DF 21D vs Brahmos 2 Hypersonic ASCM - A Layman's Analysis

which antiship missile is going to be a real threat in future wars ?

  • DF 21d Asbm for sure

    Votes: 8 16.0%
  • Brahmos 2 Hypersonic Ascm obviously

    Votes: 28 56.0%
  • Piss off , US would counter every weapon

    Votes: 14 28.0%

  • Total voters
    50

tony4562

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Oct 2, 2009
Messages
836
Likes
49
HEY u MR false namer troll, i told u earliear to leave trishul as it was a cancelled project .still u stated it .why Akash is nt sucess & what is ur criteria for a missile to be successful kindly post ,A nag is going to be inducted & air laucnched version is also going to be inducted .& astra is in developmental stage & is a recent project apart from all it's test only 1 was unsuccesful rest all was a succesful hit .Just becoz akash utilizes the same propulsion like the Russian 2K12 Kub (SA-6 Gainful), an integrated ramjet-rocket propulsion system, which provides thrust for the missile throughout its entire flight it becomes a russian copy man either u r an illterate or u a dumbass who dont know the meaning of copy .JUst read this article
Akash (missile) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


YES we are importing 70 % equipment but we are not lucky like u guys that also imports ballistic missiles ,cruise missiles jets ,subs & nuclear weapons from ur dear friend C%%%%A & sticks it's label on it in the name of indigenious .

Well where the hell u got this information that Dhruv has more than 90% foreign content kindly post the link


listen u paki troll dont spoil my mood if i start bashing u ,u would wet ur diapers:lol: plz leave this thread now i am sincerly requesting u .

Check out this link:Dhruv 90% foreign content. In fact there is a ton of artricles out there, just search for the phrase Dhruv Foreign 90%. Obviously you missed the news.

Yeah right, just because I've been predicting the up-coming fall of India to islam, that automatically makes me a 'paki', how smart? If you had read my posts with little bit more care and little bit less anger, you would find out that I'm hardly a fan of Islam. Akash is largely based on SA6, period, to deny the obvious would be akin to saying J7 isn't a derivative of Mig21, a blatant lie! And you are right. Nag ATM, like countless other indian defence projects such as the LCA, is about to be inducted. The problem is it was already declared almost-operational at least 5 years ago. Common to all indian projects, one day you hear a exciting news, then 2 days later another news completely overrrides it and we are back to square one!
 

SPIEZ

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2011
Messages
3,509
Likes
1,018
Firstly Drsomnath, this is an inspired thread, thankyou for providing such an excellent platform for discussion.


But then looking at these two anti-ship platforms, (from a neutral standpoint, ie, forgeting that one is Chinese and one is Russian/Indian), I would have to go for the DF21D, and not because its Chinese, but simply because of its capability. Let me explain:


In my opinion, the two differ very much in function, with each doing very well within its own sphere. The DF21D is designed to keep any CBG at arms length. Chinese policy is to employ area denial against a more advanced millitary, in todays reality: the US Navy. Denying the opposing power the use of his most flexible and powerful conventional units: CBG's, within China's immediate sphere of influence. A 2000+ km range DF21D does not allow any admiral in his right mind to move his most valuable targets into the kill zone. Even with in-flight refueling, air assets from the carrier would have a limited ability to operate in that area, contesting the air space with Chinese fighters who enjoy better support in terms of refueling and AWACS as well as possessing a definite numerical advantage.


Thus the DF21D basically removes US Navy CBG's from the equation, only leaving them with the SSN and SSGN option, who mind you, would then have to operate in SSK and SSN infested waters, whilst also being targeted by ASW air and surface assets.


The question then arises, can you do the same thing with a hypersonic CM with a 280km range? The answer is a definite NO. Sure it is much more flexible in terms of launch platforms, but lets analyse them.


Submarines: This is the ultimate in stealth targeting of surface assets. But then the cruise missile is not fire and forget, the target must be painted for them for until they are in range to identify the target themselves. This means, the sub must either paint the target itself with its surface search radar (which implies surfacing, and is thus extremely unadvisable), or relying on other assets to identify the target for them.
In this sense, the CM is the same as the DF21D in needing other assets to find and guide it to its target before it enters its terminal phase, implying that the use of either MPA's or helicopters. The notion that an MPA or an AEW helicopter can get close enough to identify an AIRCRAFT CARRIER, which operates within layers and layers of AAW protection is as I'm sure you realize, absurd. I'm not sure if the Indian navy can find and track surface vessels operating in international waters using space based assets, but this is how the Soviet navy planned to provide guidance when using sub and Kirov cruiser launched 400+km range Granit CM against US aircraft carriers in conjuction with long range bear MP aircraft.


The same applies for surface naval assets such as frigates or destroyers and air assets, ie. closing to within 290 km of a CBG, with carrrier-borne AWACS and destroyer and frigate pickets observing hundreds of kilometers around the carrier would be suicide in the face of precision munition and anti-ship cruise misslie equiped carrier-borne fighters.


Thus the hypersonic CM would be more useful if the opposing CBG was operating within its users EEZ, which is highly unlikely since CBG's operate far out to sea, well out the Brahmos's 290 km range.


That's why I conclude that the DF21D would be the more survivable option, (due mostly to its tremendous range).


Any thoughts?
Yes the range is a huge advantage, however my question is that how can a BALLISTIC MISSILE which has to exit and than REENTER the Earth's atmosphere be so accurate. Does that mean China missiles are more accurate than that of the US ?


Also one is a ballistic missile. How can we compare it with the other, which is a cruise missile.
 
Last edited:

J20!

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 20, 2011
Messages
2,580
Likes
1,220
Country flag
Yes the range is a huge advantage, however my question is that how can a BALLISTIC MISSILE which has to exit and than REENTER the Earth's atmosphere be so accurate. Does that mean China missiles are more accurate than that of the US ?


Also one is a ballistic missile. How can we compare it with the other, which is a cruise missile.
No it doesn't mean Chinese BM's are more accurate (and it doesn't mean their not either). But the thing is, to hit an aircraft carrier,(especially us carriers), it really doesn't have to be as pin point accurate as a cruise missile.


The US made Pershing II had a CEP (or Circular Error Probable) of 30 meters. That is very accurate for a ballistic missile. The pershing II was able to achieve such great accuracy by being fitted with a Maneuvarable Re-entry vehicle equiped with active radar guidance. And since this is a feat achieved in the early 80's (production of the Pershing II began in 1981), it it very likely the DF21D has a similar, if not better CEP to the Pershing II due to technological advances over that 30 year period.


With a length of 330meters and a width around 70 meters, a DF21D with a circular error probable of 30meters or less would be able to hit a Nimitz class carrier (or any large carrier for that matter) quite easily.


I didn't start this poll or thread, but I think comparing the attributes of the two ways of developing hypersonic projectiles is intriguing.


China's knocked it out of the park with this one:thumb:.
 

SPIEZ

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2011
Messages
3,509
Likes
1,018
No it doesn't mean Chinese BM's are more accurate (and it doesn't mean their not either). But the thing is, to hit an aircraft carrier,(especially us carriers), it really doesn't have to be as pin point accurate as a cruise missile.


The US made Pershing II had a CEP (or Circular Error Probable) of 30 meters. That is very accurate for a ballistic missile. The pershing II was able to achieve such great accuracy by being fitted with a Maneuvarable Re-entry vehicle equiped with active radar guidance. And since this is a feat achieved in the early 80's (production of the Pershing II began in 1981), it it very likely the DF21D has a similar, if not better CEP to the Pershing II due to technological advances over that 30 year period.


With a length of 330meters and a width around 70 meters, a DF21D with a circular error probable of 30meters or less would be able to hit a Nimitz class carrier (or any large carrier for that matter) quite easily.


I didn't start this poll or thread, but I think comparing the attributes of the two ways of developing hypersonic projectiles is intriguing.


China's knocked it out of the park with this one:thumb:.
i would like to start out saying that figures are always made up. There can always be a debate on whether a RADAR seeker can be fitted on to a MiRV. but I m still to see an accurate BM.

However cruise missiles are a separate case, in themselves. Supersonic vehicles have been accurate as both cruise missiles and Surface to air missiles( even anti missiles ) . I m not saying BM's are a waste, however their accuracy can be doubtful.

Wouldn't t be good if India develops a AsBM out of the Shourya platform, since Shaurya is a quasi-ballistic missiles with similar characteristics. And if such a delivery platform is developed it could be compared with the DF-21D.
 

J20!

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 20, 2011
Messages
2,580
Likes
1,220
Country flag
i would like to start out saying that figures are always made up. There can always be a debate on whether a RADAR seeker can be fitted on to a MiRV. but I m still to see an accurate BM.

However cruise missiles are a separate case, in themselves. Supersonic vehicles have been accurate as both cruise missiles and Surface to air missiles( even anti missiles ) . I m not saying BM's are a waste, however their accuracy can be doubtful.

Wouldn't t be good if India develops a AsBM out of the Shourya platform, since Shaurya is a quasi-ballistic missiles with similar characteristics. And if such a delivery platform is developed it could be compared with the DF-21D.
1. The Pershing has a CEP of 30m, look it up. Trying to say that's false would be being unnecesarily argumentative.

2. Radar equiped Maneuvarable Re-entry Vehicles have been developed and produced since the 1980's, its not a debate, it's a verifiable fact.

3. Balistic missiles aren't meant to be accurate. They dont need to be. A nuclear warhead missing its target by a 100 meters doesn't really matter. The target would be just as desroyed had the warhead exploded 2 meters away from it. The American's were hard pressed to make the Pershing II more accurate because its warhead was considerably less powerful than the warhead on Pershing I, thus a need to make sure the CEP was reduced from 400m to 30m.

4. I thought you guys were saying the DF21D wouldn't work, that it'd miss, or there was no-way of finding a CBG in the open ocean or it would be easy to counter it etc etc. Now you're saying India should develop something similar?8) Nice 180 man.
 

Kunal Biswas

Member of the Year 2011
Ambassador
Joined
May 26, 2010
Messages
31,123
Likes
40,562
see bro ,if DF 21 d is going to be a ASBM then it must have some sort of terminal guidance or else it cant target any moving target .So either MMW radar or IIR seeker or may be perhaps laser guidance may be another option
& regarding heat or plasma effect ur correct but here is an interesting article how they can do it .
Geoffrey Forden • DF-21 Delta: Some Early Thoughts

well ur correct about radar but Aegis or ship based BMD relies on FLIR sensor which detects IR signature of incoming ballistic missile so it may be more important i assume SM-3 Interceptor


IR sensors, 50km? On a ballistic missile bus?. A guided ballistic missile targeted against a static target uses a far more mundane prong antennae that juts out beyond the plasma shroud to capture GPS/GLONASS/Beidou-2 updates to its on-board inertial navigation system. Against a moving target, such a ballistic missile, in addition to the GPS feed, would have an additional channel feeding targeting data; last known position, vector, etc"¦ from a recce sat, UAV, submarine, etc"¦.


For an anti-ship version of the DF-21, the missile would require minimal modifications, the real investment would be in a tracking system; whether space based or terrestrial.
Rest is at my first post abt Satalites and UAVs..


And SM-3 is guided by Radar not LOS tech..



well ins coupled with (GPS / glossnass) guidance sytem may be same for both of them ,but the seeker part may be differnent as it is a hypersonic missile ,& is under development
WHAT
Interesting But its already developed and used in shaurya..

how can u miss that it has already been posted in many defence websites that brahmos 2 is going to be smaller
Brahmos-2 - a knol by Vijainder K Thakur
Brahmos Missile Marks Tenth Year, New Hypersonic Variants on the Cards
According to V.K Thakur, The missile will use scram jet tech, Any official conformation highly doubt-able, Also he mixed PJ-10 airlucnhed Missle with PJ-10-2..

On Second Link the info is wrong abt Dr A.J Kalam, Incorrect reporting..


well bro SEA ram missile.or The RIM-116 Rolling Airframe Missile (RAM) is a small, lightweight, infrared homing surface-to-air missile in use by the American, German, South Korean, Greek, Turkish, Saudi and Egyptian navies. yes it uses both guidance EM & IR so IR signature is important

RIM-116 Rolling Airframe Missile - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia .
Well IR sinature is very important for ship's point missile defence system
Interesting info..




well all i can say that jamming issue has been solved but technology is evolving fast there may be new generations of jammers so we cant discard it
You never know..
 

Drsomnath999

lord of 32 teeth
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2011
Messages
1,223
Likes
1,226
IR sensors, 50km? On a ballistic missile bus?. A guided ballistic missile targeted against a static target uses a far more mundane prong antennae that juts out beyond the plasma shroud to capture GPS/GLONASS/Beidou-2 updates to its on-board inertial navigation system. Against a moving target, such a ballistic missile, in addition to the GPS feed, would have an additional channel feeding targeting data; last known position, vector, etc"¦ from a recce sat, UAV, submarine, etc"¦.


For an anti-ship version of the DF-21, the missile would require minimal modifications, the real investment would be in a tracking system; whether space based or terrestrial.
Rest is at my first post abt Satalites and UAVs..
Well brother that is for mid course guidance only but Asbm must it must have a seeker in it's terminal guidance to hit any mobile target not static target .So many blogs /defence sites states that it has IIR seeker / or radar seeker in it's terminal phase.Well about the heat / plasma factor i had posted the link in my previous post ,Well i had consulted many chinese member about it in other forums they also say the same thing ..


And SM-3 is guided by Radar not LOS tech..
well it may be guided by radar ,but it has IR seeker
RIM-161 SM-3 (AEGIS Ballistic Missile Defense)




Interesting But its already developed and used in shaurya..
but brahmos 2 seeker may be under devoplment


According to V.K Thakur, The missile will use scram jet tech, Any official conformation highly doubt-able, Also he mixed PJ-10 airlucnhed Missle with PJ-10-2..
well if the blog is lying then that's not my fault :frusty:













You never know..
well may be our enemies know (LOL):laugh:
 

SPIEZ

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2011
Messages
3,509
Likes
1,018
1. The Pershing has a CEP of 30m, look it up. Trying to say that's false would be being unnecesarily argumentative.

2. Radar equiped Maneuvarable Re-entry Vehicles have been developed and produced since the 1980's, its not a debate, it's a verifiable fact.

3. Balistic missiles aren't meant to be accurate. They dont need to be. A nuclear warhead missing its target by a 100 meters doesn't really matter. The target would be just as desroyed had the warhead exploded 2 meters away from it. The American's were hard pressed to make the Pershing II more accurate because its warhead was considerably less powerful than the warhead on Pershing I, thus a need to make sure the CEP was reduced from 400m to 30m.

4. I thought you guys were saying the DF21D wouldn't work, that it'd miss, or there was no-way of finding a CBG in the open ocean or it would be easy to counter it etc etc. Now you're saying India should develop something similar?8) Nice 180 man.
1) Pershang II is a missile developed by USA, which is far ahead in technology. (Aren't they the first one to a GPS guided glide bomb JDAM )

2) I would like a link to your second post regarding radar guided ReV

3) I thought China has a no first use nuclear policy and so does US/UK/France, i.e. any country that currently possess the CBGs. So where is the question of Nuclear DF21D ? Or are you suggesting a first strike on CBG ?

4) Development of an AsBM was my idea, I do not represent either the Indian MoD, or any defense organisation. BTW, none of our current threats possess a fully operational CBG. So what is the use of a AsBM targeting CBGs.
I brought out that fact only to say that a BM should be compared to another BM, not a cruise missile.
 
Last edited:

Drsomnath999

lord of 32 teeth
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2011
Messages
1,223
Likes
1,226
Firstly Drsomnath, this is an inspired thread, thankyou for providing such an excellent platform for discussion.
u are always welcome, this kind of platform would also come in future till i have time to do foruming (LOL):pound:

But then looking at these two anti-ship platforms, (from a neutral standpoint, ie, forgeting that one is Chinese and one is Russian/Indian), I would have to go for the DF21D, and not because its Chinese, but simply because of its capability. Let me explain:


In my opinion, the two differ very much in function, with each doing very well within its own sphere. The DF21D is designed to keep any CBG at arms length. Chinese policy is to employ area denial against a more advanced millitary, in todays reality: the US Navy. Denying the opposing power the use of his most flexible and powerful conventional units: CBG's, within China's immediate sphere of influence. A 2000+ km range DF21D does not allow any admiral in his right mind to move his most valuable targets into the kill zone. Even with in-flight refueling, air assets from the carrier would have a limited ability to operate in that area, contesting the air space with Chinese fighters who enjoy better support in terms of refueling and AWACS as well as possessing a definite numerical advantage.


Thus the DF21D basically removes US Navy CBG's from the equation, only leaving them with the SSN and SSGN option, who mind you, would then have to operate in SSK and SSN infested waters, whilst also being targeted by ASW air and surface assets.
mate 1st of all i would say by reading ur post that u r simply overrating or overestimating ur weapons capabilty & warfare capabilty to superpower US .Well why r assuming that ur airforce would have overwhelming air superiority to US which has much well trained & network centric air force with 5th gen fighter & bombers .only thing adavantage would be nearby location of chinese airforce to it's homeland .About numerical advantage dont worry US has many bases in ASEAN region they would bring in as many fighters they want .
ANother similiar hopeless assumption that Chinese ASW would detect the most silent sub of world US navy's virginia/sea wolf nuke sub ,common man plz be practical





The question then arises, can you do the same thing with a hypersonic CM with a 280km range? The answer is a definite NO. Sure it is much more flexible in terms of launch platforms, but lets analyse them.


Submarines: This is the ultimate in stealth targeting of surface assets. But then the cruise missile is not fire and forget, the target must be painted for them for until they are in range to identify the target themselves. This means, the sub must either paint the target itself with its surface search radar (which implies surfacing, and is thus extremely unadvisable), or relying on other assets to identify the target for them.
In this sense, the CM is the same as the DF21D in needing other assets to find and guide it to its target before it enters its terminal phase, implying that the use of either MPA's or helicopters. The notion that an MPA or an AEW helicopter can get close enough to identify an AIRCRAFT CARRIER, which operates within layers and layers of AAW protection is as I'm sure you realize, absurd. I'm not sure if the Indian navy can find and track surface vessels operating in international waters using space based assets, but this is how the Soviet navy planned to provide guidance when using sub and Kirov cruiser launched 400+km range Granit CM against US aircraft carriers in conjuction with long range bear MP aircraft.


The same applies for surface naval assets such as frigates or destroyers and air assets, ie. closing to within 290 km of a CBG, with carrrier-borne AWACS and destroyer and frigate pickets observing hundreds of kilometers around the carrier would be suicide in the face of precision munition and anti-ship cruise misslie equiped carrier-borne fighters.
well mate i would like to tell u that brahmos 2 range can be increased with ease ,but due to mtcr it is restricted to 290 km ,but it could easily have 700-800 km range & i hope india would be doing it in case of war .

u r only pointing out stealth ,ok i would explain all ur points
1 .Subs : see todays AIP enabled SSk & nuke subs are very quite & deadly & Sub launched ASCM is the deadliest threat to any ship ask any proffesional they would also say the same thing .
& also u have false assumption that brahmos Ascm neads Sub guidance for targets .Mid-course guidance is through Inertial Navigation System (INS) & while it's terminal phase may have active/passive homing seeker.
U read this site u would have a better idea about it's guidance .
WHAT
Brahmos Missile - a knol by Vijainder K Thakur

2.Ships : these are also becoming stealthy but i assume their role would be for destroying surface warships but not carriers.But todays ships also have advanced air defences

3.Fighters : same thing 5th gen fighters are stealthy ,so out many fighters assign to destroy a carrier 1 can surely penetrate any layered defence of carrier group for sure

Thus the hypersonic CM would be more useful if the opposing CBG was operating within its users EEZ, which is highly unlikely since CBG's operate far out to sea, well out the Brahmos's 290 km range.
well i would say the opposite it gives the user flexiblty to launch it any anywhere including required in enemy's EEZ also while df 21d can only do it from it's homeland ,yes if they do the soviet style in cuba to deploy it in foreign bases then that's a diffrent thing but still it can be detected .
Well

That's why I conclude that the DF21D would be the more survivable option, (due mostly to its tremendous range).


Any thoughts?
About range of DF 21d see more the range it also has advantages & disadvantages .
Adv : it can destroy it's target from long range .
Disadv :1.u must have accurate guidance for BM ,cep value must be less than 25 i assume to hit a big carrier also the target is not static it is
mobile
2.it can also give more reaction time for enemy ship to deploy it's air defences.& also it has more chances of being detected .

Also i had posted it's counter weapons in 1st page of this thread kindly read it .Most probably it can be intercepted though SM3, but it can be effective if they deploy MIRVS or overwhelm the enemy's airdefences by firing atleast 20-30 ASBM at single time for a single aircraft carrier but it would be costly

Well it can only target AC while it cannot target small warships like FAST attack vessels ,while Brahmos 2 can target anything at such short range with pinpointed accuracy
 

Kunal Biswas

Member of the Year 2011
Ambassador
Joined
May 26, 2010
Messages
31,123
Likes
40,562
Well brother that is for mid course guidance only but Asbm must it must have a seeker in it's terminal guidance to hit any mobile target not static target .So many blogs /defence sites states that it has IIR seeker / or radar seeker in it's terminal phase.Well about the heat / plasma factor i had posted the link in my previous post ,Well i had consulted many chinese member about it in other forums they also say the same thing ..
I did copy paste from same article, Also dont discussed these matter with Chinese forum but on international forum, There been debates on it and i gave you the result, I also say i had chat with this matter with a Chinese forum owner popularly known as Bd_Popye Ex US navy, He conform abt it also he told abt its tests that appeared in his forum..

well it may be guided by radar ,but it has IR seeker
RIM-161 SM-3 (AEGIS Ballistic Missile Defense)
True..

but brahmos 2 seeker may be under devoplment
Preciously which will be better..

well if the blog is lying then that's not my fault :frusty:
I am not blaming anyone..
well may be our enemies know (LOL):laugh:
These things are usually come to know in battle..
 

ice berg

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2011
Messages
2,145
Likes
290
Before you hit anything, you need to find them first. Finding an AC that dont want to be found is like finding a needle in the ocean, literally.
 

Drsomnath999

lord of 32 teeth
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2011
Messages
1,223
Likes
1,226
I did copy paste from same article, Also dont discussed these matter with Chinese forum but on international forum, There been debates on it and i gave you the result, I also say i had chat with this matter with a Chinese forum owner popularly known as Bd_Popye Ex US navy, He conform abt it also he told abt its tests that appeared in his forum..
well whatever ,




Preciously which will be better..
too early to predict ,but i have faith in pillai that he would deliver

I am not blaming anyone..
lol:pound:

These things are usually come to know in battle..
hmnmm correct :rolleyes:
 

nimo_cn

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2009
Messages
3,992
Likes
793
Country flag
@j20, how authentic are the rumors about the YuanWang4 circulating in Chinese cyberspace?
 

no smoking

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
4,103
Likes
816
Country flag
Well, calm down everyone.

Before we get deeper, can anyone show us a picture of real Brahmos 2? I just think it is unfair to compare a product with something still on the paper.
 

Drsomnath999

lord of 32 teeth
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2011
Messages
1,223
Likes
1,226
Well, calm down everyone.

Before we get deeper, can anyone show us a picture of real Brahmos 2? I just think it is unfair to compare a product with something still on the paper.
can anyone show me the picture where df 21d really targetted any moving aircraft carrier apart from photoshop pics :taunt:
 

no smoking

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
4,103
Likes
816
Country flag
can anyone show me the picture where df 21d really targetted any moving aircraft carrier apart from photoshop pics :taunt:
At least the chinese already make that weapon, how it work is another question.

But, where is the Brahmos 2?

It is just like you are telling your friend: my daughter is more beatiful than yours!
Then you friend ask: Can you show me your daughter?
The answer is: she is not born yet!
 
Last edited:

nitesh

Mob Control Manager
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2009
Messages
7,550
Likes
1,279
here is some news about BrahMos 2
 

Drsomnath999

lord of 32 teeth
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2011
Messages
1,223
Likes
1,226
At least the chinese already make that weapon, how it work is another question.

But, where is the Brahmos 2?
here it is
Brahmos achieves Mach 6.5 speed during test
The latest version of Indo-Russian Brahmos cruise missile has achieved a speed of Mach 6.5 during experiments at Hyderabad and the target is to achieve Mach 7, a top DRDO official said in Chennai on Monday.
"Experiments are being done in Hyderabad. We have completed tests up to Mach 6.5," BrahMos Aerospace Private Limited Chief Executive Officer and Managing Director A Sivathanu Pillai said in Chennai.
The target is to achieve Mach 7, he said.
Brahmos achieves Mach 6.5 speed during test - India News - IBNLive

It is just like you are telling your friend: my daughter is more beatiful than yours!
Then you friend ask: Can you show me your daughter?
The answer is: she is not born yet!
well ur DF21 d is like this

&
our brahmos 2 is like this

the meaning is atleast we can see whether the girl is beautiful even if she is teen or not while we cannot for ur

PLEAZE NOT: i meant no religious offence
 

no smoking

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
4,103
Likes
816
Country flag

utubekhiladi

The Preacher
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 3, 2010
Messages
3,023
Likes
1,431
Do you realise this is done in LAB. It is more likely talking about Brahmos' engine instead of a real missile.
i am interested to see how deep would you are willing to go with your arrogance. keep trolling!

the people in our labs are 10000% times smarter than you, they know what they are talking about. once the missile is finished it will reach mach 7+ will full payload. of-course, the missiles are initially tested in "LAB" only. it is not going to be tested inside shopping mall or in a pub. you don't even know the first thing about missiles and yet you are here to question and judge about brahmos II.

let see what you typed
It is more likely talking about Brahmos' engine instead of a real missile.
.

when you typed "more likely", it indicates that you are not 100% sure if only the missile engine was tested or the missile itself. comeback again next-time when you are 100% sure about this.
 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top