Project-15 Spec & Indian Naval Programme

I wonder wtf this is about ? must be for the 3 new LSTs ordered.

Hi dude , this is Indeed for the 3 new 5,700 tons Landing Ships tanks (LST) to be built by GRSE . On another note the new CNS has recently said in a press interview carried by “The Free Press Journal” Mumbai edition , that the IN is also buying new hovercraft for a amphibious force being raised , Some time back there was talk about the Russian Murena hovercraft being looked by the navy for the amphibious force , are any other westen hovercraft being looked into , recently the Indian coast guard commisioned 6
Griffon , are any other western or Russian craft being looked in to besides what has been mentioned above

I wonder wtf this is about ? must be for the 3 new LSTs ordered.

CAE’s marine division signs contracts worth $19 million

MONTREAL, Aug. 2 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ – (NYSE: CGT; TSX: CAE) – CAE has
signed new contracts to provide integrated bridge systems (IBSs) for the
United Arab Emirates’ Baynunah-class corvettes, and a land-based test facility
for the German navy’s F-124-class frigates.
CAE has also signed a contract amendment for the Indian navy’s landing ship program and finalized the contract for the German navy’s K130 corvette program.

The third Russian-made stealth warship “INS Tabar” was inducted into the Indian Navy on Saturday, thereby completing the trilogy of missile-capable frigates for the force.

The Russian SA-N-11 Grison is the basic navalised 9M311 missile. The 9M311-1ME is I would assume a slightly improved version, possibly with better range. Perhaps based on the improved 57E6-E missile which is used by the Pantsir-S1. I am not 100% sure. I don’t think this missile will be used in the VLS module.

9M311-1ME is the 10 km ranged variant of 9M311 missile its part of the upgraded kashtan-m1 system, the same missile is used in tunguska-m1. I believe the russian corvette under construction will be first vessel to be fitted with it. Anyway blackcat was probably referring to SA-11/17 not SA-N-11 when he was talking about vls.

The article states the use of 9M38M1 in the VLS, and this at first got me confused too. However, the guys here state that it will be the 9M317, and NOT the 9M38 used on the P15A. The 9M38 family is SA-N-7 Gadfly, or the navalised SA-11. While the 9M317 is the SA-N-12 Grizzly, or the navalised SA-17.

they probably got the missile designations confused.

I am unable to fanthom why having a single AAA/SAM system allows for better coordination between missile and AAA?

because CIWS systems operate autonomously when there is multiple inbound targets the missile system and AAA could be engaging the same target.

see what works better seperate SAM and seperate AAA mounts or a gun/missile combo

u cant compare a vessel equipped with single CIWS system like goalkeeper and a SAM system like RAM with a single kashtan for starters their total cost and deck space is equivalent to two kashtans and u can fit in two of those in their place. In that case the latter is far superior.

all RU systems have been cold launch so far. even the
gigantic 48t Topol-M system.

And guys have u concluded as to what the missile the VLS may have?? And pls clear my doubts abt all those missile designation am getting confused

I have a doubt, if the 9m317 (sa-n-12) that may be the one used on the P-15A?? or the same Sa-n-11 will be used. But do u guys think that if the Sa-n-11 is used in the VLS mode, it will get a booster like what the SM-3 has got ??? …. And if adding that booster will increase its range from the current 45 kms. But that said I guess the author of that article too has got confused with the missile and its range.

Blackcat,

From the article:

7 ) For Area Air defence Russias Altair Naval Radio Electronics Scientific Research Institute has developed VERTICAL LAUNCHED (VLS) of its well proven ****il-1 system, The new suite for P-15A DDG will comprise four 12 misssile SUB-DECK CELLULAR LAUNCHERS, with two launchers each being mounted fore and aft of the vessel , The 9M38M1 Cashmere SAM, is armed with 70kg HE warhead, has max speed of Mach-3(830 m/s) and can manoeure up to 20g, The missile can handle airborne targets travelling at 420 to 830 m/s, The reaction time is 16-19 seconds and kill percentage is 81 to 96 precent for a two missile salvo, Engagement range against Aircraft are 3 to 32 Km with altitudes from 15 metres to 15 Km, Ranges against incoming ASCM are 3.5 km to 12 km with altitudes from 10 metres to 10km.

8 ) For CIWS each DDG will be equipped with 2 Kashtan-M combined gun/missile system, Eack Kashtan-M comprises eight 9M311-1ME SAMs with jettiisonable boosters and two 30mm AO-18KD six barrel gatling gun with a combined rate of fire of 10,000 rounds per minute. Each system will store 28 SAMS and 1,000 rounds of 30mm rounds in an under-deck room directly under the combat module. The 9M311-1ME SAM can engage sea skimming targets between an envelope of 1.5Km and 10Km, while gun can engage targets between 500 metres and 4 km, ,FC is provided by both radar as well as an optronic Tracker/illuminator.

The Russian SA-N-11 Grison is the basic navalised 9M311 missile. The 9M311-1ME is I would assume a slightly improved version, possibly with better range. Perhaps based on the improved 57E6-E missile which is used by the Pantsir-S1. I am not 100% sure. I don’t think this missile will be used in the VLS module.

The article states the use of 9M38M1 in the VLS, and this at first got me confused too. However, the guys here state that it will be the 9M317, and NOT the 9M38 used on the P15A. The 9M38 family is SA-N-7 Gadfly, or the navalised SA-11. While the 9M317 is the SA-N-12 Grizzly, or the navalised SA-17.

Another question. Will this VLS be a cold launch or hot launch type?

but don u think that the top weight will relieve the lower decks and that 18 sqm of space can be utilized for maybe a few more days at sea ??

Blackcat,

oh, OK then, point taken. I’m way out of my league arguing with an seasoned naval expert like you anyway.

thats bit redundant question the solution is pretty obvious a single AAA/SAM system is cheaper and takes up less space, better coordination between missile and AAA.

JonS,

You dont seem to gave got my last sentence. I repeat “The other argument was also about the efficacy of two separate SAM systems for the single PDMS mission rather than a single missile solution.”

As you can see from my previous posts I am unconvinced that a combination gun/missile on a single mount is a ideal solution.

I am unable to fanthom why having a single AAA/SAM system allows for better coordination between missile and AAA?

assuming u have 2 guidance radars for sea wolf and both the targets come in two different hemispheres.

Obviously. To make sure you are comparing apples to apples you would have to compare similar missile systems. For example, I could argue engagement capability with VL Mica or RAM which is only limited by launch rate and mount swivel rate (for the latter), but that would hardly be fair would it? Select any SAM and AAA – see what works better seperate SAM and seperate AAA mounts or a gun/missile combo. My contention is that the first is a superior solution and latter is inherently less capable although cheaper as it shares sensors.

what do u mean u mean how high helo needs to fly inorder to look over the horizon?

No, I mean a shadowing helo cant run and hide behind the horizon (as in the case when SARH missiles are fired at it). A ARH/IIR missile can be guided to the horizon behind which the OTHT helo is taking cover. Since these weapons are capable of lock after launch and have a good seeker range, they will be in position to acquire the helo.

The other argument was also about the efficacy of two separate SAM systems for the single PDMS mission rather than a single missile solution.

thats bit redundant question the solution is pretty obvious a single AAA/SAM system is cheaper and takes up less space, better coordination between missile and AAA.

So there is a 50% improvement right there.

assuming u have 2 guidance radars for sea wolf and both the targets come in two different hemispheres.

JonS,

How far will an OTHT helo who is hanging around the horizon run?

what do u mean u mean how high helo needs to fly inorder to look over the horizon?

There was no Kashtan on the Gorshkov but Kashtan is the standard for their newer Corvettes, which are going to be their mainstay coz they found (?) it to be more suitable for making the under deck more utilizing.

The reason why the russians are fitting kashtan into the newer corvettes as their primiary air defense system its because its cheaper and is supposed to temporary armament. Russia reportedly wants yakhont missiles VLS to be fitted onto were the kashtan is and tor is likely to be fitted amidship along with 2 ak-630.

