Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
No defense is ever impenetrable. You can ask all sorts of 'what if' questions, each one with increasing lethality tailored to eventually defeat your target, and there is nothing I can do about it. But the flaw here is assuming that you can field unlimited munition against a target in these 'what if' scenarios.
The more sophisticated the weapon, especially the one-way discard type like a cruise missile, the less likely you will have large quantity of it, and that mean you have to carefully husband your resources. If you have to expend three Brahmos against a single ship, granted a capital ship, it mean the threat factor of this ship overrides other demands for the limited supply of Brahmos. Even for US with our wealth, in Desert Storm for example, every aircraft that sortied, every cruise missile that was launched, every cannon shot from the USS Missouri, had to be accounted for, not just as mere 'bean counting' after the war, but to calculate the maximum damage possible so that the battleship or the air base can turn its attention to other targets with whatever munitions it have leftover. In war, every combatant commander, from the general/admiral all the way down to the platoon sergeant, believes his immediate situation have the highest priority.
I hate to use the meaningless advice phrase 'Trust me' because no one have any reason to trust anything I say on an anonymous Internet forum. But I will tell you this from my experience: That outside of plain old bullets, no weapon designer ever started a project with the intention of giving his customer the latitude to using the 'spray and pray' combat tactic. The customer can do whatever he want, of course.
I ,word for word, agree with @gambit . (@gambit: I am borrowing from you)I am not aware and neither are you. With your experience I'm sure what you state is true of American and western weapons tests, but that doesn't necessarily make it a 'Global Best Practice'. Whats to stop from the IN to take the missile one boring day, put up a target above a dinghy and perform one of their 'user trials'.
So basically game, set and match according to your own analysis and verdict, right?
So we must counter the imaginary, planned or unplanned future upgrades with what is available today. Hmm.....
This is funnyI ,word for word, agree with @gambit . (@gambit: I am borrowing from you)
"I hate to use the meaningless advice phrase 'Trust me' because no one have any reason to trust anything I say on an anonymous Internet forum." but even then, 'Trust me' all sort of system testing is a rigged affair. No matter if the system is a physical, electronic, software or even biological, testing is rigged. Testing is always done to generate quantifiable info about the system. No one in their wildest dream "Just test a system". Even the smallest test has hundreds of parameters to be checked.
I am no petrol head but the testing suite I am working on tests manufacturing of performance engines. It alone tests more than 75 parameters over a very broad spectrum of engine usage. Now this is for just a commercial/race engine. Think of the parameters being tested on a multi-million dollar MISSILE (for god sake it's a frigging missile, not a 3k LOC C++ code !!).
I am more than willing to bet my nxt yr salary that each and every of those 44 test was scripted and was testing incremental integration of multiple complicated systems. Each of the system must be dumping a crap load of data. Why ?? Bcoz if even 1 subsystems malfunction, the system may not fail but testers like me will have to pluck their (ever so reducing) hair, sieving through the data to find the point of failure.
Now if all the systems are to be tested and the test goes south, the amount of data to be analysed is just overwhelming. Think of it as looking at massive heap of dominoes and trying to find what triggered the domino-effect.
I yam afraid you are mixing development trials with user trials. What kind of a field trial would it be where they restrict or remove any factor from a real-world environment. All 44 tests weren't conducted by Brahmos Corp. a lot of them were acceptance trials conducted by the 3 branches.Indian engineers can. But when -- not if -- something goes wrong, they will inundated with so much data that root cause analysis will be next to futile. That is why tests, whether it is for missiles or for automobile tires, are conducted with incremental releases of influential factors, in other words: rigged tests. If the Brahmos had 44 tests, as claimed, then each of those tests are rigged. You can bet your next yr's salary on that.
Stop trolling troll.
hypersonic brahmos is no pipe dream,Its first flight would happen in 2years and induction would happen by end of this decade.
Uhhh...Yeah...This is funny
How about the customer? Would you refer to a test drive as a 'rigged test'? Does the customer (before buying) care about which feature or part can go wrong or does he care about whether the car performs as advertised, if overall system (car) has any fault OR not and just guns it (for sports car only!).
Missile tests are %99.999 destructive tests. So what kind of 'user trials' do you think I am going to let you perform and at my cost when the test vehicle will be destroyed at the end ?LOL and do you think that cars (or engines) aren't tested for full performance before they are advertised as For SALE? Why do they hire racing drivers as test drivers? Of course you'd want a man with a real sensitive *** and a good hearing, both of which most racing drivers have but all that is also taken care of by the electronics (much more accurately at that).
I yam afraid you are mixing development trials with user trials. What kind of a field trial would it be where they restrict or remove any factor from a real-world environment. All 44 tests weren't conducted by Brahmos Corp. a lot of them were acceptance trials conducted by the 3 branches.
Very good, SIR. You sounds like you know what you are talking about.I ,word for word, agree with @gambit . (@gambit: I am borrowing from you)
"I hate to use the meaningless advice phrase 'Trust me' because no one have any reason to trust anything I say on an anonymous Internet forum." but even then, 'Trust me' all sort of system testing is a rigged affair. No matter if the system is a physical, electronic, software or even biological, testing is rigged. Testing is always done to generate quantifiable info about the system. No one in their wildest dream "Just test a system". Even the smallest test has hundreds of parameters to be checked.
I am no petrol head but the testing suite I am working on tests manufacturing of performance engines. It alone tests more than 75 parameters over a very broad spectrum of engine usage. Now this is for just a commercial/race engine. Think of the parameters being tested on a multi-million dollar MISSILE (for god sake it's a frigging missile, not a 3k LOC C++ code !!).
I am more than willing to bet my nxt yr salary that each and every of those 44 test was scripted and was testing incremental integration of multiple complicated systems. Each of the system must be dumping a crap load of data. Why ?? Bcoz if even 1 subsystems malfunction, the system may not fail but testers like me will have to pluck their (ever so reducing) hair, sieving through the data to find the point of failure.
Now if all the systems are to be tested and the test goes south, the amount of data to be analysed is just overwhelming. Think of it as looking at massive heap of dominoes and trying to find what triggered the domino-effect.
Right!So basically game, set and match according to your own analysis and verdict, right?
Brahmos Block 4 is comming. It will take a totally different route to attack ships. It will not attack from side but parpendicular to normal route which missile takes to attack boat. In this area , there is a minimum of Radar and EW. Hit in this area shall quickly disintegrate the ship. Verticle dive brahmos is not too far.
Yes, it can render an aircraft carrier either reduced operation or out of combat completely.If brahmos hits an ACC can it make it inoperational?
That is 500 lbs of explosives spread throughout the interior at known strategic locations to sink the ship. So just because a 500 lbs warhead from a missile penetrated the hull, it does not mean the ship will sink because of that damage....500 pounds of plastic explosives went off. The rusted hulk took about 37 minutes to slip beneath the waves, ...
If the Enterprise was in combat, the ship would still be able to conduct air operations, although it would be limited launches and recovery. But since the accident occurred in peace time, the Enterprise returned to port for repairs.This blast tore a large hole, approximately 18 feet by 22 feet, into the flight deck, and ruptured a 6,000 gallon fuel tank mounted to a tanker aircraft; a massive fireball resulted from the fuel igniting, spreading the fire further. All told, eighteen explosions occurred, blowing eight holes into the flight deck and beyond.
Different dealers have different test drive rules. I don't think there are very many rules applicable to a buyer gunning a 458 Italia around the narrow lanes of Fiorano.Uhhh...Yeah...
Do you really think the car salesman is going to let you actually wring the car out as if it is your own car ? We are not talking about making sure the air conditioning blows cold air, or the radio pick up stations, or the doors works.
You?Missile tests are %99.999 destructive tests. So what kind of 'user trials' do you think I am going to let you perform and at my cost when the test vehicle will be destroyed at the end ?
You are correct. This is hilarious.
Oh dear, not this again. @gambit - you want to take care of this? I sure as hell don't want to go over this again.
Look @kenyannoobie - this has been discussed and dispelled before:
https://defence.pk/threads/russian-...erican-“uss-donald-cook”.344152/#post-6434088
Russia Claims Its Bomber Jammed U.S. Destroyer — War Is Boring — Medium
I doubt you have any new information or technicals to add, but if you have something substantial, go ahead and add it. That claim, which both @gambit and I have experience with, can be accuralty called BS. The only thing the Donald Cook was a victim of is people gullibility.
One single sort of advanced weapon does not count very much. Only dozens of F22s are not able to counter the whole AF of the IAF, let alone Brahmos to USN.