Indian Missiles News & Discussions - May 2017

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 24 Nov 2017 17:23

Singha wrote:
JayS wrote:What happened to Shourya BTW..? Wasn't it suppose to be hypersonic glide missile with even low altitude capability..?
scrapped under pressure from massa is my suspicion as a 'destabilizing' weapon due to its non ballistic trajectory and dual payload capacity.

While now US/China/Ru has started making noise about new MTCR-like regime for hypersonic tech we still reel under pressure and stop key future capability building programs.

I hope evil yindoos keep building the blocks for it under various pretext so we are always a screwdriver turn away from it.

That of coarse along with the SCRAMJET tech development.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 24 Nov 2017 18:07

Indranil wrote:I don't think the 37C would simulate a Brahmos, unless the latter is being used at its near maximum range of 800+ km.

They are interested more in the Chinese and Russian systems than the Brahmos per say but the 37C as I had said, flies a different trajectory and is used to stress the ship (or land) based defenses in other ways. It is not used for the same purpose of simulating a sea skimming cruise missile target, but one that is high supersonic but in the cruise phase of its flight and some low end TBM profiles. Hence two separate supersonic target programs are maintained by the same program office. the 37C has an advantage in that it can more easily and cheaply deploy during multi-national exercises as well but its replacement is now on the cards since stocks are running out. If one looks at the new solicitation, they don't really want to replace the 37C but essentially create an air-launched Coyote capable of sea-skimming and stressing terminal maneuvers:

Indranil wrote:But being able to carry the brahmos or the 1.5 ton brahmos mini (NG) will greatly add to the teeth. The P-8s can hang more than 120 kms away from their targets. I am sure IN would want it. But will this India specific modifications be made remains to be seen. Will work in favor of F-18s for IN.

This will be tougher and more expensive since Brahmos is unlikely to be used by any of the other operator base for the aircraft and given the fact that the MOD/IN decided to buy the P-8 as opposed to also joining the program and getting a seat on the table at the Joint Program office as Australia has done and others are looking to do (Norway). Both of those nations have or intend of having their specific weapons brought in in the next couple of block increments which are charted by the JPO. Partners get priority as far as capability and weapons integration is concerned. The MOD/IN would have to work outside the JPO model, directly with Boeing on an integration and flight test program but that will have to wait for a long time. It is best to have a mature and operational weapon rather than do concurrent development and integration with a third party system.

ArjunPandit wrote:A noob pooch, but can a direct hit from CIWS protect or minimize the effect of a supersonic missile?

It will be a last resort and would not be something you can count on each and every time. But they are experimenting now with command guided rounds (for other applications but the technology is relevant to this role as well) as well so that could potentially make the overall system more effective in the future.

chetak wrote:
the question is can the missile actually "swerve" at mach 3.5.?? and still regain the track to the ship?? How far out would it get displaced on each "swerve"??

Swerve would be at or near the terminal stage to avoid the point defenses of the ship. The USN required the GQN-163A to be able to pull 5G vertical, and 12G lateral @ Mach 2.6 during the terminal maneuvers and something similar has been shown off by China (videos) on some of their sea skimming missiles as well. The sudden announcement from the USN to ask for Chaff and Flare dispensers to be mounted on the 163A probably signals that some of their threat systems may be headed that way in the near term.

nam · Post by **nam** » 24 Nov 2017 18:25

Viv S wrote: Problem is that if the missile is following a high altitude course for a terminal stage 'dive' (as opposed to a sea-skimming profile for a hit at waterline) its vulnerable to detection at fairly long ranges. For a target at 15,000 ft, radar horizon for a 30 m mast-mounted radar would be about 300 km. 250 km for a 10,000 ft target. That's plenty of lead time to launch interceptors to hit the missile before it can begin to dive.

SAM have improved since the Cold War days with datalinks and all, however no SAM have been able to bring down SR-71 which used to fly at supersonic speeds.

