BrahMos Cruise Missile

[death.by.chocolate]

I made the claim RAM does not intercept beyond MACH 2.5 it is ineffective, I provided the link above , if you are saying you know another system which can intercept at MACH 2.8 post the link.

http://navybuddies.com/launcher/ram.htm

Where does it explicitly state ineffective intercepts beyond MACH 2.5? What according to you prevents an intercept over MACH 2.5?

 

[LETHALFORCE]

Thanks for the article DBC , I don't want to nitpick again but the article talks nothing about interception of these missiles but Coyote was designed to mimic these missiles;to hopefully have a system in the future??

The rocket-boosted, ramjet-powered GQM-163A was developed to simulate supersonic cruise missiles like the SS-N-22 Sunburn, Kh-31 (aka. AS-17 Krypton, which also has an anti-air AWACS-killer version), the Indo-Russian PJ-10 Brahmos, et. al., which are proliferating throughout the world.

 

[death.by.chocolate]

Thanks for the article DBC , I don't want to nitpick again but the article talks nothing about interception of these missiles but another missile was made to mimic these missiles to hopefully have a system in the future?? The rocket-boosted, ramjet-powered GQM-163A was developed to simulate supersonic cruise missiles like the SS-N-22 Sunburn, Kh-31 (aka. AS-17 Krypton, which also has an anti-air AWACS-killer version), the Indo-Russian PJ-10 Brahmos, et. al., which are proliferating throughout the world.

Right, if you decide to engage a US Navy carrier group with Brahmos missiles you will likely need a saturation attack to succeed. Read up on the evolved sea sparrow, it is capable of speeds of up to Mach 4 it is not only capable of head on intercept it can also chase down a maneuverable sea skimming Brahmos. The key to successful intercept is early detection, a sea or land launch will likely be detected due to the trailing plume which increases the RCS substantially. Assuming CAP the launcher will immediately be targeted to prevent subsequent waves while the carrier group acts to neutralize the missiles.

The first likely course of action is seduction by LRCS or distraction by ECCM:

The LRCR is a long range tactical confusion rocket used as a first line of defense against missile attack/ The rocket creates a ship-size decoy target at a range of 14 kilometers from the ship. The decoys create a large "protected zone" around the ship that deceives state-of-the-art search radars while the ship is still below radar horizon.

http://www.rafael.co.il/marketing/SIP_STORAGE/FILES/3/963.pdf

LRCS is quite capable of seducing the relatively rudimentary sensors that can be housed recessed in the nose cone of the Brahmos. The nose cone of the missile is similar to the air intake of the MIG 21 and SR-71 designed primarily to accommodate sustained supersonic flight. For those of you who wish to learn more study the design considerations for the MIG-21 and reasons why the MIG-21 is incapable of hosting a decent long range radar.

 

[LETHALFORCE]

Thanks for the info, the scenario you gave above is highly unnlikely to happen, the reason I am interested in this topic is because of the Chinese claims to have converted a ballistic missile into a carrier killer.

 

[Daredevil]

Clearly you and many here are misinformed, there are several layers of defense against a supersonic anti-ship cruise missile.
Google ESSM (Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile), in the product brochure the makers Raytheon claim it is capable of intercepting the Brahmos (turn to page 2). Not to mention SM-2 or LRCR.

http://www.raytheon.com/capabilitie...cuments/content/rtn_rms_ps_essm_datasheet.pdf

Wrong, supersonic cruise missiles have routinely been intercepted by several means in tests conducted by the US Navy, LM, Raytheon and Boeing.

Lady, don't go by the shiny brochures. All the tests conducted to prove the capability of an interceptor are done in a controlled manner and therefore such tests are not bound to fail. But in real life situation things are 180 degrees different from tests. A good example being Patriot system's (developed by Raytheon itself) failure in intercepting scud missiles during Gulf war. Here is what a professor of MIT has testified before the congress. An excerpt.

