India to test subsonic cruise missile in February

[satishkumarcsc]

Zhuhai Airshow reported parameters

The Designer of CM-400AKG said that

You are comparing a antiship air launched missile to a ballistic missile? Is he sure what he is talking about?

 

[hurt]

You are comparing a antiship air launched missile to a ballistic missile? Is he sure what he is talking about?

Do you know whats is DF-21D?
CM-400AKG not only for antiship,it is more like a Air-to-surface missile.

 

[S-DUCT]

Do you know whats is DF-21D?
CM-400AKG not only for antiship,it is more like a Air-to-surface missile.

CM-400AKG is solid fuel version of ramjet YJ-12 ASSCM.
Do you have any pics of DF-21D ASBM test?

 

[satishkumarcsc]

Do you know whats is DF-21D?
CM-400AKG not only for antiship,it is more like a Air-to-surface missile.

Seriously man...read about the differences....both are different in all means....DF 21D is a antiship ballistic missile...CM 400AKG is more like a antiship missile...it is not even quasi ballistic....just see if it is even possible to compare those...the Re entry vehicle of the DF 21D will be around mach 20 if it is a ballistic missile.....no where comparable to the CM 400AKG...

 

[hurt]

Seriously man...read about the differences....both are different in all means....DF 21D is a antiship ballistic missile...CM 400AKG is more like a antiship missile...it is not even quasi ballistic....just see if it is even possible to compare those...the Re entry vehicle of the DF 21D will be around mach 20 if it is a ballistic missile.....no where comparable to the CM 400AKG...

I means that CM 400AKG is a Air-to-surface missile.
but it can antiship ,like DF-21D a MRBM can antiship.

If you understand Chinese,you can understand what i say.
ç*海航展 - 设计人员详解CM-400AKG超音速空地导弹性能 - YouTube

 

[satishkumarcsc]

I means that CM 400AKG is a Air-to-surface missile.
but it can antiship ,like DF-21D a MRBM can antiship.

If you understand Chinese,you can understand what i say.
ç*海航展 - 设计人员详解CM-400AKG超音速空地导弹性能 - YouTube

It is antiship and can be also ARM but definitely not an ballistic missile...thats what I want to say. I say it is as good as the KH 15 Raduga which is also a good missile.

 

[hurt]

Seriously man...read about the differences....both are different in all means....DF 21D is a antiship ballistic missile...CM 400AKG is more like a antiship missile...it is not even quasi ballistic....just see if it is even possible to compare those...the Re entry vehicle of the DF 21D will be around mach 20 if it is a ballistic missile.....no where comparable to the CM 400AKG...

CM 400AKG ability to penetrate defences and Guidance system like Iskander

In flight, the missile follows a quasi-ballistic path, performing evasive maneuvers in the terminal phase of flight and releasing decoys in order to penetrate missile defense systems. The missile never leaves the atmosphere as it follows a relatively flat trajectory.

The Russian Iskander-M cruises at hypersonic speed of 2100–2600 m/s (Mach 6–7) at a height of 50 km. The Iskander-M weighs 4615 kg, carries a warhead of 710–800 kg, has a range of 400–480 km, and achieves a CEP (Circular error probable) of 5–7 meters. During flight it can maneuver at different altitudes and trajectories and can pull up to 20 to 30 G to evade anti-ballistic missiles.

CM 400AKG Mach 5.5 During flight it can maneuver at different altitudes and trajectories and can pull up to ? G to evade anti-ballistic missiles.

 

[Penguin]

It is not a derivative of the YJ 12...it is more of a derivative of the KH-15 Raduga of the 80s.

Kh-15 (missile) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So, the Chinese missile is a derivative of the Russian missile that was never exported to China (or are you confused with Kh-55?). Why not the AGM/69A SRAM?

 

[Penguin]

But ship board SAMs are only one of the last defence capabilities, the first the launch fighter must get close enough without beeing detected by air defence fighters of the carrier and even if launched, the fighters still will be the first choice to incetept them.