So there is some advantage. Morever not all land targets will have SAM capable of bringing down Supersonic targets.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 24 Nov 2017 18:31

Yes there is advantage of speed but in this context you are talking about threat missiles headed your way and not trying to avoid you (like the SR-71 mission planning would have allowed it to do). Like I said, threat systems already exist today that can stress a SAM and provide it a nice Mach 4 target at altitude (for cruise missile profiles. Keep in mind that TBM intercepts at or near space happen at much faster speeds). In the next few years that will likely move to Mach 5 and beyond in preparation for similar shifts in the actual threat systems. Then there is also the layering that allows you to go the threat in multiple ways like from space (in case its a DF21 like system), and then much further out during its cruise phase when missiles are flying at an altitude to maximize range and for thermal efficiency.

nam · Post by **nam** » 24 Nov 2017 18:39

Ofcourse the target is coming towards you, which makes it easier for SAM. The flight path could designed to fool a SAM.

If I let my imagination go wild, the on-board radar/seeker could be used to detect an incoming SAM and carry out some evasive maneuvers.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 24 Nov 2017 18:42

nam wrote:
If I let my imagination go wild, the on-board radar/seeker could be used to detect an incoming SAM and carry out some evasive maneuvers.

You could do that and pray that the SAM always attacks from within the FOV of the seeker and not via a different intercept trajectory or by lofting.

At the end of the day all that extra performance, number of sensors required to evade not just point defenses but actual intercepting SAMs will add a penalty on the missile in terms of size, weight and cost.

nam · Post by **nam** » 24 Nov 2017 18:49

There is one advantage of a 2.5 ton missile

. You can add all sort of stuff on it!

I was even thinking of reducing the fuel, reduce range and adding bigger warhead or a heavy perpetrator etc ..

Nothing like a 600kg Thermobarbic warhead going off on a large target!.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 24 Nov 2017 18:56

There is one advantage of a 2.5 ton missile . You can add all sort of stuff on it!

Yes you could, but from a design perspective that may not necessarily be something the SAM makers would mind. The more heavier, larger, and costlier and complex they get the more advantages a SAM system has. Keep in mind that each Vertical Launch Cell on an AEGIS ship can carry 4 block II ESSMs or 2 PAC-3s if you wanted an even more maneuverable missile. An evading missile has to make sure that not only it outmaneuvers a missile (that has an active/semi-active seeker and is receiving updates from a 3rd party) but does so decisively so as to avoid the impact of a warhead. Again, the entire kill chain is important here and not just the interceptor (the same applies for the anti-ship/cruise missile) so any solution to improve defenses has to focus on the entire kill chain - from radars, to networks, to OTH targeting, right down to electronic attack options to go after the seeker and data-links if the missile is networked (not all are). As far as speed, TBM intercepts even within the atmosphere happen at a very high velocity. A 2000 km ranged Ballistic missile coming down at 60,000 ft. would still have quite a high (mach) terminal velocity so your interceptors, their rocket motors and capability has already been designed to fly-out and accelerate fast in order to do the SBT mission.

Prasad · Post by **Prasad** » 24 Nov 2017 19:19

We're getting hyper theoretical here. Let's look at what PLAN, PN can field. Not the USN. Air launched brahmos might be overkill for the porkis unless they do something that enrages ud so much that we throw a squadron of MKIs at Pindi

PLA&PLAN are the targets. A 6/700 radius circle from Assam & A&N will be very interesting to see.

What do the PLAN fleet have to throw at brahmos?

Arun.prabhu · Post by **Arun.prabhu** » 24 Nov 2017 19:35

Russian weapons are always meant to be used in mass and their design philosophy is to build something that is smart enough and good enough to get the job done, unlike the west who over engineer the crap out of weapon systems to get the most out of the least. We will not be using a single brahmos against a ship. Shame on the IAF or IA or IN if they do. We will use them in mass so that whatever defences the enemy has will be overwhelmed and the target will be destroyed. Five or even ten brahmos to take out a marine vessel that is a hundred or hundreds of millions of dollars in cost along with hundreds of highly trained sailors? Cheap at the bargain doesn't even describe it.

chetak wrote:
Austin wrote:Brahmos has low RCS due to its size and it would certainly be RAM coated , they have internal jammers and ability to work in groups via data link the latter capability is not publicly admitted but exists.
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/ind ... 628352.cms

