Fearless Tomahawk-type missile on radar

[joey]

Okay finally got hold of the article, It speaks in simple terms of why Brahmos was opted for without going into much technical details. Indian Navy has their own huge R&D team like of their US counterparts unlike IAF and IA till now a days.

Lt Gen R.S. Nagra, PVSM, VSM** (Retd.), DG and MD, BrahMos Aerospace Pvt. Ltd.
http://www.aerospaceindia.org/Journals/Spring%202006/Brahmastra of Future Wars “THE BRAHMOS”.pdf

What prompted our scientists to decide about the type of cruise missile and technology for its development—whether it should be subsonic or supersonic; whether we should achieve propulsion in flight by the use of ramjet, scramjet or turbojet; whether we should use liquid hydrogen, liquid oxygen or kerosene as fuel; whether we should adopt a graduated development strategy i.e. subsonic cruise missile first and then supersonic cruise missile? The answers to all these questions were evolved after deliberate research, and decisions were based on pragmatic analysis.

It is seen that the supersonic cruise missiles have a competitive edge over
subsonic cruise missiles which is clearly evident from the table shown below.
Supersonic cruise missiles have long flight range with shorter flight time,
minimum reaction time and higher destruction capability.

In order to cut down time over-run and, thus, development costs, the search
for a partner country for co-development started. As a result of thorough
deliberations, India decided to pursue a supersonic cruise missile development programme in cooperation with Russia, with special emphasis on the adoption
of higher technologies like inertial guidance system (INS), liquid ramjet engine,
onboard computer and special algorithms, active multi-modal seekers, universal launch system for multiple platforms and advanced fire control systems.

Table 1. Comparison - Supersonic Vs Subsonic Cruise Missile
Parameters Subsonic Supersonic (e.g. BrahMos)
Speed 0.8 Mach 2.8 Mach
Time to Hit 1 Unit 1/3 rd
Target Dispersion 1 Unit 1/3rd
Reaction Time 1 Unit 1/3rd

The BrahMos is a two-stage missile with solid propelled booster engine as its first stage which brings it to supersonic speed and then gets separated. The liquid ramjet of the second stage then takes the missile closer to Mach 3 speed in the cruise phase. Stealth technology and guidance system with advanced embedded software provide the missile with special features. The BrahMos missile has a flight range of up to 290 km with supersonic speed all through the flight, leading to shorter flight time, consequently ensuring lower dispersion at target, quicker engagement time and non-interception by any known weapon system in the world. It operates on the ‘fire and forget principle,’ adopting varieties of flights on its way to the target. Its destructive power is enhanced due to large kinetic energy on impact. Its cruising altitude could be up to 15 km and terminal altitude is as low as 10 metres. It carries a conventional warhead weighing 200 to 300 kg. The missile is launched from a canister, which also acts as a storage-cum-transportation container. Due to its low drag and low radar
cross-section, it is difficult to detect the missile during flight.

Anti-Ship missile in a Indian scenario have to be supersonic, because we are likely to see ship versus ship engagements. And normally if the ship is stealthy you can barely detect it 100 kms away, and if wave clutter etc are present oh well.

As of countries posessing Cruise missiles,

There are 76 nations
which have between
them approximately 130
or so cruise missiles of
varied types which can be
divided into two major
categories: anti-ship
cruise missiles (ASCMs)
and land attack cruise
missiles (LACMs).

Cruise missile of today is determined by its Engine , combustor signature, Aerodynamics, and ofcourse sensor package the most important factor and its guidance. The little birdie tells me The subsonic missile of India will use Passive gravity gradiometer navigation system which the Agni is using, which is independent of GPS.

 

[Keysersoze]

First of all Blain, super-sonic AShMs are any day superior to their sub-sonic counter parts. All latest Russian AShMs go super sonic in their terminal phase, even if they are subsonic initially.
Secondly, super-sonic CMs make bad land attack weapons, not because of their lack of effectiveness, but because of pure cost vs benefit analysis. They are too sophisticated and expensive, to be used against buildings that do not use counter measure.

Missile like Brahmos are 'silver bullet' weapons, not saturation. Missiles like Babur, are saturation strike weapons.

Secondly, what kind of name is "Fearless" ?? laaaaaaame

Dude we went through this recently on another thread. Supersonic missiles are anything but "silver bullets" (except in the cost aspect ) And you theory does not stand to reason that
a)It would not be used against buildings----valuable buildings would have AD assets so would have counter measures.
b)cost vs benefit? thats the worst reason not to use a asset. if a target was valuable enough then why not use whatever you have?

 

[Adux]

Oh you still talk like this?

I just meant what I asked.

Did you assume that we read something that you didnt, Welcome to the age of Internet and Information, a guy in pakistan can read all the indian public information , as soon as indian gets to read it.
I am not so sure you meant what you said

 

[Contrarian]

a)It would not be used against buildings----valuable buildings would have AD assets so would have counter measures.

b)cost vs benefit? thats the worst reason not to use a asset. if a target was valuable enough then why not use whatever you have?

Not every building has an AD system set up, a building could be a small node in a big chain, but in a war, it might be deemed essential to destroy the supply stations, so maybe an arms depot or something like that could be targetted. Now such buildings arent likely to have AD systems, and using BrahMos for such buildings is a waste of money actually as BrahMos is wayy too expensive. In such roles, it is better to have a much cheaper subsonic CM.

As has been said before, BrahMos indeed in AshM is a silver bullet. Not as an LACM unless for extremely high value targets.

 

[blitz]

Key, you seem to have convinced yourself about Brahmos's inferiority, either because UK and Pakistan don't use it, or just for the sake of arguing. Cherry picking lines from news reports and designing hypothetical scenarios to suit your logic doesn't prove anything. It does not take a rocket scientist to know which is a better ship killer.

But then again, whats the point.

 

[Keysersoze]

Key, you seem to have convinced yourself about Brahmos's inferiority, either because UK and Pakistan don't use it, or just for the sake of arguing. Cherry picking lines from news reports and designing hypothetical scenarios to suit your logic doesn't prove anything. It does not take a rocket scientist to know which is a better ship killer.

But then again, whats the point.

Funnily enough I talked to two individuals about this subject. One was a weapons system operator aboard a warship and the other was involved with weapons development. Oh and I did talk to a "rocket scientist" as well, she wasn't impressed by some of the claims either

And since neither Pakistan,USA,France,Italy,Austaralia,Japan and Many many other very good navies don't feel a need for it either. It genuinely amuses me to see how much people such as yourselves use it as some sort of magic totem ( It must be brilliant because it goes at mach 3!!!!!!!!!!! ) WHY DO THE BEST NAVIES IN THE WORLD NOT USE IT??????????!!!
As for Cherry picking the only evidence I have seen have been Indian media reports as to how "good" it is. So I suggest you find some evidence but then again whats the point huh?


Let's not allow facts to come in the way when discussing India huh?

 

[Adux]

Hmm, really Keys..

You know it very well that it boils down to doctrine. Its like asking why does Soviet Carriers have missiles in them. Other navies have other methods of portecting their carrier or they have another method of destroying their target without the use of system of Brahmos. I dont think USN will fireaway the tomahawk to do a kill on a ship, while IN and Russian Navy would. USN rather send in one of their SuperHornets armed with anti-ship weapon, or engage the target using a SSN.

 

[con]

Funnily enough I talked to two individuals about this subject. One was a weapons system operator aboard a warship and the other was involved with weapons development. Oh and I did talk to a "rocket scientist" as well, she wasn't impressed by some of the claims either

And since neither Pakistan,USA,France,Italy,Austaralia,Japan and Many many other very good navies don't feel a need for it either. It genuinely amuses me to see how much people such as yourselves use it as some sort of magic totem ( It must be brilliant because it goes at mach 3!!!!!!!!!!! ) WHY DO THE BEST NAVIES IN THE WORLD NOT USE IT??????????!!!
As for Cherry picking the only evidence I have seen have been Indian media reports as to how "good" it is. So I suggest you find some evidence but then again whats the point huh?


Let's not allow facts to come in the way when discussing India huh?

One question: Why is there a assumption that whatever Russia deploys is always crap?

And the question about "Advanced Navies. Out of the ones you listed only US and France makes ASHM. That means the other "advanced navies" just follow what US and France deploys i.e a weapon system which was built on US and French doctrine.

What are the adversary faced by these "advanced navies"? Does any for their adversary have robust ship defences? Would you expect Japan to deploy supersonic missile against North Korean ship? Would be worth deploying a expensive western supersonic missile when their adversary doesn't even have enough ships that these "advanced navies" can blow up.

Russian deployed it for the simple fact that it could not penetrate US defences.

 

[Keysersoze]

One question: Why is there a assumption that whatever Russia deploys is always crap?

And the question about "Advanced Navies. Out of the ones you listed only US and France makes ASHM. That means the other "advanced navies" just follow what US and France deploys i.e a weapon system which was built on US and French doctrine.

What are the adversary faced by these "advanced navies"? Does any for their adversary have robust ship defences? Would you expect Japan to deploy supersonic missile against North Korean ship? Would be worth deploying a expensive western supersonic missile when their adversary doesn't even have enough ships that these "advanced navies" can blow up.

Russian deployed it for the simple fact that it could not penetrate US defences.

Con I was in a hurry this morning and could not go into detail etc etc. However I'll be bcak this afternoon after work and will answer this and other questions (on another thread) in better detail

 

[Keysersoze]

One question: Why is there a assumption that whatever Russia deploys is always crap?

And the question about "Advanced Navies. Out of the ones you listed only US and France makes ASHM. That means the other "advanced navies" just follow what US and France deploys i.e a weapon system which was built on US and French doctrine.

What are the adversary faced by these "advanced navies"? Does any for their adversary have robust ship defences? Would you expect Japan to deploy supersonic missile against North Korean ship? Would be worth deploying a expensive western supersonic missile when their adversary doesn't even have enough ships that these "advanced navies" can blow up.

Russian deployed it for the simple fact that it could not penetrate US defences.

Well it based upon their doctrine (using a bludgeon instead of a rapier) which was not capable of taking on the USN . Compared to most western equipment it is simply not as good. They are still lagging behind and their economic troubles after the end of the cold war haven't improved the situation (R&D). However having said that I have not said it is crap. It is not as good as the hype surrounding it.

Regarding your point on advanced navies and your assertion that only France and the USA produce them.

AS.34 Kormoran 2 – Germany

AGM-119 Penguin – Norway (subsonic)

RBS15 MK3 – Sweden/Germany

Teseo/Otomat – originally Italian

Martel – United Kingdom/France;

Naval Strike Missile (NSM) – Norway;

Sea Eagle – United Kingdom;

Sea Skua – United Kingdom; made by BAe

Type 80 Air-to-Ship Missile (ASM-1)Japan
Type 88 Surface-to-Ship Missile (SSM-1)Japan
Type 90 Ship-to-Ship Missile (SSM-1B)Japan
Type 91 Air-to-Ship Missile (ASM-1C)Japan
Type 93 Air-to-Ship Missile (ASM-2)Japan

Gabriel-Israel

Hsiung Feng I Taiwan
Hsiung Feng II

I'll think you'll find they are all subsonic

 

[Bull]

Funnily enough I talked to two individuals about this subject. One was a weapons system operator aboard a warship and the other was involved with weapons development. Oh and I did talk to a "rocket scientist" as well, she wasn't impressed by some of the claims either

And since neither Pakistan,USA,France,Italy,Austaralia,Japan and Many many other very good navies don't feel a need for it either. It genuinely amuses me to see how much people such as yourselves use it as some sort of magic totem ( It must be brilliant because it goes at mach 3!!!!!!!!!!! ) WHY DO THE BEST NAVIES IN THE WORLD NOT USE IT??????????!!!
As for Cherry picking the only evidence I have seen have been Indian media reports as to how "good" it is. So I suggest you find some evidence but then again whats the point huh?


Let's not allow facts to come in the way when discussing India huh?

I can alteast think of agreeing to you, but not for that hifhlighted part. Pakistani navy...!!! Navy or coast guard?

 

[Contrarian]

Keys, regardless of the countries producing these AshMs the doctrine was the same. All the NATO countries were to operate together along the US.

Russia had a very different doctrine, and they produced weapons according to their own doctrine, and in that respect BrahMos is excellent. Again i repeat, we are not contesting its use as LACM but AshM. And in that aspect, i'd like to see the PN do anything to defend itself against these missiles.

 

[blain2]

First of all Blain, super-sonic AShMs are any day superior to their sub-sonic counter parts. All latest Russian AShMs go super sonic in their terminal phase, even if they are subsonic initially.
Secondly, super-sonic CMs make bad land attack weapons, not because of their lack of effectiveness, but because of pure cost vs benefit analysis. They are too sophisticated and expensive, to be used against buildings that do not use counter measure.

Missile like Brahmos are 'silver bullet' weapons, not saturation. Missiles like Babur, are saturation strike weapons.

Secondly, what kind of name is "Fearless" ?? laaaaaaame

That is what you think because India has a supersonic AShM. The fact that you look at BrahMos in the context of AShM says it all. Yes seaborne targets are susceptible to the speed of a Supersonic AShM, but the flexibility and target acquistion/mid-link update etc. are all benefits that sub-sonic CMs have.

What kind of lame terminology is "silver bullet" vs. "saturation"?? You think that a GPS guided sub-sonic cruise missile would be sent en-masse to hit a freaking aircraft carrier? Most of the Pakistani LACMs would be targeting infrastructure. There is no point in a saturation attack as these LACMs are not susceptible to ABM systems.

I can also assure you that subsonic LACMs are just as complicated as your supersonic BrahMos. There is no short cut in terms of technology on either one. The only difference is the propulsion. You wont use the Brahmos against a whole lot of targets because Brahmos does not afford enough flexibility that a typical sub-sonic CM does. This is the reason that you hear your subsonic "Fearless" being able to carry 10 or more different type of payloads.

 

[blain2]

There will be another one in the series of Brahmos. Brahmos is meant for highly defended,high value target. A subsonic missile is a cost effective way of handling large number of target.
The debate was about subsonic versus supersonic ASHM... not ALCM/SLCM. It is just that Brahmos was modified to be a LACM from a ASHM.

That is the point. BrahMos is essentially a further development of a AShM (ala Sunburn). You can only get so much out of it in terms of its size etc. The rate at which the fuel is burned in a supersonic CM would require the size of BrahMos to be doubled to get a 1K km range. Try loading that thing up on an MKI or placing it on Ships and SSKs

Also this point that you raise about HVT vs large number of targets is BS sorry to say. So a surface element becomes a HVT but a command node is not a HVT?? Is that how it goes?

LACMs like Babur or this fearless project would be the weapons of choice against HVTs. Not a suped up AShM like BrahMos.

 

[blitz]

Ok, i think you didn't get my point. Brahmos is an AShM, and Babur is a LACM. So there is no comparison here. I was talking in terms of a theoretical Babur ASM. So nevermind.