Now this is hilarious!!




[b]Britain's 'Unique' Missiles Have Killed No Daesh Militants The radar-guided "smart missiles" quoted among the reasons for the UK to take part in the airstrikes campaign in Syria have so far killed no Daesh fighters. The response to a freedom of information (FOI) request by the Huffington Post UK has revealed that no recorded casualty has been attributed to the Brimstone missile since the start of the strikes in December. In the FOI answer, the UK Ministry of Defense said that only seven people have been hit by British strikes so far— it is unknown whether they were killed or just wounded. Five of the casualties resulted from US- made Hellfire missiles, while the remaining two were brought about by Paveway IV bombs. Brimstone missiles— £100,000-each — resort to radar and laser technology to hit targets precisely. They had previously been extolled by cabinet figures, including Prime Minister David Cameron, who said that they would "cut off the head of the [Daesh] snake". The government actually built part of its case for British intervention on the Brimstone missiles. Since only the UK and Saudi Arabia have access to these particular missiles, the cabinet’s narrative went, the RAF's intervention could actually make a difference. Tory minister David Jones described Brimstones as "unique", while the PM called them "some of the most accurate weapons known to man". It was claimed that such accuracy would reduce civilian kills and reliably hit faraway targets. This argument had nonetheless been disputed ahead of the vote, because Brimstone's anti-tank capabilities can cause harm to other than its intended target. The FOI response said that the much- touted missiles have so far been used only in nine strikes. In addition, the Brimstone missiles' deployment was not kick-started until January, more than a month after the British Parliament voted for the intervention.[/b]

Now this is hilarious!!




[b]Britain's 'Unique' Missiles Have Killed No Daesh Militants The radar-guided "smart missiles" quoted among the reasons for the UK to take part in the airstrikes campaign in Syria have so far killed no Daesh fighters. The response to a freedom of information (FOI) request by the Huffington Post UK has revealed that no recorded casualty has been attributed to the Brimstone missile since the start of the strikes in December. In the FOI answer, the UK Ministry of Defense said that only seven people have been hit by British strikes so far— it is unknown whether they were killed or just wounded. Five of the casualties resulted from US- made Hellfire missiles, while the remaining two were brought about by Paveway IV bombs. Brimstone missiles— £100,000-each — resort to radar and laser technology to hit targets precisely. They had previously been extolled by cabinet figures, including Prime Minister David Cameron, who said that they would "cut off the head of the [Daesh] snake". The government actually built part of its case for British intervention on the Brimstone missiles. Since only the UK and Saudi Arabia have access to these particular missiles, the cabinet’s narrative went, the RAF's intervention could actually make a difference. Tory minister David Jones described Brimstones as "unique", while the PM called them "some of the most accurate weapons known to man". It was claimed that such accuracy would reduce civilian kills and reliably hit faraway targets. This argument had nonetheless been disputed ahead of the vote, because Brimstone's anti-tank capabilities can cause harm to other than its intended target. The FOI response said that the much- touted missiles have so far been used only in nine strikes. In addition, the Brimstone missiles' deployment was not kick-started until January, more than a month after the British Parliament voted for the intervention.[/b]

Now this is hilarious!!




[b]Britain's 'Unique' Missiles Have Killed No Daesh Militants The radar-guided "smart missiles" quoted among the reasons for the UK to take part in the airstrikes campaign in Syria have so far killed no Daesh fighters. The response to a freedom of information (FOI) request by the Huffington Post UK has revealed that no recorded casualty has been attributed to the Brimstone missile since the start of the strikes in December. In the FOI answer, the UK Ministry of Defense said that only seven people have been hit by British strikes so far— it is unknown whether they were killed or just wounded. Five of the casualties resulted from US- made Hellfire missiles, while the remaining two were brought about by Paveway IV bombs. Brimstone missiles— £100,000-each — resort to radar and laser technology to hit targets precisely. They had previously been extolled by cabinet figures, including Prime Minister David Cameron, who said that they would "cut off the head of the [Daesh] snake". The government actually built part of its case for British intervention on the Brimstone missiles. Since only the UK and Saudi Arabia have access to these particular missiles, the cabinet’s narrative went, the RAF's intervention could actually make a difference. Tory minister David Jones described Brimstones as "unique", while the PM called them "some of the most accurate weapons known to man". It was claimed that such accuracy would reduce civilian kills and reliably hit faraway targets. This argument had nonetheless been disputed ahead of the vote, because Brimstone's anti-tank capabilities can cause harm to other than its intended target. The FOI response said that the much- touted missiles have so far been used only in nine strikes. In addition, the Brimstone missiles' deployment was not kick-started until January, more than a month after the British Parliament voted for the intervention.[/b]

Henry240:
Now this is hilarious!!





[b]Britain's 'Unique' Missiles Have
Killed No Daesh Militants
The radar-guided "smart missiles"
quoted among the reasons for the
UK to take part in the airstrikes
campaign in Syria have so far killed
no Daesh fighters.
The response to a freedom of
information (FOI) request by the
Huffington Post UK has revealed that
no recorded casualty has been
attributed to the Brimstone missile
since the start of the strikes in
December.
In the FOI answer, the UK Ministry of
Defense said that only seven people
have been hit by British strikes so far—
it is unknown whether they were killed
or just wounded.
Five of the casualties resulted from US-
made Hellfire missiles, while the
remaining two were brought about by
Paveway IV bombs.
Brimstone missiles— £100,000-each —
resort to radar and laser technology to
hit targets precisely. They had
previously been extolled by cabinet
figures, including Prime Minister David
Cameron, who said that they would
"cut off the head of the [Daesh] snake".
The government actually built part of
its case for British intervention on the
Brimstone missiles.
Since only the UK and Saudi Arabia
have access to these particular
missiles, the cabinet’s narrative went,
the RAF's intervention could actually
make a difference.
Tory minister David Jones described
Brimstones as "unique", while the PM
called them "some of the most
accurate weapons known to man".
It was claimed that such accuracy
would reduce civilian kills and reliably
hit faraway targets. This argument had
nonetheless been disputed ahead of
the vote, because Brimstone's anti-tank
capabilities can cause harm to other
than its intended target.
The FOI response said that the much-
touted missiles have so far been used
only in nine strikes. In addition, the
Brimstone missiles' deployment was
not kick-started until January, more
than a month after the British
Parliament voted for the intervention.[/b]

Known problem was high altitudes and temperatures.

The dual seeker utilizing both radar and laser guidance gives it high accuracy. But just like any weapon it is not a magic wad.

Henry240:


You've now suddenly developed an acute case of amnesia.

The Americans fully supported the killings carried out by the 15 years of military dictatorship under Augusto Pinochet after Salvador Allende, was overthrown in a coup. Declassified documents reveal how the Nixon administration instructed the agency to undermine Allende's government and "make the economy scream." Thousands of Chileans died or went into exile.


Muhammed Mosadeq in Iran also overthrown and a puppet Shah installed, series of events which led to the death of thousands of Iranians.


Back home in Africa, young reformist Patrice Lumamba of the DRC also met same fate. The DRC has never been stable since Lumumba was killed by the CIA. How many congolese have died in a conflict dubbed "Africa's own World War"? Why don't you give us the figures?


You must be a fool if you don't know your own history.


American interventionist policies have continued to plague the world like a cancer without a cure.

Patches689

africaken254:
the same could be said between nigeria government and bokoharam. tell us whats the relationship between boko haram founder Mohammed Yusuf and Jama'at Izalatil Bidiawa Iqamatus Sunnah and why has the nigeria government tolerated the sect !

Jama'at Izalatil Bidiawa Iqamatus Sunnah...... What is this?


Why has Nigerian government tolerated what sect?

africaken254:
recently boko haram crossed the nigeria/niger border and attacked positions of niger army near city of Bosso and taking parts of the city.the same boko haram which we hear is nearly defeated ! now who is stoking conflicts in other nations http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/06/boko-haram-attack-niger-kills-32-soldiers-nigeria-160604125912477.html

Oga see err....... This your comment makes no sense at all.


So tell us, who is stoking conflict in other nations? ........ Is it Nigeria?

Henry240:


Jama'at Izalatil Bidiawa Iqamatus Sunnah...... What is this?


Why has Nigerian government tolerated what sect?







Oga see err....... This your comment makes no sense at all.


So tell us, who is stoking conflict in other nations? ........ Is it Nigeria?

it seems you don't mind wahhabi inspired sects in your country !if boko haram who your supposed to have contained, is carrying out cross border attacks who is to blame ! your not a failed state like somalia or libya

africaken254:


it seems you don't mind wahhabi inspired sects in your country !if boko haram who your supposed to have contained, is carrying out cross border attacks who is to blame ! your not a failed state like somalia or libya

Lol I get your point. So because Book Haram seized a town in Niger, it is Nigeria's fault? FYI, Book Haram does not exist only in Nigeria, they are also in Cameroon, Niger and Chad. You cannot blame Nigeria if Niger's Book Haram attacks Nigerien army positions. And yes, Book Haram has been depleted in Nigeria. They have not seized any town or gain control over any military facility in Nigeria since June 2015.

NaijaTalkTown:
Lol I get your point. So because Book Haram seized a town in Niger, it is Nigeria's fault? FYI, Book Haram does not exist only in Nigeria, they are also in Cameroon, Niger and Chad. You cannot blame Nigeria if Niger's Book Haram attacks Nigerien army positions. And yes, Book Haram has been depleted in Nigeria. They have not seized any town or gain control over any military facility in Nigeria since June 2015.

lets deal with this latest issue first ,which country borders the city of bosso in niger ?
you also claim that boko haram are in cameroon,niger and chad,why then are nigerians seeking refuge in this same countries if they are also unsafe !

africaken254:
lets deal with this latest issue first ,which country borders the city of bosso in niger ?
you also claim that boko haram are in cameroon,niger and chad,why then are nigerians seeking refuge in this same countries if they are also unsafe !

I do not know were you get out news from, but if you follow DHQ on Facebook, you will get a clue on what's happening now. I never said Cameroon, Niger and Chad are unsafe, I only said that Book Haram operates in those countries. In fact, all the countries in the Lake Chad Basin have come together to form a multinational joint task force with the sole aim of tackling Book Haram. Some Nigerians left their homes for neighbouring countries when Bomo Haram was seizing their communities, those people have started coming back. I have not heard of people leaving their communities for other countries due to Boko Haram since at least, January 2016. So my friend, it is not true that Book Haram is as powerful as you think and no it is not Nigeria's fault if they attack another country.

chinese8107:


for most countries a mach 5 missle is a enough threat especially in Africa.

JF-17 can carry a CM400AKG air to surface missle with the average speed mach 4-5,top speed mach 5-6 can be at par with at least bramos I if not zircon. Though the range seems to be shorter and the price I think should be more resonable. of couse for those su-30 user they can only choose yakhont or bramos.

CM-400AKG claim from wikipedia

"The CM-400AKG is an air-launched supersonic surface attack cruise missile, believed to be the export version of the YJ-12.[12] The 910 kg (2,000 lb) missile is 0.4 m (1.3 ft) in diameter and has a range of between 54–130 nmi (62–150 mi; 100–241 km) while carrying either a 150 kg (330 lb) blast or 200 kg (440 lb) penetration warhead. It has three guidance options, including inertial navigation system (INS) coupled with satellite positioning to get within 50 m, an onboard IR/TV seeker for terminal guidance and 5 m accuracy, and passive radar to supplement the seeker, which delivers (strangely worse) 5-10 m accuracy. One unusual characteristic is that it does not fly at low altitude to avoid detection, but rather uses “high altitude launching” to achieve “higher aircraft survivability.”[13] It may have a top speed of Mach 5.[14]"



1.Firstly, CM-400AKG has not yet been qualified on the JF-17 Thunder. there are no reports till now, CM-400AKG has been shown next to JF17 in airshows only.

2.till now all existing operational supersonic ASCMs to date like, Taiwans Hsiung Feng-3/Brave Wind-3 , Russias Kh-41 Zubr , Russias Novator , 3M54E Klub-S/N , india/russias BrahMos , Japan’s Mitsubishi ASM-3 etc all make use of on-board active radar seekers for terminal guidance
how come CM400AKG can claim to utilize IIR seeker , any long-range fire-and-forget supersonic,hypersonic missile 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.

3.the CM-400AKG 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)

4.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 air-frame.



operational scenario of CM-400AKG keeping in view its stated operating profile "carrier killer"

"The 910kg/2,000lb CM-400AKG, possessing a engagement envelope of 240km (130nm) a maximum cruise speed of Mach 4, airframe diameter of 0.4 metres, and 200kg blast-penetration warhead, has been designed to be launched when the JF-17 reaches cruise speeds of between 750kph and 800kph at altitudes of between 26,200 feet and 39,400 feet. While its on-board RLG-INS offers a CEP of 50 metres (164 feet) during the mid-course navigation phase, the CEP reportedly gets reduced to 5 metres when the IIR seeker is activated during the terminal guidance phase. "

how does it stand in reality

If it is imperative that the JF-17 attain an altitude of near to 40000 feet in order to launch its two CM-400AKGs in ripple-fire mode, the element of surprise will be lost very early since the missile is not sea-skimming and will be detected by warship-mounted active phased-array volume search radars quite easily, while the airborne launch platform JF-17 will be easily located and tracked by AEW platforms while the JF-17s are still 250km away from the target.
And lastly, the JF-17 will have to continue cruising at medium altitudes so that the underbelly data-link pod can continue to maintain line-of-sight contact with the CM-400AKG’s on-board IIR imagery transmitter, which further puts the launch platform at risk of being shot down. a SAM or AAM fired at it will force the launch platform to take evasive maneuver thus breaking the datalink.


CM-400 AKG is acknowledged as a derivative of YJ-82 anti-ship missile and its speed is not mach-5.5, its only mach 0.9 initially then 2.2 mach , and then it attains the maximum mach 5.5 speed only in the terminal phase when it takes a steep dive and that is why the the manufacturer/OEM brochure mentions "average speed" to make it look deadly.

also it is not comparable to other supersonic cruise missiles or anything subsonic ASCM used worldwide because all of them travel a few meters higher above sea in terminal stage (sea skimming).

but it is a good weapon against static targets on ground over lightly defended airspace

nemesis2u:


1.Firstly, CM-400AKG has [s]not yet been qualified on the JF-17 Thunder[/s]. there are no reports till now, CM-400AKG has been shown next to JF17 in airshows only.

Below is from AFM Feb 2014

nemesis2u:


It can be hypersonic ONLY if climbs to a high altitude & undertakes a high-speed dive on the target

That it does. There is more info somewhere.

nganduh:


Below is from AFM Feb 2014

" Firstly, CM-400AKG has not yet been operationally qualified on the JF-17 Thunder. there are no reports till now. "

i missed the word "operationally"

or simply combat ready and fully integrated with the launch platform to allow full exploitation of CM-400AKG capabilities.

one of the reasons being there is no mention of data link pod which will be required to communicate with CM-400AKG’s on-board IIR imagery transmitter. has its integration to to the jf17 finished or is it still a work in progress.

also carrying a weapon in flight is in no way a sign that the said weapon is fully qualified for launch from the carrying platform.
the subject is too vast to explain here.

do you have pictures of CM-400AKG fitted to operational PLAAF aircraft's , i never saw one.

nor have i come across any reports of being test fired from jf 17, lots of test fire is required for any missile to qualify for the term carrier killer both against static and moving targets at sea.

in the end i could be wrong
or i could be right

and

nganduh:

That it does. There is more info somewhere.

where?
and the picture is very hazy cant make out anything.



for the record my post was in reply to chinese8107 claim that CM-400AKG is on par with existing supersonic cruise missile , which it is not , it is not even in the same category, since CM-400AKG is more of a ballistic missile not even close to being a cruise missile, actually the CM-400AKG is an air-launched derivative of the SY-400 tactical ballistic missile.

i wanted to prove chinese8107 claim as wrong which i did

by the way why r the chinese inducting yj-12 and yj-18 in large numbers and not CM-400AKG?

nganduh:


That it does. There is more info somewhere.

the aircraft which will launch it will be a sitting duck to SAM on ships at that altitude,considering the range it has to be launched

nemesis2u:


" Firstly, CM-400AKG has not yet been operationally qualified on the JF-17 Thunder. there are no reports till now. "

i missed the word "operationally"

or simply combat ready and fully integrated with the launch platform to allow full exploitation of CM-400AKG capabilities.

one of the reasons being there is no mention of data link pod which will be required to communicate with CM-400AKG’s on-board IIR imagery transmitter. has its integration to to the jf17 finished or is it still a work in progress.

also carrying a weapon in flight is in no way a sign that the said weapon is fully qualified for launch from the carrying platform.
the subject is too vast to explain here.

do you have pictures of CM-400AKG fitted to operational PLAAF aircraft's , i never saw one.

nor have i come across any reports of being test fired from jf 17, lots of test fire is required for any missile to qualify for the term carrier killer both against static and moving targets at sea.

in the end i could be wrong
or i could be right

and

where?
and the picture is very hazy cant make out anything.



for the record my post was in reply to chinese8107 claim that CM-400AKG is on par with existing supersonic cruise missile , which it is not , it is not even in the same category, since CM-400AKG is more of a ballistic missile not even close to being a cruise missile, actually the CM-400AKG is an air-launched derivative of the SY-400 tactical ballistic missile.

i wanted to prove chinese8107 claim as wrong which i did

by the way why r the chinese inducting yj-12 and yj-18 in large numbers and not CM-400AKG?

not operational qualified?

how do you know Paistan not equipt it? must they tell you? no report is not supprise. even if they report it ,somebody may not believe it.

I mean in terns of speed at par with BrahMos-1 ,as for the range it could be 250km plus or further

the cm400akg is a ballistic missle like you said rather than a curise missle like BrahMos, yes it could work at ballistic mode to lunch from a high attitude.but how do you know it's not capable working at low attitude above sea level ? Just because the manifacturer doesn't provide additional information? Though It is different from brahmos in the engaging mode ,no have 90 degree REVERSE SLOPE targeting capability probably to save cost yet the terminal phase speed is not lower than BrahMos-1

one of the reasons being there is no mention of data link pod which will be required to communicate with CM-400AKG’s on-board IIR imagery transmitter. has its integration to to the jf17 finished or is it still a work in progress.

this is just your assumption

And lastly, the JF-17 will have to continue cruising at medium altitudes so that the underbelly data-link pod can continue to maintain line-of-sight contact with the CM-400AKG’s on-board IIR imagery transmitter, which further puts the launch platform at risk of being shot down. a SAM or AAM fired at it will force the launch platform to take evasive maneuver thus breaking the datalink.

again this is your assumption too.The manufaturer no mention,but simply say "fire and forget" which means you can set back after launching the missle no need to worry about datalink.if there is no sattlite-link there must be other means of datalink.

