@
DESERT FIGHTER
High-supersonic/hypersonic PGMs like these have existed since 1970s in the Soviet inventory. They are all
but redundant against an aircraft carrier battle group in the modern world.
Secondly, just 1 or 2 such missiles will do anything except hit the carrier successfully. That's why
the Soviet naval doctrine envisaged the use of high-speed anti-ship missiles against aircraft carriers
in a much bigger & elaborate way.
What is needed is swarm attacks - with
atleast 24 such missiles launched from 12 x JF-17s,
supported by 1 x Saab-2000 AEW&C, if to overwhelm the air defences of the carrier, it's supporting
warships etc.
The Soviet plan of ambushing US CBGs was much bigger - swarms of high-speed missiles launched
off strike fighters or Tu-22s, submerged nuclear SSGNs & maybe even some warships - all at once to
overwhelm the defences and sink the carrier.
Either way, the element of surprise will be lost very early, greatly reducing the chances of success.
Is it any wonder that Russia, China no longer field such high-speed PGMs as a means to attack CBGs?
As someone once said, it's not like you just fire a missile and sink an aircraft carrier, there's much
more to it than what meets the eye.
The PAF officer either seems to be dodgy to explain the complexities involved in anti-carrier doctrines,
or as someone rightly pointed out, the principle use of CM-400AKG in PAF inventory is to be
a high-supersonic supplement to the subsonic Ra'ad in the A2G role, possibly given India's recent push
to acquire state-of-the-art CMDs like low-level radars, SPYDER etc.
I had explained the problems regarding anti-carrier doctrine with CM-400AKG in another forum.
Since I shouldn't provide the link to that forum here (or can I?), you should simply search for the
thread "CM-400AKG:Tough job for Indian Navy" in the counterpart of PDF from across the border,
if you know what I mean.
If not, I will explain the same points here tomorrow.