And guys have u concluded as to what the missile the VLS may have?? And pls clear my doubts abt all those missile designation am getting confused

I have a doubt, if the 9m317 (sa-n-12) that may be the one used on the P-15A?? or the same Sa-n-11 will be used. But do u guys think that if the Sa-n-11 is used in the VLS mode, it will get a booster like what the SM-3 has got ??? …. And if adding that booster will increase its range from the current 45 kms. But that said I guess the author of that article too has got confused with the missile and its range.

Could you repeat that please?

I meant the show of ‘teeth’ by the destroyers to get out of trouble when engaged or in case such a scenario arise … and in most cases if the other person get that if he too will get hurt in the process, if not fall, then probably its wud be ‘minding ones own business’ …

Actually in general USN ships are better equipped for multirole missions than are IN ships.

yes I don have any doubt abt that , and that’s y I said the all the newer ships that’s being built and those already inducted are underutilized, coz the ‘limiting’ have been the tonnage, w/o even considering (?) how much more that design cud accommodate VLS. See for instance, the AB class of the USN and the Delhi class of IN, AB is much smaller than the Delhi but displaces like 3,000 tonn more than delhi, coz they know to utilize the max out of the available space. I do agree that the AB don have the kind of hanger and helo capacity that Delhi enjoys (which I consider as an invaluable standard) but taking a look ate the P-17 and Talwar will tell that the island on which the VLS has been based cuz have accommodated more if the island has been expanded, if the limiting one has not been the tonnage. And I want the Indian naval designers to come out of that mentality. Say for instance, I thing there can be stuffed 64 VLS (for the Klub family) in the front part of the ship taking the space of the AD missile too. Which means that with that kind of space, the smaller VLS meant for the AD missiles can be placed in that enlarged Island by replacing 32 VLS meant for Klub missiles. This can be divided like – 32 missiles (32 cell) of the Klub family and 64 missiles (smaller cells than that of Klub) of the Sa-n-11. I’m taking the quantity of the AD missiles to be double that of the Klub considering the sizes, though I may be wrong on both counts. But that’s my personal opinion based on my observations.

Why do you have such a large number of missiles and CIWS? To deal with saturation attacks. A gun missile complex sharing the FCS will engage half the number of targets an independent PDMS and AAA will engage.

now thats is not a fair question and i have answered it above….. and in short sentence, just coz carying extra always will come at hand in the hour of need .

Now the Gun-missile complex is a single unit and the other one are two different units. As I earlier pointed out the gun is ‘watching’ the same target at the same time as the missile is engaging them with the same brain and body and in the other case its two different body and brain. Also as Jon said, the minimum range of the missiles has its limits, which ever it maybe. But a gun always give the final hope! And I say its just insane to think that any missile wud give a 100% satisfaction and by saying that Russian system will always fail in tune with the well know Russian misfortune and western system just coz western will always be right don do well. After all the final lap of the engagement in case of the missile comes to the seeker and the maneuverability of the AD missile than anything else.

The costs I am talking about are more than the mere monetary.

yup and Russian system will cost less coz of the devalued Ruble coz they trade in dollars where by always having an edge. Where as if they have been trading in Rubles, there amount will be far less which will not help with profits which are badly needed for revitalizing their industries and that’s what exactly what Russia have been doing ever since the Boris Yeltsin learnt the hard lesson of believing the west for granted. Now the Israeli Barak cost like $700 + million for 7 systems?? …. If am not wrong …. So that makes it nearly $100million per piece of 1/3 of what a non-nuclear western submarine cost now. I don know how much the Kashtan cost, but I’ll guess it is less than that.

That would be because DRDO kept promising a comparable system to the IN ‘in the immediate future’ but failed to deliver it, repeatedly. Are you suggesting that the IN should not give preference to local produce?

Yup there was fault with DRDO, and I’d say they did not choose the partner right or did not really get anything from the collaboration coz , if am not wrong the teething problem was acquisition of the target than anything else, and for that a good seeker is what’s needed. And I’ve heard many Indian’s yelling at Russia and drooling abt the Isreali cooperation that they provided for the Trishul and that a Trishul-II is in the making etc etc, really forgetting the fact that, it was the western media that was as always beating up the failures of the Trishul, and I’ve not seen any company from Russia sprinkling salt on the wounds as was without the knowledge of the Israeli’s. But Trishul was spared the beating after finally the Barak was signed. Well am a big supported of the indigenous industry and system, but not like the guys who have been doing that just for keeping Russia out, but they prefer the western systems over the same Indian system they choose earlier and that’s pity.

The Viraat has a 29000 ton displacement. The Gorshkov’s displacement is around 45000 tons.

but Viraat has got a small island and that’s not the case with Gorshkov where its Island is large and also not to the extremes of the deck coz of which precious space has been lost. If I’d my way, I’d have cleaned up that Island and rebuilt another one to the extremes of the deck — but that’s not anyway gonna happen, so I hope the available deck is properly utilized.

Putting Brahmos on the Vikramaditya seems to be quite a funny thing to do as we are paying mumble-hundred million dollars to the russians to throw away the existing missiles. And your suggestion that the carrier have to self defense system is quite revolutionary, but I suspect it will find no takers.

regarding missiles on Gorshkov: much of the design data and drawing available are conjectural. It is premature to critique weapon placement at this stage.

Space spent of PDMS is well spent, even if at the cost of some parking space.

Gorshkov will not carry the Brahmos. One can safety take that to the bank.

Frankly I’d have liked to see it named as INS Gorshkov, as that Gorshkov has now become almost a household name in India, and also that person as such also had his contribution to the Indian Navy which many wud be there to argue against. Vikramaditya is the media created name coz they got to know that it wont be named Vikrant, so they choose a name which had some similarity to that. The Indian Navy don have the Tradition of naming their ships on any persons name – God spare that some day I might not have to hear INS Manmohan, Sonia or any other, but INS Subhash, Patel or any other wud be fine – Tthe only exception being the one named after the South Indian Admiral of the Fleet (Zamorian’s) who fought against the British. I don know if any ship has been named after the only other Admiral of the Fleet in the Indian history who fought sea-battles against the British – Maratha Admiral.

Well tks , if u really considerd that self-defence to be revolutionary, but I don see y that cant be done as , from the models displayed and figures that u se above the 2-Kashtan’s can be seen on that upgrade model. But u can be sure abt the Kashtan as it has been shown where it will be placed on the ship.

At significant cost in top weight.

but don u think that the top weight will relieve the lower decks and that 18 sqm of space can be utilized for maybe a few more days at sea ??

Flipping over is only a part of the trick, does it have sufficient energy to after flipping over to intercept a supersonic maneuvering target? Or does it need it need to accelerate for precious seconds till it builds up the requiste energy? The picture tells us nothing of that.

well I don know whats the energy the various missiles have, maybe after comparing that it wud be fine to judge the ‘lack’ of intercept energy. BTW, I guess no western navies has got any supersonic anti-ship missiles.

Yes from the picture the thing that I got is that the full concentration is to wards that side, as the rear artillery is also ready for action.

tuollaf43,

Yeah i do agree to what u said abt the artillery, but that Italian one was there in case of India which also got itself exposed in the bofors, how much anyone may try to distort the fact in the courts and others, there definitely was one black hand … but i’d like to pus that gun to rest now

Regarding CIWS: At the end of the day Sea Wolf, RAM, Barak each do the job that requires a combination of klinok/Kortik. A Russian ship that missed with the klinok will follow up with a kortik, a western one will follow up a SeaWolf with another SeaWolf. Which is simpler?

Well I think ur still basing that coz the Russian ships have Klinok and Kashtan. In the case of IN’s new ships u can take that as Kashtan only, but with the added firepower of the guns too that comes with it still in terms of overall missile load (medium and short combined), I consider it to be small. As for the order that u mentioned, yes for u I simplified that in case the Klinok missed or expended itself – both of which are least likely considering the western AShM – the Kashtan will follow up with the gun still reserving itself. But I’m really surprised at ur conviction in the problems that u mentioned which first was the flipping and intercept energy and now taking the example that I made to put the reason behind the use of both, which was basically – as far as I cud get – to have the maximum AD load at their disposal in the time of crisis, coz of no carrier cover. Now u consider that as a definite miss with “ Russian ships will follow with a Kashtan, where as the western one will follow with another Seawolf” … that’s very insane, I sud say.

