Indian Naval Discussion

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 10 Apr 2012 14:38

A great disappointment if MDL is behaving as suggested.Of course the French couldn't be bothered if MDL doesn't absorb any high-tech sub construction! The Scorpenes are already way above estimates,and way beyond the original date of induction.Are we going to repeat the blunder? This is another potential Tatra/BEML in the making.MDL has been consistently preventing another private yard from building subs so as to hog the next sub contract.The cost of Scorpenes is exceptionally high when compared with the Akula lease and even another French design will not be able to carry Brahmos.

The award to Israel for Barak-8 also ,without a competition must also be viewed objectively.It allows for complacency and a "taken-for-granted" attitude.Had we had a contest with the Aster or another Russian naval SAM,the attitude would be quite different.

D Roy · Post by **D Roy** » 10 Apr 2012 15:17

Question to SNaik:

Do we see a Yankee notch towards the right of this picture or is it the B-90 Sarov?

http://pics.livejournal.com/kuleshovoleg/pic/000b8s5c

SNaik · Post by **SNaik** » 10 Apr 2012 15:41

[quote="D Roy"]Question to SNaik:

Do we see a Yankee notch towards the right of this picture or is it the B-90 Sarov?

Sarov.

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 10 Apr 2012 15:44

SNaik wrote:You can't just take a single face land-based APAR demonstrator, multiply it by 4, stick it on top of the shipmast and hope that it will work fine...

SNaik, IN and DRDO did more validation before GoI sunk in funds. The difficulty is not technical in nature, it is project staffing diverted for TBMD projects. Austin is right in his assessment, however Barak-8 provides long range cruise missile defense and limited BMD.

Philip wrote:Had we had a contest with the Aster or another Russian naval SAM...

Issue was Russians didnt have a comparable system in the pipeline, US and Europeans were not open for collaboration. Israelis were open for collaboration and missile source codes would be co-developed and available for future enhancement. This is a serious limitation with everyone else - Russian, US, Europeans.

Philip wrote:even another French design will not be able to carry Brahmos.

I dont think any DE submarine can carry BrahMos and retain its manoeuverability. It will become a self propelled missile carrying pontoon.

I speculate K15 tubes in Arihant can also accomodate and fire BrahMos and Nirbhay in future.

member_19648 · Post by **member_19648** » 10 Apr 2012 15:56

Philip wrote: The award to Israel for Barak-8 also ,without a competition must also be viewed objectively.It allows for complacency and a "taken-for-granted" attitude.Had we had a contest with the Aster or another Russian naval SAM,the attitude would be quite different.

Barak SAM is a joint development/RnD effort and not as such a procurement and it was supposed to be standardized across all upcoming naval platforms.

SNaik · Post by **SNaik** » 10 Apr 2012 17:26

tsarkar wrote:SNaik, IN and DRDO did more validation before GoI sunk in funds. The difficulty is not technical in nature, it is project staffing diverted for TBMD projects. Austin is right in his assessment, however Barak-8 provides long range cruise missile defense and limited BMD.

tsarkar, I'm not doubting your source about Israeli staff diverted towards TBMD projects. I'm more reluctant about the DRDO and IN validation part, Vikram and Scorpene are just two projects proving that not all is well in this area. More than that, I'm very well aware of the teething problems which Germany, UK, France/Italy and Russia were/are having with their equivalents of MF-STAR. It may take anything between three to five years to get it operational after it has been installed on the lead ship and as far as I know things are quite far even from that. Did you see anything new at the last DefExpo with regards to MF-Star/Barak-8, which you haven't seen for years already? No.

John · Post by **John** » 10 Apr 2012 18:43

tsarkar wrote:The Kolkata has a high hull but low superstructure compared to every other destroyer class in the world, that IMO will result in excellent seakeeping and negligible (even non-existant) top-heaviness that plagues all US cruisers and destroyers. The silouhette is low, only the 2248 mast will be visible on the horizon. From a pure naval architecture perspective, the Kolkata is an award winner hands down.

But won't that also result in a drawback of having a lower radar horizon.

Hopefully there is some progress on Barak-8 but IN should also work on an alternative if things don't pan out, like a naval version of AAD launched. Dual pack two AAD canisters' into single launch cell that accommodates Brahmos.

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 10 Apr 2012 19:08

SNaik wrote:I'm more reluctant about the DRDO and IN validation part, Vikram and Scorpene are just two projects proving that not all is well in this area. More than that, I'm very well aware of the teething problems which Germany, UK, France/Italy and Russia were/are having with their equivalents of MF-STAR. It may take anything between three to five years to get it operational after it has been installed on the lead ship and as far as I know things are quite far even from that. Did you see anything new at the last DefExpo with regards to MF-Star/Barak-8, which you haven't seen for years already? No.

I agree, and to an extent share your concerns. The Naval LRSAM (70 km) and IAF MRSAM (120 km) and accompanying 2248 and 2084 were a follow on to the successful Green Pine/Swordfish and 2238 experience. Both countries are not trying utopian goals like the Europeans or Americans. So while unforseen technical issues may emerge, the view is that both countries have sufficent expertise in radars and missiles to surmount those challenges.

John wrote:But won't that also result in a drawback of having a lower radar horizon.

No, the mast has sufficient height and the array sufficient FoV. Radar horizon is important for gaining sufficent reaction time against missile attacks. This is now achieved via very low weapon engagement cycle time. Elta 2248 + CMS can trigger Barak-8 launch that will use its own active seeker rather than wait for a dedicated director radar to paint the target.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 10 Apr 2012 19:28

the german sachsen class ships also have a similar lowish superstructure and apar tower. the JMSDF aegis ships are probably the most top heavy looking because their bridge level is one deck higher than the american ships of same class. the tico also looks very top heavy.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-PfCG-NMvt5Q/T ... troyer.jpg

JMSDF : http://media.defenseindustrydaily.com/i ... ass_lg.jpg
USN: http://www.murdoconline.net/wp-content/ ... ddg_83.jpg

maybe it was done due to hostile weather in north pacific affecting visibility from bridge.

BrijeshB · Post by **BrijeshB** » 10 Apr 2012 19:32

IN Next Gen Stealth ships unveiled..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oCTL4pDZ ... AAAAAAAAAA

SNaik · Post by **SNaik** » 10 Apr 2012 19:44

tsarkar wrote:
John wrote:But won't that also result in a drawback of having a lower radar horizon.
No, the mast has sufficient height and the array sufficient FoV. Radar horizon is important for gaining sufficent reaction time against missile attacks. This is now achieved via very low weapon engagement cycle time. Elta 2248 + CMS can trigger Barak-8 launch that will use its own active seeker rather than wait for a dedicated director radar to paint the target.

tsarkar, the fact that Barack-8 has an active seeker doesn't mean that it can do without target acqusition by MF-STAR, the active seeker doesn't lock on before the launch. So, you still need to provide sufficient target data for the missile before it's seeker locks on (keeping in mind it's limited FoV). Ergo, the higher the radar - the better. Placement of Sampson is a perfect example of that philosophy.

Altair · Post by **Altair** » 10 Apr 2012 21:29

ramana wrote:
chackojoseph wrote:INS Vikramaditya to be demagnetized
That means its quite ready. Say a year or so.

Does India have the ability to build a Nuclear powered Aircraft carrier by itself?

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 10 Apr 2012 21:35

SNaik wrote:tsarkar, the fact that Barack-8 has an active seeker doesn't mean that it can do without target acqusition by MF-STAR, the active seeker doesn't lock on before the launch. So, you still need to provide sufficient target data for the missile before it's seeker locks on (keeping in mind it's limited FoV). Ergo, the higher the radar - the better. Placement of Sampson is a perfect example of that philosophy.

