What's new

Malaysia eyes Air Launched BrahMos?

No, AKG doesn't have a ballistic trajectory. This is a ballistic trajectory:


2000px-Ideal_projectile_motion_for_different_angles.svg.png


A cruise missile generally follow this trajectory:

bumpupdown.jpg


The missile has to make a compromise between four. Its weight, its range, its speed and altitude. If you want it light and long, you have to keep it slow and high. If you go for terrain hugging mode, you are bleeding energy fast. If you make it fast, than again its bleeding energy. Even BrahMos has high altitude for cruise phase:

BRAHMOS Supersonic Cruise Missile - BrahMos.com



The altitude is kept high for as long as possible.

Second, manoeuvring is an issue, cause the how much lateral acceleration can a interceptor have is not the only limiting factor. There is a delay of sensing, electronics, computation of new trajectory, and also, every maneuver reduces the already limited range of the interceptor. For a mach 4 interceptor vs mach .8 missile, 150 m would be covered in almost 0.1 seconds. Any change the incoming missile make would leave very little time for interceptor to adjust.

About the 80 g acceleration. Circular acceleration is v^2/r. It means for same radius circle, a mach 4 missile would have to have 25 times higher acceleration (g) than a mach 0.8 missile. That is, if a mach .8 missile makes a 10 g turn, the interceptor would have to have many times higher acceleration to keep up.



CM vs BM is debatable. What CM achieves with terrain hugging, BM does with sheer speed. The difficulty lies with CM is its detection, which as you mentioned, is solved by AEW&C. BM, you know its coming, and you just watch it hit you. If you think speed doesn't pose a problem, why would anti-ballistic systems would be such a difficult task? Ballistic missiles have a very simple and predictable path. Once you know the initial trajectory, you can predict entire flight path. Problem lies with their speed.



The selling point of BrahMos is its speed. And there is not much know about AKG, so all we can make are hypothesis.

Yaara the trajectory you have posted for the CM is exactly the one which the AKG does not follow, it cruises at a very high altitude throughout its flight path- that's the point. The cruise profile depicted is what all CMs do in order to achieve their stated range since a sea skimming route for the complete flight path would play hell with the amount of fuel you'd need to cram into the CM. A cruise profile is only useful when its below the radar horizon which is not the case with the AKG. That's why I stated that its propulsion and design are quite similar to a BM- so is its climb up and dive down path- the only difference is that as I stated it pans out to a level flight at a high altitude. That's my point. From the description of the AKG, its seems like a pocket size DTBM for anti-shipping role. Furthermore- the point of the interceptor- target illumination of the inbound is rather easy and high speed inbound (re-entering SRBMs) have been repeatedly intercepted by mach 4.5 interception vehicles (AAD interceptor). Once the AKG goes terminal- the window for maneuvering is out as it dives in.

Secondly a CM which is sea skimming and has an intermediary target approach phase and terminal phase speed of mach 2.5-3 is far more dangerous than a quasi-BM coming in at mach 5. In fact consider that the former can only be detected 30 or so Km out (through the more usual means) while the latter's path can be tracked and plotted over a rather large distance (200 km plus by contemporary shipborne radars- which do you think will provide a shorter reaction time). Yaara, ship-borne target illumination FCRs are capable of keeping track of a high speed inbound even as it maneuvers- interceptor speed is an issue when you're trying to provide theater level defense and in a tail chase interception. Once its in its terminal dive- and the previous threads on the topic have confirmed that its flight path remains pretty high, there is no hi-lo-hi mix here.

So the AKG misses out on the surprise element- leaving its high altitude flight path and extreme terminal speed to be the problems to tackle. At the altitude its stated to cruise its beyond most normal SAM systems unless we navalize the PAD interceptor or its follow on vehicle. One you take that dive you open to kinetic interception.

In fact take note of the above link provided Agnostic- the flight path is mentioned clearly and is different from any CM- a CM will terminate its target by ideally ending its terminal phase 5-10 meters above the waves before slamming into the target. That's the whole point of a supersonic sea skimming CM. The majority of the flight path of a CM is a low alt cruise up till target interception, the opposite (high alt cruise) holds true for the AKG. The AKG ends up at a severe disadvantage here. The only thing left to ascertain is that does it maneuver in its terminal dive phase- that's all that remains to be seen to ascertain the relative difficulty associated with intercepting it. If its not particularly maneuverable than even a relatively primitive AAD will intercept it at 15000 meters hyper-sonic or not.
 
. .
Once its in its terminal dive- and the previous threads on the topic have confirmed that its flight path remains pretty high, there is no hi-lo-hi mix here.

That is the point of contention. Nothing much is said about it. It climbs to high altitude, and dives at high speed on the target. Leaving the impression that it maintains a high altitude slow speed cruise phase. I find it hard to believe Chinese engineers would leave a cruise missile so vulnerable, unless, they have prepared it for threats with low or no defence.
 
.
I already posted this. Doesn't clarifies much, except for what has been said in past few posts.

It clearly mentions that the missiles climbs up and takes a steep dive at the the target, how much more clear you need ?
check the simulation picture titled ground strike systems, it shows CM400 FLIGHT TRAJECTORY.
TRISHUL: November 2012
 
.
That is the point of contention. Nothing much is said about it. It climbs to high altitude, and dives at high speed on the target. Leaving the impression that it maintains a high altitude slow speed cruise phase. I find it hard to believe Chinese engineers would leave a cruise missile so vulnerable, unless, they have prepared it for threats with low or no defence.

That's the whole point, this isn't a CM at all. Aside from maintaining a relatively stable cruise flight path at high altitude it doesn't have anything in common with a CM's hi-lo-lo flight path. As I have stated, a CM picks that path becuase of fuel burn during the lo phase (higher atmospheric pressure and air density at lo alts)- the AKG packs in the range with the relatively small size by maintaining said flight profile- not to mention that it ensures that most conventional SAM systems like the Aster and Barak-8 (barring Aegis interceptors from the RIM (SM3) family other than which most max out at an engagement altitude of 20000 meters) will not be able to touch it before it goes terminal. The problem with a terminal dive though is that maneuverability will take a hit- and as I have already stated even we have used command guided, RF seeker equipped, low speed interceptors to kill a hyper-sonic target with a proximity detonation- with an active radar seeker and high lateral acceleration you can achieve a direct kinetic kill UNLESS the AKG is pulling any high g maneuvers as it dives.
 
.
It clearly mentions that the missiles climbs up and takes a steep dive at the the target, how much more clear you need ?
check the simulation picture titled ground strike systems, it shows CM400 FLIGHT TRAJECTORY.
TRISHUL: November 2012

Thanks, this is what I was looking for. Cause just saying that missile initially climbs up and takes a steep dive at the target is ambiguous.

India's BrahMos missile tested in steep-dive mode | Defense | RIA Novosti
"When you launch a missile, it goes up and reaches a flat trajectory. In this case, the BrahMos dove straight down from its flat trajectory while cruising at a supersonic speed," he said.
 
.
That's the whole point, this isn't a CM at all. Aside from maintaining a relatively stable cruise flight path at high altitude it doesn't have anything in common with a CM's hi-lo-lo flight path.

Have to disagree here on semantics here - the AKG is a cruise missile, as defined by -
A cruise missile is a guided missile, the major portion of whose flight path to its target (a land-based or sea-based target) is conducted at approximately constant velocity; that relies on the dynamic reaction of air for lift, and upon propulsion forces to balance drag.
Cruise missile - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And many cruise missiles have just a high-flow flight path (i.e. high altitude cruise followed by terminal steep dive), as opposed to Brahmos' high-low-high path.

But AKG's biggest concern will be it's terminal guidance & homing capability. Not sure how manouverable it will be in the hypersonic drives, when fuel levels are running very low.
 
.
@Dillinger

First of all , where did CM-400 AKG got into a Brahmos thread again ?

Are you sure that quasi-ballistic isn't the word , you are looking for , in all these posts ? :D

Cruise missiles do not have to change their trajectory throughout the flight profile to be known as such , maneuverability isn't the whole criteria for a missile to be classified as such .
 
Last edited by a moderator:
.
@Dillinger

First of all , where did CM-400 AKG got into a Brahmos thread again ?

Are you sure that quasi-ballistic isn't the word , you are looking for , in all these posts ? :D

Cruise missiles do not have to change their trajectory throughout the flight profile to be known as such , maneuverability isn't the whole criteria for a missile to be classified as such .

When I was referring to a cruise profile- I was specifically referring to employing a sea skimming stable cruise below radar horizon and within the radar clutter zone. In context to the procedure for detecting said inbound despite velocity. Secondly-

National+Wargaming+Simulation-7.jpg


The above pic provides the path of the said system- note that trajectory.

Note that all my previous posts are divided into three parts- the first part (meant for @DESERT FIGHTER) provides a general description of the BARCAP and resultant inability of the JFT to even get within the deployment range of said system.

The second provides information I dug up on interception of high speed inbounds- a few earlier stated things were refuted such as the requirement for 3X speed for interception- I had stressed again and again that such a requirement was only needed for a tail chase interception and not a head on interception- I provided a link demonstrating as much.

The third part (between me, @Kloitra and @Agnostic_Indian) was a detailed exchange regarding terminal phase characteristics. Note that I have laid stress on something very specific- the specific feature which makes a CM truly lethal- the fact that the majority of its flight path falls within the lo regime of the hi-lo-lo flight path. Making detection possible only at about 40 km out max for the best available sensors- a sea skimming CM with an intermediary target approach phase speed of mach 2.5-3 (sustained through the terminal phase till the point of impact) therefore becomes far more deadly in the absence of an AEW&C platform coordinating the AD and providing a track for the inbound CM (the AKG with an average speed of mach 5 even throughout its flight path- which is not the case- will provide nearly a 2 minutes and 26 seconds window while a CM with a velocity of just mach 2.5 which remains within the radar clutter zone till 40 km out at max will provide a 47 seconds window for interception). I never stated that maneuverability is a criteria for being categorized as a CM- rather that a high g maneuvering high speed inbound would indeed be very difficult to intercept.

The AKG simply lacks the feature which makes CMs so dangerous- specially when its range forces the carrying platform to try and bypass the BARCAP which is out at 180-200 nautical miles with a shore based AEW&C running a racetrack patrol. Other than that the diagram shall do the rest. @skysthelimit- please check the various types of propulsion systems used in a CM and then the one used on the AKG- that it is a lethal weapon is not subject to doubt- if you will pay attention to my previous posts I was stressing upon relative effectiveness. Its solid fueled- specifically termed as an AGM/ASM and NOT as an ASCM unlike say the C-705- Other than that if there is any definitive source which states otherwise then I am pretty much cool with that and will concede that point.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
. .
@skysthelimit @Kloitra @Secur @Agnostic_Indian Furthermore compare the air-frame of the AKG and the SY-400 SRBM.

images


102426146.jpg


This isn't just a passing resembance, the air-frame is exactly the same with only the control surface arrangement being different between the two versions of the AKG (the AGM version is an exact replica of the SY-400 while the ASM version has a different design for the forward control surfaces). The reason why people have opined that its a YJ-12 derivative* is because of its (AKG) flight path. In SY-400's case the AKG not only shares the same flight path (minus the boost phase) but also the same air-frame.

* (something that people have picked up from wiki and thus are assuming it to be a CM like the YJ platform. None of them bothered to open the link shown as reference for stating that the AKG is a YJ derivative, had they done so they would find that the link cited doesn't state that at all. Here's the cited link- China Develops CM-400AKG Pakistan's Hypersonic Carrier Killer Missile For JF-17 | ASIAN DEFENCE NEWS. That's the thing with Wiki- it can provide highly accurate information BUT only if you actually read the cited link AND check its veracity)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
.
@skysthelimit @Kloitra @Secur @Agnostic_Indian Furthermore compare the air-frame of the AKG and the SY-400 SRBM.

images


102426146.jpg


This isn't just a passing resembance, the air-frame is exactly the same with only the control surface arrangement being different between the two versions of the AKG (the AGM version is an exact replica of the SY-400 while the ASM version has a different design for the forward control surfaces). The reason why people have opined that its a YJ-12 derivative* is because of its (AKG) flight path. In SY-400's case the AKG not only shares the same flight path (minus the boost phase) but also the same air-frame.

* (something that people have picked up from wiki and thus are assuming it to be a CM like the YJ platform. None of them bothered to open the link shown as reference for stating that the AKG is a YJ derivative, had they done so they would find that the link cited doesn't state that at all. Here's the cited link- China Develops CM-400AKG Pakistan's Hypersonic Carrier Killer Missile For JF-17 | ASIAN DEFENCE NEWS. That's the thing with Wiki- it can provide highly accurate information BUT only if you actually read the cited link AND check its veracity)

the first picture sy400 and second picture CM400akg shares similar looks except the position of forward control surface, but when I reached out that link the air show demo of cm400 akg control surface looks very different than what you posted, I am confused which one will be the right representation ? what do you think ?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
.
the first picture sy400 and second picture CM400akg shares similar looks except the position of forward control surface, but when I reached out that link the air show demo of cm400 akg control surface looks very different than what you posted, I am confused which one will be the right representation ? what do you think ?

I already cleared it out didn't I? The AGM control surfaces are the same as that of the SY-400, but the control surfaces on the ASM are different. The ASM version is derived from the AGM version which shares the same air-frame as the SY-400. So there is nothing incorrect with the demo you saw. Note "the air-frame is exactly the same with only the control surface arrangement being different between the two versions of the AKG (the AGM version is an exact replica of the SY-400 while the ASM version has a different design for the forward control surfaces)"

The CM-400 AGM is the same as the SY-400 SRBM, the latter is just a bit longer. The CM-400 ASM has the same air-frame as the SY-400 too but its forward control surfaces are of a different design. That's all. Beyond that they are pretty much based on the same principles, propulsion system and even air-frames.
 
. . .

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom