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

[Martian]

CHINA IS TESTING A NEW LONG-RANGE, AIR-TO-AIR MISSILE THAT COULD THWART U.S. PLANS FOR AIR WARFARE | Popular Science

"In November 2016, a Chinese J-16 strike fighter test-fired a gigantic hypersonic missile, successfully destroying the target drone at a very long range.
...
Reports are that the size would put into the category of a very long range air to air missile (VLRAAM) with ranges exceeding 300 km (roughly 186 miles), likely max out between 250 and 310 miles.
...
This is a big deal: this missile would easily outrange any American (or other NATO) air-to-air missile. Additionally, the VLRAAM's powerful rocket engine will push it to Mach 6 speeds, which will increase the no escape zone (NEZ), that is the area where a target cannot outrun the missile, against even supersonic targets like stealth fighters.
...
The new, larger missile's added value is not just in range. Another key feature: its large active electronically scanned (AESA) radar, which is used in the terminal phase of flight to lock onto the target. The AESA radar's large size—about 300-400% larger than that of most long range air-to-air missiles—and digital adaptability makes it highly effective against distant and stealthy targets, and resilient against electronic countermeasures like jamming and spoofing.

The VLRAAM's backup sensor is a infrared/electro-optical seeker that can identify and hone in on high-value targets like aerial tankers and airborne early warning and control (AEW&C) radar aircraft. The VLRAAM also uses lateral thrusters built into the rear for improving its terminal phase maneuverability when engaging agile targets like fighters."

 

[Martian]

US will probably develop its own Mach 6 air-to-air missile. SM-6 is useless for defense against VLRAAM.

The American SM-6 is probably useless against the Chinese VLRAAM.

The Chinese VLRAAM has a terminal velocity of Mach 6.
The SM-6 has a top speed of Mach 3.5.
As the Chinese VLRAAM accelerates downward towards the target with the help of gravity, the much slower SM-6 cannot match its speed.

The Chinese VLRAAM is fired by a fighter jet against another fighter jet. Since the SM-6 is carried on a very slow boat, the SM-6 will not be available at the location of a jet fighter engagement.

The Chinese VLRAAM has a range of 250-300 miles. The SM-6 has an official range of 150 miles. Since an SM-6 has half the range of a Chinese VLRAAM, the ship carrying the SM-6 would be well within the range of Chinese supersonic anti-ship missiles (and anti-ballistic missiles).

In conclusion, the American SM-6 is too slow and has too short a range against a maneuverable Chinese Mach 6 hypersonic missile. The SM-6 is not a viable defensive weapon. More likely, the US will need to develop its own Mach 6 air-to-air missile with very-long-range (VLRAAM) for jet fighter defense.

 

[Flame Thrower]

Folks, no offence but it seems to be something similar to ks-172/k 100 in terms of range.

I think it is intended for HV aerial targets like AEW&Cs and Tankers but not fighters

 

[IndianHawk]

US will probably develop its own Mach 6 air-to-air missile. SM-6 is useless for defense against VLRAAM.

The American SM-6 is probably useless against the Chinese VLRAAM.

The Chinese VLRAAM has a terminal velocity of Mach 6.
The SM-6 has a top speed of Mach 3.5.
As the Chinese VLRAAM accelerates downward towards the target with the help of gravity, the much slower SM-6 cannot match its speed.

The Chinese VLRAAM is fired by a fighter jet against another fighter jet. Since the SM-6 is carried on a very slow boat, the SM-6 will not be available at the location of a jet fighter engagement.

The Chinese VLRAAM has a range of 250-300 miles. The SM-6 has an official range of 150 miles. Since an SM-6 has half the range of a Chinese VLRAAM, the ship carrying the SM-6 would be well within the range of Chinese supersonic anti-ship missiles (and anti-ballistic missiles).

In conclusion, the American SM-6 is too slow and has too short a range against a maneuverable Chinese Mach 6 hypersonic missile. The SM-6 is not a viable defensive weapon. More likely, the US will need to develop its own Mach 6 air-to-air missile with very-long-range (VLRAAM) for jet fighter defense.

US already has 4+Mach aam with over 200km range and they were working on increasing range.

Also meteor has a range of more than 300km it's also Mach 4+.

Heck Indian Astra bvr is Mach 4.5+.

So what is the fuss??

Also to establish Mach 6 speed and true range we need details of actual size and engine/ motor specifications.

 

[airtel]

US will probably develop its own Mach 6 air-to-air missile. SM-6 is useless for defense against VLRAAM.

The American SM-6 is probably useless against the Chinese VLRAAM.

The Chinese VLRAAM has a terminal velocity of Mach 6.
The SM-6 has a top speed of Mach 3.5.
As the Chinese VLRAAM accelerates downward towards the target with the help of gravity, the much slower SM-6 cannot match its speed.

The Chinese VLRAAM is fired by a fighter jet against another fighter jet. Since the SM-6 is carried on a very slow boat, the SM-6 will not be available at the location of a jet fighter engagement.

The Chinese VLRAAM has a range of 250-300 miles. The SM-6 has an official range of 150 miles. Since an SM-6 has half the range of a Chinese VLRAAM, the ship carrying the SM-6 would be well within the range of Chinese supersonic anti-ship missiles (and anti-ballistic missiles).

In conclusion, the American SM-6 is too slow and has too short a range against a maneuverable Chinese Mach 6 hypersonic missile. The SM-6 is not a viable defensive weapon. More likely, the US will need to develop its own Mach 6 air-to-air missile with very-long-range (VLRAAM) for jet fighter defense.

LOL to counter an AAM genraly electronic counter-measures are used , why the hell Americans will use SM-6 against your AAM ??

 

[Martian]

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

 

[Spectribution]

AAM is countered by EW, flare and chaff.

New missile is essentially R 37 with AESA radar mount. So same tactics as R 37 apply here.

 

[Spectribution]

US did it one year back :

ST. LOUIS—Boeing conducted four flight tests under the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency’s (Darpa) Triple Target Terminator (T3) program, Boeing Phantom Works President Darryl Davis said here May 18.
The test vehicles, about the size of an AIM-120 Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile (Amraam), flew “faster and farther” than an Amraam, Davis said, but he did not provide any other details.

Darpa issued T3 contracts to Boeing and Raytheon in 2010, with the aim of demonstrating technology for a single weapon type that could function as an anti-radar missile, an air-to-air Amraam replacement and a cruise-missile defense weapon. The program has now been concluded, but the Navy now plans to develop a longer-range version of its AGM-88E Advanced Anti-Radiation Guided Missile.

Davis also said Boeing will unveil some previously undisclosed Phantom Works programs “in the next month or two,” and that these will be separate from the unit’s work with Saab on the T-X program.

(http://aviationweek.com/awin-only/boeing-discloses-advanced-missile-tests-will-unveil-other-programs)

A bit of a background -


Raytheon is being awarded a USD21.3 million contract by the US Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) for work on a new air-launched missile designated the Triple Target Terminator (T3), the US Department of Defence (DoD) announced on 25 October.
The programme is intended to develop a high speed, long-range missile able to engage air, cruise missile and air-defence targets. Suitable for internal carriage on stealth aircraft, it would be carried as externally-mounted armament on other types of fighters, bombers and unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs).
Currently a DARPA programme, it would eventually become the responsibility of the US Air Force.
Enabling technologies identified by DARPA are:
propulsion,
multi-mode seekers,
data links,
digital guidance and control and
advanced warheads.
The new missile would allow any aircraft to rapidly switch between air-to-air and air-to-surface capabilities. Its speed, manoeuvrability and network-centric capabilities are intended to significantly improve the survivability of US combat aircraft and to increase the number and variety of targets that could be destroyed on each sortie.
Low-key initial work on the T3 programme has been under way for several years. For example, between June and November 2008, McKinney Associates conducted systems analysis for Boeing Advanced Weapons & Missiles Systems on the programme.
Work planned under the USD12.1 million Fiscal Year (FY) 2010 funding consisted of studies to define what DoD budget documents described as "T3 trade space and concepts of operation", the start of preliminary design studies and risk-reduction experiments and modelling to validate potential designs.
The USD16.9 million planned to be spent in FY 2011 will cover a preliminary design review of T3 concepts and the start of critical design activities.
Work under the new T3 contract will be performed at Raytheon's facilities in Tucson, Arizona (68 per cent), and Gainesville, Virginia (32 per cent) and is due to be completed in October 2011.

Apart form the 'propulsion' side of the development (I believe one solution was a VFDR while the other was a dual or multi pulse, but I could be wrong) there has been little directly revealed on the guidance, multi-mode seeker and new data links other than the studies and contracts that supported the JDRADM and NGM programs.

 

[airtel]

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

LOL ,(AN/APG-81) will block Radar of your Missile , And there are methods to counter your infrared/electro-optical seekers ,

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared_countermeasure

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radar_jamming_and_deception

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaff_(radar_countermeasure)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flare_(countermeasure)


F-35 is very Advanced jet , it has much more than stealth .

 

[StealthFlanker]

US will probably develop its own Mach 6 air-to-air missile. SM-6 is useless for defense against VLRAAM.

The American SM-6 is probably useless against the Chinese VLRAAM.

The Chinese VLRAAM has a terminal velocity of Mach 6.
The SM-6 has a top speed of Mach 3.5.
As the Chinese VLRAAM accelerates downward towards the target with the help of gravity, the much slower SM-6 cannot match its speed.

Absolute nonsense,
interceptor missiles does not need to match the speed of what they intercept , they do a head on collision not a tail chase intercept. For example pac-2/3 have top speed around 2.8-4.1 yet they easily intercept theater ballistic missiles that have terminal speed from between mach 5-mach 8

 

[Heat]

won't the victim plane will be able to track and lock on the missile the moment it enters its radar range ? Given that the missile is big and would have huge ir signature , the plane can proceed to destroy the missile with its own SAMs. Much before the impact of VLRAAM. Correct me if i'm wrong.

 

[Martian]

AAM is countered by EW, flare and chaff.

New missile is essentially R 37 with AESA radar mount. So same tactics as R 37 apply here.

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.

 

[airtel]

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.

AN/APG-81 will block Radars of your Missile (Even your jets ) ...............countering optical, and infrared sensors is not difficult for Americans .

this is a Good weapon against counties with limited budget like Vietnam , But will be useless against JAPAN/USA .

 

[Bornubus]

Another propaganda from Mao's Behind.


_________________

 

[captonjohn]

We should understand that China is trying to match America and hence developing its technology accordingly. But, China is threat to India since 1962 and a strong China is not beneficial for India. We should focus on filling the gaps and advanced technologies that will at least get us an edge over technological advancement.

We should focus on laser weapons that can destroy incoming missiles.
We should also focus on automation and Robotics so that we can create armed robots that can multiply our forces strength. Armed robots can provide support and Drones can help winning the warfare in future.

 

[HariPrasad-1]

This will be an another bluff like Cx1 and that subsonic missile termed as Mach 3+ missile. The simple reason being that To push any missile at mach 6, you need scremjet engine. You can do that with traditional rocket engine but that will consume fuel like anything and will shorten the range. When chinese are famous for their false claims in each defense related area and missile in particular. Wait for some time till reality comes out that it is a paper missile like CX1 or the criterion quoted are false.

 

[Martian]

This will be an another bluff like Cx1 and that subsonic missile termed as Mach 3+ missile. The simple reason being that To push any missile at mach 6, you need scremjet engine. You can do that with traditional rocket engine but that will consume fuel like anything and will shorten the range. When chinese are famous for their false claims in each defense related area and missile in particular. Wait for some time till reality comes out that it is a paper missile like CX1 or the criterion quoted are false.

The Popular Science article clearly says the Chinese VLRAAM uses a ROCKET ENGINE. It does not have a scramjet engine as you are claiming. Try reading the article and stop making ridiculous claims.

The article states the Chinese VLRAAM is shot into near outer-space to reduce drag. Also, the Chinese VLRAAM has a terminal velocity of Mach 6. It does not claim a sustained speed of Mach 6 during the cruise portion of the flight. Chinese air-to-air missiles and anti-ship missiles are known for their high TERMINAL velocity, while having a slower cruise speed during most of the flight.

"Additionally, the VLRAAM's powerful rocket engine will push it to Mach 6 speeds, which will increase the no escape zone (NEZ), that is the area where a target cannot outrun the missile, against even supersonic targets like stealth fighters."

 

[HariPrasad-1]

The Popular Science article clearly says the Chinese VLRAAM uses a ROCKET ENGINE. It does not have a scramjet engine as you are claiming. Try reading the article and stop making ridiculous claims.

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.

 

[airtel]

This will be an another bluff like Cx1 and that subsonic missile termed as Mach 3+ missile. The simple reason being that To push any missile at mach 6, you need scremjet engine. You can do that with traditional rocket engine but that will consume fuel like anything and will shorten the range. When chinese are famous for their false claims in each defense related area and missile in particular. Wait for some time till reality comes out that it is a paper missile like CX1 or the criterion quoted are false.

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 .

 

[HariPrasad-1]

"Additionally, the VLRAAM's powerful rocket engine will push it to Mach 6 speeds, which will increase the no escape zone (NEZ), that is the area where a target cannot outrun the missile, against even supersonic targets like stealth fighters."

At this speed it will not be able to turn quickly to chase plane. It will be very easy to dodge this bulky missile travelling at a high speed compared to a relatively slow but light weight agile missile.