Forum: General F-35 Forum

With all that's been said, Brahmos is indeed a piece of junk IMO. Speed is nice, but you don't see us trying to make mach 6 superfighters and superbombers. Low observability is far more important for survivability of a missile or manned vehicle and considering the JASSM can carry a bigger warhead, I'd imagine that bigger warhead, when said bigger warhead is nuclear, would translate to far greater damage to a strategic target than whatever additional damage the sheer speed and kinetic energy of the Brahmos could supply as "compensation for a smaller warhead."

As a conventionally-armed anti-ship missile, the Brahmos is far from a piece of junk, certainly more effective than any Western missiles dedicated to that role; but that's all it's really good for.

Never said it was a piece of junk in and of itself. Just not all that practical in the air-launched role.

With all that's been said, Brahmos is indeed a piece of junk IMO. Speed is nice, but you don't see us trying to make mach 6 superfighters and superbombers. Low observability is far more important for survivability of a missile or manned vehicle and considering the JASSM can carry a bigger warhead, I'd imagine that bigger warhead, when said bigger warhead is nuclear, would translate to far greater damage to a strategic target than whatever additional damage the sheer speed and kinetic energy of the Brahmos could supply as "compensation for a smaller warhead."

I know you didn't. I was referring to someone else's comment (fixed my original post as the page-over might have led to some confusion).

Of course, I'm not sure I would call it entirely impractical as an air-launched anti-ship missile either; it's just that I wouldn't consider it as a candidate for outfitting in the tactical nuke role, where a big, super-fast weapon holds no advantage over an LO standoff missile that's lighter to boot.

As far as anti-shipping goes, the goal is to give as little reaction time as possible. This can be accomplished either with LO or sheer speed; and given the limitations in Russian/Indian technology, it's not hard to guess which they will always go for. LM is also going with this approach in the LRASM B for ship-launched applications; the air-launched LRASM A will be based on the JASSM.

Just how would you go about stopping an incoming brahmos missile?
Do some research. The trajectory profile and speed of the Brahmos, makes it very hard to negate.

This is one big LOL.
-Speed is nice.. How so?
-LO is far more imortant for surviviability.. How so?

Just how would you go about stopping an incoming brahmos missile?
Do some research. The trajectory profile and speed of the Brahmos, makes it very hard to negate.

Troll or grossly misinformed? I haven't looked at the guy's other posts (he did ask a pretty dumb question). In any case, the topic needs more attention than it gets. Unless the USAF and USN have been up to something we don't know about, tactical nuclear capability has been badly neglected for the past few decades, even as new, 2nd-tier nuclear threats have emerged. This being the 21st century, it seems absurd to me that the F-35's most powerful weapon should be a dumb-as-a-brick gravity bomb.

Speed lets you reach a target for rapid-response purposes as noted earlier. However like I said the age of making things like the XB-70 and SR-71 are essentially over.

Just look at the B-2, the F-35, the F-22, LRASM A, JASSM. They are all Low Observable because simply possessing overwhelming speed doesn't mean jack when SAMs and point defenses can still have their radars detect you, track you, and shoot you down with the right weapon. LO lets you diminish the SA of enemy SAM and point defense sites. This has been proven time and time again considering the successes of LO aircraft. A LO cruise missile will be much harder to detect and track and intercept than a supersonic cruise missile since the supersonic cruise missile in question will

a)not attempt to reduce the effectiveness of the defense site's radar detection capabilities. We don't use 1950s era blip scan search radars any more dude. Speed was considered as the main method of confusing those old heaps of junk but radar modes have become more sophisticated since then. Get with the times.

b)skin friction at high mach numbers will RAISE the observability of the missile as heat is generated from the air losing energy within the boundary layer. You just turned your missile into an even easier target for point defense weapons with IR sensors.

As for the trajectory altering itself in an attempt to neutralize a gun lead solution of a CIWS...That's what SeaRAM and ESSM are for. ESSM uses a skid-to-turn flight profile to provide quick maneuvering to intercept the threat. With the oh so tried and true Proportional Navigation intercept profile coupled with the ability to perform 50G maneuvers, the survivability of Brahmos should drop considerably.

ah, yes ofcourse. You know exactly where the trajactory will be long before the missile shows up.. not exactly the real deal is it?

The data you are refering to is absolete and has nothing with reality.

One more thing, the Brahmos got 20-32(depending on variant) times more kenetic energy advantage over any subsonic missiles. Smaller warhead yes, but on a naval target, the damage will be extensive eighter way.

I am very surprised that you folks try to piss on a weapon system like Brahmos.
It is widely acknowledged that this system will shift the gameplay in Asia.