India developing sub-sonic 1,000-km range cruise missile 'Nirbhay': DRDO chief

[Mauryan]

ABM = Anti-Ballistic Missile. You are proposing to counter a smaller-than-aircraft terrain hugging Cruise Missile with ABM? So far the efficacy of an ABM against a BM is questionable how on earth a CM would be a 'soft target' for an ABM system?

Modern ABM`s are capable of intercepting Aircraft and CMs as well.

MCC can distingush all types from satellites, BMs,Aircraft,CMs... It the mission is to bring down a cruise missile? why not?

 

[qsaark]

Modern ABM`s are capable of intercepting Aircraft and CMs as well.

MCC can distingush all types from satellites, BMs,Aircraft,CMs... It the mission is to bring down a cruise missile? why not?

No they are not.

 

[Mauryan]

No they are not.

A simple one liner cant make it true.Prove me.

 

[Kinetic]

ABM = Anti-Ballistic Missile. You are proposing to counter a smaller-than-aircraft terrain hugging Cruise Missile with ABM? So far the efficacy of an ABM against a BM is questionable how on earth a CM would be a 'soft target' for an ABM system?

Rusia's S-300, India's AAD and US's PAC-3 can defend against cruise missile when cued by appropriate radars. India's Akash and Israel's SPYDER have dedicated anti-CM capability.

No doubt; former is operational and later is still on the drawing board.

Not because of that but subsonic low flying missiles are very easy to destroy. The air defence SAMs are usually developed with testing against low flying target aircrafts similar to subsonic CMs. Like India's Lakshya PTA...

http://www.acig.org/artman/uploads/lakshya1.jpg

 

[dbc]

We never said subsonic missile had no advantage. But their advantage is less expense. If we can afford to spend more, then obviously a faster missile is a better option.

Nirbhay is a low end missile. It can be afforded in great numbers, whereas Brahmos costs a lot so not many can be produced.

BUT in war scenario, Brahmos provides a clear advantage which can not be nullified by any other missile. All the mission critical tasks would be assigned to Brahmos. Nirbhay would be for not so important targets.

I definitely wouldn't want to use a $3 million missile to destroy a bunker. For tasks like these Nirbhay would be used. Brahmos would used to neutralize SAMs, Airbases, Headquarters etc.
I hope you understand.

I disagree, many here think supersonic missiles such as the Brahmos cannot be intercepted or neutralized.

Firing a single Brahmos at a well defended target isn't a foregone conclusion, all evidence suggests targets defended by LRCR, CIWS supported by AWACS have an extremely good change of neutralizing a supersonic cruise missile. It also surprises me that many here think the concept of destroying a target with a fast low flying cruise missiles is new, well it isn't - weapons such as the Kometa or AS-1 Kennel derived from the MiG-15 Fagot airframe have existed since the 40's. Effective counter measures have existed and continue to develop for these aerial threats for several decades.

There are several challenges to overcome to sustain low altitude flight at MACH 2.8 these are often overcome at the expense of maneuverability. Unlike terrain hugging subsonic missiles like the Babur or Tomahawk, the attack profile against land targets will be hi-hi-hi or hi-lo-hi due to compromised maneuverability at M2.8 and the inability to maneuver around obstacles or follow the terrain at M2.8 making a supersonic missile even more vulnerable to ground defenses.

It should be kept in mind, however, that the aerodynamic principles behind a supersonic aircraft are often more complex than described above because such an aircraft must be efficient and stable at supersonic, transonic and subsonic flight. One problem with sustained supersonic flight is the generation of heat in flight. At high speeds aerodynamic heating can occur, so an aircraft must be designed to operate and function under very high temperatures. Duralumin, the traditional aircraft material, starts to lose strength and go into plastic deformation at relatively low temperatures, and is unsuitable for continuous use at speeds above Mach 2.2 to 2.4. Materials such as titanium and stainless steel allow operations at much higher temperatures. For example, the SR-71 Blackbird jet could fly continuously at Mach 3.1 while some parts were above 315°C (600°F). Another area of concern for continued high-speed operation is the engines. Jet engines create thrust by increasing the temperature of the air they ingest, and as the aircraft speeds up, friction and compression heats this air before it reaches the engines. The maximum temperature of the exhaust is determined by the materials in the turbine at the rear of the engine, so as the aircraft speeds up the difference in intake and exhaust temperature the engine can extract decreases, and the thrust along with it.

I wouldn't relegate low flying,long range, low observable sub sonic cruise missiles to less important targets. The Brahmos is perhaps more effective when employed against time sensitive target OR for the purpose of shock and awe.

 

[Neither Right Nor Wrong]

Coz it costs less, a subsonic Tomahawk cost five hundred thousand dollars whereas a supersonic Bhramos though better against heavily defended zones is 4 times its price and 1/8th its range.

 

[DesiGuy]

India is developing a sub-sonic 1,000-km range cruise missile ''Nirbhay'' which can be used for a ''variety of applications'', a top military scientist said here on Sunday.

The 1000-kg "missile is getting into some shape", Dr V K Saraswat, Scientific Advisor to Defence Minister and Chief of Defence Research and Development Organisation said.

He also said the flight-trial of air-to-air missile 'Astra', having a range of 45 to 100 km, is on the cards. Saraswat was delivering the keynote address at a national convention on 'The Frontiers of Aeronautical Technologies', organised by the Aeronautical Society of India here.

He said India's armed forces are looking for long duration loitering missiles which can enter "enemy territory", search targets such as radars, concentration of assets and "a variety of movements of enemy", "home-on" the targets and "bang" them.

"We need to develop (loitering missiles)", he said. Saraswat made a strong push for deploying space-based sensors to keep tab on "adversaries" and gather intelligence via-a-vis defence surveillance.

He said space-based sensors are a must for tracking and detection of movements of enemies. Unless it have space-based sensors, India would not be able to make its ballistic missile defence system a "potent weapon", the scientist said. India is launching a major programme for surveillance, particularly space-based, in terms of electro-optical payload and synthetic aperture radar. "So, unless we prepare ourselves for future space-based systems, security is going to be a major issue," he said.

On anti-satellite (ASAT) system, Saraswat said ballistic missile defence has some elements required for ASAT. India has the capability in this area in terms of "kill vehicle", boosters and radars. But he noted that "some more building blocks are required to be developed".

However, India has no plans to demonstrate its capability in terms of killing a satellite in orbit -- unlike China which undertook such a mission in 2007 --, saying "we don't believe in that (ASAT programme)".

:: Bharat-Rakshak.com - Indian Military News Headlines ::

 

[Goodperson]

Why India is developing a sub-sonic Cruise Missile while she has supersonic Brahmos? I remember Indian members ridiculing Pakistani CMs for the reason they were subsonic and claiming that supersonic CMs were better for this and that reason. Now why a reversal of the mindset? Why this revelation occurred to them that a sub-sonic CM could also be useful?

They want sub sonic missile for manoeuvring which is difficult with supersonic missiles.

Its one more arsenal in the Armour.

 

[Goodperson]

No they are not.

Times have changed and India has made progress here.

 

[DesiGuy]

Mod, please merge this thread as it's already posted.

 

[xman]

Can some one explain, how a Cruise Missile be succeful in a mountanious region like Himalaya?

 

[satishkumarcsc]

I disagree, many here think supersonic missiles such as the Brahmos cannot be intercepted or neutralized.

Firing a single Brahmos at a well defended target isn't a foregone conclusion, all evidence suggests targets defended by LRCR, CIWS supported by AWACS have an extremely good change of neutralizing a supersonic cruise missile. It also surprises me that many here think the concept of destroying a target with a fast low flying cruise missiles is new, well it isn't - weapons such as the Kometa or AS-1 Kennel derived from the MiG-15 Fagot airframe have existed since the 40's. Effective counter measures have existed and continue to develop for these aerial threats for several decades.

There are several challenges to overcome to sustain low altitude flight at MACH 2.8 these are often overcome at the expense of maneuverability. Unlike terrain hugging subsonic missiles like the Babur or Tomahawk, the attack profile against land targets will be hi-hi-hi or hi-lo-hi due to compromised maneuverability at M2.8 and the inability to maneuver around obstacles or follow the terrain at M2.8 making a supersonic missile even more vulnerable to ground defenses.



I wouldn't relegate low flying,long range, low observable sub sonic cruise missiles to less important targets. The Brahmos is perhaps more effective when employed against time sensitive target OR for the purpose of shock and awe.

Yes no missile is undefeatable. It can be defeated but what will happen if a salvo of around 6 missiles are launched at a single target...This increases the probability of hit and the KE of the missile can do as much damage of 2 subsonic cruise missile hitting the ship. This is the one of the concerns that has to be addressed. the havoc created by the missile hit will give time for the other battle group to launch their second salvo. This is when the supersonic cruise missile destroys the ship. It has been all about getting atleast one missile into the ship and disable it.

 

[jagjitnatt]

I disagree, many here think supersonic missiles such as the Brahmos cannot be intercepted or neutralized.

I never said Brahmos was unbeatable. No missile is unstoppable.

Difference lies in just the effort required to stop the missile. If you think Brahmos can be stopped, stopping a Tomahawk should be no problem too.

Brahmos has to be at least 4 times tougher to stop than Tomahawk or Babur.

 

[dbc]

I never said Brahmos was unbeatable. No missile is unstoppable.

Difference lies in just the effort required to stop the missile. If you think Brahmos can be stopped, stopping a Tomahawk should be no problem too.

Brahmos has to be at least 4 times tougher to stop than Tomahawk or Babur.

..it is also six times more expensive and has a much lower range.

The key to stopping a cruise missile, especially the supersonic variety is early detection. If your adversary has airborne radar coverage the Brahmos launch will most likely be detected. A sub sonic cruise missiles on the other hand can be launched from a greater distance beyond the detection capability of the air borne radar protecting the target. There are several scenarios where a sub sonic cruise missile is more effective than a supersonic cruise missile. For instance, a sub sonic cruise missile can fly low, follow set waypoints to its target and exploit gaps in radar coverage. All things considered, despite having the technical capability US and her NATO allies do not have such weapons - ever wonder why?

As to the exact number of Brahmos missiles that are needed to destroy a target could be one or many depends on the target.

 

[gambit]

Can some one explain, how a Cruise Missile be succeful in a mountanious region like Himalaya?

Two modes: Terrain Following and Terrain Avoidance. The TF mode is more fuel friendly than the TA mode.

What happens is that the missile's guidance system is programmed with an altitude that it must not violate, meaning it cannot rise above that altitude. If the missile's radar detect a physical terrain feature that rose higher than the programmed forbidden altitude, the missile will enter the TA mode, meaning it will fly around the obstacle. If the terrain feature is not higher than the forbidden altitude, then the missile will enter the TF mode and simply fly over the top. This is under the assumption that the missile have only target destination but nothing in between. But if this cruise missile have accurate topographics between launch and destination points, then its flight path will be much more fuel and time efficient.