Bharat Rakshak

There is already a project going on for Medium Lift Helicopter in HAL. As per reports, the preliminary design phase was also completed. The site livefist had some details. You can search the archives for the same. Also, for LUH, half are to be imported and half would be local LUHs which is more or less a confirmed order, so HAL has a strong case to carry on its development.

DCNS' Patrick Boissier: India is such an amazing experience

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/opi ... 588293.cms

NRao,

First of all, the ice in Severodvinsk basin usually is not that thick, 20 cm. There's a lot of warm water being disposed in that area. If you don't have to move around a lot, that's fine.

That means its quite ready. Say a year or so.

A new "Brahmos-3" version ,a lightweight variant for the Indian navy and services is being pursued,hopefully to be developed within 3-4 years,says AWST Apr.9th issue,quoting Indian sources.The missile will be small and light enough to be carried by IN MIG-29Ks and IAF Jaguars and installed on naval vessels and subs.They will also be offered as replacements for Exocet and harpoon missiles in the intl. market.

http://www.zinio.com/reader.jsp?issue=416218193&e=true

Rubin to install AIP systems for two being built 677 class subs.
http://indrus.in/articles/2012/04/09/se ... 15404.html

Some updates - Sahyadri is mostly ready for commissioning. Kolkata too is ready, minus Elta 2248 and Barak-8. It will most probably be commissioned like the Brahmaputra class which had Barak-1 refitted later.

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.

The sentiment on the deck is that Israelis are going the Russian way. Russia used the Type 1135.6 and Vikramaditya projects to primarily refurbish the dockyards and train manpower, and building our ships had lower priority. The feeling is that Israelis shifted focus from Barak-8 to Iron Dome and other domestic TBMD programs - despite India having fully paid up.

Scorpene - it seems ToT absorbtion by MDL is lesser than ToT absorbed during the T209/1500 project. MDL has shown least enthusiasm in absorbing technology and DCN couldnt care less. Project 75I will most probably be 6 additional Scorpenes from MDL, maybe with some improvements.

thats worrying news because I dont think barak8 has even entered a proper test cycle yet and the status of MF-STAR in terms of mission readiness is unknown.

what fallback options do we have at this stage - to me it seems only few choice given the structure and role of delhi.
(1) A50 sylver + Aster30 + Aster15 + EMPAR - franco italian ships
(2) as above but with Sampson. - british ships
(3) Mk41VLS with SM2 and APAR - dutch/german ships

it could years before the system is ready from israel unless there is progress we dont know about.

Barak-8 is a joint DRDO+IAI venture. The underlying technologies are mature and proven elsewhere by both parties. Its a case of delay, chances of failure are minimal.

It is not surprising Israel would be investing manpower in TBMD and Iron Dome as right now the threat of war seems very real and these programs would be more useful to them in immediate future then Barak-8

MF-STAR is by no means a mature technology for Israel. 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. Perfect example of is the Russian Furke radar, which works nice in land-based Pantsyr SAM, but is a total failure as target acquisition radar for naval Redut SAM.

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.

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

[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.

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.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.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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

Correct. Though the MFSTAR does have a decent height at its placement (seehttp://imageshack.us/f/15/project15a ... lass0.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?

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

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.

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 .

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

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.

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

^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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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?

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

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.