Akash Surface-to-air Missile

Discussion in 'Defence & Strategic Issues' started by LETHALFORCE, Mar 24, 2009.

  1. cyclops

    cyclops Regular Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2016
    Messages:
    901
    Likes Received:
    3,090
    Reject BrahMos?
    Russians use Onyx, their base version which is indeed supersonic.

    As for ballistic missiles in mountain ranges, if anything else was better than BrahMos for mountainous warfare we would have used it already especially ballistic missiles, which we have no dearth of.
    BrahMos seems to be far more accurate and less susceptible to certain kinds of SAMs.
     
  2. no smoking

    no smoking Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2009
    Messages:
    3,869
    Likes Received:
    662

    The max speed of Onyx is 2.5M comparing to 2.8M or 3M of Brahmos, it certainly tells you that speed is not everything.



    I don’t want to argue why Indians choose Brahmos because that will be a long discussion.

    Let’s put this way:


    For Brahmos, it can carry a 250kg warhead hit a target within 1.5m at speed of 2.8M-3M. Other countries’ short range ballistic missile can carry a 800-1000kg warhead hit a target within 15m at 5M-7M. Which one do you think is a better choice especially when the cost of such ballistic missile is only 1/3 or even 1/4 of Brahmos.
     
  3. cyclops

    cyclops Regular Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2016
    Messages:
    901
    Likes Received:
    3,090
    Speed is indeed very important, which is why almost every mature military is going for hypersonic cruise missiles, also speed of bith BrahMos and Onyx varies according to altitude, payload and other factors.

    Considering both Onyx and Brahmos use the same 3D55 engine and basically weigh the same, their speeds are the same.

    Besides, you are nitpicking at this point, even if it was true that somehow we were magically able to increase the speed of BrahMos with the same engine as Onyx when Russians can't do the same; Onyx still goes over mach 2.5 which is still supersonic to an insane degree.

    Depends on the target and the progression of the conflict.

    If the target is small well entrenched PLA bunker behind a mountain range,valley, gorge, etc, or a convoy, in the beginning stages of a conflict IA would require precise and limited engagement without worrying about escalation, then yes BrahMos is perfect.

    Just so you know people don't start off with ballistic missiles, there will be a lot of testing the waters and if we are able to accurately and regularly punish the invaders, that might be enough to deter them. Which is where BrahMos comes in.

    IA is an experienced war fighting force, they know what's right for them, I would give them the benefit of the doubt, if they specifically chose to induct BrahMos.
     
    Pinky Chaudhary likes this.
  4. no smoking

    no smoking Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2009
    Messages:
    3,869
    Likes Received:
    662
    The reason that everyone is working on hypersonic CM is simply because 2.5-3M can't guarantee its breakthrough of air defense. Even modern short-range defense missiles have a fairly better chance to take out the supersonic CM in terminal stage comparing to past.

    It is not magic, but simply the customer option: which part you want better while which part you can tolerate a weaker peformance.

    Modern short range ballistic missile has no problem to perform a pulling up and 90 degree diving in the terminal stage. And what is the difference between 24 incoming Brahmos and 3 short range TACTIC ballistic missiles?

    I assume India's Brahmos regimes are also under the command of army headquarter as same as other countries' short range tactic missile group. When these weapons are shoot out, the war is already escalated to an army level, not water testing.

    And short range ballistic missiles are quite normal battlefield supporting weapon, when your division artillery groups can't get the job down, they will come to the stage.

    Well, of course, people can only choose the best weapon among the available options.
     
  5. cyclops

    cyclops Regular Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2016
    Messages:
    901
    Likes Received:
    3,090
    Really? When has that happened?
    I'd like to know when an SRSAM intercepted a cruise missile like Brahmos that can fly extremely low, maneuvers in its terminal phase and that can travel over Mach 2.5……?

    BrahMos unlike SRBMs dosen't just offer speed, it offer maneuvarability, throttlable speed, accuracy, stealth etc.

    So the Russians would "tolerate" a slow flying Onyx because it is a "customer option" yet for some reason they still want to develop a hypersonic missile which is faster than Onyx?

    It seems like you're making this stuff up as you go along.

    Again, which one and when has it happened?

    You are conflatting two very different issues.
    Brahmos has its uses elsewhere, i.e Brahmos can fly lower and more stealthily and is far more accurate against a target that is say trying its best to sneak in.

    Whereas if India is using SRBMs it is more than likely that it is against a whole tank battalion or something similar.

    These ROEs are not set in stone but yes, this is generally how they are used.

    Again, it depends.
    Other smaller countries don't have the capacity to escalate like India or china can.
    Or have as many or as advanced weapons.
    Or have a complicated geography to manuever where one might not get to use a large force but may be able to use a small unit.
    You suppose Houthis attacking the Saudis is in anyway parellel to what might happen in an IA vs PLA scenario?

    "Testing of waters" could happen in any point in the conflict, maybe after a heavy firefight there will be a lull, and PLA would try to take advantage of the situation to sneak in a surface missile TEL, BrahMos can be used there, or IA sneaking in a BrahMos TEL from within a gorge to attack a PLA unit,kr something similar.

    No one is saying that SRBMs won't be used but if you're implying that BrahMos is gonna do a ballistic missiles job, then you are wrong.

    It is not about price or if one missile is more lethal than the other.
    Because situations in a conflict are not all linear and require different approaches.


    Exactly, which is why IA chose to induct BrahMos even when we have no dearth of SRBMs, i.e. because BrahMos was the best choice.
     
  6. HariPrasad-1

    HariPrasad-1 Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2016
    Messages:
    4,740
    Likes Received:
    5,999
    Location:
    Gujarat
    This is a gross generalization. We are not using Brahmas to hit normal surface target but we are planning to hit the target hidden behind mountain or a target which need to be discriminated and hit and, some target like bunkers which need a very precision strike etc. One more use is to use it as a sand off weapon to be used from the planes like MKIs. I do not think that our military planners has any plan to hit and normal surface target with Brahmos. We need to hit some target with great precision with specific maneuvers and angles. Ordinary missiles can not do this job that is why Brahmos.
     
  7. no smoking

    no smoking Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2009
    Messages:
    3,869
    Likes Received:
    662
    You got three things wrong:
    1. The precondition of any kind of missile attack is that your surveillance system can find the target. If the target can be seen from the space by satellite or drone, there is no problem for the ballistic missile to hit it, remember that they can dive 90 degree too;
    2. Today's low-cost SRBMs can hit the target within the CEP of 30m simply with inertial navigation system, by some other navigation systems (higher cost of course), they can be improved to as small as 5m, so they can cause the same level of damage as Brahmos;
    3. The real advantage brought by Brahmos is the flexibility: you can monitor the flight route to avoid the strong point of air-defense network. This advantage, however, can be offered by cheaper sub-sonic cruise missile, such as USA's tomahawk, Russia's Iskander-M.
     
  8. HariPrasad-1

    HariPrasad-1 Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2016
    Messages:
    4,740
    Likes Received:
    5,999
    Location:
    Gujarat
    Do you know that Brahmos was tested for some target identification from a group of target nearby each other? Even if the targets are identified by Ballastic missiles, they lack the accuracy to hit the target with precision. e.g you can not hit a bunker with ballistic missile. Ballistic misses travel generally in Ballistic trajectory so if you want to hit an target behind mountain, they will overshoot and target shall not be visible to the missile. any bunker having its opening horizontally can not be hit by Ballisticmissile. That is why cruise missiles are used and has the utility else why would any cruise missile shall be needed.

    Iskandaer is a cruise missile? Why don't you check your facts?
     
  9. HariPrasad-1

    HariPrasad-1 Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2016
    Messages:
    4,740
    Likes Received:
    5,999
    Location:
    Gujarat
    To some extent, shaped trajectory missile like Shourya can replace Brahmos from some of its role (Yes, Not all). That is why India is developing Pralay which can have some cruise flight in its terminal phase after ballistic flight may be like Iskander which can be used in theater level conflict.
     
    Last edited: Jul 2, 2018
  10. no smoking

    no smoking Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2009
    Messages:
    3,869
    Likes Received:
    662

    We are talking about attacking the target in mountain area, right? Please tell me how does Brahmos fly EXTREMLY LOW in mountains with 2.5M speed.





    Because currently most of medium range surface to air missile can fly over 3 Mach, moving towards 4 Mach, so the speed of 2.5 or 3 Mach doesn’t make big difference.


    You can have 2 solutions:

    1, under the current technology, lowering the speed, improving manoeuvring and range;

    2. Or developing new technology to regain the speed advantage by pushing the speed over 5 mach;




    Since American Pershing 2 deployed in Europe.



    Again, we are talking about war in mountain area.



    That is interesting, I am not sure about this. But, let’s talk about it later.



    I am not sure if you understand that you will need big expensive system (from surviliance to navigation) in place to make the cruise missile work.



    Don’t be fooled by movies, the preparation time of cruise missiles is longer than punching figures. And in most of case, Brahmos’s range is shorter than it showed in test (you won’t want ti to fly in straight line during cruise stage).



    No, I simply pointed out other countries are using SRBM to do your Brahmos job.



    Well, the problem is how much more lethal Brahmos could be comparing to other countries’ SRBM considering the price of Brahmos is at least 2 to 3 times more expensive.
     
  11. no smoking

    no smoking Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2009
    Messages:
    3,869
    Likes Received:
    662
    I will be surprised if Brahmos can't.

    1. I suggest you to learn the trajectory of Pershing 2 missile, find out how it was designed to attack those soviet H/O bunker hiding under the mountain;
    2. With the CEP of as low as 5m and specific designed deep-penetration warhead, they can be bunker baster;
    3. The bunkers which can resist those bunker baster from top generally have the gate strong enough to resist cruise missile.

    Iskander has 2 type missile simultaneously : one is Iskander-M, a ballistic missile; another is Iskander-K (R-500), a cruise missile.

    http://www.military-today.com/missiles/iskander_k.htm
     
  12. HariPrasad-1

    HariPrasad-1 Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2016
    Messages:
    4,740
    Likes Received:
    5,999
    Location:
    Gujarat
    So as per your logic, Indian army must be fool who spends so much on a missile which is costly and carry only 1/3rd payload compared to Ballistic missile. an you please explain why Indian army buys Brahmos block III in such a large number?
     
  13. HariPrasad-1

    HariPrasad-1 Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2016
    Messages:
    4,740
    Likes Received:
    5,999
    Location:
    Gujarat
    Your Imaginations have no limit. Pershing Was always designed with Nuclear warhead with variable yield to target Russian hard bunkers. We are talking here about normal bunkers used by armies to store tactical warheads and weapons with non nuclear warhead.
     
    Pinky Chaudhary likes this.
  14. no smoking

    no smoking Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2009
    Messages:
    3,869
    Likes Received:
    662
    Well, if you have no problem to use expensive Brahmos to attack these bunkers, I don't see why other countries can't use ballistic missile with conventional warhead to do the same thing. They have large quantity and cheaper price.
     
  15. no smoking

    no smoking Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2009
    Messages:
    3,869
    Likes Received:
    662
    That is your logic, not mine. I simply pointed out what kind of weapon other countries choose for the job and why they choose it. Those military men make their decisions based on the weapons available, not the most fantasy weapons.
     
  16. HariPrasad-1

    HariPrasad-1 Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2016
    Messages:
    4,740
    Likes Received:
    5,999
    Location:
    Gujarat
    So Does Indian army has Supersonic cruise missile available for their requirement and not the ballistic missiles which is a many decade old technology? Do you mean to say?
     
  17. no smoking

    no smoking Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2009
    Messages:
    3,869
    Likes Received:
    662
    Firstly, what you mean the ballistic missiles which is a many decade old technology? Or you suggest that because someone else had it many decades ago, so it should be a piece of cake today? Jet engine is many decades ago technology, you are still struggling to install one in a modern plane; American SLBM Trident D5 was designed on almost 30 years old technologies, there is still no other countries can show sth match that;

    Secondly, no matter how many years old the technology is, you won't have it unless you either develop it, or get from someone else.
     
  18. cyclops

    cyclops Regular Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2016
    Messages:
    901
    Likes Received:
    3,090

    Strawman argument.

    I was asking you to verify your claim of a modern SRSAM knocking out a cruise missile like BrahMos, not if Brahmos can or cannot fly extremely low in hilly areas and mountain ranges which I never claimed, you are putting words in my mouth.

    Since you brought up SAMs, I asked you to give an example of BrahMos like supersonic cruise missile being intercepted by a SAM
    SAM(which you didn't), the mountain warfare part came latter in the comment.

    Eitherway, I'll answer your querry even though you went off on a tangent and cherry picked my comment without answering the question I posed.

    It depends on the area, which aren't all densely mountainous or hilly and are sporadically laced with valleys and the like, alongside the hills and mountains.
    Also cruise missiles don't necessarily have to fly over them, they can just go around them, that's the whole point of cruise missiles.
    And again, even if cruise missiles do fly just high enough which again won't be as high as say SRBMs, the Indo-China border is so geographically non linear and full off obstacles that radars need to be placed in all sorts of places just to guarantee tracking BrahMos, forget detection and engagement.
    And the path that BrahMos will eventually take depends on the intelligence available at that time and the SOPs provided by the HQ.





    You are literally condradicting yourself in your very same riposte.

    Somehow mach 2.5 isn't fast enough to defend against SAMs but being subsonic is?

    A 450km Brahmos was recently tested and all BrahMos will be upgraded to this format and an 800-900km ranged BrahMos is the eventual goal.
    And what gave you the impression of BrahMos not being manueverable enough?
    The 3D-55 ramjet engine onboard the BrahMos has a fully movable nozzle(tvc) that enables it to be more manueverable. I think 3D-55 is the first ramjet engine for missiles developed by Russia to have a regulated nozzle.

    Phrases like "verticle steep dive" and "manuevering trajectory" that DRDO officials use to describe BrahMos after subsequent tests itself should have told you that BrahMos is manueverable.


    Again, not the same.
    P2 has a CEP of some 30m against BrahMos' 0-5m.

    The bunkers you are talking about are large command and control Soviet bunkers possibly spanning 100s of metres(BrahMos would hunt the smaller, sometimes makeshift bunkers that houses troops or vehicles and cannot be accurately targeted by IRBMs) for which intelligence was readily available and was unmovable unlike BrahMos' targets will be, even though it was precise enough (for a ballistic missile) it would cause damage through its earth penetrating warhead over the large bunker or on some other military target, i.e. continuous missile strikes on a large static target.

    So like I said you are conflacting 2 very different issues.
    BMs in a battlefield scenario will be used for far different purposes than supersonic cruise missiles, and no, other countries are not using BMs as a substitute for BrahMos, which is why we have SRBM, IRBM and tac BMs but still insist on using BrahMos.



    You don't need surveillance or navigation systems for ballistic missiles?

    Though price is ceasing to be an issue, you keep mentioning price as if it being some arbitrary factor that will definitely hinder us.
    And since you are seeing something we aren't, why don't you precisely tell us how exactly costly it will be?

    Just so you know a Pershing 2 would cost you some $19 million a pop. That is almost 5 TIMES that of BrahMos.

    Price of Pershing-2.
    https://m.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2017-08/fight-fire-fire#footnotes

    Price of BrahMos.
    https://www.indiatoday.in/india/sto...ile-conducted-successfully-1238407-2018-05-21



    Who told you that?
    Preparation of a BrahMos would be far easier than say of a hulking balistic missile. The BM TELs will be able to carry only one maybe two such BMs per vehicle as compared to a BrahMos mobile autonomous launcher unit which can carry 3 lighter, far easily transportable BrahMos missiles.

    Brahmos land attack system apart from the missile launching unit just requires only 1 mobile command post that can control upto 3-5 BrahMos TELs, i.e. around 15 BrahMos.
    The BrahMos can also be fired within 4 minutes.
    All of this effectively guarantees better shoot and scoot ability than a ballistic missile.

    As for range, I already explained about the 450km ranged BrahMos which was tested right after India gained entry into the MTCR.
    What is suspicious is that the extended range was achieved with only changes in software, which more or less proves that BrahMos was always capable of traveling around 450kms.



    You are confusing yourself, you say that SRBMs can do BrahMos' job and I said SRBMs have their own place and hence BrahMos won't do an SRBM's job.

    Also, no they are not.
    Other countries don't have to traverse a complicated terrain or face a competent adversary hence they use a less complicated and/or competent system and consequently some of them using the said systems is causing them to get intercepted by the droves.

    Also, as I explained before INDIA HAS SRBMs, yet we chose to use BrahMos, that should have been enough to quell your queries about SRBMs being better than BrahMos in our scenario. Ergo your point about choices and "available options" is moot.


    You keep going into the same tangent over and over again.
    Price is hardly a factor in lethality.
    As I explained, Brahmos is more precise, more stealthy and more manueverable than an SRBM so yes for its specific purpose and mission, it is indeed more lethal than an SRBM.
     
    Pinky Chaudhary likes this.
  19. darshan978

    darshan978 Regular Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2017
    Messages:
    412
    Likes Received:
    562
    mod plz ban this chinki for derailing every thread on this forum!!
     
  20. Kshithij

    Kshithij DharmaYoddha Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2017
    Messages:
    2,235
    Likes Received:
    1,887
    Busting bunkers need precision. Even a blast which is 10 metres away from the bunker will have minimal effect on the bunker. Also, Brahmos is difficult to intercept. It ia not impossible but very difficult

    There ia no difference between ballistic or Brahmos missile. If the enemy is weak, they are dead and if the enemy can retaliate, they will. The escalation level of firing a missile to a mortar is radically different. Brahmos or ballistic missile will both mean full scale escalation
    Ballistic missiles don't have accuracy to the single digit metre. Ballistic missiles don't have seekers and the trajectory is Ballistic trajectory without additional fuel to do maneuvering. The bunker busting role requires great accuracy. Even 10m or 35feet inaccuracy can ruin the mission.

    The other cruise missiles also have accuracy if the same seeker as Brahmos is used. Their maneuverability is also higher than Brahmos. But they are easily intercepted. Brahmos is too fast and if the reaction time of SAM is 5 seconds, Brahmos would already have travelled 5km by then. So, places where detection range is small, the interception of faster missile.becomes much harder.

    The speed of 0.7Mach or 800kmph of slow cruise missile is as slow as boeing 747 plane. Brahmos is not uninterceptable. It is just more difficult to intercept. The speed of SAM being 2-3 Mach is secondary as if the radar can guide the SAM to the position the incoming missile will be im the future, even a 1Mach SAM can intercept incoming missile. SAMs rarely chase incoming cruise missiles but hit from the front.
     

Share This Page