BrahMos Cruise Missile

gb009

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2009
Messages
117
Likes
4
According to the Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) Aerial Target and Decoy Systems programme office (PMA-208) the organization responsible for the USN's inventory of aerial targets the GQM-163A Coyote is capable of airspeeds of Mach 2.0-3.0 while the AQM-37 is capable of Mach 3.0 to 4.0.
This is not what I am disputing. Has a test been done at this speed? India has Agni III with range of 3500 km, does not mean the BMD India is developing (PAD,AAD) can intercept a missile with such a range. By your logic since India has brahmos (which flies at 2.8 mach) India would also have systems to intercept it (without the need to actually test a successful interception). Only a test will prove such claims true or false.
 
Last edited:

death.by.chocolate

Professional
Joined
Aug 1, 2009
Messages
300
Likes
98
Country flag
This is not what I am disputing. Has a test been done at this speed? India has Agni III with range of 3500 km, does not mean the BMD India is developing (PAD,AAD) can intercept a missile with such a range. By your logic since India has brahmos (which flies at 2.8 mach) India would also have systems to intercept it (without the need to actually test a successful interception). Only a test will prove such claims true or false.
SM-2 and ESSM has been extensively tested against a variety of targets including the Coyote which is programed to mimic a supersonic ASCM like Brahmos in real world conditions.
Has an ESSM ever intercepted a Brahmos - no? Has the Brahmos ever sunk a manned battleship - no? Has the Brahmos been tested against a maneuvering target? Has it been tested against the Barak or similar SAM or ship defense - No? So how can you be sure the Brahmos is an effective ASCM?

Why is it so hard to believe that a highly maneuverable tail-controlled ESSM missile capable of speeds of up to Mach 4
,inertial midcourse, command midcourse or home-all-the-way guidance data linked to to receive conventional continuous
wave illumination or interrupted continuous wave targeting is capable of intercepting the Brahmos?
 

nandu

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2009
Messages
1,913
Likes
163
Airborne BrahMos Launcher Prototype Finished



India's BrahMos Aerospace Thiruvananthapuram Ltd (BATL) is ready with the first prototype of an indigenous airborne launcher developed for the BrahMos supersonic cruise missile.

The air-launched version of the missile will be fitted to the Su-30 MKI aircraft.

BATL Executive Director N.R. Vishnu Kartha tells AVIATION WEEK, "This is the first time a mobile launcher for [the] BrahMos missile is being manufactured. We are ready with the first prototype."

The basic design of the launcher was conceived by BrahMos engineers from Hyderabad and accepted by the Sukhoi Design Bureau. The main body of the launcher is made from high-strength aluminum. All the materials, processes and tests involved in making the launcher need to undergo stringent quality checks by the Director General of Aeronautical Quality Assurance at various stages.

The launcher must undergo one more final test before it is fitted onto the Su-30 MKI for flight trials. BATL has an initial order of 6.4 crore ($1.4 million) to deliver a total of five such launchers. "The launcher's final test will be done at Hyderabad, which is the missile integration center. The launcher is a testimony to BATL's technical know-how in delivering such complex equipment," Vishnu Kartha says.

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gene...=Airborne BrahMos Launcher Prototype Finished
 
Joined
Feb 16, 2009
Messages
29,966
Likes
48,916
Country flag
Raytheon makes ESSM and Patriot missile system so the credibility issue is there, they said patriot missile was 90% effective when in reality it was between 0-5% effective; the results are probably similar with ESSM. Why would anyone believe Raytheon's claims??

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/feb2003/cbc-f07.shtml

http://www.stonerforums.com/lounge/...orld/4610-raytheon-9-acquitted-charges-2.html

http://www.workforce.com/section/00/article/24/38/36.html

http://www.stonehamindependent.com/archives/1998/02/25/2

http://www.nevillehobson.com/2006/05/04/plagiarism-costs-raytheon-ceo-dearly/

http://www.redstate.com/erick/2010/01/27/barack-obama-lied/
big lobby by Obama by Raytheon

http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2009/08/13/raytheon_reviews_bribery_compliance/

http://www.allbusiness.com/specialty-businesses/585417-1.html

Raytheon has a long history of tall claims about their weapons,bribing government officials and winning deals and weapons not working like they claimed.

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread217245/pg2

Chinese/Iranian anti-ship missiles defeat Phalanx CIWS!!!!


From a sailor's claim of Sea Sparrow:

Phalanx has its problems I'll admit, but these anti-ship missiles are far from superweapons. I've seen Phalanx shoot several times and the best example of its capability I've seen was actually a screw-up. In 1985 the Forrestal was testing its Phalanx and Sea Sparrow systems. On the Port Quarter of the Forrestal there was a Phalanx unit sitting on a platform above the Sea Sparrow mount. The Phalanx had already smoked the F-102 drone that was it's target and the Sea Sparrow was getting ready to shoot four missiles at it's drone. When the drone came into range the Sea Sparrow missile left its launcher went out about 200 yards and exploded. The next missile did the same and so did the third. What had happened was that the Phalanx was left on and WAS SHOOTING DOWN THE SEA SPARROWS like it was a skeet shoot. I never trusted the Sea Sparrow system for other reasons, but I had confidence in the Phalanx
 
Last edited:

gb009

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2009
Messages
117
Likes
4
SM-2 and ESSM has been extensively tested against a variety of targets including the Coyote which is programed to mimic a supersonic ASCM like Brahmos in real world conditions.
But have they been successfully intercepted at such speed (atleast mach 2.8) is the question. Provide source if so.

Has an ESSM ever intercepted a Brahmos - no? Has the Brahmos ever sunk a manned battleship - no? Has the Brahmos been tested against a maneuvering target? Has it been tested against the Barak or similar SAM or ship defense - No? So how can you be sure the Brahmos is an effecoutive ASCM?
Has an ESSM ever intercepted a Brahmos - no? Agreed. But can it be tested to see if it will intercept a cruise missile at atleast 2.8 machs - yes. Then why has it not been done?
Has the Brahmos ever sunk a manned battleship - no? Because you can't sink a manned battleship just to test if such a thing is possible.
Has it been tested against the Barak or similar SAM or ship defense - No? Well thats for makers of Barak to test. Because if the Barak intercepts a Brahmos then all that would be needed is to fire another Brahmos. But if the Barak misses the brahmos, its bye-bye target ship. So its more important to prove that Brahmos can be intercepted, than the other way round.
So how can you be sure the Brahmos is an effecoutive ASCM? I never said its an effective ASCM.

Why is it so hard to believe that a highly maneuverable tail-controlled ESSM missile capable of speeds of up to Mach 4
,inertial midcourse, command midcourse or home-all-the-way guidance data linked to to receive conventional continuous
wave illumination or interrupted continuous wave targeting is capable of intercepting the Brahmos?
Ok I will belive what you are saying, but that still does not change the situation. Since it has not been done, if a brahmos is flying towards your ship you won't know if your defence system will actually intercept it. I don't understand why you think testing something is not required before claiming so. Everything in this world from a simple bolt to the F-22 is tested for the desired parameters. I suppose Russia should just build the PAK-FA do no testing and just believe its superior all other fighters and it will be so.
 

death.by.chocolate

Professional
Joined
Aug 1, 2009
Messages
300
Likes
98
Country flag
Raytheon makes ESSM and Patriot missile system so the credibility issue is there, they said patriot missile was 90% effective when in reality it was between 0-5% effective; the results are probably similar with ESSM. Why would anyone believe Raytheon's claims??
This is perhaps your third attempt to bring the Patriot into a discussion about anti-ship cruise missile defense. The design considerations for ballistic missile defense are more complex due to the sheer velocity of a descending warhead known to peak at Mach 25 upon reentering the Earth's atmosphere.

That said you are attempting to cast aspersions on Raytheon based on the controversial history of the Patriot. That's akin to saying the entire line of commercially sold Mercedes vehicles is unreliable just because the `A` class failed the elk test on a model they introduced a decade ago.

Let's do everyone a favor stop talking about the Patriot, the morality and ethics of the players involved - stay on topic with anti ship missile defense against Brahmos.

The ESSM is in use by the United States, Australia, Canada, Germany, Turkey, Greece, Japan, Denmark, Netherlands, Norway, New Zealand, Spain and United Arab Emirates. These nations are part of the NSPO consortium, each member nation have posted data collected from several rounds of Combat System Ship Qualification Trials (CSSQT) including one test on a Mach 5 target vehicle the test video and the results of these trials by member nations is available to registered users.

http://www.natoseasparrow.org/art/ESSMvideo/ESSM-SDTS.wmv

Your line of reasoning is baffling you are implying Raytheon and eleven other nations lack credibility while Brahmos Aerospace a small fry in the international arena is more credible? How many Brahmos have been sold to international customers? Has the Brahmos ever been tested against any defense? All I've seen so far are strikes against undefended target like walls and mothballed unmanned navy ships. Both these tests employed a corner reflector to assist in target acquisition.

In 1985 ....... the Sea Sparrow missile left its launcher went out about 200 yards and exploded. The next missile did the same and so did the third. What had happened was that the Phalanx was left on and WAS SHOOTING DOWN THE SEA SPARROWS like it was a skeet shoot. I never trusted the Sea Sparrow system for other reasons, but I had confidence in the Phalanx
There is no question on the effectiveness of this system, you will have to do better than attribute a comment made by an anonymous sailor about a system that was in use 25 years ago in 1985, the ESSM has changed a lot in the last 25 years and hence it is now known as the 'Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile'.

Finally, at 800 kUSD per ESSM fleet defense can easily afford to fire several ESSM's against each Brahmos to improve the odds of neutralizing the threat.
 
Last edited:

Armand2REP

CHINI EXPERT
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2009
Messages
13,811
Likes
6,734
Country flag
There is no need to bring up the Patriot record of GW1. It was its first field trial against ballistic missiles, it really wasn't ready for them at that time. SRBM is a completely different beast than a Mach 2+ sea-skimmer. What is needed is a high mounted track/search radar that can discriminate against sea clutter. The rest is just a matter of getting it from point A to point B. A missile going that fast isn't going to be making any radical manoeuvres that an agile SAM can't handle.
 
Joined
Feb 16, 2009
Messages
29,966
Likes
48,916
Country flag
I am still waiting for the non coroprate link and the supersonic cruise missiles Vietnam and Indonesia had in the early 90's? I have given a few links to back my claims and you have given nothing to back any of your claims.The patriot system is an example of raytheon's track record. This system is probably 25-50% effective IMO against missiles flying MACH 2 or better especially at 27 nautical mile range. The reason being BVR's have better seekers and the best BVR'S have 50% success rate.There is a very logical reason why I doubt Raytheon's claims,Sea sparrow was in service in 2004 Coyote was developed around 2006 or later so what was tested against the sea sparrow ?? Against cruise missiles that can change trajectories it would have 0-5% success rate , adding a 1000 systems will not change this, even a salvo of silkworms,sunburn or Onyx would overwhelm the system. This is not the only system in the ships defenses so there is no need to worry . If BVR's with the best seekers have a 50% success rate what would make this missile have better????
 
Last edited:
Joined
Feb 16, 2009
Messages
29,966
Likes
48,916
Country flag
http://longcrisis.com/3m-54e-sizzler-missile-aircraft-carrier-killer.php

3M-54E Sizzler Missile Aircraft Carrier Killer?

March 25th, 2010

I first wrote in 2007 on the Article Discovery blog of the 3M-54E Sizzler missile's potential as an aircraft carrier destroying weapon. The article generated a lot of comment to the effect that US Navy ships have superior defensive weapon capabilities, such as the Phalanx CIWS and Aegis currently found aboard many Western-built naval vessels, and that the missile poses little threat to the United States Navy. After recently researching the Sizzler missile's supersonic and evasive action features I am not so sure that the comments generated by the article are based upon fact.

The 3M54E reaches its target in a most challenging manner. At 20 km from the target, the 3M54E's supersonic solid rocket-powered third-stage terminal 'dart' separates from the missile, descends to 3 to 5 metres above sea level and accelerates to a supersonic speed of Mach 2.9 in a zigzagging terminal run to hit its target. On the one hand this tremendous speed helps in the penetration of the enemy ship's air defenses, but on the other hand, due to the high velocity the missile becomes aerodynamically heated, giving it a relatively high infrared signature.

A universal FCS is used to plan the flight mission, upload this to the missile, and conduct pre-launch preparations. Both versions use a common shore-based system for planned inspection and maintenance of the missiles. Since the different types of missile are compatible with a common shipboard system, the user can load the vessel with whatever mix of weapons is best suited to the planned mission.

An un-named official with the Novotar Design Bureau, when describing the 3M54E variant, said "The Alfa combines aspects of the U.S. Harpoon and French Exocet besides the U.S. Tomahawk. This configuration offers speed, better fuel economy and a greater accuracy rate than the current Western missiles. Once launched from ship, submarine or aircraft, the 1.5 ton missile cruises at subsonic speed 4.5 meters above the sea to evade radar."

Both the 3M54E1 and 3M54E are small weapons which are difficult to detect on radar, especially should even basic radar signature reduction techniques be applied to them. The use of a bandpass radome and minimal absorbent coatings could push the weapon's head on radar cross section down to that of a large grapefruit.

The official adds, "At around 40 miles to its approach to the target, the forward section of the missile separates and ignites a solid booster, which rockets the missile to a supersonic speed of Mach 2.9. The purpose of this is to defeat current anti-missile systems with the Alfa missile's sheer speed. By the time the missile is within enemy radar range, it is already doing Mach 2.9. Within seconds it will be upon its target, even before existing anti-missile systems can fire their engines.

Its ability to attack land targets is enhanced by a new homing and guidance system that put it in the Tomahawk league." The Klub presents new challenges to Western defenses like Phalanx CIWS and Aegis currently found aboard many Western-built naval vessels.

One truly frightening development about the Sizzler missile has occurred since I first wrote about it in 2007. Almost certainly, an air launched version of the missile has been developed which can be launched by the Russian federation TU- 142 Bear bomber and other heavy bomber type aircraft. The TU-142 is the fastest, highest flying (45,000 feet) turboprop bomber in the world. The Bear bomber has a tremendous range of over 6500 nautical miles and can remain airborne for up to 18 hours without refueling.

While the Bear bomber is too slow to effectively penetrate a US aircraft carrier battle group's air defenses the 300 km range of the Sizzler missile makes it a formidable offensive weapons system. The Bear bomber could release the Sizzler while still 300 kilometers from the aircraft carrier or other target. With a terminal speed of Mach 2.9 during its final approach to the target the Sizzler's sheer speed would likely overcome the aircraft carrier's defense systems and deliver its 400 kilo explosive warhead on target.

To further complicate the aircraft carrier's defensive challenge it is highly likely that in any unfortunate conflict between US and Russian forces several Bear bombers would simultaneously attack the aircraft carrier battle group from at least slightly different directions. Should such an coordinated attack take place it is highly likely that at least one or two missiles would strike their target with devastating results.

Russia is not the only nation currently armed with Sizzler missiles, or a domestically developed missile with similar capabilities. China, most certainly has the missile and has likely brought them to bear on Taiwan and the Taiwan Straits. In addition, India has a number of the missiles already deployed on frigates and is reportedly acquiring from Russia aircraft capable of launching the Sizzler.


A major question is whether Iran has or is about to deploy the Sizzler missile. Iran is a major client of Russia, for example Russia is building a nuclear power facility for the Iranians, and has reportedly agreed to supply them with anti-aircraft weapons. Just a few Sizzler missiles positioned near the Straits of Hormuz, could control and seal off that vital waterway through which approximately 40% of the world's seaborne oil shipments are transported.

Another major question is whether the concept of the aircraft carrier group has become a dead duck in light of technological advances in weapons systems. It seems to me that relying upon a multi-billion-dollar weapons platform, like a nuclear powered modern aircraft carrier and its supporting ships, that can be taken out with a Sizzler missile costing perhaps a few hundred thousand dollars, is a poor trade-off and a bad bet.

Yet another trend that argues against the huge expenditures necessary to support an aircraft carrier battle group is the fact that future wars are more than likely to be low intensity counter insurgency efforts, such as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, rather than high intensity battles between conventional forces. It really isn't possible to defeat highly motivated insurgent forces fighting within their own nation by using multi-million and multi-billion dollar weapons systems to destroy an insurgent or two who may be armed with less than $1000 in weapons between them.

The nation or nations using hugely expensive weapons systems fighting a war far from home will go bankrupt and financially destroy themselves long before they can destroy a sufficient number of local insurgent forces. The fact is that the more insurgents killed by the occupying forces the more insurgents created as the local populations soon resent and hate the occupying forces.

So coming back to the central theme of this article, is the 3M-54E Sizzler Missile an aircraft carrier killer? Judging from what we know about the missile's capabilities it certainly seems possible as the Navy still has not developed adequate defenses against it. Let's hope that we Americans don't have to find out the hard way should a serious conflict develop. Should hostilities break out in the Taiwan Strait, or we stage an attack upon Iran, we may soon put our aircraft carrier battle group's defenses to the ultimate test. The destruction of even one aircraft carrier by a Sizzler missile or similar offensive weapon would bring the age of aircraft carrier superiority to a tragic end.
 
Last edited:

nrj

Ambassador
Joined
Nov 16, 2009
Messages
9,658
Likes
3,911
Country flag
Brahmos flying at 2.8+ MACH speed employing excessive evasive maneuvers at its terminal phase is not interceptable by any known techniques.
Hollow Marketing of US defense companies have nothing to credit their claims. No known tests record. Others things do not validate the interceptability of precise missile like Brahmos.
 
Joined
Feb 16, 2009
Messages
29,966
Likes
48,916
Country flag
Navy Lacks Plan to Defend Against `Carrier-Destroying' Missile

http://forums.military.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/8801914822/m/5670059811001

by: Tony Capaccio
Fri Mar 23, 12:18 AM ET



March 23 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. Navy, after nearly six years of warnings from Pentagon testers, still lacks a plan for defending aircraft carriers against a supersonic Russian-built missile, according to current and former officials and Defense Department documents.

The missile, known in the West as the ``Sizzler,'' has been deployed by China and may be purchased by Iran. Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England has given the Navy until April 29 to explain how it will counter the missile, according to a Pentagon budget document.

The Defense Department's weapons-testing office judges the threat so serious that its director, Charles McQueary, warned the Pentagon's chief weapons-buyer in a memo that he would move to stall production of multibillion-dollar ship and missile programs until the issue was addressed.

``This is a carrier-destroying weapon,'' said Orville Hanson, who evaluated weapons systems for 38 years with the Navy. ``That's its purpose.''

``Take out the carriers'' and China ``can walk into Taiwan,'' he said. China bought the missiles in 2002 along with eight diesel submarines designed to fire it, according to Office of Naval Intelligence spokesman Robert Althage.

A Pentagon official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Russia also offered the missile to Iran, although there's no evidence a sale has gone through. In Iranian hands, the Sizzler could challenge the ability of the U.S. Navy to keep open the Strait of Hormuz, through which an estimated 25 percent of the world's oil traffic flows.

Fast and Low-Flying

``This is a very low-flying, fast missile,'' said retired Rear Admiral Eric McVadon, a former U.S. naval attache in Beijing. ``It won't be visible until it's quite close. By the time you detect it to the time it hits you is very short. You'd want to know your capabilities to handle this sort of missile.''

The Navy's ship-borne Aegis system, deployed on cruisers and destroyers starting in the early 1980s, is designed to protect aircraft-carrier battle groups from missile attacks. But current and former officials say the Navy has no assurance Aegis, built by Lockheed Martin Corp., is capable of detecting, tracking and intercepting the Sizzler.

``This was an issue when I walked in the door in 2001,'' Thomas Christie, the Defense Department's top weapons-testing official from mid-2001 to early 2005, said in an interview.

`A Major Issue'

``The Navy recognized this was a major issue, and over the years, I had continued promises they were going to fully fund development and production'' of missiles that could replicate the Sizzler to help develop a defense against it, Christie said. ``They haven't.''

The effect is that in a conflict, the U.S. ``would send a billion-dollar platform loaded with equipment and crew into harm's way without some sort of confidence that we could defeat what is apparently a threat very near on the horizon,'' Christie said.

The Navy considered developing a program to test against the Sizzler ``but has no plans in the immediate future to initiate such a developmental effort,'' Naval Air Systems Command spokesman Rob Koon said in an e-mail.

Lieutenant Bashon Mann, a Navy spokesman, said the service is aware of the Sizzler's capabilities and is ``researching suitable alternatives'' to defend against it. ``U.S. naval warships have a layered defense capability that can defend against various missile threats,'' Mann said.

Raising Concerns

McQueary, head of the Pentagon's testing office, raised his concerns about the absence of Navy test plans for the missile in a Sept. 8, 2006, memo to Ken Krieg, undersecretary of defense for acquisition. He also voiced concerns to Deputy Secretary England.

In the memo, McQuery said that unless the Sizzler threat was addressed, his office wouldn't approve test plans necessary for production to begin on several other projects, including Northrop Grumman Corp.'s new $35.8 billion CVN-21 aircraft-carrier project; the $36.5 billion DDG-1000 destroyer project being developed by Northrop and General Dynamics Corp.; and two Raytheon Corp. projects, the $6 billion Standard Missile-6 and $1.1 billion Ship Self Defense System.

Charts prepared by the Navy for a February 2005 briefing for defense contractors said the Sizzler, which is also called the SS-N-27B, starts out flying at subsonic speeds. Within 10 nautical miles of its target, a rocket-propelled warhead separates and accelerates to three times the speed of sound, flying no more than 10 meters (33 feet) above sea level.

Final Approach

On final approach, the missile ``has the potential to perform very high defensive maneuvers,'' including sharp-angled dodges, the Office of Naval Intelligence said in a manual on worldwide maritime threats.

The Sizzler is ``unique,'' the Defense Science Board, an independent agency within the Pentagon that provides assessments of major defense issues, said in an October 2005 report. Most anti-ship cruise missiles fly below the speed of sound and on a straight path, making them easier to track and target.

McQueary, in a March 16 e-mailed statement, said that ``to the best of our knowledge,'' the Navy hasn't started a test program or responded to the board's recommendations. ``The Navy may be reluctant to invest in development of a new target, given their other bills,'' he said.

`Aggressively Marketing'

The Sizzler's Russian maker, state-run Novator Design Bureau in Yekaterinburg, is ``aggressively marketing'' the weapon at international arms shows, said Steve Zaloga, a missile analyst with the Teal Group, a Fairfax, Virginia-based defense research organization. Among other venues, the missile was pitched at last month's IDEX 2007, the Middle East's largest weapons exposition, he said.

Zaloga provided a page from Novator's sales brochure depicting the missile.

Alexander Uzhanov, a spokesman for the Moscow-based Russian arms-export agency Rosoboronexport, which oversees Novator, declined to comment.

McVadon, who has written about the Chinese navy, called the Sizzler ``right now the most pertinent and pressing threat the U.S. faces in the case of a Taiwan conflict.'' Jane's, the London-based defense information group, reported in 2005 in its publication ``Missiles and Rockets'' that Russia had offered the missile to Iran as part of a sale in the 1990s of three Kilo- class submarines.

That report was confirmed by the Pentagon official who requested anonymity. The Office of Naval Intelligence suggested the same thing in a 2004 report, highlighting in its assessment of maritime threats Iran's possible acquisition of additional Russian diesel submarines ``with advanced anti-ship cruise missiles.''

The Defense Science Board, in its 2005 report, recommended that the Navy ``immediately implement'' a plan to produce a surrogate Sizzler that could be used for testing.

``Time is of the essence here,'' the board said


Danger Room What's Next in National Security
U.S. Can't Stop Chinese Missile; No Tests 'Til 2014

Read More http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2008/04/us-cant-stop-ch/#ixzz0nr7NtHV7

The U.S. Navy can't stop China's most sophisticated anti-ship missile — and won't even start testing a defense until 2014.

"Most anti-ship cruise missiles fly below the speed of sound and on a straight path, making them easier to track and target," notes Bloomberg News' Tony Capaccio. Not China's so-called "Sizzler" missile, already aboard eight Kilo-class submarines.

The Sizzler starts at subsonic speeds. Within 10 nautical miles of its target, a rocket-propelled warhead separates and accelerates to three times the speed of sound, flying no more than 10 meters (33 feet) above sea level. On final approach, the missile 'has the potential to perform very high defensive maneuvers,' including sharp-angled dodges, the Office of Naval Intelligence said in a manual on worldwide maritime threats.

The Navy doesn't have a test target that can mimic how the Sizzler flies. They haven't even "picked a contractor to develop the test target," Capaccio notes. Industry proposals for building the target missile were received in February and a contract valued at about
$107 million will be awarded by Oct. 1 for a 54-month development phase and first fielding by 2014."

Admiral Timothy Keating, who heads the U.S. Pacific Command, told the House Armed Services Committee last month that "we are currently not as capable of defending against that missile as I would like."

(Illustration: Air Power Australia)

Read More http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2008/04/us-cant-stop-ch/#ixzz0nr7f5M24
 
Last edited:
Joined
Feb 16, 2009
Messages
29,966
Likes
48,916
Country flag
http://www.upiasia.com/Security/2008/12/23/indias_powerful_brahmos_anti-ship_missile/2050/

India's powerful BrahMos anti-ship missile


Toronto, ON, Canada, — China and Pakistan should pay attention to India's newest anti-ship missile, the BrahMos. It is an anti-ship missile with a 660-pound warhead. It has a highly sophisticated ramjet engine, which speeds a three-ton missile to its target at Mach-3 speed.

In its initial flight trajectory it hugs the sea, making it impossible for jet fighters, anti-missile systems and rapid firing guns to stop it. In its terminal phase, it rises up to the sky and then drops on its prey like a giant harpoon. The missile's high speed causes extensive damage to a ship on impact and the 660 pounds of explosives it carries cause the rest of the damage.

It can also be described as a sea-denial missile – denying an enemy access to the sea it defends.


The missile, originally called the Yakhont, was designed by the Soviets to kill U.S. aircraft carriers 200 miles away. In 1991 the United States expressed concern about its development and Russian President Boris Yeltsin, a U.S. friend at the time, shelved the project. This turned out to be India's gain.

India took over the development work in 1998, agreeing to spend over US$250 million on the project. The Russian missile engine was married to an Indian guidance system in a 50:50 partnership, thus giving it the unique name of BrahMos, after India's Brahmaputra River and Russia's Moskva River.

India has no intention of killing U.S. aircraft carriers, hence its development and operation were not questioned by the United States. On the other hand, a Chinese naval flotilla approaching the Indian Ocean on an aggressive mission would be fair game for this missile.

The same is true of any aggressive moves by the Pakistani Navy. The latter has always envisioned attacking India's offshore oil and gas fields close to Mumbai, and repeating the Muslim destruction of India's Somnath Temple on the Gujarat coast, 900 years back.

The version of the BrahMos that went into operation in 2005 is the naval version only. Another version, which can be carried by an aircraft or used in land-to-land combat, is still under development and should be operational in about three years.

Collaboration on the missile's development was not easy. In 1998 the Russians were strictly following the guidelines of the Missile Technology Control Regime and would not export any missile technology beyond the 300-kilometer (186-mile) range. It also would not give India any help in building a sophisticated guidance system.

Hence this missile has a limited range of 290 kilometers (180 miles) and has an Indian guidance system. All testing and development since 1998 have been carried out in India, with the Russians as a 50-percent partner.

Beginning in 2002 when the missile first flew, it surprised most observers. Few thought that Russian-Indian collaboration could be successful and produce a weapon of that sophistication. Now it is a reality. Some Indian Navy ships are already equipped with it. Soon the air and land version will join the Indian forces, making them highly potent.

This technology acquisition and development was so important for India that the military went out of its way not to draw international attention. Technology transfer arrangements were such that no MTCR guidelines were broken.

Also in India's neighborhood, Pakistan has acquired U.S. Harpoon and French Exocet missiles, and China has been buying Russian Sovremenny-class destroyers – hence India had to do something unique to put both China and Pakistan on the defensive. It appears that India has now achieved that task.

Although the missile is so successful, India was expecting other nations to order it. But no export orders have been received so far, despite an intense sales pitch over the last three years. None of the potential customers wishes to kill U.S. or other nations' aircraft carriers; hence they do not need such a powerful weapon. Also, at US$2.5 million apiece the price is a bit steep. The original requirement of 1,000 missiles for the Indian and Russian navies still stands.

The future of this missile in Indian hands is very bright. It will permanently keep the Chinese navy out of the Indian Ocean. Closer to home, the belligerent Pakistan is unmindful of these developments. Their Harpoon missile inventory is very capable, but is subsonic and has a very limited range. The BrahMos, carried on ships and planes, can be fired from 200 miles away and hit its target with pinpoint accuracy.

The scramjet-powered BrahMos-2 will again be developed with Russian collaboration. That is the only way India will lay its hands on scramjet technology. The irony is that the MTCR will prevent its range from exceeding 300 kilometers.

This development work will take three years and will involve 20 Russian and Indian institutes and industrial units to finish the job. The only thing known about this newer missile, the BrahMos-2, is that it will fly at about Mach-5 to Mach-7 speed and will beat any known anti aircraft or anti-missile defense system.

The Chinese asked the Russians for similar collaboration on a similar missile system, but were flatly turned down. Instead the Russians equipped Chinese destroyers with Moskit class sea-skimming ramjet missiles. These are very capable missiles with a range of 90 to 150 kilometers. But these could neither be launched from aircraft nor have land-to-land use.

India expects about US$10 billion in orders for these missiles. The production line is gearing up to make 1,000 of these in various versions over the next ten years. If an additional export order for 1,000 more missiles is obtained the production line will have to be significantly expanded. Right now there no export orders – that will limit production to about 50-100 missiles a year.

A comparable missile in the U.S. inventory is the Tomahawk cruise missile, which has an extended range and larger explosive payload than others. But it is a subsonic missile, and thus can fall prey to fighter jets or anti-air or anti-missile system.

Collaboration between the Russians and Indians has produced a marvelous weapon. Future collaboration between the two nations is in the cards, in developing a fifth-generation fighter jet, a new tank design, etc. This is helpful to both countries. The Russians can defray the development costs and India gets a sophisticated weapon. Barring a few hiccups this collaboration will continue.
 
Last edited:

Armand2REP

CHINI EXPERT
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2009
Messages
13,811
Likes
6,734
Country flag
Brahmos flying at 2.8+ MACH speed employing excessive evasive maneuvers at its terminal phase is not interceptable by any known techniques.
Hollow Marketing of US defense companies have nothing to credit their claims. No known tests record. Others things do not validate the interceptability of precise missile like Brahmos.
Nothing spectacular about it and interceptable by several known techniques. GQM-163 target drones do the exact same thing. France acquired these for Aster validation testing in 2007 and went off without a hitch.
 

nrj

Ambassador
Joined
Nov 16, 2009
Messages
9,658
Likes
3,911
Country flag
Nothing spectacular about it and interceptable by several known techniques. GQM-163 target drones do the exact same thing. France acquired these for Aster validation testing in 2007 and went off without a hitch.
When did i say its spectacular & asked u to watch it??


Now regarding GQM-163 Coyote, its a Target not an Attack Missile.

Its flight is representative of a supersonic missile. It does not feature warhead at all thus avoiding significant mass.

It has limited range of 100Km. It is yet not air-launched.

Coyote was initiated after US failure to obtain & modify Russian equivalents like Kh-31 & Sunburn. These are in active service with Russia, China & India. Kh-31 & Sunburn are many times better than 'In development/testing' 'target missile' like Coyote. USN received quite help in developing Coyote from Russians during its failed attempt to acquire Kh-31.

Coyote like target technology program is 1.5 decade behind its requisite operational time.
US never had technology to develop supersonic SSSMs. Russians are still leading this technology.

Only about 60 Coyotes are in order with known record of only 19 target missiles delivered or launched by the customer i.e. USN.

Orbital recently got indefinite-delivery/ indefinite-quantity contract for GQM-163A aerial target operations. It'll complete development only after 2013. Plus there are reports that air-launched Coyote will be probably uncontrollable at subsonic speeds under the aerodynamic influence of the launcher airplane, again as its only Target not attack missile.


Coyote only represents the flight path of supersonic missile like Brahmos. USN is still developing target, where is the successful interception technique??


France acquired these for Aster validation testing in 2007 and went off without a hitch.
What does ASTER validation has to do with interception of Brahmos??
Its Advanced Spaceborne Thermal Emission and Reflection Radiometer (ASTER) you are referring.
Coyote's ability to lift in air from launcher during ASTER validation is nothing remarkable & total OT here.
 
Last edited:

nitesh

Mob Control Manager
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2009
Messages
7,550
Likes
1,309
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gene...=Airborne BrahMos Launcher Prototype Finished


India's BrahMos Aerospace Thiruvananthapuram Ltd (BATL) is ready with the first prototype of an indigenous airborne launcher developed for the BrahMos supersonic cruise missile.
The air-launched version of the missile will be fitted to the Su-30 MKI aircraft.

BATL Executive Director N.R. Vishnu Kartha tells AVIATION WEEK, "This is the first time a mobile launcher for [the] BrahMos missile is being manufactured. We are ready with the first prototype."

The basic design of the launcher was conceived by BrahMos engineers from Hyderabad and accepted by the Sukhoi Design Bureau. The main body of the launcher is made from high-strength aluminum. All the materials, processes and tests involved in making the launcher need to undergo stringent quality checks by the Director General of Aeronautical Quality Assurance at various stages.

The launcher must undergo one more final test before it is fitted onto the Su-30 MKI for flight trials. BATL has an initial order of 6.4 crore ($1.4 million) to deliver a total of five such launchers. "The launcher's final test will be done at Hyderabad, which is the missile integration center. The launcher is a testimony to BATL's technical know-how in delivering such complex equipment," Vishnu Kartha says.
 

Armand2REP

CHINI EXPERT
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2009
Messages
13,811
Likes
6,734
Country flag
When did i say its spectacular & asked u to watch it??
When you said it "is not interceptable by any known techniques."

Now regarding GQM-163 Coyote, its a Target not an Attack Missile.
It is a target drone that simulates missiles like Brahmos.

Its flight is representative of a supersonic missile. It does not feature warhead at all thus avoiding significant mass.
Brahmos has a larger mass than Coyote which makes it even harder to hit. Its flight is same type of evasive manoeuvre as Brahmos... weaving and bobbing across the waves.

It has limited range of 100Km. It is yet not air-launched.
100km is perfect for a target simulating a Brahmos, Aster doesn't have a much greater range than that anyway.

Coyote was initiated after US failure to obtain & modify Russian equivalents like Kh-31 & Sunburn. These are in active service with Russia, China & India. Kh-31 & Sunburn are many times better than 'In development/testing' 'target missile' like Coyote. USN received quite help to develop Coyote during its failed attempt to acquire Kh-31.
US Navy obtained 18 Kh-31 and fired 13 as target drones. It turned out that the range of Kh-31 is only half that as advertised, 60km instead of 120. Coyote isn't a straight fire missile, it conducts the same kinds of evasive manoeuvres employed by Brahmos.

US never had technology to develop supersonic SSSMs. Russians are still leading this technology.
They have the technology, that is how they developed Coyote. What they don't have is the will to sacrifice range of cruise missiles for high speed.

Only about 60 Coyotes are in order with known record of only 19 target missiles delivered or launched by the customer i.e. USN.
90 Coyotes were ordered by the USN. France also received one Coyote for validation testing of the PAAMs missile system.

Orbital recently got indefinite-delivery/ indefinite-quantity contract for GQM-163A aerial target operations. It'll complete development after 2013. Plus there are reports that air-launched Coyote will be probably uncontrollable at subsonic speeds under the aerodynamic influence of the launcher airplane, as its only Taget not attack missile.
The GQM-163A completed its development in 2004,and entered full rate production in 2005. The length of its production run will end in 2012. The Coyote flies at Mach 2.5 and its flight regime includes "pre-programmed aggressive weaving maneuvers, dives, and climbs." It is a perfect target drone for missiles like Brahmos.

Coyote only represents the flight path of supersonic missile like Brahmos. US is still developing target, where is the successful interception technique??
Coyote is already developed, been complete for 5 years now and it is the successful target for interception technique. France already shot it down... no problem.
 

nrj

Ambassador
Joined
Nov 16, 2009
Messages
9,658
Likes
3,911
Country flag
It is a target drone that simulates missiles like Brahmos.
Its flight is same type of evasive manoeuvre as Brahmos... weaving and bobbing across the waves.
That is what i said. It is only target, not attack missile. No comparison to Brahmos.
Coyote can only simulate the ship-attack defense scenario.

US Navy obtained 18 Kh-31 and fired 13 as target drones. It turned out that the range of Kh-31 is only half that as advertised, 60km instead of 120. Coyote isn't a straight fire missile, it conducts the same kinds of evasive manoeuvres employed by Brahmos.
Kh-31 acquired by US from Russia lacked weapon's critical radar seeking electronic systems.It was a hollow target shell. US worked for more than 5-7 years on krypton, what is known as "pre-planned product improvements". They surely obtained much knowledge from Kh-31 itself.

Russia fooled US smartly. US begged Russia but got nothing. US lost substantial money in these failed attempts. US was helpless than to start its own program in 2000 after China & India successfully acquired Kh-31 & Sunburn. None in West had that technology till 2000.

They have the technology, that is how they developed Coyote. What they don't have is the will to sacrifice range of cruise missiles for high speed.
They are last in the league to have that technology. Russia, China & India already has it. Russia has it from early '90s. US got it recently in 2003.

France already shot it down... no problem.
I am still waiting for source.
 
Last edited:

death.by.chocolate

Professional
Joined
Aug 1, 2009
Messages
300
Likes
98
Country flag
Brahmos flying at 2.8+ MACH speed employing excessive evasive maneuvers at its terminal phase is not interceptable by any known techniques.
Hollow Marketing of US defense companies have nothing to credit their claims. No known tests record. Others things do not validate the interceptability of precise missile like Brahmos.
Of all the deluded statements this one takes the prize "excessive evasive maneuvers?" Do people even realize that at Mach 3 the SR-71 needed a 100 miles to make a turn?
Your claims defy the laws of Physics, how do you explain high maneuverability on a missile that has fewer control surfaces than an SR-71 and no thrust vector capability?

we'd started a turn in the New Mexico-Colorado-Oklahoma-Texas border region. The SR-71 had a turning radius of about 100 mi. at that speed
and altitude, so I wasn't even sure what state we were going to land in.
http://www.alexisparkinn.com/sr-71_break-up.htm

Do you folks realize that ramjet engines need a steady flow of pressurized air to keep the engine from flaming out? How do you then explain "excessive evasive maneuvers" flying through dense air a few meters over the sea without producing new supersonic shock waves? Perhaps the constraints of supersonic flight do not effect the holy Brahmos?
 
Last edited:

nrj

Ambassador
Joined
Nov 16, 2009
Messages
9,658
Likes
3,911
Country flag
Of all the deluded statements this one takes the prize "excessive evasive maneuvers?" Do people even realize that at Mach 3 the SR-71 needed a 100 miles to make a turn?
Your claims defy the laws of Physics, how do you explain high maneuverability on a missile that has fewer control surfaces than an SR-71 and no thrust vector capability?

http://www.alexisparkinn.com/sr-71_break-up.htm

Do you folks realize that ramjet engines need a steady flow of pressurized air to keep the engine from flaming out? How do you then explain "excessive evasive maneuvers" flying through dense air a few meters over the sea without producing new supersonic shock waves? Perhaps the constraints of supersonic flight do not effect the holy Brahmos?
Comparison of maneuvers employed by supersonic missiles with aircrafts or other bodies is not relative.
Brahmos manoeuvrings records are not public.

But take Coyote for example,
Coyote is highly maneuverable vehicle conducted combined horizontal and vertical maneuvers that exceeded 11-G's of acceleration. Coyote has also shown sustained accelerations in excess of 10-Gs. It has demonstrated successful horizontal weave maneuvers. Now Coyote is supposed to replicate Kh-31, Sunburn, Brahmos so we can expect similar pattern in them.

These maneuvers are quite above the mark for any supersonic missile. Unless other supersonic interceptor missile or attack missile come up with better than these maneuvers. Brahmos, Kh-31, Sunburn maneuvers remain supreme. I'm not religious so won't call it holy.
 

Armand2REP

CHINI EXPERT
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2009
Messages
13,811
Likes
6,734
Country flag
That is what i said. It is only target, not attack missile. No comparison to Brahmos.
Coyote can only simulate the ship-attack defense scenario.
So what? Brahmos is nothing but a target until it makes impact. It is every comparison as to the ability to shoot it down.

Kh-31 acquired by US from Russia lacked weapon's critical radar seeking electronic systems.It was a hollow target shell. US worked for more than 5-7 years on krypton, what is known as "pre-planned product improvements". They surely obtained much knowledge from Kh-31 itself.
US put in better electronics than the Russians have which says alot about the myth of the Kh-31.

Russia fooled US smartly. US begged Russia but got nothing. US lost substantial money in these failed attempts. US was helpless than to start its own program in 2000 after China & India successfully acquired Kh-31 & Sunburn. None in West had that technology till 2000.
US got everything they needed. Russians were fool enough to even sell S-300V.

They are last in the league to have that technology. Russia, China & India already has it. Russia has it from early '90s. US got it recently in 2003.
France has had the technology since the 80s, it is called ASMP. US isn't bothering with Ramjets, they are well on the way to Scramjets.

I am still waiting for source.
You never asked for one...

March 19, 2007
Orbital Sciences Corp., Chandler, Ariz., is being awarded a $9,222,023 cost-plus-fixed-fee contract for the procurement of one GQM-163A Supersonic Sea Skimming Target Vehicle, support equipment, spare parts, technical data, and technical assistance for the government of France under the Foreign Military Sales Program. The GQM-163A will support the validation of the French weapon system.

http://www.defense.gov/contracts/contract.aspx?contractid=3476

In May 2007, the final qualification firing of PAAMS (E) was successfully completed. The firing comprised the EMPAR radar and associated fire control system, the A 50 Sylver Vertical Launcher and the Aster 30 missile.

http://www.mbda-systems.com/mbda/site/ref/scripts/EN_Aster-15---30-PAAMS_89.html
 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top