Astra BVRAAM

[Flame Thrower]

Has anyone thought to test it against a Brahmos?

BVR Missiles will not be used against cruise missiles, that to against Brahmos!!!

They will fail......


I want Aastra to be tested against retired Mig-21(controlled from ground) equipped with EW suite.

 

[Armand2REP]

BVR Missiles will not be used against cruise missiles, that to against Brahmos!!!

They will fail......

I want Aastra to be tested against retired Mig-21(controlled from ground) equipped with EW suite.

The concept is to make into a super-sonic target drone. You can programme it to simulate whatever you need.

 

[binayak95]

The concept is to make into a super-sonic target drone. You can programme it to simulate whatever you need.

Will be too expensive, no?

Perhaps we should just modify our target drones.

 

[Enquirer]

BVR Missiles will not be used against cruise missiles, that to against Brahmos!!!

They will fail......

That's too much of a blanket statement! Astra may not work against Brahmos, but what's the difference between a subsonic cruise missile & a Banshee/Lakshya drone against which Astra has been tested multiple times????

 

[Chinmoy]

That's too much of a blanket statement! Astra may not work against Brahmos, but what's the difference between a subsonic cruise missile & a Banshee/Lakshya drone against which Astra has been tested multiple times????

Banshee or Lakshya are more maneuverable then Brahmos. A highly maneuverable plane has higher success rate of evading an AAM or BVRAAM. Jammers and Flares can't provide a 100% survival.

 

[Flame Thrower]

That's too much of a blanket statement! Astra may not work against Brahmos, but what's the difference between a subsonic cruise missile & a Banshee/Lakshya drone against which Astra has been tested multiple times????

Cruise missiles follow terrain hugging path at tree top hights(some times it might go as low as 5 mts).

Forget hitting, getting a lock on from fighter aircraft is near impossible.

While the Banshee or Lakshya fly at altitudes and simulate enemy aircraft; Cruise Missiles don't.

I hope this explanation is enough.

 

[Flame Thrower]

The concept is to make into a super-sonic target drone. You can programme it to simulate whatever you need.

Using Cruise Missiles as target drones is stupidity.

The whole purpose of the target drones is to replicate enemy aircraft. Cruise Missiles don't suite the purpose.

 

[Chinmoy]

Cruise missiles follow terrain hugging path at tree top hights(some times it might go as low as 5 mts).

Forget hitting, getting a lock on from fighter aircraft is near impossible.

While the Banshee or Lakshya fly at altitudes and simulate enemy aircraft; Cruise Missiles don't.

I hope this explanation is enough.

Well Lakshya too has been tested at a tree top flying altitude.

https://www.drdo.gov.in/drdo/English/dpi/press_release/lakshya_pilotless.pdf

 

[Flame Thrower]

Well Lakshya too has been tested at a tree top flying altitude.

https://www.drdo.gov.in/drdo/English/dpi/press_release/lakshya_pilotless.pdf

Well I meant during the Aastra test, Lakshya was flown to simulate enemy aircraft. If you notice the terminology, Lakshya is called as pilotless aircraft.

I didn't meant Lakshya couldn't fly at tree top. Honestly I didn't knew Laksya could do that. Flying a tree top requires special avionics.

Now I am thinking of converting Lakshya into a suicide drone like Harpy. Who knows the wartime purpose of Lakshya!!??

 

[Chinmoy]

Well I meant during the Aastra test, Lakshya was flown to simulate enemy aircraft. If you notice the terminology, Lakshya is called as pilotless aircraft.

I didn't meant Lakshya couldn't fly at tree top. Honestly I didn't knew Laksya could do that. Flying a tree top requires special avionics.

Now I am thinking of converting Lakshya into a suicide drone like Harpy. Who knows the wartime purpose of Lakshya!!??

Novel thinking........... This could be easily done provided you put a more powerful engine and avionics in it. Who knows, may be same day Hafiz Saeed could blow up in mid of a public rally by some unknown flying bird.

 

[Enquirer]

Cruise missiles follow terrain hugging path at tree top hights(some times it might go as low as 5 mts).

Forget hitting, getting a lock on from fighter aircraft is near impossible.

While the Banshee or Lakshya fly at altitudes and simulate enemy aircraft; Cruise Missiles don't.

I hope this explanation is enough.

That's a lot of exaggeration and over generalization!
No cruise missile flies at 5 meters above land - even sea skimming missiles (where the 'floor' is known to be absolutely flat) fly at around 10 meters only in the terminal phase - not in the cruise phase! Even if some section of earth is know to be super flat for 100s of kms (doesn't exist), flying at even tree top altitude will severely impair range!
For sure Pakistan has no cruise missiles that will fly even tree top all its course - neither does China!!

The most prevalent LACMs use waypoints for navigation - no distinctive terrain feature can be uniquely discerned from 5 meters! Also seekers can lock onto moving objects against a clutter of static objects!

Fighter borne AAM can shoot down subsonic cruise missiles!!!

 

[Enquirer]

Banshee or Lakshya are more maneuverable then Brahmos. A highly maneuverable plane has higher success rate of evading an AAM or BVRAAM. Jammers and Flares can't provide a 100% survival.

I had asked a rhetorical question to prove a different point! You took it literally and went on a tangent!

 

[Flame Thrower]

That's a lot of exaggeration and over generalization!
No cruise missile flies at 5 meters above land - even sea skimming missiles (where the 'floor' is known to be absolutely flat) fly at around 10 meters only in the terminal phase - not in the cruise phase! Even if some section of earth is know to be super flat for 100s of kms (doesn't exist), flying at even tree top altitude will severely impair range!
For sure Pakistan has no cruise missiles that will fly even tree top all its course - neither does China!!

The most prevalent LACMs use waypoints for navigation - no distinctive terrain feature can be uniquely discerned from 5 meters! Also seekers can lock onto moving objects against a clutter of static objects!

Fighter borne AAM can shoot down subsonic cruise missiles!!!

Then why wasn't it attempted!!!

There was a recent cruise missile attack, why didn't Russian fighters intercept!!??

Cruise missiles are to enter the threat zone, they descend.....Cruise missiles are left to air defenses, coming to saturation of air defenses with multiple cruise missiles, IADS is employed. Enemy will run out of cruise missiles before they could destroy all the enemy targets

 

[Enquirer]

Then why wasn't it attempted!!!

There was a recent cruise missile attack, why didn't Russian fighters intercept!!??

Cruise missiles are to enter the threat zone, they descend.....Cruise missiles are left to air defenses, coming to saturation of air defenses with multiple cruise missiles, IADS is employed. Enemy will run out of cruise missiles before they could destroy all the enemy targets

If something wasn't done in one instance, it doesn't mean it cannot be done!
If I didn't eat pizza yesterday (even when I was hungry) it doesn't mean I cannot eat pizza!!
Russia in general did not do anything to intercept US/UK/France missile attack on Syria (thanks to Trump telegraphing the imminent missile attack, Russia secured all it's assets!). The decision was purely political!
Trump used Russia's no-counter as an excuse to not impose any economic sanctions on Russia (despite his own administration recommending to do so).

Biggest challenge of most cruise missiles is early detection - even when they're flying 500 m above the ground. Unless AWACS or high-altitude-Aerostats are deployed, they cannot be detected early enough to scramble jets to intercept! As such, the responsibility falls on SAMs - as and when they get detected few 10s of seconds before they fly over SAM sites.
Deducing an AAM's seeker non-capability to lock onto a subsonic cruise missile is pure hokum!

Btw....there're a ton of Hollywood movie scenes where a tomahawk missile (launched by rogue elements) was chased by fighter jets and destroyed!

I see a lot of the 'frog in the well' comments on these forums. Fanboys not fully aware of all the aspects making overreaching pronouncements - that are neither supported by facts or science!!

 

[Flame Thrower]

If something wasn't done in one instance, it doesn't mean it cannot be done!
If I didn't eat pizza yesterday (even when I was hungry) it doesn't mean I cannot eat pizza!!
Russia in general did not do anything to intercept US/UK/France missile attack on Syria (thanks to Trump telegraphing the imminent missile attack, Russia secured all it's assets!). The decision was purely political!
Trump used Russia's no-counter as an excuse to not impose any economic sanctions on Russia (despite his own administration recommending to do so).

Biggest challenge of most cruise missiles is early detection - even when they're flying 500 m above the ground. Unless AWACS or high-altitude-Aerostats are deployed, they cannot be detected early enough to scramble jets to intercept! As such, the responsibility falls on SAMs - as and when they get detected few 10s of seconds before they fly over SAM sites.
Deducing an AAM's seeker non-capability to lock onto a subsonic cruise missile is pure hokum!

Btw....there're a ton of Hollywood movie scenes where a tomahawk missile (launched by rogue elements) was chased by fighter jets and destroyed!

I see a lot of the 'frog in the well' comments on these forums. Fanboys not fully aware of all the aspects making overreaching pronouncements - that are neither supported by facts or science!!

Good...... Unfortunately real life is no movie.

You need lots of reading......

By the way, what's your qualification to call others as frog in the well!!??

 

[HariPrasad-1]

Cruise missiles follow terrain hugging path at tree top hights(some times it might go as low as 5 mts).

Forget hitting, getting a lock on from fighter aircraft is near impossible.

While the Banshee or Lakshya fly at altitudes and simulate enemy aircraft; Cruise Missiles don't.

I hope this explanation is enough.

Only sea skiming missiles travel at 5 m height. Others travel at much higher altitude

 

[Enquirer]

Good...... Unfortunately real life is no movie.

You need lots of reading......

By the way, what's your qualification to call others as frog in the well!!??

So from your 'infinite' reading show me a place that says an AAM cannot lock onto a cruise missile!!
If cannot you know for yourself that you're indeed a 'frog in a well'!!

The movie reference is only to give YOU a visual aid! Because you probably think planes shoot down other planes all the time (probably from your video games). Go check how many planes have been shot down by an AAM in the last 30 years!

 

[Enquirer]

Only sea skiming missiles travel at 5 m height. Others travel at much higher altitude

...and that too only in the terminal phase. Some folks like @Flame Thrower read one tidbit of info somewhere and generalize it to the entire universe!!

 

[Flame Thrower]

So from your 'infinite' reading show me a place that says an AAM cannot lock onto a cruise missile!!
If cannot you know for yourself that you're indeed a 'frog in a well'!!

The movie reference is only to give YOU a visual aid! Because you probably think planes shoot down other planes all the time (probably from your video games). Go check how many planes have been shot down by an AAM in the last 30 years!

For the last fucking time........

I didn't said that AAM can't lock on cruise missile, I said AAM can't lock on cruise missile at tree top height. There is a difference, understand it.

Let me explain how cruise missiles are used and buddy this is gonna be the last fucking time!!!!

The example is US tomahawks on Douma in Home province. Tomahawk has max range over 1000 miles. They fly at altitude for somes distance in "PREDETERMINED PATH TO AVOID EARLY DETECTION" they descend to lower altitude at "PREDESIGNATED LOCATION" that is determined by US based on Intel available on SAMs.

To attack enemy missiels you need assets in the air to detect them. Let's say Russia has it's AEWACS in the area i.e. Homs to detect incoming cruise missiles. US would guide cruise missiles to go for early descend of follow different route. Ideally High value assets like AEWACs are used for some other reasons and definitely not for cruise missile detection. Because cruise missiles can avoid them altogether (using a different route) or go for early descend.

You do know that cruise missiles desent at terminal phase, but it is not 5 or 10 km before the target. The aim of the cruise missile is to avoid enemy detection.

You still need lots of reading, go through cruise missile documentaries, you might learn something.

 

[Enquirer]

For the last fucking time........

I didn't said that AAM can't lock on cruise missile, I said AAM can't lock on cruise missile at tree top height. There is a difference, understand it.

Let me explain how cruise missiles are used and buddy this is gonna be the last fucking time!!!!

The example is US tomahawks on Douma in Home province. Tomahawk has max range over 1000 miles. They fly at altitude for somes distance in "PREDETERMINED PATH TO AVOID EARLY DETECTION" they descend to lower altitude at "PREDESIGNATED LOCATION" that is determined by US based on Intel available on SAMs.

To attack enemy missiels you need assets in the air to detect them. Let's say Russia has it's AEWACS in the area i.e. Homs to detect incoming cruise missiles. US would guide cruise missiles to go for early descend of follow different route. Ideally High value assets like AEWACs are used for some other reasons and definitely not for cruise missile detection. Because cruise missiles can avoid them altogether (using a different route) or go for early descend.

You do know that cruise missiles desent at terminal phase, but it is not 5 or 10 km before the target. The aim of the cruise missile is to avoid enemy detection.

You still need lots of reading, go through cruise missile documentaries, you might learn something.

I prefer the forum to exchange interesting ideas and exchange latest developments in the field. It’s such a drain on my time and energy to argue with morons.

If your ignorance makes u happy then dwell in that muck!!

AWACS are not used for cruise missile detection!??! LOL!!!
When fighter jets fly ‘nap of the earth’ AWACS will detect them, but will let go of cruise missiles?? Why? Because they didn’t buy the upgrade package?? ))))