What's new

Barak-8 is India's answer to Pakistan's Harpoon Anti-Ship Missile

I cant believe that a country who spends 800 billion dollars a year on defence, just put to sea a 100,000 tons super carier worth 13 billion usd with plans to put another 12 at sea...builds b 2 bomber at 1 billion a piece and mainatins 50 of them; cancelled a project because of cost if it was any good

First only 21 B-2s where built, so 50 aren't being maintained. Second, the Ford Class carrier has been delayed due to budget problems too and even now some of its critical technologies such as its EMALS system aren't yet ready or use. Third, while nice, the RATTLRS and LRASM-B were quickly becoming burdened by excess R&D costs. Even the US military doesn't like to prolong programs, other than the F-35, that spiral out of control while still in development. Neither really fits the US Navy's doctrine anyway. Fourth, the US military budget is only 600 billion USD, not 800 billion. This figure includes all branched of the military, it isn't all for a single program. This figure does not include clandestine operations, programs or civilian R&D and support.

In fiscal year 2015, military spending is projected to account for 54 percent of all federal discretionary spending, a total of $598.5 billion. Military spending includes: all regular activities of the Department of Defense; war spending; nuclear weapons spending; international military assistance; and other Pentagon-related spending.

discretionary_spending_pie%2C_2015_enacted_large.png


They weren't any good, that was the problem. They were over-cost, couldn't maneuver as well as sub-sonic munitions, a problem for most hypersonic weapons, and didn't fit in with the US Navy's upcoming emphasis on intelligence over speed, which consequently has always been the US military's strategy, but has become more important as peer-adversaries improve their own defenses. A hypersonic missile is just too fast to maneuver properly or be directed to reengage or disengage a target, not in the same way an LRASM or NSM can.


 
Last edited:
.
ISPR saying it can hit the targets at Land and Sea does not means it can target the Moving target but the stationary target. I had already explain you in detail, that for targeting the Moving target with this Sub sonic Cruise Missile you would need continuous Monitoring, updates of the Target thru High speed two way Link. And Land and Sea target Means the stationary target whose coordinates and flight path is embebedded in the Missile prior to the launch, and the Missile sensors matches with the Maps in its memory to remain in its course of flight aka terracom. In case of SEA target e.g Island or Naval RIG there is no land picture for matching, in this case the magnetic imaging of sea is used instead of visual terrain map


hi dear @zebra7
I had severe headache hence couldnt reply any sooner! Well to hit a moving target one would invariably need a seeker- or at least a reciever(in case of SARH).
Proportional control or propotional+integral control strategies are often brought to bear in the case of missiles designed to hit moving targets utilizing an active radar seeker. However in active imaging seekers(IIR) centroid tracking(along with image correlation) is used to steer the missile towards the target.
pakistani Ra'ad at the moment lacks any active seeker hence it cant be used to target moving targets out there in the sea.For christ sake,we dont even know the TSFC figures of the chinese turbojet engine that powers raad! Unfortunately pakistani agencies are not as generous as their indian counterparts when it comes to research

I will appreciate if you give your technical knowledge light on those topics

1. Remote Sensing Satetllite and GPS satellite to detect Ship target ?

2. Air launch Cruise Missile promotional Range of 300 KM and the actual range when launch with the Sea Skimishing flight profile.

3. Nose Mounter fighter Radar range to detect the target to launch Harpoon or other ASHM against warship and stealth covertee like Shivalik

4. Barak 1/2 against Harpoon and Barak 8 against Harpoon-2 and CJ-xx (hypersonic)

Well i would answer it like this-
1)Any imaging satelite(using optical band) would be able to see the ships subjected to climatic conditions,hence a satelite operating on longer wavelengths(vis-a-vis optical band) particularly x-band are very good for mapping. You see,the longer your wavelength ,the lesser it is attenuated by climatic conditions however there is a draw back in terms of resolution offered by a longer wavelength.
Image correlation algorithms are extensively used. You can yourself try out a lot of image processing in python using numpy,matplotlib,scipy etc libraries. For instance "imread()" is popularly used to read an image file in python.It stores it as a 2 dimensional grid with each cell in the grid denoting three numbers.

2)the actual range of brahmos(normal land launched) is close to 600kms(however thanks to certain mechanical construct,russians have limited it to 300kms).You can derive the range of the missile fired from an air platform(assuming a stead level flight),provided you're given with the TSFC figure of the engine,L/D,empty weight of the missile and amount of fuel in Newtons

3)The range of normal slotted planar array radar of mig-29 against a 4000 tonnes warship is close to 300kms

4)I havent read of any test reports where LRSAM was test fired against a supersonic targets.But considering the kind of aerodynamic profile it has - it is very very swift in taking out highly maneuvering targets

3
 
.
hi dear @zebra7
I had severe headache hence couldnt reply any sooner! Well to hit a moving target one would invariably need a seeker- or at least a reciever(in case of SARH).
Proportional control or propotional+integral control strategies are often brought to bear in the case of missiles designed to hit moving targets utilizing an active radar seeker. However in active imaging seekers(IIR) centroid tracking(along with image correlation) is used to steer the missile towards the target.
pakistani Ra'ad at the moment lacks any active seeker hence it cant be used to target moving targets out there in the sea.For christ sake,we dont even know the TSFC figures of the chinese turbojet engine that powers raad! Unfortunately pakistani agencies are not as generous as their indian counterparts when it comes to research

Thanks for your Reply. Take care of you health due to change in climatic environment these days. And could you explain as @Mrc asked how the supersonic, or the hypersonic could achieve its deadly accuracy at such speed which means less maneuver, I understand that the speed gives the target to move from the original position very less. And could you explain does Dhanush could be used to target ship target.
 
.
And could you explain does Dhanush could be used to target ship target.

I'll take up your challenge:

India-successfu30715.jpg


Dhanush would work in a different way then DF-21/26, both of which are road-mobile, but need special hardened launch pads since their "hot-launch" would scorch unprepared land. Since these are land-base, and target sea-base systems, often over-the-horizon due to the US Navy's knowledge of the system's, and China's, strengths and weaknesses, they need remote sensing or near real-time electro-optical satellites for target identification and tracking. The satellites will identify the target and possibly relay target movement updates as the missile traverses its midcourse path. Once it enters into its terminal phase target readjustment becomes a near impossibility given the maneuvering of the defensive system and the speed of the AsBM.

Dhanush would work slightly differently. As noted in the above picture, this can be a sea-based weapon. As a result the IN can leverage MPAs or even ship or submarine based sensors to identify and track a prospective target. Once identified, tracking info, from a ship's radar or a P-8I's sensor suite, can be relayed to an airborne Dhanush to enact trajectory changes and keep pace with a moving, defensive target. The airborne tracking and relay concept was a staple of Soviet anti-ship warfare, as they would use TU-95s as a relay, the TU-95 would update an anti-ship missile's tracking info once they reach a certain point in their flight path, all this on route to destroying an enemy ship.

Like China, India could use remote sensing satellites or electro-optical ones, but because Dhanush can be base at sea, it has a large variety of identification and tracking options.

And could you explain as @Mrc asked how the supersonic, or the hypersonic could achieve its deadly accuracy at such speed which means less maneuver, I understand that the speed gives the target to move from the original position very less.

They largely don't. Brahmos, P-270, CM400, these fast missiles also do most of their maneuvering during their midcourse phase. As they are identified at high-altitudes, anti-ship missiles rarely cruise while sea-skimming, it's less efficient from a fuel-economy standpoint, they will be making slight course adjustments to keep pace with a maneuvering defensive system.

Once in their terminal phase they are moving too fast to engage in any radical course changes or updates, at this point their flight path is more-or-less a straight line. But, because of the length of a terminal distance is mere hundreds of meters, this leaves a defensive system no time to maneuver, thus the reliance of CIWS systems to destroy the incoming munition.

This is the terminal phase of a P-270. Neither the missile nor defensive system could maneuver. There's simply no time.
kzhbuot3ri88n6poedna.gif


It's the same for Brahmos, it's trajectory adjustments come during its mid-course flight path phase, so you better hope your tracking is accurate. There's no time to maneuver in tight.

I'd actually recommend a 3M-54 type of missile instead. During its mid-course it's nothing more than a Russia version of Tomahawk, a large, slow missile. But one that's slow enough that course adjustments, target changes or mission abortions can take place. Once in its terminal phase, the 3M-54 engages in a supersonic "sprint", leaving neither the missile nor defensive system with time to react or change their course.

3M-54E1.jpg


To answer your question with less words, Brahmos and other high-speed missile get their accuracy from mid-course trajectory updates. Once in their terminal phase they are simply too fast to maneuver.
 
.
The size of IN is too big, I don't think PN will waste time n resources on Oil Rigs. Naval bases our more equivalent to ground targets. So in Sea the main threat remains ships n subs.which are always movable

Why would you not hit enemy oil supplies ?[/QUOTE]
That won't be the priority target,in pak-india case the distances are small,so all of IN vessels must have enough oil to come to pak n attack n vice versa.\so they will be the immediate threat
 
. .
MF STAR can detect(ranges given from a destroyer mast)-

A fighter plane(radars and other emission in passive mode) at 300km-
A sea skimming supersonic cruise/anti-ship missile at 80km-
Tracking up to 3000 targets simultaneously-
And Attacking 16 targets simultaneously(this can be improved to 32)-
It can support buddy engagement capability and other surface vessels in a networked operation-

Barak-8 can engage any targets within 500m and 100km-

PAF can launch AShMs from 250km If It can get past the the Mig-29Ks of IN- and Su30MKI in support role- In any ant-ship mission It would have to commit more than 4-6 aircraft of the class of JF-17/F-16- against 20 Mig29K mainly on Air superiority mission against these aerial threats- In case of engagement which is very likely- given Ka-31 and Phalcon AEW&C support along with Guided Missile destroyers- most of the strike group of PAF would have to drop their strike package in the sea and engage them 300-400km away from the last corvette searching for PN subs- which would be 30-50km ahead of the 1st Guided Missile Destroyer-

Coming to the next part even if Jf-17 Manages to reach in position to fire the missiles from 250km which I assume would be Raad/CN400AKG- The Jamming capability of DDG along with its ECM would make It very difficult to locate the actual target or even locate any target at all- The last resort would be launching the missiles towards the probable GPS location without any electronic guidance and on GPS data- whose feedback can again be distorted or jammed easily as was seen in the case of US drones in Iran-

I haven't even counted the range and drag issues the JF-17 would have while flying at low altitude to avoid early detection- Which is a pre-condition for ant-ship mission-



What kind of guidance is supported by Ra'ad and CM400AKG-



LR-SAM/Barak-8ER could only be available on later Project-15B- And Its range would be 150-200km-

I believe that Pak have C803 missiles with longer range along with potential Babar Cruise Missile in near future.

No SAM of world can provide 100% defense. The aim of SAMs is to provide maximum defense they can't assure total protection especially ag Cruise Missiles.
 
.
I believe that Pak have C803 missiles with longer range along with potential Babar Cruise Missile in near future.

No SAM of world can provide 100% defense. The aim of SAMs is to provide maximum defense they can't assure total protection especially ag Cruise Missiles.


From November 1995 through November 1996, a total of five flight tests were conducted. Three were failures, including a test conducted on 15 November 1995, during which the test missile immediately plunged into the water as soon as it left the launcher. Analysis of the event later revealed that all failures were caused by the missile's propulsion systems. As a result of the failures, a suggestion was made to abandon the project altogether and instead adopt imported Russian systems. This idea was rejected, and after numerous attempts and trials the domestic development and upgrade of the indigenous propulsion systems of these missiles was finally completed. However, the project was still considered to be in limbo due to other minor problems.

In 1997, funding for the project was greatly reduced, resulting in only two test flights that year, both of which failed. The failures were caused by problems with cables that caused the radio altimeter to provide incorrect information. Although the problem was solved by redesign, a new problem appeared soon afterward, this time in production. The rudder control mechanism malfunctioned during quality tests, and it was discovered that instead of using a screw as it was supposed to, a broken drill was used instead. As a result, both the production manager and the project manager were removed from their posts and sent away to be retrained. A new quality goal of "zero defects" was implemented, and everyone was reminded of the quality goal on a basis by reiterating the slogan, "[Z]ero mistakes in work, zero defects in products, zero risks in test flights". In June 1998, a test flight was conducted after the new quality policy was implemented, and was successful. Four months later, two missiles scored direct hits on their targets at the maximum range in test flights. Immediately following these two successes, another three tests were conducted, two of which were completely successful, while the other was considered partially successful. After many more tests, the missile was finally accepted into service.

I wouldn't bank on C-803-

Yes SAM cannot ensure total protection-
 
. . .
I believe that Pak have C803 missiles with longer range along with potential Babar Cruise Missile in near future.

No SAM of world can provide 100% defense. The aim of SAMs is to provide maximum defense they can't assure total protection especially ag Cruise Missiles.
two things buddy

1.its not just Barak-8 but there are multiple levels of SAM cover in a given battle group each with its own multi level SAM cover like first to counter threats is Barak-8 then Barak1 and then CIWS

2.to reach an indian battle group your fighter needs to be at least in radius of 150 miles that too without being detected to launch any missile which gets to its intended target ship
 
.
CM400 AKG which is already deployed with JF17 Thunder ...

there is no CM400 AKG deployed with PAF. This is misinformation.

actually he asked about PN,not PAF.

Indeed. There is no supersonic anti ship weapon in Pakistani inventory, Navy or Airforce. It is not part of CONOPS. This comes from the Russian conops which Pakistan does not adopt. Rest all is online is misinformation.
 
.
there is no CM400 AKG deployed with PAF. This is misinformation.



Indeed. There is no supersonic anti ship weapon in Pakistani inventory, Navy or Airforce. It is not part of CONOPS. This comes from the Russian conops which Pakistan does not adopt. Rest all is online is misinformation.

You are right ,,, mis information to the extent that they are presenting it in air shows ,,, Good for us you live in a wonder land..
upload_2015-12-6_15-2-23.jpeg

upload_2015-12-6_15-2-56.jpeg
 
.
You are right ,,, mis information to the extent that they are presenting it in air shows ,,, Good for us you live in a wonder land..
View attachment 277703
View attachment 277704

The chinese are putting these weapons and sensors in air shows right next to JF17. What evidence do you have that the supersonic ASM is in Pakistani inventory or has been contracted?
 
.
The chinese are putting these weapons and sensors in air shows right next to JF17. What evidence do you have that the supersonic ASM is in Pakistani inventory or has been contracted?
qlfxZJv.jpg


Chinese are not even "putting" those weapons with JFT but also letting PAF to fly with them too :crazy_pilot:
 
.

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom