BrahMos From On High

[lhuang]

^ holy shizen man, nice wall of text

 

[jagjitnatt]

^ holy shizen man, nice wall of text

ya. this is the longest post I've seen that one has actually typed.

Respect

 

[Mauryan]

^ holy shizen man, nice wall of text

yesterday when I was replying, my beer can spoiled my whole reply.So was the reason for that deleted post.

Oh lawdy.

You are talking about technical points of aircraft which have no similarity with CMs.

Have you done even the most basic Physics course?

You are right.The comparision between a CM and an aircraft w.r.t technical characteristics is very minute.
while an aircraft depends totally on the life generated by the wings,a CM has no restriction to follow the same,which is ofcourse depends on the variants and types.

For an aircraft,there were n number of considerations for the optimal aerodynamic stability,while a CM may or may not got with the same.

An aircraft with missing wing can still fly if it has either good flight control systems that compensate the loss of the wing and aerodynamic with the controlling of other control systems like horizontal stabs,levcons,flapping,......

An F-15 has wings, I do not know about the aerodynamics etc, but I do know, that an object at rest tends to stay at rest an object in motion tends to stay in motion unless an unbalanced sum of forces act on it. Newtons Laws of Motion apply are a basis for Physics everywhere in the world I could never be a teacher

An object flying in air obviously have more control ssytems than a vehicle running on a road.
When a tyre get flattened,a sudden change in CG makes the vehicle unstable.but if the person behind the wheel is good(like a control system in an aircraft) he can bring back stability by moving the wheel opposite to the force vector .Here he is nullifying the force vector to retain a stable CG.Same with Aircraft flying in air.there it has a chance of 360 deg of freedom, while the one on land doesnt.

 

[Dash]

Mauryan - Thank you for the post, no matter what spoilt your reply..
Good job.

Cheers mate!!

 

[deckingraj]

Gambit and Mauryan just a humble request - If possible please continue the discussion(minus the frustration) because it doesn't matter if one of you is able to convince others because we(less knowledgeable one's) are surely getting benefited...

Thanks to both of you...In the end Brahmos has widely been accepted in all three of our defense services and looking at the enthusiasm of both Russia and India this missile is worth to put your money and resources...Actual performance can only be gauged in a battle scenario(hope we never have to fire it in anger)...

 

[gambit]

I would say,I am neither confused nor ignorant of radar systems and their respective processing techniques.When I said painting/illumination it was in the radar engineer pesrpective of detecting and tracking a target.Again when I meant MFD and painting with colors it was meant to be sarcastic and people does literally fail to differentiate sarcasm and unsarcastic sense.If its not me,even a door nob who never heard of anything related radars and its working procedures will realise that there be no need for MFD and DSP to convert the o/p of the radar into a respective pictural view either 2D or 3D in a missile or any unmanned system.And you being over and over after these silly things projects your way point of running away from the actual discussion.

Of course you are and were. I will re-post your initial and feeble attempt to explain basic radar theories and operations for all to see...

Thats is why I said Brahmos AI is immune to ECM and ECCM. Brahmos not only got active seeker,but also passive one.You can bling the active seeker with Chaffs,but how can you avoid being painted by the passive seeker?(which is after the capital ships radar emission).But again, both these act in tandem.And in a salvo mode you are getting few more active and passive radars at different altitudes coming after the target ship/group.

The first sentence is nothing more than a general claim that anyone could make. We can ignore it.

The second sentence goes...

Brahmos not only got active seeker,but also passive one.

Here you are implying that somehow the addition of a passive seeker is a rarity in radar detection. The operative words are highlighted. I would not go so far as to say that a door knob would know what you said as absurd, but I would be willing to say that the same door knob would not see it as an attempt at sarcasm either. Still...Even a 'door knob' of a junior radar engineer fresh out of college working under the tutelage of an experienced one would know that in a mono-static configuration, such as those installed in aircrafts, and missiles are aircrafts despite what some hilariously have denied, they are always mono-static and with this type a passive mode is ever present. It is needed.

You cannot say that the wording 'passive seeker' was meant for anything other than radar because...

You can bling the active seeker with Chaffs,but how can you avoid being painted by the passive seeker?(which is after the capital ships radar emission).

...The highlighted clearly indicated you mean the passive seeker is 'after' a radar emission. The confusion on your part here is transferable to the readers, especially to those who have relevant knowledge of radar detection, and deceptive to those without relevant knowledge. In other words, you were technically in gross error and misled the readership.

