Brahmos Supersonic Cruise Missile : News, Updates and Discussions

[marich01]

Some key takeaways from this interview:

1. BrahMos speed is 930+ meter per second which translates to around 3400kmph(@marich01 remember our discussion regarding the speed of BrahMos ).

2. Su-30MKI's high-altitude range with max-internal fuel is 3400kms translating to around 1700kms combat-radius @32:05 mark(@vstol Jockey, @randomradio, @Picdelamirand-oil).

3. Su-30MKI would carry 5 BrahMos-NGs. Fvcking awesome.

4. BrahMos-NG is indeed designed for air-to-air role against HVTs. This is now official.

Guys, give this whole interview a watch. It is very informative and absolutely amazing. Thanks to @Ashwin for posting this gem.

A2A HVT as in a very large awacs or load puller like IL76 ie planes that are much bigger than regular fighter jets. Since the weight of the missile has come down while speed has taken a bump to 3.5 mach plus, you can use the same airframe design for other purpose of course. The speed regime where brahmos NG is supposed to work is essentially where most a2a missiles work , over mach 3 upto mach 4.5 sort of. So it can be used in various way, a liquid or solid ramjet, a hybrid propulsion, even solid rocker multi pulse motor, maybe some other futuristic tech too. All we need is different tech building block available to us. Many tech building process are in the fire but drdo is yet to prove any one of these except the 2 pulse propulsion system.

But that long range aam, the actual product need to be tuned for such a role ie externally the missile airframe may look same but its guidance control algo would be different to a static ground attack role. This part is where the tricky game begins. lets say you are sending astra 2 against an HVT, with its 15kg warhead the damage would be minimal. But send a missile with 30 or 60kg warhead and the kill is possible. Most S400 class kusha interceptor would have 30 and 60 kg class warhead hence these are useful against such flying HVT. NG is supposed to have 200kg or more warhead which is obviously overkill but the airframe and tech base can be modified to make such an application.

otherwise it makes no sense. The actual takeaway is mentioning the launcher can be used for other missiles, which should pave way for a new article in same weight category. This is where we can make a heavy surface attack article by infusing new tech. Imagine a full composite body & crmc based missile, this will be able to deliver 500kg class payload while being within 2.5 ton tolerance limit.

But it will be very hard to maintain balance wrt the CG of the article. You see how the brahmos ALCM front tilts after launch since warhead is heavy. Same issue will come up when launching at mach no 0.7-0.8 release condition.

 

[CATS @hunter]

A2A HVT as in a very large awacs or load puller like IL76 ie planes that are much bigger than regular fighter jets. Since the weight of the missile has come down while speed has taken a bump to 3.5 mach plus, you can use the same airframe design for other purpose of course. The speed regime where brahmos NG is supposed to work is essentially where most a2a missiles work , over mach 3 upto mach 4.5 sort of. So it can be used in various way, a liquid or solid ramjet, a hybrid propulsion, even solid rocker multi pulse motor, maybe some other futuristic tech too. All we need is different tech building block available to us. Many tech building process are in the fire but drdo is yet to prove any one of these except the 2 pulse propulsion system.

But that long range aam, the actual product need to be tuned for such a role ie externally the missile airframe may look same but its guidance control algo would be different to a static ground attack role. This part is where the tricky game begins. lets say you are sending astra 2 against an HVT, with its 15kg warhead the damage would be minimal. But send a missile with 30 or 60kg warhead and the kill is possible. Most S400 class kusha interceptor would have 30 and 60 kg class warhead hence these are useful against such flying HVT. NG is supposed to have 200kg or more warhead which is obviously overkill but the airframe and tech base can be modified to make such an application.

otherwise it makes no sense. The actual takeaway is mentioning the launcher can be used for other missiles, which should pave way for a new article in same weight category. This is where we can make a heavy surface attack article by infusing new tech. Imagine a full composite body & crmc based missile, this will be able to deliver 500kg class payload while being within 2.5 ton tolerance limit.

But it will be very hard to maintain balance wrt the CG of the article. You see how the brahmos ALCM front tilts after launch since warhead is heavy. Same issue will come up when launching at mach no 0.7-0.8 release condition.

Is it necessary to use brahmos NG for A2A roles, when Astra mk3 can go upto 380km,

 

[marich01]

4. BrahMos-NG is indeed designed for air-to-air role against HVTs. This is now official.

After watching the segment, it is quite similar to what I posted above without watching full program that time. Aerial high value target would be solely large platforms, big enough that can be hit at extended ranges. Choice of tech can vary, liquid ramjet is not the only choice for such application, but the criteria fits given a2a missiles for long range need to cover the large distance very fast while being of low RCS and also leave enough legroom for maneuvering in different phases of flight. In this regard NG can offer a solution, by reducing warhead to 60kg from 200-300kg, missile is lighter aka maneuver capable, some more fuel for long range greater than 300km and airframe is suited for high mach flight already. Next need updated guidance system, a better seeker, power supply option etc and we got some air launched S-400 interceptor option vs refueler/awacs type big planes.

 

[Speedster1]

BrahMos speed is 930+ meter per second which translates to around 3400kmph(@marich01 remember our discussion regarding the speed of BrahMos )

While the official top speed is given as M2.8, you could easily tell that the real figure was M3.0+. Reason: the original Onyx could itself do M3. Drdo has an old habit of understating capabilities while foriegn manufacturers typically overstate theirs. Interesting contrast.

Let's not forget that there is also an anti radiation version of NG under dev for the IN. Imagine what that could do (PHH seeker) to enemy HVA in the A2A role.

 

[marich01]

Is it necessary to use brahmos NG for A2A roles, when Astra mk3 can go upto 380km,

The concept is not using brahmos NG, rather using the same tech and airframe mostly. A missile is combination of certain technology building blocks combined as a product. In this case a liquid ramjet fueled air to air engagement article.

It can also be a solid fuel ramjet , a scramjet if you are willing , a DMRJ , a three/multi pulse solid motor, a RDE miniaturised as well provided each tech base satisfies certain conditions that are suited for a mission.

 

[snakeeyes07]

It is a balanced Pakistani assessment of Brahmos employment in Op Sindoor.

My counter points:
Re Pakistan navy front, I don't think 12 CAMM-ER per frigate will make that much of a difference. They will have to launch 2-3 missiles for each Brahmos to increase kill probability. That means even granting them the best case scenario, only 4-6 could be defended by each frigate. One hit onto these frigates would be a total kill.

Indian navy surface fleet ships carry 8 and 16 each. Given our geography, in near future we should be able to place ER version and LRASHM coastal batteries around Bhuj interlined into INS network to target PNS ships in their EEZ all the way till Gwadar. This will save Brahmos on INS ships as they are harder to replenish during war time.

Also, if they switch to a submarine heavy force then given their geography they are good candidate for SOSUS type sensor wall to be created, just like NATO did in GIUK gap during cold war. GIUK was more than 3x length than a possible SOSUS network against Pakistan. SMART missile off the coast could be an option in the kill chain too.

Re their defense option against Brahmos, they might increase their interception rate but a sophisticated employment strategy by India can make sure that the balance would still be heavily in our favor. We can have time on target based attacks employing waves of loitering munition & older stocks of Brahmos coming in first then more lethal newer ones coming behind them. Given Pakistan economy, I think each of their potential sites will run out of interceptors after 2-3 such TOT attacks.

 

[CATS @hunter]

The concept is not using brahmos NG, rather using the same tech and airframe mostly. A missile is combination of certain technology building blocks combined as a product. In this case a liquid ramjet fueled air to air engagement article.

It can also be a solid fuel ramjet , a scramjet if you are willing , a DMRJ , a three/multi pulse solid motor, a RDE miniaturised as well provided each tech base satisfies certain conditions that are suited for a mission.

We now already have solid fuel ramjet & liquid fueled ramjet inhouse currently, we can convert STAR for A2A roles, it fulfills every criteria, it's smaller, less weight, supersonic speed,
But converting brahmos NG into A2A missile is a financial burden,
They should fast-track upgrade current ramjet engine to 4.5 Mach, oynx will now get the 4.5 mach speed, brahmos should not take it's time, and brahmos NG is now a crucial project for Us, with Chinese freebies to pakistan J-35, Pl-17, HQ-19, KJ-500, getting NG is within timeline is necessary for us,

They should look STAR beyond aireal target practice missile, we can convert it into S2S,A2A, A2G, missile

 

[Ashwin]

Must watch interview with Dr. A. Sivathanu Pillai. A lot of new information from a historical perspective.

 

[Hydra]

Some key takeaways from this interview:

1. BrahMos speed is 930+ meter per second which translates to around 3400kmph(@marich01 remember our discussion regarding the speed of BrahMos ).

2. Su-30MKI's high-altitude range with max-internal fuel is 3400kms translating to around 1700kms combat-radius @32:05 mark(@vstol Jockey, @randomradio, @Picdelamirand-oil).

3. Su-30MKI would carry 5 BrahMos-NGs. Fvcking awesome.

4. BrahMos-NG is indeed designed for air-to-air role against HVTs. This is now official.

Guys, give this whole interview a watch. It is very informative and absolutely amazing. Thanks to @Ashwin for posting this gem.

NG is not flown yet. I don't think it will enter in to active role in near future too. Its basically a new missile similar Outlook of Brahmos, even thing else to be tested rigorously and it will take time.

I believe current Brahmos also can be upgraded to take down slow moving air assets,if they want.

Is it necessary to use brahmos NG for A2A roles, when Astra mk3 can go upto 380km,

Large nose cone,large array. Means better lock on range & resolution with better ECM than any a2a missile. Probably full powered flight. Yeas,NG will be better in some areas than any a2a missile for slow moving assets.

 

[babablacksheep]

NG is not flown yet. I don't think it will enter in to active role in near future too. Its basically a new missile similar Outlook of Brahmos, even thing else to be tested rigorously and it will take time.

I believe current Brahmos also can be upgraded to take down slow moving air assets,if they want.

Large nose cone,large array. Means better lock on range & resolution with better ECM than any a2a missile. Probably full powered flight. Yeas,NG will be better in some areas than any a2a missile for slow moving assets.

Can we increase brahmos ng's range to about 400km for air to air role?
Plus mach 2.5-3 speed of ng is on lower end for peak sustained speed for air to air missiles, meteor has top speed exceeding mach 4, Astra mk3 will most likely has similar top speed as meteor.

 

[Hydra]

Can we increase brahmos ng's range to about 400km for air to air role?
Plus mach 2.5-3 speed of ng is on lower end for peak sustained speed for air to air missiles, meteor has top speed exceeding mach 4, Astra mk3 will most likely has similar top speed as meteor.

Thats why i said against slow moving targets.

 

[STEPHEN COHEN]

BRAHMOS celebrated its BIRTHDAY

https://twitter.com/x/status/1933000861057216806

 

[babablacksheep]

Thats why i said against slow moving targets.

But astra mk3 beats it in range, maneuverability, and speed/ lesstime taken to reach the target.
While brahmos ng can have bigger seeker, more powerful and better eccm, bigger warhead( not much important here), but over all astra mk3 still seems a better choice to me, specially given that brahmos ng will be significantly more expensive than astra mk3.

 

[_Anonymous_]

The concept is not using brahmos NG, rather using the same tech and airframe mostly. A missile is combination of certain technology building blocks combined as a product. In this case a liquid ramjet fueled air to air engagement article.

It can also be a solid fuel ramjet , a scramjet if you are willing , a DMRJ , a three/multi pulse solid motor, a RDE miniaturised as well provided each tech base satisfies certain conditions that are suited for a mission.

Sometimes I wonder what're the tech limitations in building a Hypersonic SCRAMJET powered SAM targeting FAs as opposed to AWACS & Refuellers at say > 400 kms distance flying at over Mach 8 speed ?

Alternatively is it possible to build an AAM carried by an MKI for such a task ? If not , why not ?

Is it the sheer size & weight of such a proposed unit ? The MKIs already carry a Brahmos A ~ 2.5 tons + . What should the proposed dimensions of such a long distance Hypersonic SCRAMJET powered AAM be ?

We already have the building blocks in place . We also have a target test vehicle in the STAR ? So why aren't we going in for it ?

 

[marich01]

Sometimes I wonder what're the tech limitations in building a Hypersonic SCRAMJET powered SAM targeting FAs as opposed to AWACS & Refuellers at say > 400 kms distance flying at over Mach 8 speed ?

Alternatively is it possible to build an AAM carried by an MKI for such a task ? If not , why not ?

Is it the sheer size & weight of such a proposed unit ? The MKIs already carry a Brahmos A ~ 2.5 tons + . What should the proposed dimensions of such a long distance Hypersonic SCRAMJET powered AAM be ?

We already have the building blocks in place . We also have a target test vehicle in the STAR ? So why aren't we going in for it ?

Guidance at long ranges and precision targeting in general open airspace. At very high distance like that good chance the seeker might lock onto something else , a civilian flight even. Also likely the target will be able to deploy countermeasure itself and could even direct AD grid if available. But primary reason is likely the precision guidance lack of and the time taken + rather sparse use cases very few.

I do believe big powers have such solution on hand but rarely got chance to use or obfuscated enough from open available info. But over mach 6 the control & steering again to orient with the target all along will be hard affair for a hit to kill endgame.

 

[_Anonymous_]

Guidance at long ranges and precision targeting in general open airspace. At very high distance like that good chance the seeker might lock onto something else , a civilian flight even. Also likely the target will be able to deploy countermeasure itself and could even direct AD grid if available. But primary reason is likely the precision guidance lack of and the time taken + rather sparse use cases very few.

I do believe big powers have such solution on hand but rarely got chance to use or obfuscated enough from open available info. But over mach 6 the control & steering again to orient with the target all along will be hard affair for a hit to kill endgame.

I did mention building blocks which I should've elaborated on by including the SBS system we're targeting to be in place by end next year. That should take care of guidance & clutter.

Why should the seeker be a problem traveling limited distances when we can ensure pin point accuracy over larger distances using the same mechanism ?

Admittedly moving targets pose a problem more so manoeuvrable targets but a solution can be worked out by dividing guidance provided into post launch , mid course & terminal guidance where ground based sensors handle the immediate post launch guidance , satellites take over the mid course & the seeker in the missile handles terminal guidance.

Google AI reports it'd take anywhere between 2-4 min for a missile traveling at a constant speed of Mach 8 or above to the target 3-400 kms away .

I'm very surprised we aren't undertaking such a project for if someone with my limited understanding & knowledge of things can come up with this thought surely those sitting in Moscow or Washington DC or Beijing would've assembled teams already working on this since quite some time on both the SAM & AAM , just that we don't know much about it .

It's the holy grail in air warfare , the next frontier if you will given the advances in stealth & CCA now unfolding across the world.

 

[babablacksheep]

I did mention building blocks which I should've elaborated on by including the SBS system we're targeting to be in place by end next year. That should take care of guidance & clutter.

Why should the seeker be a problem traveling limited distances when we can ensure pin point accuracy over larger distances using the same mechanism ?

Google AI reports it'd take anywhere between 2-4 min for a missile traveling at a constant speed of Mach 8 or above to the target 3-400 kms away .

I'm very surprised we aren't undertaking such a project for if someone with my limited understanding & knowledge of things can come up with this thought surely those sitting in Moscow or Washington DC or Beijing would've assembled teams already working on this since quite some time on both the SAM & AAM , just that we don't know much about it .

It's the holy grail in air warfare , the next frontier if you will given the advances in stealth & CCA now unfolding across the world.

China has pl17, reported max range of 400km.
US has modified it's sm6 long range airdefense missile for air to air role, fielded by super hornets, with range max range 400-600km, generally used for defensive purpose, like taking down incoming antiship missiles very far away from carrier group, provided guidance by e2 Hawkeye, can also be guided by ship radar or anything else, but can also be used against fighter jets and awacs.

Rissia has r37m , some sources report 200km max range, some reports 400km max range.

And it's not a new concept.
russia had missiles with ranges ~400km to target enemy awacs/bombers before 2000s.

Novator KS-172 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

But never entered service, because you know, no guidance method.

As for using satellites to track fast moving targets( subsonic aircraft are also fast moving) like aircraft, we need a very high no. Of sats in space.
Our SBS will have small constellation of sar satellites,be mainly for ground monitoring and to track slower moving targets are ships, it can also detect the movement of aerial threat. but not capable of ant sort of tracking, even providing periodic updates of movements of aerial threats "every few minutes" will be hard for our small scale sbs.


There are only two countries persuing SBS systems that can target fast moving aircrafts, US and China, the sheer scale needed can only be funded by these two countries right now.


So work on a awacs killer missile exceeding 400km range can start when we have guidance system.
Which our smaller sbs won't provide.

 

[marich01]

I did mention building blocks which I should've elaborated on by including the SBS system we're targeting to be in place by end next year. That should take care of guidance & clutter.

Why should the seeker be a problem traveling limited distances when we can ensure pin point accuracy over larger distances using the same mechanism ?

Admittedly moving targets pose a problem more so manoeuvrable targets but a solution can be worked out by dividing guidance provided into post launch , mid course & terminal guidance where ground based sensors handle the immediate post launch guidance , satellites take over the mid course & the seeker in the missile handles terminal guidance.

Google AI reports it'd take anywhere between 2-4 min for a missile traveling at a constant speed of Mach 8 or above to the target 3-400 kms away .

I'm very surprised we aren't undertaking such a project for if someone with my limited understanding & knowledge of things can come up with this thought surely those sitting in Moscow or Washington DC or Beijing would've assembled teams already working on this since quite some time on both the SAM & AAM , just that we don't know much about it .

It's the holy grail in air warfare , the next frontier if you will given the advances in stealth & CCA now unfolding across the world.

There are usually various reason including the algorithm not being full-proof ie the mathematical equation do not consider the bias generated in ambient condition when tracking via seeker. Since the missile is at very high speed and it has traveled a long distance, over the terminal phase if it is still powered the seeker gimbal frame alignment generate certain degree of bias with respect to the missiles centerline thereby the data calculated by the OBC for final interception point generated contain a much larger miss distance than acceptable. Now for speedy fighter jet a fragmented warhead even without direct hit can cause it to fall. But a slower and bigger awacs like target at long range, it would need a direct hit and a larger size warhead 60kg sort of to cause the desired damage. Fragmentation won't help much for such a long range interception. Hence the S-400 long distance interceptor is so big.

The speed part we can calculate easily if we know certain numbers. From launch it gains thrust, peak velocity at about70-80km away maybe at higher altitude, then midcourse , then endgame. So it will be approx within 500sec mission, maybe the user would want done within 450sec or less.

I have been reading about general trajectory optimisation of such a2a stuff and only have 1 or 2 papers in my collection. One is attached below, maybe you can understand it better than me after reading it, I am yet to fully grasp the entire process and the challenges faced. Of course this is definitely the holy grail, capability to precision target a moving plane from distance like such 300-400km is massive.

 

[_Anonymous_]

China has pl17, reported max range of 400km.
US has modified it's sm6 long range airdefense missile for air to air role, fielded by super hornets, with range max range 400-600km, generally used for defensive purpose, like taking down incoming antiship missiles very far away from carrier group, provided guidance by e2 Hawkeye, can also be guided by ship radar or anything else, but can also be used against fighter jets and awacs.

Rissia has r37m , some sources report 200km max range, some reports 400km max range.

And it's not a new concept.
russia had missiles with ranges ~400km to target enemy awacs/bombers before 2000s.

Novator KS-172 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

But never entered service, because you know, no guidance method.

As for using satellites to track fast moving targets( subsonic aircraft are also fast moving) like aircraft, we need a very high no. Of sats in space.
Our SBS will have small constellation of sar satellites,be mainly for ground monitoring and to track slower moving targets are ships, it can also detect the movement of aerial threat. but not capable of ant sort of tracking, even providing periodic updates of movements of aerial threats "every few minutes" will be hard for our small scale sbs. There are only two countries persuing SBS systems that can target fast moving aircrafts, US and China, the sheer scale needed can only be funded by these two countries right now. So work on a awacs killer missile exceeding 400km range can start when we have guidance system. Which our smaller sbs won't provide.

Those 50 satellites are only the initial qty . The Chinese have 150+ such satellites in orbit likely more. I've read reports they're targeting a total of 500 such satellites by 2030. Then there's their own Star Link network .

OTOH , the US already has some 250 such satellites in orbit plus Star Link. I've no idea how many more they plan on launching before the end of this decade.

While the coverage area of both these constellations would be across the span of the earth , our aims are much more modest.

I'd reckon we would be surveiling the area from the east coast of Africa to the eastern coast of China & everything in between.

Anywhere between 100-200 satellites should serve our purpose for 24x7 surveillance & tracking. Of course we don't have star link or a similar constellation planned which frankly is something we should be undertaking in partnership with the Pvt Sector but that's another story.

 

[_Anonymous_]

There are usually various reason including the algorithm not being full-proof ie the mathematical equation do not consider the bias generated in ambient condition when tracking via seeker. Since the missile is at very high speed and it has traveled a long distance, over the terminal phase if it is still powered the seeker gimbal frame alignment generate certain degree of bias with respect to the missiles centerline thereby the data calculated by the OBC for final interception point generated contain a much larger miss distance than acceptable. Now for speedy fighter jet a fragmented warhead even without direct hit can cause it to fall. But a slower and bigger awacs like target at long range, it would need a direct hit and a larger size warhead 60kg sort of to cause the desired damage. Fragmentation won't help much for such a long range interception. Hence the S-400 long distance interceptor is so big.

The speed part we can calculate easily if we know certain numbers. From launch it gains thrust, peak velocity at about70-80km away maybe at higher altitude, then midcourse , then endgame. So it will be approx within 500sec mission, maybe the user would want done within 450sec or less.

I have been reading about general trajectory optimisation of such a2a stuff and only have 1 or 2 papers in my collection. One is attached below, maybe you can understand it better than me after reading it, I am yet to fully grasp the entire process and the challenges faced. Of course this is definitely the holy grail, capability to precision target a moving plane from distance like such 300-400km is massive.

I took a cursory glance at the paper. It's a math heavy theoretical paper. I'd take the better part of a day to make some sense as opposed to all of it . I'd pass.

Instead I'd like to invite @Gautam to take a look & explain the difficulties involved if he's so inclined.

Moreover you guys are only focusing on the AAM aspect of it whereas I've also mentioned a SAM which I believe stands a better chance of a kill as it affords you the dimensions to carry the fuel & other paraphernalia which an airborne missile can't match for obvious reasons plus there's the element of surprise which an airborne platform launching such a missile can't equal.