BrahMos From On High

[Merilion]

I'm going to have lunch now but i'm suprised no one has mentioned the Israeli F-15 that was missing a wing.

if a missle has a pilot on it then ppl can talk abt that one wing Israeli F15 i guess.

 

[lhuang]

Fine...But if I shoot at the truck's one tire, deflating it, why does the truck gain roadway instability? The bullet is far faster but certainly does not have sufficient mass. If I then shoot another tire but at the rear quadrant, why does the truck gain even more roadway instability? Keep in mind that the second bullet has the same speed and mass as the first.

Deflating a tire increases the surface area of the tire on the road, hence there is a greater area on which friction acts to retard the movement of the truck.

I have no idea what you're getting at here.

Then why do aircrafts go out of control if they lose a flight control surface? There are plenty of incidences where an aircraft lose such an item due to bad maintenance, not from impact with another body, and the aircraft crash. Once again, the issue is not about mass but about creating aerodynamic instability. And you are telling me that I have no clue?

I think I'll just go cry in a corner now.

I have no idea what you're talking about. We are talking about knocking a truck/missile out of its velocity vector. What do planes have to do with this?

 

[gambit]

Deflating a tire increases the surface area of the tire on the road, hence there is a greater area on which friction acts to retard the movement of the truck.

I have no idea what you're getting at here.

I have no idea what you're talking about. We are talking about knocking a truck/missile out of its velocity vector.

Knocking a vehicle out of its velocity sector can be done by disrupting the contact area between the vehicle and the medium that it uses. For the truck, the contact areas are the tires and the medium is the road surface. Any compromises between this relationship and we have instability. For the aircraft the medium is air and the contact areas are its surfaces, which would include its main body and the flight control surfaces. Any compromises between this relationship and we have aerodynamic instability.

For example...

Is the United States Complying with MTCR Rules? -- Tong and Bin 2 (1): 5 -- The Chinese Journal of International Politics

Regarding the issues that accompany taking an intercept missile as a ground-to-ground based missile, Professor Li Bin asserts that replacing the relatively light intercept warhead of an intercept missile with a 500 kg warhead raises two issues: First, this replacement changes the missile's overall centre of gravity and could result in instability brought on by aerodynamic drag. Instability brought on by aerodynamic drag, however, does not have a fatal impact on the missile's delivery capabilities. This phenomenon would be more likely have impact on accuracy and bring about vibrations in flight after the initial boost phase. Even under these conditions, the missile would still be able to achieve its predicted range. For example, Iraq converted Scud missiles into the Al Hussein missile in order to increase their range. While this resulted in aerodynamic drag-induced instability, there is no evidence to suggest that the missile was unable to reach its predicted range because of this instability.

In the above, professor Li Bin explained that aerodynamic instability brought on by changes in cargo type could affect accuracy but not range. In a missile versus ship scenario, if the miss is even by one meter, the ship win. For the Phalanx gun, if several bullets hit the incoming missile and compromise its aerodynamics, the missile would miss its target or even break up in flight.

What do planes have to do with this?

You must be joking...!!! What is a cruise missile if it is not basically an aircraft governed by the same laws of physics?

I think I'll just go cry in a corner now.

Do not feel too bad if you realized you are in over your head.

 

[lhuang]

Oh lawdy.

You are talking about technical points of aircraft which have no similarity with CMs.

Have you done even the most basic Physics course?

 

[gambit]

Oh lawdy.

You are talking about technical points of aircraft which have no similarity with CMs.

Have you done even the most basic Physics course?

For your pleasure, assume that I have only a GED and that paid someone to take it for me at that. Now please explain to me the differences between a cruise missile and an F-15 when it comes to basic aerodynamics.

 

[lhuang]

For your pleasure, assume that I have only a GED and that paid someone to take it for me at that. Now please explain to me the differences between a cruise missile and an F-15 when it comes to basic aerodynamics.

An F-15 has wings, I do not know about the aerodynamics etc, but I do know, that an object at rest tends to stay at rest an object in motion tends to stay in motion unless an unbalanced sum of forces act on it. Newtons Laws of Motion apply are a basis for Physics everywhere in the world I could never be a teacher

What's a GED?

 

[Mauryan]

deleted..............

 

[KEETARP]

@ people doubting RCS of F22.

I can produce some insight how Gripen was certified to have low RCS.

First image is a certification for 0.1m2 RCS.

Second image is copy from 1985 magazine which states that 30% of airframe was composites and in future more composites were planned to reduce RCS
SAAB changed intakes to Y shape . Where in compressor fan was at junction of V with I in Y letter.

Boeing must have done extensive work to get most of shaping and coning to get lower RCS , reducing Plum of ionized gas and reduction of reflection from canopy and cockpit to make RCS size of insect .

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q...Tniogo&sig=AHIEtbQ5eI67VXhZVOiavBk5VfjS-KKDTg

Above link shows equation for calculating RCS.
Using first equation and keeping Pi as 20 KW which most modern radars have and RCS as 0.1
Ps on calculation comes as 2KW meaning F22 is reflecting 2KW power back ,
not a big deal in achieving that, so If rcs of F22 comes out as 0.00001 it wont be a surprise .
Considering ITAE research paper by RUSSIAN scientist demonstrated reduction of rCS of Mig21 by 1000 folds using robotic spraying technique of RAM .
F16 reduction in Glass HAZE-2 programe acheived similar results.

 

[gambit]

An F-15 has wings,

And a cruise missile does not?

What's a GED?

General Educational Development - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

General Educational Development (or GED) tests are a group of five subject tests which, when passed, certify that the taker has American or Canadian high school-level academic skills. The GED is sometimes referred to as a General Equivalency Diploma or General Education Diploma.

It basically said the person has sufficient edukashun equivalent to high skule.

 

[lhuang]

And a cruise missile does not?

Big wings?

Did you do Physics in school, this is mid-high school level phyjikz.

 

[gambit]

Big wings?

Good...Now that we established the fact that both the cruise missile and an F-15 have a commonality -- wings -- we can safely assume that both exploit aerodynamic forces to maintain flight via Bernouli...

Bernoulli's Effect on Aviation - Associated Content - associatedcontent.com

The explanation, actually, is rather simple and can be found in Bernoulli's theory on the nature of airflow around both the moving and stationery objects. Since the wing of an airplane is curved on top and flattened on the bottom, the physical quality of air moving toward it when the plane is in flight or picking up speed on the runway differ on top from that on the bottom. It takes the knowledge of basic trigonometry to conclude that the upper surface of the airplane wing is larger than the lower surface. Therefore, the air passing the wing would have to travel a longer distance on top than on the bottom. This will result in it stretching thinner on top of the wing, hence the air pressure on top of the wing will be lower than that on the bottom of it. The force pushing the plane upwards will thus be higher than the one pushing it downwards, creating a lift that will carry the plane up.

Next...If a manned aircraft can depart from stable flight, can you explain to the readers as to why a cruise missile is immune?

Did you do Physics in school, this is mid-high school level phyjikz.

My edukashun level have been established. Everything I posted so far I got from my night job as a janitor when I clean the engineers' workstations.

 

[lhuang]

Next...If a manned aircraft can depart from stable flight, can you explain to the readers as to why a cruise missile is immune?

Never did I say that. I said that it is far harder to knock a missile out of its velocity than a truck.

A light truck and Brahmos weigh about the same. 3tonnes.

But a CM moves much much faster, with a far larger force designed to counteract air resistance. Really it is impossible to explain this to you if you do not know the basics of movement.

Googling for information is all well and good, but you have to have a knowledge basis.

 

[gambit]

Never did I say that. I said that it is far harder to knock a missile out of its velocity than a truck.

A light truck and Brahmos weigh about the same. 3tonnes.

But a CM moves much much faster, with a far larger force designed to counteract air resistance. Really it is impossible to explain this to you if you do not know the basics of movement.

Googling for information is all well and good, but you have to have a knowledge basis.

And I have NEVER made any comparison as to which is easier to create instability. You have a serious reading comprehension problem. I pointed out as to HOW to create those instability and that has to do with the medium the vehicles depended upon to operate. For the truck, that medium is not air but the roadway. For an aircraft, such as a cruise missile, that medium is -- air. What else could it be? So to create aerodynamic instability, we must attack the relationship between the vehicle and the medium -- compromise the cruise missile's body and/or its flight control surfaces. I even brought on a non-US source that supported my argument.

Now to continue...Since you have expressed doubts that the cruise missile is an aircraft but the only difference you can bring between a cruise missile and a manned aircraft is the size of the wings -- a flight control surface -- can you explain to the readers as to why would a manned aircraft be vulnerable to aerodynamic instability, as proven in several wars that involved aircrafts, but a cruise missile does not have the same vulnerability?

Keep in mind that we are discussing on how to make a Brahless missile miss its target.

 

[lhuang]

And I have NEVER made any comparison as to which is easier to create instability. You have a serious reading comprehension problem. I pointed out as to HOW to create those instability and that has to do with the medium the vehicles depended upon to operate. For the truck, that medium is not air but the roadway. For an aircraft, such as a cruise missile, that medium is -- air. What else could it be? So to create aerodynamic instability, we must attack the relationship between the vehicle and the medium -- compromise the cruise missile's body and/or its flight control surfaces. I even brought on a non-US source that supported my argument.

Now to continue...Since you have expressed doubts that the cruise missile is an aircraft but the only difference you can bring between a cruise missile and a manned aircraft is the size of the wings -- a flight control surface -- can you explain to the readers as to why would a manned aircraft be vulnerable to aerodynamic instability, as proven in several wars that involved aircrafts, but a cruise missile does not have the same vulnerability?

Keep in mind that we are discussing on how to make a Brahless missile miss its target.

I'll postulate that a greater sustained speed, less surface area for wind resistance (as a force) will contribute to a greater stability for the missile.

 

[Mauryan]

Get this straight...You are confused...!!! You may not believe this but it irrelevant what you believe: A radar scope, meaning a display, is NOT a necessity and NEVER has been. It is only for human consumption of information that we include display, aka 'video integration', capability into the things that we invent. If a missile has an active radar guidance system, there is no scope inside the seeker assembly. Various aspects of target information such as altitude and speed, ground or air, are represented as voltage values, digital or analog. Video integration and display of these values ranges from simple 2D graphs like the WW II era Chain Home radar system to highly sophisticated symbolized HUDs. But none are absolutely essential to basic radar detection. So when people like you carelessly uses slang words like 'painting' to explain a complex topic, one that by now we can see you know zilch about, you are misleading those who are genuinely interested but willing to admit their ignorance.

I would say,I am neither confused nor ignorant of radar systems and their respective processing techniques.When I said painting/illumination it was in the radar engineer pesrpective of detecting and tracking a target.Again when I meant MFD and painting with colors it was meant to be sarcastic and people does literally fail to differentiate sarcasm and unsarcastic sense.If its not me,even a door nob who never heard of anything related radars and its working procedures will realise that there be no need for MFD and DSP to convert the o/p of the radar into a respective pictural view either 2D or 3D in a missile or any unmanned system.And you being over and over after these silly things projects your way point of running away from the actual discussion.

I do. More than you pretend to know. Much more.

Yes.which is bringing in some amusing literature works,while me not being good with the same.

You should do the wise thing and do search. Regardless of what you may opine about my personality, so far for all those who have learned some basic facts about the complex topic of radar detection from me, your refusal to take my advice and leave this topic make you look idiotic in their eyes. What I presented in the past was informational, not instructional. For the latter, a person would have to dedicate a good part of his life to learn it. But if all the person seek is information, especially clarifying facts regarding MANY of the fantastic claims abounds in forums like this one, then what I presented in the past will suffice.

Just boasting of some crap which include no substance and is totally irrelevant.I can also boast mentiong that I have worked for a major US defence contractor in waterloo(which i am not willing to disclose and is easily found using google)

That is a laugh. Assumptions like that can only make you look like the first three letters of the word 'assumption'. And if you had taken my advice you would have known about the 'actual essence of the post/theory in general' because that is what I usually starts with.

Now you attested yourself the fact that you are the same 3 letters suffixing another 4 letters which a donut has at its center.

When the approaching missile is finally fixated on a specific target for impact, its terminal flight phase is absolutely non-maneuverable. This is applicable from free falling but GPS-guided bombs to ballistic to cruise missiles. The reason why this non-maneuverable flight phase is necessary is because the aircraft, and yes a missile or a free falling bomb is very much an aircraft, is dependent upon aerodynamic manipulations to keep itself stabilized. The mechanisms for those manipulations are fins, fixed or movable, or through reaction jets. The response speed and rate of those methods directly correspond to the duration of the terminal flight phase. The better the flight control system, the more maneuverable the aircraft and therefore if the subject is a missile, the greater the difficulty for the defense to make an effective interception. Difficulty, not impossibility. I have worked on both sides of this table in the field, from providing feedbacks to flight controls system (FLCS) engineers based upon my ability to respond to their threat missile, to how to shorten this terminal flight phase in order to provide my threat missile with the greatest possible odds of impact success against the defender, in other words, I also worked on the 'threat' side.

This is a simple example of how we both differ with name while the concept remaining basically same.Me and majority term flight control system as FCS while you doing the same with FLCS.Designing a quick reaction control system was never a problem.Simple example is AAMs and SAMs while after the target at high supersonic and hypersonic speeds pulling 40g and 50g manuevers.The more G it is pulling means, its control system is almost instataneous in responding.And jet vanes offer high manueverability compared to aerodynamic surfaces.One has the option of using either of them or both at the same time.Many countries does use both on the same missile,which ofcourse is nothing new today.

So is it possible for a Stinger-type missile to make a head-on interception, kinetic or proximity explosive kill, against another missile? Abso-fvcking-lutely, young man, because what I said about FLCS capability applies both sides of the table.
What she said should not be taken litterally as 'the Stinger' weapon itself but 'heat seeker Stinger-type' missile. What she spoke of was not only about FLCS but about the combinant of sensor senstivity AND flight controls response. Passive sensor sensitivity is independent of FLCS response capability and usually outpaces the missile's FLCS capability simply because the FLCS contains far greater mechanical subsystems and they are subjected to a different set of physical laws, such as materials and friction between different materials inside a fin actuator. The analogy here is that a person's eyes, passive sensors, have greater sensitivity and reaction to movements, like a thrown ball, within their field-of-views than his hands can move to catch said ball. That is why we humans must have constand practice in coordination between the two systems. The better ones among us become highly paid professional athletes. Likewise, the better integration produces superior weapons and we have gross disparities between weapons systems among the world's militaries. Sensor and FLCS capabilities and their integration determine the type of guidance laws...For example...

Modern Missile Guidance

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.

R&D is never ending field.And every alternative does exist for every other threat.
This is as simple as relvant to ones capabilitites. A small example is SR-71.Its airframe structure has spacings to cope with the areal expansion of the metallic air frame during its supersonic run.In this scenario the supersonic drag is highly relevant because of the aircraft characteristics.ITs huge surface area and its aerodynamics.ITs flight duration during the supersonic run.It also uses a high composition of titanium in its airframe for cooling and shaping of high temperature prone areas(what does this mean Mr.professional?)

Every body cruising at supersonic speeds has to go through shock wave in THEORY.But there were numerous possibilities of avoiding that shockwave with aerodynamic designing.
Here we are not comparing the heat generated on the skin of SR-71 during its 5000+km supersonic run with an average speed of 2.6 mach at high altitudes which is around ~6897 seconds to a mere 290 sec flight of brahmos.
Also we dont even see any corrugated structuring on brahmos.
It is only that the heat reduction and stealth optimisation depends on ones R&D but not abide to theories even after 1000 years of formulations.

Your problem in this discussion so far is your refusal to admit that you are ignorant about the many other topics that have less attention in popular media news releases but are absolutely essential to the operation of a particular piece of machinery. The result is that you and people like you are nearly obsessed with acronyms and slangs and have no reservations on throwing them up

Another set of gibberish phrasings which only bling you from the advancements in the outside world.I must have to say the same to you,about your relectance of accepting the advancements in technology that deals with basic theories.

I understand what is a 'kinetic kill' far better than your reading comprehension. The source I provide show that the Nike-Zeus program was PROGRESSIVELY successful in moving the interceptor from a proximity type to a kinetic type.

Here is the source again...

MissileThreat :: Nike-Zeus

This is what you said couple of days back

The Patriot-like system is about creating head-on interceptions. The Nike-Zeus interceptor decades ago was well on its way to be an effective kinetic kill interceptor...

From the same source again.

Over the next two years, 10 out of 14 flyby “intercepts” of mock target reentry vehicles were successful. This proved that that U.S. military had finally acquired the ability to hit a bullet with a bullet, provided that the interceptor was armed with a nuclear bullet

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 response is absolutely nonsensical. There is nothing there in your response for the readers to see with any clarity on the problem I posed, which is about guidance-to-target accuracy. What the hell is 'an ill fated interceptor'? Do you even know the meaning of the phrase 'ill fated'? If something is meant to be destroyed in its task, then of course it is 'ill fated' but what the hell does philosophical musings on fate have to do with this? Your response is another clear case of throwing up words for the sake of what else but to throw up words.

Ill-fated=infelicitous=inappropriate.
So your opinion is that such a missile is appropriate to design and field?
People only go after abusing only when ran out of arguments.which you are doing presently.
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.

What Postol criticized regarding Desert Storm's Patriot is like criticizing aviation in general based upon the Wright Flyer. Give me a break. Is Postol saying that guidance-to-target improvement is somehow impossible in moving from a proximity to a kinetic kill? Postol had a different context of what constitute a successful 'interception', one that the US Army does not share. What Postol demanded was that the interceptor utterly destroyed the target, which of course given the Patriot's original mission, was unrealistic. The original Patriot was designed to be against AIRCRAFTS, not descending ballistic warheads...

MIM-104 Patriot - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The first fielded variant was the round MIM-104A, "Standard." It was optimized solely for engagements against aircraft and had very limited capability against ballistic missiles.

So when Postol applied his unreasonable expectations against what was clearly presented to the US Congress as 'limited' what else could it be but from a PR perspective as 'damning'? The scientist in him should know that logically his expectations are inapplicable against what was already explained as 'limited' so that revealed his criticisms to be politically motivated. For the US Army, an intact warhead is a threat but the debris from an interception, be it proximity or kinetic kill, are not to be construed as a threat. The law of gravity said the debris must continue the downward path. So if the debris just happened to damaged other things on the ground, but NOT the most important item the defense was tasked to protect, Postol called the interception a 'failure'. In effect, Postol had the law of gravity behind his criticisms and who can defy the laws of physics?

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

PAC-2

During the late 1980s, tests began to indicate that, although Patriot was certainly capable of intercepting inbound ballistic missiles, it was questionable whether or not the MIM-104A/B missile was capable of destroying them reliably. This necessitated the introduction of the PAC-2 missile and system upgrade.
For the system, the PAC-2 upgrade was similar to the PAC-1 upgrade. Radar search algorithms were further optimized, and the beam protocol while in "TBM search" was further modified. PAC-2 also saw Patriot's first major missile upgrade, with the introduction of the MIM-104C, or PAC-2 missile. This missile was optimized for ballistic missile engagements. Major changes to the PAC-2 missile were the size of the projectiles in its blast-fragmentation warhead (changed from around 2 grams to around 45 grams), and the timing of the pulse-doppler fuse, which was optimized for high-speed engagements (though it retained its old algorithm for aircraft engagements if necessary). Engagement procedures were also optimized, changing the method of fire the system used to engage ballistic missiles. Instead of launching two missiles in an almost simultaneous salvo, a brief delay (between 3 and 4 second) was added in order to allow the second missile launched to discriminate a ballistic missile warhead in the aftermath of the explosion of the first.

PAC-2 was first tested in 1987 and reached Army units in 1990, just in time for deployment to the Middle East for the Persian Gulf War. It was there that Patriot was first regarded as a successful ABM system and proof that ballistic missile defense was indeed possible. The complete study on its effectiveness remains classified.

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.

What is BS you are talking about? when it clearly says a TBM interception capable PAC2 was deployed in the war.
Being smart is one thing and fooling others is a different thing.Here,you are trying the later.
Even the Indian MOD rejected when PAC2 was on offer(due to the uncertainity in its capabilitites),which is even before the developmental flights of indian ABM.

The first combat use of Patriot occurred 18 January 1991 when it engaged what was later found to be a computer glitch.[9] There were actually no Scuds fired at Saudi Arabia on 18 January[10] This incident was widely misreported as the first successful interception of an enemy ballistic missile in history.

Throughout the war, Patriot missiles attempted engagement of over 40 hostile ballistic missiles. The success of these engagements, and in particular how many of them were real targets is still controversial.

I think I should go with A.Postol rather than putting faith in a manipulating/conspiracy theorist like you.

On February 25, 1991, an Iraqi Scud hit the barracks in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, killing 28 soldiers from the US Army's 14th Quartermaster Detachment.

A government investigation revealed that the failed intercept at Dhahran had been caused by a software error in the system's clock.[14][15] The Patriot missile battery at Dhahran had been in operation for 100 hours, by which time the system's internal clock had drifted by one third of a second. Due to the closure speed of the interceptor and the target, this resulted in a miss distance of 600 meters.

The U.S. Army claimed an initial success rate of 80% in Saudi Arabia and 50% in Israel. Those claims were eventually scaled back to 70% and 40%. However, when President George H. W. Bush traveled to Raytheon's Patriot manufacturing plant in Andover, Massachusetts during the Gulf War, he declared, the "Patriot is 41 for 42: 42 Scuds engaged, 41 intercepted!"[17] The President's claimed success rate was thus over 97% during the war

Lol.....
It is the president that declared the sucess rate,but not the system which proves its mettle. Truely amazing

Since 1992, Postol's criticisms have credibility only among people like you who will grasp at any straw to criticize the Patriot system in particular and ballistic missile defense in general. If you cannot understand this then there is nothing else anyone can say. I cannot explain this problem regarding Postol's criticisms in any plainer language. His criticisms regarding Desert Storm's Patriot are pretty much dismissed by scientists and engineers working on the Theater Ballistic Missile (TBM) defense program. They dismissed his criticisms not because it contained technical errors but because of the blatant intellectual dishonesty Postol exhibited since he knew of the original intent and capability of that first generation Patriot system. Sorry if your intellect cannot see how the Patriot system, even the first generation, is a success.

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