´
No, not so. For individual ships, Longer range SAM (ESSM, Aster 15, Shtil) are NOT the last defence capabilities. Missile or gun based CIWS are (i.e. Barak and RAM and Phalanx and Goalkeeper) . For a group, the weapons of the AAW frigate or destroyer(s) i.e. Aster 30 and SM2 complement individual ship SAMs. SM-2 does 170km max. RIM-174 Standard ERAM does 240km. I know of no longer ranged naval SAM. Beyond that it is all carrier aviation. Most navies do not have SM-2, let alone SM-6, so for them carrier aviation is the bomb for anything over say 120km.

Not to forget that Barak 8 most likely would intercept it before it reaches it's terminal stage too.

And vice versa. Did I mention 120km?

Compare that to a Brahmos launched from an MKI at high speed and altitude, with supersonic speed of the missile itself and extended range. Simply a whole different case, but Safiriz still desperately triese to find similarities and that was the

The capability of one does not disprove the capability of the other.

That's not correct, the carrier is aimed on up to 30 aircrafts, of which around 22 are estimated to be fighters. 16 was only the first order in combination with the carrier procurement, but as you know, the final air wing is meant to operate N-LCAs as well.

The Gorshkov originally was designed to handle 12 Yak-38M fighter aircraft and 20 Kamov Ka-25 or Kamov Ka-27 helicopters, or 32 aircraft. In practice, the air wing was the same as the other Kievs, consisting of a squadron of twelve Yak-38, twelve Ka-27 'Helix-A' ASW/SAR helicopters and two Ka-31 'Helix' AEW helicopters. This is a total of 26 aircraft. While the modifications that have transformed her into Vikramaditya have extended the flight deck area and provide a ski-jump bow, I don´t think there has been any real increase in hangar space below the main deck. Mig-29K is rather larger than Yak-38. Vikramaditya is said to carry 16 Mikoyan MiG-29K and 10 helicopters, consisting of mix of Ka-28 helicopters ASW, Ka-31 helicopters AEW and HAL Dhruv. That´s 26 aircraft. The Naval LCA made its first flight, almost two years after being rolled out, on 27 April 2012. The LCA's naval variant is to be ready for carrier trials by 2013 and is slated for deployment on the INS Vikramaditya as well as the Vikrant class aircraft carrier. In due course. Thusfar Indian Navy signed an order for six Naval LCAs. LCA may mean a few more jets aboard Vikramaditya, although I doubt that you will see fewer than 10 helicopters. Even with 20 jets, you will still not have all available at all times and of those available you still will not have all in the air, and those in the air you will have to divide to face a multi-vectored thread. And they can only shoot aircraft, not missiles.

The attack package would still need to get close enough to fire the missiles, but with CAPs and AEWs that will more difficult and Indo-Pak scenario is not comparable to the Falkland war either. IN carriers would be supported by IAFs shorebased capabilities as well, be it UAVs, AWACS, or maritime attack fighters, like the upgraded Mig 29s too. So to effectively pose a threat to an Indian carrier, you have to have not only a pretty good ammount of fighters, which is unlikely, since PAF will need them to keep IAF in check and other weaponary.

Yes, you would have to deal with CAP and AEW. I don´t quite see Falkland air strike are not relevant. WW2 carrier battles not relevant either, I´m sure? What makes you think this would be a scenario where IN-IAF can focus solely on Pakistani forces?

Besides the hype about this missile, Raad and C802 will be the first choices imo, while this missile will be mainly used for cross border air to ground attacks, as the Chinese sources suggest as well, since it is advertised as an air to ground missile, not an anti ship missile.

Surely no hype about Brahmos ...Originally developed as a air-to-surface missile (ASM) against fixed and slow moving target, an anti-shipping missile (AShM) is also developed for Pakistan. Or so it is said.
?4????CM-400AKG?_?_?

