BrahMos to go Hypersonic

[Vlad Plasmius]

An important step during Wednesday's meeting was the decision to establish a Joint Working Group, which will meet before March, to work out the specifications for the next-generation of the 290-km range BrahMos supersonic cruise missile.

'The present BrahMos flies at a speed of 2.8 Mach (almost three times the speed of sound), which no other cruise missile in the world does at present.

The new BrahMos will have a speed between 5 to 7 Mach. This will be important to maintain our superiority in this arena in the next decade,'said a top official.

Citing BrahMos as a 'successful joint venture', both Antony and Ivanov said the defence ties between India and Russia were no longer restricted to 'a simple buyer-seller'relationship but had transformed into one which revolved around joint R&D and development projects.

Source: The Times of India (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/NEWS/India/Russia_hardsells_military_ware/articleshow/1438529.cms)

I'm amazed that there hasn't been much said about this. How long might it take them to develop such a weapon? This certainly seems like Russia and India are becoming a growing threat.

[Kampfwagen]

Is there any other information? This stuff always seems kinda sketchy...

[SteelBird]

Here is some basic info about the BrahMos from wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BrahMos

There is no proof of what is said to be mach 5 or mach 7, this seem to be overstated.

[Vlad Plasmius]

It's referring to the next generation of BrahMos in the article.

It's just an agreement that got signed last week during Putin's visit to India. They also etched out a lot of weapons deals with India such as more T-90s, SU-30MKIs, joint development of MTA, and made progress towards an agreement on Su PAK FA. Supposedly they also pushed the MiG-35 during the visit for that Indian fighter deal to compete with the U.S. and European offers. As well as an agreement on domestic production of the RD-33 engine.

However, this is probably the most significant. Given the success BrahMos has had, a hypersonic successor stands to have the same amount of success.

[Scratch]

I think Russia and India got some valuable experiance with the BrahMos. But hypersonic is a different scale. You need new materials to withstand the heat and a new propulsion. Besides, such a missile would follow more a ballistic track, flying M5+ at low altitude is very difficult.
The USAF and DARPA are investigating a very long-range M4 cruise-missile project, called Falcon. The timeframe to come online is 2012-15. I don't think India/Russia will be faster.

[Vlad Plasmius]

Russia's always been better than us when it comes to hardware, especially engines. The Indians make up for Russia's less-than-stellar abilities with software.

BrahMos goes up to Mach 2.8, faster than any other cruise missile. You double the speed and you have Mach 5.6, bingo hypersonic. While, obviously it's not that simple, Russia and India's combined resources are a significant challenge to our capabilities. Russia has some of the most advanced missiles in the world, with regards to speed.

With India's growing economy and IT sector and Russia's increasing gas, oil, and nuclear revenues, they have a substantial money pool. This isn't even mentioning Russia's growing role in the arms market with sales to Venezuela, China, Iran, India, and Syria.

I understand it is a leap, but Russia and India are currently far better situated to achieve that leap than we are.

[Scratch]

I agree, they pretty sure are. Especially Russia has expertise with supersonic CMs while the US has none in it's inventory, or have you?
M2.8 can be pretty threatening, but doubbling it and bringing it into service will not come before the next decade and some years into it.
It's somehow strange to me that this kind of development isn't really considered in "western" or NATO nations.
Well Harpoons or ASh Tomahawks are considered to be deadly enough, and I can believe they still are. But it takes them three times as long to cover the same distance, and I think time can be critical.

[Vlad Plasmius]

M2.8 can be pretty threatening, but doubbling it and bringing it into service will not come before the next decade and some years into it.

Well, given how long from the agreement to the deployment I think BrahMos hypersonic will be deployed sometime around 2015, maybe earlier if they gain a lot of headway. It'll probably be made to work with Su PAK FA and deploy around the same time. I would expect them to at least double the range though. Russia and India will both use GLONASS now so they could give it a much longer range and keep it accurate.

[SteelBird]

According to what I know Indian's economy is far smaller than China's and it is the number 2 high population after China with so many extremely poor people. How do it have that much $$$ to support its military ambition without caring its people's poor life? China is putting economy as number 1 priority while in India things are completely different. But then, there is only China Threat, but no India Threat! May be to develop economy is more fearful than to purely develop military. :confused:

[Vlad Plasmius]

India certainly is overlooked as a threat. After all, the Su-30MKI is regarded by all counts as the better of Su-30MKK and even superior to Russia's Flankers. Not to mention India happens to be the country with a carrier and China isn't.

I guess it's politics. India's a democracy and China's not.

As for their spending, I think they do give economy a high priority, but they focus on a lot of more advanced matter and not the production and manufacturing, despite being a huge pool for labor markets.

I think their military spending is actually pretty low. That might not include foreign purchases though and those are substantial.

[tphuang]

Russia's always been better than us when it comes to hardware, especially engines. The Indians make up for Russia's less-than-stellar abilities with software.

No, the Russian engine technology is no where near the American engine technology.

BrahMos goes up to Mach 2.8, faster than any other cruise missile. You double the speed and you have Mach 5.6, bingo hypersonic. While, obviously it's not that simple, Russia and India's combined resources are a significant challenge to our capabilities. Russia has some of the most advanced missiles in the world, with regards to speed.

wrong again, Klub goes up to Mach 2.9 at terminal stage. Some of the old Russian Anti-ship missiles can go over Mach 3.5. The Americans have had hypersonic missiles for a while. Speed is far from the only thing indicating advanced missile. We've already had threads discussing this.

With India's growing economy and IT sector and Russia's increasing gas, oil, and nuclear revenues, they have a substantial money pool. This isn't even mentioning Russia's growing role in the arms market with sales to Venezuela, China, Iran, India, and Syria.

I understand it is a leap, but Russia and India are currently far better situated to achieve that leap than we are.
no, Americans are farther ahead by a long shot.

If you want to know what a hypersonic missile should be like, check X-51.

[Scratch]

Now that I've read briefly into it, the US is well advanced in that regard.
However I wouldn't take the X-51 as a comparison for a hypersonic CM. As I understand it, it will be an experimantel "plane" to test a scramjet engine for hypersonic applications. And there are other similar programs like the X-43 (NASA project) or the RATTLRS project.
But to my knowledge there is no supersonic CM operational in the US military's arsenal. So, the technology for future hypersonic missiles may be there (soon), but no experiance with such/similar systems.

[Vlad Plasmius]

No, the Russian engine technology is no where near the American engine technology.

