JonSOh and you say that the Russians love you better when it comes to buying the better weapons? Doesn’t change one fact, that China is already building ships with the RIF-M.
It is bit early to talk about barak-2 anyway as i already mentioned rif-m has many vunerabilities…
What a joke. Compared to the IN, the PLAN has much deeper funds. If your IN is ultrapragmatic, why are they buying a loser of a carrier derelict? You don’t have enough ships to provide a proper battle group, your ASW got serious holes. For the cost, you can only deploy a small number of fairly short ranged but overpriced fighters. Don’t forget, that China did acquire two of carriers of the same class, studied it, evaluated their potential, and finally concluded they were better off as theme parks.
Get your facts right before you spit out more BS you are making yourself look like a joke, minsk is not in the same class as Baku/Gorshkov. And second of all minsk was sent to the scrapyard it was not much of operational vessel even china couldnt have turn into much of operational vessel even if it desired. Anyway fyi india did scrap kiev (the first in class) so i dont understand what your point is a vessel sent to the scrapyard is good enough to be operational because you say so right. Gorshkov was very much operational carrier, russians were still maintaining that vessel while it laid in shipyard unlike minsk or kuznetsov even if IN hadnt purchased russian were planning to turn it into rotrary wing carrier, either way its stop gap measure till ADS is completed which should be launched in couple years.
ASW got serious holes w/e more statement with little or no credible facts typical crobato.. Layered AAW systems that gorshkov itself has should far better than what any PLAN or IN vessel has so its not push over by anyways. As for battle group IN is procuring 13 surface combatants in the next 4 years thats more than enough to protect Gorshkov dont you think :rolleyes:
JonSAnother interesting info in the article. Are they looking @ developing shorter & longer range ones?
But the rumours of the 1000+km range brahmos is going on since its induction.
Looks like a longer one..
As for brahmos earliar info were just speculative based on what people were posting on internet (like me 🙂 ) no actual statement from high ranking official. Some even said it will different variant all together, while this mentions that range improvement can be applied to exsisting versions (e.g: software upgrade).
JonSit seems like they wanted to validate its penetration capability i believe similar photos were shown in IMDS? Anyway
Agni III ready for launch: DRDO
On the Missile devlopment programme, Secretary Natarajan said defence scientists were also working on developing a 1,000 KM range surface-to-surface supersonic cruise missile by enhancing capabilities of the already deployed Indo-Russian Brahmos Missile.
confirms what i speculated its range can be extended for land attack purpose (i mentioned 700 km) but i am suprised he was so forth coming with this info. Considering how much brahmos co officials were refusing to divulge to keep it in compliance with MTCR. Wonder if babur has changed government’s stand on this.
JonSThe FOV problem isn’t going to be all that big of an issue. Besides, TOMB STONE isn’t finding targets, all it does is guide the missiles. And as for TVM, that has nothing to do with anything. Technically the 5V55 and 48N6 missiles use either Command Guidance (the original 5V55K), or Seeker Aided Ground Guidance (all the rest).
FoV was always mentioned as drawback when people are talking about slava which also has 1 FCR i dont see how it cant be big issue. Tombstone has to track the target and the missile correct and compare that data with data from missile’s track, use that to adjust the missile’s flight path. Advantage of SAR as opposed to other guidance methods is that it doesnt need large FCR to track the targets and guide the missile, all it requires is tracking radar for mid course guidance and an illuminator to illuminate the missile in its terminal phase.
JonSThe only ship in the world with the Rif-M, Russia’s Kirov-class Pyotr Veliky, does have this problem. Why? Because only one of the two TOP DOMEs was replaced with the proper TOMB STONE guidance radar. Besides, you’re talking about a problem shared by any naval SAM system: in order to get the coverage you want, you need enough radar arrays to see everywhere, constantly. Why do you think Shtil uses so many guidance radars?
You need two tombstone to cover 360 degrees, the field of view of one tombstone is blocked by the structure on 052C. As for naval sam system thats advantage of using SAR vs TvM (think there was topic on patroit vs sm-2 a while back) former doesnt require a large FCR.
Minimum range is 5 km. And the system has no issues with picking off AShMs. Range against a target at 10 meters altitude is given as 23 km. If I had to speculate I’d assume that’s becuase of the positioning of the guidance radar array. And yes, layered SAM defenses are always intelligent.
5 km is pretty significant since most FCR radar cant track ashm missile till about 12-15 km from the vessel doesnt give you much breathing room if you factor in reaction time. I think its one of the reason why barak was fitted in since shtil performance was lacking against ashm. As for guidance radar affecting the altitude, dont think could be the ability of SAMs seeker to track targets thru sea clutter or may be its manuverability at low altitude who knows. Keep in mind it wasnt exactly designed for this purpose.
JonSYou know what is the Barak? It is a point defense missile. You know, like really really short range. 5km to 10km tops? You know what is the Shtil? Something like 50km tops?
The S-300 is a long range whooper of a missle that can cover 150km to 200km.
Well the Rif-m has many flaws guidance wise its operational azimuth is limited to <180 degrees granted if you 1 FCR which is pretty significant and also the all incoming targets have to be within FCR field of view so if you two targets coming from different locations it wont be able to intercept one of the two. Also the size limits the number of missiles that can be carried and ofcourse places operational constraints on the vessel (i.e 052c doesnt have hanger etc). It has very high minimum range some where like 7 km if IIRC which limits its ability to intercept ashm.
So unless you can pack in another SAM system to make up for Rif shortfalls like IN did with shtil and barak i will definetly choose the later. Anyway the two configuration are far two different parameters vessel like 052c will be very little use, IN vessel are more gear towards multipurpose with point defense/limited area AAW defense to protect the carrier where as PLAN vessel are geared towards AAW to provide air cover during an invasion on RoC.
These days large SAM are more or less obsolete (SM-2,RIF) in post cold war era naval SAM devolopment these days are more geared towards medium SAMs (aster,essm,vl-shtil,vl-mica, barak-2 etc) which are far more manuverable allowing them to engage ashm’s when needed, while being easiar to maintain and carry and can offer some area defense. Larger SAMs will be more geared towards ABM in the future IMO.
JonSSHar story looks bit odd since IN already ruled buying any more sea harriers.
maybe 8 is all that india needs to maintain training and the viraat airwing for a while.
meantime, maybe move on IN’s first AAW system. hopefully barak-1 can be multiple
packed into barak2 cells.
quad or multi pack barak and barak 2 will be little tricky since they are very different guidance wise its not the same thing as ESSM and SM-2. Even if it can be done number of barak that can be fired will still limited to number of stgrs there are.
JonSU are discounting the fact that yakhont was already produced, while brahmos was improved version of it, while if this 5 gen co-deveolpment is going ahead, then India will pay for half the R&D[minimum or even more]. And it will be better than any other [though not in yank league] than any 4-4.5 gen AC. So how will India let its arch rival get its hand on the jet.
Onyk was never produced it was in product testing phase (not even in user trials)
JonSI read on another forum that India is offered ex-RN Harriers.. any news about what specs ?
it was reported in recent news article about india selling an aircraft to myanmar and UK rejecting it. I think its DDM at work again, since the Shar procurment hasnt been report by anyone else.
JonSI am really lost on why Russia would want a side-by-side seating Flanker. The Su is already a very large fighter with a big radome. You don’t see Boeing doing the same with the F-15E/K…………….. :confused:
reason for Su-33ub is supposedly is because tandem variant has limited visibility for carrier operations.
Flanker_man, if what you say is correct Su-33ub can carry only around 3.8 tons payload with max fuel when operating from a carrier?
JonSTrue , But the Ramjet of 70’s and the Ramjet of 90’s would definately been more evolved and refined.
The Kub was a fantastic missile , The only draw back it had was its Sur/FC radar was jammed more often than not
Wisepanda the P-28 dosent uses a PESA but a radar derived from the Long Range Sur Radar for Akash , IIRC its based on Planar Antenna
As far as speed of Akash system goes depending on where you refer from the speed figures I have seen varies from M2.5 ~ M3.5 , Janes IIRC had quoted it as M3.5
The ramjet in akash is deririved from SA-6 which is 60s design, akash while it has upgraded radar it still relies on command guidance similar to SA-6. Which limits its range and makes it vunerable to anti radiation missile. Back to SA-6, it supposedly had max range of over 50km but was limited by the guidance radar according to the israeli pilots. The reason russians dropped it was because it was expensive to manufacture and maintain and had altitude/manuverability limits, the russians replaced it with solid prop based SA-6 which had inferior range to the orginal variant.
On the topic Buk/Grizzly, it uses SAR it will be far more difficult to jam or disable compared to akash since the FC radar wont be initiated till the terminal phase of the missile.
Anyway is there way to eliminate the smoke trial in solid propellant based missiles ?
Edit
but a radar derived from the Long Range Sur Radar for Akash , IIRC its based on Planar Antenna
its the 3D Car and yes its a planar array similar to fregat.
JonSwhat is the ACs empty weight? Has there been any improvement in ACs frame such as strengthening the landing gear compared to Su-33?
JonSAre you joking…?Since when does the number of the people on board make the difference?I think that the electronics is something that we should pay more attention to determine which awacs system is better (i am not saying that Phalcon is less capable from the Eriey…i am suggesting that if you don’t have accurate data for the electronics you can’t really compare any AWACS system,so any talk should only have to do with the platforms..)
Kid first of all atleast bother to do some googling if you dont have any clue what you are talking, let put it this if there is room and console for only 3 operator dont you think its capability is far inferior to aircraft with 10 operators? Not saying thats what these aircraft have since i dont have data on those platforms right know.
JonSArgentina did not have AEGIS to deal with.
Regarding the radar horizon issue, you have a point, but I’ll have to figure out the distances. I want to say it’s going ot be around 200 km but I have no idea if that’s even remotely close or not just yet.
sea dart wasnt so bad as for the radar horizon for low flying aircraft is roughly around 40 km give or take a few based on mast height and radar frequency, so Su-24 should be able to detect the aegis ddg as well granted it has a decent radar which i dont have much info about.
JonSJust how low is your Iranian Su-24 flying?
70-100 ft similar to what the argentinians pulled of with their mirage’s in the falklands.
Sign In
