BrahMos Cruise Missile

[IndianHawk]

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

You are generalising . And in military matters. That is a stupid thing to do. Land war can have thousands scenario in itself.

India will only get into land war with either Porkistan or china . In case of pakistan long range missiles is wasted as porki are only 300-400 km wide. Moreover whatever little they have which can be worthy of missiles is within 100 -150 km from Indian border.

In case of china . India and China might get into a short in tense warfare at best.
20days or a month at most. ( This is the most likely scenario if happens) in a short war costs won't be the hindrance but effectiveness matters. Sub sonic missiles will be shot down , they will not be able to target moving artillery or mobilized radar , air defense formations. Supersonic will be much more effective in short intense warfare.

If warfare prolongs and it goes out of border and cities are targeted than subsonic missile will rain supreme as they will be plentiful and won't face much resistance from air defense.

So unless chinese are planning to battle india months and on. Their subsonic are pretty much Worth less.

 

[no smoking]

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

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

Did I ever say that subsonic CMs flying at low altitude couldn't be shoot down? NO!
The most difficult part of subsonic CMs is not how to shoot them down but how to continuously tracking them in the complex land form. After enormous investment in their homeland radar/awac systems, neither Russia, nor China, has enough confidence to defend against the massive scaled Tomahawk CM attack from Yankees.

No, subsonic CMs can do not only long range, but more maneuverable at lot cheaper price.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Slow air speed and restricted route comes to mind, Massive strike with aircraft will also get through given the men are expendable ..

Nothing is absolute, So why have more faith in subsonic CM then super sonic once ?

neither Russia, nor China, has enough confidence to defend against the massive scaled Tomahawk CM attack from Yankees.

No, subsonic CMs can do not only long range, but more maneuverable at lot cheaper price.

 

[Chinmoy]

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

F-22 raptor Length : 18.92 mtr
Brahmos Length : 8.4 mtr

F-22 raptor Wingspan : 13.56 mtr ( I am not taking into account wing area here of sake of simplicity)
Brahmos Diameter : 0.6 mtr

Now calculate the RCS of both and please don't tell me that ground based RADAR had started capturing heat signature.

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

Tomahawk CM Length : 5.56 mtr
Brahmos Length : 8.4 mtr

Tomahawk CM Diameter : 0.52 mtr
Brahmos Diameter : 0.6 mtr

Now calculate the stealthiness of both the missile and please don't say that Tomahawk does have RAM coating for enhanced stealthiness.

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

Here I do agree with you. But it is not a hard and fast rule that a CM would have to follow a specific flight pattern during its cruise phase. If the deployment do have the knowledge of heavy air defence presence, then they would programme the flight pattern to be more and more unpredictable. Now as I already mentioned earlier, Air defence and SAM deployment and engagement is based on probability, so flight pattern could be programmed accordingly to make the calculation hard enough for the fire control computer. One simple example is in the pic below.

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

10 km is a hypothetical altitude which I have suggested and already shown you that even at such a high altitude, it is a bigger headache in comparison to other CM's for the air defence system deployed.

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

Air defence of a CBG is highly concentrated whereas that in a surface warfare, it is diversified and spread out into a far greater area in a layered formation. But on SAM front, a single destroyer could carry around 32 missiles on lower side and a CBG does have a squadron of destroyer or should we say around 64 SAM on lower side in it. Whereas a typical battle field strategic structure would have a air defence comprising of 3 to 4 SAM system or we could say around 48 missiles. And all of these would be on area defence role rather then point defence unlike CBG which makes it even more ineffective against such a high speed attack.

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

To cross over to South Tibet, Brahmos has to simply fly at an altitude of 2km max from its launching platform. After that it could follow a Lo-Lo profile.

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

Brahmos has been flight tested at a much lesser altitude then 200 mtr in Himalayan terrain.

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

That's the very reason why it has been termed as a strategic weapon. On cost front, we have already raised no's of regiments and are still raising some. On range front, you might have already known that it has been recently tested to a longer range and work is in progress to enhance its range to double of what it is now. So all these fronts are being taken in account well in advance and we are just capitalising on those.

Now I am not here to prove you wrong or to prove myself right. I am only stating the fact that you are under estimating the capability of BRAHMOS way too much. It is based on Onyx, but it is not Onyx.

 

[Amrk]

F-22 raptor Length : 18.92 mtr
Brahmos Length : 8.4 mtr

F-22 raptor Wingspan : 13.56 mtr ( I am not taking into account wing area here of sake of simplicity)
Brahmos Diameter : 0.6 mtr

Now calculate the RCS of both and please don't tell me that ground based RADAR had started capturing heat signature.




