SMASH SLBM Testing - Nov 2025

[falcon34]

@JamD
If we look at the tests, the especially the latest one the missile actually hit the dead center, so why they quote the CEP to be 10metres or whatever number they are quoting for Incase of F2 from both test footages it is clear that the missile falls in the 10 metre circle but is labelled as less than 50m in marketing?.

 

[Ali_Baba]

@JamD
If we look at the tests, the especially the latest one the missile actually hit the dead center, so why they quote the CEP to be 10metres or whatever number they are quoting for Incase of F2 from both test footages it is clear that the missile falls in the 10 metre circle but is labelled as less than 50m in marketing?.

It is a statistical type value, hence some will be a bullseye hit, some will be close to the bulls eye etc. The value is that 50%(?) of the hits will be within the CEP indicated value.

 

[safriz]

@JamD
If we look at the tests, the especially the latest one the missile actually hit the dead center, so why they quote the CEP to be 10metres or whatever number they are quoting for Incase of F2 from both test footages it is clear that the missile falls in the 10 metre circle but is labelled as less than 50m in marketing?.

@JamD
If we look at the tests, the especially the latest one the missile actually hit the dead center, so why they quote the CEP to be 10metres or whatever number they are quoting for Incase of F2 from both test footages it is clear that the missile falls in the 10 metre circle but is labelled as less than 50m in marketing?.

The land attack version is falling within the 2 meter circle.

 

[Ali_Baba]

The land attack version is falling within the 2 meter circle.

Why would there be such a difference between land and sea variants? There is no logical reason for the difference.

 

[JamD]

Here is the angle .

View attachment 177609

Can you make adjustments to the mach wave as seen on the ground at the moment of impact ?
With this angle in mind.

That shape on the ground gives you almost precise shape of the cone when thr missile is travelling at the angle shown in the screenshot.

This parabola is pretty well defined.

View attachment 177612

Actually, I was double wrong (and thus right) it is a hyperbola lol.



Absolutely amazing that this shockwave exercise gives 1.255 and the estimate I got from measuring the speed from the frames was 1.3. So the speed confirmed two entirely independent ways is Mach 1.3


I'm attaching the html file AI generated. I measured 40 degree from the vertical and 40 degree double angle on ground.


As you can see below I had seen the shockwave but AI made doing the calculations easy enough, wouldn't have done otherwise.

I wanted to lol
View attachment 77013

It moves 414 px in one frame, which is 1/30th of a second. The missile is 250 px long. If I assume a length of 7.5m, the missile is moving 12.42 m in 1/30th second, which translates to a speed of ...wait for it....372.6 m/s or Mach 1.1

The unknown here is missile length: if I assume 6 m, then the speed is 0.87 Mach, if I assume 9 m, then the speed is 1.3 Mach.

The video could also be 60 fps (slowed down), in that case the speed would be doubled, but the video looks normal speed.

I think this near Mach 1 number is supported by this picture here which seems to show the shockwave crashing on the ground as the missile hits. The shockwave looks rounded and not sharp as you would have expected for high supersonic.
View attachment 77012

 

[rafale]

It is doing the job in taking care of S400s for sure, but it is an expensive platform for exclusive use on equally expensive targets. PAF has procured only 50 of them for that reason.

But just like the PL15E (Extended range versions ) were airlifted, CM400s and others can easily be air lifted by IL78s within hours......since China would have ample stocks of it. Good thing is CM400 is integrated on PAF jets....so you can always get them and worry about payments later.

J-10CEs were also procured on loans.....so money really isn't an issue. What Pakistan needs to smoke Indians will be 100% made available and procured, there is no second guesses about that.

after swift retort, would anyone had guessed that Pakistan would have PL15 which would prove to be superior in all aspects to the overhyped Meteors? So if Pakistan needs something to smash S-400 or their CBG, they will get it.

 

[JamD]

@JamD
If we look at the tests, the especially the latest one the missile actually hit the dead center, so why they quote the CEP to be 10metres or whatever number they are quoting for Incase of F2 from both test footages it is clear that the missile falls in the 10 metre circle but is labelled as less than 50m in marketing?.

It is a statistical type value, hence some will be a bullseye hit, some will be close to the bulls eye etc. The value is that 50%(?) of the hits will be within the CEP indicated value.

Basically what @Ali_Baba said. Just to add, for things like mortars or artillery, it is feasible to do 100s or 1000s of tests and record the actual CEP. However, these missiles are expensive and we can't do 100s of tests to compute CEP. So they have super accurate simulations that they can do 100000s of times. And they use that to calculate CEP. They refine these simulations using data gathered from actual tests so these simulations get increasingly better. These simulations include error inducing effects in their most expected magnitudes (using simple language). So the CEP you get is like 10m. But your test day might have really low winds for example and you might have a bullseye. So you understand the difference between a statistical measure like CEP and one-off test.

Why would there be such a difference between land and sea variants? There is no logical reason for the difference.

According to the brochure, Antiship variant has a seeker and CEP of 10m and the land attack variant has no seeker and a CEP of 15m. Adding seeker reduces CEP, this makes sense, no?

 

[Ali_Baba]

Her

48 remaining.
2 had been put to good use.
So good that Nerender Modi himself had to go and do the cover up drama

Look at how well Israel used ALBM against Iran. Look how difficult it is to intercept ALBMs, so difficult that Pakistan has to induct the HQ-19 to try and counter it. The context is not just "IADS", but economic and military targets aswell.

Does India have anything that can counter the ALBM? ( Lets not go into the hyper inflated paper specifications of the S400 ... ).

