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