can BRAHMOS take on a super-carrier?

BRAHMOS as a anti-ship cruise missile developed jointly by INDIA and RUSSIA, can be launched from ship/sub/shore/air and having a speed
of almost 3 times the sound ; nearly cripples any anti-missile system
and having an impact almost 6-9 fold than any similar system , can be a
very potent missile.

it can carry 300 kg means, it can carry even minatured nuke after
a small modification.

A super-carrier with very powerful air-defence and support ships,
can protect itself from such a potent weapon?
NOTE: Dont expect any such situation although.

Has it reached supersonic speeds in testing yet? Also what is the exact speed range? How fast does one need to be to evade an anti-missile system?


Sorry no answers just questions from me!!

Check the link.
kuku.sawf.org...

This link was at the bottum of the link that was posted above.

www.brahmos.com...

what is "Fire & Foget?"

[edit on 24-11-2004 by poirot]

lolz I ofund the first link to be kind of hilarious..trigger happy Indian dude worried about national security..

Once the missile is fired it needs no more support from the launch vehicle. Examples of fire-and-forget weapons are Tomahawk, Storm Shadow, Trident...

It sense nothing. national-security is a mater of concern to each and every nation.

Off the top of my head Sea Wolf and Aster seem accurate enough to intercept it. (Sea Wolf has the capability of intercepting 115mm naval shells in mid-flight).

Sorry mate, i highly doubt this. Even sunburn is hard to intercept with a lower speed and accuracy.

This REAL issue is getting close enough to actually fire the missile without getting wiped out first.

Any weapon, no matter how cool, has to be supported by an complex military infrastructure which includes training, C&C, intelligence, and political support.

Let’s say India can fire this thing from On-shore and they have some reason to be at war with the United States. Let’s also say, for sake of argument, that the US military has absolutely no hope of intercepting this missile.

Where will they point it? How will they know where the carrier is exactly? You’ll need to know within a few thousand yards where the ship is to be effective. You fleet cannot hope to engage 3-4 carrier battle groups and survive.

Is Indian Command and Control efficient enough to process all the intelligence and counter intelligence that will be streaming in? Is their culture able to deliver hard and bad news in a clear manner or will the fog of war reign? How long can they expect to maintain their launch facilities with 80-200 modern fighter bombers hitting their defense installations around the clock?

If they mount a small nuclear weapon are they prepared for the response they’ll receive if a carrier gets hit by one? What if the missile fails and hits a ship from another military? Say a Chinese cruiser that is patrolling and has been mis-identifeid by faulty intelligence?

It is so silly to see countries try to adopt these very dangerous weapons that they really have very little use for and cannot hope to use correctly if the need does present itself.

There is a good reason the US military only uses certain packages of weapons. This is because they understand and plan for many different considerations than just the pointing and firing of one device at one target.

Sea Wolf is quite effective, and if all one is going to do is counter with "I don't think so", without being one bit unbiased and checking information on such anti-missile systems, then what the hell, right? I mean gee, no mention of such counter-systems (ie: Aegis, etc.) and the all 'godly' Brahmos ownz joe, eh?

Great way to engage in true conversation in finding out if the 'godly' Brahmos is or isn't so 'godly' and if it can or can't be countered.
Seems to me, that if the Brahmos was such a 'godly' threat to a supercarrier and its group, the US would be making a fuss over this particular weapon? Haven't seen such articles mentioning that the US, with its supercarriers, is overly concerned with this 'godly' weapon.....




seekerof

[edit on 24-11-2004 by Seekerof]

While all of this is speculation, one sober reality exists. The U.S. treats its carriers as their firstborn Children. Any attack on and loss of a carrier is an act of war of nuclear proportions, with a reprisal being world shaking. Killing a carrier is on a par with attacking with a nuke, in U.S. Terms, and they would retaliate in kind. I think that may even be the case when talking of Russia and China.

Hi, i am here not to inflame any thread nor to wage an war with any one.

i was just to find out the potential of a missile in a relevant situation.

BTH, we dont thing like our northern nabour , as USA as a threat, we have quiet good relation with usa and we are business partners.

There is no chance of any indo-us conflict .
I am not biased at all and never rated our missile as "godly", but certainly u are rating ur systems "hevenly".

Never talk about any nuclear-conflict, it is a silly idea. no sane person can make use of it.
and because we dont think usa as a threat we did not make any icbm so far
but it is not because we cant produce then ; our pslv/ gslv are strong enough, will not take too long time to produce them.

[It is so silly to see countries try to adopt these very dangerous weapons that they really have very little use for and cannot hope to use correctly if the need does present itself.]
u cant say like this , every nation has full authority to think of its security and how effective these systems r can be proved only in a conflict and thats not likely.

[Is Indian Command and Control efficient enough to process all the intelligence and counter intelligence that will be streaming in? Is their culture able to deliver hard and bad news in a clear manner or will the fog of war reign? How long can they expect to maintain their launch facilities with 80-200 modern fighter bombers hitting their defense installations around the clock?]
Extremely sorry this is not IRAQ , it is better thinking how many will
return home.

[If they mount a small nuclear weapon are they prepared for the response they?ll receive if a carrier gets hit by one? What if the missile fails and hits a ship from another military? Say a Chinese cruiser that is patrolling and has been mis-identifeid by faulty intelligence?]
This is a good question, but look at the success rates of its tests, and what to say friendly fire is also found in your sides.{i think how many british planes u have destroyed.}

[There is a good reason the US military only uses certain packages of weapons. This is because they understand and plan for many different considerations than just the pointing and firing of one device at one target.]
4c and integration, hmm.......it is our next goal.

[Seems to me, that if the Brahmos was such a 'godly' threat to a supercarrier and its group, the US would be making a fuss over this particular weapon? Haven't seen such articles mentioning that the US, with its supercarriers, is overly concerned with this 'godly' weapon.]
INDIA never poses threat to any country, not even to pakistan but is
surrounded in a hostile environment so we must carry on our development
and nothing for usa to 'fuss" about this and if, WHO CARES; we have every right to decide of our own.

[edit on 28-11-2004 by Thomas Crowne]

there was this "NOTE: Dont expect any such situation although." at the end of message. Anyway isnt point that this missile is faster than anti-missile defense missiles and it would currently have dominating position by speed factor? Its true India couldnt use such missile effective vs super carrier, unless arming it with nuke if such possible and that would be suicide. Russia probably has better use for such missile for its arsenal.
Today it seems people outrun technology and always compare it to US technology that was greated 30 years ago or so and then say it can outrun it. Btw doesnt US carriers sit in docks atm one by one for upgrading, so who really knows what added on those. US is going trough huge upgrading process all the time, old tomahawks shot at Afgan and Irak huts
replaced with more cost effient versions and so on, who really can even start to compare those tomahawks to Brahmos? Far as i know tomahawks used to cost $3 million piece while new ones are $200k, would like to see price tag on those Bramhos. It seems future anti-missile defense isnt based anymore on missiles more likely its microwave, laser, still something that can react much faster and travel trough air quicker with lower cost rate. Someone said US threath those carriers as babies and would dare to start nuclear war if such sinked, i really hope not cause US is most cases the agressor, also doesnt carriers itself carry tactical nukes?

Doing a little digging, seems to me that there are a variety of 'effective' anti-ship missile defensive systems designed to 'counter' such "carrier-killers" (or cruise missile types, such as the BrahMos).

Found this video of the ESSM, Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile, engaging a drone doing Mach 5 and pulling 10G's:
ESSM video

Please note that the ESSM is in serial production and was specifically designed as a mid-range (medium ranged) anti-ship missile interceptor. Furthermore, it has vectored thrust and coupled with carrier-based Hawkeye and Sentry capabilities, the carrier group will have capable early warning mechanisms. The ESSM is currently being re-fitted on Tico's etc.
Further info on the ESSM

Then there is the SeaRam:
Russian "Sunburn" anti-ship missile threat neutralized

"SeaRam Block1 has several modes including RF homing(home on jam/radar), Home all the way, anti-surface mode, and features fire and forget terminal IIR homing. In live-fire tests RAM was something like 96% effective."
SeaRam

You asked: Can BRAHMOS take on a super-carrier? Sure it can....though effectiveness is still remotely questionable.


seekerof

[edit on 24-11-2004 by Seekerof]

One of the links from 1st page :

"Unlike a conventional cruise missile, like the Tomahawk, which flies at subsonic speeds and hugs the terrain to avoid detection the Brahmos soars high up and accelerates to supersonic speeds quickly allowing its ramjet engine to kick in and sustain its Mach 2.8 cruise towards the target. When over the target it acquires an independent (Passive / Active) lock on it and rams down onto it with high kinetic energy. "

This is not cruise misille, it's flying quite high, so I think it will be detected and destroyed long before reaching carrier area. Personally I think Sunburn is more dangerous, because it flyies close to the surface.

just a side note, your trade with US is way smaller than China-US trade


obviously, you would be erased from the map in a blink

Link

Some missiles are harder to intercept than shells because shells follow an extremely predictable trajectory, and have the stealth capability of Michael Moore.

The difference between the trajectory of a Sunburn and a naval shell is that sunburn can fly straight and very low-level, and can manoevre. My guess would be that hitting a naval shell would in some circumstances actually be easier than hitting a low-flying mach 3 missile..

Well, It would explain a lot about the recent armsdeal struck between usa and pakistan where pakistan gets naval anti-missile guns....

Anyways, I have the feeling neither the russians nor the usa are willing to really help ending the conflict

but rather play to the nationalist sentiments on both sides of the border as to sell more of their not-so-state-of-the-art-anymore weapons (usa is currently heavily investigating metalstorm as means of missileprotection)

[edit on 24-11-2004 by Countermeasures]

[edit on 25-11-2004 by Countermeasures]