Featured India’s Test of Hypersonic missile and implications for Pakistan

[waz]

Its a ramjet powered missile. Had it been a Mach 5 missile throughout its trajectory, it would not have been possible with lighter version. At Mach-5 you are more or less in domain of SCRAMjet because RAMjet by itself starts getting inefficient. Most likely, you have a Mach 2 missile which accelarates to Mach 5 during terminal dive phase as it flies high. A Mach 2 object flying high make a very good target for potent israeli Air Defence systems like Barak-8 deployed by India on its warships.

Ramjat's are most effective at Mach 3, but can go up to mach 6...However above mach 5 the engine becomes inefficient.

Here's a good piece on China's work in the ramjet field.

China ramjet progress

China continues to move toward fielding one or more designs of rocket/ramjet-powered air-to-air missiles, with local scientific-press reports of further recent flight tests: but missile speed, rather than the speed of progress, is – for now – a point of uncertainty.

www.iiss.org

You're also wrong about it being light, hence is unable to reach such speeds. The Revolutionary Approach to Time-critical Long Range Strike, or RATTLRS, system was a primarily air launched missile from aircraft which was light. It's operating speed was over mach 3 and mach 4 version was on the cards, this was as far back as 2007....It was cancelled in the end.

Lockheed Martin Completes Proof Testing of RATTLRS Vehicle

Your details about how a missile travelling at mach 3 plus, which can be easily shot down by the Barak-8 is full of boasting and bluster, much of it unproven. It's only real time test was an embarrassing failure in the 2006 Lebanon conflict, although not the air interceptor but the deterrence against anti-ship missiles. This was also a Chinese C-802 that struck home.

 

[Ajay Ghatak]

Your details about how a missile travelling at mach 3 plus, which can be easily shot down by the Barak-8 is full of boasting and bluster, much of it unproven. It's only real time test was an embarrassing failure in the 2006 Lebanon conflict, although not the air interceptor but the deterrence against anti-ship missiles. This was also a Chinese C-802 that struck home.

Huh? C-802 is a subsonic missile.

The 2006 hit was simply because of this : Israeli ship had disabled its air defences because friendly planes were in the air space.

Also, Barak-8 was not a part of the air defence as Barak 8 was first tested much later in 2009.

Israel's prowess at air and missile defence is top of the line. Compared to that Chinese weapons totally unproven.

 

[waz]

Huh? C-802 is a subsonic missile.

The 2006 hit was simply because of this : Israeli ship had disabled its air defences because friendly planes were in the air space.

Also, Barak-8 was not a part of the air defence as Barak 8 was first tested much later in 2009.

Israel's prowess at air and missile defence is top of the line. Compared to that Chinese weapons totally unproven.

Huh what? You boasted about the incredible intercept capabilities of the Barak and I showed you where in practical terms it performed well under par.
If it makes you feel happy accepting what the Israelis stated for their reason for failure then that's up to you, most of the world isn't so naive.
Of course Barak-8 was tested later, but still developed from it's predecessors.
Israel has good weapons, but the unusual part of your post is that you state that Chinese weapons are totally unproven, even though in this case a Chinese system beat an Israeli one.....

 

[Ajay Ghatak]

You're also wrong about it being light, hence is unable to reach such speeds. The Revolutionary Approach to Time-critical Long Range Strike, or RATTLRS, system was a primarily air launched missile from aircraft which was light. It's operating speed was over mach 3 and mach 4 version was on the cards, this was as far back as 2007....It was cancelled in the end.

First, RATTLRS was a US project. Second, it did not use Ramjet. Third, being light is not the issue as much as using Ramjet at Mach 5 is. YJ-12 uses integral ramjet.

 

[Ajay Ghatak]

Huh what? You boasted about the incredible intercept capabilities of the Barak and I showed you where in practical terms it performed well under par.

What you showed did not even include Barak - 8 and neither did it include YJ-12 or CM 400. So how was it relevant is beyond me.

If I were to cherry pick like that, I can include scenarios in which F-117 was hit by a lucky shot. Should that be used to argue that stealth is useless? Analogously, a subsonic missile hitting one boat means nothing. The supersonic missile like CM-400 in question is not even manuverable enough to hit destroyer type targets. At best it can try hitting a carrier, but even that is pushing the limits.

If it makes you feel happy accepting what the Israelis stated for their reason for failure then that's up to you, most of the world isn't so naive.

Well, if using untested and unreliable Chinese weapons keep Pakistan happy, so be it. Its their money.

 

[waz]

First, RATTLRS was a US project. Second, it did not use Ramjet. Third, being light is not the issue as much as using Ramjet at Mach 5 is. YJ-12 uses integral ramjet.

So what if it was? You argued on the validity of it being light i.e. not able to go as fast. The rest I already stated.

 

[waz]

What you showed did not even include Barak - 8 and neither did it include YJ-12 or CM 400. So how was it relevant is beyond me.

