Brahmos

[Chacko]

Seeker and flight profile updated on Protonriver forums (http://www.protonriver.com/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=18&t=581&st=180#entry25869) Protonriver fact file (http://www.protonriver.com/library/missiles/brahmos.php)

[AirPower]

Nice website

[Jonesy]

Sounds a bit like a Brahmos sales pitch that one doesnt it! :rolleyes:

Sea-Skiming profile: To avoide anti-missile defence Brahmos remains at an altitude of 10-15 from launch to impact. Range achieved is about 120kms.

Mach 2 @ 45ftASL for 120km. Sounds a lot like the alleged poor-relation Moskit to me!.

Maximum range profile: 290kms distance is achieved in lo/hi/lo flight profile. On launch it climbs to 14000-15000m for cruise phase. 40 kms away from the target it decends to sea skimming altitude.

A weapon, at 40,000ft, 40kms from target is inside the lethal envelope of even a GWS30 Sea Dart missile!. Against a competetive AAW escort that means only the lo-lo-lo profile is an option. That means the launching platform is going to have to close to 120km for release. A range almost identical to that of an air-launched Harpoon or Sea Eagle. This would seemingly debunk the theory that Brahmos will allow for greater security for IN/IAF assets by allowing them long-range standoff attacks against high-threat targets.

In case os of sea skimming profile missile starts radar search and achieve lock-on upon "popping up" from under the radar range which is about 25 kms.

Apart from the small point that the launching platform, just 120kms away, has a better than even chance of having been detected on its attack profile preparing to release the missile. The defending vessel(s) should be fully prepared for the inbound therefore and, if they are alert and under defence watch conditions, would probably already have countermeasures deployed.

In the lo/hi/lo profile it performs a first short radar search at a range of 50 km to verify target position and then reverts to inertial navigation in radar silence for the descent phase to sea skimming attack run before switching the radar on again at closer range

So any target ship equipped with a 150km range air-search set or better will see a high-altitude mach2 inbound on its scope that emits active seeker pulses at 50km then drops off the scope at 40km. Theyre going to be deploying countermeasures as soon as it lights up its seeker! Even at M2.0 the missile is still a minute away when it drops down to sea-skimming profile. Not long enough to get out of a seeker FoV, but, very much long enough to deploy decoys and warm up jammers and hardkill systems.

There is no provision of in-flight data updates via data link from launch or airborne platform. Its estimated that Brahmos can perform both active or passive homing modes. passive modes like anti-radiation or home-on-jam.

So there is no target-update capability on this weapon like the earlier Moskit has through its datalink. Also the weapon is potentially vulnerable to offboard radar jamming decoys. Interesting.

On shore attack mode the seeker can detect large structures or DRDO has developed navigation and flight control computers to guide missile to precision impact against fixed targets (capability already tested).

So DRDO has developed an INS ('flight control computers'???) so accurate that the missile, in land-attack role, requires no terminal seeker assistance for a "precision" strike?. Wow! :rolleyes:

[Indian1973]

what is the source of all this detailed information ? is it in
some sales brochure or just "guesses" ?

If matters were so simple as described in above posts I
doubt India would be investing the time & money to equip
its ships and planes with this weapon ;) Klub was a option
and that seems to have been superceded by the brahmos plans.

[Saleem Y Hatoum]

A very accurate assesment Steve.

[Saleem Y Hatoum]

Brahmos is a mirror image of SS-N-26 YAKHONT with all its specifications and performace parameters.

[Harry]

Mach 2 @ 45ftASL for 120km. Sounds a lot like the alleged poor-relation Moskit to me!.

Correction. Mach 2.8. And where did that terminal ASL figure of 45 ft come from? It's a 10-15 ft ASL profile throughout, lo-lo-lo, range 120-145 km.

The Brahmos can have programmable flight profiles, not just lo-hi-lo/lo-lo-lo at preset ranges.

So any target ship equipped with a 150km range air-search set or better will see a high-altitude mach2 inbound on its scope that emits active seeker pulses at 50km then drops off the scope at 40km. Theyre going to be deploying countermeasures as soon as it lights up its seeker! Even at M2.0 the missile is still a minute away when it drops down to sea-skimming profile. Not long enough to get out of a seeker FoV, but, very much long enough to deploy decoys and warm up jammers and hardkill systems.

The missile's seeker is not an extremely high power emitter and the missile body also enjoys low RCS. The active radar seeker activates only during the terminal sea-skimming stage and you have about 0.85 minutes to react. Insufficient reaction time proved to be fatal for the Sheffeild, even against the AM-39.

The CIWS/SAM will be hard pressed to hit a Mach 2.8 sea skimmer (undertaking high G terminal maneuvers) and more so, defend from incoming debris of the 3000 kg missile, if actually destroyed at CIWS range. Survival from the 300 kg warhead and high KE impact is highly unlikely and it's pretty well established that multiple hits from subsonic AsHMs would be required to sink a fairly large warship. What would the poor guy do against multiple Brahmos, coming in at varying flight profiles?

One more thing is that while developing the missile, no one discounts any possible countermeasure to it. Thus the specific areas are addressed as much as possible be it ECM (ECCM), detection (low RCS/speed/reaction time) or interception (terminal maneuvers/speed) and target survivability (large warhead/KE). It would be pretty pointless to assume that newer missiles have the same standard of seekers and signal processing as older ones. :rolleyes:

So there is no target-update capability on this weapon like the earlier Moskit has through its datalink

There's no midcourse correction at present but the time to target is pretty low.

Also the weapon is potentially vulnerable to offboard radar jamming decoys. Interesting.


That would depend on the seeker, the signal processing, the RC algorithms and ECCM, of which, nothing is known to make such an assumption. The primary issue AsHMs face would be interception, where subsonic ones, equipped with TIs or not, would have a high degree of problems.

So DRDO has developed an INS ('flight control computers'???) so accurate that the missile, in land-attack role, requires no terminal seeker assistance for a "precision" strike?. Wow!

Point that out as a correction in the author's assessment. It's pretty obvious that the INS/GPS and active radar seeker are used, though no TERCOM at present.

[JonS]

The missile's seeker is not an extremely high power emitter and the missile body also enjoys low RCS. The active radar seeker activates only during the terminal sea-skimming stage and you have about 0.85 minutes to react. Insufficient reaction time proved to be fatal for the Sheffeild, even against the AM-39.
Actually if its like yakhont it supposedly turns on its active/passive radar around 70 km flying hi before it initiates its dive. Its done in order to see what enemy vessels are in the enemy fleet and assign themselves 1 missile per 1 vessel unlike other ashm, also if it happens to find high value target like AC it will automatically lock on to it. This strategy is unique to NPO, its also used in shipwreck and is the one rational behind it flying hi (apart from the increased range).

A weapon, at 40,000ft, 40kms from target is inside the lethal envelope of even a GWS30 Sea Dart missile!.
Problem is most SAM system cant intercept a manuvering target at around 50,000 ft moving at mach 2.8 50 kms away. SM-2 or sea dart are not fast enough, ESSM has a shot but doesnt have the range.

[Harry]

I'm not certain where the author sourced the 40 km terminal range from? The ARGS-54E on the Klub, itself, can go terminal at 65 km (max).

NPO do make the active radar seeker on the Brahmos so it should'nt be unfair to assume that the cooperative/prioritization attack mode exists. Salvo launches with combined flights have been mentioned for the Brahmos before.

[Indian1973]

thanks for clearing up matters. with each MKI slated to carry 3x brahmos each, a trooplet of 4 a/c could strike out against a SAG with 12 of these kittens ripple fired within a few seconds ALL from the same quadrant :D

APAR can handle 4 in a quadrant ? :D

how many does SPY-1D tackle per quadrant ?

its a very unpleasant scenario for the naval commander.

I think Tuollaf pointed out what JonS does that against
supersonic crossing targets the efective range of even Aster30 is not much at all.

[Jonesy]

Harry,

The article states a low profile altititude of 10-15 with no unit value. The rest of the article seems to be in metric values though so 10 to 15 metres (30-45ft) for a mach 2 weapon seemed the most reasonable extrapolation. 10 to 15ft ASL 120km overwater at nearly M3?. Let me just clarify that you do actually mean the weapon is running at 2130mph a mere 4 metres above waves that tend to jig up and down quite a bit, often far in excess of 4m!, and through boundary layer air. Well 45ft sounds a bit safer to me and I'd very much like to see confirmation that this figure of M2.8 is actually a sea-level value NOT M2.8 at 40k ft that has been fudged to give the impression that its a M2.8 skimmer.

The missile's seeker is not an extremely high power emitter and the missile body also enjoys low RCS.

Lets not fool around with some form of 'low-observability' surrounding Brahmos. If the seeker is powerful enough to get a return off a ship from 50km away its powerful enough to be picked up by a halfway decent ESM system on the ship. The missile speed and profile also make it fairly distinguishable on a scope - there arent that many things knocking around that sustained travel at Mach2 so its going to be hard to misidentify the thing.

The active radar seeker activates only during the terminal sea-skimming stage and you have about 0.85 minutes to react.

According to that article it activates at 40km on the hi midcourse profile. 40km at Mach 2 is as close to a minute as makes no difference. Then again though you are only talking of a difference of a whole 9 seconds between our two values anyway so its probably not worth arguing about. Either way the "3.3 seconds" reaction time the article mentions seems a bit fallacious.

Insufficient reaction time proved to be fatal for the Sheffeild, even against the AM-39.

LOL didnt expect you to be THAT predictable Harry!. The missile that caught Sheffield did so exactly because Sheffield didnt deploy any countermeasures at all!. HMS Glasgow picked up the Etendard Agave set prior to launch and the Exocet seeker on her UAA-1 ESM and did so in plenty of time to flash the 'HANDBRAKE' Exocet warning to the rest of the task force!. This is my whole point!.

The CIWS/SAM will be hard pressed to hit a Mach 2.8 sea skimmer (undertaking high G terminal maneuvers) and more so, defend from incoming debris of the 3000 kg missile, if actually destroyed at CIWS range.

So you still see a 3 metric tonne missile travelling at 2000+ mph jinking all over the sky in 'high-G terminal manoevres'. I'll believe that when I see it and not before.

Irrespective of such manoevres as soon as the weapon crosses the horizon it will be a very big target on an IRSTS or FCR and a modern gun system like Contraves Millenium or missile system like SeaWolf, Barak or RAM will all have the capability to mount successful intercepts, so then, as soon as those systems are prevalent you then have to go back to square one with saturation attacks. Saturation attacks that would be just as successful using, much cheaper, subsonic weapons.

Survival from the 300 kg warhead and high KE impact is highly unlikely and it's pretty well established that multiple hits from subsonic AsHMs would be required to sink a fairly large warship.

DEFINITELY. No disagreement there Harry. One hit from one of these would be catastrophic. Then again though one AM.39 was enough to put Sheffield out of action and a similar weapon put USS Stark into a distinctly non-operational condition. So what, really, is the need for Brahmos's extreme destructive power when the only, really, large advanced warships in your theatre, apart from a handful of PLAN ships, are sailing under US ensigns!. Careful who you threaten there Harry!.

That would depend on the seeker, the signal processing, the RC algorithms and ECCM, of which, nothing is known to make such a conjencture.

Also depends on the seeker dwell time Harry. As you state the duration of the terminal phase engagement cycle is very, very brief. This means the seeker doesnt have a lot of time to evaluate its targets and follow its ECCM protocols. I'm not saying the seeker CAN'T discriminate between a ships FCS radar and, say, a floating EW decoy. What I am saying is that the terminal phase speed will limit the ability of the seeker to make those determinations when compared to an equivalently advanced subsonic weapon.

The primary issue AsHMs face would be interception, where subsonic ones, equipped with TIs or not, would have a high degree of problems.

Nuts!. A vastly greater percentage of AShM's, fired operationally, have been decoyed, chaffed or jammed than have been intercepted by hard-kill systems.

Jon,

Problem is most SAM system cant intercept a manuvering target at around 50,000 ft moving at mach 2.8 50 kms away. SM-2 or sea dart are not fast enough, ESSM has a shot but doesnt have the range.

Who said the Brahmos is manoevering?. Does the weapon have sufficient AI to detect that its under attack and initiate evasive manoevers if so thats very impressive?. Its also something I've not heard anyone else claim for the weapon!. Sea Dart has intercepted non-maneouvering 40k ft targets at ranges in the 40km region.

[Harry]

The article states a low profile altititude of 10-15 with no unit value. The rest of the article seems to be in metric values though so 10 to 15 metres (30-45ft) for a mach 2 weapon seemed the most reasonable extrapolation. 10 to 15ft ASL 120km overwater at nearly M3?. Let me just clarify that you do actually mean the weapon is running at 2130mph a mere 4 metres above waves that tend to jig up and down quite a bit, often far in excess of 4m!, and through boundary layer air. Well 45ft sounds a bit safer to me and I'd very much like to see confirmation that this figure of M2.8 is actually a sea-level value NOT M2.8 at 40k ft that has been fudged to give the impression that its a M2.8 skimmer.

But then again, you're not referring to Brahmos specific flight performances are you?

I can confirm, from all released info, it's sea-skimming at 10-15 feet AGL and that Mach 2.8 is the constant velocity throughout the flight. In the case of a hi-lo profile, the solid propellant booster aided by the liquid fuel ramjet sustainer takes the missile to Mach 2, and eventually to Mach 2.8 where it cruises at an optimised and varying height profile. It descends during the terminal phase with the same velocity. In the case of lo-lo, the missile makes an initial climb and quickly falls down to the sea skimming profile.


Lets not fool around with some form of 'low-observability' surrounding Brahmos. If the seeker is powerful enough to get a return off a ship from 50km away its powerful enough to be picked up by a halfway decent ESM system

Uh? Destroyers have a typical RCS of 3000 sq.m. In addition, it's not just the power o/p of the radar but it's antenna (dia and gain) and signal processing power as well. With a diameter of 670 mm, it can accomodate a fairly large seeker.

And yes, the Brahmos is a LO design.

. 40km at Mach 2 is as close to a minute as makes no difference.

Mach 2 point 8.

So you still see a 3 metric tonne missile travelling at 2000+ mph jinking all over the sky in 'high-G terminal manoevres'. I'll believe that when I see it and not before.


Less aerodynamic airframes such as the Moskit have been doing it for years. The Brahmos has been tested for it's attack profile. 'Disbelief' is your own perspective.

The missile that caught Sheffield did so exactly because Sheffield didnt deploy any countermeasures at all!. HMS Glasgow picked up the Etendard Agave set prior to launch and the Exocet seeker on her UAA-1 ESM and did so in plenty of time to flash the 'HANDBRAKE' Exocet warning to the rest of the task force!. This is my whole point!.

So you agree that reaction times can't be so predictable as you assume, especially when a subsonic AsHM caused a nasty surprise? :)

Irrespective of such manoevres as soon as the weapon crosses the horizon it will be a very big target on an IRSTS or FCR and a modern gun system like Contraves Millenium or missile system like SeaWolf, Barak or RAM will all have the capability to mount successful intercepts, so then, as soon as those systems are prevalent you then have to go back to square one with saturation attacks

Speculation.

Do you actually expect the missile designer to disregard the CIWS and hard kill systems? They may not be needed everytime but offer a high degree of guarantee. This is exactly why the high speed and high-G terminal maneuvers are needed for penetration. In the case of the ever-so-hyped NSM, nothing can be done to prevent it from getting shot down by the CIWS.

So what, really, is the need for Brahmos's extreme destructive power when the only, really, large advanced warships in your theatre, apart from a handful of PLAN ships, are sailing under US ensigns!. Careful who you threaten there Harry

One can'nt assume that the potential threats would be forever weak would they? Projected plans for long term threats are better. Even so, even the most mediocre warships require multiple hits from subsonic AsHMs to go down.

Funny but since you did mention it, the Brahmos video shows an Aegis class ship getting blown away.

Saturation attacks that would be just as successful using, much cheaper, subsonic weapons.

Speculation? What are the typical loads of subsonic AsHMs on platforms? In the case of a saturation attack, several rounds can be decoyed or destroyed and the ship would still require several rounds to go down. Sorry, but subsonic AsHMs just don't cut it.

Also depends on the seeker dwell time Harry. As you state the duration of the terminal phase engagement cycle is very, very brief. This means the seeker doesnt have a lot of time to evaluate its targets and follow its ECCM protocols.

That area could most certainly be addressed by superior signal processing and what you've mentioned is a very small percentage of the flight time. Older seekers like the ARGS-54E have proven abilities to select/discrimate targets while under supersonic flight, even in large groups. Heck, even modern active radar AAMs have it. The above also a factor of how fast one could deploy a radar decoy wrt the reaction time. In the case of subsonic AsHMs, they have plenty of time to do so. Should the 300 kg warhead of a Brahmos also detonate in proximity......

vastly greater percentage of AShM's, fired operationally, have been decoyed, chaffed or jammed than have been intercepted by hard-kill systems.


Most of them happen to be Exocets, Silkworms or Styx variants.

If you've noticed the illustrations, you'd see that the missile was designed to operate under intense jamming conditions. The areas of ECCM and target discrimination are far easier to work with and address compared to addressing vulnerability against interception.

[JonS]

Who said the Brahmos is manoevering?. Does the weapon have sufficient AI to detect that its under attack and initiate evasive manoevers if so thats very impressive?. Its also something I've not heard anyone else claim for the weapon!. Sea Dart has intercepted non-maneouvering 40k ft targets at ranges in the 40km region.
no sea dart hasnt intercepted a mach 2.5 to 2.8 target at that altitude only SAM systems that are capable of doing that are SM-3, S-200/300 and may be aster-45. The russian shipwreck and yakhont have ability to detect incoming radiation and throw countermeasures (NPO doent go into it how most likely by manuvering its mentioned in yakhont/brahmos video).

SeaWolf, Barak or RAM will all have the capability to mount successful intercepts
Barak definely cant intercept its limited to targets less than mach 1.5, problem the same with seawolf and RAM as well. The only systems thats surely capable of intercepting is essm.

[Indian1973]

when is the much hyped NSM going to enter service ?

to me it looks like a decent if very range limited weapon against
land targets. A range of 150km means the firing platform has to move deep within the enemy's air defences to even go after coastal targets...not a good idea unless the firer is a submarine.
I doubt modern short range SAMs and guns will have
much trouble taking it out with a fair amt of ease.

USN ships wont be scared by any number of these pinpricks and
thats what both India and China want to deter in the future. something heavier , faster and nastier is a must. China is also developing its own line of tools for that apart from laying in russian gear.

for manouvers doesnt Sunburn and its cousins throw S-shaped terminal moves to convert the intercept into a much harder crossing engagements for the shooter ? I suspect its a lot harder to deal with a crossing mach2+ target than one coming straight at you?

[Jonesy]

Harry,

But then again, you're not referring to Brahmos specific flight performances are you?

No I suppose not. I'd seriously doubt any missile system that boasted 2100mph at 10ft ASL over oceanic conditions for any kind of flight duration.

Simply put the reaction times of radar altimeters, actuators and control logic have to be razor-sharp to keep the things out of the water at high subsonic speeds - multiplying that speed by a factor of three means that a single spurious event - a large-ish wave or slight fault in a servo - will likely see the weapon in kit form in the oggin!.

Mach 2.8 is the constant velocity throughout the flight.

Just what I thought. M2.8 at altitude reducing down by aerodynamic drag when it hits sea-level. I know you haven't said that, but, I've seen nothing that says M2.8 at sea-level anywhere. Moskit isnt a Mach2 jobby at sea level either despite what you read from popular sources.

Uh? Destroyers have a typical RCS of 3000 sq.m. In addition, it's not just the power o/p of the radar but it's antenna (dia and gain) and signal processing power as well. With a diameter of 670 mm, it can accomodate a fairly large seeker.

Uh? At what aspect do we have our 3000 sq.m RCS? Is it the same bows-on and broad aspect. Nope. There is A LOT more to the process of target selection than it being just a function of antenna diameter and seeker output. The main part of it, coupled to the processing power you state, is the seeker dwell. Track forming and rejection does take a finite amount of time however clever your ECCM algorythms.

Less aerodynamic airframes such as the Moskit have been doing it for years. The Brahmos has been tested for it's attack profile. 'Disbelief' is your own perspective.

Hmmm Moskit doesn't do 'M2.8' in the terminal phase. Neither does it do wild 'High G' manoevres. A 10g pull-up and roll is about its limit and that comes at the price of sacrificing terminal velocity.

Have you seen any instrumented footage of a Brahmos missile racing along the wavetops at M3 or, sorry, 2.8 or performing high-g manoevres?. If not then isnt 'belief' just your perspective? ;) . Like I said when I see it I'll believe it - until then I remember all the Moskit hype and how that weapon turned out to be a little less than advertised and much closer to the known technological limits of the players involved.

Do you actually expect the missile designer to disregard the CIWS and hard kill systems? They may not be needed everytime but offer a high degree of guarantee. This is exactly why the high speed and high-G terminal maneuvers are needed for penetration. In the case of the ever-so-hyped NSM, nothing can be done to prevent it from getting shot down by the CIWS.

Of course I dont and the best way to ensure a strike on target in the face of modern CIWS is simply to overload it. This is universally appreciated. Look at what Indian73 wrote about putting 12 missiles down a single threat bearing to overload an APAR or SPY-1/SPG equipped ship. What I'm saying is that each of those Su-30's carrying 4 Kh-35's or Sea Eagles would be every bit as capable of saturating the target defences as if they were carrying Brahmos. The aircraft would probably be able to stage out quite a bit farther not carrying 9 tonnes of antiship missiles into the bargain!.

The thing that you dont get with NSM, that gives it such a clear advantage over Brahmos, is that it is entirely passive. Yes its subsonic, yes its small, and yes it wont make anywhere near as big a 'bang' as Brahmos, BUT, its small enough to be truly low-observable in RCS and IR terms plus it doesnt alert the target by broadcasting its arrival to every vessel with a decent ESM kit. Remember HMS Sheffield they didnt know a missile was on the way and they got hit for it. Every other time an Exocet was used in that action the target ship knew the inbound was on the way and decoyed successfully.

With NSM the target vessel need never know a missile was on the way to defend against. That is a real advantage.

That area could most certainly be addressed by superior signal processing and what you've mentioned is a very small percentage of the flight time. Older seekers like the ARGS-54E have proven abilities to select/discrimate targets while under supersonic flight, even in large groups. Heck, even modern active radar AAMs have it.

You are not comparing an active radar seeker from an AAM to an AShM are you? Just because an AAM ARH can hit an aircraft in the middle of a few chaff clouds and some, fairly, low-powered jamming does not mean that individual ship targets can be picked out of a cluttered sea-picture in the face of heavy offboard decoying and jamming!.

The areas of ECCM and target discrimination are far easier to work with and address compared to addressing vulnerability against interception.

