Is the Barak 8 SAM a big mistake?

[thesolar65]

Dheere ka jhatka jor se laga!!

 

[skynet]

@UKBengali any more doubts

 

[Last Samuri]

Well done gambit.

Now we know why BARAK 8 will be the standard air defense misdsles of the indian navy.

 

[kaku1]

Lots of troll registered today.

 

[$@rJen]

Oh.... so many guys can defy the Laws of Physics here?
We seem to be in some exalted company of Scientists!

in that list Horus will get the first Rank

 

[Penguin]

What exactly is the Original source for the mach 2 quoted speed for Barak 8?

@gambit. Christal clear. THx.

 

[ni8mare]

What exactly is the Original source for the mach 2 quoted speed for Barak 8?

@gambit. Christal clear. THx.

wikipedia ....(not according to me)

 

[Penguin]

wikipedia ....(not according to me)

And where did the wiki get it from?

 

[ni8mare]

And where did the wiki get it from?

i dont know

 

[kaku1]

What exactly is the Original source for the mach 2 quoted speed for Barak 8?

@gambit. Christal clear. THx.

Actually the answer is no source. Even we have any source about MF-STAR on INS Kolkata?

 

[Penguin]

i dont know

Naval Technology + FLight Global.com

And their sources?

 

[ni8mare]

Naval Technology + FLight Global.com

And their sources?

i dont know

 

[gambit]

I forgot to add yesterday...

The Barak's slower speed should NOT be taken as a sign of technological inferiority or deficiency in design. A surface to air missile is no different to any air-air missile for use in air combat in the sense that the missile cannot anticipate its target's movements, in other words, despite the AMRAAM being an 'offensive' weapon, it is still a reactive weapon in that it can only response to what its target does.

However...For a SAM, the situation is actually the worse because unlike the airborne combatant, the surface defender cannot reposition himself into any advantageous posture. The surface defender is 99% of the time in the war at the mercy of the attacker, so to speak. Each SAM have only one chance, whereas the attacker can return for seconds or even third helpings. So while it is desirable to have an interceptor that can go as far as possible, fuel is a finite quantity and unplanned maneuvers to compensate for the target's unpredictability consumes resources, such as time and fuel, that cannot be recoup. Better to have slower speed to conserve fuel for target unpredictability to increase odds -- but never assured -- of interception, than to have high speed, go far, and failed intercept because the target somehow eluded the interceptor. Interception near is better than no interception.

 

[gambit]

@gambit; thanks for explaining. But whether that explanation could knock some sense into some dense 'kopfs' is anybody's guess.....

Personally, I have no interests in whether the criticisms have any credible sources for support or not. What I explained is the foundation of all brands and is independent of any comparison that anyone want to make between brands A, B, or C. Whether one missile is any more lethal than its competitors lies within, as in the sophistication of the math, the electronics, the software, and the mechanics.

What people tends to believe is that if you can do/go X to Y limit, then you MUST make X go to that limit. In the real world, speed limits the accuracy and precision of the ability to perceive, whether that ability came from the human eye or a radar antenna. It must fall upon the situation to help design the tool that is best suited for that situation. So if it is true that the Barak is slower than the Aster, does that mean the Barak's designer does not know how to make it go as fast as as the Aster ? Or is it possible, and even more likely, that the Barak's designers have a different set of priorities for the Barak based upon the common situation this weapon will be employed ?

Hypothetically...If a missile can accelerate to Mach 100 in a micro second, then what need is there for sophisticated proportional navigation guidance to calculate multiple possible interception points ? Not a high priority because for the target, a few micro seconds will be needed to execute a maneuver, and if the interceptor can go to Mach 100 in one micro second, the target literally have no escape window in both computing time and physical space.

But now when there are brands whose designers learned the same mathematics, able to perform the same mechanical engineering, and have access to the same materiel, it pretty much falls to philosophies, as in the beliefs of what is the best way(s) to counter a threat in a certain combat scenario or scenarios. If I was involved in something like this, I would inject my personal philosophy of maneuverability over speed in the start of the design process. Then as time goes by, maybe new technology become available that may push my personal belief lower in that list of priorities.

And that is how things goes...

 

[wiseone2]

I forgot to add yesterday...

The Barak's slower speed should NOT be taken as a sign of technological inferiority or deficiency in design. A surface to air missile is no different to any air-air missile for use in air combat in the sense that the missile cannot anticipate its target's movements, in other words, despite the AMRAAM being an 'offensive' weapon, it is still a reactive weapon in that it can only response to what its target does.

However...For a SAM, the situation is actually the worse because unlike the airborne combatant, the surface defender cannot reposition himself into any advantageous posture. The surface defender is 99% of the time in the war at the mercy of the attacker, so to speak. Each SAM have only one chance, whereas the attacker can return for seconds or even third helpings. So while it is desirable to have an interceptor that can go as far as possible, fuel is a finite quantity and unplanned maneuvers to compensate for the target's unpredictability consumes resources, such as time and fuel, that cannot be recoup. Better to have slower speed to conserve fuel for target unpredictability to increase odds -- but never assured -- of interception, than to have high speed, go far, and failed intercept because the target somehow eluded the interceptor. Interception near is better than no interception.

what is the maximum speed of the target it can shoot down ?