Brahmos Supersonic Cruise Missile : News, Updates and Discussions

safriz said:
Wait, what?
Again, no idea what you are on about.
Just to clarify, my original comment was about red tape ism, vested interests of certain parties involved, which are in conflict with national interests, and cause delays in such procurements.
Happens on both sides of the border.
More sp in India.
I vet you a fiver, Nirbhay won't be deployed until Brahmos corporation sells nearly 2000 Missiles to the Indian armed forces, because of financial interests of Certain rich and powerful businesses men of India.
Click to expand...
Brahmos Aerospace is a indo-russia public company. There is no powerful businessman here.

Unlike in Pakistan, where every corporation is owned by the biggest business called Pakistan Army.
 
_Anonymous_ said:
Have we indigenised R&D of the ramjets of any of the current iterations of the Brahmos? Aren't they all coming from Russia? @Gautam
Click to expand...
As far as I know here is how the ramjet engine IP of the Brahmos stands:

Brahmos Block I
In service limited in quantity
290km ranged
Cruise speed: Mach 2.8
Max speed: Mach 3
Limited Sea skimming capabilities
Engine: 3D55(100% Russian IP, manufactured at NPO Mashinostroyeniya)

Brahmos Block II
In service & widely available
290km ranged
Cruise speed: Mach 2.8
Max speed: Mach 3
Sea skimming at 10m
Capable of performing a terminal stage evasive "S" maneuver
Engine: modified 3D55 (Russian manufactured) with a new nozzle designed by DRDL & manufactured by Brahmos Aerospace

Brahmos Block III
In service & widely available
290km ranged
Cruise speed: Mach 2.8
Max speed: Mach 3
Sea skimming at 10m
Capable of performing a terminal stage evasive "S" maneuver
Steep diving capability for mountain warfare
Engine: modified 3D55 (Indian manufactured with a few critical parts like injectors imported from Russia) with a new nozzle designed by DRDL & manufactured by Brahmos Aerospace

Brahmos-A
In service limited in quantity
600km ranged
Cruise speed: Mach 2.8 (probably)
Max speed: Mach 3 (probably)
Sea skimming at 10m
Capable of performing a terminal stage evasive "S" maneuver
Steep diving capability for targeting bunkers
Engine: New unnamed engine designed by DRDL & Brahmos Aerospace based on the 3D55 design. Manufactured entirely in India by Brahmos Aerospace & its suppliers.

Brahmos Block IV
Under testing
Targeted range: 650km (Phase 1) to be upgraded to 800km (Phase 2) later
Range achieved so far: 400-450km
Cruise speed: ??
Max speed: ??
Sea skimming at 10m
Capable of performing a terminal stage evasive "S" maneuver
Steep diving capability for mountain warfare
Engine: The same unnamed engine as the Brahmos-A only larger in size. A new hydrocarbon based fuel has been developed for the Block IV with the intention of pushing the max speed to near Mach 5. The cruise speed (based on the fuel burn rate) will be set based on the target range.

Brahmos-A Mk-2(?!?!)
Under development/Not tested yet
Targeted range: 1500km
Engine: Probably the same as Brahmos-A but with the new fuel.

Brahmos-NG/Brahmos-M
Under development/Not tested yet
Targeted range: 290km
Targeted cruise speed: Mach 3.5
Engine: The new one except in smaller size than the Block IV. The overall missile is targeted to be 50% lighter & 3m shorter than the Block III variant, allowing the missile to be mounted on smaller ships of the Navy.
 
  • Like
  • Informative
  • Love
Reactions: Sathya, Bali78, kurup and 6 others
Gautam said:
Brahmos-NG/Brahmos-M
Under development/Not tested yet
Targeted range: 290km
Targeted cruise speed: Mach 3.5
Engine: The new one except in smaller size than the Block IV. The overall missile is targeted to be 50% lighter & 3m shorter than the Block III variant, allowing the missile to be mounted on smaller ships of the Navy.
Click to expand...

The question is whether this & Nirbhay would fit in the same VLS.
 
Amal said:
The question is whether this & Nirbhay would fit in the same VLS.
Click to expand...
In theory they should fit the same VLS.

Nirbhay missile
Length: 6 m
Diameter: 0.52 m
Weight: 1.5 tons

Brahmos Block III
Length: 8.4 m
Diameter: 0.6 m
Weight: 3 tons

And targeted specs of Brahmos NG
Length: 5.4 m (3m less than Block III)
Diameter: ?? (should be less than Block III)
Weight: 1.5 tons (50% of Block III)

Remember the Brahmos NG specs we know is from the time when India was outside the MTCR. The range of the NG was kept limited to 290km then. That may not be the case anymore. Also Nirbhay project is now closed & in its place we are going to get the ITCM. Who knows what size that is going to have.

Nirbhay's 1500km range seemed alright for 2013, when it began testing. Now we have a Brahmos variant that may go up to that range. Many of the global peers of the Nirbhay missile have significantly greater range, we need to keep pace here. May be instead of bringing the Brahmos down to Nirbhay's size we should do the opposite. Make the ITCM as big as Brahmos Block III, like the Russian Kalibr missile. That should increase the range by 500 km at least.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Amal, Chain Smoker and Sathya
Gautam said:
In theory they should fit the same VLS.

Nirbhay missile
Length: 6 m
Diameter: 0.52 m
Weight: 1.5 tons

Brahmos Block III
Length: 8.4 m
Diameter: 0.6 m
Weight: 3 tons

And targeted specs of Brahmos NG
Length: 5.4 m (3m less than Block III)
Diameter: ?? (should be less than Block III)
Weight: 1.5 tons (50% of Block III)

Remember the Brahmos NG specs we know is from the time when India was outside the MTCR. The range of the NG was kept limited to 290km then. That may not be the case anymore. Also Nirbhay project is now closed & in its place we are going to get the ITCM. Who knows what size that is going to have.

Nirbhay's 1500km range seemed alright for 2013, when it began testing. Now we have a Brahmos variant that may go up to that range. Many of the global peers of the Nirbhay missile have significantly greater range, we need to keep pace here. May be instead of bringing the Brahmos down to Nirbhay's size we should do the opposite. Make the ITCM as big as Brahmos Block III, like the Russian Kalibr missile. That should increase the range by 500 km at least.
Click to expand...
Are you sure about Nirbhay's range? I mean the tested range. The longest duration flight time achieved is 1hour 10 minutes with Russian engine, since it's a subsonic missile it might have covered just over 1000 kilometres. If I am not wrong ,in all other successful test missile has flown below 700 km range.

I even doubtful about the project success too. Since it's our baby we are hesitant to call it's a failed project, more than 50% test flights were ended up as failures and out of the successful test none of the test has involved full 1500km range firing, even the latest test which involves indigenous engine too ended up in failure, remember that was the first test involving an indigenous engine inside Nirbhay . Glad that they shelved this project and moved to New missile design.
 
Hydra said:
Are you sure about Nirbhay's range? I mean the tested range. The longest duration flight time achieved is 1hour 10 minutes with Russian engine, since it's a subsonic missile it might have covered just over 1000 kilometres.
Click to expand...
Yes around 1100 km if I remember correctly. 1500 km was the spec range, it was never tested upto that range.
Hydra said:
I even doubtful about the project success too. Since it's our baby we are hesitant to call it's a failed project, more than 50% test flights were ended up as failures and out of the successful test none of the test has involved full 1500km range firing,
Click to expand...
The project started with the stated goal of developing a deployable subsonic LRCM. Then it was demoted to a technology demonstrator. That alone is a failure.

The project's success depends on definitions now. If it was a LRCM development then the project failed. If it was a TD then it succeeded. Whatever be the definition at the end of the day we don't have a mass deployable missile.
Hydra said:
even the latest test which involves indigenous engine too ended up in failure, remember that was the first test involving an indigenous engine inside Nirbhay
Click to expand...
That is the most troubling failures to date. If it wasn't an engine issue then there is some respite. If it was an engine issue, the upcoming ITCM will take long to complete development.
Hydra said:
Glad that they shelved this project and moved to New missile design.
Click to expand...
Will it be a new design though ? I have seen some preliminary designs where they are looking at a very Nirbhay like body. Instead of a round cross-section like the Nirbhay they are considering using a oval shape (among other shapes). Though that might be problematic for wing deployment. For engines they are using the same set up as the Nirbhay: solid rocket booster followed by a turbofan. They are checking feasibility of shortening the solid rocket booster & increasing the size of the turbofan's fuel tank. This is expected to increase the ITCM's range.

These are still preliminary studies though, but it doesn't look like the ITCM will be radically different from the Nirbhay.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chain Smoker and Hydra
Hydra said:
Are you sure about Nirbhay's range? I mean the tested range. The longest duration flight time achieved is 1hour 10 minutes with Russian engine, since it's a subsonic missile it might have covered just over 1000 kilometres. If I am not wrong ,in all other successful test missile has flown below 700 km range.

I even doubtful about the project success too. Since it's our baby we are hesitant to call it's a failed project, more than 50% test flights were ended up as failures and out of the successful test none of the test has involved full 1500km range firing, even the latest test which involves indigenous engine too ended up in failure, remember that was the first test involving an indigenous engine inside Nirbhay . Glad that they shelved this project and moved to New missile design.
Click to expand...
Nirbhay was a TD project which achieved its objectives. It was never suppose to cross 1000km but it did. New engine is designed to be far more efficient than anything Russian. DRDO is confident with it thus we have 3-4 new projects based on it.
 
Hydra said:
Are you sure about Nirbhay's range? I mean the tested range. The longest duration flight time achieved is 1hour 10 minutes with Russian engine, since it's a subsonic missile it might have covered just over 1000 kilometres. If I am not wrong ,in all other successful test missile has flown below 700 km range.

I even doubtful about the project success too. Since it's our baby we are hesitant to call it's a failed project, more than 50% test flights were ended up as failures and out of the successful test none of the test has involved full 1500km range firing, even the latest test which involves indigenous engine too ended up in failure, remember that was the first test involving an indigenous engine inside Nirbhay . Glad that they shelved this project and moved to New missile design
Click to expand...
Well no surprise this project falls under ADE worst performing lab of DRDO.
 
Gautam said:
That is the most troubling failures to date. If it wasn't an engine issue then there is some respite. If it was an engine issue, the upcoming ITCM will take long to complete development.

Will it be a new design though ? I have seen some preliminary designs where they are looking at a very Nirbhay like body. Instead of a round cross-section like the Nirbhay they are considering using a oval shape (among other shapes). Though that might be problematic for wing deployment. For engines they are using the same set up as the Nirbhay: solid rocket booster followed by a turbofan. They are checking feasibility of shortening the solid rocket booster & increasing the size of the turbofan's fuel tank. This is expected to increase the ITCM's range.

These are still preliminary studies though, but it doesn't look like the ITCM will be radically different from the Nirbhay.
Click to expand...
Regarding last test,we don't know what went wrong,Atleast in the public domain. We should have carried another test with same engine.

Nirbhay development was started when we are not a member of MTCR, so now we have the freedom of grabbing external help. We can hope for the best results with upcoming cruise missiles, I feel we yet to master the contour mapping flight over land & magnetic contour mapping over oceans.
 
Gautam said:
Yes around 1100 km if I remember correctly. 1500 km was the spec range, it was never tested upto that range.

The project started with the stated goal of developing a deployable subsonic LRCM. Then it was demoted to a technology demonstrator. That alone is a failure.

The project's success depends on definitions now. If it was a LRCM development then the project failed. If it was a TD then it succeeded. Whatever be the definition at the end of the day we don't have a mass deployable missile.

That is the most troubling failures to date. If it wasn't an engine issue then there is some respite. If it was an engine issue, the upcoming ITCM will take long to complete development.

Will it be a new design though ? I have seen some preliminary designs where they are looking at a very Nirbhay like body. Instead of a round cross-section like the Nirbhay they are considering using a oval shape (among other shapes). Though that might be problematic for wing deployment. For engines they are using the same set up as the Nirbhay: solid rocket booster followed by a turbofan. They are checking feasibility of shortening the solid rocket booster & increasing the size of the turbofan's fuel tank. This is expected to increase the ITCM's range.

These are still preliminary studies though, but it doesn't look like the ITCM will be radically different from the Nirbhay.
Click to expand...
Nirbhay is not only limited produced but deployed as well in certain sectors. News had came long back as well.
 
RISING SUN said:
Nirbhay is not only limited produced but deployed as well in certain sectors. News had came long back as well.
Click to expand...
A single unverified report by a journalist who makes such random claims. Never confirmed by anyone else. Its very unlikely for services to accept anything without project completion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom