What's new

When will BrahMos breach Mach 7 barrier?

Stop being homophobic. Do you question Modi for hugging world leaders?

@Nilu Pule is my fellow brother with whom I will share my love. Who are you to stop us? Carry on your puddi fuddi flirting with @lastofthepatriots

Why are you involving me in your homosexual Indian saffroni nonsense? gtfo
 
Stop being homophobic. Do you question Modi for hugging world leaders?

@Nilu Pule is my fellow brother with whom I will share my love. Who are you to stop us? Carry on your puddi fuddi flirting with @lastofthepatriots
you definitely a false flagger/ liar, your post # 30 shows your real face, you're may be a pakistani pretending to be an Indian @PurpleStone :enjoy::p:;)
 
Enthiran?

nin appa loosu nin amma loosu. Nin famililo ellaru loosu. [Malayalam]

Kannaaa Pani Thaa Kutama Varu Singo Singala Tha Varum [Movie dialgoue]

Translation: Only pigs come in groups. A tiger comes alone.

idhu ellam thavira ne tamil la edhachu pessu na othukura. illaya muditu po
 
As for controls, it depends on mission and targets.
If your Brahmos has a pre-set target, controls need
not be spectacular to reach a point on a map. Just
use G3OM and expand GAGAN and that's it.
If you consider moving targets in 3D, it gets tough.

And that's where the controls only need to be ready
when the indigenous seeker is ready so no rush.
hi @Taygibay
Yes you're right, the problem of hitting a moving target is inherently more challenging vis a vis hitting a static target.-

missile_dynamics2.png
missile_dynamics3.png

Fig:1
The above picture deals with the problem of hitting a moving target using PN guidance scheme(not mentioned in the pic above), the PN guidance scheme gives the lateral acceleration that needs to be met in order to keep the LOS constant. Once the desired lateral acceleration are known, they can be converted into desired \alpha and \beta, from there one can find the desired pitch and yaw rates-viz- q and r. Once desired q and r are known one can find the control surface deflection.
In any guidance problem, the control loop is divided into two-- one that control slow dynamics and the other that controls the fast dynamics, the fast dynamics loop is same in both lateral acceleration based controls and trajectory tracking controls. The difference comes in the slow dynamics loop. In lateral acceleration based controls(like the one shown above), the commanded acceleration in eqn(8) depend on various factors most importantly--how the target is maneuvering and structural limits of the missile. It is inherently more demanding than the trajectory tracking problem because in the latter, the slow dynamics loop is designed like-
Guidance law gives the desired azimuth/elevation---> desired rates are extracted from desired azimuth/elevation ---> Desired controls are extracted from desired rates.

guidance2.png

Above pic denotes simulation for a trajectory tracking problem.
 
Last edited:
Nan magane. Enu heltayidiri. t!kka musikoni hogello.
This happens when you use English to Kannada and then use the English words below in google translate. One who thinks low as his country are the false flaggers :P
 
In lateral acceleration based controls(like the one shown above), the commanded acceleration in eqn(8) depend on various factors most importantly--how the target is maneuvering and structural limits of the missile. It is inherently more demanding than the trajectory tracking problem because in the latter, the slow dynamics loop is designed like-
Guidance law gives the desired azimuth/elevation---> desired rates are extracted from desired azimuth/elevation ---> Desired controls are extracted from desired rates.

There we are, mate! Let us suppose that
the structural limits are set and known for
the H-Brahmos. That end won't change.

Then let's fall back on target mobility and notice
how limiting hypermach speeds are for control.

In case A, a big slow moving target such as a
Lion Ing* is within reach of control laws and all
or almost all the job falls on the seeker, really.
In case B, a small fast target like a J-20 or even
a ground vehicle will likely evade control capabi-
lities rather easily. After all, a simple right turn
at mach 7 consumes a lot of space ( and power ).

There will be a class of targets unattainable for
hypermach weapons for the foreseeable future.

Let's review tactics understanding those (initial)
limitations : Large scale attack _HMW= perfect.
Stationary target at very long range= perfect.
Moving target, big and slow & far, adequate with
great seeker or great control loop or later AI.
Moving targets below a certain size : wrong.
Moving targets over a certain speed at maximum
HMW's range : depends on target maneuverability.

So, volleys of land-based HMWs or sub-based if
predetermined targets, on stationary objectives
located in dense enemy territory, fine! Using HMWs
within your territory targeting incoming menaces,
excellent especially if target unaware of launch.

BVR fighter missile : preposterous, at least for now.

What is big, slow and far a target in the mind of the
nation that "sells" hyper mach weapons? I think I
gave enough of a hint in my outlined cases especial-
ly if you consider the Seabasing concept.

_ _ _ _

As for this new announcement, it is not so new :

Next BrahMos missile targets Mach 7, integration with SU30MKI completed

WHITESMOKE, Aug 11, 2012, in forum: Indian Defence Forum

15 minutes of flight at mach 7 from an MKI
launched from Hasimara AFS would easily
reach Shangaï if launched at 1,200Km from
base, leaving the aircraft well able to return?

For reference, at 20ºC, dry air and sea level,
Mach 7 equals 8,535.71 kilometers per hour.

So, despite Kaptaan Ali's mumblings, apart
from long range, faster speeds for most mil
applications will come the old fashion way
by augmenting existing Mach 3, Mach 4 +
weapons ... which is what's happening here.

I'm still dubious on such timetable claims.
They seem to me to correspond to the usual
bragging by armament corps to get more ...
money... sorry, funding.

Have a great day, Tay.

* Neither ING the bank nor Emperor Ing from
Metroid Prime but the SF&F novel character, OFC!
 
So, despite Kaptaan Ali's mumblings, apart
from long range, faster speeds for most mil
applications will come the old fashion way
by augmenting existing Mach 3, Mach 4 +
weapons ... which is what's happening here.
Come on Tay.
All I did was clarify your numbers.
Never did I refute this argument.
 
Sadly, M3 and M4 are true values
for ASMP-A and Meteor. ASMP was
between Mach 2 and 3.

Theoretically, from 500km, it's less
than 10 minutes to target which is
great but it also has a variable yield
TNA head making it a "pre-strategic"
weapon.

As such, the crew is expected to turn
back and survive which wasn't the case
during the Cold War.

Not only will speeds go up by increment
but ranges will have to increase as well.
Which the ASN4G is being designed around
with goals to double perfs in one program
and to 3x or 4x in another : increments!

Long range hypersonic is a different beast.

Great day in any case, mate, Tay.
 
naayi, neevu vaayu mudi nan magane. naan en pesaro namge gottu.

Dog, you BS BS (bad word). I BS Tamil-RIP I know.

BS = Not a Kannada word.

That's the level of Kannada you know. :lol:

Don't try so hard. South Indian languages are difficult even for other Indians.

Want free ad?

The owner of that forum is also a false flag Pakistani. :lol:
 

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom