Military has also accepted weapons platform before official induction, like in Kargil Pinaka was accepted hastily while the first regiment was raised officially in 2000.
Brahmos Supersonic Cruise Missile : News, Updates and Discussions
- Thread starter Manmohan_MMY
- Start date
Astra has a massively chequered past dating back to 1998. So is trishul which is now being deployed as QRSAM after a lot of further development.
Besides, we do not know what has failed. Fifth and Sixth test of the missile was a success. The project was closed afterwards. To be honest, we do not know what exactly has been tested. Is it Nirbhay? Is it something else? There is no official word per say.
For a number of missiles, DRDO usually issues a statement about test and its result.
Nirbhay Got these tiny X-tail fins with a very low aspect ratio (literally 1-1.15 AR) - I fail to see how those fins could be doing anything for yaw stability at slow speeds. Also, think about the downwash/wake interference of those wings on the lower two fins of the x-tail. Maybe this is why they moved the wings down in later versions - thus minimising one problem and adding a brand new one for the FCS to keep the vehicle stable in the roll axis as well.
Not to say this is the problem - but I'm 100% sure the FCS is working over time keeping that thing straight in flight. Add to this weather, winds, complicated routes/trajectories with lots of sharp turns etc. and then you quickly start to see why the others have gone for dedicated vertical stabilisers.
- You see French Mdcn also with small tail fins but better AR (around 2) and still much bigger - also they have gone for a less challenging dedicated vertical stabiliser. Absolutely didn't want complicate yaw stability.
- Look at Storm Shadow/SCALP and you will see how much they have had to think about placement to maintain effectiveness from the tiny stabilisers - and they too use twin dedicated vertical stabilisers completely out of the wake of the wing - despite the fact it compromises stealth.
- Tomahawk doesn't bother with any of these challenges and just uses 3 simple HUGE stabilisers including a dedicated vertical. Maybe they learnt from older Tomahawks that had a low aspect ratio "Plus-tail" similar to Nirbhay X-tail. However, + instead of x means just you get 2 dedicated vertical stabilisers, only one of which is minimally affected with downwash/wake (downwash and wake affect horizontal fins more than vertical). That said, older Tomahawks also had a pretty tardy failure rate - up to 20%.
We've heard a lot about Nirbhay veering off-course. Initially I thought its the TRN/TERCOM playing up but then this is above sea. Maybe it's the above issue? The nav and autopilot could be configured correctly but maybe the FCS isn't able to translate into actual due to that tail? I'm 100% sure the people at ADE know stuff like this. I am also 200% sure that sometimes basic mistakes are made and persisted on projects run by competent people/organisations.
@Gautam
Not to say this is the problem - but I'm 100% sure the FCS is working over time keeping that thing straight in flight. Add to this weather, winds, complicated routes/trajectories with lots of sharp turns etc. and then you quickly start to see why the others have gone for dedicated vertical stabilisers.
- You see French Mdcn also with small tail fins but better AR (around 2) and still much bigger - also they have gone for a less challenging dedicated vertical stabiliser. Absolutely didn't want complicate yaw stability.
- Look at Storm Shadow/SCALP and you will see how much they have had to think about placement to maintain effectiveness from the tiny stabilisers - and they too use twin dedicated vertical stabilisers completely out of the wake of the wing - despite the fact it compromises stealth.
- Tomahawk doesn't bother with any of these challenges and just uses 3 simple HUGE stabilisers including a dedicated vertical. Maybe they learnt from older Tomahawks that had a low aspect ratio "Plus-tail" similar to Nirbhay X-tail. However, + instead of x means just you get 2 dedicated vertical stabilisers, only one of which is minimally affected with downwash/wake (downwash and wake affect horizontal fins more than vertical). That said, older Tomahawks also had a pretty tardy failure rate - up to 20%.
We've heard a lot about Nirbhay veering off-course. Initially I thought its the TRN/TERCOM playing up but then this is above sea. Maybe it's the above issue? The nav and autopilot could be configured correctly but maybe the FCS isn't able to translate into actual due to that tail? I'm 100% sure the people at ADE know stuff like this. I am also 200% sure that sometimes basic mistakes are made and persisted on projects run by competent people/organisations.
@Gautam
Flew 150 km, is it a miss reporting on range? Or another failure from Nirbhay
Pakistan yesterday tested it's Hatf III 250km range BM in response to Indian test, they didn't test babur or raad. So you can asses whether it was a failure or success.
The loads of ASMP and ASMP-A are lighter than those of Brahmos. And I think that the max range of ASMP and ASMP-A is not fully in low level, but a part in high altitude, mach 3+ speed.
Just check the dimensions, will ya?
Also, the Brahmos has a lot more space for payload since it needs to carry a large conventional warhead.
Ok,for time being let us forget about the fact that you are comparing an artillery with a dedicated missile.
How many failures did pinaka have before firing towards enemy positions?
I don't think qrsam & Trishul are same.
Fifth & sixth tests were successful,but they didn't tests for full range.
Ys,why they always keep their mouth shut towards Nirbhay?
Please stop comparing us with pakistan for time being. We don't need to see what they are doing what they are not doing. The threat we are facing is far more serious than what pakistan is facing.
We need a credible long range terrain hugging missile to penetrate Chinese air defence.
Last edited:
Let see, shall we?
Brahmos has total weight of 3000 KG for land variant and 2500 KG for air launched variant. It is 8 and a half meter long and about 50-60 cm in diameter.
ASMP-A is is 5.8 meter long and 38 meter in diameter.
Both missile have payload capacity of 200 KG - 300 KG. Brahmos warhead capacity is documented. ASMP carried T-81 warhead having a max yield of 300KT, quite similar to B61 bomb (340KT) used by USA which weighs about 700 pounds(320KG). Another reference is light weight W80 cruise missile warhead which weighs about 130KG and has a yield of 150 KT max. So ASMP warhead weighs about 200-300 KG too, making their respective warhead capacity very very similar.
PS : Note that I do not compare with ballistic missile warheads because those may also include weight of RV.
Both the missiles have similar warhead weight and similar weight and similar range 500-600 KM (CONSIDERING Brahmos range is understated). One of them weighs less than one third of the other.
Apparently the top most scientist of the Zircon Hypersonic Missile program has been arrested for espionage & consequently treason for leaking info to a NATO country. In a related development the CEO of the Brahmos JV has announced that Brahmos - 2 which is expected to be hypersonic is expected to get an Indian scramjet which makes me wonder what's the JV about ?
When I pointed out that for the same payload & range Indian BMs are the heaviest ( sometimes with both payload & range on the lower side ) in the business I was laughed at . I guess both India & China owe a lot to Russia in terms of the design philosophy of BMs ( at least in case of India ) apart from other systems which makes it the heaviest in the game. Ongoing programs focussing on upgrades tend to shave off quite a bit of weight viz the Agni program. It's a continuous never ending process.
OK, but X shaped rear wings are common in cruise missiles.
Why only Nirbhay is failing due to that?
Actually, its true for supersonic cruise missiles too.
YJ-12 the Chinese development from Kh-31 supersonic missile weighs about 2500 KG and has a similar range as Brahmos air launched variant.
Another is CX-1 which looks awefuly similar to brahmos.
All of these point to the similar linage, capabilities and limitations.
YJ-12 is essentially an elongated Kh-31. CX-1 is derived out of P-800 or more likely Kh-41.
All of these are based on soviet work on RAM jets back in 70s and 80s, so they share similar limitations too.
French ASMP is based on MBDA's research on RAM jets in 70s and 80s and has a different implementation. Possibly they know something about RAM jets that Soviets did not.
ASMP's warhead is smaller and its nuclear payload is 200Kg and less. Brahmos has primarily been made to carry conventional warheads which are bigger. So the weight of the warhead doesn't tell you enough. With an increased volume for the warhead compartment, it also needs increased dimensions, hence the need for greater power, which will mean increased fuel load hence the bigger size and weight. Simply put it's unlikely for the ASMP to carry a conventional warhead of the same capability as what's on the Brahmos since it's not been designed for such a role.
The missiles are simply not in the same class either. One is a land-based conventional missile that needs to climb to high altitude on its own power, whereas the other is simply a nuclear platform which is fired at high speed and from high altitude from the get-go.
The Brahmos-A is merely a modification of the land-based system and can't be compared to a system that has been designed from the ground up to be air-launched with a nuke.