China's Mach 6 air-to-air missile (VLRAAM) at 200 miles successful | Popular Science

[HariPrasad-1]

no bhai you dont need scamjet Engine for Mach 6+ speed , this is a copy of Russian R37 missile, with some modifications by chinese , R37 is capable missile .

I said you can get hypersonic speed with rocket engine but it will consume a lots of fuel and shorten the range.

 

[Srinivas_K]

Bottom line: No US weapon can currently counter the Chinese VLRAAM.

Lasers can destroy this missiles , also EMP detonation.

The missile specification mentions Mach 6 , I guess this is not the speed for the entire trajectory.

 

[Martian]

Lasers can destroy this missiles , also EMP detonation.

The missile specification mentions Mach 6 , I guess this is not the speed for the entire trajectory.

I doubt a laser can shoot it down. It's easy to protect an air-to-air missile with a Space Shuttle heat-tile material. Also, the amount of power that can be generated by a small aircraft engine to power the laser is pretty tiny compared to a massive ship like a destroyer.

An EMP would work. However, a conventionally-powered EMP has limited range (150 feet?) and it is unclear whether an interceptor can get close enough to a maneuverable Chinese VLRAAM to disable it.

 

[Martian]

It is you who have reading and understanding problem not me. Where did I say that It has a screm engine? At a very high altitude every missile will travel very fast. Even our Astra has Mach 4.5 speed at 10 KM altitude. At higher altitude, speed will further increase. Speed at the threshold of outer space can not be claimed to be the real speed. And this speed is also not sustained but so called terminal speed as claimed by you that it is a mach 6 missile. So bluff here as much as you can. From the specifications, it does not look a missile anywhere closed to godd missile of this class. You have a history of calling a mach 0.9 subsonic missile a hypersonic missile. You change change generally accepted criterion as much as you can to hype your weapons.

Show me the link where I said a "Mach 0.9 subsonic missile [is] a hypersonic missile."

I'm calling you a liar.

 

[Srinivas_K]

I doubt a laser can shoot it down. It's easy to protect an air-to-air missile with a Space Shuttle heat-tile material. Also, the amount of power that can be generated by a small aircraft engine to power the laser is pretty tiny compared to a massive ship like a destroyer.

An EMP would work. However, a conventionally-powered EMP has limited range (150 feet?) and it is unclear whether an interceptor can get close enough to a maneuverable Chinese VLRAAM to disable it.

Similar to AWACS , laser generator can also be mounted on big platfprm

 

[Flame Thrower]

Flare and chaff don't work on advanced AESA, optical, and infrared sensors on the Chinese VLRAAM.

EW (or electronic warfare) is a last hope and prayer. I don't think too many pilots want to risk their lives on EW.

First off, BVR is over rated.... That is targeting a fighter over 80 to 100 km.

Yes, radars missiles have improved.... So are the counter measures....

And the best part is since last two decades rwrs, jammers and counter measures tactics have improved a lot than radars and missile...

Secondary sensor for this missile is IR.... Do you have any idea about low IR signature concepts.... being implemented in 4.5 & 5th gen.. especially F-35....

Oh and it's not done yet... How to do you target a 5th gen fighter from over a 300km distance... No fighter radar is good enough to target 4.5 gen or 5 gen plane from 80 to 100km let alone 300...

Here comes the cherry on top....

Let's assume that VLAAM gets closer to its intended target.... Now flying at Mach 6 the bulky missile has to overcome a huge Amounts of G force while manovering to compared to the agile target dodging the missile at/over 9g.....

C'mon guys, it is not to target F-35s.... It is to hurt the HVT is in the air like AEW&Cs Tankers....

When we talk about the Aerial battles, these HVTs are going to play tremendous role, one who loses these HVTs quickly will have a huge disadvantage.

This VLAAM is to take out HVTs...
Chinese version of Ks-172/K 100(note: I don't mean that Chinese copied K 100 but, the missile belongs to the class of K 100)

If there is any NATO version of this missile, please let me know

 

[StealthFlanker]

If there is any NATO version of this missile, please let me know

Good example would be Meteor : good range , good agility

 

[Flame Thrower]

Good example would be Meteor : good range , good agility

Nah meteor is not in the AEW&C killer class...

It neither has range nor warhead enough to hurt big birds

 

[StealthFlanker]

Nah meteor is not in the AEW&C killer class...It neither has range

320 km is ways more than enough , especially if you got stealth aircraft already.

nor warhead enough to hurt big birds

AWACs are not tanks , they are not build to take missiles hit. Even an A-10 cannot reliably take a hit from missiles of AIM-120 , Meteor size

 

[hardip]

hope this one too ... like chiness other wrac weapons chinesssss....


Naam bade darshan chhote

 

[Flame Thrower]

320 km is ways more than enough , especially if you got stealth aircraft already.


AWACs are not tanks , they are not build to take missiles hit. Even an A-10 cannot reliably take a hit from missiles of AIM-120 , Meteor size

You are absolutely right, what would you prefer about enemy aircraft....

Wounded aircraft back to base get repaired and fly again or being blown to smithereens...

Moreover our phalcons can fly even if one engine is hit/damaged....

If meteor hits phalcons engine instead of tail... Our phalcons can stay in the air if necessary... Once back to base, do minor repairs to engine and wing... Then the plane is good to fly....

Meteor doesn't have 200mile/320km range... it's range is more than 100mile/160km ...

I would prefer to use k 100 or Brahmos mini than meteor to blow enemy are&c

 

[StealthFlanker]

Wounded aircraft back to base get repaired and fly again or being blown to smithereens...
Moreover our phalcons can fly even if one engine is hit/damaged....
If meteor hits phalcons engine instead of tail... Our phalcons can stay in the air if necessary... Once back to base, do minor repairs to engine and wing... Then the plane is good to fly

If Meteor hit Phalcon in the engine, it will rip off the wing.And , it is very very unlikely that enemy will only launch a single missile at your high value assets. What will happen is several Meteor coming at your AC and ripe it to pieces

Meteor doesn't have 200mile/320km range... it's range is more than 100mile/160km ...

According to Japanese evaluation for their JNAAM then Meteor has 320 km range.
Which is not exactly a surprise if its NEZ is 3-4 times of legacy missiles then its maximum range will raise along side too.
Even basic Aim-120 can reach up to 130 km if launched at certain altitude

I would prefer to use k 100 or Brahmos mini than meteor to blow enemy are&c

Those missiles are heavy , and less agile making them really useless for anything other than AWACs

 

[Martian]

Similar to AWACS , laser generator can also be mounted on big platfprm

You are wrong.

An AWACS needs its engines to keep the airplane flying in the air.

A destroyer can use its entire engine power for a laser, because it can float when there is no power.

In the case of the Boeing ABL, massive space was devoted to chemicals for powering a laser. In contrast, there is no space on a small jet fighter for a huge amount of chemicals.

 

[Spectribution]

You are wrong.

An AWACS needs its engines to keep the airplane flying in the air.

A destroyer can use its entire engine power for a laser, because it can float when there is no power.

In the case of the Boeing ABL, massive space was devoted to chemicals for powering a laser. In contrast, there is no space on a small jet fighter for a huge amount of chemicals.

Simple solution : Bigger and more efficient as long as $$$$

 

[StealthFlanker]

You are wrong.

An AWACS needs its engines to keep the airplane flying in the air.

A destroyer can use its entire engine power for a laser, because it can float when there is no power.

In the case of the Boeing ABL, massive space was devoted to chemicals for powering a laser. In contrast, there is no space on a small jet fighter for a huge amount of chemicals.

Simple solution , electron laser. The engine turbine can spin a stator to provide electric

 

[Martian]

Simple solution , electron laser. The engine turbine can spin a stator to provide electric

100 kilowatt laser by 2029?

100 kilowatt laser is extremely weak.

The Boeing ABL was a megawatt laser and it took about one minute to burn through the shell of a liquid-fueled ICBM.

A missile can be easily protected with Space Shuttle heat-tile material. A missile warhead is also very tiny. An air-to-air missile is different from an ICBM. The maneuverable Chinese VLRAAM is a constantly-shifting tiny target. Maintaining beam focus on a Mach 6 warhead has yet to be proven. The lower atmosphere has a constantly-changing refractive index.

Since a kilowatt laser is only 1/10th of a Boeing ABL and it is operating in the dense lower atmosphere, it won't work. Additionally, ablative material can be lined inside the Chinese VLRAAM as further protection against a laser.

By the way, look at the location of the proposed laser unit on the F-35. It is located underneath the F-35. However, the Chinese VLRAAM strikes from above the aircraft. The F-35 laser unit would be useless. The proposed laser unit cannot be mounted above the fuselage of the F-35. There is a lift-fan in the way and the aerodynamics of the airplane would also be disrupted.

 

[StealthFlanker]

100 kilowatt laser by 2029?

100 kilowatt laser is extremely weak.

The Boeing ABL was a megawatt laser and it took about one minute to burn through the shell of a liquid-fueled ICBM.

Boeing YAL-1 was designed to attack liquid fuel ballistic missiles from 600 km, the Lockheed Martin laser is more like a self defense system. And the total engagement sequences take 12 seconds not 1 minutes

A missile can be easily protected with Space Shuttle heat-tile material

No it isn't. Do you know how thick space shuttle heat tile need to be to disparate the heat ?
How will you put those heat tiles on missiles fin or nose ?

A missile warhead is also very tiny

Irrelevant, laser does not need to make the warhead exploded

The maneuverable Chinese VLRAAM is a constantly-shifting tiny target

Nonsense , missiles are not designed to constantly maneuver all the way to target otherwise they would lose all energy and fall to ground in few seconds. Especially when a following a ballistic curve to take advantage of thin air, they simply donot have enough lift to constantly turning

Maintaining beam focus on a Mach 6 warhead has yet to be proven.

So a laser that can maintain beam on a ballistic missiles ( which easily reach Mach 10-15) , isnot fast enough to track a missiles that can only reach Mach 6 at terminal phase again low altitude target ?

The lower atmosphere has a constantly-changing refractive index.
Since a kilowatt laser is only 1/10th of a Boeing ABL and it is operating in the dense lower atmosphere, it won't work.

YAL-1 was designed to fly at about 40K feet. Your VLRAAM was designed to follow a curves at about 55-60k feet. If anything your missiles cruising is actually higher.
At altitude of 10 km ( 30k feet ), a 100 kW laser can maintain 39kw power on target even at distance of 20 km aways

Additionally, ablative material can be lined inside the Chinese VLRAAM as further protection against a laser.

Nope, more material mean less space for fuel , say good bye to range and speed

By the way, look at the location of the proposed laser unit on the F-35. It is located underneath the F-35. However, the Chinese VLRAAM strikes from above the aircraft. The F-35 laser unit would be useless. The proposed laser unit cannot be mounted above the fuselage of the F-35. There is a lift-fan in the way and the aerodynamics of the airplane would also be disrupted.

It planned to take the spaced of the lift fan

 

[HariPrasad-1]

Show me the link where I said a "Mach 0.9 subsonic missile [is] a hypersonic missile."

I'm calling you a liar.

You means you chinese. You guys are bluffing a subsonic missile as a supersonic missile. You are also a liar as you have posted this thread as saying that china tested a mach 6 missile. It is not at all a mach 6 missile. A terminal speed at the edge of atmosphere can not be called the real speed and real range as the planes do not fly at this altitude.

 

[Srinivas_K]

you didn't understand what I said!
Similar to awacs airforce can create laser zones where they can shield fighter jets with the support of airborne laser.

You are wrong.

An AWACS needs its engines to keep the airplane flying in the air.

A destroyer can use its entire engine power for a laser, because it can float when there is no power.

In the case of the Boeing ABL, massive space was devoted to chemicals for powering a laser. In contrast, there is no space on a small jet fighter for a huge amount of chemicals.

 

[J20!]

You means you chinese. You guys are bluffing a subsonic missile as a supersonic missile. You are also a liar as you have posted this thread as saying that china tested a mach 6 missile. It is not at all a mach 6 missile. A terminal speed at the edge of atmosphere can not be called the real speed and real range as the planes do not fly at this altitude.

What are you saying?

A ballistic flight path means something going to the upper atmosphere then dropping altitude at speed. That's what BALLISTIC means sir.

What exactly is "real speed" and "real range"?