Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
All irrelevant whataboutism fitting a WhatsApp group.Read AWACS that is even further back then j10c or at least 300 km from rafale guiding misiles while j10c was firing at Mach speed Rafael
And it is hard but not harder then this
J10 c firing at 500 km away from Indian navy and AWACS from 40k feet guiding misiles
There is no curvature impact at that range and height
AWACS will not be flying at sea level
Even houthis can land anti ship ballistic missile within 100 m of USA navy with all jamming
Df21 D is not related to c400
C400 is based on Fatah type artillery rocket and its not compatible with vls
Vls is not for asroc rocket torpedo and SAM HQ 16 variants
Also df21d a version of df21 is very old missile it's 70s, 80s tech fielded in 90s and now retired
Answer please.
Great reply again....actually, a new trend on YouTube...Indians picking up interviews and Vlogs of Pakistani officials and feeding counter arguments or disinformation...and these short videos are being uploaded ....I posted one such video ....I think the answer you want is already there in 7-0 score. Modern Warfare is not a drag race where the car with the highest acceleration and top speed will win, it's more of a Rallycross, whoever is a better skilled driver will win eventually. Put simply, it boils down to Battle Tactics.
Longer answer is withheld for later.
Score is 8-0 ....as per Trump last statement....I think the answer you want is already there in 7-0 score. Modern Warfare is not a drag race where the car with the highest acceleration and top speed will win, it's more of a Rallycross, whoever is a better skilled driver will win eventually. Put simply, it boils down to Battle Tactics.
Longer answer is withheld for later![]()
Great reply again....actually, a new trend on YouTube...Indians picking up interviews and Vlogs of Pakistani officials and feeding counter arguments or disinformation...and these short video are being uploaded ....I posted one such video ....



You’re right — India has done this on multiple occasions. Videos of such tests are still available. But this doesn’t mean the missile’s radar is poor. In early trials of new missiles, especially those requiring high-precision strikes, scientists often use additional guidance or tracking technologies to ensure the first tests succeed. This initial success helps them fine-tune the missile’s onboard radar and guidance systems to achieve the desired accuracy in later stages.View attachment 162078
This was placed on the ship that was targeted by SMASH.
Its basically a homing beacon. The Indians use it too when testing the Russian origin brahmos:
View attachment 162079
Not saying it's a bad thing.....but it highlights the need for decent radar return required....?
Someone is welcome to correct me if I'm wrong. Perhaps it's the norm when testing...
its normal mate, corner reflectors are used on like every missile testView attachment 162078
This was placed on the ship that was targeted by SMASH.
Its basically a homing beacon. The Indians use it too when testing the Russian origin brahmos:
View attachment 162079
Not saying it's a bad thing.....but it highlights the need for decent radar return required....?
Someone is welcome to correct me if I'm wrong. Perhaps it's the norm when testing...
Question. Can OTH radar provide early warning and rough location, then send in a sensor (MPA, AWACS or drone) to gather target quality data? Not the most elegant and realtime solution but does it sound feasible as a A2/AD solution?CM-400AKG and CM-401 are different missiles, though developed by the same developer/manufacturer. CM-401 is a TEL/ADL/VLS launch ASBM.
Given the scarcity of verifiable public information available on Chinese systems, it's futile to debate "what is based on what" but here's what I know:
CM-400AKG was operational as early as 2012. The first modern MLRS system Pakistan inducted was A-100E in 2015. SY-400 was a modular evolution of the original A-100. F1 and F2 were developed later, probably derived from SY-400 (given the design and use case similarities) - you can argue that CM-400AKG is derived from SY-400 based on Wikipedia citation which itself is making an assumption (could be true). However, under any case CM-400AKG existed before F1 and F2, and even before Pakistan's procurement of A-100E MLRS (Anti-Personnel/Anti-Armor Bomblets).
The SMASH we showed publicly being a derived version of F2 has already been mentioned and discussed in this thread way earlier.
What I'm talking about now is the possible variants of SMASH that might already be operational or under development. Information on CM-401 is scarce. What is publicly known is its skip-glide trajectory and it is assumed that it uses MaRV (although not necessarily). In any case the maneuverable concept and design is highly derived from the DF-21D. Also, DF-21D (late 2000's) is not only still in active service with PLA, it also forms the bulk of their land based A2/AD. DF-26 is the successor to it and replaces the MaRV with HGV and increased range, and that is a relatively infant system currently per production numbers. Moreover, C-401 was developed by CASIC, and DF-21D by CALT (which is a subsidiary of CASIC) - CALT also devloped A100 which later evolved into SY-400 (CASIC) - so make the connection there - it's the same developer/manufacturer basically, hence the tech similarity of C-401 with DF-21D, and CM-400AKG with A100/SY-400.
The difference b/w the two is the launch platform and range. DF-21D is land based TEL, while C-401 is Land/Ship Launched with much shallow range. C-401 can be launched from Chinese VLS and ADL (which are deeper than US version) and more recently the YJ-21 share a remarkable similarity to C-401 both in design and use case, the difference again range and HGV (assumption on my part because verifiable public info is scarce on this).
What I was hinting at was that in theory it is quite possible that Pakistan already has systems derived from DF-21D for land based ASBM (MaRV + Hypersonic Terminal Phase) with range upto 1000-1200 km - considering we already have the BMs for such a range - and C-401 derived system for ship launched ASBM (again, MaRV + Hypersonic Terminal Phase). So e.g. a SMASH variant derived from C-401 that can be launched via H/AJK-16 which is 7m deep with a range b/w 500-600 km. In comparison the YJ-21 was test fired from Chinese Type 055 with a VLS 9m deep but then again YJ-21 has a reported 1500 km range. The DF-16 has a reported range of 800-1000 km and a length of 7.8m
We have to take into account that IN is not USN, and even for USN DF-21D is still a headache. I hope I dont' have add here how you think Houthis is giving USN a tough time with lower tiered systems than DF-21D and then also go on to claim DF-21D is already retired. DF-21D was again tested by PLAN as recent as 2020-21.
It's a radar reflector, SMASH probably uses active radar homing guidance, the reflector simulates the radar return of a vessel.View attachment 162078
This was placed on the ship that was targeted by SMASH.
Its basically a homing beacon. The Indians use it too when testing the Russian origin brahmos:
View attachment 162079
Not saying it's a bad thing.....but it highlights the need for decent radar return required....?
Someone is welcome to correct me if I'm wrong. Perhaps it's the norm when testing...
It's a radar reflector, SMASH probably uses active radar homing guidance, the reflector simulates the radar return of a vessel.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.