PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 18 Oct 2013 15:21

One can't understand the workshare bit.Firstly,the basic design is almost entirely Russian.There is nothing Indian about it! However,there are a host of systems and subsystems,massive amts. of software,sensors,avionics,composites,weaponry,etc. that make up the key capabilities of the aircraft.These have not been completed and will take a few years to develop.The problem is that Russia is on a very tight schedule to induct the aircraft and we,HAL that is ,have reportedly abdicated a large % of the workshare.Perhaps we are just not capable of delivering the goods with limited human resources and expertise.The Indian version however is supposed to have substantial desi input and requirements just as we did with the MKIs,a number/list was reportedly given to the Russians,and therefore if we want the same we have a lot of work involved.Hopefully this can be sorted out in principle when AKA visits and MMS too. By 2020,we need to have the FGFA in service as the PRC is relentlessly going ahead with its own birds.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 24 Oct 2013 02:52

BTW, I think I saw Phillip post that the number, for the FGFA, has been reduced to 116 (as of two days ago?).

From MMRCA thread wrote: 144 is not a small order for IAF like ours , what did you guys expect that we will design the PAKFA ? AMCA /MCA is for that. Anyways PAKFA is a topic for another thread.

The original idea was for the PAK-FA to be a single seater for the RuAF and the IAF wanted ALL of their 244(?) to be two seaters.

Then it changed to some mix of totalling 200 (for the IAF).

Then all it was further reduced to some 144 - BUT, ALL single seaters (some chillller trainers I assume).

The "design" was for the very first thought - where teh Russians wanted only single seaters and the IAF wanted dual seaters. The delta between the two would have involved a re-design of the PAK-FA into the FGFA. The FGFA would have had a larger wing for sure and a few other items would have been different - at least that was the idea. This delta was to cost $11 billion - including testing, etc.

(AMCA - for another thread - is TOTALLY different, with supposedly fly by light featured at its core. : ) Majja. To say the very least. )

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 24 Oct 2013 06:12

Yes,this number has been mentioned in one source,due to the rupee shrinking and proliferation of aircraft projects.How the "shrink" also impacts upon the MMRCA deal is eagerly awaited.The IA's new MSC is going to eat up a lot of funds,which will impact upon the other two services.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 24 Oct 2013 06:40

sounds like russians are chewing us in the name of friendship.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 24 Oct 2013 07:51

My gut feel is that Russia is unable to go it alone. And, with the move from dual to a single seater sealed the fate of not enough funds from India. So, that - I feel - is becoming an issue - funds to move on.

Also, the one thing that bothered me is among the 40 odd changes requested by India was the need to modify the PAK-FA with more composites. Why would Russia not build a plane with more composites?

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 24 Oct 2013 09:16

NRao wrote:need to modify the PAK-FA with more composites. Why would Russia not build a plane with more composites?

For the same reason F-22 does not have more composite ....higher top speed PAK-FA can do Mach 2 plus and can sustain higher supercruise speed that generates enormous amount of heat which needs use of metal alloys like titanium alloys to be used extensively.

F-22 uses ~ 22-23 % of composites in weight , PAK-FA uses ~ 30 % , JSF uses ~50 % for composites by weight.
PAK-FA in design and mission is in league of F-22 with higher top speed and primarily an air superiority fighter and an interceptor where top speed matters , JSF AFAIK cant supercruise and its top speed is limited to M 1.8 due to fix geometry intakes and hence it can afford to use more composites.

Sancho · Post by **Sancho** » 24 Oct 2013 17:17

Austin wrote:
NRao wrote:need to modify the PAK-FA with more composites. Why would Russia not build a plane with more composites?
For the same reason F-22 does not have more composite ....higher top speed PAK-FA can do Mach 2 plus and can sustain higher supercruise speed that generates enormous amount of heat which needs use of metal alloys like titanium alloys to be used extensively.

F-22 uses ~ 22-23 % of composites in weight , PAK-FA uses ~ 30 % , JSF uses ~50 % for composites by weight.
PAK-FA in design and mission is in league of F-22 with higher top speed and primarily an air superiority fighter and an interceptor where top speed matters , JSF AFAIK cant supercruise and its top speed is limited to M 1.8 due to fix geometry intakes and hence it can afford to use more composites.

By that logic, Rafale and EF that both can SC and reach Mach 2 or more, shouldn't have more than 70% composites right?
I think it has more to do with the time of development, the F22 was developed when the use of composite was very rare (later Super Hornet has about 30% if I'm not wrong), while the Russians are upgrading Flankers and Fulcrums only with around 15%, which makes 30% for Pak Fa quiet an improvement.
Another point could be costs, since these materials won't keep the costs low, so they might compromise to some extend.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 24 Oct 2013 17:29

Are you sure Rafale and EF have 70 % composite by weight ? ( we are talking by weight not by surface area )

Rafale as far as I know has fixed intakes and top speed is Mach 1.8 and Eurofighter can supercruise only with specific load ie A2A missile and low supercruise at M 1.2

F-22 and PAK-FA has top speed of above Mach 2 ( unofficially PAK-FA can do Mach 2.5 plus top speed is what i came across ) , B-2 was developed much ahead of F-22 and has composite of above 30 % by weight because its subsonic.

The challenge is materials when you do a Mach 2 plus , you have to use titanium alloys to keep the right balance between managing heat and extreme stress and keeping weigh low

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 24 Oct 2013 17:34

http://indrus.in/economics/2013/08/19/h ... 28591.html

One of the first projects where Composite HC products can be used is much awaited fifth-generation T-50 PAK FA jet fighter the export version of which is jointly developed by Russia and India. Up to 70 percent in the body skin of the fighter and 40 percent of the entire structure are made of composites.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 24 Oct 2013 18:23

JSF AFAIK cant supercruise and its top speed is limited to M 1.8 due to fix geometry intakes and hence it can afford to use more composites.

The JSF is meant NOT to supercruise - by design, from day one. It has nothing to do with composites. They decided they did NOT want supercruise in the JSF.

Now on to the topic of composites in PAK-FA vs. FGFA specifically. Why the difference?

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 24 Oct 2013 18:41

By increasing the %age of composites, in the FGFA vs, the PAK-FA, India is certainly not giving up on supercruise. So, what impact does the Indian decision have on supercuise? Does SC occur at a higher speed or does it last lesser in time or .......?

Sancho · Post by **Sancho** » 24 Oct 2013 19:34

Austin wrote:Are you sure Rafale and EF have 70 % composite by weight ? ( we are talking by weight not by surface area )

No of the surface area of course, but still 30 to 40% by mass, which is more than what you said about F22 and Pak Fa. Moreover, the heat during high speeds mainly effects the surface materials not the mass isn't it? Also, the leading edges are mainly made of titanium or aluminum, but the main part of the airframe, wings or fins are out of composites today. So while these edges might need to take more heat, I don't think that's the case for the rest of these parts.

Austin wrote:Rafale as far as I know has fixed intakes and top speed is Mach 1.8 and Eurofighter can supercruise only with specific load ie A2A missile and low supercruise at M 1.2

Both can SC with A2A weapons and a fuel tank, but that doesn't matter wrt to the materials of the fighters. It only means that they can SC at even higher speeds in clean configs, which then means, the materials of the fighter must be able to withstand these speeds too.

Austin wrote: I just saw those pictures closely it should give an idea on Weapons Bay size
http://sitelife.aviationweek.com/ver1.0 ... 4.Full.jpg

Assuming each bay can carry Kh-58UShE type of weapon each of 1,400 pound , then it can 4 of this type in its weapon bay with 2 SRAAM on the internal bay near the wings.

Similar weapons would be the LRAAM RVV-BD , 4 of that plus 2 SRAAM R-74 type.

The post is some months old, but out of interest, do you expect the frontal weapon bay to be deeper than the rear one like some reports suggest? If so, shouldn't the frontal bay hold more weapons, possibly like the YF23:

http://www.yf-23.net/Pics/Plans/PAV1%20 ... 201023.gif

All speculations that I have seen so far, are comparing the T50 bays to F22/F35 bay, which are flatter and houses the weapons side by side mainly. The YF23 on the other side, had a deeper main bay and as shown was able to carry weapons above each other, to take advantage of the full dept of the bay.
If that is possible for the T50 too, the frontal bay might be able to hold more than what is expected so far don't you think?

negi · Post by **negi** » 24 Oct 2013 20:04

^ Weapons bay as it is a very complex sub-system stacking weapons would mean that in event the one at bottom of the rack does not eject or fails to disengage the one at the top too will get rendered useless. These things need to be accounted for in design. The blackjack uses a revolving/rotating adaptor for deploying munitions but then it is a different beast.

vishvak · Post by **vishvak** » 24 Oct 2013 20:50

NRao wrote:My gut feel is that Russia is unable to go it alone. And, with the move from dual to a single seater sealed the fate of not enough funds from India. So, that - I feel - is becoming an issue - funds to move on.

Also, the one thing that bothered me is among the 40 odd changes requested by India was the need to modify the PAK-FA with more composites. Why would Russia not build a plane with more composites?

I don't think so to begin with nor composites are added outside knowledge of IAF.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 25 Oct 2013 10:51

In a pic of the MIG-29K that had just been completed,there were several fuselage coloured panels which were identified by a poster as being composites.One would imagine that Russia has sufficient tech capability for the same,but due to its vast resources,uses a lot of titanium,alloys ,etc.,of which it has decades of expertise. Some reports say that we wanted a lighter aircraft.There was another saying that we wanted another 40 odd modifications too,probable use of desi developed components/tech.But its going to take time...and money,lots of it.The Q is how is the IAF going to do the business in the decade before the FGFA arrives with rapidly depleting numbers and delay in finalising the MMRCA deal..

RKumar · Post by **RKumar** » 26 Oct 2013 16:16

India’s Share in Joint Fighter Project With Russia Likely to Growl

Positive talk but lets see if Russia walk based on the talk.
Please note : end price of each plane will be US 200 million as of today's estimates. (144 planes will cost US 25-30 billion)

MOSCOW, October 25 (RIA Novosti) – India’s share in research-and-development work for the joint Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft (FGFA) project with Russia is currently limited by India's domestic industrial capabilities but will gradually increase with the project’s implementation, a Russian military expert said Friday.

India’s The Economic Times newspaper reported on October 17 that Indian military officials were concerned over the country’s work share in the FGFA project, which is currently only 15 percent even though New Delhi is bearing 50 percent of the cost.

According to the paper, India’s defense minister is expected to raise that issue during his visit to Russia beginning November 15.

“The figure cited by the Indian side reflects current capabilities of India’s industry, in particular the Hindustan Aeronautics Limited [HAL] corporation,” said Igor Korotchenko, head of the Moscow-based Center for Analysis of Global Arms Trade.

“With the progress in the implementation of this project, we expect the Indian engineers and designers to approach the share determined in the [Russian-Indian] agreement: 50 percent,” Korotchenko said in an exclusive interview with RIA Novosti.

Russia will certainly provide all necessary knowledge and logistics support to Indian specialists, but developing skills and acquiring experience in design and development of advanced fighter aircraft takes a long time and substantial effort, the expert added.

The FGFA project began following a Russian-Indian agreement on cooperation in the development and production of the perspective multirole fighter, signed on October 18, 2007.

The Indian fighter jet will be based on the Russian single-seat Sukhoi T-50 or PAK-FA fifth-generation fighter, which now has four prototypes flying, but it will be designed to meet about 50 specific requirements by the Indian Air Force (IAF).

In December 2010, Russian state arms exporter Rosoboronexport, India's Hindustan Aeronautics Limited and Russian aircraft maker Sukhoi Company signed a preliminary design development contract worth $295 million for the new aircraft.

Currently the $11 billion final design and research-and-development contract is under negotiation between the two countries. The total program is expected to cost India about $25 billion to 30 billion.

The IAF had initially planned to order 166 single-seat and 48 twin-seat fighters, but India’s chief of air staff said in October last year that New Delhi would now go for only 144 single-seat jets, with domestic production slated to begin in 2020.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 26 Oct 2013 16:25

Ha ha.. Typical Russian doublespeak to keep as much of the work for their own business as versus india.. We should be prepared to walk if we don't get firm commitments on the work share at specific points of time. Even with Brahmos, they gypped India by exporting yakhont and buying that for their local needs. We spend hundreds of billions on foreign arms, and domestic R&D has to beg for a billion a year to run existing programs. What a joke.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 26 Oct 2013 21:14

India does not want to export Brahmos because of its own internal requirement and some concerns by Indian establishment , That was confirmed by Dr Pillai

http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/ind ... 970315.ece

“There is lot of export opportunity, with about 14 countries showing interest. However, there are issues like the country’s security interests and what model (of the missile) that can be exported,” A. Sivathanu Pillai, CEO and Managing Director of BrahMos Aerospace, told mediapersons on the sidelines of an industry consortium meet here today.

Russia, which holds 49.5 per cent stake in the joint venture, has already indicated its willingness to allow for export of the missile to some countries, while India is yet to take any decision.

As far as Brahmos in Russian Navy , They will arm the Gorshkov class frigate , Although most of their antiship missile demands a range of more than 500 km to deal with NATO Targets , Check their capital ship range at present . Yakhont is not limited by MTCR and probably has higher range.

http://www.naval-technology.com/project ... -gorshkov/

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 26 Oct 2013 21:25

“The figure cited by the Indian side reflects current capabilities of India’s industry, in particular the Hindustan Aeronautics Limited [HAL] corporation,” said Igor Korotchenko, head of the Moscow-based Center for Analysis of Global Arms Trade.

“With the progress in the implementation of this project, we expect the Indian engineers and designers to approach the share determined in the [Russian-Indian] agreement: 50 percent,” Korotchenko said in an exclusive interview with RIA Novosti.

Russia will certainly provide all necessary knowledge and logistics support to Indian specialists, but developing skills and acquiring experience in design and development of advanced fighter aircraft takes a long time and substantial effort, the expert added.

There should be a considerable difference between the two MICs. And, it cannot be bridged in the span of the design of the FGFA - 2 yearish(?). So, this Russian thinking that India is behind, but can catch up - as I see it - is a way to take the $5.5 billion and run.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 26 Oct 2013 21:35

Sancho wrote:No of the surface area of course, but still 30 to 40% by mass, which is more than what you said about F22 and Pak Fa. Moreover, the heat during high speeds mainly effects the surface materials not the mass isn't it? Also, the leading edges are mainly made of titanium or aluminum, but the main part of the airframe, wings or fins are out of composites today. So while these edges might need to take more heat, I don't think that's the case for the rest of these parts.

Yes critical area and hot spots needs titanium alloys and that would depend on a number of factor like depending on the design which parts gets more heated which part gets less heated , which metal alloys needs to be applied on some areas compared to others .... It would be a very complex subject in it self as one has to look into the entire life cycle.

I think F-22 and PAK-FA can do more than M 2.5 with AB although officially they wont put those precise figures for obvious reason and can do sustain M 1.6-1,8 with supercruise hence they need to use metal alloys in major way.

Reason you find aircraft that has fixed geometry intakes tend to have more use of composites ( by weight ) while aircraft that can do Mach 2 and 2.5 + tend to use more of metal alloys .......atleast all the evidence for known flying aircraft suggest that,

I see no reason why F-22 would just use 22 % composite by weight when B-2 built earlier has more than 30 % composite by weight and JSF has 50 % by weight.

Austin wrote:Both can SC with A2A weapons and a fuel tank, but that doesn't matter wrt to the materials of the fighters. It only means that they can SC at even higher speeds in clean configs, which then means, the materials of the fighter must be able to withstand these speeds too.

I have doubt about Rafale with useful load doing SC and EF officially when I last heard can do Mach 1.2 with A2A payload with 2 Drop tank .....although if you show me any official link of SC numbers with payload combination I would be glad to get corrected , since my information is like 3 years old when I saw the data I may not be updated.

If that is possible for the T50 too, the frontal bay might be able to hold more than what is expected so far don't you think?

I dont think so atleast never came across any think serious indicating that , I think all the bays have same depth and perhaps even length.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 26 Oct 2013 21:40

JSF has 50 % by weight.

Just as a FYI, by design, the JSF is NOT meant to supercruise. So, please take it of any discussions on supercruise.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 27 Oct 2013 07:18

To allege that we have obtained little from Russia with BMos is an inaccurate statement .The US is only now examining starting work on a new anti-ship missile.None of its allies have anything equivalent in the works.No other navy other than Russia with the Yakhont/BMos, has any equivalent.The west has yet to devise an effective defence against the Klub with its Mach 3 terminal warhead let alone BMos. Secondly,it is a tri-service missile that is being manufactured at home in an exemplary manner.The issues reg. exports are genuine.First,we need our own numbers for the three services,why a second manufacturing unit was set up.It is no great math to realise that reducing the size of warhead will extend the range significantly.This is being done for the air-launched version to make it smaller and lighter.Therefore,what the BMos corporation should do is to develop an export model that does not violate the MTCR as well as not compromising the various unique software inputs,etc., we have added to the basic version of the missile which makes it so effective in defeating anti-missile defences,etc.The FGFA planned to carry upto 3 BMos missiles ,apart from the Super (upgraded) Sukhois,would be able to deliver devastating stand-off strikes deep into enemy territory unmatched by our two traditional enemies.
With the hypersonic version also under development,The Indo-Russian JV is likely to be the world's first such missile that enters service.The agreement just signed to extend the BMos corp. JV indefinitely is an acknowledgement of its great success.

