Newbie Corner & Military Miscellaneous

vasu_ray · Post by **vasu_ray** » 06 Oct 2010 12:41

if a fast tracked Mig-21 UCAV crashes, no pilot is in danger and we have got a cause to analyze for, which is better than having a retired jet sitting pretty somewhere; we can't be that casual with Tejas

Mig-21's over their lifetime have already paid for themselves; since its not a unstable platform the actuators are for the manual controls in the cockpit connected to a autopilot computer making it a less expensive conversion

I would think its role in unmanned mode better compares with Predator except its maneuverability is at the level of manned fighters so the AI focus will be on target engagement than refining the aerodynamic design

until a true ground up development of UCAV happens we can live with the above jugaad

nikhil_p · Post by **nikhil_p** » 06 Oct 2010 13:13

vasu_ray wrote:if a fast tracked Mig-21 UCAV crashes, no pilot is in danger and we have got a cause to analyze for, which is better than having a retired jet sitting pretty somewhere; we can't be that casual with Tejas

Mig-21's over their lifetime have already paid for themselves; since its not a unstable platform the actuators are for the manual controls in the cockpit connected to a autopilot computer making it a less expensive conversion

I would think its role in unmanned mode better compares with Predator except its maneuverability is at the level of manned fighters so the AI focus will be on target engagement than refining the aerodynamic design

until a true ground up development of UCAV happens we can live with the above jugaad

Are you trying to make a UCAV or a CM?
The endurance of the MIG is not as good as you would want from a UCAV. Also, like Shiv gaaru mentioned earlier, a BM (prithvi/Agni) will be a cheaper alternative. Also, the MIG will be not be a good a/c for nape of earth flying which a cheaper CM could do.

moreover, what if this 'Experimental/ Fast track' system because of its low reliability crashes within the country on a populated region?? What then?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 06 Oct 2010 14:20

vasu_ray wrote:if a fast tracked Mig-21 UCAV crashes, no pilot is in danger and we have got a cause to analyze for,

Yes.

And that "cause" may be all the steps and degrees we have missed in "fast tracking testing" between 1 degree and 5 degrees. And until that is figured out the system can be deemed unreliable. And the nation will pay double for "fast tracking jugaad"

What you are suggesting is taking a cheap existing airframe, half testing it and passing it off as a great advancement for Indian defence because
1) It is cheap
2) It is there
3) No pilots will be killed

What we need is something that is tested and guaranteed to do the job. Not a jugaad. Not a MiG 21 jugaad in any case with its stringent high speed - high rate of descent landing requirements, poor payload and range. A crashed Mig 21 on a runway will shut down an entire airfield as well as a Paki bomb. And it could still kill someone on the ground.

Shankar · Post by **Shankar** » 06 Oct 2010 15:58

Mig 21s are still not that unreliable - they are being used more than any other airframe even today

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 06 Oct 2010 19:39

Shankar wrote:Mig 21s are still not that unreliable - they are being used more than any other airframe even today

We are not talking about reliability of MiG 21s. We are talking of the hypothetical reliability of a hypothetical fleet of MiG 21 based UAVs which have been "fast track tested" (not comprehensively tested) and equipped with fly-by-wire and the hypothetical scenario of how reliable the fleet could be considered if one remote controlled MiG 21 happened to crash on the runway - given that the landing has to be done remotely.

Please read all the related posts above before shooting off a MiG 21 rakshak post. I have as much love for them as you do.

vasu_ray · Post by **vasu_ray** » 07 Oct 2010 02:49

Let me clarify the fast track testing, if 1500 flight tests gives you the confidence then so be it, since all we are doing is upgrading the autopilot software between flight tests, a squadron can do the job in 2 years

To the question if it is a UCAV or a reusable CM, it will start of as a UAV then based on the intelligence added the roles can change. The airframes of Prithvi (PAD) and Brahmos (S maneuver) were subjected to forces that were not anticpated during their initial design so I remain hopeful of the Mig-21 airframe

PAD will be replaced by the PDV (a ground up development) soon but would anyone remove the contribution of PAD to the BMD program for the last 5 years? on the contrary the last test/user launch of Prithvi failed (some 15 years after it was inducted) does that mean all Prithvi missile groups are dead in the water?

and hypothetically, if there is a 2 front war around the corner Rustom may not be ready, a Mig-21 UCAV might be with whatever limitations it has

Shankar · Post by **Shankar** » 07 Oct 2010 09:44

Please read all the related posts above before shooting off a MiG 21 rakshak post. I have as much love for them as you d

I did
Mig 21 based UCAV will be armed of course otherwise the very purpose is lost . There are two possible upgrade fronts flying software and airframe upgrades

fly by wire flight control software including take off and landing is available -incorporating them in Mig 21 sucessfully may be not that easy because the they dont have FADEC features and also the flight control surfaces do not operate electrically.

But once that is done they may be in fact safer than conventional 21 s during landing and take off since flight computer will decide the take off landing and abort landing/take off parameters

Shankar · Post by **Shankar** » 07 Oct 2010 09:45

Please read all the related posts above before shooting off a MiG 21 rakshak post. I have as much love for them as you d

I did
Mig 21 based UCAV will be armed of course otherwise the very purpose is lost . There are two possible upgrade fronts flying software and airframe upgrades

fly by wire flight control software including take off and landing is available -incorporating them in Mig 21 sucessfully may be not that easy because the they dont have FADEC features and also the flight control surfaces do not operate electrically.

But once that is done they may be in fact safer than conventional 21 s during landing and take off since flight computer will decide the take off landing and abort landing/take off parameters

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 07 Oct 2010 10:23

I am just surprised every now and then many come with ideas like Mig-21 with FBW , Mig-21 as UCAV , Mig-21 as cheap this and that.

If a designer had to take the trouble of making it FBW ,Engine with FADEC , Software , Electrical control surfaces on a 50 designed fighter , why would they not design a UCAV from scratch with all the above technology with contemporary design and materials ?

Mig-21 lacks the persistence and long endurance of UCAV unless they need a Point Defence UCAV

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 07 Oct 2010 10:36

Shankar wrote: But once that is done they may be in fact safer than conventional 21 s during landing and take off since flight computer will decide the take off landing and abort landing/take off parameters

Note the bolded part.

Who can guarantee that they are actually safer without comprehensive testing? And reliable enough to form a part of India's frontline offence?

Can anyone say that comprehensive testing will not take as long as that of a new purpose-built UCAV?

What industrial experience exists in India to guide investment in one direction or another?

neerajb · Post by **neerajb** » 07 Oct 2010 11:23

The best use I can think of phased out MiG-21s is to use as target drones much like M-21 used by soviets. Instead of using Lakshya, MiG-21 will provide a better target to practice against.

Cheers....

Arya Sumantra · Post by **Arya Sumantra** » 07 Oct 2010 17:38

Austin wrote:I am just surprised every now and then many come with ideas like Mig-21 with FBW , Mig-21 as UCAV , Mig-21 as cheap this and that.

If a designer had to take the trouble of making it FBW ,Engine with FADEC , Software , Electrical control surfaces on a 50 designed fighter , why would they not design a UCAV from scratch with all the above technology with contemporary design and materials ?

The reason why proponents are suggesting it is because

- retired & about to be retired MiGs is what we have in big numbers. Where else will we get big numbers in short time ?

- There exists an established supply chain of parts.

- The aerodynamic capabilities are known.

- The pilots who have for years flown them know the plane in and out thoroughly. So no training expenses on that part.

- The only thing they need to train for is flying it in a UCAV mode where the actual pilot just sits in a room and has less of a "feel". Today they are familiar with the plane but would be learning UCAV mode "feel-less" piloting, Tomorrow when Tejas is ready they will be familiar with remote "feel-less" UCAV piloting but familiarising with a new plane Tejas. Of the 2 parameters: familiarity with plane and remote-piloting, it is good to have firm footing on one at a time.

- A lot of automation gear could be transferred to Tejas variants once they start arriving in big numbers.

- Testing of ucaved variants can always be done over the sea from shore based facilities or over desert. As for it crashing on runway and other things, India will have to learn it anyways for incorporating UCAVed actual fighters. Better learn it on more "disposable" retiring fighters than on a new one.

- In the defence world, nothing is cheap. Making UCAVed variants of retiring planes as a policy is one way India can squeeze more bang out of the buck. Planes whose self-protection measures have been outwitted by enemy's SAM measures are better exploited unmanned.

- Can be used much more aggressively in heavily SAM infested areas of enemy.(General benefit of ucaved fighters, not mig's alone though)

But the reason below is valid

Austin wrote:If a designer had to take the trouble of making it FBW ,Engine with FADEC , Software , Electrical control surfaces on a 50 designed fighter , why would they not design a UCAV from scratch with all the above technology with contemporary design and materials ?

And hence in reality it may not be available in "large numbers in short time" as preliminary thought process on UCAVing Mig suggests. Perhaps using Tejas MK-1 for the purpose makes sense. IAF is reluctant about MK1 in bigger numbers while ADA is pushing for bigger numbers of MK1 order. So why not order more of ucaved Mk1. It already has FBW, engine with FADEC, Electric control surfaces etc. Its testing is closer to completion. Not having towed decoy etc on MK1 is not much of a problem for an unmanned platform.

JMT

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 07 Oct 2010 19:09

Arya Sumantra wrote:
- retired & about to be retired MiGs is what we have in big numbers. Where else will we get big numbers in short time ?

- There exists an established supply chain of parts.

- The aerodynamic capabilities are known.

- The pilots who have for years flown them know the plane in and out thoroughly. So no training expenses on that part.

- The only thing they need to train for is flying it in a UCAV mode where the actual pilot just sits in a room and has less of a "feel". Today they are familiar with the plane but would be learning UCAV mode "feel-less" piloting, Tomorrow when Tejas is ready they will be familiar with remote "feel-less" UCAV piloting but familiarising with a new plane Tejas. Of the 2 parameters: familiarity with plane and remote-piloting, it is good to have firm footing on one at a time.

I think the problem of converting a 1960s design into a FBW UCAV is being underestimated. The plane is currently controlled by rods and cables. Everything will have to be ripped out and an FBW system installed. I do not believe that this is so simple that it can be done on large numbers of aircraft in a short time. I think that is the "imaginary bit" that is being pushed here. Using the LCA as a template would be better as indicated below

Arya Sumantra wrote:So why not order more of ucaved Mk1. It already has FBW, engine with FADEC, Electric control surfaces etc. Its testing is closer to completion. Not having towed decoy etc on MK1 is not much of a problem for an unmanned platform.

JMT

vasu_ray · Post by **vasu_ray** » 07 Oct 2010 22:58

if we take the example of DARPA Grand challenge, each team took a regular commercial vehicle and created a autopilot system, they started by adding electric servos to control the steering wheel and actuators to control the pedal and brake these are connected to the computer, then came integration with sensors for navigation, software for decision making etc

Over the years as the challenge progressed in complexity, its the frequently updated sensors and software that made the difference

The point is before we talk about FBW for Mig-21, a simpler way might be to add servos and actuators to all manual controls in the cockpit, the electronics are directly interfaced with the flight computer

This enables the UCAV conversion is software intensive and very little hardware gets changed, the rods and cables as control system remain as they were

if we still need a FADEC engine, ahem...can we suggest flight worthy kaveri as it is today and looking for numbers? if the airflow requirements are met.

Tejas is a relatively good candidate as a UCAV however the numbers in this decade may not match up with current inventory of Mig-21s

finally please remember the PAD to PDV analogy and the headstart the converted Mig-21 gives in the UCAV evolution while being operationally ready

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 08 Oct 2010 09:13

Arya Sumantra wrote: retired & about to be retired MiGs is what we have in big numbers. Where else will we get big numbers in short time ?

First and foremost the UCAV technology is not yet mature and its atleast 15 to 20 years till we see a supersonic UCAV flying up there and challenging manned fighter , the whole concept needs to be build and validated and its a challenging task to put it mildly ( and yes do not fall into US PR exercise which will make one feel UCAV is just round the corner ) but 50 years from now they may get more mature with such concepts.

DRDO and any other agency are right now are building long rage UAV and trying the art to perfect it which is some years away.

Mig-21 is a point defence fighter which is limited by materials, engine , fuel capacity and weapons payload ... making it FBW , AESA , Satellite control and what not will not take away its inherent design limitation even if we understand it well and the time and money spend on doing all the above on a Mig-21 UCAV any designer will go to the drawing board and build it from scratch taking advantage of 60 years of improvement in Aerodynamics , Materials and Avionics

Right now we are better off giving Mig-21 a decent radar , decent avionics , decent EW gear and decent Weapons suite and yes with a pilot inside which is all Mig-21 Bison is all about.

IMHO Mig-21 qualities are far better exploited with Bison, if and when UCAV matures we will see which platform or a new design best fits its needs and IAF specification

vasu_ray · Post by **vasu_ray** » 08 Oct 2010 09:48

I wouldn't ignore the yeoman service rendered by the Predators (first generation UCAVs) in the "war on terror" and if it were not for MTCR and other jokes we would have bought them too

it would be a folly to draw up a nifty spec for a latest generation UCAV by IAF at a later time and then DRDO is caught napping who will have to start from version 1.0 when enough foresight would have broken the vicious cycle of imports

a minimal investment in retrofitting the Mig-21s at this juncture means a great opportunity for IAF

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 08 Oct 2010 11:40

Predators success was based on the fact that it met with no air defence was backed up with good intelligence and air superiority was a given thing. In the recent Georgia war couple of unarmed reco Israel UAV were shot down where Air Superiority was not a problem.

What has MTCR to do with Predator ?

vasu_ray · Post by **vasu_ray** » 08 Oct 2010 12:22

Kargil was a air superiority situation yet IAF faced stingers and lost pilots

I think it was US objecting to arming the Israeli UAVs purchased by IA, don't remember exactly

darshhan · Post by **darshhan** » 08 Oct 2010 13:26

Austin wrote:Predators success was based on the fact that it met with no air defence was backed up with good intelligence and air superiority was a given thing. In the recent Georgia war couple of unarmed reco Israel UAV were shot down where Air Superiority was not a problem.

What has MTCR to do with Predator ?

Countries which are members of MTCR can only sell or transfer missiles/UAVs which have less than 300 km range and/or 500 kg payload.Judging from the persistence capabilty of the predator it certainly has more range.Hence USA cannot sell this system to anyother country.It is the same clause which restricts the range of Brahmos to less than 300 kms.

http://www.mtcr.info/english/MTCR-TEM-2 ... ex-002.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missile_Te ... rol_Regime

In fact I pointed out this fact when India had floated the tender for UCAV.As far as UCAV is concerned India would have to develop this system itself.It cannot depend on other countries to ensure the supply of UCAVs.

Maybe we can collaborate with Israel as they also haven't signed MTCR that is if they are interested in the concept.

Gaur · Post by **Gaur** » 08 Oct 2010 15:02

vasu_ray wrote:Kargil was a air superiority situation yet IAF faced stingers and lost pilots

I think it was US objecting to arming the Israeli UAVs purchased by IA, don't remember exactly

And you think that predator was never downed by enemy fire? If so, then you are very wrong? There have been numerous such incidents.
Anyway, it is wrong to compare Kargil with Afganistan (or any other area of operation of predator). Even Afganistan, which comes closest to the terrain of Kargil, poses a very different situation as compared to Kargil.
The SAM cover, flight altitude, altitude from the enemy position, enemy personnel training, countermeasures etc were very different in Kargil. Much more challenging by any measure.

OT:
Considering the situation, I think that the loss of only 2 aircrafts by enemy fire(while most tragic), was negligible. Also, note that that the downed Mi-17 was not even equipped with Missile Approach warning system while operating in an environment with very high SAM threat (the Mi-17 was hit by 3 stingers).
And regarding the loss of Mig-21, Squadron Leader Ajay Ahuja was flying at very altitude amid heavy SAM and anti a/c gun threat while bravely looking for Flt Lt K Nachiketa.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 08 Oct 2010 20:05

vasu_ray wrote:I wouldn't ignore the yeoman service rendered by the Predators (first generation UCAVs) in the "war on terror" and if it were not for MTCR and other jokes we would have bought them too

it would be a folly to draw up a nifty spec for a latest generation UCAV by IAF at a later time and then DRDO is caught napping who will have to start from version 1.0 when enough foresight would have broken the vicious cycle of imports

a minimal investment in retrofitting the Mig-21s at this juncture means a great opportunity for IAF

A UAV should able to loiter, and a UCAV in the mountains would have to manoever around peaks. The manoeuverability of a Mig 21 at 18-20,000 feet - (about the same as the peaks of Kargil) is not what one would see at lower altitudes. And unlike the Predator it has to fly fast to stay in the air. That is what it is designed for. That is true for the Jaguar as well. In fact there was an incident of a Jag flying into a hill in India because the pilot was unable to pull up fast enough at that altitude.

Wanting a Predator and "retrofitting a MiG 21" instead is a bad idea.

My last post on this. I am bored of saying that retrofitting MiG 21 is a seriously bad idea. Please go ahead and post more such ideas. As long as its about the MiG 21 you will not hear a chirp from me any more. I will keep out of this discussion which in my view is going beyond ridiculous and a complete waste of time. IMO.

vasu_ray · Post by **vasu_ray** » 08 Oct 2010 22:56

Gaur wrote:And you think that predator was never downed by enemy fire? If so, then you are very wrong? There have been numerous such incidents.

My point was losing Predator or a UCAV is acceptable than losing pilots and we can talk about such a choice only if we have the UCAV capability

Folks generally ignore the fact that Mig-21 has a certain role in today's air operations and all we are debating about is why can't the same role be played using an unmanned version? it won't be 100% perhaps not even close to 30% but will be an exploration in AI while laying the groundwork

Carl_T · Post by **Carl_T** » 08 Oct 2010 23:31

One more q on this topic - Is it expensive to convert them into UCAVs though? Instead of retiring and recycling them wouldn't it be better to send them flying soosai at the enemy armed with a couple of missiles?

I'm not saying this because it is an ideal solution but just because they are going to be disposed anyways.

darshhan · Post by **darshhan** » 09 Oct 2010 00:00

Carl_T wrote:One more q on this topic - Is it expensive to convert them into UCAVs though? Instead of retiring and recycling them wouldn't it be better to send them flying soosai at the enemy armed with a couple of missiles?

I'm not saying this because it is an ideal solution but just because they are going to be disposed anyways.

But you will have to maintain them.You will also have to invest in new software.Then they will have to be tested.IAF will also have to deploy certain amount of manpower to operate them.All this will cost money.

Instead why not just buy extra brahmos or harops or nirbhays.They are a much more optimal solution with fewer overheads.

Simultaneously we should bolster our own research in UAVs,robotics and artificial intelligence.Money invested in these sectors would give you a much higher return in the future(both in civilian and military sectors).As it is we are woefully behind the curve in these fields and if this situation is not rectified it will have grave implications for our national security.I have already stated that for UAVs and cruise missiles we cannot depend on imports because of MTCR.

Having said that some of the migs can be converted for target practice.According to my info both Russia and USA use their retired fighters as targets as part of the training.

Carl_T · Post by **Carl_T** » 09 Oct 2010 02:23

True, good points.

Venkarl · Post by **Venkarl** » 09 Oct 2010 03:26

What does "H&D" mean?

I tried to search for BRF glossary thread...failed

TIA

Added Later:

I found the thread

but "H&D" term doesn't meet the search criteria

Went through the entire Acronym thread...found it..."Hyonar and diginity"..

...too embarrassing for not knowing this

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 09 Oct 2010 07:28

H&D or echandee

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 09 Oct 2010 07:42

darshhan wrote: But you will have to maintain them.You will also have to invest in new software.Then they will have to be tested.IAF will also have to deploy certain amount of manpower to operate them.All this will cost money.

Absolutely. And you will need airfields to launch them. Better to use them as decoys that can be left out in the open during attacks.

SriSri · Post by **SriSri** » 09 Oct 2010 09:11

This may vary per fighter but what are the typical modifications that are made for the naval variant of a fighter?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 09 Oct 2010 09:28

SriSri wrote:This may vary per fighter but what are the typical modifications that are made for the naval variant of a fighter?

For take off or landing?

SriSri · Post by **SriSri** » 09 Oct 2010 11:01

shiv wrote:
SriSri wrote:This may vary per fighter but what are the typical modifications that are made for the naval variant of a fighter?
For take off or landing?

Both and every other criteria possible .. thanks!

Shankar · Post by **Shankar** » 09 Oct 2010 15:59

the carrier aircraft have two distinct differences from a land based one

- much much stronger undercarriage to take care of abrupt stop after landing that is high de acceleration as well as comparatively high sink rate during landing

also becasue the take off load is more either because of ski jump assisted take off or catapult assisted take off

and now two engine variants are preferred for all carrier operation

they also have folding wings to save deck space when stowed

The thrust to weight ration is more for carrier aircraft to enable adequate take off speed even when assisted by catapult/ski jump

Kersi D · Post by **Kersi D** » 09 Oct 2010 16:26

Shankar wrote:the carrier aircraft have two distinct differences from a land based one

- much much stronger undercarriage to take care of abrupt stop after landing that is high de acceleration as well as comparatively high sink rate during landing

also becasue the take off load is more either because of ski jump assisted take off or catapult assisted take off

and now two engine variants are preferred for all carrier operation

they also have folding wings to save deck space when stowed

The thrust to weight ration is more for carrier aircraft to enable adequate take off speed even when assisted by catapult/ski jump

Tail hook for catching the arrestor wires on landing.

K

Gaur · Post by **Gaur** » 09 Oct 2010 16:26

^^
Adding to the above posts.
The carrier variants also need to have better ground visibility from the cockpit. Also the low speed handling should be as good as possible. Both of these characteristics are very critical for carrier landings. For eg, in the Naval Tejas, note the redesigned frontal fuselage for better pilot visibility and the movable lerx like structure for low speed handling.

Shankar · Post by **Shankar** » 09 Oct 2010 16:39

actually thrust vectoring engines is a premium for carrier aircraft - it allows much safer landing and take off but comes with weight penalty even if not exactly vertical take of and landing like harriers - wonder why no one uses may be because the technology is not available as in su-30 pr mig 29 ovt series -checking up

AdityaM · Post by **AdityaM** » 10 Oct 2010 01:16

Is this the uniform for a Mig25 pilot?

SriSri · Post by **SriSri** » 10 Oct 2010 07:02

Thanks for the replies Shankar, Kersi D & Gaur.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 10 Oct 2010 07:19

Shankar wrote: and now two engine variants are preferred for all carrier operation
<snip>
The thrust to weight ration is more for carrier aircraft to enable adequate take off speed even when assisted by catapult/ski jump

Also to enable safe clearance off the deck and take off even if one engine fails during launch.

Aircraft carriers typically sail into the wind so that there is a good wind blowing along the deck to add to the airflow coming at the aircraft as it is launched. The additional consequence of this is that a ship can technically said over a ditched aircraft that fails to take off - which is why carriers had an oblique launch deck. With two engines this is less likely to occur.

The fact that carriers are sailing during launch for the extra wind speed is generally forgotten when people talk of "carrier-like launch of aircraft from short airstrips on land" (as has been discussed in the past). Airstrips on land do not sail forward and are immobile; and if they are in the mountains the air is already far less dense than the air at sea level. Aircraft carriers operate at sea level onlee, where the atmosphere is as dense as it gets.

The need for dense air is that aircraft stay in the air because of that fellow Newton who demanded that the price for flying would be for the wings to push a largish mass of air downwards. The higher the density of air the higher the mass of air the wings can push at, the more easily Newton's extortionate demands are met.

Stemming from this is the objection to that other suggestion that aircraft landing in high altitude airstrips can use arrester cables like one sees on carriers. The only issue is that because the air at high altitude is less dense the aircraft has to land at a much higher speed - hitting the runway at a higher speed than one would need at sea level.

Shankar · Post by **Shankar** » 10 Oct 2010 09:24

less dense air at high altitude causes a more fundamental problem - low air pressure of ambient means lower oxygen available for combustion resulting in lower available thrust from engines resulting in lower acceleration resulting in longer runway length for take compared to sea level take off
carriers usually sail near max speed when launching or recovering aircraft around 26-28 knots to generate the air flow over deck as well as sail into wind during take off /landing

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 10 Oct 2010 09:56

Shankar wrote: carriers usually sail near max speed when launching or recovering aircraft around 26-28 knots to generate the air flow over deck as well as sail into wind during take off /landing

The other thing is carriers are fast. 28 Knots is about 50 kmph. In order to actually hit a carrier with a missile you will need some pretty up-to-the minute information. A carrier killing ballistic missile will need some nifty terminal guidance based on accurate real time info of where the carrier is given that I expect a ballistic missile arrives on target at high mach numbers (maybe 4 or 5?). At 1500 meters per second the missile would have 10 seconds to travel the last 15 km. In that time the carrier would be 140 meters away from where it was 10 seconds earlier. So there would have to be some means of "locking" on to the carrier. Which ballistic missiles have terminal guidance?