Not really, because your country men compared it to Brahmos and not to the Klub missiles for example, like you corretly did. So the speed is a disadvantage compared to the earlier and that was my point!

Mmmm, any fellow Dutchies posting in this here thread??? I recommend to not assume things about me. Still, if you disqualify CM-400AKG you also disqualify Klub supersonic variant.

How is that possible, since both are different missiles with different propulsion systems? YJ-12 is supposed to have a Ramjet propulsion and depending on which picture we take as a source, it is either base on the Russian Kh 31 propulsion, or copied from the French ASMP-A.

Mmmm, how about someone used a different propulsion system. Just like how they got from rocket powered to air breathing subsonic missiles (c801 , c802). How should I know? Does it matter?
YJ-12 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You are comparing a antiship air launched missile to a ballistic missile? Is he sure what he is talking about?

It is comparing the manner of penetration, not the flight or missile characteristics

 

[hurt]

It is antiship and can be also ARM but definitely not an ballistic missile...thats what I want to say. I say it is as good as the KH 15 Raduga which is also a good missile.

In other words ，CM 400AKG more like KH 15 with Iskander penetrate defences ability and Guidance system。

better than KH 15 Raduga

 

[sancho]

´
No, not so. For individual ships, Longer range SAM (ESSM, Aster 15, Shtil) are NOT the last defence capabilities.

I know, that's why I said one of, because for a carrier group these are the last options, while the focus is to counter any threat at long distances. That's why the first line of defence is AEW and CAP fighters and in war even pre-emptive strikes. To be honest, in a possible Indo-Pak war, most costal air bases and ports would be destroyed from subs and shore based cruise missiles or fighters, before a carrier group would be anywhere close to the area anyway. In a Indo-Pak war, it's only purpose is Sea Control and setting up a blockade. Attacks on coastal areas from the carrier itself are not necessary, with so many air force bases and missile sites next door. That's why I said, that the Falkland wars are not comparable with this scenario.

The capability of one does not disprove the capability of the other.

Who said it would disprove the other? What it proved was, that both offer very different capabilities and not the same as claimed from Safirz.

This is a total of 26 aircraft. While the modifications that have transformed her into Vikramaditya have extended the flight deck area and provide a ski-jump bow, I don´t think there has been any real increase in hangar space below the main deck.

What you are forgetting is, that Russian carriers used to have their own set of missiles and guns for self defence, that's why the space infront of the Island earlier located them, but now can park additional aircrafts and increases the internal space as well.

I doubt that you will see fewer than 10 helicopters.

Actually I do, normally 3 AEW helicopters would be on board an some Kamov for ASW, that's it. You won't see combat helicopters, nor do we have long range helicopters, or aircrafts yet, so why should they carry 7 helicopters on a dedicated aircraft carrier. This is not the Viraat anymore and when you look at the French CdG, or the mix that the coming British carries should get, it's similar.

And they can only shoot aircraft, not missiles.

Since when can a fighter not intercept a missile?

What makes you think this would be a scenario where IN-IAF can focus solely on Pakistani forces?

Who said they would? But we were talking about a possible scenario in on the western front and the Arabian Sea, not to mention that even if IAF and IN would split, they PN has nothing to even come close and PAF would still need it's full force to keep IAF in check.

Still, if you disqualify CM-400AKG you also disqualify Klub supersonic variant.

Again I didn't! But I take it as what it really is and don't build a fantasy around it, just to compare it with Brahmos and to troll around in any Indian missile thread. Maybe you should explain that to Safiriz, because it would reduce at least some of the blame games, bans and closed threads.

Mmmm, how about someone used a different propulsion system. Just like how they got from rocket powered to air breathing subsonic missiles (c801 , c802).

Which still remains the same missile, just 2 different version, while CM-400AKG and YJ-12 are 2 different missiles with different propulsions. It's like saying AIM120D would be a version of Meteor.