The equivalent of BrahMos is yet to built. And, in the next 20 years, it cannot be intercepted by an enemy," says A Sivathanu Pillai, scientist, and CEO and MD of BrahMos Aerospace
Don't forget that the ships also have very powerful jammers because unlike the missile and aircraft jammers, they are not power constrained. If there is a datalink, it can and will be disrupted. To assume otherwise is foolish and also fatal.

such talk should, at best, be restricted only to glossy paper brochures.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 24 Nov 2017 19:40

Long ago I was playing with 2D animation on Ubuntu (Synfig) and I had created a little animation of how a "manoeuvring" Brahmos might attack a ship in a fleet. Imagine 6-7 ships sailing east, each ship about 5 km away from each other. The manoeuvring Brahmos would be launched and it could simply be programmed to fly east on a course parallel to the ships but 10 km north of the fleet and appear as if it is heading away from the fleet. It then does a huge 270 degree turn passing behind the fleet and back the other side to end up approaching one of the 7 ships from the south. A Brahmos passing by the fleet and doing a 270 degree turn of a circle of radius 10 km is quite feasible at 1000 m/sec and it would mean an extra 40 km or so but the ships would be left guessing as to where the missile is heading and where it is going to approach from (if at all) and which ship it is going to head for and by this time it will be 10 meters above the waves and nearly invisible. If a second Brahmos follows this one and approaches from the north - all ship defences will be divided between north and south - if they have even managed to get a lock on it

Manish_P · Post by **Manish_P** » 24 Nov 2017 19:41

A 6/700 radius circle from Assam & A&N will be very interesting to see.

Prasad ji, you can use this tool - http://obeattie.github.io/gmaps-radius/ ... u=km&r=600

ArjunPandit · Post by **ArjunPandit** » 24 Nov 2017 20:26

Prasad wrote:We're getting hyper theoretical here. Let's look at what PLAN, PN can field. Not the USN. Air launched brahmos might be overkill for the porkis unless they do something that enrages ud so much that we throw a squadron of MKIs at Pindi
PLA&PLAN are the targets. A 6/700 radius circle from Assam & A&N will be very interesting to see.

What do the PLAN fleet have to throw at brahmos?

Actually i would want the battery of brahmos to be unleashed at HS, Lakhvi, mazood azhar and PN ships and ISI HQ, next time they touch mumbai or any city.
These people are laton ke bhoot

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 24 Nov 2017 20:36

We should use a couple of brahmos to target a periodic
Lashkari fete they have sometimes to rouse the rabble
And get them worked up

Will send a message even if does not bag a high value
Target

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 24 Nov 2017 21:20

Arun.prabhu wrote:Russian weapons are always meant to be used in mass and their design philosophy is to build something that is smart enough and good enough to get the job done, unlike the west who over engineer the crap out of weapon systems to get the most out of the least. We will not be using a single brahmos against a ship. Shame on the IAF or IA or IN if they do. We will use them in mass so that whatever defences the enemy has will be overwhelmed and the target will be destroyed. Five or even ten brahmos to take out a marine vessel that is a hundred or hundreds of millions of dollars in cost along with hundreds of highly trained sailors? Cheap at the bargain doesn't even describe it.

...

Seriously! I am sure even you with your exhaustive military knowledge you cannot predict every situation that we may face!

Hatred can bias your views to the point of stupidity!

Arun.prabhu · Post by **Arun.prabhu** » 24 Nov 2017 21:27

Nice counter argument. Attack the messenger. Got anything on my message?

deejay wrote:
Arun.prabhu wrote:Russian weapons are always meant to be used in mass and their design philosophy is to build something that is smart enough and good enough to get the job done, unlike the west who over engineer the crap out of weapon systems to get the most out of the least. We will not be using a single brahmos against a ship. Shame on the IAF or IA or IN if they do. We will use them in mass so that whatever defences the enemy has will be overwhelmed and the target will be destroyed. Five or even ten brahmos to take out a marine vessel that is a hundred or hundreds of millions of dollars in cost along with hundreds of highly trained sailors? Cheap at the bargain doesn't even describe it.

...
Seriously! I am sure even you with your exhaustive military knowledge you cannot predict every situation that we may face!