When a body become an emitter, it can be so in two ways: Either this body contains its own radar system and was in active mode. Or that the body was reflecting someone else's transmission. So in what context are you referencing when you said: "...capital ships radar emission..." ? Was this passive seeker 'after' the ship's active transmissions or was it 'after' the ship's reflections? Or both? We do not know. Even those of us who have relevant experience in radar detection do not know. From what we have seen so far, we can say with %99.999 certainty that you also do not know but are spouting things -- anything -- anyway. By associating 'passive seeker' with 'capital ships radar emission' in the sentence above, you now cannot say that you were referencing 'passive seeker' with infrared sensor, which is a passive sensor.

Now we can take a look at the front end of the above sentence...

You can bling the active seeker with Chaffs,but how can you avoid being painted by the passive seeker?

Bling? Another gratuitous attempt at using slangs to impress. My experience with pilots is that they hate hearing non-pilots speak their lingo. Same for any profession. That is why I chuckled at your usage of 'painted' after seeing so many egregious technical errors. Anyway...The entire sentense was designed to (mis)lead the readers into believing...:

1- That in a mono-static configuration, there are PHYSICAL, not modal, distinctions between active and passive. This is wrong.

2- That in this obviously fantasy radar system, if the defense managed to blind -- or 'bling' -- the active seeker, the passive seeker is still effective at detection. This is also wrong.

Regardless of whatever context NOW you chose to attach to the word 'painted' or 'painting', once we parse from you what I casually dismissed back then, I say that your attempt to portray your comments as 'sarcasm' is rather weak. The problem with slangs is that they are wide open to interpretation, of course, so when the ignorant reader sees: "...painted by the passive seeker..." He is misled by you into believing that there are physical, not MODAL, distinctions in a mono-static configuration. The problem with the radar context of the word 'emitter' or 'emission' regarding a body is already clear as I explained above. A passive sensor will detect, or work against, a body if said body is an active transmitter. A passive sensor will not detect a body if said body is neither an active transmitter nor is it reflecting anyone else's transmission. Substitute 'sensor' with 'mode' and the readers are given a technically valid explanation of how these things work. But throw in your gratuitous usage of slangs into the ignorance mix and the recipe for confusion is ready for cooking.

Those who read me often enough will recognize my usage thus: 'stealth' versus low radar observable or low reflectivity. I have always put the word 'stealth' in quotes to indicate casual usage when the situation does not demand specificity. But if I deem the situation unique, I will use the latter two. I believe the readership is better off this way. The F-111 can be a 'stealth' aircraft but it is not radar low observable. If you cannot understand why then my point about the misleading danger of slangs is well made. You use them to redirect attention away from your ignorance and the readership is worse off. I use proper terminologies and is dismissed by you as putting out gibberish. Way to go.

Next...

But again, both these act in tandem.

Tandem...? More confusion for the readers. Probably from you as well.

Tandem - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
2 : a group of two or more arranged one behind the other or used or acting in conjunction

In a mono-static configuration, there are MODAL, not physical distinctions, between active and passive. We established how wrong you are on that. On the surface, it would appear the word 'tandem' is applicable because in a pulsed mono-static radar, the passive mode follows the active mode. But since you were under the false impression that there are physical, not modal, distinctions, and if we go by that understanding, the readers are given the 'fact' that the Brahless, if its active sensor is 'blinged', the passive sensor will follow. In other words, passive sensor operation is discretionary, not automatic.

Wrong.

Even in a bi-static configuration, when there are both physical and modal distinctions between active and passive sensor operations, passive sensor operation, despite the ability to make it discretionary, it is always in the 'on' mode. The only time a passive ANTENNA is in the 'off' mode is when it is discretionarily off AND the entire station is a member of a greater multi-static array spread out over an expanse. But if the passive antenna of a station is in the 'off' mode, aka not listening, there must be another passive antenna somewhere that is listening, else radar detection is not possible, which lead us back to the original thesis of radar detection that active and passive operations, while is in tandem, they must be automatic, not discretionary, whereas you falsely posit the opposite. Actually, in a bi-static triangle, active and passive operations are at the same time.

What this mean is this...

Thats is why I said Brahmos AI is immune to ECM and ECCM. Brahmos not only got active seeker,but also passive one.You can bling the active seeker with Chaffs,but how can you avoid being painted by the passive seeker?(which is after the capital ships radar emission).But again, both these act in tandem.

...Is completely wrong in everything, or at least on the major parts, about radar detection. People like you get away with making this kind of nonsensical statements like these because:

1- Of the general ignorance of the audience. Note: Ignorance does not imply inferior intelligence.

2- Of the copious use of government and 'fanboy' sources in lieu of independent ones.

Next...

And in a salvo mode you are getting few more active and passive radars at different altitudes coming after the target ship/group.

$God in Heavens...!!! And for the readers please note the variable $God and substitute your revered deity there. If you are an atheist, then it would remain an empty string.

Anyway...

The above comment further support a belief that you know nothing about radar detection in theory and operations. Chaff canisters may be launched on one side of the ship but the chaff bloom's radar reflectivity is OMNIDIRECTIONAL. In other words, regardless of the sensor's altitude, approach direction and angle, if there is a chaff bloom in its field of view, it will be blinded -- or 'blinged' -- if said chaff bloom's electronic area is large enough. And in less than five seconds, an aircraft carrier can generate a radar return via chaff that are thousands of km square.

What you are misleading the readers here is the claim that even in the event the fleet is alerted to an incoming Brahless and deploy chaff in the approach direction, the chaff bloom's radar reflectivity is directional towards one active sensor so that would leave opportunities for other missiles to acquire the ship. This is utter nonsense as multiple ground radars have detected traveling chaff clouds across the land -- AT THE SAME TIME...!!!

CHAFF MIXED WITH RADAR WEATHER ECHOES

Chaff is frequently released by military aircraft in the desert area west of the Great Salt Lake (GSL). The chaff is seen on the radar display usually as narrow bands of high reflectivity that travel with the winds after emanating from a point source. Sometimes these chaff echoes can stretch for hundreds of miles. The bands are also very shallow and are usually seen on only one tilt of the radar, though this depends on the range from the radar and the amount of diffusion time. As chaff drifts closer to the radar site, it may be seen on several tilts making it more difficult to distinguish from actual weather.

Chaff on Radar Imagery

The proximity of the Naval Air Station both to Key West and Miami results in the regular appearance of chaff on radar imagery from these sites.

The above source is only one of the many instances of chaff cloud detections by ground weather radars. Chaff clouds have been deliberately launched for meteorological purposes such as tracking wind patterns. Note that Nav Air, Key West and Miami, multiple radars reported chaff imagery. Weather radars routinely overlap each other, they do often track the same meteorological phenomenon and report to each other. No different with a chaff cloud. So according to you, if chaff can only be detected by one radar at a time, two of the three stations cited must be liars. On behalf of the readership, I demand that you provide a credible independent source that said against a chaff cloud, if there are multiple radars only one of them will detect said chaff cloud and the rest will not.

If we go by the true laws of nature and not your made up ones convenient for the Brahless, and if we make this salvo scenario to be from the same general direction -- land based launchers -- then what you claimed is even more hilarious. Given the several minutes it will take for a chaff cloud to descend to sea level, given the ample stores of chaff available and given the presence of AWACS to alert the fleet, if one Brahless can be deceived by chaff, the others in the salvo from the same general direction would most likely be deceived as well, regardless of diversity of approach altitude.

In sum...

Thats is why I said Brahmos AI is immune to ECM and ECCM. Brahmos not only got active seeker,but also passive one.You can bling the active seeker with Chaffs,but how can you avoid being painted by the passive seeker?(which is after the capital ships radar emission).But again, both these act in tandem.And in a salvo mode you are getting few more active and passive radars at different altitudes coming after the target ship/group.

Your entire commentary regarding the Brahmos...not Brahless this time...should be taken as nothing more than 'fanboy' raving. The Brahmos is best against an inferior adversary. Any adversary whose military is comparable to India's will not be so vulnerable, even if he does not have AWACS capability. But if he does have AWACS capability, then tactically speaking, at least %50 of the Brahmos' capabilities, if not more, are negotiable by said adversary.

Yes.which is bringing in some amusing literature works,while me not being good with the same.

Given how I explained you were egregiously wrong in the above, you should claim the Pulitzer, or whatever highest award for creative writing in your area.

Just boasting of some crap which include no substance and is totally irrelevant.I can also boast mentiong that I have worked for a major US defence contractor in waterloo(which i am not willing to disclose and is easily found using google)

You certaintly can. However, given the dearth of credible and independent sources from you, and that said sources can only come from those who have relevant experience to know where to search for them, anything you boast about yourself can mean to naught. As for me...I have no problems at all debasing myself to that of a night janitor. Appropriate as I am cleaning up a lot of BS in this discussion with credible and independent sources as disinfectants.

Now you attested yourself the fact that you are the same 3 letters suffixing another 4 letters which a donut has at its center.

Proud of it at that. I have no problems accepting such insults when they come from those whose claims I easily dissected with credible and independent sources.

 

[ironman]

Just found an interesting article...

The Name Remains The Same​

Posted by Douglas Barrie at 8/28/2008 12:16 PM CDT

Indian defense executives took the opportunity of a recent weapons exhibition in Moscow to once again raise the issue of a “successor” to the Indo-Russian Brahmos rocket-ramjet powered cruise missile.

However, given the performance aspirations for the weapon - dubbed Brahmos-2 – the name would likely be the only commonality with the present Brahmos.

The Brahmos is a variant of the NPO Mashinostroenia 3M-55 Onyx (SS-NX-26) anti-ship missile. It has a cruise speed on the order of Mach 2.6. Sivathanu Pillai, the CEO at the Brahmos company, has repeatedly suggested the follow on – Brahmos-2 – will be a hypersonic weapon. Brahmos is a partnership between NPO Mashinostroenia and India’s Defense Research and Development Organisation (DRDO).

The 3M-55 is a capable weapon but neither the propulsion system nor the airframe design or materials are remotely suitable for a hypersonic weapon. Scramjet or hybrid ramjet propulsion would be required for an air-breathing weapon, with advanced materials technology, possibly including active cooling, needed to deal with the temperatures generated at such speeds.

Exactly how Brahmos-2 relates to the DRDO’s Hypersonic Technology Demonstrator Vehicle (HSTDV) program has also yet to become clear.

Pillai told the Russian news agency Interfax that he also wanted the Brahmos-2 to be “invisible”.

While this could present an issue in the infra-red spectrum, given airframe heating, NPO Mashinostroenia already has a track record in working on passive and active low observable technology in the radio frequency spectrum for high altitude cruise weapons.

Its 3M-25 Meteorit strategic cruise missile, which was never fielded, was associated with a plasma-generation system believed to be intended to reduce the radar cross-section of the missile by shielding the air intake and possibly the nose section.

Bill Sweetman adds: Also, take a look at the BrahMos displayed in Moscow last week:

Doesn't that look like a very heavy coat of paint for something that's supposed to spend its life in a sealed container? More than paint, perhaps - probably radar or IR-absorbent coating, quite possibly both. Back to Doug:

Russia has a long-standing interest in hypersonic cruise missile technology, while India is also exploring technologies applicable to this area through the likes of the HSTDV. Brahmos-2, should it ever progress, could prove to be a very interesting weapon.

Picture Credits D.Barrie & Bill Sweetman/AW&ST

Ares Homepage

 

[gambit]

This is a simple example of how we both differ with name while the concept remaining basically same.Me and majority term flight control system as FCS while you doing the same with FLCS.Designing a quick reaction control system was never a problem.Simple example is AAMs and SAMs while after the target at high supersonic and hypersonic speeds pulling 40g and 50g manuevers.The more G it is pulling means, its control system is almost instataneous in responding.And jet vanes offer high manueverability compared to aerodynamic surfaces.One has the option of using either of them or both at the same time.Many countries does use both on the same missile,which ofcourse is nothing new today.

No...I was not referring to the differences in acronyms. Am referring to this...

In a head-on interception, all that is needed is the closing speed, which is the combined speed of both vehicles, to either destroy the targeted missile or throw it off course via aerodynamic instability.

That only works when a target has almost "0" manueverability and is dumb following a predecribed trajectory aka early BMs with basic RV or some other artillery shells inviting an interceptor.
But sadly your mate DBC often brings your posts as reference was hell bent on bringing down a brahmos with a stinger.

Note the highlighted. Here you are implying that the Brahless will be maneuvering pretty much at all flight time, even to the end. Here is my explanation of why you are wrong, re-posted for all to see...

When the approaching missile is finally fixated on a specific target for impact, its terminal flight phase is absolutely non-maneuverable. This is applicable from free falling but GPS-guided bombs to ballistic to cruise missiles. The reason why this non-maneuverable flight phase is necessary is because the aircraft, and yes a missile or a free falling bomb is very much an aircraft, is dependent upon aerodynamic manipulations to keep itself stabilized. The mechanisms for those manipulations are fins, fixed or movable, or through reaction jets. The response speed and rate of those methods directly correspond to the duration of the terminal flight phase. The better the flight control system, the more maneuverable the aircraft and therefore if the subject is a missile, the greater the difficulty for the defense to make an effective interception.

In effect, I am saying that given the current technology level, across the board and that include US as well, any missile would have a terminal flight phase when it WILL NOT be maneuverable, as dictated by programming. You are saying that a head-on interception is not possible given that the Brahless does not have a nonmaneuverable flight phase. I am saying the opposite that the Brahless does have such a flight phase and it is possible to have a head-on interception during that flight phase. The duration of that flight phase is dependent upon FLCS sophistication, which according to you the Brahless have such a sophistication, from materials to system integration, that it does not have such a nonmaneuverable flight phase, which would make another instance of where the Brahless is seemingly ruled by an alternate set of physical laws, like how you tried to give such a set to the Brahless regarding its radar system.

 

[ironman]

No...I was not referring to the differences in acronyms. Am referring to this...


Note the highlighted. Here you are implying that the Brahless will be maneuvering pretty much at all flight time, even to the end. Here is my explanation of why you are wrong, re-posted for all to see...


In effect, I am saying that given the current technology level, across the board and that include US as well, any missile would have a terminal flight phase when it WILL NOT be maneuverable, as dictated by programming. You are saying that a head-on interception is not possible given that the Brahless does not have a nonmaneuverable flight phase. I am saying the opposite that the Brahless does have such a flight phase and it is possible to have a head-on interception during that flight phase. The duration of that flight phase is dependent upon FLCS sophistication, which according to you the Brahless have such a sophistication, from materials to system integration, that it does not have such a nonmaneuverable flight phase, which would make another instance of where the Brahless is seemingly ruled by an alternate set of physical laws, like how you tried to give such a set to the Brahless regarding its radar system.

This is the official comment.

Just got off the phone with BrahMos CEO Dr A Sivathanu Pillai, delighted with the 11.30AM test of the Naval BrahMos supersonic cruise missile in a vertical launch from the Indian Navy destroyer INS Ranvir. Dr Pillai reveals the test was specifically aimed at testing the missile's accuracy when its flight path was infused with "diversionary manoueuvers" to mask the general direction of the launcher warship. The missile, vertically launched from a Vertical Launcher built for the BrahMos, was rolled in all directions successfully before it smashed into the hull of INS Meen a decommissioned target vessel.

 

[gambit]

This is the official comment.

Just got off the phone with BrahMos CEO Dr A Sivathanu Pillai, delighted with the 11.30AM test of the Naval BrahMos supersonic cruise missile in a vertical launch from the Indian Navy destroyer INS Ranvir. Dr Pillai reveals the test was specifically aimed at testing the missile's accuracy when its flight path was infused with "diversionary manoueuvers" to mask the general direction of the launcher warship. The missile, vertically launched from a Vertical Launcher built for the BrahMos, was rolled in all directions successfully before it smashed into the hull of INS Meen a decommissioned target vessel.

No problems with that. But what it mean is that for this stage of development, the missile's maneuvers has more to do with protecting the parent than for self. This is contrary to everything proclaimed so far about the lethality of the missile due to its ability to maneuvers. For the defense, the immediate need is to either divert or destroy the missile, not to locate the parent launcher. So if the Brahmos does have a period of flight where it does not maneuver, which we can assume for now is the longest duration of the total flight time, then the it can be intercepted.

 

[Mauryan]

Of course you are and were. I will re-post your initial and feeble attempt to explain basic radar theories and operations for all to see...

That is your own feeling and has nothing to do with my knowledgebase.

The first sentence is nothing more than a general claim that anyone could make. We can ignore it.

Even if you can ignore it,the missile system wont.Because it was purposely built to do so. i.e it got ECCM on it and is immune to ECM.
Again your reluctance of accepting it or not,has nothing to do either with me or with the brahmos while the system being capable of.

The second sentence goes...

Brahmos not only got active seeker,but also passive one.

Here you are implying that somehow the addition of a passive seeker is a rarity in radar detection. The operative words are highlighted. I would not go so far as to say that a door knob would know what you said as absurd, but I would be willing to say that the same door knob would not see it as an attempt at sarcasm either. Still...Even a 'door knob' of a junior radar engineer fresh out of college working under the tutelage of an experienced one would know that in a mono-static configuration, such as those installed in aircrafts, and missiles are aircrafts despite what some hilariously have denied, they are always mono-static and with this type a passive mode is ever present. It is needed.

I am still with my quoted statement which says,Brahmos has active-passive radar seeker.
Do I have to prove the readers of this forum to say that you are acting as a door knob who has never heard of a dual mode radar seeker?
Wakeup Sid, world is moving on.Even Indians themself mastered these dualmode seekers for their missile defence program(IR+radar seeker).
And suspecting a russian seeker is dumb enough of your patriotic fever.
Eliminated component description,but hoping that it might ping you.


The only reason for me to highlight the point of active-passive radar is first of its kind on a supersonic anti-ship missile.It doesnt need any further attestations.

You cannot say that the wording 'passive seeker' was meant for anything other than radar because...


...The highlighted clearly indicated you mean the passive seeker is 'after' a radar emission. The confusion on your part here is transferable to the readers, especially to those who have relevant knowledge of radar detection, and deceptive to those without relevant knowledge. In other words, you were technically in gross error and misled the readership.

Geezzzz..... there you go.Terminology has nothing to do with practical logic,if sense prevails.And unfortunately it doesnt for you.
Also,I am not the one who is confused,it absolutely seems to be you.May be time to have a re-look at your old radar engineering books?

When a body become an emitter, it can be so in two ways: Either this body contains its own radar system and was in active mode. Or that the body was reflecting someone else's transmission. So in what context are you referencing when you said: "...capital ships radar emission..." ? Was this passive seeker 'after' the ship's active transmissions or was it 'after' the ship's reflections? Or both? We do not know. Even those of us who have relevant experience in radar detection do not know. From what we have seen so far, we can say with %99.999 certainty that you also do not know but are spouting things -- anything -- anyway. By associating 'passive seeker' with 'capital ships radar emission' in the sentence above, you now cannot say that you were referencing 'passive seeker' with infrared sensor, which is a passive sensor.

Since I was talking about my passive seeker w.r.t ship own radar emission,it has to be the ships active emissions.And it is.
Generalising ones knowledge w.r.t others is not a preferred subject at times.
My active seeker has nothing to do with my passive seeker.They both operate independantly and my passive seeker takes care of the reflections due to the active seeker.The passive seeker here is anti-radar homing head.May be this layman terms might clear that void in you.
There is a hell lot of difference between IR seeker and radar homing head.Unless its sarcasm,the above statement is highly offensive in offending a person with working knowledge.

Now we can take a look at the front end of the above sentence...
Bling? Another gratuitous attempt at using slangs to impress. My experience with pilots is that they hate hearing non-pilots speak their lingo. Same for any profession. That is why I chuckled at your usage of 'painted' after seeing so many egregious technical errors. Anyway...The entire sentense was designed to (mis)lead the readers into believing...:
1- That in a mono-static configuration, there are PHYSICAL, not modal, distinctions between active and passive. This is wrong.
2- That in this obviously fantasy radar system, if the defense managed to blind -- or 'bling' -- the active seeker, the passive seeker is still effective at detection. This is also wrong.

It was a typo.Should be blind.As I said,even blinding this active seeker is a hypothetical scenario which only satisfy your needs.Because of the one and only reason is it has ECCM.
As per our previous talk,it was highly understanble that you have no idea about how an ECCM works,let me educate you for a moment.
An ECCM will take use of these things to make its way clear of ECM.
Like: 1)STC-Sensitivity Time control.
where STC is used to keep not only the target,but also the the signal that contains both target+clutter within the dynamic range.And when MTI will increase the target visibility w.r.t clutter.here the clutter can be of any time.Chaffs,sea clutter,whatever...
Usage of Fast time constant circuit.,PRF,Frequency agility compatability moving target indicator,Dicke-fix receiver,Back-bias receiver,Jammer strobe,sidelobe blanking,Antirange gate pull-off,random conical scan,conical scan and lobe switching on receive only,....... there are N number of ECCM techniques that can be conviniently integrated on to a radar seeker. most of the above said dont even need additional equipments,while just addition of few algorithms and fast fourier transforms can simply do the job.

And yet when people are even moving towards counter counter counter measures,some members are just getting struck with ECCM.

Next...


Tandem...? More confusion for the readers. Probably from you as well.

Tandem - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
2 : a group of two or more arranged one behind the other or used or acting in conjunction

Tandem=one following or behind the other
And you talking about radars and not knowing this basic thing is outrageous of your claims.This tandem i.e one after another sequential operation will be explained better in conjuction with the giberish stuff below.lets go there and see what you said:

In a mono-static configuration, there are MODAL, not physical distinctions, between active and passive. We established how wrong you are on that. On the surface, it would appear the word 'tandem' is applicable because in a pulsed mono-static radar, the passive mode follows the active mode. But since you were under the false impression that there are physical, not modal, distinctions, and if we go by that understanding, the readers are given the 'fact' that the Brahless, if its active sensor is 'blinged', the passive sensor will follow. In other words, passive sensor operation is discretionary, not automatic.

Wrong.

Even in a bi-static configuration, when there are both physical and modal distinctions between active and passive sensor operations, passive sensor operation, despite the ability to make it discretionary, it is always in the 'on' mode. The only time a passive ANTENNA is in the 'off' mode is when it is discretionarily off AND the entire station is a member of a greater multi-static array spread out over an expanse. But if the passive antenna of a station is in the 'off' mode, aka not listening, there must be another passive antenna somewhere that is listening, else radar detection is not possible, which lead us back to the original thesis of radar detection that active and passive operations, while is in tandem, they must be automatic, not discretionary, whereas you falsely posit the opposite. Actually, in a bi-static triangle, active and passive operations are at the same time.

So,you only know about mono-static and bi-static ones?
In the same post I put a block diagram of my said dual mode radar seeker.And it doesnt follow your logic of pulsing of modes. Mode switching puts more load at the processor and analysis level as compared to a dedicated dual mode seeker.And the above said tandem operating procedure shows up during an intense ECM environment where the dual mode offers more flexibility with ECCM as compared to switching modes.

What this mean is this...
...Is completely wrong in everything, or at least on the major parts, about radar detection. People like you get away with making this kind of nonsensical statements like these because:
1- Of the general ignorance of the audience. Note: Ignorance does not imply inferior intelligence.
2- Of the copious use of government and 'fanboy' sources in lieu of independent ones.

having quoted the same text multiple times, dont expect a different answer.Just scroll few lines to the top.

Next...
$God in Heavens...!!! And for the readers please note the variable $God and substitute your revered deity there. If you are an atheist, then it would remain an empty string.

A meaningless rant........

Anyway...

The above comment further support a belief that you know nothing about radar detection in theory and operations. Chaff canisters may be launched on one side of the ship but the chaff bloom's radar reflectivity is OMNIDIRECTIONAL. In other words, regardless of the sensor's altitude, approach direction and angle, if there is a chaff bloom in its field of view, it will be blinded -- or 'blinged' -- if said chaff bloom's electronic area is large enough. And in less than five seconds, an aircraft carrier can generate a radar return via chaff that are thousands of km square.

What you are misleading the readers here is the claim that even in the event the fleet is alerted to an incoming Brahless and deploy chaff in the approach direction, the chaff bloom's radar reflectivity is directional towards one active sensor so that would leave opportunities for other missiles to acquire the ship. This is utter nonsense as multiple ground radars have detected traveling chaff clouds across the land -- AT THE SAME TIME...!!!

CHAFF MIXED WITH RADAR WEATHER ECHOES


Chaff on Radar Imagery

The above source is only one of the many instances of chaff cloud detections by ground weather radars. Chaff clouds have been deliberately launched for meteorological purposes such as tracking wind patterns. Note that Nav Air, Key West and Miami, multiple radars reported chaff imagery. Weather radars routinely overlap each other, they do often track the same meteorological phenomenon and report to each other. No different with a chaff cloud. So according to you, if chaff can only be detected by one radar at a time, two of the three stations cited must be liars. On behalf of the readership, I demand that you provide a credible independent source that said against a chaff cloud, if there are multiple radars only one of them will detect said chaff cloud and the rest will not.

If we go by the true laws of nature and not your made up ones convenient for the Brahless, and if we make this salvo scenario to be from the same general direction -- land based launchers -- then what you claimed is even more hilarious. Given the several minutes it will take for a chaff cloud to descend to sea level, given the ample stores of chaff available and given the presence of AWACS to alert the fleet, if one Brahless can be deceived by chaff, the others in the salvo from the same general direction would most likely be deceived as well, regardless of diversity of approach altitude.

Refer to the ECCM I have listed in this same post.If Chaff acts as an ECM, do you expect there bee nothing to counter it?
Please go though the above ECCM techniques and if you have any doubt in them feel free to give me a call.
Afterall w.r.t your non-sensical discussion all I understand is that yous understanding and knowledge was stagnated with just ECM and failed to see new fronteirs .

In sum...
Your entire commentary regarding the Brahmos...not Brahless this time...should be taken as nothing more than 'fanboy' raving. The Brahmos is best against an inferior adversary. Any adversary whose military is comparable to India's will not be so vulnerable, even if he does not have AWACS capability. But if he does have AWACS capability, then tactically speaking, at least %50 of the Brahmos' capabilities, if not more, are negotiable by said adversary.

Yes, it clearly depicts who is a fanboy.Neverthless US is the one who is sh!tting in its pants to put a counter since the good old days of Granit.Even Yakhont was meant to deal with US CBG and other capital ships.
Now here comes a US mil professional who never takes pride with the systems that US makes and often fails to accept that technological advances are not only bound to occur in US, but can also happen outside of US.
Now,I dont have to pull a list of systems, that US is still struggling hard to put against.
After ending up with all arguments ,you ended yup dragging fanboy comparisions.Simply soo cheap of you.

No...I was not referring to the differences in acronyms. Am referring to this...

In a head-on interception, all that is needed is the closing speed, which is the combined speed of both vehicles, to either destroy the targeted missile or throw it off course via aerodynamic instability.

That only works when a target has almost "0" manueverability and is dumb following a predecribed trajectory aka early BMs with basic RV or some other artillery shells inviting an interceptor.
But sadly your mate DBC often brings your posts as reference was hell bent on bringing down a brahmos with a stinger.

Note the highlighted. Here you are implying that the Brahless will be maneuvering pretty much at all flight time, even to the end. Here is my explanation of why you are wrong, re-posted for all to see...

When the approaching missile is finally fixated on a specific target for impact, its terminal flight phase is absolutely non-maneuverable. This is applicable from free falling but GPS-guided bombs to ballistic to cruise missiles. The reason why this non-maneuverable flight phase is necessary is because the aircraft, and yes a missile or a free falling bomb is very much an aircraft, is dependent upon aerodynamic manipulations to keep itself stabilized. The mechanisms for those manipulations are fins, fixed or movable, or through reaction jets. The response speed and rate of those methods directly correspond to the duration of the terminal flight phase. The better the flight control system, the more maneuverable the aircraft and therefore if the subject is a missile, the greater the difficulty for the defense to make an effective interception.

In effect, I am saying that given the current technology level, across the board and that include US as well, any missile would have a terminal flight phase when it WILL NOT be maneuverable, as dictated by programming. You are saying that a head-on interception is not possible given that the Brahless does not have a nonmaneuverable flight phase. I am saying the opposite that the Brahless does have such a flight phase and it is possible to have a head-on interception during that flight phase. The duration of that flight phase is dependent upon FLCS sophistication, which according to you the Brahless have such a sophistication, from materials to system integration, that it does not have such a nonmaneuverable flight phase, which would make another instance of where the Brahless is seemingly ruled by an alternate set of physical laws, like how you tried to give such a set to the Brahless regarding its radar system

That is just being ignorant of development in the otherside of the world.
Firstly you have to know what is supersonic cruising all the way,untill it hits the target.Brahmos has an intergral liquid propulsion ramjet.It means the missile dont depend on coasting,but highly and totally depends on its cruise flight. the 290km multi flight profile path doesnt at all include the coasting phase.It is pure cruising phase,this simply means that the missile still carries a significant energy for additional manuvers which ofcourse it was meant to perform against incoming threats like SAMs.Why people are giving so much importance and showing concern w.r.t brahmos is that its simply an upgraded Yakhont which also carries the similar capability to dodge when a threat appears infront.And you are the one who is making fun of its AI with baseless accusations and ranting.But it is that very same AI, that helps guide the missile untill it hits the target.
Believe it or not,you are just doing a nut job which I feel after reading your last comment.

Good luck with your assumptions and self contained ideologies.
as far as I know, there is no deployed ramjet missile in the US arsenal.Without a ramjet program and its further refinements,how can you base your arguments on that assumption that a ramjet powered missile will coast just like a solid/liquid fueled missiles?

Actually,I thought of not getting back to your replies after your repeated controversial theories.And now you made me take a yet another strong decision to nail it.

 

[Mauryan]

Just found an interesting article...




Doesn't that look like a very heavy coat of paint for something that's supposed to spend its life in a sealed container? More than paint, perhaps - probably radar or IR-absorbent coating, quite possibly both.

Brahmos is a LO missile.It has got a high level RAM coating along with LO metallurgy.though critics always criticise it,but its a blatant fact.
Whether these fanboys believes it or not,US still have no such thing to put against it not because its a system from Russia, but because it was a system meant to defeat all kind of threats.

Pulling into sea skimming mode for the last 25-30 sec just before the enemy ships radar horizon,is just one hell of a job confronting it.

 

[ao333]

This is so sad. If BrahMos is all that, why didn't/doesn't Russia buy it? Or any other country, lol...

 

[satishkumarcsc]

This is so sad. If BrahMos is all that, why didn't/doesn't Russia buy it? Or any other country, lol...

Because they already have Yakhont. Why have 2 systems with the same capability?

 

[ao333]

Because they already have Yakhont. Why have 2 systems with the same capability?

And here I thought someone would say, "Russia is trying to scam India with non-GNSS guided CMs..."

Buddy, given the limited payload of cruise missiles, it's all about accuracy. Without a proper GNSS like GPS/GLONASS/Galileo/Compass, it won't land on where you want it to. This is evident through numerous Brahmos tests where the speed was achieved, but not the precision. That's the reason why Tomahawk attracted world attention. Russia is trying to intergrate GLONASS into its future CMs while trying to make a last profit. It's a shame really... Even the Chinese were smart enough to stop developing conventionally guided CMs in favour of GNSS. I guess India has to learn how to walk before run.