Indian Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

HMS Astute said:

Fantastic list. Seems very promising, and does anyone know how many operational Brahmos India has?

Some folks in Indian forum said that there is nothing to defend Brahmos, and it is the best"est" and fastest missiles on earth etc.

I wonder what kind of damage it would do and how effective it would be if it was launched at a moving CSG which is well defended by multiple layers of protection systems, frigates, destroyers (Arleigh Burke, Type 45), subs (Virginia, Astute) and other support ships etc.

Click to expand...

Thomas Reid's Essays on the Intellectual Powers of Man, 1786, included this line:

"In every chain of reasoning, the evidence of the last conclusion can be no greater than that of the weakest link of the chain, whatever may be the strength of the rest."

The problem I have with the increasing range and speed of stand off ASM is not their capability but the weakest link in the equation, the required sensors needed for a targeting solution. Anybody has any idea what is the range of the Brahmos terminal guidance because the ocean is a big place for a moving target?

I think OTH/long range air and missile strikes against any moving naval target faces that same barrier.

I'd say that finding, tracking, and relaying that information to a strike package has become relatively easier over the last few decades than remaining static or more difficult, despite signature reduction attempts and some ships like Zumwalt which go all in.

Jeff Head said:

I have the following aircraft listed for the Indian Naval Air Arm, the Indian Air Force, and the Indian Army Aviation respectfully:

Click to expand...

Great summary, Jeff, although I think the latest reports say IAF has 200 MKIs rather than 216, but it's a small difference anyhow.

I'd be interested if you'd do a similar review of the PLAAF and PLANAF, and PLA aviation elements as well, although numbers for their aircraft are somewhat spotty and is subject to contention

Bltizo said:

I'd say that finding, tracking, and relaying that information to a strike package has become relatively easier over the last few decades than remaining static or more difficult, despite signature reduction attempts and some ships like Zumwalt which go all in.

Click to expand...

In a contested scenario, the arbiter is acquiring a targeting solution and not just locating because the environment will likely be non permissive for UAV's unless they are the LO type unless you include RQ-180 which doesn't exist officially. Low level sats. past too quickly and unlikely to survive past initial strike as they will be first to go. Maybe you can rely on subs. but they have to get past the layered defences and give away the position upon broadcast.

So what is actually out there that makes these supersonic ASM like Bramos a credible threat in a contested environment?

Brumby said:

In a contested scenario, the arbiter is acquiring a targeting solution and not just locating because the environment will likely be non permissive for UAV's unless they are the LO type unless you include RQ-180 which doesn't exist officially. Low level sats. past too quickly and unlikely to survive past initial strike as they will be first to go. Maybe you can rely on subs. but they have to get past the layered defences and give away the position upon broadcast.

So what is actually out there that makes these supersonic ASM like Bramos a credible threat in a contested environment?

Click to expand...

MPAs, AEWC, fighters and strikers with their own attack radars, UAVs, surface vessels with their own aviation elements, OTH radar, and satellites would all contribute to the big picture even in a contested environment.

That is to say, detection, tracking, and midcourse guidance by offboard sensors is never assured, and the kill chain can be disrupted, but the degree of disruption (and thus the effectiveness of OTH AShMs itself) depends on the kind of opposing force one is facing in the first place.

After all, just because airspace is contested, doesn't mean your ISR assets are all going to be shot down. It just means you'll also be deploying your own fighter aircraft to escort your assets and conduct your own OCA.

Bltizo said:

MPAs, AEWC, fighters and strikers with their own attack radars, UAVs, surface vessels with their own aviation elements, OTH radar, and satellites would all contribute to the big picture even in a contested environment.

Click to expand...

Let's take it one level down. What is the sensor range of AEWC and surface vessels that fits into a practical solution? OTH radar and geostationary sats to my understanding cannot provide targeting solution.

Brumby said:

Let's take it one level down. What is the sensor range of AEWC and surface vessels that fits into a practical solution? OTH radar and geostationary sats to my understanding cannot provide targeting solution.

Click to expand...

Well, most modern AEWC radars are more powerful than their horizon range at a standard 10,000 m altitude, so we're looking at slightly over 400km horizon range for a surface ship depending on how modern your radar is.

Those numbers will naturally vary depending on signature reduction on ships, cruise altitude of the plane, etc.

Satellites and OTH radar will be there to vector your other assets to areas where the enemy has been detected.

Surface ships naturally have far lower horizon range and have to rely on helicopters and/or fixed wing aviation assets to act as their long range eyes, but they contribute by acting as forward air command/control and complication of enemy planning overall.

---

It's worth adding that AShMs usually won't be fired at max range, just to give some leeway for maneuvre. Of course, any opposing naval ships won't necessarily be able to shoot down your strike fighters even if they come a few km within max SAM range, given your striker can drop its load and then turn tail on afterburner even as the SAM is on its way, defeating it through kinetic energy alone. To counter, the opposing ship can fire SAMs in sensible volleys to try and catch the fighter if it comes within max range... but that's a whole other topic with various strategies and counter strategies.
I'm just saying that max range for most types of powered missiles are not necessarily representative of their max useful range against an intelligent enemy.

Bltizo said:

Well, most modern AEWC radars are more powerful than their horizon range at a standard 10,000 m altitude, so we're looking at slightly over 400km horizon range for a surface ship depending on how modern your radar is.

Click to expand...

Can you please specify radar type and vessel that can provide targeting solution out to 400 km and preferably a credible source for the information because this type of information tends to be classified.

Regarding radar horizon, I use a radar horizon calculator


As for the other parts, information is a little bit more contradictory.
For instance, Erieye has a max instrumented range of 450km but a ship detection range of 300km (although their brochure says it is limited by radar horizon, suggesting the 300km figure reflects the altitude limitation of whatever platform it is being used on)
Ka-31 has a range of 150km against fighter sized targets, and up to 200km range against ship sized targets, depending on radar horizon
E-2D is also claimed to have a 550km range, and one can expect that its surface ship detection range is also limited by altitude/radar horizon





Of course, all these figures are rough and not exact, with real figures likely classified for the purchaser. But the key point is that most modern fixed wing AEWC have radars which are typically powerful enough to detect sensible ship sized targets in excess of 300-400km if mission altitude permits.
Naturally range will decrease if the ship has signature reduction, and will likely increase if the AEWC flies at greater altitude, but looking at most planes with a service ceiling of 11,000-12,000m , a 9,000 to 10,000m mission altitude seems reasonable depending on platform.

Bltizo said:

Regarding radar horizon, I use a radar horizon calculator

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

As for the other parts, information is a little bit more contradictory.
For instance, Erieye has a max instrumented range of 450km but a ship detection range of 300km (although their brochure says it is limited by radar horizon, suggesting the 300km figure reflects the altitude limitation of whatever platform it is being used on)
Ka-31 has a range of 150km against fighter sized targets, and up to 200km range against ship sized targets, depending on radar horizon
E-2D is also claimed to have a 550km range, and one can expect that its surface ship detection range is also limited by altitude/radar horizon

Click to expand...

The genesis of the Brahmos threat question was raised in post #1215 against a CSG. So we have :
- E-2D which outside of the USN no one else has it
- Ka-31 which is common across a number of navies but the sensor range is well within the perimeter of a CAP and so unlikely to survive to provide ongoing targeting solution
- Erieye according to Wiki has a detection range of up to 350km in a dense environment but presumably still within the outer rim of CAP from a CSG.

In short, how do you effectively attack a CSG with Brahmos unless you have a reliable targeting solution. This is the same problem the Soviets had during the Cold War when devising tactical solution to attack a CSG.