Today I would like to describe the results of recent technical studies I have performed using unclassified videotapes of Patriots attempting to intercept Scud warheads. The results of these studies are disturbing. They suggest that Patriot's intercept rate during the Gulf War was very low. The evidence from these preliminary studies indicate that Patriot's intercept rate could be much lower than 10 percent, possibly even zero.

http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/congress/1992_h/h920407p.htm

Also, if Raytheon declares that they are capable of intercepting Brahmos, they should have tested it against Brahmos like cruise missiles which are low flying, sea-skimming missiles but as far as I remember US doesn't have any supersonic cruise missiles in its inventory.

 

[death.by.chocolate]

Lady, don't go by the shiny brochures. All the tests conducted to prove the capability of an interceptor are done in a controlled manner and therefore such tests are not bound to fail. But in real life situation things are 180 degrees different from tests. A good example being Patriot system's (developed by Raytheon itself) failure in intercepting scud missiles during Gulf war. Here is what a professor of MIT has testified before the congress.

Apples and oranges Daredevil, the Patriot was at the time emerging technology and yet its success rate was not nearly as terrible as you suggest. If you'd like to discuss the Patriot I'd be more than happy to oblige in a separate thread.

As for 'shiny brochures' and claims made by Raytheon. The theory is sound; ESSM has been tested in simulated real world conditions against maneuverable supersonic sea skimming targets and the world at large is more likely to trust the capabilities of Raytheon over Brahmos Aerospace.

Also, if Raytheon declares that they are capable of intercepting Brahmos, they should have tested it against Brahmos like cruise missiles which are low flying, sea-skimming missiles but as far as I remember US doesn't have any supersonic cruise missiles in its inventory.

The ESSM claim of success is based on extensive testing against MQM-8 Vandal, Boeing/Zvezda-Strela MA-31 and GQM-163A Coyote employed as non-recoverable target vehicle. The Boeing/Zvezda-Strela is especially interesting since it is based on the the Russian AS-17 Krypton a member of the Yakhont/Brahmos family purchased from the Russians in the mid 90's.

 

[SATISH]

Well DBC...The Bhramos will be used with the saturation attack. Around 4 missiles will be fired. Bhramos AI also has LOAL capability. So even if the target is destroyed the other Bhramos will home into the nearest target. So It can be intercepted as the US has been working to counter the Sunburn and the Onyx for a long time. The US can also soft kill the weapon but the ECCM in the Bhramos is also not that bad. And remember one thing...we arent going to bomb Diego Garcia in the near future and there is nothing close to the capability of of ESSM or even Barak in this region. In this region the Bhramos reigns supreme.

 

[SATISH]

And the LRCS might work in case of radar assisted detonation. If detonation by impact is the criteria then the LRCS is one big chaff that is thrown at the missile. If the Bhramos dosent impact it will lock on to the nearest target available.

 

[SATISH]

Yes I thouroughly understand the design principle of MiG 21. It cant house a radar because it constitutes the air inlet through the nose cone. But the size of the nose is big enough to house a large enough radar to track a ship atleast 50 kms away. You dont need an OTH radar for ship sized target and the INS and GPS are part of the guidance systems. And the major problems that Bhramos faces are the low range and high cost. None of the systems on the Type 052C destroyer or the type 054A frigate have anything close to intercept this missile. If the USN CBG fights with India then we will have hypersonic Bhramos. The best our enemies could field is a vintage OHP class frigate that dosent even have the SM2 or the MK 13 launcher.

 

[Armand2REP]

If the USN CBG fights with India then we will have hypersonic Bhramos.

By the time you get hypersonic Brahmos the US will be fielding point defence lasers on their ships.

 

[SATISH]

By the time you get hypersonic Brahmos the US will be fielding point defence lasers on their ships.

Yes they will.....and I aint denying that.

 

[Armand2REP]

Yes they will.....and I aint denying that.

And what I'm saying is that inception date is so far off, OHPs will be long gone. China will eventually come up with something better to sell. If Pakistan is so threatened they will buy anything they can get, maybe US lasers.

 

[SATISH]

Armand. Pakistan is yet to get it's first OHP here. And how the hell will IMF let them buy it? And will the US government give it for free? The Chinese cannot field something as good as the Aegis anytime soon or atleast the MF-Star. The navies capable of intercepting the Bhramos have good relations with India.

 

[Armand2REP]

Armand. Pakistan is yet to get it's first OHP here. And how the hell will IMF let them buy it? And will the US government give it for free? The Chinese cannot field something as good as the Aegis anytime soon or atleast the MF-Star. The navies capable of intercepting the Bhramos have good relations with India.

Just because Brahmos is supersonic doesn't mean it is unbeatable. With two Thales Goalkeeper and Crotale copies on a Zulfiqar FFG doesn't mean you will necessarily kill it with one shot. Throw a chaff cloud in the air and it makes things even more problematic. The Chinese have stealth frigates so it is hard to say even if you find those in time. It all comes down to who has the best C4ISR. This really plays to submarine strengths.

 

[SATISH]

Armand.. you still dont get it... How the hell will the seeker in the stinger detect a Bhramos?...the probablity of hit is very low. Yes it can be defeated. But not as easily when 4 or 5 Bhramos are fired at a single ship. And Bhramos detonates after impact. Any ship is detectable at the range of 50 kilometres. That is when the Bhramos radar kicks in.

 

[death.by.chocolate]

Armand.. you still dont get it... How the hell will the seeker in the stinger detect a Bhramos?

Quite easily, modern heat seeking missiles are no longer just rear aspect. In addition, the titanium skin of a sea skimming
supersonic Brahmos will be extremely hot. It may take several shots but I believe it is possible for a heat seeking stinger missile to effect a head on interception.
The Sea Scorpion 2 that launches stinger missiles is able to receive targeting information from external sources (Radar).

 

[death.by.chocolate]

Yes I thouroughly understand the design principle of MiG 21. It cant house a radar because it constitutes the air inlet through the nose cone. But the size of the nose is big enough to house a large enough radar to track a ship atleast 50 kms away. You dont need an OTH radar for ship sized target and the INS and GPS are part of the guidance systems. And the major problems that Bhramos faces are the low range and high cost. None of the systems on the Type 052C destroyer or the type 054A frigate have anything close to intercept this missile. If the USN CBG fights with India then we will have hypersonic Bhramos. The best our enemies could field is a vintage OHP class frigate that dosent even have the SM2 or the MK 13 launcher.

The problem isn't tracking, the problem is resistance to jamming and ECCM.

 

[SATISH]

Quite easily, modern heat seeking missiles are no longer just rear aspect. In addition, the titanium skin of a sea skimming
supersonic Brahmos will be extremely hot. It may take several shots but I believe it is possible for a heat seeking stinger missile to effect a head on interception.
The Sea Scorpion 2 that launches stinger missiles is able to receive targeting information from external sources (Radar).

Yes it can. But wouldnt 1 out of 4 get inside all the stingers because the speed of the Bhramos is Mach 2.8 and it does a zig zag trajectory before hitting the target. And the range of the stinger is 5 kms and it takes only 1.2 seconds for Bhramos to reach the target. Being a sea skimming missile the Bhramos is hard to track with the stinger's seeker and by the time it is locked on atleast 1 out of the 4 Bhramos fired would have entered the ship hull.

 

[SATISH]

The problem isn't tracking, the problem is resistance to jamming and ECCM.

Yes and the bhramos has a robust jamming and ECCM suite in it. It might not be comparable to something in a Harpoon block II but it is robust enough for the threats in the region.

 

[death.by.chocolate]

Yes it can. But wouldnt 1 out of 4 get inside all the stingers because the speed of the Bhramos is Mach 2.8 and it does a zig zag trajectory before hitting the target. And the range of the stinger is 5 kms and it takes only 1.2 seconds for Bhramos to reach the target. Being a sea skimming missile the Bhramos is hard to track with the stinger's seeker and by the time it is locked on atleast 1 out of the 4 Bhramos fired would have entered the ship hull.

Stingers launched from the sea scorpion 2 are close-in-weapons systems(CIWS). If these defenses are activated it likely means that the Brahmos has successfully evaded more effective counter measures. At this stage the crew is firing in desperation, one in many stingers may effect a head on collision. As for the MK-13 and SM-2 that Pakistan may receive in the future, the legacy Mk-13 launcher is only able to launch one SM-2 every ten seconds and this slow rate does not offer the best protection to the OHP against several incoming missiles.