In terms of thrust, yes, Russian tech is better. Which, with regards to speed and developing hypersonic cruise missiles, is very important. The Russians currently have the only deployed supersonic cruise missile. No one else has one unless they bought it from Russia, except now with BrahMos, which, of course, was made with Russian help.

wrong again, Klub goes up to Mach 2.9 at terminal stage. Some of the old Russian Anti-ship missiles can go over Mach 3.5.

Hmm, I'd always heard Mach 2.5 as the speed for Klub, does it still cruise at a low altitude going Mach 2.9?

The Americans have had hypersonic missiles for a while.

Yeah, they're called ICBMs. Russia has 'em too remember. Also, it really doesn't matter if we have experimental hypersonic cruise missiles, what matters is if we deploy them, which we haven't even deployed a supersonic cruise missile.

Speed is far from the only thing indicating advanced missiles. We've already had threads discussing this.

True, but speed can be all that you need.

no, Americans are farther ahead by a long shot.

If you want to know what a hypersonic missile should be like, check X-51.

Assuming it gets deployed at all or gets deployed before the Russians deploy theirs. Which, considering what happened with BrahMos, Russia could have a hypersonic cruise missile deployed before a BrahMos hypersonic missile is deployed.

In the U.S. such a project could easily get caught up in politics.

[tphuang]

In terms of thrust, yes, Russian tech is better. Which, with regards to speed and developing hypersonic cruise missiles, is very important. The Russians currently have the only deployed supersonic cruise missile. No one else has one unless they bought it from Russia, except now with BrahMos, which, of course, was made with Russian help.

The Russians are better in terms of nothing. The Russian engines are less powerful, less reliable and less durable than American engines.

Hmm, I'd always heard Mach 2.5 as the speed for Klub, does it still cruise at a low altitude going Mach 2.9?

no, it goes mach 2.9 in terminal phase, but obviously, brahmos or yakhont only goes supersonic because they travel hi profile the entire way.

Yeah, they're called ICBMs. Russia has 'em too remember. Also, it really doesn't matter if we have experimental hypersonic cruise missiles, what matters is if we deploy them, which we haven't even deployed a supersonic cruise missile.

no ICBMs, cruise missiles. They are not deployed, because they don't see the point of deploying one. Supersonic missiles are overrated.

True, but speed can be all that you need.

okay, especially for anti-ship missile, speed isn't all you need, for obvious reasons. For lacm, speed helps, but that's because you are going against fixed targets.

Assuming it gets deployed at all or gets deployed before the Russians deploy theirs. Which, considering what happened with BrahMos, Russia could have a hypersonic cruise missile deployed before a BrahMos hypersonic missile is deployed.

In the U.S. such a project could easily get caught up in politics.
If Americans want to develop this, it will be developed.

[Vlad Plasmius]

The Russians are better in terms of nothing. The Russian engines are less powerful, less reliable and less durable than American engines.

Which is why Russian engines have been used by our rockets right? The exact opposite happens to be true. When it comes down to raw power and hardware Russians have always been better. We've beaten them in software. Unless you can show me a specific instance where that is not the case, I'm not changing that statement.

no, it goes mach 2.9 in terminal phase, but obviously, brahmos or yakhont only goes supersonic because they travel hi profile the entire way.

Don't all cruise missiles fly a high profile before the terminal phase?

no ICBMs, cruise missiles. They are not deployed, because they don't see the point of deploying one. Supersonic missiles are overrated.

BS, when did we ever have hypersonic cruise missiles? Never. We had hypersonic planes for sure, but never cruise missiles. I found one instance back in the late 50s when we developed a supersonic cruise missile, but it only went Mach 2, it certainly didn't go Mach 2.8. I don't think it was a low-flying missile either.

I'm talking recent. We haven't developed anything like BrahMos in recent years, the French developed something similar I think, but that's it.

okay, especially for anti-ship missile, speed isn't all you need, for obvious reasons. For lacm, speed helps, but that's because you are going against fixed targets.

If we're talking hypersonic, it is all you need, unless the BrahMos 2 gets a much longer range. However, the crucial point is that India hasa very well developed IT sector, so if you're talking about the problems of navigation and accuracy, that is something the Indians would work out.

If Americans want to develop this, it will be developed.

They've already developed it and I doubt anyone cares that they are developing it. The issue here is deployment, actually using it.

[tphuang]

Which is why Russian engines have been used by our rockets right? The exact opposite happens to be true. When it comes down to raw power and hardware Russians have always been better. We've beaten them in software. Unless you can show me a specific instance where that is not the case, I'm not changing that statement.

Ever heard of F-135/136, F-119? Check the thrust level of AL-31 in comparison. Do the same for F-414 vs RD-33/93. The rocket engines aren't the same used for cruise missiles or jets and such. In fields like ramjet, turboshaft, turbojet, scramjet and turbofan, the Americans are far ahead of the Russians.

Don't all cruise missiles fly a high profile before the terminal phase?

nope, for example Tomahawk missile, that flies low altitude to evade radar detection.

BS, when did we ever have hypersonic cruise missiles? Never. We had hypersonic planes for sure, but never cruise missiles. I found one instance back in the late 50s when we developed a supersonic cruise missile, but it only went Mach 2, it certainly didn't go Mach 2.8. I don't think it was a low-flying missile either.

I'm talking recent. We haven't developed anything like BrahMos in recent years, the French developed something similar I think, but that's it.

Americans have been developing these missiles for years, so they can test against their air defense system. Whether they deploy in combat is their own choice.

If we're talking hypersonic, it is all you need, unless the BrahMos 2 gets a much longer range. However, the crucial point is that India hasa very well developed IT sector, so if you're talking about the problems of navigation and accuracy, that is something the Indians would work out.

remember that aegis system was developed to defend the backfire threat, which was firing missiles like AS-4 that could fly at mach4+. if intercepting a mach 17 ICBM is not a problem, then intercepting mach 5 isn't a problem either. At the same time, mach 5 is really going to give the missile much less time to pick up the target, lock onto it. As for Indian working it out with the software. A while back, the Russians were refusing to release the software for Brahmos to the Indians as part of the effort to get them to sign the IP document.

They've already developed it and I doubt anyone cares that they are developing it. The issue here is deployment, actually using it.
It's still in testing. There is no indication that America would not field something like this.

[alwaysfresh]

According to what I know Indian's economy is far smaller than China's and it is the number 2 high population after China with so many extremely poor people. How do it have that much $$$ to support its military ambition without caring its people's poor life? China is putting economy as number 1 priority while in India things are completely different. But then, there is only China Threat, but no India Threat! May be to develop economy is more fearful than to purely develop military. :confused:

Yes so simple and so realistic. I have to say it feels good to read something like this...

May be to develop economy is more fearful than to purely develop military.

Because now everything in the world makes sense. All national interest actions and foreign interference.

An example (Totally off topic and I think I will be in problem for saying this but): That is a good reason for Israel booming all of lebanon's infrastucture. Lebanon was developing to compete with Israel economically.

[Vlad Plasmius]

Ever heard of F-135/136, F-119? Check the thrust level of AL-31 in comparison. Do the same for F-414 vs RD-33/93. The rocket engines aren't the same used for cruise missiles or jets and such. In fields like ramjet, turboshaft, turbojet, scramjet and turbofan, the Americans are far ahead of the Russians.

F135/136 and F119 are next-gen engines. It's not an apt comparison to AL-31, a current gen engine. F414 and RD-33 is also not an apt comparison. RD-33 was released in 1985, the F414 was released in 1998.

I don't think you've actually proven your point.

nope, for example Tomahawk missile, that flies low altitude to evade radar detection.

Ok I get what you were saying. However, BrahMos can fly a low profile the entire time.

Americans have been developing these missiles for years, so they can test against their air defense system. Whether they deploy in combat is their own choice.

I'd love to see some evidence, because I can't find anything.

remember that aegis system was developed to defend the backfire threat, which was firing missiles like AS-4 that could fly at mach4+.

THere's a difference between that and a cruise missile. A missiles going Mach 7 10 meters above the sea, would not be intercepted.

if intercepting a mach 17 ICBM is not a problem, then intercepting mach 5 isn't a problem either.

Now you're talking about SM-3s for ballistic missile defense and we don't have many of those.

At the same time, mach 5 is really going to give the missile much less time to pick up the target, lock onto it. As for Indian working it out with the software. A while back, the Russians were refusing to release the software for Brahmos to the Indians as part of the effort to get them to sign the IP document.

The Indians developed the software, this is another thing you're going to have to give evidence.

[tphuang]

F135/136 and F119 are next-gen engines. It's not an apt comparison to AL-31, a current gen engine. F414 and RD-33 is also not an apt comparison. RD-33 was released in 1985, the F414 was released in 1998.

I don't think you've actually proven your point.

You just enhanced my point. If they are one generation ahead, then that shows you how far America is ahead of the Russians. The Russians are barely onto the upgrades for AL-31 and RD-33 now. They've done absolutely nothing with engine advancement in the last 20 years. Even the latest model of AL-31FM1 and RD-33K only slightly increased the thrust level and can't possibly be compared to what the Americans happen.

Ok I get what you were saying. However, BrahMos can fly a low profile the entire time.

in that case, it's range goes from 290km to 120 km.

I'd love to see some evidence, because I can't find anything.

you should read some of what gf0021-aust posts on DT. He talked about some of the stuff the Americans have tested on.

THere's a difference between that and a cruise missile. A missiles going Mach 7 10 meters above the sea, would not be intercepted.

Intercepting to any anti-ship missile while they are cruise or not makes no difference.
Brahmos is in that attack mode height for a very short period. Due to its speed, it has very limited time to search out for the target. If it flies 10 m above the sea while trying to search out of the target, it just won't find it. As for this mach 7 10 m above the sea stuff, unless you want to have a range of 50 km, it's not going to happen. The amount of fuel required is astronomical. That's the reason why all the high speed Russian missiles travelled in high altitude.

Now you're talking about SM-3s for ballistic missile defense and we don't have many of those.

you still have SM-2, ESSM and RAM intercepting cruise missiles.

The Indians developed the software, this is another thing you're going to have to give evidence.
check this, the fire control system is clearly developed by the Russians.

This is from BATTLESPACE. UPDATE Vol.7 ISSUE 40

RUSSIA THREATENS TO RETAIN BrahMos SOURCE CODE
By Bulbul Singh

10 Oct 05. Russia has threatened that it will not give away the source code which will enable the supersonic Cruise missile BrahMos to be mounted on foreign made platforms, including the recently contracted French Scorpene or the Multirole Medium Range Combat Aircraft (MMRCA)which India is buying from the global market.

Sources in the Indian defense ministry say, Moscow has made it known to the Indian defense planners that there is no guarantee that it will allow India to mount the BrahMos cruise missile on third country platforms until the Intellectual Property Rights (IPR)dispute is settled.

Sources in the Indian defense ministry however say it is part of Moscow's pressure in the run up to the MMRCA procurement program of the Indian government.

India is on a global hunt for a contract worth $5bn for the procurement of 126 MMRCA for the Indian Air Force into which Russia has also fielded its MiG 29 SMT aircraft. The other contenders are Dassault of France with the Mirage 2000-5; Saab of Sweden with the Gripen; Lockheed Martin of United States with the F-16 and Boeing of United States with the F-18.

An executive of the Rosoboronoexport of Russia based in New Delhi however said, Russia is perturbed over the delay in the settlement of the IPR issue adding that it is not possible for Russia to contribute hi-tech technologies to India without much return.

The BrahMos anti-ship supersonic cruise missile is a joint development effort of India and Russia in which India's defense research agency, Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO)is contracted with NPOM of the Russian Federation.

The BrahMos, which is being introduced into the Indian Navy, is a 300 kilometers range supersonic anti ship cruise missile and the land and sea versions of the Cruise missiles are also being tested. The missile is one of the most potent precision guided weapons developed for the Indian armed forces in recent.

However Russia now insists that the BrahMos export, and other technological aspects including the source code, should be linked to the solving of the IPR issue which has held back further research and development between India and Russia. In fact there has been no signing of any defense contract between India and Russia since the United Progressive Alliance government came to power in May 2004.

Russia has held back the lease of a nuclear submarine, the TU-22 Backfire bomber capable of delivery nuclear weapons, and various other weapons and equipment under negotiations between India and Russia for several years.

The sticky parts of the IPR issue are the supply of spares from Russia for even erstwhile USSR-made weaponry currently with the Indian defense forces. The other issue is the up-grading of the Russian made systems by a third country. India is contemplating the upgrade of a large chunk of its USSR weapons and equipment with Western technology, a move that is not to the liking of the Russians. It is estimated that the upgrade market alone of aging USSR weapons with the Indian defense forces is around $10 to $15bn.

“The threat of Russia now allowing mounting of the BrahMos cruise missile on a third country platform is only an arms twisting policy to which Moscow often resorts,� said an Indian Army official.

However an Indian Air Force official admitted that the acquisition of BrahMos could be linked to the sale of the MIG 29SMT by the Russians.

The Mirage 2000-5 of France is the most favored aircraft within the Indian Air Force for the MMRCA. The procurement of MMRCA will however be a political decision.

[Vlad Plasmius]

You just enhanced my point. If they are one generation ahead, then that shows you how far America is ahead of the Russians. The Russians are barely onto the upgrades for AL-31 and RD-33 now. They've done absolutely nothing with engine advancement in the last 20 years. Even the latest model of AL-31FM1 and RD-33K only slightly increased the thrust level and can't possibly be compared to what the Americans happen.

They have not deployed anything, which is more a point of lacking a fighter requiring it, which is the result of poor funds.

you should read some of what gf0021-aust posts on DT. He talked about some of the stuff the Americans have tested on.

That doesn't answer my question. I didn't ask what's been tested on, but what's been developed.

Intercepting to any anti-ship missile while they are cruise or not makes no difference.

That's a ridiculous statement.

Brahmos is in that attack mode height for a very short period. Due to its speed, it has very limited time to search out for the target. If it flies 10 m above the sea while trying to search out of the target, it just won't find it.

It can be coordinated and given its target by an airborne platform operating from a safe distance.

As for this mach 7 10 m above the sea stuff, unless you want to have a range of 50 km, it's not going to happen. The amount of fuel required is astronomical. That's the reason why all the high speed Russian missiles travelled in high altitude.

Except, the kind of fuel used would be significantly different and certain design aspects could significantly reduce drag. 50 kilometers is a pretty bold statement and obviously something more out of your head than established in fact.

you still have SM-2, ESSM and RAM intercepting cruise missiles.

We're talking about something that can intercept Mach 17 ICBMs, right? Those can't and I'm curious whether a surface-to-air missile deisgned to intercept ICBMs can really shoot down a cruise missile, doubt it.

check this, the fire control system is clearly developed by the Russians.

This doesn't actually seem to say anything like that.

[tphuang]

They have not deployed anything, which is more a point of lacking a fighter requiring it, which is the result of poor funds.

huh? F-22 with F-119, F-35 with F-135 and F-18E/F with F-414.

That doesn't answer my question. I didn't ask what's been tested on, but what's been developed.

well, I know for sure that he mentionned they tested supersonic missiles against air defense as early as the 60s. I think he mentionned about hypersonic missiles too, but need to check on that.

That's a ridiculous statement.

what's the difference, do you think? One travels a more predictable path, the other one has a more unpredictable, but still pre-planned attack maneuver. Either way, you know where the missile is coming at and with a couple of modern Surface to air missiles, you can always intercept it.

It can be coordinated and given its target by an airborne platform operating from a safe distance.

the point of a missile with active seeker like Brahmos is to stay at a cruising altitude until finding the target and then "plan" a maneuver and attack the target. That's how it works.

Except, the kind of fuel used would be significantly different and certain design aspects could significantly reduce drag. 50 kilometers is a pretty bold statement and obviously something more out of your head than established in fact.

50 km wasn't meant to be accurate, it was just a hyperbole. The point is that to travel at sea level at mach7 will be facing tremendous amount of resistance. Even going at low profile at mach 2.8, the range of Brahmos is down to 120 km. Whereas something like YJ-83, which is 1/3 of Brahmos's weight, can go over 200 km in low profile at mach 0.9. Make your own judgement, it's not that difficult.

We're talking about something that can intercept Mach 17 ICBMs, right? Those can't and I'm curious whether a surface-to-air missile deisgned to intercept ICBMs can really shoot down a cruise missile, doubt it.

SM-2, ESSM, RAM are designed to intercept cruise missiles.

As for SM-2 and BMD capability
http://www.global-defence.com/2000/pages/seabalst.html

Indeed, there is an increasing number of countries acquiring sea-based BMD systems or naval air defence systems with BMD potential. The large US sea-based BMD programmes have been analysed extensively, most recently in Sea-Based Ballistic Missile Defence (see below). To summarise, the United States Navy’s plan is to modify its existing and future Aegis cruisers and destroyers for BMD. Eventually, the USN will have as many as 79 of these. The Aegis combat system, with its associated SPY-1 passive phased array radar and standard SM-2 surface-to-air missiles, first entered service in 1983.

Originally intended for the air defence of carrier battle groups, the performance of combat system, radar and missiles has been upgraded since and further improvements will take place over the next 10 years or so. These upgrades enhance the Aegis ships’ ability to counter existing and future air-breathing threats (aircraft and cruise missiles), and ballistic missiles.

The BMD role is divided into lower and upper-tier defence. The lower tier capability will enter service from 2003 on, using the Standard SM-2 Block IVA missile. This navy area defence (NAD) capability will intercept ballistic targets in their final descent phase, within the lower half of the appreciable atmosphere, and provide protection to vital areas ashore such as ports, airfields and cities within range of the defending ship – up to about 100 nautical miles.

The upper tier capability will be based on the new Standard SM-3 missile. This navy theatre-wide (NTW) system will be capable of ascent- and mid-course phase intercepts of ballistic targets outside the atmosphere, and in so doing will provide much wider protection (hence theatre-wide). NTW could be deployed from 2007 on, subject to a continuing test-and-development programme, and future funding decisions. It is competing with the US Army’s THAAD system to be the first upper tier system to be deployed, the other to follow later, perhaps by 2010.

So, SM-2 was designed to intercept cruise missile and aircraft, but it's also has the capability to intercept the much fast ballistic missile. No reason that it can intercept hypersonic cruise missile.


This doesn't actually seem to say anything like that.
If the Indians need source code to launch Brahmos, that means at least part of the software on Brahmos is written by the Russians. For something like the software needed to activate the launching of a missile, I would say that's more than just a little.

[eecsmaster]

BrahMos doing mach 3 in low level attack profile over land? What are you smoking?

[Vlad Plasmius]

huh? F-22 with F-119, F-35 with F-135 and F-18E/F with F-414.

I'm referring to Russia's fighters.

well, I know for sure that he mentionned they tested supersonic missiles against air defense as early as the 60s. I think he mentionned about hypersonic missiles too, but need to check on that.

I'll save you the trouble, no, we have no hypersonic cruise missiles whatsoever. We did have Regulus II, I think, which was supersonic back in the 60s, but we haven't developed anything like it since. We may have purchased Sunburns or another Russian cruise missile, similar to how we've purchased Kryptons, but we haven't developed anything since then.

what's the difference, do you think? One travels a more predictable path, the other one has a more unpredictable, but still pre-planned attack maneuver. Either way, you know where the missile is coming at and with a couple of modern Surface to air missiles, you can always intercept it.

