Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

India First To Build a Supersonic Cruise Missile

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the please-don't-lose-the-key dept.

The Military 319

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."

cancel ×

319 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Really? (3, Funny)

Mike Rice (626857) | more than 4 years ago | (#31559920)

The first?

Re:Really? (-1, Offtopic)

Beyond_GoodandEvil (769135) | more than 4 years ago | (#31559946)

Which raises(not begs) the questions, How good is this missile against submarines? and How many submarines does China have?

Re:Really? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31560234)

Not very. The payload is actual Indians, which are considered to be biological and chemical warfare due to the noxiousness of their stink.

An attack on a sub would not cause harm to the sub crew, but it would be an ecological disaster. All marine life within a 5-mile radius of ground zero would die and float to the surface, causing a stink almost as bad as that of downtown Bangalore.

Re:Really? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31560242)

Torpedos hit submarines. When missiles try to hit submarines they explode on the surface. And it is a lot harder to go supersonic underwater (for two reasons).

Re:Really? (1)

burni2 (1643061) | more than 4 years ago | (#31559996)

Yes, you were the first poster :)

Re:Really? (1)

Mike Rice (626857) | more than 4 years ago | (#31560804)

Oh, sorry about that... but what is your point?

Re:Really? (2, Interesting)

Nmonic (548455) | more than 4 years ago | (#31560038)

Not really. A Quick check of Wiki shows that India is definitely not the first or only to have a supersonic cruise missile. This is just India's first... not a world first.

Re:Really? (5, Informative)

Trepidity (597) | more than 4 years ago | (#31560096)

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.

It's not the first maneuverable supersonic CM eith (5, Informative)

melted (227442) | more than 4 years ago | (#31560740)

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.

Re:Really? (3, Interesting)

Mike Rice (626857) | more than 4 years ago | (#31560856)

The whole point of a 'Cruise Missile', is that it maneuvers... i.e it is not 'Ballistic'

I believe there were at least 14 models of Cruise Missiles before this that were SuperSonic.

Mod me 'redundant' again, and again...

Tech Support Call (5, Funny)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 4 years ago | (#31560142)

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?

Re:Tech Support Call (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31560480)

hate to see what happens when he calls tech support and gets some guy in India oh wait never mind. Indian cruise missle=guarenteed to fall apart half way to the target. lolz

Re:Tech Support Call (1)

vlad30 (44644) | more than 4 years ago | (#31560590)

from what I hear the accelerator/throttle gets stuck and it overshoots the mark or is that only for parts destined for the US version

Re:Really? (0)

ls671 (1122017) | more than 4 years ago | (#31560646)

> The first?

Yep, title is confusing, I assume it is "a first" for India. I believe the first supersonic missile was the German V2 used in WW 2. It had a 5 400 km/h maximum speed. Granted, it wasn't much precise although...

Re:Really? (2, Interesting)

kromozone (817261) | more than 4 years ago | (#31560902)

The title stipulates "cruise missile," while the V2 was a ballistic missile.

Re:Really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31561018)

> The first?

I believe the first supersonic missile was the German V2 used in WW 2. It had a 5 400 km/h maximum speed.

V2 wasn't a cruise or maneuverable missile.

Re:Really? (0, Redundant)

Mike Rice (626857) | more than 4 years ago | (#31560828)

So my question is 'Redundant'?

How can it be redundant... there is no prior discussion?

And Only? (-1, Redundant)

Mike Rice (626857) | more than 4 years ago | (#31559928)

And Only?

Thanks, India (0, Flamebait)

ClosedSource (238333) | more than 4 years ago | (#31559944)

You've just given another argument to hard-liners in the middle east to push their countries to go nuclear.

Re:Thanks, India (4, Interesting)

Brett Buck (811747) | more than 4 years ago | (#31560140)

Riiight, because until today, they really weren't interested

Re:Thanks, India (4, Insightful)

Sir_Lewk (967686) | more than 4 years ago | (#31560212)

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.

Re:Thanks, India (4, Insightful)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 4 years ago | (#31560544)

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.

If I were Iran (2, Insightful)

Oxford_Comma_Lover (1679530) | more than 4 years ago | (#31560834)

> If I were Iran, I would be working very hard to build nuclear weapons as a defense, it's only logical.

A lot of the Arab world looks up to Iran as a country willing to defy the US. As for nukes, they sometimes make sense as a deterrent, but almost never as a defense. Setting them off in almost any circumstance is also a violation of international law.

Biggest problem in Iran isn't so much the Iranians as it is the government, AFAICT. (As far as I can tell.) If they could get a government in power which weren't run by a couple of psychopaths, then maybe having a nuclear deterrent would make sense. But as long as the government is threatening to wipe other governments off the face of the earth, NOBODY should let them NEAR a nuke. Same holds true for every other government. You should not get a nuke if you're someone who would seriously consider using it when there were less than a few million lives at stake.

Re:If I were Iran (3, Insightful)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 4 years ago | (#31561006)

Biggest problem in Iran isn't so much the Iranians as it is the government, AFAICT.

Biggest problem in {Iran, Egypt, Syria, Israel, Turkey, Russia, China, The UK, America, etc.} isn't so much the {Iranians, Egyptans, Syrians, Israelis, Turks, Russians, Chinese, Americans, etc.} as it is the government, AFAICT

Really!? (1)

Mike Rice (626857) | more than 4 years ago | (#31559950)

Seems to me that cruise missiles have been around for a while, and one of the defining properties is that it 'steers'

Re:Really!? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31559990)

supersonic, which renders most navies' anti-missile systems impotent

this is a game changer

Re:Really!? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31560136)

You kidding, right? The aegis system is more then capable of targeting supersonic targets and the associated missile/gun systems can certainly "down" the missles (and this is before we start looking at directed energy weapons in the not too distant future). Heck, the Soviet Union's AS-4 missile could attain mach 6 -- and this was decades ago...

Re:Really!? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31560012)

Yes, but all previous ones have been subsonic, mostly because they're used against stationary or very slow-moving targets, where being supersonic isn't much of an advantage, but substantially increases costs in R&D and manufacturing.

Super-sonic (0, Troll)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | more than 4 years ago | (#31560028)

Not ones that go faster then the speed of sound. It ain't all that hard, it is in the bloody title.

But don't worry. The US still leads in idiots I see.

Re:Super-sonic (1)

category_five (814174) | more than 4 years ago | (#31560104)

smallfurry from SZ?

Re:Really!? (4, Interesting)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 4 years ago | (#31560098)

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.

Huh? (-1, Flamebait)

gbutler69 (910166) | more than 4 years ago | (#31560198)

it is not obvious what advantage supersonic cruise missiles have over ballistic ones.

Huh? Ballistic and Cruise are opposite of one another. There is no such thing as a "Ballistic Cruis Missile". It is an oxymoron. Please review the definition of "Ballistic". "Ballistic" means following a trajectory dictated by free-fall/gravity. An artillery shell follows a ballistic trajectory. An ICBM ("B" means ballistic) follows a ballistic trajectory in that once it reaches it's highest point (or even before) it is no longer powered and instead free-falls (though somewhat guided/corrected aerodynamically) to its target. A Cruis missile powers itself in a flight path that is in no way a ballistic trajectory. I think the term you are searching for instead of ballistic is "sub-sonic"

Re:Huh? (4, Insightful)

vlm (69642) | more than 4 years ago | (#31560350)

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....

Next step? Stealth. (1)

Colin Smith (2679) | more than 4 years ago | (#31560772)

A ballistic missile is pretty obvious. A cruise missile isn't quite so.

Huge market for such a device. Particularly if it was nuclear capable. Boom. There goes Washington DC. No clue who hit it. It takes the Mutual out of MAD.

 

Re:Huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31560472)

I think the terms of comparison were supposed to be "supersonic cruise" versus "ballistic", not just "cruise" versus "ballistic", with the point being that if you have ballistic missiles, you probably don't need a supersonic cruise missile.

Re:Huh? (1)

SnowZero (92219) | more than 4 years ago | (#31560648)

I believe what the GP meant (and how I interpreted what he wrote) is that there's no apparent benefit of a supersonic cruise missile over a supersonic ballistic missile. If you are going for speed, it can be detected, so you might as well make the missile ballistic and go for maximum speed. If you are trying to be stealthy, you make a low-flying cruise missing without much of a signature so it is hard to detect. A low flying supersonic object will not be stealthy at all.

Re:Huh? (0, Redundant)

Mike Rice (626857) | more than 4 years ago | (#31560886)

Mod parent up. Ballistic and Cruise are two different animals.

Re:Really!? (0, Troll)

oldhack (1037484) | more than 4 years ago | (#31560322)

Hehehe, the Ruskies stuck one into them Indians.

Re:Really!? (1)

xaosflux (917784) | more than 4 years ago | (#31560376)

...BTW in the sixties the USA developed but never tested or deployed a nuclear powered supersonic cruise missile.

Got any sources on this? I've heard of missiles with nuclear payloads, but not where their power source is nuclear...

Re:Really!? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31560466)

The US had Project Pluto, never got beyond the development stages as ICMBs proved to be feasible, and eliminated the need. Was slated to be able to fly unrefueled for 6 months. If it looked like the big one was coming, they'd be launched and orbit over the ocean for months until the final attack order was transmitted, or they finally died and fell into the sea.

Re:Really!? (1)

aeson25 (1314667) | more than 4 years ago | (#31561002)

I was also wondering about this. How exactly are they powering it with a nuclear source? Nuclear power comes in two forms, (as far as I know). A) Steam B) Peltier Seebeck effect (often used in space probes). Neither of which is useful here. Though I did hear of theoretical spacecraft that used timed mini nuclear explosions behind the ship to propel it forward, but by mini, it was still on a much larger scale than an average missile.

Re:Really!? (1)

the_fat_kid (1094399) | more than 4 years ago | (#31560854)

this one goes to Eleven!

but couldn't we just make "10" faster?

yes, but this one goes to Eleven.

Great - (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31559952)

That plus a nuke warhead sounds great for killing big carriers. If push really comes to shove kiss power projection in the Indian Ocean goodbye. I wonder how long it will take China to buy one.

Re:Great - (1)

paiute (550198) | more than 4 years ago | (#31560280)

That plus a nuke warhead sounds great for killing big carriers. If push really comes to shove kiss power projection in the Indian Ocean goodbye. I wonder how long it will take China to buy one.

I think China is really the one that should be worrying about the Indian military.

amen! (5, Informative)

Weezul (52464) | more than 4 years ago | (#31560844)

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.

Surprise! (5, Funny)

SEWilco (27983) | more than 4 years ago | (#31559974)

I didn't hear that coming.

Re:Surprise! (1)

mikael (484) | more than 4 years ago | (#31560758)

[Flash of light and mushroom cloud] ....

Re:Surprise! (1)

EdIII (1114411) | more than 4 years ago | (#31560774)

I barely felt mine coming before it was too late. Of course my version of the Indian Supersonic Cruise Missile involved some very spicy beef curry and rice....

Russian P-500_Bazalt was online in 1973 (4, Informative)

schwit1 (797399) | more than 4 years ago | (#31559976)

Re:Russian P-500_Bazalt was online in 1973 (3, Informative)

TheNarrator (200498) | more than 4 years ago | (#31560736)

Not to mention the more recent P-700 Granit [wikipedia.org] cruise missile which can go mach 4.5.

Misleading headline (5, Informative)

Waffle Iron (339739) | more than 4 years ago | (#31559978)

Possibly first to deploy, but not the first to build [astronautix.com] , by a good 50 years.

Re:Misleading headline (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31560236)

I believe it may be;
First to stupidly admit and give away element of surprise.

Re:Misleading headline (3, Informative)

DerekLyons (302214) | more than 4 years ago | (#31560374)

Not the first to deploy [astronautix.com] either.

Indian jokes (1)

deodiaus2 (980169) | more than 4 years ago | (#31560010)

I guess we can outsource our military development to India. Hitler's German was prohibited from making weapons prior to WWII (part of the WW1 peace treaty), so he outsourced the industry to Russia, and used the weapons against it. Obviously, after WWII got started, Germany developed its own military industry.

Re:Indian jokes (4, Informative)

tftp (111690) | more than 4 years ago | (#31560200)

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 [wikipedia.org] , it was officially broken in 1932, with implicit approval of many important countries. Development of arms also was done under "dual use" cover [wikipedia.org] .

They're not the first... (3, Informative)

Assmasher (456699) | more than 4 years ago | (#31560024)

...Soviets had supersonic air to surface cruise missiles and surface to surface missiles. It's where the Indian tech comes from. Kitchen and Sunburn were the ones that spring to mind immediately.

Re:They're not the first... (1)

tsotha (720379) | more than 4 years ago | (#31561014)

This particular missile is actually a tarted-up Russian P-800 Onyx.

Headline wrong, as is the article (5, Informative)

category_five (814174) | more than 4 years ago | (#31560026)

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

Re:Headline wrong, as is the article (1, Informative)

Mindcontrolled (1388007) | more than 4 years ago | (#31560272)

Not to mention the fact that cruise missiles are by definition maneuverable.

Re:Headline wrong, as is the article (1)

Sique (173459) | more than 4 years ago | (#31560386)

No. The ones used by the Germans in WWII weren't.

Re:Headline wrong, as is the article (1)

Mindcontrolled (1388007) | more than 4 years ago | (#31560442)

Well, there we can go into technical sophistry about what actually is meant by "maneuverable". The V1 had an autopilot coupled to a gyrocompass system. In my opinion, that counts as maneuverable. Of course, not external correctional inputs were possible with that system, which might be considered the true definition of maneuverable.

Re:Headline wrong, as is the article (1)

rotide (1015173) | more than 4 years ago | (#31560592)

To me, anything that doesn't follow a ballistic trajectory would have to be considered maneuverable. I mean, if it can avoid an obstacle or follow a flight plan.. it's maneuverable.

Re:Headline wrong, as is the article (1)

vlm (69642) | more than 4 years ago | (#31560462)

A mass produced 350 KT V-1 from the mid 1940s would have been a quite effective strategic weapon. A modern version would probably work pretty well too.

The definition game is probably best played by flight profile as opposed to navigation systems, in which case an ancient german V-1 would qualify.

Re:Headline wrong, as is the article (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31560364)

I'm an aerospace engineer...in our jargon, a course correction compensates for drift, so we are talking about correcting for very low angular rates that come about because of gyro drift, winds aloft, etc. The engineers who designed the P-500 for course correction likely used small angle approximations (cos(theta) = 1, sin(theta)=theta -- first term from a Taylor series expension) because the correction values for theta were very small.

A maneuver is a large deviation from the initial flight path, where theta (flight path angle deviation) is large enough that the first order Taylor series approximation does not work. What this means is that your controller becomes highly nonlinear, and requires significantly greater amounts of computing power.

Re:Headline wrong, as is the article (2, Interesting)

tftp (111690) | more than 4 years ago | (#31560950)

A maneuver is a large deviation from the initial flight path

Ok, does the P-700 [wikipedia.org] qualify then?

The missile, when fired in a swarm (group of 4-8) has a unique guidance mode. One of the weapons climbs to a higher altitude and designates targets while the others attack. The missile responsible for target designation climbs in short pop-ups, so as to be harder to intercept. The missiles are linked by data connections, forming a network. Missiles are able to differentiate targets, detect groups and prioritize targets automatically using information gathered during flight and types of ships and battle formations pre-programmed in an onboard computer. They will attack targets in order of priority, highest to lowest: after destroying the first target, remaining missiles will attack the next prioritized target.

P-700 was deployed in 1980, per that Wikipedia article.

Re:Headline wrong, as is the article (1)

iamhassi (659463) | more than 4 years ago | (#31560474)

and India's only has a 200kg payload and 290km range.

I've never seen an article fail so bad, and it makes India look like a joke in the process.

Re:Headline wrong, as is the article (1)

iamhassi (659463) | more than 4 years ago | (#31560522)

"The P-500 Bazalt is a liquid-fueled, rocket powered, supersonic cruise missile used by the Soviet and Russian navies. "

"India successfully tested Sunday a "maneuverable" version of the BrahMos supersonic cruise missile which it has jointly developed with Russia."

So Russia found a 40 yr old Bazalt in their basement and "developed" it with India? India didn't even get the good version, they got the crappy one that only holds 200kg with a 290km range. FAIL

Re:Headline wrong, as is the article (4, Interesting)

argStyopa (232550) | more than 4 years ago | (#31560526)

Actually, AFAIK the Bazalt is maneuverable only during its cruise phase, once it reaches the terminal guidance track and goes supersonic, it isn't really more than marginally guideable.

I'd guess that the Indian one is supersonic most of its range (thus the puny 300km) and will accept course guidance during supersonic flight.

So no, I'd guess that the title is only misleading, not grossly wrong as you imply.

"in its inventory" (0, Troll)

pem (1013437) | more than 4 years ago | (#31560054)

Gosh, I sure hope they don't have to use it...

India, the Barney Fife of nations.

Re:"in its inventory" (1)

copponex (13876) | more than 4 years ago | (#31560256)

India, the Barney Fife of nations.

You probably don't want to hear how the world things of the US. Okay, here's my current favorite, from the fantastic In the Loop: "You know they're all kids in Washington? It's like Bugsy Malone, but with real guns."

Later...

Malcolm Tucker: Linton! Linton!
Linton Barwick: Mr Tucker, isn't it? Nice to see you again.
Malcolm Tucker: Are you fucking me about?
Linton Barwick: Is there a problem, Mr Tucker?
Malcolm Tucker: I've just come from a briefing with a nine-year-old child.
Linton Barwick: You're talking about AJ. AJ is one of our top guys. He's a Stanton College Prep, Harvard. One of the brightest and best.
Malcolm Tucker: Well, his briefing notes were written in alphabetti spaghetti. When I left, I nearly tripped up over his fucking umbilical cord.
Linton Barwick: I'm sorry it troubles you that our people achieve excellence at such an early age. But could we just move on to what's important here? Now, I understand that your Prime Minister has asked you to supply us with some, say, fresh British intelligence, is that true?
Malcolm Tucker: Yeah, apparently, your fucking master race of highly-gifted toddlers can't quite get the job done...
Linton Barwick: All right.
Malcolm Tucker: ...between breast feeds and playing with their Power Rangers. So, an actual grown-up has been asked to fucking bail you out.

Oh, I know the US has a lot of shortcomings (1)

pem (1013437) | more than 4 years ago | (#31560308)

Arguably, one of the shortcomings is that the US has more (a lot more) than one bullet, and isn't afraid to use them. Unlike either Sheriff Andy or Deputy Barney, the US can be quite unlovable.

Re:"in its inventory" (1)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 4 years ago | (#31561026)

now now, you two, let's not start a war with name-calling.

As we say in warcraft... (1)

St.Creed (853824) | more than 4 years ago | (#31560080)

screenshot or it didn't happen

Bad for Pakistan (2, Insightful)

amiga3D (567632) | more than 4 years ago | (#31560086)

I doubt Pakistan can be happy at all about this development. It's one thing to have a nuke, another to be able to deliver it. This makes a first strike weapon from Hell. About the time you figure out the war is on....it's over.

Re:Bad for Pakistan (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31560162)

I doubt Pakistan can be happy at all about this development. It's one thing to have a nuke, another to be able to deliver it. This makes a first strike weapon from Hell. About the time you figure out the war is on....it's over.

All the more reason to keep all guns loaded and pointed at India.

And development for similar stuff underway/hurried/massive funds.

Re:Bad for Pakistan (2, Insightful)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | more than 4 years ago | (#31560314)

Since India has had nuke-capable ballistic missiles for some years, this doesn't actually add all that much to their nuclear capability.

Re:Bad for Pakistan (2, Interesting)

amiga3D (567632) | more than 4 years ago | (#31560390)

Really. If you see a missile coming you can launch yours. Kind of a deterrent thing. Against sane people it works...against nut jobs, who can say? Cruise missiles are much harder to detect. They fly circuitous routes to avoid detection and generally fly at lower altitudes to avoid radar. If launched at missile silos they can effectively wipe out all nuclear offensive capability thus rendering an enemy helpless. Hence, if I were a neighboring country, I'd be a little more apprehensive.

Re:Bad for Pakistan (2, Interesting)

vlm (69642) | more than 4 years ago | (#31560536)

But subsonics are cheaper, smaller, more reliable, better in every way except they are slower.

The speed is of no account for surprise attacks because you just do ToT Time on Target calculations to stagger the launches. Besides alternate delivery is much cheaper (UPS, fedex, the local trucking company)

So, a SS CM is only useful for very fast delivery, very low latency missions... more the response to the surprise attack than the surprise attack itself.

Re:Bad for Pakistan (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31560358)

Pakistan already operates the Yingji-83/C-803 which has a supersonic terminal stage and more than adequate missiles in her bag to act as a huge deterrent.
Pakistan has nothing to fear.

Anyways India has a no first use nuke policy. Pakistan has no such policy.

Not about Pakistan (4, Informative)

Goonie (8651) | more than 4 years ago | (#31560418)

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.

Re:Bad for Pakistan (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 4 years ago | (#31560444)

Maybe India, China, and Pakistan will all bankrupt themselves with an arms race. India has help from Russia, a country with some experience in this area...

Re:Bad for Pakistan (1)

vlm (69642) | more than 4 years ago | (#31560504)

Nawww, the real "first strike weapon from Hell." is a 20 foot standard shipping container, either in the harbor or hauled around the country on a flatbed semi trailer. Heck, a really big RV, or a cargo jet, would work too. The fact that no one has done this to the USA yet, is basically proof that at least either the motive or the capability doesn't exist.

Now a SS cruise missile, that would be an interesting tactical weapon if you're losing a hot conventional war aka surprise invasion, or a great "return fire" response to the shipping container scenario.

Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31560102)

Isn't one of the benefits of cruise missiles is that they are quiet and low altitude enough (terrain following to a degree) that they are hard to spot, preventing intercepts? A supersonic missile sort of defeats this purpose - it can't be too maneuverable if it is supersonic and is much more readily acquired than subsonic missiles would be. Sort of a hybrid of ballistic missile and cruise missile with some of the strengths and weaknesses of each I guess, but with radically reduced range.

Re:Why? (5, Interesting)

PhunkySchtuff (208108) | more than 4 years ago | (#31560228)

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.

Re:Why? (1)

Mindcontrolled (1388007) | more than 4 years ago | (#31560288)

That's more or less an economic question - is it cheaper to deploy supersonic anti-ship missiles to take out a cruise, or to saturate it's defense screen with a huge amount of subsonic ones?

Re:Why? (1)

Miseph (979059) | more than 4 years ago | (#31560456)

If you're using tactical nuclear warheads like you really need to against a modern carrier, then I'd say probably yes.

Of course, if you only send one or two super-sonic nukes AND saturate with sub-sonic conventional warheads, you'll probably get the most reliable results.

hmmmm (1)

Eggbloke (1698408) | more than 4 years ago | (#31560264)

What could India want with a manoeuvrable supersonic cruise missile?

Payload (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31560274)

The missile will carry a primary warhead consisting of excess jinglys picked up from the nearest poopy streets. Upon detonation the hapless target is rendered uninhabitable for 500 years due to the pervasive stench of regurgitated curry and unwashed armpits.

C'mon... (0, Flamebait)

Anachragnome (1008495) | more than 4 years ago | (#31560326)

C'mon, folks.

Can we PLEASE start spending all this cash on things that don't blow up?

Seems burning paper currency wasn't fast enough, now we have refined methods of destroying funds.

Re:C'mon... (2, Funny)

pem (1013437) | more than 4 years ago | (#31560384)

Can we PLEASE start spending all this cash on things that don't blow up?

Oh, I dunno, just about anything can blow up if you treat it right.

Q. What's the difference between electrical engineers and civil engineers?

A. Electrical engineers build weapons systems; civil engineers build targets.

Re:C'mon... (2, Funny)

Dachannien (617929) | more than 4 years ago | (#31560498)

Can we PLEASE start spending all this cash on things that don't blow up?

Seems awfully inefficient to me. After all, it's a lot easier to kill people with stuff that does blow up.

All about the Range (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31560336)

Supersonic is all well and good with a 290km range. But when someone else can hit you from 2500km (BTM-109 tomahawk) with a sub sonic missile is it really worth it?

Sir we have superman on radar! (1)

garompeta (1068578) | more than 4 years ago | (#31560380)

"What?, it must be a supersonic missile idiot!" "Improbable sir, this one is curving and making acrobatics on the screen, actually I think it is trying to spell something" "What does it say?" "Catch me sucker!"

9/11 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31560400)

Didn't the 9/11 hijackers use a supersonic cruise missile?

Re:9/11 (1)

the_fat_kid (1094399) | more than 4 years ago | (#31560942)

I'm pretty sure that they were firmly Sub-sonic.
I don't know how fast a commercial jet can fly but they were going slow when they hit the towers.

Cruise Missile? (3, Interesting)

Comatose51 (687974) | more than 4 years ago | (#31560402)

Isn't this just a really fast surface to surface missile? The operational range is 1/10 of a Tomahawk. How is this any different from a short range ballistics missile, other than the trajectory? I don't mean to criticize an impressive achievement but I foresee it being very different in use from something like a Tomahawk. A Tomahawk can be fired from a huge standoff range and hit its target. With this missile, the attacker has to get relatively close to its target, thus making it vulnerable to defenses. A big part of the value of a cruise missile is that the attacker can stay relatively safe. I think this weapon is much more defensive in nature and this is perhaps a reflection of India's strategic outlook.

no big deal (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31560516)

We have the first superkalafragilisticexpialidosious cruise missle in 3D!

Bah (4, Funny)

SoVeryTired (967875) | more than 4 years ago | (#31560586)

Bah. Wake me up when they have a maneuverable superluminal cruise missile.

Re:Bah (1)

jakeblue (62815) | more than 4 years ago | (#31560726)

Bah. Wake me up when they have a maneuverable superluminal cruise missile.

Do 100MW shipborne lasers count?

http://www.popularmechanics.com/blogs/technology_news/4321422.html?nav=RSS20 [popularmechanics.com]

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>