JonSThe Gent in question is the one who had been supporting Trishul to the hilt , and He was dissapointed that DRDO couldnt keep up to its promise , When I asked him about Trishul speed was M 4.5 ( as stated by BRF page on Trishul for a long time now changed ) he replied in negative , The source is reliable , but you are free to believe it or not.
All things being equal Higher Speed Translates to the firing Missile reaching the engagement zone faster which translates to lesser time reaching the engagement zone and further away from the defending ship.
as i said before anything thats not part of open sourced information shouldnt really be reported whether its accurate or not. As for higher speed thats a lot more than just speed when its engagement distance there is also reaction time of the system and detection time of onboard radar. Also as i said before barak speed is 720 m/s at sea level, how do you know the speed your quoting for trishul is at sea level or max ceiling?
JonSGot it from some one reliable , It can do a max speed Mach-3.3-3.5 and can pull 45 G , If baraks can why not trishul , Trishul is made of maragning steel which are capable of withstanding high stress . Again Both Trishul and Barak are point defence SAM’s , Its also a fact that Barak was developed in early 90’s and as such its main task was defeating low flying , dancing subsonic cruise missile and it does that pretty well , But as I said before intercepting a supersonic , manovering Cruise missile like Brahmos or KH-31 would be a different ball game.
What kinda source is that if you dont have any source to back it up dont suggest even if its true or not because it means squat. Its not just material of the missile its also the design of the missile when it comes to manuverability. As said before speed matter mainly against receding targets whether its supersonic or subsonic the missile still will have to go thru engagement window in order to hit the vessel. For example Sea wolf has known to intercept supersonic sea skimmers in tests along with artillery shells its speed is about the same as barak.
As for trishul i guess you are trying suggesting IN induct it even thou kashtan is avilable which’s top speed is also mach 3+?
tercepting a supersonic missile like say Sunburn with a CIWS would be a dangerous job , because even it intercepts it there are chances that the Debris from such missile would possibly hit the defending ship even if the incoming Antiship missile explodes at some distabce away from it, CIWS are always uncomfortable and more so for a supersonic AShM interception.
Thats more of a fallacy from a article written about sunburn a while back there have many discussion it proved to be incorrect assesment, its not like hollywood movie were debris are gonna fly everwhere for 200 or 300 meters. when a bullet hits the missile most likely the missile will veer ofcourse and smash into the ocean.
JonSWhere did this figure of 25 g come from? Maximum Manueverability is 45+ g and this is from official literature.
The missile is capable of engaging targets 2 m above the sea and can manoeuvre at 25 g.
JonSYou would recoken that even Trishul which has a speed of Mach-3.5+ and can pull 45G would have a better chance of intercepting a Supersonic missile.
?? were did you get those stats 45 Gs? thats sounds very unlikely even tor which is supposed to be one of best short range missiles and replaced sa-8 (whose design trishul is based on) cant pull something like that. SA-15s max g-load is 30 Gs and trishul speed your suggesting is also sounds highly dubious i never seen it quoted over mach 3. Also trishul is a bigger missile than barak especially if you take away baraks booster and components for its vertical thrusting it wont even be half its weight.
As for barak 25 Gs is decent (BR lists barak’s g at 45+ thou) thats similar a few other missiles bear in mind barak devoloped in the early 90s. Speed wasnt top priority for IAI since intercepting low level sea skimmers is the main priority and you should know that top speed of most SAM are at their ceiling limits not at sea level.
Key to supersonic missile defeat would be early detection and interception at farthest ranges and layerd defence , something like Aster .
I believe min effective range is more important lets say you detect SSM at 12 by the time aster is close to engaging it the supersonic missile will be to close to within aster 30s min range . So you still need a CIWS along with aster.
JonSnot sure about the russian ships, but the chinese 052Cs have their missile tubes fitted at an angle, meaning that the missile is propelled away from the ship. so if the engine fails to kick in, the missile should just fall into the sea.
i doubt that unless the ship is standing still even then its not possible unless the missile is ejected like 40 or 50 meters horizontally which is never the case.
JonSthe advanatge of using the cold launch method is mostly limited to naval applications. this is because with a cold launch, the warship does not need the complexted venting that a hot launch missile would require.
Pla wolf the advatages apply to land based/silo ballistic missiles as well ie peacekeeper and so on.
the downside appears to be a limit on the number of missiles that can be fitted into a given space. all russian and chinese cold launched naval missiles use a circular design cell, which takes up more space per missile compaired to the square cell based design of american hot launch missiles batteries.
Actually there are many cold launch russian missiles that are not based on rotrary drum system ie brahmos/onyks and klub. And ofcourse they had many others in devolopment.
JonSQuite effective as an hard kill option against subsonic missile like Harpoon,Exocet,Uran and against low flying aircraft , Though monuvering supersonic anti-ship missile weapon would be a different ball game.
There is more to barak than its anti-missile capability , Like its modularity which allows it to be fit in small spaces , VLS capability , Large Warhead and its ability to operate in heavy jamming condition.
It would be interesting to see how IN rates barak-1 vis-a-vis the Kashtan system, As it operates both.
its listed as being able to pull 25+ Gs so that could help intercept them, as for its performance versus kashtan it has few advantages like smaller reaction time (but russians have reduced reaction time for kashtan-m) and ofcourse things you mentioned above. IN does seem to prefer the barak over kashtan there have been rumours that P-17s will have barak instead of kashtan and # of kashtan’s in gorshkov have been reduced to 2 it seems.
JonSAnyway Himanshu here is the image i was referring to
JonSAll the Delhi Class DDG’s have been equipped with BARAK..
do you have proof are you just saying that? latest photos from indra clearly showed that mumbai doesnt have it…
Though the present ordered number of 3 is insufficient to cater both for the IAF & Navy , But if more Phalcon are ordered like 3 more , the IAF can definately spare 1 for the IN atleast for the coverage of IN CBG in an around its area of interest.
Its not like if you have 1 phalcon it stay up there 24 hrs a day 7 days a week IAF needs 5 or 6 Phalcon to maintain such a coverage and even if IN was given a phalcon its not like it can provide anymore than 6 or 7 hrs of coverage a day at the most.
Which then again is no substitute for a carrier based AWACS like E-2C , E-2C is now out of question as the navy has rejected it , Operating it from Naval Air Bases does not make sense as they might well do the same with Phalcon or DRDO AWACS.
As said before Northrop is still more or push for it because there is the still question of time when it comes DRDO AWACS.
JonSWhat makes you so sure that it will be? What’s the difference in equipment between the Delhi and the Mumbai? That might be an indicator as to the level of upgrades included within each ship during its build.
mumbai doesnt have barak or STGR but the design is little bit more cleaner/stealthier.
JonSIts highly possible that IN will loan AWACS Phalcon from the Navy for long range survillence and tracking , Its possible that IAF will go for more AWACS after the Inital 3 possibly more 3 Phalcon , along with the AEW that DRDO is developing based on the Embrarer platform should come in handy for the Navy.
But the short term option atleast for the next 5 years or so the KA-31 AEW looks like the only viable option. The numbers of KA-31 might go up from the initial 12 ordered.
IN is looking at AWACS/AEW aircrafts, i doubt IAF will loan any aircraft it barely has enough for itself when phalcon are purchased. Phalcon’s themseves might be too expensive and big for IN, a article writted a while back did mention IN as being intrested in the indigenous AWACS program also there is still the strong possibility that IN might purchase Hawkeyes and operate them off land even if its not suitable for skijump (atleast northrop is hopeful about it).
As for Ka-31 3 to 4 were ordered in the gorshkov package bringing the total to 12-13..
JonSThe forward P-20M missile cells (port and starboard) aboard INS Rajput have been replaced with two boxed launchers housing four PJ-10 (BrahMos) ASCMs. D51 serves as the trials platform for the missile. The missile has been test fired four times – 12 February 2003, 23 November 2003, 03 November 2004 and 15 April 2005 – from INS Rajput. The last test involved a moving target, which was a decommissioned vessel of the Indian Navy. The targeted ship ended up in pieces, due to the power of the missile and its kinetic energy derived from its supersonic speed.
yeah its well know your point being? photos of it have already been posted..They will undergo extensive upgrades: Baraks, Elta radar, new FC radar for the main gun (not confirmed) and brahmos.
An article in todays Times of India states that the launch of the first of the P15A ships has been postponed from Sept 18 this year to March 30 next year . Said it was due to damage to the yard due to the floods this year, lack of parking space when the ship will be launched and it mentioned design problems. Now what could the design problems be? If there is a design problem it does not argue well for a half complete ship.
it seems that superstructure will be altered to accomdate newer weapons systems, if you recall it carried lw-08 radar and ak-630s i suspect that will most likely change.
JonSTruely, a direct purchase of Su-33 from Russia would make the most sense. For all we know maybe it has………….. 😮
Well whether china goes Su-33 or J-11 either they need to tweaked with a lot more thrust because as it stands flanker performance is about 20-30% degraded in terms of the amount of load it can carry (which wasnt really a top priority from russian navy) when talkin off from Kuznetsov.
JonSso what variety of large new hovercraft should be chosen ? does france offer anything or one has to look into US and russian (aist?) lineup ?
lcac is on offer and IN has expressed intrest in murena for a while according to russian sources.
JonSOnly some 300 km missile for this huge 9000 ton strtegic nuclear submarine? I wish/pray, we may see something atleast 1500 km range Indian or Russian cruise missile.
——————————————————————————-
Wasnt there a article somewhere not a long time back that the govt has given the go ahead and released funds to fast track the Sagarika program. Looks like it will end up being a 1500-3000 km cruise missle in the end. That’s what the IN needs not an itsy-bitsy 300 km missile.
even if sagarika is close to devolopment or even undergoing trials we probably wont know about it IN is very tit lipped about it and it seems brahmos is a cover for that project. More or less it will have same subsystems as brahmos such as indigenous built VLS and so on. There are plans retrofit it onto all major surface combants starting with rajput .
Sign In
