difficult to track, what we are having is stealth frigates ) your awac coming 200km range will make it vulnerable the attack of our mig 29k's just like our front line frigates are vulnerable to your CM400. but a awac escaping a fighter jet is much difficult than a frigate with it's multi layer Sams, guns, ECM escaping your missile. even if you managed a shot from long distance it will be easier to counter because of time, distance,guidance error advantage.

That is the thing I am trying to explain to your lot , it just cant be that far , from there its nothing more than irking and a thing of nuisance value . Have you seen the location of ports and the Sea Lines of Communication of Pakistan ? . I suggest you have a look at the map again . You cant enforce a blockade from that far away . Iran and GCC countries are right next door and the Persian Gulf and Gulf of Oman where the country is expected to receive most of the help during the times of hostilities are no more than 350-400 KMs away and the exclusive economic zones and maritime boundaries of those countries mean that you cant station a CBG there . Out of the question keeping in mind the International laws and the influence of the Arabs . You will have to bring the AC's and specially the battle group to within 300 km of our coastline to enforce an ' effective blockade ' keeping in mind that the Pakistan Navy is well equipped for Sea Denial strategy and almost all of its equipments were bought in accordance with that doctrine . The ranges you give for the frigates and AC's AESA detection are true for the ships on our side too , these warships can accommodate easily such radars and detecting aircrafts from 400-450 km is nothing new or unheard of even though its not that precise as you think . So , what is the big thing here ? You have to come close to enforce the blockade and we have to travel less distance to attack , not that it is an easy job but the very fact that attacking a carrier is indeed possible and not within the realm of fiction as some here are trying to portray . This The AWAC's which we have an overkill of will be doing the same job of detecting aircraft at such range , expect the Mig29K's to be intercepted in the same way and they do not need to come that close to guide or detect . As I said , we aren't that far from each other .

Why fire the missile at a general direction when the AC's are not that far ? The lower cost and the ability of JFT to carry two of these at a single time means that we can afford to fire ' salvos ' trying to overwhelm the defense systems . You forget the kinetic impact and speed advantage of the missile in question whilst assuming all the errors .

 

[Dillinger]

@Dillinger 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 .

Mate , personally , I am seriously disappointed with the ' quality of posts ' in the very thread with people more interested in throwing cheap banters and rhetoric rather than discussing the topic in a positive manner .

Yaara I have searched myself ever since I have heard about this. There is not a single authoritative source calling it quasi-ballistic or hypersonic..except for some garish pics with underwritten chinese lines which weren't even from the official source but some blog.

Terminal phase hypersonic cruise is still not possible within the atmosphere due to shaping constraints. Unless the missile is cruising at a very high altitude..and I mean very high..even DT-BMs and quasi-BMs have to cruise very high up and then make a dead drop akin to a re-entry..this one would have to do the same..only against a mobile target..IF it wishes to follow the profile of a quasi-BM. Mark my words..the missile is a supersonic ASM.

 

[Safriz]

Barak-8 has a ceiling of 16km..
JF-17 flies higher than that....So the chances of JF-17 getting hit by Barak-8 are low.

 

[Ammyy]

Barak-8 has a ceiling of 16km..
JF-17 flies higher than that....So the chances of JF-17 getting hit by Barak-8 are low.

From where you got this info about barak8 ??? Wiki??

 

[Safriz]

From where you got this info about barak8 ??? Wiki??

Well..if you have a full list of specs,feel free to post over here.

 

[Secur]

Yaara I have searched myself ever since I have heard about this. There is not a single authoritative source calling it quasi-ballistic or hypersonic..except for some garish pics with underwritten chinese lines which weren't even from the official source but some blog.

Terminal phase hypersonic cruise is still not possible within the atmosphere due to shaping constraints. Unless the missile is cruising at a very high altitude..and I mean very high..even DT-BMs and quasi-BMs have to cruise very high up and then make a dead drop akin to a re-entry..this one would have to do the same..only against a mobile target..IF it wishes to follow the profile of a quasi-BM. Mark my words..the missile is a supersonic ASM.

There are a couple of pictures providing specifications from Chinese sources on this forum , have a look . CASIC describes it as a super sonic anti-ship missile and the JFT project Director confirms that the missile indeed achieves a hypersonic speed at the terminal dive and hence the kinetic impact is enough to sink an aircraft carrier , which was later confirmed by a couple of sources .

The CM400 AKG is known to climb to a high altitude after the launch from a carrier , remain supersonic during that time and later turn ' hypersonic ' The problem being ? What exact similarity are you seeing with depressed trajectory ballistic missiles here ? Or you are implying that both sources are somehow lying through the teeth ?

 

[Secur]

Not really, was for the part of fire and forget. It's not that simple when you fire one and its on its way. It needs to be guided and the guidance is provided in the early part either by the aircraft launching or a third mechanism. Hence, its not necessarily fire and forget. Now, this means it needs to be guided till its own seekers kick in for the terminal guidance. So, if the person guiding the missile is disengaged or destroyed, assumption is that it won't be accurate. Now, if the missile has a seeker range for terminal guidance at 70 kms. Then that's a long way the launching fighter needs to hold course for guidance against any armed opponent.
@gambit and you can feel free to correct me if I am wrong.

Why cant this one on its way ? Why do you assume that it needs guidance when it relies on active seekers and visual matches to locate its target ? It will be not that accurate compared to when guided from a carrier's superior radar in cases and released ' close ' to the target , I agree , but how is it ' not true ' ? I do not think that it necessarily needs such guidance , the sources imply otherwise that it can even fly ' autonomously ' under all weather conditions .

Why reserve the ' missile's seeker ' for the terminal part ? Why cant it get active in the early part of its launch ? Not that precise , but still capable of . I do not think that it needs such continuous guidance from any carrier upto 70 KMs as you put it . That would , ruin the whole purpose .

 

[Agnostic_Indian]

That is the thing I am trying to explain to your lot , it just cant be that far , from there its nothing more than irking and a thing of nuisance value . Have you seen the location of ports and the Sea Lines of Communication of Pakistan ? . I suggest you have a look at the map again . You cant enforce a blockade from that far away . Iran and GCC countries are right next door and the Persian Gulf and Gulf of Oman where the country is expected to receive most of the help during the times of hostilities are no more than 350-400 KMs away and the exclusive economic zones and maritime boundaries of those countries mean that you cant station a CBG there . Out of the question keeping in mind the International laws and the influence of the Arabs . You will have to bring the AC's and specially the battle group to within 300 km of our coastline to enforce an ' effective blockade ' keeping in mind that the Pakistan Navy is well equipped for Sea Denial strategy and almost all of its equipments were bought in accordance with that doctrine . The ranges you give for the frigates and AC's AESA detection are true for the ships on our side too , these warships can accommodate easily such radars and detecting aircrafts from 400-450 km is nothing new or unheard of even though its not that precise as you think . So , what is the big thing here ? You have to come close to enforce the blockade and we have to travel less distance to attack , not that it is an easy job but the very fact that attacking a carrier is indeed possible and not within the realm of fiction as some here are trying to portray . This The AWAC's which we have an overkill of will be doing the same job of detecting aircraft at such range , expect the Mig29K's to be intercepted in the same way and they do not need to come that close to guide or detect . As I said , we aren't that far from each other .

Why fire the missile at a general direction when the AC's are not that far ? The lower cost and the ability of JFT to carry two of these at a single time means that we can afford to fire ' salvos ' trying to overwhelm the defense systems . You forget the kinetic impact and speed advantage of the missile in question whilst assuming all the errors .

well here is my theory.
aircraft carrier doesn't need to be close to shore as our mig's will have 850km combat radius just on internal fuel.we can pull out most of our sub from CBG(p8i can take care of your sub's who approach CBG) and along with few frigates we can stay closer to the shore and ensure a successful blockade while mig 29k's will neutralize any
aerial threat and also will contribute to neutralizing your surface ships. yes your surface ship can detect our mig at long ranges, but what is coming against them, it's jf17 and I think mig's are more than enough to handle it. so taking down a carrier is out of question for Pakistan, at least with jf17+CM400 combo.,what you can get is our frigates, if you are lucky.

