I know, I'm not a drawing artist
Anyhow, the reversed triange is a ship. The big curve is the earth, the red markers are your radar beam (of which the angle is depending from the transmitter) and the black short lines are a missile.
As you can see at the long range, the low flying missile is not yet within the beam, the higher flying ones.
Once past the radar horizon the low flyer gets within the beam too and stays in the beam, no matter how low it flies. So Brahmos has the advantage that it would travel the distance from the ship to its radar horizon in a much shorter time than the Exocet but the Exocet has in this case a longer range (and is much less expensive and much smaller and lighter)
It mostly depends on how much trouble and at which ranges the ship's radar has with sea clutter. Because that's where the missile might disappear into. (mainly for short ranges from the ship in normal conditions nearly inexistent).
The eye is not as good as the radar when it comes to that as it doesn't have a physical touch with the target, it only relies on the light the target reflects into your eye. The radar has its own beam to make sure something will return. There it depends on pulse length, background scatter suppression, strength of the radar signal (gain) frequency etc.

using Exocet as an anti-Brahmos missile???? I didn't mean that. Would be funny though, I guess the chances would be nearly 0 to have a hit though.

Didn't know you were still alive Brute, how're you doing?

Neptune,

Thanks for the drawing and explanation. AN/SPQ-9B type radars can indeed detect the sea skimmers.

But again, at 35 kms away and at 3 mach, what would be the reaction time for the ship?

Neptune, you post at key pub? I left it because of SOC.

Added Later,

If I remember correctly, we discussed Krusk drowning in Key Forum, right?

I left because of Indians and Chinese.

35km gives 36seconds reaction time. Enough for most systems.

Dites les francophones ... un edit avec la version Française pour les puriste serait bine aussi hein ... aider notre ami CHACKO (qui discute en anglais pour sa facilite est bien ) mais qu'on puisse aussi discuter dans les deux langue pour nous alors

on est une bonne partie qui savont +/- traduire , mais pas tous hein

alors un QUOTE avec soit l'anglais ou le francais ... c'tes pas un luxe

J'ai déjà des problèmes avec le français, mais quand ça vient si technique comme l'opération d'un radar, j'ai vraiment beaucoup de problèmes. Je pense qu'il y a certainement une personne ici qui peux la traduire pour nous sans fautes. Quand je dois essayer ça....
Mes excuses!

Je sais des manoeuvres evasives, c'est comme le Moskit. Les SAMs avec une tête active peut intervenir ça. Avec de l'onde continus (continuous wave) ils ont moins besoin d'une prédiction du movement du but.

En meme temps, faire des zigzags avec un engins qui vole a mach 3+...
Bonjour l'inertie.

Saturation is indeed the word. But brahmos will not come in single units. There will be multiple strikes by Brahmos. I don't know if any mature navy will rely on single salvo against a well defended target. They would be multiple Brahmos....

ET la raison d'etre des systemes comme l'Aegis ou les equivalents europeens, c'est de se proteger contre les attaques de saturation multi-axes.

What are the present and future european equivalents to Ageis?

Principalement APAR, EMPAR et Sampson.

ce sont des Radars François, Aegis est un système de combat.
PAAMS est la système je pense.
Le APAR est un radar de guidage, accompanie par le Smart-L. L'Aegis a troix illuminateurs dans la rôle d'APAR et le SPY-1 dans la même role du Smart-L.