Unfortunately you are wrong in this particular instance. See Udaloy-2 destroyer and the Neustrashimy frigate. The constrait on fitting the Kashtan on russian warships seems to be primarily cost related.

So are u telling that Kashtan is too costly for the Russians??… but actually Kashtan is a new system and the reason y it did not find its way on the earlier ships, but wud definitely get them if the Russian navy goes in for major upgrades for improving its defensive systems. There was no Kashtan on the Gorshkov but Kashtan is the standard for their newer Corvettes, which are going to be their mainstay coz they found (?) it to be more suitable for making the under deck more utilizing. Again ur just basing ur opinion of urs coz the same ships carries both missiles. It can be coz of what I mentioned, that they wanted to have the maximum number of missiles for the self defence of the ships coz of which they carry whatever they have at their disposal considering the very fact that unlike the USN, they don have any carrier to come in for rescue of their capitol ships from an air-raid or from a group. So what they did was stuffed whatever they cud by digging the decks (Klinok) and when that was filled, made use of the available spaces on the superstructure for furthering the AD missiles in the form of another system (Kashtan).

This in turn (combo) gives them a very good AD missile load and Air defence capability and can depend on their missile load and that becomes a necessity if carriers are not there not to provide security. Here are some of the missile loads where the Klinok, Kashtan and the combo as such has found it’s way on the ships.

448 (192 Klinok + 256 Kashtan) x PADM on the Kuznetsov (and probably the largest that any ship carry);
320 (128 Klinok + 192 Kashtan) x PADM on the Kirov class (excluding the long range 96);
192 (192 Klinok) x PADM on Gorshkov (when it was in service);
128 (64 Klinok + 64 Kashtan) x PADM on the Udaloy-II class;
64 (64 Klinok) x PADM on Udaloy (and hopefully during upgrade if the capacity has to be increased, it will be with the addition of Kashtan, is what I believe);
96 (32 Klinok + 64 Kashtan) x PADM on Neustrashimyy and
96 (32 Klinok + 64 Kashtan) x PADM on Kosar (a modified version of the above)

And so do I consider the presence of these two-missile systems on Russian – capitol – ships as to augment their missile load to have enough at their disposal in the time of crisis. And that’s coz of the above-mentioned need to protect itself.

There is the pic of the Neustrashimyy class below, from that it can be seen how much actually there is available space on the deck for ‘digging’ except for the very small one in the front, where Klinok has anchored itself. And the only other ‘vacant’ space can be seen occupied by the Kashtan, not it wud be very insane if some one asked the Klinok too cud have installed there. But the fact is that these two systems have different kinds of reloading with – one fed from the deck and the other underneath the deck, the only similarity maybe that, the feeding guys may often be on the same level of the deck feeing these two.

from dailytimes.com.pk – more confirmation that fincantieri is it.

Indian Navy to get another aircraft carrier

WASHINGTON: An Italian shipbuilding company has signed two agreements with the Cochin Shipyard in India for the construction of a new aircraft carrier for the Indian Navy.

According to state-owned Fincantieri SpA, it will assess the Indian ship’s design and will be responsible for its “propulsion system integration,” while also supplying the engineering and design for the ship’s ancillary propulsion systems and main plants.

Unlisted Fincantieri did not disclose the details of the deal. India’s planned 38,000-tonne Air Defence Ship will be one of the largest aircraft carriers in service with conventional propulsion based on 4 GE LM 2500 gas turbines. khalid hasan

from the Fincantieri website the Cavour is as long but less wide
so its weight is much less.

Length overall 244.0 m
Length between perpendiculars 215.6 m
Breadth moulded 39.0 m
Full load displacement 27,100 tonnes
Flight deck 232.6 x 34.5 m
Hangar 134.2 x 21.0 m
H.T. steel hull and superstructures
Stability and buoyancy according to Italian Navy std.
NBC protection
Shock protection of vital equipment
Low underwater radiated noise signature control
Aviation facilities for fixed-wing aircraft AV-8B Harrier and JSF and helicopters EH101, AB212, NH 90, SH3D
GE/FIAT LM2500 Gas Turbines (COGAG)
Maximum Continuous Power 4 x 22 MW
Fincantieri Feathering C.P. propellers 2
Max. Sustained speed (85% MCR) 28 knots
Range at 16 knots 7,000 n.m.

AUXILIARY SYSTEMS

6 Generating sets Wartsila CW 12V200 2200 kW each

2 shaft Generators 2200 kW each

Primary power 660V – 50 Hz through passive distribution ring

2 Rudders

HVAC in all living and operational spaces

6 reverse osmosis desalinators (70 t/day each)

2 couples active-fin stabilizers

Bow and stern thruster

Stern and side ramp

2 aircraft lifts (forward and stb. Aft)

4 landing crafts (LCVP)

CREW

Flag Officers and VIP’s 5
Ship’s Complement 451
Amphibious Command Task Force 140
Aircrew 203
Troops 325 + 91
Total 1,210 + 91

COMBAT SYSTEM
Sensors:

1 2DA/Su Surveillance radar

1 3D Multifunctional radar

1 2D Long range surveillance radar

1 Navigation radar

Navigation/Metereological sensors

1 Navigation/mine avoidance sonar

1 ESM system

Anti-torpedo towed array sonar

2 Radar/EO Fire Control System

2 IFF Systems

1 IR survellaillance System

C3:

Command Management System

Navigation & Metoc System

Integrated Int./Ext. Comm System

Integrated EW System

Weapons:

2 short range defence system

3 secondary caliber guns

4 (8-cells) SAM Vertical launchers

2 ECM transmitter units

2 rockets and flares launchers

2 Anti Torpedo decoy launchers

excerpts from a latest DefenceNews article (note sometimes their news is a bit dated)

Italian Company To Design India’s Third Carrier
By VIVEK RAGHUVANSHI, NEW DELHI

The Indian Navy’s aircraft carrier project, the Air Defense Ship (ADS),
has
taken a leap forward with the Defence Ministry’s award of a $30 million
contract to Fincantieri’s Naval Vessel Business Unit to help
prepareconcept,
design and implementation plans.

The Genoa, Italy-based firm also will build and integrate the
propulsion
systems for the vessel, a Navy official said.

The Defence Ministry also considered bids by DCN International, Paris, and Izar Construcciones Navales, Madrid.
…….
Many other parts, including the hull and the landing deck, will be
built by
Mumbai-based Larsen & Toubru, the official said.

……..
Fincantieri’s design and construction of the Italian Navy’s Cavour
carrier
tipped the scales in favor of the Italian shipyard, the official said.

The ADS is expected to be of similar shape and weight, displacing
40,000
metric tons and measuring 57 meters wide and 252 meters long. Its top
speed
will be 32 knots. It will carry 1,200 sailors and 18 combat aircraft,
including Sea Harrier jump jets and MiG-29K fighters, and 10 Advanced
Light
Helicopters.
……
The vessel will be powered by four General Electric LM 2500 gas
turbines
built by Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd., Bangalore.

….
The Navy in January signed a long-delayed deal with Russia to purchase
16
MiG-29K aircraft, worth $750 million, for the Admiral Gorshkov.

I have a PDF copy of a detailed article on P17 from Naval Forces 6/2003 magazine. If any of you want to read it, send a PM to me with email address.

Due to copyright it cannot be posted here.

dont understand what u are saying u cannot just blindly fire ARH missile at a target 30 km by the time missile gets there and enters terminal phase and turns on the seeker the target wont be there u need some sort of midcourse guidance to update the location of the target.

JonS,

How far will an OTHT helo who is hanging around the horizon run?

the argument was over advantage of SAM+AAA like kashtan as opposed to just a single SAM based CIWS system.

No. The argument was over integrated Gun/Missile systems versus separately mounted and controlled gun and missile systems.

The other argument was also about the efficacy of two separate SAM systems for the single PDMS mission rather than a single missile solution.

goalkeeper as with all gun systems can intercept only 1 target at a time and sea wolf is 2 based on t-23 configuration.

So there is a 50% improvement right there.

