Please provide links or references which lead you to your above stated comments.
Let me inform you that the
“The Sindugosh will be the eigth Kilo class submarine of the Indian Navy to be equipped with the 3M-54E1 cruise missile (Nato designation Klub-S)”
“In early October, Sindhugosh successfully completed Club-S missile tests at a firing range of the Russian Northern Fleet's Belomorskaya naval station in the White Sea.”
source: http://kuku.sawf.org/News/3413.aspx
Warships back, but forces keep high alert
12 Jun 2002, 0058 hrs IST,TNN
The WNF includes the Navy’s "main potent assets" like the aircraft carrier INS Viraat battle group, "Kilo" class submarines armed with underwater-launched Klub cruise missiles,guided-missile destroyers and frigates, among others.
Russia returns Klub-S cruise missiles
19 Oct 2005, 2242 hrs IST,Rajat Pandit,TNN
INS Sindhushastra inducted in 2000, came with the "tube-launched missile capability". The other four, like INS Sidhuratna and INS Sidhuvir, have been refitted with the Klub-S missiles in Russia since then.
Perhaps you consider submarines as a part of the army, but i can assure you the Indian Navy operates them.
“The contract for the production of Club-N missile system was made with Baltiysky Zavod owing to the previous experience of the shipyard. In 2000-2004 Baltiysky Zavod produced the analogous systems and fitted them onto three frigates project 11356, which were built for the Indian Navy. Upon results of operation testing of the system the Indian Naval Staff made a decision to arm their frigates with anti-ship weapons produced by Baltiysky Zavod.”
Source: http://www.bz.ru/en/news*3,29.html
This is from the proverbial horses mouth.
Source: http://www.nti.org/db/nisprofs/russia/naval/technol/resdespr/rubin.htm
they have provided the sources of their information, unlike you.
And about the Club missile on INS Talvar, who told you there are problems with the launcher.
The only thing really out in public domain is that Talvars sam had a problem with the Russian SAM system, that too of illumination frequency.
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NAVY/Klub.html
Well that is the point, isn't it, with time both seeker and CM will improve. Otherwise just tow decoys and chaff, and couple them with a big gun and lots of jamming. Even the AC 130 gunships are invincible.
I think you are confusing India with Iraq-Iran and your timing about the events seem to be in the good old soviet days.
Indian military generally refuses to accept anything sub-standard, if you have a doubt about this i can point out a lot of instances. Everything around here is as good as the Russians can produce.
To claim that Russians are selling sub standard to there own stuff in the competitive times we live in is hard to fathom.
Where is the Yakhont, the very problems it faces are violation of aforementioned MTCR.
the important things under disscussion here are
- integrated navigation system'
- integration "software"e.
- Ramjet/scramjet/pulse jet/combined cycle engines.
Which are made by the same scientist/engineers, so according to you they made a real effort of downgrading all of these, he he.
Does a 10 km reduction leaves a missile ineffective, changed and a "monkey product".
These are things which can only come out of the guys involved in the project, so again how do you know this, provide links.
It doesn’t matter what you or I think.
The tests were done, they were on TV, newspaper and You tube for heavens sake, why do you doubt them.
not that simple,well i hope its not, this is the "rocket science", people refer to when they say, "hey its not rocket science".
Even a guy like me knows that if you can guide the missile all the way to target nothing like it, the whole argument is to have smarter weapons that do the job themselves, even a guided missile will go on to meet the target till its seeker is active, at which point the guidance doesn't matter.
Radar/visual horizon is no concept, it’s a well established fact and information is readily available about it.
At 10 meter the missiles radar seeker has a range to the horizon of at least 13,000 m. Taking into account atmospheric refraction effects and considering its target will be a point on the surface and not a ship.
A 15 meter high target will be inside radar horizon, for a missile flying at 10m at 29,014m and in visual horizon at 25,127m.
For a missile going at 15 meters and seeking a target at 15m the radar horizon is 31,945m and the visual horizon is 27665
Source: horizon calculators: there are plenty of them online.
So where is the need of "popping up" if you are going to find the target 5 km away from where it originally was, it might as well not move. I think the club does that.
The popping up you mention, the club does that,
once the initial coordinates of the target are provided, the fire control system plans a route to the target, the missile flying at a lower sea skimming level 5-10m from the surface at sub sonic speeds to avoid detection flys close tho the target,
when it is about to approach what is the probable target area, it pops up and scans the area with its active radar,
this happens because in the time it takes the club to approach the probable target area the target dispersion is higher than say a faster missile, this combined with its low level of flight, once the seeker has locked on, even the great club descends to 3 to 5 meters above sea level and accelerates to a supersonic speed of Mach 2.9 in a zigzagging terminal run to hit its target.
View attachment 1986
Image Source: internet
Well consider the situation in very layman(me) terms:
a missile that reaches point 'A' to point 'B' (290 km away in 290 seconds) to find a target at point 'B'.
The displacement of the target is 5 km in 290 seconds, a circle around point 'B' with the radius of 5 km.
The seeker range with respect to the height of the seeker and the target is 20-25 km at an angle of 45 degree from either side. which will be a quarter sector of a circle, with a 90 degree angle and radius 20-25 km.
As the missile approaches point 'B' the target with a displacement of 5 Km is well with in the missile seeker range.
Even for different parameters limiting the seeker range(horizon), increasing the displacement of the target, degrading the accuracy of the missile with in acceptable limits, the solutions do not seem to suggest what you said about the "inability of the seeker to find the target", as long as the accuracy of the missile to arrive at the point B is degraded by a huge margin or the target displacement is increased by a margin unachievable for a Naval vessel which will be the target.
And the missile in question goes about the day at 10-15 m, no point taking of 5m.
The missile has been claimed to distinguish between different targets, if you have a reason to reject this state that reason and what do you base that on.
At radar horizon of 25000 for a missile at 10 m and the target at 15 m,
This will still give the missile 25-30 sec to scan the area, distinguish and lock on to what the parameters in the terminal guidance mechanism will confirm as a preferred target so that the final guidance towards that target can start.
There are very few systems that are able to in your words accurately "monkey" a ships characteristics, and they too try to constantly evolve, i wonder why.
Again to comment on the capability of this mechanism requires a knowledge of what logic/depth they used, the available electronic equipment they used etc. etc. which no one willing to talk will let out. This is a day and age where solutions to complex problems have been achieved by employing novel methods(stuff like genetic algorithms, differential evolution is not a science friction any more it is a science fact.)
If the mechanism fails to distinguish between different detected objects with in this window of time and lock on to one of them how will more time help?
Counter- measures, counter- ‘counter measures’, this has gone on for a long time, each CM needs to be analyzed individually.
Now it is a question of moving the missile in towards a target that will move at 30 knots.
that really spoils the party of all those who are going on and on about supersonic missiles not being maneuverable doesn't it.
source: http://kuku.sawf.org/Articles/33122.aspx
It does not mean "sub standard, cant hit a target at claimed range, ineffective in front of floating chaffs, failure at all counts for which it was made" either.
Even if other objects are detected it is not impossible to distinguish between them and lock on to a single one of them based on the data acquired through the radar seeker in order start the final guidance towards a target, if you get 40 seconds to do this even better. if even this time is not enough how will more time help?
The actual process of target moving around will not help much even if till the last 20-30 km, all that the missile does is to try to follow as straight a path to the known target position as possible, and then switch on the active radar seeker.
Point of using inertial mid course guidance in a anti shipping missile, is that no matter how fast the ship moves, the missile will manage to arrive in a area - where the active missile seeker will be effective in tracking and locking on to the target. This has been achieved by other anti shipping missiles too. According to the information online Russian Klub missile being one of them, that is to say using a inertial guidance with Active radar homing.
What you are essentially questioning is the capability of the inertial mid course guidance system, to get the missile with in 20-30 km of the expected location of the target.
Even if you manage to get the missile to this range with the help of mid course guidance from a data link with another earth based system, and then switch on the radar acquisition, if the ship is really able to radiate signals in a direction different to the flight trajectory through its immense "stealth" ability how will the radar seek the target, essentially till you can guide the missile to the very final moments of impact how will the data link help?
All of what I have typed vanishes into thin air, when we consider that:
The whole point of having a project aim of a fire and forget missile is beaten, if you provide a mid course guidance from a outside source (except a GPS signal, which apparently they have), you are much better off refining the inertial mid-course guidance.:nutkick
My logic in English seems to be really bad.
IF you want to see more horrible errors see my posts above (anyways knowing anything about the PLA-AF is next to impossible), who is Gary? am i supposed to know Gary?
He made mistakes.
I make a lot of mistakes(as you can obviously see).
Even you make mistakes (i can point out some).
It still doesn’t answer my question to you.
Last edited: