BrahMos to go Hypersonic

tphuang · Feb 7, 2007

Vlad Plasmius said:
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.

they need the engines to make it more appealing for export. Plus, they need high thrusted engines for su-34 to allow it to carry more payload and have longer range.

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 stand corrected with what Jeff said.

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.

something larger like Brahmos has a higher radar profile and is easier to detect, something even larger like sunburn is even easier to detect. Also, they have less time to find target and plane maneuvers. We've had a thread on navy section explaining why supersonic missiles don't necessarily offer better performance. It would help if you read it. I read many defensive professionals who would tell you that a high subsonic, lo profile anti-ship missile that can maneuver and target different part of the ship is actually harder to deal with than just a really fast missile.

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

lol, do you know why they had to Bandstand type of radar to do OTH targetting and normal surface search radar can't do it? Same reason why the much smaller missile seeker can't detect a modern ship from 50 km out.

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

It's not going to.

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

YJ-83 - 800 kg, tomahawk - 1440 kg, I wouldn't call that about the same size. One is an anti-ship missile, the other is a LACM. And at the same time, tomahawk is using turbofan engine compared to turbojet on YJ-83, turbofan engines has much lower fuel consumption rate.

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.

read what Jeff wrote.

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.

X-51 is developed and put in service, because there is a real need/mission for it.

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.

then why are you continuing with the bs about having a low flying hypersonic LACM based on Brahmos then?

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

Fire control software is not just a minor part of software. It's an integral part.

Vlad Plasmius · Feb 8, 2007

they need the engines to make it more appealing for export. Plus, they need high thrusted engines for su-34 to allow it to carry more payload and have longer range.

Russia's working on PAK FA and their current engines are already sufficient for Su-35. Considering they won't use it it doesn't matter as much.

something larger like Brahmos has a higher radar profile and is easier to detect, something even larger like sunburn is even easier to detect. Also, they have less time to find target and plane maneuvers. We've had a thread on navy section explaining why supersonic missiles don't necessarily offer better performance. It would help if you read it. I read many defensive professionals who would tell you that a high subsonic, lo profile anti-ship missile that can maneuver and target different part of the ship is actually harder to deal with than just a really fast missile.

BrahMos's systems, designed by India, were specially catered for the apparent problems you mention it seems.

lol, do you know why they had to Bandstand type of radar to do OTH targetting and normal surface search radar can't do it? Same reason why the much smaller missile seeker can't detect a modern ship from 50 km out.

Except, BrahMos does, however, it seems to do that only in the lo/hi/lo profile, otherwise it scans at around 25 kilometers out.

YJ-83 - 800 kg, tomahawk - 1440 kg, I wouldn't call that about the same size. One is an anti-ship missile, the other is a LACM.

The difference in diameter is 15 centimeters. The difference in length is 14 centimeters, with YJ-83 being the longer missile.

And at the same time, tomahawk is using turbofan engine compared to turbojet on YJ-83, turbofan engines has much lower fuel consumption rate.

So would you agree with the statement that a missile smaller than YJ-83 using a turbofan engine would be able to have the same or a greater range?

read what Jeff wrote.

He was refferring to anti-tank weapons, which is something I believe I have heard before. That would be no different from talking about China developing hypersonic battlefield weapons with WS-2. These aren't even really cases where speed is all that critical or all that difficult to achieve.

X-51 is developed and put in service, because there is a real need/mission for it.

So there wasn't a need before, during the Cold War? I don't doubt we'll develop and deploy such missiles eventually. However, the question is, are we going to do so before the BrahMos hypersonic version is deployed?

then why are you continuing with the bs about having a low flying hypersonic LACM based on Brahmos then?

This isn't me saying it, though. That's what the article was about. Call the Russians and Indians liars if you want.

Fire control software is not just a minor part of software. It's an integral part.

Without the Indian software, it wouldn't matter if any fighter in the world could fire it and could use its active radar seeker, because it would have no way to get to the point where it could. The attack profiles, guidance phase before the seeker head is activated, how and when the seeker is activated was all done by Indians.

tphuang · Feb 8, 2007

Vlad Plasmius said:
Russia's working on PAK FA and their current engines are already sufficient for Su-35. Considering they won't use it it doesn't matter as much.

As I mentionned, they've been promoting the so called 117c engine to put on su-35 for a while not. It's not that they don't want to use it, it's not ready. Their tech is not up there.

BrahMos's systems, designed by India, were specially catered for the apparent problems you mention it seems.

What the heck are you talking about? Brahmos is just Yakhont with a different guidance system. It couldn't use the much superior Russian with the help of Glonnass, so the Russians helped the Indians develop a system that didn't use it. Brahmos seeker is just like an other ordinary seeker out there. It doens't even have the frequency agile seeker that YJ-62 has.

Except, BrahMos does, however, it seems to do that only in the lo/hi/lo profile, otherwise it scans at around 25 kilometers out.

There is nothing special about the Brahmos seeker, get it? It's just like any other seeker out there.

The difference in diameter is 15 centimeters. The difference in length is 14 centimeters, with YJ-83 being the longer missile.

15 cm difference in diameter is huge. You are going from having a radius of 26 cm to 18 cm. In terms of area, that becomes twice as much. That's why you get twice the weight of YJ-83. It's simple math, why can't you just do it.

So would you agree with the statement that a missile smaller than YJ-83 using a turbofan engine would be able to have the same or a greater range?

yes, but there are also limitation to using a turbofan engine instead of turbojet, you should check some online sources. At supersonic speed, I know at least the Chinese turbofan engines do not have better fuel efficiency than turbojet ones.

He was refferring to anti-tank weapons, which is something I believe I have heard before. That would be no different from talking about China developing hypersonic battlefield weapons with WS-2. These aren't even really cases where speed is all that critical or all that difficult to achieve.

no, that was one of the hypersonic missiles that Jeff mentionned. WS-2 is a rocket, not a missile.

So there wasn't a need before, during the Cold War? I don't doubt we'll develop and deploy such missiles eventually. However, the question is, are we going to do so before the BrahMos hypersonic version is deployed?

no, the reason they got X-51 was to strike terrorist cells around the world.

This isn't me saying it, though. That's what the article was about. Call the Russians and Indians liars if you want.

It did not say ANYTHING in there about hypersonic missile travelling in low altitude. So, stop making that assertion. It's ridiculous.

Without the Indian software, it wouldn't matter if any fighter in the world could fire it and could use its active radar seeker, because it would have no way to get to the point where it could. The attack profiles, guidance phase before the seeker head is activated, how and when the seeker is activated was all done by Indians.

What's the point of this reply? Your assertion was that Indians did the software. I showed you that Russians did a huge chunk of it. I think that's enough of a rebuttal. You are trying to cover yourself up by saying India also did some part of the software?

BrahMos to go Hypersonic

tphuang

Lieutenant General

Vlad Plasmius

Junior Member

tphuang

Lieutenant General