What's new

Fearless Tomahawk-type missile on radar

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.

I understood your point and I see a flaw in it as you term targets for a AShM like BrahMos to be HVTs while the applications for subsonic LACMs like Babur would be in the form of "saturation" attacks....where and which Naval war college did you pick that up from?

In the PN, essentially the Harpoon BlkIIs and Exocets would be doing the same thing as BrahMos. BrahMos obviously gives better standoff ranges to the IN so that is a plus.
 
.
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? :disagree:
HVT for a Brahmos LACM. You can have 300 HV Land Targets, would we have 300 ships? Which is more expensive to hit?
Compare the damage done to navy by loosing ships to that of land targets for a army.

Wouldn't I use my best weapon to drown my adversary's half a billion ship rather a 50 million command center? Which is gonna hurt more?
 
.
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.

How does Soviet cold war doctrine translate into the Indian ocean? Russian doctrine involved
a)protecting the bastion.
b)interdict the the supply routes from America to Europe using submarines surged from the Northern fleet.

They would not take a chance by moving their carrier(s) anywhere near a American CBG (supersonic missiles or not)they would desperately try and locate the fleet by sending up lots of recon aircraft trying to find the electronic signature of the fleet. And then send in lots of Backfire bombers (or similar) with lots of missiles to try and overwhelm the fleet if and when they were found.

Now how the hell does that translate???? Lets not forget that the AS4 kitchen had a range of 400km and went at Mach 3.5 (the As6 650km at mach 3.5, the AS16 100km mach 5) there a few others that I can't be bothered to mention.

The USN did have a 450km version of the Tomahawk designed specifically for anti-ship duties the BGM/RGM-109B Tomahawk Anti Ship Missile (TASM) But when the Soviet union collapsed they converted them into land attack variants instead.
 
.
key without getting in this debate I'll have only one thing to say your point of Brahmos being a silver bullet and nothing is not true, I have had enough discussion and seen enough discussion from peoples working in sectors of different countries. cheers.
 
.
key without getting in this debate I'll have only one thing to say your point of Brahmos being a silver bullet and nothing is not true, I have had enough discussion and seen enough discussion from peoples working in sectors of different countries. cheers.

Well i didn't say it was a silver bullet....

And I didn't say it was nothing either....

However to many people it is "magical" and that is not true either........
 
.
keys, whoever said its 'magical' ? Its better than most AShM out there, and thats about it.
 
.
HVT for a Brahmos LACM. You can have 300 HV Land Targets, would we have 300 ships? Which is more expensive to hit?
Compare the damage done to navy by loosing ships to that of land targets for a army.

Wouldn't I use my best weapon to drown my adversary's half a billion ship rather a 50 million command center? Which is gonna hurt more?

Well yes but that is not what was stated by blitz. Also a command center could be more valuable than a surface asset like a ship. It just depends on what it is.
 
.
Its better than most AShM out there, and thats about it.
Only according to Indians and the Russians. While its a threat, it is by no means the best or better than most AShM in the world. There is more technology, guidance and flexibility afforded by tried and tested platforms such as Harpoon and Exocet NG, just to name a few.
 
.
Russians DO make the best AShMs. Its extremely ridiculous to compare Harpoons and Exocets to missiles like Klub, Sunburn and Brahmos. Its a no contest.

Here, little article about the 'Klub'. Its the same missile installed in 7 Indian Kilos, while rest are under refit to be equipped by it.

Navy Lacks Plan to Defend Against `Sizzler' Missile

By Tony Capaccio

March 23 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. Navy, after nearly six years of warnings from Pentagon testers, still lacks a plan for defending aircraft carriers against a supersonic Russian-built missile, according to current and former officials and Defense Department documents.

The missile, known in the West as the ``Sizzler,'' has been deployed by China and may be purchased by Iran. Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England has given the Navy until April 29 to explain how it will counter the missile, according to a Pentagon budget document.

The Defense Department's weapons-testing office judges the threat so serious that its director, Charles McQueary, warned the Pentagon's chief weapons-buyer in a memo that he would move to stall production of multibillion-dollar ship and missile programs until the issue was addressed.

``This is a carrier-destroying weapon,'' said Orville Hanson, who evaluated weapons systems for 38 years with the Navy. ``That's its purpose.''

``Take out the carriers'' and China ``can walk into Taiwan,'' he said. China bought the missiles in 2002 along with eight diesel submarines designed to fire it, according to Office of Naval Intelligence spokesman Robert Althage.

A Pentagon official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Russia also offered the missile to Iran, although there's no evidence a sale has gone through. In Iranian hands, the Sizzler could challenge the ability of the U.S. Navy to keep open the Strait of Hormuz, through which an estimated 25 percent of the world's oil traffic flows.

Fast and Low-Flying

``This is a very low-flying, fast missile,'' said retired Rear Admiral Eric McVadon, a former U.S. naval attache in Beijing. ``It won't be visible until it's quite close. By the time you detect it to the time it hits you is very short. You'd want to know your capabilities to handle this sort of missile.''

The Navy's ship-borne Aegis system, deployed on cruisers and destroyers starting in the early 1980s, is designed to protect aircraft-carrier battle groups from missile attacks. But current and former officials say the Navy has no assurance Aegis, built by Lockheed Martin Corp., is capable of detecting, tracking and intercepting the Sizzler.

``This was an issue when I walked in the door in 2001,'' Thomas Christie, the Defense Department's top weapons-testing official from mid-2001 to early 2005, said in an interview.

`A Major Issue'

``The Navy recognized this was a major issue, and over the years, I had continued promises they were going to fully fund development and production'' of missiles that could replicate the Sizzler to help develop a defense against it, Christie said. ``They haven't.''

The effect is that in a conflict, the U.S. ``would send a billion-dollar platform loaded with equipment and crew into harm's way without some sort of confidence that we could defeat what is apparently a threat very near on the horizon,'' Christie said.

The Navy considered developing a program to test against the Sizzler ``but has no plans in the immediate future to initiate such a developmental effort,'' Naval Air Systems Command spokesman Rob Koon said in an e-mail.

Lieutenant Bashon Mann, a Navy spokesman, said the service is aware of the Sizzler's capabilities and is ``researching suitable alternatives'' to defend against it. ``U.S. naval warships have a layered defense capability that can defend against various missile threats,'' Mann said.

Raising Concerns

McQueary, head of the Pentagon's testing office, raised his concerns about the absence of Navy test plans for the missile in a Sept. 8, 2006, memo to Ken Krieg, undersecretary of defense for acquisition. He also voiced concerns to Deputy Secretary England.

In the memo, McQuery said that unless the Sizzler threat was addressed, his office wouldn't approve test plans necessary for production to begin on several other projects, including Northrop Grumman Corp.'s new $35.8 billion CVN-21 aircraft-carrier project; the $36.5 billion DDG-1000 destroyer project being developed by Northrop and General Dynamics Corp.; and two Raytheon Corp. projects, the $6 billion Standard Missile-6 and $1.1 billion Ship Self Defense System.

Charts prepared by the Navy for a February 2005 briefing for defense contractors said the Sizzler, which is also called the SS-N-27B, starts out flying at subsonic speeds. Within 10 nautical miles of its target, a rocket-propelled warhead separates and accelerates to three times the speed of sound, flying no more than 10 meters (33 feet) above sea level.

Final Approach

On final approach, the missile ``has the potential to perform very high defensive maneuvers,'' including sharp-angled dodges, the Office of Naval Intelligence said in a manual on worldwide maritime threats.

The Sizzler is ``unique,'' the Defense Science Board, an independent agency within the Pentagon that provides assessments of major defense issues, said in an October 2005 report. Most anti-ship cruise missiles fly below the speed of sound and on a straight path, making them easier to track and target.

``We take the threat very seriously,'' Admiral Michael Mullen, chief of U.S. naval operations said today.

``Secretary of Defense England has asked us to come to him by April with our approach,'' Mullen said in an interview with Bloomberg Television. There ``may not be a single answer. It would probably be a multifaceted.''

The Sizzler ``is very fast and it has maneuvering characteristics that are of concern,'' Mullen said. ``That has put us in a position to make sure we evaluate it as rapidly and specifically as we can.''

McQueary, in a March 16 e-mailed statement, said that ``to the best of our knowledge,'' the Navy hasn't started a test program or responded to the board's recommendations. ``The Navy may be reluctant to invest in development of a new target, given their other bills,'' he said.

`Aggressive Marketing'

The Sizzler's Russian maker, state-run Novator Design Bureau in Yekaterinburg, is ``aggressively marketing'' the weapon at international arms shows, said Steve Zaloga, a missile analyst with the Teal Group, a Fairfax, Virginia-based defense research organization. Among other venues, the missile was pitched at last month's IDEX 2007, the Middle East's largest weapons exposition, he said.

Zaloga provided a page from Novator's sales brochure depicting the missile.

Alexander Uzhanov, a spokesman for the Moscow-based Russian arms-export agency Rosoboronexport, which oversees Novator, declined to comment.

`Pressing Threat'

McVadon, who has written about the Chinese navy, called the Sizzler ``right now the most pertinent and pressing threat the U.S. faces in the case of a Taiwan conflict.'' Jane's, the London-based defense information group, reported in 2005 in its publication ``Missiles and Rockets'' that Russia had offered the missile to Iran as part of a sale in the 1990s of three Kilo- class submarines.

That report was confirmed by the Pentagon official who requested anonymity. The Office of Naval Intelligence suggested the same thing in a 2004 report, highlighting in its assessment of maritime threats Iran's possible acquisition of additional Russian diesel submarines ``with advanced anti-ship cruise missiles.''

The Defense Science Board, in its 2005 report, recommended that the Navy ``immediately implement'' a plan to produce a surrogate Sizzler that could be used for testing.

``Time is of the essence here,'' the board said.

Last Updated: March 23, 2007 15:16 EDT

Bloomberg.com: Worldwide

www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=akO7Y_ORw538&refer=home -
 
.
That sunburn article has been doing the rounds for the past 4 years. I am not impressed. On paper everything coming out of Russia seems to be the best in the world. I will still put my money on Harpoon and Exocet advanced blocks over the Russian AShMs. Call it preference or bias, whatever you may think, the difference is in the ECM/guidance and the flexibility in the western systems that Russians do not have.

Also pay attention to the article that you post yourself. It talks about US concerns around a Russian missile (its the Sunburn btw). The article does not talk about the missile being better. Its faster that is sure, however like most older generation AShMs, its also susceptible to earlier detection and guidance issues in the littoral space (something that even the Exocet had a problem with). The newer US and French blocks have a much more advanced guidance and ECM capabilities against decoys.

The only thing that the Russians currently have on the subsonic AShMs is speed, however the subsonic AShMs do a wonderful job skimming 3m above the surface (virtually undetected)...try that with a supersonic AShM. Each has its pros and cons...I stand by the fact that subsonic AShMs developed thus far are of a better quality, technology and based on tried and tested concepts. I could be proven wrong in a future war where supersonic AShMs wreak havoc, but until that happens, can't say much.
 
.
Blain, you forget that all advanced navies, including the IN have integral AE&W support with any battle group. Even if a missile is skimming 3m above the surface, it will be detected both by OTH radars and high flying aircraft before it reaches close to a surface fleet. So whether its an Exocet or Brahmos, chances are that both will be detected well before they reach their terminal phase. The difference is, the time the fleet will have to deploy counter measures will be considerably less for a Brahmos, compared to an Exocet.

As for the guidance system of a Brahmos, what makes you think it is less sophisticated than contemporary western systems ?
 
.
Blain, you forget that all advanced navies, including the IN have integral AE&W support with any battle group. Even if a missile is skimming 3m above the surface, it will be detected both by OTH radars and high flying aircraft before it reaches close to a surface fleet. So whether its an Exocet or Brahmos, chances are that both will be detected well before they reach their terminal phase. The difference is, the time the fleet will have to deploy counter measures will be considerably less for a Brahmos, compared to an Exocet.

As for the guidance system of a Brahmos, what makes you think it is less sophisticated than contemporary western systems ?

That is if the AEW platform is in the air. Also detection is not a certainty. Nobody has a 360 coverage 24X7X365.

Guidance system issue is based on what's available in the open media with regards to the various options for guidance that Harpoon blkII offers. I just do not see the same for BrahMos. Even if the BrahMos offers similar capability, the other issue is ECM (Russians are still playing catchup here).
 
.
That is if the AEW platform is in the air. Also detection is not a certainty. Nobody has a 360 coverage 24X7X365.

Guidance system issue is based on what's available in the open media with regards to the various options for guidance that Harpoon blkII offers. I just do not see the same for BrahMos. Even if the BrahMos offers similar capability, the other issue is ECM (Russians are still playing catchup here).

I do agree with you about the possibilty of lack of coverage 24*7, but then that might not happen during times of hositility.

If a Sub and Supesonic AShM is detected before reaching the terminal phase, wouldnt it be more difficult to counter the supersonic one?

Which anti-AShM system is available right now that could be used to counter a super sonic AShM?
 
.
That is if the AEW platform is in the air. Also detection is not a certainty. Nobody has a 360 coverage 24X7X365.

Guidance system issue is based on what's available in the open media with regards to the various options for guidance that Harpoon blkII offers. I just do not see the same for BrahMos.
You just do not see the same what? What same? I have told here please refer to the whole load of discussion in various other foras regarding Supersonic Ashm and Subsonic Ashm.

In naval warfare that India will see Brahmos like missile will play a decisive role, while as you said each has pros and cons, I just dont see how a Supersonic missile of 80's and now can fly at the same height there has been considerable improvements in guidance system, Agreeing that Brahmos does not flies at 2 metres above sea level, you need to understand the average radar horizon stays around 24 to 25 kmetres MAXIMUM (the reason Barak 2 is not much referred as AAW but as CMDS as it is being designed keeping in mind Cruise missile defence system), thus if your P(F) or P(D) factor of radar works 100% right (theoritically) even if it detects the sheer kinetic energy will be devastating.

Supersonic missiles always has decisive benefits against Subsonic ones in Ashm role , subsonic missiles are carried by air borne platforms because they are lighter to carry, US has many supersonic programs underway.

I have given here a article by a Admiral regarding why they choose supersonic over subsonic, I dont understand still why peoples like to talk on the same, which states things very clearly.

IN is no USN, USN carrier fleet along with its expeditionary fleet always keeps things clear in and around 1000 kms, thus it needs more flexibility over its missile in land attack role than anti-shipping role which the Virginias, the fighters takes care off.

While the situation is very different in worlds busiest sea routes along with in the scnario IN will see war, first detection of the missile and first homing of the missile are the only and only factors that suits IN and many other navies out there. IN is likely to face 1 versus 1 scnaeiors which massive navies like USN never will. It is very hard to detect a ship even barely 100/200 kms away withoout any form of AEW, let alone in wave clutter and in busy sea lanes it becomes virtually impossible to detect a ship properly.

To give things into perspective I'll give out a pic of fleet gathering somewhere in a European Naval base thats all I can say,

674ae7768070ee535fb8f51b13b7cbf5.jpg


Go figure yourself!

Brahmos has demostrated manuverility, low flying capability and its strengthenness against All kinds of ECCM throughly tested by IN and its R&D team, Mark my words IN is no slouch developing weapon systems when it comes to its interests.

There is no question of proving/pointing fingure at subsonic versus supersonic missile engagement benefits unless the scenario, doctrine, battlefield etc are clearly defined, in the context of it wins hands down and I will still say over and over for purely anti-shipping role there is nothing better than low flying supersonic Ashm with modern guidance and ofcourse other gizmos.

The paper I posted on why Brahmos was chosen and its capabilities clearly mentiones the need for the same and why it was chosen over a subsonic variant. Do you think IN is naive to choose it for a joint developement?

Even if the BrahMos offers similar capability, the other issue is ECM (Russians are still playing catchup here).

Are you sure? Its not exactly only Russians who are onboard though, there are Indians with them.

MBDA's Storm Shadow

Final phase: Imaging infra-red seeker automatic target recognition (ATR) and tracking high precision terminal guidance.

Lockheeds JASSM and JASSM-ER

The success of the Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile's (JASSM's) Development Test 1 (DT-1) on January 19 demonstrated several unique performance characteristics attributable to the system's Anti-Jam Global Positioning System (AJGPS), imaging infrared (I2R) seeker, and automatic target correlator (ATC). The combination of the three enables the missile to perform highly accurate strikes.


http://www.afmc.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123017010

JASSM can be released in virtually any type of weather and uses its inertial navigation and global positioning systems to find its intended target and then its infrared seeker for pinpoint accuracy just before impact. Once in the air, the stealthy cruise missile can reach high subsonic speeds at .85 mach. It is also equipped with an anti-jammer that keeps the enemy in its crosshairs regardless of their technology or capabilities.

Boeings SLAM-ER

Seeker: Imaging Infra-Red Seeker, Automatic Target Acquisition image matching system

Brahmos is the only missile that uses SAR type terminal guidance seeker. Check the links for details on navigation and guidance. A new multispectral seeker is under developement with various Indian establishments and Russias Phystec institution et al which will come around 2012 or so.

The seeker relies on LEO satellite and airborne radar platforms like Ka-31 helicopter and UAV’s. The target coordinates are inserted in missile memory immediately before launch and during the cruise phase the missile steers itself via Inertial platform with autopilot. At pre determined distance from target Brahmos switches on its active radar seeker to detect target. In case of sea skimming profile missile starts radar search and achieve lock-on upon "popping up" from under the radar range which is about 25 km's. In the lo/hi/lo profile it performs a first short radar search at a range of 50 km to verify target position and then reverts to inertial navigation in radar silence for the descent phase to sea skimming attack run before switching the radar on again at closer range. The seeker is capabble of mid-course corrections. Its estimated that Brahmos can perform both active or passive homing modes. passive modes like anti-radiation or home-on-jam. Supersonic speed in cruise phase will ensure ships will not be able to move much farther away from the estimated position. As a result the missile will be able to start active radar search closer to target on a narrower sector of 40-45 degree. Hence the targets ESM detection and countermeasure will have just 3.3 seconds to react. The seeker uses a hybrid form of pulse compression, in which bursts of short pulses are phase-coded so that they can be compressed;the bursts can also be Furier-transformed to discriminate chaff clouds.This particular pulse compression technique was adopted to hold down peak power, so making ESM detection difficult. The missile can also scan a number of targets in the area to identify the one it is supposed to hit. This capability is normally obtained through screen matching criteria, but Brahmos employs special algorithm that classifies targets based on their radar cross section as contained in the pre launch data. Each missile has been designed to operate as part of a salvoed attack, with a datalink net between the inflight missiles updating them on target co-ordinates plus the status of the other weapons in the attack.(Source: Janes) On shore attack mode the seeker can detect large structures or DRDO has developed navigation and flight control computers to guide missile to precision impact against fixed targets (capability already tested). (source Military Technology)

On The Army Configuration

"The Army configuration test-fired in Rajasthan from an independent mobile launcher with a mobile satellite command post and control units, which provided information on the target. The satellite feed, Brahmos was equipped with special image processing software to fly over land, saw the missile search and destroy a 50-cm-thick concrete bunker 300 km away with pinpoint precision (a football goal post according to IT). According to IDC, it could be a Digital Scene Matching Area Correlator (DSMAC) variant to fly over terrain and conduct precision strikes against an array of enemy counter-force and counter-value targets ranging from airfields to overland communications, command and control centres and powerful air defence installations"
 
.
You just do not see the same what? What same? I have told here please refer to the whole load of discussion in various other foras regarding Supersonic Ashm and Subsonic Ashm.

In naval warfare that India will see Brahmos like missile will play a decisive role, while as you said each has pros and cons, I just dont see how a Supersonic missile of 80's and now can fly at the same height there has been considerable improvements in guidance system, Agreeing that Brahmos does not flies at 2 metres above sea level, you need to understand the average radar horizon stays around 24 to 25 kmetres MAXIMUM (the reason Barak 2 is not much referred as AAW but as CMDS as it is being designed keeping in mind Cruise missile defence system), thus if your P(F) or P(D) factor of radar works 100% right (theoritically) even if it detects the sheer kinetic energy will be devastating.

Supersonic missiles always has decisive benefits against Subsonic ones in Ashm role , subsonic missiles are carried by air borne platforms because they are lighter to carry, US has many supersonic programs underway.

I have given here a article by a Admiral regarding why they choose supersonic over subsonic, I dont understand still why peoples like to talk on the same, which states things very clearly.

IN is no USN, USN carrier fleet along with its expeditionary fleet always keeps things clear in and around 1000 kms, thus it needs more flexibility over its missile in land attack role than anti-shipping role which the Virginias, the fighters takes care off.

While the situation is very different in worlds busiest sea routes along with in the scnario IN will see war, first detection of the missile and first homing of the missile are the only and only factors that suits IN and many other navies out there. IN is likely to face 1 versus 1 scnaeiors which massive navies like USN never will. It is very hard to detect a ship even barely 100/200 kms away withoout any form of AEW, let alone in wave clutter and in busy sea lanes it becomes virtually impossible to detect a ship properly.

To give things into perspective I'll give out a pic of fleet gathering somewhere in a European Naval base thats all I can say,

674ae7768070ee535fb8f51b13b7cbf5.jpg


Go figure yourself!

Brahmos has demostrated manuverility, low flying capability and its strengthenness against All kinds of ECCM throughly tested by IN and its R&D team, Mark my words IN is no slouch developing weapon systems when it comes to its interests.

There is no question of proving/pointing fingure at subsonic versus supersonic missile engagement benefits unless the scenario, doctrine, battlefield etc are clearly defined, in the context of it wins hands down and I will still say over and over for purely anti-shipping role there is nothing better than low flying supersonic Ashm with modern guidance and ofcourse other gizmos.

The paper I posted on why Brahmos was chosen and its capabilities clearly mentiones the need for the same and why it was chosen over a subsonic variant. Do you think IN is naive to choose it for a joint developement?



Are you sure? Its not exactly only Russians who are onboard though, there are Indians with them.

MBDA's Storm Shadow



Lockheeds JASSM and JASSM-ER




http://www.afmc.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123017010



Boeings SLAM-ER



Brahmos is the only missile that uses SAR type terminal guidance seeker. Check the links for details on navigation and guidance. A new multispectral seeker is under developement with various Indian establishments and Russias Phystec institution et al which will come around 2012 or so.

The seeker relies on LEO satellite and airborne radar platforms like Ka-31 helicopter and UAV’s. The target coordinates are inserted in missile memory immediately before launch and during the cruise phase the missile steers itself via Inertial platform with autopilot. At pre determined distance from target Brahmos switches on its active radar seeker to detect target. In case of sea skimming profile missile starts radar search and achieve lock-on upon "popping up" from under the radar range which is about 25 km's. In the lo/hi/lo profile it performs a first short radar search at a range of 50 km to verify target position and then reverts to inertial navigation in radar silence for the descent phase to sea skimming attack run before switching the radar on again at closer range. The seeker is capabble of mid-course corrections. Its estimated that Brahmos can perform both active or passive homing modes. passive modes like anti-radiation or home-on-jam. Supersonic speed in cruise phase will ensure ships will not be able to move much farther away from the estimated position. As a result the missile will be able to start active radar search closer to target on a narrower sector of 40-45 degree. Hence the targets ESM detection and countermeasure will have just 3.3 seconds to react. The seeker uses a hybrid form of pulse compression, in which bursts of short pulses are phase-coded so that they can be compressed;the bursts can also be Furier-transformed to discriminate chaff clouds.This particular pulse compression technique was adopted to hold down peak power, so making ESM detection difficult. The missile can also scan a number of targets in the area to identify the one it is supposed to hit. This capability is normally obtained through screen matching criteria, but Brahmos employs special algorithm that classifies targets based on their radar cross section as contained in the pre launch data. Each missile has been designed to operate as part of a salvoed attack, with a datalink net between the inflight missiles updating them on target co-ordinates plus the status of the other weapons in the attack.(Source: Janes) On shore attack mode the seeker can detect large structures or DRDO has developed navigation and flight control computers to guide missile to precision impact against fixed targets (capability already tested). (source Military Technology)

On The Army Configuration

"The Army configuration test-fired in Rajasthan from an independent mobile launcher with a mobile satellite command post and control units, which provided information on the target. The satellite feed, Brahmos was equipped with special image processing software to fly over land, saw the missile search and destroy a 50-cm-thick concrete bunker 300 km away with pinpoint precision (a football goal post according to IT). According to IDC, it could be a Digital Scene Matching Area Correlator (DSMAC) variant to fly over terrain and conduct precision strikes against an array of enemy counter-force and counter-value targets ranging from airfields to overland communications, command and control centres and powerful air defence installations"

Joey you have made a few assumptions and ask Us to go and look through the various discussions in regards to supersonic and subsonic missiles. I have done a little research before coming here, to the table. you have however brought up a few points that i would like to cover in the next post as this one will look absolutely huge other wise.
 
.

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom