BrahMos to go Hypersonic

tphuang · Feb 5, 2007

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

huh? F-22 with F-119, F-35 with F-135 and F-18E/F with F-414.

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

well, I know for sure that he mentionned they tested supersonic missiles against air defense as early as the 60s. I think he mentionned about hypersonic missiles too, but need to check on that.

That's a ridiculous statement.

what's the difference, do you think? One travels a more predictable path, the other one has a more unpredictable, but still pre-planned attack maneuver. Either way, you know where the missile is coming at and with a couple of modern Surface to air missiles, you can always intercept it.

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

the point of a missile with active seeker like Brahmos is to stay at a cruising altitude until finding the target and then "plan" a maneuver and attack the target. That's how it works.

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.

50 km wasn't meant to be accurate, it was just a hyperbole. The point is that to travel at sea level at mach7 will be facing tremendous amount of resistance. Even going at low profile at mach 2.8, the range of Brahmos is down to 120 km. Whereas something like YJ-83, which is 1/3 of Brahmos's weight, can go over 200 km in low profile at mach 0.9. Make your own judgement, it's not that difficult.

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.

SM-2, ESSM, RAM are designed to intercept cruise missiles.

As for SM-2 and BMD capability

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Indeed, there is an increasing number of countries acquiring sea-based BMD systems or naval air defence systems with BMD potential. The large US sea-based BMD programmes have been analysed extensively, most recently in Sea-Based Ballistic Missile Defence (see below). To summarise, the United States Navy’s plan is to modify its existing and future Aegis cruisers and destroyers for BMD. Eventually, the USN will have as many as 79 of these. The Aegis combat system, with its associated SPY-1 passive phased array radar and standard SM-2 surface-to-air missiles, first entered service in 1983.

Originally intended for the air defence of carrier battle groups, the performance of combat system, radar and missiles has been upgraded since and further improvements will take place over the next 10 years or so. These upgrades enhance the Aegis ships’ ability to counter existing and future air-breathing threats (aircraft and cruise missiles), and ballistic missiles.

The BMD role is divided into lower and upper-tier defence. The lower tier capability will enter service from 2003 on, using the Standard SM-2 Block IVA missile. This navy area defence (NAD) capability will intercept ballistic targets in their final descent phase, within the lower half of the appreciable atmosphere, and provide protection to vital areas ashore such as ports, airfields and cities within range of the defending ship – up to about 100 nautical miles.

The upper tier capability will be based on the new Standard SM-3 missile. This navy theatre-wide (NTW) system will be capable of ascent- and mid-course phase intercepts of ballistic targets outside the atmosphere, and in so doing will provide much wider protection (hence theatre-wide). NTW could be deployed from 2007 on, subject to a continuing test-and-development programme, and future funding decisions. It is competing with the US Army’s THAAD system to be the first upper tier system to be deployed, the other to follow later, perhaps by 2010.

So, SM-2 was designed to intercept cruise missile and aircraft, but it's also has the capability to intercept the much fast ballistic missile. No reason that it can intercept hypersonic cruise missile.

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

If the Indians need source code to launch Brahmos, that means at least part of the software on Brahmos is written by the Russians. For something like the software needed to activate the launching of a missile, I would say that's more than just a little.

eecsmaster · Feb 6, 2007

BrahMos doing mach 3 in low level attack profile over land? What are you smoking?

Vlad Plasmius · Feb 6, 2007

huh? F-22 with F-119, F-35 with F-135 and F-18E/F with F-414.

I'm referring to Russia's fighters.

well, I know for sure that he mentionned they tested supersonic missiles against air defense as early as the 60s. I think he mentionned about hypersonic missiles too, but need to check on that.

I'll save you the trouble, no, we have no hypersonic cruise missiles whatsoever. We did have Regulus II, I think, which was supersonic back in the 60s, but we haven't developed anything like it since. We may have purchased Sunburns or another Russian cruise missile, similar to how we've purchased Kryptons, but we haven't developed anything since then.

what's the difference, do you think? One travels a more predictable path, the other one has a more unpredictable, but still pre-planned attack maneuver. Either way, you know where the missile is coming at and with a couple of modern Surface to air missiles, you can always intercept it.

There is a difference because a low-altitude flight makes it harder to track and shoot down than if it's high in the sky. It's the whole reason anti-ship cruise missiles fly at a low altitude to attack. Flying low altitude the whole way means that the chances of detecting it are even less likely. At supersonic speed that can make a big difference.

the point of a missile with active seeker like Brahmos is to stay at a cruising altitude until finding the target and then "plan" a maneuver and attack the target. That's how it works.

It gives it the ability to act independently, but then again, I wasn't saying it couldn't. I was saying it could be coordinated with an airborne platform from a save distance, should locking-on be an issue.

50 km wasn't meant to be accurate, it was just a hyperbole. The point is that to travel at sea level at mach7 will be facing tremendous amount of resistance. Even going at low profile at mach 2.8, the range of Brahmos is down to 120 km. Whereas something like YJ-83, which is 1/3 of Brahmos's weight, can go over 200 km in low profile at mach 0.9. Make your own judgement, it's not that difficult.

It has less weight, so it requires less thrust, less fuel, and therefore, can cover a greater range.

Ultimately a missile going Mach 6 would only need enough fuel for a minute of flight to achieve the same range as BrahMos.

SM-2, ESSM, RAM are designed to intercept cruise missiles.

Not hypersonic cruise missiles.

So, SM-2 was designed to intercept cruise missile and aircraft, but it's also has the capability to intercept the much fast ballistic missile. No reason that it can intercept hypersonic cruise missile.

Block IVA has been cancelled.

If the Indians need source code to launch Brahmos, that means at least part of the software on Brahmos is written by the Russians. For something like the software needed to activate the launching of a missile, I would say that's more than just a little.

That might be the seeker on the BrahMos. That's the only thing I know, software-wise, developed by the Russians. However, this seems to refer to the software for using it in non-Russian and/or non-Indian aircraft.

tphuang · Feb 6, 2007

Vlad Plasmius said:
I'm referring to Russia's fighters.

you do realize they talk all day about equipping su-35 with a 5th generation engine, right? They haven't developed it, that's the final. Russian engine technology is just not up to par.

I'll save you the trouble, no, we have no hypersonic cruise missiles whatsoever. We did have Regulus II, I think, which was supersonic back in the 60s, but we haven't developed anything like it since. We may have purchased Sunburns or another Russian cruise missile, similar to how we've purchased Kryptons, but we haven't developed anything since then.

this is what gf0021-aust wrote, no hypersonic misisle, huh?

we get back to some fundamentals here.

the USN has been training against mach 3-6 saturated attack opponents 20+ years ago, they were trained to deal with mach 3 incomings 45 years ago - the battlespace management at fleet level is far more sophisticated now than ever before - and the response times of defensive systems is greater.

Yakhont/Brahmos would make a mess of an unsophisticated target - but against a ForceNET/CEC/war footing alert?

eg: any asset with AESA at an air level effectively expands the sensor net.

The marketing doesn't stand up against a cold hearted review of what the fleet has available to it.

Its certainly not EOD by a long shot (NPI)

There is a difference because a low-altitude flight makes it harder to track and shoot down than if it's high in the sky. It's the whole reason anti-ship cruise missiles fly at a low altitude to attack. Flying low altitude the whole way means that the chances of detecting it are even less likely. At supersonic speed that can make a big difference.

it's all about the response time. As I said, if Aegis system can intercept a mach x missile at 1000 m high, it can intercept it at 10 m high.

It gives it the ability to act independently, but then again, I wasn't saying it couldn't. I was saying it could be coordinated with an airborne platform from a save distance, should locking-on be an issue.

That's how the missile works. Your preferred guidance package is not going to change it.

It has less weight, so it requires less thrust, less fuel, and therefore, can cover a greater range.

Ultimately a missile going Mach 6 would only need enough fuel for a minute of flight to achieve the same range as BrahMos.

you are not serious, huh? I wonder why I even bother responding to a post like this.

This is the first time on defence forums anywhere where I read less weight results in greater range.

Not hypersonic cruise missiles.
Block IVA has been cancelled.

read what gf0012-aust said. It would help a lot if you read something that a defense professional says and stop making stuff up.

That might be the seeker on the BrahMos. That's the only thing I know, software-wise, developed by the Russians. However, this seems to refer to the software for using it in non-Russian and/or non-Indian aircraft.

The Russian fighters/ships are obviously going to have the launch codes for Brahmos. The ones in question are non-Russian platforms.

sidewinder · Feb 6, 2007

CHANDIPUR-ON-SEA: Supersonic cruise missile BrahMos, with an advanced capability of sharp manoeuvring, was successfully test-fired on Sunday from the Integrated Test Range at Chandipur-on-sea in Orissa. For the first time it was manoeuvred in the form of an "S" curve at a supersonic speed of 2.8 mach. Army personnel in full combat formation carried out the firing.

This is the 13th flight of the missile, which is jointly developed by India and Russia, and the fourth for the Army.

Capability proved

A. Sivathanu Pillai, CEO and Managing Director of BrahMos Aerospace, said the missile was under production for the Army. Its capability to attack specific targets had been proved. "In this mission for the Army, we went to the seashore for the launch because we wanted to experiment sharp manoeuvres of the supersonic missile for the first time. We could see good manoeuvres by the missile. This will enhance BrahMos' combat capability."

With a clear sky, the missile took off at 12:16 p.m. from the mobile launch complex. Before the lift-off, it was raised vertically. As Lt. Col. Bishnu Ram pressed the ignition button, the missile rose, turned sharply at 90 degrees horizontally and spectacularly carried out the manoeuvring in the form of a "S" curve and cruised over the Bay of Bengal at 2.8 times the speed of sound.

Earlier, the mission control scientists and engineers, sitting in a semi-circular block house, conducted pre-launch checks such as integrating radars, telemetry and electro-optical tracking systems. The countdown went off without any hold.

Vice-Chief of the Army Staff Lt. Gen. Deepak Kapoor, Victor M. Kiselev, Chief of Launch Operations, NPO Mashinostroyenia, a state enterprise of the Russian Federation, and senior Army officers and DRDO scientists witnessed the launch.

"Good effort"

Lt. Gen. Kapoor said the launch was a good effort by an entire team that worked very hard.

Asked whether the missile would be used in mountain warfare, he said: "After the trials are over, we will look at the terrain and the targets. They will include mountains."

A detailed analysis of the missile data, gathered by range sensors, was being carried out.

According to Dr. Pillai, the missile was launched in the quickest possible time from the go-ahead signal, by speedily placing the missile in the vertical position and firing it.

Vlad Plasmius · Feb 7, 2007

you do realize they talk all day about equipping su-35 with a 5th generation engine, right? They haven't developed it, that's the final. Russian engine technology is just not up to par.

They hardly have any Su-35s, it kind of makes it pointless when they would do better to just work on the engine for the next fighter generation.

this is what gf0021-aust wrote, no hypersonic misisle, huh?

Wait, what? That's not even beginning to resemble evidence. I can't prove these missiles don't exist, but I have yet to find any evidence they do exist. If you're going to continue asserting this give some source or something that is evidence and specific.

it's all about the response time. As I said, if Aegis system can intercept a mach x missile at 1000 m high, it can intercept it at 10 m high.

What the? Are you even trying to argue this? You're right it is about response time, which is why the 10 meter altitude is an advantage. I mean, you made the point yourself by saying why Tomahawks fly constantly at a low altitude. Flying at a lower altitude makes it far more difficult to detect, track, and intercept.

That's how the missile works. Your preferred guidance package is not going to change it.

Funny, everything I've read says the radar is for terminal guidance actually.

you are not serious, huh? I wonder why I even bother responding to a post like this.

This is the first time on defence forums anywhere where I read less weight results in greater range.

You're going to some real "geniuses" then. Yes, less weight would mean greater range with the same amount of fuel and thrust. I'm pretty sure that's Physics 101, not to mention common sense.

The fact is, the BrahMos is 4 times as heavy as a YJ-83, twice as large in mere terms of size, and goes over three times faster. If it were possible for the YJ-83, without any other alterations, to have the same amount of fuel as BrahMos, it would likely have a range well up to 1,000 kilometers.

read what gf0012-aust said. It would help a lot if you read something that a defense professional says and stop making stuff up.

I'm not making anything up, you're the one with all the BS. What you cited was not even evidence of anything that was developed. The exact words were:

the USN has been training against

they were trained to deal with

That doesn't prove we developed anything or that the we even shot anything down, just that we "trained" against it.

Now there are the Kryptons, which I believe I mentioned before, which go about Mach 4.5 and I believe some supersonic cruise missiles from Russia were tested against. However, the idea that a low-flying hypersonic cruise missile can be compared to either of these is horribly dubious and I know, for unquestionable fact, that those aren't in our possession. If they are than surely this gf0012-aust has disclosed top secret weapons projects.

The idea that we would have hypersonic cruise missiles when just a decade ago we were struggling to get anything to go hypersonic that wasn't a rocket or ballistic missile is ridiculous.

If you so strongly believe they exist then go find some real evidence saying what they are or mentioning such a program.

The Russian fighters/ships are obviously going to have the launch codes for Brahmos. The ones in question are non-Russian platforms.

Yes, but the fact is, that has no bearing on what we were discussing now does it?

tphuang · Feb 7, 2007

Vlad Plasmius said:
They hardly have any Su-35s, it kind of makes it pointless when they would do better to just work on the engine for the next fighter generation.

that doesn't stop them from talking about it. The point is they don't have anything better. I think I need to mention this again, the Russians want an engine with comparable thrust, reliability to the latest American engines, so they can put them on the latest flankers. They don't have it. Their engine technology level is far behind that of the Americans.

Wait, what? That's not even beginning to resemble evidence. I can't prove these missiles don't exist, but I have yet to find any evidence they do exist. If you're going to continue asserting this give some source or something that is evidence and specific.

gf0012-aust is better evidence than anything you get on wikipedia, strategypage or these internet warrior type of sources.

What the? Are you even trying to argue this? You're right it is about response time, which is why the 10 meter altitude is an advantage. I mean, you made the point yourself by saying why Tomahawks fly constantly at a low altitude. Flying at a lower altitude makes it far more difficult to detect, track, and intercept.

i'm talking about a supersonic vs subsonic missile cruising at 10 m. a subsonic missile would give you more time, but if you detect both, you can intercept them no matter how fast they are going.

Funny, everything I've read says the radar is for terminal guidance actually.

That's what it means. That's how it works. Do you have an idea how active guided AShM work? If you don't, stop posting bs.

You're going to some real "geniuses" then. Yes, less weight would mean greater range with the same amount of fuel and thrust. I'm pretty sure that's Physics 101, not to mention common sense.

The fact is, the BrahMos is 4 times as heavy as a YJ-83, twice as large in mere terms of size, and goes over three times faster. If it were possible for the YJ-83, without any other alterations, to have the same amount of fuel as BrahMos, it would likely have a range well up to 1,000 kilometers.

where do you get this kind of bs, how is it possible for YJ-83 to have same amount of fuel as Brahmos? Take a look at AAM, AShM, SAM - one commonality, larger missile -> faster speed -> longer range. Use some common sense

I'm not making anything up, you're the one with all the BS. What you cited was not even evidence of anything that was developed. The exact words were:
That doesn't prove we developed anything or that the we even shot anything down, just that we "trained" against it.

if you don't have the missiles, how do you train against it? The Americans were training not just a one missile strike, but concentrated attacks from the soviets.

Now there are the Kryptons, which I believe I mentioned before, which go about Mach 4.5 and I believe some supersonic cruise missiles from Russia were tested against. However, the idea that a low-flying hypersonic cruise missile can be compared to either of these is horribly dubious and I know, for unquestionable fact, that those aren't in our possession. If they are than surely this gf0012-aust has disclosed top secret weapons projects.

The idea that we would have hypersonic cruise missiles when just a decade ago we were struggling to get anything to go hypersonic that wasn't a rocket or ballistic missile is ridiculous.

If you so strongly believe they exist then go find some real evidence saying what they are or mentioning such a program.

you have no idea some of the stuff that USN has worked with and a lot of these stuff are confidential material that some of the defensive professional can't post further on. As for low-flying hypersonic cruise missile, it's a totally ridiculous idea. Your entire assertion about something as big as brahmos can go the same distance in the same profile travelling mach 7 instead of mach 3 is outrageous.

Yes, but the fact is, that has no bearing on what we were discussing now does it?

you implied Indians can give some magical improvement to the guidance of Brahmos, I basically showed you that they didn't work on a large part of the software, which counters to what you talked about. So yes, that does have bearing. Read back your posts.

eecsmaster · Feb 7, 2007

Vandal drones anyone? Just because the US didn't field supersonic missiles doesn't mean they can't manufacture them. They didn't field them because it was no necessary.

Supersonic or subsonic, they both try to decrease the available reaction time of the opFor. While the USSR went with giant active seeking supersonic missiles, the US went with low observable sea skimming ones.

The issue at hand is whether BrahMos is a superior platform vis a vis the other mainstream AShMs in service, and to be honest, I don't think it's possible for us to judge. Sure it has a lo-hi-lo range of 300km and goes mach3, but just how accurate is its target discrimination? Subsonic missiles have the advantage of added processing time, while supersonic just use raw speed and a few prayers. I will leave it up to you to arrive at the conclusion.

But let me just put it this way, when asked about the Sunburn threat, one Australian navy officer said this: "softkill all the way".

Vlad Plasmius · Feb 7, 2007

that doesn't stop them from talking about it. The point is they don't have anything better. I think I need to mention this again, the Russians want an engine with comparable thrust, reliability to the latest American engines, so they can put them on the latest flankers. They don't have it. Their engine technology level is far behind that of the Americans.

Even if what you were saying is true, "far behind" is a horrible exaggeration. Russia doesn't really need engines for Su-35s because they hardly have any.

gf0012-aust is better evidence than anything you get on wikipedia, strategypage or these internet warrior type of sources.

That's all well and good, but my point is, his post didn't even support your claim and us in the U.S. possessing the technology.

i'm talking about a supersonic vs subsonic missile cruising at 10 m. a subsonic missile would give you more time, but if you detect both, you can intercept them no matter how fast they are going.

That does not even begin to mean equivalence. A subsonic missile at that altitude will be far easier to intercept. This also goes to the most important point, rate of fire. The time from when a supersonic missile would be detected to the moment it would hit would be measurable in seconds. It would take three times as much time for a subsonic missile to reach its target. I believe Arleigh Burkes are able to fire a missile every three seconds. That's 20 missiles in a minute. One missile hitting it would be more than sufficient to sink it, especially should it ignite any of the fuel or munitions on board. Also, for all it's touted, it's unlikely AEGIS would enjoy 100% accuracy. The CIWS, would particularly be a good purpose for the speed. At Mach 2.8 it would be from in-range of the CIWS to hitting the ship in 6 seconds, compared to 15 or 18 for a subsonic missile.

In sufficient numbers, maybe 30 or slightly over, this should be more than enough to take out a single Arleigh Burke.

That's what it means. That's how it works. Do you have an idea how active guided AShM work? If you don't, stop posting bs.

Well, that means it's using radar at about 50 kilometers distance, which should be enough regardless of altitude to detect the ship.

where do you get this kind of bs, how is it possible for YJ-83 to have same amount of fuel as Brahmos?

I said, "if it were possible" not that it was.

Take a look at AAM, AShM, SAM - one commonality, larger missile -> faster speed -> longer range. Use some common sense

That's a very poor conclusion. The Tomahawk is about the same size as YJ-82 and the difference between them is immense.

if you don't have the missiles, how do you train against it? The Americans were training not just a one missile strike, but concentrated attacks from the soviets.

They can build drones that go at those speeds or test themselves against fast aircraft. However, we had no hypersonic weapons to test against. They wouldn't have nearly enough missiles to test for the kind of attack in the capabilities of several countries.

you have no idea some of the stuff that USN has worked with and a lot of these stuff are confidential material that some of the defensive professional can't post further on.

Oh boy the old impenetrable argument, "We don't know what they have so you can't prove it doesn't exist." The fact is, you can't prove it does exist and that's obvious from the fact that you resort to that argument. If we already had hypersonic cruise missiles we would have been, you know, using them. After all, X-51 is for that purpose right? If we already could do that since the 80's why would we have so much need for development of scramjet? It's a preposterous claim.

As for low-flying hypersonic cruise missile, it's a totally ridiculous idea. Your entire assertion about something as big as brahmos can go the same distance in the same profile travelling mach 7 instead of mach 3 is outrageous.

I never made that assertion. I said in order to go that fast it would only need enough fuel for a minute of flight to achieve the same range.

you implied Indians can give some magical improvement to the guidance of Brahmos, I basically showed you that they didn't work on a large part of the software, which counters to what you talked about. So yes, that does have bearing. Read back your posts.

It's not a large part of the software, it's a minor part. Most of the software was developed by India.

Jeff Head · Feb 7, 2007

Vlad Plasmius said:
The issue here is deployment, actually using it.

The US has developed hypersonic missiles for some time for battlefield use. They are not cruise missiles, but the Comapact Kinetic Energy Missile was successfully tested last year (Mach 6.5). A lot of that new development is based on the successful LOSAT program (Line of Site AntiTank Kinetic Energy weapon) that Lockheed produced for the Army starting in 2002.

The techniocal capability and manufacturing is there if we choose to go down that path, but for cruise missiles, to date, the US has chosen a path of using (at this point) near sonic weapons that rely on flight profile, ECM, reliability, maintainability, and superb guidance.

As to heavy lift...the Saturn V was pretty good and got us to the moon.

It's not as much about capability as it is about differing thought processes regarding the application. Those thought processes have led to differing operating parameters and premises for both the US and the Russians which have produced the differing systems IMHO.

Now China will develop their own.

BrahMos to go Hypersonic

tphuang

Lieutenant General

eecsmaster

Junior Member

Vlad Plasmius

Junior Member

tphuang

Lieutenant General

sidewinder

New Member

Vlad Plasmius

Junior Member

tphuang

Lieutenant General

eecsmaster

Junior Member

Vlad Plasmius

Junior Member

Jeff Head

General