BrahMos From On High

[lhuang]

^ It's funny in another thread you didn't understand the basic applications of newtons laws. IIRC it was that a missile is easier to knock away than a truck.

 

[gambit]

From the same link you provided:

And your reply related to the above link:


This simply attests the fact, that you neither know whats a kinetic kill is and unable to understand what was said in the same link you provided.

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

Here is the source again...

MissileThreat :: Nike-Zeus

Although the Nike-Zeus did not collide with the Atlas, it came within two kilometers of its target, close enough that the 400 kT nuclear warhead of a fully operational Nike-Zeus would have destroyed the ICBM.

On December 22, another Nike-Zeus missile fired from Kwajalein came within 200 m of a target reentry vehicle, thus increasing its demonstrated accuracy.

Now do explain to the readership what is so improbable about that progression and how can that progression is inapplicable, according to known physical laws, to everything else? We have a move, or a decrease, from 2 km to 200 meters, between to bodies. The reentry vehicle was a descending ballistic warhead, presumably at high Mach, probably double digit Mach. We are not talking about how the interceptor did not collide with the descending warhead. We are talking about the decrease in distance between said two bodies. Explain to the readership how this is not possible.

And you say: I suggest you look up my past commentaries and explanations on basic radar principles and see how silly you sound.

Just a single reply from you contradicts what you posted. Is it worth the time going after all your previous posts or so called commentaries?
I cant simply spend my valuable time on literatures.

If your time can be spent on this forum you can certainly allocate enough of it to look up my previous explanations and commentaries on the basic operations of many things regarding technology for the military. What are you afraid of?

The problem with a head-on interception is that in the event of a miss, the interceptor has practically no chance to reacquire the target, which is the descending warhead.

Which is not certainly true again from the mouth of a mil professional.one has to be specific about both the target and intereptor.And both speeds.
Interceptor has practically no chance, if and only if its dead slow compared to target,its onboard radar seeker tracking capability,mission computer processing capability, availability of mid-course guidance,..... If its an ill fated interceptor, its not even worth wasting $ in developing it.

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

Therefore the burden is heavily weighted against seeker-guidance technology. The Patriot and its similar programs are geared towards %99.999 accuracy in such head-on interception. The Patriot program is a waste?

an american source : Improper Use of the Classification System to Suppress Public Debate on the Gulf War Performance of the Patriot Air-Defense System

Last week I was contacted by the Defense Investigative Services and told that an article I had published more than two months ago contained classified information. The subject of that article was the performance of the Patriot air-defense system in the Gulf War. In my opinion, the article lays out an overwhelming case, based solely on the analysis of unclassified public data, that the technical performance of the Patriot in the Gulf War was very low, and in fact, the system almost certainly failed to intercept almost all warheads it attempted to engage. I have further argued that the public perception of Patriot success is purely based on misconceptions and misinterpretations of observations by the television and print press during the Gulf War. ABC News was so impressed with the evidence that it ran a nearly unprecedented four and a half minute story on this issue in their prime time national news broadcast. The MacNeil/Lehrer National News program also ran a major story on this subject, and this committee began an investigation of Patriot performance that was initiated in part due to the information brought to light by my analysis.

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

MIM-104 Patriot - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

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

But what of common sense, the one that the US Army operate under that said the most important item must be protected and at the expense of other less importance if ncecessary? In combat or in peacetime disasters, doctors routinely triage the casualties, treating the most serious at the expense of the less injured so that the less injured have to suffer their pains longer. No difference in principle with preemptive protective triage. For the protective services, the most important persons are the presidents, not their families. For the lone Secret Service agent, he will cover the President and let everyone else take their odds. The US Army said that given the limited capability of air defense system, somethings must have higher priority in protection than others -- triage before the fact. The US Army have no choice but to make these compromises and Postol's politics demanded that he reject this necessity.

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

 

[gambit]

^ It's funny in another thread you didn't understand the basic applications of newtons laws. IIRC it was that a missile is easier to knock away than a truck.

And it is hilarious that you did not understand why Newton's Laws are not relevant. Not to say it is inapplicable in general but not relevant. I will explain why again so the readers can see the absurdity of that argument.

A missile is not a truck in that a missile operate in a medium -- air -- that is hostile to mass and weight. Therefore appearances are far more deceptive than usual. A missile's internal volume contains far more empty space in proportion to its appearance than the average UPS or Fedex truck. Therefore, all an interceptor has to do is compromise the missile's exterior and let aerodynamic instability do the rest.

A truck is nowhere as aerodynamic as the missile so to knock the truck off its course, its tires' ability to 'grip' the road surface must be compromised. Do that with water, aka hydroplaning, or deflate the tires. Either way, the truck's stability, road not aerodynamics, is compromised.

Different mediums so different methods to create instability. What the hell does Newton's Laws have to do with this?

 

[gambit]

There you go.Atleast we both share a single phrase and view point.
Same can be said for some posters on this board who degrade or dont trust Brahmos capabilities.

Wrong...I have NEVER said that if the US cannot do <something> no one else can. In environments like this forum, I am an equal opportunity debunker. As I have pointed out in the past that it is normal for me to provide the readers with at least one credible source so they can verify for themselves on what I argued, so far no one returned to say I misled them. So if I did said to the effect that if the US failed at something, others are destined to fail as well, I would not be so bold to give people the resources that they could use against me. To date, those who support many of the Russian, Chinese and Iranian fantastic claims regarding their weapons systems only give propaganda type sources, not independent and credible technically oriented ones that explains some basic principles and how these weapons systems excelled at exploiting these basic principles. And when I challenge these claims based upon independent and credible technical sources and that I do provide sources to back up my challenge, they get their panties in a bunch. Looks like you, buddy.

You sure that you are a professional?
there are many supporting claims on this very internet as videos themself,not just paper.Use google and some common sense.

When I used the word 'paper' I meant it figuratively since everything usually originated on paper anyway. So if the F-22's capabilities are nothing but 'paper' claims, so are the Brahless's. Get it?

Ladies and Gentlemen,would I beg just for a couple of minutes of your time to present you Mr.Gambit aka mil professional on defence.pk who was reluctant to accept brahmos demostrated capabilities and wants fellow members to accept a hypothetical missile program.

Really? What was 'demonstrated'? Did an actual Brahless go against a chaff bloom? So far we have seen an oft posted video of a target that has a radar reflector installed to assist the missile in targeting. So what was 'demonstrated' here? That the Brahless's seeker-guidance system is unlikely to withstand a coordinated ECM counterattack.

Let us see what else...

AI on brahmos starts acting right after launch.

Meaningless statement. Anyone can say this. So how was this 'demonstrated'?

i.e after feed with initial co-ords and target type.

What if target information is not available? What was 'demonstrated' to show how the Brahless can compensate for this lack of information?

Right after that,it doesnt need any interaction or interface from human or ship based sensors(which are optional).

Big deal. If anything, complete missile autonomy is not always desirable. The fact that the US is moving towards a 'net centric' approach and allow missile authority to be post launch transferable from parent to other figures is a sign that we want to retain authority throughout its operation. Your 'demonstrated' capability is nothing new.

It just cruises all the way to target according to its own planning and flight controls while evading ECM and manuevers avoiding detection while changing flight profiles.

So how was this 'demonstrated'? What we have seen so far are claims of this capability, not demonstrations. You are either confused between the words 'claims' and 'demonstrated' or you are to wrapped up in propaganda to see the difference. Anyone can make claims. I can claim to jump far higher than Michael Jordan but can I demonstrate in front of an incredulous audience? In me, you are facing an incredulous audience. In order to evade ECM the Brahless must first know that the sensor return is an ECM tactic. If the missile sees two radar return but one is larger than the other, it is programmed to home in on the larger return of the two. But how does it know that this larger radar return is not an ECM tactic created by the smaller ship to distract the missile?

This is why I suggested that you look up my previous explanations and commentaries. I have posted this question before. I said that among missileers, there is a controversy that the missile should reject the larger radar return and home in on the smaller one of the two. If the larger radar return is a capital ship like an aircraft carrier and the missile hit an AEGIS cruiser instead, at least a valuable target was hit. But if the larger radar return is an ECM tactic and the missile homed in on it, the attacker have just wasted a valuable resource. This has more to do with combat tactics and decision making than with technology as the missile is already seeing two or more radar returns.

Currently, all ECM tactics involving chaff/flare deployments are oriented towards creating sensory overload -- for the attacker. The US Navy is working towards having selective and discretionary chaff/flare deployment sequences that will actually lead (or mislead) the attacker into a flight corridor that will take the attacker through or around the fleet without hitting a single ship. Intra-fleet communication is crucial and with this 'net centric' warfare philosophy that we are moving towards, this tactic is very possible. The missile will be (mis)led via its own guidance rule, which is to home in on the larger radar return.

The Active/passive seeker on brahmos is built with integrated ECCM.Its not about use of an acronym, but application of the said acronym in the system itself.

Of course it is a casual and convenient abuse of acronyms. Saying that the Brahless has an integrated ECCM means what? That it is integrated? So what? How was this 'demonstrated' and against what tactics? I got bad news for you. The only things in the universe that has uniform RCS signatures and most easily recognizable are basic geometric shapes such as a cube, a pyramid and a sphere. Everything else are complex bodies and when we have as large and complex bodies like a ship, whose RCS radically changes between broadsides to end views, it is incredulous that the Brahless would have enough ship signatures in its memory to contain all the ships, civilian and military, in the world. So please...I am not so gullible as to be impressed by the word 'integrated'.

This is more than enough of your biased ,self contained baseless arguments.

Har...I explained the problems of ballistic missile detection and response time problem better than yours on what the Brahless claimed.

No.When the first TD flew.I heard that it is going to have a metal golf ball sized RCS(but every one who boasted consistently failed to provide me at what distances,and about the enemy radar specifications which is the whole RCS depends upon.)
And today that golf ball sized RCS further went down to insect along with falling down airframe di-electric pannels

Wrong...An RCS value has nothing to do with the enemy, whoever he might be. A friendly civilian radar would have the same detection issues as a hostile military radar when faced against the same target, be it an F-16 or an F-22. When an order is placed for a radar system, the order usually state something to the effect: "I want the radar to have at least a %50 detection probability against a one-meter square target at 100 km distance." It does not matter if the radar is an AEGIS size or smaller for installation into a fighter. The request is pretty much the same in principle. But for the example I presented, what it mean is that the radar system must be able to detect, out to 100 km, and IF the target is one-meter square, that detection must be at least halfway reliable. Of course, at 100 km distance, IF the target is greater than one-meter square like a C-5 Galaxy transport, then of course that probability figure would be higher than %50.

I can say my specification to .00000001 meter square at 100 km with %100 detection probability but who is going to step up and promise delivery? If I amend to .00000001 meter square at 10 km with %75 detection probability then people would be bribing me for contract. At 10 km distance, I can see the aircraft with my own eyes so that would make it an absurd contract that only a fool would sign.

You can doubt all you want about the F-22's low RCS but your doubt do not override the fact that civilian radars wordlwide requests that the B-2 and F-22 flies with enhancers and civilian radars operate at the same freqs as military systems. The 'insect' RCS value is based upon the freqs and distance capability of most air defense systems, from long distance freqs to targeting freqs.

Do you see the small pod on the right side of the image above? Some Raptors have them, some do not. The pod is called a 'Luneberg lens'...

Luneburg lens - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
LUN?TECH Lüneberg Reflector lensref - Luneburg radar

The Luneberg reflector significantly increases the Radar Cross Section of any system which has little or none at all.

Its Radar Cross Section is several hundred times the RCS of a metallic sphere of same diameter.

PMA-208 Public Web Site

Radar Augmentation

Passive: Luneberg Lens Radar Reflectors
Active: C-band/X-band Radar Augmentation kit, I/J-band All Attitude Augmentation kit

IMI ADM-141 TALD

...the A/B37U-1(V)2 is a passive radar decoy which uses a Luneberg lens the enhance its radar signature, and the ADM-141A uses both passive (Luneberg lens) and active (RF amplifier) radar enhancers.

For the aerial target, the two methods radar enhancers are for different testing conditions.

These Luneberg enhancers on the F-22s are ejectable. They have been used in exercises to show those who goes up against the F-22 the radar difference between a 'normal' size adversary and when the F-22 eject a pod. Pilots and air traffic controllers are always shocked after an F-22 eject a pod. Even when the F-22 is within visual range, on the radar screen, the difference between when the same aircraft is with pod and when it is without still results in surprises. This is why some F-15 pilots have reported that they cannot get a radar lock on the F-22 even when they have visuals of their targets.

You are not debating the Brahless, its capabilities, radar detection and associated issues with some one who is merely a 'fanboy'. Given the lack of independent sources on your part, the readers can see for themselves the differences between you and I regarding who is the more credible one.

 

[notorious_eagle]

Superb analysis Sir Gambit , i dont think anybody would have any doubts left after reading that.

 

[lhuang]

And it is hilarious that you did not understand why Newton's Laws are not relevant. Not to say it is inapplicable in general but not relevant. I will explain why again so the readers can see the absurdity of that argument.

A missile is not a truck in that a missile operate in a medium -- air -- that is hostile to mass and weight. Therefore appearances are far more deceptive than usual. A missile's internal volume contains far more empty space in proportion to its appearance than the average UPS or Fedex truck. Therefore, all an interceptor has to do is compromise the missile's exterior and let aerodynamic instability do the rest.

A truck is nowhere as aerodynamic as the missile so to knock the truck off its course, its tires' ability to 'grip' the road surface must be compromised. Do that with water, aka hydroplaning, or deflate the tires. Either way, the truck's stability, road not aerodynamics, is compromised.

Different mediums so different methods to create instability. What the hell does Newton's Laws have to do with this?

Oh my god man, you really have no clue.

**** me, this is stupidity at its heights. Please tell me you were just joking, otherwise I have to open up Paint for some diagrams.

 

[gambit]

Oh my god man, you really have no clue.

**** me, this is stupidity at its heights. Please tell me you were just joking, otherwise I have to open up Paint for some diagrams.

I look forward to your colorful but ultimately useless artworks.

Do you see all the physical damages the above aircraft has? That is about aerodynamic instability and how the pilot now must struggle to overcome. Given enough physical damages, which no individual bullet can knock the aircraft off its course, all the individual physical damages summed up will create enough aerodynamic instability that will send the aircraft out of control. That is the point of a missile interception with a smaller interceptor.

 

[lhuang]

I look forward to your colorful but ultimately useless artworks.

Let's say the missile is accelerating at a constant rate, the force that this missile expends in moving forward will be proportional to its mass and rate of acceleration. Air resistance will act in the opposite direction, but the resultant direction of force will still be forward. Gravity too will act on it but once again the resultant will be forward. After the missile reaches its maximum velocity (lets say its the brahmos at mach 2.8) it will stop accelerating and force will be applied only to negate the effects of air resistance, at such speeds air resistance will be great indeed.

This is the same with the truck. The resultant force takes into account gravity/friction/air resistance whatever.

A missile accelerates at a far far far greater velocity and requires far more force to move from its original velocity vector.

Draw a triangle the angle between a constant force y and x which is the force the at two points (during acceleration and once it reaches peak velocity). For a truck angle theta will be massive, if say the y force is 20000N, for a missile, angle theta will be tiny.

The missile will therefore be far harder to knock out of its velocity vector than a missile.

Please dont tell me explain more, I am enjoying my rainy morning in bed. Otherwise take a physics 101 class. tyvm

 

[shaktiman2010]

Do you see all the physical damages the above aircraft has? That is about aerodynamic instability and how the pilot now must struggle to overcome. Given enough physical damages, which no individual bullet can knock the aircraft off its course, all the individual physical damages summed up will create enough aerodynamic instability that will send the aircraft out of control. That is the point of a missile interception with a smaller interceptor.

That aircraft is in very bad shape. From pearl harbour?

With shooting down missiles, its more difficult. Missiles are sleeker and faster than an aircraft. So its more difficult to destroy them. Brahmos are uniquely built to withstand such threats.

Anyways, you haven't shown any proof of how a Stinger can shoot down a tomahawk missile.

If you don't have any experimental evidence, then your claims are paper claims just like F-22's RCS.

 

[gambit]

Let's say the missile is accelerating at a constant rate, the force that this missile expends in moving forward will be proportional to its mass and rate of acceleration. Air resistance will act in the opposite direction, but the resultant direction of force will still be forward. Gravity too will act on it but once again the resultant will be forward. After the missile reaches its maximum velocity (lets say its the brahmos at mach 2.8) it will stop accelerating and force will be applied only to negate the effects of air resistance, at such speeds air resistance will be great indeed.

No disagreements there.

This is the same with the truck. The resultant force takes into account gravity/friction/air resistance whatever.

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

A missile accelerates at a far far far greater velocity and requires far more force to move from its original velocity vector.

The missile will therefore be far harder to knock out of its velocity vector than a missile.

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

 

[gambit]

That aircraft is in very bad shape. From pearl harbour?

Also, missiles are sleeker and faster than an aircraft. So its more difficult to destroy them. Brahmos are uniquely built to withstand such threats.

Anyways, you haven't shown any proof of how a Stinger can shoot down a tomahawk missile.

If you don't have any experimental evidence, then your claims are paper claims just like F-22's RCS.

You are now dismissed.

 

[ptldM3]

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

 

[gambit]

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

Dang...!!! I was reserving it for later to illustrate just the opposite how aerodynamic stability created by a lifting body overcame the instability created by a missing major flight control surface.

 

[gambit]

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

Missiles have tire?

There should be no wonder why this fool is on my 'dismissed' list.

 

[notorious_eagle]

No, I don't see credibility in your posts. F-22's capabilities are in research papers only?

Provide a credible source on F-22's paper RCS.

Read Post 169 and you will get your answer, its nobody's fault that your blind patriotism is getting the best of your judgment. It is a renowned fact that the F22's RCS is extremely low and many senior independant defence analysts have confirmed this. In mock combat the F15's, F16's and F18's have failed to pick up the F22 on their radar. Even your senior Indian members havent doubted the capabilities of the F22, i can only expect a fanboy like you to say this .