Jump to content

Talk:BrahMos

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:BrahMos (missile))

Supposed Ship Launch

[edit]

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)[reply]

Seems so. Here is the correct picture of a similar launch with shadow visible. http://www.brahmos.com/content%20image/sea-weapon-complex.jpg Enjoy Gainheight (talk) 01:46, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled

[edit]

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

Globalsecurity.org thinks there's something to that story also; see the updated article for a reference. I wouldn't be surprised if they build a longer-range version in the future as well. --Robert Merkel 07:36, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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)[reply]

ramjet

[edit]

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)[reply]

Be bold and make the edit, then. --Robert Merkel 12:39, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Eliminated Features Section

[edit]

It was taken verbatim from two of the listed sources Azureprophet 04:43, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"capable of covering targets over a 360 degree horizon". What that supposed to mean? - --124.82.15.15 14:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that means that you can fire it one direction, and it can turn around right after launch and fly 290 km in the opposite direction. -NorsemanII 05:45, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Means can be fired vertically and then the missile will tilt and fly towards the target. The warship need not have to turn towards the target to launch the missile. That's 360 degree coverage.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 15:09, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Someone is making heavily biased comments

[edit]

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)[reply]

High speed and damage

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The Brahmos has a semi-armor piercing warhead. That means that it is designed to pierce through the hull and detonate, which would ensure total destruction. Also, in any AShM (as in many others), Kinetic Energy plays a big role in ensuring kills, especially since otherwise, it would take a lot of explosive to do the same damage. Without any KE, it would really amount to something like a HESH round (on Tanks), which would not really cause too much damage. Look at the Falklands war, where the Exocets did some considerable damage, but still failed to sink boats in many cases. But even what kinetic energy they had was devastating, especially with the HMS Sheffield.
Doing a small calculation, the Exocet weighs 700 kg and flies at Mach 0.9. The Brahmos weighs 3000 kg and travels at mach 2.8. From KE = 1/2 * m * v^2. By that token, Brahmos has 4 * 3^2 = 36 times the Kinetic energy of the Exocet. Added to that is the larger warhead. Sniperz11 14:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I had a chance to speak to a BrahMos engineer about this very fact, about whether the KE helps at all. His point was simple... you need KE to penetrate the hull, which is quite a bit on well armored ships or carriers. Once it penetrates the hull, this ensures that the warhead explodes inside the ship, where the confined spaces will multiply the destructive effect of the warhead, and totally destroy the target. This same effect will not happen for the slower missiles, which will detonate on the hull. Even if it happens, it would be only for smaller boats, not the larger ones like the destroyers and Carriers that the Brahmos is designed to target. After all, you cant expect a single hit from a Harpoon or exocet to finish off a Nimitz, but a BrahMos can. T/@Sniperz11editssign 01:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Brahmos Land attack role

[edit]

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).

The only difference between the B-AShM and B-LACM versions is the seeker. The LACM has/will have a GPS seeker, while the AShM version has a radar seeker. Only difference between the two. They cant attack targets of the other type (At least at present), but can do pretty much everything else, including two missiles of different types being launched from the same launcher. T/@Sniperz11editssign 01:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect calculations

[edit]

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)[reply]

Chronology table

[edit]
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]

References

  1. ^ BrahMos launch successful
  2. ^ Army version of BrahMos test-fired
  3. ^ [1]

BrahMos vs Brahmo (Brahmo Samaj)

[edit]

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/@Sniperz11editssign 01:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Submarine launched

[edit]

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)[reply]

BrahMos had been tested from static, underwater test stands in Russia and from the INS Sindhuvijay during refit trials. Enthusiast10 (talk) 00:34, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brahmos 2

[edit]

Someone removed the section on Brahmos 2. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?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

  1. http://in.news.yahoo.com/india-develop-fastest-brahmos-2-missile-next-five-083833031.html
  2. http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2012-01-10/news/30611918_1_brahmos-aerospace-air-version-brahmos-missile
  3. http://en.rian.ru/russia/20110612/164581169.html
  4. http://www.brahmos.com/newscenter.php?newsid=102
  5. http://www.philstar.com/Article.aspx?articleId=735910&publicationSubCategoryId=200 --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 15:24, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A new article regarding BrahMos-II has been created with most of the data from here being shifted there. Please feel free to contribute. - Jayadevp13 15:28, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some Sources for Brahmos

[edit]

Some Editors would find these sources interesting

  1. The Russian-Indian BrahMos supersonic cruise missile at RIAN NEWS
  2. and export of Brahmos to Malaysia[2]--ÐℬigXЯaɣ 13:50, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Testing Trials by Indian Army JAISALMER, March 4, 2012 http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article2960507.ece?homepage=true--ÐℬigXЯaɣ 12:42, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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][reply]

Here are some neutral sources([5][6][7]) which state that this missile is capable of carrying a nuclear warhead. The missile can carry a warhead of 200kg which is enough for a tactical nuclear weapon. More-ever Brahmos is largely based on P-800 Oniks which was also nuclear capable ([8]). According to a news post from a company closely related with Indian defence sector([9]), Brahmos is nuclear capable but that is not it's intended use. This might shed some light on why it is not officially claimed so. Secondly, India has an official stance of No-First-Use and thus cannot publicly claim to possess tactical nuclear warheads. Hope this helps. Adamgerber80 (talk) 18:24, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiability

[edit]

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)[reply]

Timings

[edit]

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)[reply]

Regarding BrahMos-II

[edit]

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)[reply]

The article has been created at BrahMos-II. Please feel free to contribute things relating to BrahMos-II here. Thanks. - Jayadevp13 15:25, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Navy Induction

[edit]

As far as open information is available, Brahmos Mk.1 has been fitted on the following vessels:

  • INS Rajput - 4 Brahmos in inclined launchers replacing 2 SS-N-2D
  • INS Ranvir - VLS launcher housing X nos. missiles
  • INS Ranvijay - VLS launcher housing X nos. missiles
  • INS Shivalik, Satpura, Sahyadri - 8 cell Brahmos VLS launcher
  • INS Teg, Tarkash, Trikand - 8 Cell Brahmos VLS launcher

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)[reply]

I don't think this statement is correct, someone explain please.

[edit]

'...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)[reply]

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)[reply]

some pr drone probably didn't do enough research before releasing that to the press. It would have probably made much more sense if they were talking about the land attack variant of the brahmos missile rather than the anti ship variant. Pvpoodle (talk) 10:21, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

[edit]

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:

  • http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/shivalik-class-friga/
    Triggered by \bnaval-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist
  • http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/admiral-gorshkov/
    Triggered by \bnaval-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If 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)[reply]

 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)[reply]

Errors detected.

[edit]

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)[reply]

Claim that GPS unavailability Caused targeting failure

[edit]

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[reply]

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)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Frequently Asked Questions". GPS.gov. Retrieved 31OCT2015. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)

Warship defenses section.

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Export section is outdated

[edit]

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)[reply]

[edit]

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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:02, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:23, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:09, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:46, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Addition of source

[edit]

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 VialHolla 07:07, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would not consider this or the other link posted as reliable sources. The first link states that it could be the speed of the missile and this source only mentions the speed of the missile. A list of valid and reliable sources ([10], [11], [12]) place the speed of the missile at Mach2.5-3 which makes it comparable to BrahMos in terms of speed not better. I propose to remove that text altogether since it is no backed by any reliable sources whereas we have multiple reliable sources which point to otherwise. Adamgerber80 (talk) 13:38, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, there is a currently an RfC in progress discussing these points and some more. Any comments you(or anyone else wanting to be part of this discussion) have are welcome there. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 21:25, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to update operational range

[edit]

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)[reply]

Here is the information to make the update

[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)[reply]

[edit]

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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:29, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of tests

[edit]

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)[reply]

@Adamgerber80: Great work so far! The table format looks good, although it needs a section of its own. We can also mention the major milestones in text just above the table, with an emphasis on major. I will pitch in if I find any tests that haven't been mentioned already. If the table gets too big and unwieldy, we can collapse it by default. —Gazoth (talk) 18:27, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Gazoth I suspect the table will get big with more tests to come and we will have to collapse it. We can add major milestones but we will have to be careful with what qualifies as a major milestone. An alternative would be to mention them in the variants section. For example, the first test of the ALCM can be mentioned in the BrahMosA section. This will eliminate the need for a milestone section add relevant information for different variants.

Discussion on new Range of 500 km

[edit]

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)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.brahmos.com/pressRelease.php?id=88

"fastest supersonic cruise missile in the world"

[edit]

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)[reply]

Addition of recent incident of "accidental" firing of the missile on 09-March-2022

[edit]

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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Update: I have edited this on the article, I have not removed it completely, but I have just written that it is unconfirmed whether it was Brahmos, but sources say it was. I will edit it once updates come out from official sources and more light is shed on the matter Rahilmohd0220 (talk) 15:23, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good work.— Vaibhavafro 💬 06:58, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Pinpoint accuracy"

[edit]

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

Carbon1674 (talk) 06:00, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:BrahMos&oldid=1230654437"