What's new

BrahMos From On High

I have been seeing this thread for quite some time now.
I have noticed people trying to undervalue the power of this missile...what is wrong in it?? Tell me why havent the countries who are undervaluing it have not yet invented a missile of that speed?

If speed does not really matter in a missile why scientists around the world try to develop faster missiles,even when they know through the people on this forum that it can be easily intercepted or can be mislead by luring them by setting false multiple targets.

It can be understood why people of some developed countries feel the pinch when a third world country (according to them )makes a missile like Brahmos.
Now you can carry with your discussion but what is true is - brahmos cannot be intercepted in that hypersonic speed...if you dont agree,you are lying to consolidate your heart.

Nope. The missile didnt came from 3rd world country. It came from a super power nation with 80% of baggage while the 20% which is avionics is from a developing world(but not 3rd world :devil: )
It is only that people are being reluctant to accept the fact,that the first supersonic ASM got AI. They talk about cluttering the atmosphere with chaffs during the last few seconds, while not accepting the fact that Brahmos has ECCM.
 
Nope. The missile didnt came from 3rd world country. It came from a super power nation with 80% of baggage while the 20% which is avionics is from a developing world(but not 3rd world :devil: )
It is only that people are being reluctant to accept the fact,that the first supersonic ASM got AI. They talk about cluttering the atmosphere with chaffs during the last few seconds, while not accepting the fact that Brahmos has ECCM.

Sorry if I am getting a bit rusty but what is the relation between ECCM and chaffs? :what:
 
What you are talking about is a tail-on chase situation. An 'interception' usually imply a head-on meet. If successful, the kinetic energy form the combined closing velocity of both projectiles will destroy both.

Provide a proof for your claim that a Stinger can shoot down missiles like Tomahawk or more advanced Brahmos.

Also, if "Stinger is enough to shoot down a supersonic cruise missile" as you claim, then why USA need to waste money on Patriots development, which are still a failure after 2 decades of development?

So what if von Braun came from Germany? Are you saying that since his arrival von Braun was involved in every missile? Can I say that India's automobile designs are based upon Ford's Model T? See how absurd your line of argument can get?

Well, that's what Von Braun said about Americans. It wasn't me. So, you should ask him why he thinks so.
 
True, just guessing but the Tomahawk and Babur have greater range and the launch will likely occur beyond the detection range of Hawkeye.

Launch location is not of much significance in space age, although Hawkeye is now getting old.

I don't know much about Babur but Tomahawk is a subsonic missiles capable of "lap of the earth" to the extreme. I believe newer blocks are designed to exploit gaps in radar coverage. AWACS will spot it as soon as it is within detection range.

Yes, that's one of limitations of Tomahawk.
 
Last edited:
I don't know how gambit has reached the conclusion that the F-22 is superior from a couple of pictures and a video. Oh he must have been analysing the angles and the bends and stuff, right, right.

He is assuming that somehow, Sukhoi designers do not know all he does, that somehow the 'analysing' pictures of the first prototype is enough to deem it inferior.

At this time, no matter how many people try, the only people who know about the true capabilities of the PAK FA are Russian and maybe Indian officials, not gambit. No matter how much indepth analysis he does, we will only know of the capabilities of the PAK FA once it is inducted (even if then), and one thing is for sure, the PAK FA will not have a Pakistani counter for a long long time, much after the first J-XXs are inducted into the PLAAF. Given, that is, Sino-Indian relations haven't reached the point where China isn't selling its planes to Pakistan.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
 
Sorry if I am getting a bit rusty but what is the relation between ECCM and chaffs? :what:

Chaffs are classified as ECM.countering the oboard radar seekers.while flares are to counter IR seekers.

Electronic counter-countermeasures (ECCM) is a part of electronic warfare which includes a variety of practices which attempt to reduce or eliminate the effect of electronic countermeasures (ECM) on electronic sensors aboard vehicles, ships and aircraft and weapons such as missiles. ECCM is also known as electronic protective measures (EPM). In practice, EPM often means resistance to jamming.

Specific ECCM techniques

ECM detection

Sensor logic may be programmed to be able to recognize attempts at spoofing (e.g., aircraft dropping chaff during terminal homing phase) and ignore them. Even more sophisticated applications of ECCM might be to recognize the type of ECM being used, and be able to cancel out the signal.

Pulse compression by "chirping", or linear frequency modulation


One of the effects of the pulse compression technique, is boosting the apparent signal strength as perceived by the radar receiver. The outgoing radar pulses are chirped, that is, the frequency of the carrier is varied within the pulse, much like the sound of a cricket chirping. When the pulse reflects off a target and returns to the receiver, the signal is processed to add a delay as a function of the frequency. This has the effect of 'stacking' the pulse so it seems stronger, but shorter in duration, to further processors. The effect can increase the received signal strength to above that of noise jamming. Similarly, jamming pulses (used in deception jamming) will not typically have the same chirp, so will not benefit from the increase in signal strength.

Frequency hopping

Frequency agility ('frequency hopping') may be used to rapidly switch the frequency of the transmitted energy, and receiving only that frequency during the receiving time window. This foils jammers which cannot detect this frequency switch quickly enough, and switch their own jamming frequency accordingly during the receiving time window.

This method is also useful against barrage jamming, in that it forces the jammer to spread its jamming power across multiple frequencies in the jammed system's frequency range, reducing its power in the actual frequency used by the radar at any one time. The use of similar spread-spectrum techniques allow signals to be spread over a wide enough spectrum to make jamming of such a wideband signal difficult.

Sidelobe blanking


Radar jamming can be effective from directions other than the direction the radar antenna is currently aimed. When jamming is strong enough, the radar receiver can detect it from a relatively low gain sidelobe. The radar, however, will process signals as if they were received in the main lobe. Therefore, jamming can be seen in directions other than where the jammer is located. To combat this, an omnidirectional pecker antenna is used for a comparison signal. By comparing the signal strength as received by both the omnidirectional and the (directional) main antenna, signals can be identified that are not from the direction of interest. These signals are then ignored.

Polarization

Polarization can be used to filter out unwanted signals, such as jamming. If a jammer and receiver do not have the same polarity, the jamming signal will incur a loss that reduces its effectiveness. The four basic polarities are horizontal, vertical, right-hand circular, and left-hand circular. The signal loss inherent in a cross polarized (transmitter different from receiver) pair is 3 decibels for dissimilar types, and 17 dB for opposites.

Aside from power loss to the jammer, radar receivers can also benefit from using two or more antennas of differing polarity and comparing the signals received on each. This effect can effectively eliminate all jamming of the wrong polarity, although enough jamming may still obscure the actual signal.

Radiation homing

The other main aspect of ECCM, is to program sensors or seekers to detect attempts at ECM and possible even to take advantage of it. For example, some modern fire-and-forget missiles like the Vympel R-77 and the AMRAAM are able to home in directly on sources of radar jamming if the jamming is too powerful to allow them to find and track the target normally. This mode, called 'home-on-jam', actually makes the missile's job easier. Some missile seekers actually target the enemy's radiation sources, and are therefore called "anti-radiation missiles" (ARM). The jamming in this case effectively becomes a beacon announcing the presence and location of the transmitter. This makes the use of such ECM a difficult decision; it may serve to obscure an exact location from a non-ARM missile, but in doing so it must emit signals which can be exploited by an ARM type missile.
 
No intention to troll here however a very simple question for DBC/Gambit...

Will the same argument that hypersonic speeds means more RCS and thue easy prone for counter attacks will hold true agaisnt the below given effort as well????

http://www.defence.pk/forums/milita...can-strike-any-country-less-than-60-mins.html


Since i have not got an answer yet so let me repeat again....Does all the issues that Brahmos is suffering from(as per few members here) the above said missile will also have those limitations???
 
Esle we would have been hearing tons of replies and repeated fanboy propaganda just like F-22.

errrrrrrr........ I understand now why people dont like to be considerate dealing with US people. :tdown:

Mauryan, Gambit isn't a fanboy he is a former military officer with a great deal of experience and knowledge. His posts are appreciated by me and countless others on this forum, calling Gambit a fanboy just makes you look silly.

As for the F-22 or F-35, I don't believe I've ever read Gambit claim the Raptor is infallible. Like all military equipment it will likely fail when it is tasked with something it wasn't designed to do, he's always maintained that in a fight you win by forcing your opponents to play by your rules. Raptor against PAK-FA in a dogfight is an example of the PAK-FA forcing the Raptor to fight by its rules, IMO never going to happen; the Raptor is just too valuable to risk in a 1-v-1 dogfight.

That is a broad statement that is applicable to ALL aircrafts. Of course the F-35 would be vulnerable once it is statistically determined to be a valid target by an aggressor radar

This crucial fact you fail to understand -- In a fight, you win by forcing your opponent to fight by your rules, not by fighting under his. If an aircraft's canards give it superior turn capability, that is a rule advantage. If it has engines with superior response -- thrust for high climb rate -- then that is a rule advantage. If it has superior armament, the F-14's Phoenix for example, then that is a rule advantage. Basically...Any aircraft can have mediocre performance or design specs in some areas but also have superior performance or design specs in other areas compared to other, new or older, aircrafts.

As for most "US people" on this forum I believe we are governed by facts and logic. I am willing to admit I was wrong about supersonic cruise missiles if you can prove the Brahmos has low RCS, it cannot be detected,seduced or distracted and it is immune to ship defenses. Once you do this, I will personally write to Gates asking him to instruct all US Navy captain's to scuttle their ships when attacked by a Brahmos.

You've repeatedly claimed the Brahmos has AI - do you even know what that means? You've attributed silly comments to the CEO of Brahmos without providing source, you've made claims of immunity and invulnerability without any explanation. You've even claimed that the "Titanium" composite skin gives the Brahmos a low IR signature at Mach 3? Titanium conducts heats 50 times better than steel you cannot make it a thermal insulator by moulding it with another material and if this amazing feat has been accomplished in India I'd love to learn more.
 
Since i have not got an answer yet so let me repeat again....Does all the issues that Brahmos is suffering from(as per few members here) the above said missile will also have those limitations???

I guess I missed this post.

But I have no idea about that so called anywhere strike on earth in 60 min missile.
But if we are talking about Brahmos? Currently the supersonic one has a Low observability.Even if you look at its RAMjet intake,its a highly frontal stealth optimised missile.
If we take a chance to talk about metallurgy, there were so many alloys that have more heat absorbtion nature while raidating very less or minute amounts. Since their is a threshold for every value,so far we did only better in the supersonic regime.
While its an open secret that Hypersonic brahmos will definitely be a huge magnet due to its flight in the hypersonic region.But still it can survive under one main consideration that, there is no interceptor either in production/developmental phase to counter it.
While supersonic missile themself creating jitters in the spines of some countries, and hypersonics?? hmm...... must be interesting to watch.

but you should know one thing: If a similar copy of Brahmos was being developed by west, I bet they would be saying the samething or even more which is visualized regarding f-22.
 
Mauryan, Gambit isn't a fanboy he is a former military officer with a great deal of experience and knowledge. His posts are appreciated by me and countless others on this forum, calling Gambit a fanboy just makes you look silly.

As for the F-22 or F-35, I don't believe I've ever read Gambit claim the Raptor is infallible. Like all military equipment it will likely fail when it is tasked with something it wasn't designed to do, he's always maintained that in a fight you win by forcing your opponents to play by your rules. Raptor against PAK-FA in a dogfight is an example of the PAK-FA forcing the Raptor to fight by its rules, IMO never going to happen; the Raptor is just too valuable to risk in a 1-v-1 dogfight.





As for most "US people" on this forum I believe we are governed by facts and logic. I am willing to admit I was wrong about supersonic cruise missiles if you can prove the Brahmos has low RCS, it cannot be detected,seduced or distracted and it is immune to ship defenses. Once you do this, I will personally write to Gates asking him to instruct all US Navy captain's to scuttle their ships when attacked by a Brahmos.

You've repeatedly claimed the Brahmos has AI - do you even know what that means? You've attributed silly comments to the CEO of Brahmos without providing source, you've made claims of immunity and invulnerability without any explanation. You've even claimed that the "Titanium" composite skin gives the Brahmos a low IR signature at Mach 3? Titanium conducts heats 50 times better than steel you cannot make it a thermal insulator by moulding it with another material and if this amazing feat has been accomplished in India I'd love to learn more.

Hold on are you saying that the CEO of Brahmos is not a reliable source?
 
Since i have not got an answer yet so let me repeat again....Does all the issues that Brahmos is suffering from(as per few members here) the above said missile will also have those limitations???

deckingraj, the Brahmos is designed to fly low the air is a lot denser a few feet above the ground..

The problems with running very high speed bodies through dense air are manifest. The main aerodynamic issue we found was with a form of pressure drag that created buffeting on the airframe. Basically what happens is the kinetic heating on the missile body causes the air passing over it (the aerodynamic boundary layer - as opposed to the atmospheric boundary layer between sea-surface and air) to expand rapidly. This expansive air intersects with the airflow over this missile and induces drag.

forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=32051&page=3

..in space this is not a problem, in the upper atmosphere it is less of a problem. The X-51 is launched at 45,000 ft.
 
Mauryan, Gambit isn't a fanboy he is a former military officer with a great deal of experience and knowledge. His posts are appreciated by me and countless others on this forum, calling Gambit a fanboy just makes you look silly.
It doesnt make any difference as long as the source is from US.And mil professionals in the name are more inclined towards propaganda,which was evident during cold war and even today.Like saying F-22 apprears as an insect on a radar screen.

As for most "US people" on this forum I believe we are governed by facts and logic. I am willing to admit I was wrong about supersonic cruise missiles if you can prove the Brahmos has low RCS, it cannot be detected,seduced or distracted and it is immune to ship defenses. Once you do this, I will personally write to Gates asking him to instruct all US Navy captain's to scuttle their ships when attacked by a Brahmos.
I am afraid, you have to write to Gates.
Though I am repeating what I have posted earlier.
Brahmos has low RCS,due to the composites used in its airframe and titanium composites to give extra strength for the airframe during manuevers and impact..Being treated with RAM.Low surface area compared to F-22 which was a winged body.Full aspect frontal stealth.Only limited IR signature at its rear.
I have no idea how a 0.6m cross section will show up as a huge fireball on your radar screen.... Of the 0.6m cross-section,a signification portion is for air intake and rest goes for radome.

If you ask me for the composites used ,I maynot help you.

You've repeatedly claimed the Brahmos has AI - do you even know what that means? You've attributed silly comments to the CEO of Brahmos without providing source, you've made claims of immunity and invulnerability without any explanation. You've even claimed that the "Titanium" composite skin gives the Brahmos a low IR signature at Mach 3? Titanium conducts heats 50 times better than steel you cannot make it a thermal insulator by moulding it with another material and if this amazing feat has been accomplished in India I'd love to learn more.

Without knowing what AI(artificial intelligence) is,I have received my masters degree in communications engineering from university of waterloo,Canada :(

I swear,I never thought there will be a day to explain a US mil professional regarding AI
Maybe your own wikipedia might help :P
Artificial intelligence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

since there were no transcripts for talk I had with CEO himself,unfortunately I cant provide you any links except substance and claims.
didnt I said composites or pure just titanium? Have you heard about heat absorbtion composites which radiate less for limited duration? and about negative coefficient of expansion materials? Its no just fantasy, but real. though india didnt achieved significant feats with the former,but with the later yes.
Airframe structure is from Russia along with engine and seeker.

Yes India did achieved significant feats in many fields with shoe string budgets and limited resorces,thats not something new.If you think its new, you should wake up.
 
deckingraj, the Brahmos is designed to fly low the air is a lot denser a few feet above the ground..


Geeeeez....... Brahmos has multi-profile flight path management system.Which means, it can fly at varrying altitudes right from launch either with user asigned/autonomous.It can fly from 30km to just 10m above sea level(while sea skimming).Ultimately looks like US people does know more than the missile developers themself.

forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=32051&page=3

..in space this is not a problem, in the upper atmosphere it is less of a problem. The X-51 is launched at 45,000 ft.

This is utter nonsense in bringing an US product for evey tiny comparision.

Have you heard about drag reducing materials?
and on Brahmos can you tell me, that this part is not aerodynamic and is more prone to high drag?

A new method to reduce drag of high speed space vehicles
 
Back
Top Bottom