Battle of ALCMs : BrahMos A vs Pakistan’s Ra’ad

[Jamwal's]

Its a great feat to integrate a 2 tonne Brahmos with Flanker, indigenously. A true infrastructure killer both military and civilian.

And yet it still has a functional cruise missle program long before India did. You see unlike you, we dont need to show off

As if India never had Air launched Kh 31, 35, 58, 59 decades ago ?

 

[nik141993]

Regardless it will still blow the shit out of ites enemy when used, right ? And to hell with MTCR as if we tell them everything. LOL

LOL..you dont need to tell them anything they already know about your country R&D output

And yet it still has a functional cruise missle program long before India did. You see unlike you, we dont need to show off

of course it will be functional as you buyed it off the shelf..try working from scratch you will know where you stand

 

[salarsikander]

As if India never had Air launched Kh 31, 35, 58, 59 decades ago

LOL You mean Russian cruise missile , right ?

LOL..you dont need to tell them anything they already know about your country R&D output


of course it will be functional as you buyed it off the shelf..try working from scratch you will know where you stand

Yes and you were there in When this was all bought, right? Bugg off dude.

Take a chill pill, dont get so butt-hurt. Compare yourself with someone who is your size, not someone who is 6 times smaller than yours ! the obsession is just killing you

 

[Jamwal's]

no pakistan doesnt publicise because pakistan has nothing to show..even china with all secretiveness publicise all the data in form of researche paper & patents but not pakistan .pakistan produce none of these technologies

Pakistan doesn't produce any of these technology.yet many of these are in its missiles thanks to china

1. Thrust vector rocket & TVC booster
2. INS systems(Ring laser, FOG. Not even old MEMS)
3. Navigation control system
4. TERCOM
5. DSMAC/Automatic target recognition
6. Seekers
7. composite
8. RCS(radar cross section) design lab & test bed facility
9. Access to military GPS/Beidou/GLONASS/IRNSS/Galileo
=>Not sure about Chinese Beidou
10. Turbofan engines & actuators

http://mtcr_annex_handbook_eng.pdf/

One needs to know the technical prowess of a country by its universities, tech institute, Patent filing and Research papers published etc.

India is in top 15 countries - world research. While in top 10 in Patent filing (UPSTO) and scientific papers.

India (3400 patents) Pak (15 patents) for year 2015.

______________

It would be a joke if we would've claimed KH series missiles indigenous although we have them in service since 80s.

LOL You mean Russian cruise missile , right ?

Yes, Russian.

We call Kh 35 as Kh 35.

 

[salarsikander]

Yes, Russian.

We call Kh 35 as Kh 35.

What I meant as country's own program

 

[Jamwal's]

What I meant as country's own program

Those are as indigenous as your Raad which is based on South African Mupsow.

 

[salarsikander]

Those are as indigenous as your Raad which is based on South African Mupsow.

Yeah sure, whatever makes you happy. Wonder how could they bypass MTCR ?

 

[Kinetic]

What a silly comparison. Raad is deployed for over 10 years.
Brahmos air launched version is still undeployed and under test phase.

How do you deploy a missile just after first test. All the missiles around world need atleast 5 years of testing

 

[Nigel Farrage]

How do you deploy a missile just after first test. All the missiles around world need atleast 5 years of testing

We don't build every "indigenous nut and bolt" and only build what can't be bought off the shelf. That's why most components are already tested and proven and we don't need to spend time and money to test them..
Simple.

 

[Kinetic]

We don't build every "indigenous nut and bolt" and only build what can't be bought off the shelf. That's why most components are already tested and proven and we don't need to spend time and money to test them..
Simple.

US and Russia also can do the same but they struggled with their missiles a lot for years. Still their cruise missiles fails. But yours seems success from the first test itself.

Such missile needs huge industrial base while Pakistan seems to have none. Can you please name few companies which are involved in supplying high end COTS components for your missiles?

In India we have Tata, L&T, Godrej, AL, ECIL, IITs, IISc which are integral part of missile development and production. I can give you many example.

Example:

http://www.larsentoubro.com/heavy-e...ospace/land-weapon-systems/missile-launchers/

http://www.larsentoubro.com/heavy-e...on-systems/medium-range-long-range-launchers/

 

[John Reese]

Brahmos is nothing but p-800 labelled as Indian and russian

I Know You trolling

But I can Post a Scientific Literature & Patents of Brahmos Missile

But i assure you you cannot post Single genuine Scientific or Published Literature in case of your babur development Excpt media blogs and Articles

If you want we can start a Thread

And yet it still has a functional cruise missle program long before India did. You see unlike you, we dont need to show off

Factually Wrong Difference btw India And Pakistan Cruise Missile Service is matter of months

Babur Introduced in August 2005
Brahmos November 2006

US and Russia also can do the same but they struggled with their missiles a lot for years. Still their cruise missiles fails. But yours seems success from the first test itself.

Such missile needs huge industrial base while Pakistan seems to have none. Can you please name few companies which are involved in supplying high end COTS components for your missiles?

In India we have Tata, L&T, Godrej, AL, ECIL, IITs, IISc which are integral part of missile development and production. I can give you many example.

Example:

http://www.larsentoubro.com/heavy-e...ospace/land-weapon-systems/missile-launchers/

http://www.larsentoubro.com/heavy-e...on-systems/medium-range-long-range-launchers/

Stop Trying Explain a Nation Which Average of Filing of Published Intellectual Patent Rights is below 20

How do you deploy a missile just after first test. All the missiles around world need atleast 5 years of testing

China Covered that Part for them Like JF-17

 

[gslv mk3]

Yeah sure, whatever makes you happy. Wonder how could they bypass MTCR ?

Raad do not violate the range restriction. So there is no bypassing.

You see unlike you, we dont need to show off

What do you have to show off, anyway ? 15 patents an year at USPTO ? Turbofan engines brought off-the-shelf ?

 

[nik141993]

Raad do not violate the range restriction. So there is no bypassing.



What do you have to show off, anyway ? 15 patents an year at USPTO ? Turbofan engines brought off-the-shelf ?

even babur has lower range than what pakistan publicise according to some reliable sources

 

[zebra7]

B.S comparison, A supersonic cruise missile with a Subsonic ALCM.

However, when we look at the combo MKI with extended Range, and the Brahmos-1 lethality plus the speed, is a dangerous combination and there is no doubt about it.

 

[gambit]

For anyone who's interested. This is an informative post from @gambit


Is it possible to intercept Brahmos with a CIWS ?

Gambit's answer : Sure, but the problems of detection and tracking remains. You need to keep in mind that CIWS will be at ground level, therefore most susceptible to line-of-sight issues. When the Brahmos breaks horizon, the gun will have only literally seconds to reorient itself and fire. This short time span require equally precise radar information as if you are relying on a missile's radar to make its interception.

Question by me : lets say that the radar can track the target at distance of 8km but the gun can engage at 3 km, so can the target be intercepted when it's speed is 2 km/s ?

Gambit's answer : Assume radar tracking and gun reorient is perfect. It does not matter if target is supersonic. If the gun can engage at 3km, which in this case the assumption is head-on, then target speed is not an issue. The gun radar will calculate target speed, estimate when it will reach that 3km point, then fire just before the target reach that 3km point. If radar tracking and gun response are perfect, then bullets and target will meet at 3km distance out.

You should understand that in a head-on intercept, and continue to assume that tracking is perfect, the only reason why target approach speed is important is IF you want to avoid shrapnel. Because the intruder is coming so fast, even if you successfully hit him, there is still forward momentum at supersonic speed for a lot of small masses, still capable of doing a lot of damages if not kill something/someone.

So if we return to that 3km engagement distance, if radar tracking and gun reorient is not as good as you like, even though your bullets may intercept the intruder, that interception may be at 100 meters instead of 3km, spraying you with supersonic shrapnel. But let us say that your AWACS alerted you to a supersonic intruder, your gun reorient to the indicated direction and your gun radar begin transmitting. The moment the supersonic intruder breaks your horizon view, gun radar will have a solution and you will have interception at 3km distance out.

If you are defending something else that the intruder is going after, then the gun solution will lead the intruder, in other words, the bullets will be at an estimated point AHEAD of the intruder's flight and you still will have an interception at 3km distance out. In this situation, the lead depends on the off angle between you and whatever it is that you are defending.


Source: https://defence.pk/threads/brahmos-cant-be-intercepted-in-next-20-years.258714/page-11#post-4425874


Brahmos isn't the first hypersonic AShM. Similar Russian systems have been around for some time and NATO has continued to rely on the usual Gun and Missile based CIWS for their interception.

In the movie 'Jack Reacher', if you have seen it, there is a scene where Reacher (Tom Cruise) explained some of the basics of long distance shooting by snipers.

Reacher explained that when there are multiple targets and if they are in single file front to rear, not side to side, and coming towards him, that would be the ideal situation. That is not to say that the head-on collision solution is easy. It is not, especially when the combined closing speed, that of target + interceptor, approaches double digits Mach.

With a missile interceptor that has some measure of 'intelligence', such as a radar and flight controls, and the expected degree of autonomy, the high combined speed, interceptor + target, is still a geometry problem. The missile is expected to constantly (re)calculate a spatial interception point. This is where the radar design can and have been the cause of many misses.

http://tornado.sfsu.edu/geosciences/classes/m815/rangefolding.html

In the link above, the source of missile failure to intercept came in Figure 5 and in the 'Gate' section. The design issue, with the math, is complex and when it comes to weapons, it is classified. In the radar's software, a 'gate' is a period of time where the radar has the target and is calculating its resolutions:

- Altitude
- Speed
- Heading
- Aspect angle

So to sum up the gating problem using unclassified info, the radar's software was inadequate in 'gating' the target from one return pulse to the next. All four resolutions must be calculated in the first pulse (gate), recalculate in the next pulse (gate), and so on. If the 'gates' are far enough from each other, the missile will have increasing difficulties in recalculations and when interceptor + target are closing at double digits Mach, the missile can and have ended up flying past the target without knowing the spatial coordinates of the target and ended up self destruct. Better software have largely eliminated this problem but if the target employs countermeasures, the gating problem returns.

Using bullets in a CIWS have a few differences from using a standalone interceptor missile. The bullets from the gun are themselves interceptors and they are 'dumb'. They do not have guidance. The CIWS defense relies on putting hundreds of them in front of the target's path in the hope that the target will be destroyed by multiple collisions. Where to put the bullets depends on a standoff radar.

The gating problem is still there for the gun's radar, but the CIWS method do not need precision like the missile interceptor does. All the radar has to do is direct the gun in the general direction of the approaching target and let probability do the rest, and with hundreds of bullets, it is high probability that the approaching target will collide with enough of the bullets to be destroyed. The disadvantage to the CIWS method is effective range. Simply put, a bullet does not have a propulsion section.

What if the target produces lateral (side-side) displacement in the gun's radar view ? Now the geometry problem can compound in magnitudes, but again, because there are so many interceptors, precision like the missile interceptor is not needed. The gun's radar will have to calculate a spatial interception point AHEAD of the target, but out of one hundred dumb bullets, a dozen or even less hits will be enough to send the approaching missile out of aerodynamic stability.