The JSF was never meant to be a great aerial dogfighter .The US already have the F-22 and as the JSF was meant to complement the F-22,its premier air dominance fighter.The JSF was meant to be the workhorse of the 3 services.At the time it was conceived,"stealth" was considered a magic bullet that required an air combat capability only as much as std. F-16s.Unfortunately,the aircraft is years late,costing at least 25% more, and in the meantime anti-stealth tech has significantly improved.No longer can one depend mainly upon a stealth+ BVR missile scenario to defeat the enemy,especially as with small internal weapons bays,there is a limitation of AAMs that can be carried.Underwing munitions defeat the aircraft's stealth profile.The JSF also has the great disadvantage of having a massive engine and afterburner,a heat source easily picked up by modern IRST sensors. In impolite language,"its ass is showing"! Special conformal fuel tanks and a weapons "pod" that can carry a limited number of weaponry has been developed for the "Advanced F-18SH" ,as an interim offering to nations reconsidering numbers of F-35s to be inducted.This is to help reduce the ASH's RCS. Perhaps something similar can be worked out for carrying underwing munitions for the JSF.But even with extra "makeup",its capabilities do not match up to those planned for the FGFA which was meant to tackle the more advanced Raptor F-22 and which carries more weaponry in conformal bays than the JSF.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 27 Oct 2013 07:54

I would not expect India's participation would grow any more if there is no existence of the project in Indian land space, and being operational and successful.

First of all, the project is long way to go .. the engines are not 5th gen. from a tech perspective, a reshaped MKI and certain flight control logic to the new shape is all that it has now!

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 27 Oct 2013 10:50

That's why the incremental approach yields best results.New aircraft use proven older engines to validate aerodynamic parameters,weapons firing,etc. ,until the new ones are perfected. We are doing the very same lower down on the scale with our LCA.What is frightening air forces worldwide is the escalating costs of high-performance aircraft.True,one needs a certain qty. to dominate air space,but as the US CNO said,a "bomb truck" could do the same (deliver PGMs in the JSF context).The replacement for the GA A-10 is being debated at the moment,as the replacement for this heavily armoured flying tank,almost indestructible,is the ultra-expensive,delicate JSF,meant to do the close support task as well,which sending into a zone heavily defended by anti-air arty,MANPADS and SAMs is going to be a task for "Mission Impossible".Talk about a mismatch.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 27 Oct 2013 17:53

Austin wrote:India does not want to export Brahmos because of its own internal requirement and some concerns by Indian establishment , That was confirmed by Dr Pillai

http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/ind ... 970315.ece

“There is lot of export opportunity, with about 14 countries showing interest. However, there are issues like the country’s security interests and what model (of the missile) that can be exported,” A. Sivathanu Pillai, CEO and Managing Director of BrahMos Aerospace, told mediapersons on the sidelines of an industry consortium meet here today.

Russia, which holds 49.5 per cent stake in the joint venture, has already indicated its willingness to allow for export of the missile to some countries, while India is yet to take any decision.
As far as Brahmos in Russian Navy , They will arm the Gorshkov class frigate , Although most of their antiship missile demands a range of more than 500 km to deal with NATO Targets , Check their capital ship range at present . Yakhont is not limited by MTCR and probably has higher range.

http://www.naval-technology.com/project ... -gorshkov/

No, thats your interpretation. Its nowhere mentioned that India cannot export a version of the Brahmos that is export compliant.

Second, they can claim that they need more range to deal with NATO targets, then what about the exports to Vietnam?

And nor does the Russian claim about longer ranges make sense. The propulsion is anyways Russian, its the rest of the missile that is coming from India including portions of the aerostructure. Plus the missile control elements - FCS, C3I etc.

So why couldn't these be used when purchasing a specific Russian version of a longer range Brahmos?

All this, we approve exports etc is merely grandstanding given the fact they themselves have not inducted Brahmos & questions to this effect asked from the Russians are usually met with sheepish silence.

The facts as they stand are these. The Yakhont was a dead in the water program languishing for lack of funds. India funds the entire program. Even that so called 49.5% joint stake is a bit of a joke, as its effectively Indian money "owed" to Russia under earlier Ruble-Rupee agreements, which themselves came under a lot of criticism over how much largesse the Russian side was given.

With this Indian funding, the entire program is resuscitated, and finally completed.

Even as the Indian Brahmos gets ready, leveraging tech from Akash (C3I) and Prithvi (FCS), magically the Yakhont system also appears - with TELs etc and is suddenly available for export. Even as Brahmos goes around the entire world hawking its wares. Do you seriously think that they are fools to be advertising this missile all across the world, if India does not plan to give export approval? But not a single sale. Only "interests" which the Brahmos team routinely advertises 24/7. The business keeps ticking as the Indian services are in desparate need of long range missiles with terminal guidance and hence keep ordering.

Meanwhile, folks start looking at the original agreement and realize a) No export sales are made even as Yakhont appears on the market b ) Core technology (propulsion and a lot of the seeker hardware) remains Russian.

Russia has made a lot of money out of our need. But lets not sell this as a virtue. The same would apply to the PAKFA where once again, we seem to be following the same model.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 27 Oct 2013 18:03

Philip wrote:To allege that we have obtained little from Russia with BMos is an inaccurate statement .

Why, because it is based on facts, and those never matter when it comes to anything related to Russia, does it?

The US is only now examining starting work on a new anti-ship missile.None of its allies have anything equivalent in the works.No other navy other than Russia with the Yakhont/BMos, has any equivalent.The west has yet to devise an effective defence against the Klub with its Mach 3 terminal warhead let alone BMos.

So what if they don't have Brahmos? They have other systems which do the job for them. As regards effective defence - go look up the latest SM blocks & the Aster 30, all mention defence against supersonic cruise missiles.
And this comment - "west has yet to devise an effective defence against the Klub with its Mach 3 terminal warhead let alone BMos" - speaks volumes. The Klub terminal warhead is a lower flying, smaller RCS target than the Brahmos, which is an entire missile. Both operate differently, so why compare?

Secondly,it is a tri-service missile that is being manufactured at home in an exemplary manner.

Assembled at home, with Indian components and systems mostly restricted to the aerostructure and ancillary subsystems. When it comes to the missile, we still dont make the entire thing.

The issues reg. exports are genuine.First,we need our own numbers for the three services,why a second manufacturing unit was set up.It is no great math to realise that reducing the size of warhead will extend the range significantly.This is being done for the air-launched version to make it smaller and lighter.

Pure speculation here. The airlaunched missile does not depend on warhead size reduction but booster size reduction. Neither has anything to do with export controls or the like.

Therefore,what the BMos corporation should do is to develop an export model that does not violate the MTCR as well as not compromising the various unique software inputs,etc., we have added to the basic version of the missile which makes it so effective in defeating anti-missile defences,etc.

There is little point for the Brahmos corp to do this, if the Russians undercut us by selling the Yakhont. Indian money is not infinite

The FGFA planned to carry upto 3 BMos missiles ,apart from the Super (upgraded) Sukhois,would be able to deliver devastating stand-off strikes deep into enemy territory unmatched by our two traditional enemies.

FGFA carry 3 Brahmos? Where? Plans and all very well..Has the FGFA even flown? Whats the point of the FGFA carrying 3 Brahmos ruining its stealth and hence being able to deliver devastating stand off strikes? It will be visible and vulnerable to advanced IADS. Need of the hour are more compact stealthy missiles able to fit in the weapons bay.

With the hypersonic version also under development,The Indo-Russian JV is likely to be the world's first such missile that enters service.The agreement just signed to extend the BMos corp. JV indefinitely is an acknowledgement of its great success.

The JV merely reflects the fact that we don't have other options currently.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 27 Oct 2013 20:40

Some facts .Russia has far longer ranged missiles to deal with naval threats,specifically designed for the CW task of attacking carriers.These missiles were predominantly carried by its large fleet of SSGNs,Oscars, etc. ,their primary mission to neutralise US carriers.The development of the Yakhont/Oniks as a "universal" missile was meant to replace the Moskits and even Granit.The missile was meant to replace older legacy missiles in Russia's inventory and aboard its medium sized warships and subs that could not carry the larger missiles.It was also conceived as a "universal" missile meant for all three services.The P-800 design was modified into our requirement for a new naval missile to replace our older anti-ship subsonic missiles (Styx,Uran,Sea Eagle).The terminal warhead of the Klub being small,would require a couple of strikes to sink larger warships,plus it is supersonic only around 15km before reaching its target.Here are some details of the Yakhont.

Wik

Over-the-horizon firing range, full autonomy of combat use ("fire and forget"), a set of flexible ("low", "high-low") trajectories, high supersonic speed on all phases of flight, full harmonization for a wide range of platforms (surface ships of all major classes, submarines and land-based launchers), low profile RCS ("STEALTH" technology), the use of the missile in electronic countermeasures environment.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2942147/posts

India Modifies Brahmos Missile With New Nav System

India has uprated its BrahMos supersonic cruise missiles by installing the advanced satellite navigation systems from Russia's Kh-555 and Kh-101 strategic long-range cruise missiles, adding GPS-GLONASS technology to the existing doppler-inertial platform, Izvestia reported on Tuesday quoting sources in the military-industrial complex.

The integration of the navigation systems from Kh-555 will turn BrahMos, a supersonic cruise missile, into a "super-rocket" with almost a sub-strategic capability above its normal tactical range, capable of hitting targets over 180-300 miles (300-500 km), from sea, land and air launchers, and capable of being armed with a nuclear warhead, the source said.

Several US analysts including Friedman,etc.,have commented that the US has inadequate defences,including AEGIS.Here's what James Holmes has written:

http://thediplomat.com/the-naval-diplom ... s-missile/

Jointly developed by India’s Defense Research and Development Organization and Russia’s Mashinostroyeniye Company, the BrahMos is a stealthy, supersonic missile designed to elude shipboard defenses like the Aegis combat system, a combined radar and fire-control system found on board American, Japanese, and South Korean destroyers and cruisers. (Spain and Norway operate the system as well, while the Royal Australian Navy is outfitting its next-generation warships with it.) Aegis has stood at the vanguard of fleet air defense since the early 1980s, when USS Ticonderoga, the U.S. Navy’s first Aegis cruiser, stood out to sea. Getting past Aegis is an achievement.

Judging from the technical parameters, the Indian Navy has one-upped the U.S. Navy in this niche technology. On paper, the Indian ASCM appears superior to the AGM-84 Harpoon, long the U.S. Navy’s workhorse anti-ship missile. It certainly outranges the Harpoon. The BrahMos can strike at targets 290 kilometers distant, more than double the advertised range“in excess of” 67 nautical miles (77 statute miles, or124 kilometers)for the Harpoon. And with a top speed approaching Mach 3.0, the supersonic BrahMos far outstrips the subsonic Harpoon.

Speed kills. Helter-skelter speed compresses the time air defenders have to respond—and time is the critical determinant in the “detect-to-engage” sequence. It allows crews to attempt electronic countermeasures, loft surface-to-air missiles, launch decoys, or—as a last-gasp effort—engage an incoming missile with short-range guns. Shorter detect-to-engage time, then, means fewer rounds or countermeasures in the air to stop or deflect a hostile bird.But there’s another, less obvious advantage to high speed. Velocity imparts kinetic energy to any moving body.Accordingly, one body inflicts more damage when it slams into another at higher speed. Breakneck velocity magnifies a missile’s hitting powerbeyond the explosive power designed into its payload.

That a speedy, extended-range weapon like the BrahMos is crucial to naval warfare in this age of long-range anti-ship weaponry is obvious from the US Navy’s 2009 decision to hurriedly develop a long range anti-ship missile, or LRASM, of its own. Otherwise U.S. surface action groups may not land the first blow in combat. And they may have to take a pounding for some time before hitting back. Even if fleets close on each other at top speed, it takes quite awhile for lumbering ships to cover the 166 kilometers separating the Harpoon’s range from that of the BrahMos. Assuming the technology pans out , LRASM will even the terms of long-range engagements.

The Harpoon remains a good missile, that is, but American ships have to get fairly close to cut loose with Harpoon barrages. If the enemy outranges them, they have to beat back enemy missile attacks while closing to ASCM range. That increases their chances of incurring serious if not fatal damage before even taking offensive action. Admiral Horatio Nelson famously instructed Royal Navy commanders that “no Captain can do very wrong if he places his Ship alongside that of an Enemy.” But Lord Nelson lived before the advent of accurate long-range fire. He never would have given such advice knowing his ships could be put out of action before getting alongside for close-range gunnery duels.

Holmes contiinues,he has a far healthier respect for Russian technology than many ignorant of such tech-he should know better,being an Asst.Prof at the US Naval War College.

If nothing else, Russian involvement in the program should give us pause. Westerners have long ridiculed Soviet-built hardware, but the Soviet Navy was asymmetric before asymmetric warfare was cool. Soviet weapons scientists and engineers displayed impressive ingenuity, fielding an imposing array of anti-ship missiles. Some remain in service today, bedeviling prospective opponents. For instance, Sovremenny-class guided-missile destroyers transferred to China’s navy sport SS-N-22 Sunburn ASCMs designed to evade or overpower Aegis-equipped destroyers and cruisers. With its high speed and capacity to make radical evasive maneuvers during its terminal phase of flight, the Sunburn kept American air defenders up nights during my time in uniform—and doubtless still does so today. To all appearances, the BrahMos is cast in the same mold.

There’s more to anti-ship missiles than surface vessels pounding away at one another from afar. For example, the BrahMos can be fired from mobile launchers—basically trucks—on land.(Submarine- and air-launched variants are reportedly in the works as well.) That raises a host of intriguing possibilities for the Indian military. It promises to let New Delhi influence events at sea from the shore, much as Chinese rocketeers do off the East Asian seaboard.

Think about Indian Ocean geography. South Asia’s maritime geography is less convoluted than East Asia’s, but India does possess some strategically placed features beyond the subcontinent—notably the Andaman and Nicobar island chains. The islands lie athwart the western approaches to the Strait of Malacca. They also lie within BrahMos range of one other, while nearby landmasses in Southeast Asia fall within range of the northernmost and southernmost islands. That means the Indian Army could emplace BrahMos batteries in the Andamans and Nicobars to threaten shipping passing through these archipelagoes.

That would project India’s military reach to Southeast Asia without leaving Indian soil. An extreme measure? Sure. But no more extreme than Japan’s thinking about how to close the straits through the home islands and the Ryukyus in wartime. Small wonder Chinese pundits liken the Andaman and Nicobar islands to a “metal chain” stretched across sea lanes vital to China’s economic development.

There are other possibilities. For example, the Indian Navy has “inducted”—that maddeningly vague term—its first nuclear-powered ballistic-missile submarine into the fleet while predicting the boat will be operational by the end of this year. But even if engineers have gotten the kinks out of the hull and its propulsion plant, INS Arihant will patrol the seas without working ballistic missiles to fire. As an interim measure, my friend Andrew Winner speculates (in our—finally!—forthcoming volume on nuclear strategy) that India will try to miniaturize a nuclear warhead sufficiently to fit on the BrahMos. The manufacturer is working on a missile variant that can be launched from torpedo tubes. If the technical details sort themselves out, that would give New Delhi an equivalent to the TLAM-N, the nuclear variant of the US Navy’s Tomahawk land-attack cruise missile.

While unsatisfactory over the long haul, a nuclear-tipped BrahMos would supply the third leg of a nuclear triad, letting the Indian Navy threaten sites in Pakistan as a deterrent. Because of the BrahMos’s short range relative to ballistic missiles, however, the Arihant and its sisters would have to cruise the South China Sea—or beyond—to menace targets in China. The implications of Indian submarines’ prowling the crowded, increasingly contested South China Sea are worth pondering. It remains to be seen whether Indian technical wizardry will render such a system workable if New Delhi decides to pursue one, or whether engineers perfect a sea-launched ballistic missile first.

(*Here we have already developed Shourya/Prahar,with a very conservative range of 750KM,surely much more,an interim BM until the K-4 arrives)

The BrahMos program, then, is worth tracking—both as a yardstick for Indian scientific and technical progress and for its strategic and political implications. We live in interesting times. The Indian military’s new bird of preymakes them a little more interesting.

James Holmes is an associate professor of strategy at the U.S. Naval War College. The views voiced here are his alone.

The capability is so feared that it is why the Israelis launched a raid on Syrian depots holding stocks of the Yakhont,destroying a major part of the inventory,reportedly 50 of a 70+ stock.

Now for a titbit on the Klub,why it still outfoxes US defences.

The Russian domestic variant (3M-54) and export variants (3M-54E/3M-54TE) fly at sub-sonic speeds while achieving supersonic speed as they near their target. They are also believed to be able to perform very high angled defensive maneuvers in contrast to the common linear flight path of other anti-ship cruise missiles.

What makes the 3M54 particularly dangerous is its final approach, which begins when the missile is about 15 kilometers from its target. Up to that point, the missile travels at an altitude of about a hundred feet. This makes the missile more difficult to detect. The high speed approach means that it covers that last fifteen kilometers in less than twenty seconds. This makes it difficult for current anti-missile weapons to take it down.

The development of the Coyote supersonic drone has been the US rush job to develop an effective anti-missile system to deal with supersonic cruise missiles like Klub and BMos. It still has no true defence against both of them.

U.S. Navy Hurries Preparations For War With China
Strategy Page

http://www.strategypage.com/dls/article ... 8-2013.asp
Posted on July 29, 2013

Coyote came to be in response to more countries arming themselves with high speed anti-ship missiles. In particular, there is fear that the Russian 3M54 (also known as the SS-N-27, Sizzler or Klub) anti-ship missiles used on Chinese subs are unstoppable

Of course when carrying the smaller air-launched version of BMos it reduces stealth-of any aircraft,western or Russian,but given the stand-off range it would require enemy aircraft to possess at least 100KM AAMs to pose any meaningful threat.The Super-Sukhois as well are supposed to also carry 2 underwing 400km AAms to deal with enemy AWACS/AEW aircraft too.

As for "speculation" about increasing the range of cruise missiles by having smaller warheads,SoKo did it long ago,using Russian techniques !

http://www.nti.org/country-profiles/sou ... y-systems/

South Korea developed the NHK-2 PIP B (Hyunmu-2B) with the goal of improving accuracy. The technologies of Russia’s SS-21 were adapted, reducing the weight of the warhead to 300kg, and increasing the range to 500km; the addition of a mobile launcher increases survivability.[21] According to leaked cables, the Hyunmu-2B went into production in 2005, and 51 were produced between 2009 and 2011.[22] South Korea has deployed the Hyunmu-2B on its central and eastern borders since the end of 2009.[23]

STRATEGIC MYOPIA: THE UNITED STATES,
CRUISE MISSILES, AND THE MISSILE
TECHNOLOGY CONTROL REGIME

http://www.law.fsu.edu/journals/transna ... /dutra.pdf

Additionally, the MTCR has yet to address the second (and more
difficult) aspect of the range loophole — how range and payload
trade-offs should be calculated. It is quite easy for an MTCR
compliant cruise missile or UAV to violate the regime by decreasing
the weight of the warhead and using the saved weight for increased
fuel, thus increasing the missile’s range beyond the 300 km limit.
284
Further elements that must be considered include trade-offs as to
fuel capacity, guidance systems, and the speed at which an LACM
is designed to fly, all of which affect the range of cruise missiles an

I find it hard to understand the myopia amongst some who fail to realise that most of the cutting edge weaponry in the Indian armed forces like nuclear subs and N-sub tech (ATV and Akula-2),universal supersonic cruise missiles like Brahmos,Klub,etc.,MKIs ,MIG-29s,etc.,etc.,are from Russia.In comparison,equivalent western weaponry is hard to find-if at all,and far fewer in content.After Russia it is the Israelis and the French who are providing us with meaningful hard core weaponry/tech .This is also a historical fact spanning more than half a century,enabling us to defeat Pak time and time again especially in '71.Right through the past decades it has been the US providing Pak with sophisticated arms like F-16s,etc.,bankrolled their military and the pockets of their generals,and turning a blind eye to pak's nuclear ambitions and proliferation with China,the AQK N-arms bazaar the prime case in point.
Recent editorials in the media have highlighted this fact during the PM's visit to Russia.Our great strategic partnership with the US has delivered b*gger all as far as reducing Paki terror,or limiting its nuclear arsenal,BM inventory ,etc.Instead,the US is providing more arms and aid to the Paki crore commanders for their secret cooperation (drone strikes et al recently exposed) in doing Uncle Sam's dirty work in the region.

PS:Are Akash and Prithvi fundamentally anti-ship missiles or universal missiles either in concept and did Russia give us the Brahmos JV to scuttle their developemnt? Absurd! They are completely different species of missiles.Imagine the hilarious sight of an aircraft trying to carry a Prithvi or Akash underwing ! Secondly,we never wanted Russian land attack missiles because of the MTCR and have developed our own BMs,Prithvi,Prahar,now the new Pragati,etc.,but in cruise missile tech we still lag behind.This is why we are also developing Nirbhay for the (subsonic) LRCM role.Even Dhanush is a one-off development meant to carry a N-warhead if required and isso large that it has to be housed in a helo hangar on our OPVs.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 27 Oct 2013 22:28

Philip wrote: James Holmes is an associate professor of strategy at the U.S. Naval War College. The views voiced here are his alone.

So what? As always, when bereft of any data, googling + name dropping, are expected to compensate versus facts alone.

You have posted a long screed about how great-yada-yada the Brahmos would be etc etc against opponents who don't even capabilities to intercept it.

Guess what, the US does.

Its called the ESSM - Evolved Sea Sparrow.
http://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/pr ... easparrow/
http://investor.raytheon.com/phoenix.zh ... highlight=

ESSM provides critical layered defense by delivering protecting firepower against high-G maneuvering anti-ship cruise missiles, supersonic high-diving threats and low-velocity air threats, as well as surface targets. Recently, ESSM was successfully launched from a ground-based system, demonstrating that the missile's performance over ground matches that over water. Significantly, no software changes were required to prove the ESSM's enhanced capability.

http://news.defence.gov.au/2013/08/30/m ... -for-navy/

The Royal Australian Navy (RAN) and the Defence Materiel Organisation (DMO) have recently completed the final Operational Acceptance Trial for the Australian-designed Phased Array Radar and Combat Management System upgrades to the ANZAC Class frigate Anti-Ship Missile Defence (ASMD) system.

The trial included a number of successful Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile (ESSM) firings from HMAS Perth at the Pacific Missile Range Facility (PMRF) in Hawaii. During the trials, the ASMD system was challenged by a number of demanding firing scenarios. These included successful missile engagements against multiple sea-skimming targets including, for the first time in the RAN, an engagement by an ESSM against one of the world’s most advanced supersonic targets.

Another recent test?
May 2013.
http://missilethreat.com/essm-intercept ... apability/

Yeah, high diving supersonic target.. keep in mind the recent reports of a new Brahmos block.

Go look up what Aster 30 can do as well.

http://www.defense.gouv.fr/actualites/a ... s-de-l-eau.

Yeah, intercept of a supersonic sea skimming target.

The capability is so feared that it is why the Israelis launched a raid on Syrian depots holding stocks of the Yakhont,destroying a major part of the inventory,reportedly 50 of a 70+ stock.

The Israelis would take down any modern weapon in Syrian hands given the possibility of it reaching Hamas/Hezbollah et al. A subsonic missile damaged the Hanit.

Besides which, thanks for providing yet another example of a Yakhont export versus a Brahmos.

Now for a titbit on the Klub,why it still outfoxes US defences.

The Russian domestic variant (3M-54) and export variants (3M-54E/3M-54TE) fly at sub-sonic speeds while achieving supersonic speed as they near their target. They are also believed to be able to perform very high angled defensive maneuvers in contrast to the common linear flight path of other anti-ship cruise missiles.

What makes the 3M54 particularly dangerous is its final approach, which begins when the missile is about 15 kilometers from its target. Up to that point, the missile travels at an altitude of about a hundred feet. This makes the missile more difficult to detect. The high speed approach means that it covers that last fifteen kilometers in less than twenty seconds. This makes it difficult for current anti-missile weapons to take it down.
The development of the Coyote supersonic drone has been the US rush job to develop an effective anti-missile system to deal with supersonic cruise missiles like Klub and BMos. It still has no true defence against both of them.

Oh goody, in your rush to copy paste (as usual), after frenetic, head scratching googling, you seem to have forgotten what you yourself wrote. "Even the Klub as versus the Brahmos", implying the latter was superior to the former, whereas it should be clear now (from your own copy paste) that the Klub is actually a harder tackle than the Brahmos in the terminal phase if both are used in a sea skimming fashion.