YJ-12 is a bigger brother of CM-400AKG has 400km range and sattlite-link with speed at mach 4. And YJ-18 up to 500KM

africaken254:
the aircraft which will launch it will be a sitting duck to SAM on ships at that altitude,considering the range it has to be launched

most SAM missle has the range less than 150km including frigates or destroyer lauched anti-aircraft missles. The Russian S-300 system 200km range. how much is it? egypt bought some for $500.000.000 dollars.

chinese8107:

not operational qualified?

how do you know Paistan not equipt it? must they tell you? no report is not supprise. even if they report it ,somebody may not believe it.

classified
lol google

chinese8107:
I mean in terns of speed at par with BrahMos-1 ,as for the range it could be 250km plus or further

then why the OEM brochure handed in defence expo mentions "average speed"

chinese8107:
the cm400akg is a ballistic missle like you said rather than a curise missle like BrahMos, yes it could work at ballistic mode to lunch from a high attitude.but how do you know it's not capable working at low attitude above sea level ? Just because the manifacturer doesn't provide additional information?

laws of physics
it is going to be same for Russian, us, Japanese and yes Chinese missiles too.

chinese8107:
Just because the manifacturer doesn't provide additional information?

ur assumption

chinese8107:
Though It is different from brahmos in the engaging mode ,no have 90 degree REVERSE SLOPE targeting capability probably to save cost yet the terminal phase speed is not lower than BrahMos-1
this is just your assumption

lol nice excuse , main excuse is limitations of maneuverability of a ballistic missile , the trajectory (flight path) of a ballistic missile and the main reason why u have cruise missiles to overcome all these limitation.
again laws of physics

chinese8107:
again this is your assumption too.The manufaturer no mention,but simply say "fire and forget" which means you can set back after launching the missle no need to worry about datalink.if there is no sattlite-link there must be other means of datalink.

there is no dearth of stupid people like me in this world who unfortunately will take the claims of any weapon manufacturers marketing tactic with a pinch of salt.

lol forget about IIR , what about mid course guidance ?
how on earth r u going to get the missile to the targets last known general location grid at a distance of 250km so that it can turn on it on board seeker for target scan and then positive target lock . how is the launch aircraft going to provide mid course guidance?

now according to u we can infer that the missile has a super super seeker which can achieve target lock at 250km lol

man that is awesome and true fire and forget technology congrats
i want to buy it.


lastly lets forget this discussion
i hereby admit i am wrong
let the other readers have some fun

nemesis2u:


classified
lol google



then why the OEM brochure handed in defence expo mentions "average speed"



laws of physics
it is going to be same for Russian, us, Japanese and yes Chinese missiles too.


ur assumption




lol nice excuse , main excuse is limitations of maneuverability of a ballistic missile , the trajectory (flight path) of a ballistic missile and the main reason why u have cruise missiles to overcome all these limitation.
again laws of physics



there is no dearth of stupid people like me in this world who unfortunately will take the claims of any weapon manufacturers marketing tactic with a pinch of salt.

lol forget about IIR , what about mid course guidance ?
how on earth r u going to get the missile to the targets last known general location grid at a distance of 250km so that it can turn on it on board seeker for target scan and then positive target lock . how is the launch aircraft going to provide mid course guidance?

now according to u we can infer that the missile has a super super seeker which can achieve target lock at 250km lol

man that is awesome and true fire and forget technology congrats
i want to buy it.


lastly lets forget this discussion
i hereby admit i am wrong
let the other readers have some fun

I have no question about the average speed, the high terminal speed is due to diving on the target,I am not against this concluntion .I never said your judgement is wrong,I just said there is no more information provided by the manufacturer.but simply the figure mach 4-5. The terminal phase speed not slow. how fast is the brahmos-1?

the middle course guidence is INS/GPS/BEIDOU multiple, and that's sattlite-link.The terminal guodence is rader/IR/TV combine. In terninal phrase the build-in computer will check the rader/IR/TV information and recognize the target automaticlly.

according to wikipedia (cm-400akg) ：
INS coupled with satellite positioning to get within 50 m, an onboard IR/TV seeker for terminal guidance and 5 m accuracy, and passive radar to supplement the seeker, which delivers (strangely worse) 5-10 m accuracy

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 air-frame.

I beg you
the wikipedia said it's a passive rader

And lastly, the JF-17 will have to continue cruising at medium altitudes so that the underbelly data-link pod can continue to maintain line-of-sight contact with the CM-400AKG’s on-board IIR imagery transmitter，which fther puts the launch platform at risk of being shot down. a SAM or AAM fired at it will force the launch platform to take evasive maneuver thus breaking the datalink.

who told you that? if this is ture it is not "fire-and-forget "missle. Most SAM or AAM don't have that range as S-300 or AIM -120D can shot about 200km ，very few latest can reach 300 km .their rader may detect you, but you are 250-300km away,in most case no need to take evasive maneuver.otherwise it's not "standoff weapon"

chinese8107:

I beg you
the wikipedia said it's a passive rader




who told you that? if this is ture it is not "fire-and-forget "missle. Most SAM or AAM don't have that range as S-300 or AIM -120D can shot about 200km ，very few can reach 300 km .their rader may detect you, but you are 250-300km away,no need to take evasive maneuver.otherwise it's not "standoff weapon"

passive radar or active radar does not make any difference , the small size of the nose, hence size of the radar array and hence the resultant reduced emitted power of any air to ground missile limits their range to less than 30km generally.

fire and forget is s marketing term , because true fire and forget capability is limited by seeker capability and size and other parameters.

eg javlin is a true fire and forget missile because it can lock on target at less than 3km before launch, then u fire it and forget about it.
if the target is at 10km and even if the javlin had enough fuel to travel 10km , it will not be able to lock on target at 10km because its seeker acquisition range is less than 3km. hence not fire and forget.
the american can put a bigger seeker but that is not possible because of design and power limitations.

hence how the hell is anybody gonna lock on a target from a distance of 250km away .


standoff weapon is ok but depends on the enemies radar capacity ,also what if enemy air assets are already flying CAP missions near by.
battle spaces r not about one to one mission but multi faceted and dynamic, full of surprises, any aircraft which needs to fly at 40000 feet to launch a particular missile will be detected 90% of the time.

nemesis2u:


passive radar or active radar does not make any difference , the small size of the nose, hence size of the radar array and hence the resultant reduced emitted power of any air to ground missile limits their range to less than 30km generally.

fire and forget is s marketing term , because true fire and forget capability is limited by seeker capability and size and other parameters.



hence how the hell is anybody gonna lock on a target from a distance of 250km away .
and i though Chinese people were very intelligent

u must be in. high school?

you konw INS/GPS guidence mean ?

I bet you not

(Inertial Navigation Systems, unlike other navigation systems, do not depend on external (radio) measurements. Instead an INS keeps track of its position by accurately measuring acceleration (accelerometers) and rotation (gyroscopes). It therefore works in remote areas where there are no ground based navaids available.
Initially, the INS gets its position from pilot input at the gate, or in more recent systems from GPS, sometimes even during flight. By measuring all the accelerations and rotations and integrating them into speed and direction the position is tracked. In doing this, the INS has to correct for the rotation of the earth and the related Coriolis force.)
http://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/2275/what-is-an-inertial-navigation-system-how-does-it-work

You don't have to lock a target at begainning. Just input the approximate GPS position of the target,during the flight the updated GPS information could be provied via satellite datalink ,the missle fly to there.only after arriving the approximate positon the missle's built-in terminal guience system like IR/TV or radar begain to work automaticlly.hence no need to worry about the terminal guidence range.If the provided GPS data is accurate enough,the missle fly right-up on the enemy's head.

INS/GPS can work alone without other means of guidence like IR/TV seeker or rader as long as the provided data is accurate.some famous INS/GPS weapon eg US JDAM or China LS-6 is combined with a unguied bomb and an INS/GPS kit

GPS GLONASS BEIDOU are major 3 satellite datalink and guidence system on earth provide by USA Russia China respctively. Indian has just begun to launch it's own version no supprise not famillar with.

how come CM400AKG can claim to utilize IIR seeker , any long-range fire-and-forget supersonic,hypersonic missile 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.


What do you mean IIR ? integrated IR ? according to the meterial I got, the terminal guidance could be either radar or IR/TV not limited only to IR. I guess your knowllege is based on Russian-Indian technology developed form the old soviet technology which is different from US or China.





"The 910kg/2,000lb CM-400AKG, possessing a engagement envelope of 240km (130nm) a maximum cruise speed of Mach 4, airframe diameter of 0.4 metres, and 200kg blast-penetration warhead, has been designed to be launched when the JF-17 reaches cruise speeds of between 750kph and 800kph at altitudes of between 26,200 feet and 39,400 feet. While its on-board RLG-INS offers a CEP of 50 metres (164 feet) during the mid-course navigation phase, the CEP reportedly gets reduced to 5 metres when the IIR seeker is activated during the terminal guidance phase. "

how does it stand in reality

the mid-course guidance is INS/GPS/BEIDOU combined or simply INS only if GPS/BEIDOU not avillable. You may think onboard INS offering CEP 50m gets reduced to 5 metres in the end not possible.But I think it's possible because only China and US UK have the cutting edge INS technology.That could be quantum positioning system(QPS) 1000 times more accurate than GPS. even the RLG-INS technology China is more davanced than most EU counties
http://en.cnki.com.cn/Article_en/CJFDTOTAL-JCGC200405008.htm
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22229694-000-quantum-positioning-system-steps-in-when-gps-fails/

chinese8107:

you konw INS/GPS guidence mean ?
I bet you not
(Inertial Navigation Systems, unlike other navigation systems, do not depend on external (radio) measurements. Instead an INS keeps track of its position by accurately measuring acceleration (accelerometers) and rotation (gyroscopes). It therefore works in remote areas where there are no ground based navaids available.
Initially, the INS gets its position from pilot input at the gate, or in more recent systems from GPS, sometimes even during flight. By measuring all the accelerations and rotations and integrating them into speed and direction the position is tracked. In doing this, the INS has to correct for the rotation of the earth and the related Coriolis force.)
http://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/2275/what-is-an-inertial-navigation-system-how-does-it-work
You don't have to lock a target at begainning. Just input the approximate GPS position of the target,during the flight the updated GPS information could be provied via satellite datalink ,the missle fly to there.only after arriving the approximate positon the missle's built-in terminal guience system like IR/TV or radar begain to work automaticlly.hence no need to worry about the terminal guidence range.If the provided GPS data is accurate enough,the missle fly right-up on the enemy's head.
INS/GPS can work alone without other means of guidence like IR/TV seeker or rader as long as the provided data is accurate.some famous INS/GPS weapon eg US JDAM or China LS-6 is combined with a unguied bomb and an INS/GPS kit
GPS GLONASS BEIDOU are major 3 satellite datalink and guidence system on earth provide by USA Russia China respctively. Indian has just begun to launch it's own version no supprise not famillar with.

yes i dont know about INS that is why i mentioned it in the very first post
.................

nemesis2u:


operational scenario of CM-400AKG keeping in view its stated operating profile "carrier killer"

"The 910kg/2,000lb CM-400AKG, possessing a engagement envelope of 240km (130nm) a maximum cruise speed of Mach 4, airframe diameter of 0.4 metres, and 200kg blast-penetration warhead, has been designed to be launched when the JF-17 reaches cruise speeds of between 750kph and 800kph at altitudes of between 26,200 feet and 39,400 feet. While its on-board RLG-INS offers a CEP of 50 metres (164 feet) during the mid-course navigation phase, the CEP reportedly gets reduced to 5 metres when the IIR seeker is activated during the terminal guidance phase. "

how does it stand in reality

If it is imperative that the JF-17 attain an altitude of near to 40000 feet in order to launch its two CM-400AKGs in ripple-fire mode, the element of surprise will be lost very early since the missile is not sea-skimming and will be detected by warship-mounted active phased-array volume search radars quite easily, while the airborne launch platform JF-17 will be easily located and tracked by AEW platforms while the JF-17s are still 250km away from the target.

you got me to side track from the main point of discussion that is CM-400AKG is no way comparable to modern supersonic cruise missiles.

what ever u say , i will have my doubts because CM-400AKG is fitted with all possible techs INS/GPS, PASSIVE RADAR , IR , TV , SATCOM LINK , DATALINK.

it is too good to be true.

brimestone comes with dual sensor and lol this one comes with triple sensors something which far advance countries r still researching.

do u know how the TV sensor works, it will take in live feed of the target and then what?

IR sensor? lol it can be then easily decoyed , no worries than.

it is a deadly missile i accept

nemesis2u:


yes i dont know about INS that is why i mentioned it in the very first post
.................





you got me to side track from the main point of discussion that is CM-400AKG is no way comparable to modern supersonic cruise missiles.

what ever u say , i will have my doubts because CM-400AKG is fitted with all possible techs INS/GPS, PASSIVE RADAR , IR , TV , SATCOM LINK , DATALINK.

it is too good to be true.

brimestone comes with dual sensor and lol this one comes with triple sensors something which far advance countries r still researching.

do u know how the TV sensor works, it will take in live feed of the target and then what?

IR sensor? lol it can be then easily decoyed , no worries than.

it is a deadly missile i accept

Do you agree China has
multi-mode guidence technology better than Indian.dual mode is not supprise.It should be at least two mode or senors.there are many aticle online about China's progress in this field you can read.

Your TV senor need a data link to the plane . I know.The pilot must not fly too far in case losing contact.This is old Russian Soviet technology not Morden Western fire and forget Technology.

even the RLG-INS technology China is more davanced than most EU counties. China sold RLG-INS technology to some EU countries for Technology exchange.

chinese8107:
Do you agree China has
multi-mode guidence technology better than Indian.dual mode is not supprise.It should be at least two mode or senors.there are many aticle online about China's progress in this field you can read.

Your TV senor need a data link to the plane . I know.The pilot must not fly too far in case losing contact.This is old Russian technology not Morden Western fire and forget Technology.

what has china and india got to do here, we r talking about ur claim that CM-400AKG is better than other modern supersonic cruise missiles.
which i proved wrong.

chinese8107:

Your TV senor need a data link to the plane . I know.The pilot must not fly too far in case losing contact.This is old Russian technology not Morden Western fire and forget Technology.

so u admit that the launch platform has to stay in contact with the missile untill impact.

by the way russians r miles ahead of china in missile technology and it is a fact.
80% of chinese missiles r reverse engineered / bought (Ukraine) and based on technology from Russia.
everybody knows that.

nemesis2u:


what has china and india got to do here, we r talking about ur claim that CM-400AKG is better than other modern supersonic cruise missiles.
which i proved wrong.



so u admit that the launch platform has to stay in contact with the missile untill impact.

by the way russians r miles ahead of china in missile technology and it is a fact.
80% of chinese missiles r reverse engineered / bought (Ukraine) and based on technology from Russia.
everybody knows that.

Yes most chinese technology based on Russia and Ukraine. but we also exchange with EU.some even better than them

nemesis2u:






so u admit that the launch platform has to stay in contact with the missile untill impact.

.

The missle must be stay in contact by any means.If satellite link like GPS/BEIDOU not avilable or interfered/jammed.Then data-link, could be the old Soviot way or any other way。In fact China has the latest data-link with high speed battlefield encrypted intranet connection compared with US link-16/Link-22 not bad at all.If other ways avilable no need the old Soviet way

The following pic. A commando is locating the enemy's position on his portable militray computer with GPS/BEIDOU satellitte link and high speed intranet to guide a missle.The same technology USA applied in war.

It is as simple as you share you GPS position with friends on your smartphone.

chinese8107:


The missle must be stay in contact by any means.If satellite link like GPS/BEIDOU not avilable or interfered/jammed.Then data-link, could be the old Soviot way or any other way。In fact China has the latest data-link with high speed battlefield encrypted intranet connection compared with US link-16/Link-22 not bad at all.If other ways avilable no need the old Soviet way

But for some foreign user,GPS could be interfered or BEIDOU may not cover that area. INS + a customized tactical data link (TDL ) is needed.China is exporting tactical data link （TDL）which is less sophisticated but capable as US counterpart.

attached
pic 1 US LINK 11/16 TDL
pic 2 US Link-16 AN/URC-138(V)1(C) terminal
pic 3 Russian TDL terminal
pic 4 China TDL advertisemnt

nemesis2u:


what has china and india got to do here, we r talking about ur claim that CM-400AKG is better than other modern supersonic cruise missiles.
which i proved wrong.

I said at par with BrahMos-1.I never said better than other modern supersonic cruise missiles.

each of them have their own charicristics.The CM-400akg's manufacturer simply said" fly under all range control in atmospheric layer" .Does it contain Sea skimming mode that only fly at low alttitude above sea to aviod detaction ? The manufacturer leaving readers guessing.No supprise if variants have.

Let's assume that it could climb a high altitude and dive into a target to achieve a higher speed of mach 5 instead of Sea skimming mode that could probablely only reach mach 2 . Which one is more deadly and prefered?

nemesis2u:




you got me to side track from the main point of discussion that is CM-400AKG is no way comparable to modern supersonic cruise missiles.

OK. Forget about CM-400AKG no worth debating

Here you go .

The CX-1 a modern supersonic cruise missile, based on Russian P-800 Oniks cruise missile technology. The same origin of BrahMos-1.Even looks very alike. It's just too big for JF-17 to carry.

chinese8107:

OK. Forget about CM-400AKG no worth debating

Here you go .

The CX-1 a modern supersonic cruise missile, based on Russian P-800 Oniks cruise missile technology. The same origin of BrahMos-1.Even looks very alike. It's just too big for JF-17 to carry.

good for you

i am not in the mood to enlighten smart fellows like u on different propulsion technology , and that looks dont matter in the actual capability.
i don't want to waste my time all over again.

and kindly lets avoid each other.
thank you.