Hatred can bias your views to the point of stupidity!

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 24 Nov 2017 21:44

brar_w wrote:
Indranil wrote:I don't think the 37C would simulate a Brahmos, unless the latter is being used at its near maximum range of 800+ km.
They are interested more in the Chinese and Russian systems than the Brahmos per say but the 37C as I had said, flies a different trajectory and is used to stress the ship (or land) based defenses in other ways. It is not used for the same purpose of simulating a sea skimming cruise missile target, but one that is high supersonic but in the cruise phase of its flight and some low end TBM profiles. Hence two separate supersonic target programs are maintained by the same program office. the 37C has an advantage in that it can more easily and cheaply deploy during multi-national exercises as well but its replacement is now on the cards since stocks are running out. If one looks at the new solicitation, they don't really want to replace the 37C but essentially create an air-launched Coyote capable of sea-skimming and stressing terminal maneuvers:

Indranil wrote:But being able to carry the brahmos or the 1.5 ton brahmos mini (NG) will greatly add to the teeth. The P-8s can hang more than 120 kms away from their targets. I am sure IN would want it. But will this India specific modifications be made remains to be seen. Will work in favor of F-18s for IN.
This will be tougher and more expensive since Brahmos is unlikely to be used by any of the other operator base for the aircraft and given the fact that the MOD/IN decided to buy the P-8 as opposed to also joining the program and getting a seat on the table at the Joint Program office as Australia has done and others are looking to do (Norway). Both of those nations have or intend of having their specific weapons brought in in the next couple of block increments which are charted by the JPO. Partners get priority as far as capability and weapons integration is concerned. The MOD/IN would have to work outside the JPO model, directly with Boeing on an integration and flight test program but that will have to wait for a long time. It is best to have a mature and operational weapon rather than do concurrent development and integration with a third party system.

ArjunPandit wrote:A noob pooch, but can a direct hit from CIWS protect or minimize the effect of a supersonic missile?
It will be a last resort and would not be something you can count on each and every time. But they are experimenting now with command guided rounds (for other applications but the technology is relevant to this role as well) as well so that could potentially make the overall system more effective in the future.

chetak wrote:
the question is can the missile actually "swerve" at mach 3.5.?? and still regain the track to the ship?? How far out would it get displaced on each "swerve"??
Swerve would be at or near the terminal stage to avoid the point defenses of the ship. The USN required the GQN-163A to be able to pull 5G vertical, and 12G lateral @ Mach 2.6 during the terminal maneuvers and something similar has been shown off by China (videos) on some of their sea skimming missiles as well. The sudden announcement from the USN to ask for Chaff and Flare dispensers to be mounted on the 163A probably signals that some of their threat systems may be headed that way in the near term.

brar_w ji,

5G would be something that a squadron pilot would probably be comfortable pulling.

As the speed increases not only do the G forces increase for the same turn radius but the radius of the turn is also increased to keep the airframe from being stressed beyond its design limitations by lowering the G forces.

So the limits of 5G vertical and 12G lateral that you have quoted as an example may be far below the stress limits of a missile like the brahmos.

That swerve of one second quoted by someone in the previous postings may be doubtful IMVHO. I could be very wrong.

I have seen the brahmos airframe under construction and also know the material that it is made from. It is capable of tolerating enormous stresses but I don't know about its ability to make such abrupt swerving manoeuvers or even withstand such very high G forces. that would result from such extremely rapid turns. Also, the control surfaces seem kind of short on control authority for such abrupt turns while they are OK for M3.5 flight and terminal climb, dive etc.

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 24 Nov 2017 21:45

Hollywood style tail chase type sequences are practically impossible for most supersonic missiles. Making a 180 degree turn means bleeding off 100% of your energy and then regaining all of it back again, simplistically speaking it would take 3x the energy than just going straight. Having a ramjet engine might help but no doubt there will be a significant cost in range.

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 24 Nov 2017 21:46

Arun.prabhu wrote:Nice counter argument. Attack the messenger. Got anything on my message?

...

What message? It was your opinion right? And yes, I am calling out your opinion.

Arun.prabhu · Post by **Arun.prabhu** » 24 Nov 2017 21:47

Proven to work military doctrine is not opinion.

deejay wrote:
Arun.prabhu wrote:Nice counter argument. Attack the messenger. Got anything on my message?

...
What message? It was your opinion right? And yes, I am calling out your opinion.

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 24 Nov 2017 21:49

Arun.prabhu wrote:Proven to work military doctrine is not opinion.

deejay wrote: What message? It was your opinion right? And yes, I am calling out your opinion.

OK. You win. Cheers!

Arun.prabhu · Post by **Arun.prabhu** » 24 Nov 2017 21:51

Read. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Sheffield_(D80)

deejay wrote:
Arun.prabhu wrote:Proven to work military doctrine is not opinion.

OK. You win. Cheers!

sudhan · Post by **sudhan** » 24 Nov 2017 21:55

Manish_P wrote:
A 6/700 radius circle from Assam & A&N will be very interesting to see.
Prasad ji, you can use this tool - http://obeattie.github.io/gmaps-radius/ ... u=km&r=600

Thanks for this.

Basically, even without the Air launched brahmos, all static, high value targets in Porkland are porked.. Including their fancy schmancy Gwadar..

With the air launched brahmos.. their supposed strat-e-gic depth(s) in Afg are also now porked..

Time for the pakis to start plumbing new strategic depths..

disha · Post by **disha** » 24 Nov 2017 21:58

brar_w wrote:Supersonic cruise missile target intercepts usually take place at much shorter ranges which means much less than the detect-to-intercept time than the one in the scenario you mention.

Brar_sar., I was giving a "farthest range scenario given public information".

disha · Post by **disha** » 24 Nov 2017 22:07

chetak wrote:
Both radar technology as well as CIWS systems have improved tremendously since the days of the unfortunate HMS sheffield.

Rapid Blooming Offboard Chaff, is the generally first line of defence followed immediately by the ciws.

The above might still be a problem for sub-sonic missiles., even the "wall of lead" which CIWS and rapid blooming offboard chaff needs to be created at precise points on the path of the incoming missile. For a missile traveling at @1 Km/sec., that precise point is highly variable.

Further., Brahmos does both S-Curves and top-down-curve., which creates more variance. On top of it, if 3-4 Brahmos are targeted against an air craft carrier., the odds of loosing your AC rises rapidly. In fact I would go on to say that there is currently no CIWS/Rapid Blooming Offboard Chaff that can counter Brahmos. And it will be difficult to field one in the next 2-3 decades.

In effect supersonic cruise missiles are high sea denial and truly stand off weapons.

Added Later: Thanks Austin ji for this quote which I had not read earlier:

The equivalent of BrahMos is yet to built. And, in the next 20 years, it cannot be intercepted by an enemy," says A Sivathanu Pillai, scientist, and CEO and MD of BrahMos Aerospace

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 24 Nov 2017 22:08

So without any evidence, you are calling the services doctrine shameful? Take deejays point seriously.

Consider this a warning. Dont make glib remarks without evidence.

Do you have any evidence the Brahmos is going to be used only in a single shot method? See the FCS, it allows for salvos of three missiles at a time. So even that option remains and is context dependent.

Arun.prabhu wrote:Russian weapons are always meant to be used in mass and their design philosophy is to build something that is smart enough and good enough to get the job done, unlike the west who over engineer the crap out of weapon systems to get the most out of the least. We will not be using a single brahmos against a ship. Shame on the IAF or IA or IN if they do. We will use them in mass so that whatever defences the enemy has will be overwhelmed and the target will be destroyed. Five or even ten brahmos to take out a marine vessel that is a hundred or hundreds of millions of dollars in cost along with hundreds of highly trained sailors? Cheap at the bargain doesn't even describe it.

chetak wrote:
Don't forget that the ships also have very powerful jammers because unlike the missile and aircraft jammers, they are not power constrained. If there is a datalink, it can and will be disrupted. To assume otherwise is foolish and also fatal.

such talk should, at best, be restricted only to glossy paper brochures.

disha · Post by **disha** » 24 Nov 2017 22:29

shiv wrote:A CIWS probably has an effective range of 1000 meters The approaching Brahmos will come head on, smallest cross section possible at 800 plus meters pers sec. That gives the CIWS about 1 second to do something. But the approaching missile has a mass of about 500 kg at least and even 10 to 12 hits from a 30 mm CIWS @ 300 grams per shell may not do much to arrest the KE .

Shiv Saar., an addition: To counter an approaching Brahmos at 1000 meters by a CIWS., it has to detect the oncoming missile at least when it is 1.6 Km away and start firing at the calculated intercept point into a small 0.5x0.5 meter window. And guess what., the oncoming missile has to maybe do a 0.1* variation to be meters away from the intercept window!

Interestingly., here one cannot assume that the sea is placid and there is no movement (or displacement) on the ship and that the CIWS calculates a precise intercept point and directs a wall of lead to be created in that 0.5 x 0.5 sq. m window accounting for all the displacements. It is possible., but which Navy will risk it?

Arun.prabhu · Post by **Arun.prabhu** » 24 Nov 2017 22:41

“Shame on the IAF or IA or IN if they do.” Note the if there. And note there’s no “when” there either.

Now, getting back to your censure, How did you draw the conclusion that i claim our armed forces doctrine is to launch a single missile and call it a day. I as
Much stated our doctrine will be to use many at once against a single target.

Your reading comprehension fail is not my fault.

Karan M wrote:So without any evidence, you are calling the services doctrine shameful? Take deejays point seriously.

Consider this a warning. Dont make glib remarks without evidence.

Do you have any evidence the Brahmos is going to be used only in a single shot method? See the FCS, it allows for salvos of three missiles at a time. So even that option remains and is context dependent.

Arun.prabhu wrote:Russian weapons are always meant to be used in mass and their design philosophy is to build something that is smart enough and good enough to get the job done, unlike the west who over engineer the crap out of weapon systems to get the most out of the least. We will not be using a single brahmos against a ship. Shame on the IAF or IA or IN if they do. We will use them in mass so that whatever defences the enemy has will be overwhelmed and the target will be destroyed. Five or even ten brahmos to take out a marine vessel that is a hundred or hundreds of millions of dollars in cost along with hundreds of highly trained sailors? Cheap at the bargain doesn't even describe it.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 24 Nov 2017 22:44

disha wrote:
shiv wrote:A CIWS probably has an effective range of 1000 meters The approaching Brahmos will come head on, smallest cross section possible at 800 plus meters pers sec. That gives the CIWS about 1 second to do something. But the approaching missile has a mass of about 500 kg at least and even 10 to 12 hits from a 30 mm CIWS @ 300 grams per shell may not do much to arrest the KE .
Shiv Saar., an addition: To counter an approaching Brahmos at 1000 meters by a CIWS., it has to detect the oncoming missile at least when it is 1.6 Km away and start firing at the calculated intercept point into a small 0.5x0.5 meter window. And guess what., the oncoming missile has to maybe do a 0.1* variation to be meters away from the intercept window!

Interestingly., here one cannot assume that the sea is placid and there is no movement (or displacement) on the ship and that the CIWS calculates a precise intercept point and directs a wall of lead to be created in that 0.5 x 0.5 sq. m window accounting for all the displacements. It is possible., but which Navy will risk it?

more interestingly,

platform movement in naval vessels is really old hat. Today it is the least of your problems.

Most CIWS are multi barrel and work on the gatling system. They usually have a cyclic rate of 6000 + rounds per minute, if not way higher. How did you assume that this would concentrate in a 0.5 x 0.5 sq. m window ?? It would actually disperse in a much much wider window.

The CIWS mounting will be stabilized. It actually does not matter if the sea in not placid, which it rarely is or that there is platform movement, which there always is.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 24 Nov 2017 22:48

deejay wrote:
Arun.prabhu wrote:Proven to work military doctrine is not opinion.

OK. You win. Cheers!

deejay if you knew something about the air force it would be better.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 24 Nov 2017 23:05

chetak wrote:5G would be something that a squadron pilot would probably be comfortable pulling.

5g is @ Mach 2.6 and for a target missile while flying extremely low and 10nm from the target i.e. it was a specific performance requirement for the system to execute a terminal weave right at the last minute. I would love to see how much manuver capability exists in the various supersonic missiles out there during terminal phase while flying at 15 feet altitude some 15 km from Target with a seeker working to overcome jamming. Any hard pull up or lateral movement at that speed will bleed energy and slow the weapon down so that weave has to be to find the best mix of flight profile change and impact velocity while not loosing seeker lock. There are actually papers published on best terminal maneuvering strategies and concepts for anti-ship weapons and a lot of them are from China.

Also, Keep in mind that a target missile needs to have the performance margins that will allow to verify interceptor performance against a wide number of performance characteristics. You aim to find a reasonable envelope for your target and then model. As Indranil mentioned in his last post the Israel based their interceptor performance on 100% virtual testing againet the SSS threat, the Coyote and Jayhawk allows the USN real world opportunities to validate interceptor performance and digital test models. Do note however, if one wanted to go all in and design and build a very very high manuvering system, it is much simpler to do for a target that for the most part only needs to simulate a seeker and isn't worried about thermal margins as a real missile would have to. Targets are also limited by range infrastructure range limits and don't need to be designed for the maximum ranges of the weapons they are simulating. As far as the "High Dive" mode that was enabled on the GQM-163A circa 2008-2010, it has demonstrated the ability to dive from 52,000 ft and Mach 4 and this is something the 37C replacement is going to look and improve.

This is a representation of the terminal weave the USN demanded of their SSST (163A) a decade or so ago - http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Wfi3wW3nps8/T ... neuver.jpg

Then have a look at this clip of the YF18 around 25 seconds onwards - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tD1y-n9beYk

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 25 Nov 2017 00:42

MInd your language and check the attitude. There was no need for the If to begin with. Dont play smart aleck with needless commentary. Everyone can see what you implied. You were given a fair chance to mend your ways. Instead you chose to be pointlessly confrontational. Kindly dont repeat the same.

Arun.prabhu wrote:“Shame on the IAF or IA or IN if they do.” Note the if there. And note there’s no “when” there either.

Now, getting back to your censure, How did you draw the conclusion that i claim our armed forces doctrine is to launch a single missile and call it a day. I as
Much stated our doctrine will be to use many at once against a single target.

Your reading comprehension fail is not my fault.

Karan M wrote:So without any evidence, you are calling the services doctrine shameful? Take deejays point seriously.

Consider this a warning. Dont make glib remarks without evidence.

Do you have any evidence the Brahmos is going to be used only in a single shot method? See the FCS, it allows for salvos of three missiles at a time. So even that option remains and is context dependent.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 25 Nov 2017 00:48

Glib comments on the services or indian institutions ("shame on the services etc") without an iota of evidence are not encouraged or appreciated. Posters engaging in such too clever by half slander, are encouraged to find more productive ways of expressing their opinion.

Mukesh.Kumar · Post by **Mukesh.Kumar** » 25 Nov 2017 00:50

shiv wrote:
deejay wrote: OK. You win. Cheers!
deejay if you knew something about the air force it would be better.

^72 to that.

Arun.prabhu · Post by **Arun.prabhu** » 25 Nov 2017 01:15

Karan,
You seem to think that I care enough about BRF membership to back off. Review my account. Note hot long I have been registered and how little I have posted. That should tell you I don’t.

BRF is at most a defence news aggregator. I can get as a lurker and I have been getting that lurking for oh so long. For someone who has listened to actual professionals discuss the conduct of war, BRF are amateur weekend armchair generals hour. With most members being clueless of the principles of war as well as tactics, strategy, logistics, to name just three, I suppose that can’t be helped.

Toodle doo toots. I was having an interesting conversation over at the Arjun thread, but I suppose it can’t be helped. I’ll go back to lurking and you can go back to barking at HAL, babus and whatnot.

[/quote]

Karan M wrote:MInd your language and check the attitude. There was no need for the If to begin with. Dont play smart aleck with needless commentary. Everyone can see what you implied. You were given a fair chance to mend your ways. Instead you chose to be pointlessly confrontational. Kindly dont repeat the same.

Arun.prabhu wrote:“Shame on the IAF or IA or IN if they do.” Note the if there. And note there’s no “when” there either.

Now, getting back to your censure, How did you draw the conclusion that i claim our armed forces doctrine is to launch a single missile and call it a day. I as
Much stated our doctrine will be to use many at once against a single target.

Your reading comprehension fail is not my fault.

John · Post by **John** » 25 Nov 2017 01:30

chetak wrote:
disha wrote:
Shiv Saar., an addition: To counter an approaching Brahmos at 1000 meters by a CIWS., it has to detect the oncoming missile at least when it is 1.6 Km away and start firing at the calculated intercept point into a small 0.5x0.5 meter window. And guess what., the oncoming missile has to maybe do a 0.1* variation to be meters away from the intercept window!

Interestingly., here one cannot assume that the sea is placid and there is no movement (or displacement) on the ship and that the CIWS calculates a precise intercept point and directs a wall of lead to be created in that 0.5 x 0.5 sq. m window accounting for all the displacements. It is possible., but which Navy will risk it?
more interestingly,

platform movement in naval vessels is really old hat. Today it is the least of your problems.

Most CIWS are multi barrel and work on the gatling system. They usually have a cyclic rate of 6000 + rounds per minute, if not way higher. How did you assume that this would concentrate in a 0.5 x 0.5 sq. m window ?? It would actually disperse in a much much wider window.

The CIWS mounting will be stabilized. It actually does not matter if the sea in not placid, which it rarely is or that there is platform movement, which there always is.

Biggest problem with dealing with supersonic sea skimming missile is small engagement window which means 3 second reaction time of some CIWS system will make them useless against supersonic missiles.

Also you have to deal with high velocity even if missile is destroyer shrapnel or other debris could cause considerable damage to ships sensors. Keep in mind missile is liquid fueled as well and usually has some leftover fuel. Fuel left over from a hit to ships hull could significant fires.

ArjunPandit · Post by **ArjunPandit** » 25 Nov 2017 01:40

Arun.prabhu wrote:Karan,

BRF is at most a defence news aggregator. I can get as a lurker and I have been getting that lurking for oh so long. For someone who has listened to actual professionals discuss the conduct of war, BRF are amateur weekend armchair generals hour. With most members being clueless of the principles of war as well as tactics, strategy, logistics, to name just three, I suppose that can’t be helped.

Hey Arun,
I thought of writing sarcastic post, but then i think mean well. There is no point in being rambo in an internet forum. I have been here for long too, barring few exceptions when tempers run high, people here are reasonable and dont have problem with others. We all would love to hear new insights and fresh thinking. I have seen JayS, RohitVats earn their rights on the forum. Ramana/Shiv/Brar and UB are probably not human so human laws dont apply to them.
So please share your wisdom on tactics, strategy and logistics in a manner that's not offensive to others. If you have been lurker for long you would know it well. They might be low on patience in some cases, but then is it worth it. If you are angry, then just sleep well. Running a noise hour here against the "armchair hour's participants" anyways doesnt solve the problem.
So just chill

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 25 Nov 2017 01:44

Arun, you are welcome to prove that you actually possess your scintillating knowledge on BRF or in more salubrious climes, wherever you wish, on whichever topics exist and where you feel your contribution has merit. There is no restiction on that and its your choice to make.

Continue engaging in juvenile abuses and you will fulfill your wish of not being on BRF. Your choice.

While you are here, do follow stated instructions about not making unsourced, inflammatory comments. Thats all.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 25 Nov 2017 06:16

Arun.prabhu has received two warnings. Anybody else who thinks they know a lot?

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 25 Nov 2017 06:22

Austin wrote:
chetak wrote:
Don't forget that the ships also have very powerful jammers because unlike the missile and aircraft jammers, they are not power constrained. If there is a datalink, it can and will be disrupted. To assume otherwise is foolish and also fatal.

such talk should, at best, be restricted only to glossy paper brochures.
Doesn't matter really , all ships aircraft carry more power and jammer that any missile can or its data link , that does not make missile obsolete or can't over come those.

What if the missile uses iir seeker like an AAM? not sure brahmos does but wouldn't be surprised if it does. although friction at low another might cause issues withsuch seekers? ..