Now everyone knows what happened to NPO Mashinostroenia's Alfa project. Alfa was meant to be a follow-on to Yakhont/Oniks using common subsystems as far as possible. It disappeared off the scene around 96-97, the reason being given that NPO Mash lacked the money. <P>The PJ-10 length is close to what was suggested for the Alfa, as are the flight/attack profile. A Russian military publication suggested that a milestone and public unveiling were due in '99 but that didn't happen. Could have been project slippage on account of funding or technical difficulties. Could Kargil have lead to changes in requirements?
What about using Lakshya's engine in cruise missiles?? The PTAE-7 is indigenous, tested for a while:<BR> <A HREF="http://www.indiaserver.com/thehindu/2001/01/24/stories/0224000y.htm" TARGET=_blank>http://www.indiaserver.com/thehindu/2001/01/24/stories/0224000y.htm</A> <P>"The PTAE-7 develops a thrust of 380 kg.f at ISA sea level static conditions with a<BR> specific fuel consumption of 1.15 kg./kg.f/hr. It has a length of 1,270 mm. and a maximum<BR> diameter of 330 mm., and weighs 65 kg. The engine is designed with materials and<BR> features for protection against seawater corrosion so that it can be used again after its<BR> recovery from sea."<P> Why is this not a good engine alternative for long range cruise missiles? Turbofans are more efficient, but how much more? I tried to find sfc for the Tomahawk engine which is in the same thrust class, but could not. Anybody?
<BR>I dont have it coz i cant afford it but Janes all the worlds aircraft has a very very big section at the back, all full of engines (indevelopment and being developed) and the specs...that would tell u about the sfc,or tsfc or what ever it is....the boeing people are prob of no help.......<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by agupta:<BR><B><BR>Any ideas what exactly the multiple warhead capability means ? Hopefully its not a mis-labeling of the ability to carry various type of warheads!<P>If not, what then ? Cluster muitions ? Independent terminal guidance to each warhead to make it more difficult to counter and improve probability of doing _some_ damage ? <P>Anybody know of a similar feature in other land attack missiles? <P>very intriguing ...</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I suspect it means among the following:<P>1. Conventional versus nuclear<BR>2. Multiple targets<P>check out this URL for how the Tomahawk works <A HREF="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/gulf/weapons/tomahawk.html" TARGET=_blank>www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/gulf/weapons/tomahawk.html</A> <BR><P>------------------<BR>Laurie
Interesting report here:<BR> <A HREF="http://www.ifpa.org/pdfs/CM2000/CM_Report.pdf" TARGET=_blank>www.ifpa.org/pdfs/CM2000/CM_Report.pdf</A> <P>It talks about India having tested an indigenous turbofan engine within the Lakshya family. I guess Brhamos must be the Coral program that this reports also.<P>So according to this:<BR>1) We have tested an indigenous turbofan engine already for cruise missiles. ( I used to wonder why we were still hearing about PTAE testing in the late 90's since my impression was the turbojet was an older development in field use already).<BR>2) India has 3 distinct programs that may lead to cruise missiles, namely Lakshya, Coral & Sagarika.<BR> From reading the general description it sounds like either Lakshya or Sagarila (rather than this Ramjet based thingie) is more likely to yield a long range cruise missile.<P>
<A HREF="http://www.the-hindu.com/stories/0116000i.htm" TARGET=_blank>http://www.the-hindu.com/stories/0116000i.htm</A> <P><I>Who are the potential clients for BrahMos?</I><P>Pakistan and China should be too, since we can control the missile trajectory if it is used against us.<BR>
After talking a lot about Brahmastra, we get Brahmos !!<P>What is the difference ?<P>Me thinks :<P>Brahmos is the Hind/Russia joint venture, as stated in the news. Can it not be an acronym for BRAHMastra MOScow ? Why Brahmaputra ?<P>Are its products the Sagarika / Brahmastra / Dhanush and their likes. If so is PJ-10 the same as Sagarika ?<P>Brahmastra mean the ultimate weapon. It suggest some nuclear or themronuclear bomb. But the PJ-10 does not seem to be that. So the PJ-10 may not be the Brahmastra but Sagarika.<P>Seen the photo of PJ-10, thanks to Visnhu Som ? PJ-10 is huge compared to the Uran launchers. if Uran has a range of 130 kms, this missile's range cannot be simply 300 km, it would be much much more.<P>It does not look like a "tactical weapon" in the category of say Harpoon / Exocet, it seem to be more of a "strategic weapon" like the Tomahawk. And Tomahawk's range is not 300 km<P>Another question, what is Indian Navy upto<P>It has<BR>SS-N-2 Styx (due for replacement)<BR>SS-N-25 Uran / <BR>SS-N-27 Klub series<BR>Dhanush<BR>Sagirika<BR>and now PJ-10<P>and they all seem to have similar performance eg range is 130 - 300 km<P>IN seem to be creating a logistic nightmare for itself<P>Even USN may not be having so manu different weapons !!<P>Regards<BR>Kersi
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kersi Dotiwalla:<BR><B>Brahmastra mean the ultimate weapon. It suggest some nuclear or themronuclear bomb. Kersi </B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>mmm... I thought trishul or the fire from Shiv was the ultimate!
Always find nugget when searching Google:<BR>I found this nuggest from the IPCS archive. <A HREF="http://www.ipcs.org/archives/a-ndi-index/00-10-oct.html" TARGET=_blank>http://www.ipcs.org/archives/a-ndi-index/00-10-oct.html</A> <P>Looks like at least I was sleeping when this Brohmos report was published last year in Octobor.<P>This one also has specific technical specs of the missile. Specially 500Kg payload sutiable for nuclear weapon.<BR> <A HREF="http://www.thestatesman.org/arc.news.php3?id=21903&type=Pageone&theme=A&dat=2000-10-22" TARGET=_blank>http://www.thestatesman.org/arc.news.php3?id=21903&type=Pageone&theme=A&dat=2000-10-22</A> <P><B>India reworks Russian missile to make it N-capable</B><P>SRINJOY CHOWDHURY<BR>STATESMAN NEWS SERVICE<P>NEW DELHI, Oct. 21. — The Bramhos, a new supersonic missile, is virtually impossible to shoot down and can be launched from ships and aircraft and made to carry a nuclear warhead.<BR>The Russians have provided the missile but the Defence Research and Development Organisation is “fine-tuning” it to enhance its range and warhead-carrying capacity. Till now, only the short-range Prithvi and the intermediate-ranged Agni can carry nuclear warheads.<BR>“It’s in the final stages of development and could be handed over to the Navy very soon,” a senior official said. It is understood that Russian scientists met DRDO officials over the past few months for consultation on this issue. Officials refused to say if it had an Indian name, claiming the project was still top secret.<BR><B>Officially, the missile has a range of 300km and can carry a half-a-tonne warhead,</B> and is thus within the ambit of the international Missile Technology Control Regime. If DRDO does the reworking, it will not be a case of importing restricted technology and won’t attract international pressure.<BR>Few weapons can change warfare, but the Bramhos, even in its current form, is likely to strengthen the Navy. “It’s a supersonic weapon and can’t be shot down. It requires a lot of electronic counter measures to ensure protection against it,” a senior official said. Once it is re-jigged to carry a heavier missile, “it will be nuclear-capable”.<BR>Normally, a tactical nuclear warhead weighs more than half a tonne, a reason why the MTCR has pegged restrictions to that level. The Navy is likely to fit Project 17 warships — advanced frigates being built at Mumbai’s Mazagon Docks — with the Bramhos. These frigates, as one former chief of naval staff once said, can “substantially influence war on land.” <B>Armed with Bramhos, which can be used for tactical or semi-strategic purposes, it certainly can</B>. Later, officials said, the missile could be fitted on other “platforms”, meaning other warships and planes. After modifications, it could be put on submarines.<BR>The acquisition of Bramhos is another instance of the Navy’s attempt to be able to influence affairs on land. This requires reach, meaning aircraft and missiles. Bramhos is just one such missile. <B>If the Navy can lease the TU-22ME or the Backfire bomber from Russia, the missile could be placed on aircraft.</B>
<A HREF="http://www.usdefense.com/articles/may2001/050301_3.htm" TARGET=_blank>http://www.usdefense.com/articles/may2001/050301_3.htm</A> <BR><B>New Russian Missile Said Better Than Anti-Ship Defenses </B><P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>... .. . The Yakhont designers assume that at a distance of 300 km the enemy mad detect a missile launching and do whatever necessary to destroy it," said one Russian analysis. "But being ‘deaf’ to jamming…[and] flying at a speed of 750 meters [2,500 feet] per second and performing complex tactical maneuvering during flight, (it) will reach its target anyway." ... .. .<P>.. . . The missile can also be used on mobile "coastal area" launchers, and designers are working on an air-launched version that can be launched from Russian-built Su-27 and Su-35 warplanes.<P>Because of the missile’s decreased size and weight, the warplanes would be able to carry three of them, the analysis said.<BR>.. . .<BR><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I can imagine why an air launched brahmos may be smaller and lighter than the one that was tested. No need for a launch rocket. No need for all those rocket motors to change from vertical to horizontal. No need for a protective nose cap to be blown off the air intake.