You have that 100% backwards Harry. Overwhelming target defenses is a function of getting more weapons on target that the defensive systems can cope with. Picking out hostile surface targets in a clutter environment amidst decoys and jamming is a very, very different matter.

.

[Jonesy]

Jon

no sea dart hasnt intercepted a mach 2.5 to 2.8 target at that altitude only SAM systems that are capable of doing that are SM-3, S-200/300 and may be aster-45. The russian shipwreck and yakhont have ability to detect incoming radiation and throw countermeasures (NPO doent go into it how most likely by manuvering its mentioned in yakhont/brahmos video).

Your information is incorrect Jon. Sea Dart intercepted supersonic sounding rocket targets off the Aberporth range back in the 70's at altitudes greater than 40k ft on aeroballistic trajectories. Kinematically Sea Dart is capable of intercepts way above 40,000.

Barak definely cant intercept its limited to targets less than mach 1.5, problem the same with seawolf and RAM as well. The only systems thats surely capable of intercepting is essm.

SeaWolf, in its original GWS25 variant, I know for certain has engaged and destroyed M2.0 Sea Petrel targets. On Barak I'll take your word on the M1.5 limit, I'd heard it was capable of supersonic intercepts.

[JonS]

Your information is incorrect Jon. Sea Dart intercepted supersonic sounding rocket targets off the Aberporth range back in the 70's at altitudes greater than 40k ft on aeroballistic trajectories. Kinematically Sea Dart is capable of intercepts way above 40,000.
thats difference between super sonic > 1.0 mach and 2.8 mach. RN didnt have any drones that are capable of that speed or not even USN for that matter so they had to use modified talos and also had to purchase russian kh-31/ma-31 for ESSM trials.

when is the much hyped NSM going to enter service ?
around 2005.

[Jonesy]

Jon,

They used the Sea Petrel rocket with signal augmenters to simulate the Soviet heavy aeroballistic weapons. Could I swear to the fact that those rockets attained precisely Mach2.8 - no I couldnt. We were told that they exceeded M2 though.

I think in this case that the differential between intercepting a Petrel rocket on a depressed ballistic arc at M2 and a Brahmos flying straight and level at 2.8 is relatively minor one. Fact remains, Jon, that a straight and level flight profile at 40,000 even at 2100 plus mph is not an unattainable target by any stetch of the imagination. Not even to a 30 year old system like GWS30.

[GarryB]

Mach 2 @ 45ftASL for 120km. Sounds a lot like the alleged poor-relation Moskit to me!.


Not really a poor relation.. the Brahmos carries the same warhead the same distance as the sea launched Moskit flying the same flight profile while weighing in at 1 ton less that the Moskit at a higher speed. (Low altitude launch and flight meant Moskit was a Mach 2.3-2.5 bird. Estimates for higher altitude speed were about mach 3 for Hi/Hi/Lo air launched weapon.)

As you probably well know the Moskit was developed to engage AEGIS cruisers. It was accepted that the launch and the weapon would be detected at long range and the speed and relatively short range were intended to make interception as difficult as possible. Multiple launches of weapons at each target were expected as normal for "high value targets".

A weapon, at 40,000ft, 40kms from target is inside the lethal envelope of even a GWS30 Sea Dart missile!. Against a competetive AAW escort that means only the lo-lo-lo profile is an option.

And how many vessels in the region operate a competitive AAW escort? If the indians were intending to take on the British or French or NATO or the US then your criticisms would be quite valid. The reality is rather different.

That means the launching platform is going to have to close to 120km for release. A range almost identical to that of an air-launched Harpoon or Sea Eagle.

And how effective are Harpoons and Sea Eagles at engaging Su-30MKIs?

The defending vessel(s) should be fully prepared for the inbound therefore and, if they are alert and under defence watch conditions, would probably already have countermeasures deployed.


As the Falklands showed having deployed countermeasures not every ship that is with you is safe. Hard kill systems are much more useful... and with a near Mach 3 it is interesting the number of shells a Phalanx can fire from maximum effective range to minimum range... those shells are not directed at where the target is of course... but where it will be, and if it makes any slight deviation during the terminal phase then those rounds will have been wasted... even if they only miss by a centimetre.

It's a 10-15 ft ASL profile throughout, lo-lo-lo, range 120-145 km.

The Moskit would fly at 20m and drop to 7m for the last 50km or so... depending upon the sea state.

A weapon, at 40,000ft, 40kms from target is inside the lethal envelope of even a GWS30 Sea Dart missile!. Against a competetive AAW escort that means only the lo-lo-lo profile is an option.

You detect several high flying very high speed targets at 80km range and they are closing at almost a kilometer a second. How long does it take to lock that target, point a missile at it, determine it is hostile and get permission to fire. When you do fire the missiles cross an invisible waypoint marker on their INS and dive to 20m above the sea... how would you rate the interception chances of those two or three or more missiles you just launched at it? Will they immediately descend and try to intercept at low altitude... if so they will probably hit the water less than 2/3rds the way to the now rapidly closing target. Without any sight of the target that is now below the radar horizon you can go to battlestations and prepare the jammers and the short range weapon systems but how many are there? Are they all coming from 290km away or are there a few more from 120km? From the 40km mark you have about 40 seconds...

HMS Glasgow picked up the Etendard Agave set prior to launch and the Exocet seeker on her UAA-1 ESM and did so in plenty of time to flash the 'HANDBRAKE' Exocet warning to the rest of the task force!. This is my whole point!.

Well assuming the jammers and countermeasures are effective... which is not proved, then let us pray for the sailors on any ships that weren't fitted with countermeasures... and say carrying Helos for the coming invasion or other vital supplies...

So you still see a 3 metric tonne missile travelling at 2000+ mph jinking all over the sky in 'high-G terminal manoevres'. I'll believe that when I see it and not before.

Jinking is a rediculous word. It just needs to turn 1 degree... the cannon rounds being fired at it from a Phanlanx are being fired at a point several hundred metres in front of the actual missile in the hope of meeting up with the missile when it arrives. A very minor turn will prevent that meeting by several metres... even though a cannon shell missing by 5mm might as well miss by 500m for all its effect. Simply turning left and then after a pause right would be enough for the Phalanx to spray hundreds of rounds in the wrong places, and despite being a big missile and therefore a big target a few hits isn't going to stop it. You might notice that while the US like to fill their ammo cans with APDS rounds the Russians prefer HE as detonating the missile is always the best way of stopping it.

Contraves Millenium or missile system like SeaWolf, Barak or RAM will all have the capability to mount successful intercepts, so then, as soon as those systems are prevalent you then have to go back to square one with saturation attacks. Saturation attacks that would be just as successful using, much cheaper, subsonic weapons.


Except that who is to say that when RAM and Barak and Sea Wolf become prevelant subsonic missiles will be of any use at all, saturation or not?

So what, really, is the need for Brahmos's extreme destructive power when the only, really, large advanced warships in your theatre, apart from a handful of PLAN ships, are sailing under US ensigns!. Careful who you threaten there Harry!.

Hang on haven't you been trying to establish that Brahmos is crap? Now you are saying it is a significant threat and India should back off?

Nuts!. A vastly greater percentage of AShM's, fired operationally, have been decoyed, chaffed or jammed than have been intercepted by hard-kill systems.

And quite a few more were never fired because the target was not found... but what is your point? How can we look at past experience to determine how a newly developed and untested highly supersonic weapon might perform?

Fact remains, Jon, that a straight and level flight profile at 40,000 even at 2100 plus mph is not an unattainable target by any stetch of the imagination. Not even to a 30 year old system like GWS30.

Of course the other fact remains that at the cost of slightly shortened range (say 250km instead of 290km) the Brahmos could descend to low level at 50km or 60km... in fact you really don't know the real range it can be set to descend at.. they are hardly likely to give real details in a sales brochure.

Moskit isnt a Mach2 jobby at sea level either despite what you read from popular sources.

Actually it is. The Surface launched system, which is the only version to my knowledge that has been launched has a speed of between mach 2 and mach 2.5 depending upon height... and the maximum height it flys at is 300m for searching for targets... normal flight is 20m dropping to 7m to get under Standard missiles for the terminal phase. It is also effected by air temperature wind direction etc etc... but the speed range is given as 2.0-2.5. The Air Launched model was expected to fly at Mach 3 at high altitude and reach 300km with a 50km Lo terminal phase.

[PAF Fan]

Sea Eagles and Harpoons may not be a threat to SU-30s but they will be to any ship based platform that launches Brahmos

With regards to air launched Bhramos, there is a Navy in the neighbourhood that has LY-60N, Phalnax and Standard

These will be controlled by 9LV 200 Mark 3/9SCS Mark 3 command systems coupled with CEROS radar and sights for anti missile work....

[Indian1973]

I can confirm that barak today cannot intercept supersonic ASMs.
there is some talk of india funding a super-barak for that. this has been reported a few times in indian media.

IN has hundred+ of Urans deployed at sea on ships, for low
value targets these will do. for higher value or large targets a shot or two of brahmos. and for cat-1 targets my idea of a massed single quadrant attack is probably what the Russians also plan for with their Oscar SSGNs.

[PAF Fan]

Does the IN have any CWIS!?

[Harry]

Simply put the reaction times of radar altimeters, actuators and control logic have to be razor-sharp to keep the things out of the water at high subsonic speeds - multiplying that speed by a factor of three means that a single spurious event - a large-ish wave or slight fault in a servo - will likely see the weapon in kit form in the oggin!.

Depends on the sea state conditions with which the flight profile varies. *Any*sea-skimming missile faces a threat from the same. Regarding high reaction times of processing and servos, this is absolutely nothing new. Would you refuse to believe that the small Python-4/5 acheives 40+ G manuevers, with mere control surfaces, while at the same time, performing clutter rejection, CCM, profile discrimination, edge detection and tracking?

Since you feel so strongly about "waves", please PM me on this in greater depth, if those constiture an operationally observed threat of high frequency.

There is A LOT more to the process of target selection than it being just a function of antenna diameter and seeker output. The main part of it, coupled to the processing power you state, is the seeker dwell. Track forming and rejection does take a finite amount of time however clever your ECCM algorythms

So it's agreed that active radar seekers don't translate to the death of the missile? You stated the above wrt the emitter appearing on ESM and missile seekers need not be extremely high power emitters, especially when considering that a larger antenna dia and faster signal processing is afforded. Either way, surface warships are very large RCS targets, especially with constantly tracking high power emitters.

Neither does it do wild 'High G' manoevres. A 10g pull-up and roll is about its limit and that comes at the price of sacrificing terminal velocity

Does'nt the Moskit have a small kerosene turbojet that activates during the terminal phase for the high-G evasive manuevers? Perhaps Garry can confirm...

Plus if the Moskit (a relatively more draggy airframe) itself was capable of terminal altitudes of 23 feet or less...

Have you seen any instrumented footage of a Brahmos missile racing along the wavetops at M3 or, sorry, 2.8 or performing high-g manoevres?. If not then isnt 'belief' just your perspective?

The Sea Eagle is advertised with a very advanced warhead aimed to cripple the largest surface warships? Have you actually seen it work? Have you ever witnessed a CIWS destroying an incoming missile? The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. The said features are design parameters confirmed by DRDO and quoted by Dr.Sivathanu Pillai and Dr.HA Yefremov, the respective heads. You seem to treat superior performance as impossible. When they emphasise speed, warhead, low RCS and range, they talk about the salient features but not every single feature.

What I'm saying is that each of those Su-30's carrying 4 Kh-35's or Sea Eagles would be every bit as capable of saturating the target defences as if they were carrying Brahmos.

Did'nt we already discuss this? How would 4 subsonic Kh-35s be better than 3 Brahmos-A? As it is, multiple rounds of the former would be needed to cause any meaningful damage as opposed to a single Brahmos round, which is more likely to actually reach ground zero.

Another thing is that the Brahmos is very ideal for it's intended airborne platforms due to their size and weight class - 3 Brahmos on the Su-30MKI, 6 on the Tu-142, ? on the Il-38, without imposing serious weight and aerodynamic penalties.

Yes its subsonic, yes its small, and yes it wont make anywhere near as big a 'bang' as Brahmos, BUT, its small enough to be truly low-observable in RCS and IR terms plus it doesnt alert the target by broadcasting its arrival to every vessel with a decent ESM kit

I'm aware and totally agree on the passive approach but once the missile is tracked (inevitable and the control surfaces are fairly large), it can get shot down by SAM or CIWS. While the first layer could be penetrated, the second layer also has to be. With the slow subsonic speed, there's sufficient time to prep. Finally, regarding future prospects, while IIR seekers can be developed for the Brahmos (and they are, in modular packages), turning the NSM into a supersonic AsHM is a different matter.

Just because an AAM ARH can hit an aircraft in the middle of a few chaff clouds and some, fairly, low-powered jamming does not mean that individual ship targets can be picked out of a cluttered sea-picture in the face of heavy offboard decoying and jamming!.

The same way, the seeker of the AsHM is more powerful than the one on a small AAM, there's more space inside for PEs and an enormous amount of chaff would also be needed to divert attention off the warship. Some airborne jammers are fairly high power too. Operation against Sea clutter is an area that was worked on for decades.
AAMs also need to differentiate from ground clutter in look-down against low altitude targets.

Overwhelming target defenses is a function of getting more weapons on target that the defensive systems can cope with. Picking out hostile surface targets in a clutter environment amidst decoys and jamming is a very, very different matter.


We are'nt talking about mere overwhelming but evading interception by the CIWS and SAM. ECCM and clutter rejection are hardly new ventures and have been greatly advanced. Even superior algorithms can provide marginal improvements, especially when we talk of a distinct and juicy target like a warship. In a sea skimming profile, the seeker need not be looking all the way down either.

[Harry]

to me it looks like a decent if very range limited weapon against
land targets. A range of 150km means the firing platform has to move deep within the enemy's air defences to even go after coastal targets

Advertised range of the NSM is 120 km. It is to enter service in the Royal Norwegian Navy in 2005. Development started in 1996.

Sea Eagles and Harpoons may not be a threat to SU-30s

Su-30s are ships?

Does the IN have any CWIS!?

No. It does'nt have any ships either. :D

[JonS]

Jon,

They used the Sea Petrel rocket with signal augmenters to simulate the Soviet heavy aeroballistic weapons. Could I swear to the fact that those rockets attained precisely Mach2.8 - no I couldnt. We were told that they exceeded M2 though.

I think in this case that the differential between intercepting a Petrel rocket on a depressed ballistic arc at M2 and a Brahmos flying straight and level at 2.8 is relatively minor one. Fact remains, Jon, that a straight and level flight profile at 40,000 even at 2100 plus mph is not an unattainable target by any stetch of the imagination. Not even to a 30 year old system like GWS30.
just looked up petrel its turbojet missile with a top speed of 600 km/h :D
http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-41.html

[GarryB]

Does'nt the Moskit have a small kerosene turbojet that activates during the terminal phase for the high-G evasive manuevers? Perhaps Garry can confirm...


I have never heard of this and really would doubt its usefulness. The ramjet motor built in would generate more thrust than a turbojet would at low altitude at plus mach 2 speeds... a turbojet would likely just choke on the dense airflow. Not only that it would be dead weight for most of the flight.

Assuming the 10g turns are in the terminal phase to evade CIWS that means 10g turns for less than 3 seconds presumably with the ramjet still providing thrust. A 10g turn might sound a lot but at mach 2 it is a relatively slow turn of a few degrees. (remember you still have to hit the ship... no point evading the CIWS and missing the ship).
The faster you travel the further in front of you the bullets have to be sent. Mach 2 or better mach 3 means quite a distance in front so a minor will prevent you from being there and require the next lot of bullets to be sent somewhere else so if you keep manouvering only occasionally will you fly through the trajectory and you might even be able to fly between the bullets and come out unscathed. Remember the missile is very unlikely to be going to fly directly at the CIWS so once the aiming point ahead of the missile is inside or past the ship then the CIWS is useless too.

[Jonesy]

Jon

just looked up petrel its turbojet missile with a top speed of 600 km/h
http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-41.html

Very good research. Unfortunately seeings as we were talking about the British Sea Petrel supersonic target (derivative of the Petrel research rocket) I dont know quite what relevance the American subsonic system has to this discussion?!

Check this link for the Sea Petrel:

http://www.mod.uk/dpa/projects/targets_of_the_past.htm#sea%20petrel

I would assume that the Stiletto drones listed on that site have also been used for Sea Dart testing although I never heard anyone talk about it. The Chukar drone also listed was used for testing of Sea Dart against large subsonic targets at extreme system ranges range.

[Jonesy]

Depends on the sea state conditions with which the flight profile varies. *Any*sea-skimming missile faces a threat from the same.

Yes Harry, I think I said that myself. I also said that a supersonic missile suffers much more acutely with this when flying at SUCH a low altitude simply due the higher speed. The RN used Sea Dart in a secondary surface to surface role (M2 ramjet low trajectory etc!) and we had lots of troubles with missile aerodynamics, seeker multipath (off the waves obviously) and even salt-encrustation on the intake and dipoles when trying to fire the weapon on a flat trajectory. In the end, last I knew of it in late 93, we were using a ballistic trajectory for the SSM role.

Regarding high reaction times of processing and servos, this is absolutely nothing new. Would you refuse to believe that the small Python-4/5 acheives 40+ G manuevers, with mere control surfaces, while at the same time, performing clutter rejection, CCM, profile discrimination, edge detection and tracking?

Not at all - I am perfectly willing to accept that a 100kg, solid rocket propelled, advanced IIR seeker missile is capable of the manoevres and the scene interpretation you list. I dont see quite how that correlates with a 3000kg ramjet active-radar weapon being able to discriminate between chaff, floating decoys, jamming returns, sea-returns, legitimate targets and non-combattant shipping whilst travelling at mach 2-point-daft and pulling "high-G" manoevres all over the sky!. One sounds quite plausible and the other doesnt!.

So it's agreed that active radar seekers don't translate to the death of the missile?

Not immediately anyway!. An ARH does provide a sporting warning to the target ship that bad news is on the way though.

Either way, surface warships are very large RCS targets, especially with constantly tracking high power emitters.

...and offboard decoys try very hard to look like small, RF silent, floats instead of the large RCS active RF target that theyre meant to be mimicking!. Its also possible to 'meddle' with a ships RCS to make a seeker misinterpret its aspect and position.

Plus if the Moskit (a relatively more draggy airframe) itself was capable of terminal altitudes of 23 feet or less...

Well 23ft makes a lot more sense to me than 10ft. The true sea-level speeds I've seen listed for Moskit are closer to 1.8 dropping down into the region of 1.4 with manoeuvres. So lower absolute speed, coupled with a marginally higher flight envelope and a seeker package backed up by LIGHT BULB datalink control from the launching vessel makes the weapon a very different proposition than Brahmos.

The Sea Eagle is advertised with a very advanced warhead aimed to cripple the largest surface warships? Have you actually seen it work?

Seen the seeker - not the warhead from Sea Eagle. I take your point though.

Have you ever witnessed a CIWS destroying an incoming missile?

Do firepower demonstration videos count?. If so then I've seen Goalkeeper, Phalanx and SeaWolf intercepting targets.

The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. The said features are design parameters confirmed by DRDO and quoted by Dr.Sivathanu Pillai and Dr.HA Yefremov, the respective heads. You seem to treat superior performance as impossible. When they emphasise speed, warhead, low RCS and range, they talk about the salient features but not every single feature.

Neither of the gentlemen you mention, nor the DRDO, nor the Russians have a strong reason to correct any 'misinterpretations' that may leak out into the public domain have they?. Take the M2.8 at altitude and at sea-level differential as an example. All I suggest is that this is SUCH a leap in capability, even for the Russians, that a conservative person with an engineering background would like to see a lot more than the advertising before blindly swallowing it!.

Did'nt we already discuss this? How would 4 subsonic Kh-35s be better than 3 Brahmos-A? As it is, multiple rounds of the former would be needed to cause any meaningful damage as opposed to a single Brahmos round, which is more likely to actually reach ground zero.

We discussed the fact that a single Brahmos will do more damage than a single subskimmer. We also discussed the fact that a single subskimmer has, in at least two instances with even the very modest AM39, rendered circa 4000ton target vessels combat ineffective. We've also noted that, using Brahmos's low-altitude attack profile, the difference in release range between it and a subsonic weapon like Kh-35 is marginal - in fact using the figures in the article (which is what we are discussing) Brahmos has to be released 10km nearer to target than Uran!.

Another thing is that the Brahmos is very ideal for it's intended airborne platforms due to their size and weight class - 3 Brahmos on the Su-30MKI, 6 on the Tu-142, ? on the Il-38, without imposing serious weight and aerodynamic penalties.

Now I've never claimed to be an aviation expert, but, from what I've read the maximum external load for a Su-30MKI is 8000kgs. 3 x 3000kg missiles makes 9000kgs by my calculation?. I did see an article in Flight Int. that said a modified Su-30MKI had tested a 3 Brahmos configuration. So rather than use four 500kg Kh-35's and have lots of payload left for additional fuel and self-protection AAM's on, presumably, a standard airframe India has actually had to modify an Su-30 to get the right configuration. That effort and expense netting what precise advantage?. A higher amount of damage per single hit? Is that worth the time and expense?.

I'm aware and totally agree on the passive approach but once the missile is tracked (inevitable and the control surfaces are fairly large), it can get shot down by SAM or CIWS. While the first layer could be penetrated, the second layer also has to be. With the slow subsonic speed, there's sufficient time to prep.

It is quite a simple equation though Harry. It is very, very much easier to defeat a missile you know is coming. That goes for primary or secondary air defence layers. If the first indication the target ship gets is when the inbound crosses the radar horizon (about 16nm from an 80ft masthead sensor) even if travelling at a mere 600knts the reaction time is about 96 seconds to impact from initial detection. 96 seconds to defeat weapons that, in the case of the Kongsberg weapon, are immune to RF jamming or chaff, immune to floating IR centroid decoys or flares and can be programmed to follow independant deception courses to target or dogleg around to attack targets from multiple axis simultaneously. 16 NSMs coming in on two threat axis simultaneously would overwhelm most ships sufficient to get at least 4 or 6 missiles striking home and, given the Su-30MKI load carrying capability, you could probably put eight NSM's on MER's under its wings and have little over the airframe loading of a single Brahmos round!.

Finally, regarding future prospects, while IIR seekers can be developed for the Brahmos (and they are, in modular packages), turning the NSM into a supersonic AsHM is a different matter.

Fair point but there is no IIR seeker for Yakhont/Brahmos yet and no guarantee that they will be successful.

...there's more space inside for PEs and an enormous amount of chaff would also be needed to divert attention off the warship. Some airborne jammers are fairly high power too. Operation against Sea clutter is an area that was worked on for decades.

