BrahMos to go Hypersonic

tphuang · Feb 3, 2007

Vlad Plasmius said:
Russia's always been better than us when it comes to hardware, especially engines. The Indians make up for Russia's less-than-stellar abilities with software.

No, the Russian engine technology is no where near the American engine technology.

BrahMos goes up to Mach 2.8, faster than any other cruise missile. You double the speed and you have Mach 5.6, bingo hypersonic. While, obviously it's not that simple, Russia and India's combined resources are a significant challenge to our capabilities. Russia has some of the most advanced missiles in the world, with regards to speed.

wrong again, Klub goes up to Mach 2.9 at terminal stage. Some of the old Russian Anti-ship missiles can go over Mach 3.5. The Americans have had hypersonic missiles for a while. Speed is far from the only thing indicating advanced missile. We've already had threads discussing this.

With India's growing economy and IT sector and Russia's increasing gas, oil, and nuclear revenues, they have a substantial money pool. This isn't even mentioning Russia's growing role in the arms market with sales to Venezuela, China, Iran, India, and Syria.

I understand it is a leap, but Russia and India are currently far better situated to achieve that leap than we are.

no, Americans are farther ahead by a long shot.

If you want to know what a hypersonic missile should be like, check X-51.

Scratch · Feb 3, 2007

Now that I've read briefly into it, the US is well advanced in that regard.
However I wouldn't take the X-51 as a comparison for a hypersonic CM. As I understand it, it will be an experimantel "plane" to test a scramjet engine for hypersonic applications. And there are other similar programs like the X-43 (NASA project) or the RATTLRS project.
But to my knowledge there is no supersonic CM operational in the US military's arsenal. So, the technology for future hypersonic missiles may be there (soon), but no experiance with such/similar systems.

Vlad Plasmius · Feb 3, 2007

No, the Russian engine technology is no where near the American engine technology.

In terms of thrust, yes, Russian tech is better. Which, with regards to speed and developing hypersonic cruise missiles, is very important. The Russians currently have the only deployed supersonic cruise missile. No one else has one unless they bought it from Russia, except now with BrahMos, which, of course, was made with Russian help.

wrong again, Klub goes up to Mach 2.9 at terminal stage. Some of the old Russian Anti-ship missiles can go over Mach 3.5.

Hmm, I'd always heard Mach 2.5 as the speed for Klub, does it still cruise at a low altitude going Mach 2.9?

The Americans have had hypersonic missiles for a while.

Yeah, they're called ICBMs. Russia has 'em too remember. Also, it really doesn't matter if we have experimental hypersonic cruise missiles, what matters is if we deploy them, which we haven't even deployed a supersonic cruise missile.

Speed is far from the only thing indicating advanced missiles. We've already had threads discussing this.

True, but speed can be all that you need.

no, Americans are farther ahead by a long shot.

If you want to know what a hypersonic missile should be like, check X-51.

Assuming it gets deployed at all or gets deployed before the Russians deploy theirs. Which, considering what happened with BrahMos, Russia could have a hypersonic cruise missile deployed before a BrahMos hypersonic missile is deployed.

In the U.S. such a project could easily get caught up in politics.

tphuang · Feb 3, 2007

Vlad Plasmius said:
In terms of thrust, yes, Russian tech is better. Which, with regards to speed and developing hypersonic cruise missiles, is very important. The Russians currently have the only deployed supersonic cruise missile. No one else has one unless they bought it from Russia, except now with BrahMos, which, of course, was made with Russian help.

The Russians are better in terms of nothing. The Russian engines are less powerful, less reliable and less durable than American engines.

Hmm, I'd always heard Mach 2.5 as the speed for Klub, does it still cruise at a low altitude going Mach 2.9?

no, it goes mach 2.9 in terminal phase, but obviously, brahmos or yakhont only goes supersonic because they travel hi profile the entire way.

Yeah, they're called ICBMs. Russia has 'em too remember. Also, it really doesn't matter if we have experimental hypersonic cruise missiles, what matters is if we deploy them, which we haven't even deployed a supersonic cruise missile.

no ICBMs, cruise missiles. They are not deployed, because they don't see the point of deploying one. Supersonic missiles are overrated.

True, but speed can be all that you need.

okay, especially for anti-ship missile, speed isn't all you need, for obvious reasons. For lacm, speed helps, but that's because you are going against fixed targets.

Assuming it gets deployed at all or gets deployed before the Russians deploy theirs. Which, considering what happened with BrahMos, Russia could have a hypersonic cruise missile deployed before a BrahMos hypersonic missile is deployed.

In the U.S. such a project could easily get caught up in politics.

If Americans want to develop this, it will be developed.

Vlad Plasmius · Feb 3, 2007

The Russians are better in terms of nothing. The Russian engines are less powerful, less reliable and less durable than American engines.

Which is why Russian engines have been used by our rockets right? The exact opposite happens to be true. When it comes down to raw power and hardware Russians have always been better. We've beaten them in software. Unless you can show me a specific instance where that is not the case, I'm not changing that statement.

no, it goes mach 2.9 in terminal phase, but obviously, brahmos or yakhont only goes supersonic because they travel hi profile the entire way.

Don't all cruise missiles fly a high profile before the terminal phase?

no ICBMs, cruise missiles. They are not deployed, because they don't see the point of deploying one. Supersonic missiles are overrated.

BS, when did we ever have hypersonic cruise missiles? Never. We had hypersonic planes for sure, but never cruise missiles. I found one instance back in the late 50s when we developed a supersonic cruise missile, but it only went Mach 2, it certainly didn't go Mach 2.8. I don't think it was a low-flying missile either.

I'm talking recent. We haven't developed anything like BrahMos in recent years, the French developed something similar I think, but that's it.

okay, especially for anti-ship missile, speed isn't all you need, for obvious reasons. For lacm, speed helps, but that's because you are going against fixed targets.

If we're talking hypersonic, it is all you need, unless the BrahMos 2 gets a much longer range. However, the crucial point is that India hasa very well developed IT sector, so if you're talking about the problems of navigation and accuracy, that is something the Indians would work out.

If Americans want to develop this, it will be developed.

They've already developed it and I doubt anyone cares that they are developing it. The issue here is deployment, actually using it.

tphuang · Feb 3, 2007

Vlad Plasmius said:
Which is why Russian engines have been used by our rockets right? The exact opposite happens to be true. When it comes down to raw power and hardware Russians have always been better. We've beaten them in software. Unless you can show me a specific instance where that is not the case, I'm not changing that statement.

Ever heard of F-135/136, F-119? Check the thrust level of AL-31 in comparison. Do the same for F-414 vs RD-33/93. The rocket engines aren't the same used for cruise missiles or jets and such. In fields like ramjet, turboshaft, turbojet, scramjet and turbofan, the Americans are far ahead of the Russians.

Don't all cruise missiles fly a high profile before the terminal phase?

nope, for example Tomahawk missile, that flies low altitude to evade radar detection.

BS, when did we ever have hypersonic cruise missiles? Never. We had hypersonic planes for sure, but never cruise missiles. I found one instance back in the late 50s when we developed a supersonic cruise missile, but it only went Mach 2, it certainly didn't go Mach 2.8. I don't think it was a low-flying missile either.

I'm talking recent. We haven't developed anything like BrahMos in recent years, the French developed something similar I think, but that's it.

Americans have been developing these missiles for years, so they can test against their air defense system. Whether they deploy in combat is their own choice.

If we're talking hypersonic, it is all you need, unless the BrahMos 2 gets a much longer range. However, the crucial point is that India hasa very well developed IT sector, so if you're talking about the problems of navigation and accuracy, that is something the Indians would work out.

remember that aegis system was developed to defend the backfire threat, which was firing missiles like AS-4 that could fly at mach4+. if intercepting a mach 17 ICBM is not a problem, then intercepting mach 5 isn't a problem either. At the same time, mach 5 is really going to give the missile much less time to pick up the target, lock onto it. As for Indian working it out with the software. A while back, the Russians were refusing to release the software for Brahmos to the Indians as part of the effort to get them to sign the IP document.

They've already developed it and I doubt anyone cares that they are developing it. The issue here is deployment, actually using it.

It's still in testing. There is no indication that America would not field something like this.

alwaysfresh · Feb 4, 2007

SteelBird said:
According to what I know Indian's economy is far smaller than China's and it is the number 2 high population after China with so many extremely poor people. How do it have that much $$$ to support its military ambition without caring its people's poor life? China is putting economy as number 1 priority while in India things are completely different. But then, there is only China Threat, but no India Threat! May be to develop economy is more fearful than to purely develop military.

Yes so simple and so realistic. I have to say it feels good to read something like this...

May be to develop economy is more fearful than to purely develop military.

Because now everything in the world makes sense. All national interest actions and foreign interference.

An example (Totally off topic and I think I will be in problem for saying this but): That is a good reason for Israel booming all of lebanon's infrastucture. Lebanon was developing to compete with Israel economically.

Vlad Plasmius · Feb 4, 2007

Ever heard of F-135/136, F-119? Check the thrust level of AL-31 in comparison. Do the same for F-414 vs RD-33/93. The rocket engines aren't the same used for cruise missiles or jets and such. In fields like ramjet, turboshaft, turbojet, scramjet and turbofan, the Americans are far ahead of the Russians.

F135/136 and F119 are next-gen engines. It's not an apt comparison to AL-31, a current gen engine. F414 and RD-33 is also not an apt comparison. RD-33 was released in 1985, the F414 was released in 1998.

I don't think you've actually proven your point.

nope, for example Tomahawk missile, that flies low altitude to evade radar detection.

Ok I get what you were saying. However, BrahMos can fly a low profile the entire time.

Americans have been developing these missiles for years, so they can test against their air defense system. Whether they deploy in combat is their own choice.

I'd love to see some evidence, because I can't find anything.

remember that aegis system was developed to defend the backfire threat, which was firing missiles like AS-4 that could fly at mach4+.

THere's a difference between that and a cruise missile. A missiles going Mach 7 10 meters above the sea, would not be intercepted.

if intercepting a mach 17 ICBM is not a problem, then intercepting mach 5 isn't a problem either

.

Now you're talking about SM-3s for ballistic missile defense and we don't have many of those.

At the same time, mach 5 is really going to give the missile much less time to pick up the target, lock onto it. As for Indian working it out with the software. A while back, the Russians were refusing to release the software for Brahmos to the Indians as part of the effort to get them to sign the IP document.

The Indians developed the software, this is another thing you're going to have to give evidence.

tphuang · Feb 4, 2007

Vlad Plasmius said:
F135/136 and F119 are next-gen engines. It's not an apt comparison to AL-31, a current gen engine. F414 and RD-33 is also not an apt comparison. RD-33 was released in 1985, the F414 was released in 1998.

I don't think you've actually proven your point.

You just enhanced my point. If they are one generation ahead, then that shows you how far America is ahead of the Russians. The Russians are barely onto the upgrades for AL-31 and RD-33 now. They've done absolutely nothing with engine advancement in the last 20 years. Even the latest model of AL-31FM1 and RD-33K only slightly increased the thrust level and can't possibly be compared to what the Americans happen.

Ok I get what you were saying. However, BrahMos can fly a low profile the entire time.

in that case, it's range goes from 290km to 120 km.

I'd love to see some evidence, because I can't find anything.

you should read some of what gf0021-aust posts on DT. He talked about some of the stuff the Americans have tested on.

THere's a difference between that and a cruise missile. A missiles going Mach 7 10 meters above the sea, would not be intercepted.

Intercepting to any anti-ship missile while they are cruise or not makes no difference.
Brahmos is in that attack mode height for a very short period. Due to its speed, it has very limited time to search out for the target. If it flies 10 m above the sea while trying to search out of the target, it just won't find it. As for this mach 7 10 m above the sea stuff, unless you want to have a range of 50 km, it's not going to happen. The amount of fuel required is astronomical. That's the reason why all the high speed Russian missiles travelled in high altitude.

Now you're talking about SM-3s for ballistic missile defense and we don't have many of those.

you still have SM-2, ESSM and RAM intercepting cruise missiles.

The Indians developed the software, this is another thing you're going to have to give evidence.

check this, the fire control system is clearly developed by the Russians.

This is from BATTLESPACE. UPDATE Vol.7 ISSUE 40

RUSSIA THREATENS TO RETAIN BrahMos SOURCE CODE
By Bulbul Singh

10 Oct 05. Russia has threatened that it will not give away the source code which will enable the supersonic Cruise missile BrahMos to be mounted on foreign made platforms, including the recently contracted French Scorpene or the Multirole Medium Range Combat Aircraft (MMRCA)which India is buying from the global market.

Sources in the Indian defense ministry say, Moscow has made it known to the Indian defense planners that there is no guarantee that it will allow India to mount the BrahMos cruise missile on third country platforms until the Intellectual Property Rights (IPR)dispute is settled.

Sources in the Indian defense ministry however say it is part of Moscow's pressure in the run up to the MMRCA procurement program of the Indian government.

India is on a global hunt for a contract worth $5bn for the procurement of 126 MMRCA for the Indian Air Force into which Russia has also fielded its MiG 29 SMT aircraft. The other contenders are Dassault of France with the Mirage 2000-5; Saab of Sweden with the Gripen; Lockheed Martin of United States with the F-16 and Boeing of United States with the F-18.

An executive of the Rosoboronoexport of Russia based in New Delhi however said, Russia is perturbed over the delay in the settlement of the IPR issue adding that it is not possible for Russia to contribute hi-tech technologies to India without much return.

The BrahMos anti-ship supersonic cruise missile is a joint development effort of India and Russia in which India's defense research agency, Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO)is contracted with NPOM of the Russian Federation.

The BrahMos, which is being introduced into the Indian Navy, is a 300 kilometers range supersonic anti ship cruise missile and the land and sea versions of the Cruise missiles are also being tested. The missile is one of the most potent precision guided weapons developed for the Indian armed forces in recent.

However Russia now insists that the BrahMos export, and other technological aspects including the source code, should be linked to the solving of the IPR issue which has held back further research and development between India and Russia. In fact there has been no signing of any defense contract between India and Russia since the United Progressive Alliance government came to power in May 2004.

Russia has held back the lease of a nuclear submarine, the TU-22 Backfire bomber capable of delivery nuclear weapons, and various other weapons and equipment under negotiations between India and Russia for several years.

The sticky parts of the IPR issue are the supply of spares from Russia for even erstwhile USSR-made weaponry currently with the Indian defense forces. The other issue is the up-grading of the Russian made systems by a third country. India is contemplating the upgrade of a large chunk of its USSR weapons and equipment with Western technology, a move that is not to the liking of the Russians. It is estimated that the upgrade market alone of aging USSR weapons with the Indian defense forces is around $10 to $15bn.

â€œThe threat of Russia now allowing mounting of the BrahMos cruise missile on a third country platform is only an arms twisting policy to which Moscow often resorts,â€ said an Indian Army official.

However an Indian Air Force official admitted that the acquisition of BrahMos could be linked to the sale of the MIG 29SMT by the Russians.

The Mirage 2000-5 of France is the most favored aircraft within the Indian Air Force for the MMRCA. The procurement of MMRCA will however be a political decision.

Vlad Plasmius · Feb 5, 2007

You just enhanced my point. If they are one generation ahead, then that shows you how far America is ahead of the Russians. The Russians are barely onto the upgrades for AL-31 and RD-33 now. They've done absolutely nothing with engine advancement in the last 20 years. Even the latest model of AL-31FM1 and RD-33K only slightly increased the thrust level and can't possibly be compared to what the Americans happen.

They have not deployed anything, which is more a point of lacking a fighter requiring it, which is the result of poor funds.

you should read some of what gf0021-aust posts on DT. He talked about some of the stuff the Americans have tested on.

That doesn't answer my question. I didn't ask what's been tested on, but what's been developed.

Intercepting to any anti-ship missile while they are cruise or not makes no difference.

That's a ridiculous statement.

Brahmos is in that attack mode height for a very short period. Due to its speed, it has very limited time to search out for the target. If it flies 10 m above the sea while trying to search out of the target, it just won't find it.

It can be coordinated and given its target by an airborne platform operating from a safe distance.

As for this mach 7 10 m above the sea stuff, unless you want to have a range of 50 km, it's not going to happen. The amount of fuel required is astronomical. That's the reason why all the high speed Russian missiles travelled in high altitude.

Except, the kind of fuel used would be significantly different and certain design aspects could significantly reduce drag. 50 kilometers is a pretty bold statement and obviously something more out of your head than established in fact.

you still have SM-2, ESSM and RAM intercepting cruise missiles.

We're talking about something that can intercept Mach 17 ICBMs, right? Those can't and I'm curious whether a surface-to-air missile deisgned to intercept ICBMs can really shoot down a cruise missile, doubt it.

check this, the fire control system is clearly developed by the Russians.

This doesn't actually seem to say anything like that.

BrahMos to go Hypersonic

tphuang

Lieutenant General

Scratch

Captain

Vlad Plasmius

Junior Member

tphuang

Lieutenant General

Vlad Plasmius

Junior Member

tphuang

Lieutenant General

alwaysfresh

New Member

Vlad Plasmius

Junior Member

tphuang

Lieutenant General

Vlad Plasmius

Junior Member