JonS For the senario I suggested there is no need for another platform to guide the missile at all. I made no mention of any AEW.,

dont understand what u are saying u cannot just blindly fire ARH missile at a target 30 km by the time missile gets there and enters terminal phase and turns on the seeker the target wont be there u need some sort of midcourse guidance to update the location of the target.

I am completely mistified by this argument that Kashtan is necessarily better because it also has a gun system. Why cant a ship that has Barak, Seawolf or RAM also have a gun??? You know like the Saar V has Barak and Phalanx. Sachsen with RAM and RM 20mm. Or Amatola with Umkhonto and the LIW 35mm. etc

the argument was over advantage of SAM+AAA like kashtan as opposed to just a single SAM based CIWS system.

How many can Seawolf+Goalkeeper engage in the same time?

goalkeeper as with all gun systems can intercept only 1 target at a time and sea wolf is 2 based on t-23 configuration.

I think the point is Aster/SM2 are limited presently and forseeable future
to guidance by their launch platform which has a certain radar horizon say 40km LOS.

If inbound low flying a.c or ASMs below this horizon cannot be detected
by 3rd parties like AEW helos or E2 and speed, direction and height not
passed on to the launch ship, the ship itself cannot see and hence launch the Aster. It will be able to launch soon as its own radar sees the incoming.

even if the initial attack cords are passed to the ship and thence downloaded to the Aster INS , the incoming can change its dance and further updates will be needed to make sure when the seeker is turned on the missile is at the best point.

No aster cannot be guided by any other platform rather than vessel that fires it

JonS,

For the senario I suggested there is no need for another platform to guide the missile at all. I made no mention of any AEW.

Problem with missile system such as sea wolf, barak and ram is that they have min intercept range is typically around 1km+ this usually is not major concern when dealing with 1 or 2 subsonic target were u have the chance to fire to off multiple missiles but against supersonic target or saturation attacks this is of major drawback. So gun system which has no min range is great assest.

I am completely mistified by this argument that Kashtan is necessarily better because it also has a gun system. Why cant a ship that has Barak, Seawolf or RAM also have a gun??? You know like the Saar V has Barak and Phalanx. Sachsen with RAM and RM 20mm. Or Amatola with Umkhonto and the LIW 35mm. etc

Each kashtan system can intercept 2 targets at the same time they have both radar and can utilize command guidance via TV.

How many can Seawolf+Goalkeeper engage in the same time?

No reason why the missile could not be directed to the horizon whereafter the missile acquires the hidden target with its own seeker. Case I have in mind is a OTHT helo tracking you by keeping itself around the horizon and popping below it for safety from SARH SAMs. ARH/PRH/IIR SAMs could be quite useful in that case.

No aster cannot be guided by any other platform rather than vessel that fires it just like SM-2 or any other missile that uses mid course guidance. In order to pull off what ur saying the AEW most be able to track the inbound target and pass it the data to the vessel for mid course gudiance of the missiles sounds simple but its impossible pull off because AEW must have continous link with ships in order to do that and airborne platform itself must have ability connect with all the friendly vessels that are in vicnity this means u need lot of power and will require it to fly it in hi altitude this means that platform needs to be large aircraft like E-3. USN has working on mechanism like that for a quite while.

Regarding CIWS: At the end of the day Sea Wolf, RAM, Barak each do the job that requires a combination of klinok/Kortik. A Russian ship that missed with the klinok will follow up with a kortik, a western one will follow up a SeaWolf with another SeaWolf. Which is simpler?

Problem with missile system such as sea wolf, barak and ram is that they have min intercept range is typically around 1km+ this usually is not major concern when dealing with 1 or 2 subsonic target were u have the chance to fire to off multiple missiles but against supersonic target or saturation attacks this is of major drawback. So gun system which has no min range is great assest. Thats one of the reasons why orders for RAM havent exactly sky rocketed and why USN is spending $$ on metal storm based CIWS.

Why do you have such a large number of missiles and CIWS? To deal with saturation attacks. A gun missile complex sharing the FCS will engage half the number of targets an independent PDMS and AAA will engage.

Each kashtan system can intercept 2 targets at the same time they have both radar and can utilize command guidance via TV.