What's new

JF-17 Thunder Multirole Fighter [Thread 6]

Status
Not open for further replies.
Guys......:offtopic:. This is a JFT thread, not an anti-ship missile thread. Please open one up and this conversation can be taken to its respective thread.

To answer the bold part, can a ship withstand one missile's hit? YES, but why would anyone fire ONLY one missile onto a target as rich as an Indian AC (if you were the PN or the PAF)??

But you also need to remember...,this isn't a "Cruise missile" that hits at sub-sonic speed or in some cases, a little over Mach 1. This specific system hits at Mach 4. What that means, is that it can pierce through a LOT of hull just by its sheer kinetic force gained through high velocity. Now add high explosives to it, whatever ship it'll hit, it will ruin a significant portion of the ship.

The goal behind these weapons isn't to entirely "sink" every ship they are fired at. One missile may not flip a ship over and sink it, but it will leave it useless for many weeks till it goes back to the port and gets fixed up.
What that also means is that ships electronic systems will get compromised also. So the ship may not sink but (1): it can be damaged severely that its useless for ongoing operations and (2): a secondary attack will take it out as many (if not all) of its electronic systems were already dead or semi-useless due to the previous attack. Either way, the loss is at the ship's level if a missile at mach 4 pierces through the hull. So you better try to stop it before it penetrates.
True.

To further push the point of how difficult it is to sink a ship, here are a few notes from a post WW II exercise...

Sinkex videos
USS Buchanan
On June 13, 2000 the USS Buchanan took part in the RIMPAC 2000 as a target ship at Pacific Missile Range Facility, North of the Hawaiian Island of Kauia. American, Canadian and Australian forces tried to sink her for more than 24 hours. She took Three hits from Hellfire missiles fired from SH-60 LAMPS helos; Three Harpoon Missiles fired from RAAF F-111 & US P-3 aircraft and several allied ships; and a GBU-24 (2400 lb ...

USS Guam
The aircraft are from CAG-7. Total composition- 2 HARM missiles, 2 Hellfire Missile, 2 Penguin Missiles, 4 Maverick Missiles, CBU-99 Cluster Bombs, about 40 Laser Guided Bombs (LGB) using the MK-82 500lb warhead, 1 air-launched Harpoon Missile, 9 surface-launched Harpoons, Naval gunfire, and finally a MK-48 ADCAP ...
WW II was the first time naval fleets fought against each other without being in line-of-sight (LOS) of each other -- air power. Despite the fact that US Army General Billy Mitchell showed that ships can be sunk by way of an aerial assault, his experiment back in Jun/Jul 1921 were conducted under tightly controlled conditions with time on his side. The experiment was more to prove Mitchell's point that air power could be a threat to ships more than it was whether ships can be sunk by weapons delivered from above. Remember, this was a time when the experience of air power contained mostly of ground troop harassment and romanticized individual combats between pilots. Mitchell had greater vision for air power than what we gained from WW I.

In RIMPAC 2000 SINKEX, the USS Worden sank after 34 hrs of aerial assault. The USS Gen. Hugh J. Gaffey, a WW II era design ship, sank after nearly 10 hrs. From Mitchell's experiment back 1921 to RIMPAC 2000, can a ship be sunk by air power alone ? Yes, but it will require a lot of resources in terms of men, fighters, ordnance, and time.

Then what is the best weapon against a ship ? The torpedo.

Then why do we not use it ? Because a ship to ship engagement is relatively slow and time consuming in terms of meeting the enemy as far away from one's position as possible, whether that position is home shore or an area in the sea off home shore. It is far better to degrade the ability of the enemy ship to conduct battle than it is to actually sink it from as far away as possible. It is the proverbial "two out of three ain't bad" position.

What does it take in terms of mechanisms to actually sink a ship, whether it is from bombs delivered from above or a torpedo delivered from below ?

easts.info/on-line/journal/vol2no1/21003.pdf
3.2 Factors affecting the probability of sinking or capsizing-

The probability that a ship will sink or capsize depends upon the following factors: 1) the location and extent of damage; 2) the metacentric height at intact condition; 3) the draft at intact condition; 4) the permeability (percentage of space that can be occupied by water) of flooded spaces; and 5) applied forces and moments due to wind, se4 location or movement of tankage, persons or other weights and entrapped water on decks
A torpedo below the waterline upset the equilibrium of all those factors, especially item 4, the availability of empty space that water can occupy to create an imbalance of load distribution.

If an air dropped bomb does not penetrate the lowest part of the hull to allow water in, the ship will suffer severe internal damage to enough to degrade its ability to contribute to the battle, but it will not sink.

Can we stop damaged ships sinking?
- BIMCO

There is no magic about the loss of buoyancy which will stop a ship floating, and the maintenance of buoyancy and positive stability are the two keys to this problem.

But if there is “raking damage” as was the case in the Costa Concordia casualty, where a rock penetrated no fewer than five compartments as the ship scraped past it, the situation is far more dangerous.
Warships and cargo ships are no different from each other in terms of design to minimize water intake in the event of hull compromise. A torpedo can create that 'raking damage' on a hull under the right condition of approach angle and explosive yield.

So in terms of tactical considerations, it is better to target a ship's superstructure that contains vital components like sensors and communication arrays than it is to go after the hull, even though the hull is a large and tempting target area. Hit the hull area that is the helipad will do what ? Deny the ship's ability to conduct air operations. But a small yield missile flying a little higher to destroy or damage the radar array will blind the ship and if this ship is a component in a network of ships, there is now a hole in that network.

Sinking a ship is no longer a priority in naval warfare, even though there is no greater morale booster with that event.
 
Guys......:offtopic:. This is a JFT thread, not an anti-ship missile thread. Please open one up and this conversation can be taken to its respective thread.

To answer the bold part, can a ship withstand one missile's hit? YES, but why would anyone fire ONLY one missile onto a target as rich as an Indian AC (if you were the PN or the PAF)??

But you also need to remember...,this isn't a "Cruise missile" that hits at sub-sonic speed or in some cases, a little over Mach 1. This specific system hits at Mach 4. What that means, is that it can pierce through a LOT of hull just by its sheer kinetic force gained through high velocity. Now add high explosives to it, whatever ship it'll hit, it will ruin a significant portion of the ship.

The goal behind these weapons isn't to entirely "sink" every ship they are fired at. One missile may not flip a ship over and sink it, but it will leave it useless for many weeks till it goes back to the port and gets fixed up.
What that also means is that ships electronic systems will get compromised also. So the ship may not sink but (1): it can be damaged severely that its useless for ongoing operations and (2): a secondary attack will take it out as many (if not all) of its electronic systems were already dead or semi-useless due to the previous attack. Either way, the loss is at the ship's level if a missile at mach 4 pierces through the hull. So you better try to stop it before it penetrates.
Mach 4 is doubtfull according to following expert..
Here's what defence analyst Prasun K Sengupta says about
this missile - " claim of 180km-250km range is way off the mark, simply because those figures apply only to the SY-400 NLOS-BSM from which the CM-400AKG is derived. Thirdly, any long-range fire-and-forget air-to-ground PGM can only employ active radar for terminal guidance & not IIR, simply because no missile-based IIR sensor has the kind of target detection/lock-on range (of up to 26km). Such sensors exist only on board laser designator pods & therefore cannot be made to fit on-board a missile the size of CM-400AKG. Fourthly, if the missile has a digital scene-matching system, then it stands to reason that it cannot also have an on-board active radar for terminal guidance, a fact clearly borne out by external visual examination of the CM-400AKG's airframe. Fifthly, therefore, re-targetting in mid-flight is an impossibility. Sixthly, the CM-400AKG’s impact velocity cannot be hypersonic if an IIR sensor is employed for the terminal flight-phase. It can be hypersonic ONLY if climbs to a high altitude & undertakes a high-speed dive on the target (i.e.top-attack mode by using an X-band synthetic aperture radar), MEANING that this performance data applies only to the SY-400 NLOS-BSM, & not an aircraft-launched PGM meant for targetting an aircraft carrier cruising at a speed of 30 Knots.
Bottomline: Either the JD's reporter was totally ignorant about the laws of physics, or it was the PAF unnamed officials who were ignorant about the laws of physics & were just engaged in unsubstantiated & delusional rants".

China making new Aircraft Carriers and they are giving carrier killers to PAKISTAN??
 
Last edited:
Mach 4 is doubtfull according to following expert..
Here's what defence analyst Prasun K Sengupta says about
this missile - " claim of 180km-250km range is way off the mark, simply because those figures apply only to the SY-400 NLOS-BSM from which the CM-400AKG is derived. Thirdly, any long-range fire-and-forget air-to-ground PGM can only employ active radar for terminal guidance & not IIR, simply because no missile-based IIR sensor has the kind of target detection/lock-on range (of up to 26km). Such sensors exist only on board laser designator pods & therefore cannot be made to fit on-board a missile the size of CM-400AKG. Fourthly, if the missile has a digital scene-matching system, then it stands to reason that it cannot also have an on-board active radar for terminal guidance, a fact clearly borne out by external visual examination of the CM-400AKG's airframe. Fifthly, therefore, re-targetting in mid-flight is an impossibility. Sixthly, the CM-400AKG’s impact velocity cannot be hypersonic if an IIR sensor is employed for the terminal flight-phase. It can be hypersonic ONLY if climbs to a high altitude & undertakes a high-speed dive on the target (i.e.top-attack mode by using an X-band synthetic aperture radar), MEANING that this performance data applies only to the SY-400 NLOS-BSM, & not an aircraft-launched PGM meant for targetting an aircraft carrier cruising at a speed of 30 Knots.
Bottomline: Either the JD's reporter was totally ignorant about the laws of physics, or it was the PAF unnamed officials who were ignorant about the laws of physics & were just engaged in unsubstantiated & delusional rants".

China making new Aircraft Carriers and they are giving carrier killers to PAKISTAN??

two things...

* prasun is a noob when it comes to defense affairs, has been kicked many times by respected fellows such as vasily fofanov and others.
* sy-400 has nothing to do with cm-400akg, the latter has roots in yj-12 ASM.

now spare this thread from your mighty hollow analysis
 
Mach 4 is doubtfull according to following expert..
Here's what defence analyst Prasun K Sengupta says about
this missile - " claim of 180km-250km range is way off the mark, simply because those figures apply only to the SY-400 NLOS-BSM from which the CM-400AKG is derived. Thirdly, any long-range fire-and-forget air-to-ground PGM can only employ active radar for terminal guidance & not IIR, simply because no missile-based IIR sensor has the kind of target detection/lock-on range (of up to 26km). Such sensors exist only on board laser designator pods & therefore cannot be made to fit on-board a missile the size of CM-400AKG. Fourthly, if the missile has a digital scene-matching system, then it stands to reason that it cannot also have an on-board active radar for terminal guidance, a fact clearly borne out by external visual examination of the CM-400AKG's airframe. Fifthly, therefore, re-targetting in mid-flight is an impossibility. Sixthly, the CM-400AKG’s impact velocity cannot be hypersonic if an IIR sensor is employed for the terminal flight-phase. It can be hypersonic ONLY if climbs to a high altitude & undertakes a high-speed dive on the target (i.e.top-attack mode by using an X-band synthetic aperture radar), MEANING that this performance data applies only to the SY-400 NLOS-BSM, & not an aircraft-launched PGM meant for targetting an aircraft carrier cruising at a speed of 30 Knots.
Bottomline: Either the JD's reporter was totally ignorant about the laws of physics, or it was the PAF unnamed officials who were ignorant about the laws of physics & were just engaged in unsubstantiated & delusional rants".

China making new Aircraft Carriers and they are giving carrier killers to PAKISTAN??

whats the problem this will use against China;s carrier enemy .:bunny::bunny:
 
It is 180-250 km ...

The kinect impact of the missile is able to destroy large displacement warship (including Aircraft)

sure a single hit will only damage to AC but when it comes to multiple hits ... There is a chance of destroying AC

*compare our air launched version of Brahmos with this PGM.. Brahmos with range 290 km mach 2.8 payload 300 kg weighs 2500 kg.. Kh15 AShM mach5 payload 150 kg 300km weighs 1200 kg.. This one weighs only 400 kg??
*Short legged and light aircraft like JF17 going beyond 150 km from Pakistan shore to attack our AC is suicidal..
*Our air craft carriers will be stationed far from your costline.. Our AC mission is naval blockade.. Will bestationed far from ship route because of Mig 29k long range(500 km for those missions)
* Jf17 s coming 200 km near our carrier battle group is not possible as we will see you well before( big radars in ships and awacs) and dispatches mig 29s..
* air defence in carrier battle group is strong..
 
*compare our air launched version of Brahmos with this PGM.. Brahmos with range 290 km mach 2.8 payload 300 kg weighs 2500 kg.. Kh15 AShM mach5 payload 150 kg 300km weighs 1200 kg.. This one weighs only 400 kg??
*Short legged and light aircraft like JF17 going beyond 150 km from Pakistan shore to attack our AC is suicidal..
*Our air craft carriers will be stationed far from your costline.. Our AC mission is naval blockade.. Will bestationed far from ship route because of Mig 29k long range(500 km for those missions)
* Jf17 s coming 200 km near our carrier battle group is not possible as we will see you well before( big radars in ships and awacs) and dispatches mig 29s..
* air defence in carrier battle group is strong..
All battles of war are suicidal, including your thought of a blockade. If you knew anything about warfare, you'll know by now how Argentinian super-etendards (just two of them) sinked mighty england ships in the Falklands war (sea blockade) with Exocet anti-ship missiles.
 
Is it Thunder at Peshawar

One more
 

Attachments

  • image.jpg
    image.jpg
    152.1 KB · Views: 67
  • image.jpg
    image.jpg
    133.1 KB · Views: 53
*compare our air launched version of Brahmos with this PGM.. Brahmos with range 290 km mach 2.8 payload 300 kg weighs 2500 kg.. Kh15 AShM mach5 payload 150 kg 300km weighs 1200 kg.. This one weighs only 400 kg??
*Short legged and light aircraft like JF17 going beyond 150 km from Pakistan shore to attack our AC is suicidal..
*Our air craft carriers will be stationed far from your costline.. Our AC mission is naval blockade.. Will bestationed far from ship route because of Mig 29k long range(500 km for those missions)
* Jf17 s coming 200 km near our carrier battle group is not possible as we will see you well before( big radars in ships and awacs) and dispatches mig 29s..
* air defence in carrier battle group is strong..

CM-400akg weight is 900KG with the warhead of upto 150-250kg
 
Nothing clan kill indian carier.....


That rusty russian piece of junk will sink under its own weight....

THIS must be the MOST INTELLIGENT Military post on PDF this year. :hitwall:
 
THIS must be the MOST INTELLIGENT Military post on PDF this year. :hitwall:

And you are right next to him in the league of neanderthals for responding to a troll. Do you not realize that trolls thrive on an argument and ignoring them is the best solution. The only reason I have chosen to berrate you is that normally your posts are good. Keep up the standard and dont get involved in a troll fest.
I really dont understand you guys. Neighbours who should be on the look out for each other are at each others throats on a daily basis. Have you guys honestly got nothing better to do. In this case I am not nation specific and want to address trolls on both sides. Learn how to debate rather than hurl insults at each other. Please try and make this a place to learn and discuss rather than fight.
Regards
Araz
 
Well....
Catic displayed and marketed a missile in a reputed international arms show; they said its operational and available for export...

An international megazine of greatest repute dubbed it as a carier killer: catic or pac never made that comment...

And here i see some guys of zero international credibility, all of from a particular country hell bent on proving its not a carier killer and infact it has zero capibility at all...may be its a plastic toy..

The thread it self is not even about carier killer missiles...its about jf 17 aircraft

And now you are calling it a serious discussion....

Any how i appologise on my comment which insulted that retrofitted old aircraft carier of yours...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom