Slashdot Mirror
India First To Build a Supersonic Cruise Missile
An anonymous reader writes with this excerpt: "India successfully tested Sunday a 'maneuverable' version of the BrahMos supersonic cruise missile which it has jointly developed with Russia, news reports said. The vertical-launch version of the 290-kilometer range BrahMos was tested from a warship in the Bay of Bengal off India's eastern coast, the PTI news agency reported. 'The vertical-launch version of missile was launched at 11:30 (0600 GMT) hours today from Indian Navy ship INS Ranvir and it manoeuvred successfully hitting the target ship. It was a perfect hit and a perfect mission,' BrahMos aerospace chief A Sivathanu Pillai was quoted as saying. 'After today's test, India has become the first and only country in the world to have a manoeuvrable supersonic cruise missile in its inventory,' Pillai said."
I didn't hear that coming.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-500_Bazalt
Possibly first to deploy, but not the first to build, by a good 50 years.
The headline says, "India First To Build a Supersonic Cruise Missile". In order to even accurately reflect the article, it should read, "India First To Build a manoeuvrable Supersonic Cruise Missile". But even so, the article is wrong;
from wikipedia, P-500 Bazalt
The P-500 Bazalt (Russian: -500 ; English: basalt) is a liquid-fueled, rocket powered, supersonic cruise missile used by the Soviet and Russian navies. Developed by OKB-52 MAP (later NPO Mashinostroyeniye), its GRAU designation is 4K80[1]. Its NATO reporting name is SS-N-12 Sandbox. It entered service in 1973 to replace the SS-N-3 Shaddock. The P-500 Bazalt had a 550 km range and a payload of 1,000 kg, which allows it to carry a 350 kT nuclear or a 950 kg semi-armor-piercing high explosive warhead (currently only the conventional version remains in service). The P-500 Bazalt uses active radar homing for terminal guidance, and can receive mid-course corrections by the Tupolev Tu-95D, the Kamov Ka-25B and the Kamov Ka-27B.
So many levels of fail in this submission
The summary (and article) are better than the headline. This isn't either: a) the first supersonic cruise missile; or b) the first maneuverable cruise missile. But it is, apparently, the first maneuverable supersonic cruise missile.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
This one is supersonic. Most others aren't, because it is not obvious what advantage supersonic cruise missiles have over ballistic ones.
BTW in the sixties the USA developed but never tested or deployed a nuclear powered supersonic cruise missile.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
Riiight, because until today, they really weren't interested
Tech Support: Thank you for calling Maneuverable Supersonic Cruise Missile tech support, my name is Tom, how may I help you?
Missile Owner: Hello. My maneuverable supersonic cruise missile isn't the first.
Tech Support: I do apologize for this inconvenience. Am I correct to understand that your maneuverable supersonic cruise missile is not the first?
Missile Owner: Uh, yeah. I was told it would be the first.
Tech Support: I do apologize. Have you tried flashing the BIOS?
Missile Owner: WTF?
Hitler's German was prohibited from making weapons prior to WWII (part of the WW1 peace treaty), so he outsourced the industry to Russia
Of course - Schmeisser, Krupp, Junkers, and Messerschmitt are all Russian names :-)
With regard to Treaty of Versailles, it was officially broken in 1932, with implicit approval of many important countries. Development of arms also was done under "dual use" cover.
Hard-liners in the middle east don't give half a shit about what India does. The Pakistanis do sure, but they already are nuclear. The hard-lines in the middle east want to go nuclear because of Israel.
"linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
If you're targeting ships, especially carriers, over water there isn't a lot of terrain to get in the way, and not too many people to hear the sonic boom. Carriers on the other hand, are generally the best protected ships in a fleet, with things like anti missile missiles and metalstorm batteries, not to mention other ships, to protect them.
If you're coming in towards a carrier, the faster you're going, the harder you are going to be to acquire as a target and then hit with defences.
Specialist Mac support for creative pros, Melbourne
Oh, don't give him a hard time.
Personally, as a guy from a military background, and enjoying military strategy games, etc, I agree with him completely, I don't see much advantage of SS cruise missiles over a ballistic missile, at least for most countries and most situations.
The advantage a subsonic cruise missile has over a ballistic, is primarily payload fraction. Consider a tomahawk that weighs 3000 pounds of which 1000 pounds is warhead. Put another way, if you want 1000 pounds of boom on target, and want to use a subsonic cruise missile, you get to haul an additional 2000 extra pounds of missile around, instead of an additional 2000 pounds of aircraft fuel or food on a submarine or whatever.
In comparison, lets consider an ancient ballistic missile, a Polaris carrying a W47. A W47 only weighs 700 pounds or so, in comparison to 1000 pounds of "boom" on a tomahawk. Yet, a Polaris weighed freaking 28000 pounds. So, you can VERY QUICKLY deliver a mere 700 pounds of boom on target, if you're willing to haul around an extra 27300 pounds of missile.
Supersonic missiles combine the fuel efficiency of a ballistic missile, with the simplicity, reliability, and low cost of a cruise missile. Note the slight sarcasm. Pretty much a total failure EXCEPT that they can deliver extremely quickly.
If you dominate the air land and sea, you get quick delivery by stationing a boring old fashioned B-52 directly over the target and dropping a simple iron bomb straight down. Or, if you're not planning a pre-emptive nuclear strike, you simply don't need that capability to reach your goals. India, on the other hand....
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
Weapons like the BrahMos are primarily aimed at ships. Yes, you could also use it as a precision-guided land attack cruise missile, but Pakistan's navy is small and almost irrelevant for conflict with India.
This weapon - and, indeed, much of India's military development - is about maintaining military competitiveness with China, and to some extent the ability to discourage the US from interfering if India conducts military operations in areas it regards as its sphere of influence.
The US Navy is apparently upgrading its cruise missile defences on its ships, replacing the Phalanx gun-based system with a missile-based version, because of missiles like the BrahMos.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
The hard-lines in the middle east want to go nuclear because of Israel.
I'm guessing by 'hard-liners' you mean Iran and Syria, since no one else really seems interested in acquiring nuclear weapons in the middle east, and I'm further going to suggest that they aren't so afraid of Israel (who doesn't really have a history of aggression) as they are of the United States (who definitely has a history of aggression, in particular against Iran).
I don't even particularly blame them, either. If I were Iran, I would be working very hard to build nuclear weapons as a defense, it's only logical. On the other hand, I am not Iranian, I am American, and I don't particularly favor a country who has an official chant "Death to America" getting nuclear weapons. I am aware that it is not entirely 'fair' for America to have nuclear weapons and Iran not, but in this case my self-preservation instinct over-rules any desire for fairness.
Qxe4
Bah. Wake me up when they have a maneuverable superluminal cruise missile.
Slashdot: news for Apple. Stuff that Apple.
It's not the first maneuverable supersonic CM either. Russian P-500 Bazalt missile was both supersonic and maneuverable and it entered service in 1973 (!). Brahmos is an adaptation of previous generation Russian missile technology, and not even the most advanced variant of that. Russians don't export their latest stuff, particularly the kind of stuff that if push came to shove could be efficiently used against them.
I don't think India has ever faced any credible direct security threat from the U.S., well aside from aid to Pakistan, and the threat of war between the U.S. and U.S.S.R. India has very strong ties with Britain, vibrant trade with the U.S., developed nuclear weapons early, plays amongst the big boys economically, we idealize Gandhi, etc.
India projecting sea power more effectively definitely impacts China's trade routes however, especially with the middle east. India causing an increase in China's manufacturing costs would benefit industry in India, the U.S., and Europe.. and generally be cheered by all non-tools.
The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
I was watching a recorded Rick Steves episode the other day about traveling in Iran. I'd actually like to go there now. He said the people were more friendly than many European towns. People kept saying "We love Americans" and that they wish our countries governments could get past our disagreements.
During a fundraising break, he mentioned he was sitting in a cab in horrible traffic and the cab driver said "death to traffic." He asked the cab driver what he said, and the driver said they say "death to..." when they are irritated by something. It was at this point, Rick realized when they say "Death to America," what they mean is "Damn America!" And given what we have done to the political situation in the middle east, especially by deposing their democratically elected government in 1953 to keep the oil tap open, it is hard to argue with them.
