JonesyJust to add to the above from the discussion we had on BRF
What DRDO tested was one of the missile from Army inventory which was essetially a Block 1 missile but with S/W, Algo upgrade which then became Block II , the software upgrade provides the seeker (SCAN) better discrimination in order to hit pinpoint targets ,the software upgrade (Block 2 ) was earlier proof tested in a high speed aircraft.
The Trajectory and selection of target was essentially 12 meter tall and recessed (hiding) in 24 m deep gorge , the reason for the failure was identified as a GPS blink ( deliberate or receiver lost track ).
To avoid a deliberate GPS blink a fool proof solution which uses IMU and RLG is being proposed though it may be an expensive one.
Although if and when India gets access to HP signal from GLONASS or India Regional Navigation System , they can move to cheaper INS+GLONASS solution
Austin,
You wrote on your last post, and I was going to leave it alone, the following:
The magic is not in the digitised data received by Antenna , but what you can do with it. The magic is more in DSP , Algorithim , Embedded Intelligence and S/W , that is a key difference between a Block II and Block I system. Its not what your eyes see , its more about what your brains can do with it.
Which, as a statement, is about as far off as it is possible to be. No matter how capable your number-crunchers or how refined your coding is you can only ever work with the feed from the seeker. IF the seeker is not providing sufficient resolution to indicate target aspect, which an antiship-standard ARH will not do, then it matters not one bit what kind of interpretation you attempt as the data is simply not there to work with.
I’m sorry to ask this, but, how can you have an informed and worthwhile debate on a subject if you dont understand the basics of the subject being discussed.
DefExpo has at least provided an answer that tracks within the realms of the possible:
It should be quite clear to anyone with a cogent understanding of the Brahmos program, that the Indians first acquired a substantial tranche of Block 1 missiles, intended for strikes on known targets (predetermined coordinates) and with substantial RF presence (airfield structures etc.), whereas the second tranche, the bulk order will be of much more precise and flexible systems.
That is essentially the same as what MM40 blkIII and the newer Harpoon versions do. Turning Brahmos into essentially a very powerful self-deploying JDAM. Hell why not – the US have been looking at something akin to it with RATTLRS/Fasthawk for donkeys years.
It does get to the nub of the issue though. It is not (in this block 1 format), as has been claimed, a missile with a precision-seeker and its not capable of picking out a single building amidst clutter. It can strike a set of geographic coords that represent one building amidst many but that is not the same thing is it?.
The other issue is the Indian report suggesting that there is no major systems difference from Blk 1 to Blk 2 which, if true, directly contradicts what DefExpo states. As does the below statement you made:
What DRDO tested was one of the missile from Army inventory which was essetially a Block 1 missile but with S/W, Algo upgrade which then became Block II , the software upgrade provides the seeker (SCAN) better discrimination in order to hit pinpoint targets ,the software upgrade (Block 2 ) was earlier proof tested in a high speed aircraft.
Then we have the 1000yd miss that was reported as a hit?. A GPS ‘blink’ fixed by a coding change?. I’m sorry how do you modify a software programme to prevent the loss of an external reference signal?. The GPS receiver could have failed at an inopportune moment but for the receiver to be updating the flight data system all the way through the flight and just ‘drop out’ at that precise moment sounds far fetched. One would also question the lack of an onboard backup for situations where GPS may be degraded for any number of reasons?.
Still more questions than credible answers for some fairly wild claims being made!.
JonesyLook lads I understand the sheer desperation many of you feel to prove that this missile is something it is not. After all it is the clarion call, the very zenith of missile technology, for sure. Yet you cant make the basic technology do something that it plainly cannot do. Accept this.
All, and I do mean ALL, an active radar seeker can do is provide a series of numbers, extracted and digitised from the antenna receive side, that correlate to the return energy coming back from seeker emissions. Thats it. No magic.
To determine where the target is therefore you need an RF contrast i.e an area of low FR return, gradually raising until a peak return and then a dropoff. This establishes the target parameters for the seeker. By parameters I mean where the target starts and where it finishes with the intent, usually, programmed into the seeker to go for peak return between the two points. You can see the evidence of this clearly in any picture of an ARH missile hit on a ship – USS Stark, HMS Sheffield….even check out the stills H K posted from the French SINKEX on the current ‘How many antiship missiles’ thread.
The issue with this miraculous ARH seeker on the missile tested, that in black and white the piece says is unchanged from the Block 1 missile, is that suddenly it doesnt seem to need a radar contrast to hit its target. That would mean that the seeker does not need to know where its targets start and end….it can find point of aim anyway. Tosh.
The size of the target is irrelevent as well, antiship missiles are quite capable against even quite small boats – Harpoon was developed originally to engage Sov cruise missile boats on the surface which have a very small radar cross section but a high radar contrast. So hitting a large building in a cluttered environment is no different, in any real sense, than hitting a small one. What we see with this test is a 1000yd miss on a clutter target. This means that the seeker was not able to determine where its target was inside of the seeker FoV – which is exactly the same problem every other non-MMW ARH missile in the world has!.
Now you can all go back to your theories about multispectral seekers and software upgrades and all the other crumbs of information that you are trying to twist to come up with the answer you want. Its entirely your business. For me this is a mystery solved – how does an ARH antiship missile become a precision guided land-attack missile (without recourse to simple DGPS guidance)? Answer – it doesn’t!.
JonesyThere is a belief that the Seeker hardware has not changed per say , the SCAN is software based *major* change in algo and intelligence for complicated mission, this is something new
Now to quote the good Dr “When we do something new, it can go either way”
Thats not a new mulispectral seeker though is it?. Its a signal processing tweak (i.e algorythm) to get more fidelity out of the previous seeker?.
So from the above quotes , its clearly a case of Software Bug and not a major fit 😉
I’m glad the missile and took off flawlessly….its completely unrelated to the seeker so it actually is utterly meaningless in this issue. The problem is the seeker and whether it is capable or not for the tasking that is claimed for it.
The article is the same ‘official’ one from DRDO that was published before. So we are to believe that with ‘big’ cluttered buildings the missile works but with little cluttered ones it doesnt. No. If the seeker can profile a big building without RF contrast it can do small ones as well…as we see here….it cant. DRDO are full of it.
You can use nice words like DRDO guilty , Army happy etc etc , but to keep this discussion technical , DRDO admits the test didnt meet parameter , analysed the problem was a software glitch and are confident of overcoming it in the next test , thats what matters at the end of the day 😉
Austin this isnt a multispectral seeker its an ARH. Keeping it technical all any ARH seeker can do is get a very rough target profile. Without the RF contrast of a flat surface to derive target parameters ARH seekers dont work. Thats why its called clutter. American seekers suffer it, British seekers suffer it, French seekers suffer it, Russian seekers suffer it and now, according to DRDO, we know that Indian ones, despite all denials, do to!.
They may try and paint this as some small algorythm goof that needs correction….then again though they also said a 1000yd miss was a hit!. Sorry pal.
JonesyJonesy , I dont think it is a question of credibility of DRDO or IA that we are talking here , both DRDO and IA admitted that the test did not met the laid requirement
but before any thing some more info on the test that happened link1 and link2
Two regiments of the Army already have Block I version of the missile. BrahMos Aerospace had come up with a Block II version without changing the missile’s major systems that were proven in the previous 17 flights. But the Block II version had new software to improve the missile’s operational capability.
So as you can see from the info , the Brahmos being tested here
1 ) Is testing a new SCAN multispectral seeker with new algorithim
2 ) This Block 2 Brahmos can hit to quote Pillai , “a small hidden building out of multiple target , so target discrimination of small target among multiple targets”
3 ) Previous test (Brahmos block 1 ) did hit targets in environment of many targets but it was a bigger target.
4 ) It performed a lot of terminal stage manouveres which were difficult at high supersonic speed .
5 ) DRDO have validated the result and believe that the reason for miss is not serious and are confident that in the next test they will over come the glitches
Not what the articles state though Austin is it?.
1)It doesnt mention a multispectral seeker. What it says is: BrahMos Aerospace had come up with a Block II version without changing the missile’s major systems. The seeker assembly would very definitely consitute a ‘major system’.
2) The good Dr. says that the intent of the software change is to make it hit one target out of a cluster of buildings. What actually happened, according to the DRDO report to the IA apparently, was that it missed by about 1000yds. Thats not a minor software glitch….thats the seeker not being able to interpret the profile data its getting and throwing a major fit!.
3) He says: Asked about a similar mission being successful in a previous flight at the Pokhran range, Dr. Pillai said the targets then were bigger buildings. He expressly does not say that the bigger buildings were in a clutter environment. Huge difference.
4 ) Supersonics have a hard time with this on anti-ship for the same reason. Deleting the subroutines that control terminal evasion would seem the logical thing to do…especially if its knocking off the seeker parameters. Not many buildings I know of have ESSM or SeaWolf defending them from missile attack!. Ludicrous excuse!.
5) DRDO have apparently been guilty of fibbing to an IA General. I’m glad they are confident of the fix I would imagine they have some way to go to repair their credibility!.
JonesyAs a note don’t think I actually believed what SOC said about the F-117 screens. If you want to make something reflect, you won’t be using screens which lets radar waves pass through.
The F-117’s intake screens were intended to let air through not radar waves!. The whole point was to make the intake appear to be solid to specific RF frequencies when it was, of course, anything but.
Not sure what your issue is with Talos. You think that missile body lacked development room when advanced electronics got smaller not bigger?. The later marks of Sea Dart integrated a whole swath of ‘bulky’ components down onto a couple of boards – all sorts of space suddenly opened up for extra little bits here and there. With a missile as big as Talos, integrate the components down like we did with GWS30, you’d probably fit a pilot in!!!.
JonesySpot on Kfeltenberger. The issue is that its this missile with this seeker that is/was alleged to be land-attack precision capable. Now its revealed perhaps not quite so much as was touted!!!.
Soyuz there has been a ‘multispectral seeker’ in the works for this weapon from the second it was pointed out what the limits of an ARH seeker were – at the time we were all told that the Indian seeker did not suffer from such limitations anyway!. The observation was made a good few years ago now – from memory at least 3yrs.
Forgive my increasing scepticism here but perhaps ‘developing a multispectral seeker’ is a process that isnt necessarily going to lead to an operational capability. After all there is no guarantee the seeker will be all that is expected of it. Just like, it seems, is the IA’s view of the current weapon!.
JonesyApart from the fact that a new AC built in another shipyard will cost atleast 2-3 times more. We do have time on our side, Chinese do not have a carrier as of now and the Pakistanis do not have one either.
That is definitely the truth. This is the reason that I just cannot comprehend the Gorshkov purchase. What’re they holding you up for now $3bn ish just for the carrier?.
How much smarter would it have been to throw the whole Russian mess in the bin two years ago order a BPE from Navantia for roughly $1bn, run on the SHARS until 2014, and go ahead with the MiG’s, STOBAR and IAC from that point. When you’re finished with the SHARs the still nice and, relatively, shiny BPE re-roles to amphibious and ASW-chopper carrying duties as required….and you do require both!. Plus you’ve saved yourself a couple of billion in to the bargain!.
Anyway this is pretty much what I said before the whole ludicrous mess kicked off (save for the fact I said that the Invincible would prob be available for pennies and would make a good fit to replace Viraat til IAC came on-line) and I didnt get any sensible replies at that point either so I’ll resolve to make no further comment on this!!!.
JonesyYep dont get much more of a high contrast RF target than a nice big flat plate stuck out at right angles from an equally flat surface!.
It is impressive to see that BrahMos can knock down a fairly sizeable wall in the middle of an open desert. I’m assuming that the resistance from the Indian Army is something to do with the fact that they dont expect to have to hit too many lone brick walls in the middle of open deserts – at least not from 300km standoff?. :rolleyes:
Sounds like the Indian Army has a pretty good grip on things to me!
JonesyThe question is one of credibility here though Austin. Many were very suprised at the claims for Brahmos precision hitting a ground target, against an RF clutter background, using nothing more, allegedly, than the standard seeker.
When this scepticism was pointed out, justified by the known limitations of every other active radar seeker (of this type), many Indians protested loudly about bias against their weapon pointing to the ‘official’ releases of the weapons performance.
Now we hear that a report has surfaced that Brahmos did, in fact, perform just as would be likely from any other ARH seeker antiship missile facing a land target without clear RF contrast. With corroboration of that report from your ‘balanced’ article.
Either the weapon works as advertised or it doesnt Austin and the evidence, at present, would seem to be that it doesnt….despite official claims.
JonesyBy integrated hull array I’m guessing you mean a wide aperture flank array as opposed to conventional bow and hull mount sets?.
The short answer is that its because surface vessels tend to operate at a fixed depth, i.e the surface, and therefore cannot take advantage of accoustic conditions in the varying layers in the water. This is where VDS and towed arrays come in. Why put the powerful sensor array on the hull of the ship, where it must stay limited in one accoustic regime, when you can trail the array between the layers for optimal accoustic performance.
The submarine is obviously not constrained in this fashion and can take its flank array deeper or shallower depending on local conditons.
Not much has been written about the work Matapan did in any great detail as far as I know. She did, ironically, participate in the trials of the 2031 towed sonar as well though – which was later to become the RN’s standard towed array.
JonesyCrobato
Jonesy, oh I see you meant antenna gain
Depends what you mean by ‘antenna gain’. If you mean the strength of return signal received on the individual antenna then yes, but, I understand that as SNR gain. The differential being that the SNR gain refers to the level of returning director signal useable to the missile. Antenna gain could be any spurious noise received.
JonesyThe missile is not VL so, for ESSM, it’d have to be from launched from a Mk29.That narrows the possibilities down to a relative few contenders and none of those services crews wear French working rig!.
Then you look at what seems to be an ARBB33 antenna above the ‘goofers gallery’ fixed on the angle bracket and, behind that, in shot every now and again I think we get a Syracuse SATCOM dome. Plus the expend decoy launcher at the end of the clip looks very much like DAGAIE!.
Put it all together and the only thing that fits is Cassard….so we get Mk13 and SM-1MR block whatever.
Oh yeah all that and its on the French version of Youtube! 😀
JonesyDude, once again, no current or future ramjet design is using a rounded inlet design for this reason.
Jonesy, the dipoles only appear on the front upper body and not the entire length. For the interferometry to work, at least two of the antennas have to receive the signal, which is not possible unless the signal is from the front. The angular gain is not from the length of the dipole but rather the spacing between the antennas.
I have to be a bit careful here. Angular alignment data is derived from the SNR gain reaching each dipole….there is no conceivable situation where all 4 dipoles on the front of the missile wont receive return signals from the target. The spacing of the dipoles is significant and so is their length. There is more to this as well, but, suffice it to say you have enough information there to understand the basic concept.
Why would you need dipoles on the body of the missile?. Call me old fashioned but missiles work lots better when fired towards their targets and its not a usual flight profile for Sea Dart to be perpendicular to an inbound for dipoles along the length of the missile body to actually do anything???.
JonesyDude, you must be a bigger idiot than I thought. Read small. And guess what small does to radar receiving range.
Er Crobato…interferometry. Dipoles arrayed around the nose?. SNR gain across the receiving aerials to determine guidance. Thats, as Sferrin stated, still in operational service on Sea Dart. Its also not a short-ranged solution as the dipole spread is the full width of the missile – required to provide the clearest angular gain – exceeding measurably what would be achieveable by a centrebody seeker.
JonesyUnless I miss my guess thats a French Cassard firing from her Mk13. That would make the missiles SM-1’s of some flavour?
Sign In
