Bharat Rakshak

Singha, that's for TACAN if I am correct.

It is.
Link
Scroll to 329.

where do american carriers like uss enterprise have this?
http://forum.valka.cz/attachments/11563 ... VN-65_.jpg

USN mostly uses URN-25 TACAN saab.
Pic
Link

Is this a new pic or an old one? If it's a new one then it looks like the May 25th date was back on after all?

http://img502.imageshack.us/img502/7387 ... 177097.jpg

Boss even in Russia it is spring and not dead of winter.. That is an old pic

A long time ago, we were discussing the Kitty hawk into IN. Along wt upto 60 F-18E/F.
Any official info on that?

There is no chance for that to happen,as the In's carrier plans are very cl.Induction of the Gorky/Vik within a year and IAC-1,the new "Vikrant" sometime between 2015 and 2017,wiht the third larger carrier by the end of the decade.The aircraft for the Gorky/Vik and Vikrant-2 wil be MIG-29Ks and NLCAs.If a naval variant of the Russo-Indo JV FGFA/PAK-FA 5th-gen stealth fighter also arrives by 2020,as has been hinted at some time ago,then it will be an attractive proposition for the IN IAC-2 will probably operate it

nothing official. only official info is the US naval spokesperson clarified it as under -



Gates Butters Up India for U.S. Guns

also read -

Why India Talked Up a U.S. Carrier Deal

@Phillip Noted.
But the IN's plans were drafted when PLAN had no visible intent of operating a carrier.
Now, the situation appears as if by the time IN will get its hands on IAC-2, a good decade plus later, we have a possibility that PLAN would have already fielded three carriers all of which will likely be heavier then all the the IN carriers respectively.
Since a four carrier IN is something we cant believe, I say Kitty in place of IAC2 will be a better thing for us.

^ Since atleast 1996 there were reports of PLAN getting a carrier and rest of East Asian navies have more reasons to worry about Chinese carrier than IN (island disputes in South China sea). In any regional dispute in South Asia PLAN carrier will be of little use.

The Kitty Hawk is more than 50 years old. It doesn't have any life left. The capex for operating and maintaining it would be huge as well. The idea is a non-starter.

Without atleast two high-availability CATOBARs, the PLAN carrier cannot yet be considered as an offensive platform. One does not hear anything on those lines yet, or USN would be the one who would be dropping articles all over the web on that. Defending a remote territory kind of role at this point, if one takes the PLAN seriously. Or pure H&D role, if one goes by the warm pontoons they keep moored around and call them SSBNs.

By IAC-2, if we go for a CATOBAR story (EMALS or anything else), then we signal a certain intent. 65K tons + catapults are a good size. But not right now.

Even the UK/RN has abandoned the cat version of the JSF and gone back to the STOVL version instead for many reasons.Cats are enormously expensive and require nuclear powerplants preferably.We do not need another 50 yr. old flat top which has no life left in it.Secondly,as far as the PLAN carrier threat is concerned,it does not possess a suitable naval aircraft for the Varyag,as it has only obtained an SU-33 from Ukraine illegally while the Russians ,p*ssed off,have refused to sell it its carrier aircraft,either MIG-29K or SU-33.The PLAN is trying to reverse engineer the SU-33 ,but thus far its aviation industry is heavily dependent upon the designs of Russian engines which it is illegally trying to reverse engineer.The problems it is facing with this line of action is why it is placing so much emphasis upon developing its own indigenous engine R&D set up and in such haste.

The IN has a head start in carrier ops and if it keeps its future plans on track, will still have an advantage over the PLAN as we move into the next decade. Once a nbaval version of the PAK-FA/FGFA appears ,our superiority in naval carrier aircraft will widen in relation to anything that the PLAN might possess.

Post WW2 Britain never was seriously into offensive Naval Air operations like the two super powers. France was a fence-sitter. Despite small sizes, both these guys have far flung islands that the cling on to, due to their colonial past. So their choices might be different from ours' or China's in the future

We got to be prepared for the day China operates at-least two CATS from a deck

and the main one being they are a 2nd rate power riding the coattails of Khan and using the European links to take on what?? Argentina??

they barely got through that war with the poor Argentines isolated and betrayed.

other than that when any half rate power tells them to F#$% off they slink away ...


so all they need is to show they are the coalition of the willing and send 1 plane with 1000 khan planes and lap the glory from the idiot media

[Ignore lists have a tremendous benefit. ]

However, Steam Cats are things of the past, now it is The Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (commonly EMALS).

EMALS has huge, huge, tremendous benefits (over the conventional Steam Cat). AND, the USN has actually launched an F-18, which means a ton for this new tech.

I have no clue (have not followed it) why the RN decided on what they are getting, but USN is clearly gravitating towards the EMALS.

On Kitty Hawk, it was a nothing more than a rumor, but,I still feel that India should have tried to "get it". India (not IN) needs to take some risks and that was a great time for India to do so. IMHO.

It was due to cost. Modifications were going to end up costing UK another ~ $ 2 billion for the CATOBAR versions.

Thanks.

So essentially they opted for the lesser of two risks: the one model that carries the highest risk.

Tarkash steaming on sea trials

Naik Sahab, I always wait for your posts. Thank you for your updates.

Between that is a very interesting picture. There is no wake whatsoever .

treasure of pics!

She's still in Pregol river, tugs have just disengaged
For sea trials she moves from the yard to Baltiysk naval base.

More out of curiosity than anything else, why is it that the Russian ship/s are so cluttered - say as compared to the French?

Could we expect the Russians to do a "better job" (I know it is a biased statement) in the next three? Or for that matter even the Indian designed ships to do better?

That mast looks ugly.

^ You get what you pay for Krivak 3 where mainly designed to cheap mass produced frigates, the mast is simply a steel stand compare that with Steregushchiy. IN is happy with the design, I don't really expect any changes.

Why is it that the American ship/s are so cluttered - say as compared to the Russians?

http://www.navy.mil/management/photodb/ ... 72-267.jpg American ships's suffer from fungal infection with bridge and superstructure looking infected and cluttered with spores and mushrooms? Why so many wires all around that can electrocute sailors?

http://www.navy.mil/management/photodb/photos/120524-N-MZ309-035.jpg This mast is uglier. This rickety and ramshackle mast looks shabbier than my village electricity distribution pole.

Could we expect the Americans to do a "better job" (I know it is an honest statement, given Zumwalt, LHD8, LCS failures) in the next class of ships?

But wait, isnt the next Zumwalt class terminated at 3 ships and are building more fungally infected ships of the Burke class.

Stupid Americans cant even design next class of ships!

Their new fancy frigates carry 57 mm gun and no missiles and are outgunned by Pakistani F22Ps.

Why are American ships so top heavy and roll in rough weather
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1 ... 06,3134104

and are cracking worse than my village potter’s earthen pots http://www.navytimes.com/news/2010/12/n ... s-120910w/

unlike the Indian ship with excellent seakeeping here http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NAVY/Gall ... CN4713.JPG and here http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NAVY/Gall ... SKochi.jpg

Oh, wait, they build ships out of aluminum that Below Poverty Line people in India use pots and pans made of.

Get real, ships are designed for function and not "looks".

What has cost got anything to do with it? Its all about function. If the so called steel stand suffices, then why make something more complex? FWIW, the US invented ugly looking lattice mast http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lattice_mast to reduce top weight

Cheater Americans copying Russian technology. No wonder Chinese steal their's.

Can you even imagine the cost of trying to maintain and run that rust bucket?

EMALS may not be an immediate option for IN:

"An electromagnetic system is more efficient, smaller, lighter, more powerful, and easier to control. Increased control means that EMALS will be able to launch both heavier and lighter aircraft than the steam catapult. Also, the use of a controlled force will reduce the stress on airframes, resulting in less maintenance and a longer lifetime for the airframe. Unfortunately the power limitations for the Nimitz class make the installation of the recently developed EMALS impossible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Gerald ... 8CVN-78%29

I have a suspicion that having more powerful reactors= more space = larger ships = 75KT + CVNs . I don't think there are any plans to have ships that large in the next 15-20 years.

I may be completely wrong but if the Nimitz class reactors could not hack EMALs, I doubt anything the IN has in the pipeline will be able to power them. Steam Catapults may be the only way to go.

John,

Thanks. Certainly satisfied my "curiosity".

TS,

I did mention "French", did I not? The US solution is as ugly, if not more.

In general, I was not complaining about "function", all of them produce wonderful techs and therefore should be "functional". My quarrel was/is with the "form".

Will,

True.

However, "risk" that I mentioned was more about ROI. What you have stated is the "investment" component. I am trying to relate the entire episode to the "return" and the ratio of the two. The size of the ship, three cats and four elevators, she would have provided a valuable testbed for some time.

But anyways, it was just a thought.

Cosmo_R,

True. India has a very long way to go, even if the US parts with that tech.

However, the EMALS is for an electric ship (office) - something the US is moving towards - do not know with these budget cuts where that dream stands.

The UK, I would think, would follow.

The RN's example is the best way forward.Either acquire the hideously expensive JSF in its STOVL version,or develop a STOBAR version of the PAK-FA/FGFA,which we are co-developing with Russia,expected to arrive late in the decade.Cats are not only too expensive for a navy like the RN,but require larger powerplants for the same.The whole cost of the carrier could go up a few billions.Our need is to have at least 3 new carriers in service at any time ,plus about 4 multi-role flat tops/ amphibious warfare vessels which can be used as ASW carriers in any crisis.Smaller sized carriers with UCAVs are going to look more attractive,especially as the loss of a carrier to an antiship BMD,such as the Chinese plan to do if threatened by US carriers,makes it a prohibitively expensive asset to lose.Carriers will hjave to be accompanied by cruiser class vessels armed with very capable anti-BMD missiles,perhaps like the SM-3s that the US plan to use to defeat incoming strategic BMs,plus a heavy load of LR naval SAMs and CIWS systems to defeat cruise and supersonic anti-ship missiles too.Operating 3 carrier task forces is going to be a hugely expensive affair,would require a massive boost to the naval share of the budget in a shrinking economy.