IMHO the air launched BrahMos will have to have booster stage, since the missile has to get to ~Mach 1.7 to start the Ram Jet. It would very difficult to get a Mig29/Su30 to go supersonic with such big missile(s) on its wings. The protective nose cone would still be required to reduce drag on the aircraft. <P>Yes a smaller booster would suffice the airlaunched missile version.<P>---------------------------------------------------------<P>This (reduced weight of 2.5T) could be the reason for the shorter lenght of BrahMos.<P><A HREF="http://www.sci.fi/~fta/ruaf-3-8.htm" TARGET=_blank>http://www.sci.fi/~fta/ruaf-3-8.htm</A> <P>>> .... NPO Mash is developing a naval missile Yakhont, <B>which weighs 2.5 tons</B>. Initial thrust is provided by a rocket and the flight continues with a ramjet engine. The cruise velocity is Mach 2 - 2.5 and the range 120 - 300 km. The guidance system is inertia and active radar homing head<p>[This message has been edited by Arun_S (edited 17-06-2001).]
<I>"The cruise velocity is Mach 2 - 2.5 and the range 120 - 300 km."</I><P>These kinds of ranges are fine for tactical use, but for strategic use (nuclear deterrence) much larger ranges are required. A range of at least 1000km (preferably 2000) while carrying a 50KT warhead is required in order to deter China/Pak. Anything less than this and you don't even get their attention.<BR>
Yes!<P>Recorded the launch clip in the weekly news summmary. You'll soon see a clip on B-R.<P> <A HREF="http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/clips/brahmbr.mpeg" TARGET=_blank>www.bharat-rakshak.com/clips/brahmbr.mpeg</A> <p>[This message has been edited by shiv (edited 18-06-2001).]
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by shyamala:<BR><B> mmm... I thought trishul or the fire from Shiv was the ultimate!</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>If you mean our own Shiv,the doctor with the hyperlinked scalpel..u r correct <P>Kapil<BR>aka Prahri<BR>aka BR Admin undercover<P>
I wonder what sort of guidance system the Brahmos has?<P>Does it use GPS for in flight navigation? What sort of GPS signal does it use, since P-code is encrypted for use only by US and allied military?<P>Does it use Digital terrain mapping (DTM)?<p>[This message has been edited by hegde (edited 18-06-2001).]
Arun, BR did cover this item and is in the news archives. There was some discussion on this subject at that time. But the link to PJ-10 was not made at that time. <A HREF="http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/MISSILES/News/00-Oct.html" TARGET=_blank>http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/MISSILES/News/00-Oct.html</A> <P>I saw the ndtv pix and all that. How do they account for the 2m difference in length between the PJ-10 and the Yakhont(6.9m vs 8.9m)? Is it from the booster which gets jettisoned? The flames in the front end are used for steering it from vertical to horizontal. So it could be part of a front end steering package which gets jettisoned after the attitude change and blows the shroud for ram-jet intake too at the same time.<BR>rama turbo fan is needed for long range vehicles as it is more economical. Turbojets are for short range. But wasnt there a CAG critique of the PTA-7 engine as being very wasteful of the resources?<BR>
I haven't seen the video link as yet,but the launch appears typical of the "cold launch" technique of the Russians,where the missile is ejected from the all weather,maintenance free container/launcher.After ejection,the attitude is changed as shown in the pics of the launch,before the main engine fires. Fakel is the Russian manufacturer of this system.Most western systems are hot launches,more expensive and problematic.The French are reported to be obtaining Fakel's technology for their use.<P>
Now this is a another data point. <BR> <A HREF="http://www.hindustantimes.com/nonfram/210601/dtlfor71.asp" TARGET=_blank>http://www.hindustantimes.com/nonfram/210601/dtlfor71.asp</A> <P>Russian industry officials said PJ-10, the 280-km cruise missile tested at Chandipur-at-Sea on June 12, is a variant of Mashinostryenia's rocket-and ramjet-powered <B>3M-55 Onyx.</B> <P>-------------------------<BR>Fas has info at <A HREF="http://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/row/ss-n-26.htm" TARGET=_blank>http://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/row/ss-n-26.htm</A> <BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by shyamala:<BR><B> mmm... I thought trishul or the fire from Shiv was the ultimate!</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Do not know about the Trishul, but on this forum, fire from Shiv is defnitely the ulitimate
What's interesting is that the Onyx/Yakhont appears to be derived from the SS-N-7 (at least according to FAS). What an interesting coincidence! The SS-N-7 equipped INS Chakra back in the 1980s.<P>Oh, incidentally, a US admiral (they have dozens, don't get too impressed!) told me back in 1995 that the Soviets had leased <I>two</I> nuclear submarines to India. Maybe there <I>was</I> an INS Chitra then?!
<I>>> - we (India) is capable of making a 45kg warhead. Now whether we are going to put this warhead on Akash or some other missile/torpedo/bomb/artillery shell etc. that is not disclosed.</I><P>Very correct. That was a message to the poweres to be of the range of Indian nukes.
NATO armory had similar sized Howitzer/Gun fired Nuke for tactical use in Europe. IIRC they were 0.2 KT to 1 KT weapons. The big difference is that all those weapons were "Gun-Barrel" design rather then "Implostion" type becuase of the hi accelaration at launch. Missile delivered nukes do not have such constarains can be "Implostion" type.<P>Also in early years of NATO, the US & British had nuke tipped Anti-Aircraft MIssiles.<P>I cant hezard a guess on the yield of 45 Kg N weapon.<P>Payload reduction on a 3000Kg single stage CM from 250Kg to 45 will indeed have little impact(7 to 15%) on range.<p>[This message has been edited by Arun_S (edited 22-06-2001).]
This is a post that you might have already seen if the americans had this to say about the chinese variant a year ago, what would they say when the indians use the brahmos on their ships.<BR> <A HREF="http://www.warroom.com/Latest%20News/russiasends.htm" TARGET=_blank>http://www.warroom.com/Latest%20News/russiasends.htm</A>
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kumar M:<BR><B><BR>The sunburns you refer to above - IN has had these in its inventory for much longer than the chinese. It did not create even a slight murmur in the US govt.</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>The SS-N-22 Sunburn is either<BR>1. 3M80 Raduga/Moskit missile, which is on the Sovermeny<BR>or<BR>2. Air-launched variant of the Yakhont<P>IIRC,<BR>None of these have ever been in IN or IAF inventory. If they had they would been on the INS Delhi [according to the original plan] or the Jaguars.<BR>Please state the source of such an incredible statement.<P><P>------------------<BR>Adios<BR>Saurabh
Link on Chinese missiles ...<P>DONG FENG (EAST WIND) 15 - EXPORT VERSION M9<BR> <A HREF="http://www.softwar.net/df15.html" TARGET=_blank>http://www.softwar.net/df15.html</A> <P>Also ...<BR> <A HREF="http://www.softwar.net/missile.html" TARGET=_blank>http://www.softwar.net/missile.html</A>
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kumar M:<BR><B>Raju:<P>Americans are not really concerned about Indian armaments</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>...because we don't have an ICBM yet.<P>
Kumar M<P>There was speculation that IN has SS-N-22 Sunburn because that was the missile originally preferred for the P15 Delhi Class Destroyers [The reason for the blast deflectors on the INS Delhi, which are absent in the INS Mysore and INS Mumbai].<BR>And believe me, if IN had anything like the Sunburn, we would have armed our ships with them.<BR>For some reasons [anyone know them?, cost was not the only issue] Uran was then given preference.<P>The FAS info though technically correct is very old for many non-US sections.<P>------------------<BR>Adios<BR>Saurabh<p>[This message has been edited by Saurabh (edited 24-06-2001).]
Nyn/Arun_S<P>if you guys don't mind i wanted to ask a question. if one looks at the intake nozzle of PJ-10/yakhont it is different from SS-22. now SS-22 intake is somewhat similar to SA-6/Akash.<BR>Now is it possible that this is a Adv? direction that may be taken in future designs of Akash and Astra,R-77 also.<P>I seem to vaguely remember that I read somewhere the concept drawing of South Africa RAMJET AAM was also similar to rounded SS-26 style.<P>Meteor on the other hand seems to have the Older? style two intakes.<P><p>[This message has been edited by Raj Malhotra (edited 25-06-2001).]
The straight in compression of BrahMos should be distinctly more efficient. But I will defere to the Narayanan for expert openion. <P>BTW, Akash & Brahmos have distinctly different flight profile and mission objectives, thus one size fit all does not appy here. <P>E.g. Akash has very short powered phase and has a solid fueled ramjet, as against long duration liquidfuelled ramjet of BrahMos. <P>Secondly due to the small size of Akash, the nosecone realestate has to go for seeker electronics etc. BrahMos on the other hand is much bigger (bigger diameter) and can incorporate the guidence electronics in the compressor nosecone of the RamJet intake.<P>Further the BrahMos inlet design allows higher efficiency at wider range of speed, with the possibility of moving the nosecone for desired level of Ram compression.<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by acharya:<BR><B>How does all this relate to the recent Chinese test of its own ALCM developed/modified from Russian sources?<BR>Any comparision available or anybody care to do it?</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>The Russians and the Chinese have their own joint ventures and co-operation in defence production. Isn't there a possibility that these Indo-Russian productions will find it's way to China and eventually to TSP ?<P>
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests