American seekers suffer it, British seekers suffer it, French seekers suffer it, Russian seekers suffer it and now, according to DRDO, we know that Indian ones, despite all denials, do to!.

They may try and paint this as some small algorythm goof that needs correction….then again though they also said a 1000yd miss was a hit!. Sorry pal.

Good excuse for denial!!! After 15 successful tests (even with a video) now you found a tiny glitch with something new onboard failed when test fired for the first time!!!

Look lads I understand the sheer desperation many of you feel to prove that this missile is something it is not. After all it is the clarion call, the very zenith of missile technology, for sure. Yet you cant make the basic technology do something that it plainly cannot do. Accept this.

All, and I do mean ALL, an active radar seeker can do is provide a series of numbers, extracted and digitised from the antenna receive side, that correlate to the return energy coming back from seeker emissions. Thats it. No magic.

To determine where the target is therefore you need an RF contrast i.e an area of low FR return, gradually raising until a peak return and then a dropoff. This establishes the target parameters for the seeker. By parameters I mean where the target starts and where it finishes with the intent, usually, programmed into the seeker to go for peak return between the two points. You can see the evidence of this clearly in any picture of an ARH missile hit on a ship – USS Stark, HMS Sheffield….even check out the stills H K posted from the French SINKEX on the current ‘How many antiship missiles’ thread.

The issue with this miraculous ARH seeker on the missile tested, that in black and white the piece says is unchanged from the Block 1 missile, is that suddenly it doesnt seem to need a radar contrast to hit its target. That would mean that the seeker does not need to know where its targets start and end….it can find point of aim anyway. Tosh.

The size of the target is irrelevent as well, antiship missiles are quite capable against even quite small boats – Harpoon was developed originally to engage Sov cruise missile boats on the surface which have a very small radar cross section but a high radar contrast. So hitting a large building in a cluttered environment is no different, in any real sense, than hitting a small one. What we see with this test is a 1000yd miss on a clutter target. This means that the seeker was not able to determine where its target was inside of the seeker FoV – which is exactly the same problem every other non-MMW ARH missile in the world has!.

Now you can all go back to your theories about multispectral seekers and software upgrades and all the other crumbs of information that you are trying to twist to come up with the answer you want. Its entirely your business. For me this is a mystery solved – how does an ARH antiship missile become a precision guided land-attack missile (without recourse to simple DGPS guidance)? Answer – it doesn’t!.

You seems to have a fundamental belief that if US/UK could not have it means, no one can!!!

GR8 to see some pictures of MCA ,they are some news on Tejas MK-II has well ,Design work of Tejas MK-II is almost done and plans of working on a new Avionics suite for Tejas MK-II will also start from 2010 onwards

Actually LCA-II is just much more than mark-II version. It will have new engine (post prod F-414), new cockpit, changes in air intakes and wings as well as new avionics.

^^^ Thanks Shiv and Kakarat. It look more like a revised version of 20 year old F-22 Raptor design. With lot of changes in the wings, air intakes and specially the second half of the aircraft! First half looks same. :dev2:

poll!

we need a poll on this biggest (in recent time) and most interesting arm deal. 😀

F-18 E/F or EF Typhoon will be the best choice but F-16IN and Mig-35 also not bad. 😎

Though IAF ACM told that it will be single vendor ar deal, i wish the deal brakes into two winners: 80 F-16IN and 50 EFT. 😉

Vikramaditya will burn far more fuel, need far more maintenance (a far, far thirstier & more maintenance-heavy powerplant), & need twice the crew. How does that translate to lower operating cost? I’d expect her annual running cost to be at least twice that of Cavour.

For that, you get a fractionally faster ship with about 50% more tonnage.

The purchase price is lower (though not, with the latest increase, as much as you imagine), but the life is also less.

I think buying her made sense, when negotiations began; she was relatively low-risk (any alternative had to be a new design, from scratch), could be got into service relatively quickly, & could operate the only available STOBAR aircraft, while US catapults were embargoed. But because negotiations took so long, while she continued to deteriorate, all the good reasons for buying her have evaporated. Either an enlarged Cavour derivative for STOBAR (e.g. IAC, but begun earlier), or a conventional CdG derivative, taking a chance on being able to buy US cats, could have been in service earlier, at at a higher initial price, but with lower operating costs & longer service life. However, that’s hindsight.

You cannot say that! Its not completely clear which carrier will be ‘functionally’ more efficient. Vik’s running cost will be equal or little more than that of Cavour. Above all, its a medium size carrier and not in the class of Cavour. Vik can carry more fighters and its bigger, resulting more running costs. Thats it……..But still it costs less than Cavour! 😎

The much smaller Cavour will be much more capable than the ex-Gorshkov any day of the week. It will also cost vastly less to operate! Clearly, India has taken the long road…………..:(

Aircraft carriers are not combat ships like DDG, FFG etc. The carrier that can carry more aircraft will be much more capable than the smaller one. The Gorshkov will cost less to operate than Cvour! But still price of Cavour (though smaller) is more than two times!!!! 😉