Correct. Though the MFSTAR does have a decent height at its placement (seehttp://imageshack.us/f/15/project15akolkataclass0.jpg/)

BTW, I had heard there were some challenges of having the Sampson having challenges in terms of a full 360 surveill, since the other mast came in its way (see http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/arc ... 37050b.jpg). Were these reports correct or misplaced?

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 10 Apr 2012 21:41

^^ Datalink changes the game. Ka-31 situated some distance behind a destroyer can still cue the missiles

Not just Ka-31 but Phalcon as well http://www.business-standard.com/india/ ... 352430/%20

“This is as good, if not better, than comparable systems on any warship in the world,” says Captain Sundar. “On earlier warships, weapons had a separate data bus, sensors had their own bus, and so on. Now, the AISDN integrates all that, and also information coming from sensors outside the Shivalik, such as Unmanned Aerial Vehicles or Airborne Warning and Control Systems.”

LOBL - Via ship CMS using data from AEW/AWACS/Ship own Radar. LOAL - Via missile datalink using data from same sources.

Karan M wrote:BTW, I had heard there were some challenges of having the Sampson having challenges in terms of a full 360 surveill, since the other mast came in its way. Were these reports correct or misplaced?

Incorrect reporting. Ships with radars on fore and main masts - either design the masts - or place the radar - in such a manner that the radar beam-forming cone is clear of masts and other obstructions. This is basics of ship design since 50s.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 10 Apr 2012 22:04

tsarkar wrote:
Karan M wrote:BTW, I had heard there were some challenges of having the Sampson having challenges in terms of a full 360 surveill, since the other mast came in its way. Were these reports correct or misplaced?
Incorrect reporting. Ships with radars on fore and main masts - either design the masts - or place the radar - in such a manner that the radar beam-forming cone is clear of masts and other obstructions. This is basics of ship design since 50s.

Thats fine & well known, but the Sampson in specific was supposed to be having some interference issues ..because its placement was posing challenges for clutter removal...I was wondering if SNaik had heard anything about the matter.. of course, my news is circa 2008-09, and could well be out of date.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 10 Apr 2012 22:10

tsarkar wrote:LOBL - Via ship CMS using data from AEW/AWACS/Ship own Radar. LOAL - Via missile datalink using data from same sources.

How can a VLS missile with its radar be LOBL until & unless its radar is already cued to the target (which requires a LoS to the target). By their very nature these missiles will be LOAL, irrespective of who & what provides the initial guidance - onboard or offboard, till the seeker can acquire the target.

negi · Post by **negi** » 10 Apr 2012 22:16

I am forgetting the stuff we read from Skolnik but the impression that higher the radar the better is not true for it does increase the effective radar horizon but a Radar placed too high on the mast will have have a higher values for minimum detection range too.

Also in high sea state when the ship rolls lets say to the port side a Radar very high on the Mast will encounter a bigger blind spot (the beam will be ponting towards the water elow the horizontal)on that side as against a Radar placed lower on mast .

Kersi D · Post by **Kersi D** » 10 Apr 2012 23:08

Altair wrote:
chackojoseph wrote:INS Vikramaditya to be demagnetized[/url]
That means its quite ready. Say a year or so.

Does India have the ability to build a Nuclear powered Aircraft carrier by itself?

If all the concerned agencies like DRDO, BARC, IN, DGNP etc work in unison, YES
K

SNaik · Post by **SNaik** » 10 Apr 2012 23:23

negi wrote:I am forgetting the stuff we read from Skolnik but the impression that higher the radar the better is not true for it does increase the effective radar horizon but a Radar placed too high on the mast will have have a higher values for minimum detection range too.

Also in high sea state when the ship rolls lets say to the port side a Radar very high on the Mast will encounter a bigger blind spot (the beam will be ponting towards the water elow the horizontal)on that side as against a Radar placed lower on mast .

In mechanical scan radars that may be a point, not so in electronically scanned (the ones we discuss).
This is exactly one of points, when I consider the difficulties to adapt an initially ground-based radar to naval environment. 3D movement of the ship has to be electronically compensated which requires quite a specific and complicated software upgrade.

Will · Post by **Will** » 10 Apr 2012 23:30

India needs to get some serious AAD ships to provide cover to its Carrier Battle groups. Need longer range missiles.

negi · Post by **negi** » 10 Apr 2012 23:44

^Sir it is not that the height no longer is a factor for while the AESA might offer faster beam steering than a mechanically scanned array the scan angle itself is what will put an upper limit on max height which the array will be installed.Obviously sea keeping considerations will have their role to play as well.

Anurag · Post by **Anurag** » 11 Apr 2012 00:24

Where is the first Kolkata class destroyer? The first commissioning was scheduled for last month. I haven't seen any media reports either. Anyone seen any updates? This baby should be part of the the Vikramaditya CBG, I hope!

Armament: • Anti-ship: 4× 4-cell BrahMos UVLM[3]
• Air-defence: 2× 32-cell VLS Barak 8[3]
• CIWS: 2× 30 mm AK-630 gatling guns + 4× 8 cell Barak 1[3]
• Anti-submarine warfare: Torpedo tubes and 2× RBU-6000[3]

http://www.pib.nic.in/newsite/erelease.aspx?relid=75583
The three ships under P-15A are scheduled to be delivered by March 2012, March 2013 and March 2014 respectively.

SNaik · Post by **SNaik** » 11 Apr 2012 02:10

negi wrote:^Sir it is not that the height no longer is a factor for while the AESA might offer faster beam steering than a mechanically scanned array the scan angle itself is what will put an upper limit on max height which the array will be installed.Obviously sea keeping considerations will have their role to play as well.

Apparently the height of Sampson is considered adequate. MF-STAR is certainly placed lower, therefore it would be interesting to understand the reasoning for the height of the mast, if top weight is not a consideration factor.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 11 Apr 2012 02:33

Isnt Sampson a rotating array? Its weight should be lower than a 4 faced AESA so weight could be a factor.

Altair · Post by **Altair** » 11 Apr 2012 07:41

Kersi D wrote:
Altair wrote: Does India have the ability to build a Nuclear powered Aircraft carrier by itself?
If all the concerned agencies like DRDO, BARC, IN, DGNP etc work in unison, YES
K

I think it is time atleast a proposal is presented to the government for indigenously developing a nuclear powered aircraft carrier in the next 5-7 years.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 11 Apr 2012 08:10

How far have we progressed in developing an integrated mast? The future concept looks fine but there are huge sensor design and other issues to be sorted out first.The cost of these bells and whistles are also prohibitive going by US costing.Before we build a true stealth DDG as shown,we actually need a larger cruiser sized escort for our future carriers,as we will have three new carriers by 2020.They will need to be protected from mass missile attacks and UW threats.Until B-8 arrives,we will not have a LR VLS naval SAM.The cruiser will have to have a large weaponload of LR SAMs apart from QR anti-missiles capable of handling supersonic anti-ship missiles which are now being developed in haste by the west after Brahmos arrived on the scene.The Chinese anti-ship BM needs to also be countered.Only a cruiser class vessel will be able to carry the paraphenalia and weaponry which will include BM defence.A large helo hangar for multi-role ASW/AEW helos like the Merlin and UAVs,which could be stored under the helo deck using a small lift ,would give the vessel long "eyes and ears".For anti-ship ops,the ship could carry longer ranged missiles like Nirbhay and a naval K-15 variant,and/or hypersonic B'mos when developed.

Such a vessel will be around 1.5 to twice the size/displacement of the current Delhi series.While not as large as Soviet era battlecruisers,they could be a bit larger than the Slava class though.The hull could even be a trimaran if we have perfected such a hull design by then.The "outriggers" of the trimaran could house a line of SAMs in flush-deck silos as well.The powerplant could even be nuclear if funds permit.The ATV N-reactor could be tinkered with for a surface vessel which would not need such intensive miniaturisation.

As far as N-powered carriers go,the greater and real technical challenge is that of the type of aircraft to be carried which will determine the method of launch and recovery.Ideally the F-35B STOVL version of the JSF would be perfect,and the UK is once again looking at switching its choice to it,instead of the conventional CAT launched version.Vertical recovery is so easy and tension free as carriers operating Harriers will endorse.Cats are extremely expensive and even E-MALS come with a hefty price tag.STOBAR has its limitations ,but appears to be the choice of method for the IN as of now.If a naval version of the FGFA is developed,it will be the aircraft around which the details of future IN carriers can be fleshed out,but the size will have to be not less than 65,000t.Carrier survivability in the era of anti-ship BMs that the Chinese have developed appears to be the main task for onboard defences and escorts.

akimalik · Post by **akimalik** » 11 Apr 2012 08:39

I dont think any DE submarine can carry BrahMos and retain its manoeuverability.

The recent news about the miniturization of BrahMos into the B-3 variant would make it smaller and more manageable. Is there a possibility that B-3 could also do double duty on our SSKs?

Will · Post by **Will** » 11 Apr 2012 08:59

Anurag wrote:Where is the first Kolkata class destroyer? The first commissioning was scheduled for last month. I haven't seen any media reports either. Anyone seen any updates? This baby should be part of the the Vikramaditya CBG, I hope!

Armament: • Anti-ship: 4× 4-cell BrahMos UVLM[3]
• Air-defence: 2× 32-cell VLS Barak 8[3]
• CIWS: 2× 30 mm AK-630 gatling guns + 4× 8 cell Barak 1[3]
• Anti-submarine warfare: Torpedo tubes and 2× RBU-6000[3]

http://www.pib.nic.in/newsite/erelease.aspx?relid=75583
The three ships under P-15A are scheduled to be delivered by March 2012, March 2013 and March 2014 respectively.

Well March 2012 has come and gone.Typical MDL...

rajanb · Post by **rajanb** » 11 Apr 2012 10:22

Some titbits from Jane's Defence rec'd via email

!.India changes course over sub procurement plans
The Indian Navy (IN) has abandoned plans to privatise its delayed Project 75I (India) programme to build six diesel-electric submarines over the next decade and instead will restrict potential vendors to overseas and state-owned shipyards. Official and industry sources at DefExpo 2012 told IHS Jane's that the navy, fearful that its submarine fleet is depreciating fast, plans to select from four vendors to construct two of the six planned submarines with air-independent propulsion (AIP) and integrated combat systems with land attack potential

2.India looks to lease second Russian SSN
The Indian government is considering leasing a second Russian-built nuclear-powered attack submarine (SSN) following the induction of the Project 971 boat INS Chakra . "There is a proposal [for a second SSN] but we have not taken a decision about that," Indian Defence Minister A K Antony said on the sidelines of the Chakra commissioning ceremony on 4 April

Apologies if already posted.

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 11 Apr 2012 11:10

Karan M wrote:How can a VLS missile with its radar be LOBL until & unless its radar is already cued to the target (which requires a LoS to the target). By their very nature these missiles will be LOAL, irrespective of who & what provides the initial guidance - onboard or offboard, till the seeker can acquire the target.

No, you're wrong. Your understanding of LOBL is based on air launched ATGM, whose seekers are cued to targets by EO sight, and then launched.

However, LOBL capabilities are significantly considerable than that, and does not require LoS. The target bearing and approach coordinates can be fed into the missile before the missile leaves the VLS. Missiles like Barak-8 can be LOBL if target is designated while still within the launcher.

So, for a target approaching a fighter from the rear, a CCAAM can be cued by HMCS with target bearing before launch, and the missile on launch flips around 180 degrees to the coordinates fed into it before launch.

I checked for examples and found the following AWST article & reporter confirming what I've just explained http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/de ... 0c13dc0bbd

IAF and IA Spyder system Derby and Python missiles too stay inside cannisters without any LoS to target while data is fed into them during LOBL.

vina · Post by **vina** » 11 Apr 2012 11:16

tsarkar wrote:The Kolkata has a high hull but low superstructure compared to every other destroyer class in the world, that IMO will result in excellent seakeeping and negligible (even non-existant) top-heaviness that plagues all US cruisers and destroyers. The silouhette is low, only the 2248 mast will be visible on the horizon. From a pure naval architecture perspective, the Kolkata is an award winner hands down.

I just hope it has a more "civilized" (oops wrong word) warship like B/D (breadth to depth) and not a "river boat" like B/D (wide but shallow) . I just hope that what was supposed to be in height wasn't distributed around the waist thus making it wide.

You know how river boats will be when taken to sea. Violent motions in rolls that will make even the the oldest salt crusted sea dog violently sick. Not the nice gentle and pleasant slow rolls to the max and back like a cruise ship with nice depth for a given beam.

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 11 Apr 2012 11:33

^^ Dont worry, Indian Naval Architects primarily focus on seekeeping and hydrodynamics more than anything else. They first design good ships and everything else is secondary to that. Hence you dont hear about cracks in hulls and superstructure in CAG reports like US ships, nor do you ever hear about any seakeeping issues and complaints from IN/ICG Officers and ORs. Our home built ships are extremely stable platforms, and we factor this while ordering abroad as well.

The Russians are buying Talwars designed with Indian inputs.

negi · Post by **negi** » 11 Apr 2012 11:51

I think LOBL and LOAL are being used by various sources in a pretty loose manner; strictly speaking LOBL only comes into picture when the target/bogey is close enough for the active/passive seeker on the missile to lock onto before it is even launched and LOAL obviously is nothing but guiding the missile far enough towards the target until it's onboard seeker locks on to the target.

Now if Barak8 has a active RF seeker and is VLS launched then how is it LOBL capable (unless target happens to be hovering right over the VLS lids, assuming lids are made of some stuff used for making radomes) ? Feeding target bearings and coordinates alone to a missile does not qualify it as LOBL capable that sequence is true for LOAL mode too.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 11 Apr 2012 11:58

^^ True , unless the understanding is wrong LOBL simply means the seeker of the missile is capable of locking on to the target independent of external inputs , it could be RF or IIR seeker , doesnt matter what type of missile it is.

Typically the seeker of BVR/SAM missile has a max range of 15-25 km depending on RCS of target and band of seeker , so most BVR launcher would be classified as LOAL type. LOBL will only come into picture of Barak-8 seeker can either lock the trarget before or immediately after launch , which is possible if the target is within seekers effective range.

vina · Post by **vina** » 11 Apr 2012 12:06

tsarkar wrote:^^ Dont worry, Indian Naval Architects primarily focus on seekeeping and hydrodynamics more than anything else. They first design good ships and everything else is secondary to that.

Ah thanks

. It is so easy to easy to lose sight of the basics and give into temptation in lowering freeboard and sheer to save weight , along with the Russian temptation of using thinner plates compared to Indian practice !

Works fine if you are going to be confined to the enclosed "Baltic lake" or Black "sea" haa. haa, kind of places due to geographic limitations like the Soviet Union's fleet historically was, but nowhere close to being good enough in our part of the world with violent storms, tropical seas with heavier corrosion due to higher salinity and humidity.

Thank goodness, otherwise, our fleet would be port bound during the monsoons and a good part of the year, like the Russian surface fleet was locked in port during the bulk of winter.

Again, I am not sure, but I do think that the Russian designs would tend to have more "compartmentalization " via longitudinal and transverse bulkheads than what we probably would like to do.

It goes back in history. The German fleet (WWI and WWII) had greater compartmentalization than the British fleet. Obviously, the Royal Navy was a global force with each combatant out in the sea in the far corners of the earth for the greater part of the year , while the Kreigsmarine fleet was largely "Baltic Lake" focused , with occasional forays out into open ocean, and the crew largely in barracks ashore for the most part of the year. Hence they could have far higher compartmentalization , because livability wasn't that crucial.

The side effect of course was that that the Kreigsmarine boats could take far greater punishment. The Russians would largely be in the Kreigsmarine's boots because of their severe geographical limitations on their fleet's operations and would make the similar kind of design choices I would think.

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 11 Apr 2012 13:12

negi wrote:Now if Barak8 has a active RF seeker and is VLS launched then how is it LOBL capable (unless target happens to be hovering right over the VLS lids, assuming lids are made of some stuff used for making radomes) ? Feeding target bearings and coordinates alone to a missile does not qualify it as LOBL capable that sequence is true for LOAL mode too.

The seeker has been made less relevant by the missile on-board computer. The computer knows current position and where to go, and when to activate the seeker. If the computer knows when and where to direct the seeker before launch, then it is LOBL.Typically LOBL for cannister launched missiles like Barak-8 or Spyder Derby, the target is within seeker range (~15 km), and after launch and alignment by computer, the seeker activates and locks WITHOUT any further designation from the Search/Track radar. It is missile lock (via computer) and seeker lock, without the seeker activating and painting.

LOBL is defined based on whether further designation is required after launch or not, rather than seeker painting the target. Classic example is CCAAM flip shot, where no further designation happens by HMCS. The missile automatically flips, knows where to look for, and switches on and aligns the seeker.

SNaik · Post by **SNaik** » 11 Apr 2012 13:15

Karan M wrote:Isnt Sampson a rotating array? Its weight should be lower than a 4 faced AESA so weight could be a factor.

Sampson is a double-faced rotating radar, but it's weight is cited as 6 tons, which is certainly quite a lot.

SNaik · Post by **SNaik** » 11 Apr 2012 13:32

tsarkar wrote:
negi wrote:Now if Barak8 has a active RF seeker and is VLS launched then how is it LOBL capable (unless target happens to be hovering right over the VLS lids, assuming lids are made of some stuff used for making radomes) ? Feeding target bearings and coordinates alone to a missile does not qualify it as LOBL capable that sequence is true for LOAL mode too.
The seeker has been made less relevant by the missile on-board computer. The computer knows current position and where to go, and when to activate the seeker. If the computer knows when and where to direct the seeker before launch, then it is LOBL.Typically LOBL for cannister launched missiles like Barak-8 or Spyder Derby, the target is within seeker range (~15 km), and after launch and alignment by computer, the seeker activates and locks WITHOUT any further designation from the Search/Track radar. It is missile lock (via computer) and seeker lock, without the seeker activating and painting.

LOBL is defined based on whether further designation is required after launch or not, rather than seeker painting the target. Classic example is CCAAM flip shot, where no further designation happens by HMCS. The missile automatically flips, knows where to look for, and switches on and aligns the seeker.

You can speak of a missile LOBL with the input from target acquisition radar being fed into the missile computer, nevertheless, after launch you will still need to acquire the seeker lock-on. Meaning that the missile "knows" in which direction to look, but the seeker still has to look. Otherwise you will lose a maneuvering target.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 11 Apr 2012 15:07

CG AND NAVY PLACED ON FULL OPERATIONAL ALERT DUE TO TSUNAMI WARNING AFTER 8.9 richter scale earthquake in Aceh province of Indonesia.

JTull · Post by **JTull** » 11 Apr 2012 15:53

Probably most ships will be sent out to sea to prevent damage while berthed at port. Although US has said Tsunami is less likely as the quake was horizontal and not vertical.