If the IN's task is more slanted to sea denial than sea control,outside the IOR theatre ,where the Indian landmass (our unsinkable "INS India") allows for LR maritime patrol aircraft (esp. if we acquire Backfires) which can be armed with LR missiles to sanitise the same,then acquiring a larger number of SSGNs and conventional AIP subs should be examined.At least 5-6 SSGNs would gviv the IN a considerable capability in the Indo-China Sea and Asia-Pacific theatres.This number would also be neccessary for supporting our carrier task forces too.

the french lafayette, FREMM and horizon class seem to be the cleanest big combatants around in terms of topsize clutter removal.

I did not know the Zumwalt class has been capped at a token 3? why? cost or technical problems or market changes?

wiki says cost had escalated to $5+ billion a unit, so from 32 down to 3.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... 000%29.jpg

and all they get for this is 2 x 155mm guns...a WW2 , 8" gun cruiser could put down lot more rounds on target and cost a fraction. even if they want the gun turrets could modify some of the burke class, delete the Mk41 VLS cell aft and put in the gun there, likewise reduce the fwd mk1 array and replace the std 5" gun with the 155mm. lo and behold even older Burke class could get these 2 guns and fire much the same missiles like tomahawk and JASSM.

this ship was a pork barrel.

Tsarkar: the "clean look" requirement is more than just form/looks. Its for RCS reduction of stealth frigates. Going in the Lafayette direction for clean & radar deflecting shaping wouldnt be such a bad idea.

Zumwalt certainly is a ship which has true LO capability no hanging wires or HF antenna ...they went to extreme length to make it a clean design ship with all AESA antena for all purpose including communication, WoW ! Sadly its the cost which is a killer

if it was meant to bombard china/russia/india from 100km away all that expense makes sense. but we all know its not for that. if its meant to bombard iran or libya or syria type targets, we all know such extreme measures were never needed. US air superiority guarantees a Iowa type battlewagon or a cheap gun cruiser will comfortably do the job....these ships will never need to operate alone.

to me it looks like a (big) solution looking for a problem. with no problem in sight, no surprise the 32->3 tokenism.

I dont see anyone beating up the GOTUS for such a misdirected project with no obvious role and wasting tens of billions on it. if the same thing had been done on a 1/10 basis in india people would be all over the GOI.

its a very large ship and conventionally powered, so no matter what the stealthy shaping, I suspect it will have a heat sig and RCS enough for ASMs and fighters to pick up.

a el-cheapo soln effective to 60-70km was readily available with the german Pzh2000 study on naval ships or the oto melara 127/64
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNGER_61-52_MONARC.htm
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNIT_5-64_LW.htm

if all they wanted was sustained fire support for marines storming ashore (where?) .... a cheaper DDG51 hull with 2 such turrets could pump out 1000s of rounds before needing a refill. the Mk41 VLS volume could be the shell magazines.

Of late the cost of US weapon systems is surprisingly too high. Take F22 and now this Zumwalt. It is just like expensive toys. They are going too far to create what they consider " unbeatable" and " most moderan" systems withlittle regard to the cost and later such systems get killed due to budgetary reasons. Take Seawolf also.

With present ecomonic conditions they have think cost factor also. But then the body bags will be an issue. Catch22 indeed.

Tumblehome hull has poor seakeeping. http://www.dept.aoe.vt.edu/~mccue/paper ... stab07.pdf http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/ ... 861393.pdf Read the abstract that says computer simulation did not detect instability but tank model tests showed extreme roll transients, proving computer simulation is not always accurate.The French FREMM has a single low capability radar http://media.defenseindustrydaily.com/i ... ept_lg.jpg and the actual ship is quite cluttered compared to the CG designs. The Italian FREMM with a better capability radar has a cluttered topside http://digilander.libero.it/en_mezzi_mi ... remm02.jpg

Lafayette is a large Offshore Patrol Vessel, not a frigate.

Not sure you understand what i said, if i recall correctly we turned down the original design proposed by Russia back in 1996? which was newly designed Frigate (had mast and few design elements similar to XXI Frigate design IIRC) on merits of cost. After couple years Russia countered with Talwar FFG at a much lower price. I am not saying than Talwar doesn't have different mast design because of cost reasons but rather we went with Talwar due to cost and other factors.

Delta Frigate aka Formidable class FFG IMO is probably best frigate design out there, not very expensive (< 500 million) and requires a crew of less than 100.

Please explain stealth and RCS reduction. Also explain the means of RCS reduction.

Answering this will require a lot of research from your side, but it'll be time well spent.

That proposal was never considered. The design was unproven, hence risky, which was the primary rejection factor. Risky and new design requires extensive design and testing process, that also inflates cost, which is secondary. The Krivak design was chosen because of the proven hullform. Every IN selection - Leander, Kashin, Krivak and the derivative Godavari, Delhi and Shivalik - emphasized primarily on the hullform.