Nirbhay Cruise Missile Development

[no smoking]

So, the issue is that @Hydra3 believes that a missile can never carry a seeker more better than a radar mounted on ship (no reason I find though).

On the contrast, there is no reason to believe that a missile's seeker can be better than a radar mounted on the ship UNLESS THERE IS A HUGE TECH GAP BETWEEN THEM, such as American seeker vs Iran radar.

With same or similar tech level, ship's radar has much more power supply, more initiator/reciever, and more space to install extra equipments. And most importantly, the shipboard radar has a far better computer processing system than the one on the missile.

 

[HariPrasad-1]

Yeah... Frequency vs Wavelength to be precise.

Both are inversely proportional.

 

[Craigs]

On the contrast, there is no reason to believe that a missile's seeker can be better than a radar mounted on the ship UNLESS THERE IS A HUGE TECH GAP BETWEEN THEM, such as American seeker vs Iran radar.

With same or similar tech level, ship's radar has much more power supply, more initiator/reciever, and more space to install extra equipments. And most importantly, the shipboard radar has a far better computer processing system than the one on the missile.

You are again thinking linearly when the problem is non-linear. Think of the tasks for the ship's sensor vs the SSM missile's seeker and the factors it depends on. Do they have to do the same amount of work? A ship's sensor is more powerful in raw sense but if it is not able to do it's task, is it any good?

Think of a transport aircraft with 4 engines on each wing but TWR << 1 and a fighter with the same single engine and TWR > 1. Do you think the transport plane will prevail against a fighter just because it has 8 engines?

 

[Indx TechStyle]

On the contrast, there is no reason to believe that a missile's seeker can be better than a radar mounted on the ship UNLESS THERE IS A HUGE TECH GAP BETWEEN THEM, such as American seeker vs Iran radar.

I didn't deny world's most advanced FFGs and DDGs can't divert missiles. It's still relevant as only a pinchful of nations possess them. So, yes tech gap is prevalent between China vs any Southeast Asian nation or India vs Pakistan. Nature and frequency of seeker must definitely be far more efficient.

Turning on and off time of a seeker will determine how much diversion will be there even in EW suit of destroyer is capable. Speed and countermeasure systems of missiles are further going to trim chance.

 

[Craigs]

I didn't deny world's most advanced FFGs and DDGs can't divert missiles. It's still relevant as only a pinchful of nations possess them. So, yes tech gap is prevalent between China vs any Southeast Asian nation or India vs Pakistan. Nature and frequency of seeker must definitely be far more efficient.

Turning on and off time of a seeker will determine how much diversion will be there even in EW suit of destroyer is capable. Speed and countermeasure systems of missiles are further going to trim chance.

Also, China has not demonstrated any capability in EW. They don't have access to Western or Russian tech either.

 

[Hydra3]

Another thing to note is that interceptor missiles either depend on active homing sensor or on command guidance. Both of which can get affected by the "high powered jammers" themselves.

First of all interceptor missile is one of the choices, that doesn't means that they will be fired always when they saw an incoming missile. You can cross check it. The yemane rebels fired two missiles on USN few months back, no anti ship missiles were fired all are deflected electronically. As you said brahmos can electronically generate clone of brahmos along with original missile, same thing can be done with ships too, i heard this capability when we have inducted our very first ship from talwar class frigate family, the INS talwar.And if we are firing missile to intercept incoming missiles at long range you have to assume that ecm technique are not choosen. And for close range interception, interceptor missiles will be using either mmr radar or IR homing, at the same time most of the antiship seekers are in xband, so you can effectively try to jam incoming missile without jaming short range interceptor missile.

Even if both having same frequency band, you can jam incoming missile without jaming interceptors, how aircrafts firing missiles & jaming enemy aircraft? It may be difficult but possible.

What i feel is that, Brahmos is a very potent platform, but its not invincible. It can be dodged electronically if enemy found its launch much early and its highly likely too. At present day threat scenario, we need to develop next generation antiship missiles like NSM of Norway.

 

[Hydra3]

I didn't deny world's most advanced FFGs and DDGs can't divert missiles. It's still relevant as only a pinchful of nations possess them. So, yes tech gap is prevalent between China vs any Southeast Asian nation or India vs Pakistan. Nature and frequency of seeker must definitely be far more efficient.

Turning on and off time of a seeker will determine how much diversion will be there even in EW suit of destroyer is capable. Speed and countermeasure systems of missiles are further going to trim chance.

Our enemy is modernising its surface fleet fastly, they are inducting the chinese frigates. So definitely they will be having some good ecm capabilities.

 

[Hydra3]

You are again thinking linearly when the problem is non-linear. Think of the tasks for the ship's sensor vs the SSM missile's seeker and the factors it depends on. Do they have to do the same amount of work? A ship's sensor is more powerful in raw sense but if it is not able to do it's task, is it any good?

Think of a transport aircraft with 4 engines on each wing but TWR << 1 and a fighter with the same single engine and TWR > 1. Do you think the transport plane will prevail against a fighter just because it has 8 engines?

Wether a fighter jet or a formation fighter jet can jam awacs in long range? Or atljam awcas in closs range.

 

[Craigs]

First of all interceptor missile is one of the choices, that doesn't means that they will be fired always when they saw an incoming missile. You can cross check it. The yemane rebels fired two missiles on USN few months back, no anti ship missiles were fired all are deflected electronically. As you said brahmos can electronically generate clone of brahmos along with original missile, same thing can be done with ships too, i heard this capability when we have inducted our very first ship from talwar class frigate family, the INS talwar.And if we are firing missile to intercept incoming missiles at long range you have to assume that ecm technique are not choosen. And for close range interception, interceptor missiles will be using either mmr radar or IR homing, at the same time most of the antiship seekers are in xband, so you can effectively try to jam incoming missile without jaming short range interceptor missile.

Even if both having same frequency band, you can jam incoming missile without jaming interceptors, how aircrafts firing missiles & jaming enemy aircraft? It may be difficult but possible.

What i feel is that, Brahmos is a very potent platform, but its not invincible. It can be dodged electronically if enemy found its launch much early and its highly likely too. At present day threat scenario, we need to develop next generation antiship missiles like NSM of Norway.

As I already mentioned let us keep US out of the discussion, their capabilities are beyond your imagination (coronavirus not withstanding). Let us talk about adversaries we are likely to face in the foreseeable future.

The ship can either deploy high powered wide band jamming or enable its self protection weapon suites, it cannot do both at the same time. Brahmos turns on it's sensor at terminal stage and by then it is already in the burn through zone and jamming will have no or only minimal impact which can be overcome easily - in fact it can be an advantage for Brahmos if its seeker is in HOJ mode before going active at the last stage.

As far as shooting down the Brahmos really speaking there are only US, Russian, modern-European, Israel and Indian navies that have an AA misssile with that capability. Of these as well don't know how many can sustain a defense against a barrage of Brahmos.

The only hope for the enemy ship is to deploy decoys (with DRFM/mirror jammer) to seduce Brahmos away and make a run for it. This might work for small ships but capital ships it probably won't - Brahmos seeker tech has evolved too to defeat such attempts and I can think of at least one more cost effective enhancement to the seeker which will make it even more potent.

Also, if you are going to be shilling for other missile systems at least brush up on your high school physics and math. You couldn't even calculate Brahmos' speed until it was pointed out to you explicitly.

 

[Craigs]

Wether a fighter jet or a formation fighter jet can jam awacs in long range? Or atljam awcas in closs range.

Why would a fighter jet try to "jam" an awacs especially if it has no protection. Won't it try to shoot it down.
Take your meds before posting.

 

[no smoking]

Turning on and off time of a seeker will determine how much diversion will be there even in EW suit of destroyer is capable.

No, turning on time of the seeker has more impact on missile than EW suit of destroyer. After all, some of countermeasures don't rely on the capture of the signal of seekers. On the other hand, the seeker need certan of time to lock the target and counter the diversion, the missile also need time to adjust its flying trajecotry.

Speed and countermeasure systems of missiles are further going to trim chance.

The speed and countermeasure systems of missiles certainly make it easier to breakthrough. But the speed also narrow the missiles' own working time of countermeasure system. Also, the countermeasure systems of missiles will occupy the working time of processor and in turn affect the missile's target locking and fly control.

 

[no smoking]

You are again thinking linearly when the problem is non-linear. Think of the tasks for the ship's sensor vs the SSM missile's seeker and the factors it depends on. Do they have to do the same amount of work? A ship's sensor is more powerful in raw sense but if it is not able to do it's task, is it any good?

So, the way of you thing is just assuming that the ship's sensor is not working? Good, have people like you, who need an enemy.

Think of a transport aircraft with 4 engines on each wing but TWR << 1 and a fighter with the same single engine and TWR > 1. Do you think the transport plane will prevail against a fighter just because it has 8 engines?

Your argument is flawed: the engines are used to drive the plane and the transporter is 10 times heavier than the figher jet. In our case. the ship sensor and missile seeker are designed to counter each other. If we use your logic, it is a tiny seeker vs several 10 times powerful ship sensors.

 

[Craigs]

So, the way of you thing is just assuming that the ship's sensor is not working? Good, have people like you, who need an enemy.

If ship's sensor is not able to pick out a supersonic sea-skimming target with integrated ECM against the background clutter and plot a firing solution, then it certainly is not up to the task. How many capital ships in the IOR which can potentially face brahmos can do that?

 

[Craigs]

Your argument is flawed: the engines are used to drive the plane and the transporter is 10 times heavier than the figher jet. In our case. the ship sensor and missile seeker are designed to counter each other. If we use your logic, it is a tiny seeker vs several 10 times powerful ship sensors.

Are you trying to say that the Ship's sensor and Missile's seeker are trying to jam each other? I don't think that is how that works.

 

[Craigs]

Also, the countermeasure systems of missiles will occupy the working time of processor and in turn affect the missile's target locking and fly control.

Don't missile designer know that already. Is it so hard to choose a processor that can handle the task especially when the designers know before hand the speed, turning speed and radius of the missile?

 

[Karthi]

ECCM measures' are available in almost all modern Missiles , there are sensors to find any unusual attempt happened with Missile seeker . To avoid jamming it can employ various ECCM . That doesn't mean the Missile seeker is more capable than Ship/Ground radar , the Missile can employ simply decisive techniques against Radar so that it can confuse the Radar .


It is possible to jam every Missile theoretically but in reality missiles can go through EW environment , If we fire many missiles some of them miss targets some of them go through and hit target .

 

[IndianHawk]

No, turning on time of the seeker has more impact on missile than EW suit of destroyer. After all, some of countermeasures don't rely on the capture of the signal of seekers. On the other hand, the seeker need certan of time to lock the target and counter the diversion, the missile also need time to adjust its flying trajecotry.



The speed and countermeasure systems of missiles certainly make it easier to breakthrough. But the speed also narrow the missiles' own working time of countermeasure system. Also, the countermeasure systems of missiles will occupy the working time of processor and in turn affect the missile's target locking and fly control.

These theories don't hold when missiles come is solvos . One missile seeker will be tuned differently to other missile seeker.

And with supersonic hypersonic velocity ship it self has very minimal time to lock onto targets and counter fire. And even if ship can lock on both manuever of missile and maneuver of ship to escape missile are likely to end up in loosing the lock on smaller missile while that missile won't lose the lock of huge ship even if take few more seconds to hit it by different trajectory.

US Navy studies have concluded that system as robust as ageis struggle against solvo of supersonic missiles. Indian enemies china and Pakistan have nothing even comparable to ageis . Their ships are just helpless fodder to indian missile.

 

[porky_kicker]

I didn't deny world's most advanced FFGs and DDGs can't divert missiles. It's still relevant as only a pinchful of nations possess them. So, yes tech gap is prevalent between China vs any Southeast Asian nation or India vs Pakistan. Nature and frequency of seeker must definitely be far more efficient.

Turning on and off time of a seeker will determine how much diversion will be there even in EW suit of destroyer is capable. Speed and countermeasure systems of missiles are further going to trim chance.

SNR and radar/emitter burnout range

 

[Hydra3]

Why would a fighter jet try to "jam" an awacs especially if it has no protection. Won't it try to shoot it down.
Take your meds before posting.

You are the one who brought the fighter aircraft with two engine vs transport aircraft analogy here. So brought an illogical comparison and replied in that way.

 

[Hydra3]

As I already mentioned let us keep US out of the discussion, their capabilities are beyond your imagination (coronavirus not withstanding). Let us talk about adversaries we are likely to face in the foreseeable future.

The ship can either deploy high powered wide band jamming or enable its self protection weapon suites, it cannot do both at the same time. Brahmos turns on it's sensor at terminal stage and by then it is already in the burn through zone and jamming will have no or only minimal impact which can be overcome easily - in fact it can be an advantage for Brahmos if its seeker is in HOJ mode before going active at the last stage.

As far as shooting down the Brahmos really speaking there are only US, Russian, modern-European, Israel and Indian navies that have an AA misssile with that capability. Of these as well don't know how many can sustain a defense against a barrage of Brahmos.

The only hope for the enemy ship is to deploy decoys (with DRFM/mirror jammer) to seduce Brahmos away and make a run for it. This might work for small ships but capital ships it probably won't - Brahmos seeker tech has evolved too to defeat such attempts and I can think of at least one more cost effective enhancement to the seeker which will make it even more potent.

Also, if you are going to be shilling for other missile systems at least brush up on your high school physics and math. You couldn't even calculate Brahmos' speed until it was pointed out to you explicitly.

We can keep away nato here, but PN is also modernising its fleet, they inducting new frigates. Definitely they will have some punch, they know what we are having and what tgey are going to face.
I am not telling that brahmos will be fooled, what i am saying is that brahmos can be fooled. Brahmos is not an invincible missile.
If you want to say it as invincible, you are free to prove it with technical paper not just by will, could be, you dont know anything tyoe blabbering. Logically speaking, brahmos seeker is a miniscule one if you compares it with that of frigate or destroyers.