Tomahawk CM Length : 5.56 mtr
Brahmos Length : 8.4 mtr

Tomahawk CM Diameter : 0.52 mtr
Brahmos Diameter : 0.6 mtr

Now calculate the stealthiness of both the missile and please don't say that Tomahawk does have RAM coating for enhanced stealthiness.



.

A very good analysis, Chinmoy Ji, kudos.

 

[Sidd]

I have heard that propulsion of brahmos is by India. Seeker, motor is russian and propulsion is Indian. Even warhead was initially Russian but India developed its own over time. I believe propulsion means fuel. So, it is Indian. Otherwise, how will it be 50:50 JV? It will be merely import

If you read the latest interview we can replace all of the russian parts if we want...but we won't because it's a JV. But we should make a fully indigenous version of Super Sonic Cruise missile.

 

[Vijyes]

If you read the latest interview we can replace all of the russian parts if we want...but we won't because it's a JV. But we should make a fully indigenous version of Super Sonic Cruise missile.

That is exactly what I am saying - we can make a fully indigenous Brahmos and name it dingdong. It is mere naming we are going about.

It does not matter whether it is the technology of brahmos reverse engineered or otherwise. We just should not name our supersonic missile as brahmos to ensure that JV is not jeopardized

 

[Vijyes]

A very good analysis, Chinmoy Ji, kudos.

Sorry for this irrelevant post here, but I think the like button is exactly there to convey the same message instead of typing it loud.
Thanks

 

[Amrk]

Sorry for this irrelevant post here, but I think the like button is exactly there to convey the same message instead of typing it loud.
Thanks

From my pov, the post deserved more than a simple like, no bombast, no jingoism, no exaggerations logical based on knowledge not assumptions, rare hence needs to be appreciated.
But I get your point, so won't reply more.
P.S.----You can ask mods to remove above mentioned posts, won't oppose.

 

[no smoking]

Slow air speed and restricted route comes to mind, Massive strike with aircraft will also get through given the men are expendable ..

Well, that is because American doesn't have confidence that they will have enough expendable men to crack Soviet air defense network.

Nothing is absolute, So why have more faith in subsonic CM then super sonic once ?

Because subsonic CM advantages will stand out in land war while supersonic CM performs better in the anti-ship role.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Which is more prone to interception, A cruise missile or a supersonic missile ?

=====================

Just by saying that this is better than this without any explanation won`t make any sense ..

Well, that is because American doesn't have confidence that they will have enough expendable men to crack Soviet air defense network.

Because subsonic CM advantages will stand out in land war while supersonic CM performs better in the anti-ship role.

 

[no smoking]

F-22 raptor Length : 18.92 mtr

Brahmos Length : 8.4 mtr


F-22 raptor Wingspan : 13.56 mtr ( I am not taking into account wing area here of sake of simplicity)

Brahmos Diameter : 0.6 mtr


Now calculate the RCS of both and please don't tell me that ground based RADAR had started capturing heat signature.





Tomahawk CM Length : 5.56 mtr

Brahmos Length : 8.4 mtr


Tomahawk CM Diameter : 0.52 mtr

Brahmos Diameter : 0.6 mtr


Now calculate the stealthiness of both the missile and please don't say that Tomahawk does have RAM coating for enhanced stealthiness.

Your figures prove one thing: Brahmos RCS is far bigger than Tomahawk. Please don’t tell that Brahmos considers stealth in its designing.

Here I do agree with you. But it is not a hard and fast rule that a CM would have to follow a specific flight pattern during its cruise phase. If the deployment do have the knowledge of heavy air defence presence, then they would programme the flight pattern to be more and more unpredictable. Now as I already mentioned earlier, Air defence and SAM deployment and engagement is based on probability, so flight pattern could be programmed accordingly to make the calculation hard enough for the fire control computer. One simple example is in the pic below.

Look the only way to make the calculation hard enough for the fire control computer is performing extreme maneuvering. However, each defence missile can at least have 1 minute working window, each SAM battery has 2 minutes shooting window, how long can the fuel in Brahmos support such maneuvering?

Air defence of a CBG is highly concentrated whereas that in a surface warfare, it is diversified and spread out into a far greater area in a layered formation. But on SAM front, a single destroyer could carry around 32 missiles on lower side and a CBG does have a squadron of destroyer or should we say around 64 SAM on lower side in it. Whereas a typical battle field strategic structure would have a air defence comprising of 3 to 4 SAM system or we could say around 48 missiles. And all of these would be on area defence role rather then point defence unlike CBG which makes it even more ineffective against such a high speed attack.

No, that is how Western air-defence system deploys and works—key point defence as they are more replying on their air-force to play this role. In the case of Russia and China, however, they prefer air defence matrix. In other words, they require to use their SAMs to cover every inch of battlefield. In a typical air-defence scenario, Western pilots have to penetrate 3-4 air defence layers before reaching their target.


More importantly, in terms of CBG, if you can have 6 CM hit the aircraft carrier, you may disable the whole CBG group from fighting, and it won’t come back until it is repaired in home. In land war, however, you will need far more missiles to disable an airport, and this airport will be functional again in nor more than 12 hours if you are not continuing to bomb it.

To cross over to South Tibet, Brahmos has to simply fly at an altitude of 2km max from its launching platform. After that it could follow a Lo-Lo profile.


Brahmos has been flight tested at a much lesser altitude then 200 mtr in Himalayan terrain.

Until you give the details of the testing, we can’t discuss this, can we?

That's the very reason why it has been termed as a strategic weapon. On cost front, we have already raised no's of regiments and are still raising some.

No, Brahmos has been termed as a tactical weapon.

On range front, you might have already known that it has been recently tested to a longer range and work is in progress to enhance its range to double of what it is now. So all these fronts are being taken in account well in advance and we are just capitalising on those.

Well, the air-defence technologies are also advancing in the meantime.

Now I am not here to prove you wrong or to prove myself right. I am only stating the fact that you are under estimating the capability of BRAHMOS way too much. It is based on Onyx, but it is not Onyx.

No, I just point out that comparing to Brahmos, with current technologies, long range sub-sonic CM is more suitable for massive land attack.

 

[Chinmoy]

Your figures prove one thing: Brahmos RCS is far bigger than Tomahawk. Please don’t tell that Brahmos considers stealth in its designing.

My figure also implies that its RCS is much less then F-22. If you could detect a F-22 at a range of 20km, when do you think you are going to detect BRAHMOS? When it would knock on your door?

Look the only way to make the calculation hard enough for the fire control computer is performing extreme maneuvering. However, each defence missile can at least have 1 minute working window, each SAM battery has 2 minutes shooting window, how long can the fuel in Brahmos support such maneuvering?

My question is, how fast the computer could calculate the probability in its grid structure and how effectively and in what numbers it could deploy counter measures?

No, that is how Western air-defence system deploys and works—key point defence as they are more replying on their air-force to play this role. In the case of Russia and China, however, they prefer air defence matrix. In other words, they require to use their SAMs to cover every inch of battlefield. In a typical air-defence scenario, Western pilots have to penetrate 3-4 air defence layers before reaching their target.


More importantly, in terms of CBG, if you can have 6 CM hit the aircraft carrier, you may disable the whole CBG group from fighting, and it won’t come back until it is repaired in home. In land war, however, you will need far more missiles to disable an airport, and this airport will be functional again in nor more than 12 hours if you are not continuing to bomb it.

The problem lies there in matrix topography. In case of pin point air defence, you have to care about a fixed number of grids, but in a matrix it does increase exponentially. Although division of sector is massive in matrix topograph, but it also brings along with it, shared sectors which in turn place additional burden on computing. Now again the same question arises as first, how much load could the defence system computer carry?

Aegis too work in a network centric matrix topograph, but right now against a battery of fast moving CM, it too has less hope, that too in a point defence role. Now imagine the same in an area defence role.

Until you give the details of the testing, we can’t discuss this, can we?

2005. A BM base has been established somewhere near China border, but there was no reaction from Chinese govt.
2013. BRAHMOS been deployed somewhere near Chinese border. No reaction on that.
2015 onwards, why you think China has got heated up with India deploying BRAHMOS near its border? Do you think Chinese intelligence were napping for 2 whole years or before that when the plan has been formulated?

No, Brahmos has been termed as a tactical weapon.

No one could help you if you are still living in 2004 era.

Well, the air-defence technologies are also advancing in the meantime.

Ofcourse it is. But it has still a lot to do to counter a bunch of incoming supersonic CM.

No, I just point out that comparing to Brahmos, with current technologies, long range sub-sonic CM is more suitable for massive land attack.

Its a known fact. No one could take down a airport with a single CM. Even why bother with that when you have dedicated weapons for that matter. But yes, for air delivering those weapon, there are a lot of more strategic target which needs to be taken out first.

 

[no smoking]

My figure also implies that its RCS is much less then F-22. If you could detect a F-22 at a range of 20km, when do you think you are going to detect BRAHMOS? When it would knock on your door?

Well, here, you got things wrong: in fact, the RCS of F-22 (0.0001m2) is far smaller than Tomahawk CM (0.5m2).


https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/stealth-aircraft-rcs.htm


Americans claim that even the old MPQ-53 radar can lock incoming cruise missile over 80km.

My question is, how fast the computer could calculate the probability in its grid structure and how effectively and in what numbers it could deploy counter measures?

This is a million dollars question which no manufacturer will give an answer publicly. And I think you ask the wrong question, the real question is how maneuverable the CM could be during cruising stage.

The problem lies there in matrix topography. In case of pin point air defence, you have to care about a fixed number of grids, but in a matrix it does increase exponentially. Although division of sector is massive in matrix topograph, but it also brings along with it, shared sectors which in turn place additional burden on computing. Now again the same question arises as first, how much load could the defence system computer carry?

Again, this is a million dollars question. This air-defence matrix is under the control of central super-computer. But don’t make mistake, this computer is only analysing incoming threat, assign defence resources, help the corporation between different military units. The targeting and firing control are still controlled by the each unit’s own computer.

Aegis too work in a network centric matrix topograph, but right now against a battery of fast moving CM, it too has less hope, that too in a point defence role. Now imagine the same in an area defence role.

No, Aegis work as air-defence circle. Generally, one CBG gets 4 Aegis destroyer, each is responsible for one direction. If we say each system gets 100km locking range, then CMs will only be threatened by defence missile in the last 100km of its journey. In the land, however, it is another story. The air-defence matrix makes sure no matter which way you choose, you will have to face the defence missile or other defence measure from the beginning. It is just when the CM gets into 400km away from the CBG, in every 100km, you will face one Aegis destroyer. So, instead of breaking one air-defence circle, in the land, you need to break 4.

2005. A BM base has been established somewhere near China border, but there was no reaction from Chinese govt.

2013. BRAHMOS been deployed somewhere near Chinese border. No reaction on that.

2015 onwards, why you think China has got heated up with India deploying BRAHMOS near its border? Do you think Chinese intelligence were napping for 2 whole years or before that when the plan has been formulated?

Heating up for what? For Brahmos? How many S-300 or HQ9 does PLA deploy near the Sino-India border? NONE! So, after 2 years, PLA formulated the plan – doing nothing?

No one could help you if you are still living in 2004 era.

Oh, boy, doesn’t the fact these brahmos are deployed near Chinese border tell you how “Strategic” this weapon is?

Ofcourse it is. But it has still a lot to do to counter a bunch of incoming supersonic CM. Its a known fact. No one could take down a airport with a single CM. Even why bother with that when you have dedicated weapons for that matter. But yes, for air delivering those weapon, there are a lot of more strategic target which needs to be taken out first.

Considering the expensive price of Brahmos, yes, the quantity will be a big problem.


I think we are done here. Both of us already discussed each point clearly and repeatedly. Unless there are new information or idea to contribute, I think we should take a break on the discussion between you and me. After all, we are not here to win but to learn. Thank you.

 

[Chinmoy]

Well, here, you got things wrong: in fact, the RCS of F-22 (0.0001m2) is far smaller than Tomahawk CM (0.5m2).


https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/stealth-aircraft-rcs.htm


Americans claim that even the old MPQ-53 radar can lock incoming cruise missile over 80km.

In the link I think you might have also missed the point that B2 RCS is equivalent to F-22. Tomahawk with its large wing span would sure have a huge RCS. But Brahmos on other hand is a missile with almost non existing wing span. So where would you put up BRAHMOS RCS? Sure enough it would not be as stealthy as F-22, but sure would be a much smaller target then Tomahawk. Isn't it so?

This is a million dollars question which no manufacturer will give an answer publicly. And I think you ask the wrong question, the real question is how maneuverable the CM could be during cruising stage.


Again, this is a million dollars question. This air-defence matrix is under the control of central super-computer. But don’t make mistake, this computer is only analysing incoming threat, assign defence resources, help the corporation between different military units. The targeting and firing control are still controlled by the each unit’s own computer.

Any CM does have one more crucial move other then maneuvering in its horizontal axis. A sheer drop in altitude would run havoc with the tracking and targeting RADAR and computer algorithm. Because the smaller the target is, the number of grid for scanning goes up. Higher the scanning grid, tougher the calculations become not only for computers, but also for the seeker of the interceptor.

No, Aegis work as air-defence circle. Generally, one CBG gets 4 Aegis destroyer, each is responsible for one direction. If we say each system gets 100km locking range, then CMs will only be threatened by defence missile in the last 100km of its journey. In the land, however, it is another story. The air-defence matrix makes sure no matter which way you choose, you will have to face the defence missile or other defence measure from the beginning. It is just when the CM gets into 400km away from the CBG, in every 100km, you will face one Aegis destroyer. So, instead of breaking one air-defence circle, in the land, you need to break 4.

Aegis destroyer? I didn't knew that US or NATO has something called Aegis destroyer. I only knew that they had Aegis defence system.

Its a news for me. Thanks.

Heating up for what? For Brahmos? How many S-300 or HQ9 does PLA deploy near the Sino-India border? NONE! So, after 2 years, PLA formulated the plan – doing nothing?

S-300 and HQ-9 defence for Cruise missile?

Oh, boy, doesn’t the fact these brahmos are deployed near Chinese border tell you how “Strategic” this weapon is?

The serious drawback in its range is the factor for its deployment near border. We do have another tactical missile system deployed around the same sector as a matter of fact. That too has a limited range which compelled us to do so. Deploying near border doesn't make a system tactical.

Considering the expensive price of Brahmos, yes, the quantity will be a big problem.


I think we are done here. Both of us already discussed each point clearly and repeatedly. Unless there are new information or idea to contribute, I think we should take a break on the discussion between you and me. After all, we are not here to win but to learn. Thank you.

Not expensive price, but rather limited damage which it would inflict on such a huge target like a Airfield. It carries only a warhead of 200 kg. So its a common sense that it would not be able to take out one whole Airfield with it. But as I said, there are lot more important smaller strategic targets needs to be out before taking over a Airfield or any such target.

I do agree with your last point. As I already mentioned, as a stand alone weapon system, BRAHMOS is not as effective as it should be, neither in sea, nor in land. But it had been designed to hunt in a pack for this very reason and with time, it would only keep on evolving. BTW lets wait for BRAHMOS-II.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

NEW DELHI: The Indian Army today on the 2nd of May 2017 successfully test fired an advanced version of BRAHMOS land-attack cruise missile in the eastern sector, revalidating the formidable weapon’s precision strike capability.

The land-to-land configuration of BRAHMOS Block – III was launched from a Mobile Autonomous Launcher (MAL) for its full-range, demonstrating the weapon’s unmatched lethality of hitting the centre of a designated target with “bull’s eye” precision.

Today’s test, conducted was the fourth successive successful launch of the Block –III version of BRAHMOS LACM which once again stamped the missile’s impeccable precision strike capability. Meeting all flight parameters in a copybook manner while conducting high level and complex manoeuvers, the supersonic cruise missile successfully hit the land-based target with desired precision in a top attack configuration.

 

[Steven Rogers]

According to this source, Pakistan received HQ9 last year.
http://en.yibada.com/articles/19808...acquired-pakistan-army-should-india-worry.htm

 

[AmoghaVarsha]

According to this source, Pakistan received HQ9 last year.
http://en.yibada.com/articles/19808...acquired-pakistan-army-should-india-worry.htm

Question is how many do they actually have?

 

[Steven Rogers]

Question is how many do they actually have?

I doubt such sources, these type sources are same which say that India has s300. While HQ9 is more expensive than s300 with modern firecontrol system and aesa radar with a 1400kgs missiles, it don't fit the budget of pakistan for even 4 batteries to guard a city or a militarized location. And if it is true, typical Pakistanis would have had jumping and mocking India and claiming that they have the best air defence with ISPR claiming that they have the capability to engage aliens now. They are silent on this, even India which has so confidential bmd system has openenly said about its existence, so confidentiality is not the reason, but the reality is they don't have money for this.

 

[Vijyes]

I doubt such sources, these type sources are same which say that India has s300. While HQ9 is more expensive than s300 with modern firecontrol system and aesa radar with a 1400kgs missiles, it don't fit the budget of pakistan for even 4 batteries to guard a city or a militarized location. And if it is true, typical Pakistanis would have had jumping and mocking India and claiming that they have the best air defence with ISPR claiming that they have the capability to engage aliens now. They are silent on this, even India which has so confidential bmd system has openenly said about its existence, so confidentiality is not the reason, but the reality is they don't have money for this.

Pakistan can get enough money from Arabia. I don't understand why you are always concerned about money. Arabs have enough money to pay for entire Indian budget for 2 years in addition to their own budget and still go strong