What's new

BrahMos From On High

And here I thought someone would say, "Russia is trying to scam India with non-GNSS guided CMs..."

Buddy, given the limited payload of cruise missiles, it's all about accuracy. Without a proper GNSS like GPS/GLONASS/Galileo/Compass, it won't land on where you want it to. This is evident through numerous Brahmos tests where the speed was achieved, but not the precision. That's the reason why Tomahawk attracted world attention. Russia is trying to intergrate GLONASS into its future CMs while trying to make a last profit. It's a shame really... Even the Chinese were smart enough to stop developing conventional guided CMs in favour of GNSS. I guess India has to learn how to walk before run.

That is why we are funding and co-developing the Glonass. along with that we are also developing the IRNSS. We have also been offered a partnership in Galelio. The first satellite of the IRNSS and the Glonass is going to be carried into space the next year. We better get the system working first with alternative guidance and then we can integrate our own guidance system to it later on when it is operational. Simple logic. The IRNSS is a project of the ISRO and not the DRDO.
 
.
That is why we are funding and co-developing the Glonass. along with that we are also developing the IRNSS. We have also been offered a partnership in Galelio. The first satellite of the IRNSS and the Glonass is going to be carried into space the next year. We better get the system working first with alternative guidance and then we can integrate our own guidance system to it later on when it is operational. Simple logic. The IRNSS is a project of the ISRO and not the DRDO.

Know this, you cannot refit the guidance system of a CM. over 60% of the funds are spent on the guidance system, not the ramjet. Replacing the guidance system equals making a new missile. And no one knows if Russia will cooperate with India on that.

Now, the Chinese had their Regional NS up 10 years ago. They have much more experience with GNSS than India, who has to wait for another 2 years.

Is BrahMos a very good conventionally guided missile? Yes, one of the best behind the United States and Russia.

But, is BrahMos one of the best CMs in the world? No, because United States, Russia, and China largely began investing in GNSS-guided CMs, instead of local AI systems, which the BrahMos boasts.
 
.
In general a head-on colision is a less than .5 probability case.And for a IR homing missiles,it simply non-sensical to say a kill is possible.But one has to definitely consider as many things.Like the sensitivity of the seeker.And in which wavelenghts it is good at.Also relevance to the reflection coefficient and emissivity of the approaching target. Since the topic is about brahmos,let me put it this way.The alloy used for the structuring of brahmos has really high specific heat.It at times even negate the applicable shock wave(creating high drag and threby heating of the surface) due to the supersonic flight.But again a shock wave presence is totally relevant to the bodys aerodynamic characteristics,which PJ-10 is highly good at.This means,brahmos at supersonic speeds is comparable to an subsonic missile in terms of drag coefficients.PJ-10 is drag optimised. On a head-on you will be only visualising a tiny 600mm or less bullet cruising towards you and of the said 600mm a significant part >500mm goes for radome in which an active/passive seeker is embeded.And now please tell me applying all your radar engineering techniques in dealing with this sort of thing.
For a kinetic kill to occur the probablity is not even 10% and only leaves a chance for proximity kill.But the onboard radar seeker which will be sea skimming during the last 40km can be able to detect an incoming interceptor with in its scope.If the interceptor tries to hit avoiding the seeker detection,neither a head-on nor a proximity kill are possible.
That is hilarious. The Stinger can reach Mach 2.2 in about two seconds...

Raytheon FIM-92 Stinger
The initial boost phase accelerates the Stinger to Mach 2.2 within only 2 seconds, and top-speed at motor burnout can be as high as Mach 2.6 for certain trajactories.
The target's physical construct is largely irrelevant to an IR equipped interceptor. You can post anything you want regarding the Brahless' materials and construction and probably no one, including me, will dispute you. But this is about sensor technology. Infrared sensor does not care about the target's aerodynamics, it care only about the target's infrared emissivity. So your bringing up the Brahless' dimension is irrelevant. I am willing to bet that the gibberish from you above is a copy/paste job lifted from somewhere.

Speaking of radome, we will examine the Brahless' radome construct, which directly affect radar performance, and see how efficient the Brahless' radar really is...

Aerospaceweb.org | Ask Us - Rocket Nose Cones and Altitude
The faster the vehicle is designed to go, the more pointed the ideal aerodynamic nose shape becomes. Compare the nose of the Mach 2 F-15 with that of the Mach 5 Phoenix air-to-air missile shown below. The limitation on nose shape is temperature. At very high Mach numbers, the nose must become more rounded than the ideal low-drag shape in order to spread the high temperatures over a larger area and prevent the nose from melting.
Per the highlighted, 'very high Mach numbers' usually implies Mach 5+ as indicated below...

Hypersonic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In aerodynamics, hypersonic speeds are those that are highly supersonic. Since the 1970s, the term has generally been assumed to refer to speeds of Mach 5 (5 times the speed of sound) and above. The hypersonic regime is a subset of the supersonic regime.
The Brahless has a claimed top speed of Mach 2.5, give or take a bit depending on altitude. The Stinger's top speed as shown is Mach 2.2 in about two seconds.

Radome shaping for an aircraft is important...

radome_probs.jpg


Internal volume space is not enough. Two radomes that has the same internal volume space but different shaping or geometry will directly affect radar performance. The more 'rounded' the shape, the more 'forward' we can position the antenna. Of course, radome shaping will incur the issue of radome aberration, aka 'boresight errors' which can produce radar 'ghosts' or inaccurate target position and direction. Boresight errors are why so many ground radar stations prefers those ball-like radomes over nose cones or similar shapes in aircrafts.

The Stinger missile has quite a rounded shape seeker head and this shape, as indicated by the aerospaceweb.org source, is hemispherical and has a very low drag coefficient. Same as the parabola. The cone shape, on the other hand, despite its sleek appearance, has a higher drag coefficient. The hemispherical shape on the Stinger mean we can position its IR sensor pretty much at the physical limit of the missile itself, allowing the sensor the maximum field-of-view possible.

But here is the Brahless' radome along with the MIG-21's for comparison...

brahmos_mig-21_inlet.jpg


If the maximum speeds of the Brahless and the Stinger missile are pretty much the same, then why does the Brahless have such a different radome and an aerodynamically inferior one at that? The answer is that the Brahless' radome pulls dual duties:

1- To house the radar antenna.
2- To control airflow for the jet engine.

That is why the MIG-21 is also presented for comparison. Another comparison is the SR-71 with dual sharp nose cones, called spikes, for the engines. This mean the positioning of the Brahless' radar antenna is not as forward as the Stinger's IR sensor. Antenna physical scan limits are determined by the cone's TAPER angles. Looking at the Brahless, it is highly doubtful that its radar antenna is anywhere forward of the air intake lips, if not even more recessed. This mean the Brahless will have an inferior radar field-of-view compared to the Stinger's IR field-of-view.

As if that is not bad enough...

Saint-Gobain Aerospace
Unfortunately, from a functional stand point it is necessary to manufacture radomes from the dilectric materials, thus making them a prime source of static generation.

As the speed of the aircraft increases, so does the friction of the air passing over the radome surface. This increases the voltage of the charge that builds up. Aircraft cruising at low speeds are less likely to be affected. Radome shape is also a factor. Small pointed radomes will build charge faster than large blunt radomes.
Got the highlighted? Pointed shapes will build up static charges faster than rounded ones, like the shape on Stinger's IR seeker head. This mean the Brahless' radar antenna should be recessed behind the air intake lips to prevent accidental static discharges that could damage the antenna, even though the radome itself may be grounded. I am not saying that this is a must. I am saying that based upon my experience and common sense, either antenna size is reduced, or keep the same size but position it further back. Either option reduces radar capabilities.

The phrase 'head-on' is somewhat general in description. It does not require the interception to be literally point-to-point. A 'head-on' interception can have an off-angle. For the fleet, once the Brahless is blinded by chaff, one or several Stinger-type missiles can effect several head-on interceptions with off-angles that may be outside of the Brahless radar field-of-view. We have seen several factors that necessitate the positioning of the Brahless' radar antenna into an inferior location to say that the possibility of a successful off-angle head-on interception is very real.

Do you really think that DRDO will have any of the Brahmos' weak points as I cited above, just on the radome alone, for public discussion? Not only DRDO but all militaries, including US. Once again, you are not debating the claims of the Brahmos with no ordinary 'fanboy'.
 
.
Know this, you cannot refit the guidance system of a CM. over 60% of the funds are spent on the guidance system, not the ramjet. Replacing the guidance system equals making a new missile. And no one knows if Russia will cooperate with India on that.

Now, the Chinese had their Regional NS up 10 years ago. They have much more experience with GNSS than India, who has to wait for another 2 years.

Is BrahMos a very good conventionally guided missile? Yes, one of the best behind the United States and Russia.

But, is BrahMos one of the best CMs in the world? No, because United States, Russia, and China largely began investing in GNSS-guided CMs, instead of local AI systems, which the BrahMos boasts.

Wait a minute...It is not the whole system I am talking about. Just the satellite guidance.

Beidou navigation system - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

of all those 4 only 1 is useful. And you claim they have experience in it? That means the Europeans are going to launch their Galelio soon and they would gather more experience. The Russians and Americans are far ahead in this. They bring in their experience to us and are helping us to build our IRNSS. So that experience part is negated heavily. Well it is still called as a Cruise missile and uses GPS right now for its navigation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_positioning_system

See how much trouble China is having trying to enter Galelio...
 
.
This is what you said couple of days back

From the same source again.

Do you have any idea with that highlighted statement?
Mean it was never a kinetic kill interceptor.IF your definition counts a 200m CEP as a kinetic kill,I might have to with draw apprehending a non-sense theorist.
And its far from progression.May be they have minimised the CEP from 2km to 200km.But not achieved a Kinetic kill. All they say is a proximity kill with a 400kt warhead. The biggest warhead used to kill innocent civilians was of just 21kt.And here we are talking about a 400kt thing. Do you need any refinements of nuclear technology?
Your dishonesty is apparent. I never said that the Nike-Zeus program was about a kinetic kill vehicle but that the program was moving the interceptor to become one. And you are calling the decrease from 200 km to 200 meters as irrelevant to progress?

According to gambits theory, an interceptor missile which has less speed,low end onboard seeker and mission computer is worth developing to field against supersonic threats.
Guess what...If I put up a brick wall against an incoming Brahless, that does count as an interception. The reason why we want the interceptor to achieve its maximum speed as soon as possible is because we want the interception to be as far away from us as possible. But ultimately, the interceptor's speed can be discarded.

Patriotism has no boundaries.Which is only evident in this single post by you.When your fellow americans b!tching around PAC capabilities,you are the only one who is calling them as sucesses.
And the reason why you call the first generation PAC a failure is because you have no understanding of military affairs.

Again from the same link you provided,which projects your rubbish talk

Which means although the system as a whole is capable of dealing with TBMs,they doubted the performance of the missile. hence moved to PAC2 for effective TBM engagement.
Of course they doubted the efficacy of the PAC as a viable TBM defense. They had to doubt because they knew it was never intended to be so. They knew that it had only limited TBM capability. Whatever upgrades we did was incremental towards an actual TBM defense. Heck...If I wanted, it would take me no time at all to dig up all the failures from DRDO and who else and have a field day with them.

I think I should go with A.Postol rather than putting faith in a manipulating/conspiracy theorist like you.
Postol have been discredited by his peers over ten years ago. Your argument against the PAC, the early generations at that, depends on this?

It is the president that declared the sucess rate,but not the system which proves its mettle. Truely amazing
I do not care what Bush claimed.

After reading your replies, the so called comprehensions I decided to move you into my ignore list,since everything you talk about contradicts with the same links you provide.It might not at all be a worthy idea wasting on a patriotic fellow biased and propagandising sh!t rather than on a technological specimen
My 'dismissed' list has very few names. I only dismissed those whom I deemed truly idiotic. You seems to be a reasonably intelligent, if somewhat misguided fellow. But what you do not understand is that in this environment, for every one who participate there are one hundred who merely lurked and read. I do not care if you do ignore me or not. If what you boast I consider to be absurd, I will challenge you. The readers have already seen for themselves how weak you are when it come to providing sources to support your arguments.
 
.
Wait a minute...It is not the whole system I am talking about. Just the satellite guidance.

Beidou navigation system - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

of all those 4 only 1 is useful. And you claim they have experience in it? That means the Europeans are going to launch their Galelio soon and they would gather more experience. The Russians and Americans are far ahead in this. They bring in their experience to us and are helping us to build our IRNSS. So that experience part is negated heavily. Well it is still called as a Cruise missile and uses GPS right now for its navigation.

Galileo (satellite navigation) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

See how much trouble China is having trying to enter Galelio...

1) Galileo won't be up for another 4 years.

2) France launched DORIS solely for the purpose of R&Ding GNSS-guided CMs.

3) Who said the US and RF are helping India on GNSS-guided missiles?

4) GlobalPS is American. GalileoPS is European. GLONASS is Russian. I don't think you would want to use someone else's GNSS in a war. Your military would be blind if they end the transmission. Btw, IRNSS Is regional, meaning you can't really hit anyone other than Pakistan with that.

3) China left Galileo because Europe stole Chinese technology vis-a-vis Beidou. They emit the same signals. I know, it's hard to believe...
 
.
1) Galileo won't be up for another 4 years.

2) France launched DORIS solely for the purpose of R&Ding GNSS-guided CMs.

3) Who said the US and RF are helping India on GNSS-guided missiles?

4) GlobalPS is American. GalileoPS is European. GLONASS is Russian. I don't think you would want to use someone else's GNSS in a war. Your military would be blind if they end the transmission. Btw, IRNSS Is regional, meaning you can't really hit anyone other than Pakistan with that.

3) China left Galileo because Europe stole Chinese technology vis-a-vis Beidou. They emit the same signals. I know, it's hard to believe...

Phew...GLONASS has Indian participation...and IRNSS is to be integrated with GLONASS.

Russia And India Sign Agreements On Glonass Navigation System

China has to because they have no-one to provide them with one.
 
.
Phew...GLONASS has Indian participation...and IRNSS is to be integrated with GLONASS.

Russia And India Sign Agreements On Glonass Navigation System

China has to because they have no-one to provide them with one.

1) No, IRNSS is Indian. It will not integrate into anything.

2) What are you going to do if Russia ended transmission? You can't nuke them, can you?

3) China is launching one because it knows you can't fight a war with someone else's satellites.
 
.
No, IRNSS is Indian. It will not be integrated into anything.

What are you going to do if Russia ended transmission?

China has one because it knows you can't fight a war with someone else's satellite.

Russia cant end an agreement just like that as we have contributed financially and technologically to the Glonass that is in space and is going to be in space. The Russians wanted to integrate glonass to GPS and Galelio along with IRNSS..only we have given them the go-ahead.the GLONASS is in the GEO orbit along with IRNSS and the Chinese wanted to Emulate it. They couldnt succeed so they wanted to join Galelio. But they were thrown out.

GLONASS - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
.
Russia cant end an agreement just like that as we have contributed financially and technologically to the Glonass that is in space and is going to be in space. The Russians wanted to integrate glonass to GPS and Galelio along with IRNSS..only we have given them the go-ahead.the GLONASS is in the GEO orbit along with IRNSS and the Chinese wanted to Emulate it. They couldnt succeed so they wanted to join Galelio. But they were thrown out.

GLONASS - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1) Russia can back out of the agreement anytime they want on grounds of national secrurity. Ever heard of martial law?

2) You have your orders all wrong. There was no GLONASS to copy from, 10 years ago when China launched Beidou. Galileo invited China and China quit.

Going to sleep...
 
.
That is your own feeling and has nothing to do with my knowledgebase.
Your knowledge base is quite empty regarding the Brahless as I have amply shown.

Even if you can ignore it,the missile system wont.Because it was purposely built to do so. i.e it got ECCM on it and is immune to ECM.
Again your reluctance of accepting it or not,has nothing to do either with me or with the brahmos while the system being capable of.
Claiming without supporting does not make you look any more credible. I can claim the US have a force field that wil turn the Brahless back against its launcher.

I am still with my quoted statement which says,Brahmos has active-passive radar seeker.
Do I have to prove the readers of this forum to say that you are acting as a door knob who has never heard of a dual mode radar seeker?
Wakeup Sid, world is moving on.Even Indians themself mastered these dualmode seekers for their missile defence program(IR+radar seeker).
And suspecting a russian seeker is dumb enough of your patriotic fever.
Eliminated component description,but hoping that it might ping you.


The only reason for me to highlight the point of active-passive radar is first of its kind on a supersonic anti-ship missile.It doesnt need any further attestations.
Unbelievable...!!!

Got news for you, young man. Radar detection is NATURALLY dual mode: Transmit and Receive. This was discovered back in 1904...!!! But here you are boasting that India successfully mastered 'dual mode' radars...!!! This clearly indicated you know NOTHING about radar detection but are hell bent on posting something anyway.

Geezzzz..... there you go.Terminology has nothing to do with practical logic,if sense prevails.And unfortunately it doesnt for you.
Proper terminologies are vital. How would you like it if your doctor does not use proper terminologies when discussing your health?

Since I was talking about my passive seeker w.r.t ship own radar emission,it has to be the ships active emissions.And it is.
I doubt it. A military ship can go into what is called Emission Control (EMCON) status when the ship does not transmit anything at all, from radar to communication radios. In this state, the only way a ship can become a radar emitter is when it is reflecting someone else's transmissions. You did not know this else we would have seen a caveat, or clarification, from you.

It was a typo.Should be blind.As I said,even blinding this active seeker is a hypothetical scenario which only satisfy your needs.Because of the one and only reason is it has ECCM.
Wrong...Chaff have proven to be successful in blinding the seeking radar. Proven since WW II...

Chaff (countermeasure) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Chaff, originally called Window by the British, and Düppel by the Second World War era German Luftwaffe, is a radar countermeasure in which aircraft or other targets spread a cloud of small, thin pieces of aluminium, metallised glass fibre or plastic, which either appears as a cluster of secondary targets on radar screens or swamps the screen with multiple returns.
There is nothing 'hypothetical' about chaff's success.

As per our previous talk,it was highly understanble that you have no idea about how an ECCM works,let me educate you for a moment.
An ECCM will take use of these things to make its way clear of ECM.
Like: 1)STC-Sensitivity Time control.
where STC is used to keep not only the target,but also the the signal that contains both target+clutter within the dynamic range.And when MTI will increase the target visibility w.r.t clutter.here the clutter can be of any time.Chaffs,sea clutter,whatever...
Usage of Fast time constant circuit.,PRF,Frequency agility compatability moving target indicator,Dicke-fix receiver,Back-bias receiver,Jammer strobe,sidelobe blanking,Antirange gate pull-off,random conical scan,conical scan and lobe switching on receive only,....... there are N number of ECCM techniques that can be conviniently integrated on to a radar seeker. most of the above said dont even need additional equipments,while just addition of few algorithms and fast fourier transforms can simply do the job.
If you are an honest person, give the source from which you lifted what you posted. From your writing pattern so far, we can see that what you posted is not from you.

Anyway...

Note the important part: "...where STC is used to keep not only the target,but also the the signal that contains both target+clutter within the dynamic range...." What this mean is that the radar must have distinctions between target and clutter IN THE FIRST PLACE before the receiver part can perform MTI processing and everything else on the target. But if the Brahless cannot see the ship due to a noise blanket then ECCM is not possible.

Tandem=one following or behind the other
And you talking about radars and not knowing this basic thing is outrageous of your claims.This tandem i.e one after another sequential operation will be explained better in conjuction with the giberish stuff below.lets go there and see what you said:


So,you only know about mono-static and bi-static ones?
In the same post I put a block diagram of my said dual mode radar seeker.And it doesnt follow your logic of pulsing of modes. Mode switching puts more load at the processor and analysis level as compared to a dedicated dual mode seeker.And the above said tandem operating procedure shows up during an intense ECM environment where the dual mode offers more flexibility with ECCM as compared to switching modes.
More technical nonsense. Radar detection is NATURALLY dual modes: Transmit (active) and Receive (passive). If the system is mono-static, meaning it has only one antenna, then in order to have radar detection, the system must be a pulsed system. In a bi-static system, or configuration, there are two or more antennas but still at least one must be the transmitter (active) and others be receivers (passive). In a bi-static configuration, transmit and receive modes can be and usually are simultaneous.

YOUR problem here is the lack of clarity on what you are talking about regarding the Brahless' radar. You keep on repeating the useless words 'passive seeker' with nothing to define its operations. Not a single credible and independent source to say whatever it is that the Brahless has is somehow unique. The image you posted regarding this 'passive seeker' make no sense whatsoever. We can see by now that many of the things I posted about radar detection principles you have never heard of before.

Refer to the ECCM I have listed in this same post.If Chaff acts as an ECM, do you expect there bee nothing to counter it?
Please go though the above ECCM techniques and if you have any doubt in them feel free to give me a call.
Afterall w.r.t your non-sensical discussion all I understand is that yous understanding and knowledge was stagnated with just ECM and failed to see new fronteirs .
Right...So according to you, all it takes to have a successful penetration of a chaff cloud is to add another capital 'C' in ECM. You claimed that against a chaff cloud, multiple Brahless at different altitudes would not be blinded by the chaff. This is a violation of the laws of physics and I showed you how wrong you were. All I see so far is a mindless repeat of ECCM as if that alone is enough.

That is just being ignorant of development in the otherside of the world.
Firstly you have to know what is supersonic cruising all the way,untill it hits the target.Brahmos has an intergral liquid propulsion ramjet.It means the missile dont depend on coasting,but highly and totally depends on its cruise flight. the 290km multi flight profile path doesnt at all include the coasting phase.It is pure cruising phase,this simply means that the missile still carries a significant energy for additional manuvers which ofcourse it was meant to perform against incoming threats like SAMs.Why people are giving so much importance and showing concern w.r.t brahmos is that its simply an upgraded Yakhont which also carries the similar capability to dodge when a threat appears infront.And you are the one who is making fun of its AI with baseless accusations and ranting.But it is that very same AI, that helps guide the missile untill it hits the target.
This has nothing to do with explaining why the Brahless does not have a nonmaneuverable terminal flight phase. All you are saying is that the missile is supersonic and that it can maneuver. Even the DRDO admit that its maneuvers is design to hide the launcher's location, as shown on post 204 back on page 14...

This is the official comment.

Just got off the phone with BrahMos CEO Dr A Sivathanu Pillai, delighted with the 11.30AM test of the Naval BrahMos supersonic cruise missile in a vertical launch from the Indian Navy destroyer INS Ranvir. Dr Pillai reveals the test was specifically aimed at testing the missile's accuracy when its flight path was infused with "diversionary manoueuvers" to mask the general direction of the launcher warship. The missile, vertically launched from a Vertical Launcher built for the BrahMos, was rolled in all directions successfully before it smashed into the hull of INS Meen a decommissioned target vessel.
So where did you get the idea that the Brahless is responsive to threat? You have no basis for this claim. Now it is even more obvious that you make sh!t up as you go along.
 
.
1) Russia can back out of the agreement anytime they want on grounds of national secrurity. Ever heard of martial law?

2) You have your orders all wrong. There was no GLONASS to copy from, 10 years ago when China launched Beidou. Galileo invited China and China quit.

Going to sleep...

You are dreaming...you go to sleep. No Glonass 10 years back you got to be shittin' me. Glonass is operational since 1976 and it has a constellation of 21 out of 24 satellites out in space. You need to know a lot more than what Beidou is.

Ok now as it is proven you are dragging me into a d!ck measuring contest I am putting you on my ignore list.
 
.
I would advise people not to believe what gambit. He Googles information and it seems to me is very proficient at making connections which aren't there. While he has obviously has had experience in military topics, he doesn't understand the concepts upon which they work.

I mean he doesn't even know Newtons 3 laws of movement.
 
.
I would advise people not to believe what gambit. He Googles information and it seems to me is very proficient at making connections which aren't there. While he has obviously has had experience in military topics, he doesn't understand the concepts upon which they work.

I mean he doesn't even know Newtons 3 laws of movement.
How sad for you to keep harping on that when I proved how mistaken you were. Now if only you are just as good at disproving some other things I posted.
 
.
How sad for you to keep harping on that when I proved how mistaken you were. Now if only you are just as good at disproving some other things I posted.

I've been busy studying, y'know generally being productive. Tell me what was it that you claimed that I haven't disproved?

You have the title of military professional, even one mistake, slams a big sledgehammer on your credibility.
 
.

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom