This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I'm not suggesting that the BrahMos cannot be ship-launched, but I think the picture at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:INS_Rajput_firing_a_BrahMos_missile.jpg is blatantly photoshopped. There is a drop shadow behind the blast. Drop shadows don't usually happen IRL. Orokusaki ( talk) 19:30, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
This may not count as verifiable fact, but it's something of interest I was told by engineers at the Aero-India 2003 airshow, where there was a BrahMos exhibit: that the range of Brahmos has been officially limited at the interesting boundary of 290 km, because it allows Russian cooperation in the programme without being hindered by MTCR limitations.
The Russian Federation is party to the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR), which aims at controlling the proliferation of nuclear capable ballistic missiles, including dual use missile technology. A nuclear capable ballistic missile was defined by the protocol as one capable of delivering at least 500 kg to '300' km; BrahMos' range is just below that, allowing the Russians to transfer technology without technically violating the treaty. BrahMos' stated warhead is also, of course, seemingly much lower than the lower limit prescribed by the MTCR, which might weaken the credibility of what this engineer told me; however, 290 is interestingly short of 300 km. It might suggest a missile design left open to future 'upgrades', both in range and, possibly, in warhead size. -- Rahul Nayar
Given the extremely short range of the BrahMos, should this even be classified as a cruise missile? A cruise missile, for me at least, is basically a flying plane bomb. One advantage of planes over standard missiles is their range. A plane that can only fly <300 km isn't much of a plane. In fact, the range of the BrahMos is basically within an order of magnitude of those of anti-ship and long-range air-to-air missiles. Compared to these weapons, the BrahMos is downright slow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.88.158.233 ( talk) 00:43, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
i noticed that there's no mention in the article of the fact that the missile employs a ramjet. considering that i linked to the article from the ramjet article, i think it should have at least some mention of ramjet propulsion used by the missile.-- Alhutch 09:27, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
It was taken verbatim from two of the listed sources Azureprophet 04:43, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
"capable of covering targets over a 360 degree horizon". What that supposed to mean? - -- 124.82.15.15 14:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
I just removed some pro-Pakistani lines that are completely unrelated to the development of BrahMos. If you want to discuss what to add and what not, please write here instead of making stupid edits based on subjective POV's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.70.211.86 ( talk) 17:24, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
From the article: "The high speed of the BrahMos enables it to inflict more damage than slower cruise missiles such as the Tomahawk."
How is this conclusion reached? To my knowledge, this is not a kinetic energy weapon, but rather relies on high explosive payload to inflict damage. The Tomahawk missile used in the comparison carries a larger payload. -- Clarkcol 18:48, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Since the Brahmos is basically an Anti-ship missile, at higher speeds, it will be able to penetrate the ship's hull more, and when it detonates, will cause much greater damage than a subsonic missile.
It relies on both KE & warhead to do the damage. Probably multiple subsonic missile hits are needed to create the damage of a single Mach 3 supersonic missile.-- 60.243.161.52 12:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Claiming that the BrahMos inflicts greater damage than a Tomahawk is... Amusing. Either remove that bit or change 'Tomahawk' to 'Harpoon' (In which case the claim would be correct).
Lets do the math:
KE(t) = 1440 kg / 2 x 245 m/s^2 = 43218000 Joules (Lets call it a round 43 megajoules).
KE(b) = 3000 kg / 2 x 645 m/s^2 = 624037500 Joules (Around 624 megajoules).
BrahMos' ahead. Alas, we're not yet done here.
Now for the explosive yield. I can't find the exact yield of RDX (Only the detonation velocity), but if the latter is anything to go by, it should be about 25% more powerful than TNT, which (The TNT) I'll use for now. Needless to say, the in-use explosive being more powerful than TNT would give the missile with the larger warhead a greater advantage.
CE(t) = 500 kg x 4186000 J/kg = 2093000000 J (About 2 gigajoules).
CE(b) = 300 kg x 4186000 J/kg = 1255800000 J (About 1.2 gigajoules).
Simple additions get us total yields for the
Tomahawk: ~ 2.1 GJ
BrahMos: ~ 1.8 GJ
Tomahawk's ahead.
Now, the point has been raised that the higher KE will help the BrahMos to penetrate a target. This is, of course, correct - Unfortunately, modern warships have... Not alot of armour. The only existing & in-service target you'd need this level of KE for would be a supercarrier (This said, there's alternative, less expensive ways to achive the same). But against any other target, the increased KE will have no significant effect, simply because penetration would occur at much lower velocities, too. And once penetration is achived, the bigger warhead wins.
What the BrahMos can do with its higher speed is putting pressure on a target - needing less than eight minutes to its target provides an advantage, albeit at the likely disadvantage of having the IR signature of a volcano.
In any case. Summary: The BrahMos does not inflict greater damage than the Tomahawk. In fact, the opposite is the case. However, its high speed should easily allow it to be more successful at penetrating the defensive perimeter of an opponent, simply by virtue of reducing their reaction time, as well as due to being harder to hit.
Oh, and the HMS Sheffield example provided above is, erm, incorrect - the Sheffield wasn't sunk by KE, it was sunk because the remaining fuel of the Exocet was ignited all at once - hence why the ship was suddenly on fire, as opposed to just having a big hole in it, which, while annoying, wouldn't sink it. This is, after all, why we're still putting warheads on our missiles, as opposed to using concrete-tipped ones. Aka Hoshi Rezo 08:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Whether you had a chance to speak to a BrahMos engineer is beside the point. You're justifying your use of heresay and original research. The only information that is allowed in a Wiki article is published, peer-reviewed content. And with regards to this BrahMos engineer, given that shaped-charge warheads generate a metallic slug that, momentarily at least, can move at speeds of around Mach 50, even a slow missile can deliver a devastating punch to armor (Google for videos of shaped-charge warheads on missiles and torpedoes). The fact that the delivery platform is traveling at Mach 3 versus Mach 0.9 makes nary a difference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.88.158.233 ( talk) 00:33, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Can we use the same Anti-Ship missile for land targets? didn't they develop an LACM version which has probably different kind of terminal guidance? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 60.243.161.52 ( talk • contribs) 12:19, Jun 27, 2007 (UTC).
If it has 2 times the mass and 4 times the velocity of a tomahawk. It should have 32 times the KE and not 16 as the article states. -- Weedrat 11:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
No | Date | Test range/Platform | Version | Service | Notes |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | June 12 2001 | Chandipur-on-sea | - | ||
2 | |||||
3 | |||||
4 | |||||
5 | |||||
6 | |||||
7 | 14 June 2004 | Chandipur-on-sea | [1] | ||
8 | |||||
9 | |||||
10 | 21 December 2004 | Pokhran | Land to land version | Indian Army | |
11 | 1 December 2005 | Chandipur-on-sea | Land to sea version | Indian Army | [2] |
12 | 1 June 2006 | Pokhran | |||
13 | 4 February 2007 | Chandipur-on-sea | |||
14 | |||||
15 | 5th March 2008 | ||||
16 | 18th December 2008 | Rajput class destroyer | Ship to Ship/Land | Indian Navy | [3] |
There was a problem a few days ago with this page, with some problem edits by User:Ronosen ( talk), who redirected Brahmos from BrahMos to Brahmo, and added text to "Distinguish" BrahMos from Brahmo Samaj. I have added a redirect template text at the beginning of the page to point this out, and hope that will be the end of the matter.
Ronosen contacted me about this edit and I explained the rationale for it. Additionally, I am also creating this section for any public discussion on this issue. Please remember, Dont bite the newbie. T/ @ Sniperz11 edits sign 01:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Dear Sniperz11, Thanks for your help, advice. We shall try our best to bring Brahmo upto acceptable wiki standards. Please keep checking that page every 2 days or so and post on the Talk page there. Actually there is a distinction between Brahmo(s) and Brahmo Samaj. Brahmos refers to adherents (members) of the Brahmo Religion whereas Brahmo Samaj refers to "followers" of the Brahmo Samaj (qv. Hindu Code 1955). So whereas all Brahmos are Brahmo Samajis, the reverse is not necessarily true, and which is why Brahmo and Brahmo Samaj cannot be merged and in fact will differ at certain places. However, this has nothing to do with the BrahMos missile and I foresee a disambigunation page for Brahmos sometime in the future. Cheers. Ronosen ( talk) 08:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
It is mentioned that this missile can be fired from a submarine, but It´s surface-launched or it can be depth-launched? Maybe it has no waterproof and it must be launched when the submarine is not submerged. Someone knows??? -- Damërung ( talk) 10:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Someone removed the section on Brahmos 2. http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=BrahMos&action=historysubmit&diff=477683177&oldid=461676006#Brahmos_I_Block-II . I searched for it aand found a number of reliable sources for this. so i am rescuing the deleted section on Brahmos2 some sources are
Some Editors would find these sources interesting
Can someone find multiple sources verifying that the Brahmos is nuclear capable? I've been doing some research on this recently and there are multiple other sources that I've seen saying that, in its current state, the only warheads it carries are conventional, including the company that manufactures them. GrinandGregBearit ( talk) 17:31, 10 February 2017 (UTC) [3] [4]
I have added some citation needed tags at points of information which are open to challenge. As per Wikipedia's Verifiability policy these should have reliable sources. In some cases these points may be speculation and not a documentation of fact, but a good source would solve the matter. I have also reverted two "dead link removals" User talk:IcyEd. Any thoughts are appreciated. -- IcyEd ( talk) 14:01, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
This article has a good update on current plans for testing and platforms, sub-launched could be fired by the end of the month, air-launched won't be fired until next year. http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/AW_03_04_2013_p70-549011.xml 81.107.139.88 ( talk) 12:43, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
A new article/page for BrahMos-II is being developed in my namespace
here. It is just in it's development stage. At present importance of this article might not be much but it woul soon increase since it is one of the three
hypersonic cruise missiles being developed. Some matter from the
BrahMos-II section of this article will also be transferred to this page so as to leave only a brief summary and link of BrahMos-II here. Intrested editors are requested to take a look at this page and make or suggest the required edits.
Regards
Jayadev P (
talk)
07:19, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
The article has been created at BrahMos-II. Please feel free to contribute things relating to BrahMos-II here. Thanks. - Jayadevp 13 15:25, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
As far as open information is available, Brahmos Mk.1 has been fitted on the following vessels:
The P-16, 16A, 15 and other R class vessels are not armed with Brahmos and P-15 and 16A may be armed during mid-life upgrades.
The section needs to be edited and I might do it on the weekend.
Versova ( talk) 04:31, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
'...making India the first and only country to have a manoeuvrable supersonic cruise missile'
It is one example, but I am pretty sure the SS-N-22 Sunburn of Soviet manufacture in the 1980s meets those requirements and has been around a while.
Definitely maneuverable, it does high g turns on final approach. Definitely supersonic, and definitely a cruise missile.
Is there something I am missing? Dperry4930 ( talk) 20:41, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
I removed the portion of the sentence that was incorrect, but left the rest of the sentence with its citation (the rest is still correct.) If anyone can explain how I am wrong, I would be glad to hear it. Dperry4930 ( talk) 07:19, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
\bnaval-technology\.com\b
on the local blacklist\bnaval-technology\.com\b
on the local blacklistIf you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.
From your friendly hard working bot.— cyberbot II NotifyOnline 13:29, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.— cyberbot II NotifyOnline 14:51, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
An entry from the site http://defencyclopedia.com/ is made here with many differences from what's there in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VandeMataram ( talk • contribs) 11:02, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
In the Development section, sub section surface to surface, the following statement seems to be false.
"The Defense Research and Development Organization (DRDO) said that there were "small hitches" in the last stage of the test firing, which was attributed that to the US GPS satellites, which were switched off on that day as Barack Obama was sworn in as the President of the United States. The missile traveled for 112 seconds instead of the slated 84 seconds and fell 7 km away from the target.[33] "
According to GPS.gov [1] "Millions of users around the world have been monitoring and recording real-time GPS performance on a continuous basis since its inception. If the civilian GPS service had ever been interrupted by its operators, the evidence would be obvious and widespread. No such evidence exists."
I am not going to edit it, turning it over to a savvy wikipedia editor. 98.101.179.122 ( talk) 22:36, 31 October 2015 (UTC)Judasuffocated
I brought the claim to line with ehat the article said. The article says that DRDO said the test failed because there was a delay in GPS input to the missile. The author of the article in turn out of his own estimates attributed it to the obama trip. I edited the article to reflect what DRDO said. standardengineer ( talk) 00:56, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)
The whole section is sourced from a single blog based out of India. Should the whole section be removed?? Moodyman1 ( talk) 03:14, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
yes. The section is mostly original research and speculation per WP:OR and does not constitute a reliable source WP:RS and hence should be removed. I am removing it. standardengineer ( talk) 03:49, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
It does not add anything to the encyclopaedic nature of wikipedia. It is a battle scenario discussion not intended for wikipedia. standardengineer ( talk) 03:53, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
The sources in this section are all several years old. Just one example, South Africa ended up selecting Exocet for their Valour-class frigates, BrahMos was eliminated from the shortlist quite early in the process. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 11:30, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
BrahMos (missile). Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 04:02, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
BrahMos (missile). Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 06:23, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on BrahMos. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:09, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on BrahMos. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:46, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Since the IP editor is so adamant on it being added to the page, I'll as for them. Is this link https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/1718956/taiwanese-navy-accidentally-fires-hypersonic-missile-at-fishing-vessel-as-tensions-with-enemies-china-ratcheted-up/ an acceptable reliable source? Boomer Vial Holla 07:07, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
I propose to update the operational range of the missile from 290-300km(current) to 450km. The extended range is not a new variant of the missile but just a restriction of MTCR. The extended range will be retrospectively applied to all currently deployed missiles and new missiles produced in the future would be of range 450km. Here are some references [13], [14]. Adamgerber80 ( talk) 04:23, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
[15] Recently the missile is tweaked and tested to range of 450km and they are also jointly developing a newer long range variant with 800km range. Gainheight ( talk) 01:55, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 13 external links on BrahMos. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:29, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi Gazoth, I have started work on a table which is similar to your efforts on Astra (missile) and my efforts on Prithvi (missile). This is will help alleviate the current mess in the variants section. The current list is far from complete but is an effort to consolidate the scattered tests across different paragraphs into a single table and make it for readable. Any help and suggestions here are appreciated. Thanks. Adamgerber80 ( talk) 17:29, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
BrahMos Aerospace chief recently said that a 500 km BrahMos is ready. Therefore I have updated the range of BrahMos. But I don’t think this missile has been tested to 500 km range yet. (or has it? After all, the Chief made this statement right after a test ) So is it correct to update it’s range right now, or maybe later? [1] Vaibhavafro ( talk) 15:23, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
References
The claim seems spurious, given the fact that, with a speed of Mach 3, there are many other cruise missiles which are faster than it - even just within the supersonic range (i.e. ignoring hypersonic missiles with speeds well over Mach 5) - see here. The source linked is just a news page which makes the claim without any reference or evidence.
(comment to this by another user): It may have been the fastest when it was introduced. But we have seen new hypersonic missiles now (and used in 2022 in the Russia-Ukraine conflict) with a cruise speed exceeding mach 5. Also the Russian "Kalibr" missile exist in some version(s) with an additional booster stage providing hypersonic speed in the final phase of the flight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.191.188.253 ( talk) 08:36, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
I am new here so wanted to run this by more experienced folk around ( Vaibhavafro, Adamgerber80, Gazoth, GrinandGregBearit, Sniperz11 and others watching this artile) before messing with the article. Does the below incident merit addition to the /info/en/?search=BrahMos#Accidents_and_incidents section?
The Pakistani Inter-Services PR agency chief in a press conference on 10-March-2022 announced that on 09-March-2022 a high speed missile strike has occurred deep inside Pakistani territory with the missile having been launched from Indian territory. He mentioned that it was for the Indian side to explain what had happened. https://twitter.com/OfficialDGISPR/status/1501951149661769736?s=20&t=CG1PGm4jEmzMXzsalv2GdQ
The following day (11-March-2022) India's Department of Defence put out a statement mentioning that a technical malfunction led to an accidental firing of a missile on 09-March-2022 which it deeply regretted. It also mentioned that the Government of India has taken a serious view of the matter and ordered a high-level Court of Enquiry. https://pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=1805148
It was reported by some media publications that this missile was a Brahmos ( https://theprint.in/defence/accidentally-fired-missile-into-pakistan-due-to-tech-glitch-says-india-it-was-brahmos/869387/) Webberbrad007 ( talk) 23:09, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
It was never confirmed officially that the missile was BrahMos, despite rife speculations. So I propose to remove it from the Accidents and incidents heading. I created the section on this page, but did not include the recent mis-fire due to this reason only Rahilmohd0220 ( talk) 11:35, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
The use of the phrase "pinpoint accuracy" in the the third paragraph is a clear violation of Wikipedia:FLOWERY in my opinion given that accuracy is not quantitatively described with circular error probable. The term is ostensibly attributed to this article, but has been in various outlets since at least 2015, with sources (to my knowledge) ultimately pointing to statements made by those involved in the testing or development of the missile itself (the first link does not provide any attribution, while the second links to someone from BrahMos Aerospace, for instance).
I think we should delete this phrase entirely (end at "800 km range") or modify it along the lines of "reportedly pinpoint accuracy", sourcing concerns notwithstanding
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I'm not suggesting that the BrahMos cannot be ship-launched, but I think the picture at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:INS_Rajput_firing_a_BrahMos_missile.jpg is blatantly photoshopped. There is a drop shadow behind the blast. Drop shadows don't usually happen IRL. Orokusaki ( talk) 19:30, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
This may not count as verifiable fact, but it's something of interest I was told by engineers at the Aero-India 2003 airshow, where there was a BrahMos exhibit: that the range of Brahmos has been officially limited at the interesting boundary of 290 km, because it allows Russian cooperation in the programme without being hindered by MTCR limitations.
The Russian Federation is party to the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR), which aims at controlling the proliferation of nuclear capable ballistic missiles, including dual use missile technology. A nuclear capable ballistic missile was defined by the protocol as one capable of delivering at least 500 kg to '300' km; BrahMos' range is just below that, allowing the Russians to transfer technology without technically violating the treaty. BrahMos' stated warhead is also, of course, seemingly much lower than the lower limit prescribed by the MTCR, which might weaken the credibility of what this engineer told me; however, 290 is interestingly short of 300 km. It might suggest a missile design left open to future 'upgrades', both in range and, possibly, in warhead size. -- Rahul Nayar
Given the extremely short range of the BrahMos, should this even be classified as a cruise missile? A cruise missile, for me at least, is basically a flying plane bomb. One advantage of planes over standard missiles is their range. A plane that can only fly <300 km isn't much of a plane. In fact, the range of the BrahMos is basically within an order of magnitude of those of anti-ship and long-range air-to-air missiles. Compared to these weapons, the BrahMos is downright slow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.88.158.233 ( talk) 00:43, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
i noticed that there's no mention in the article of the fact that the missile employs a ramjet. considering that i linked to the article from the ramjet article, i think it should have at least some mention of ramjet propulsion used by the missile.-- Alhutch 09:27, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
It was taken verbatim from two of the listed sources Azureprophet 04:43, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
"capable of covering targets over a 360 degree horizon". What that supposed to mean? - -- 124.82.15.15 14:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
I just removed some pro-Pakistani lines that are completely unrelated to the development of BrahMos. If you want to discuss what to add and what not, please write here instead of making stupid edits based on subjective POV's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.70.211.86 ( talk) 17:24, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
From the article: "The high speed of the BrahMos enables it to inflict more damage than slower cruise missiles such as the Tomahawk."
How is this conclusion reached? To my knowledge, this is not a kinetic energy weapon, but rather relies on high explosive payload to inflict damage. The Tomahawk missile used in the comparison carries a larger payload. -- Clarkcol 18:48, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Since the Brahmos is basically an Anti-ship missile, at higher speeds, it will be able to penetrate the ship's hull more, and when it detonates, will cause much greater damage than a subsonic missile.
It relies on both KE & warhead to do the damage. Probably multiple subsonic missile hits are needed to create the damage of a single Mach 3 supersonic missile.-- 60.243.161.52 12:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Claiming that the BrahMos inflicts greater damage than a Tomahawk is... Amusing. Either remove that bit or change 'Tomahawk' to 'Harpoon' (In which case the claim would be correct).
Lets do the math:
KE(t) = 1440 kg / 2 x 245 m/s^2 = 43218000 Joules (Lets call it a round 43 megajoules).
KE(b) = 3000 kg / 2 x 645 m/s^2 = 624037500 Joules (Around 624 megajoules).
BrahMos' ahead. Alas, we're not yet done here.
Now for the explosive yield. I can't find the exact yield of RDX (Only the detonation velocity), but if the latter is anything to go by, it should be about 25% more powerful than TNT, which (The TNT) I'll use for now. Needless to say, the in-use explosive being more powerful than TNT would give the missile with the larger warhead a greater advantage.
CE(t) = 500 kg x 4186000 J/kg = 2093000000 J (About 2 gigajoules).
CE(b) = 300 kg x 4186000 J/kg = 1255800000 J (About 1.2 gigajoules).
Simple additions get us total yields for the
Tomahawk: ~ 2.1 GJ
BrahMos: ~ 1.8 GJ
Tomahawk's ahead.
Now, the point has been raised that the higher KE will help the BrahMos to penetrate a target. This is, of course, correct - Unfortunately, modern warships have... Not alot of armour. The only existing & in-service target you'd need this level of KE for would be a supercarrier (This said, there's alternative, less expensive ways to achive the same). But against any other target, the increased KE will have no significant effect, simply because penetration would occur at much lower velocities, too. And once penetration is achived, the bigger warhead wins.
What the BrahMos can do with its higher speed is putting pressure on a target - needing less than eight minutes to its target provides an advantage, albeit at the likely disadvantage of having the IR signature of a volcano.
In any case. Summary: The BrahMos does not inflict greater damage than the Tomahawk. In fact, the opposite is the case. However, its high speed should easily allow it to be more successful at penetrating the defensive perimeter of an opponent, simply by virtue of reducing their reaction time, as well as due to being harder to hit.
Oh, and the HMS Sheffield example provided above is, erm, incorrect - the Sheffield wasn't sunk by KE, it was sunk because the remaining fuel of the Exocet was ignited all at once - hence why the ship was suddenly on fire, as opposed to just having a big hole in it, which, while annoying, wouldn't sink it. This is, after all, why we're still putting warheads on our missiles, as opposed to using concrete-tipped ones. Aka Hoshi Rezo 08:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Whether you had a chance to speak to a BrahMos engineer is beside the point. You're justifying your use of heresay and original research. The only information that is allowed in a Wiki article is published, peer-reviewed content. And with regards to this BrahMos engineer, given that shaped-charge warheads generate a metallic slug that, momentarily at least, can move at speeds of around Mach 50, even a slow missile can deliver a devastating punch to armor (Google for videos of shaped-charge warheads on missiles and torpedoes). The fact that the delivery platform is traveling at Mach 3 versus Mach 0.9 makes nary a difference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.88.158.233 ( talk) 00:33, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Can we use the same Anti-Ship missile for land targets? didn't they develop an LACM version which has probably different kind of terminal guidance? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 60.243.161.52 ( talk • contribs) 12:19, Jun 27, 2007 (UTC).
If it has 2 times the mass and 4 times the velocity of a tomahawk. It should have 32 times the KE and not 16 as the article states. -- Weedrat 11:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
No | Date | Test range/Platform | Version | Service | Notes |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | June 12 2001 | Chandipur-on-sea | - | ||
2 | |||||
3 | |||||
4 | |||||
5 | |||||
6 | |||||
7 | 14 June 2004 | Chandipur-on-sea | [1] | ||
8 | |||||
9 | |||||
10 | 21 December 2004 | Pokhran | Land to land version | Indian Army | |
11 | 1 December 2005 | Chandipur-on-sea | Land to sea version | Indian Army | [2] |
12 | 1 June 2006 | Pokhran | |||
13 | 4 February 2007 | Chandipur-on-sea | |||
14 | |||||
15 | 5th March 2008 | ||||
16 | 18th December 2008 | Rajput class destroyer | Ship to Ship/Land | Indian Navy | [3] |
There was a problem a few days ago with this page, with some problem edits by User:Ronosen ( talk), who redirected Brahmos from BrahMos to Brahmo, and added text to "Distinguish" BrahMos from Brahmo Samaj. I have added a redirect template text at the beginning of the page to point this out, and hope that will be the end of the matter.
Ronosen contacted me about this edit and I explained the rationale for it. Additionally, I am also creating this section for any public discussion on this issue. Please remember, Dont bite the newbie. T/ @ Sniperz11 edits sign 01:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Dear Sniperz11, Thanks for your help, advice. We shall try our best to bring Brahmo upto acceptable wiki standards. Please keep checking that page every 2 days or so and post on the Talk page there. Actually there is a distinction between Brahmo(s) and Brahmo Samaj. Brahmos refers to adherents (members) of the Brahmo Religion whereas Brahmo Samaj refers to "followers" of the Brahmo Samaj (qv. Hindu Code 1955). So whereas all Brahmos are Brahmo Samajis, the reverse is not necessarily true, and which is why Brahmo and Brahmo Samaj cannot be merged and in fact will differ at certain places. However, this has nothing to do with the BrahMos missile and I foresee a disambigunation page for Brahmos sometime in the future. Cheers. Ronosen ( talk) 08:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
It is mentioned that this missile can be fired from a submarine, but It´s surface-launched or it can be depth-launched? Maybe it has no waterproof and it must be launched when the submarine is not submerged. Someone knows??? -- Damërung ( talk) 10:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Someone removed the section on Brahmos 2. http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=BrahMos&action=historysubmit&diff=477683177&oldid=461676006#Brahmos_I_Block-II . I searched for it aand found a number of reliable sources for this. so i am rescuing the deleted section on Brahmos2 some sources are
Some Editors would find these sources interesting
Can someone find multiple sources verifying that the Brahmos is nuclear capable? I've been doing some research on this recently and there are multiple other sources that I've seen saying that, in its current state, the only warheads it carries are conventional, including the company that manufactures them. GrinandGregBearit ( talk) 17:31, 10 February 2017 (UTC) [3] [4]
I have added some citation needed tags at points of information which are open to challenge. As per Wikipedia's Verifiability policy these should have reliable sources. In some cases these points may be speculation and not a documentation of fact, but a good source would solve the matter. I have also reverted two "dead link removals" User talk:IcyEd. Any thoughts are appreciated. -- IcyEd ( talk) 14:01, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
This article has a good update on current plans for testing and platforms, sub-launched could be fired by the end of the month, air-launched won't be fired until next year. http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/AW_03_04_2013_p70-549011.xml 81.107.139.88 ( talk) 12:43, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
A new article/page for BrahMos-II is being developed in my namespace
here. It is just in it's development stage. At present importance of this article might not be much but it woul soon increase since it is one of the three
hypersonic cruise missiles being developed. Some matter from the
BrahMos-II section of this article will also be transferred to this page so as to leave only a brief summary and link of BrahMos-II here. Intrested editors are requested to take a look at this page and make or suggest the required edits.
Regards
Jayadev P (
talk)
07:19, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
The article has been created at BrahMos-II. Please feel free to contribute things relating to BrahMos-II here. Thanks. - Jayadevp 13 15:25, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
As far as open information is available, Brahmos Mk.1 has been fitted on the following vessels:
The P-16, 16A, 15 and other R class vessels are not armed with Brahmos and P-15 and 16A may be armed during mid-life upgrades.
The section needs to be edited and I might do it on the weekend.
Versova ( talk) 04:31, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
'...making India the first and only country to have a manoeuvrable supersonic cruise missile'
It is one example, but I am pretty sure the SS-N-22 Sunburn of Soviet manufacture in the 1980s meets those requirements and has been around a while.
Definitely maneuverable, it does high g turns on final approach. Definitely supersonic, and definitely a cruise missile.
Is there something I am missing? Dperry4930 ( talk) 20:41, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
I removed the portion of the sentence that was incorrect, but left the rest of the sentence with its citation (the rest is still correct.) If anyone can explain how I am wrong, I would be glad to hear it. Dperry4930 ( talk) 07:19, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
\bnaval-technology\.com\b
on the local blacklist\bnaval-technology\.com\b
on the local blacklistIf you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.
From your friendly hard working bot.— cyberbot II NotifyOnline 13:29, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.— cyberbot II NotifyOnline 14:51, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
An entry from the site http://defencyclopedia.com/ is made here with many differences from what's there in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VandeMataram ( talk • contribs) 11:02, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
In the Development section, sub section surface to surface, the following statement seems to be false.
"The Defense Research and Development Organization (DRDO) said that there were "small hitches" in the last stage of the test firing, which was attributed that to the US GPS satellites, which were switched off on that day as Barack Obama was sworn in as the President of the United States. The missile traveled for 112 seconds instead of the slated 84 seconds and fell 7 km away from the target.[33] "
According to GPS.gov [1] "Millions of users around the world have been monitoring and recording real-time GPS performance on a continuous basis since its inception. If the civilian GPS service had ever been interrupted by its operators, the evidence would be obvious and widespread. No such evidence exists."
I am not going to edit it, turning it over to a savvy wikipedia editor. 98.101.179.122 ( talk) 22:36, 31 October 2015 (UTC)Judasuffocated
I brought the claim to line with ehat the article said. The article says that DRDO said the test failed because there was a delay in GPS input to the missile. The author of the article in turn out of his own estimates attributed it to the obama trip. I edited the article to reflect what DRDO said. standardengineer ( talk) 00:56, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)
The whole section is sourced from a single blog based out of India. Should the whole section be removed?? Moodyman1 ( talk) 03:14, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
yes. The section is mostly original research and speculation per WP:OR and does not constitute a reliable source WP:RS and hence should be removed. I am removing it. standardengineer ( talk) 03:49, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
It does not add anything to the encyclopaedic nature of wikipedia. It is a battle scenario discussion not intended for wikipedia. standardengineer ( talk) 03:53, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
The sources in this section are all several years old. Just one example, South Africa ended up selecting Exocet for their Valour-class frigates, BrahMos was eliminated from the shortlist quite early in the process. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 11:30, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
BrahMos (missile). Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 04:02, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
BrahMos (missile). Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 06:23, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on BrahMos. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:09, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on BrahMos. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:46, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Since the IP editor is so adamant on it being added to the page, I'll as for them. Is this link https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/1718956/taiwanese-navy-accidentally-fires-hypersonic-missile-at-fishing-vessel-as-tensions-with-enemies-china-ratcheted-up/ an acceptable reliable source? Boomer Vial Holla 07:07, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
I propose to update the operational range of the missile from 290-300km(current) to 450km. The extended range is not a new variant of the missile but just a restriction of MTCR. The extended range will be retrospectively applied to all currently deployed missiles and new missiles produced in the future would be of range 450km. Here are some references [13], [14]. Adamgerber80 ( talk) 04:23, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
[15] Recently the missile is tweaked and tested to range of 450km and they are also jointly developing a newer long range variant with 800km range. Gainheight ( talk) 01:55, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 13 external links on BrahMos. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:29, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi Gazoth, I have started work on a table which is similar to your efforts on Astra (missile) and my efforts on Prithvi (missile). This is will help alleviate the current mess in the variants section. The current list is far from complete but is an effort to consolidate the scattered tests across different paragraphs into a single table and make it for readable. Any help and suggestions here are appreciated. Thanks. Adamgerber80 ( talk) 17:29, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
BrahMos Aerospace chief recently said that a 500 km BrahMos is ready. Therefore I have updated the range of BrahMos. But I don’t think this missile has been tested to 500 km range yet. (or has it? After all, the Chief made this statement right after a test ) So is it correct to update it’s range right now, or maybe later? [1] Vaibhavafro ( talk) 15:23, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
References
The claim seems spurious, given the fact that, with a speed of Mach 3, there are many other cruise missiles which are faster than it - even just within the supersonic range (i.e. ignoring hypersonic missiles with speeds well over Mach 5) - see here. The source linked is just a news page which makes the claim without any reference or evidence.
(comment to this by another user): It may have been the fastest when it was introduced. But we have seen new hypersonic missiles now (and used in 2022 in the Russia-Ukraine conflict) with a cruise speed exceeding mach 5. Also the Russian "Kalibr" missile exist in some version(s) with an additional booster stage providing hypersonic speed in the final phase of the flight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.191.188.253 ( talk) 08:36, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
I am new here so wanted to run this by more experienced folk around ( Vaibhavafro, Adamgerber80, Gazoth, GrinandGregBearit, Sniperz11 and others watching this artile) before messing with the article. Does the below incident merit addition to the /info/en/?search=BrahMos#Accidents_and_incidents section?
The Pakistani Inter-Services PR agency chief in a press conference on 10-March-2022 announced that on 09-March-2022 a high speed missile strike has occurred deep inside Pakistani territory with the missile having been launched from Indian territory. He mentioned that it was for the Indian side to explain what had happened. https://twitter.com/OfficialDGISPR/status/1501951149661769736?s=20&t=CG1PGm4jEmzMXzsalv2GdQ
The following day (11-March-2022) India's Department of Defence put out a statement mentioning that a technical malfunction led to an accidental firing of a missile on 09-March-2022 which it deeply regretted. It also mentioned that the Government of India has taken a serious view of the matter and ordered a high-level Court of Enquiry. https://pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=1805148
It was reported by some media publications that this missile was a Brahmos ( https://theprint.in/defence/accidentally-fired-missile-into-pakistan-due-to-tech-glitch-says-india-it-was-brahmos/869387/) Webberbrad007 ( talk) 23:09, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
It was never confirmed officially that the missile was BrahMos, despite rife speculations. So I propose to remove it from the Accidents and incidents heading. I created the section on this page, but did not include the recent mis-fire due to this reason only Rahilmohd0220 ( talk) 11:35, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
The use of the phrase "pinpoint accuracy" in the the third paragraph is a clear violation of Wikipedia:FLOWERY in my opinion given that accuracy is not quantitatively described with circular error probable. The term is ostensibly attributed to this article, but has been in various outlets since at least 2015, with sources (to my knowledge) ultimately pointing to statements made by those involved in the testing or development of the missile itself (the first link does not provide any attribution, while the second links to someone from BrahMos Aerospace, for instance).
I think we should delete this phrase entirely (end at "800 km range") or modify it along the lines of "reportedly pinpoint accuracy", sourcing concerns notwithstanding