ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

The Military Issues & History Forum is a venue to discuss issues relating to the military aspects of the Indian Armed Forces, whether the past, present or future. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
JCage
BRFite
Posts: 1562
Joined: 09 Oct 2000 11:31

Postby JCage » 13 Oct 2007 06:19

Vick wrote:
vinayak_d wrote:Still the tomohawk can be stopped by decent air defences let alone S-300/400.

Alegedly, the S-300 was caught with its pants down recently.


Where?
Last edited by JCage on 13 Oct 2007 06:20, edited 1 time in total.

Vick
BRFite
Posts: 753
Joined: 14 Oct 1999 11:31

Postby Vick » 13 Oct 2007 06:20

JCage wrote:The US has been searching for a proper target to mimic supersonic CMs for quite some time, which has affected its defence preparedness, in the sense that they havent had the ability to validate their AD systems via repeated tests and familiarize crew with the same. This year, the Coyote was ordered and that should help.

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/gqm ... ses-03155/

The US picked up a batch of ex-Soviet Kh-31s at the tail end of the CW. Supposedly, the RAM did a creditable enough job against, especially the dual mode seeker one.

The Kh-31 stocks are depleted and the US has been trying to get something to replace them.

RATTLRS missile is now in development in the US and has a resemblence to the Brahmos.

Vick
BRFite
Posts: 753
Joined: 14 Oct 1999 11:31

Postby Vick » 13 Oct 2007 06:26

JCage wrote:Where?

Latest I've read is that the Iranian funded S-300 radar that was installed in Syria was compromised by US and Israelis. There was an article that stated that the Israelis managed to also jam a satelite TV provider in northern Israel along with the Syrian radars. Apparently, some permanent damage was done to satelite TV equipment around the Israeli-Syrian border.

Of course, my knowledge could be dated and OBE.

JCage
BRFite
Posts: 1562
Joined: 09 Oct 2000 11:31

Postby JCage » 13 Oct 2007 06:34

Vick,

Syria and Iran dont have any S-300's. There has been much speculation over it but no confirmed orders were placed afaik.

They have been asking for them for many years, but the Russians havent delivered any functional system yet. Iran does have the TOR-M1, about which there is speculation that it got countered and defeated. Even that is doubtful, because the TOR-M1 is basically a SHORAD system and unlikely to be deployed away from Damascus and key AFB.

Its more likely that the Israelis encountered and defeated SA-5s or SA-6s both of which are in service in Syria and form the backbone of their long range AD network.

vivek_ahuja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2223
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 16:58

Postby vivek_ahuja » 13 Oct 2007 06:37

It can conduct high speed maneuvers at low level, but at the cost of range. Note that it will going at ~ Mach 2 vs Mach 2.4+ at high level, but the issue of overcoming drag at sea level makes it use up more fuel. Thats what I meant earlier, but didnt use commas so my text is confusing I guess. With a high flying phase, you might lose ~40 Km with complicated manoeuvers, from the entire range of 290 Km. With a low-low-low profile, you'll end up halving the range with S curve manoeuvers- thats what I meant.


That’s the same as what I was saying. i guess I forgot to add that I was considering a target at the range limits for the Brahmos. That’s why I said that you will need to head in straight line towards it to actually be able to reach it in the first place. At higher altitudes, you might reach it even with maneuvers, but remain detected all the way.

The Brahmos Version 2 will have a range of ~1000 Km but at twice the Speed (and more if they can achieve it), so it reaches the target without susbtantial delay despite the range increase. What the range increase also means is that you can conduct more fancy manouevers but still maintain a range of ~300 Km plus easily.


A hypersonic vehicle with a range of 1000 Km is going to be one hell of a technological achievement. Anything over Mach 5, used for this kind of long range will in fact will be a achievement. At the moment though, I would be happier to have the range for the current missile increased. This is where I would think that the next step should logically be taken. Let me explain my thought process:

The current missile configuration is a center-body ramjet design assisted with a solid fuel rocket booster to take it to the design Mach number. As a result, it has only so much space within it to hold the extra fuel to take it to the distance of 290 Km or somewhat more. Under this circumstances, optimizing the aerodynamic performance will only lead to incremental advances. If we develop some high energy fuel, the fuel flow rate can be adjusted (reduced) and still achieve the present level of total temperature rise, thereby increasing the range.

Or we could increase the length of the existing missile to carry more fuel, which would bring further problems of aerodynamic stability and so on, which isn’t easy to handle. So as I think, we are already pushing the limits of the existing missile design. The third option, of course, would be to develop a whole new missile body from scratch and then proceed, which could also then incorporate the hypersonic flow conditions. But this last option means that we will be entering areas that are right up there in terms of aerospace technology.

The present missile was developed using the Russian missile and ramjet technology. The point is that if we want to realistically look at developing this newer Brahmos, we need to cooperate with the Russians again, and even then we will be entering new uncharted areas of extreme engineering. A worthwhile goal to pursue, but difficult nonetheless.

What are the existing details on the newer hypersonic Brahmos missile and how the deal exists between India and Russia is what needs to be looked at, not to mention the timeframe

I agree with all your points on the differences between ‘dancers’ and ‘streakers’ as you put it, so no arguments there.

JCage
BRFite
Posts: 1562
Joined: 09 Oct 2000 11:31

Postby JCage » 13 Oct 2007 06:41

Vick wrote:The US picked up a batch of ex-Soviet Kh-31s at the tail end of the CW. Supposedly, the RAM did a creditable enough job against, especially the dual mode seeker one. The Kh-31 stocks are depleted and the US has been trying to get something to replace them.


The Kh-31 is easier to counter iirc since it is an air launched unit, and the key takeaway was to take out the launching platform at range, and then employ both softkill and hardkill measures..

vinayak_d
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 66
Joined: 10 Mar 2007 03:33

Postby vinayak_d » 13 Oct 2007 06:41

Vick wrote:
vinayak_d wrote:Still the tomohawk can be stopped by decent air defences let alone S-300/400.

Alegedly, the S-300 was caught with its pants down recently.

vinayak_d wrote:The ICBM's have been there longer no one seems to have any credible counter?

Moscovites would be distressed to learn that since their city is supposed to be protected by multiple batteries (and layers) of ABMs.


The catch word is allegedly and we should be shitting in our pants because the famed barak was caught with its pants down against a chinese missile.

Vick
BRFite
Posts: 753
Joined: 14 Oct 1999 11:31

Postby Vick » 13 Oct 2007 06:46

No doubt that the SA-5/6 was utterly compromised, no surprises there.

More impressive, if true, is the suggestion that the Israelis hacked into the network that the Syrian ADGES system communicates on.

There's always more than one way to skin a cat. Can't jam the radar? Hack into its WAN...

JCage
BRFite
Posts: 1562
Joined: 09 Oct 2000 11:31

Postby JCage » 13 Oct 2007 06:47

Vivek,

At higher altitudes, you might reach it even with maneuvers, but remain detected all the way.


The Brahmos range of 290+ km includes both a high flying and low level component. So how it would work is that you maximize range by flying high (where you run the risk of detection), then dip low, conduct a S manouever and attack from a new direction at 10 Mtrs ASL to spoof the AD system. Without compromising overmuch on range. So its not as simple a tradeoff as it appears at first sight.

Alternatively, you could fly low all the way and conduct a S manouever. Or manage without, since you are coming in low and already have the element of surprise.


Re: other points:

The range can be increased with work (as of last year, DRDO was stated to be in a position to indigenize the Brahmos propulsion) its just the MTCR that has come in the way. The same has been mentioned in discussions with the Brahmos guys.

The hypersonic Brahmos follow on will be more of an Indian show, so technically MTCR shouldnt come into the picture. Thats what reports state anyways.

The Hypersonic missile program can be traced to around ~1999-2000 when work was underway at NAL, IISc etc to define it as a follow on to the Brahmos. Currently many facilities are being set up for the same as well.

As to how it will be set up, explained, etc- I guess time will tell, and we can but wait and watch!

Vick
BRFite
Posts: 753
Joined: 14 Oct 1999 11:31

Postby Vick » 13 Oct 2007 06:51

JCage wrote:The Kh-31 is easier to counter iirc since it is an air launched unit

What's easier to detect? A ~5sqm RCS fighter or a 100+sqm RCS ship?

JCage wrote:and the key takeaway was to take out the launching platform at range, and then employ both softkill and hardkill measures..

That's the philosophy against any shooter.

Vick
BRFite
Posts: 753
Joined: 14 Oct 1999 11:31

Postby Vick » 13 Oct 2007 06:56

vinayak_d wrote:The catch word is allegedly and we should be shitting in our pants because the famed barak was caught with its pants down against a chinese missile.

The chinese missile didn't get past the Barak. The Barak and STGR weren't turned on :P

JCage
BRFite
Posts: 1562
Joined: 09 Oct 2000 11:31

Postby JCage » 13 Oct 2007 06:57

Vick wrote:No doubt that the SA-5/6 was utterly compromised, no surprises there.


Which makes me wonder, why dont the Syrians upgrade them with Russian help? Upgrades would still help them in giving a nasty surprise to the Israelis. The basic performance parameters of these units are still excellent, but they need to be backed by all new electronics which are not compromised.

More impressive, if true, is the suggestion that the Israelis hacked into the network that the Syrian ADGES system communicates on.

There's always more than one way to skin a cat. Can't jam the radar? Hack into its WAN...


I read that AWST report and it is very doubtful imho. First, I doubt the Syrians have anywhere near that extensive a system which can be spoofed or attacked. They are much more likely to have isolated radar units feeding in data to a larger central command. And instead of spoofing it with some geewhiz stuff, I dont see why Israels current inventory of Escort jammers couldnt do the job as well.

The biggest strike against the whole thing (imho) is the fact that if Israel does have such a geewhiz system, it would keep it for full war, not just one raid. The key to this systems utility is the surprise factor, why use it and lose it when your present tech is already far superior and already meant to defeat whatever the Syrians field.

JCage
BRFite
Posts: 1562
Joined: 09 Oct 2000 11:31

Postby JCage » 13 Oct 2007 07:00

Vick wrote:What's easier to detect? A ~5sqm RCS fighter or a 100+sqm RCS ship?


Its easier for the ship to detect a 5 SqMtr RCS as compared to a 0.01 Sq Mtr RCS.

Thats the point about it being detected more easily since the shooter can be detected and hence engaged. So the ship knows where the Kh-31 is coming from unless the launch platform is again sea skimming, and that too is larger and easier to detect.

The Kh-31 A range is limited- just 50 Km.

So that makes the entire Kh-31 + launch platform vulnerable. Compare and contrast to a Brahmos or Club which can be launched from several 100 Km away.

vivek_ahuja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2223
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 16:58

Postby vivek_ahuja » 13 Oct 2007 07:05

The range can be increased with work (as of last year, DRDO was stated to be in a position to indigenize the Brahmos propulsion) its just the MTCR that has come in the way. The same has been mentioned in discussions with the Brahmos guys.

The hypersonic Brahmos follow on will be more of an Indian show, so technically MTCR shouldnt come into the picture. Thats what reports state anyways.


To be quite honest, I always wondered that the range of this missile for its dimensions, performance etc could be limited to the publicly stated range. And it’s no secret that since the missile was designed from the viewpoint of export as well as the fact that India was involved, meant that the range was always going to be a problem.

That is why I said that we should first concentrate on increasing the range for our own purposes, while keeping the existing missiles for export and so on. The idea being that we should extract as much as we can from the existing design before jumping into something absolutely new.
The Hypersonic missile program can be traced to around ~1999-2000 when work was underway at NAL, IISc etc to define it as a follow on to the Brahmos. Currently many facilities are being set up for the same as well.


The hypersonic program is a very radical objective, and a thrilling one at that, but while we would like to go ahead with it, we have to face the facts that we still lack cruise missiles of the longer ranges required. I thought that should be our first objective.

Another concern is that Hypersonic flow technologies aren’t exactly cheap. So is it economical to incorporate it in missiles rather than a missile carrier? More importantly, can the Indian armed forces afford the high cost of these missiles?

As to how it will be set up, explained, etc- I guess time will tell, and we can but wait and watch!


True.

Vick
BRFite
Posts: 753
Joined: 14 Oct 1999 11:31

Postby Vick » 13 Oct 2007 07:07

JCage,
SOC at AFM had pretty good pic of the Syrian radars' overlapping coverages based on Google Earth pics and open source knowledge about the types and locations of the Syrian radars.

The Syrians have a networked AD radar network, had it for a few years, IIRC. The only question is the level of integration of the subsystems. Loose integration has advantages and disadvantages and same with tight integration.

The Syrians don't have the stomach or the finances for a toe to toe fight with Israel. I'm not just saying, their actions speak it out. They fight via their proxy in Lebanon. Syria is themselves a proxy of Iran ATM.

JCage
BRFite
Posts: 1562
Joined: 09 Oct 2000 11:31

Postby JCage » 13 Oct 2007 07:10

Vivek, I think the hypersonics program is intended to deliver a long range missile without the MTCR restrictions.

The hypersonic program is a very radical objective, and a thrilling one at that, but while we would like to go ahead with it, we have to face the facts that we still lack cruise missiles of the longer ranges required. I thought that should be our first objective.


The Long range cruise missiles are being addressed by another group at DRDL, thats where the Nirbhay et al come in.

Another concern is that Hypersonic flow technologies aren’t exactly cheap. So is it economical to incorporate it in missiles rather than a missile carrier? More importantly, can the Indian armed forces afford the high cost of these missiles?


The point is that you have to keep running to stay still. For the next decade and a half, the Brahmos is good against the PRC and Pak. But is that alone, good enough? So we have to begin today for tomorrow and besides, with the Indian economic growth, I think we can afford these units when they come in, a decade from now or whenever.[/quote]

JCage
BRFite
Posts: 1562
Joined: 09 Oct 2000 11:31

Postby JCage » 13 Oct 2007 07:15

Vick wrote:JCage,
The Syrians have a networked AD radar network, had it for a few years, IIRC. The only question is the level of integration of the subsystems. Loose integration has advantages and disadvantages and same with tight integration.


I agree, but what I am wondering is whether they ever had the kind of close integration that such a sophisticated EW attack ability as described by AWST would be required for.
Otherwise, why bother when jammers can do the job.

The Syrians don't have the stomach or the finances for a toe to toe fight with Israel. I'm not just saying, their actions speak it out. They fight via their proxy in Lebanon. Syria is themselves a proxy of Iran ATM.


Its always been that way, but still- why not upgrade your radars and missiles, even if incrementally? Surely they could afford a few hundred million every 1-2 years or is there economy down in the dumps?

Vick
BRFite
Posts: 753
Joined: 14 Oct 1999 11:31

Postby Vick » 13 Oct 2007 07:16

JCage wrote:Its easier for the ship to detect a 5 SqMtr RCS as compared to a 0.01 Sq Mtr RCS.

Thats the point about it being detected more easily since the shooter can be detected and hence engaged. So the ship knows where the Kh-31 is coming from unless the launch platform is again sea skimming, and that too is larger and easier to detect.

The Kh-31 A range is limited- just 50 Km.

So that makes the entire Kh-31 + launch platform vulnerable. Compare and contrast to a Brahmos or Club which can be launched from several 100 Km away.

50km might still below the radar horizon of most ships, assuming the radar is 100ft in the air. An aircraft can come in low and release the Kh-31 and leave and the target ship may only see the missile popping up and never the aircraft.

At that point, the ship is in a similar position as it would be if any other SSM was launched at it. It's that end game, pop-up situation that the US targetted for study with the Kh-31.

vivek_ahuja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2223
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 16:58

Postby vivek_ahuja » 13 Oct 2007 07:25

50km might still below the radar horizon of most ships, assuming the radar is 100ft in the air. An aircraft can come in low and release the Kh-31 and leave and the target ship may only see the missile popping up and never the aircraft.


It’s not that easy IMO. If the incoming aircraft is at extremely low altitude, it cannot see the target either, remember? It’s a two way game. Your statement assumes that the attackers are receiving information about the target location from another source at higher altitude, and if that goes down, so does your targeting data.

Further, if the attacking aircraft is coming at that low an altitude, by itself, it will not know where his target is, and that means that he has as much chance of bungling into his target as anything else. And also add to that the fact that the aircrafts cannot afford to fly low all the time, they will burn off more fuel than necessary, reducing their strike range, and patrol areas.

vivek_ahuja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2223
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 16:58

Postby vivek_ahuja » 13 Oct 2007 07:27

Vivek, I think the hypersonics program is intended to deliver a long range missile without the MTCR restrictions.

The Long range cruise missiles are being addressed by another group at DRDL, thats where the Nirbhay et al come in


What you are saying is true, but since the Hypersonic program is for the needs of a decade from now, and the Nirbhay you say will take care of current and near-future needs, are we leaving the further development of the Brahmos to upgrades in electronics only, with little or no changes in the actual hardware?

Personally speaking, this is somewhat unsatisfying. Of course, the centerbody ramjet design is old technology now, and while we could develop it further, it might not yield too many results. And we still don’t know how the Nirbhay will turn out, so let’s keep our fingers crossed and hope that it incorporates some hardware features from the Brahmos.

Vick
BRFite
Posts: 753
Joined: 14 Oct 1999 11:31

Postby Vick » 13 Oct 2007 07:28

JCage wrote:I agree, but what I am wondering is whether they ever had the kind of close integration that such a sophisticated EW attack ability as described by AWST would be required for.
Otherwise, why bother when jammers can do the job.

The Israelis probably used a mixed bag of tricks. Jamming, deck level flying, spoofing and hacking when the situation warranted.

JCage wrote:Its always been that way, but still- why not upgrade your radars and missiles, even if incrementally? Surely they could afford a few hundred million every 1-2 years or is there economy down in the dumps?

Experience of most modern militaries dictate that piece meal upgrading, especially of a system as complex as the AD system, is a sure fire way of having a disaster when the bullets start flying.
Last edited by Vick on 13 Oct 2007 07:37, edited 1 time in total.

JCage
BRFite
Posts: 1562
Joined: 09 Oct 2000 11:31

Postby JCage » 13 Oct 2007 07:29

Vick wrote:50km might still below the radar horizon of most ships, assuming the radar is 100ft in the air. An aircraft can come in low and release the Kh-31 and leave and the target ship may only see the missile popping up and never the aircraft. At that point, the ship is in a similar position as it would be if any other SSM was launched at it. It's that end game, pop-up situation that the US targetted for study with the Kh-31.


IIRC the US routinely states that its radar ranges / detection ranges comfortably exceed 50 Km for low flying targets; whether they achieve it with radars located high in the ships structure or factor in E2C coverage is a debatable point.

Even assuming the latter, given that a protective bubble exists around the CBG, its much easier for the former to detect a 5 Sq Mtr target than a 0.01 one against the sea surface. Not to mention that the launching fighter would have to acquire the target on its radar and would set off all the ESM tripwires that there are.

In contrast, a sub launched Club or Brahmos would be harder, since it combines low RCS and cant be easily detected by a ship despite all the sonar gear they pack. The Missile will just make one sweep with its radar before strike and thats all the warning the ship under attack will get.

That basically means that a sub can launch the Brahmos/ Club within the protective bubble, but an airborne launcher for a 50 Km missile would find it very hard to approach within that range of a battlegroup.

Vick
BRFite
Posts: 753
Joined: 14 Oct 1999 11:31

Postby Vick » 13 Oct 2007 07:34

vivek_ahuja wrote:It’s not that easy IMO. If the incoming aircraft is at extremely low altitude, it cannot see the target either, remember? It’s a two way game. Your statement assumes that the attackers are receiving information about the target location from another source at higher altitude, and if that goes down, so does your targeting data.

If that is a problem, then what is feeding the targetting solution to the 299.99km range Brahmos or any other over the horizon ASM?

It's far easier to notice a ship with its megawatt power radar(s) on passively than it is to notice a EMCON'd 1-5sqm RCS plane, flying deck level.

Arun_S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2800
Joined: 14 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: KhyberDurra

Postby Arun_S » 13 Oct 2007 07:39

Vick wrote:
JCage wrote:Its easier for the ship to detect a 5 SqMtr RCS as compared to a 0.01 Sq Mtr RCS.

Thats the point about it being detected more easily since the shooter can be detected and hence engaged. So the ship knows where the Kh-31 is coming from unless the launch platform is again sea skimming, and that too is larger and easier to detect.

The Kh-31 A range is limited- just 50 Km.

So that makes the entire Kh-31 + launch platform vulnerable. Compare and contrast to a Brahmos or Club which can be launched from several 100 Km away.

50km might still below the radar horizon of most ships, assuming the radar is 100ft in the air. An aircraft can come in low and release the Kh-31 and leave and the target ship may only see the missile popping up and never the aircraft.

At that point, the ship is in a similar position as it would be if any other SSM was launched at it. It's that end game, pop-up situation that the US targetted for study with the Kh-31.

Vick: That is overtly simplistic. Think about how did you first determine where to send the attacking aircraft? If you think about that scenraio, then you will also find that the naval armada must ensure that survillance and sensor aircraftould be shot down before it has the Armada shows up in its Radar LOS.

That is precisely how US naval air protection bubble has contineously evolved and expanded; IIRC it is now at 300km from center of the fleet.

JCage
BRFite
Posts: 1562
Joined: 09 Oct 2000 11:31

Postby JCage » 13 Oct 2007 07:41

vivek_ahuja wrote:What you are saying is true, but since the Hypersonic program is for the needs of a decade from now, and the Nirbhay you say will take care of current and near-future needs, are we leaving the further development of the Brahmos to upgrades in electronics only, with little or no changes in the actual hardware?


Moreorless, unless something radically changes, I dont think we are planning a 1000 Km variant of the current Brahmos on account of the MTCR concerns. Even upgrades in electronics can have a substantial impact on performance though, for instance if they combine a passive seeker in the Brahmos (somewhat problematic on account of the heat generated due to speed).

Personally speaking, this is somewhat unsatisfying. Of course, the centerbody ramjet design is old technology now, and while we could develop it further, it might not yield too many results.


I dont think it is the technology that is the limiting factor but the politics. The issue is that the Brahmos is fully covered as an international JV with all the attendant problems of MTCR. Otherwise, whenever the topic has been broached, developers state that range extension is not any big deal *if* the political clearance is granted.

And we still don’t know how the Nirbhay will turn out, so let’s keep our fingers crossed and hope that it incorporates some hardware features from the Brahmos.


All missile/ flight vehicle programs will have some common features gained via other programs. But by the time Nirbhay comes, I anticipate it to have onboard systems - several of which- will be a generation ahead of what is in the Brahmos. Some of the Indian contribution to the Brahmos stems from the IGMDP programs till the mid-late-90's. Other systems are more current. Our progress thereafter has been substantial.

For instance, the current Brahmos uses an earlier INS manufactured at HAL. DRDO recently finished its new gen RLG-INS and is working on compact MEMS based sensor packages for nav-attack systems.

They also aim to slash the weight/ volume of its current packages, for instance, to a third of what they are. In raw terms, this will have a substantial impact on the payload for any light weight (relatively speaking) missile.

That apart, there will be significant commonality between our SAMs/SSMs in terms of launchers/ firing posts/ C3I hardware and even software modules.

The current approach is to develop reusable modules between different programs that can be leveraged for others.

For instance: Check the Prithvi FCS and Brahmos- they appear pretty much the same in several key respects. One program feeds the other.

IMHO, the key challenges in the Nirbhay are:

Propulsion & terminal guidance.

The rest, we can manage, including the flight control system and nav-attack unit etc.

Vick
BRFite
Posts: 753
Joined: 14 Oct 1999 11:31

Postby Vick » 13 Oct 2007 07:44

The best case scenario is that of early warning detecting the contact and interceptors doing the needful to the offender. That's the nearly trivial case, why game that?

The intent of the Kh-31 tests in the US was to test the worst case scenarios (low-lowest response times) and learn the lessons without having to learn them in a shooting match.

JCage
BRFite
Posts: 1562
Joined: 09 Oct 2000 11:31

Postby JCage » 13 Oct 2007 07:46

Vick wrote:If that is a problem, then what is feeding the targetting solution to the 299.99km range Brahmos or any other over the horizon ASM? It's far easier to notice a ship with its megawatt power radar(s) on passively than it is to notice a EMCON'd 1-5sqm RCS plane, flying deck level.


I can sortie a Ka-31 to detect a ship and another ship will launch the Brahmos from a totally different vector having recieved the data on LINK-II. Or there could a sub which receives the mission clearance, gets a fix by sonar and launches a Brahmos within the "bubble". Even if detected? Sub vs Carrier, fair trade. Or I could have a bunch of fighters at 300 Km do silent launches of Brahmos having got initial targeting fix from the Ka-31 from different vectors. The missile itself is find and forget & will find its way.

In contrast, the 50 Km "only air launched" missile is a very limited option.

JCage
BRFite
Posts: 1562
Joined: 09 Oct 2000 11:31

Postby JCage » 13 Oct 2007 07:48

Vick wrote:The best case scenario is that of early warning detecting the contact and interceptors doing the needful to the offender. That's the nearly trivial case, why game that?


I'd state that it is the most common case given the range limitations of the missile plus launch platforms. Given round the clock E2C coverage, I dont see how it can be easily avoided.

The intent of the Kh-31 tests in the US was to test the worst case scenarios (low-lowest response times) and learn the lessons without having to learn them in a shooting match.


Which basically means they were not looking it as the Kh-31 in specific, but a threat that could be posed by longer ranged missiles that avoid detection.

Vick
BRFite
Posts: 753
Joined: 14 Oct 1999 11:31

Postby Vick » 13 Oct 2007 07:53

Arun_S wrote:Vick: That is overtly simplistic.

Of course it is. It was meant to be a simple way of demonstrating what a worst case scenario could be for a ship.

Now if you start layering on variables like supporting systems, platforms, specific equipment, ECM, ECCM, etc. The problem space blows up into a gigantic monster that would take a large team of naval warfare experts to wade through.

Vick
BRFite
Posts: 753
Joined: 14 Oct 1999 11:31

Postby Vick » 13 Oct 2007 07:54

JCage wrote:Which basically means they were not looking it as the Kh-31 in specific, but a threat that could be posed by longer ranged missiles that avoid detection.

:) Surrogate is the word, I think, you're looking for.
Last edited by Vick on 13 Oct 2007 07:56, edited 1 time in total.

vivek_ahuja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2223
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 16:58

Postby vivek_ahuja » 13 Oct 2007 07:54

All missile/ flight vehicle programs will have some common features gained via other programs. But by the time Nirbhay comes, I anticipate it to have onboard systems - several of which- will be a generation ahead of what is in the Brahmos. Some of the Indian contribution to the Brahmos stems from the IGMDP programs till the mid-late-90's. Other systems are more current. Our progress thereafter has been substantial.

For instance, the current Brahmos uses an earlier INS manufactured at HAL. DRDO recently finished its new gen RLG-INS and is working on compact MEMS based sensor packages for nav-attack systems.

They also aim to slash the weight/ volume of its current packages, for instance, to a third of what they are. In raw terms, this will have a substantial impact on the payload for any light weight (relatively speaking) missile.

That apart, there will be significant commonality between our SAMs/SSMs in terms of launchers/ firing posts/ C3I hardware and even software modules.

The current approach is to develop reusable modules between different programs that can be leveraged for others.

For instance: Check the Prithvi FCS and Brahmos- they appear pretty much the same in several key respects. One program feeds the other.


Okay, so that about sums it up.

IMHO, the key challenges in the Nirbhay are:

Propulsion & terminal guidance.


The propulsion is the key here. I am full satisfied with the progress we have made in electronics and guidance systems and so on, so that’s not a problem. But designing a hypersonic missile will require Scramjet propulsion, and the technology required for that is still in the experimental stages around the world. Most current technology that allows flight beyond mach 5 is designed for the short duration burst of thrust, and none for sustained long range missiles. The problem is as much to do with the difficult combustion at supersonic speeds as also the high total internal pressures that can literally break up the engine by sheer brute force if it has not already burnt itself out from the high temperatures.

If that is achieved, however, we are looking at a breakthrough that can also be used in other programs, preferably a hypersonic aircraft.

Arun_S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2800
Joined: 14 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: KhyberDurra

Postby Arun_S » 13 Oct 2007 07:59

As for maneuvering at high supersonic speed, pulling a few G is laborious and produces a relatively a large radius of curvature, but that itself puts enough challenge for Anti-Missile Defense (AMD) to projecting determine the speed of missile and projecting it path.

Brahmos is ab-initio anti shipping missile, as AMD evolve the RCS of Brahmos further reduced and only multi-sensor data fusion will allow it to be discerned. This true even when it is flying high.

Think about the RCS of piloted aircraft like JSF, a small missile using body-lift aerodynamics like Brahmos already has very small RCS and it can be made smaller than F22, what to talk of JSF ;) Now go figure out which naval radar will detect it and and what range?

So keep chill while the beer is cold :twisted:
Last edited by Arun_S on 13 Oct 2007 08:13, edited 1 time in total.

JCage
BRFite
Posts: 1562
Joined: 09 Oct 2000 11:31

Postby JCage » 13 Oct 2007 08:02

Vivek,

I meant the Nirbhay in the above. But technically, both for the Nirbhay and the Hypersonic, propulsion and terminal guidance are key.

We have a variety of onboard avionics modules, we can do a lot of flow modelling/CFD, aerostructures and even flight control systems with lightweight actuators apparently, but we still have a long way to go in developing and operationalizing a variety of micro- turbofan propulsion units and seekers. Apart from all the hypersonics stuff...


Vick,

Yeah- I dont think the Kh-31 scared the US as much as the Moskit/ Sunburn did. Since they couldnt get their hands on those, they went for the next best thing.

vivek_ahuja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2223
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 16:58

Postby vivek_ahuja » 13 Oct 2007 08:05

As for maneuvering at high supersonic speed, pulling a few G is laborious and produces a relatively a large radius of curvature, but that itself puts enough challenge for Anti-Missile Defense (AMD) to projecting determine the speed of missile and projecting it path.


Not to mention the unintentional loss of speed brought about by the turn that leaves all previous BMD calculations worthless. :)

Vick
BRFite
Posts: 753
Joined: 14 Oct 1999 11:31

Postby Vick » 13 Oct 2007 08:13

JCage wrote:I can sortie a Ka-31 to detect a ship and another ship will launch the Brahmos from a totally different vector having recieved the data on LINK-II. Or there could a sub which receives the mission clearance, gets a fix by sonar and launches a Brahmos within the "bubble". Even if detected? Sub vs Carrier, fair trade. Or I could have a bunch of fighters at 300 Km do silent launches of Brahmos having got initial targeting fix from the Ka-31 from different vectors. The missile itself is find and forget & will find its way.

Probably a facetious question but what sub in the IN can detect and get a targetting solution by sonar at 300km?

The more likely scenario involving a sub, a SSK, specifically is that the SSK waits patiently at an ambush location with its VLF string deployed waiting for orders and listening. A couple of MPAs get a whiff of some recognizable emission and triangulate the emitter to being within the predetermined killbox of the SKK. MPA (or ground based VLF) sends signal to SSK to launch. In flight, one MPA gives further guidance to the missiles on their way to the kill box. Missiles do their thing.

The question is, will the Brahmos have a two-way datalink? If it does, it becomes even more deadly.

JCage
BRFite
Posts: 1562
Joined: 09 Oct 2000 11:31

Postby JCage » 13 Oct 2007 08:18

Some interesting news:

NAL:


It has also developed a prototype for a 55 HP Wankel rotary engine, and is working on a microgas turbine, for which all the parts have already been produced and integration is underway. Another field is development of micro-air vehicles, for surveillance purposes.


http://www.domain-b.com/aero/October/20 ... ospace.htm

NAL Turbine:
http://www.cmmacs.ernet.in/cmmacs/pdf/jjisaac.pdf

NAL Wankel Engine:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YNU1wBhIVWc

If possible for UAV issue, thats the 3'rd engine available in India so far. The other two are the VRDE ones.
Last edited by JCage on 13 Oct 2007 08:27, edited 1 time in total.

JCage
BRFite
Posts: 1562
Joined: 09 Oct 2000 11:31

Postby JCage » 13 Oct 2007 08:25

Vick wrote:Probably a facetious question but what sub in the IN can detect and get a targetting solution by sonar at 300km?


When did I say I'd launch the Brahmos at 300 Km from the sub.... I meant getting inside the "bubble" and launching it/ several Brahmos at ~50 Km or even lesser. Almost zero reaction time for the defender. I lose a sub at worst case, but I get a carrier.

The 300 Km ranges would come in for air/ship launched units to stay "out of the bubble" if I wanted to play it safe.


The question is, will the Brahmos have a two-way datalink? If it does, it becomes even more deadly.


Apparently not. The IN wants the Brahmos to be truly fire and forget. It has pros but cons as well, but is a somewhat puzzling decision.
Last edited by JCage on 13 Oct 2007 08:30, edited 1 time in total.

Vick
BRFite
Posts: 753
Joined: 14 Oct 1999 11:31

Postby Vick » 13 Oct 2007 08:29

JCage wrote:Apparently not. The IN wants the Brahmos to be truly fire and forget.

Fire, turn and burn... or the naval equivalent.

Arun_S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2800
Joined: 14 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: KhyberDurra

Postby Arun_S » 13 Oct 2007 09:45

JCage wrote:The 300 Km ranges would come in for air/ship launched units to stay "out of the bubble" if I wanted to play it safe.

That is correct.

No fleet can enforce 300km under surface protective bublbe that in the first place requires under water sensor reach of 300km. The Brahmos terminal sersors do a neat job, if only they can be roughly cued. and a subsurface vessal can do that quite well.

Now if a country has IRS/RISAT any carrier group is toast. A flight carrying Brahmos from IAF's No:6 Squadron (Flying Dragon) will finish it. No pre-flight meritime recon aircraft fix required. Checkmate.

Kiran.Rao
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 16
Joined: 30 Oct 2006 10:55

Postby Kiran.Rao » 13 Oct 2007 10:19

Arun_S wrote:
JCage wrote:The 300 Km ranges would come in for air/ship launched units to stay "out of the bubble" if I wanted to play it safe.

That is correct.

No fleet can enforce 300km under surface protective bublbe that in the first place requires under water sensor reach of 300km. The Brahmos terminal sersors do a neat job, if only they can be roughly cued. and a subsurface vessal can do that quite well.

Now if a country has IRS/RISAT any carrier group is toast. A flight carrying Brahmos from IAF's No:6 Squadron (Flying Dragon) will finish it. No pre-flight meritime recon aircraft fix required. Checkmate.


Don't mind Arun , but aren't the Brahmos too heavy to be carried on the Jags of No.6.They will more likely be carried by one of the MKIs...JMT.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Avinash Rav, dinesh_kimar, Karthik S, Rakesh, zoverian and 101 guests