Sameer

This is why the US has already spent 6B USD for the next generation ADGES.

The Sunburn was designed to attack an ADGES class ship.

Sameer

Intercepting any modern cruise missiles is not an easy task, people who think otherwise should join the navy and try their theories out.

Missiles also tend to be launched in salvos.

This is why the MOD of the US Pacific Fleet preaches shooting down the fighter plane carryingthe missile more than on ADGES will save out butts. there is mre of a chance of a fighter intercepting the other fighter that is carrying the missile or the anti sub warfare hei of doing its job than the ADGES simulateneuouly destroying 8 salvos of Sunburns.

Sameer

btw the ASter 30 can reach a top speed of 2880kms, that is around the top speed of Brahmos and and pipeline modern cruise missiles, its just not going to be that easy.

Anon

"The Aster 15 cannot intercept a 2+ mach system"

Ummmm....Bullshiit.

"Also the Brahmos does not fly in a straight line"

The Aster is guided with vectored thrust, and turning just bleeds energy. The Brahmos is well inside the kinematic envelope of an Aster 15 or 30.

"it has low RCS"

Ummm, sure. It's as big as a freakin' house, wake up dude...stop drinking the Kool aid.

"you are forgetting that Russia worked with India in this project."

Is that supposed to impress me?

"And the Sunburn had no anti missiles that could intercept it mate, I dont know where you got the BS notion from."

Moron, ESSM and RAM both were designed to intercept Sunburn and other superfast AShMs. They're both already fielded in numbers fleet wide.

Dude, you need to wake the hell up to reality.

"the sea sparrow has been found lacking in intercepting mach 1.5+ missiles with a 15% success rate."

Sea Sparrow was replaced by ESSM.

"This is why the US has already spent 6B USD for the next generation ADGES."

WTF is "ADGES"? LOL...

"The Sunburn was designed to attack an ADGES class ship."

It's AEGIS. And what baseline? Aegis has been continually updated, with 7 major revisions since it's introduction. The current is the Baseline 7.0b.

"Intercepting any modern cruise missiles is not an easy task, people who think otherwise should join the navy and try their theories out."

Were you in the navy?

"Missiles also tend to be launched in salvos."

Aster is active homing. An aster ship can engage as many targets as it has missiles simultaneously.

An Aegis warship can engage up to 16 targets simultaneously with ESSM/SM-2, and RAM is passive, so like aster it can engage as many targets as there are missiles in the magazines simultaneously.

You seem to have absolutely zero clue when it comes to the capabilities of modern fleet AAW systems.

"This is why the MOD of the US Pacific Fleet preaches shooting down the fighter plane carryingthe missile more than on ADGES will save out butts."

It's Aegis dude. And OBVIOUSLY shooting down the shooter is ALWAYS better than shooting down the bullet. Why would we follow any other doctrine?

Duh.

Sameer

Has the Aster 15 been tested against a supersonic cruise missile yet mate?

nope

Aster 30?

nope


I think that you need to tone down your language as well, only people who suffer from inferiority complexes tend to get over emotional about a missile.. relax it is only a forum.


I think that you are living in a world where sams intercept all, its not that easy, not impossible but not easy especially when the Brahmos is the latest in Russian cruise missile development.

Sameer

The Brahmos DOES HAVE LOW RCS

here is the brochure
http://www.brahmos.com/brahmos_s.pdf

Sameer

Wait till tomorrow i'll get you some more details on the RCS.

Sameer

The BrahMos ASCM is a joint venture between Indian DRDO and Russian NPO Mashinostroyeniya (NPO Mash). BrahMos inherits a low Radar Cross Section (RCS) with an Active Radar Homing (ARH) seeker to facilitate fire-and-forget launch. Varieties of flight trajectories including sea-skimming or terminal pop-up followed by a deadly dive, complicate the task of the adversary. Mid-course guidance is inertial, developed and refined by Indian scientists. A 290-km long flight range with high supersonic (Mach 2.8) speed will lead to lower target dispersion and quicker engagement and higher destructive capability aided by the large kinetic energy of impact. In most of the cases the target warship will be denied sufficient time to react even if alerted. The missile appears to have been developed to defeat the increasing sophistication of ship-based defences comprising of longer-ranged and enhanced flexible phased-array radars in combination with point-defence missile systems, "closed-loop" Close-In Weapon Systems (CIWS) and smart decoys.

The BrahMos will turn out to be an even more deadly ASCM if the Indian software designers have by now matured the already formidable guidance system of the BrahMos predecessor SS-N-26 Yakhont which has accumulated all the NPO Mash experience in developing electronic systems of Artificial Intelligence (AI). Thus in case of a salvo launch a flock of BrahMos will be able to allocate and range targets by their importance and choose the attack implementation plan. The independent control system will take care of the Electronic Counter Measures (ECM) and Electronic Counter-Counter Measures (ECCM) data, and also the methods of evading the fire of the enemy's air defense systems. After destroying the main target in a CVBG or surface action group, the remaining missiles will destroy the other ships eliminating in the process the possibility of using two missiles on single target.

http://www.indiadefence.com/brahmospunch.htm

Sameer

The missile's seeker is not an extremely high power emitter and the missile body also enjoys low RCS. The active radar seeker activates only during the terminal sea-skimming stage and you have about 0.85 minutes to react. Insufficient reaction time proved to be fatal for the Sheffeild, even against the AM-39.

The CIWS/SAM will be hard pressed to hit a Mach 2.8 sea skimmer (undertaking high G terminal maneuvers) and more so, defend from incoming debris of the 3000 kg missile, if actually destroyed at CIWS range. Survival from the 300 kg warhead and high KE impact is highly unlikely and it's pretty well established that multiple hits from subsonic AsHMs would be required to sink a fairly large warship. What would the poor guy do against multiple Brahmos, coming in at varying flight profiles?

One more thing is that while developing the missile, no one discounts any possible countermeasure to it. Thus the specific areas are addressed as much as possible be it ECM (ECCM), detection (low RCS/speed/reaction time) or interception (terminal maneuvers/speed) and target survivability (large warhead/KE). It would be pretty pointless to assume that newer missiles have the same standard of seekers and signal processing as older ones.
The sea dart hasnt intercepted a mach 2.5 to 2.8 target at a hi to lo Bramos alt only SAM systems that are capable of doing that are SM-3, S-200/300 and may be aster-45. The russian shipwreck and yakhont have ability to detect incoming radiation and throw countermeasures (NPO doent go into it how most likely by manuvering its mentioned in yakhont/brahmos video).

you can download that video

Imagine this scenario

You detect several high flying very high speed targets at 80km range and they are closing at almost a kilometer a second. How long does it take to lock that target, point a missile at it, determine it is hostile and get permission to fire. When you do fire the missiles cross an invisible waypoint marker on their INS and dive to 20m above the sea... how would you rate the interception chances of those two or three or more missiles you just launched at it? Will they immediately descend and try to intercept at low altitude... if so they will probably hit the water less than 2/3rds the way to the now rapidly closing target. Without any sight of the target that is now below the radar horizon you can go to battlestations and prepare the jammers and the short range weapon systems but how many are there? Are they all coming from 290km away or are there a few more from 120km? From the 40km mark you have about 40 seconds...

Sameer

Yes only the ESSM is supposed to be in development in order to intercept a Mach 3 missile, hence the mach 8 Brahmos....

Had you let me post more I would have otten to it.

Sameer

No I am not in the Navy, my brother is...

Are you?

Anon

"The Brahmos DOES HAVE LOW RCS

here is the brochure
http://www.brahmos.com/brahmos_s.pdf"

You seriously didn't just link me to a sales brochure to prove your point did you?

LOL...

Anon

"No I am not in the Navy, my brother is...

Are you?"

Nope, thus illustrating my point that you are no more qualified to make any assessments than anyone else here.

I was asking because of this quote of yours, "Intercepting any modern cruise missiles is not an easy task, people who think otherwise should join the navy and try their theories out."

Anon

"Yes only the ESSM is supposed to be in development in order to intercept a Mach 3 missile,"

ESSM is already in service fleetwide, so is RAM, and so is SM-2MR Block IIIB.

"hence the mach 8 Brahmos...."

Dude, Brahmos is not a Mach 8 missile. Nor is it even remotely close to a mach 8 missile.

Sameer

Dude I am talking about the next version of Brahmos in development


Actually my brother has taught me a lot about naval warfare and its not that easy even in a subsonic environment.


Did you read any of my last posts?

see that post

"
The missile's seeker is not an extremely high power emitter and the missile body also enjoys low RCS. The active radar seeker activates only during the terminal sea-skimming stage and you have about 0.85 minutes to react. Insufficient reaction time proved to be fatal for the Sheffeild, even against the AM-39.

The CIWS/SAM will be hard pressed to hit a Mach 2.8 sea skimmer (undertaking high G terminal maneuvers) and more so, defend from incoming debris of the 3000 kg missile, if actually destroyed at CIWS range. Survival from the 300 kg warhead and high KE impact is highly unlikely and it's pretty well established that multiple hits from subsonic AsHMs would be required to sink a fairly large warship. What would the poor guy do against multiple Brahmos, coming in at varying flight profiles?

One more thing is that while developing the missile, no one discounts any possible countermeasure to it. Thus the specific areas are addressed as much as possible be it ECM (ECCM), detection (low RCS/speed/reaction time) or interception (terminal maneuvers/speed) and target survivability (large warhead/KE). It would be pretty pointless to assume that newer missiles have the same standard of seekers and signal processing as older ones.
The sea dart hasnt intercepted a mach 2.5 to 2.8 target at a hi to lo Bramos alt only SAM systems that are capable of doing that are SM-3, S-200/300 and may be aster-45. The russian shipwreck and yakhont have ability to detect incoming radiation and throw countermeasures (NPO doent go into it how most likely by manuvering its mentioned in yakhont/brahmos video).

you can download that video

Imagine this scenario

You detect several high flying very high speed targets at 80km range and they are closing at almost a kilometer a second. How long does it take to lock that target, point a missile at it, determine it is hostile and get permission to fire. When you do fire the missiles cross an invisible waypoint marker on their INS and dive to 20m above the sea... how would you rate the interception chances of those two or three or more missiles you just launched at it? Will they immediately descend and try to intercept at low altitude... if so they will probably hit the water less than 2/3rds the way to the now rapidly closing target. Without any sight of the target that is now below the radar horizon you can go to battlestations and prepare the jammers and the short range weapon systems but how many are there? Are they all coming from 290km away or are there a few more from 120km? From the 40km mark you have about 40 seconds..."

The Bahmos has lo RCS, the brochure does not lie mate and you can visit AFM and ACIG for furthur details

I was contesting the statement of yours which said that the Brahmos would be destroyed rather easily, it wont for obvious reasons and you do not have any data on the Brahmos itself nor did you know that the Aster 30 has never been tested against supersonic missiles, nor do you know the reaction times one would have from a missile launched 120kms away....


I think that you will probably conclude or answer in the form Russian missiles are crap blablabla but the Brahmos is the next gen Russian cruise missile, to say that its easily interceptable ... i will leave you to drule on that, the USN is not.

BTW NONE OF YOUR MENTIONED SAM SYSTEMS HAVE BEEN TESTED VS MACH 2+ (BRAHMOS BEING MACH 3) CAPABLE MISSILES as of yet.