Actually, the hardliners in the mid-east will consider nuclear because of Iran. Iran is not in the mid-east. Syria has an identity crisis coming. They are run by the Alawites (sp?) which are considered a branch of Shi'ism. However, the pop. is about 80% Sunni. The Muslim Brotherhood, a Sunni gang, managed to get a foothold in Syria and Papa Assad leveled the city Hama, which the Muslim Brotherhood had taken over, in 1982. Then he invited the press in to get his point well made. Saudi Arabia and Egypt are mainly worried about Iran, Israel doesn't directly threaten them unless it is to get the rank and file Muslins upset and when they get upset, those governments get nervous. Jordan is caught between the Palestinians living within the country and the rest (more or less evenly divided or a 60-40 split but I cannot recall which has the edge). In any case, they aren't Shi'ite.
The main threat the Sunnis see is the Shi'ites. The U.S. fucked the Sunnis over royally by giving them the Shi'ites their first Arab country, Iraq, which could make a difference. Syria doesn't count because they will be hamstrung by their Sunni majority. And the Shi'ite in Iraq are one pissed off bunch. They've been screwed by the Sunnis under Saddam for 30 years. Then they got double crossed by the U.S. after the first Gulf War and Papa Bush encouraged them to rebell. They did, the U.S. didn't help. They got fucked.
The Iraqi religious (not the political) Shi'ite leadership, which al Sadr is not a member of (some wag called him the Al Sharpton of the Shi'ites), is not sympathetic to Iranian influence since they are mainly Arab and consider themselves THE Shi'ite authority. They are working behind the scenes to corral Iranian influence in Iraq. No one knows if the Iraqi Shi'ite religious leadership will prevail.
So right now, the Persian regime is promoting themselves as the Jew-Killers, the successor of the Nazies in an effort gain an edge over Sunni Islam. This is anathema to the Sunni who like dead Jews just as well as the next Muslim but would rather die than have Shi'ism become the dominant face of Islam. And Iran is in the ascendancy. It scares the heebie-jeebies out of the Sunnis and if Iran gets nukes, they will find a way to get them too.
After 9/11 Iran was one of the few countries where candle light vigils were held to mourn the tragedy.
http://www.time.com/time/europe/photoessays/vigil/
Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
In comparison, lets consider an ancient ballistic missile...
Reading that gave me a vision of the ancient Greeks launching a Polaris missile at one another. Spar-taaaans! You will set 1-MQ to missile firing! Designate target package Athens! Spin up missiles I-VI and VII-XII! Commence hover maneuver and stand by to rain fire on our enemies! HA-OU! HA-OU! HA-OU!
Well, you do remember King Leonidas kicking the Persian emissary into the missile silo in "300", don't you?
Firstly, most of Irans ruling council is not actually Persian, they are Arabs mostly originating from southern Iraq (hence the large Shia influence in Iran). The Persians and Arabs don't exactly get along, this is why the Islamic Republic maintains a large well equipped private military, the Basij (religious police and republican guards fall under the Basij) which is almost exclusively comprised of Lebanese (Hezbolla) and Palestinian (Hamas) Arabs.
Also there have been a lot of protests against the Iranian government recently and things have not gotten better. Huge racial issues are cropping up in Iran fanning the flames of old Persian/Arab hate. The acts of the Iranian government are not representative of the desires of the Persian people.
The biggest reason the Iran will never invade (or try to kill) Israel is because the Persians and Jews get on like a house on fire. There are several Persian members of the Knesset as well as the headquarters of the Baha'i religion being located in Israel (Baha'iism originated in Persia (Iran) in the early part of the 20th century). A lot of the Persians that fled Iran in the 80's did so through Israel. Any invasion would be an unmitigated disaster for the Iranian government as Persians simply refuse to fight or worse yet, get reunited with old friends from before the Islamic revolution. Even today most Iranians who travel east (to Asia) do so through Israel's Ben Gurion airport due to few nations allowing Iranian airliners to land and even fewer international airlines willing to land in Iran.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
No, cruise missiles are cruise missiles because of their flight profile. Ballistic missiles travel in a ballistic arc, like rocket artillery, and don't fly like airplanes. Cruise missile, however, do: they fly through the atmosphere like airplanes do, with wings, with a most of their journey being level flight as they cruise to their targets. They are airplanes, in fact, just expendable ones.
Disclaimer: IANAL. This post is, however, legal advice, and creates an attorney-client relationship.