MLRS - Effective counter to SU-30MKI + Brahmos combination

[POPEYE-Sailor]

Hi my dear @Penguin
Of course what you said should be adopted however India with a growth rate of >7% can much better afford to spend 2% of GDP on defence as compared to pakistan that spends 3.5% of GDP on defence with a much lower growth percentage. Also I need not stress it again that it is India that spends much more than pakistan on education,healthcare etc etc.

look ur country size and population of course u spend more than pakistan

 

[Penguin]

Than stay on topic please which is an effective counter to SU-30MKI and not how Pakistan will do well by not getting into conflict with India.
PS my obsession is not particularly against you per was in general against the western world particularly the US just to be clear. I have seen similar arguments before whether its conventional or nuclear and its always Pakistan that is highlighted and not the other way round.

Not getting into conflict is a VERY good way to counter the Su-30MKI: it makes the investment pointless.

 

[Kabira]

Not getting into conflict is a VERY good way to counter the Su-30MKI: it makes the investment pointless.

This is defence forum and he asked simple question about defence, don't go off topic. There are 60% of Indians who poo on railway tracks and 500 million who have similar life standard as seen in sub sahara Africa. Pakistan is relatively better but minimum deterrence is also important.

Hi my dear @Penguin
Of course what you said should be adopted however India with a growth rate of >7% can much better afford to spend 2% of GDP on defence as compared to pakistan that spends 3.5% of GDP on defence with a much lower growth percentage. Also I need not stress it again that it is India that spends much more than pakistan on education,healthcare etc etc.

Wrong

Pak spend around 2.6% of GDP on defence. GDP growth rate is 5.3% and improving.

 

[CriticalThought]

Such a system would comprise a radar, coupled with a central command and control hub to perform necessary calculations and issue commands, and a battery of MLRS systems. For defending high value installations, it would act as a CIWS that relies on brute force saturation, rather than pin-point accuracy.

A central problem in defending against supersonic or hypersonic threats is that of momentum. Even if the incoming missile is successfully hit and disintegrated, if the centre of mass does not change, the resulting system of smaller fragments would keep travelling on its initial trajectory. This can be problematic for a CIWS. Let us attempt to compare the momentum of a Brahmos missile with a Pakistani Yarmuk rocket fired from Pakistani A-100. In order to simplify the calculation, we utilize the max velocities and initial weight from publicly available sources. The resulting calculation will be indicative only, because the actual mass and velocity at the time of interception is governed by differential equations.

Brahmos
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BrahMos

Mass: 2500 kg (air-launched)
Speed: 1000 m/s
Momentum: 2500000 kg m/s

Yarmuk
http://www.pof.gov.pk/productdetail/Rockets/122_MM_HE_(MBRL)_YARMUK/

Mass: 66 kg
Speed: 400 m/s
Momentum: 26400 kg m/s

Thus, ignoring the energy imparted due to explosion, approx. 100 Yarmuk rockets would be needed to completely neutralize the momentum. In practice, the explosions would transfer significant energy, and successfully deflecting the missile from its trajectory might be satisfactory.

In order to be effective against multiple threats, work would be needed to minimize the reload time.

Hi @CriticalThought
I have a paper in AIAA under guidance,navigation and control. So,let me take this opportunity to briefly explain why such a proposition wouldnt really work in real life without substantial changes. First off, Hypersonic brahmos is still at least 3-5 years away from induction and pakistan has not designed any indigenous MLRS system as of now. KRL one doesnt count as indigenous one.
MLRS usually comes without any guidance, it is fired at a certain trajectory and is expected to hit a portion of land with certain CEP. The job of the rocket is to impart certain velocity to the warhead so that it achieved a particular apogee. More modern systems like the recent improvements made to Indian Pinaka system also incorporates guidance kit which compensates for any errors resulting in much superior CEP figures vis-a-vis simple MLRS.
Now without wasting any time lets discuss why MLRS type weapon wont be able to intercept a hypersonic missile-
1) Lack of any guidance and control scheme--kindly note the control scheme required to compensate for the errors in trajectory is entirely different from control scheme required to implement some sort of PN or augmented-PN algorithms for target interception. Pakistan would have to design a controller first and prove it in simulations that it works correctly. The state vectors in this case could be [V,\gamma,x,h] for longitudinal plane.
2) Lets just assume that the hypothetical MLRS is steered to a pre-destined point via a command link from the FCR(fire control radar) and itz active seeker kicks in. The control design can be implemented via assuming either a 2D PN or 3D PN law. Traditional linearized approach along with gain scheduling(a kind of adaptation scheme) can be brought to bear to make things easier. However in order to fully exploit the potential one needs to venture out into the rich world of nonlinear controllers. Some of the prominent nonlinear control strategies that are available in literature(for hypersonic vehicles or interceptors) are adaptive sliding mode control, dynamic nonlinear inversion etc.
3) A tail-controlled or BTT(bank to turn) missile is preferred choice to intercept high-g targets. So the natural choice of control surface would be tail! However augmentation with thrust vectoring would result in superior control authority as implemented in latest PDV interceptor. But it would complicate the control system design. In fact in cases where both thrust fraction and tilt angle are available for control, we run into what is known as "non-affine" in control problem.

You are reading too much into the 'guidance system' part. These are not advanced guided rockets. The system is meant to neutralize incoming threat using brute force.

Request to all on the thread. This is not a tissue paper thread for cry babies. For all peace loving doves, please head to the Members club, or possibly to some other forum/website. Thank you.

 

[amardeep mishra]

Such a system would comprise a radar, coupled with a central command and control hub to perform necessary calculations and issue commands, and a battery of MLRS systems. For defending high value installations, it would act as a CIWS that relies on brute force saturation, rather than pin-point accuracy.

Hi @CriticalThought
Perhaps you have never designed a guidance and control algorithm before,have you? First off, your ordinary radars wont be able to pick a missile travelling at lets say 5-7 machs(there is a limit to which they can discriminate velocities). I dont think there is any radar in pakistani inventory that can discriminate a target travelling at 5-7machs(you are free to correct me!). Secondly even in this very basic command guided MLRS you'd need some sort of very basic control scheme(lets say PID) to follow the capture/command beam in space-time. You see, if you're relying entirely on brute force then you'd have to fire many hundreds of MLRS towards the target.
Kindly note, we havent even discussed the prospect of "tracking a hypersonic target". Thats another challenge altogether.

 

[Penguin]

American MRLS have a range of 140 km

Effective firing range, various MLRS rounds (2x6)
M26: 32 km
M26A1/A2: 45 km
M30 GMLRS: 70 km
M31 GMLRS: 90km
GMLRS+: 120+ km (under development)

Effective firing range, various ATACMS rounds (2x1)
M39 / MGM-140A – Block I: 128 kilometres
M39A1 / MGM-140B – Block IA: 165 kilometres
M39A3 / MGM-140C / MGM-164 ATacMS – Block II: terminated
MGM-140E / Block IA Unitary / MGM-168 ATacMS – Block IVA :some 300 kilometres

 

[wiseone2]

Effective firing range, various MLRS rounds (2x6)
M26: 32 km
M26A1/A2: 45 km
M30 GMLRS: 70 km
M31 GMLRS: 90km
GMLRS+: 120+ km (under development)

Effective firing range, various ATACMS rounds (2x1)
M39 / MGM-140A – Block I: 128 kilometres
M39A1 / MGM-140B – Block IA: 165 kilometres
M39A3 / MGM-140C / MGM-164 ATacMS – Block II: terminated
MGM-140E / Block IA Unitary / MGM-168 ATacMS – Block IVA :some 300 kilometres

That was the last weapon I read about a few years ago
M39A1 / MGM-140B – Block IA: 165 kilometres

I never knew about the existence of the MGM-168 ATacMS – Block IVA

 

[Penguin]

That was the last weapon I read about a few years ago
M39A1 / MGM-140B – Block IA: 165 kilometres

I never knew about the existence of the MGM-168 ATacMS – Block IVA

https://www.lockheedmartin.com/cont...1a-unitary/mfc-atacms-block-1a-unitary-pc.pdf
https://missilethreat.csis.org/missile/atacms/
https://books.google.nl/books?id=DE...A4YQ6AEIVTAF#v=onepage&q=ATacMS 300km&f=false

 

[The Accountant]

Hi @CriticalThought
Perhaps you have never designed a guidance and control algorithm before,have you? First off, your ordinary radars wont be able to pick a missile travelling at lets say 5-7 machs(there is a limit to which they can discriminate velocities). I dont think there is any radar in pakistani inventory that can discriminate a target travelling at 5-7machs(you are free to correct me!). Secondly even in this very basic command guided MLRS you'd need some sort of very basic control scheme(lets say PID) to follow the capture/command beam in space-time. You see, if you're relying entirely on brute force then you'd have to fire many hundreds of MLRS towards the target.
Kindly note, we havent even discussed the prospect of "tracking a hypersonic target". Thats another challenge altogether.

Hypersonic ... brahmos hypersonic is not more than a requirement and drawing so keep it out of discussing ... only discuss current version of brahmos ...

Secondly brahmos with that much of speed release lot of heat signature and is detectable even from point of launch even in sea skimming profile ...

 

[amardeep mishra]

Hypersonic ... brahmos hypersonic is not more than a requirement and drawing so keep it out of discussing ... only discuss current version of brahmos ...

Secondly brahmos with that much of speed release lot of heat signature and is detectable even from point of launch even in sea skimming profile ...

@The Accountant
I could not comprehend what you were trying to say. But I am sure you do not know anything about hypersonic guided missiles or their tracking. In case it is indeed the case, kindly do some justice and read the subject first! Thanks in advance!

 

[The Accountant]

@The Accountant
I could not comprehend what you were trying to say. But I am sure you do not know anything about hypersonic guided missiles or their tracking. In case it is indeed the case, kindly do some justice and read the subject first! Thanks in advance!

I am simply trying to say there is no hypersonic brahmos as of now so why are we comparing existing system of Pakistan with some imaginary hypersonic missile ?

 

[amardeep mishra]

I am simply trying to say there is no hypersonic brahmos as of now so why are we comparing existing system of Pakistan with some imaginary hypersonic missile ?

Hi @The Accountant
If you notice carefully it was not me who initiated this thread. I was merely responding that's all. Also while hypersonic brahmos isn't in existence as of now,however it'll be in next 3-5 years. So it'll be fairly natural for those concerned to come up with ways to defeat it. However the reasoning must be concretely footed into established engineering literature-- one that can be verified. It's upto you to not take the threat of brahmos seriously, but that is not gonna save the PN ships out in the sea. Let's hope there is no war!

 

[The Accountant]

Hi @The Accountant
If you notice carefully it was not me who initiated this thread. I was merely responding that's all. Also while hypersonic brahmos isn't in existence as of now,however it'll be in next 3-5 years. So it'll be fairly natural for those concerned to come up with ways to defeat it. However the reasoning must be concretely footed into established engineering literature-- one that can be verified. It's upto you to not take the threat of brahmos seriously, but that is not gonna save the PN ships out in the sea. Let's hope there is no war!

Sir 3 to 5 years for an entirely new tech which is not even at prototype stage ... you must be kidding ...

Secondly your analysis is based in future indian and current defensive weapons ... doesnt seems an impartial analysis ...

Let me tell you one thing ... if you have brahmos then we have our own missiles ... cm400akg is already integrated with thunder ... in a event of bigh escalation we just use one or who knows it is already in PAF inventory and not shown officially ... cm400akg is even faster than brahmos ... so let me be straight in case of destruction it will be on both side ... so you should also keep in mind and avoid the war but if you want war then you will get it ....

 

[amardeep mishra]

Sir 3 to 5 years for an entirely new tech which is not even at prototype stage ... you must be kidding ...

Secondly your analysis is based in future indian and current defensive weapons ... doesnt seems an impartial analysis ...

Let me tell you one thing ... if you have brahmos then we have our own missiles ... cm400akg is already integrated with thunder ... in a event of bigh escalation we just use one or who knows it is already in PAF inventory and not shown officially ... cm400akg is even faster than brahmos ... so let me be straight in case of destruction it will be on both side ... so you should also keep in mind and avoid the war but if you want war then you will get it ....

You can never compare the terminal kinetics of a simple solid fueled missile with that of a liquid ramjet. The latter is undoubtedly superior in the sense that it remains supersonic throughout its flight regime whereas former gets supersonic in terminal sprint

 

[The Accountant]

You can never compare the terminal kinetics of a simple solid fueled missile with that of a liquid ramjet. The latter is undoubtedly superior in the sense that it remains supersonic throughout its flight regime whereas former gets supersonic in terminal sprint

In terms of technical complexities yes both are non comparable but in terms of destruction power cm400akg is more devastating ... first of all cm400 akg being air launched provides flexiblity of launch timing and profile, it speed is even greater than brahmos and at the teeminal phase it can reach upto 5 mach depending on flight profile and launch altitude
..

Secondly its attack profile is more devastating as it hit from the top of the deck and put a hole in the hull of big ships ...

Last but not the least terminal guidance of cm400akg is tv/ir guidance in addition to passive radar which means it is a smart missile designed to hit the target at the most vulnerable place which gives it a complete edge over brahmos which is radar guided and is not only subject to ECM counter measures but also not smart to hit the ship at the vulnerable places like bottom part of the hull