BrahMos From On High

[gambit]

Now to continue...Since you have expressed doubts that the cruise missile is an aircraft but the only difference you can bring between a cruise missile and a manned aircraft is the size of the wings -- a flight control surface -- can you explain to the readers as to why would a manned aircraft be vulnerable to aerodynamic instability, as proven in several wars that involved aircrafts, but a cruise missile does not have the same vulnerability?

I'll postulate that a greater sustained speed, less surface area for wind resistance (as a force) will contribute to a greater stability for the missile.

That is not what I asked. No surprise there that you continues to evade. Despite what you may believe, the moment an object begins to experience airflow over its surfaces, what is most relevant is not Newton but Bernoulli.

So between a cruise missile and a manned aircraft, there is no difference as to their vulnerability. Differences in degrees of vulnerability -- yes. But if the manned aircraft is vulnerable to aerodynamic instability, so does the cruise missile. That mean in order to have an effective defense against a cruise missile, there is no need to have an equal mass traveling at the same speed in a head-on collision. All we need to do is create a point of sufficient aerodynamic instability, or multiple points of the same but smaller, and let Bernoulli's Laws take their course.

Heck...Why should anyone take you seriously when the only thing you can say about the cruise missile and the F-15 is that the latter has bigger wings?

 

[gambit]

I've been busy studying, y'know generally being productive. Tell me what was it that you claimed that I haven't disproved?

You have the title of military professional, even one mistake, slams a big sledgehammer on your credibility.

What 'mistake' was that?

 

[lhuang]

What 'mistake' was that?

That its easier to knock a truck off its course than a missile.

That is not what I asked. No surprise there that you continues to evade. Despite what you may believe, the moment an object begins to experience airflow over its surfaces, what is most relevant is not Newton but Bernoulli.

So between a cruise missile and a manned aircraft, there is no difference as to their vulnerability. Differences in degrees of vulnerability -- yes. But if the manned aircraft is vulnerable to aerodynamic instability, so does the cruise missile. That mean in order to have an effective defense against a cruise missile, there is no need to have an equal mass traveling at the same speed in a head-on collision. All we need to do is create a point of sufficient aerodynamic instability, or multiple points of the same but smaller, and let Bernoulli's Laws take their course.

Heck...Why should anyone take you seriously when the only thing you can say about the cruise missile and the F-15 is that the latter has bigger wings?

Newton is always relevant, always the most relevant. Newtons laws govern all forms of movement.

I said that a missile will be less vulnerable from a force acting on it. (IOW an interceptor) than a truck. I didn't say that air pressure and wind speed that can cause instability in an aircraft will not be act for some reason for a missile.

Bernoulli's Laws take their course.

I'm sure the peculiarities of fluid dynamics are beyond you. So I'll keep it simple. An interceptor missile isn't based on the concepts of Bernoullis principles. An interceptor uses brute kinetic energy to dislodge a missile from its path (or a chemical explosive to destroy it, once it is within its proximity). Bernoullis laws have no application in your argument.

Hmm now that I think about it, for a missile travelling 300kms even a small deviation in its path would cause it to miss the target by a massive amount.

 

[gambit]

That its easier to knock a truck off its course than a missile.

And I never said it was 'easier'. If you are going to make a charge, back it up. Else I will call you a liar.

Newton is always relevant, always the most relevant. Newtons laws govern all forms of movement.

No disagreements there.

I said that a missile will be less vulnerable from a force acting on it. (IOW an interceptor) than a truck. I didn't say that air pressure and wind speed that can cause instability in an aircraft will not be act for some reason for a missile.



I'm sure the peculiarities of fluid dynamics are beyond you. So I'll keep it simple. An interceptor missile isn't based on the concepts of Bernoullis principles. An interceptor uses brute kinetic energy to dislodge a missile from its path (or a chemical explosive to destroy it, once it is within its proximity). Bernoullis laws have no application in your argument.

Hmm now that I think about it, for a missile travelling 300kms even a small deviation in its path would cause it to miss the target by a massive amount.

Wrong...Oh so wrong...!!!

According to airliners worldwide, we know of 26 civil aircrafts, from airliner to small commuters, have been shot down by MANPADs. None of the weapons are larger in mass than their targets. None of them were destroyed by the weapons' explosive force. All of them had their aerodynamic stability compromised.

What was it you said about Bernoulli does not apply?

 

[gambit]

I'm sure the peculiarities of fluid dynamics are beyond you. So I'll keep it simple. An interceptor missile isn't based on the concepts of Bernoullis principles. An interceptor uses brute kinetic energy to dislodge a missile from its path (or a chemical explosive to destroy it, once it is within its proximity). Bernoullis laws have no application in your argument.

Good God in Heavens...!!! And you are telling the public that I have no understanding of Bernoulli? An interceptor IS a missile, which IS and aircraft, which IS governed by Bernoulli.

The word 'interceptor' is meant to denote the aircraft's function, not HOW the damn thing flies...!!!

The F-14 and the MIG-25 were classified as 'interceptors'. And here you are telling the public with a straight face that an 'interceptor' is not governed by aerodynamics...!!!

The Stinger, Sidewinder or Phoenix are all missiles and all classified as very much 'interceptors'. And here you are telling the public with a straight face that none of these are governed by aerodynamics...!!!

You epitomized the word -- Desperation.

 

[lhuang]

And I never said it was 'easier'. If you are going to make a charge, back it up. Else I will call you a liar.


No disagreements there.


Wrong...Oh so wrong...!!!

According to airliners worldwide, we know of 26 civil aircrafts, from airliner to small commuters, have been shot down by MANPADs. None of the weapons are larger in mass than their targets. None of them were destroyed by the weapons' explosive force. All of them had their aerodynamic stability compromised.

What was it you said about Bernoulli does not apply?

Oh lordy, a MANPAD makes a big ******* hole in the big ******* aircraft. Decompression occurs and this kills people inside it, of course making the craft unstable as well, if the pilot isn't dead, then its harder for him to steer.

We are not talking about aircrafts, we are talking about interception of missiles. An interceptor destroys the missile or uses the formula m1v1= m2v2 to pass on its momentum to the missile thus making it deviate from its course, it doesn't make a hole in it and then lets air pressure dictate what happens to the target of the missile. If that was the case, then scientists could just easily keep a hole on the side of the missile which will keep the interior pressure the same as exterior pressure, making MANPADS useless.

Hum ho now that I tihk about it, why don't engineers make a plane which has a casing around the exterior which has the same air pressure on the interior as the outside of the plane. Especially for big Presidential Jets , this would be very handy against MANPADs. Oh maybe, include Explosive Reactive Armour too. Oooh oohh

And I never said it was 'easier'. If you are going to make a charge, back it up. Else I will call you a liar.

Yeah you did, can't be bothered looking for it now, but it was included with some mumbo jumbo about contact with the ground and contact with air. Maybe you had the right idea but you weren't using the right terminology. Instead of trying to 'educate' people, try to have a discussion. kthx

 

[gambit]

Oh lordy, a MANPAD makes a big ******* hole in the big ******* aircraft. Decompression occurs and this kills people inside it, of course making the craft unstable as well, if the pilot isn't dead, then its harder for him to steer.

Oh lordy...

Aloha Airlines Flight 243 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Aloha Airlines Flight 243 was a scheduled Aloha Airlines flight between Hilo and Honolulu in Hawaii. On April 28, 1988, a Boeing 737-297 serving the flight suffered extensive damage after an explosive decompression in flight, but was able to land safely at Kahului Airport on Maui. The only fatality was flight attendant C.B. Lansing who was blown out of the airplane. Another 65 passengers and crew were injured.

Part of the roof blew off but despite explosive decompression, no deaths resulted. The severity of the damage would be similar to that from a weapons detonation. It was only sheer fortune that the damage, though severe and did create serious aerodynamic instability, was insufficient to send the aircraft out of controlled flight.

We are not talking about aircrafts, we are talking about interception of missiles. An interceptor destroys the missile or uses the formula m1v1= m2v2 to pass on its momentum to the missile thus making it deviate from its course, it doesn't make a hole in it and then lets air pressure dictate what happens to the target of the missile. If that was the case, then scientists could just easily keep a hole on the side of the missile which will keep the interior pressure the same as exterior pressure, making MANPADS useless.

Really? Care to show a source that has a missile, which is an aircraft by the way, is totally solid inside? Long range ballistic missiles have a problem with longitudinal vibration precisely because so much of the missile is empty space. So sufficiently a large hole would create enough differential pressure as the missile is still traveling to send it out of control.

Yeah you did, can't be bothered looking for it now, but it was included with some mumbo jumbo about contact with the ground and contact with air. Maybe you had the right idea but you weren't using the right terminology. Instead of trying to 'educate' people, try to have a discussion. kthx

Try page 6 post 80...

That mean it is easier for a rock -- or a bullet -- to disable a missile in flight than to remove the truck from the road.

 

[lhuang]

Aloha Airlines Flight 243 was a scheduled Aloha Airlines flight between Hilo and Honolulu in Hawaii. On April 28, 1988, a Boeing 737-297 serving the flight suffered extensive damage after an explosive decompression in flight, but was able to land safely at Kahului Airport on Maui. The only fatality was flight attendant C.B. Lansing who was blown out of the airplane. Another 65 passengers and crew were injured.

Was it hit by a missile? I don't know what you're trying to prove with this.

So sufficiently a large hole would create enough differential pressure as the missile is still traveling to send it out of control.

A missile may have empty space within it especially after fuel is used.

But that doesn't mean popping a hole in it is the answer for interception. You have reached the wrong conclusion. You can't extrapolate that since aircraft goes through explosive decompression and its path deviates when there is a bridge between the exterior and interior that a missile will do so too. A missile doesn't have people inside for whom pressure has to be mediated, if this was a known weakness of missiles then scientists would simply regulate the interior pressure of the missile so as it was the same as air pressure outside. The most effective way to disable missiles has to be transfer of momentum.

You are being very ambiguous about "large hole", a hole large enough to make a missile deviate from its path would have to be MASSIVE as a proportion to the size of the missile, a bullet hitting the Minuteman wouldn't make it veer out of control. The size of this 'hole' would be so big that it couldn't be called a hole anymore.

 

[gambit]

Was it hit by a missile? I don't know what you're trying to prove with this.

Metal fatigue. And I am trying to prove to you that you overly generalize. That is a sign of lack of relevant knowledge.

A missile may have empty space within it especially after fuel is used.

Wrong...Fuel tanks are standalone units. So are the avionics. So are the FLCS actuators that works the fins. And many other items. All of them do not fill up the entire volume space inside the missile. Here are two examples...

http://warfog.net/ww3/vol1/images/slcm8b.gif

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/report/2004/isg-final-report/ch3_img03.jpg

These are aircrafts and they must receive periodic inspections and perhaps maintenance. Access is not possible if they are solid inside.

But that doesn't mean popping a hole in it is the answer for interception. You have reached the wrong conclusion. You can't extrapolate that since aircraft goes through explosive decompression when there is a bridge between the exterior and interior that a missile will do so too. A missile doesn't have people inside for whom pressure has to be mediated, if this was a known weakness of missiles then scientists would simply regulate the interior pressure of the missile so as it was the same as air pressure outside. The most effective way to disable missiles has to be transfer of momentum.

If I shoot a .50 cal bullet at the center of the truck, nothing would happen to the truck's forward momentum. If I shoot the same caliber at a tire, explosively deflating it, the truck would begin to veer as its contact with the medium is now asymmetrical.

If I shoot the same caliber at the nose cone of a subsonic cruise missile, most likely the nose cone would collapse, creating asymmetric airflow over the rest of its body. Just like that airliner, may be it will not go out of controlled flight. But may be it will. And that is the point.

You are being very ambiguous about "large hole", a hole large enough to make a missile deviate from its path would have to be MASSIVE as a proportion to the size of the missile, a bullet hitting the Minuteman wouldn't make it veer out of control. The size of this 'hole' would be so big that it couldn't be called a hole anymore.

Then what would you call it?

 

[lhuang]

Metal fatigue. And I am trying to prove to you that you overly generalize. That is a sign of lack of relevant knowledge.

Metal fatigue. Right. I make judgments based on the knowledge of physics which I have.

Wrong...Fuel tanks are standalone units. So are the avionics. So are the FLCS actuators that works the fins. And many other items. All of them do not fill up the entire volume space inside the missile. Here is an example...

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/li.../ch3_img03.jpg

These are aircrafts and they must receive periodic inspections and perhaps maintenance. Access is not possible if they are solid inside.

So empty space within a missile doesn't increase when fuel is used? Oh okay.

If I shoot a .50 cal bullet at the center of the truck, nothing would happen to the truck's forward momentum. If I shoot the same caliber at a tire, explosively deflating it, the truck would begin to veer as its contact with the medium is now asymmetrical.

If I shoot the same caliber at the nose cone of a subsonic cruise missile, most likely the nose cone would collapse, creating asymmetric airflow over the rest of its body. Just like that airliner, may be it will not go out of controlled flight. But may be it will. And that is the point.

Good luck shooting a bullet at a missile. It's the explosive decompression that causes the truck to veer away. A car can still be driven with a tire shot out.

But once again, missiles aren't destroyed by making holes in them. Sorry. If technology evolves to the point that bullets can be made accurate enough to hit a flying Tomahawk. Without enough momentum, or a big enough explosion, the missile won't be destroyed.

Then what would you call it?

I would call it destruction of half the missile. And I use half loosely.

 

[gambit]

So empty space within a missile doesn't increase when fuel is used? Oh okay.

I never said that. Do not be so dishonest. I said that these standalone components do not fill up all the volume space. And any internal empty space make the missile vulnerable to aerodynamic instability if there is an asymmetric airflow and pressure.

Good luck shooting a bullet at a missile.

Luck got nothing to do with it. Radar guided machine gun in the form of the Phalanx gun does.

It's the explosive decompression that causes the truck to veer away.

No...It is asymmetric contact between the tires and the road.

A car can still be driven with a tire shot out.

Yes...But the ride will be uneven and the odds of losing control greatly increases.

But once again, missiles aren't destroyed by making holes in them. Sorry. If technology evolves to the point that bullets can be made accurate enough to hit a flying Tomahawk. Without enough momentum, or a big enough explosion, the missile won't be destroyed.

See Phalanx gun.

 

[lhuang]

What's the calibre of a Phalanx round?

How much damage does it do, when it hits a missile. I bet it isn't a hole.

edit: I've pretty much backed myself into a corner

 

[Mauryan]

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

There is nothing sad in it.Untill recently Russian doctrine never called for imported systems.It is only in 2008 RF made significant changes in its procurement policy of weapons for its military.
A spin-off of that policy is the induction of Brahmos with Gorshkov class frigates.And many else on the lines.
Also Brahmos is similar to many of such AShM in russian inventory like Granit,Moskit,Yakhont,..... It only increases the redundance and indian components,while similar upgrades can be performed on their own missiles.
Brahmos was mainly meant for Indian use and for little exports once domestic requirements were full filled.But on an high lighted part,India reserves the right to use Brahmos for a nuclear strike,which can be either against carriers or land targets.

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.

For the bolded part, hope you understand it.

Indian CM/BMs reserve the right to use GPS/GLONASS and IRNSS for limited coverage or within 1500km from indian territory.
Because today china is getting its compass,others would be at risk is a gibberish talk.
For guidance Inertial navigation is of great help.I think indians does mastered the ringlaser and optic fiber and other highly sensitive gyro based navigation.
How is it shame,if china stopped doing that?
I think someone is missing the actual essence w.r.t GLONASS here,which is India is partnering in GLONASS along side its own navigatonal system.
By 2012 Indians will get their own limited 7 sat pan indian+1500km coverage.And can you tell me that there is no possibility of extending the coverage at a later time?There is a 100% probability i.e cetainity they can go for a global navigation while partnering GLONASS.

Know this, you cannot refit the guidance system of a CM. over 60% of the funds are spent on the guidance system, not the ramjet. Replacing the guidance system equals making a new missile. And no one knows if Russia will cooperate with India on that.

Is BrahMos a very good conventionally guided missile? Yes, one of the best behind the United States and Russia.

But, is BrahMos one of the best CMs in the world? No, because United States, Russia, and China largely began investing in GNSS-guided CMs, instead of local AI systems, which the BrahMos boasts.

Firstof all ,atleast you should have an idea of what you are talking.Have you ever worked for any company developing missiles/missile related avionics?Or atleast a basic idea of the architecture of a entire guidance mechanism?And how much work load a sat navigation shares along side intertial and mide course guidance? You have NO answer to anyof these,yet you go on frenzy spilling non-sensical talk.


On the bolded part: Neither you aswell.

Now, the Chinese had their Regional NS up 10 years ago. They have much more experience with GNSS than India, who has to wait for another 2 years.

It means,you have no idea of how a Satellite navigation works.

 

[Mauryan]

That is hilarious. The Stinker can reach Mach 2.2 in about two seconds...

What will it do after that Max2.2 MAch speed? It has to coast while loosing manueverability.It dont have a sustained propulsion unlike others which we are talking about.You simply dont have any idea about different propulsion systems apart from copy pasting articles from wikipedia and pedias.
Raytheon FIM-92 Stinger

The target's physical construct is largely irrelevant to an IR equipped interceptor. You can post anything you want regarding the Brahless' materials and construction and probably no one, including me, will dispute you. But this is about sensor technology. Infrared sensor does not care about the target's aerodynamics, it care only about the target's infrared emissivity. So your bringing up the Brahless' dimension is irrelevant. I am willing to bet that the gibberish from you above is a copy/paste job lifted from somewhere.

Yes.Which is nothing new to me and the reason why I did bring the seeker sensitivity.Unlike those old generation sulphide seekers,latest gen mercury-cadmium based have high sensitivity.And what your point of take account of one side approach while ignoring the other side is dumb enough in getting killed? Desperation? to prove your POV while evading facts? Might be!!

Speaking of radome, we will examine the Brahless' radome construct, which directly affect radar performance, and see how efficient the Brahless' radar really is...

Aerospaceweb.org | Ask Us - Rocket Nose Cones and Altitude

Per the highlighted, 'very high Mach numbers' usually implies Mach 5+ as indicated below...

Hypersonic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Brahless has a claimed top speed of Mach 2.5, give or take a bit depending on altitude. The Stinger's top speed as shown is Mach 2.2 in about two seconds.

Radome shaping for an aircraft is important...

...............................

This meaning less trash is only bring in the technical details of the actual seaker and the composition of materials of that bandpass random which is capable of overcoming the fiber melting effects during a mere 290 sec flight as compared to other suspersonic aircraft which cruise for hours.
NIIP Kopyo-M that went into that so called small radome equipped with the Ts501F digital signal processor and can achieve ranges up to 72 km against fighter sized targets in the forward hemisphere while tracks 10 and engages two of them simultaneously. This is what we are talking about a system that was carrying decades old technology whilst compared to the Agat active-passive dual mode seeker optimised for Brahmos ~500mm radome.
All you can do is ,bring in ASK.com, how stuff works and some white papers from educational and research institutions which only cover general principles ,but not the advanced research that been put into it.

Also what any reader on this forum can understand consistently from your repeated posting which depicts your utter ignorance of Electronic counter-counter measures(aka ECCM).since the dayone you have been hanging around the same chaff and ECM theory even after consistently proving how an ECCM can nullify a simple decades old chaff effect.

Yes,you are abosilutely right.You are not just an ordinary fan boy poped up from nowhere,but right from US military barracks.That just says it all about your reluctance in accepting of others technological advances.

Your dishonesty is apparent. I never said that the Nike-Zeus program was about a kinetic kill vehicle but that the program was moving the interceptor to become one. And you are calling the decrease from 200 km to 200 meters as irrelevant to progress?

LEts go back and see what you wrote

The Patriot-like system is about creating head-on interceptions. The Nike-Zeus interceptor decades ago was well on its way to be an effective kinetic kill interceptor...

An american point of view is that ,if an interception takes place at 200m with proximity fuse in blasting a 400kt nuclear head-IT IS KNOWN AS KINETIC KILL

The reason why we want the interceptor to achieve its maximum speed as soon as possible is because we want the interception to be as far away from us as possible. But ultimately, the interceptor's speed can be discarded.

Never is the case,unless you accept your ignorance of interceptors and sustained cruising throughout interception.Same is case with meteor.It got a ramjet propulsion which offers sustained cruise flight throughout its envelope thereby increasing the chances of interception unlike the coasting solid/liquid fueled missiles.
Most or all of the US SAMs are solid/liquid,but none got ramjet propulsion for sustained flight envelope. And your phrasing of interceptors speed can be discarded is just meaning less.

Of course they doubted the efficacy of the PAC as a viable TBM defense. They had to doubt because they knew it was never intended to be so. They knew that it had only limited TBM capability. Whatever upgrades we did was incremental towards an actual TBM defense. Heck...If I wanted, it would take me no time at all to dig up all the failures from DRDO and who else and have a field day with them.

this is utter projection of ignorance on you part.PAC-I has limited TBM(which actually it wasnt designed for) means it was effective as a regular SAM,but not ABM.
Raytheon lateron realised that the tracking radars and other mission control systems can be used to work against TBM,but doubted the performance of the missile against TBM. Hence it called for upgrades in the name of PAC-2 to act as an effective ABM.
Proving critiques,PAC-2 failed to achieve its objectives.Listen I was talking about PAC-2,not PAC-1.
I dont even carry the transcripts of my interaction with one of their employees who attested the fact and accepted that the system needs much more refinements.And all we are seing here is a mil grade fan boy throwing trash all over the forum.

As per the bolded part,you are most welcomed to do so.Even doing so will neither bring nor bad to me.And DRDO was known to be a lost cost organisation from 3rd world untill 2000,even today in many peoples view point.But DRDO was a gov organisation apart from the majority of def contractors who are private bodies.And its known that Indian work culture and organisational behaviour is more or less like this:

But the very same organisation created many wonders with shoe string budgets and less workforce.today they have developed as many as 5 hypersonic combustor models and ground tested while achieving more than satisfactory results compared to other advanced countries with overwhelming infrastructure and money support.And after every failure there follwed a victory,which was meant for a national cause(this is what matters the most)

Postol have been discredited by his peers over ten years ago. Your argument against the PAC, the early generations at that, depends on this?

NO.my references were the manufacturers themself ,who accepted that the system failed to work upto the mark and need refinements.Since I dont have those transcripts,I googled and put the first search result.

I do not care what Bush claimed.

Which is as much as we dont care your reluctance of russian system being superior.

My 'dismissed' list has very few names. I only dismissed those whom I deemed truly idiotic. You seems to be a reasonably intelligent, if somewhat misguided fellow. But what you do not understand is that in this environment, for every one who participate there are one hundred who merely lurked and read. I do not care if you do ignore me or not. If what you boast I consider to be absurd, I will challenge you. The readers have already seen for themselves how weak you are when it come to providing sources to support your arguments.

You are welcomed to challenge the facts,but not acting stupid or being ignorant of others developments.P.S: I was never a misguided fellaw.I received as many rewards and awards ,even after many people criticised.

 

[ao333]

There is nothing sad in it.Untill recently Russian doctrine never called for imported systems.It is only in 2008 RF made significant changes in its procurement policy of weapons for its military.
A spin-off of that policy is the induction of Brahmos with Gorshkov class frigates.And many else on the lines.
Also Brahmos is similar to many of such AShM in russian inventory like Granit,Moskit,Yakhont,..... It only increases the redundance and indian components,while similar upgrades can be performed on their own missiles.
Brahmos was mainly meant for Indian use and for little exports once domestic requirements were full filled.But on an high lighted part,India reserves the right to use Brahmos for a nuclear strike,which can be either against carriers or land targets.



For the bolded part, hope you understand it.

Indian CM/BMs reserve the right to use GPS/GLONASS and IRNSS for limited coverage or within 1500km from indian territory.
Because today china is getting its compass,others would be at risk is a gibberish talk.
For guidance Inertial navigation is of great help.I think indians does mastered the ringlaser and optic fiber and other highly sensitive gyro based navigation.
How is it shame,if china stopped doing that?
I think someone is missing the actual essence w.r.t GLONASS here,which is India is partnering in GLONASS along side its own navigatonal system.
By 2012 Indians will get their own limited 7 sat pan indian+1500km coverage.And can you tell me that there is no possibility of extending the coverage at a later time?There is a 100% probability i.e cetainity they can go for a global navigation while partnering GLONASS.


Firstof all ,atleast you should have an idea of what you are talking.Have you ever worked for any company developing missiles/missile related avionics?Or atleast a basic idea of the architecture of a entire guidance mechanism?And how much work load a sat navigation shares along side intertial and mide course guidance? You have NO answer to anyof these,yet you go on frenzy spilling non-sensical talk.


On the bolded part: Neither you aswell.


It means,you have no idea of how a Satellite navigation works.

1) BrahMos is supposedly superior to Onyx. There is a valid reason why the Russians are now investing in GNSS-guided missiles, and why they decided to sell the conventionally-guided ones to you--precision. And no, you cannot hit US/UK/FR/RF's carriers with a 290km missile. Though, I think you can sink the whole Chinese surface fleet with BrahMos if you can afford enough of those.

2) Actually, ORR is American and optic fibres are Japanese. Even the United States import OFs from Japan.

3) You don't fight a war with someone else's satellites.

4) There is a fine line between regional and global NSs; it's not a matter of launching more medium orbits, but GEOs, and signals. Now, Galileo and Compass are already competing for the same frequency. I don't think Russia is dumb enough to allow India to copy its signal, which took nearly 3 decades to develop.

5) IRNSS is regional and has low postioning precision, intended for land/sea surveying. It has yet to announce the capability to precision-guide supersonic missiles, which Russia and China decleared to possess after 10 years of R&D.

6) The global system... You're being an awfully nationalistic Indian.

7) Have you ever read defence budget allocations? I don't know if India publishes one but the United States does.

8) Person, I have been using GPS before India was covered with the signal. Please, don't insult India.

9) Those aside, I am impressed of how fast India's military is growing. In just a decade, with a lower defense budget, you guys have already exceeded China in terms of metallurgy, AShMs and carriers.