If I were to cherry pick like that, I can include scenarios in which F-117 was hit by a lucky shot. Should that be used to argue that stealth is useless? Analogously, a subsonic missile hitting one boat means nothing. The supersonic missile like CM-400 in question is not even manuverable enough to hit destroyer type targets. At best it can try hitting a carrier, but even that is pushing the limits.


Well, if using untested and unreliable Chinese weapons keep Pakistan happy, so be it. Its their money.

What I showed you was the tech it was based off, and what I also showed you was a less potent missile than the ones I write hitting its mark.
You can think of as many scenarios as you want, and no the F-117 incident isn't applicable here. Do you even realise how many missions that flew during a conflict?
To you it means nothing, which is understandable as you massively bought into the system.
The stuff about the CM-400 you literally just made up i.e. it's not manoeuvrable, show me an independent expert who states that.
Untried weapons, ok....

You can put your faith in something which already failed a litmus test....

 

[Ajay Ghatak]

So what if it was? You argued on the validity of it being light i.e. not able to go as fast. The rest I already stated.

Errr... Nope :
Here is what I wrote :

Its a ramjet powered missile. Had it been a Mach 5 missile throughout its trajectory, it would not have been possible with lighter version. At Mach-5 you are more or less in domain of SCRAMjet because RAMjet by itself starts getting inefficient.

You took out the lighter part while leaving the context in which it was mentioned.

 

[waz]

Errr... Nope :
Here is what I wrote :

You took out the lighter part while leaving the context in which it was mentioned.

Erm no I wrote about that in length, and stated clearly that at Mach 5 it’s inefficient.

 

[Ajay Ghatak]

What I showed you was the tech it was based off, and what I also showed you was a less potent missile than the ones I write hitting its mark.

Again, Barak - 8 has a much more advanced seeker and longer range. Infact because the system was developed and tested after 2006, any vulnerabilities (that you have speculate) would be fixed by now.

If I were to argue that way, then Chinese system 14 years back were not even worth talking about.

 

[Ajay Ghatak]

Erm no I wrote about that in length, and stated clearly that at Mach 5 it’s inefficient.

My argument is simple. The YJ-15 missile is based on Ramjet, it wont be able to hit and sustain Mach 5 though-out its flight. A lighter version of that is impossible to do so because it caries less fuel. Mach 5 in dive might be possible, but the missile will be take out much before it goes terminal by advanced Anti air system like Barak-8 because that missile flies quite high.

 

[waz]

My argument is simple. The YJ-15 missile is based on Ramjet, it wont be able to hit and sustain Mach 5 though-out its flight. A lighter version of that is impossible to do so because it caries less fuel. Mach 5 in dive might be possible, but the missile will be take out much before it goes terminal by advanced Anti air system like Barak-8 because that missile flies quite high.

You just write the same things over again, which I answered.

 

[Ajay Ghatak]

The stuff about the CM-400 you literally just made up i.e. it's not manoeuvrable, show me an independent expert who states that.

Sure why not!

The JF-17’s air-launched rocket (CM-400AKG)

Marketed as a ‘supersonic anti-ship missile’, the CM-400AKG is among the proposed stand-off range weapon options for the JF-17 Thunder, a multi-role fighter co-produced by Pakistan and China.

quwa.org

Rather than sea-skimming, CASIC stated that the CM-400AKG relies on high-altitude launch, which CASIC claims lends to “higher aircraft survivability”.[6] According to IHS Jane’s, the CM-400AKG “climbs to a high altitude and terminates with a high-speed drive on the target.”[7] In effect, it appears that the CM-400AKG operates with an arc, thus owing to its quasi-ballistic missile ties. Besides its flight trajectory, the CM-400AKG reportedly has a range of 180-250 km, using a terminal-stage seeker – optional between imaging infrared (IIR) and active radar-homing (ARH).[8] However, the terminal-stage element is – as per CASIC – best suited for ‘slow-moving targets’, with overt mention of aircraft carriers.[9] The CM-400AKG’s warhead options include blast fragmentation and penetration.[10]

Quasi ballisitc, hitting slow moving targets... its not manuverable enough in its terminal phase to hit a faster target like a destroyer.

BTW, this quwa article is quoting IHS Jane’s Defence Weekly. November 2012

 

[Ajay Ghatak]

You just write the same things over again, which I answered.

You argued on the validity of it being light i.e. not able to go as fast. The rest I already stated.

My argument was always about Ramjet which you missed. Being light was mentioned in context of the missile being powered by Ramjet.

 

[waz]

Sure why not!

The JF-17’s air-launched rocket (CM-400AKG)

Marketed as a ‘supersonic anti-ship missile’, the CM-400AKG is among the proposed stand-off range weapon options for the JF-17 Thunder, a multi-role fighter co-produced by Pakistan and China.

quwa.org

Quasi ballisitc, hitting slow moving targets... its not manuverable enough in its terminal phase to hit a faster target like a destroyer.

BTW, this quwa article is quoting IHS Jane’s Defence Weekly. November 2012

Not sure if a destroyer can avoid such a missile.
Many sources also mention it manoeuvres are at terminal phase. Anyway none of the above supports what you said “not even manoeuvrable”.