JonSits made up for rpg purpose, i believe the person who made it is dutch they also have more down to earth LCF FFG page
http://www.kitsune.addr.com/LCF/index.html
JonSnot sure if this news is true if its wontbe suprised since boeing has been lobbying hard for it since F-16s dont have a chance of beating out M-2000s for IAF 120+ requirment. But F-18s in the otherhand does have a shot in sense politically motivated (*cough beat out the french domination in that region).
JonSI didn’t say Kashtan had anything to do with Talwar class, just that what I posted was about Kashtan-M and that there is such a thing and that it is available in 2 versions.
yeah i know we had discussion on kashtan-M a while back its somewere in missiles & munitions forum.
Good to hear more SAMs are capable of that. Notice that all missiles mentioned (Sea Wolf, Barak, ESSM) were designed specifically to deal with anti-ship missiles, and not so much with aircraft, and that these are missiles that are good enough as to not require a CIWS backing them up.
There is still limitations with those SAMs why else do u think some navies would still utlize gun based CIWS or RAM even while operating those SAMs. The limitation being that SAMs typically have lo probability of kill in minimum range and ofcourse have min range thresholds, Barak i believe has the smallest at around 500 meters, aster15/30 is around 1.7 & 3 km and data for ESSM and Sea wolf is unavailable but its far guess it probably around 1.5 km. So why does minimum range matter? not only does it determine how many targets a system a can intercept against saturation attacks it aso very important against supersonic targets. For example a supersonic SSM 800 m/s for ex. can easily close in 2 – 3 km of the t-23s b4 even b4 sea wolf has chance to intercept it (even while assuming sea wolf has 0 sec reaction time which is improbable).
So thats why need some kinda of gun based CIWS that can intercept targets in minimum range. Some vessels that lack CIWS do use artillery systems for point defense purpose as well but in the case of Duke FFG 114 mm it cant suffice that role.
JonSMy undertanding is that Kashtan-M is a modernized version of Kashtan and that Kashtan-M is available in 2 versions: the ‘regular’ one with the normal complete set of trackers, incl. radar, on top and a ‘cheap’ one with an ELOP tracker, different from the original E/O components, on top. But I may be wrong.
yeah but what it does it have to do with talwar, kashtan-m only recently around 2003 was offered for sale/export talwar was designed in 1996 so obviously it wasnt fitted with it not even the P-17 will carry kashtan-Ms the first vessel to carry it will be russian corvettes under construction or 956-EM or maybe gorshkov.
During the Falklands War, Sea Wolf could in some instances actually engage the bombs dropped by the Argentinian rather than the aircraft.
actually most SAM systems are capable of doing that, i believe barak/ESSM was even tested in trials to intercept that.
JonSI’m saying that in the context of a GP escort who’s AAW capability is designed purely for ownship defence its largely irrelevant whether that capability is a ‘heavyweight’ medium range PDMS like Shtil, SM-1 or ESSM or a lighter system like Sea Wolf, Klinok or Crotale/VT-1.
there is still lot of difference in that aspect because of no missiles shtil can intercept more incoming missiles due to larger range and speed. Also most countries dont have large stockpiles of AShM so the greatest threat is still from ACs carrying dumb munitions or short range guided missiles (maverrick) so in which case, point defense system like shtil is far better than sea wolf which proved incapable of detering the argentinian airforce from resorting to that strategy.
Certainly Jon, but, the problem is that the EDIR mount is actually up there!. The MN cant really turn around to an opponent in time of hostility and ask them not to notice their stealthy frigates because the SAM mount thats reflecting away merrily isn’t really meant to be there!!!.
Lafayette are merely patrol FFGs as i keep mentioning france will most likely sell them off to fund its FFM project so its not fair comparison. Why dont u compare them to lafayette clones such as sawari or delta class ffgs?
