BrahMos Cruise Missile

[Vijyes]

The best-cheapest way to destroy air bases is an enitre battallion of Smerch or Pinaka-2 MRLS with TCS firing off entire Salvo of 72 missiles + 2-3 more Salvos, these weapons are cheaper, can sanitize a wide area, this would be followed by Brahmos strikes on key command and air defense node and some bombing raids by Jags or MKIs with runway busters, some CBU-105 SFW to destroy ground moving targets. Many of the Puki air bases are with-in reach of these weapons. Each base would need a flight or platoon of Garuds (for smaller air fields) + a battalion or company of mechanized infantry to safely secure the base post capture followed up by a battallion of infantry from one of the Pivot corps to hold the base from counter offensives while strike elements make deeper inroads. High rate of fire, short flight time and low cost per missile would ensure the base is inoperative/destroyed. A raid would be precisely timed and the base can be overwhelmed in minutes. Such assets need hefty fire power, timing and precise coordination. 2-3 4-ships of MKI/Mig-29/ would sanitize the air to ensure the enemy's air assets are neutralized.

The accuracy of MRBL is a circle with radius equal to 1% of range. That is a pretty bad accuracy. Unless tipped with NASR type tactical nukes, I wouldn't recommend that. The power of the MRBLs warhead isn't that great to bust armoured bunkers if not hit directly which is difficult due to poor accuracy.

Pakistan bases are not necessarily all within 70km of Indian border and there may be hilly terrain in between which the MRBL can't handle.

Let me also give an example of how poor the accuracy of MRBL is:

If the same accuracy was in Agni 5, then at 5000km, the missile would go and hit about 50km away from intended target! Agni 2 would hit a target 10km away at the range of 1000km. A non metro city generally has maximum diameter of 15km and radius if 7.5km. Accuracy of 10km radius would mean that Agni 2 targeted at centre if city will likely fall at the outer periphery

 

[Chinmoy]

No, in land warefare, the result will be lot different. As I repeatedly pointed out, in the sea, your target is the fleet and the air defence system is also with the fleet, your cruise missiles are pretty safe until they get in the 100-120 km air-defence circle of the fleet. On the land, it is another story. For example, your target is an airport, but it doesn’t mean the air defence only exists around the airport, more likely the cruise missiles have to face different air-defence units from the moment they cross the border. I agree that under salvo attacking, there will be some missiles be able to get through all these, but again, here you are talking about an airport. Last time, Syrian airport was attacked by 57 American cruise missiles, it was operational again hours later. Now you have to ask yourselves, how many cruise missiles you need to make sure enough number getting through? How many more you need to keep a single airport out of service for days?

When you are saying 120 km detection range, I am sure you know where from this range and how it came into being. This is all because of the limitation of any RADAR which it faces due to earth's curvature. In sea its comparatively easy for the air defence assets to track and target. Although the sea skimming nature of CM makes it difficult. This limitation of RADAR for being unable to detect sea skimming target is because of its horizontal axis. Any sea bourne RADAR unlike its terrestrial counter part has a major disadvantage in its horizontal plane movement. So whatever short of CM you use, it takes advantage of these blindspot of RADAR. Brahmos too does follow a flight path of Hi-Lo to remain undetected till last moment when the engagement takes place in sea.

Now coming to terrestrial part, things are only slightly different in targeting part. Tracking part in sea and surface is almost same now a days. The multiple targeting station on surface makes it much more difficult for any subsonic missile, but in case of a supersonic one, things are not much different. It does try to make most of it with its speed. Now as I said earlier, against a couple you might be lucky, but against a salvo, HAPPY TURKEY SHOOTING.

Regarding the report of 57 cruise missiles which has been fired at Syrian airbase, did you missed out the point where they landed? Most of them had missed their targets (?) and instead dropped somewhere near Russian fighters parked there. Now who or what is their target, lets not discuss it here.

I hope you notice that all Chinese supersonic cruises serve only one purpose – ANTI-SHIP.

As I said, supersonic cruise missile is not a suitable weapon for land war. Russia had this kind of missile 30 years ago, have you seen they plan to use weapon for land war?

Who told you Russians didn't considered them for land warfare? Even US did have them before their ICBM. Heard about Snark or Buran? These were intercontinental CM for surface to surface role. The only downside of CM is its limited range over BM. Make it supersonic, you have added problem of mass to take care of. Its the reason why most of the modern CM are designed for Air to Surface role to enhance its strike distance.

BTW, Brahmos had been tested to fly at an altitude of 5 mtr in surface attack mode.

 

[Vijyes]

When you are saying 120 km detection range, I am sure you know where from this range and how it came into being. This is all because of the limitation of any RADAR which it faces due to earth's curvature. In sea its comparatively easy for the air defence assets to track and target. Although the sea skimming nature of CM makes it difficult. This limitation of RADAR for being unable to detect sea skimming target is because of its horizontal axis. Any sea bourne RADAR unlike its terrestrial counter part has a major disadvantage in its horizontal plane movement. So whatever short of CM you use, it takes advantage of these blindspot of RADAR. Brahmos too does follow a flight path of Hi-Lo to remain undetected till last moment when the engagement takes place in sea.

Now coming to terrestrial part, things are only slightly different in targeting part. Tracking part in sea and surface is almost same now a days. The multiple targeting station on surface makes it much more difficult for any subsonic missile, but in case of a supersonic one, things are not much different. It does try to make most of it with its speed. Now as I said earlier, against a couple you might be lucky, but against a salvo, HAPPY TURKEY SHOOTING.

Regarding the report of 57 cruise missiles which has been fired at Syrian airbase, did you missed out the point where they landed? Most of them had missed their targets (?) and instead dropped somewhere near Russian fighters parked there. Now who or what is their target, lets not discuss it here.




Who told you Russians didn't considered them for land warfare? Even US did have them before their ICBM. Heard about Snark or Buran? These were intercontinental CM for surface to surface role. The only downside of CM is its limited range over BM. Make it supersonic, you have added problem of mass to take care of. Its the reason why most of the modern CM are designed for Air to Surface role to enhance its strike distance.

BTW, Brahmos had been tested to fly at an altitude of 5 mtr in surface attack mode.

The curvature of the earth as well as the noise from currents on the sea will cause a problem for radar detection in ships. That is why detection range of sea hugging missile is around 100km.

But in case of terrestrial targets, some of the radars can and will be located on a higher ground like hill top or tall towers etc that will give a great advantage over detection of ground hugging missile. Also, the terrain maps are hard to change every now and then. So, a gap of 10-15 metres have to be left to avoid a new tree or a building that might have come in place. A simple 3 storey building is 10 metre tall and most trees are much taller, for example. In case of sea skimming, just 10feet is enough from sea level as waves don't generally get that high unless there is some special event.

In addition to the radar location and changeable terrain of terrestrial lands, the radars are generally placed in a layered manner, with 1 layer close to the border which will detect the supersonic missile as it is crossed. Since the unimportant border posts are not meaningful targets, this means that the missile will be detected much in advance before the target is in sight.

Now, of course, the salvo firing of missiles can't be blocked at all. No matter what, the salvo fires can't be intercepted as the interceptors will be overwhelmed. Even the subsonic missiles can't be intercepted if fired in salvos. I don't think even Hawk type simple trainer cum fighter jets can't be intercepted if 100 jets starts flying at full speed towards, say Delhi, hugging the terrain at about 10-15 metre height, originating at one region

 

[no smoking]

When you are saying 120 km detection range, I am sure you know where from this range and how it came into being. This is all because of the limitation of any RADAR which it faces due to earth's curvature. In sea its comparatively easy for the air defence assets to track and target. Although the sea skimming nature of CM makes it difficult. This limitation of RADAR for being unable to detect sea skimming target is because of its horizontal axis. Any sea bourne RADAR unlike its terrestrial counter part has a major disadvantage in its horizontal plane movement. So whatever short of CM you use, it takes advantage of these blindspot of RADAR. Brahmos too does follow a flight path of Hi-Lo to remain undetected till last moment when the engagement takes place in sea.

No, the reason that I quote 120km is that is the tech limit today’s radar can effectively lock a target. If your CM keep flying in low altitude all the way to target, with the help of planet curve, the Aegis will only be able to detect the incoming missile in the last 30km-40km. That was Russians would rather put their backfire pilots in the risk by shooting the CM only 150km away from CV to keep the CM at L-L.

Now coming to terrestrial part, things are only slightly different in targeting part. Tracking part in sea and surface is almost same now a days.

Well, as I pointed out in the above, flying in high altitude vs low altitude, is completely different thing. When the CM keeps sea-skimming all the time, the Aegis system can only start tracking the missile 30-40km away. But if in 10km high altitude, there is almost no blind spot at all, radar will be able to start tracking the CM from 300-400km away and targeting 120km away.

The multiple targeting station on surface makes it much more difficult for any subsonic missile, but in case of a supersonic one, things are not much different. It does try to make most of it with its speed. Now as I said earlier, against a couple you might be lucky, but against a salvo, HAPPY TURKEY SHOOTING.

No in case of a supersonic one, things are much different: 1. Supersonic CM doesn’t have valley-hugging capability which sub-sonic CM does. This makes it impossible for supersonic CM to fly between mountains, that is where the blind spots are in the land warfare; 2. When your missile flying at supersonic speed, you can’t keep it high maneuvering through the whole flying route, that will shorten their range further; 3. You can’t make a complicated flying route for them either as that will shorten their range as well. Without these 3 important advantages, supersonic speed CM is quite vulnerable before it is diving towards its target, which is majority of her journey.


Regarding you’re your magic salvo attacking, I don’t know if you understand what I wrote or even read what I wrote. I don’t want to repeat what I already said. I only want to point out another big difference: Unlike US, UK or India, Russia and China, have always been relying on their air-defence missile forest to protect their armed forces, the intensity of their air-dfence missiles are more likely overwhelming your CM instead.

Regarding the report of 57 cruise missiles which has been fired at Syrian airbase, did you missed out the point where they landed? Most of them had missed their targets (?) and instead dropped somewhere near Russian fighters parked there. Now who or what is their target, lets not discuss it here.

It proves my point – a land base target will require a lot more missile to take out comparing a ship.

Who told you Russians didn't considered them for land warfare? Even US did have them before their ICBM. Heard about Snark or Buran? These were intercontinental CM for surface to surface role. The only downside of CM is its limited range over BM. Make it supersonic, you have added problem of mass to take care of. Its the reason why most of the modern CM are designed for Air to Surface role to enhance its strike distance.

Really? Firstly, Snark was a sub-sonic CM not supersonic; Secondly, Buran was cancelled when only 2 prototypes were built; Thirdly, in the peak of cold war, both were deploying hundreds of mid-range ballistic missiles in Europe but none of them was looking at the supersonic CM even though both had the matured tech, doesn’t that tell you something?

BTW, Brahmos had been tested to fly at an altitude of 5 mtr in surface attack mode.

In mountains?

 

[Chinmoy]

No, the reason that I quote 120km is that is the tech limit today’s radar can effectively lock a target. If your CM keep flying in low altitude all the way to target, with the help of planet curve, the Aegis will only be able to detect the incoming missile in the last 30km-40km. That was Russians would rather put their backfire pilots in the risk by shooting the CM only 150km away from CV to keep the CM at L-L.

No matter how much your tech evolve, there is always some boundary inside which you need to work. You could have a RADAR for tracking purpose with a range of 1000 km, but you simply can't use it for target acquisition purpose.

Well, as I pointed out in the above, flying in high altitude vs low altitude, is completely different thing. When the CM keeps sea-skimming all the time, the Aegis system can only start tracking the missile 30-40km away. But if in 10km high altitude, there is almost no blind spot at all, radar will be able to start tracking the CM from 300-400km away and targeting 120km away.

It means the defence system would get around 2 mins to target the CM at that altitude. Now everything depends on the processing speed, algorithm and kill probability of the defensive system. On rough it would fire around 3 to 4 missile to target one single CM to attain 1.0 Pk. Now here the salvo does its work.

No in case of a supersonic one, things are much different: 1. Supersonic CM doesn’t have valle-hugging capability which sub-sonic CM does. This makes it impossible for supersonic CM to fly between mountains, that is where the blind spots are in the land warfare; 2. When your missile flying at supersonic speed, you can’t keep it high maneuvering through the whole flying route, that will shorten their range further; 3. You can’t make a complicated flying route for them either as that will shorten their range as well. Without these 3 important advantages, supersonic speed CM is quite vulnerable before it is diving towards its target, which is majority of her journey.

I do completely agree with your 2nd and 3rd point. That's the very reason why supersonic CM does implies simple flight pattern like HI-Hi or Hi-Lo.
Regarding 1st point, let me just point out one thing. BRAHMOS does take a evasive 'S' maneuver in its last stage to ditch CIWS. Now this 'S' maneuver is a norm in almost all CM. So it implies that like other CM, it is maneuverable too. Also a point to take note is, subsonic CM's too does have limitations in its maneuverability factor. Its not like that it takes drastic high angle maneuver. In case of supersonic CM, the points which doesn't go well with high maneuverability is,
Structural integrity
Mass
Range

Regarding you’re your magic salvo attacking, I don’t know if you understand what I wrote or even read what I wrote. I don’t want to repeat what I already said. I only want to point out another big difference: Unlike US, UK or India, Russia and China, have always been relying on their air-defence missile forest to protect their armed forces, the intensity of their air-dfence missiles are more likely overwhelming your CM instead.

I would be sharing few details of PLA RADAR here.

It proves my point – a land base target will require a lot more missile to take out comparing a ship.

I didn't mean that the missiles were offcourse. There was a question mark in between what I wrote.

Really? Firstly, Snark was a sub-sonic CM not supersonic; Secondly, Buran was cancelled when only 2 prototypes were built; Thirdly, in the peak of cold war, both were deploying hundreds of mid-range ballistic missiles in Europe but none of them was looking at the supersonic CM even though both had the matured tech, doesn’t that tell you something?

I didn't said SNARK to be a supersonic missile. Buran and SNARK had been cancelled because of the progress made in BM technology after WWII. The main drawback of CM was its launch mass and warhead capability. If you had read history well enough, you might have known that during the height of cold war, both US and USSR were depending on Nuclear payload rather then conventional ones. SNARK and Buran were designed with Nuclear payload and due to this fact and along with immature technology of that time, these were not reliable enough to deliver the payload. The cheap way around is to use BM which were developed along with.

In mountains?

Wish I could have said, "Your ignorance is our blessing". But alas I couldn't say that, because you might be ignorant, but PLA and PLAAF were not so ignorant enough in this regard.

BTW........... Here is some data regarding RADARs which are being used by China.


1) NRIET/CEIEC/CETC YLC-2/YLC-2A/YLC-2V High Guard 3D Long Range Surveillance Radar
Detection range: 330 km
Range accuracy: 200 m
Range resolution: 300 m

Azimuth: 0º ~ 360º
Elevation: 0.5º ~ 20º

Height accuracy: 400m @ 200 km
750m @ 300 km


2) CEIEC/JESE JL3D-90A / 3D Commander
Target detection data:
Range: 300km
Altitude: 20,000m
Range accuracy: 150m
Altitude accuracy: 500m
Azimuth accuracy: 0.25°
Range resolution: 90m
Azimuth resolution: 1.5º

3) JY-11 Specifications: (Pd=80, Pf=10-6, RCS 2m2)
Band: 2.7 - 3.4 GHz

Detection range: >180km
Detection altitude: 15,000 m
Elevation: 0º ~ 30º
Azimuth: 0º ~ 360º Resolution:
Range: 200m
Azimuth: 2.5º

4) JY-11B Specifications: (Pd=80, Pf=10-6, RCS 2m2)
Target detection data:
Range: 210km
Altitude: 12,000m
Elevation: 0º ~ 35º
Azimuth: 0º ~ 360º
Range accuracy: 50m
Azimuth accuracy: 0.3°
Height accuracy: (≤100km) 500m
Range resolution: 100m
Azimuth resolution: 1.8º

