DF 21D VS bRAHMOS 2 HYPERSONIC aSCM A LAYMAN COMPARISION

[DrSomnath999]

The DF-21D with cluster munitions will be a cluster-fvcked weapon.

You can get away with this simple argument over at the Chinese boards where everyone has no relevant experience and therefore is gullible but not here with me.


Do you have any idea on how much it cost, in both tangible and intangible terms, after you lose a war? Of course not. You are still a child. Never served a day in uniform, perhaps as a member of a fast food franchise, probably rejected from conscription, and are still trying to learn something of this world.

 

[DrSomnath999]

It's actually mach 12. And we've already tested it by destroying a decommissioned PLAN vessel earlier this year.

oh really then link please for that one

 

[gambit]

Gambit..
There have been some alternatives to mechanical gyro's.. especially in the fibre optic kind but have lacked precision.
If we can assume that it may be possible that a Chinese manufacturer has achieved accuracy on a FOG that is close to ( perhaps even copied from) a particular FOG manufactured in czarland.. and due to the way the Chinese procurement system operates the economy of scale for the system is more favorable than ..say one manufactured elsewhere..the cost factor has come down.

Fiber Optics Gyros (FOG) are not new, more like known since the 1960s roughly the same era as the ring laser gyro came to outside laboratory experiments. When I was active duty, mechanical gyros are already well proven, from civilian to military to space applications, and the ring laser gyro's precision and accuracy was spoken with awe borderline on the magical, let alone any of us even heard of fiber optics adapted for gyroscopic purposes.

As time passed and experienced gained, inside and outside of the military, I have learned one very valuable thing about the military: Conservatism.

The military of ANY country is inherently conservative. We have to be because whatever we use will be the method of last resort for the survival of the country if necessary. Nothing is perfect but as we gain experienced with the imperfect tools given to us by the scientists and engineers, from the infantryman rifle to the jet fighter to the rocket capable of reaching outside of the planet's atmosphere, we would prefer to deal with the knowns of these imperfect tools than with the unknowns of new technology. It is a necessary trait. Very very seldom do the military, instead of the civilian sector, will lead with a new technology. Examples of that are the fly-by-wire FLCS and 'stealth'. For 'stealth', the civilian airmen WANT to be seen, so what need is there for the civilian sector to develop low radar observable flying bodies? The USAF had no choice but to take the lead. But usually, the military would rather let the civilians in the safety of their world develop and refine new technologies before we adapt it for far more dangerous purposes that often will have a one-time use.

The main thing about missiles and their keeping is that you do not have the chance to re-use them. You can only test each missile up to the point of launch, no further, and this is even more applicable to complex missile systems like an ICBM instead of the far simpler air-air individual combat missiles like the AMRAAM or the IR-ed equipped Sidewinder. A missile launch is essentially a financial write-off of a lot of money that has no guarantee of a return, which is the destruction of an enemy. It can be successful in hitting ONE enemy target, but it does not assure his capitulation in the war. So we have no choice but make as much successful target hits as possible, from an individual enemy soldier, to an enemy tank, to an enemy aircraft, to an enemy strategic location on the other side of the world, to convince him that he can no longer benefit in continuing the war.

So from this conservative perspective, is it possible that the DF-21D's guidance system contains something more advanced like a fiber optics gyro (FOG) system?

Mmmm...Possible but in my opinion not likely.

Despite the American military that shares the same conservative trait as the Chinese or as the Russians or the Brits or the Spaniards, it has been US who have often if not usually lead the technological adaptations for military usage, derived from YEARS or even DECADES of civilian successes prior to said adaptations. For the specific technical issue we are talking about, the Chinese of modern day do not have that history in their military history. They could, of course, shock everyone with the news of this risky jump, but I think the Chinese military is even more conservative than US simply because they recognizes the technological hurdles they currently faced -- and have faced -- in their modernization programs.

The question is: 'If the American/Western civilian sector have limited successes with this X technology and their militaries continues to rely on the older A technology, why should we risk our national defense and deterrence capability with X?'

I do not think FOG will be in the DF-21D.

As another example..
A certain TI TMS320C6000 series costs around $295 .. till early 2010 this was the cost..still is if you buy TI genuine.
apparently.. after that.. some people near the Chengdu area got their hands on complete "fabrication" of this product.
Some of those test "facsimiles" went here and there.. they cost around $50 a pop..

They arent sold anywhere international yet, except to some cellphone manufactures.. and some to interested companies.
They do all that the TI Chips do..and cost 1/5th.

here is the catch.. 1 out of 5 "facsimile" chips have problems.. some wont have pins.. others wont work properly..some are bent.. and some dont work at all.
They heat up faster than the TI originals..

But newer lots keep coming in with less and less faults.
So if we take this as an example of sheer mass "facsimile" ability and gradual learning from mistakes.
It is possible.. not certain.. possible.. that eventually; while a BM system will still be more expensive to manufacture for the Chinese than a CM.. it may not be that much more expensive than one for a CM made by another nation.

I would not risk my nation's survival on this. Remember, a missile is essentially a throw-away weapon. Everyone know that fraudulent electronics, be it from being poorly copied or haphazardly reconditioned, have far lower reliability and uncertain performance under stresses. And the fact that in maintaining an ICBM fleet, you can only maintain each weapon up to the point of launch, not actually launch and re-use like an aircraft can be.

Can you simulate pitot/static pressures required by the autopilot system? Absolutely...With this...

TTU-205 Series Pressure-Temperature Test Sets | © 2011. TestVonics, Inc.

The TTU-205 is a rugged, self-contained flight line or hangar test system used to accurately simulate in flight pressure conditions by precisely controlling and measuring Altitude and Airspeed pressure to aircraft’s pitot-static system.

But can you simulate the highly dynamic situations an aircraft or a missile will encounter in actual flight? No. And I say that from personal experience using the TTU-205, analog and digital versions. There is no way possible for a human to do so. Fraudulent electronics places the entire fleet at unreasonable risk. And yes, I do hope the PLA took that risk......It does not matter if we know about it or not. When a bunch of Chinese fighters, tanks, ships, and missiles starts failing in actual combat, we will change our tactics accordingly to take advantage of that foolish decision.

Which brings us to what does the guidance system control?
The DF-21D has been designed from the outset to kill ships.
Keeping that in mind, if I was project head.. Id keep post-reentry maneuverability a high priority..
But that is if I was the head.. there is no proof ..pictorial or otherwise to suggest that the actual project head has done the same.
And the sheer workmanship(if done properly) for a BM more expensive than a CM..

I would as well. And here is why...

In post 46 of this discussion, I mentioned proportional navigation (PN) in a composite guidance law set in a certain order. PN guidance is well proven with high successes against fixed and constant velocity targets, used by either powered or gravity driven attack bodies to compensate for their in-flight course deviations. In this case, the 'constant velocity' factor is appropriate because despite the fact that the target is a moving one, it is a ship constrained in a 2D environment, not an aircraft operating in a 3D one.

I will digress a bit for the interested lay readers...

We will dispense with the 'Unguided' type. We can call them 'artillery' or arrows.

For the 'Guided' missile type, the 'Nonhoming' guidance method is not so much the missile being 'guided' in the generally accepted context but merely the missile being programmed NOT TO deviate from a fixed flight path. If the hardware is crap, then the missile will not hit the expected location. Same if the software is crap.

For the 'Homing' missile type we have true guidance and it is dependent upon the target providing some sort of 'feedback' to give us direction and location.

This is what those feedback look like...

The 'Homing' type is ideal against fixed targets and when they constantly produce some sort of signatures.

For the 'Direct' missile type, it is a more complex 'Homing' type and against moving targets, REGARDLESS of how maneuverable are they. All air-air missiles, as in the visual example above, are 'Direct' guidance type missiles. The air-ground Hellfire missile is a 'Direct' guidance type missile because it can be used against moving targets like a tank or an automobile. Therefore, the DF-21D is a 'Homing' and 'Direct' type missile.

Under this 'Direct' category...

- The 'Command' type is when there is a greater intelligence making maneuver decisions for the missile and that greater intelligence can be a sophisticated guidance law algorithm, or a human operator watching some sort of visual feed of what the missile is actually seeing, or the parent launch aircraft is monitoring the target and is in link with the missile to command its maneuvers.

- The 'Beamrider' is the well known 'anti-radiation' type where it uses an EM transmission as a guide.

- The 'CLOS' stands for 'Command Line-of-Sight' guidance where the missile must maintain signature contact with the target at all time. This type is usually autonomous, but sometimes can be controlled by another, and require the highest level of technical sophistication possible by a country. Lose line-of-sight and lose the fight.

- The 'Pursuit' is the typical 'tail chase' situation.

The DF-21D is no doubt the most sophisticated of these types, regardless of if its target is maneuverable at several hundreds km/hr or just a few. If the target is maneuverable, then it must have variable target positions compensatory guidance laws. The DF-21D's problems are compounded by the possibility that the defense will produce countermeasures, either by deceptions as in chaff or by direct physical assaults such as the SM-3.

Here is what we do not know...

- Assuming the DF-21D has a radar sensor, is it capable of detecting interceptors and calculate avoidance maneuvers? Just because it has a radar, that does not mean it can detect bodies other than the signature it may be programmed to home in on. This may be because of a hardware limitation or it may be because of the high closing speed between itself and the target and any maneuvers may be structurally catastrophic.

- Assuming the DF-21D is capable of detecting interceptors and of formulating avoidance maneuvers. What is the capable altitude of said detection? Interceptors will naturally be in a head-on view -- the lowest radar signature. That imply said detection will be very very close. May be too close for any avoidance maneuvers.

- Assuming the above is true, what is the order of this composite guidance law set? In post 46 I speculated bang-bang/PN order. Bang-bang maneuvers are abrupt and extreme to the physically available ranges given by design. But if the DF-21D is a CLOS type and it most likely is, then what are the maximum possible of these extreme maneuvers so that the warhead will not lose line-of-sight, reacquire the target, and reposition itself through the more gradual and precise PN guidance algorithm? The designers must know how extreme are bang-bang maneuvers and cannot give the FLCS so much physical freedoms of movement that the warhead will lose target line-of-sight. This mean the DF-21D is vulnerable to interception by the SM-3, either by direct kinetic kill or by proximity fused explosion.

- Another problem for the DF-21D, assuming the best possible design type for it, is data integrity for the sensor, and we can safely assume it will be radar...

The 'L/D' mean radome's length to diameter ratio.

Shape 1 offer the highest aerodynamic efficiency and the lowest radar signature for the defense to act against. But it offer the sensor the lowest field-of-view (FoV) and therefore the highest odds of losing line-of-sight (LoS) if the warhead must maneuver to avoid interceptors.

Shape 2 offer the highest sensor data in terms of volume, data integrity, and field-of-view (FoV) but produces the highest drag and highest radar signature for the defense to act against.

Shape 3 is called the tangent-ogive and is the best compromise.

Both shapes 1 and 3 suffers the most the 'radome abberation' effects...

Radome techs ensure pilots can see

The slightest aberration in the curvature of the radome can throw off the array signal, giving the pilot false readings.

...Because of their sharp slopes compared to the radar beam when it sweeps. The highest peak of the radome abberation error is furthest from the antenna: The tip. But...That is where the warhead would be looking for the target. Basically, if you must have an obstacle in front of your radar beam, it is best if said obstacle is as perpendicular to the beam as possible since that obstacle must pass through your radar beam. That is why the hemispherical radome offers the highest data integrity and the sloped shapes the lower.

So in effect, the DF-21D must deal with TWO maneuvering targets: One to hit (ship). One to avoid (interceptor). The technical challenges are enormous and the cost will be high since every test launch is a financial write-off more than just moving a few troops across country or launching a few aircrafts in an exercise.

Am not going to touch countermeasures via deceptions.

however.. I wonder if the hypersonic capability adds much to the cost of a Brahmos compared to say a tomahawk.

It would be more because the engine must be more capable. But then again, this is a one-way journey so all the Indians has to do is design an engine that is powerful but not very durable. If you know your journey will last only one hour with no possibility of return for reuse, why would you design your engine to last 1.5 hr? The additional cost must be bearable to the Indians.

 

[DrSomnath999]

Each approach a target in different manners. Each approach have advantages and disadvantages. The DF-21D's ballistic approach has the advantage of speed over time and over distance. The Brahmos' aerodynamic approach has the advantage of flexibility in virtually all situations. The wise move -- and most expensive -- would be to have both. One attack mode to force an adversary to change his tactics -- should he survive -- and straight into the advantages of the other mode.

well i agree both has it's advantage & disadvantages
DF 21d
I adv:
1. capable of targeeting at long range
2. single powerful warhead if it hits more devastating effect than a cruise missile warhead
3. high hypersonic (mach 10) terminal velocity so more kinetic energy effect

II .disadv
1. still not proven accurate guidance system at such long range from such long range against a mobile target
2. mosly land based launch platform can be detrected by enemy UAV"S awacs & C4SIR systems & gives sufficent reaction for it's
target ship to do countermeasures
3.Not stealthy like cruise missiles


BRAHMOS 2
I ADV:
1.Far more acurate at such short range
2.Stealthy low flying & manuverable
3.flexibilty of launch platform
4. submarine launched cruise missile may be the deadliest threat to any ship

II DISADV:
1.short range due to MTCR ,but it range can be easily increased
2.well far lesser powerful warhead than DF 21d ,may require 3-4 missiles to completley sink an carrier
3.may have higher IR signature

 

[DrSomnath999]

The combined weapon bay (i.e. both forward and behind one) can carry a missile of the size of brahmos... besides the air launched version would be smaller and more compact with lesser fuel needed since the supersonic speed of a PAK FA would provide it with necessary initial boost.

correct especially the last part

 

[DrSomnath999]

What you can do is perform discrete tests on individual components. The greater the reliability of these tests, the higher the odds of when all components are finally integrated into the intended weapon, it will work as designed. With this testing regime, there would be little chance of US or anyone to detect and monitor the progress of a weapon system.

but testing individually the components & wholly the result may not be same for everytime .Well the best thing for them should be check air launch dummy BM warhead on a target moble ship with computersied tracking for checking the accuracy .Well this may be my assunption how should they they test individually what's ur opinion

 

[SQ8]

Thanks for that gambit.

One cannot expect even an adapted civilian Cray to perform as good( for the conditions) as the F-22's CIP's.
However, my reference was to the ability of the Chinese to generate that many "Copy" Crays for a single CIP.
They dont use the faulty chips as I mentioned.. but its their approach on refining the production process which I was referring to. Previously it was less simulation and more trial and error. Now they have changed their approach(perhaps due to more and more Chinese students going to western nations and bringing home the concept of Quality over quantity) and gone into a parallel refinement technique of simulation and practical testing. My own experience working with some Chinese is their almost religious requirement for simulation tests down to the smallest detail...after which the actual test product comes in. This too goes through a comprehensive fault finding routine. So the old Chinese doctrine has improved...
However, their desire to catch up with the west has led to an accelerated timeline for projects. The result of this speed up is a higher rate of failures per technological leap. They have become workaholics or rather profitholics(not to offend Chinese members here).. their time is only good for profit..whether its direct money to them or get their task completed on time. This is however my own limited experience and I would be digressing from the topic.

There are certain advances in Chinese design abilities one can gauge if exposed to their usage daily.
but to let you in on what might be a little secret or not..
they usually dont use their "facsimilie" chips in critical components of the design.. preferring to stick to the original American or European made ones which perform better than their copies.

Point being.. the Chinese are reducing that gap in quality and reliability that the west has enjoyed over them.
if it was a gap of 50 years in 1995.. it was 30 years in 2005..and was 15 in 2010.
And.. btw.. American's are responsible for "teaching" the Chinese how to reduce that gap..one way or the other
fanboys aside..Perhaps our judgement of Chinese manufacturing capability should be revised.
But not by much.. if a certain Pakistan navy officer is to believed.. he still finds the fairly obsolescent Oliver Hazard class better in many ways (w.r.t to comparable abilities) to the mint Chinese F-22P frigate bought.

I dont think the DF-21D is going to be "mass produced" as such.
The Chinese are looking for a silver bullet with this system and seem to be putting in a lot of input.
It remains to be seen if those people working on the new projects in China are working out of pragmatism or otherwise.
As the former would reflect some of your analysis on the DF-21D and its limitation.. but may lead to a somewhat succesful deployment of a weapon that may not be as effective as accurate..but a detterent nonetheless.
The latter could be an extremely revolutionary approach with untried electronics(with high failure risk) and systems design.. but its deployment schedule and even operational ability would be in doubt.


Btw.. about the Brahmos.. I was not referring to the Engine.. rather the alloy used for construction. Compared to the tomahawk , it will have to withstand the friction heat that occurs at hypersonic speeds.

 

[DrSomnath999]

Most likely radar. But here is my speculations on that...And I posted it here before...

well in some blog reported chinese may go for laser guidance at terminal ,Is it absurd or possible plz tell?

 

[gambit]

well i agree both has it's advantage & disadvantages
DF 21d
I adv:
1. capable of targeeting at long range
2. single powerful warhead if it hits more devastating effect than a cruise missile warhead
3. high hypersonic (mach 10) terminal velocity so more kinetic energy effect

II .disadv
1. still not proven accurate guidance system at such long range from such long range against a mobile target
2. mosly land based launch platform can be detrected by enemy UAV"S awacs & C4SIR systems & gives sufficent reaction for it's
target ship to do countermeasures
3.Not stealthy like cruise missiles


BRAHMOS 2
I ADV:
1.Far more acurate at such short range
2.Stealthy low flying & manuverable
3.flexibilty of launch platform
4. submarine launched cruise missile may be the deadliest threat to any ship

II DISADV:
1.short range due to MTCR ,but it range can be easily increased
2.well far lesser powerful warhead than DF 21d ,may require 3-4 missiles to completley sink an carrier
3.may have higher IR signature

Look at it this way: BOTH countries are correct in their attempts at deterrence.

For India, the Brahmos is practically necessary because India must deal with potential adversaries who are practically next door neighbors. In targeting criteria, 1000km distance can be effectively attacked with either method. Further beyond then may be the ballistic approach makes sense in terms of time over distance. If the Brahmos is not at least terrain following (TF) capable, it is still an effective weapon because most flight objects below 3000 m altitude are already difficult to detect and managed. In the US, general aviation below 3000 m altitude are pretty much free to do as they please.

For China, the US is always more a potential adversary than for India, especially with the Taiwan issue. Across the ocean and we are talking about 2000+ km, the ballistic approach make sense for deterrence of a US Navy presence. China is just making an engineering leap with the DF-21D the same way India is in installing a supersonic capability in a cruise missile design.

 

[DrSomnath999]

I have far more respect for the Chinese than others in this regard. I am 99.999% certain that the Chinese intend this for ANY ship that conforms to a certain sensory -- radar or infrared -- perception. The aircraft carrier with its flat plate top simply offer the most prominent sensor return of any type. It would convenient and expedient if the Chinese has technological limitations in the sensory arena that forced them to focus solely on the aircraft carrier based upon this singular sensory characteristic. But I doubt that the Chinese has this technological limitation.

but sir it is not going to be easy for chinese ASBM to target anything apart from aircraft carrier as today all warships are becoming stealthy with reduce EM signatures & IR signature & that too such a small target at much higher mobilty than A/C ,so i doubt they would stick to A/C only as ASBM's primary target .

 

[DrSomnath999]

Look at it this way: BOTH countries are correct in their attempts at deterrence.

For India, the Brahmos is practically necessary because India must deal with potential adversaries who are practically next door neighbors. In targeting criteria, 1000km distance can be effectively attacked with either method. Further beyond then may be the ballistic approach makes sense in terms of time over distance. If the Brahmos is not at least terrain following (TF) capable, it is still an effective weapon because most flight objects below 3000 m altitude are already difficult to detect and managed. In the US, general aviation below 3000 m altitude are pretty much free to do as they please.

but sir brahmos block 3 supersonic lacm has proven itself it can fly as low as 10m above the ground.well can india & russia do it for hypersonic version is a great challenge.But 20-25m can be possible .
One more thing remarkable thing of brahmos 1 supersonic cruise missile is
Coordinated Carrier Attack Capability
The Brahmos missile is claimed to have an impressive salvo fire with intelligent coordinated attack capability for the Brahamos missile

The capability allows a missile salvo to intelligently takeout multiple ships from within a formation, such as a aircraft carrier group.

Missiles fired in a salvo stagger their attack and automatically reassign themselves new targets if the primary target, say an aircraft carrier is destroyed.

According to Pravda

"The missiles are so clever that they not only detect a target but develop a plan of attack based on the enemy’s air defense. They know exactly which target is the primary one, which of them is an attacker and which is a defender. When the main target is destroyed, they re-prioritize and continue with the attack. Now even more advanced missile is on the way."

so again can brahmos 2 do that needs to be seen ,? ?????

For China, the US is always more a potential adversary than for India, especially with the Taiwan issue. Across the ocean and we are talking about 2000+ km, the ballistic approach make sense for deterrence of a US Navy presence. China is just making an engineering leap with the DF-21D the same way India is in installing a supersonic capability in a cruise missile design.

well china is working for anti access & asymetric warfare to counter US formidable naval quality & quantitavley superiority.So DF21d is just an option from various other options like intelligeient autonoumous anti ship mines ,rocket propelled torepedoes ,Advanced Aip enabled SSK subs & nuke subs with antiship cruise missiles .
The fact is they are showing their might in an incremental manner to US
1st. Anti satellite weapon
2nd. Asbm
3rd. J20
4th. anti missile system testing
5th. ???????????? keep guessing what next
but the fact what US is doing to counter it or they may have devloped a new thing as the americans have the habit of maintaning 1 step ahead of it's adversary whether it is soviet unoin or CHina needs to be seen ,but we cant see it it would be only revealed in future war ,if it has with china

 

[gambit]

but testing individually the components & wholly the result may not be same for everytime .Well the best thing for them should be check air launch dummy BM warhead on a target moble ship with computersied tracking for checking the accuracy .Well this may be my assunption how should they they test individually what's ur opinion

This fall upon the manufacturing tolerances. The closer they are the more predictive the final behaviors. I say this from personal experience with the 1970s-80s era of American automobiles -- crap.

As far as the testing regime goes: All tests are essentially rigged tests. I know it sounds terrible but that is the truth. For exmaple...If my new radar design is not ready to test with 'hydrometeors', fancy word for water based phenomenon like rain or snow, then on a sunny day, I have effectively 'rigged' my test.

So how would I test the DF-21D?

Given the fact that a missile test is not the same as an aircraft test where we can install monitors and expect all of them to return to us, in other words, for the missile, the vehicle and the test monitors are in a 'destructive testing' regime, I would do a lot of rigged tests, and I mean a lot of them, prior to any launch. Currently, it is neither possible nor advisable to test individual components, coupled them all together, and do a launch with a live target. Look at the American testing regimes of the BMD and SM-3 programs. There are many actual launches involved. In one of them, the target was rigged to reflect radar target information. There is nothing wrong with that. I can tell that it was to test the interceptor's ability to detect and discriminate radar signatures of decreasing intensity. The fact that it was live launch tell me that they did as much rigged tests as possible in the lab and in the open ranges, at some point they had to introduce variables that they cannot fully control and do not want to control such as vehicle vibration or weather. Monitors would tell us on how the individual components perform under these 'real world' conditions.

Another method would be to install components into an aircraft and conduct airborne tests against live targets. Since the DF-21D is intended to be against ships, I will have to deal ONLY with baseline radar clutter signals of water, not land that contain vegetations or human based objects. This would make a detection algorithm a bit easier. The downside is that I cannot simulate the high Mach speed that my sensor is supposed to compensate. I can do it mathematically, but there are still factors like vehicle 'coning movements' that I should not simulate at double-digit Mach since 'coning movements' are somewhat unpredictable based upon environmental influences. Coning movements are similar to 'wobbling'. An effect of a warhead exhibiting coning motion or any sort of rotational movements is called 'micro Doppler scintillation' where surface irregularities produces radar echoes with high Doppler component, giving the warhead's position away. An aircraft test of the DF-21D's components would not reveal these effects to their fullest, only a live launch can.

Bottom line is this: The less you are able to recover the vehicle for analysis, the more rigorous the ground testing regime must be prior to any live launch.

well in some blog reported chinese may go for laser guidance at terminal ,Is it absurd or possible plz tell?

I say it is fanciful and hopeful at this point. Technically feasible: Yes. But I doubt the Chinese would spend the time and the money if they place high priority for the DF-21D's deployment.

but sir it is not going to be easy for chinese ASBM to target anything apart from aircraft carrier as today all warships are becoming stealthy with reduce EM signatures & IR signature & that too such a small target at much higher mobilty than A/C ,so i doubt they would stick to A/C only as ASBM's primary target .

Support ships are not going to be 'stealthed'. For now we can safely assume that only active combat ships like cruisers and destroyers can be (not will be) designed to be 'stealthy'. So perhaps this speculation may have more merits than thought and China will have no choice but to target ONLY the aircraft carrier type signature.

but sir brahmos block 3 supersonic lacm has proven itself it can fly as low as 10m above the ground.well can india & russia do it for hypersonic version is a great challenge.But 20-25m can be possible .

Terrain Following (TF) is when an aircraft matches the slopes of the terrain in the vertical, meaning its flight would be 'up-down'. If the terrain feature is 1000 m tall, the aircraft's altitude will be higher to clear its peak. I experienced this in the WSO's seat of an F-111E over the English hills and when we were asked to assist the French with their new coastal radar defense, I tuned the TFR to pick up surface waves over the English channel. It was a very bumpy ride over the water. The French never picked us up and we successfully 'bombed' them.

Terrain Avoidance (TA) is quite more complex. If the terrain feature is above a preset limit, the aircraft must attempt to fly around (avoid) it. Without foreknowledge of the terrain, as in programmed map, the flight control algorithm will be even more complex because now the aircraft must make independent decisions based upon constant radar detection of the approaching terrain. The system must know what the approaching terrain feature look like so if you do a keyword search for 'topographic map' you will find the necessary info on what the radar MUST see in real time. That is why accurate topo maps are so valuable. If the cruise missile is programmed with these information, its radar emissions will be very minimal in power and very brief in duration, minimizing the odds of detection. As far as I know, and I could be out of date, all cruise missile designs that are TA capable have topo map programming. The fail safe mode is TF only and that will drive the missile to a default safe altitude for that flight mode.

So if the Brahmos is capable as low as 10 meters altitude, over water I see little problems believing that, but if it is over land I would like to see something more than just a wiki source, after all, there are trees that are taller than 10 meters.

The Brahmos missile is claimed to have an impressive salvo fire with intelligent coordinated attack capability for the Brahamos missile

The capability allows a missile salvo to intelligently takeout multiple ships from within a formation, such as a aircraft carrier group.

Missiles fired in a salvo stagger their attack and automatically reassign themselves new targets if the primary target, say an aircraft carrier is destroyed.

According to Pravda...

Sorry, call me unreasonable if you wish but I would prefer NOT to deal with Pravda on any technical issue.

but the fact what US is doing to counter it or they may have devloped a new thing as the americans have the habit of maintaning 1 step ahead of it's adversary whether it is soviet unoin or CHina needs to be seen ,but we cant see it it would be only revealed in future war ,if it has with china

Every weapon system has weaknesses. The advantage the US enjoy is mainly technological in that we try to develop ours to be as flexible as possible, in both offense and defense. Then we train hard to exploit those advantages in as many scenarios as we can simulate. Of course we will and have failed to anticipate many options but that is the point of these exercises, large and small, to create failures. In my experience and some thoughts involved, what I find with US in our failures to anticipate some options an adversary may create is not so much technological but in creative thinking, in other words, we can and have been stagnant in our creative processes. But when we are presented with those failures, I found that the flexibility that we built in beforehand enabled US to overcome those new challenges quicker than an adversary may think possible.

The word 'asymmetric warfare' has been grossly overused and abused by those who are more interested in cheerleading for their sides than to credible thoughtful analysis. In war, no one want to meet an enemy directly at the enemy's strongest points, even when he enjoys all the advantages. Desert Storm proved that more than most people thought. The US and allies had the numerical advantage in the air but still we struck the Iraqi's defense at its most vulnerable: sensor. The first shot of the (air) war was fired by US Army Apaches at Iraqi air defense radars, effectively blinding the Iraqis from start. If that is not asymmetric combat/warfare, what is?

I have said this before here and will say it again: A newly promoted general or admiral does not guarantee new strategies or tactics, but a newly created weapon will ALWAYS create options.

The problem for the Chinese members here is that none of them ever served in uniform to experience those failures, the painful analysis, and the inevitable hard work afterward to try to find a solution. Then the whole cycle begins all over again, may be not with this assignment or term of duty, but the problem remain until it is reasonably solved. That is why they talked about the DF-21D as if it is the 'silver bullet' to the American aircraft carrier without realizing the possibility that they may be wrong based upon their ignorance. America's most powerful weapon, below the people, is our technological prowess. It already has created options for US to counter the DF-21D.

 

[DrSomnath999]

So how would I test the DF-21D?



Another method would be to install components into an aircraft and conduct airborne tests against live targets. Since the DF-21D is intended to be against ships, I will have to deal ONLY with baseline radar clutter signals of water, not land that contain vegetations or human based objects. This would make a detection algorithm a bit easier. The downside is that I cannot simulate the high Mach speed that my sensor is supposed to compensate. I can do it mathematically, but there are still factors like vehicle 'coning movements' that I should not simulate at double-digit Mach since 'coning movements' are somewhat unpredictable based upon environmental influences. Coning movements are similar to 'wobbling'. An effect of a warhead exhibiting coning motion or any sort of rotational movements is called 'micro Doppler scintillation' where surface irregularities produces radar echoes with high Doppler component, giving the warhead's position away. An aircraft test of the DF-21D's components would not reveal these effects to their fullest, only a live launch can.

Bottom line is this: The less you are able to recover the vehicle for analysis, the more rigorous the ground testing regime must be prior to any live launch.

well exactly this is the best way of testing rather than the preevious one u post .
yes it cannot simulate high mach speed ,but they can test the guidance system & warhead trajectory easily ,well regarding coning movement it needs a real live launch to demonstrATE ,but surely
they can repeat these test many times to acquire any crediblity to test a live missile on a moving target.

I say it is fanciful and hopeful at this point. Technically feasible: Yes. But I doubt the Chinese would spend the time and the money if they place high priority for the DF-21D's deployment.

well we can never know about that but leave it to them

Support ships are not going to be 'stealthed'. For now we can safely assume that only active combat ships like cruisers and destroyers can be (not will be) designed to be 'stealthy'. So perhaps this speculation may have more merits than thought and China will have no choice but to target ONLY the aircraft carrier type signature.

well the main priority is A/C which is the jewel in the crown of any navy.

I experienced this in the WSO's seat of an F-111E over the English hills and when we were asked to assist the French with their new coastal radar defense, I tuned the TFR to pick up surface waves over the English channel. It was a very bumpy ride over the water. The French never picked us up and we successfully 'bombed' them.

that was great

Terrain Avoidance (TA) is quite more complex. If the terrain feature is above a preset limit, the aircraft must attempt to fly around (avoid) it. Without foreknowledge of the terrain, as in programmed map, the flight control algorithm will be even more complex because now the aircraft must make independent decisions based upon constant radar detection of the approaching terrain. The system must know what the approaching terrain feature look like so if you do a keyword search for 'topographic map' you will find the necessary info on what the radar MUST see in real time. That is why accurate topo maps are so valuable. If the cruise missile is programmed with these information, its radar emissions will be very minimal in power and very brief in duration, minimizing the odds of detection. As far as I know, and I could be out of date, all cruise missile designs that are TA capable have topo map programming. The fail safe mode is TF only and that will drive the missile to a default safe altitude for that flight mode.

So if the Brahmos is capable as low as 10 meters altitude, over water I see little problems believing that, but if it is over land I would like to see something more than just a wiki source, after all, there are trees that are taller than 10 meters.

well it all depends upon powerful & sophistacated software to do that TA or TF algorithm ,the fact is keltec corporation (BRAHMOS INDIAN PARTNER) has indeed able to achieve though u can take it with a pinch of salt ,yes for instance 10m looks absurd but 20-25m is achievable in land & it is still stealthy .
But the million dollar question would india can do it for hypersonic missile ?????? is a big challenge ,but in water it can be possible but in land even if i am indian but u have to be skeptic about it.

Sorry, call me unreasonable if you wish but I would prefer NOT to deal with Pravda on any technical issue.

no problem ,

Every weapon system has weaknesses. The advantage the US enjoy is mainly technological in that we try to develop ours to be as flexible as possible, in both offense and defense. Then we train hard to exploit those advantages in as many scenarios as we can simulate. Of course we will and have failed to anticipate many options but that is the point of these exercises, large and small, to create failures. In my experience and some thoughts involved, what I find with US in our failures to anticipate some options an adversary may create is not so much technological but in creative thinking, in other words, we can and have been stagnant in our creative processes. But when we are presented with those failures, I found that the flexibility that we built in beforehand enabled US to overcome those new challenges quicker than an adversary may think possible.

well surely sir USA has been the trend setter for the world whether in lifestyle or technology or economy or military, & others follow it .Well i am not flatterring u but it is a fact.well regarding challenges ,by hook or crook america knows how to get the job done
well there would always be enemies of any nation ,so it doesnt make any difference which are ur enemies but which enemy is more dangerous than others. & can do maximum damage to u?

The word 'asymmetric warfare' has been grossly overused and abused by those who are more interested in cheerleading for their sides than to credible thoughtful analysis. In war, no one want to meet an enemy directly at the enemy's strongest points, even when he enjoys all the advantages. Desert Storm proved that more than most people thought. The US and allies had the numerical advantage in the air but still we struck the Iraqi's defense at its most vulnerable: sensor. The first shot of the (air) war was fired by US Army Apaches at Iraqi air defense radars, effectively blinding the Iraqis from start. If that is not asymmetric combat/warfare, what is?

I have said this before here and will say it again: A newly promoted general or admiral does not guarantee new strategies or tactics, but a newly created weapon will ALWAYS create options

well correct again but still motto is build a weapon & ur enemy builds counterweaon & u have to build counterweapon of counter weapon .

The problem for the Chinese members here is that none of them ever served in uniform to experience those failures, the painful analysis, and the inevitable hard work afterward to try to find a solution. Then the whole cycle begins all over again, may be not with this assignment or term of duty, but the problem remain until it is reasonably solved. That is why they talked about the DF-21D as if it is the 'silver bullet' to the American aircraft carrier without realizing the possibility that they may be wrong based upon their ignorance. America's most powerful weapon, below the people, is our technological prowess. It already has created options for US to counter the DF-21D.

 

[DARKY]

correct especially the last part

Besides that weight reduction methods like use of composites motor casings.... and use of higher energy booster fuels.... would also reduce its size... since lesser amount of fuel would be required.

 

[DrSomnath999]

Besides that weight reduction methods like use of composites motor casings.... and use of higher energy booster fuels.... would also reduce its size... since lesser amount of fuel would be required.

well may be endothermic fuel would be used ,as hypersonic missiles may suffer from high heat due to resistance from air i assume