U.S. Navy Hurries Preparations For War With China
Strategy Page

http://www.strategypage.com/dls/article ... 8-2013.asp
Posted on July 29, 2013
Coyote came to be in response to more countries arming themselves with high speed anti-ship missiles. In particular, there is fear that the Russian 3M54 (also known as the SS-N-27, Sizzler or Klub) anti-ship missiles used on Chinese subs are unstoppable

Ah, good old Strategy Page. When all else fails, there is Strategy Page... seriously, not even going to waste my time with the goat-droppings of wisdom from the worthies there..

Of course when carrying the smaller air-launched version of BMos it reduces stealth-of any aircraft,western or Russian,but given the stand-off range it would require enemy aircraft to possess at least 100KM AAMs to pose any meaningful threat.The Super-Sukhois as well are supposed to also carry 2 underwing 400km AAms to deal with enemy AWACS/AEW aircraft too.

Ah, so now we come to AAMs. Did you even read what was written? I mentioned IADS.

Integrated Air Defence Systems. Which means they can include pesky things like SAMs.

Your beloved Russia has sold S-300 PMU1 to China. Many batteries. Do think about at what range they can detect the stealthy Pak-fa once it starts carrying Brahmos and then target that heavily laden aircraft.

Net - your claims about the PAK-FA carrying Brahmos (3 in fact) and hence it becoming some war winner automatically are facile. The entire point of a FGFA is to have it retain its stealth. Not festoon it with huge, heavy missiles and then have it approach the target setting off every radar in the vicinity.

In which case we may as well stick to the Sukhoi itself.

And now, the Super Sukhois come into the picture, they will I see, carry 400 km missiles to protect the 300 km equipped Brahmos...how exactly will they protect it against SAMs?

As for "speculation" about increasing the range of cruise missiles by having smaller warheads,SoKo did it long ago,using Russian techniques !

So you admit it was speculation.

South Korea developed the NHK-2 PIP B (Hyunmu-2B) with the goal of improving accuracy. The technologies of Russia’s SS-21 were adapted, reducing the weight of the warhead to 300kg, and increasing the range to 500km; the addition of a mobile launcher increases survivability.[21] According to leaked cables, the Hyunmu-2B went into production in 2005, and 51 were produced between 2009 and 2011.[22] South Korea has deployed the Hyunmu-2B on its central and eastern borders since the end of 2009.[23]

Which is irrelevant to us, because there is no report anywhere, that the IAF has asked for warhead weight reduction on the Brahmos.

STRATEGIC MYOPIA: THE UNITED STATES,
CRUISE MISSILES, AND THE MISSILE
TECHNOLOGY CONTROL REGIME

http://www.law.fsu.edu/journals/transna ... /dutra.pdf

Additionally, the MTCR has yet to address the second (and more
difficult) aspect of the range loophole — how range and payload
trade-offs should be calculated. It is quite easy for an MTCR
compliant cruise missile or UAV to violate the regime by decreasing
the weight of the warhead and using the saved weight for increased
fuel, thus increasing the missile’s range beyond the 300 km limit.
284
Further elements that must be considered include trade-offs as to
fuel capacity, guidance systems, and the speed at which an LACM
is designed to fly, all of which affect the range of cruise missiles an

Fluff.... since none of this proves that India intends to reduce the warhead on the Brahmos, which would directly impact its destructive potential against several classes of targets which would require large explosives to take them down. A distributed C3I complex, with many trailers for instance.

I find it hard to understand the myopia amongst some who fail to realise that most of the cutting edge weaponry in the Indian armed forces like nuclear subs and N-sub tech (ATV and Akula-2),universal supersonic cruise missiles like Brahmos,Klub,etc.,MKIs ,MIG-29s,etc.,etc.,are from Russia.

Which India has paid Indian money for, hard won money which is diverted from Indian programs. When they work well with us, that's good. But at the same time, when they take our money and yet there is dancing round, don't expect a song and dance about how we should suck it up.

In comparison,equivalent western weaponry is hard to find-if at all,and far fewer in content.

And the French are not western?

After Russia it is the Israelis and the French who are providing us with meaningful hard core weaponry/tech .

And where do you think the Israelis got their tech from?

Also, lets be clear here.. we often buy Russian because it is cheaper than that available from the west. Only a few systems fall in the category of not available.. and if we were to open our purse strings more, even that is not a certainty, given how mercenary many of these arms cartels are.

This is also a historical fact spanning more than half a century,enabling us to defeat Pak time and time again especially in '71.Right through the past decades it has been the US providing Pak with sophisticated arms like F-16s,etc.,bankrolled their military and the pockets of their generals,and turning a blind eye to pak's nuclear ambitions and proliferation with China,the AQK N-arms bazaar the prime case in point.

Ah, appeal to emotion. Glorious Rodina saved India. Bad America.

What does that have to do with Brahmos and India paying market prices for its systems?

Recent editorials in the media have highlighted this fact during the PM's visit to Russia.Our great strategic partnership with the US has delivered b*gger all as far as reducing Paki terror,or limiting its nuclear arsenal,BM inventory ,etc.Instead,the US is providing more arms and aid to the Paki crore commanders for their secret cooperation (drone strikes et al recently exposed) in doing Uncle Sam's dirty work in the region.

Whereas our strategic partnership with Russia has delivered RD-93s to Pakistan, AL-31FNs, all sorts of technology to China + S-300PMUs and all other gizmos as well..

Pot meet kettle.

Lets be honest here. Russia and India don't share borders and nor is Russia attempting to play world cop. That means a certain amount of leeway in Indo-Russian relationship and that Pakistan does not become a sticking point.

But we do pay top dollar for what we buy from Russia and deserve to get what we pay for.

PS:Are Akash and Prithvi fundamentally anti-ship missiles or universal missiles either in concept and did Russia give us the Brahmos JV to scuttle their developemnt? Absurd! They are completely different species of missiles.Imagine the hilarious sight of an aircraft trying to carry a Prithvi or Akash underwing !

Hmmm...are you writing this when sober or is this is the actual state of your knowledge?

I suspect the latter, which is what makes your posts so bizarre, as you come up with absurd statements - aircraft carrying "Akash or Prithvi"..when nothing of this sort was said.

Because they lack any understanding of the details whatsoever.

Now, lets get beyond your comic relief and to the facts.

Brahmos C4I system leverages the system built for the Akash, including the architecture of a centralized BCP and multiple autonomous launchers. The entire reason why the partner for both the programs is ECIL, which makes both these systems.

http://www.hindu.com/2007/06/22/stories ... 601300.htm

Prithvi weapons control system, enabling salvo deployment, was developed by DRDO/Data Patterns, manufactured by Data Patterns and has been used by the Brahmos team as well. Another case of leveraging technology smartly, from existing Indian programs.

Heck, even the WCS of the Brahmos used to show three prithvis in the GUI for the salvo launch mode.

http://imageshack.us/f/507/brahmosfcs4co.jpg/
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/opi ... 348091.cms
http://www.hybiz.tv/Rangarajan---Data-P ... Ltd/176173 (pretty much shows we are not even getting any TOT for the seeker as well, and thankfully are developing our own)

The firm has moved up the value chain by diversifying into electronic warfare systems, microwave defence systems, radars, hardware and software for airborne vehicles. These include key systems that enable the launch of other powerful missiles such as Akash, Nirbhay, Prithvi and rockets of Isro.

If the Russians were completely in synch with the spirit of teh agreement and also ordered the Brahmos/instead of pushing the Yakhont, Indian made systems on the Brahmos complex would have got far more orders with trickle down benefits across the entire Indian industry.

Something that should be obvious, but of course, those who revel in their role of Russia#1-no matter-whether-right-or-wrong, can't be expected to understand.

Secondly,we never wanted Russian land attack missiles because of the MTCR and have developed our own BMs,Prithvi,Prahar,now the new Pragati,etc.,but in cruise missile tech we still lag behind.This is why we are also developing Nirbhay for the (subsonic) LRCM role.Even Dhanush is a one-off development meant to carry a N-warhead if required and isso large that it has to be housed in a helo hangar on our OPVs.

[/quote]

Ah yes, this irrelevant side track on what we wanted and did not, when its already been stated that we had a need, paid the Russians for it and what matters is whether the Russians have done right by the Brahmos deal in terms of inducting it themselves and giving Indian industry, the true benefit of the huge amount the Indian Govt's has invested.

That remains to be seen, your flim flam on behalf of the Rodina apart.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 27 Oct 2013 22:44

Philip wrote:The US is only now examining starting work on a new anti-ship missile.None of its allies have anything equivalent in the works.No other navy other than Russia with the Yakhont/BMos, has any equivalent.

Just a minor interjection. They may not have introduced supersonic anti-ship missiles but lets not assume that the capacity to build them was absent in the west.

Case in point; Air-Sol Moyenne Portée. Like the Brahmos, its powered by a kerosene fueled ramjet engine. Comparable payload, comparable speed, comparable range (more for the upgraded ASMP-A), but predictably less kinetic energy at impact. Its utilized for a different task but operates on the same principle.

The Russians built them in high numbers because they were intended for use by warships and heavy bomber regiments, while the NATO/western forces relied on carrier based fighters as missile platforms. Lets not equate it to the Russians stealing a march over the west in terms of technology.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 27 Oct 2013 22:54

For the folk, who think of Indian interests and requirements first and foremost, and don't get into a reflexive protect the glorious honor of Russia etc, here are somethings to consider. Each Brahmos missile costs easily over a million $. Estimates go as high as $2.5Mn. The order book is expected to go upto $10 Bn.

Many SME's and even large DPSUs have been roped into the program and two large assembly/integration clusters noted to be underway. After all this, the current indigenous content in the missile itself - is of the order of 30%. This includes portions of the aerostructures, its INS system. The rest of the missile complex, is where India really proved its capabilities, leveraging tech from other programs and putting it to use. The MAL (Launcher), Command posts, even the canisters for the missiles are local (Russia asked us for extra money for even these, so we went local).

Now, regarding the missile itself.

The point remains though, as to how limited the missile TOT itself was, and even if that were accepted (because after all we needed a missile quickly), what still speaks volumes is that Russia is still selling Yakhont separately, and our MOD has to ask the Russians to purchase this missile again and again.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 27 Oct 2013 23:23

Philip wrote:This is also a historical fact spanning more than half a century,enabling us to defeat Pak time and time again especially in '71.Right through the past decades it has been the US providing Pak with sophisticated arms like F-16s,etc.,bankrolled their military and the pockets of their generals,and turning a blind eye to pak's nuclear ambitions and proliferation with China,the AQK N-arms bazaar the prime case in point.

Off-topic but I strongly suggest you a pick up a copy of the Gary Bass book, 'The Blood Telegram'. I happened to run across it during a stopover at an airport and found it a scintillating read. From declassified transcripts of conversations in the White House it emerges that the famous 'tilt' in the 1971 was the solely the work of two men - Henry Kissinger and Richard Nixon (the latter harboring a grudge against Indira Gandhi after she slighted him during a visit as a fairly junior member of the US admin), in the teeth of strident opposition from the Congress and even the State Dept.

As for US proclivity towards supporting Pakistan; it placed Pakistan under various degrees of sanctions at four stages - 1974, 1979, 1991 and 1998, lifting them only when it suited their interests - fighting the Soviets in 80s and Taliban post 2001. And after Osama was found to have retired after a fruitful career in terrorism, in picturesque garrison town of Abbottabad, their relations have hit rock bottom (though the Pakistanis continue to dig feverishly).

While not claiming that we should subordinate our interests to that of the Americans, its still worth noting that events were never as black and white as typically portrayed.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 28 Oct 2013 01:01

Karan,you only echo my key point with your various statements ,that it is Russia who has been most willing to either sell,or now co-develop in JVs cutting edge tech.BMos is perhaps the best example.The very have fact that 30% as you say of the missile is indigenous underscores the point that we have benefited from the JV.I am sure that the armed forces will heartily agree upon this fact,and have endorsed the missile by ordering it in the hundreds.If we were so advanced in cruise missile tech,why didn't we develop a similar missile alone before? The hard fact is that we still 60+ years on after Independence cannot make engines for aircraft or tactical missiles,barring liquid or solid fuel ones.The advantage the missile gives us vs the PRC,etc. is amply spelt out in the analyses by the various US experts posted above.It can't be helped if these analysts have names,they are well known.

Reg. Russia not buying BMos,they already have their version,the original Yakhont.Some time ago there was a post on the issue about there being some law that prohibits the Russian armed forces from operating non-Russian wares.I'm not sure if this is still relevant since Russia now is buying Mistral amphibious warships from France.Perhaps their version has some eqpt. that suits them best just as we have eqpt. on the MKIs that suit our requirements best and which we/they do not wish to share with anyone.The issue of exports is in the grey zone as it is not in the public domain what our own requirements are and the timeframe for our own orders/production figures and to whom the JV can sell the missile to.I can understand our dismay if there is a clause in the original agreement that Russia would buy a certain qty. of missiles ,just as it has agreed to buy X number of MTAs. Thus far,we have no word on that score,or if there is then it must keep its side of the bargain.
China reportedly produces 500 tactical missile each year and the increasing threat from the PRC has spurred the creation of the MSC ,logistic eqpt. expansion,transports,etc. ,and one supposes also an increased requirement/number of tactical land attack missiles like BMos,whose capabilities for attacking targets in the mountains was demonstrated with a lot of publicity not too long ago. Our fundamental reason for the JV was for our own needs first,exports second.In fact,the MOD has been most laggard in developing an export-oriented defence industry for decades and it is only in recent times that we are taking part in a few def-expos showcasing a few of our latest wares.

As for the "bizarre" statements about Akash and Prithvi,it was you who spoke of it first in the context of Brahmos,saying that when they arrived we were offered BMos as if there was some connection! Reg.Klub vs BMos in the antiship role,despite the warhead having terminal supersonic speed ,the warhead is smaller,will cause less damage than BMos and may require more than one missile to sink larger warships. In addition until 15-20Km from the target,the missile is subsonic and will take a far longer time to reach the target rendering it easier to kill unlike BMos. which is supersonic throughout leaving far lesser time for detection and defence.The USN earlier estimated that it would take around 3 of its sub-sonic anti-ship missiles to sink a Russian DDG.Just one BMos would be enough to sink or cripple a modern warship of DDG/cruiser size.Do you also seriously think that we would also publicly advertise the fact that we have/can extend the range of BMos? The capability exists should we need it.Countries like SoKo have done it and the US has kept mum about MTCR violations,so why should we restrict ourselves if others do and get away scot free?

I love the bit you said about Bmos,etc.,"diverting hard earned Indian money from other programmes".There was no Indian anti-ship missile programme ever in the works that Brahmos killed.Not even a sub-sonic one! The performance of our DPSUs which have been swallowing up billions of $ over decades with patchy results speak for themselves.We know how successful a simple anti-missile need ,"Trishul" failed miserably forcing us to order in knee-jerk fashion the Israeli (not Russian thankfully!) Barak,and right now we are in a serious crisis because we need more Baraks ,desperately short of anti-missile missiles,and the great MOD is sitting on its ass twiddling its thumbs because of of allegations that the initial order was tainted and allowing the IN to sail in "harm's way".In fact I advocated a few years ago when Akash was successful,and still do,that a naval version be immediately developed since we now had a working med. range SAM and could kill two service needs with one missile,but Barak-8 (supposedly a JV being developed in Israel not India,unlike the BMos Corp. which is HQ'd in India) was rushed through without any competition from Aster et al .Barak-8 is now late and our K class DDGs have no missile defence! Whose fault,the Russians?

Faced with the threat from both BMos and Klub,it is only now,in a "hurry" as US analysts have themselves affirmed,that the west/US is attempting to develop defences against the two,Klub and BMos.As for the US having its own alternatives ,tosh.The West posses no supersonic anti-ship missiles at all. That they will have to sail much closer to launch their missiles without getting the first shot in,a definite weakness,has been spelt out in the above quotes.Even the LR Tomahawk is subsonic and I've quoted different US sources to validate my point.If the current defences are so great,why has the Coyote drone been developed in such a hurry? France has also had only one test against a supersonic drone with Aster."One swallow does not make a summer".

Here is the latest news from AWST Oct 14/21 2013 on the issue.

"Ship Killers".
Raytheon angling to reignite US navy in tactical Tomahawk upgrade.
The report says that the US is considering a new competition for a new anti-ship missile required in the coming years faced with threats like the Chinese DF-21 ship killer which have a far greater range than US missiles..As of now,the US has only Raytheon's air launched subsonic JASSM (Jt.Air launched Stand off Missile) 200nm range,hoping to extend it to 500nm.The hope is with a new seeker to integrate it with the navy's MK-41 VLS system.LM say that "work lies ahead" to integrate it with the VLS system.The missile can be delivered for "well under $2M" (what does BMos cost us? $1M).We have already integrated BMos with our warships,developed a sub-launched version too and well on our way in developing the air-launched version.It shows how far we are ahead of the US with our JV with Russia.Our air-luaunched version of BMos will be far superior to the JASSM as well.

I have earlier also shown with official US stats, that in the coming years with massive budget cuts,the US will have only 4 carriers operational at any given time.Here is an excerpt as to the current status of ship defence given to Congress.It speaks of significant deficiencies in all its systems including the much touted ESSM et al.

http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/fy2 ... 12ssds.pdf

Executive summary

•The ship self-
defense mission for aircraft carriers, destroyers,
and amphibious warfare ships coordinates several legacy
shipboard systems, as well as five major acquisition
programs: Ship Self-Defense System (SSDS), Rolling
Airframe Missile (RAM), Evolved SeaSparrow Missile
(ESSM), Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC), and the
Air and Missile Defense Radar (AMDR). These comprise
a self-defense capability for in-service ships, as well as the
LPD-17, LHA-6, DDG-51 Flight III, and CVN-78 ship
classes still in acquisition.
•
DOT&E issued a classified report to Congress in
November
2012 entitled “Ship Self-Defense Operational
Mission Capability Assessment Report.”
•
While the integration of sensor and weapon systems with
the command and decision system enhances the ships’
self-defense capability over non-integrated combat systems,
the Navy has not successfully demonstrated the ability to
effectively complete the self-defense mission against the
types of threats and threat scenarios for which the overall
system was designed.
•
The Navy must complete the currently planned operational
test program and conduct additional testing to demonstrate
the correction of significant deficiencies with SSDS Mk 2,
RAM, ESSM, CEC, and legacy ship self-defense combat
system elements

Assessment
•
The November 2012 DOT&E ship self-defense mission area
report includes the following assessments:
-
The CVN-68 ship class combat systems continue to
have difficulty defeating certain ASCM raid types. In
particular, the legacy combat system sensor elements have
limited capability against the threat surrogates used in
those raid types.
-
The CVN-68 ship class combat system continues to
have several problems that hinder it from successfully
completing the ship self-defense mission. Specific
problems include deficiencies in weapon employment
timelines, sensor coverage, system track management,
and NATO ESSM performance, as well as deficiencies
with the recommended engagement tactics for use against
multiple ASCM threat classes.
•
The test infrastructure is inadequate to support self-defense
testing on the next flight of destroyers. There is no
unmanned, at-sea test capability to safely demonstrate a
self-defense capability for Aegis destroyers against anti-ship
missile threats. The test capability must be in place by
2020 to support DDG-51 Flight III Destroyer Combat
System, ESSM Block 2, and AMDR integration self-defense
operational testing.
•
The classified November 2012 DOT&E report to Congress
contains further ship self-defense mission area assessments.

Xcpts:

The Navy has not resolved the following
previous recommendations:
1.
Optimize SSDS Mk 2 weapon employment timelines to
maximize weapon probability of kill.
2.
Acquire range-safe supersonic sea-skimming ASCM
surrogate targets for ESSM FOT&E with the Aegis Combat
System.
3.
Ensure availability of a credible open-loop seeker subsonic
ASCM surrogate target for ship self-defense combat system
operational tests.
.....
Take action on the classified recommendations contained
in the March 2011 DOT&E report to Congress on the ship
self-defense mission area.
•
FY12 Recommendations. Based on the classified information
contained in the November 2012 report to Congress, the Navy
should:
1.
Improve the SSDS Mk 2 integration with the Mk 9 Track
Illuminators to better support ESSM engagements, as
well as preventing the Mk 9 Track Illuminators from
contributing to the composite track during certain threat raid
types.
2.
Develop combat system improvements to increase the
likelihood that ESSM and RAM will home on their
intended targets.
3.
Conduct additional operational testing on the CVN-68
class once the ship is equipped with additional self-defense
weapons. This additional testing will determine whether
the additional weapons are sufficient to meet the ship’s
self-defense requirements.
4.
Develop an unmanned, at-sea self-defense test capability
that will allow safe demonstration of the self-defense
mission of DDG-51 Flight III destroyers against anti-ship
missile threats.
5.
Take action on the classified recommendations contained in
the November 2012 DOT&E report to Congress on the ship
self-defense mission are

PS:Viv,it may be true that the US has today become exasperated with Pak's duplicity,but why then reward them as of right now with more moolah ,upto $15B in a few years time? The actual facts have been exposed that the secret intel/military relationship between Pak and the US drives the two towards each other,time and time again.India's interests are the least of the US's concerns-see how they've refused to hand over Headley/Gilani to us.The aim is to neuter India and make it accept Paki terms on J&K by inducements and pressure upon our spineless leadership "keeping" us in similar fashion as rent-boy Pak.

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 28 Oct 2013 01:13

Viv S wrote:
Philip wrote:This is also a historical fact spanning more than half a century,enabling us to defeat Pak time and time again especially in '71.Right through the past decades it has been the US providing Pak with sophisticated arms like F-16s,etc.,bankrolled their military and the pockets of their generals,and turning a blind eye to pak's nuclear ambitions and proliferation with China,the AQK N-arms bazaar the prime case in point.
Off-topic but I strongly suggest you a pick up a copy of the Gary Bass book, 'The Blood Telegram'. I happened to run across it during a stopover at an airport and found it a scintillating read. From declassified transcripts of conversations in the White House it emerges that the famous 'tilt' in the 1971 was the solely the work of two men - Henry Kissinger and Richard Nixon (the latter harboring a grudge against Indira Gandhi after she slighted him during a visit as a fairly junior member of the US admin), in the teeth of strident opposition from the Congress and even the State Dept.

As for US proclivity towards supporting Pakistan; it placed Pakistan under various degrees of sanctions at four stages - 1974, 1979, 1991 and 1998, lifting them only when it suited their interests - fighting the Soviets in 80s and Taliban post 2001. And after Osama was found to have retired after a fruitful career in terrorism, in picturesque garrison town of Abbottabad, their relations have hit rock bottom (though the Pakistanis continue to dig feverishly).

While not claiming that we should subordinate our interests to that of the Americans, its still worth noting that events were never as black and white as typically portrayed.

This is a classic post to showcase how amreekan crimes and hatred against Bharatvarsh is glossed over.

Few months back somebody wrote:

Clinton was very pro-Bhartiya but his administration and foreign secretary were anti.

So in case of clinton's time US becomes friend of Bharat as clinton's personal love, alas sabotaged by his anti-Bharat administration.

In case of '71 US becomes friend of Bharat due to Bharat-loving administration, alas sabotaged by president-foriegn secretary couple.

What sanctions? They were constantly ignoring nuclear nexus of china-pak. They allowed paki nuke system to mature while their buttocks got on fire due to nukes (fictional) in hands of iraqi dictator while no concern of porki dictator-cum-genocider mushy having nukes and committing purges.

A saying gets thrown around liberally these days "There are no permanent friends or enemies but just permanent self interests".

WRONG!

Pakistan and US will be forever our enemies. This is the truth.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 28 Oct 2013 19:56

Xcpt. from a post in the missile td. reg. dev. of the hyper-BMos.It may be why Russia is hesitant to induct current versions of BMos when the hyper version is round the corner.

For example, at the MAKS-2013 air show a representative of the BrahMos Russian-Indian venture admitted that soon India will receive a hypersonic version of the anti-ship missile. According to him, a hypersonic engine for it has already been created and tested. The only ‘but’ delaying the finished product is the lack of materials that can protect its guidance system from overheating and subsequent failure. However, as can be seen from the work of the Russians, Moscow has already solved this problem. Not so long ago, Vladimir Popovkin, the former head of the Federal Space Agency, said that testing is being completed on the Zircon missile system. It includes a new hypersonic missile, created on the basis of the Onyx supersonic cruise missile (Russia’s equivalent of the Indian BrahMos).

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 29 Oct 2013 15:19

T-50 , 5th Prototype Flies

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 29 Oct 2013 17:42

wonder why they did not think on reverse thrusters for landing.

rajanb · Post by **rajanb** » 29 Oct 2013 18:35

SaiK wrote:wonder why they did not think on reverse thrusters for landing.

Saikji. Could be unnecessary weight, associated costs and further points of potential failure. Chutes are in fashion now. Cheap, clean and disposable.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 29 Oct 2013 18:38

Fighters don't use reverse thrusters.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 29 Oct 2013 19:11

viggen did. but for backing up.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IaWn7kX4Es

krishnan · Post by **krishnan** » 29 Oct 2013 19:15