Skip to comments.India to buy more BrahMos missiles
Posted on 02/04/2010 12:24:17 AM PST by ErnstStavroBlofeld
India has introduced into its Armed forces the new BrahMos missile, the head of the BrahMos Aerospace company, Sivathanu Pillai, told RIA Novosti news agency today.
Established in 1998, BrahMos Aerospace, a joint Indian-Russian venture, produces and markets BrahMos supersonic missiles. The sea-based and land-based versions have been successfully tested and put into service with the Indian Army and Navy.
Earlier in the day, Russia's security chief, Nikolai Patrushev, visited the BrahMos plant in Hyderabad, where the new missile is produced. The missile, known as BrahMos Block-2, has a top speed of over Mach 5, which makes it virtually impossible to intercept, and can effectively engage even slightly visible ground targets. It has been designed primarily to meet the needs of the army.
''The Army officials said they were pleased with last year's ground trials of the missile, and approved of putting it into service,'' Mr Pillai said.
The company has also been developing another version of the missile for Air Force, the BrahMos-A missile, with a reduced mass and increased aerodynamic stability.
The Indian Air Force chose the Russian-made SU-30 MKI Flanker-H multirole fighter as the trial platform for the missile.
''This version of the missile is now ready. Air trials will commence by 2011, and by next year, we are planning to fit the missiles onto aircraft,'' Mr Pillai said.
The required modifications of the SU-30 MKI for integration with the BrahMos-A missile system are being carried out by the Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) and Russia's Sukhoi Design Bureau.
Analysts estimate that India could purchase up to 1,000 BrahMos missiles for its Armed forces in the next decade, and export 2,000 to other countries during the same period
(Excerpt) Read more at news.webindia123.com ...
This, as far as I can tell, is a complete SURPRISE to all observers. This is the ONLY post USSR weapons project (all new) that has succeeded in all its defined goals.
This is very unusual for the Russian arms industry that has struggled with a 100% failure rate in launching new hardware since the USSR collapse. From the Borei submarine to the Bulova ICBMs to many smaller projects, Russian projects have not met initial targets in any case and in most cases are no where near final production status
Brahmos stands as a rare exception. It may be argued that it is more India’s victory than Russia’s victory as India invested a lot of manpower into this project and they have a lot of scientific and industrial depth in missiles with a fully indegenous Missile program that covers the whole gamut of missile production
>This is very unusual for the Russian arms industry that has struggled with a 100% failure rate in launching new hardware since the USSR collapse.
Stop spreading bullshit!
What about T-90, Mi-28N, Ka-52, RPG-32, RS-24, Topol-M, Sineva SLBM, Borei and Lada class subs ... ??? All of these are post-USSR projects and all of these are succesfully completed.
AFAIK “Bulava” SLBM was not cancelled!
Wow! Learn to read before you comment! Did I say “cancel” anywhere.
Here are my exact words “Russian projects have not met initial targets in any case and in most cases are no where near final production status”
FINAL Production Phase!! Key word.
And yes, NONE of them are there
Let us go down the freaking LIST
1. Bulova: Joke! 50% of the launches are failures. Immense pressure to actually scrap the project. NOT LIVE
2. Borei: STILL undergoing Sea Trails. Years behind schedule. Still no date for full handover. New contruction of the Borei class is now halted
3. T-90: NOT BRAND NEW, which was my post. T-90 is a derivative of T-72 and has T-80 features. This is STILL Soviet technology (and very good may I say)
4. Mi-28N: Are you kidding me? This goes back to 1982 when Andropov was still General Sec. The “N” series added a new radar dome but this design was SOLID during USSR
5. Ka-52: Oh..come on. This is an export variant of Ka-50 which was in production in the Soviet Union!! Granted it was 1989-90 but it was still USSR!
6. RPG-32: OK... Serious? You are comparing a Grenade launcher to a complex weapons system? Even here, it is a next generation of the world famous Soviet RPG-29
7. RS-24: This is a variation of Topol-M. See my next comment
8. Topol-M: This was developed by the Soviets in the 1980s. It is a direct derivative of the famous SS-25 (ALSO the Topol)
9. Lada Class subs: These are KILO subs man!! They have improved 4th generation diesel engines. No new design. No new hull. Come on!!!!!
10. Sineva: Yes, in this case the research was done while it was still Soviet Union but development occured under Russian flag
Look at all my replies above. In each case it was famous SOVIET design and engineering bureaus that built the famous weapons. A all new clean sheet design is VERY VERY tough. That is why the Bulova is such a disaster.
To build incremental upgrades is still easy. Look at the very capable Su-30MKI. It is a great aircraft but it is a direct derivative of older Su-27 etc.
CLEAN SHEET design was the genius of SOVIET Design and Engineering bureaus. AFter collapse of USSR I have not seen that genius again.
T-50 from Sukhoi looks good as prototype but till it goes into production it is nothing more than a prototype
SoftwareEngineer: “Russian arms industry that has struggled with a 100% failure rate in launching new hardware”
SoftwareEngineer: “Bulova: Joke! 50% of the launches are failures. “
And the rest of your “answers” can be summarized as “but but but it’s a derivative of something”. Well duh, every modern weapon is a derivative of previous, older models.
Again.. reading comprehension does not seem to be your strong point.
Let me state this simply
Failure rate of Russian (as opposed to Soviet) new Weapons system: 100%. This means NO system has gone live. So, out of 10 systems NONE are live. So 0/10
Bulova: 50% of its LAUNCHES are failures. Overall, Bulova is a FAILURE as it is NOT live.
So.. in summary.. BULOVA is a failure and not live. Why is it a failure? Because 50% of its launches failed in TESTING!!!
If this is not clear, please go take ESL or TOEFL or whatever a good English as a Second language class is.
And.. don’t diss the Soviet Design and Engineering machine. They were BRILLIANT!!
Also, to be very clear, my point was on Clean Sheet Designs.
I am not saying that the F-22 does not derive from the Spitfire. In Spirit it does.
However, F-22 is CLEAN SHEET. It is not like F-16 Block E, which is clearly a mod to the original F-16
F-22 is clean sheet
The new Sukhoi T-50 is clean sheet
The Su-30MKI is NOT!! That is a mod of Su-30 which is nothing more than a mod of the Su-27
Anyone who understands weapons systems understands CLEAN SHEET
Show me ONE SINGLE Clean Sheet All Russian Weapons system LIVE today
Well to be fair, pretty much most weapon systems of ‘today’ are derivatives of Cold War stuff or started development back then. This list includes the F-22, Eurofighter and Commanche (offically dead).
About Russkie hardware, well the Brahmos is a tweaked derivative of the SS-N-26 Yakhont, which was ready by the 90s. Sure Indian money and some tech helped it get along quickly, but its not a brand new programme.
The Lada/Amur submarine are a new design-They are single hull ships, while the Kilos were double-hulled. In addition to having newer sensors, engines and AIP.
>1. Bulova: Joke! 50% of the launches are failures. Immense pressure to actually scrap the project. NOT LIVE
Bulava has some problems with production quality.
Bulava project will be completed - 100%.
>2. Borei: STILL undergoing Sea Trails. Years behind schedule. Still no date for full handover. Contruction of the Borei class is now halted
What’s wrong with Borei? Construction launch of new Borei class was temporary halted. Reason is Bulava.
>3. T-90: NOT BRAND NEW, which was my post. T-90 is a derivative of T-72 and has T-80 features. This is STILL Soviet technology (and very good may I say)
T-90ME equiped with new ERA armor, missiles, electronic equipment and other staff.
>4. Mi-28N: Are you kidding me? This goes back to 1982 when Andropov was still General Sec. The N series added a new radar dome but this design was SOLID during USSR
Wrong. Mi-28N is not same prototype helicopter (Mi-28) from Soviet times. Mi-28N has much different engine, avionics, weapon system, amortisation system...
>5. Ka-52: Oh..come on. This is an export variant of Ka-50 which was in production in the Soviet Union!! Granted it was 1989-90 but it was still USSR!
Ka-52 is not “export only” variant. It’s intended for Russian army. Ka-52 has new equipment.
>6. RPG-32: OK... Serious? You are comparing a Grenade launcher to a complex weapons system? Even here, it is a next generation of the world famous Soviet RPG-29
RPG-32 is not based on RPG-29. It’s new design.
>7. RS-24: This is a variation of Topol-M. See my next comment
What about new solid fuel, new “warhead bus”?
>8. Topol-M: This was developed by the Soviets in the 1980s. It is a direct derivative of the famous SS-25 (ALSO the Topol)
Topol-M packed with couple of anti-ABM features, unlike Topol
>9. Lada Class subs: These are KILO subs man!! They have improved 4th generation diesel engines. No new design. No new hull. Come on!!!!!
Damn NO! Lada class subs IS NEXT GENERATION. It’s not Kilo baed!
>Sineva: Yes, in this case the research was done while it was still Soviet Union but development occured under Russian flag
Sineva is deep modernisation of Soviet R-29 SLBM.
Yes, the F-22 uses knowledge we learned from other programs but it is a clean sheet design.
The Sukhoi T-50 prototype is a new design too.
Where you and I and Primorsky are differing is when an existing system is upgraded
If you look at today’s F-16 or F-18s they are a generation ahead of the original models. They can be called 4.5 instead of 3.5 when they were introduced
However, the improvements have been incremental
Same is the case with your namesake, the Su-30MKI, which is the BEST Russian warplane ever in performance metrics. It is classified as 4.5. It is an incremental upgrade from the old Su-27
When the Su-T50 is finally in production then we can say a clean sheet design finally worked
As an example of how difficult clean sheet design is, do you remember how hard it was for us to launch the F-22. It went through a decade of absolute delay and problems before it achieved acceptance
Another live example of this is the F-35. Look at the scandal that is happening now due to the problems with the plan
People on this board have NO idea how difficult clean sheet designs are. Almost no country in the world can roll out clean sheet designs. Japan, South Korea, China, Israel and India have tried to launch complex new weapons systems only to give up
In the last 6 decades, only the US and the USSR were able to consistently launch clean sheet designs. France, and by extension Europe, to their credit did do a decent job on some systems.
However, the sheer OUTPUT of the US and Soviet Design and Engineering bureaus remains unmatched to this day.
Never will Russia be able to reach that level. It is not about money. It is about organizing scientific talent in such a way that complex sub-systems get done.
Look at the problems Boeing is having with the 787 which is “merely” a civilian liner.
In its heydey the Soviet Union could pull 1.5 MILLION.. yes I said MILLION.. engineers and technicians across 13 time zones to work on the Buran shuttle!!!!
Russia can’t do that today
This is all the more important for us Americans. We take for granted all the amazing success we have had (relatively speaking) with our weapons systems. We do not think of the massive scientific/supply chain that helps us fulfill the original design bureau visions