INS Vikramditya, India's second aircraft carrier, out at sea again

[gambit]

according to gambit,the interceptor's speed must be at least 3 times than the target !

Only in a tail chase.

 

[gambit]

Guys,

There seems to be a lot of misunderstanding here.

An 'interception' is the interruption of travel on a projected path. It does not matter if the interruption came from front, rear, front-oblique, rear-oblique, or lateral. All five schemes are interceptions.

The reason why the 3X speed is desirable is because of these 2 major factors:

- The interceptor is usually smaller than the target, which will have less fuel capacity and limited range. So we want our interceptor to reach the target as soon as possible.

- The target is not always a fighter aircraft running for his life. If the target is determined to reach its own target in order to destroy it, we want our interceptor to reach its target as soon as possible.

But even though this is in a tail chase interception scheme, a 3X speed is still desirable in a head on interception because we want to destroy the target as far away from us as possible. We want to minimize the effects of shrapnel and concussive blast, which could damage if not destroy other equipment crucial to our prosecution of the war. In a head on interception scheme, a stationary steel wall could do the job if we could quickly reposition the steel wall directly into the target's path.

Keyword search 'rocket solid fuel shapes'.

If our interceptor is solid fueled, it should have several stages of different shapes of fuel designed and placed in a logical sequence. Rapid burning and high thrust would be the first to burn to accelerate our vehicle to desired speed, which is our estimated 3X of the most PROBABLE target, like no. 6 above. Next would be the sustaining stage where the fuel is shaped for a more plateau or flat profile, like no. 3 above.

A liquid fueled rocket would have throttling mechanisms so the need is precision in acceleration and sustainment burns.

A turbine equipped interceptor may have ramjet but would need an initial rocket burn to accelerate to a speed where the ramjet can work.

The type of conflict is influential in deployment of which type of interceptor. If the conflict will be short range, little response time, and the targets on each side are highly mobile because the combatant countries are next door to each other, then a liquid fueled weapon, be it offense (attack) or defense (intercept), may be more desirable. You want the boost burn to be as rapid as possible to reach the highest speed as possible to deny the enemy the least response time as possible.

For a solid fuel weapon, there may not be a need to have a sustainment fuel stage at all. Just burn as hot and as fast as possible.

For a liquid fuel weapon, there may not be a need for throttling at all. Just open the gates and let the fuel burn until spent.

That said, solid fuel is preferred 8 out of 10 times because of its ease of maintenance and transport.

The designers of these weapons are not stupid. If a weapon cannot do <something> it is nearly always because of technological limitations, not because of imagination. If a weapon designed for A is deployed to a theater where B type is better suit, it probably is because of logistics, not because the weapon designers were stupid. For US, if all that are available at the current time are cruise missiles for targets that should be attacked by ballistic missiles, we will use cruise missiles. It may succeed. The point is to attack and give the enemy little or no respite.

So do not limit your thinking to just what a weapon looks like and what are its specs. Look at the potential combatants and their capabilities. Look at the potential battlefields and guess which weapon is best suit. The customer tells the designers these things and the designers will do their best in trying to meet customer demands.

 

[satishkumarcsc]

@gambit

Sir,

I have a doubt. What will happen when the missile is fired and the aircraft turns its tail and runs away and again engages the aircraft which is intercepting it?

 

[bloo]

Kadaai, and rice cooker - very big one's - check.

They should have like a food court with Subway and KFC too.

 

[Sarjen]

what about the PLAN's presence in Gwadar. surely it will be armed with its toys like DF-21D's . it will protect it's investment

kid you're crazy... IN will never attack Chinese port in Pakistan unless it's a two front war and no way we'd sit and watch Chinese to equip that port militarily... and I don't think so Chinese will have the guts to fire at Indian ACC in IOR, they'll pay the huge price for it... they'll have to sacrifice their ships and ports both in pak and srilanka + we'll cut off their oil supply... and hell no they can come out of scs while the Americans are there to totally screw them

 

[gambit]

@gambit

Sir,

I have a doubt. What will happen when the missile is fired and the aircraft turns its tail and runs away and again engages the aircraft which is intercepting it?

The odds of a pilot doing that is pretty slim simply because the missile's acceleration is fast enough that he will focus mainly on being defensive. This is where that preferable 3X speed advantage comes in for the missile.

But for the sake of speculation, say that the defensive fighter in his maneuvers led the missile's sensor view into seeing two possible targets. Whether the additional target is the parent launch fighter, an additional foe, or an additional friendly, is irrelevant to the missile. The issue now is missile sophistication.

For example...

The Sidewinder Story / The Evolution of the AIM-9 Missile

...while its seeker very often locked on to the sun or clouds,...

There are plenty of air combat testimonies where the victim pilot managed to escape death by presenting a sensory superior target to the missile: the sun and sometimes water surface glint.

The missile was programmed to lock onto the signature that is consistently stronger in amplitude, be that signature radar or infrared, depending on the sensor type. Radar chaff is the same scenario. It does not matter if the additional target is the parent launch fighter, a friend, or a foe. If there are two signatures and one is larger, the missile will lock on to it.

Today's missiles are far less prone to seduction/distraction tactic, but infrared is the more vulnerable to such tactics. The missile's programming must be sophisticated enough to remember target trajectory as in historical (where it was) and predictive (where it might be), target sensor return as in how reflective or radiating it is, and compare those data against an additional target if any just happened to come within view.

The dilemma is this possible scenario: the radar guided missile was fired at an F-16 but all of a sudden a B-52 came into view as well. The missile ignored the B-52. The F-16 was destroyed but the B-52 went on to its target and helped won the war. On the other hand, if YOU, the designer, decided to program the missile to go after the larger sensor return in every situation, then your missile have an increased risk of being seduced/distracted by the sun, the ground, your own friendly bomber, chaff, and what-nots. A balance must be reached and am not going to get into those details.

So for your hypothetical situation where a victim managed to present the missile with two targets: the victim and the enemy parent launch fighter. It all depends on the missile's sophistication. Is it possible for the missile to have its own IFF queries to prevent fratricide? Technically -- yes.

FIM-92A Stinger Weapons System: RMP & Basic

The Stinger system features a proportional navigation system, integrated Indentification Friend or Foe (IFF) interrogation, and threat adaptive guidance.

For a radar guided missile, its radar transmissions could incorporate IFF queries and if one target out of two (or more) does not respond appropriately, the missile will go after the non-responsive target. Or the missile can have passive IFF receivers and all fighters in the vicinity must continuously transmit their IFF codes so the missile can discriminate friends from foes. There are technical solutions but the issue is always: $$$.

 

[jamesseo89]

So now the Russians have come up with their old planned of 6 Super N-Carriers again, I am assuming that they will going to offer IN their only single carrier which they are currently operating...

So will IN going to look at it.

 

[illusion8]

So now the Russians have come up with their old planned of 6 Super N-Carriers again, I am assuming that they will going to offer IN their only single carrier which they are currently operating...

So will IN going to look at it.

We are building our own. It's called the Vikrant class

IAC 1 - it's a 45,000 ton ACC
IAC 2 - is a 65,000 ton ACC.

Both are under construction - so no more imported ACC's for us.

 

[jamesseo89]

But there are chances in future and it totally depends upon Russian will of producing their 6 Planned Super N-Carriers...

Though it has been on halt since 2006 and from 2012 news are coming they are again looking in to producing it.

 

[kurup]

But there are chances in future and it totally depends upon Russian will of producing their 6 Planned Super N-Carriers...

Though it has been on halt since 2006 and from 2012 news are coming they are again looking in to producing it.

Russia willing to sell or not , IN has already made it clear that Gorshkov will be the last carrier to be bought and all others will be produced in-house .

 

[jamesseo89]

OK. That is great. But we are hearing that IN will going to place an order for about 3 or 6 more frigates from Russia

 

[AUSTERLITZ]

Man recently i am having second thoughts about effective carrier battle groups really will be in future conflicts.Here read this.If US navy is having problems what about us?Granted our adversaries are way weaker and chinese diesel subs can't operate in IOR due to range and nuke subs are way noisier.
This article.
News
It seems carriers are way vulnerable to diesel subs atm.

 

[acid rain]

This article.
News
It seems carriers are way vulnerable to diesel subs atm.

WOW, time for a reality check then, India is going for nuclear subs and a few new CBG's and that article is scary. @gambit, @Penguin - are these two and other surface ships so vulnerable? or, its just a caliberated exercise. I cannot believe that a lone deisel sub is capable of so much damage everytime.

 

[AUSTERLITZ]

WOW, time for a reality check then, India is going for nuclear subs and a few new CBG's and that article is scary. @gambit, @Penguin - are these two and other surface ships so vulnerable? or, its just a caliberated exercise. I cannot believe that a lone deisel sub is capable of so much damage everytime.

It seems diesel subs are nigh undetectable if they shut down and lie in wait,virtually nothing stopping them from ambushing a surface group by popping up when it passes over.Also calls into question whether we need SSNs at all.I mean we don't have worldwide commitments and SSNs cost huge deal more.

 

[satishkumarcsc]

It seems diesel subs are nigh undetectable if they shut down and lie in wait,virtually nothing stopping them from ambushing a surface group by popping up when it passes over.Also calls into question whether we need SSNs at all.I mean we don't have worldwide commitments and SSNs cost huge deal more.

We have the whole Indian ocean to police so SSN and SSBN are a very important arm for the submarine force. Above all the Diesel electric sub if it lays silent it can ambush but in active sonar detection it will show up like a light bulb. No need to worry about it.