Posted on 09/29/2008 8:05:04 PM PDT by Flavius
A joint Russian-Indian company has started the development of a cruise missile capable of flying at Mach 5, which will make it 'impossible to intercept'. BrahMos-2 will be the next generation of the highly successful the BrahMos missile already used by Indian military.
(Excerpt) Read more at russiatoday.com ...
Hmm......Looks like I picked the wrong day to quit sniffin glue!
The initial picture is of the existing Brahmos missile-it’s a ramjet based weapon (evolved from the P-800) and in service with the Indian navy.
No, they are just using Indian money and some guidance software.
I’ve mentioned only a couple of issues which have to be faced with something like this, and there are many others. It is a truly daunting task to design and build a missile like that, and I seriously doubt they will be successful. They will probably decide their money is better spent elsewhere.
:::::::::::::
Yes, it is not a simple situation with many unanswered technical questions — that was the reason for my skepticism. Let us hope they choke on it, and maybe Russia will just spend their money on more vodka factories....
At mach 5 I think you can presume a couple of things.
1. It’s not going to be making right turns. The turns will be gradual.
2. It will expend enormous amounts of fuel. Which will make it short range. Nothing like a cruise missile (1500 miles+).
I had a friend that worked for thee FAA he use to watch SR71s turn. He said it took about two states for that maneuver. That was at about Mach 2.5.
Honestly, I didn’t see anything in the article to tell me why it is ‘uninterceptable’. It’s just fast. Short range. smaller warhead. Won’t be in production for four years. Which means we will have perfected our short range lasers by then.
Also check out Phalanx (CIWS) Block 1B LPWS Testing and Firing
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgpQBZF2sZQ
At that speed you only need a small dent or blemish to make it all come apart.
During the Star Wars days the solution the Russians had for our ICBMS was to blow up a thousand pounds of sand in an orbit going east to west. You don’t need to be sophisticated. It’s just more impressive.
For 18,000 mph
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminal_High_Altitude_Area_Defense
You do realize that the Izzies and Indians are on friendly terms, right?
Seriously, some of the crap I read on here...
I think max that you are over reacting here. The Brahmos will never be used against the US and remain unintereptible...simply because India will end up sharing the design with the USA if it were to come to it. India moves ever closer to the US strategically but such a tectonic shift takes time - decades. Also it remains to be seen when the US will stop calling Pakistan “an ally”. If the US wants India to move firmly over to its side, it must firmly dispose of Pakistan as an ally. As long as you play both sides against the middle, we will have no other choice but to do the same.
You can’t be more right. India is Israel’s number 2 ally after the US. And since establishing relations with Israel, we have barely had any current or ex head of state who has made the kind of anti-Israel statements like Carter and the Clintons have made at times.
There are people in India who think that we should allow Jews to move to India should they ever lose their homelands to the Arabs thanks to a weak(er) US leadership.
And what exactly is a cruise missile??Is it something that’s defined by range alone?
http://www.fas.org/nuke/intro/cm/index.html
This weapon is more of a kinetic weapon cruise missile.
A more typical cruise missile like a Tomahawk can carry a nuke. Most cruise missiles are designed to be stealthy and fly slow (in ground clutter). This makes them hard to be seen by radar. The faster an object flies the more visible it is to radar. We have tactical and strategic cruise missiles. The strategic are more stealthy maybe slightly faster.
This missile sounds pretty much like a tactical weapon. I think this weapon is a lot of bravado.
The old definition of a cruise missile was a low slow flying missile. That definition has changed a bit (see link).
I think this is money better spent for a cruise missile:
http://spyingbadthings.blogspot.com/2007/07/aussie-scramjet-missile-early.html
http://www.nasa.gov/missions/research/f_scramjets.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A38020-2004Nov9.html
You must really not know that much about the last 2 decades of supersonic cruise missile developments. The only major difference in Brahmos II is that it is supposed to be hyper-sonic (mach 5) ...and note that this is a second iteration. There is already a version called Brahmos I that is in active service with India and Russia, and which has a range of almost 300 km and travels at around Mach 2.8 (making it the fastest cruise missile). The major difference with the Brahmos II is that it will be twice as fast (note that the US is also working on hypersonic missiles for various purposes).
Anyways, on some of the comments posted:
First of all it does not require a 'really big gas tank' nor have 'really short range.' Once a scramjet missile (which Brahmos II will potentially be) or a ramjet missile (which Brahmos I currently is) is fired, it quickly reaches supersonic speed using a rocket system, and then the ramjet (in Brahmos I ...in Brahmos II probably a scramjet) takes over. That is a very fuel-efficient mode of transportation.
Another comment was that it can be intercepted since it is coming towards the target. First of all there is nothing that CANNOT be intercepted, however the problem with supersonic incoming missiles is that even if you get it, it will be moving at such a speed that the debris will still hit the (say) ship, damaging soft targets like communication masts (think of it as a super-sized shotgun scatter effect). That is still better than having an actual missile impact, but it can still damage most ships.
Another comment was on how lasers are faster ....yes, they are faster. The main problem is the targeting system and the fact that it may require the missile to be painted by the laser. That is difficult when the missile is flying less than 15 feet, and has started terminal jinking moves. This is the MAIN reason why there has been a gradual movement away from Phalanx type gattling-gun anti-missile systems for point-defense (that strive to shoot down incoming missiles with high cyclic rates) towards point-defense anti-missile missile based systems (which instead of firing bullets fire short-range missiles for point-defense purposes). A Phalanx type system wouldn't be the best for supersonic missiles (much less hypersonic ones) due to range considerations, the fact that doctrine for supersonic missiles normally calls for a swarm attack, and also due to bullets still leaving enough of the missile for the sheer velocity to still carry it to the ship.
Going forward one will probably see more of such missile types, but mostly in the hands of the US (working on similar projects), Russia and India, maybe south Africa (being seriously lobbied by the Russians/Indians), and maybe a smattering of other countries. It is doubtful that countries like Iran would get them, even though they want them, due to greater political linkage between the US and India, and historical relations between Israel and India. India and Russia can veto the other over which country the Brahmos I can be sold to, and it is highly doubtful that the Brahmos II (when/if it comes out) will actually be put up for export.
Anyways, supersonic missiles have been around for quite some time. Range and fuel are not an issue, although they do have shorter range than sub-sonic missiles. They can be intercepted (even the B II can be intercepted once one peels away the hyperbole), but it is very hard to do so, the reaction time is exceedingly small (by the time the radar first detects it you will have seconds for your computers to come up with a firing solution and take it out before it is so close that even a successful intercept will still cripple the ship). An important thing people are also forgetting is that India is a friendly nation to the US, and even if Russia may not have any qualms selling the missile to (say) Iran (which would love it due to what it could do in the straits) or China, that would not happen due to the veto power India has.
Finally, a hit from a hypersonic missile (even one without an active warhead) would dump so much kinetic energy on the target that the results would still be catastrophic. The following picture is of a frigate that was hit during a test with the Brahmos I (the supersonic Mach 2.8 version). I'd say the damage is pretty conclusive ....especially for ONE missile. Generally swarm attacks are the protocol.
I wonder what the turn radius is when jogging down the mountain pass, or cruising around a city skyline.
But you know, if you can't do stealth, hey, why not try headlines. Stealth is a far better solution.
My guess, they probably can't reach speed of light. The next big thing in weapons, shoot it down with a laser. If you can't find it you can't hit it, and isn't that why stealth is the answer?
What’s the difference between SCRAM and RAM. I remember studying ramjets in 6th grade. The concept has been around for a LONG time (that would have been the late 1960s). Super-efficient, few moving parts, the speed of the air entering is high enough to compress the fuel and create the jet. What’s faster than THAT?
No longer true with modern fighter engines. The F-22 Raptor can cruise supersonic at military power without afterburner so its fuel consumption is far less at Mach 1.5-2 than prior jets like the F-15 or SR-71.
Another poster pointed out that ramjets are very efficient at hypersonic speeds, but must be launched by a supersonic aircraft.
I think a lot of folks want to define cruise missiles solely in terms of range-which is goes against what the scientific definition of a cruise missile.
About the Brahmos, firstly it’s an anti-ship missile with secondary ground attack capability. So it’s not on the same plane as the Tomahawk and is not intended to be. It’s advertised as being stealthy with sea-skimming capabilities-which we need to wait and watch for. About it’s range-the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) mandates that weapons sold to or developed with non-signatories (like India) should not have a range in excess of 300km or a warhead larger than 500km.
“warhead larger than 500km.”
That’s a pretty large warhead!
I think the term cruise missile has evolved.
Wikipedia:A cruise missile is a guided missile that carries an explosive payload and uses a lifting wing and a propulsion system, usually a jet engine, to allow sustained flight; it is essentially a flying bomb. Cruise missiles are generally designed to carry a large conventional or nuclear warhead many hundreds of miles with high accuracy.
A Harpoon missile with this liberal definition could be defined as a cruise missile.
My point on the Tomahawk is that it is more formidable weapon. It’s hard to detect has a larger operating footprint larger warhead. Larger than 500km!
Anyway this weapon would be flying into a barrage of probably depleted uranium rounds.
http://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/products/phalanx/
http://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/rtnwcm/groups/rms/documents/content/rtn_rms_ps_phalanx_datasheet.pdf
video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m1Bp9Rit4wc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cP6GpAnmAPU&feature=related
Oops,sorry that should be less than 500kg!!!!
Anyway, a weapon like the Harpoon (or its derivative,the SLAM-ER) would satisfy most nations which don’t have the requirements of the US military ie, long-range, multiple guidance modes for pin-point accuracy etc.
About the Brahmos, sure a Phalanx or a RAM may get it-but the question is whether it will be shot down far enough to avoid warhead debris hitting the ship.
No longer true with modern fighter engines. The F-22 Raptor can cruise supersonic at military power without afterburner so its fuel consumption is far less at Mach 1.5-2 than prior jets like the F-15 or SR-71.
:::::::::::::::
What you note is true, but my comment was in regard to the SUSTAINED flight over long distances that a cruise missle is intended to do (given these really are designed for such service) -— you cannot SUSTAIN supersonic speeds without considerable fuel consumption as compared to how our cruise missles fly at subsonic speeds over great distances very efficiently.
No longer true with modern fighter engines. The F-22 Raptor can cruise supersonic at military power without afterburner so its fuel consumption is far less at Mach 1.5-2 than prior jets like the F-15 or SR-71.
:::::::::::::::
What you note is true, but my comment was in regard to the SUSTAINED flight over long distances that a cruise missle is intended to do (given these really are designed for such service) -— you cannot SUSTAIN supersonic speeds without considerable fuel consumption as compared to how our cruise missles fly at subsonic speeds over great distances very efficiently.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.