What's new

Aircraft carrier Liaoning vs Vikramaditya

The excessively fast speed of the BrahMos is ironically its greatest weakness vs a modern AEGIS or PAAMS equipped warship.

Consider: BrahMos is non-stealthy, flies hot and high (in comparison to other sea-skimmers) and is more susceptible to soft-kill (I.e ship countermeasures etc) due to its high speeds limiting the ability of BrahMos to react. There is also the fact that the BrahMos' sea-skimming capabilities are severely impaired in adverse sea states! BrahMos is also useless in the littoral zones or high traffic sea lanes, again due to its high speed and lack of intelligence (I.e High risk of engaging neutral/civilian shipping target).

Scenario: An AEGIS or PAAMs system with its powerful long-range AESA radars will see the 'high-flying' BrahMos with its HUGE thermal signature at great distances, most likely before BrahMos has even had time to reach max velocity (est. 1.8 Mach). This would be an easy hard-kill for an AEGIS/Standard combo or a PAAMS/Aster combo. For arguments sake, lets say that the impossible happened and the AEGIS/PAAMS failed to prosecute BrahMos during its initial engagement, and continued to so, what then? Well, the AEGIS/PAAMS warship would deploy countermeasures, decoys etc in-order to lure/trick BrahMos away from the target. As I have said before, the speed of BrahMos denies it sufficient reaction time - therefore if the ships countermeasures succeed, we can pretty much guarantee a soft-kill. Beyond soft-kill we have CIWS as final defense, and western CIWS are tested and proven.

We also have to remember that no matter how fast BrahMos is, or how agile it is during its terminal phase, western missiles such as Standard or Aster etc are even faster, significantly more intelligent and much more maneuverable (in excess of 60Gs, TVing etc etc). Additionally, if third party targeting data is available, AEGIS/PAAMS will spot BrahMos at launch, and if it is within their engagement envelope (I.e 120 km), then they can engage BrahMos while its at high-subsonic or low-supersonic speeds.

Conclusion: BrahMos is just fast, but not really a great anti-ship missile. All the latest in-production anti-ship missiles in the west are intelligent, stealthy subsonic missile such as the Naval Strike Missile/Joint Strike Missile. The United States also favors a new stealthy subsonic anti-ship missile to replace its Harpoon missiles.

Nonetheless, navies like China, Russia, India, Brazil etc are currently not-capable of defending against missiles like BrahMos - we do not operate naval air-defense systems as sophisticated and advanced as AEGIS/PAAMS. While destroyers such as the Kolkata-class and the Type 052D will improve the situation, they will still be vulnerable.

EDIT: Can I also mention this; There is nothing particularly impressive about about BrahMos, it isn't a revolutionary design and it isn't a great feat of technological engineering by military standards. Western countries have had the technology to design and produce supersonic anti-ship missiles since the 1960s (at-least).

you are under-estimating BrahMos -- please read this

http://www.defence.pk/forums/land-warfare/266434-countering-cruise-missiles.html#post4554606
 
.
have any 1 pictures of Liaoning vs Vikramaditya Primary
Flight control room
 
.
The excessively fast speed of the BrahMos is ironically its greatest weakness vs a modern AEGIS or PAAMS equipped warship.
....

EDIT: Can I also mention this; There is nothing particularly impressive about about BrahMos, it isn't a revolutionary design and it isn't a great feat of technological engineering by military standards. Western countries have had the technology to design and produce supersonic anti-ship missiles since the 1960s (at-least).

Talking is always easier than practising, Alienware.
To a country like Vietnam, at this moment, we only want to defense our sea and land, and some coast defense systems with Brahmos-like ( Yakhont ) missile ( Bastion-P system) are enough, in case the enemy plans to use some long-range threats like aircraft carriers, we hope to get Yakhont/Klub-S missile to arm our sub and surface ship and Su30MK2.

I believe that in fact Yakhont missile in pre-production phase in Vietnam. The more important is the strategy and AI of Yakhont missiles seem to be excellent. That's why Israeli guys are very keen to destroy these Yakhont missiles in Syria.
 
.

He is not neccessary wrong. Supersonic cruise missile huge thermal signature indeed makes it easier to detect since they need to fly higher compare to subsonic cruise missile who hug terrain close or fly very near the sea to try escape radar detection.

The best bet for supersonic missile to achieve success will be very close to its target. For example 100km or less and flies at 2.5mach. This will give enemy only a detection and reaction time of less than 2min 30 seconds... Too little for them to react. But trying to get near a modern fleet within 100km will be another question depends on the capbilities of the opponent.
 
.
He is not neccessary wrong. Supersonic cruise missile huge thermal signature indeed makes it easier to detect since they need to fly higher compare to subsonic cruise missile who hug terrain close or fly very near the sea to try escape radar detection.

The best bet for supersonic missile to achieve success will be very close to its target. For example 100km or less and flies at 2.5mach. This will give enemy only a detection and reaction time of less than 2min 30 seconds... Too little for them to react. But trying to get near a modern fleet within 100km will be another question depends on the capbilities of the opponent.

Yakhont missiles could launch 300km or diving 120km from targets
The missile is noted for:
- over-the-horizon range;
- true "fire-and-forget" performance;
- flexible flight path ("low", "high - low");
- supersonic speed at all flight phases;
- multi-platform capability permitting their use by surface ships of all major classes, submarines and ground-based launchers.

Due to the Yakhont's short flying time (its speed is 2.5 times greater than the speed of sound) and the long effective range of its seeker head, the targeting of the missile need not be very accurate.

The ability to observe the entire target area from a high altitude, augmented by the enhanced capabilities of the antiship missile control system, make it possible to cue missiles to hostile ships in a group and discriminate false targets.

After launch, Yakhont's early descent to a low altitude, combined with its supersonic speed and seaskimming flight mode in the homing phase, make it possible to avoid detection and tracking of the missile by even the target's most sophisticated air defense systems.

so%20do%20tac%20chien-6e1d9.jpeg
 
. . .
Nonetheless, navies like China, Russia, India, Brazil etc are currently not-capable of defending against missiles like BrahMos - we do not operate naval air-defense systems as sophisticated and advanced as AEGIS/PAAMS. While destroyers such as the Kolkata-class and the Type 052D will improve the situation, they will still be vulnerable.

EDIT: Can I also mention this; There is nothing particularly impressive about about BrahMos, it isn't a revolutionary design and it isn't a great feat of technological engineering by military standards. Western countries have had the technology to design and produce supersonic anti-ship missiles since the 1960s (at-least).

Then why did you think that modern navies cant defend against supersonic missiles? In a CVBG taskforce, you will be supported by other C4R assets. The battle begins long before two opposing forces meet each other. When they do, you need to penetrate their outer layer of defence first, mainly fighters. Then you need to lock on their ships while avoiding air defence missiles.
Even if you manage to lock on their ships, there is no telling that they will manage to score a hit. Their ships are constantly moving, with ECM, chaffs and ciws and SEARAMs.

Modern CIWS and RAMS are designed to deal with both subsonic and supersonic missiles. Like you said yoursef , they are old tech.
 
.
Severe underestimation of modern cruise missiles taking place.
Have to post this for the hundredth time....
Navy Lacks Plan to Defend Against `Sizzler' Missile (Update1) - Bloomberg
If USN can't reliably counter klub,how can this 'old tech' be easy to deal with?
And IN prefers brahmos over even klub due to the seeker.Brahmos actually can fly sea skimming mode whole way ,but range is reduced in this flight path to about 180-200km.Alternate flight trajectories can be set.One coming sea skimming,other high then low.Another low-high-low.And it can perform manuevres due to its seeker than yakhont.
In salvo firing,8-10 coming in at different angles will stretch the most sophisticated defense systems.
 
.
He is not neccessary wrong. Supersonic cruise missile huge thermal signature indeed makes it easier to detect since they need to fly higher compare to subsonic cruise missile who hug terrain close or fly very near the sea to try escape radar detection.

The best bet for supersonic missile to achieve success will be very close to its target. For example 100km or less and flies at 2.5mach. This will give enemy only a detection and reaction time of less than 2min 30 seconds... Too little for them to react. But trying to get near a modern fleet within 100km will be another question depends on the capbilities of the opponent.

Not entirely sure about that. Consider e.g. ...
The [Goalkeeper CIW] system's reaction time to a Mach 2 sea-skimming missile such as the Russian SS-N-22 Sunburn from automatic detection to kill is reported to be 5.5 seconds with the firing synchronized to start the engagement at a range of 1,500 m and ending with a kill at 300 m
Goalkeeper CIWS - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://kitsune.addr.com/LCF/goalkeeper.html

Reaction time for ESSM vrom a VLU is likely about 6-8 seconds, coupled to e.g. Thales APAR or SMART Mk2/STIR combo.
 
.
Not entirely sure about that. Consider e.g. ...

Goalkeeper CIWS - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://kitsune.addr.com/LCF/goalkeeper.html

Reaction time for ESSM vrom a VLU is likely about 6-8 seconds, coupled to e.g. Thales APAR or SMART Mk2/STIR combo.

You have to take into the worst scenario. Battle station alert mode is not on standby. Radar is still probably on. From detecting , identify and take appropriate action plus asembling the crew to full battlemode. Less than 3mins to neutralise the hostile? I will say that is a tall order.

Let's take Israel-hezbollah war in 2006. I can be sure radar is on, and from what I understand they are not on battle mode. and even a subsonic missile is able to take out israel warship but the fact, the distance is very close. Less than 50km. This give Israel very little reaction time to counter it.
 
.
Then why did you think that modern navies cant defend against supersonic missiles? In a CVBG taskforce, you will be supported by other C4R assets. The battle begins long before two opposing forces meet each other. When they do, you need to penetrate their outer layer of defence first, mainly fighters. Then you need to lock on their ships while avoiding air defence missiles.
Even if you manage to lock on their ships, there is no telling that they will manage to score a hit. Their ships are constantly moving, with ECM, chaffs and ciws and SEARAMs.

Modern CIWS and RAMS are designed to deal with both subsonic and supersonic missiles. Like you said yoursef , they are old tech.

Perhaps you should read my post again, I make it very clear that modern western navies would have no problem defending against BrahMos or other supersonic missiles.
 
.
In salvo firing,8-10 coming in at different angles will stretch the most sophisticated defense systems.

LMAO, how you manage to get close enough to fire those missiles in the first place? Most journos got no ideas, but I thought most people who post at defence forums has a better clue, apparently not. :woot:

There is more to a missile than its speed. The most used antiship missile in the world is subsonic, used by some of the most sofiscated navies in the world including USN. I will leave the readers to judge who to trust. An article in Bloomberg or the navies who decades after decades fielding robust countermeasures. The USN never blinked in the face of the missiles Soviet got. Keep have wet dreams of sizzles, or bretherless.:woot:
 
.
Talking is always easier than practising, Alienware.
To a country like Vietnam, at this moment, we only want to defense our sea and land, and some coast defense systems with Brahmos-like ( Yakhont ) missile ( Bastion-P system) are enough, in case the enemy plans to use some long-range threats like aircraft carriers, we hope to get Yakhont/Klub-S missile to arm our sub and surface ship and Su30MK2.

I believe that in fact Yakhont missile in pre-production phase in Vietnam. The more important is the strategy and AI of Yakhont missiles seem to be excellent. That's why Israeli guys are very keen to destroy these Yakhont missiles in Syria.

I agree, to a country like Vietnam BrahMos would be a very potent capability - as all your likely adversaries will not have the naval air-defense capabilities to defend against it.

But do not bring BrahMos to a peer fight with a modern western navy. The US, UK, Norwegians, Dutch, French, Germans, Italians and the Spanish all maintain fleets of highly sophisticated air-defense warships (AEGIS, PAAMS etc) - they would have no problem taking BrahMos down.
 
.
Perhaps you should read my post again, I make it very clear that modern western navies would have no problem defending against BrahMos or other supersonic missiles.

That is not what you said in post #404:

Nonetheless, navies like China, Russia, India, Brazil etc are currently not-capable of defending against missiles like BrahMos - we do not operate naval air-defense systems as sophisticated and advanced as AEGIS/PAAMS. While destroyers such as the Kolkata-class and the Type 052D will improve the situation, they will still be vulnerable.

But it is fine.
 
.
Back
Top Bottom