 

[Safriz]

Why cant this one on its way ? Why do you assume that it needs guidance when it relies on active seekers and visual matches to locate its target ? It will be not that accurate compared to when guided from a carrier's superior radar in cases and released ' close ' to the target , I agree , but how is it ' not true ' ? I do not think that it necessarily needs such guidance , the sources imply otherwise that it can even fly ' autonomously ' under all weather conditions .

Why reserve the ' missile's seeker ' for the terminal part ? Why cant it get active in the early part of its launch ? Not that precise , but still capable of . I do not think that it needs such continuous guidance from any carrier upto 70 KMs as you put it . That would , ruin the whole purpose .

50KM is mentioned as cruise altitude of CM-400. That is way above India's Barak-8 ceiling.
At that altitude air is very thim and drag is very low.
I couldnt find air density at that altitude but atmospheric pressure is only 0.11 KG/CM square.. Thats 11 times lower than at sea level.
So Brahmos cruising at near sea level will have to struggle with 11 times thicker atmosphere and proportionate drag.
A missile cruising at 50 km experiences 11 times less drag and acceleration is faster and less fuel intensive than at sea level.

 

[Secur]

well here is my theory.
aircraft carrier doesn't need to be close to shore as our mig's will have 850km combat radius just on internal fuel.we can pull out most of our sub from CBG(p8i can take care of your sub's who approach CBG) and along with few frigates we can stay closer to the shore and ensure a successful blockade while mig 29k's will neutralize any
aerial threat and also will contribute to neutralizing your surface ships. yes your surface ship can detect our mig at long ranges, but what is coming against them, it's jf17 and I think mig's are more than enough to handle it. so taking down a carrier is out of question for Pakistan, at least with jf17+CM400 combo.,what you can get is our frigates, if you are lucky.

Naval Blockades aren't enforced by getting a dozen aircraft in air ever , something I explained earlier to an other member here . Search the ' loiter time ' thing and the fuel spent when flying low or roaming an area and the need for constant refueling . Doesn't work that way , at all . Honestly , if it was that , much could have been done against Pakistan . The other country too possesses an airforce which is something you all are very keen to not mention . The anti-submarine warfare is carried out by P3C's and Z9 EC for Pakistan Navy , what is the big deal ? Any submarine coming close to the coastline will be detected by those assets . You cant stay close to your shores , say Jamnagar , and enforce a blockade from there .

Trust me , the Mig29K's will meet opposition if they come close to the shores , besides we do not only field just the JFT , there are other aircraft the maritime squadron of PN for one . You know the specifications and capabilities of the JFT to declare it like ' hey but what is coming against them ' when even the Mikoyan Bureau chief puts the aircraft very close to Mig29K's and asked the Russian Govt to block the sales of RD-93 ? . Search it or ask me for a link . Half knowledge is dangerous . If the whole assumption has now shifted to the carriers remaining close to the shores , then we have no need to take it out since it cant block our SLOC's from there . The geography favors us in this case with the area where most of world's oil supply passes , being just too close .

 

[Secur]

50KM is mentioned as cruise altitude of CM-400. That is way above India's Barak-8 ceiling.
At that altitude air is very thim and drag is very low.
I couldnt find air density at that altitude but atmospheric pressure is only 0.11 KG/CM square.. Thats 11 times lower than at sea level.
So Brahmos cruising at near sea level will have to struggle with 11 times thicker atmosphere and proportionate drag.
A missile cruising at 50 km experiences 11 times less drag and acceleration is faster and less fuel intensive than at sea level.

Just checked , yes it is . The Barak 8's SAM have a flight ceiling of 16 km from the data at hand and even worse , the response time for the system will be too low considering the speed of <5.5 Mach . The CM400 AKG will surely benefit from thin air and low atmospheric drag . Air density is again dependent on a couple of factors for example humidity , elevation from the sea level and air temperature . At times , the ' sea skimming ' can indeed be a disadvantage such as in this case with high resistance being offered by the environmental conditions . I am happy that PN went for both sea skimming and high supersonic quasi ballistic missiles like these for sea denial strategy and diversification of its arsenal .