SMASH SLBM Testing - Nov 2025

[falcon34]

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.

I remember you once mentioned you saw Shaheen 1 hitting a bulls eye. I mean that missile was early 2000s tech, so what happened that we can't we reciporate that today on missiles like F2/Smash. We should have gotten better

 

[JamD]

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.

Right. Just to clarify for everyone reading this when you said ballistics you didn't mean just ballistic missiles but anything flying ballistically like artillery shells or mortars. Of course the nature of the actual spread would be classified but it would make for a fun targeting problem.

Regarding the plasma blackout, I think SMASH is kept under mach 3 for the majority of its terminal flight due to the nature of its trajectory (as far as I can simulate). So I think plasma blackout isn't the bottleneck. What i do suspect is the bottleneck is the range of the seeker. Lets suppose SMASH gets radar lock at 2km. At Mach2 this is maybe 6 to 7 seconds to correct whatever error you may have. What if your cross track error is 500m? So it is a really complicated problem. You'd hope your cross track error when seeker goes pitbull is small/manageable. Also SMASH has maneuvering thrusters. These are definitely to fight that cross track error in the last few seconds. Notice how it is just one set all around (unlike multiple layers on other systems that maneveur a lot with those). This means this is a one and done kind of system. What likely happens is when the guidance computer realizes 500m cross track error when seeker goes pitbull it fires the appropriate thrusters to fight that error as much as it can. If it overcorrects it has fins. Fun control problem just thinking about it.

 

[JamD]

I remember you once mentioned you saw Shaheen 1 hitting a bulls eye. I mean that missile was early 2000s tech, so what happened that we can't we reciporate that today on missiles like F2/Smash. We should have gotten better

At the risk of repeating this ad nauseum, CEP is a statistical measure. You can have a test with 0.01m error and yet your statistical analysis gives 20m CEP. Also initial tests often have factors to make the mission easier because for example they're more concerned with terminal telemetry so they might install a beacon at the target to make it hit the bullseye. I'm just speculating.

 

[rafale]

I remember you once mentioned you saw Shaheen 1 hitting a bulls eye. I mean that missile was early 2000s tech, so what happened that we can't we reciporate that today on missiles like F2/Smash. We should have gotten better

I think what we have seen is barely couple of videos. CEP cannot be established on that only, so here is to hoping that those who are fielding these systems will be looking towards improving the CEP.

 

[Gripen9]

S= vit + 1/2 gt2 is all I remember about ballistic trajectory......

 

[Oscar]

I remember you once mentioned you saw Shaheen 1 hitting a bulls eye. I mean that missile was early 2000s tech, so what happened that we can't we reciporate that today on missiles like F2/Smash. We should have gotten better

Yes - this was Shaheen 1 mind you and in 1997-8 .

But again, ideal conditions is what matters.

 

[Toxic]

Yes - this was Shaheen 1 mind you and in 1997-8 .

But again, ideal conditions is what matters.

It does make me wonder how they achieved it, even the most accurate Chinese tactical ballistic missiles had CEPs of 200 meters+

 

[Oscar]

It does make me wonder how they achieved it, even the most accurate Chinese tactical ballistic missiles had CEPs of 200 meters+

Perfect day - ideal conditions - some spirit of

بِحَقِّ لا إلهَ إلا الله

 

[Bratva]

Right. Just to clarify for everyone reading this when you said ballistics you didn't mean just ballistic missiles but anything flying ballistically like artillery shells or mortars. Of course the nature of the actual spread would be classified but it would make for a fun targeting problem.

Regarding the plasma blackout, I think SMASH is kept under mach 3 for the majority of its terminal flight due to the nature of its trajectory (as far as I can simulate). So I think plasma blackout isn't the bottleneck. What i do suspect is the bottleneck is the range of the seeker. Lets suppose SMASH gets radar lock at 2km. At Mach2 this is maybe 6 to 7 seconds to correct whatever error you may have. What if your cross track error is 500m? So it is a really complicated problem. You'd hope your cross track error when seeker goes pitbull is small/manageable. Also SMASH has maneuvering thrusters. These are definitely to fight that cross track error in the last few seconds. Notice how it is just one set all around (unlike multiple layers on other systems that maneveur a lot with those). This means this is a one and done kind of system. What likely happens is when the guidance computer realizes 500m cross track error when seeker goes pitbull it fires the appropriate thrusters to fight that error as much as it can. If it overcorrects it has fins. Fun control problem just thinking about it.

Is SMASH MARV ? Its front section cone has holes on it, which seems somekind of thursters? Fatah-II doesnt has those.

 

[Sparten]

Right. Just to clarify for everyone reading this when you said ballistics you didn't mean just ballistic missiles but anything flying ballistically like artillery shells or mortars. Of course the nature of the actual spread would be classified but it would make for a fun targeting problem.

Regarding the plasma blackout, I think SMASH is kept under mach 3 for the majority of its terminal flight due to the nature of its trajectory (as far as I can simulate). So I think plasma blackout isn't the bottleneck. What i do suspect is the bottleneck is the range of the seeker. Lets suppose SMASH gets radar lock at 2km. At Mach2 this is maybe 6 to 7 seconds to correct whatever error you may have. What if your cross track error is 500m? So it is a really complicated problem. You'd hope your cross track error when seeker goes pitbull is small/manageable. Also SMASH has maneuvering thrusters. These are definitely to fight that cross track error in the last few seconds. Notice how it is just one set all around (unlike multiple layers on other systems that maneveur a lot with those). This means this is a one and done kind of system. What likely happens is when the guidance computer realizes 500m cross track error when seeker goes pitbull it fires the appropriate thrusters to fight that error as much as it can. If it overcorrects it has fins. Fun control problem just thinking about it.

Also, nuclear warhead and missiles with conventional warheads are very different. For a nuke, you just need to get it reliably into a space where the predicted blast will provide sufficinet overpressure needed to kill the target.
Like for a 50 KT blast, needed to kill a tafget hardened to 10,000 PSI, it need to detonate a point in space 50 meters away, and with fusing you can set it to burst when it intersects a point 50 m away from the target, even if its actual impact point might have been several hundred meters away.
With a conventional warhead, you actally need to hit it.

 

[JamD]

Is SMASH MARV ? Its front section cone has holes on it, which seems somekind of thursters? Fatah-II doesnt has those.

Not a marv. We've seen in the video the entire missile hits. There is no separation. No need for a missile this small, might as well use the tiny bit of kinetic energy that comes with the entire airframe.

Regarding thrusters, I've already speculated that these are for rapid terminal maneuvering when the seeker locks on to target. Fatah-II has no seeker and thus no need for these thrusters.

 

[Goku-Kun]

Right. Just to clarify for everyone reading this when you said ballistics you didn't mean just ballistic missiles but anything flying ballistically like artillery shells or mortars. Of course the nature of the actual spread would be classified but it would make for a fun targeting problem.

Regarding the plasma blackout, I think SMASH is kept under mach 3 for the majority of its terminal flight due to the nature of its trajectory (as far as I can simulate). So I think plasma blackout isn't the bottleneck. What i do suspect is the bottleneck is the range of the seeker. Lets suppose SMASH gets radar lock at 2km. At Mach2 this is maybe 6 to 7 seconds to correct whatever error you may have. What if your cross track error is 500m? So it is a really complicated problem. You'd hope your cross track error when seeker goes pitbull is small/manageable. Also SMASH has maneuvering thrusters. These are definitely to fight that cross track error in the last few seconds. Notice how it is just one set all around (unlike multiple layers on other systems that maneveur a lot with those). This means this is a one and done kind of system. What likely happens is when the guidance computer realizes 500m cross track error when seeker goes pitbull it fires the appropriate thrusters to fight that error as much as it can. If it overcorrects it has fins. Fun control problem just thinking about it.

I slightly disagree..
>Mach 2 is the official figure which has been given in promotional brochure and I strongly believe that it was from November 2024 test BUT the November 2025 test was different and besides the new Top-Attack mode for the missile its speed is greater then Mach 4 too..
My analysis is entirely on the basis of different video shots so for November 2025 test the missile hit a moving target at sea in top attack mode with improved speed not just because of the new mode of attack BUT other improvements too because top-attack would only improve the speed by 0.5 Mach or so because of the absence of horizontal drag so it was already moving at around Mach 4 and then due to reduced drag it might had gone to Mach 4.5-5 so it could be classified as high supersonic or near hypersonic. The video unveiled at WORLD DEFENCE SHOW by GIDS is probably captured by Navy's high fps cameras which made the missile slightly visible then the footage which was released to media..
Must watch my video:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0y2fSSxCrU

 

[air marshal]

SMASH Hypersonic Missile

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HSKl6aOk4nA

 

[safriz]

Right. Just to clarify for everyone reading this when you said ballistics you didn't mean just ballistic missiles but anything flying ballistically like artillery shells or mortars. Of course the nature of the actual spread would be classified but it would make for a fun targeting problem.

Regarding the plasma blackout, I think SMASH is kept under mach 3 for the majority of its terminal flight due to the nature of its trajectory (as far as I can simulate). So I think plasma blackout isn't the bottleneck. What i do suspect is the bottleneck is the range of the seeker. Lets suppose SMASH gets radar lock at 2km. At Mach2 this is maybe 6 to 7 seconds to correct whatever error you may have. What if your cross track error is 500m? So it is a really complicated problem. You'd hope your cross track error when seeker goes pitbull is small/manageable. Also SMASH has maneuvering thrusters. These are definitely to fight that cross track error in the last few seconds. Notice how it is just one set all around (unlike multiple layers on other systems that maneveur a lot with those). This means this is a one and done kind of system. What likely happens is when the guidance computer realizes 500m cross track error when seeker goes pitbull it fires the appropriate thrusters to fight that error as much as it can. If it overcorrects it has fins. Fun control problem just thinking about it.

Same limitations apply to Indian Brahmos ?

 

[Gripen9]

S= vit + 1/2 gt2 is all I remember about ballistic trajectory......

See this equation can save your beeehind!!

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