There is a difference because a low-altitude flight makes it harder to track and shoot down than if it's high in the sky. It's the whole reason anti-ship cruise missiles fly at a low altitude to attack. Flying low altitude the whole way means that the chances of detecting it are even less likely. At supersonic speed that can make a big difference.

the point of a missile with active seeker like Brahmos is to stay at a cruising altitude until finding the target and then "plan" a maneuver and attack the target. That's how it works.

It gives it the ability to act independently, but then again, I wasn't saying it couldn't. I was saying it could be coordinated with an airborne platform from a save distance, should locking-on be an issue.

50 km wasn't meant to be accurate, it was just a hyperbole. The point is that to travel at sea level at mach7 will be facing tremendous amount of resistance. Even going at low profile at mach 2.8, the range of Brahmos is down to 120 km. Whereas something like YJ-83, which is 1/3 of Brahmos's weight, can go over 200 km in low profile at mach 0.9. Make your own judgement, it's not that difficult.

It has less weight, so it requires less thrust, less fuel, and therefore, can cover a greater range.

Ultimately a missile going Mach 6 would only need enough fuel for a minute of flight to achieve the same range as BrahMos.

SM-2, ESSM, RAM are designed to intercept cruise missiles.

Not hypersonic cruise missiles.

So, SM-2 was designed to intercept cruise missile and aircraft, but it's also has the capability to intercept the much fast ballistic missile. No reason that it can intercept hypersonic cruise missile.

Block IVA has been cancelled.

If the Indians need source code to launch Brahmos, that means at least part of the software on Brahmos is written by the Russians. For something like the software needed to activate the launching of a missile, I would say that's more than just a little.

That might be the seeker on the BrahMos. That's the only thing I know, software-wise, developed by the Russians. However, this seems to refer to the software for using it in non-Russian and/or non-Indian aircraft.

[tphuang]

I'm referring to Russia's fighters.

you do realize they talk all day about equipping su-35 with a 5th generation engine, right? They haven't developed it, that's the final. Russian engine technology is just not up to par.

I'll save you the trouble, no, we have no hypersonic cruise missiles whatsoever. We did have Regulus II, I think, which was supersonic back in the 60s, but we haven't developed anything like it since. We may have purchased Sunburns or another Russian cruise missile, similar to how we've purchased Kryptons, but we haven't developed anything since then.

this is what gf0021-aust wrote, no hypersonic misisle, huh?

we get back to some fundamentals here.

the USN has been training against mach 3-6 saturated attack opponents 20+ years ago, they were trained to deal with mach 3 incomings 45 years ago - the battlespace management at fleet level is far more sophisticated now than ever before - and the response times of defensive systems is greater.

Yakhont/Brahmos would make a mess of an unsophisticated target - but against a ForceNET/CEC/war footing alert?

eg: any asset with AESA at an air level effectively expands the sensor net.

The marketing doesn't stand up against a cold hearted review of what the fleet has available to it.

Its certainly not EOD by a long shot (NPI)



There is a difference because a low-altitude flight makes it harder to track and shoot down than if it's high in the sky. It's the whole reason anti-ship cruise missiles fly at a low altitude to attack. Flying low altitude the whole way means that the chances of detecting it are even less likely. At supersonic speed that can make a big difference.

it's all about the response time. As I said, if Aegis system can intercept a mach x missile at 1000 m high, it can intercept it at 10 m high.

It gives it the ability to act independently, but then again, I wasn't saying it couldn't. I was saying it could be coordinated with an airborne platform from a save distance, should locking-on be an issue.

That's how the missile works. Your preferred guidance package is not going to change it.


It has less weight, so it requires less thrust, less fuel, and therefore, can cover a greater range.

Ultimately a missile going Mach 6 would only need enough fuel for a minute of flight to achieve the same range as BrahMos.

you are not serious, huh? I wonder why I even bother responding to a post like this.

This is the first time on defence forums anywhere where I read less weight results in greater range.


Not hypersonic cruise missiles.
Block IVA has been cancelled.

read what gf0012-aust said. It would help a lot if you read something that a defense professional says and stop making stuff up.

That might be the seeker on the BrahMos. That's the only thing I know, software-wise, developed by the Russians. However, this seems to refer to the software for using it in non-Russian and/or non-Indian aircraft.
The Russian fighters/ships are obviously going to have the launch codes for Brahmos. The ones in question are non-Russian platforms.

[sidewinder]

http://www.hindu.com/2007/02/05/images/2007020508200101.jpg
CHANDIPUR-ON-SEA: Supersonic cruise missile BrahMos, with an advanced capability of sharp manoeuvring, was successfully test-fired on Sunday from the Integrated Test Range at Chandipur-on-sea in Orissa. For the first time it was manoeuvred in the form of an "S" curve at a supersonic speed of 2.8 mach. Army personnel in full combat formation carried out the firing.

This is the 13th flight of the missile, which is jointly developed by India and Russia, and the fourth for the Army.

Capability proved


A. Sivathanu Pillai, CEO and Managing Director of BrahMos Aerospace, said the missile was under production for the Army. Its capability to attack specific targets had been proved. "In this mission for the Army, we went to the seashore for the launch because we wanted to experiment sharp manoeuvres of the supersonic missile for the first time. We could see good manoeuvres by the missile. This will enhance BrahMos' combat capability."

With a clear sky, the missile took off at 12:16 p.m. from the mobile launch complex. Before the lift-off, it was raised vertically. As Lt. Col. Bishnu Ram pressed the ignition button, the missile rose, turned sharply at 90 degrees horizontally and spectacularly carried out the manoeuvring in the form of a "S" curve and cruised over the Bay of Bengal at 2.8 times the speed of sound.

Earlier, the mission control scientists and engineers, sitting in a semi-circular block house, conducted pre-launch checks such as integrating radars, telemetry and electro-optical tracking systems. The countdown went off without any hold.

Vice-Chief of the Army Staff Lt. Gen. Deepak Kapoor, Victor M. Kiselev, Chief of Launch Operations, NPO Mashinostroyenia, a state enterprise of the Russian Federation, and senior Army officers and DRDO scientists witnessed the launch.

"Good effort"


Lt. Gen. Kapoor said the launch was a good effort by an entire team that worked very hard.

Asked whether the missile would be used in mountain warfare, he said: "After the trials are over, we will look at the terrain and the targets. They will include mountains."

A detailed analysis of the missile data, gathered by range sensors, was being carried out.

According to Dr. Pillai, the missile was launched in the quickest possible time from the go-ahead signal, by speedily placing the missile in the vertical position and firing it.

[Vlad Plasmius]

you do realize they talk all day about equipping su-35 with a 5th generation engine, right? They haven't developed it, that's the final. Russian engine technology is just not up to par.

They hardly have any Su-35s, it kind of makes it pointless when they would do better to just work on the engine for the next fighter generation.

this is what gf0021-aust wrote, no hypersonic misisle, huh?

Wait, what? That's not even beginning to resemble evidence. I can't prove these missiles don't exist, but I have yet to find any evidence they do exist. If you're going to continue asserting this give some source or something that is evidence and specific.

it's all about the response time. As I said, if Aegis system can intercept a mach x missile at 1000 m high, it can intercept it at 10 m high.

What the? Are you even trying to argue this? You're right it is about response time, which is why the 10 meter altitude is an advantage. I mean, you made the point yourself by saying why Tomahawks fly constantly at a low altitude. Flying at a lower altitude makes it far more difficult to detect, track, and intercept.

That's how the missile works. Your preferred guidance package is not going to change it.

Funny, everything I've read says the radar is for terminal guidance actually.

you are not serious, huh? I wonder why I even bother responding to a post like this.

This is the first time on defence forums anywhere where I read less weight results in greater range.

You're going to some real "geniuses" then. Yes, less weight would mean greater range with the same amount of fuel and thrust. I'm pretty sure that's Physics 101, not to mention common sense.

The fact is, the BrahMos is 4 times as heavy as a YJ-83, twice as large in mere terms of size, and goes over three times faster. If it were possible for the YJ-83, without any other alterations, to have the same amount of fuel as BrahMos, it would likely have a range well up to 1,000 kilometers.

read what gf0012-aust said. It would help a lot if you read something that a defense professional says and stop making stuff up.

I'm not making anything up, you're the one with all the BS. What you cited was not even evidence of anything that was developed. The exact words were:

the USN has been training against

they were trained to deal with

That doesn't prove we developed anything or that the we even shot anything down, just that we "trained" against it.

Now there are the Kryptons, which I believe I mentioned before, which go about Mach 4.5 and I believe some supersonic cruise missiles from Russia were tested against. However, the idea that a low-flying hypersonic cruise missile can be compared to either of these is horribly dubious and I know, for unquestionable fact, that those aren't in our possession. If they are than surely this gf0012-aust has disclosed top secret weapons projects.

The idea that we would have hypersonic cruise missiles when just a decade ago we were struggling to get anything to go hypersonic that wasn't a rocket or ballistic missile is ridiculous.

If you so strongly believe they exist then go find some real evidence saying what they are or mentioning such a program.

The Russian fighters/ships are obviously going to have the launch codes for Brahmos. The ones in question are non-Russian platforms.

Yes, but the fact is, that has no bearing on what we were discussing now does it?

[tphuang]

They hardly have any Su-35s, it kind of makes it pointless when they would do better to just work on the engine for the next fighter generation.

that doesn't stop them from talking about it. The point is they don't have anything better. I think I need to mention this again, the Russians want an engine with comparable thrust, reliability to the latest American engines, so they can put them on the latest flankers. They don't have it. Their engine technology level is far behind that of the Americans.

Wait, what? That's not even beginning to resemble evidence. I can't prove these missiles don't exist, but I have yet to find any evidence they do exist. If you're going to continue asserting this give some source or something that is evidence and specific.

gf0012-aust is better evidence than anything you get on wikipedia, strategypage or these internet warrior type of sources.

What the? Are you even trying to argue this? You're right it is about response time, which is why the 10 meter altitude is an advantage. I mean, you made the point yourself by saying why Tomahawks fly constantly at a low altitude. Flying at a lower altitude makes it far more difficult to detect, track, and intercept.

i'm talking about a supersonic vs subsonic missile cruising at 10 m. a subsonic missile would give you more time, but if you detect both, you can intercept them no matter how fast they are going.

Funny, everything I've read says the radar is for terminal guidance actually.

That's what it means. That's how it works. Do you have an idea how active guided AShM work? If you don't, stop posting bs.

You're going to some real "geniuses" then. Yes, less weight would mean greater range with the same amount of fuel and thrust. I'm pretty sure that's Physics 101, not to mention common sense.

The fact is, the BrahMos is 4 times as heavy as a YJ-83, twice as large in mere terms of size, and goes over three times faster. If it were possible for the YJ-83, without any other alterations, to have the same amount of fuel as BrahMos, it would likely have a range well up to 1,000 kilometers.

where do you get this kind of bs, how is it possible for YJ-83 to have same amount of fuel as Brahmos? Take a look at AAM, AShM, SAM - one commonality, larger missile -> faster speed -> longer range. Use some common sense

I'm not making anything up, you're the one with all the BS. What you cited was not even evidence of anything that was developed. The exact words were:
That doesn't prove we developed anything or that the we even shot anything down, just that we "trained" against it.

if you don't have the missiles, how do you train against it? The Americans were training not just a one missile strike, but concentrated attacks from the soviets.

Now there are the Kryptons, which I believe I mentioned before, which go about Mach 4.5 and I believe some supersonic cruise missiles from Russia were tested against. However, the idea that a low-flying hypersonic cruise missile can be compared to either of these is horribly dubious and I know, for unquestionable fact, that those aren't in our possession. If they are than surely this gf0012-aust has disclosed top secret weapons projects.

The idea that we would have hypersonic cruise missiles when just a decade ago we were struggling to get anything to go hypersonic that wasn't a rocket or ballistic missile is ridiculous.

If you so strongly believe they exist then go find some real evidence saying what they are or mentioning such a program.

you have no idea some of the stuff that USN has worked with and a lot of these stuff are confidential material that some of the defensive professional can't post further on. As for low-flying hypersonic cruise missile, it's a totally ridiculous idea. Your entire assertion about something as big as brahmos can go the same distance in the same profile travelling mach 7 instead of mach 3 is outrageous.

Yes, but the fact is, that has no bearing on what we were discussing now does it?
you implied Indians can give some magical improvement to the guidance of Brahmos, I basically showed you that they didn't work on a large part of the software, which counters to what you talked about. So yes, that does have bearing. Read back your posts.

[eecsmaster]

Vandal drones anyone? Just because the US didn't field supersonic missiles doesn't mean they can't manufacture them. They didn't field them because it was no necessary.

Supersonic or subsonic, they both try to decrease the available reaction time of the opFor. While the USSR went with giant active seeking supersonic missiles, the US went with low observable sea skimming ones.

The issue at hand is whether BrahMos is a superior platform vis a vis the other mainstream AShMs in service, and to be honest, I don't think it's possible for us to judge. Sure it has a lo-hi-lo range of 300km and goes mach3, but just how accurate is its target discrimination? Subsonic missiles have the advantage of added processing time, while supersonic just use raw speed and a few prayers. I will leave it up to you to arrive at the conclusion.

But let me just put it this way, when asked about the Sunburn threat, one Australian navy officer said this: "softkill all the way".

[Vlad Plasmius]

that doesn't stop them from talking about it. The point is they don't have anything better. I think I need to mention this again, the Russians want an engine with comparable thrust, reliability to the latest American engines, so they can put them on the latest flankers. They don't have it. Their engine technology level is far behind that of the Americans.

Even if what you were saying is true, "far behind" is a horrible exaggeration. Russia doesn't really need engines for Su-35s because they hardly have any.

gf0012-aust is better evidence than anything you get on wikipedia, strategypage or these internet warrior type of sources.

That's all well and good, but my point is, his post didn't even support your claim and us in the U.S. possessing the technology.

i'm talking about a supersonic vs subsonic missile cruising at 10 m. a subsonic missile would give you more time, but if you detect both, you can intercept them no matter how fast they are going.

That does not even begin to mean equivalence. A subsonic missile at that altitude will be far easier to intercept. This also goes to the most important point, rate of fire. The time from when a supersonic missile would be detected to the moment it would hit would be measurable in seconds. It would take three times as much time for a subsonic missile to reach its target. I believe Arleigh Burkes are able to fire a missile every three seconds. That's 20 missiles in a minute. One missile hitting it would be more than sufficient to sink it, especially should it ignite any of the fuel or munitions on board. Also, for all it's touted, it's unlikely AEGIS would enjoy 100% accuracy. The CIWS, would particularly be a good purpose for the speed. At Mach 2.8 it would be from in-range of the CIWS to hitting the ship in 6 seconds, compared to 15 or 18 for a subsonic missile.

In sufficient numbers, maybe 30 or slightly over, this should be more than enough to take out a single Arleigh Burke.

That's what it means. That's how it works. Do you have an idea how active guided AShM work? If you don't, stop posting bs.

Well, that means it's using radar at about 50 kilometers distance, which should be enough regardless of altitude to detect the ship.

where do you get this kind of bs, how is it possible for YJ-83 to have same amount of fuel as Brahmos?

I said, "if it were possible" not that it was.

Take a look at AAM, AShM, SAM - one commonality, larger missile -> faster speed -> longer range. Use some common sense

That's a very poor conclusion. The Tomahawk is about the same size as YJ-82 and the difference between them is immense.

if you don't have the missiles, how do you train against it? The Americans were training not just a one missile strike, but concentrated attacks from the soviets.

They can build drones that go at those speeds or test themselves against fast aircraft. However, we had no hypersonic weapons to test against. They wouldn't have nearly enough missiles to test for the kind of attack in the capabilities of several countries.

you have no idea some of the stuff that USN has worked with and a lot of these stuff are confidential material that some of the defensive professional can't post further on.

Oh boy the old impenetrable argument, "We don't know what they have so you can't prove it doesn't exist." The fact is, you can't prove it does exist and that's obvious from the fact that you resort to that argument. If we already had hypersonic cruise missiles we would have been, you know, using them. After all, X-51 is for that purpose right? If we already could do that since the 80's why would we have so much need for development of scramjet? It's a preposterous claim.

As for low-flying hypersonic cruise missile, it's a totally ridiculous idea. Your entire assertion about something as big as brahmos can go the same distance in the same profile travelling mach 7 instead of mach 3 is outrageous.

I never made that assertion. I said in order to go that fast it would only need enough fuel for a minute of flight to achieve the same range.

you implied Indians can give some magical improvement to the guidance of Brahmos, I basically showed you that they didn't work on a large part of the software, which counters to what you talked about. So yes, that does have bearing. Read back your posts.

It's not a large part of the software, it's a minor part. Most of the software was developed by India.

[Jeff Head]

The issue here is deployment, actually using it.The US has developed hypersonic missiles for some time for battlefield use. They are not cruise missiles, but the Comapact Kinetic Energy Missile was successfully tested last year (Mach 6.5). A lot of that new development is based on the successful LOSAT program (Line of Site AntiTank Kinetic Energy weapon) that Lockheed produced for the Army starting in 2002.

The techniocal capability and manufacturing is there if we choose to go down that path, but for cruise missiles, to date, the US has chosen a path of using (at this point) near sonic weapons that rely on flight profile, ECM, reliability, maintainability, and superb guidance.

As to heavy lift...the Saturn V was pretty good and got us to the moon.

It's not as much about capability as it is about differing thought processes regarding the application. Those thought processes have led to differing operating parameters and premises for both the US and the Russians which have produced the differing systems IMHO.

Now China will develop their own.

[tphuang]

Even if what you were saying is true, "far behind" is a horrible exaggeration. Russia doesn't really need engines for Su-35s because they hardly have any.

they need the engines to make it more appealing for export. Plus, they need high thrusted engines for su-34 to allow it to carry more payload and have longer range.

That's all well and good, but my point is, his post didn't even support your claim and us in the U.S. possessing the technology.

I stand corrected with what Jeff said.

That does not even begin to mean equivalence. A subsonic missile at that altitude will be far easier to intercept. This also goes to the most important point, rate of fire. The time from when a supersonic missile would be detected to the moment it would hit would be measurable in seconds. It would take three times as much time for a subsonic missile to reach its target. I believe Arleigh Burkes are able to fire a missile every three seconds. That's 20 missiles in a minute. One missile hitting it would be more than sufficient to sink it, especially should it ignite any of the fuel or munitions on board. Also, for all it's touted, it's unlikely AEGIS would enjoy 100% accuracy. The CIWS, would particularly be a good purpose for the speed. At Mach 2.8 it would be from in-range of the CIWS to hitting the ship in 6 seconds, compared to 15 or 18 for a subsonic missile.

In sufficient numbers, maybe 30 or slightly over, this should be more than enough to take out a single Arleigh Burke.

something larger like Brahmos has a higher radar profile and is easier to detect, something even larger like sunburn is even easier to detect. Also, they have less time to find target and plane maneuvers. We've had a thread on navy section explaining why supersonic missiles don't necessarily offer better performance. It would help if you read it. I read many defensive professionals who would tell you that a high subsonic, lo profile anti-ship missile that can maneuver and target different part of the ship is actually harder to deal with than just a really fast missile.

Well, that means it's using radar at about 50 kilometers distance, which should be enough regardless of altitude to detect the ship.

lol, do you know why they had to Bandstand type of radar to do OTH targetting and normal surface search radar can't do it? Same reason why the much smaller missile seeker can't detect a modern ship from 50 km out.

I said, "if it were possible" not that it was.

It's not going to.

That's a very poor conclusion. The Tomahawk is about the same size as YJ-82 and the difference between them is immense.

YJ-83 - 800 kg, tomahawk - 1440 kg, I wouldn't call that about the same size. One is an anti-ship missile, the other is a LACM. And at the same time, tomahawk is using turbofan engine compared to turbojet on YJ-83, turbofan engines has much lower fuel consumption rate.

They can build drones that go at those speeds or test themselves against fast aircraft. However, we had no hypersonic weapons to test against. They wouldn't have nearly enough missiles to test for the kind of attack in the capabilities of several countries.

read what Jeff wrote.

Oh boy the old impenetrable argument, "We don't know what they have so you can't prove it doesn't exist." The fact is, you can't prove it does exist and that's obvious from the fact that you resort to that argument. If we already had hypersonic cruise missiles we would have been, you know, using them. After all, X-51 is for that purpose right? If we already could do that since the 80's why would we have so much need for development of scramjet? It's a preposterous claim.

X-51 is developed and put in service, because there is a real need/mission for it.

I never made that assertion. I said in order to go that fast it would only need enough fuel for a minute of flight to achieve the same range.

then why are you continuing with the bs about having a low flying hypersonic LACM based on Brahmos then?

It's not a large part of the software, it's a minor part. Most of the software was developed by India.
Fire control software is not just a minor part of software. It's an integral part.

[Vlad Plasmius]

they need the engines to make it more appealing for export. Plus, they need high thrusted engines for su-34 to allow it to carry more payload and have longer range.

Russia's working on PAK FA and their current engines are already sufficient for Su-35. Considering they won't use it it doesn't matter as much.

something larger like Brahmos has a higher radar profile and is easier to detect, something even larger like sunburn is even easier to detect. Also, they have less time to find target and plane maneuvers. We've had a thread on navy section explaining why supersonic missiles don't necessarily offer better performance. It would help if you read it. I read many defensive professionals who would tell you that a high subsonic, lo profile anti-ship missile that can maneuver and target different part of the ship is actually harder to deal with than just a really fast missile.

BrahMos's systems, designed by India, were specially catered for the apparent problems you mention it seems.

lol, do you know why they had to Bandstand type of radar to do OTH targetting and normal surface search radar can't do it? Same reason why the much smaller missile seeker can't detect a modern ship from 50 km out.

Except, BrahMos does, however, it seems to do that only in the lo/hi/lo profile, otherwise it scans at around 25 kilometers out.

YJ-83 - 800 kg, tomahawk - 1440 kg, I wouldn't call that about the same size. One is an anti-ship missile, the other is a LACM.

The difference in diameter is 15 centimeters. The difference in length is 14 centimeters, with YJ-83 being the longer missile.

And at the same time, tomahawk is using turbofan engine compared to turbojet on YJ-83, turbofan engines has much lower fuel consumption rate.

So would you agree with the statement that a missile smaller than YJ-83 using a turbofan engine would be able to have the same or a greater range?

read what Jeff wrote.

He was refferring to anti-tank weapons, which is something I believe I have heard before. That would be no different from talking about China developing hypersonic battlefield weapons with WS-2. These aren't even really cases where speed is all that critical or all that difficult to achieve.

X-51 is developed and put in service, because there is a real need/mission for it.

So there wasn't a need before, during the Cold War? I don't doubt we'll develop and deploy such missiles eventually. However, the question is, are we going to do so before the BrahMos hypersonic version is deployed?

then why are you continuing with the bs about having a low flying hypersonic LACM based on Brahmos then?

This isn't me saying it, though. That's what the article was about. Call the Russians and Indians liars if you want.

Fire control software is not just a minor part of software. It's an integral part.

Without the Indian software, it wouldn't matter if any fighter in the world could fire it and could use its active radar seeker, because it would have no way to get to the point where it could. The attack profiles, guidance phase before the seeker head is activated, how and when the seeker is activated was all done by Indians.

[tphuang]

Russia's working on PAK FA and their current engines are already sufficient for Su-35. Considering they won't use it it doesn't matter as much.

As I mentionned, they've been promoting the so called 117c engine to put on su-35 for a while not. It's not that they don't want to use it, it's not ready. Their tech is not up there.

BrahMos's systems, designed by India, were specially catered for the apparent problems you mention it seems.

What the heck are you talking about? Brahmos is just Yakhont with a different guidance system. It couldn't use the much superior Russian with the help of Glonnass, so the Russians helped the Indians develop a system that didn't use it. Brahmos seeker is just like an other ordinary seeker out there. It doens't even have the frequency agile seeker that YJ-62 has.

Except, BrahMos does, however, it seems to do that only in the lo/hi/lo profile, otherwise it scans at around 25 kilometers out.

There is nothing special about the Brahmos seeker, get it? It's just like any other seeker out there.

The difference in diameter is 15 centimeters. The difference in length is 14 centimeters, with YJ-83 being the longer missile.

15 cm difference in diameter is huge. You are going from having a radius of 26 cm to 18 cm. In terms of area, that becomes twice as much. That's why you get twice the weight of YJ-83. It's simple math, why can't you just do it.

So would you agree with the statement that a missile smaller than YJ-83 using a turbofan engine would be able to have the same or a greater range?

yes, but there are also limitation to using a turbofan engine instead of turbojet, you should check some online sources. At supersonic speed, I know at least the Chinese turbofan engines do not have better fuel efficiency than turbojet ones.

He was refferring to anti-tank weapons, which is something I believe I have heard before. That would be no different from talking about China developing hypersonic battlefield weapons with WS-2. These aren't even really cases where speed is all that critical or all that difficult to achieve.

no, that was one of the hypersonic missiles that Jeff mentionned. WS-2 is a rocket, not a missile.

So there wasn't a need before, during the Cold War? I don't doubt we'll develop and deploy such missiles eventually. However, the question is, are we going to do so before the BrahMos hypersonic version is deployed?

no, the reason they got X-51 was to strike terrorist cells around the world.


This isn't me saying it, though. That's what the article was about. Call the Russians and Indians liars if you want.

It did not say ANYTHING in there about hypersonic missile travelling in low altitude. So, stop making that assertion. It's ridiculous.

Without the Indian software, it wouldn't matter if any fighter in the world could fire it and could use its active radar seeker, because it would have no way to get to the point where it could. The attack profiles, guidance phase before the seeker head is activated, how and when the seeker is activated was all done by Indians.
What's the point of this reply? Your assertion was that Indians did the software. I showed you that Russians did a huge chunk of it. I think that's enough of a rebuttal. You are trying to cover yourself up by saying India also did some part of the software?