The capability is good, they are difficult to intercept and Pakistan can manufacture them in Pakistan in a cost effective manner.

Ignoring all this as a capability is flawed imho.

 

[NA71]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[safriz]

Actually, I was double wrong (and thus right) it is a hyperbola lol.
View attachment 177641


Absolutely amazing that this shockwave exercise gives 1.255 and the estimate I got from measuring the speed from the frames was 1.3. So the speed confirmed two entirely independent ways is Mach 1.3
View attachment 177652

I'm attaching the html file AI generated. I measured 40 degree from the vertical and 40 degree double angle on ground.


As you can see below I had seen the shockwave but AI made doing the calculations easy enough, wouldn't have done otherwise.

Well then there you go. You are welcome . I helped confirming your standard distribution calculations with an actual observation which was in the ISPR video.
These potato cam videos have a lot of info if we go looking.

You and i made independent observations , and calculations based on those two different observations actually match. That's PDF scientific research for you

Thank you for doing the calculations with the AI .
I don't even know how to do this.
Which AI you using? I will try to learn that .

So its Mack 1.3 at impact, and not Mach 2 as GIDS claims in their Brochure. Lying Bas**ds

That puts into question what methods they use for knowing the speed of their missiles at different stages?

Unless they use Shilieren mirrors and imaging at the impact location, i don't think their estimates will be accurate

 

[جوبا]

Smaller than what I imagined- is this designed to fit in the existing harpoon tubes on the frigates? or is it a custom VLS?
my pic got photobombed by the crowd (not sorry for the pun)
GIDS at WDS2026

 

[JamD]

Which AI you using? I will try to learn that .

Claude and Gemini.

So its Mack 1.3 at impact, and not Mach 2 as GIDS claims in their Brochure. Lying Bas**ds

Well, I strongly suspect that they are testing a low impact speed trajectory because of range constraints (smaller NOTAM) and risk reasons (lower loads). And same missile can be fired at various other trajectories some of which have Mach's as high as 3.6.

To repeat:

The test in the video:


Two possible 400km trajectories using the SAME missile in my code:
274 seconds:

448 seconds:


The point is that you do this:

and this will essentially verify all of your numbers for you. Now you know with some certainty you can use this missile on the 400km trajectories. Obviously, you wouldn't start with the 400km tests because its difficult to get targeting and set up exclusion zones. But you can verify your model, which is what is done.

That puts into question what methods they use for knowing the speed of their missiles at different stages?

Unless they use Shilieren mirrors and imaging at the impact location, i don't think their estimates will be accurate

They have telemetry. The flight computer through an IMU knows everything about itself, and is transmitting this data to do the ground. You don't need to measure anything from photographs.

 

[safriz]

Claude and Gemini.



Well, I strongly suspect that they are testing a low impact speed trajectory because of range constraints (smaller NOTAM) and risk reasons (lower loads). And same missile can be fired at various other trajectories some of which have Mach's as high as 3.6.

To repeat:
View attachment 177683
The test in the video:
View attachment 177682

Two possible 400km trajectories using the SAME missile in my code:
274 seconds:
View attachment 177681
448 seconds:
View attachment 177680

The point is that you do this:
View attachment 177682
and this will essentially verify all of your numbers for you. Now you know with some certainty you can use this missile on the 400km trajectories. Obviously, you wouldn't start with the 400km tests because its difficult to get targeting and set up exclusion zones. But you can verify your model, which is what is done.




They have telemetry. The flight computer through an IMU knows everything about itself, and is transmitting this data to do the ground. You don't need to measure anything from photographs.

Its angle from Horizontal / Ground , before impact is about 51 degrees.
Thats close to the angle of 45 degrees for ballistic objects to reach longest range?

This is from GIMP



The angle in the picture is from vertical, i subtracted it from 90 and its 52 degrees.

This should be the MET or Minimum energy trajectory for this missile?
Dont think range can be increased by launching it on Lofted trajectory as you depicted.

 

[JamD]

Its angle from Horizontal / Ground , before impact is about 51 degrees.
Thats close to the angle of 45 degrees for ballistic objects to reach longest range?

This is from GIMP

View attachment 177686

The angle in the picture is from vertical, i subtracted it from 90 and its 52 degrees.

This should the the MET or Minimum energy trajectory for this missile?
Dont thik range can be increased by launching it on Lofted trajectory as you depicted.

My simulation is much more complicated than simple calculations. It includes atmospheric models and integrates ODEs. So I have more faith in my simulations rather than some simplified idealized trajectory equations.

 

[Oscar]

My simulation is much more complicated than simple calculations. It includes atmospheric models and integrates ODEs. So I have more faith in my simulations rather than some simplified idealized trajectory equations.

I feel there is misconception on CEPs for Ballistics which aren't exactly circles so the term itself is a misnomer - They are elliptical in nature which means its greater along the flight path rather than lateral. So the 10m CEP is likely 50-100m at best on just GNSS and INS.

Now with the seeker onboard there is another aspect, you need to actually slow down for the seeker to achieve resolution from plasma blackout for a lock so being hypersonic consistently isn't always a requirement. With the seeker then the window for the missile to achieve a lock and then make adjustments to course starts to matter.

Against defended targets with electronic countermeasures, the effective CEP degrades significantly because jamming can deny the terminal seeker its target lock, forcing the missile to rely on increasingly inaccurate INS-only guidance.


HOWEVER, you don’t need every round to be a 10 m CEP hit if the operational objective is to achieve a mission kill, force defensive expenditures, or disrupt operations.