Naval chaff deployment is almost an art form all by itself. Chaff isnt dispensed by a warship the same as it is by an aircraft. Naval chaff is used to form clouds which are sown and then reseeded by additional rockets/choppers in relative motion to the advance speed of a ship. It can be used as a barrier countermeasure or for seduction by being dispensed subtlely off the parent ships course track. This, used in conjunction with active decoys and jamming, can be a very powerful defence against ARH seekers. Of course it doesnt look as sexy as hardkill so most people seem to downplay its place in a ships inventory!?.

AAMs also need to differentiate from ground clutter in look-down against low altitude targets.

...and that is a simple task for an AAM and is an attack mode that returns as high a pk as a coaltitude or lookup launch?. See the point?
We are'nt talking about mere overwhelming but evading interception by the CIWS and SAM. ECCM and clutter rejection are hardly new ventures and have been greatly advanced. Even superior algorithms can provide marginal improvements, especially when we talk of a distinct and juicy target like a warship. In a sea skimming profile, the seeker need not be looking all the way down either.

Your an exponent of Russian weaponry but dont see the advantage, in this case, of simple numbers over an overkill technical solution?!. Forgive me if I enjoy the irony of that for a while!. Simply I do not see the need for the supersonic attack profile when simple saturation attack will do an equivalent job more efficiently.

[RajKhalsa]

Pardon in the interuption, but I just want to put in some kudos to you guys for a really interesting discussion. I dont have an engineering background and know little about missiles, so this thread is very informative :)

keep up the good work

[JonS]

O, u referring to UK petrel rocket. Anyway little googling indicated a top of speed of mach 5 and with a speed thats constantly declining. No telling what speed sea dart intercepts it but it shouldnt really to hard to intercept it will fly pretty predictable ballistic trajectory with little manuvering, it will reminiscent to intercepting a artillery shell which few SAM systems have know to have done (Barak, Sea wolf etc) even thou they are limited in intercepting maunvering supersonic targets

immediately anyway!. An ARH does provide a sporting warning to the target ship that bad news is on the way though.
the missile was mainly intended to be used against fleet with AEW capability. So NPO assumes the enemy fleet already knows that missiles are on the way.

We've also noted that, using Brahmos's low-altitude attack profile, the difference in release range between it and a subsonic weapon like Kh-35 is marginal - in fact using the figures in the article (which is what we are discussing) Brahmos has to be released 10km nearer to target than Uran!.
main difference being that if u fire 3 uran against 3 targets, there is no telling what the urans will target. There is good probability that all 3 urans will end up targeting and hiting a low priority targeting. Yakhont was supposed to be able search high value targets and lock onto seperate targets. Also there is aspect of speed, apart from making it harder to shot down or deply countermeasures to decoy it away. Subsonic ashm with 100 kg warhead can only do minor structural damage to vessel (as witnessed from previous conflicts most 4k ton vessels have withstood 2 exocets), but impact of 3 ton mach 3 target slaming into hull has KE? 30 times+ greater than what uran or harpoon can achieve. Can easily split most hulls in half.

[crobato]

Who said the Brahmos is manoevering?. Does the weapon have sufficient AI to detect that its under attack and initiate evasive manoevers if so thats very impressive?. Its also something I've not heard anyone else claim for the weapon!. Sea Dart has intercepted non-maneouvering 40k ft targets at ranges in the 40km region.

I don't believe the Brahmos has this but doing this is not hard at all. The radar you are recieving when you are being locked at by a missile or a gun is going to be different from when you are being scanned. All you need to do is detect such a change and once the RWR detects that change in frequency and modulation, the missile jinks.

Basically a locking frequency used by CIWS or missile guidance would be higher than a tracking frequency, which in turn would be higher than a volume search frequency. If your RWR is good, you can even determine what mode the radar scanning you is on, since each mode is going to have their own frequency signature.

[crobato]

main difference being that if u fire 3 uran against 3 targets, there is no telling what the urans will target. There is good probability that all 3 urans will end up targeting and hiting a low priority targeting. Yakhont was supposed to be able search high value targets and lock onto seperate targets.

There is no reason why Uran can't find high priority targets while the Yakhont can.

Find high priority targets by radar? Easy. The easiest, and still probably the best system is to go after the BIGGEST target in radar. Any dumb crap AI in an old missile can do this, even the Styx. You don't even have to go digital on this. Just home in on the biggest radar return.

[JonS]

Find high priority targets by radar? Easy. The easiest, and still probably the best system is to go after the BIGGEST target in radar. Any dumb crap AI in an old missile can do this, even the Styx. You don't even have to go digital on this. Just home in on the biggest radar return.
not exactly in most cases the largest target is tanker or some sort of replenishment vessel. Also larger targets dont necessarily have large RCS as witnessed in falklands, DDGs or FFG typically have larger RCS than a carrier since a lot of their superstructures are pretty cluttered as opposed to carrier. So following target with largest radar signal is not best way to go, the argentinians locked fired their exocets on RN carriers numerous time only to have it lock on to a T-45 or transport vessel (atlantic conveyor).

[crobato]

Carriers are hardly low RCS targets. They got a sizable superstructure and a huge deck, not to mention scores of aircraft on the deck. The size of a carrier is unavoidable.

Tankers happen to be very high value targets, so are logistical ships---ships that carry troops or weapons stocks. An entire task force can be mission "killed" if their logistical support is removed.

[Harry]

I also said that a supersonic missile suffers much more acutely with this when flying at SUCH a low altitude simply due the higher speed

Higher speed also translates to a lower time period of exposure. Plus, are you also saying that supersonic shock waves actually attract precipitation? When it comes to passive threats wrt the sea state, all sea skimmers are vulnerable. As for the seekers, even the early ARGS-35E has been proven to be effective under Sea State 6, 8 mm/hr precipitation and -+50 deg. C of ambient temperature.

What else does Mach 2.8 offer against a slower transonic missile? Lower and a stable coefficient of Parasite Drag.

The RN used Sea Dart in a secondary surface to surface role (M2 ramjet low trajectory etc!) and we had lots of troubles with missile aerodynamics, seeker multipath (off the waves obviously) and even salt-encrustation on the intake and dipoles when trying to fire the weapon on a flat trajectory.

Inept analogy. We're talking about one dedicated sea skimming AsHM designed and optimised for the purpose and one ageing SAM being modified for a completely different role. Anyway, please collect more case studies/issues on this and PM me the stuff.

Not at all - I am perfectly willing to accept that a 100kg, solid rocket propelled, advanced IIR seeker missile is capable of the manoevres and the scene interpretation you list. I dont see quite how that correlates with a 3000kg ramjet active-radar weapon being able to discriminate between chaff, floating decoys, jamming returns, sea-returns, legitimate targets and non-combattant shipping whilst travelling at mach 2-point-daft and pulling "high-G" manoevres all over the sky!. One sounds quite plausible and the other doesnt!.


Excuse me? Are you actually saying that an AsHM can't perform proper signal processing, discrimination, ECCM and IFF (especially when there is extra space for PEs and the targets belonging to the low mobility and high RCS type)? I also assume that you imagine the Brahmos making AAM-like manuvers but the terminal level zig zags are not of the same scale. Still, low turn rates at Mach 2.8 themselves translate to relatively high-Gs, assumed good enough to defeat the CIWS or SAM.

RF target that theyre meant to be mimicking!. Its also possible to 'meddle' with a ships RCS to make a seeker misinterpret its aspect and position.

Chaff and active jamming are nothing new and neither are the counter-counter meaures to them. RBC can theoretically mimick 10x times the RCS of the host a/c but they can still be countered by AAMs with comparatively small, low power seekers and limited PEs.

If so then I've seen Goalkeeper, Phalanx and SeaWolf intercepting targets.

Cool. Then you'd appreciate the importance of defeating them. :)

Well 23ft makes a lot more sense to me than 10ft. The true sea-level speeds I've seen listed for Moskit are closer to 1.8 dropping down into the region of 1.4 with manoeuvres

Those are one set of figures. Others include terminal speeds of Mach 2.5-3. The Kh-35 is known to acheive a maximum ASL altitude of 3 m. Not too far from the Brahmos's 10-15 ft, the older GQM-163A acheived 13 feet at Mach 2.5. But once again, you have'nt factored in the Sea States where the FoS will determine the usable missile height. The first live fire test of the Brahmos was carried out under heavy precipitation.

Neither of the gentlemen you mention, nor the DRDO, nor the Russians have a strong reason to correct any 'misinterpretations' that may leak out into the public domain have they?. Take the M2.8 at altitude and at sea-level differential as an example.

How can they misinterpret themselves? Under Sea State 1-2, 10-15 feet ASL does'nt seem that chimerical.

We also discussed the fact that a single subskimmer has, in at least two instances with even the very modest AM39, rendered circa 4000ton target vessels combat ineffective

In the case of the Sheffeild, it was'nt the warhead nor the explosive KE of the very modest AM39 but the still burning rocket motor which started a fire on the aluminium hulled warship which was afloat for quite a while before going down. The Stark survived. Older, smaller, less well built warships are known to have taken several Styx hits before going down.

We've also noted that, using Brahmos's low-altitude attack profile, the difference in release range between it and a subsonic weapon like Kh-35 is marginal - in fact using the figures in the article (which is what we are discussing) Brahmos has to be released 10km nearer to target than Uran!.

There's simply no comparison. The Kh-35 too, flies on inertial nav before the terminal sea skimming run and it's ARGS-35E has an effective range of 20 km. At long ranges from the target, detection of the Brahmos at high altitude (with seeker/emitter off) is less probable. I don't know about that article but officially, the lo-lo run is supposed to be around half of the max 290 km range. But once again, when you've mentioned the 10 km difference with emphasis, it should also be noticed that the 130-135 km max range of the Uran, is also an advertised figure. ;)

Now I've never claimed to be an aviation expert, but, from what I've read the maximum external load for a Su-30MKI is 8000kgs. 3 x 3000kg missiles makes 9000kgs by my calculation?. I did see an article in Flight Int. that said a modified Su-30MKI had tested a 3 Brahmos configuration. So rather than use four 500kg Kh-35's and have lots of payload left for additional fuel and self-protection AAM's on, presumably, a standard airframe India has actually had to modify an Su-30 to get the right configuration. That effort and expense netting what precise advantage?. A higher amount of damage per single hit? Is that worth the time and expense?.

No, the Su-30MKI will carry the air-launched Brahmos-A (http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_418.shtml) with a smaller and lighter booster. By ditching the solid fuel launch booster and adding the intial velocity of the carrier a/c, the 2.2-2.5 ton missile will acheive the same range. The 300 kg warhead remains unchanged. AAMs can still be carried.

Is it worth it? Considering that a single round would mean atleast three times the destructive firepower of a subsonic weapon and is actually likely to penetrate all the way, I'd say yes. Three of these is a nightmare scenario.

It is very, very much easier to defeat a missile you know is coming. That goes for primary or secondary air defence layers. If the first indication the target ship gets is when the inbound crosses the radar horizon (about 16nm from an 80ft masthead sensor) even if travelling at a mere 600knts the reaction time is about 96 seconds to impact from initial detection. 96 seconds to defeat weapons that, in the case of the Kongsberg weapon, are immune to RF jamming or chaff, immune to floating IR centroid decoys or flares and can be programmed to follow independant deception courses to target or dogleg around to attack targets from multiple axis simultaneously.

I'm not arguing against the obvious advantages of the passive approach to the first layer (deception measures and decoys) of defence but on close approaches to the warship, the hard kill system could easily down it. Under a continous barrage, several units could be downed before an actual hit, if any, is made.

4 or 6 missiles striking home and, given the Su-30MKI load carrying capability, you could probably put eight NSM's on MER's under its wings and have little over the airframe loading of a single Brahmos round!.

Which is true, since the NSM is very light (<450 kg) but the actual costs per unit are yet to be determined.

no IIR seeker for Yakhont/Brahmos yet and no guarantee that they will be successful.


Why not? IIR seekers once again, have already entered service and matured.

Naval chaff is used to form clouds which are sown and then reseeded by additional rockets/choppers in relative motion to the advance speed of a ship

Sounds like something that'd take more than a minute. :)

Of course it doesnt look as sexy as hardkill so most people seem to downplay its place in a ships inventory!?.

Not really. I'm in total agreement with you regarding their importance and effectiveness but that's just layer 1. Whether the former is successful or not, there's always layer 2 to penetrate. Secondly, seekers, processing, discrimination and ECCM have fairly advanced in development themselves. Penetrating layer 2 is more difficult.

and that is a simple task for an AAM and is an attack mode that returns as high a pk as a coaltitude or lookup launch?. See the point?


Point is that it is'nt impossible to shoot down targets effectively against clutter and clutter discrimination is nothing new. AsHMs are built to work against clutter from the beginning and their targets are'nt low RCS, high-G fliers.

Simply I do not see the need for the supersonic attack profile when simple saturation attack will do an equivalent job more efficiently.


That's yet to be proven and just how many missiles would constitute that saturation attack? 8? 10? 16? Like you said, they are not only vulnerable to the first layer but also to the second and third, even 2-3 hits are no guarantee. The Brahmos is a cleaner and more efficient operation and even works out cheaper when you compare the cost of the larger number of missiles required.

Does the weapon have sufficient AI to detect that its under attack and initiate evasive manoevers if so thats very impressive?. Its also something I've not heard anyone else claim for the weapon!.

It does'nt need AI to initiate basic zig zag evasive maneuvers during the last part of the terminal phase. Also, if the Sunburn is capable of 10 G manuevers at Mach 2/3, the turn rate acheived is sufficient for the former. Not grand but far better than a slow missile flying straight and level. Even the early Harpoon upgrades with that 'pop up' maneuver during the terminal stages, are supposed to be effective.

[F-18 Hamburger]

This thread is horrible, where's the pictures!!

[Indian1973]

other than a few small pix in brahmos.com and Harry's pix from defexpo, none exist.

[JonS]

Carriers are hardly low RCS targets. They got a sizable superstructure and a huge deck, not to mention scores of aircraft on the deck. The size of a carrier is unavoidable.

Tankers happen to be very high value targets, so are logistical ships---ships that carry troops or weapons stocks. An entire task force can be mission "killed" if their logistical support is removed.
actually they do have low rcs if that werent the case argentenian AF would have sunk hermes or invincible in multiple ocassion the pilots claimed to have locked and fired on them only to have it lock on to T-45 or some other surface combatant. Also there are many aspects that affect rcs like sea clutter/sea state, what angel vessel is facing the radar etc, so even a patrol boat in some instance can have rcs larger than destroyer.

[crobato]

No. The only time that could happen if the destroyers were much closer to the missile instead of the carrier. Thus the destroyers would have a much stronger radar return signal than something from a distance. That has nothing to do with RCS.

If you really want good target discrimination and authorization, you need a two way datalink to relay radar reflectioned information back to the ship for analysis and guidance commands sent back to missile. There is not much a missile seeker can do with its limited resources.

[Jai]

From MIL-TECH Magazine Volume XXVIII Issue 7 2004

[Jai]

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Images/Special/AeroIndia2003/DRDO-Brahmos.jpg

[Jai]

More photos.

[Jai]

http://img53.exs.cx/img53/3792/brahbig.jpg

[Srbin]

wow how big will the Brahmos-A look on the Su-30MKI?

[Jai]

Probably like this.

http://img66.exs.cx/img66/8494/brahmos2.jpg

[Jonesy]

Long post now Harry so posting frequency not going to be too high ok!

Higher speed also translates to a lower time period of exposure. Plus, are you also saying that supersonic shock waves actually attract precipitation? When it comes to passive threats wrt the sea state, all sea skimmers are vulnerable.

What were talking about here though isnt a weapon that just drops down to 20ft for the last 20k or so of the flight profile!. The article says it makes the entire 120km lo-lo transit at 2.8 and, you say, 15ft off the water. Thats 3 minutes blasting through boundary-layer air not just a few seconds. As I said we had problems with Sea Dart up to, just, the radar horizon when flying a flat trajectory at a slightly safer altitude than your proposing for Brahmos. The 909 FCR had a whole shipload of processing power behind it to flatten out multipath too (remember by 93 GWS30 had been upgraded to better cope with low-angle shots). A supersonic shockwave does not shield a missile body that much through such heavy air.

As for the seekers, even the early ARGS-35E has been proven to be effective under Sea State 6, 8 mm/hr precipitation and -+50 deg. C of ambient temperature.

OK this is the kind of detail I wanted. You say its effective under SS6 - how far under does it have to be?, against what size a target near SS6? Under what EW conditions was the target engaged at? What range did the seeker aquire target under those metoc conditions?. You see Harry its not near enough to say 'well the seeker has advanced ECCM so therefore it WILL blast all India's enemies from the sea'. India especially is making some fairly wild claims for this missile and the ball is very much in her court to prove it delivers. Frankly, I've yet to see anything convincing.

What else does Mach 2.8 offer against a slower transonic missile? Lower and a stable coefficient of Parasite Drag.

Always nice to meet another person fluent in technogibberish 'lower and a stable coefficient of parasitic drag'- you mean a projectile flies steadier the faster it goes! :D. I dont think even I'm that bad!?.

Excuse me? Are you actually saying that an AsHM can't perform proper signal processing, discrimination, ECCM and IFF (especially when there is extra space for PEs and the targets belonging to the low mobility and high RCS type)?

I didnt say cant. I said it would be inconceivable that the seeker could be as descriminating as that on an equal-generation subsonic weapon owing to the very restricted dwell time the seeker has to make its track determinations. Ultimately that means the weapon is more susceptible to softkill countermeasures. An irony seeings as its the factor reducing its vulnerability to CIWS that increases its vulnerability to softkill!.

I also assume that you imagine the Brahmos making AAM-like manuvers but the terminal level zig zags are not of the same scale. Still, low turn rates at Mach 2.8 themselves translate to relatively high-Gs, assumed good enough to defeat the CIWS or SAM.

Dont know how a Barak engagement cycle goes but the standard engagement profile for SeaWolf fires two missiles in salvo at one inbound. PK against diving Soviet heavyweight missiles was determined as being well into the .9s and they were just as supersonic as hell.

Chaff and active jamming are nothing new and neither are the counter-counter meaures to them. RBC can theoretically mimick 10x times the RCS of the host a/c but they can still be countered by AAMs with comparatively small, low power seekers and limited PEs.

Of course Harry but you are being just the slightest generalistic there. The argument could just as easily be made that ECCM techniques have been around for a good two decades and so far, from operational evidence, ECM and decoys have proven effective against active radar homers.

How can they misinterpret themselves? Under Sea State 1-2, 10-15 feet ASL does'nt seem that chimerical.

I cant disagree with that, but, what are the probabilities of conditions less than Sea State 2 in the Indian Ocean to use 10-15ft ASL?. Just to clarify that Sea State 2 means Waves less than 2ft and mean wind speeds less than 10knts!?. Last time I did some pleasure sailing on Lake Windermere the conditions were worse than that!.

In the case of the Sheffeild, it was'nt the warhead nor the explosive KE of the very modest AM39 but the still burning rocket motor which started a fire on the aluminium hulled warship which was afloat for quite a while before going down. The Stark survived. Older, smaller, less well built warships are known to have taken several Styx hits before going down.

Whats this fascination with sending ships to the bottom?. What does it matter if the target sinks or not? The effect you are aiming for is to knock the target warship out of the fight. The Sheffield's fate was obvious and the USS Stark was left afloat but with 58 men dead and wounded and needing $142 million in make and mends. Is that not enough?.

http://navysite.de/ffg/ffg31_acc4.jpg
USS Stark post single AM39 detonation

There's simply no comparison. The Kh-35 too, flies on inertial nav before the terminal sea skimming run and it's ARGS-35E has an effective range of 20 km. At long ranges from the target, detection of the Brahmos at high altitude (with seeker/emitter off) is less probable.

What?. At 80km from your ship you are suggesting that a 3000kg missile blasting along at Mach silly 40,000ft up is going to be a more difficult target to detect than a 500kg Uran tooling along at 600knts at 50ft or so? You can't mean that Harry surely?.

I don't know about that article but officially, the lo-lo run is supposed to be around half of the max 290 km range. But once again, when you've mentioned the 10 km difference with emphasis, it should also be noticed that the 130-135 km max range of the Uran, is also an advertised figure.

Well it was mainly the article that I was taking issue with. The difference that should be highlighted though is that subsonics exist that can do 140km at a couple of hundred ft dropping down to real wavetop height for the final 20k's or so - this lending credibility to the claims for Uran. NOTHING exists that do Mach2.8 at 15ft ASL for 120-145km though.

No, the Su-30MKI will carry the air-launched Brahmos-A with a smaller and lighter booster. By ditching the solid fuel launch booster and adding the intial velocity of the carrier a/c, the 2.2-2.5 ton missile will acheive the same range. The 300 kg warhead remains unchanged. AAMs can still be carried.

Smaller and lighter booster that still gives an AUR weight of what 2300kg? So three of those still total 7000kg?. What does that do to the range/endurance/performance calculus for the airframe?. With 4 Urans on the airframe doesn't the Sukhoi retain much more of its range, speed and self-escort capability? Is the Brahmos extra destructive capabilty worth the weight penalty on the Flanker?.

Three of these is a nightmare scenario.

Four Urans heading in are a nightmare scenario every bit as much though. Just because they are subsonic weapons you cant ignore them, flick the switch to turn on the CIWS and go back to your Playboy centrefold!. Remember a 'dancer' is much more likely to defeat softkill as the seeker has longer to sort out the target picture. Its terminal phase manoeverabilty is better - having the effect of increasing the angular deflection a tracker has to follow the target through thus tieing it up on a single target while a second or third missile closes. Not to mention the additional flexibility the launching platform has, in terms of unrefuelled action radius, so as to be able to fire from a less predictable threat axis.

the hard kill system could easily down it. Under a continous barrage, several units could be downed before an actual hit, if any, is made.

'Easily' is a very subjective term. I've seen Sea Wolf 'easily' down a supersonic inbound target. Maybe it wasnt changing its course by a couple of degrees or whatever these evasive manoevres are but the missile hit point of aim smack on!

Quote:
Naval chaff is used to form clouds which are sown and then reseeded by additional rockets/choppers in relative motion to the advance speed of a ship

Sounds like something that'd take more than a minute.

Not really. Even the current NATO 'standard' Mk36 chaff round will burst 2.5 seconds after launch and have fully formed its 10,000 sq.m RCS cloud within 30 seconds - that from just a single rocket. That is also just for reactive chaffing as well. Deception tactics depend on the tactical environment, but, are the subject of several quite thick texts and lots can be done to misdirect an opponent whilst he's still in the targetting phase.

That's yet to be proven and just how many missiles would constitute that saturation attack? 8? 10? 16? Like you said, they are not only vulnerable to the first layer but also to the second and third, even 2-3 hits are no guarantee. The Brahmos is a cleaner and more efficient operation and even works out cheaper when you compare the cost of the larger number of missiles required.

