How good is this BrahMos II missile compared to any other missiles?

Engineer · Nov 9, 2009

twodollarss said:
Is it a threat to China? It said it can travel at a super high speed and in unpredictable patterns to evade defense systems.

It is and it isn't, depends on who uses it. If it is used by the Russians, then I will certainly be concerned. In the hands of China's southern neighbor, I wouldn't be as concerned, not even close. That being said, it is extremely foolish to completely dismiss it. Every threat, no matter how small, should be analyzed carefully and taken into account.

Bltizo said:
And I wouldn't compare the ASBM to antiship cruise missiles, the Brahmos can still be used to target smaller ships such as destroyers, while the ASBM would need a hell of a lot more guidance to hit such a small target relative to an aircraft carrier. IF they can make the ASBM eventually be able to hit destroyers then they would have a hell of an area denial capability.
China's ASBM definitely has the advantage of range (what was it... 3000 km?), but it's way too big to fit on a normal sized destroyer and is probably quite a bit more expensive than cruise missiles. (Not to mention the whole network of guidance it needs to hit even a carrier)

If China does have ASBM's and if China does put them out to sea, they would be placed on a SSBN, not a destroyer. Only nations that lack capabilities to build SSBN would put a ballistic missile on to a destroyer, and quite frankly that is an extremely dumb idea. But honestly, I don't see the possibilities of navalized ASBM's. They are meant to deter enemies from getting close to China through area denials, not take parts in naval battles.

Bltizo said:
A hypersonic cruise missile, if made (and fitt-able on a ship) would be an invaluable and formidable weapon, as is the current supersonic Brahmos (but of course there's the question of how effective it is against modern SAM's and point defense weapons). Having a good number of ships able to launch supersonic/hypersonic missiles at other ships would be a hell of an effective ship to ship weapon.

Not necessary. In the absence of navalized airforce, guess who would win: a side that has supersonic missiles, and a side that has subsonic missiles that have greater range.

Bltizo said:
But the ASBM has a limited range in that it can only be put on Chinese territory. Even if it does have the 3000km range or whatever it was, it's only an area denial weapon and is unable to be used for offensive purposes. If you make an ICBM into an ASBM (in case anyone was thinking about it), it would not be a good move because it puts ones nuclear deterrence into question. Not to mention the other various problems which are still encountered by a 3000km ASBM.

ASBM's, if exist, are only intended to be area denial weapons and are truly defensive in nature. Placing an ASBM on a ship is a non-issue, because it never was an issue to begin with. Quit beating on a straw-man by pointing out how it can't be fitted on a ship when you know full well that it isn't suppose to be fitted on a ship.

Bltizo said:
A high speed hypersonic cruise missile offers the speed and lethality of an ASBM at an albeit lower range, but also gives more flexiblity, probably lower cost, and the ability to be deployed anywhere in the world, as long as it's on ones own ship. I think such a weapon is certainly worth research and investment into.
But of course I'm skeptical if a Brahmos II comes from Russia and India any time soon, but if it eventually comes out, it will be a formidable ship to ship weapon.

Not saying high velocity is not desirable, but...
All one got to do is make sure his subsonic SSM's have greater range, and in the unlikelihood of an engagement, stay out of the effective range of the Brahmos missiles. Usefulness of Brahmos in such a case? Zero.

Blitzo · Nov 9, 2009

Engineer said:
In the hands of China's southern neighbor, I wouldn't be as concerned, not even close.

Why not even close?

If China does have ASBM's and if China does put them out to sea, they would be placed on a SSBN, not a destroyer. Only nations that lack capabilities to build SSBN would put a ballistic missile on to a destroyer, and quite frankly that is an extremely dumb idea. But honestly, I don't see the possibilities of navalized ASBM's. They are meant to deter enemies from getting close to China through area denials, not take parts in naval battles.

Yeah I was drawing parallels between the ASBM and Brahmos II because both are supposedly hypersonic

Not necessary. In the absence of navalized airforce, guess who would win: a side that has supersonic missiles, and a side that has subsonic missiles that have greater range.

But what if the side that has longer range subsonic missiles is within range of the supersonic missiles? Then they wil clearly be at a disadvantage. If the adversary's missiles are hypersonic then they are at an even greater disadvantage.

ASBM's, if exist, are only intended to be area denial weapons and are truly defensive in nature. Placing an ASBM on a ship is a non-issue, because it never was an issue to begin with. Quit beating on a straw-man by pointing out how it can't be fitted on a ship when you know full well that it isn't suppose to be fitted on a ship.

My point was that a hypersonic cruise missile gives the capability to the user of a high speed anti ship missile which can be placed wherever their ship or submarine is. China's only current comparable high speed missiles are the moskit (which altogether isn't that flash) and the supposed ASBM which can only be launched by land.

Not saying high velocity is not desirable, but...
All one got to do is make sure his subsonic SSM's have greater range, and in the unlikelihood of an engagement, stay out of the effective range of the Brahmos missiles. Usefulness of Brahmos in such a case? Zero.

Once again, what if the adversary with the supersonic/hypersonic SSM has you within range? Is it possible to have SAM's to shoot down even hypersonic SSM's in this day?

And even if you are out of range of the enemy's supersonic/hypersonic SSM - your subsonic longer range missiles would be intercepted by enemy SAMs, no?

Engineer · Nov 9, 2009

Bltizo said:
Why not even close?

Having a weapon is one thing, having the logistical supports for it is another.

Bltizo said:
Yeah I was drawing parallels between the ASBM and Brahmos II because both are supposedly hypersonic.

You might as well say they are both physical objects and draw a comparison that way! It is like comparing satellites to Brahmos on the basis of speed, and claiming satellites are better because they can have a velocity of 7 km/s, much faster than that of Brahmos. Comparisons like that are meaningless.

Even you yourself have pointed out that ASBM (if exists) is launched from land, having a range of 3000 km, intended to provide area denial capabilities, and is defensive in nature, while Brahmos would be placed on ship, having a range of 300km~350km, would be applied in ship-to-ship combat and is for offensive purposes. You stated their obvious differences, why do you even try to argue they are similar and comparable to one another?

Bltizo said:
But what if the side that has longer range subsonic missiles is within range of the supersonic missiles? Then they wil clearly be at a disadvantage. If the adversary's missiles are hypersonic then they are at an even greater disadvantage.

So you are suggesting that someone would be dumb in enough to get into range but not shoot, and knowing full well he is under threat and not turn away?

I have a better counter question for you:
What if the side that has supersonic missiles simply self-destruct?

Bltizo said:
My point was that a hypersonic cruise missile gives the capability to the user of a high speed anti ship missile which can be placed wherever their ship or submarine is. China's only current comparable high speed missiles are the moskit (which altogether isn't that flash) and the supposed ASBM which can only be launched by land.

That's a fact, not your point... at least I'm not seeing your point. Would you care to restate your point?

By the way, stop suggesting ASBM would be placed onto naval vessels and in the very next instance say they can't. Nobody argued that ASBM would be navalized. Such argument only exists in your head, no where else does it appear.

Bltizo said:
Once again, what if the adversary with the supersonic/hypersonic SSM has you within range?

See above.

Bltizo said:
Is it possible to have SAM's to shoot down even hypersonic SSM's in this day?

I do not know. But this would be the question to ask if someone questioned the usefulness of high terminal speed. I did not do that. What I am challenge you is your comparison between Brahmos and ASBM, and my assertion is that your comparison is invalid as the two weapons are very different systems intended for different objectives.

Bltizo said:
And even if you are out of range of the enemy's supersonic/hypersonic SSM - your subsonic longer range missiles would be intercepted by enemy SAMs, no?

Interception of subsonic SSM is one thing, capabilities of the Brahmos is another. One thing getting shot down does not in anyway add capabilities to another weapon. Regardless, your comparison between Brahmos and ASBM (if it exists) is still invalid.

Blitzo · Nov 9, 2009

Engineer said:
You might as well say they are both physical objects and draw a comparison that way! It is like comparing satellites to Brahmos on the basis of speed, and claiming satellites are better because they can have a velocity of 7 km/s, much faster than that of Brahmos. Comparisons like that are meaningless.

If you can programme the satellite to hit a ship then i certainly would draw a comparison.

Even you yourself have pointed out that ASBM (if exists) is launched from land, having a range of 3000 km, intended to provide area denial capabilities, and is defensive in nature, while Brahmos would be placed on ship, having a range of 300km~350km, would be applied in ship-to-ship combat and is for offensive purposes. You stated their obvious differences, why do you even try to argue they are similar and comparable to one another?

I compared them because A-Mace said the ASBM would render the Brahmos virtually useless and I disagreed because the Brahmos would be able to be used for OFFENSIVE PURPOSES, like you said. (And I thought Brahmos had a range of 290km?)

That's a fact, not your point... at least I'm not seeing your point. Would you care to restate your point?

My point is that the Brahmos is not rendered virtually useless by the ASBM because it's more flexible and can be used in ship vs ship situations.

So you are suggesting that someone would be dumb in enough to get into range but not shoot, and knowing full well he is under threat and not turn away?

Well I'm sure ships radar and various sensors are not 100% reliable, so let's say an enemy gets within range of of firing their high speed SSM without being detected. Then the ship who has the subsonic SSM detects them when they're both well within firing distance of each other.

I have a better counter question for you:
What if the side that has supersonic missiles simply self-destruct?

That would be convinient. -_-

By the way, stop suggesting ASBM would be placed onto naval vessels and in the very next instance say they can't. Nobody argued that ASBM would be navalized. Such argument only exists in your head, no where else does it appear.

Ok I suggested that the navalising of the ASBM at first because of the similarity I drew with the Brahmos/II in that both were antiship missiles capable of high speeds. I suggested this not saying that it will be navalised but in that the Brahmos would not be rendered useless by China's ASBM, which is what A-MAce suggested:

Do we expect India to go over in a panic with China's ASBM which if it works will basically make their Brahmos with any upgrade virtually useless?

I thought the ASBM would not make the Brahmos virtually useless because the Brahmos would still be able to be used on destroyers and such while the ASBM would be still limted to land.

I didn't suggest the ASBM should be navalised but that it would be hard to. I suggested the navalisation of the ASBM because then china would get a high speed anti ship missile which can be based on a ship, like the Brahmos.
But because navalising the ASBM would be hard (and yes it is a stupid idea), that is why I do not think the Brahmos would be rendered virtually useless because it still provides a high speed missile deployable on a ship.

I compared the ASBM and Brahmos because I thought A-Mace's suggestion the Brahmos would be useless wasn't right.

challenge · Nov 9, 2009

it is not just velocity of the missile,the most important component of the missile is her active radar seeker design by phozotron.
the active radar seeker emit not unlike traditional RD wave form than can easily detected by ESM,her RF waveform more like AESA RF very difficult to detect by conventional naval ESM.

Engineer · Nov 10, 2009

Bltizo said:
If you can programme the satellite to hit a ship then i certainly would draw a comparison.

You would certainly draw a comparison out of spite, but as I have pointed out in my previous post, such comparison would be meaningless. Giving complete disregard of the differences of the system does not make the two systems more similar and more comparable.

Bltizo said:
Well I'm sure ships radar and various sensors are not 100% reliable, so let's say an enemy gets within range of of firing their high speed SSM without being detected. Then the ship who has the subsonic SSM detects them when they're both well within firing distance of each other.

Then in that situation, the credits go to the superiority of the sensors. It has nothing to do with the Brahmao at all, since the side that gets to see far and shoot first will still have an advantage without needing any supersonic/hypersonic missiles.

Bltizo said:
That would be convinient. -_-

Not much different from how you gave conveniences to the side that have supersonic/hypersonic missiles by giving them better sensor capabilities, conveniences that have absolutely nothing with missiles themselves.

The advantages of supersonic missiles can clearly be negated through various means, as shown in my example with the existence a longer range subsonic SSM. You are simply in denial.

Bltizo said:
Ok I suggested that the navalising of the ASBM at first because of the similarity I drew with the Brahmos/II in that both were antiship missiles capable of high speeds.

And here lies your problem: you totally ignored how the two systems are dissimilar. You are picking one or two out of dozens of attributes and draw a conclusion that they are similar enough for comparison.

Bltizo said:
I compared them because A-Mace said the ASBM would render the Brahmos virtually useless and I disagreed because the Brahmos would be able to be used for OFFENSIVE PURPOSES, like you said. (And I thought Brahmos had a range of 290km?)

Bltizo said:
My point is that the Brahmos is not rendered virtually useless by the ASBM because it's more flexible and can be used in ship vs ship situations.

Bltizo said:
I suggested this not saying that it will be navalised but in that the Brahmos would not be rendered useless by China's ASBM, which is what A-MAce suggested:

Bltizo said:
I thought the ASBM would not make the Brahmos virtually useless because the Brahmos would still be able to be used on destroyers and such while the ASBM would be still limted to land.

Bltizo said:
I didn't suggest the ASBM should be navalised but that it would be hard to. I suggested the navalisation of the ASBM because then china would get a high speed anti ship missile which can be based on a ship, like the Brahmos.
But because navalising the ASBM would be hard (and yes it is a stupid idea), that is why I do not think the Brahmos would be rendered virtually useless because it still provides a high speed missile deployable on a ship.

Bltizo said:
I compared the ASBM and Brahmos because I thought A-Mace's suggestion the Brahmos would be useless wasn't right.

You have certainly cleared things up by stating your intention. However, I will leave the responses for these to another memeber.

Blitzo · Nov 10, 2009

Engineer said:
You would certainly draw a comparison out of spite, but as I have pointed out in my previous post, such comparison would be meaningless. Giving complete disregard of the differences of the system does not make the two systems more similar and more comparable.

I compared the two originally because of the remark that the Brahmos would be made redundant by the ASBM, which I thought was not true. So therefore I went to the lenghts to say what the advantages the Brahmos has over the ASBM regardless of how different they are.

The advantages of supersonic missiles can clearly be negated through various means, as shown in my example with the existence a longer range subsonic SSM. You are simply in denial.

Yeah I am in this case actually.

And here lies your problem: you totally ignored how the two systems are dissimilar. You are picking one or two out of dozens of attributes and draw a conclusion that they are similar enough for comparison.

I drew the idea of putting an ASBM on a ship to demonstrate how the Brahmos would not be useless, because it provides an offensive capability which the ASBM can not (I know that the ASBM wasn't designed for an offensive capability, but that's the point of my argument). I could have compared the Brahmos to a subsonic SSM but the original statement was that the ASBM would make the Brahmos redundant which I think I've argued isn't exactly true.

Besides; not wanting to point the cross hairs towards anyone else, I wasn't the original person to compare the ASBM to Brahmos.
So I think I have the right to compare the two, just to prove that the Brahmos is not made redundant..

What exactly is your point? Because I don't want to spawn too many "quote/reply" segments in an answer. So it's more straightforward.

You have certainly cleared things up by stating your intention. However, I will leave the responses for these to another memeber.

Hmm am I wrong in saying the ASBM would not make the Brahmos redundant?

AssassinsMace · Nov 10, 2009

Let me clear things up. I was the one to bring up the ASBM out of jest. Why? Because the question this thread started asked if China should see Brahmos II as a threat. As opposed to the first one to which they said all the same things? What has changed since then? If the first one is still a legitimate threat, then the second one is just overkill. Unless they plan to sell it advertising it to take on the US Navy. To which I brought up the ASBM because India doesn't have it, so should they see it as a threat? Just like I read the display of DF-31s at the parade alarmed India. Why? China doesn't need DF-31s to strike India. China having DF-31s doesn't increase the threat to India.

Plus given the history, action speaks louder than words.

crobato · Nov 10, 2009

challenge said:
it is not just velocity of the missile,the most important component of the missile is her active radar seeker design by phozotron.
the active radar seeker emit not unlike traditional RD wave form than can easily detected by ESM,her RF waveform more like AESA RF very difficult to detect by conventional naval ESM.

Frequency agile, spread spectrum, low probability of intercept...

Ambivalent · Nov 13, 2009

A couple of things to chew on. A subsonic target like Skeeter or Chukar costs a few hundred thousand dollars each. A supersonic ramjet target like Coyote costs two and a half million a copy and it thirty feet long. Guess which one your navy can buy more of. There are good reasons for the cost differential. The control forces necessary for supersonic flight are much higher, requiring very powerful and expensive control actuators, often driven by gas from the gas grain generator used to create the combustible gas used in the ramjet ( this is a solid fuel ramjet ), or you need big thermal batteries to drive electric actuators. In US rocketry, finding control actuators that could overcome the aerodynamic forces of such high speed flight, and ones that could make rapid enough control inputs to stay ahead of the missile, all while being small and light enough to fit inside a missile has been a major challenge.
Then there are the flight control gyros. For a subsonic target you can get away with a gyro the precesses at, say, three degrees per hour and not get into trouble. For something moving as fast as a Coyote, you need gyros that precess less than a degree an hour to keep the missile oriented. The flight control computers for supersonic targets have to be orders of magnitude faster than those for subsonic targets, and the Kps will be similarly greater for the supersonic target.
All of this costs money, and makes for a big heavy heavy missile. Maneuverability suffers. Forget any re-attack capability. They fly higher than subsonic targets, are much hotter, and cannot perform the terminal maneuvers a good subsonic missile can. The USN learned all of this with the ALVRJ, sort of the son of Moskit.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Supersonic missiles have the advantage of greatly compressing the battlespace compared to subsonic missiles, but they are much better targets than the best subsonic targets. Supersonic missiles, if they are low flying, have an IR plume that is detectable on the ship's IRST often before a ship's radars pick it up, allowing early engagement by RAM. If they are high divers they will be picked up at ranges allowing engagement by Standard.
By comparison, a subsonic sea skimmer like a TASM round or the latest iterations of Harpoon which carry the same tri-mode seekers as SLAM/ER can sneak in undetected with it's radars off flying to a waypoint on it INS. Once it's does light off it's radar, and is detected by the ship's ECM/ESM suite, it often gives the ship about as little time to defend itself as a big supersonic cruise missile does, and they are tougher to find and hit that some big, hot, honking Moskit. Many subsonic cruise missiles, if decoyed off target, can come around again and re-attack.
Btw, liquid fuels on board warships can be extraordinarily dangerous. The USN does not permit liquid fueled missiles aboard ship. I'd hate to see the explosion if one of those four cell Moskit launchers was hit with live warshots inside.

How good is this BrahMos II missile compared to any other missiles?

Engineer

Major

Blitzo

Lieutenant General

Engineer

Major

Blitzo

Lieutenant General

challenge

Banned Idiot

Engineer

Major

Blitzo

Lieutenant General

AssassinsMace

Lieutenant General

crobato

Colonel

Ambivalent

Junior Member