 

[Penguin]

I know, that's why I said one of, because for a carrier group these are the last options, while the focus is to counter any threat at long distances. That's why the first line of defence is AEW and CAP fighters and in war even pre-emptive strikes.

How many SHARs and AEW heli´s on Viraat again today?

To be honest, in a possible Indo-Pak war, most costal air bases and ports would be destroyed from subs and shore based cruise missiles or fighters, before a carrier group would be anywhere close to the area anyway. In a Indo-Pak war, it's only purpose is Sea Control and setting up a blockade. Attacks on coastal areas from the carrier itself are not necessary, with so many air force bases and missile sites next door. That's why I said, that the Falkland wars are not comparable with this scenario.

Sure they are, depending on what you are attempting to illustrate. My focus was on aircraft´s abilities to penetrate air fleet defences and launch missiles and press determined bomb attacks. You use the term ´comparable´ I use the term ´relevant´. IMHO things e.g. experiences or situation do not necessarily have to be comparable to draw lessons from them.

Who said it would disprove the other? What it proved was, that both offer very different capabilities and not the same as claimed from Safirz.

THey may still serve that same purpose or perform the same function.

What you are forgetting is, that Russian carriers used to have their own set of missiles and guns for self defence, that's why the space infront of the Island earlier located them, but now can park additional aircrafts and increases the internal space as well.

There is no enlargement of the hangar involved in the Gorshkov to Virkamaditya conversion. And while you may park a few more jets on deck, that is not a preferable situation and certainly not a structural solution for increasing the air wing.

Actually I do, normally 3 AEW helicopters would be on board an some Kamov for ASW, that's it. You won't see combat helicopters, nor do we have long range helicopters, or aircrafts yet, so why should they carry 7 helicopters on a dedicated aircraft carrier. This is not the Viraat anymore and when you look at the French CdG, or the mix that the coming British carries should get, it's similar.

CVN air wings
The Carrier Air Wing (CVW)
http://www.tailhook.net/CVWList1205.pdf
Carrier Air Wing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Viraat carries SHARs, Sea Kings (ASW, Transport) and Hal Chetaks (SAR).
Vikramaditya would carry Mig29K, Ka-31 (AEW) and Ka-28 (everything else)
Future carrier: The aircraft carrier can accommodate up to 30 aircraft. It will have adequate hangar and maintenance facilities for aircraft onboard. The airgroup will be a mix of combat aircraft including the MiG-29K, remaining Sea Harrier and naval LCA as well as the Ka-28 and Ka-31 helicopters. The Ka-31 provides airborne early warning coverage.

If you want to maintain AEW coverage with 1 heli in the sky, you need an absolute minimum of 3 and preferably even 4 AEW medium heli´s. Likewise for ASW: 4 medium hel´s. In addition, you have 2 light heli´s for SAR-Utility functions. Hence ten helicopters.
The PA2 will carry up to 40 aircraft including 32 Rafale combat aircraft, three E-2C Hawkeye surveillance aircraft and five NH90 helicopters. That represents an increase in Hawkeyes and helicopters relative to CdG (which has resp. 2 and 2).
Liaoning (Varyag) is expected to operate J-15 aircraft, J-10 carrier based aircraft, Z-8/Ka-31 AEW helicopters and Ka-27 ASW helicopters.

Since when can a fighter not intercept a missile?[¨/QUOTE]
While they may employed to deal with leakers, they are not the main anti-missile weapon system(s) and would typically be most usefully engaged against the missile launch platforms.

The force structure demands required to defeat cruise missile armed aircraft, and cruise missiles once launched are similar, but the latter presenting greater demands both in fighter missile payloads and air intercept radar performance. Supersonic cruise missiles impose further demands on fighter dash speed and supersonic persistence. The conceptual model for cruise missile defence is the combined use of AEW&C, fighters, tankers and in many instances, airborne X-band surveillance radars to detect, track and engage both launch aircraft and cruise missiles.Historically only two fighters were custom designed for cruise missile / bomber defence. The first was the US Navy F-111B, the second the MiG-31P Foxhound. It is no accident that both designs have similar empty weight, internal fuel load, high supersonic performance, huge radar bays, and carried similar payloads of similar sized AIM-54 and R-33/AA-9 Amos missiles.Current US Air Force thinking on cruise missile defence envisages a two zone scheme. The outer zone comprises the E-3 AWACS, E-8 JSTARS / E-10 MC2A and the F-22A, and is intended to detect, track and kill launch aircraft and cruise missiles which might be launched. This outer zone is supplemented by an inner zone, comprising E-8 JSTARS / E-10 MC2A equipped with MP-RTIP X-band radars to track cruise missiles, and a mix of F-22A, JSF and AESA equipped F-15C/APG-82 or F/A-18E/F to destroy leakers which might penetrate the outer zone of F-22A defence. The US some years ago introduces fusing changes to the AIM-120C-6 AMRAAM to improve its ability to kill cruise missiles.

Defeating Cruise Missiles
Most cruise missiles referred to are subsonic

Who said they would? But we were talking about a possible scenario in on the western front and the Arabian Sea, not to mention that even if IAF and IN would split, they PN has nothing to even come close and PAF would still need it's full force to keep IAF in check.

There are a variety of scenarios feasible of which all out war between India and Pakistan is only one. Some scenario´s will include (threat - perceived or real - of) third party intervention.

Again I didn't! But I take it as what it really is and don't build a fantasy around it, just to compare it with Brahmos and to troll around in any Indian missile thread. Maybe you should explain that to Safiriz, because it would reduce at least some of the blame games, bans and closed threads.

I´m not here to deal with individual posters but with a discussion. ALL in this thread shoot take a step back from bickering over who´s latest toy is better. I am non-aligned is this dispute between India and Pakistan.

Which still remains the same missile, just 2 different version, while CM-400AKG and YJ-12 are 2 different missiles with different propulsions. It's like saying AIM120D would be a version of Meteor.

There is so much unclear about Chinese missile and so much speculationt that I am not going to comment on this further.
YJ-12 .... Chinese ASM first image - Key Publishing Ltd Aviation Forums

 

[sancho]

THey may still serve that same purpose or perform the same function.

Not according to the manufacturers, since they call it an air to ground missile, while Brahmos is mainly an anti ship missile, further developed with land attack capabilities.

And while you may park a few more jets on deck, that is not a preferable situation and certainly not a structural solution for increasing the air wing.

That's what you say, but that does't mean IN or any other carrier operating navy have to see it like that either right? Infact, carrying aircrafts in front of the island is very usual way to increase the number of aircrafts, be it the French CdG carrier, the coming Brithish Queen Elizabeth class carrier, the US carriers, even the Russian Kuznetsov class carrier and it's Chinese sister ship, are designed with parking slots like that in mind. So you are mistaken here again!

If you want to maintain AEW coverage with 1 heli in the sky, you need an absolute minimum of 3 and preferably even 4 AEW medium heli´s. Likewise for ASW: 4 medium hel´s. In addition, you have 2 light heli´s for SAR-Utility functions.

Yes for the first part, no for the last, because modern naval helicopters will be used for both ASW and SAR-Utility roles,
Even the French CdG carrier, which operates older helicopters currently, has just 4 helicopters Dauphin, Alouette III, Puma ), the earlier for ASW and SAR, the latter for utility and long range transport, while the NH90 is meant to do it all and replace them infuture. For IN currently the older Kamovs will be used, while they will be replaced by multi role NH90s or S70s, that's why a mix of 3 x AEW and 3 x NH90/S70 helicopter (4+4 at max) would not be surprising and would allow 22 to 24 fighters, possibly more on IAC1.

Btw, Viraat is not a dedicated carrier, it's a VSTOL carrier, which uses the Harriers to support naval operations only, that's why it carries more helicopters and has a large compartment to carry additional troops, similar to USNs Wasp class, or to the older Russian designed Gorskov as well.
If configured for Sea Control roles, even the Wasp class, which is also a 40000+ t carrier would use around 20 fighters and just 6 naval helicopters. That's what any dedicated aircraft carrier does, maximising the numbers of fighters it can carry and improve fighter operations, with helicopters only in secondary roles.

There are a variety of scenarios feasible of which all out war between India and Pakistan is only one. Some scenario´s will include (threat - perceived or real - of) third party intervention.

Of course it is, but why do you change topic when we are discussing a clear point? Especially since such a scenario would only work against your argumentations. IF India would fight Pakistan and China at once, Indian carriers wouldn't be wasted to counter Pakistan anyway, since there is not much to gain, but would be used to keep PLAN in check. However, the way IN would attack Pakistan wouldn't be different as already stated, cruise missile attacks from subs, backed by shore based air wings, later diverting parts of the surface fleet for Sea Control roles.
So no matter what, PAF will still needs it's full force to keep the Indian western borders busy, while IN won't have any issue to divert their carriers to the east, since they are not needed wrt a conflict with Pakistan and the attack capabilities PAF/PN against our carriers would be unimportant.

I´m not here to deal with individual posters but with a discussion. ALL in this thread shoot take a step back from bickering over who´s latest toy is better.

That's the point, so when some people constantly trying to mess up these threads, shouldn't you step in as a senior an knowledgeable member to get some sense in the discussions, no matter what origin the trolls are from?

There is so much unclear about Chinese missile and so much speculationt that I am not going to comment on this further.

I fully agree, but by the fact that there is so less info about it, it would be better to take Chinese sources as more reliable than western sources that are speculating don't you think?
That's why Chinese sources calling it simply air to ground missile, sounds more reliable to me, than western sources hyping it as a carrier killer.

 

[Penguin]

The P-800 Oniks (Russian: П-800 Оникс; English: Onyx), also known in export markets as Yakhont (Russian: Яхонт; English: ruby or sapphire), is a Russian/Soviet supersonic anti-ship cruise missile developed by NPO Mashinostroyeniya as a ramjet version of P-80 Zubr. Its GRAU designation is 3M55. Development reportedly started in 1983, and by 2001 allowed the launch of the missile from land, sea, air and submarine. The missile has the NATO reporting codename SS-N-26. It is reportedly a replacement for the P-270 Moskit, but possibly also for the P-700 Granit. The P-800 was reportedly used as the basis for the joint Russian-Indian supersonic missile the PJ-10 BrahMos.

Yes, Brahmos is mainly an anti ship missile, further developed with land attack capabilities but from the start sub-, surface (land and sea) and air launched versions weren envisioned and realized. An air launched AShM is an air to surface missile.

P-800 Oniks - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Penguin]

That's what you say, but that does't mean IN or any other carrier operating navy have to see it like that either right? Infact, carrying aircrafts in front of the island is very usual way to increase the number of aircrafts, be it the French CdG carrier, the coming Brithish Queen Elizabeth class carrier, the US carriers, even the Russian Kuznetsov class carrier and it's Chinese sister ship, are designed with parking slots like that in mind. So you are mistaken here again!

I've not said deck parking is unusual (particularly when preparing for flight ops). Rather, I 've said it is preferable to not permamently deck park jet as a way of permanently increasing carriage if you don't have to. This in part depends on where you operate (harsh north Atlantic v. sunny warm waters elsewhere). So, at best, we differ of opinion.

During WW2, the largest part of the disparity between RN and USN carriers in aircraft capacity was due to the use of a permanent deck park on USN carriers. The RN operating in harsher weather protected their aircraft from the elements and did not use a permanent deck park in the earlier part of the war.
Armoured flight deck - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia