USN cannot defend herself from Brahmoos missile:Indian Expert

[MULUBJA]

IF an active radar homing missile is truely 'fire and forget' THEN how come MF-STAR needs to guide anything?

Do you want missile to lock on target even when they are in tubes?

 

[Penguin]

Nothing can intercept brahmos... in a test they whispered brahmos in captain'ear... and ship sank

But... that means they had an asset on board!

 

[MULUBJA]

Nothing can intercept brahmos... in a test they whispered brahmos in captain'ear... and ship sank

read the article. It says that Brahmos can be intercepted with a great difficulty by exahusting almost all SAMs on ship of US navy and that to only 12 Brahmos. Other navies can simple pray almighty for their survival. Article says this.

400+ km range in Hi-altitude profile

This is all going to increased to 600 KM and 800 KM subsequently. The range at which the Sea skimming missiles are intercepted, Brahmos performs S maneuver making it extremely difficult to intercept or even lock on the missile.

 

[Penguin]

Do you want missile to lock on target even when they are in tubes?

You can't. But you can preprogram to fly to a certain 'box' in the sky, without using mid-flight updates via datalink. The terms LOBL and LOAL originated from the air-to-air context, with IRH missiles. But applies in this context.

See for example:
"Designed for all-round defence against simultaneous air attacks from multiple targets, the Umkhonto-IR missile is the first vertically launched infrared-homing surface-to-air missile, also the first IR-homing missile to use lock-on-after-launch. Upon launch, the missile flies to a lock-on point, following on-board inertial navigation. The missile then activates its two-colour IR-seeker (variant of U-Darter AAM's seeker) and locks on. Target updates are received via data link, enabling the missile to counter evasive manoeuvres by the target.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umkhonto_(missile)#Umkhonto-IR_Block_1

 

[MULUBJA]

You can't. But you can preprogram to fly to a certain 'box' in the sky, without using mid-flight updates via datalink. The terms LOBL and LOAL originated from the air-to-air context, with IRH missiles. But applies in this context.

See for example:
"Designed for all-round defence against simultaneous air attacks from multiple targets, the Umkhonto-IR missile is the first vertically launched infrared-homing surface-to-air missile, also the first IR-homing missile to use lock-on-after-launch. Upon launch, the missile flies to a lock-on point, following on-board inertial navigation. The missile then activates its two-colour IR-seeker (variant of U-Darter AAM's seeker) and locks on. Target updates are received via data link, enabling the missile to counter evasive manoeuvres by the target.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umkhonto_(missile)#Umkhonto-IR_Block_1

Then what will happen in case incoming missile changes its path?

 

[Penguin]

read the article. It says that Brahmos can be intercepted with a great difficulty by exahusting almost all SAMs on ship of US navy and that to only 12 Brahmos. Other navies can simple pray almighty for their survival. Article says this.

Article does not provide realistic operational scenario and uses some assumptions that typically would not apply.

This is all going to increased to 600 KM and 800 KM subsequently.

LRASM and antiship Tomahawk as well as air assets will still outrange.

The range at which the Sea skimming missiles are intercepted, Brahmos performs S maneuver making it extremely difficult to intercept or even lock on the missile.

A gunbased CIWS continuously adjust for changes in target height over the water. Why exactly would it not be able to counter that S_manouvre across the water? And why exactly would a IR, an IR/RF or an AR homing missile not lock on, or loose lock?

Then what will happen in case incoming missile changes its path?

Then
a) in case the onboard active radar is not yet on or not yet locked, you use a datalink and update the target data using data from ship sensors, or
b) in case the onboard active radar is on and locked, the missile homes in on the target (or target's own radar radiation, in case of RF homing)

 

[MULUBJA]

Article does not provide realistic operational scenario and uses some assumptions that typically would not apply.

Itis written by an US think tank. I do not know whether you are more knowledgeable than him.

A gunbased CIWS continuously adjust for changes in target height over the water. Why exactly would it not be able to counter that S_manouvre across the water? And why exactly would a IR, an IR/RF or an AR homing missile not lock on, or loose lock?

Because the syatem will be confused whether missile is actually coming towards them or going somewhere else.

a) in case the onboard active radar is not yet on or not yet locked, you use a datalink and update the target data using data from ship sensors, or

Exactly this is what I want to say. Now do not say that if MRSAM has a lock on mechanism then why it needs guidence and also do not say that it can initially go towards the target with programmed flight and subsequently can lock on to the target.

 

[gambit]

Because the syatem will be confused whether missile is actually coming towards them or going somewhere else.

Makes no difference.

The above is an example of how spread out is an aircraft carrier fleet over the surface.

If the Brahless missile takes evasive movements, it is still no mystery as to its true target since likely there will be no other ships in the vicinity.

 

[MULUBJA]

Makes no difference.

The above is an example of how spread out is an aircraft carrier fleet over the surface.

If the Brahless missile takes evasive movements, it is still no mystery as to its true target since likely there will be no other ships in the vicinity.

I am talking about interceptor missile and not attack missile.

 

[gambit]

I am talking about interceptor missile and not attack missile.

The interceptor does not care on who/what is the attacker's true target. Same goes for CIWS.

 

[DJ_Viper]

No, a CSG does not typically consist of 30-35 ships. The entire USN has 62 Arleigh Burkes DDG and 22 Ticonderoga CG, while the USN has a aircraft carrier fleet of 10 CVN in service: you do the math. A CSG or CVBG normally consist of an aircraft carrier, at least one cruiser, a destroyer squadron of at least two destroyers and/or frigates, and a carrier air wing of 65 to 70 aircraft. A carrier strike group also, on occasion, includes submarines, attached logistics ships and a supply ship.

The Standard SM1 missile was retired from USN service in 2003.

The AN/SPY-1. Known as "the Shield of the Fleet", the SPY high-powered (6 mW) radar is able to perform search, tracking, and missile guidance functions simultaneously with a track capacity of well over 100 targets at more than 100 nautical miles (190 km). However, the AN/SPY-1 Radar is mounted lower than the AN/SPS-49 radar system and so has a reduced radar horizon. At "thousands of miles away", it can in principle track only (very) high altitude targets, due to the earth's curvature. That is why a CSG relies on the carrier's AEWC aircraft for long range detection.

It is very easy to google stuff and write an answer. It is very hard to actually know the operational sense over the KB. The CBG doesn't just include "at least a cruiser or destroyer", its has many of them. And Subs are a must have. You clearly don't know, or understand the doctrine here so I'll leave that here instead of gong into more detail about why USN operates the way she does.

Second, which "SPY" radar are you referring to . Reading your post and seeing the diagram clearly tells me you visited some website vs. knowing actual details and read up on AEGIS without understanding the total complexity involved.. A CBG has many radars, both high powered and lower powered (LO-HI) for various purposes. It can detect stuff flying at 1 meter above the surface and as high as stuff in the space, supported by OTH radars capable to look deep into Russia from Alaska. Which gives an additional 1000+ miles coverage to the USN operating within that range. Like I said, you clearly don't understand the doctrine or the net-centric operations here. Now add the F-35's to it. Its super computer during flight can identify any missile launch from 800 miles away and can act like an air-born AWACS themselves, including providing a firing solution to any inbound missiles and commanding various US assets to take it out within a thousand miles.

Was the SM-1 really retired ? Or was it converted to a different batch, class and a purpose through upgrades. RIM series of missiles make up the various classes of SM's and so on.

RIM-66A

SM-1MR Block I to IV Digital Tartar In Service 1967, Conscan radar seeker. SM-1MR Block IV was the main production variant. All rebuilt into Block V missiles.

• ECCM improvements
• Reduced minimum range
• Shortened acquisition time for surface targets

RIM-66B SM-1MR Block V Digital Tartar

• Replaced the RIM-24C
• Plane scanning seeker
• Faster-reacting autopilot
• MK 90 blast-fragmentation warhead
• Aerojet MK 56 dual-thrust rocket motor

RIM-66C SM-2MR Block I Aegis combat system, Mk26 launcher In Service 1978. First Aegis version.

• Inertial/Command guidance introduced
• MK 115 blast-fragmentation warhead
• Monopulse seeker for ECM resistance

RIM-66D SM-2MR Block I New Threat Upgrade In Service 1978. First New Threat Upgrade version.

• Nearly identical to RIM-66C

RIM-66E SM-1MR Blocks VI, VIA, VIB Digital Tartar and Mk 92 Fire Control System. In Service 1983. Version still in service with export customers.

• Monopulse seeker developed for SM-2
• Introduced MK 45 MOD 4 proximity fuze (also known as TDD - Target Detection Device)
• MK 115 warhead of SM-2
• MK 45 MOD 6 and MK 45 MOD 7 proximity fuzes in Block VIA (RIM-66E-5) and Block VIB (RIM-66E-6) respectively

RIM-66G SM-2MR Block II Aegis combat system, Mk26 launcher In Service 1983. For Aegis ships.

• Introduced Thiokol MK 104 rocket motor, almost doubling the effective range
• High-velocity fragmentation warhead

RIM-66H SM-2MR Block II Aegis combat system, Mk41 Launcher For Aegis ships with MK 41 VLS (Vertical Launch System)
RIM-66J SM-2MR Block II New Threat Upgrade For Tartar ships. All Block II missiles have been withdrawn from service. Many have been rebuilt as Block III missiles.
RIM-66K-1 SM-2MR Block III New Threat Upgrade In Service 1988. For Tartar ships.

• Improved MK 45 MOD 9 Target Detecting Device, for better performance against low-altitude targets

RIM-66K-2 SM-2MR Block IIIA New Threat Upgrade In Service 1991. For Tartar ships. In Production.

• MK 125 warhead with heavier grain explosive

RIM-66L-1 SM-2MR Block III Aegis combat system, Mk26 launcher In Service 1988. For Aegis ships.

• Improved MK 45 MOD 9 Target Detecting Device, for better performance against low-altitude targets

RIM-66L-2 SM-2MR Block IIIA Aegis combat system, Mk26 launcher In Service 1991. For Aegis ships.

• MK 125 warhead with heavier grain explosive

RIM-66M-1 SM-2MR Block III Aegis combat system, Mk41 Launcher In Service 1988. For Aegis ships with MK 41 VLS.

• Improved MK 45 MOD 9 Target Detecting Device, for better performance against low-altitude targets

RIM-66M-2 SM-2MR Block IIIA Aegis combat system, Spain/Dutch/German Anti-Air Warfare System, Mk41 Launcher In Service 1991. For Aegis ships with MK 41 VLS. In production.

• MK 125 warhead with heavier grain explosive

RIM-66M-5 SM-2MR Block IIIB Aegis combat system, Mk41 Launcher In Service 1998. For Aegis ships with MK 41 VLS. In production.

• Missile Homing Improvement Program (MHIP), dual IR / SARH seeker, IR seeker mounted on side fairing.

Actually , the extract of video is from this article by an US think tank.

Explained – How The US Navy Can Shoot Down The Deadly BrahMos Missile


This is the third part of the series. We have covered introduction and detection of anti-ship missiles in general in the earlier articles. We strongly suggest you to read those 2 articles before proceeding with this as it will give you a better idea of what is explained here. In this article we will specifically deal with shooting down the famous Indo-Russian Anti Ship missile, the BrahMos. This missile has been chosen as it is currently the fastest and probably the deadliest anti-ship missile in service. The Russian variant of BrahMos is called Onyx and the export variant is called Yakhont. Its NATO reporting name is SS-N-26 Stallion. If you want to know how these missles work, i suggest you read my earlier article here
Do note that no classified information is revealed in this analysis and all the data used are publicly released figures. The analysis uses logic, physics and mathematics with the available data in order to present a general idea of how it will be to face BrahMos and measures to counter it.
The main advantages of BrahMos are

• Mach 3 (2500-3000 km/hr) speed (which makes it very difficult to detect and track)
• 300 kg Semi-Armor piercing warhead (which causes massive damage upon impact)
• Very high kinetic energy on impact (which disintegrates smaller ships and cripples larger ones)
• S-manoeuver just a few seconds before impact (which makes interception very difficult)
• 300 km range in Hi-Lo altitude profile
• 400+ km range in Hi-altitude profile
• No wings (makes it harder to shoot down as winged missiles plunge into water after suffering wing damage)

You keep quoting a stupid article written by some half baked defense analyst. Brahmos / Klub and other Russian missiles existed long before India got them from Russia. There is nothing new here. Not sure why the excitement.

So for you to think the smart people sitting in Pentagon are just ignoring it, is naive. The USN has built a global defense shield over a few decades with dozens of billions spent. So for you to think that they didn't know the Russian missile's speed and the "S" maneuver is pretty silly at the least. Each CBG is also linked to the Satellites looking down. So making claims like "the Bra-Homos will be seen 35 km out" is pretty out of touch with reality. A flying F-35 can track dozens of missiles from 800-900 miles away and you think that the entire USN was asleep when the Russians built the supersonic missile and gave it to India?

The Russian haven't hyped their missiles this much but Indians producing a licensed copy are doing more marketing for the Russians. Its hilarious. Anyway, when any one of you understood the USN's doctrine, you won't be posting these silly articles written by half-baked analysts.

A think tank saying something only means the Navy wants more money for the LASERS to show the senators that if we had the Lasers deployed on every vessel, we can burn the Bra-homos and anything else, within 2 minutes after its launch anywhere on the planet. Light travels much faster and quicker (186000 miles per second, or, in easier terms, from Earth to Moon in one second), over 185000+ times faster than any bra-homos or whatever else the Russians produce these days.

 

[MULUBJA]

The interceptor does not care on who/what is the attacker's true target. Same goes for CIWS.

You have jumped into discussion without knowing background. Read the discussion first and then come for discussion.

 

[faithfulguy]

You have jumped into discussion without knowing background. Read the discussion first and then come for discussion.

Let's look at all this from a different perspective. US navy is build to counter top of the line Russian weapons. Don't you think that USN can't handle a missile rejected by Russia. Think about it.

 

[gambit]

You have jumped into discussion without knowing background. Read the discussion first and then come for discussion.

This is not the first time I have discussed the Brahmos missile. In the past, I have pointed out its potency and limitations. Where I have issues is when its proponents -- Indians, of course -- begins making claims about the weapon that violate the laws of physics and common sense.

 

[DJ_Viper]

This is not the first time I have discussed the Brahmos missile. In the past, I have pointed out its potency and limitations. Where I have issues is when its proponents -- Indians, of course -- begins making claims about the weapon that violate the laws of physics and common sense.

I agree with you. I said it in a post too, that, the Russians never marketed this crap that much. The Indians are defying gravity explaining how great their licensed copy Bra-Homos is.

I guess I've learned it, anything India has is better than anyone else, ever, period! The issue is not whether its true or not, the real issue is the country's gigantic population online, that supports these anti-gravity claims and markets their stuff beyond sense. Its a weird thing I've not seen in people from another nation.