JonSWhen is that going to be? It’s been 9 years since the first of class was commissioned. AFAIK all La Fayettes have been fitted with Crotale. Naval Technology states “The frigates may be upgraded with the vertical launch system (VLS) and Aster 15 missile from Eurosam and associated Thales Arabel fire control radar.” Doesn’t sound very definitive to me. I’ll believe it when I see it.
yeap its currently serving merely as patrol vessels so france is no rush to fit them with aster 15 but they can be fitted with aster if needed to and have provisions for it. Due to budget cuts most navies are forced to resort to that tactic (*cough anzac ffgs).
In the vertical plane only, maybe. But I’ve never heard or seen anything that would indicate Kashtan has this capability. So I’m sticking with 1 target for 1 fighting unit at any 1 time.
i will try to find some info on that later on busy right know
Sorry, the producers beg to differ! See this
what are u talking about the image u posted is kashtan which is what the one in talwar looks like, kashtan-M is looks lot different from it the link u post has that image. Anyway IN only recently evaluated Kashtan-M for gorshkov in early 2004.
JonSYes, but that doesn’t mean each fighting module can use its 2 FC systems simultaneously on 2 different targets does it? Most radar tracker-illiminator radars these days also have IR/Optical equipment on the same mount. But use of a single mount means you can’t point radar one way and IR/optical components another so effectively you have one integrated sensor.
it can intercept 2 targets at the same time provided as u mentioned they are within a certain azimuth 45 degrees maybe?
Detection range perhaps but a search set getting an intermittent hit is a long way from a weapons track. If the attacker is sea skimming and is still, for some unfathomable reason, inbound on the ship he’s got another few kms to play with before he crosses the missile illuminator horizon!. Powerful as Shtil doubtless is its not shooting through the horizon!.
no SAM system can shoot beyond the horizon so that limitation applies to every single SAM system out there including SM-2,Aster and so on. But there is other factors such as EW/ECM that could delay the attacking aircrafts from clearly spoting the vessel and launching ashm unless they use some kinda of anti radiation missile.
Plus they then, after working so hard to manage the signature, went and bolted a Crotale Navale on the roof and blew the whole thing!.
u do realise that croatle was temporary stop gap measure till sylver cells can be fitted in.
Kashtan-M is a very good CIWS with Gun/Missile combo.
Its kashtan not kashtan-m btw.
JonSThanks Wanshan thats about what I remembered. As I was saying though this shows that the Krivak-III has AAW capabilities against medium altitude aircraft up to about 30km that the T23 just doesnt, but, the question must be how often are you going to find hostile tactical aircraft closing inside 30km to attack ships these days?.
thats typical detection range for lo flying fighter aircraft intercepting a naval fleet (like during falklands), no enemy fighter aircraft in the right mind will fly high right into IN fleet unless they have superior numbers because they have good chance of being detected by surface combatants and intercpted by land based sukhoi’s or by harriers. Also pakistani based fighter aircrafts mirage III/F-16A/F-7s radar range against stealthy vessel is less than 50 km even while flying hi only great threat is 2 orions and maybe the atlantiques.
Together with 2 Kashtans with integral radars, that make 6 radar fire control channels for SAMs IMHO.
kashtan each have 2 FC systems one IR/Optical the other being radar.
JonS, so which in effect means that some distant ship, will fire the missile and some other will povide illumination for it.
but still that aegis vessel thats illuminating has to have the lo flying enemy targets within the horizon, it itself will be vunerable to an attack unless those targets dont detect it or dont plan on attacking it. Such concept is useful in scenario of a paticular vessel runs out of ammo or vls cells are damaged but doesnt improve the ability to intercept lo flying targets much.
JonSEven I was thinking as to why is US developing ultra-long range SAM like SM-3 and SM-2 (Block III/IV) , But the answer to it lies in the next generation of Warfare Concept which the US navy is implementing on ” Netcentric Warfare ” as the name implies is integrating all kinds of survellence Assets in Air,Surface & Sub surface and providing information in a usable form in real time .One can mildly but correctly put it as providing Information at the right place and at the right time. Netcentric warfare extends much much beyond what i have just mentioned.
So it will be possible that for eg the SM-3 is provided targeting information from one asset( AWACS,UAV etc ) , fired from one warship and guided by the third, what they call it as fire at the target even without looking at it, so in effect it nullifies the limitations imposed by horizon etc .
Its a fact of life that that low flying aircraft and cruise missile specially if its supersonic poses a grave threat , but than effective utilization of assets like AWACS , Helicopters , Modern Radar like APAR,EMPAR,Top Plate and sams like Aster,ESSM , RAM,Shtil and CIWS like Kashtan-M etc have reduced the threat although they have not eliminated.
But IMHO I think that NetCentric Warfare is a battle winning concept and clearly a Battle dominating one.
Did i miss the memo some were? SM-3 is for BMD purposes and SM-2 IV A is also for TMD. Even when it comes to SM-2 III, USN hasnt purchased large numbers of SM-2 III B, around 140 from what i recall. So most of investment in long range naval SAM has been placed mainly in area of TMD. Horizon is still limitation for Standard missile you can utlise the AWACS or AEW for mid course targeting information for standard misile but for guidance during the terminal phase u need illumination from an aegis platform. There is plans for devolopment of Standard missile with active seeker to get around this but thats years if not a decade from reaching testing stages.
JonSLong range SAM dont really make much since when it comes to naval application because of obvious limitation of beyond horizon targeting. While flying low over terrain exposes the aircrafts to manpads and AAA same is not the case with naval warfare. No fighter pilot in the right mind would fly hi while engaging a naval fleet so the greatest threat is from low flying targets in which case a smaller manuverable and cheaper SAM is more preferrable to a 2 ton 4 million SAM. Thats why greater emphasis is being placed these days on missiles such as RAM, ESSM and Aster.
JonSisnt the single arm Shtil launcher capable of launching a missile every six seconds ?
that way, the multiple illuminators can be useful.the drawback of single point of failure is being rectified by VLS shtil which is apparently
in the P17A and P15A ships and maybe some parallel PLAN FFG ships also.
actually multiple illuminators dont just increase no of targets that platform can intercept they also improve the accuracy when u can utilize multiple illuminators on a single target. I believe shtil typically utlises 2 illuminators for guidance when it comes to intercepting a traget. As for SA-11/17 both of them are similar to SM-2 they use mid course guidance and require illumination only in terminal phase but shtil wasnt fully designed to take advantage of that feature.
danrh:lol yeah perhaps :p
JonSOnly three directors on Burkes (and Kongos) four on Ticos.
The SM-2 missile does not require continuous guidance allowing the directors to guide multiple missiles, belived to be about 4 per director so about 12 at a time. Perhaps more if the SPY-1 can guide.
Daniel
i think u got the concepts a little wrong. SM-2/ESSM utlises mid course guidance and requires illumination only in terminal phase hence the illuminators only need to provide illuminator only during final few secs of flight. This allows them to intercept multiple target utlizing time sharing, SPY-1 provides mid course guidance also mid course guidance data can be provided from AEWS/AWACS to the ship can also be used.
JonSLet me explain.
INS Vikramaditya will carry KA-31 as well as E2C. E2C is for larger distance to be operated in tandem with MiG-29K’s. There is no point to send E2C data to be sent to Ship, as the its for far away ops. KA-31 will provide AEW for carrier protection and makes sence to datalink with INS V.
IAF too acquired Phalcons rather than A-50 because of the same reason.
u seem to confused to the reason why ka-31 has a datalink its because it cannot process itself and hence its needs it to transmit the data to command station/ship. This was done to save cost and space (unlike SK AEW) but that limits its patrol range and also it cannot identify threats herself so if command station is disable or there is malfunction its quite useless.
JonSi believe the models we have seen displayed so far were pre 2003, i believe that barak not kashtan will be fitted onto the vessel. Last i heard about IN was testing kashtan-m in trials early 2004 but 2 months later reports from IAI spoke of barak being fitted on gorshkov so i believe the tests came out of unsatisfactory.
Sign In