5) ECRIEE / CETC JY-29 / LSS-1 Low Altitude 2D Air Defence Radar

Coverage: (Pd= 80%, Pfaa=10-6, SW1, σ = 2 m2)
Azimuth 0º~360º
Elevation: 0º~30º
Instrumented range: 250 km
Search range: 200 km
Height: 12,000 m
Target capacity: ≥72 tracks

Given a detection range of 180km would suggest maximum PRF in the order of 830pps.
Measurement Accuracy: (rms)
Range: 100 m
Azimuth: 0.5º
Target Resolution: (Pd=0.5)
Range: 300 m
Azimuth: 2.0º

6) ECRIEE / CETC JYL-1 Long-range 3D Air Defence Radar
Coverage: (Pd=80%, Pf=10-6, SW1, RCS=2m2)Azimuth 0º ~ 360º
Elevation: 0º ~ 25º
Search range; 320km
Height: 25,000m
Measurement Accuracy (rms):
Range: 100m
Azimuth: 0.3º
Height: 600m @ 200km
Azimuth: 0.3º
Resolution:
Range: 200m
Azimuth 1.5º

7) CETC YLC-18 High Mobility Medium Range Low Altitude 3D Radar
Specifications:
Operating frequency: EF-band
Coverage: (Pd = 80%, RCS = 2m2)
Range: ≥ 250km
Height: ≥ 12,000m
Elevation: 0º ~ 35º
Azimuth: 0º ~ 360º

Its detection range suggest instantaneous PRF of 600pps thus operational PRF of approx 400 is suspected.

Measurement accuracy: (rms)
Azimuth: ≤ 0.3º
Range: ≤ 100m
Height: ≤ 600m (within 200km)

Now almost all these reading are with a target RCS of 2sq mtr.

Now just compare what would be the detection and engagement range of any CM. Now add a speed of 2.8 Mach in that.

 

[no smoking]

No matter how much your tech evolve, there is always some boundary inside which you need to work. You could have a RADAR for tracking purpose with a range of 1000 km, but you simply can't use it for target acquisition purpose.


It means the defence system would get around 2 mins to target the CM at that altitude. Now everything depends on the processing speed, algorithm and kill probability of the defensive system. On rough it would fire around 3 to 4 missile to target one single CM to attain 1.0 Pk. Now here the salvo does its work.

You are kidding me, right?

2 minutes is like hell long time for any air-defence system. Generally, in the past, air-defence system only got 30 seconds for one attack. With 2 minutes, the land system can issue at least 4 time attacks. More importantly, this gives the defence missile a longer attacking window.

I do completely agree with your 2nd and 3rd point. That's the very reason why supersonic CM does implies simple flight pattern like HI-Hi or Hi-Lo.

Regarding 1st point, let me just point out one thing. BRAHMOS does take a evasive 'S' maneuver in its last stage to ditch CIWS. Now this 'S' maneuver is a norm in almost all CM. So it implies that like other CM, it is maneuverable too. Also a point to take note is, subsonic CM's too does have limitations in its maneuverability factor. Its not like that it takes drastic high angle maneuver. In case of supersonic CM, the points which doesn't go well with high maneuverability is,

Structural integrity

Mass

Range

Here is the problem: if the air-defence can handle the maneuverability performed by supersonic CM in final sea-skimming stage, I don’t think it will be a problem for them to catch a missile in the middle of its flying route as these CM generally are less maneuverable in this stage.

I didn't said SNARK to be a supersonic missile. Buran and SNARK had been cancelled because of the progress made in BM technology after WWII. The main drawback of CM was its launch mass and warhead capability. If you had read history well enough, you might have known that during the height of cold war, both US and USSR were depending on Nuclear payload rather then conventional ones. SNARK and Buran were designed with Nuclear payload and due to this fact and along with immature technology of that time, these were not reliable enough to deliver the payload. The cheap way around is to use BM which were developed along with.

No, in 1980s, both countries had successfully developed supersonic CM with reasonable accuracy. But none of them deployed these CM in the land frontier. Instead, the Russians further developed salvo tactics for these anti-ship CM, that tells you that they think these CM can be intercepted and the probability is quite high.

Wish I could have said, "Your ignorance is our blessing". But alas I couldn't say that, because you might be ignorant, but PLA and PLAAF were not so ignorant enough in this regard

…...


Now just compare what would be the detection and engagement range of any CM. Now add a speed of 2.8 Mach in that.

Do you understand what I am asking?

Can Brahmos fly 5 meters above the ground in mountain territory?

 

[Chinmoy]

You are kidding me, right?

2 minutes is like hell long time for any air-defence system. Generally, in the past, air-defence system only got 30 seconds for one attack. With 2 minutes, the land system can issue at least 4 time attacks. More importantly, this gives the defence missile a longer attacking window.






Here is the problem: if the air-defence can handle the maneuverability performed by supersonic CM in final sea-skimming stage, I don’t think it will be a problem for them to catch a missile in the middle of its flying route as these CM generally are less maneuverable in this stage.





No, in 1980s, both countries had successfully developed supersonic CM with reasonable accuracy. But none of them deployed these CM in the land frontier. Instead, the Russians further developed salvo tactics for these anti-ship CM, that tells you that they think these CM can be intercepted and the probability is quite high.







Do you understand what I am asking?

Can Brahmos fly 5 meters above the ground in mountain territory?

Let me sum up all of your queries with reference here.

2 mins transform into 120 seconds. After detecting a target by FCR, it doesn't immediately launch its counter attack. It does takes a minimum of 2 seconds to process and gather further information from TAR. Your reaction time frame gets down by 118 seconds here. Now the best counter weapon is something with Active Radar Homing. So the launch period of such a weapon consumes another second. Based on algorithm, for any fighter sized target cruising leisurely at 800 kmph , it would launch counter attack at a ratio of 1:2 to increase the kill probability. With any CM cruising at same altitude and same speed the ratio would go upto 1:4. For any supersonic CM at same altitude, the ratio lets say goes upto 1:6 at lower side. Now mind it, it all depends on the algorithm on how many missiles to be fired. So firing 6 missiles one after another further diminish the time frame by 6 seconds. So in all the time interval in between detection and counter measure deployment is 10 seconds and in the mean time the target already covers 10 km. Even at this moment the counter attacking missiles are dependent on RADAR for guidance. So now calculate for yourself the kill probability of any SAM for any supersonic CM even if it flies in a RADAR detection altitude.

Lets take the case of best SAM China does have now. HQ-9 is a SAM with Active Radar Homing and the best FCR it does have as of now is HT-233 which is based on Patriot missile FCR. Now HT-233 could target 6 targets at a time with 1:1 ratio or 3 targets at a 1:2 ratio. In case of BRAHMOS, it would turn out to be 1:6. It means at a time it could only target one missile. Its where the salvo mode of BRAHMOS kicks in.
Now if we consider a battery of HQ-9 on one side and a battery of BRAHMOS on other, the balance tilts all the way towards BRAHMOS. One battery of HQ-9 does have 32 missiles and a battery of BRAHMOS does contain 12 missiles. Even by going at an ratio of 1:4, the HQ-9 defence system battery gets overwhelmed by a single battery of BRAHMOS.

Not only Russians, but all major powers came to the conclusion that a slow flying CM is of no good. Thats why almost all of them have gone for Supersonic stage in its terminal phase. They have concluded that the only way to overwhelm or break into defence of enemy is through speed.

As for the last query, good news is that it has been tested with a slightly higher altitude then 5 mtrs. I would not divulge the exact altitude here, but its low enough for any CM. Another good news is that along with the flight test, Indians have done something which have irked Chinese intelligence and PLA along with PLAAF a lot and I am not talking about Doklam here. If you do follow news keenly, you might have got a hint of it not long ago.

 

[NeXoft007]

Let me sum up all of your queries with reference here.

2 mins transform into 120 seconds. After detecting a target by FCR, it doesn't immediately launch its counter attack. It does takes a minimum of 2 seconds to process and gather further information from TAR. Your reaction time frame gets down by 118 seconds here. Now the best counter weapon is something with Active Radar Homing. So the launch period of such a weapon consumes another second. Based on algorithm, for any fighter sized target cruising leisurely at 800 kmph , it would launch counter attack at a ratio of 1:2 to increase the kill probability. With any CM cruising at same altitude and same speed the ratio would go upto 1:4. For any supersonic CM at same altitude, the ratio lets say goes upto 1:6 at lower side. Now mind it, it all depends on the algorithm on how many missiles to be fired. So firing 6 missiles one after another further diminish the time frame by 6 seconds. So in all the time interval in between detection and counter measure deployment is 10 seconds and in the mean time the target already covers 10 km. Even at this moment the counter attacking missiles are dependent on RADAR for guidance. So now calculate for yourself the kill probability of any SAM for any supersonic CM even if it flies in a RADAR detection altitude.

Lets take the case of best SAM China does have now. HQ-9 is a SAM with Active Radar Homing and the best FCR it does have as of now is HT-233 which is based on Patriot missile FCR. Now HT-233 could target 6 targets at a time with 1:1 ratio or 3 targets at a 1:2 ratio. In case of BRAHMOS, it would turn out to be 1:6. It means at a time it could only target one missile. Its where the salvo mode of BRAHMOS kicks in.
Now if we consider a battery of HQ-9 on one side and a battery of BRAHMOS on other, the balance tilts all the way towards BRAHMOS. One battery of HQ-9 does have 32 missiles and a battery of BRAHMOS does contain 12 missiles. Even by going at an ratio of 1:4, the HQ-9 defence system battery gets overwhelmed by a single battery of BRAHMOS.

Not only Russians, but all major powers came to the conclusion that a slow flying CM is of no good. Thats why almost all of them have gone for Supersonic stage in its terminal phase. They have concluded that the only way to overwhelm or break into defence of enemy is through speed.

As for the last query, good news is that it has been tested with a slightly higher altitude then 5 mtrs. I would not divulge the exact altitude here, but its low enough for any CM. Another good news is that along with the flight test, Indians have done something which have irked Chinese intelligence and PLA along with PLAAF a lot and I am not talking about Doklam here. If you do follow news keenly, you might have got a hint of it not long ago.

I highly doubt the very low altitude performance of HQ-9 due to its sheer weight during engagement of a high supersonic cruise missile by using its pure solid fuel engine.
.
It won't even reach Mach 4.2 at very low altitude, and its heavy weight along with solid fuel engine will compromise its maneuverability at such altitude. Even its heavy warhead which have largest blast radius amongst other SAMs won't help, if I am right, it uses proximity fuse detination, by the time it detonates, Brahmos will already move away a 1000m away from its blast radius. It has a long reaction time and its vertically launched, it will easily take 1/3rd of a minute to reach the low altitude where Brahmos missile would be cruising.

 

[Chinmoy]

I highly doubt the very low altitude performance of HQ-9 due to its sheer weight during engagement of a high supersonic cruise missile by using its pure solid fuel engine.
.
It won't even reach Mach 4.2 at very low altitude, and its heavy weight along with solid fuel engine will compromise its maneuverability at such altitude. Even its heavy warhead which have largest blast radius amongst other SAMs won't help, if I am right, it uses proximity fuse detination, by the time it detonates, Brahmos will already move away a 1000m away from its blast radius. It has a long reaction time and its vertically launched, it will easily take 1/3rd of a minute to reach the low altitude where Brahmos missile would be cruising.

I have pitted Chinese best against BRAHMOS at a hypothetical scenario. Not only you have to consider the altitude, but consider the range too. But it is the best at this time which Chinese got and could bring out in Tibet.

 

[no smoking]

Let me sum up all of your queries with reference here.


2 mins …..

kicks in.

Now if we consider a battery of HQ-9 on one side and a battery of BRAHMOS on other, the balance tilts all the way towards BRAHMOS. One battery of HQ-9 does have 32 missiles and a battery of BRAHMOS does contain 12 missiles. Even by going at an ratio of 1:4, the HQ-9 defence system battery gets overwhelmed by a single battery of BRAHMOS.

Firstly, you don’t need to increase the ratio to shoot down CM. In the case of aircraft, the pilot will start HIGH G MANEUVERING to escape. The speed of ballistic missile is at least over 5 Mach, which is faster than most of air-defence missile. This is why air-defence need 2 missile to one target (aircraft or ballistic missile) guarantee the successful rate of killing. The supersonic CM, however, is inferior in both features: in the cruise stage, it doesn’t perform high g maneuvering, it is simply flying in a pre-determined route with pre-determined flying model. If it is flying “S” maneuvering, it will continue to fly “S” in the whole stage. It is only flying at 2.8 MACH which is slower than most of air-defence missile (ironically, Barak 8 is one of the few flying under that level), the air-defence computer can easily predict its flying route within seconds. So, 1:2 is enough for supersonic CM.


Secondly, we need 12 seconds between detection and missile launch, then 5 seconds interval for second missile, then 35 seconds for flying/intercepting, so basically each round of interception is 52 seconds, we take it as 1 minutes. Since the shooting window is 2 minutes, each battery can shoot twice and target 3 CM each time, if we take 90% rate that means 5.4 CM can be shoot down by this battery, ok let’s take 5, now you have 7 CMs get through. But, unlike the sea war, on the land, the defending side has the luxury of putting more layers for key area, so the chance of your CMs getting into second air-defence battery is very high, or they will probably face the air-air missile from patrolling fighter under the command of AEWC. So you will be lucky if you can get 6 of 12 missile to the final stage. But it is not over yet. You still have to handle dummy target, electronic jamming, etc.


Look, the reason that Russians camp up with Salvo tactics in anti-ship warfare was that they estimated the probability of American Aegis system successfully defending is very high. They estimated that they would need around 6 supersonic CMs with conventional warhead to sink one US Aircraft carrier, the salvo attack in their would involve 36 CMs in one wave.

Not only Russians, but all major powers came to the conclusion that a slow flying CM is of no good. Thats why almost all of them have gone for Supersonic stage in its terminal phase. They have concluded that the only way to overwhelm or break into defence of enemy is through speed.

Firstly, we are talking about the cruising stage here not the terminal phase. Actually all major powers came to the conclusion that supersonic speed in the cruising stage is not enough. That is why American, Russian and Chinese are all working on 2 directions: upgrade to hypersonic in cruising stage or improve the stealth further of sub-sonic CM.

Secondly, only speed won’t work, modern air-defence ship has no trouble to handle supersonic only missile. The real problem is: supersonic + sea-skimming + maneuvering.

As for the last query, good news is that it has been tested with a slightly higher altitude then 5 mtrs. I would not divulge the exact altitude here, but its low enough for any CM.

No, you didn’t answer my question: did this CM flying 5 meters high in mountain territory?

We all know that Russian supersonic cruise missile can fly 5-10 meters above the sea long long time ago.

Another good news is that along with the flight test, Indians have done something which have irked Chinese intelligence and PLA along with PLAAF a lot and I am not talking about Doklam here. If you do follow news keenly, you might have got a hint of it not long ago.

Firstly, no matter what it is, it doesn’t matter. Moder war is decided by comprehensive effect of a military system, there always is answer for any single weapon.

Secondly, whatever Indian can do about their weapon now, US and Russia have done long time ago. So, Chinese won’t be impressed, nor surprised.

 

[Flame Thrower]

@no smoking, what you said might be correct and @Chinmoy might be wrong or it could be entirely opposite.

But one thing is certain, Brahmos 4th regiment (with 100 missiles) is stationed on LAC border, specially to hit HVTs of PLA. Note: The decision had been taken in 2016, so every modern PLA air defense might had been taken into consideration.

During War time, almost every HVT will be under SAM's umbrella. I believe in IA, if they have planned it, then they've calculated the odds to the very minute detail. I also mean that our guys have found a way to punch right through PLA air defense.

Plus, Indian Armed forces have their way of doing the extra ordinary feats; achieve success with Weapons where they are not supposed to be used. Onyx (AShM) used on land targets; dumb bombs with battle field modifications to make them as PGMs; flying flankers over 300 hrs when Russia has mentioned not to fly the big birds more than 150hrs; we have Indian way of doing things.

In short, if IA has placed it's Brahmos regiment in LAC, then rest assured that it is to blow the shit out of PLA HVTs.

 

[Khagesh]

@no smoking

The Nirbhay's too are coming. And they are going to be much much cheaper too.

Does that affect your comfort zone?

 

[Chinmoy]

Firstly, you don’t need to increase the ratio to shoot down CM. In the case of aircraft, the pilot will start HIGH G MANEUVERING to escape. The speed of ballistic missile is at least over 5 Mach, which is faster than most of air-defence missile. This is why air-defence need 2 missile to one target (aircraft or ballistic missile) guarantee the successful rate of killing. The supersonic CM, however, is inferior in both features: in the cruise stage, it doesn’t perform high g maneuvering, it is simply flying in a pre-determined route with pre-determined flying model. If it is flying “S” maneuvering, it will continue to fly “S” in the whole stage. It is only flying at 2.8 MACH which is slower than most of air-defence missile (ironically, Barak 8 is one of the few flying under that level), the air-defence computer can easily predict its flying route within seconds. So, 1:2 is enough for supersonic CM.

Your first line just nailed it. Do you have the slightest of idea how air defence system works? Do you think the Mission computer of a air defence would interpret a target with 2 sq mtr RCS (e.g MKI) and a target with 0.01 sq mtr RCS (e.g F22) as same? Do you think the air defence would interpret a target flying with speed of 800 kmph and a target flying at 3000kmph in a same way?

If this is how you have interpreted the working of a Air defence system or Chinese have developed one, then...... (I am looking for the prayer icon. Mods please help)

And where you got the idea of straight flying in cruise phase and S pattern flight the whole way from? For gods shake, we are talking about advance technological missile here, not some drunkard losing his thought over a gallon of Baijiu. Let me quote you here

it is simply flying in a pre-determined route with pre-determined flying model.

What does this mean? It means that its flight path could be predetermined. No where it is said that it would have only one specific flight pattern. You seriously need to know how INS works.

Secondly, we need 12 seconds between detection and missile launch, then 5 seconds interval for second missile, then 35 seconds for flying/intercepting, so basically each round of interception is 52 seconds, we take it as 1 minutes. Since the shooting window is 2 minutes, each battery can shoot twice and target 3 CM each time, if we take 90% rate that means 5.4 CM can be shoot down by this battery, ok let’s take 5, now you have 7 CMs get through. But, unlike the sea war, on the land, the defending side has the luxury of putting more layers for key area, so the chance of your CMs getting into second air-defence battery is very high, or they will probably face the air-air missile from patrolling fighter under the command of AEWC. So you will be lucky if you can get 6 of 12 missile to the final stage. But it is not over yet. You still have to handle dummy target, electronic jamming, etc.

Sorry........... I over estimated air defence system when I said the response time to be 1 sec. Anyhow I was presenting a hypothetical scenario with the best possible outcome for Chinese air defence system. Please read on my next comment. For other comment in the para, refer the first para.

Look, the reason that Russians camp up with Salvo tactics in anti-ship warfare was that they estimated the probability of American Aegis system successfully defending is very high. They estimated that they would need around 6 supersonic CMs with conventional warhead to sink one US Aircraft carrier, the salvo attack in their would involve 36 CMs in one wave.

That is what I am saying from day one. As a stand alone weapon, it could be intercepted, but its main strength lies in its speed and salvo firing.

Firstly, we are talking about the cruising stage here not the terminal phase. Actually all major powers came to the conclusion that supersonic speed in the cruising stage is not enough. That is why American, Russian and Chinese are all working on 2 directions: upgrade to hypersonic in cruising stage or improve the stealth further of sub-sonic CM.

On second thought, please don't compare a missile which is designed to fly as low as Meter in altitude with a missile which has been designed to fly in highest of altitude (read Km).

Secondly, only speed won’t work, modern air-defence ship has no trouble to handle supersonic only missile. The real problem is: supersonic + sea-skimming + maneuvering.

Since you again mentioned sea warfare here, let me post some thing from Wiki (which we all hate, but readily visits at the drop of a hat)

the Royal Navy's Sea Ceptor surface-to-air missile is only capable of intercepting targets flying up to Mach 3

So you see, I've given one source for one such interceptor. But it missed out on something, it didn't mentioned whether its against one missile or a salvo attack.

No, you didn’t answer my question: did this CM flying 5 meters high in mountain territory?

We all know that Russian supersonic cruise missile can fly 5-10 meters above the sea long long time ago.

I am not at liberty to divulge the exact cruising altitude at which it has been tested, but for your curious mind, let me give you one minimum altitude of 1 Mtr and maximum altitude of 1 Km. The altitude which has been achieved in mountainous test is in between this.

Firstly, no matter what it is, it doesn’t matter. Moder war is decided by comprehensive effect of a military system, there always is answer for any single weapon.

Secondly, whatever Indian can do about their weapon now, US and Russia have done long time ago. So, Chinese won’t be impressed, nor surprised.

I never said BRAHMOS to be one supreme weapon. As someone famously quoted about it, "BRAHMOS is not invincible, just a bigger headache". Now it depends on how bigger the head is which would get ached.

By now everyone knows, weapons would not surprise China. All you need is some silly standoff on some border for them to throw fit. But again, lets not discuss it here.

 

[no smoking]

Your first line just nailed it. Do you have the slightest of idea how air defence system works? Do you think the Mission computer of a air defence would interpret a target with 2 sq mtr RCS (e.g MKI) and a target with 0.01 sq mtr RCS (e.g F22) as same? Do you think the air defence would interpret a target flying with speed of 800 kmph and a target flying at 3000kmph in a same way?

Well, I don’t think you understand the way that mission computer work. The computer capability is limited by the Radar and defence missile not the calculation capability of the computer itself. As long as the radar can target the object and the defence missile can outperform the object in maneuvering, the killing rate is guaranteed. Stealthy and super speed are only narrowing the shooting window for defence system not make it more difficult within the window. For example, if you radar can lock a MKI 120km away, for a F22, the range maybe only 20km, but as long as the F22 gets into this 20km, there is no way that plane can escape from the radar locking if it doesn’t fly with extremely maneuvering. So, within this 20km range, the defence system only need 2:1 to shoot down, increasing to 3:1 or even 6:1 won’t improve the killing rate.


In the case of Brahmos, firstly, it is not a stealthy design, its RCS is far bigger than any subsonic CM, defence radar has no problem to lock it from 100km; secondly, it is not flying quick enough and high enough like ballistic missile.

If this is how you have interpreted the working of a Air defence system or Chinese have developed one, then...... (I am looking for the prayer icon. Mods please help)


And where you got the idea of straight flying in cruise phase and S pattern flight the whole way from? For gods shake, we are talking about advance technological missile here, not some drunkard losing his thought over a gallon of Baijiu. Let me quote you here


What does this mean? It means that its flight path could be predetermined. No where it is said that it would have only one specific flight pattern. You seriously need to know how INS works.

No, my friend, it has nothing to do with INS or any other navigation, it is all about range, fuel and structure, material strength. No, my friend, every cruise missile, subsonic or supersonic, only flies a simple trajectory during its cruising stage. It doesn’t keep changing from one specific flight pattern to another. Even it does, unless every flying pattern only last no longer than 1 minute, this tactics is useless as the air defence computer can re-calculate the new trajectory in 15 seconds, and the defence missile has more enough fuel and maneuverability to re-target the cruise missile. The reason that US, Russia and China use sub-sonic cruise missile for land war is that during the cruising stage, subsonic CM flying under 50-100 meters height can use land form to block the detection and targeting of radar. Obviously, supersonic CM doesn’t have this capability until today.

That is what I am saying from day one. As a stand alone weapon, it could be intercepted, but its main strength lies in its speed and salvo firing.

As I pointed out from day one, during the cruising stage, flying 3 Mach at 10km high is not a big headache that modern defence system can’t handle.


Salvo firing is a problem, but in the land war, the air defence intensity is far greater than any aircraft carrier group can imagine. So, if you need 6 CMs to get 1 CM to penetrate the air defence in a sea war, for a high value land base target you may need 8:1 or even 12:1.

On second thought, please don't compare a missile which is designed to fly as low as Meter in altitude with a missile which has been designed to fly in highest of altitude (read Km).

The problem is: Brahmos has to fly over highest of altitude (read KM) since it doesn’t have terrain hugging capability. You are welcome to prove I am wrong.

I am not at liberty to divulge the exact cruising altitude at which it has been tested, but for your curious mind, let me give you one minimum altitude of 1 Mtr and maximum altitude of 1 Km. The altitude which has been achieved in mountainous test is in between this.

Look, this is a problem. A supersonic CM flying in high altitude or a supersonic CM flying in low altitude is completely different issue. If Brahmos is developed to have valley hugging capability, then it is a supreme weapon for modern air-defence. But it is a big question mask if the latest technology can make it possible for now. Since you can’t give evidence about it, let’s leave it out of the discussion.

I never said BRAHMOS to be one supreme weapon. As someone famously quoted about it, "BRAHMOS is not invincible, just a bigger headache". Now it depends on how bigger the head is which would get ached.

Well, as I pointed out before, Brahmos is a headache since India didn’t have any missile for land precision attack before. But if you take its cost, range and other features into consideration, this headache is more greater for India itself than its enemy.

 

[no smoking]

@no smoking

The Nirbhay's too are coming. And they are going to be much much cheaper too.

Does that affect your comfort zone?

That is what I have been talking about: in land war scenario, with today's technology, a long range, cheap, sub-sonic CM is more suitable than supersonic CM.
The problem is this does affect lot of Indian members'comfort zone.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

A well deigned network of ZU-23-4, OSA-AK, and others can bring down these sub-sonic CMs flying at low altitude ..

So, Why so much faith on these sub-sonic CMs, Only one thing they can do is long range ..

That is what I have been talking about: in land war scenario, with today's technology, a long range, cheap, sub-sonic CM is more suitable than supersonic CM.
The problem is this does affect lot of Indian members'comfort zone.

 

[armyofhind]

Brahmos has to fly over highest of altitude (read KM) since it doesn’t have terrain hugging capability

It's a cruise missile. I guess you understand what that means with respect to terrain following capability.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

The news is from 2006 ..

 

[Armand2REP]

That is what I have been talking about: in land war scenario, with today's technology, a long range, cheap, sub-sonic CM is more suitable than supersonic CM.
The problem is this does affect lot of Indian members'comfort zone.

Terrain hugging CMs can get closer to a target without being detected but once it is detected it is not so difficult to shoot it down. The higher profile cruise altitude of Brahmos will make initial detection easier but once it dives for final approach you don't have a prayer of catching it.

 

[no smoking]

@no smoking, what you said might be correct and @Chinmoy might be wrong or it could be entirely opposite.

......

In short, if IA has placed it's Brahmos regiment in LAC, then rest assured that it is to blow the shit out of PLA HVTs.

Sorry, I am not interested in discussing about your personal belief.