CM-400AKG: Pakistan's supersonic carrier killer

[Penguin]

you do understand that its moronic to think that a 900 kg missile can have a 400 kg warhead. warhead weight must probably be around 100 kg.

Maybe, but .... consider Harpoon weighing 662 kg with a 245kg warhead, transpose to a 900kg missile and you have a 333kg warhead. By comparison, Kh31 Krypton has about the same missile weight as Harpoon but a warhead of only 85-100kg depending on version. Krypton transposed to a 900kg missile would give a warhead of 138kg. So, I'ld be very carefull estimating warhead weight.

thanks for agreeing with me that it is similar to kh 15. your pakistani compatriots think that i am a fool when i tell them that the technology of the missile is from 70s.

The fact that CM400AKG there may be similarity to Kh-15 doesn't mean it is old technology: you can't equate like that.

 

[Secur]

Maybe, but .... consider Harpoon weighing 662 kg with a 245kg warhead, transpose to a 900kg missile and you have a 333kg warhead.

Even I think that CM400-AKG has a small warhead due to the fact that it relies on its kinetic impact energy for most of the damage to the target , more plausible . Why fit a larger warhead in such case ?

 

[Shadow_Hunter]

Did you bother to look at the statement of the JFT's deputy project director saying that its ' operational on the JFT ' ? I posted the Jane's article for a reason . The same is available from different sources but I think that would suffice for now .

Prove to me that the missile's performance is of the 70's and do classify the different generation of missile technologies as per you . Go ahead . Neither it is purely ballistic nor it is a pure anti-ship missile . You , of all people , eager to debate on the topic , but knowing little , must know that an aircraft carrier is relatively slow moving .

Terrain Matching by the seeker with pre programmed maps . Used usually by the cruise missiles . Google TERCOM .

You received delivery only in the past few months, and you are so quickly done with integration, testing/tactics/training everything. Are you guys superman?

About second part, the missile's performance is very similar to Kh 15 as accepted by penguin also.

both's max speed is mach 5, both use inertial followed by active radar homing guidance, similar range of 150-200 km, both are ballistic, heck both even look similar. And who said it is not purely ballistic, just because it uses mid course correction and has a seeker, so it not ballistic, Kh 15 also did the same yet it was considered a ballistic missile.

Can you prove how is cm 400 akg is superior to kh15?

About the aircraft carrier part, do you know why the world moved away from such missiles? Because of advancements in sam systems. This missile is obsolete as per current sam systems.

I did not want to debate on this, thats why i did not talk to you on the other thread, but you guys don't believe anyone unless one puts everything before u on a spoon platter.

It can't be terrain matching, Tercom is used by Tomahawk for land attack purposes, over the sea whole terrain will look same. also, it accepts imagery during TR mode when it uses IR for terminal guidance. Tercom is not used for terminal guidance. imagery is for some other purpose.

 

[illusion8]

@Secur, any Chinese test video if not Pakistan's of this missile? I would have liked to see one take off.

 

[SQ8]

The missile looks everything like a kh 15 knock off, probably with some modifications, the dimensions of cm 400 akg are not available otherwise it would have given a clearer picture. Biggest question, why would china develop a missile like that now, when the both US and Russia are using cruise missiles for anti ship purposes.

You have been given all the information you need and have been answered repeatedly about your query. Now either agree to disagree and stop parroting or you will be banned from the thread.

 

[Penguin]

Even I think that CM400-AKG has a small warhead due to the fact that it relies on its kinetic impact energy for most of the damage to the target , more plausible . Why fit a larger warhead in such case ?

"Carrier killer"?

 

[Secur]

You received delivery only in the past few months, and you are so quickly done with integration, testing/tactics/training everything. Are you guys superman?

About second part, the missile's performance is very similar to Kh 15 as accepted by penguin also.

both's max speed is mach 5, both use inertial followed by active radar homing guidance, similar range of 150-200 km, both are ballistic, heck both even look similar. And who said it is not purely ballistic, just because it uses mid course correction and has a seeker, so it not ballistic, Kh 15 also did the same yet it was considered a ballistic missile.

Can you prove how is cm 400 akg is superior to kh15?

About the aircraft carrier part, do you know why the world moved away from such missiles? Because of advancements in sam systems. This missile is obsolete as per current sam systems.

I did not want to debate on this, thats why i did not talk to you on the other thread, but you guys don't believe anyone unless one puts everything before u on a spoon platter.

It can't be terrain matching, Tercom is used by Tomahawk for land attack purposes, over the see whole terrain will look same. also, it accepts imagery during TR mode when it uses IR for terminal guidance. Tercom is not used for terminal guidance. imagery is for some other purpose.

Missile were already in service in 2012 , who told you that we received delivery only in the past few months ? Most of the new developments/integrations on the aircraft are carried out in Chengdu , not Kamra . We aren't there yet , producing only 50% of the the aircraft at the moment , complete avionics of course . I will take the word of the deputy project director anyday over a forum member's . They are the ones managing the project , not us . Never go by the date the Chinese reveal a weapon because they are usually already done with it and the thing had been in service for a year or two by that time .

I told you that any similarity doesn't mean that the technology is of that era . Second , it is not similar as you claiming here . Because the speed of CM400-AKG is Mach 5.5 ( terminal dive ) and KH 15 reaches close Mach 5 , ranges aren't similar unless there's no difference between 240 km and 300 km for someone , the inertial navigation system is a common mode of guidance used by the missile today not to mention that KH 15 didn't have many of modes of guidance possessed by the CM 400 AKG . Can you differentiate between a 900 KG and 1200 KG missile ? Next thing , the diameter of CM 400 AKG is 400 mm , is the same true for KH 15 which has something close to 455 mm ?

Need a source for my claims , here's the interview of the director of the CM400AKG project
设计人员详解CM-400AKG超音速空地导弹性能_新浪视频

I need not prove anything since they aren't similar at all . Keep this next ' some modifications ' and ' knockoff's ' for some other forums , not interested .

Actually , you kids , are the ones who cant do their own research , will troll/flame around and repeatedly ask the same question in different wordings and need to be spoon fed everything from the existence to the specs of the missile and bury their heads in the sand when presented with factual information .

TERCOM can be used to attack land targets , not sea ones , neither is this mode of guidance exclusive to the Tomahawks . The system is activated when the missile is in the vicinity of the target and then the comparison with the terrain is made . You can always state that other purpose .

 

[Penguin]

About second part, the missile's performance is very similar to Kh 15 as accepted by penguin also.

So what? It is also similar to the USAF SRAM-I and II. Similar doesn't mean identical. Doesn't necessarily have to refer to physical characteristics of the missile, could refer to function, or adopted mode of operating. You are reading more into my statement than I intended.

 

[Capt.Popeye]

"Carrier killer"?

Maybe just a "Carrier Denter"
Carriers are not gunboats in terms of survivability. How many hits did the USS Yorktown take at the Battle of Midway.
Then did she get 'killed'? Poor Adm. Chuichi Nagumo; nobody had told him about "Carrier Killers".

"Carrier killer"?

Maybe just a "Carrier Denter"
Carriers are not gunboats in terms of survivability. How many hits did the USS Yorktown take at the Battle of Midway.
Then did she get 'killed'? Poor Adm. Chuichi Nagumo; nobody had told him about "Carrier Killers".

LOLLL. When 'Hype' becomes 'Hypersonic'.

 

[SQ8]

Maybe just a "Carrier Denter"
Carriers are not gunboats in terms of survivability. How many hits did the USS Yorktown take at the Battle of Midway.
Then did she get 'killed'? Poor Adm. Chuichi Nagumo; nobody had told him about "Carrier Killers".

Apparently people get hyped over a weapon that is supposed to simply impede operations. I think I posted about this before to .. I think it was you. The idea is to deny flight operations. Even hollywood admits its impossible to kill a carrier when using much bigger items such as Kingfish missiles...and in my view even this is too excessive.

The idea is to impede operations, alucky strike on the bridge and tower, electronics etc might put the ship out of any contribution actions for a while..otherwise certain ships are really stubborn and there is no way one missile is going to do it.

 

[Dillinger]

Apparently people get hyped over a weapon that is supposed to simply impede operations. I think I posted about this before to .. I think it was you. The idea is to deny flight operations. Even hollywood admits its impossible to kill a carrier when using much bigger items such as Kingfish missiles...and in my view even this is too excessive.

The idea is to impede operations, alucky strike on the bridge and tower, electronics etc might put the ship out of any contribution actions for a while..otherwise certain ships are really stubborn and there is no way one missile is going to do it.

Not to mention that the JFTs will have to contend with the BARCAP. Btw since the BARCAP is positioned along the primary threat axis (or so they say) what options do the JFTs have to bypass it?

 

[acid rain]

Apparently people get hyped over a weapon that is supposed to simply impede operations. I think I posted about this before to .. I think it was you. The idea is to deny flight operations. Even hollywood admits its impossible to kill a carrier when using much bigger items such as Kingfish missiles...and in my view even this is too excessive.

The idea is to impede operations, alucky strike on the bridge and tower, electronics etc might put the ship out of any contribution actions for a while..otherwise certain ships are really stubborn and there is no way one missile is going to do it.

Isnt the range of the missile a limiting factor for it to be a carrier denter?

 

[Capt.Popeye]

***************

 

[SQ8]

Not to mention that the JFTs will have to contend with the BARCAP. Btw since the BARCAP is positioned along the primary threat axis (or so they say) what options do the JFTs have to bypass it?

Low level attacks, escorts , diversions.. quite a few. At the end it is still similar to going into a well defended airspace with interceptors and SAMs.

Isnt the range of the missile a limiting factor for it to be a carrier denter?

Not range per-se but rather warhead size and speed.

All that one can hope or pray for is to cripple/incapacitate some critical part of the ship for any length of time; while relentlessly hammering at it to "try and deliver a final coup de grace".

Which is why the most effective way to crippe and sink any ship remains the good old torpedo

 

[acid rain]

Low level attacks, escorts , diversions.. quite a few. At the end it is still similar to going into a well defended airspace with interceptors and SAMs.



Not range per-se but rather warhead size and speed.



Which is why the most effective way to crippe and sink any ship remains the good old torpedo

Yes sir, nothing like a sub underneath and a torpedo up the carriers @ss.

There have been numerous successes of subs taking down US carriers in many war excercises.