This is the whole point though Harry - hardkill defences against supersonic skimmers exist now. Against an opponent with carrier AEW your delivery platform is unlikely to get to 150km to launch a Brahmos lo-profile any more than a subsonic shooter would do to deliver its weapons. Against a frigate navy with an AEGIS/PAAMS AAW capability an individual Brahmos' supersonic capabilities are no defence against ESSM or Aster15 type weapons - so saturation fire would be necessary to overwhelm the individual ships no different than for a subsonic weapon to be effective. Lastly against a more modest frigate navy without advanced AAW why would you need Brahmos at all when its defensive ability would be unlikely to defeat even saturation attacks with legacy AShMs?.

Even the early Harpoon upgrades with that 'pop up' maneuver during the terminal stages, are supposed to be effective.

The 'Harpoon Hop' isnt an evasive manoever. Neither was it an upgrade. The Harpoon was originally designed to allow US marpat aircraft to attack Soviet SSG's/SSGNs on the surface whilst they were preparing their cruise missile shots. A straight in attack profile, it was realised, woud probably see the missile flying clean over the target. The hop was therefore programmed in so that the missile would hit the sub on such an angle as to do some damage.

[GarryB]

Well it was mainly the article that I was taking issue with. The difference that should be highlighted though is that subsonics exist that can do 140km at a couple of hundred ft dropping down to real wavetop height for the final 20k's or so - this lending credibility to the claims for Uran. NOTHING exists that do Mach2.8 at 15ft ASL for 120-145km though.


Hehehehe... that is funny... before Sputnik went up there had been no manmade earth satellites... what was the state of rocketry 20 years before that I wonder?
A Moskit could fly 120km at 20m at mach 2.0-2.5 in the early eighties...

I think until the west gets some supersonic antiship missiles you will think they are crap... the fact that the west went along the road of stealth seems to be colouring your views. Ironic really that the US now seems to be looking at hypersonics as a solution for bombers and weapons in many areas now too.

I'd have thought a country able to make SAMs fly at Mach 7.4 for a range of up to 150km in the late 70s might be able to do this... but no, it isn't british or american then it must be marketing tactic.

[Karna]

You see Harry its not near enough to say 'well the seeker has advanced ECCM so therefore it WILL blast all India's enemies from the sea'. India especially is making some fairly wild claims for this missile and the ball is very much in her court to prove it delivers. Frankly, I've yet to see anything convincing.

Could we quit the rhetorical BS please? India has made no explicit claims on the Brahmos being able to blast its enemies from the sea etc on account of advanced ECCM. First it was India threatening a US CVG and some posed questions on how "careful on whom you threaten there". Quit the condescending attitude please, it merely adds acrimony to the discussion. The Brahmos designers will show their design data to prospective customers, and its upto the customers to judge whether the data is "wild or not". You seem to be on some sort of ego trip about whether an entire system is sufficient for India's stated needs based on some limited data available on the internet.

[Saleem Y Hatoum]

Jonsey,

Very well put mate! My take is that if the supersonic AShM was the best thing after sliced bread than the Americans would ahve had this type of weapon in their inventory a long, long time!

Garry,

The west came up with XB-70 and YF-12 were mach 3+ aircrafts and the west dropped. The east came up with mach 3+ Mig-25 but latter moved it to only recce mission. Conclusion: west was right, east followed west blindly and than realized they were wrong too.

[Jonesy]

Karna,

Could we quit the rhetorical BS please? Quit the condescending attitude please, it merely adds acrimony to the discussion.

I am genuinely sorry that you think I am being condescending. I am trying to make a point, which I accept is bound to be unwelcome in some quarters, but, when I see articles like that linked on the initial post here that blindly tout the wonders of these supersonic missiles I do feel the need to introduce some...erm...balance!. Believe me my 'ego trip' against supersonic missiles is little to do with India and everything to do with the kind of ill-educated hype that the 'scant detail on the internet' generates!.

India has made no explicit claims on the Brahmos being able to blast its enemies from the sea etc on account of advanced ECCM.

No perhaps not, but, claims for advanced precision land attack capability and massive range (only now its mentioned that lo-profile range is little better than a current subsonic) have been made that are extremely dubious. The ECCM angle was one that was part of another discussion but one that was in context.

First it was India threatening a US CVG and some posed questions on how "careful on whom you threaten there".

Like I said in that post an antiship weapon with a 300km range is hardly a necessity against any of the naval fleets in that region PLAN included. The only operational environment where that kind of range could be valuable would be one where there was some concern about hostile fighters or VLR SAMs being able to effect an intercept on the launch platform prior to release. How many navies posses the fighter/AEW combo or 100km plus range SAMs that fit that bill?. Like I said India should take care about who its arming up to take on because it is sending out some very strong signals whether it knows it or not.


Garry,

Hehehehe... that is funny... before Sputnik went up there had been no manmade earth satellites... what was the state of rocketry 20 years before that I wonder?

Ahh another one of your tenuous sensationalist analogies that doesnt actually seem to track in with the topic!. Not seen one of them for a while :D !. Your analogy fails because the US had an official requirement (General Operational Requirement No. 80) for satellite development at the same time and resulted in a similar solution. After years of developing antiship missiles not one western company, independently from various nations, has determined that the supersonic flight profile is crucial for successful ship attack. I wonder why that is?. Don't try and mention the USSR-era anti-CVBG tasking legacy either because, plainly, that is not the target-set anymore and hasnt been for a decade or more.

A Moskit could fly 120km at 20m at mach 2.0-2.5 in the early eighties...

According to some sources. According to others both range AND speed are a little more modest.

I think until the west gets some supersonic antiship missiles you will think they are crap... the fact that the west went along the road of stealth seems to be colouring your views.

Yes. Simply you are quite right, apart from one thing, even if a western nation built and fielded a supersonic (ANS/ANF for example) I'd still think they were crap and unnecessary. The fact is that 'the West' went along the stealth route for very, very good reasons and, yes, I think that the approach that the NATO services took, looking at the world now, was the correct one. I find these weapons over-engineered, overcomplicated, heavily reliant on the discrimination of offboard targetting assets and generally a lot of effort for the performance advantage they deliver.

Ironic really that the US now seems to be looking at hypersonics as a solution for bombers and weapons in many areas now too.

Nice try at obfuscation Garry. You know full well that the US HyStrike development programme is aimed at creating a land-attack weapon NOT an AShM and that the interest in hypersonic flight is to minimise the target detection-to-impact cycle and is nothing to do with defeating countermeasures.

I'd have thought a country able to make SAMs fly at Mach 7.4 for a range of up to 150km in the late 70s might be able to do this... but no, it isn't british or american then it must be marketing tactic.

As someone once said.....cool!. Can the M7.4 150km SAM run at M2.8 at 15ft ASL for 120km though?. If not I dont see quite what the relevance is?.


Saleem,

My take is that if the supersonic AShM was the best thing after sliced bread than the Americans would ahve had this type of weapon in their inventory a long, long time!

That is a good point. Doctrinal differences aside the USN had targets as SAM heavy as the Kirovs, Udaloys, Slava's, Kievs and all the rest. You would anticipate that, if the only effective answer to the hardkill problem was a supersonic approach, the USN would have been a bit more interested in developing them.

[Karna]

Jonesy,

That was a nice post and well devoid of rhetoric- i'll come back to your other points later.


First it was India threatening a US CVG and some posed questions on how "careful on whom you threaten there".

Like I said in that post an antiship weapon with a 300km range is hardly a necessity against any of the naval fleets in that region PLAN included. The only operational environment where that kind of range could be valuable would be one where there was some concern about hostile fighters or VLR SAMs being able to effect an intercept on the launch platform prior to release. How many navies posses the fighter/AEW combo or 100km plus range SAMs that fit that bill?. Like I said India should take care about who its arming up to take on because it is sending out some very strong signals whether it knows it or not.

1. The PLAN will not always be todays PLAN, the Brahmos has to factor in future threats as well.

2. ABout the signals- so what! India is going to arm itself to defend its territory to the maximum extent possible, if that makes it clear that the *Indian Ocean* has the Brahmos in it as well, so much the better.
Frankly, if the west is so worried- let it strengthen its ties with India. It is not cogniszant upon India to play by someone else's rules when it wishes to undertake a course of action per *its* national interests.
Tomorrow when the IAF goes for a PAK-FA, does that mean Raptor/JSF drivers have to take care? Perhaps. But does that mean India should not go for a PAK-FA? Hardly.

[JonS]

Whats this fascination with sending ships to the bottom?. What does it matter if the target sinks or not? The effect you are aiming for is to knock the target warship out of the fight. The Sheffield's fate was obvious and the USS Stark was left afloat but with 58 men dead and wounded and needing $142 million in make and mends. Is that not enough?.
T-45s were sunk mainly because of fire that resulted from exocet hitting the vessel, in some instances the warhead didnt even go off but the cables and wires caught fire. They were example of how not to build vessels because of their awful of damage control to some extent the same applied to Perry's as well which had little provisions to handle fire or damage.

Thats not the case with newer vessels FFGs like T-23s, La fayette which are designed to withstand multiple subsonic ashm hits and remain operational as we saw with USS cole with withstood and remained operational even after 500 kgs of C4 going off by its hull.
Due to that missiles like harpoon are being fitted with fragmenting warheads to cripple a ships radars systems instead. As mentioned b4 superiority of supersonic vs subsonic lies mainly in its kill potential, force from impact from brahmos or moskit is 20 times greater than what can be achieved thru harpoon, uran etc even USN is turning towards such means with its Hy-fly surface to surface missile.

[codrix]

Very well put mate! My take is that if the supersonic AShM was the best thing after sliced bread than the Americans would ahve had this type of weapon in their inventory a long, long time!

Well, infact USA is now working with it's allies to make supersonic cruise missiles.


USA, UK to plans to make supersonic cruise missile

By Andrew Koch, JDW Bureau Chief, Washington DC and Nick Cook, JDW Aerospace Consultant, London

The USA, joined it hopes shortly by the UK, plans to begin a research and development programme to look at a new land-attack supersonic cruise missile that could help strike time-critical targets and ones buried underground. The programme, an advanced concept technology demonstration being sponsored by the US Defense Threat Reduction Agency and the US Navy, will explore development of a cruise missile capable of carrying a 200 lb (90.7kg) payload at least 400nm and preferably 600nm. The missile would have a speed of M3.5 with a goal of M4.5 and a circular error of probability accuracy of 3m.

http://www.janes.com/aerospace/military/news/jdw/jdw020507_1_n.shtml

[Jonesy]

They were example of how not to build vessels because of their awful of damage control to some extent the same applied to Perry's as well which had little provisions to handle fire or damage.

Sorry Jon but that is just not right. The Type42 had design issues thats for damn sure. The US FFG-7 design poor on DC though?. Wherever did you hear that?. I cant think of a single US design that hasn't been very strong on damage control and limitation since WWII!. Where's Ja Worsley when you need him!. IIRC he's served on the RAN Perry's ask him what DC provisions and drills were like on that design!.

http://navysite.de/ffg/ffg31_acc1.jpg

This is the size of the hole, and secondary damage, done to the USS Stark. There are not many 4000ton vessels that this kind of damage would not put right out of the fight no matter how good their DC or design resilience is.

withstand multiple subsonic ashm hits and remain operational as we saw with USS cole with withstood and remained operational even after 500 kgs of C4 going off by its hull.

You mean the USS Cole that came home like this:

http://www.cnn.com/interactive/us/0010/cole.gallery.02/gallery.cole5.jpg

...and had to be towed stern first to get in into position on the transporter?. She may have had some operational capability in that she could probably still shoot, but, she wasnt steaming anywhere!


Codrix,

Just a small hint. Read thoroughly through what you post before you post it!

[GarryB]

As someone once said.....cool!. Can the M7.4 150km SAM run at M2.8 at 15ft ASL for 120km though?. If not I dont see quite what the relevance is?.


So what you are saying is that it can't be done if it hasn't already been done?

They had a missile that flew more than twice as fast over a greater range 30 years ago but unless the current figures released can be backed up with some evidence it can't exist?

The west came up with XB-70 and YF-12 were mach 3+ aircrafts and the west dropped. The east came up with mach 3+ Mig-25 but latter moved it to only recce mission. Conclusion: west was right, east followed west blindly and than realized they were wrong too.


The SR-71 stayed in service for many years and has only be replaced by lots of UAVs.
The Mig-25 was designed to intercept a western bomber that failed but was found to be useful for other things and was progressed with and turned into a very useful interceptor and recce aircraft.
Currently the next bombers onthe drawing board for the US are based on speeds of about Mach 2.4... a speed the Mig-25RB is quite capable of flying at for its entire mission carrying a load that would actually meet american requirements. The only factors that would prevent the Mig-25RB from meeting all the american requirements are that it doens't have a long enough range and of course it isn't american.

... sounds like the Russians were right all along.

(BTW if you think the Russians weren't working on very high speed aircraft before the americans then you are wrong. The american work just accelerated the work and generated bottomless pits of funding for them. )

How many navies posses the fighter/AEW combo or 100km plus range SAMs that fit that bill?. Like I said India should take care about who its arming up to take on because it is sending out some very strong signals whether it knows it or not.


Weapons purchases and developments should not be geared to what potential opponents have now. Pakistan will not have worn out F-16s forever. With their current relationship with the US a couple of Patriot batteries is not exactly out of the question in 5-10 years time. Who knows what they might or might not have. The Chinese navy is also expanding all the time.

I don't see the US cancelling SM-2s and SM-3s saying they are too powerful.

After years of developing antiship missiles not one western company, independently from various nations, has determined that the supersonic flight profile is crucial for successful ship attack.

And here you proposition falls flat... which western company has been given the task of countering US carrier groups? The US has in the past and probably always will rely on air superiority and the fact that their opponent doens't have as good a AWACS or AEW setup as they do. This has coloured how they think and the weapon systems they employ. It certainly doesn't make any other solutions wrong.

A better analogy was that both the US and USSR were looking at long range cruise missiles before looking at ICBMs. In both cases they were looking at enormous high speed weapons. The higher speed of the ICBM stopped development of the supersonic cruise missiles, but as technology progressed small compact fuel effieicnt jet engines and computerised guidance systems made slow cruise missiles popular as long as they flew low and were hard to detect. The Russians are now looking at supersonic turbojet powered cruise missiles that are harder to intercept... the west is going for stealth.
It is the same with anti ship missiles.
The West has a relatively good radar coverage and warning system so breaching it involves getting through it as low and as fast as possible.
The west on the other hand wants to sneak through the Russian system preferably at medium height to improve range... because long range is more important to the west than it is to the east. (targets in russia are fewer and further between that in the US).

Yes. Simply you are quite right, apart from one thing, even if a western nation built and fielded a supersonic (ANS/ANF for example) I'd still think they were crap and unnecessary.

If ANS/ANF was built it would be crap... it isn't any better than the mid 80s fielded AS-17, but slower.

The reality is that high speed anti ship missiles will lead to hypersonic speed antiship missiles with scramjet technology that will be far more useful than stealth technology. American stealth technology will blow up lots of things and kill lots of people, but scramjet technology will take us to space affordably.

[Jai]

Thanks to Ashutosh from BR. These are video captures from a BrahMos video, showing the loading of BrahMos onto the INS-Rajput.

http://img37.exs.cx/img37/4034/frame1.jpg

http://img31.exs.cx/img31/9467/frame2.jpg

[Jai]

http://img17.exs.cx/img17/408/frame5.jpg

http://img33.exs.cx/img33/1305/frame6.jpg

http://img18.exs.cx/img18/8356/frame7.jpg

[Jai]

http://img44.exs.cx/img44/2880/frame8.jpg

http://img20.exs.cx/img20/9585/frame9.jpg

http://img50.exs.cx/img50/2871/frame10.jpg

http://img31.exs.cx/img31/7683/frame11.jpg

[Jai]

http://img33.exs.cx/img33/7102/frame13.jpg

http://img69.exs.cx/img69/2623/frame14.jpg

http://img44.exs.cx/img44/4669/frame15.jpg

http://img52.exs.cx/img52/5091/frame16.jpg

http://img68.exs.cx/img68/6891/frame17.jpg

http://img17.exs.cx/img17/8562/frame18.jpg

[Jai]

http://img20.exs.cx/img20/936/frame20.jpg

http://img31.exs.cx/img31/47/frame21.jpg

http://img33.exs.cx/img33/8236/frame22.jpg

http://img44.exs.cx/img44/752/frame23.jpg

http://img50.exs.cx/img50/3145/frame24.jpg

[JonS]

This is the size of the hole, and secondary damage, done to the USS Stark. There are not many 4000ton vessels that this kind of damage would not put right out of the fight no matter how good their DC or design resilience is.
it was fire that did the most damage on stark. Also if i recall correctly it was built out of light aluminum alloy, which has more or less abandoned these days in construction of vessels due to their venerability to fragmented warheads.
Taken from naval review
The hits on Sheffield and the Stark demonstrate clearly the danger of uncontrollable fires, which can be especially bad when induced by leftover propellant from missiles fired from short range. In fact, both of these ships were done in by fires—rather than by the damage from warhead explosions (some of the hits involved dud warheads that did not explode). None of the ships mentioned here had any special features to provide sturdiness against missile hits.

[Harry]

Long post now Harry so posting frequency not going to be too high ok!


Please take your time.

Thats 3 minutes blasting through boundary-layer air not just a few seconds

The boundary layer can extend to over 500 feet and more, and does this mean that all missiles should fly higher? I thought that the primary problems we were discussing first were wrt precipitation. Do you also expect the boundary layer to remain constant throughout the day ? Is the missile lacking in KE?

As I said we had problems with Sea Dart up to, just, the radar horizon when flying a flat trajectory at a slightly safer altitude than your proposing for Brahmos

You cannot compare a SAM modification to the case at hand. Period. And from what you indicate, even that does'nt seem to have failed "completely"

According to others both range AND speed are a little more modest

I don't think that we've quite reached the stage where the latter, from where you are drawing almost all your conclusions, can be used as the decisive source.

For the last time, low altitude supersonic cruise is not new.

You say its effective under SS6 - how far under does it have to be?, against what size a target near SS6? Under what EW conditions was the target engaged at? What range did the seeker aquire target under those metoc conditions?.

EW conditions are of no relevance here when talking about the physical effects of sea state and there certainly is'nt a set standard for the same, to judge the effectiveness. I think that having been tested and proven under SS6, an older and less capable seeker negates the impossibility of newer systems to effectively operate under those conditions.

India especially is making some fairly wild claims for this missile and the ball is very much in her court to prove it delivers. Frankly, I've yet to see anything convincing.

Quite interesting emphasis on "India" there. Subjectivity becomes quite clear. Perhaps we're wasting our time. If the concept truely does contradict physics, which you have'nt proven, it extends out to other developers and countries as well including age old and proven developments. This is disappointing, Steve. Personally, I was expecting possibly enlightening mathematical models and calculations, from you.

you mean a projectile flies steadier the faster it goes! . I dont think even I'm that bad!?.

That's quite a new and rather ineffective attempt at evasion. :D
There's nothing false in bodies flying at high supersonic speeds, suffering less parasite drag.

I said it would be inconceivable that the seeker could be as descriminating as that on an equal-generation subsonic weapon owing to the very restricted dwell time the seeker has to make its track determinations. Ultimately that means the weapon is more susceptible to softkill countermeasures. An irony seeings as its the factor reducing its vulnerability to CIWS that increases its vulnerability to softkill!.


I don't think so. It was originally a discussion wrt the capability of limited AAMs to do the same. As for the subsonic weapon - use the ARGS-35E as an example, activating only 20 km from the target. But without knowing the specific seeker and processing capabilties of the concerned, "vulnerability" to softkill is mere speculation.

Dont know how a Barak engagement cycle goes but the standard engagement profile for SeaWolf fires two missiles in salvo at one inbound. PK against diving Soviet heavyweight missiles was determined as being well into the .9s and they were just as supersonic as hell.


It's never been made clear if the Barak can engage supersonic AsHMs or not but what I can say is that the Moskit in PLAN service, is considered a serious threat, especially in terms of complications wrt interception. Even subsonic AsHMs are considered threats that are difficult to defeat and it's pretty surprising that you make them out to be easy prey for countermeasures. Are you referring to obsolete SS-N-2B/Cs for the heavyweights? The SeaWolf too, was never really intended for AsHMs. Even if intercepted somehow at close range, the incoming, high KE debris would set the ship on fire.


The argument could just as easily be made that ECCM techniques have been around for a good two decades and so far, from operational evidence, ECM and decoys have proven effective against active radar homers.

Even so, that does'nt prove that soft-kill measures would always work, against AsHMs or otherwise. You'd agree that development in ECCM has come far.

Just to clarify that Sea State 2 means Waves less than 2ft and mean wind speeds less than 10knts!?. Last time I did some pleasure sailing on Lake Windermere the conditions were worse than that!.

Are you saying that Sea States < 2/3 are impossible? It could even be 0. The mentioned ASL should have no problems upto Sea State 5 and although they are not easy to predict and correct me if I'm wrong, the average observed value is certainly not above 5. The Brahmos, among other missiles have been tested under extremely rough weather conditions.

Whats this fascination with sending ships to the bottom?. What does it matter if the target sinks or not? The effect you are aiming for is to knock the target warship out of the fight.

I would'nt rely on the chance that a still burning rocket motor of an unexploded missile would set fire to my targets! That was a freak event, relatively. :)

USS Stark was left afloat but with 58 men dead and wounded and needing $142 million in make and mends. Is that not enough?.

Two successful AM-39s and the ship was still repaired. Funnily enough, the age old actively emitting AsHM was'nt detected at all by the relatively modern sensor suite! It also proves there's no concrete evidence to show that the NSM's passive concept would ensure a giant leap.

At 80km from your ship you are suggesting that a 3000kg missile blasting along at Mach silly 40,000ft up is going to be a more difficult target to detect than a 500kg Uran tooling along at 600knts at 50ft or so? You can't mean that Harry surely?.

The Uran is not a low-RCS design like the Brahmos (centerbody). Weight has nothing to do with RCS and the control surfaces on the Uran are pretty distinctive. Also, the supersonic missile is'nt going to spend much time at high altitude once within radar range (although this really depends on the ship's sensor suite) and with lo-lo, it's a different matter.

NOTHING exists that do Mach2.8 at 15ft ASL for 120-145km though.

Does that mean that it CANNOT be made at all, especially when studies are more than decades old?

With 4 Urans on the airframe doesn't the Sukhoi retain much more of its range, speed and self-escort capability

4 Urans would hardly even approach the effect of 3 Brahmos-A and it must be noted that the primary mission is afterall, ASV. I'd say that 4 Urans would add the same amount of aerodynamic drag, if not more and terms of weight, the MKI does retain a decent TWR, even at MTOW. It can take off with both full external payload and internal fuel.

Just because they are subsonic weapons you cant ignore them, flick the switch to turn on the CIWS and go back to your Playboy centrefold!. Remember a 'dancer' is much more likely to defeat softkill as the seeker has longer to sort out the target picture. Its terminal phase manoeverabilty is better - having the effect of increasing the angular deflection a tracker has to follow the target through thus tieing it up on a single target while a second or third missile closes. Not to mention the additional flexibility the launching platform has, in terms of unrefuelled action radius, so as to be able to fire from a less predictable threat axis.

Those are simply assumptions made through speculative data. The minimal extra time period (which in turn, translates to extra prep time), does'nt translate to invulnerability to softkill by any means and certainly not terminal phase manueverability!!

You can't ignore them but you'd certainly have it easier with limited subsonic
AsHMs. The Brahmos can do everything a Uran can, and more, to understate things.

I've seen Sea Wolf 'easily' down a supersonic inbound target. Maybe it wasnt changing its course by a couple of degrees or whatever these evasive manoevres are but the missile hit point of aim smack on!


An aircraft or drone flying high and level at supersonic speed is not the same by any streach.

Even the current NATO 'standard' Mk36 chaff round will burst 2.5 seconds after launch and have fully formed its 10,000 sq.m RCS cloud within 30 seconds - that from just a single rocket

32.5 seconds is already more than half the time, by which the seeker would have already obtained the target concerned and would be closing in fast. What about the reseeding by choppers and rockets?

Against a frigate navy with an AEGIS/PAAMS AAW capability an individual Brahmos' supersonic capabilities are no defence against ESSM or Aster15 type weapons - so saturation fire would be necessary to overwhelm the individual ships no different than for a subsonic weapon to be effective.

That's yet to be seen. Have these systems actually been proven against the low flying Moskit or Yakhoknt class missiles? Legacy AsHMs are all the more vulnerable at all stages. In terms of saturation fire, you'd certainly need far more of those to actually have a chance of penetrating all the way.

Lastly against a more modest frigate navy without advanced AAW why would you need Brahmos at all when its defensive ability would be unlikely to defeat even saturation attacks with legacy AShMs?.

It's because even against modest systems, subsonic AsHMs are no guarantee and still require several rounds to get the job done. I guess your biggest problem is with the economics of the situation - A single Brahmos round does'nt cost exponentially more than a Kh-35 for example and when the saturation attack itself requires far fewer rounds to do greater damage, the overall economics work out cheaper.

The 'Harpoon Hop' isnt an evasive manoever. Neither was it an upgrade. The Harpoon was originally designed to allow US marpat aircraft to attack Soviet SSG's/SSGNs on the surface whilst they were preparing their cruise missile shots

Strange, I heard that the pop up itself may risk a miss but the advantage of a terminal popup is the crossing target modifier should be effective against hard kill fire. The early blocks did'nt employ this.

[dionis]

the Moskit as far as I know comes in TWO (major) variants:

The 3M80 and 3M82

the 3M80 is 120KM range ?
the 3M82 is 250KM range ?

the 3M80 is on the standard line 956 Sovremennys and Tarantul III patrol boats...

the newer 3M82 is on the Sovremenny 956A destroyers

one of the forms of the Moskit is on the Udaloy II destroyers..


...something called the 9M80E is also available (globasecurity.org) ??

[kakarat]

Thanks to Ashutosh from BR. These are video captures from a BrahMos video, showing the loading of BrahMos onto the INS-Rajput.

http://img37.exs.cx/img37/4034/frame1.jpg

http://img31.exs.cx/img31/9467/frame2.jpg

where can i get the video

[crobato]

3M80E is the export variant sold with the two Sovremannies to China.

3M80MBE is a new variant with 240km range sold with the new 956EM Sovremannies to China.

[Jonesy]

Harry,

I dont have time to answer you point by point. I'll try to cover what you've mentioned as concisely as possible though....Garry some answers to your post wrapped in there too.

The problems with running very high speed bodies through dense air are manifest. The main aerodynamic issue we found was with a form of pressure drag that created buffeting on the airframe. Basically what happens is the kinetic heating on the missile body causes the air passing over it (the aerodynamic boundary layer - as opposed to the atmospheric boundary layer between sea-surface and air) to expand rapidly. This expansive air intersects with the airflow over this missile and induces drag.

The denser or, rather, wetter the air you fly though the greater this drag is as the greater potential energy transfer from airframe to air. Furthermore the quicker you try to go through that air the higher the thermal loading on the airframe and the more intense the pressure drag. You can calculate the average effects from this condition but those equations were ones I last studied over 14 years ago and are a bit vague now.

There are solutions to this, of course, heavy metals in the missile fuselage to act as a heat sink being the most obvious but then that adds weight and changes your size, propulsion, performance, range and payload calculus. The most obvious, and the one seemingly adopted by the Moskit design team was to fly slightly higher and slower to reduce the loading.

As to the issue of subsonic warhead damage look at the bows photo of the USS Stark again. That hole in the superstructure and the heavy list to port was nothing to do with a fire - that is damage from the impact!. That damage is sufficient to send the ship back to port. If the prevailing conditions are kind it might even make it!. Even if the ship does make it back to be repaired its out of action for duration of most modern conflicts. I ask you again how much damage do you think you need to do to a ship?.

You say Brahmos has a low RCS design. From a look at the airframe I dont see it personally, at least if you compare it to a real low-RCS design like NSM, but even if it were the case you cannot propose that Brahmos has Low Observability characteristics. Not when you are talking of such a large missile travelling at such a high velocity. Even basic IRST's like Radamec's 2000 series can detect tactical fastjets at 20km plus, Thales's new SIRIUS sensor has, allegedly, the capability to detect TBM's at ranges in the hundreds of kilometres. A mach2.8 missile travelling at altitude will beacon on IRST at 40km even if, and IMO this is very unlikely, the radar doesnt catch it. The basic physics of it is that a vehicle cannot expend the kind of energy that M2.8 requires without radiating some of it out into the environment somewhere in some form.

To restate my point, and this is mainly to Garry on his 'you never know the threat tomorrow' point, the threat the Pak Navy poses to India is with its submarine force. Its surface vessels, now and proposed (i.e for the next two decades of planning) are GP light frigates with a coastal defence orientation - not the type of vessels that require large supersonic antiship missiles to defeat. The PLAN have some nice new ships coming through and some very interesting new weapons, but, they are a good long way from having the assets, experience or training to mount expeditionary naval warfare. Even then theyre AAW screen will force a saturation attack and the important factor will boil down to numbers instead of individual weapon capabilities.

[koxinga]

Nice photos of the Rajput with the Brahmos. Can I ask a simple question? Does the Bramhos make use of the existing FCRs and radars for targetting? Or is there any specific radars needed (during the test)?

[Harry]

The denser or, rather, wetter the air you fly though the greater this drag is as the greater potential energy transfer from airframe to air. Furthermore the quicker you try to go through that air the higher the thermal loading on the airframe and the more intense the pressure drag. You can calculate the average effects from this condition but those equations were ones I last studied over 14 years ago and are a bit vague now.

Thanks, this is what I wanted. I'm aware of the form drag but did'nt factor in body heating, due to the small time period involved. But as you mentioned, this area can be addressed with certain design features and philosophies and we know that it was worked on for decades to cope with pressure distribution under supersonic flow.(where there's also no induced drag). Form drag is reduced through a high degree of streamlining as found on the Brahmos and for the most part, we are'nt involving high AoA flight and neither is the wing span large.

The Boundary layer properties should'nt differ greatly from 23 ft to 10-15 ft.

the most obvious but then that adds weight and changes your size,

The case at hand, certainly is'nt something of small dimesions and weight and one would even think that overall range should probably be greater for the weight. However, it does'nt lack in KE.

The basic physics of it is that a vehicle cannot expend the kind of energy that M2.8 requires without radiating some of it out into the environment somewhere in some form.

Good point reg. IRSTs but I don't think they provide the same FoV nor SA as an equivalent radar system. Plus like you said, any afterburning missile is going to put out enough heat and visual aids. MBDA advertise the NSM with low IR signature but I don't see how that's acheived?

you compare it to a real low-RCS design like NSM

The control surfaces seem fairly large, the wing span is high and there are edges. Does'nt look like much of a low RCS design.

That hole in the superstructure and the heavy list to port was nothing to do with a fire - that is damage from the impact!. That damage is sufficient to send the ship back to port. If the prevailing conditions are kind it might even make it!. Even if the ship does make it back to be repaired its out of action for duration of most modern conflicts. I ask you again how much damage do you think you need to do to a ship?.


IIRC, the first Exocet penetrated and as with the Sheffield, it's warhead failed to detonate and 120 lbs of fuel dumped inside. The bulk of the damage was done by the fires and it was an aluminium hulled warship as well. Despite this, it still survived. While the AM39s did manage to penetrate, larger and more modern warships would require greater firepower.

To restate my point, and this is mainly to Garry on his 'you never know the threat tomorrow' point, the threat the Pak Navy poses to India is with its submarine force.

Absolutely correct and ASW assets need to be increased in quantity at least. There do exist weapons like the 91RE1/RTE2 though. Since affordability of the Brahmos is not a problem, I don't think that upgradation to a missile that can counter *any potential* future SV threat, should be seen as an economics issue. The missile is also capable against land based targets and is further being developed.

? Does the Bramhos make use of the existing FCRs and radars for targetting?

There are no Brahmos-specific radars. The targetting helicopter is optional.

[Sridhar]

I guess when people think of the Brahmos as facing just the PN and PLAN, they are forgetting the following facts

1. Brahmos Corp. is not an Indian-only company, but an Indian-Russian joint venture, with 50% stake of each side. The missile will also not just arm the Indian armed forces, but also the Russians.

2. One of the stated objectives of Brahmos is to market the missile to a carefully chosen set of countries. It is not inconceivable that if the missile is indeed seen as superior to other alternatives, buyers may even include some countries friendly to the US or rather countries considered to be in the Western bloc. The cold war is over and hence such a deal is well within the realm of possibility ( its probability is another matter). There is zero likelihood of India threatening any Western country for the foreseeable future and I don't know why this missile should send any signals whatsoever to anybody. There is a much larger context to the issue and one missile and its capabilities do not change that to any significant extent.

3. The stated objective is also to develop a LACM out of the basic Brahmos design. Thus, it is a larger project than just the development of the AShM (though it is its main component for the moment)?

4. Its larger context from India's p.o.v. is the cruise missile development experience that India is gaining through this project.

Given these points, it would be naive to base all evaluations of the missile on the assumption that it is aimed only at PN and PLAN ships and an evaluation of its needs/performance against these targets alone.

[dionis]

the Russians are going to stick with the SS-N-26 Yakhont though.. right?

[Sameer]

the Russians are going to stick with the SS-N-26 Yakhont though.. right?


So the russians spent 50% of the project money in r and d just to stick to an older missile? :rolleyes: Boy they must really love India, pay for 50% of project to make things for India cheaper and then only India buys and the russians can only sell to countries that India agrees too as well, , nah it does not work like that, of course they will buy Bhramos as well.

[google]

IIRC, according to last week's Jane's M&R article, the Brahmos will be going into service in 2006.

[Yahoo25]

So the russians spent 50% of the project money in r and d just to stick to an older missile? :rolleyes: Boy they must really love India, pay for 50% of project to make things for India cheaper and then only India buys and the russians can only sell to countries that India agrees too as well, , nah it does not work like that, of course they will buy Bhramos as well.
50% of Russian contribution may be in human resoruces only for which they charge money. I don't think they have the money for convential arms any more. Maintaining space program and nuclear weopons for both land and naval takes alot of money from them. I see little chance of Russia buying new conventional weopons for atleast next 10 years. just upgrading.

[Sameer]

50% of Russian contribution may be in human resoruces only for which they charge money. I don't think they have the money for convential arms any more. Maintaining space program and nuclear weopons for both land and naval takes alot of money from them. I see little chance of Russia buying new conventional weopons for atleast next 10 years. just upgrading.

Russia wil induct the Bhramos, and it was a 50-50 in cash and beyound!!!!!!!!

So your analysis is already flaud and the rest is just naive childish talk.

[Yahoo25]

Russia wil induct the Bhramos, and it was a 50-50 in cash and beyound!!!!!!!!

So your analysis is already flaud and the rest is just naive childish talk.
How you know there contribution was all in Cash? The total deal was valued at $250M but it does not entail all cash rather upgrade of there previous works because whole infrastructure was there.

[Jonesy]

Hopefully Garry, Harry or Vympel will jump in on this one but it was my understanding that the Brahmos missile is an 'Indianised' version of the Yakhont missile. Yakhont being fully developed previously by the Russians and accepted into service, by them, in its original configuration?.

The deal signed was 50/50 for the development of the Indian version and further development of the basic airframe i.e for precision land attack etc. The Indians getting a nice deal in missile technology out of the arrangement and the Russians getting an additional source of R&D investment and Indian assistance in opening potential new markets and promotion.

I think it would be very much appreciated if someone could clarify this?!.

[Chacko]

This is not the first time Indians did the seeker (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/ss-n-2.htm)

The ‘Styx’ missiles have been subject to extensive in-service modification, indeed Indian sources would suggest that each of the former Soviet Navy fleets may have adapted their missiles to meet anticipated local tactical conditions. It is reported that MS-2A and IR. sensors have been retrofitted into earlier missiles together with ECCM hardware. Indian sources suggest that improvements in seeker technology developed by the Defense Research and Development Laboratories in Hyderabad and the Naval Chemical and Metallurgical Laboratories in Vishakhapatnam were adopted into the missiles of the Soviet Navy.

[prozeus]

How you know there contribution was all in Cash? The total deal was valued at $250M but it does not entail all cash rather upgrade of there previous works because whole infrastructure was there.

Why do not you prove the other poster wrong and post the details of the deal for all to see since you seem to be knowing that it was not an all-cash detail?

Besides tell me what fine points lead to a 50.5% equity landing in for india

[Jai]

Final series of captured images from that video.

http://img69.exs.cx/img69/8457/frame26.jpg

http://img52.exs.cx/img52/3144/frame27.jpg

http://img68.exs.cx/img68/4859/frame28.jpg


kakarat, on DRDO's AeroIndia website.

[Jai]

BrahMos launch from Rajput.

http://img75.exs.cx/img75/3369/BrahMos_Launch.jpg

[Jai]

One more photo.

http://img87.exs.cx/img87/1479/BrahMos_Launch2.jpg

[phrozenflame]

how many Brahmos indians plan to build and by when?

[Jai]

The total number of BrahMos missiles to be built is not fixed. It will ultimately depend upon the requirements of the users and upon the volume of export orders. As far as the production of the BrahMos is concerned, the production of ship-launched and TEL-launched versions of the BrahMos has commenced following the successful tests of the missile from the Rajput and the latest one from a ground-based facility.


BrahMos to be inducted in Navy next year (http://www.centralchronicle.com/20040827/2708006.htm)



NEW DELHI: Production has commenced for inducting the 290 km range BrahMos Supersonic Cruise Missiles in the Indian Navy next year, Lok Sabha was informed today.

"The navy has placed a Letter of Interest for inducting BrahMos Supersonic Cruise Missiles in certain types of ships and in- shore. Production has commenced for induction in 2005," Defence Minister Pranab Mukherjee said in reply to a question in the Lok Sabha.

After a series of successful flight trials from ship and land the missile has proved its accurate performance against ship target with devastative destruction capability, he added.



About BrahMos's seventh launch

BrahMos test-fire successful despite heavy rains (http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/holnus/000200406132001.htm)



Balasore (Orissa), June 13. (PTI): BrahMos the supersonic cruise missile, which is part of an Indo-Russian joint venture, was today successfully test fired from the Integrated Test Range at Chandipur, about 15 km from here, defence sources said.

The missile was fired from a mobile launcher at 12.15 p.m. amid incessant rains caused by a deep depression in the sea along the Orissa coast, the sources said.

After proving its precision guidance capability during test fires conducted earlier, the surface-to-surface version of the BrahMos - the name is derived from India's Brahmaputra river and Russia's Moskova river - was test launched today to check its other parameters, the sources said.

This was the seventh mission flight of the BrahMos.

"It is a total success and all the range instrumentation had confirmed the success of today's test flight," the chief controller of research and development and managing director of BrahMos, Dr A S Pillai, told PTI.

Pillai said that it was for the first time that the missile was test launched in such inclement weather conditions.



As far as the rate of production is concerned, the magazine MilTech ( Issue 7 2004 ) which has interview Dr. A.S. Pillai, CEO-BrahMos, the rate of production is stated to be atleast 200 missiles per year.

[Harry]

Hopefully Garry, Harry or Vympel will jump in on this one but it was my understanding that the Brahmos missile is an 'Indianised' version of the Yakhont missile. Yakhont being fully developed previously by the Russians and accepted into service, by them, in its original configuration?.

The deal signed was 50/50 for the development of the Indian version and further development of the basic airframe i.e for precision land attack etc. The Indians getting a nice deal in missile technology out of the arrangement and the Russians getting an additional source of R&D investment and Indian assistance in opening potential new markets and promotion.

In a way, it is better described by components brought together independantly and then integrated to the common system/goals. Overall project cost is $250 million, not including incremental costs for further development, of India contributes 50.5% and Russia, 49.5%. All work and profits from possible exports will be shared accordingly and the product will be jointly marketed. Russia has'nt mentioned anything about standardisation, submarine, shore and aircraft deployments but confirmed deployment of the Brahmos on surface warships. Brahmos is officially, a joint venture between NPOM and DRDO, with the HQ at New Delhi.

Indian sources suggest that improvements in seeker technology developed by the Defense Research and Development Laboratories in Hyderabad and the Naval Chemical and Metallurgical Laboratories in Vishakhapatnam were adopted into the missiles of the Soviet Navy.

Guidance and control systems made by BEL were eventually adopted for the SS-N-2. ECCM too. Here's some info posted by gabisa on the old ACIG forum (from an USN report),

The joint venture was called BrahMos, BramaputraMoscow. Ever since the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russian arms developers have been offering new weapons on a joint-development basis. From the buyer's point of view such an arrangement is attractive as a way of gaining technological expertise, something license production of an existing design cannot offer. Thus far, except for PJ-10, the Indians generally have been limited to license production of Russian-designed equipment. It is only fair, however, to point out that the Indians developed some important electronic counter-countermeasures improvements to Styx, which the Russians adopted. While the antennas of many of its radars betray their Western origins, the waveforms differ from those of the equivalent Signaal sets. This suggests that the Indians are producing their own electronics to feed existing antennas.

[PLA]

Indian forces are using the Brahmos fully potential. Air, land and sea based. But how much can the target do to avoid destruction?

[kakarat]

Final series of captured images from that video.

http://img69.exs.cx/img69/8457/frame26.jpg

http://img52.exs.cx/img52/3144/frame27.jpg

http://img68.exs.cx/img68/4859/frame28.jpg


kakarat, on DRDO's AeroIndia website.

will you be able to give me a link where i will be able to download it

[JonS]

As to the issue of subsonic warhead damage look at the bows photo of the USS Stark again. That hole in the superstructure and the heavy list to port was nothing to do with a fire - that is damage from the impact!. That damage is sufficient to send the ship back to port. If the prevailing conditions are kind it might even make it!. Even if the ship does make it back to be repaired its out of action for duration of most modern conflicts. I ask you again how much damage do you think you need to do to a ship?.
I have seen videos & pictures of USN destroyers in far worse condition after japanese attacks remain operational and be active in the battle front. As the info i posted points it out it was the fire that made ship unoperational not the damage unless u have some other source that says otherwise.

Hopefully Garry, Harry or Vympel will jump in on this one but it was my understanding that the Brahmos missile is an 'Indianised' version of the Yakhont missile. Yakhont being fully developed previously by the Russians and accepted into service, by them, in its original configuration?.
From what i understand of yakhont from the few russian documents i have read it was supposed to be mini shipwreck "Universal missile" devolopment started around early 70s and was spearhead by the founder of NPO (forgot his name), the missile ran into a lot of technical diffculties and hence the russians decided to purchase the moskit as stop gap measure till yakhont is devoloped. Because of moskit incompatability with earliar systems rit could never really be their universal ashm and russian navy wasnt too enthuasiatic bout the SS-N-25 so they decided not to upgrade earliar vessels with those missiles and instead wait it out till Onyks/Yakhont is devoloped.
Even thou yakhont booster,seeker were all devoloped and tested by 93 the russians were encountering problems trying to devolop onboard computer system for it and were running out of funding. Around 95 talk was under way with india for potential joint devolopment and 97 all the paper works were signed. Since then it has taken bout 6 years to fine tune the onboard computer system and also a land attack capability was added on to it (using RF might be only for indian or non export version). Its intresting to the note the orginal yakhont is still up for export.

Russia has'nt mentioned anything about standardisation, submarine, shore and aircraft deployments but confirmed deployment of the Brahmos on surface warships. Brahmos is officially, a joint venture between NPOM and DRDO, with the HQ at New Delhi.
Russians i believe have plans for few land based batteries of Onyk its called bastion have some photos of that.

[Victor]

The Bastion, in both versions, look badass...

The third pic is of the Indian landbased TEL

[Jonesy]

PLA

Indian forces are using the Brahmos fully potential. Air, land and sea based. But how much can the target do to avoid destruction?


Simple. Avoid open water clear of neutral traffic!. Wherever possible merge your group in with commercial shipping lanes, run on nav radars only and passive sensors only, chart a course through/near an island chain (should one be handy).

No-one, in the era of CNN warfare, is likely to shoot a 300km active-radar homer into an area where the seeker may inadvertently lockup a neutral merchant, or worse, without a clear idea of what they were shooting at - hopefully!. Making that process more difficult for the missile shooter is likely to forestall his missile release until he can seperate the wolf from the sheep and, if the surface commander is smart, he can make life very exciting for the platform trying for the positive ID.

There are also a lot of deceptive measures that a surface group commander can take to throw surveillance systems off. The famous example of this was when a small RN taskforce comprised of a County class destroyer and three frigates managed to sneak up on the USS Coral Sea, in the Arabian gulf (somewhat ironically), and her battlegroup to a sufficient range to simulate the release 4 MM38's into the carrier!.

In fairness to the Indian missile system though these measures are equally effective against any force attacking with virtually any active radar homing missile.

[Victor]

Blending in with the merchants is an oldy but a goody trick. That's why MRAs and MPAs got the SAR and ISAR modes on their main radars. Not just to see a blip but to actually see the shape of the ship and match it up with the library. Of course the fidelity of the SAR/ISAR image depends on the radar and accompanying system but the capability does exist to discretize contacts to a large, albeit crude, degree.

The gradual but steady move towards stand-off weapons wouldn't be occuring if there wasn't a concurrent move towards greater sensor capability at being able to discretize targets at stand-off ranges.

And of course the ROEs and doctrines play into this as well as a way to mitigate the chances of knocking down an airliner or sinking a cruise liner.

[Jonesy]

That's why MRAs and MPAs got the SAR and ISAR modes on their main radars. Not just to see a blip but to actually see the shape of the ship and match it up with the library. Of course the fidelity of the SAR/ISAR image depends on the radar and accompanying system but the capability does exist to discretize contacts to a large, albeit crude, degree.

Right you are Victor but you should phrase that as MRA/MPA's are 'getting' SAR and ISAR processor equipped radars. Really the operational deployment of these systems is only a recent development within the last 5 years or so and, from the top of my head, only the AIP'd P-3's have it deployed with any kind of track record. The Nimrod MRA4's will have the Searchwater 2000MR with SAR/ISAR and obviously the Sea Dragon fits a new system entirely to the Il-38 but both are still very much in the works as far as I can tell!

Even when everything is fully operational SAR, like you said - dependent on the system, still requires the carrying platform the close with the target to get decent resolution. Isnt the Indian requirement for a system that provides a confirmed detection at 150km? Sounds reasonable in any case. Either way those IN MAY's are going to be bloody busy over those waters and it makes that Heron UAV purchase start to look inspired - those will make a large difference!

The gradual but steady move towards stand-off weapons wouldn't be occuring if there wasn't a concurrent move towards greater sensor capability at being able to discretize targets at stand-off ranges.

Dont kid yourself Victor long-range standoff weapons have been around for decades. The difference is that now the limitations of those systems in terms of targetting have been shown for what they always were and, with more widespread proliferation of that type of weapon, that defecit is having to be addressed.

[dionis]

still no one has answered.. about what the russians will likely adopt.. is there any evidence that the Brahmos is better than the Yakhont?

other than that, someone mentioned something i just thought about earlier today.. the Yakhont does look like a mini Shipwreck.

[JonS]

Nice photos of the Rajput with the Brahmos. Can I ask a simple question? Does the Bramhos make use of the existing FCRs and radars for targetting? Or is there any specific radars needed (during the test)?
yeap yakhont can pretty much be fitted onto vessel that is capable of carrying SS-N-2 and it can use the exsisting onboard FCR.


o-one, in the era of CNN warfare, is likely to shoot a 300km active-radar homer into an area where the seeker may inadvertently lockup a neutral merchant, or worse, without a clear idea of what they were shooting at - hopefully!. Making that process more difficult for the missile shooter is likely to forestall his missile release until he can seperate the wolf from the sheep and, if the surface commander is smart, he can make life very exciting for the platform trying for the positive ID.
its onboard computer system is capable of identifying the target and id it from its database so there is little chance that it will lock onto merchant vessel, thats one of the reason yakhont was ran into diffculties, because russians had problems devoloping a small computer system for it.

[Yahoo25]

nothing in India is less than 20 years.

http://www.hindu.com/2004/09/30/stories/2004093002781300.htm
Brahmos will have to wait'

By Our Staff Reporter



MADURAI, SEPT. 29. The supersonic Brahmos missile, the undetectable ship defence system that works on ramjet propulsion covering a range of 230 km, will have to wait for about 10 years before its technology can be declared mature, according to S. Sundarrajan, Deputy Programme Director, Brahmos, Defence Research and Development Laboratory (DRDL), Hyderabad. He was delivering a lecture on the `Trends and Challenges — Guided Missile Programme' to mark the foundation day of the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research at the Central Electrochemical Research Institute, Karaikudi.

When the country launched the Agni missile in 1988, the West imposed sanctions under the Missile Technology Control Regime. However, the DRDL's initiatives remained unaffected because all its designs were based on Indian standards. Mr. Sundarrajan said the CECRI should come out with high-energy batteries and evolve effective corrosion protection

[Jonesy]

Jon,

its onboard computer system is capable of identifying the target and id it from its database so there is little chance that it will lock onto merchant vessel, thats one of the reason yakhont was ran into diffculties, because russians had problems devoloping a small computer system for it.

Sorry Jon I'd need to see some very solid proof of THAT before I'd believe it!. What you are proposing there is that the seeker has an inverse synthetic apeture mode plus an image processor and can paint a target, process the image, make the distinction between a valid target and a false one and THEN set itself on the correct vector to attack a legitimate target before dropping to wavetop height all within a couple of seconds popup window on its lo-lo-lo profile. That would be even more of a technological leap than the aerodynamic feats advertised for the weapon.

I know of another seeker that has limited ISAR capability and there are several UAV's that can carry a SAR/ISAR system, but, none of those have to try and function on a mach2.8 air vehicle under the conditions and constraints that this would have to perform in!.

Technically, Jon, what you are suggesting is a missile that would be so advanced over Harpoon, Exocet or even Moskit as to be like the difference between a P-51 and an F-22!

[dionis]

Shipwrecks can identify targets by threat level and engage accordingly...

and the Harpoon and Exocet are rubbish anyway, so yes, what he's suggesting is pretty normal :P

[Karna]

nothing in India is less than 20 years.

http://www.hindu.com/2004/09/30/stories/2004093002781300.htm
Brahmos will have to wait'

By Our Staff Reporter



MADURAI, SEPT. 29. The supersonic Brahmos missile, the undetectable ship defence system that works on ramjet propulsion covering a range of 230 km, will have to wait for about 10 years before its technology can be declared mature, according to S. Sundarrajan, Deputy Programme Director, Brahmos, Defence Research and Development Laboratory (DRDL), Hyderabad. He was delivering a lecture on the `Trends and Challenges — Guided Missile Programme' to mark the foundation day of the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research at the Central Electrochemical Research Institute, Karaikudi.

When the country launched the Agni missile in 1988, the West imposed sanctions under the Missile Technology Control Regime. However, the DRDL's initiatives remained unaffected because all its designs were based on Indian standards. Mr. Sundarrajan said the CECRI should come out with high-energy batteries and evolve effective corrosion protection

You really are a funny soul. Tech being mature refers to India mastering it and using it for its IGMDP for its own designs. Nobody will base their second strike capability on the Brahmos derivatives yet.

[Jai]

The 'Brahmos Missile' (Brahmputra + Moscow) Jointly developed by India and Russia passing through the Rajpath during the full dress rehearsal for Republic Day Parade -2004, in New Delhi on January 23, 2004 .

http://pib.nic.in/photo/l-images/h23012004h.jpg

[Victor]

Right you are Victor
Thank you :D

but you should phrase that as MRA/MPA's are 'getting' SAR and ISAR processor equipped radars. Really the operational deployment of these systems is only a recent development within the last 5 years or so and, from the top of my head, only the AIP'd P-3's have it deployed with any kind of track record. The Nimrod MRA4's will have the Searchwater 2000MR with SAR/ISAR and obviously the Sea Dragon fits a new system entirely to the Il-38 but both are still very much in the works as far as I can tell!

You are right as well :) that the (I)SAR capability is just now starting to make an appearance onto MRAs and MPAs. But notice that the Brahmos missile itself will only be ready a year or two from now and the systems that will utilize the missiles (IN's P15A, subs, and perhaps the P17(A?)) are at least 3 years from launch and about 2 years after that for commissioning. By then the IN's Heron fleet and all of its SD-Mays and at least one upgraded Bear will be able to queue Brahmos from stand-off ranges. So, the missile system will be operational when the IN will have the ability to notionally discretize targets from stand-off ranges. Does that mean that the missile will always be shot from 290km from target? Absolutely not! But will the IN be able to take good advantage of the missile's stand-off capabilities without putting the queueing platform in harm's way? There's a very good chance!

Dont kid yourself Victor long-range standoff weapons have been around for decades. The difference is that now the limitations of those systems in terms of targetting have been shown for what they always were and, with more widespread proliferation of that type of weapon, that defecit is having to be addressed.

Yes, there's always been long ranged weapons other than the ICBMs and SLBMs but look at what scenarios they were meant to operate in: Most long ranged AShMs were from the USSR and they were meant to take out carriers. In a scenario when the USSR navy is in a shooting war with the USN, do you think either side will care about civilian traffic? But in the Indian vs (anybody) scenario, that will be a MAJOR concern especially in the merchant clogged Indian Ocean. The fact that the IN made an intentional decision to go for long ranged supersonic AShMs shows that they either (a) have the capability to discretize targets at stand-off ranges or (b) will get the ability to discretize targets at stand-off ranges. What good is a missile stand-off missile if the platform and the system cant take advantage of that stand-off feature?

[Harry]

The EL/M-2022A-V3 on the IN's Do-228s of INAS 310 and upgraded Tu-142Ms also have SAR/ISAR. Old news.

[phrozenflame]

The 'Brahmos Missile' (Brahmputra + Moscow)
You mean Moscow River...

[Indian1973]

moskva.

[kakarat]

can any one get me a brahmos video

[heeroyui]

Hi

Russians i believe have plans for few land based batteries of Klub Missile Complex. have some photos of that???.

Thank you for collaboration

[Jai]

That was a reporter's statement, and because he said Moscow ( Moskva ) along with Brahmaputra, which is a river, he probably thought it redundant to state Moscow river.

[crobato]

But in the Indian vs (anybody) scenario, that will be a MAJOR concern especially in the merchant clogged Indian Ocean. The fact that the IN made an intentional decision to go for long ranged supersonic AShMs shows that they either (a) have the capability to discretize targets at stand-off ranges or (b) will get the ability to discretize targets at stand-off ranges. What good is a missile stand-off missile if the platform and the system cant take advantage of that stand-off feature?

It's easy to distinguish between a merchant ship and an aircraft carrier. You probably don't need SAR for this. Beam sharpening is enough (good enough for TERCOM use also). SAR is better suited for tank sized targets. SAR for a missile sized seeker would mean it has to get pretty close (5km like that---fighter plane radars use SAR within 20-30km of the target).

What would be most difficult to distinguish is merchant vessels between neutral and the enemy. Not even the USN has this or has done this from stand off long range. Stand off attacks tend to be against fixed targets on port or on ground, and these targets have been reconned first. Without very precise INS (GPS) and confirmation via datalink, stand off attack is indeed going to be a total dirty war.

But then again, a large missile like this is only meant to destroy a large shipborne target, not a small one. If you want to target small fry, use a smaller missile. It only needs to distinguish between large vs. small, then attack the large one. Find out whether a target will be neutral, friendly or hostile is the job for the launching ship before the missile is launched.

[Jonesy]

It's easy to distinguish between a merchant ship and an aircraft carrier. You probably don't need SAR for this. Beam sharpening is enough (good enough for TERCOM use also)

Who told you that Crobato?. Whoever it was needs to do some scope watching!. There are loads of examples of radar misidentification under operational conditions. Two that immediately spring to mind are the FAA SHAR FRS1 that mistook a merchantman for Invincible, on its Blue Fox, during the Falklands and commited to landing on it before he realised his mistake. The other, also during the Falklands, was the RAF Nimrod crew who reported holding radar contact with the Argentine 25deMayo northwest of the islands only, on dispatch of a SHAR to recce, for it to turn out to be a lone merchant.

Now you can say that the Blue Fox, as fitted to SHAR FRS1, was a fairly basic unit, but, the Nimrod was fitted with the, excellent, Racal Searchwater set. There is nothing startlingly new about it radar just has certain limitations.

If you want to target small fry, use a smaller missile.

Interesting - how many military naval targets in the SE Asian theatre, PLAN included, aren't 'small fry'?.

It only needs to distinguish between large vs. small, then attack the large one.

Always amuses me that people assume that an aircraft carrier is the largest thing to be found afloat!. There are lots of vessels bigger than even US CVN's out there Crobato.

[Blackcat]

I hope the Army makes their mind to get the Brahmos complex with that Russian vehicle and not thats based on the tatra one, the Russian ones is simply grrr8 with a clean covering too thats been shown , hope u guys can see that cover for the 'loads' inside the vehicle being opened to the sides in the pic posted by victor.

I wud say, if possible and surely IA shud make it that its the config that makes up for the TEL of the Brahmos or for that matter the BAL (I hope they also get them in) to be based on the Russian truck (well can some one put more deatil abt the truck itself plzz) . Through the vehicle induction wud make another type in the IA, but I wud say it has to be manufactured in here for it gives some good capablity against the tatra. And make these vehiclec as the common base for the BASTION and BAL in the IA and that wud be great. Let the tatra be limited to the Pinaka and now the Smerch though I'd loved the pinaka to be 'stationed' on its original base.

I hope u guys agree to my view that the BASTION wud do good on the Russian vehicle than the currently displayed Tatra.

[Srbin]

The Brahmos Mobile Launcher is able to fire the Missile at ships, I understand it would be placed somewhere by the coast, can someone please describe me how would this actually work and how would this be used for Coastal Defence.

Now, another thing, regarding the Yakhont-M and Brahmos, I understand they can also be used to engage ground targets, can they be used to destroy airfields and many other targets?

[GarryB]

The Brahmos Mobile Launcher is able to fire the Missile at ships, I understand it would be placed somewhere by the coast, can someone please describe me how would this actually work and how would this be used for Coastal Defence.


They are basically just truck mounted systems... usually more than a dozen including the missile vehicle itself, a reload vehicle or two, a command vehicle, some vehicles with detection equipment and probably some maintainence and crew support vehicles. The radar vehicles either actively or passively detect enemy ships coming close to shore and pass that information to the command vehicle. If it is a valid target the information is relayed to the missile vehicle and an attack is carried out.
The Russians also have a truck mounted 130mm artillery vehicle also used for coastal defence and would probably use a mix of guns and missiles for most targets. With a range of up to 300km these systems can be used to keep enemy forces from landing troops or in the case of the gun system be used to engage smugglers (warning shots and potential disabling shots rather than a supersonic 3 ton missile...)



Now, another thing, regarding the Yakhont-M and Brahmos, I understand they can also be used to engage ground targets, can they be used to destroy airfields and many other targets?


The Yakhont-M has what they call a multisensor system for engaging targets. I would assume combined radar (possibly MMW radar) and IIR to allow a wide range of targets to be engaged. As an offshoot this might allow passive attack of naval targets too. Most anti ship missiles use active radars that are designed to pick out ships from a moving sea. They are not designed to pick out land based targets, which are generally much smaller and have less well defined radar signatures... a wooden or glass or concrete building will not stand out like a carrier. Some exceptions have been large oil storage tanks, but that was probably more to do with luck than anything else.
(The Yakhont-M will be test flown next year apparantly).

[Karna]

Blackcat, The russians acted smart and asked for mucho $$ for their launcher, so India went ahead and developed its own Brahmos launcher. The army loves the Tatra and there is no need to complicate logistics by getting one more type.

[Blackcat]

But dont u agree that the Russian one is more clean and better than the tatra based design??.... tatra is smaller in width than the Russian one and it practically reached its limit with that 3- brahmos mount. and still its not the regular tatra, but a stretched tatra chasis......

but said that who dont love that half-axled concept of the tatras, and probably they are the only one using that half-axle system .... they seem like the tyres are lazy when moving unloaded with these angled inwards....and want to avoid the roads .... also that i just don like the changes these guys made to the original tarta face, now it looks more like a 'shikandi' ..... these guys don know to properly work on the design, ..... I'd better have loved to see the the new Ashok Leyland's gen J trucks carrying those (and so does the Agni system) which wud be the most beautiful of them all on the Indian roads, even beautiful than the Volvo's first model FM-12 to land in here .....

Karan, i don know abt the Russian cost affair, but where did u get that??.... but then it should have been dealed with by finally getting that and I say that wud have been better, I think the Chez politics played in or what??? with them getting into a stretched version of the Tatra?? ..... But do u agree to me abt the design concept that the Russian system showcases, say for instance, the BASTION and BAL may both have the same exterior appearance when moving around during the needy time but it wud only be the commanders who will get to know what they wud be firing across and not the wireless guys who gives it to the other side.

but again, IA sud be going in for the other one...plzzz :) .... hope they do .... but ...

[Karna]

boss army se poocho..ask the army...the half axle thing is amazing technology the army loves it and the tatra can go practically anyplace pssoible...

looks ...dont go by looks alone sir, go by functionality....

why should we buy russian when we can make our own.

it makes no sense to go for russian,the brahmos are all in sealed canisters anyway..

[Blackcat]

if thats so I'd only say its dumb, and further Tatra is not Indian though they have been long associated with and nearly 3 decades or for instance the time when our missile tests started for we did not had a decent enough vehicle to carry, till then it was the good old Shakitman. Also Tatra are never used for transporting troops, and that will tell u it was meant for the Missiles only.

As for me, I'd say the Tatra Udyog Limited, the Indian subsidary of the Chec Tatra wud have put proposal not to loose their market as once the Russian come in u will see that being the preferred platform for the Smerch, Brahmos and Klub and it wont be long before DRDO plays with that to have Prithvi launcher too on them as in all case the Russian one has lot more space. And yes that half axle is just one grr8 stuff, but if I am not wrong, the tatra has got it initial years or similarity with the Russian Kamaz trucks ..... plzz correct me if I am wrong.

But yes, I am talking abt functionality with looks and I need looks to to go in for the one. the best example is IAF, do u guys think that Hawk won just coz it was the most widely used and also shortlisted yrs ago??.... well then i got different opinion as if it was MiG-AT in the dress of the Hawk, IAF wud have got for that for sure. And let me say, Hawk is definetely the most beautiful of the AJT's in the market as of now ...... barring the now Italian -130 .... though I'll agree to the opinion that beauty lies with the beholder

Again, I think the cannister is not the problem, in any way no CM can be launched without that , but how u neatly cover up that canister and thats wehat the Russian design shows , Sir.

and if I am not terrably wrong , the Russian vehicle based Smerch and Brahmos has got equal length also. That mean IA can DECIEVE any possible leakages to the other side, as if u make the outsled of the Smerch based on the Russian vehicle similar to the Brahmos TEL with all that neat covers, then no one is just gonna get as to what is inside (unless some insiders gives it out) which is going to the border and what are the intensions of the IA!!!

Fot that to happen That Russian one is necessary, and I strongluy believe that, also hope that IA recheck their vehicles.


Any one got more pictures of that Brahmos complex based on the Russian truck???

[matt]

Blackcat, remember that if the launcher can not fit onto the rail bogies for transportation its pretty much going to be a major headache, maybe they chose the smaller wheelbase so they wouldnt need to replace bogies and tracks to acomadate transportation of the Brahmos, also remember that it is being turned into a LACM and the use of the tatras' will allow the army to place the brahmos if needed in forward positions.

[Srbin]

So besides Coastal Defence Anti-Ship missions, what else is the ground mobile Brahmos going to be used by the Army?

[RajKhalsa]

Question from the novice....
Looking at that pic posted by blackcat of the 3-canister Tatra launcher, can someone please explain why the canisters themselves are so long compared to the actual Brahmos missile? What neccessity/advantage is there to such a long canister?

[JonS]

Question from the novice....
Looking at that pic posted by blackcat of the 3-canister Tatra launcher, can someone please explain why the canisters themselves are so long compared to the actual Brahmos missile? What neccessity/advantage is there to such a long canister?
not exactly canister i believe is 9 meters long and the missile is supposed to be around 8 meters long.

As for bastion vs tatra based brahmos it seems DRDO version carries further onboard equipment it could be that this version doesnt have central command & radar station like bastion for each battery. But instead each launcher can process information from exsisting radar networks or Ka-31.

[Chacko]

So besides Coastal Defence Anti-Ship missions, what else is the ground mobile Brahmos going to be used by the Army?

http://www.rediff.com/news/2004/feb/05brah.htm (Surface-to-surface version of Brahmos ready)

The land version of the 290km range Brahmos is capable of carrying both conventional and nuclear warheads. It is mounted on a 12x12 drive carrier and is on display at the DRDO pavilion at the ongoing Defence Expo 2004 in Delhi.

DRDO officials said that a number of tests of the land version of the solid fuel missile had been carried out at the Interim Test Range at Balasore last November.

The scientists at the RDE engineering facility at Pune have now developed an indigenous heavy-duty Tatra-based carrier on which the missiles have been mounted, giving them all-terrain mobility.

The land-based Brahmos has a launch readiness time of five minutes. Officials said a group of launchers could form a battery under a command post.

The Brahmos missiles, DRDO officials said, were capable of being operational in nuclear, chemical and biological environment with the carriers being fitted with remote launch control systems.

[xanadu]

The Brahmos is a product of the Koral missile program doing the rounds some years back isnt it. Its the Koral under a different name?

[Jai]

Re-organization of NPO Mash.

From NPO Mashinostroyeniya to Military-Industrial Corporation NPO Mashinostroyeniya (http://www.gateway2russia.com/st/art_254379.php)



13 October 2004

The president has created another defence concern for the production of missiles, satellites, and helicopters.

According to Kommersant's information, President Vladimir Putin signed an edict on the creation of the Military-Industrial Corporation NPO Mashinostroyeniya [science and production association machine-building] based on NPO Mashinostroyeniya located in suburban-Moscow Reutov. The holding company includes 11 enterprises (they encompass the entire production cooperative) and has become fifth in the Russian defence-industrial complex.

It will work on the development and manufacture of cruise missiles, strategic ballistic missiles, space rockets and civilian and military satellites as well as Ka-226 helicopters.

Open joint-stock company Military-Industrial Corporation NPO Mashinostroyeniya will work on the development and production of military systems with Oniks and Yakhont cruise missiles for the Russian navy, and also PJ-10's for the Indian Navy (within the framework of the Russian-Indian company BrahMos [Brahmaputra-Moscow]). In addition, the holding company will produce 14A036 Strela space rockets, Kondor (radar surveillance), Ruslan (communications), and Meteor (meteorology) satellites, and it will also assemble Ka-226 helicopters (in the Orenburg Strela production association). The company will also work on the technical support of 15A35 RVSN [Strategic Missile Troops] ballistic missiles (now 130 units) until the expiration of their service lives in 2020.


The company's first deputy general director, Anatoliy Khromushkin, told Kommersant's correspondent yesterday that the "process of selling shares of the enterprises that are joining the holding company has already been completed, and as a result the formation of the corporation should be completely finished in the first half of 2005".

Source: Kommersant, Moscow
BBC Monitoring

[Jai]

Updated photos from the DRDO site.

BrahMos Launch and Control system

http://img12.exs.cx/img12/2452/BrahMos_control_system.jpg

http://img12.exs.cx/img12/3723/BrahMos_control_system2.jpg



Inclined Launcher

http://img12.exs.cx/img12/4905/Brahmos_inclined_ship_launcher.jpg



BrahMos Loading Assembly

http://img12.exs.cx/img12/2356/Brahmos_loading_gear.jpg



Mobile Autonomous Launcher for BrahMos

http://img12.exs.cx/img12/6268/MAL_brahmos.jpg

[Harry]

First evidence of "Sagarika"

http://www.drdo.com/pub/techfocus/aug04/can_mobile.jpg

[Chacko]

Note that "Sagarika Annex" on the structure

[Tiger_01]

Can someone explain me what the exact difference is between the Russian and the newer Indian version? From outside they look the same. And is Russia using them?

[Chacko]

The seeker is different, the war head is larger. Russia plans to induct it as PJ-10

[Austin]

Can someone explain me what the exact difference is between the Russian and the newer Indian version? From outside they look the same. And is Russia using them?

well , besides what brute has mentioned , there is this news about PJ-10 have dual seeker ( IIR + Active Radar + terrain matching ) , also the russians have the distinct advantage of having a GPS satellite aka GLOSNASS guiding it to the target with high accuracy , and also they shouldnt have those 300 km MTCR limit which Indians face today.

[Severodvinsk]

hmm, why do you think Russians are proceeding with Yakhont? I don't think they'll officially take Brahmos into service. I think the Brahmos venture was just to make sure no one could comment on the sale of the Yakhont and the technology of it. They're planning to upgrade their own Tu-22M3 bombers for Yakhont and not for Brahmos. I suppose they want to have their own little secrets in it. Probably taking some of the Indian Brahmos technology themselves. Yakhont is also better for Export, for Brahmos they need Indian cooperation and I don't think India would agree on the sale of Brahmos to China ;)

[Jai]

Any comments on the stated warhead size ?

Brahmos missile test fired (http://www.ndtv.com/morenews/showmorestory.asp?slug=Brahmos+missile+test+fired&id=63038)

Brahmos, the supersonic cruise missile jointly developed by India and Russia, was flight tested from the Bay of Bengal off the Orissa coast today, defence sources said.

The naval version of the missile was test fired from the Indian navy's destroyer 'INS Rajput' at around 11.18 am (IST).

Essentially an anti-ship missile, Brahmos can also hit targets on land.

Besides, the missile, which has multi-target capability and enjoys a manoeuverable trajectory, can be fired from a mobile platform on land.

The missile has a striking range of 290 km and weighs about three tonnes. It is eight-meter long and carries a conventional warhead weighing about 200 kg.

[kakarat]

a video of brahmos being launched from ship was shown in dd news can any one get a downloadable copy of it

[JonS]

The size of warhead seems right nothing new there why do u ask?
It is the first and only Supersonic Cruise missile, which uses the liquid Ramjet technology.
Moskit also uses kerosense fueled ramjet???

[Severodvinsk]

It's normal warhead. Harpoon has 210-220kg, Exocet even less, I think 170-180kg. Brahmos's speed adds a bit to the letality. Of course you won't really kill a carrier with it...
Generally, two Harpoon hits are seen as enough to kill any medium-sized ship, frigates and destroyers that is. For Kirov, 5 hits is seen as necessary. For a US carrier, US doesn't calculate that :)

[Victor]

The high impact speed of the Brahmos is helpful in penetrating armor plated compartments... like magazines and VLS area. A detonation in the VLS compartment of any mid sized ship (less than 10k tons) is a total mission kill and a possible ship loss.

[kakarat]

this is a video taken using digital camera from tv if any one have a beter one post it

[kakarat]

size of warhead seems to be 200kg

[Indian1973]

http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/2004/11/04/stories/2004110402820400.htm

BrahMos anti-ship missile tested

M. Somasekhar

Hyderabad , Nov. 3

THE Naval version of the supersonic cruiser missile BrahMos was successfully tested for the eighth time in a row by Indian defence scientists from the Interim Test Range (ITR), Balasore today.

The anti-ship version of BrahMos missile launched from a Naval warship hit the target - a decommissioned ship - setting it on fire, the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of BrahMos, Dr Sivathanu Pillai, said.

"The major achievements of the tests were the mid-course manoeuvrability of the missile and the advanced fire control systems, which functioned 100 per cent," Dr Pillai told Business Line over telephone from Balasore.

With today's test timed at 11.17 a.m., the development phase of a naval target missile launched from a ship platform has been completed and all the requirements needed to prove its capability for the user demonstrated.

The high manoeuvrability demonstrated dispels a myth in the missile community that the supersonic range of missiles cannot be manoeuvred. In war scenarios such versatility is required and gives tactical advantage to the user, he said.

The Indian Navy has already placed a Letter of Interest (LOI) for the production of the missile, he said.

BrahMos, an Indo-Russian missile consortium, with research institutes and industry participating from both countries, has already begun the production of this 290-km range anti-ship missile and the induction would start on schedule in 2005, the CEO said.

The next phase of trials for the BrahMos missile would be for hitting land targets, especially from a ship and surface-to-surface,land-to-land, which would be taken up soon, Dr Pillai said. ;)

[Jai]

The size of warhead seems right nothing new there why do u ask?



I thought that the BrahMos carries a 300 kg warhead and not a 200 kg one as stated in the report. The same was said in a recent MilTech article.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------


BrahMos test-fire success despite heavy rains proves precision target capability of Indo-Russian missile technology (http://www.indiadaily.com/editorial/06-13a-04.asp)


Basically an anti-ship missile that can be modified for operations in air and on land, BrahMos has a speed of 2.8 mach and can carry a conventional warhead weighing about 300 kg.




ACIG Special Reports (http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/printer_418.shtml)


The Brahmos supersonic cruise missile is to become the Indian Navy's standard strike weapon, having been recently declared as 'ready for induction'. The prospect of exporting this deadly weapon to 'friendly third world countries' would probably be limited by the high unit cost, much to the western world's relief. The Brahmos has been marketed at several shows including MAKS, LIMA, IDEX and Africa Aerospace and Defence Exibition. A single round is 9 m long, 670 mm in diameter and weighs more than 3000 kg including a 300 kg warhead.



Brahmos steals the show (http://www.hinduonnet.com/2003/01/27/stories/2003012704900100.htm
)


New Delhi Jan. 26. The Brahmos missile, three varieties of attack helicopters, T-90 tanks, mine ploughs and Mobile Decontamination System were among the country's latest sophisticated defence acquisitions and inductions unveiled at this year's Republic Day parade here today.

Topping them all was Brahmos sophisticated cruise missiles developed jointly by India and Russia. With a velocity 2.8 times of the speed of sound, they are capable of hitting a target 290 km away with a warhead of up to 300 kg.

[Indian1973]

"upto 300kg" . maybe the decrease the warhead by 100kg and enlarge the fuel tank ;)

[Harry]

The warhead is 300 kg for both the Brahmos-S and Brahmos-A. Surprising question.

[JonS]

The warhead is 300 kg for both the Brahmos-S and Brahmos-A. Surprising question.
actually no according to brahmos corp brochure Brahmos-S warhead is 200 kg and A is 300 kg.

[US Agent]

Brahmos Supersonic Cruise Missile Test Fired

(Source: Press Trust of India; issued Nov. 3, 2004)

BALASORE --- Brahmos, the supersonic cruise missile jointly developed by India and Russia, was flight tested from the Bay of Bengal off the Orissa coast today, defence sources said.

The naval version of the missile was test fired from the Indian navy’s destroyer INS Rajput at around 11.18 a.m.

Essentially an anti-ship missile, Brahmos can also hit targets on land, the sources said.

Besides, the missile, which has multi-target capability and enjoys a manoeuverable trajectory, can be fired from a mobile platform on land.

The missile has a striking range of 290 km and weighs about three tonnes. It is eight-meter long and carries a conventional warhead weighing about 200 kg, the sources said.

[Harry]

actually no according to brahmos corp brochure Brahmos-S warhead is 200 kg and A is 300 kg.


True and the official video presentation also mentions 200 kg but Dr.Sivathanu Pillai and some other literature mention 300 kg and from numerous other first hand accounts, I believe the latter is the accurate figure. The original plan was to reduce the warhead on the airborne variant but currently, the plan is to have the same warhead on both.

Incidentally, the video presentation also mentions overall length at 8.1 m as opposed to the more widely reported 9 m.

[Srbin]

Well, compared to the subsonic harpoon, by how much will the Yakhont/Brahoms' speed increase in it's lethality?

[Nitin_V]

The Russians mention percentage figures. Iirc by 1.5- 3times. Take it with all them caveats.

[Severodvinsk]

Depends where it hits, this kind of missile impacts has been tested by USN too, and the conclusion was that this high speed can just make the missile go through the ship, doing not too much harm... I suppose it depends on where it hits, bow section, it would probably go through. But when it hits a magazine or better, in a carrier, I think there would be too much material in the way and probably causing an explosion somewhere inside the hangar... If it hits lower it could be somewhere near the reactors. This is of course pure speculation based on the known USN findings.

[Indian1973]

why should it go through unless the warhead fuse is a dud ?

depending the approach speed the warhead will be impact fused to
detonate the appropriate number of microsecs after the first shock
of entry.

[matt]

Depends where it hits, this kind of missile impacts has been tested by USN too, and the conclusion was that this high speed can just make the missile go through the ship, doing not too much harm... I suppose it depends on where it hits, bow section, it would probably go through. But when it hits a magazine or better, in a carrier, I think there would be too much material in the way and probably causing an explosion somewhere inside the hangar... If it hits lower it could be somewhere near the reactors. This is of course pure speculation based on the known USN findings.


logically the designer of the weapon would prefer that the high KE is used to puncture the ships steel/composite and explode inside the ship for maximum damage. even if it doesnt hit the turret it would maim enough people in the ship to make it useless.

[Panzer]

BrahMos designed to mislead
By Ch Sushil Rao/TNN

Hyderabad: Why was India’s anti-ship supersonic cruise missile BrahMos flight-tested once again on November 3? Although it had been put to test previously, the trial run on November 3 checked out an additional feature that this missile boasts of: it has been designed to mislead enemy ships of the direction from which it is fired.
This extra edge has made the Navy more interested in BrahMos. DRDO says if the Navy were to place a letter of intent, its production could begin in Hyderabad at the earliest. “We can deliver one missile every month,’’ Defence Research and Development Laboratory (DRDL) director Prahlada, also program director of BrahMos, told The Times of India.
In its seventh test off the Orissa coast on November 3 BrahMos, launched from the destroyer INS Rajput, hit the target ship from the front and destroyed it. Developed as an Indo-Russian venture by BrahMos Aerospace Private Ltd, the anti-ship supersonic missile travels at Mach 2.8 and can hit a target up to 290 km away.

This is said to be from TOI print edition.
So, can any one tell me how this is done?

[Jonesy]

Waypoint setting capability in the autopilot?

Potentially they could fire the weapon off bearing and have it 'dogleg' back on to target bearing at some point on the midcourse. It would then appear, to a target without the ability to track the weapon throughout its flight, to have come from a seperate bearing than the true bearing to the launching vessels.

[Jai]

What you have stated could be true, but this would achieve the desired effect at the cost of the maximum range.

[Severodvinsk]

logically the designer of the weapon would prefer that the high KE is used to puncture the ships steel/composite and explode inside the ship for maximum damage. even if it doesnt hit the turret it would maim enough people in the ship to make it useless.

Of course, but even with 50% of its crew a warship can still be active... By Going through i meant, going through without exploding... I mean that is 12-16m (beam of the target) of flight, if your weapons is going at 700m/s, it has to explode on impact, well a very tiny bit afterwards then. I think it'll be hard to get that right.

[Jonesy]

What you have stated could be true, but this would achieve the desired effect at the cost of the maximum range.

Yep that would be the drawback!

[Blackcat]

can u elaborate?

[matt]

can u elaborate?


The **** would have to be a lot closer.. but not always.. depends on how much of a direction change you want.. mainly as you know because Brahmos would have to travel in some arbitrary direction and then course correct to the target.

[Severodvinsk]

I suppose you want at least 30° difference in bearing between your ship and the missile you fired. Otherwise it would still give them a rather good idea where you are.

[Jai]

BrahMos, Akash, Trishul to be test fired soon (http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/2004/11/13/stories/2004111301930300.htm)

INDIAN defence scientists will conduct advanced flight tests of at least three missiles — BrahMos, Akash and Trishul — by the end of 2004, in their intensified efforts to convince the users to go in for induction of these indigenously developed missiles.

In the case of BrahMos, the supersonic cruise missile, its newer version of `Ground to Ground', aimed at hitting land targets is slated to be test-fired in December, said Dr Prahlada, Project Director of the prestigious Indo-Russian joint initiative missile development programme.

Early this month, the anti-ship (naval) version of BrahMos, completed trials when it successfully achieved mid-air manoeuvre and hit a decommissioned ship, off the Orissa coast. It is now ready for induction, Dr Prahlada told Business Line.

The production facility for the missile is already in place and "we can deliver one missile every month. The Navy has expressed its Letter of Interest," he said.

The BrahMos missile has also attracted international interest at various defence expos in Singapore, Australia, Abu Dhabi and South Africa, where it was exhibited. However, a decision to export to any country has to be taken by the Indian Government, Dr Prahlada said.

Given the accuracy and demonstrated capability of the BrahMos supersonic missile, which has a range up to 290 km and high speed, the induction by the Indian Navy could considerably boost its strike power and defences.

[Blackcat]

The production facility for the missile is already in place and "we can deliver one missile every month. The Navy has expressed its Letter of Interest," he said.
i simply hate these kind of things..... only one missile per month??..... like the BS that HAL says.... 12-14 a/c for the nest decade...i wonder what the baffoons that rule the country thinks off..... do they inted to keep jobs for these guys for the HAL or they inted to delver the a/c as earliy as possible.

This 12-14 a/c and 140 a/c over a decade is simply too hard to digest and very stupid.

[Chacko]

IMHO Russian production facilities will be utilised. (http://www.gateway2russia.com/st/art_254379.php)

Open joint-stock company Military-Industrial Corporation NPO Mashinostroyeniya will work on the development and production of military systems with Oniks and Yakhont cruise missiles for the Russian navy, and also PJ-10's for the Indian Navy (within the framework of the Russian-Indian company BrahMos [Brahmaputra-Moscow]).

[JonS]

i simply hate these kind of things..... only one missile per month??..... like the BS that HAL says.... 12-14 a/c for the nest decade...i wonder what the baffoons that rule the country thinks off..... do they inted to keep jobs for these guys for the HAL or they inted to delver the a/c as earliy as possible.

This 12-14 a/c and 140 a/c over a decade is simply too hard to digest and very stupid.
orginal reports suggested that IN has requirements for 200+ missiles so yes the number seems bit off.

[Jai]

As stated in previous articles there was supposed to be a test of the surface to surface variant of BrahMos during this month.

India to test advanced version of BrahMos (http://in.rediff.com/news/2004/dec/01brahmos.htm)

December 01, 2004

India is planning to test an advanced version of supersonic cruise missile BrahMos at the Integrated Test Range (ITR) in Chandipur, Orissa.

Preparations are underway to test the missile, developed jointly by India and Russia, using a land platform, ITR sources said Wednesday.

[matt]

i am confused, whats trishul?

Advanced version? so they have the Land attack version ready? :O swweeeeettt!!!

[kakarat]

trishul is a sam

[Nitin_V]

i simply hate these kind of things..... only one missile per month??..... like the BS that HAL says.... 12-14 a/c for the nest decade...i wonder what the baffoons that rule the country thinks off..... do they inted to keep jobs for these guys for the HAL or they inted to delver the a/c as earliy as possible.

This 12-14 a/c and 140 a/c over a decade is simply too hard to digest and very stupid.

The buffoon, my friend, is you. With your needless assertions and silly categorizations. HAL can churn out a higher number of a/c. Who'll pay for them? You? The IAF pegged the number at 14 per year in proportion to how many they can afford both monetarily and logistically. Thats a Sq a year. With other a/c like the MRCA on the cards as well to be delivered and then the LCA. Think of the manpower requirements alone.

[Pak Thunder]

Correct me if I am wrong, but one missile delivery a month will not even cover training requirments for this missile.....

[Nitin_V]

The Article on the Brahmos in MilTech speaks of a higher production rate. If you wish I can find the excerpts and post them here.

[Nitin_V]

Here you go. The above article was apparently mistaken.

MilTech July 2004

BRAHMOS can be launched from many platforms: land-based wheeled transporter-erector-launcher (TEL) vehicles, warships, submarines and combat aircraft. The system was originally designed for vertical launch, but at least as regards existing vessels the Indian Navy will rather deploy it with conventional angled (15°) container/launchers while the vertical launch mode has been adopted for the land-mobile coastal defence version. The service does not appear to have an immediate interest in the submarine-launched version (the subsonic CLUB missile is rather being procured), while work is in progress to integrate BRAHMOS with the Su-SOMKI multi-role combat aircraft of the Indian Air Force.
The first land launch of BRAHMOS took place on 12 june 2001 at the DRDO's Interim Test Range (ITR) in Chandipur-on-Sea. The first live firing took place on 12 February 2003 from the Indian Navy's guidedmissile destroyer, INS RAJPUT, Final tests are underway and series production will begin in 2004, at a planned rate of 200 missiles peryear.
In addition to the Indian domestic requirements, BrahMos Ltd. is confident that they could capture about 20% of the international cruise missile replacement and update market, estimated at some 10,000 missiles over the next ten years. This could be a $4 billion business for the company, and initial export customers are anticipated from the Middle East and East Asia.

[Jai]

Russia plans to increase its share in the authorised capital of JV BrahMos (http://en.rian.ru/rian/index.cfm?prd_id=160&msg_id=5160118&startrow=1&date=2004-12-02&do_alert=0)

Mr. Ivanov said that Russia plans to increase its share in the authorised capital of the joint venture, BrahMos, set up to finance, co-ordinate design, produce and sell Brahmos anti-ship missile systems. "We will increase the authorised capital in BrahMos," the minister said. "I hope that a government resolution to this effect will be signed tomorrow."

BrahMos shareholders are the Mashinostroyeniye research and production machine building association (49.5%) and the Indian Defence Ministry's agency of defence research and design (50.5%).

Anatoly Mazurkevich, head of the Defence Ministry's Main Directorate of International Military Co-operation, said Moscow is pondering the possibility of joint research into new-generation missiles on the basis of the Brahmos.

"Project Brahmos is going on," he said. "But we have ideas about creating a better system on the basis of this missile." Mr. Mazurkevich stressed that new research can be launched only if the two countries sign an agreement on the protection of intellectual property.

[Jai]

Military talks to focus on lifetime support (http://www.financialexpress.com/fe_full_story.php?content_id=75736)

NEW DELHI, NOV 30: Ahead of Russian President Vladmir Putin’s visit to New Delhi, naval chief Admiral Arun Prakash has said the Indo-Russian military talks will focus on lifetime support from Russian weapon platforms, weapon system and sensors.

At a press conference on the eve of Naval Week the chief said, “Indian Navy had unfolded moves to install the 290 km range ship-to-shore Indo-Russian supersonic missile BrahMos in all its new battleships and then go in for retrofitting the older warships to be armed with weapon system.”

[Jai]

India, Russia to pump in fresh investment in BrahMos project (http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/holnus/001200412022069.htm)

New Delhi, Dec. 2 (PTI): Buoyed by hitch-free trials and growing international interest, India and Russia today agreed to pump in fresh investments in the joint BrahMos supersonic cruise missile project, paving the way for its commercial production.

The boost in investment was announced by the Defence Ministers of the two countries, Pranab Mukherjee and Sergei Ivanov, after they signed three defence protocols for framing of intellectual property rights on jointly developed weapon systems, upgrades of Russian frontline war equipment used by the Indian armed forces and technology transfer of armaments like T-90 tanks.

With the decision to step up investments in the BrahMos project, Ivanov said the Russian stake in the joint venture company would go up from 50 to 60 per cent. According to Russian officials, it is proposed to produce 360-370 missiles per year and also market it together in third countries.

[Jai]

10 countries waiting to grab BrahMos missile (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/945923.cms)

NEW DELHI: The Indo-Russian joint venture big-ticket supersonic cruise missile, BrahMos, is all set to make its impact in the international market, with nearly 10 countries eying to grab it for their armed forces. This development gains significance with Russian president Vladimir Putin's visit to the BrahMos Aerospace HQ in New Delhi on Saturday.

BrahMos MD & CEO Sivathanu Pillai told TNN that the international keenness proves the success of the first ever high-tech joint venture India has undertaken in the defence sector with Russia. "After eight successive successful flight trials with precise hits on ship targets, development of the anti-ship missile version of BrahMos is complete and is now under production. The Indian Navy has given the Letter Of Intent and advanced funds for production of the missiles for several platforms," Pillai said.

With Indian and Russian forces gearing up to induct BrahMos in 2005, the missile-makers are now being approached by several countries for acquiring the strike machine. BrahMos project was started with $250 million capital with India contributing 50.5 per cent.

[Jai]

Russian President Vladimir Putin is greeted by an Indian defense official during the inauguration of the Brahmos (Supersonic Cruise Missile) Joint Venture Complex in New Delhi, December 4, 2004. REUTERS/Kamal Kishore

[vksac]

Check this article....once this system comes online in india....we will stop caring for anything our neighbour says.

INDIA DEFENCE CONSULTANTS

WHAT'S HOT? –– ANALYSIS OF RECENT HAPPENINGS


AFTER PUTIN –– RUMSFELD TO VISIT

An IDC Analysis (with inputs from Sayan Majumdar)



New Delhi, 05 December 2004

Putin visited Delhi for two days from 03 Dec and signed a series of defence protocols including one providing for an agreement on the key issue of protecting Intellectual Property Rights, in the case of weapon systems produced jointly. The Russians are learning the facts of IPR and they know that the BrahMos and other technologies are exportable so since India and Russia have jointly developed the BrahMos supersonic cruise missile, they must jointly market it in the global Arms Bazaar, protecting the property rights of Russia. In any case India has always had to agree to many Russian demands in the past for its defence spares and line of supply for many future acquistions are tied to Russia. Even the BrahMos missile is 95% Russian and it was the brain child that evolved out of Russian investment from the amount India owes Russia in rupees, and a Task Force is looking into modalities of the balance two years payment. Putin knew he could lay conditions and has tried to keep the Indian defence market in the Russian fold and ward off USA and others. Now Rumsfeld is due in India and he too will try to peddle US hardware.

Meanwhile, in Moscow, Russia began delivery of the last batch of 10 multi-role Sukhoi Su-30MKI fighters for the Indian Air Force and a jumbo cargo plane AN-124 took off today for India with 2 undocked Sukhoi jets from the IRKUT Corporation's Irkutsk plant in Siberia. Four more sorties are to be made by the jumbo cargo to deliver the remaining 8 planes by the end of this month, according to corporate sources. Then 46 SU 30 MKI will stand delivered. Under the $1.2 billion deal, Russia's IRKUT Corporation has already delivered 30 Sukhoi fighters of various modifications and the first indigenously assembled Su-30MKI jet has rolled out of the Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL) under a $3.2 billion technology transfer deal for 140. Some other deals in camera may also have been discussed, such as the Akula, TU 22M3 and missile defence. The tussle for India's Ballistics Missile Defence (BMD) seems to have begun, as India has already received two Green Pine radars from Israel and these long range warners can be married to the Israeli Arrow or the Russian PMU 300 series. India will have to decide as the MOD report says the GoI will provide BMD for India.

According to media reports U.S. Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld will shortly visit New Delhi with a “package” of Patriot SAM/ATBM and P-3C MR/ASW platforms. Perhaps it will be the proper time to voice our concerns regarding nuclear and ballistic missile proliferation in our neighbourhood and West Asia –– and ask for a proper “antidote” and technological assistance. The visit of Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld should be utilised by the Indian leaders and officials to obtain clearance for the US/Israeli developed Arrow-2 Anti-Tactical Ballistic Missile (ATBM) for the Indian armed forces along with technical cooperation regarding US/Israeli MOAB Boost-Phase Intercept (BPI) Unmanned Aerial Combat Vehicle (UACV) project –– Indo–U.S. cooperation is growing in the sphere of Ballistic Missile Defence (BMD) research and development with appropriate visits being exchanged.

The MLM Division of Israel Aircraft Industries (IAI) developed the sophisticated Arrow series of Anti-Tactical Ballistic Missiles (ATBM) for protection of the Israeli homeland from missile attacks from adversaries with Nuclear, Biological or Chemical (NBC) warheads –– the centre piece of Israel’s layered system of strategic missile defence called "Homa" is the Arrow-2 ATBM. The first trial battery became operational in the year 2000. It is to be deployed in three batteries including one battery near Tel Aviv and one to the south of Haifa. Presently one of the better bets for terminal defence against theatre ballistic missiles, the hypersonic US/Israeli Arrow-2 is undergoing extensive testing and evaluation. It is at the same time operational under Israeli Defence Force. Two of the systems are deployed in Israel with a third is shortly to join. They are deployed in such a manner that the coverage of the systems overlaps over vital military, commercial installations and concentrated civilian population.

The system is standalone yet integrated with national command & control, and has the capability to provide early warning for itself and of dealing with multiple threats. In case of Israeli landmass the Arrow-2 ATBM system itself serves as the National Missile Defence (NMD). Also at the horizon is the Arrow System Improvement Programme (ASIP) being carried out jointly by Israel and US Ballistic Missile Defence Organisation (BMDO). In Israel Arrow-2 functions as the upper-tier of a two-tier combined air defence/ATBM network. The lower tier comprises of US and Israeli Patriot PAC-2/PAC-3 and US Navy ship-borne AEGIS systems.

The US Strategic Defence Initiative (SDI) placed a contract on the Electronics Division of Israel Aircraft Industries to build and test the Chetz-1 (Hebrew name for Arrow-1) ATBM system. The weight of the Arrow-1 was 2,000-kg. The new refined and leaner missile system, the Arrow-2, weighs 1,300-kg, was first tested in 1995. Arrow-2 is meant to intercept tactical ballistic missiles just as they start re-entering atmosphere after reaching the highest point in their flight trajectory. Arrow-2 successfully acquired, tracked and destroyed TM-91 Arrow missile targets from ranges of 60-km and 100-km. In February 2003, IAI signed an agreement with Boeing to establish the production infrastructure to manufacture components of the Arrow missile in the United States. Boeing is responsible for the production of approximately 50-percent of the missile components in the United States. Boeing will produce various missile components and co-ordinate the production of existing Arrow missile components already being manufactured by more than 150 American companies. IAI will be responsible for integration and final assembly of the missile in Israel.

An Arrow battery is equipped with typically four or eight launch trailers, each with six launch tubes and ready-to-fire missiles, a truck mounted Hazelnut Tree Launch Control Centre (LCC), a truck mounted communications centre, a trailer mounted Citron Tree Fire Control Centre (FCC) and the units of a mobile Green Pine EW radar system. There are microwave and radio data and voice communications “Link-16” between the launch centre and the radar command and control centre. The launch system can be located up to 300-km from the site selected for the radar command & control centre.

The two-stage Arrow-2 ATBM Missile is equipped with solid propellant booster and sustainer rocket motors. The missile uses an initial burn to carry out a vertical hot launch from the container and a secondary burn to sustain the missile's trajectory towards the target at a maximum speed of Mach 9, or 2.5-km per second. Thrust Vector Control (TVC) is used in the boost and sustainer phases of flight. At the ignition of the second stage sustainer motor, the first stage assembly separates. The "kill vehicle" section of the missile, containing the warhead, fusing and the terminal seeker, is equipped with four aerodynamically controlled moving fins to give low altitude interception capability. The infrared seeker is an indium antimonite focal plane array developed by Raytheon.
Arrow-2 is launched vertically, giving 360-degree coverage to each battery. The missiles can be launched separately or in salvos with the Green Pine L-band, phased array, dual-mode detection and fire control radar determining the intercept point and uplinking very accurate data to the Arrow-2. After Arrow-2 is brought to the best engagement point on the theatre ballistic missile, its Electro-Optical (EO) sensor acquires the target to allow very near pass and then activate the fragmentation warhead.

The ELTA Electronics subsidiary of IAI that supplies Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV) with radars and equipment pods to India developed the Green Pine Early Warning and Fire Control (FC) radar for the Arrow system. The radar EL/M-2090 includes the trailer mounted antenna array, the power generator, a cooling system and a control centre. Green Pine is an electronically scanned, solid state, phased array radar operating at L-band in the range 500-MHz to 1,000-MHz, and was developed from the ELTA Music phased array radar. India placed an order for the supply of two Green Pine for use with India's air defence system against ballistic missiles and the first parts were delivered in 2001.

The Green Pine L-band, phased array, dual-mode detection and fire control radar weighs 60-t and comprises of 2,000 transmit-receive modules. Green Pine is said to be capable of tracking ballistic missiles from a range of up to 500-km while intercept of the attacking missile may occur 140-km away at an altitude of 60-km. The long range of Green Pine radar system ensures that a second shot can be taken at the incoming ballistic missile if the first shot fails to secure the "kill". The ballistic missiles are again intercepted at a much higher altitude to prevent them from disintegrating as they approach lower altitude, thus "faking" multiple targets on radar screens. Intercept can thus be endo-atmospheric or exo-atmospheric. Israel also receives data from the US Defence Space Program (DSP) EW satellites and Boeing RC-135 Cobra Ball intelligence aircraft.

Tadiran Electronics Limited is the prime contractor for the Citron Tree Battle Management/Fire Control Centre (BM/FCC) capable of conducting multiple, simultaneous interceptions and includes ten battle stations. Launches are controlled by Hazelnut Tree launcher control centre. Citron Tree, which is trailer mounted, downloads the radar data along with data from other sources and uses powerful signal processing tools to manage the threat interceptions. The system has man-in-the-loop intervention capability at every stage. The BM/FCC has computer workstations for the Sky Situation Coordinator, Intelligence Officer, Post Mission Analysis, Resource Officer and Senior Engagement Officer as well as the Commander's station. Citron Tree FCC has three banks of operator consoles laid out in a “U” shape. The Centre Commander takes his position at the centre not only to oversee the engagement but also has links to the other parts of the battery, as well as to the Air Force Headquarters. Extensive communication systems ensure National Policy to govern the ATBM engagements as information available includes incoming TBM tracks, predicted impact points and engagement profiles.

The Engagement Officer sits at the right of the Centre Commander assigning targets to four other engagement officers sitting on the right-hand leg of the “U”. Each is assigned a geographical area to defend and two of the officers have an overview of the lower-tier Patriot SAM/ATBM batteries. In Indian context it is the sharing of technical details of Patriot PAC-3 (Patriot Advanced Capability-3) that will benefit the successive development of our projected Akash SAM/ATBM that should comprise the Indian lower-tier ATBM network.The Resource Officer sits at the left of the Centre Commander and monitors the status and readiness of the missiles. On the left of the “U” sit’s the Sky Picture Officer who is in contact with the home-front command and predicts the impact point to alert the civil authorities. An Intelligence Officer and an after-action/Debrief Officer manages the recordings.

The workstations display a large electronic map showing the area of battle. Predicted and confirmed launch sites are colour coded to show priority sites. “Link-16”, “Tadil-J”, communications is being developed to allow inter-operability with Patriot PAC-2 FC units like used in the Gulf War over Iraq. Assigned targets can be handed over to the Patriot's N/MPQ fire control radar. Tests carried out by the United States and Israel have successfully linked the Arrow and US Patriot PAC-2/3 and also the Arrow and Israeli Defence Force (IDF) Patriot version.There is one disadvantage of Arrow and this is its “narrow specialization” because in contrast to its counterparts this system is practically unable to fight aircraft. The low limit of target engagement zone of Arrow is 8-km. Therefore it will be necessary to deploy the additional anti-aircraft means for protecting the Arrow positions against attack by enemy aircraft. Patriot PAC-2/3 usually fulfills anti-aircraft cover. Patriot batteries are supported by additional Beyond-The-Horizon (BTH) radar, and satellite and Boeing E-8 Joint-Surveillance Target Attack Radar System (J-STARS) reconnoitering system.

Israel in addition has also focused on boost-phase interception of ballistic missiles that ensures a decent percentage of success. The Israelis are reportedly working on high-altitude HA-10 Unmanned Aerial Combat Vehicles (UACV) in assistance with US Ballistic Missile Defence Organisation (BMDO) that will fire missile interceptors toward the attacking ballistic missiles during boost phase. They are directed by a command-and-control system developed by Tadiran Electronics Ltd. and the aircraft, in turn, feed a search and track system that can scan the area to determine whether the enemy is firing a real missile or a decoy. Their passive electro-optic sensors will have the capability to detect and track ballistic missiles during their boost phase. If the missile is fired towards Israel, the system decides which UACV will fire its interceptor. Data fusion techniques will be used to detect the most threatening target.

The UACV then fires missiles being developed by the Israel Armament Development Authority (Rafale), in a project called MOAB (Missile Optimised Anti-Ballistic Missile System), toward the enemy rocket at the boost phase. The attacking missile destroyed at that stage falls on the aggressor's territory along with its Nuclear, Biological, Chemical (NBC) payload. In this context the deterrent value of a Boost-Phase Intercept System is well apparent. The UACV is armed with extensive sensors for autonomous navigation and targeting and is able to successfully complete its mission and return to base even if the link from the controllers is cut off.

Recently, the Israelis have shifted their attention to target the enemy’s mobile missile launchers following the tactic of Before Launch Phase Intercept (BLPI). There will be far fewer launchers than missiles. Emphasis will be on developing a very high-speed, precise air-launched missile. To carry this new missile, Israel wants to refine the BPI concept. While MOAB/IBIS system is a combination of UACVs with two air-to-air missiles for the BPI role, now Israeli planners envision a UAV that carries perhaps as many as 10 air-to-surface missiles internally for a reduced radar signature. Such a design may also require retractable landing gear, stealth qualities and shaping and jet engines rather than propellers. A second long-range UAV, designed to loiter over enemy territory for up to 60-hours, would carry fused and multispectral sensors designed to pull additional and more precise identification and location information from the targets.

The transfer of critical technologies of both Arrow-2 ATBM and MOAB BPI UACV needs obligatory U.S. approval, even if the Israelis wish to cooperate. The proliferation of nuclear fissile material and BMD technologies around our sub-continent and potentially volatile West Asia dictates that such BMD systems are critical to the Indian security. Both the Indian diplomatic skills and the American cooperative attitude can be put to acid test during the projected visit of Donald Rumsfeld.

[Blackcat]

The buffoon, my friend, is you. With your needless assertions and silly categorizations. HAL can churn out a higher number of a/c. Who'll pay for them? You? The IAF pegged the number at 14 per year in proportion to how many they can afford both monetarily and logistically. Thats a Sq a year. With other a/c like the MRCA on the cards as well to be delivered and then the LCA. Think of the manpower requirements alone.
well frankly I don mind that Baffoon stuff ....... But I fail to get ur view of the 'rationality' of churning out 14 a/c over the next 10 years when the opponent camp wud have multiples of our a/c numbers (and frankly I don wanna hear the regularly repeated BS abt Quality over Quantity) ...... and I say that 14 per year is not at all a matured outlook , if no funds is there, make available it, as for the question for if am gonna pay??..... yes as an Indian tax payer, definetely I am paying and I want results.

now plzzzzz don bring in the 'non-availablity' of funds, coz ..... my view always has been and will be abt the ...... National waste 'Forex reserve' the only benefitary of which is the Unkil as we are cushioning off their intrests rates by dumping in half of the $130billion (or say lending America $60+Billion) for 2-3 percent, when our own treasury wud have fetched us 6-7 percent. The result, the Americans get a loan for much cheaper rates where by they get it and dump it in India with big FANFARE as FDI, where as the poor Indians fail to understand that its at their daily 'costs' that the Govts keep the Rupee devalued for the Videshi babus to 'RESCUE' the third world nation.

so either use it for national purpose (where by a an increased Defence budget won't hurt other areas) OR take the chains off the Rupee so that it can gain its value to post 'Liberalisation' levels or atleast bring it up to 30 Rupees to a dollar.

On another Note, Always remember that an Indian pays Rs 40 per Litre of Petrol where as an American pays 2-3 dollars for a Gallon of GAS. And what the Govt tells is that 'its still below international value', as 2 dollars means nearly 90 Rupees. But what the INDIAN'S fail to understand is that, the American's value for a Gallon of petrol is as much as what an Indian's value is for a 3-5 Rupee item.

well got not much time to go into detail typing, so am not plunging it to it now. But 14 a/c per year and 1 missile per month is a JOKE, atleast the second one. I wud digest the 1 missile per month if they were talking abt an ICBM.

ARE WE SOOOOO UNPRODUCTIVE AND UNCOMPETATIVE????

[Jai]

IAF variant of BrahMos likely in three years (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/956813.cms)

The first missile will be fitted on an Indian Navy ship next year, at a time when air trials will also begin, to meet the needs of the IAF.

"We will need to reconfigure or reduce the booster for an aircraft. There are some design changes which need to be developed. The missile will fly on the SU-30 and though the project is expected to take four to five years, we are confident we can do it in three years," Pillai said.

He added that the missile will be produced by 20 Indian and 10 Russian consortium companies, which have been identified. "We wanted to ensure that the joint development works, so the two countries identified a consortium of manufacturers who will produce the missile," he said.

Under this approach, 20 Indian companies, seven in the public and 13 in the private sector, and 10 Russian companies have been identified.

These companies have made their own investments for the production, which is expected to be sizeable in numbers. The 290-km range, liquid fuel charged, 3-tonne missile will carry a warhead of 200-kg conventional high explosive.

The pre-emptive cruise missile is a weapon of first strike, being a tactical weapon. The naval version is ready for production having undergone eight tests. The army and the air force variants will both require modifications.

[Ramachandran]

IAF variant of BrahMos likely in three years (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/956813.cms)

The first missile will be fitted on an Indian Navy ship next year, at a time when air trials will also begin, to meet the needs of the IAF.

"We will need to reconfigure or reduce the booster for an aircraft. There are some design changes which need to be developed. The missile will fly on the SU-30 and though the project is expected to take four to five years, we are confident we can do it in three years," Pillai said.

He added that the missile will be produced by 20 Indian and 10 Russian consortium companies, which have been identified. "We wanted to ensure that the joint development works, so the two countries identified a consortium of manufacturers who will produce the missile," he said.

Under this approach, 20 Indian companies, seven in the public and 13 in the private sector, and 10 Russian companies have been identified.

These companies have made their own investments for the production, which is expected to be sizeable in numbers. The 290-km range, liquid fuel charged, 3-tonne missile will carry a warhead of 200-kg conventional high explosive.

The pre-emptive cruise missile is a weapon of first strike, being a tactical weapon. The naval version is ready for production having undergone eight tests. The army and the air force variants will both require modifications.

The SU-30MKI would be carrying three of the BrahMos, not just antiship capabilities but in conjunction with the GLONASS it could be used to decimate the enemy's strategic capabilities. A real crippler eh.....would enhance the IAF's attack capabilities. Good for the IAF.

[yerna1]

well frankly I don mind that Baffoon stuff ....... But I fail to get ur view of the 'rationality' of churning out 14 a/c over the next 10 years when the opponent camp wud have multiples of our a/c numbers (and frankly I don wanna hear the regularly repeated BS abt Quality over Quantity) ...... and I say that 14 per year is not at all a matured outlook , if no funds is there, make available it, as for the question for if am gonna pay??..... yes as an Indian tax payer, definetely I am paying and I want results.

Its not what you want that matters, its what the IAF wants.
Inducting new planes is not like buying a new car. Its not how many planes you can produce, but how many planes can IAF absorb into its force structure. You need to setup the support structures, upgrade air bases to handle the new planes, train new pilots (14 planes a year = 28 extra pilots a year) and most importantly you need to allocate money from your budget. Besides, there is something called economics which dictates the peak production rate. Now HAL is gonna set up seperate line to produce 140 planes and if produces all planes in just 5 years, they wont break even. This is also one of the factors influencing the rate of production. Before signing a deal a cost analysis is made based on the force requirements.
Other than MKI's HAL will be producing Jaguars, LCA's and MRCA's. All these need funds to be allocated and pilot training which puts IAF under tremendous pressure. By 2010, if everything goes right, IAF will be inducting more than 30 new planes a year and that includes LCA, MKI, MRCA, Hawk and IJT's.

ps: innit Brahmos thread? Mods pls move this to IAF thread if deemed unfit here.

[George J]

............ You need to setup the support structures, upgrade air bases to handle the new planes, train new pilots (14 planes a year = 28 extra pilots a year) and most importantly you need to allocate money from your budget................

Actually its more than 28 pilots per sqd. Also even if you had the # of pilots where are you gonna get trained air crew to handle these birds. You think those fighter jocks will get down on their knees and changed the oil on their birds??? No way. These birds need highly trained and qualified ground crew too.

Hence 14 a/c is about right.

[Jai]

The December test has been conducted.

BRAHMOS TEST FIRED (http://pib.nic.in/release/release.asp?relid=5906)

The supersonic cruise missile Brahmos was flight tested for the first time in land-to--land role today. This historic flight test was conducted in the Western Test Range (Rajasthan) at 1230 hrs . The test flight was witnessed by the Scientific Advisor to Defence Minister Shri M Natarajan, GOC-in-C, Western Command and Army Chief Designate, Lt Gen JJ Singh and other senior officers from the Army and Navy.

From among a group of identified targets (built up), the mission team chose a target and the missile came dead on target destroying the built up target. The senior officers flew over the destroyed target immediately thereafter signaling a total success of Brahmos in its capability of taking on land targets from land platform.

The Chief Controller Research & Development and CEO Brahmos Dr A Sivathanu Pillai complimented all those work centres who have contributed to the success of this mission.

[Jai]

India test fires supersonic missile (http://www.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=39881)

"The senior officers flew over the destroyed target immediately thereafter, signaling a total success of Brahmos in its capability of taking on land targets from land platform," he ( Defence Ministry spokesman ) said.

The Indian navy is already in the process of inducting the missiles in its more modern warships. The test firing of the missile comes even as a Pune-based firm has already developed a mobile land-launcher for the missile.

[Luftwaffe*Ace]

Does China have a counter to the Brahmos? I think I read about something called the HN-1 or HN-2, are they just as good as the Brahmos?

[Srbin]

The Brahmos SS version, this can be used as a tactical land attack version besides coastal defence too, right? It will have a range of 300km and up to 3 missiles will be on a launcher. This is not bad, and it could be used in the same sense as smaller tactical short range ballistic missiles like the ltest Tochkas and the Iskander-E.

[Jai]

The Brahmos SS version, this can be used as a tactical land attack version besides coastal defence too, right?


The answer to that question depends on whether there is difference between the seekers of the versions which have been mentioned by you. This article regarding the latest test suggests the existence of pattern recognition algorithms in the army version of the missile.

BrahMos-II bang on target (http://www.hindu.com/2004/12/22/stories/2004122202981200.htm)

CHENNAI, DEC. 21. BrahMos II, the land-to-land version of the supersonic cruise missile jointly developed by India and Russia, was test-fired for the first time in the Army configuration this afternoon in a desert range in Rajasthan. The missile took off at 12.40 p.m. from an independent mobile launcher with a mobile command post and control units, which provided information on the target.

The highlight of the successful flight was that out of a cluster of tall concrete structures in the desert, the missile "discriminated" a pre-determined building and pulverised it. Its control and guidance systems were thus proved.

Informed sources said the range of the BrahMos II was not important because the 290 km reach had been proved in the previous flights. What was important was that "there were a number of buildings in the new scenario" and the missile had to hit a particular one. BrahMos II was spot on, its sophisticated guidance system taking it straight to the target.

[Srbin]

Thats cool. The Iskander is TBM, much faster and of course carries a much bigger warhead, but the Brahmos LtL launcher not only carries one more missile, but those can be reloaded much faster than a BM.

How many missiles is the Indian SS coastal launcher sopposed to have?

[matt]

the Anti ship varient would also need a pattern recognition system.. its just a case of how they are programed and what they are programmed with.

[Jai]

matt,
I should have been clearer the first time. What I meant was that in the case of an AShM, the seeker will be required to discriminate between returns from a metallic target and water whereas in the case of an LACM, the radar seeker would be required to discriminate between the returns from a specific building and returns from other buildings lying in the vicinity of the target. The latter is a more difficult task and would required more complicated recognition algorithms as compared to the former case.

Srbin, should'nt be different than three.

[Jai]

Image Credits : DRDO

other than a few small pix in brahmos.com and Harry's pix from defexpo, none exist.


http://img89.exs.cx/img89/7126/d02013le.jpg

[Jai]

http://img99.exs.cx/img99/2108/d02027pg.jpg

[Jai]

http://img99.exs.cx/img99/4384/d02037zf.jpg

[Jai]

http://img99.exs.cx/img99/2465/d02052yk.jpg

[Jai]

Last one in the series.

http://img99.exs.cx/img99/8734/d02061hc.jpg


P.S. : Apologies to those with slow internet connection. :D

[Pixa]

awesome pics jai :eek:. but do you have any pics that are larger than these??
i dont know about other people but i can only get a resolution of 1280 x 1024 on my desktop :(

[Jai]

The average resolution of these photos is 2486x1760 pixels.

[matt]

damn no vids of things being blown up..

[George J]

There is a video of the Brahmos....its from the AI03 and its on the AI03 VCD. I think Shiv from BR has an AVI of just the Brahmos video. Its a promo video with lots of video graphics....but its the graphics of the traget that gets really interesting.

[Srbin]

has te Indian Army shown any interest in the tactical land to land Brahmos?

[Jai]

Srbin, take this FWIW.

DefenseNews.com
India Tests Land-Based BrahMos Cruise Missile
By VIVEK RAGHUVANSHI, NEW DELHI
21/12/04


The Indian Army wants to buy at least 200 land BrahMos missiles within five years, and India intends to offer the missile for export sales.

[Vijay.N.V]

damn no vids of things being blown up..A video of Brahmos being test fired is attached.

[matt]

A video of Brahmos being test fired is attached.

Dunke

[google]

Thread is too long. Closing now- please start another one, thanks.