You mean Tigr Class Frigate aka Steregushchy class corvette based on images floating of Saryua being fitted out it looks nothing like it, it does have resemblance to Patrol vessels being built for Russian CG so i wouldn't be surprised if it was based on Russian design. As for Saryu being built by GSL i believe the first is to be commissioned this winter from what based on info posted a year ago.AbhiJ wrote:
The Saryu Class is a Reverse Engineered Russian Tifr Frigate!
John, Isn't GSL constructing 4 Saryu Class for the IN? When are they coming?
Indian Naval Discussion
Re: Indian Naval Discussion
Re: Indian Naval Discussion
Anik,from the report of the Germans holding back a shipment of Russian arms to India,including engines for TU-142s,it can be assumed that the Bears will be in service for as long as possible,as long as spares and other logistic help is available from Russia,which has a large stock of the same.They have unmatched range and when the air-launched Brahmos is in service will surely be carried by the Bears as the P-8s can only carry the vastly inferior Harpoons,in both range and speed, which we've ordered ! The P-8s will be able to help the IN sanitise the general airspace of the IOR,but for ops beyond into the Indo-China Sea and Pacific,only the Bears will be able to carry out offensive long range patrols.
Re: Indian Naval Discussion
Dont think it is appropriate to develop a new heli when there is a requirement for only 50~80 odd units.Austin wrote:So it seems the IN is interested in yet another imported chopper for LUH after rejecting ALH.
Some time i wonder if IN knew they had need for LUH and ALH was not appropriate why didnt they contract HAL to build one instead of spending $1 billion on something they can do it in half the price.
Re: Indian Naval Discussion
IN does have a requirement for long range maritime patrol aircraft with interdiction capabilities .
Re: Indian Naval Discussion
Navy’s wavering delaying warships by years
The Indian Navy’s insistence that warships built in India must have cutting-edge weapons systems is having potentially dangerous consequences: half-built warships rusting in the dockyard, waiting for fancy weaponry that gets more and more delayed.
Such is the story of Project 15A, the construction of three 6,800-tonne destroyers by the public sector Mazagon Dock Ltd, Mumbai (MDL), India’s premier warship builder. Project 15A was sanctioned in June 2001, and construction began in 2003, with delivery of the first ship, INS Kolkata, promised in June 2008. The second (INS Kochi) and third (INS Chennai) vessels of the Kolkata Class (a warship class is traditionally named after the lead ship) would follow at one-year intervals.
Instead, as Business Standard saw on a visit to MDL, the three hulks float aimlessly, seawater corroding their steel as they wait for key systems that are not yet ready. INS Kolkata was launched in March 2006; it has already spent 7 years in the water. But the navy will be lucky to get it next year, five years late. INS Kochi and INS Chennai will follow in 2014 and 2015 respectively.
Meanwhile, the navy’s Maritime Capability Perspective Plan (MCPP) exists only on paper. Formulated in 2005, the MCPP projects a 160 ship-strong navy, including 90 front-line combat platforms (major warships like aircraft carriers, destroyers, frigates and corvettes). Actual numbers are far more modest. The INS Sahyadri, the navy’s latest warship that was commissioned last month, is its 134th ship.
According to a 2010 CAG report on warship building, this year the navy will have just 44% of the destroyers it needs; 61% of the frigates; and 20% of its requirement of corvettes (destroyers are heavy warships, above 6,000 tonnes; frigates usually weigh under 5,500-6,000 tonnes; while corvettes are usually below 2,500 tonnes).
The navy has only itself to blame for delays in Project 15A. With MDL having successfully built three destroyers under Project 15 (INS Delhi, INS Mysore and INS Mumbai), Project 15A was to be a follow-on class, three more destroyers built quickly using basically the same design and technologies. Instead, the navy demanded 2,363 modifications, including major changes in weaponry, sensors and helicopter systems.
According to the CAG’s audit report, the Kashtan surface-to-air missile was replaced with the Long Range Surface to Air Missile (LR-SAM), which the Defence R&D Organisation (DRDO) is still co-developing with Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI). To strengthen the destroyer’s anti-submarine capabilities, it was decided to include a bow-mounted sonar, the DRDO’s Humsa sonar. And the entire helicopter hangar was redesigned to accommodate a bigger helicopter.
To make matters worse, many of these decisions were taken late, necessitating major reconstruction. The CAG points out that the decision on the Humsa sonar was taken “after MDL had completed the detailed design, production, assembly and erection of the bow structure without sonar”, which called for major redesign. Similarly, the navy decided to change the gun mount in March 2008, after the first ship was launched. This “necessitated redesign of the entire structure around the gun mount…” says the CAG.
Naturally, the delays have been enormous. While Project 15 vessels were built in 108 months, Project 15A vessels will take 140 months to delivery. This is twice as long as Korean shipyards like Hyundai and Daewoo, which take 66-72 months (including the pre-build period) for a comparable warship. Western shipyards like DCNS (France), Fincantieri (Italy), or Northrop Grumman (USA) typically take 78-80 months.
MDL’s new chairman, Rear Admiral (Retired) Rahul Kumar Shrawat, plays down the delay, pointing out that the vessels are now close to completion. “It is the navy’s endeavour to put the latest equipment on a new warship. That is a legitimate user aspiration,” he says.
But Shrawat would not like the same mistakes to be made in Project 15B, another follow on project, under which MDL will build four destroyers similar to the Kolkata Class. Shrawat hopes that Project 15B destroyers, which will start being constructed this year, will incorporate the same LR-SAM, Brahmos cruise missile and helicopter hangar that is being installed in Project 15A.
“The lesson learnt is that the systems that are proven on one platform, unless they genuinely require upgrading, should perhaps be used for the follow-on platform as well. But, as a shipyard, we do not control that. We can only recommend to the navy,” says Shrawat.
The Rs 29,325 crores contract for Project 15B was concluded in Jan 2011. Production will start by year-end, with the first destroyer being delivered in 2018 and the other three at one-year intervals.
Re: Indian Naval Discussion
there are pros and cons of both approaches. a swank new ship with dated weaponry like Shtil would not make the mark for AAW, but we did get suckered by promises of quicker development of the LRSAM. its still 2 yrs away from FOC since VL control trials were just started.
the Aster30 and SM2 would have been available now but came with their own billion$$ baggage of having a euro or american radar and combat system....very costly and being a strategic tech, we perhaps are better off with MFSTAR and LRSAM even with the delay. LRSAM can now be fielded on all future vessels like P17A, ADS2, ADS1(retrofit) and so on.
if P15 is to undergo a deep-MLU, we could perhaps get rid of the Shtil and put in the LRSAM and MFSTAR as well atleast on one vessel and experiment.
our time from the hull floating out to completion is dismal by any international std even without the IN making late changes. that the shipyards cannot avoid blame for. GRSE took ages to get the brahmaputra class ships done. that did not have any new system risk or high degree of change from the godavaris.
if you compare photos of the general look of our shipyards to good ones abroad, they look very unclean, messy and non-tfta in terms of stuff lying around, creaky old buildings....like a typical PSU rather than a well run deck.
the Aster30 and SM2 would have been available now but came with their own billion$$ baggage of having a euro or american radar and combat system....very costly and being a strategic tech, we perhaps are better off with MFSTAR and LRSAM even with the delay. LRSAM can now be fielded on all future vessels like P17A, ADS2, ADS1(retrofit) and so on.
if P15 is to undergo a deep-MLU, we could perhaps get rid of the Shtil and put in the LRSAM and MFSTAR as well atleast on one vessel and experiment.
our time from the hull floating out to completion is dismal by any international std even without the IN making late changes. that the shipyards cannot avoid blame for. GRSE took ages to get the brahmaputra class ships done. that did not have any new system risk or high degree of change from the godavaris.
if you compare photos of the general look of our shipyards to good ones abroad, they look very unclean, messy and non-tfta in terms of stuff lying around, creaky old buildings....like a typical PSU rather than a well run deck.
Re: Indian Naval Discussion
It is interesting to compare the present situation with his article on the same topic in March 2009.
In 2009 MDL claimed
2009 Navy's estimate on costs:
In 2009 MDL claimed
..but as it turns out the order was placed in Jan 2011. But production is again starting only in end-2012 i.e. 2 years. What gives?MDL believes that, since Project 15-B is a follow on of the 15-A, the design and planning period will be less than 1½ years. Once the design is finalised, the navy wants the first destroyer to roll out within four years, with the others completed at one-year intervals. By that ambitious timeline, if the order is placed on MDL by end-2009, the first 15-B destroyer would be commissioned in mid-2015.
2009 Navy's estimate on costs:
..now the contract has been signed at Rs 29325 crore i.e. Rs 7331 crore each. We know P15A overshot its budget because of construction delays, so if MoD estimates that P15B will be built on time because of no major changes, why the escalation again? Weak rupee can't be all of it.The navy intends to drive a hard bargain with MDL. Admiral Badhwar explains, “The three Kolkata class destroyers built under Project 15-A cost about Rs 3800 crore each, i.e. about Rs 11,000 crore. Project 15-B should logically be cheaper.”
Re: Indian Naval Discussion
That's a sight for sore eyes.Philip wrote:Anik,from the report of the Germans holding back a shipment of Russian arms to India,including engines for TU-142s,it can be assumed that the Bears will be in service for as long as possible,as long as spares and other logistic help is available from Russia,which has a large stock of the same.They have unmatched range and when the air-launched Brahmos is in service will surely be carried by the Bears as the P-8s can only carry the vastly inferior Harpoons,in both range and speed, which we've ordered ! The P-8s will be able to help the IN sanitise the general airspace of the IOR,but for ops beyond into the Indo-China Sea and Pacific,only the Bears will be able to carry out offensive long range patrols.
Re: Indian Naval Discussion
Bears will be easy meat for any any AEW + Su30MKK combo in the south china sea and western pacific even though they have range for the job.
so its not a realistic option unless one has long range escort fighters and/or carrier aviation to safeguard such areas. the first needs a massive inventory of fighters and tankers to fly from A&N to maintain a presence 2000km away against hostile forces, while the 2nd will only come with 3 SSN + ADS2 minimum + 2 P15A + 2 Shivalik
so IN made the right decision with the P8 which overall is a far superior platform for our needs than the Tu142.
so its not a realistic option unless one has long range escort fighters and/or carrier aviation to safeguard such areas. the first needs a massive inventory of fighters and tankers to fly from A&N to maintain a presence 2000km away against hostile forces, while the 2nd will only come with 3 SSN + ADS2 minimum + 2 P15A + 2 Shivalik
so IN made the right decision with the P8 which overall is a far superior platform for our needs than the Tu142.
Re: Indian Naval Discussion
Singhaji, P8 is not going to fare any differently than Tu142. IN never used Tu142 as a bomber, it was always MR, unless it crosses national airspace or there is an act of war, it is not going to be attacked anyway.
Re: Indian Naval Discussion
having a single P8 is equivalent to probably 3 Tu142 given the "issues" with downtime and maintainence of this elderly a/c. commercial B737 routinely fly 15 hrs a day for a week before needing a checkup.
people were speaking of the Tu142 as a extended reach attack weapon vs the shorter legs of the P8. I just wanted to shoot down that idea.
if the idea is to fly in international waters just off the sovereign territory to "provoke" and snoop on things, I would suggest we get dedicated ELINT birds for the job, the Tu142 is equipped for ASW only in our hands though the Rus have some special mission version of it.
also sea bed snooping and gathering data on temp and salinity is best done for ocean survey vessels and we are already doing that for vietnam on the approaches to hainan island
people were speaking of the Tu142 as a extended reach attack weapon vs the shorter legs of the P8. I just wanted to shoot down that idea.
if the idea is to fly in international waters just off the sovereign territory to "provoke" and snoop on things, I would suggest we get dedicated ELINT birds for the job, the Tu142 is equipped for ASW only in our hands though the Rus have some special mission version of it.
also sea bed snooping and gathering data on temp and salinity is best done for ocean survey vessels and we are already doing that for vietnam on the approaches to hainan island
Re: Indian Naval Discussion
The Bears can be used to carry stand-of missiles and with inflight refuelling,can be scorted by our Flankers.The P-8s do not have the range to fly for example down to S.Africa and return.We do lack ELINT aircraft and perhaps if we acquire at some point dedicated bombers like Backfires/Blackjacks convert the remaining Bears into specialist aircraft.Their endurance is phenomenal.The US has for decades used specially equipped and disguised Orions for Elint purposes.With the P-8s being dedicated mainly to the ASW role,and s they can olny carry inferior Harpoons,the LR maritime strike role has to be done by other aircraft.For the moment we have the Bears available for the job.
Our inordinately long time in warship construction and attitude of non-accountabuility at the taxpayer's expense,is why we have ythe rusting hulls of the P-15As at MD.MD's dog--in-the-manger attitude towards pvt. yards has also delayed the decision on the second line of subs.It has deliberately kept the ball stationary so that only when Scorpene construction is ending,to then demand that the next line of subs be built at MD.It is only now that the MOD grudingly spoken about pvt. yards like L+T (who have already done so much for the ATV project) and Pipavav as possible yards for building ubs and warships.The news item a few days ago about the success of trials of the Indo-Israeli LR naval SAM while a good happening also ndicates where the problem lies,with the weaponry not yet developed in time when the hulls are ready.Who must be held accountable?
Our inordinately long time in warship construction and attitude of non-accountabuility at the taxpayer's expense,is why we have ythe rusting hulls of the P-15As at MD.MD's dog--in-the-manger attitude towards pvt. yards has also delayed the decision on the second line of subs.It has deliberately kept the ball stationary so that only when Scorpene construction is ending,to then demand that the next line of subs be built at MD.It is only now that the MOD grudingly spoken about pvt. yards like L+T (who have already done so much for the ATV project) and Pipavav as possible yards for building ubs and warships.The news item a few days ago about the success of trials of the Indo-Israeli LR naval SAM while a good happening also ndicates where the problem lies,with the weaponry not yet developed in time when the hulls are ready.Who must be held accountable?
Re: Indian Naval Discussion
I am surprised the IN opted for LRSAM for P-15A when the SAM itself was on drawing board.
Now with those hulls rusting at the pier side waiting for its weapons , its not only the non-availability of ships for the Navy but also such rusting hulls would mean reduction of ships operational life and cost overruns.
The latter two hurts more and makes weapons system over all very costlier as seen from the revised expenditure for the ships , Military inflation runs twice as compared to civilian inflation.
A more viable option for P-15A would have been Shtil-1 SAM , Brahmos and AK-630/Barak-1 CIWS ........at a later stage both P-15 and 15A could be upgraded as LR SAM is available.
I think LR-SAM would take around 3 years to become fully operational as it would be first land tested and then tested on ships which is a moving platform and all the kinks worked out. Good Enough for P-15B/P-17A but really bad for P-15A.
Really you cant blame the ineffecient MDL for all the delays , the IN is part and parcel for these delays and cost over runs
Now with those hulls rusting at the pier side waiting for its weapons , its not only the non-availability of ships for the Navy but also such rusting hulls would mean reduction of ships operational life and cost overruns.
The latter two hurts more and makes weapons system over all very costlier as seen from the revised expenditure for the ships , Military inflation runs twice as compared to civilian inflation.
A more viable option for P-15A would have been Shtil-1 SAM , Brahmos and AK-630/Barak-1 CIWS ........at a later stage both P-15 and 15A could be upgraded as LR SAM is available.
I think LR-SAM would take around 3 years to become fully operational as it would be first land tested and then tested on ships which is a moving platform and all the kinks worked out. Good Enough for P-15B/P-17A but really bad for P-15A.
Really you cant blame the ineffecient MDL for all the delays , the IN is part and parcel for these delays and cost over runs
-
anand_sankar
- BRFite
- Posts: 162
- Joined: 09 Jan 2009 19:24
Re: Indian Naval Discussion
@Austin, waiting for the LR SAM Barak-8 is a necessity.
The P-15A/B are going to the principal fleet defence combatants of our aircraft carrier groups. With the already non-existent fixed-wing AEW coverage, you need a really robust air defence platform for fleet defence.
There was no way you could could go out sailing into high-threat zones with the Shitl system. Its vulnerabilities and shortcomings are well documented. The Barak-8 is very firmly in the SM-2 class and is worth the wait. The costs will be astronomical to go with one old system and then within a short period of a year or two if the Barak-8 is available for a fit.
Further expect the Barak-8 to be standardized in the Delhi class too when the ships come in for a mid-life overhaul in a few years time.
Please always take Col Shukla with a pinch of salt. Hull rotting away in dry dock is nothing but exaggeration. Ship hulls today have some fantastic anti-corrosion treatments available, and I'm sure it has been factored in while the hulls wait for a fit. The current cost and time overrun is unavoidable, just gotta grin and bear with it.
The P-15A/B are going to the principal fleet defence combatants of our aircraft carrier groups. With the already non-existent fixed-wing AEW coverage, you need a really robust air defence platform for fleet defence.
There was no way you could could go out sailing into high-threat zones with the Shitl system. Its vulnerabilities and shortcomings are well documented. The Barak-8 is very firmly in the SM-2 class and is worth the wait. The costs will be astronomical to go with one old system and then within a short period of a year or two if the Barak-8 is available for a fit.
Further expect the Barak-8 to be standardized in the Delhi class too when the ships come in for a mid-life overhaul in a few years time.
Please always take Col Shukla with a pinch of salt. Hull rotting away in dry dock is nothing but exaggeration. Ship hulls today have some fantastic anti-corrosion treatments available, and I'm sure it has been factored in while the hulls wait for a fit. The current cost and time overrun is unavoidable, just gotta grin and bear with it.
Re: Indian Naval Discussion
ships hulls always rust whether in dock or sea. yet they still last 30-50 yrs
Re: Indian Naval Discussion
The point is we do not know when Barak-8 will come it can be 2 years or it could be 4 , no one can say with guarantee that complex system would always come on time and all glitches will be sorted out in time for commissioning. ( Remember the Naval Trishul holding hostage to the P-16A class and finally IN commisioned without it only to know later that it will never show up )
The Aster system has faced similar delays and so is the naval 9M96 system facing.
IN has been very strict about not taking half baked system and commission it , its really a bad bet to keep the entire ship ready and make it hostage for one system under development , because it has cascading effect on cost and hull life , the former being more important as it increases the cost of the class.
I think Shtil-1 is good enough versus the delays and unexpected cost rise that unproven system brings in considering IN has had the entire Talwar/Tabar and P-17 class with these SAM and have not complained , the older Delhi class carries the older Shtil.
The Aster system has faced similar delays and so is the naval 9M96 system facing.
IN has been very strict about not taking half baked system and commission it , its really a bad bet to keep the entire ship ready and make it hostage for one system under development , because it has cascading effect on cost and hull life , the former being more important as it increases the cost of the class.
I think Shtil-1 is good enough versus the delays and unexpected cost rise that unproven system brings in considering IN has had the entire Talwar/Tabar and P-17 class with these SAM and have not complained , the older Delhi class carries the older Shtil.
-
anand_sankar
- BRFite
- Posts: 162
- Joined: 09 Jan 2009 19:24
Re: Indian Naval Discussion
@Austin, there isn't any points in commissioning a half-useful system too 
The IN is playing it cool because the carrier programs are big time behind schedule. Even the Vik, we are getting the keys only by the end of this year. By the time it sails to India and we work it up slowly to something approaching operational readiness we are looking at mid to end 2014. Still to be fully ready to sail as a fleet to show some force it will be mid 2015, by when confidently we can expect 2 P-15As to be operational.
We would be looking very silly right now if the carriers were on track, because other asset acquisitions are years behind.
The IN is playing it cool because the carrier programs are big time behind schedule. Even the Vik, we are getting the keys only by the end of this year. By the time it sails to India and we work it up slowly to something approaching operational readiness we are looking at mid to end 2014. Still to be fully ready to sail as a fleet to show some force it will be mid 2015, by when confidently we can expect 2 P-15As to be operational.
We would be looking very silly right now if the carriers were on track, because other asset acquisitions are years behind.
Re: Indian Naval Discussion
From Ajai Shukla's blog:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-T3sJKLT00MQ/U ... closer.jpg
Looks like the Barak-1 will not be installed; there appear to be 4 AK-630 mounts where the Delhi's mount 2 AK-630 + 2 Barak-1 systems
Any ideas on what the main gun is? The 76mm SRGM or the 127mm guns that BHEL was commisioned to build? That being said, is there a rationale on why the OTO units are preferred over the russian 100mm guns on the Delhis and Talwars?
Ajai Shukla also mentions an englarged hangar; any ideas why? I thought the RFP went out only for the SeaHawk and NH-90 and not the heavier Merlins
Open for discussion...
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-T3sJKLT00MQ/U ... closer.jpg
Looks like the Barak-1 will not be installed; there appear to be 4 AK-630 mounts where the Delhi's mount 2 AK-630 + 2 Barak-1 systems
Any ideas on what the main gun is? The 76mm SRGM or the 127mm guns that BHEL was commisioned to build? That being said, is there a rationale on why the OTO units are preferred over the russian 100mm guns on the Delhis and Talwars?
Ajai Shukla also mentions an englarged hangar; any ideas why? I thought the RFP went out only for the SeaHawk and NH-90 and not the heavier Merlins
Open for discussion...
Re: Indian Naval Discussion
@ Austin
I agree with anand_sarkar. The rationale for these ships to exist is fleet air defence. Since the new carriers will not be operational before 2013 end, there is no rush to get an older gen system to sea only to come back for a major refit in 1-2 year's time. Just doubles the work...
If you think about it, we now have 10 ships with the Shtil-1 with 2 more due to be commissioned. If the Kolkatas don't come with Barak-8, they don't bring any game-changing technologies to the fleet
In addition, strategy, tactics, and operational procedures will change greatly with the availability of new weapons, i.e. Viraat + Shtil-1 AAW + ASW task group should have an entirely different doctrine than Viraat + Barak-8 AAW + ASW task group and this in turn will be radically different from Vikramaditya + Barak-8 + ASW task group
Every new set of operational procedures requires a huge human resource commitment on our part. Why not just postpone all this till the Vikramaditya's Mig-29s and Barak-8 weapons complex are both available?
Regards,
I agree with anand_sarkar. The rationale for these ships to exist is fleet air defence. Since the new carriers will not be operational before 2013 end, there is no rush to get an older gen system to sea only to come back for a major refit in 1-2 year's time. Just doubles the work...
If you think about it, we now have 10 ships with the Shtil-1 with 2 more due to be commissioned. If the Kolkatas don't come with Barak-8, they don't bring any game-changing technologies to the fleet
In addition, strategy, tactics, and operational procedures will change greatly with the availability of new weapons, i.e. Viraat + Shtil-1 AAW + ASW task group should have an entirely different doctrine than Viraat + Barak-8 AAW + ASW task group and this in turn will be radically different from Vikramaditya + Barak-8 + ASW task group
Every new set of operational procedures requires a huge human resource commitment on our part. Why not just postpone all this till the Vikramaditya's Mig-29s and Barak-8 weapons complex are both available?
Regards,
Re: Indian Naval Discussion
Barak-8 is not in SM-2 class it is similar to ESSM/ between Aster 15-30 in terms of range/size ,SM-2 MR and ER are close to 800 kg and 1.4 tons respectively and latter has 3 times longer than Barak-8.anand_sankar wrote: There was no way you could could go out sailing into high-threat zones with the Shitl system. Its vulnerabilities and shortcomings are well documented. The Barak-8 is very firmly in the SM-2 class and is worth the wait. The costs will be astronomical to go with one old system and then within a short period of a year or two if the Barak-8 is available for a fit.
Titash,
What makes' you say it has 4xak-630 from those pictures?
-
Gurinder P
- BRFite
- Posts: 209
- Joined: 30 Oct 2010 18:11
- Location: Beautiful British Columbia
Re: Indian Naval Discussion
This might be OT but their isn't another thread where I can post this.
I was wondering about India raising a Marine Corp. If India wants to project its power across the Indian Ocean and eventually the globe, Marines are needed for rapid insertions and occupation. The IA would need to mobilized and synced with the IAF and IN to be transported to the needed area, whereas the Marines would ride along with the IN from the beginning. The MARCOS, being SPECOPS cannot constitute to being a forces of the Line, due to their limited numbers and lack of heavy equipment (I mean MARCOS in tanks would kind of ruin the point). Just an idea of mine, thanks for listening.
I was wondering about India raising a Marine Corp. If India wants to project its power across the Indian Ocean and eventually the globe, Marines are needed for rapid insertions and occupation. The IA would need to mobilized and synced with the IAF and IN to be transported to the needed area, whereas the Marines would ride along with the IN from the beginning. The MARCOS, being SPECOPS cannot constitute to being a forces of the Line, due to their limited numbers and lack of heavy equipment (I mean MARCOS in tanks would kind of ruin the point). Just an idea of mine, thanks for listening.
-
member_23370
- BRFite
- Posts: 1103
- Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14
Re: Indian Naval Discussion
True, Barak-2 is no way comparable to SM-2 or SM-3. But in IOR and South china sea region they actually help IN keep a qualitative edge over everyone except USN.
Re: Indian Naval Discussion
True but there isnt much point in holding hostage an excellent warship for a weapon thats just started its guided flight and that too in land based variant.anand_sankar wrote:@Austin, there isn't any points in commissioning a half-useful system too
Point is if there is a war today or tomorrow or year after you will have 2-3 ships joining the battle then waiting at pier side for the next great weapons that needs to be fitted and hence not commissioned. To me this Barak-8 and P-15A looks so much like Trishul redux
I tend to agree with the golden word of retd Rear Admiral Shrawat and MDL chief when he says
“The lesson learnt is that the systems that are proven on one platform, unless they genuinely require upgrading, should perhaps be used for the follow-on platform as well."
Re: Indian Naval Discussion
@ John Sir
To the right of the LW-08 antenna are 2 white colored (assuming white canvas/plastic covered) domes that look like the AK-630. The Delhi class has the AK-630 in exactly the same location - makes sense since the kolkatas are a derivative class
Delhi & Mysore had the leading pair replaced as follows; IIRC Mumbai did not get the upgrade back then:
http://www.acig.org/exclusives/viraat/P ... _barak.jpg
http://www.acig.org/exclusives/viraat/P ... e_back.jpg
The Kolkata pic here has both leading and trailing spots occupied by the same white domes i.e. AK-630
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-T3sJKLT00MQ/U ... closer.jpg
To me it appears that the Barak-1 is not fitted
Regards,
To the right of the LW-08 antenna are 2 white colored (assuming white canvas/plastic covered) domes that look like the AK-630. The Delhi class has the AK-630 in exactly the same location - makes sense since the kolkatas are a derivative class
Delhi & Mysore had the leading pair replaced as follows; IIRC Mumbai did not get the upgrade back then:
http://www.acig.org/exclusives/viraat/P ... _barak.jpg
http://www.acig.org/exclusives/viraat/P ... e_back.jpg
The Kolkata pic here has both leading and trailing spots occupied by the same white domes i.e. AK-630
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-T3sJKLT00MQ/U ... closer.jpg
To me it appears that the Barak-1 is not fitted
Regards,
-
member_23370
- BRFite
- Posts: 1103
- Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14
Re: Indian Naval Discussion
Well IN and MDL seem confident that Kolkota will be commissioned in early mid 2013. Lets see. But I agree its too slow and IN simply has to accept the blame for it. I am a little surprised even a simple corvette like P-28 which apparently doesn't carry AShM or LR SAM is also delayed by a couple of years.
-
anand_sankar
- BRFite
- Posts: 162
- Joined: 09 Jan 2009 19:24
Re: Indian Naval Discussion
@Austin, yes, I have to agree with the rear admiral because he is talking from the perspective of the shipyard.
First, our order sizes are pretty small, 3 ships in a class, which really does not allow economies of scale or time to kick in, further there are vagaries in design in each ship of the class (the three Delhi-class ships!). The IN deserves kudos for indigenous ship design, but they don't know when to call a design freeze. A shipyard needs design freeze to work efficiently. Hopefully, with the P-15B (and P-17A) what the rear admiral says will happen, and we will see a better time and cost return, if the no of P-15B ships is increased to 7 or 9.
Also we can sleep easy on the Barak-8, the Israelis have delivered when it mattered, even if there is a bit of a time overrun. I would have towel over my head if this was an entirely DRDO project or a DRDO project with validation consultancy with an outsider. This is more co-development with most critical technologies coming from the Israelis.
First, our order sizes are pretty small, 3 ships in a class, which really does not allow economies of scale or time to kick in, further there are vagaries in design in each ship of the class (the three Delhi-class ships!). The IN deserves kudos for indigenous ship design, but they don't know when to call a design freeze. A shipyard needs design freeze to work efficiently. Hopefully, with the P-15B (and P-17A) what the rear admiral says will happen, and we will see a better time and cost return, if the no of P-15B ships is increased to 7 or 9.
Also we can sleep easy on the Barak-8, the Israelis have delivered when it mattered, even if there is a bit of a time overrun. I would have towel over my head if this was an entirely DRDO project or a DRDO project with validation consultancy with an outsider. This is more co-development with most critical technologies coming from the Israelis.
Re: Indian Naval Discussion
On the topic of Barak-8, size does matter
The ELTA 2248 is smaller and lighter than the SPY-1A/D and will consequently have lesser performance & range. The Barak-8 is about half the size and weight of the SM2-MR/SM6 and will consequently have less range
AmirKhan has perfected layered fleet air defence over the last 50 years and has the best radar/missiles on this planet. However their goals are very different than ours. AmirKhan's CBG escorts since the 70s were expected to fight off scores of soviet bombers and surface ships firing ultra long range cruise missiles in saturation. Based on what the pakistanis/chinese can legitimately throw at us, I think we have a decent and economically viable solution
The ELTA 2248 is smaller and lighter than the SPY-1A/D and will consequently have lesser performance & range. The Barak-8 is about half the size and weight of the SM2-MR/SM6 and will consequently have less range
AmirKhan has perfected layered fleet air defence over the last 50 years and has the best radar/missiles on this planet. However their goals are very different than ours. AmirKhan's CBG escorts since the 70s were expected to fight off scores of soviet bombers and surface ships firing ultra long range cruise missiles in saturation. Based on what the pakistanis/chinese can legitimately throw at us, I think we have a decent and economically viable solution
Re: Indian Naval Discussion
Unless IN has budget on par with PLAN it is unlikely since it would cost over 10 billion. I think procuring in batches of 3 is perfectly reasonable for DDGs even other navies with similar or even bidder budgets' (Japan, Korea, Spain, Germany etc) are building no more than handful of Destroyers' at a time.anand_sankar wrote:Hopefully, with the P-15B (and P-17A) what the rear admiral says will happen, and we will see a better time and cost return, if the no of P-15B ships is increased to 7 or 9.
Oh yes know i remember the discussion on that when picture came out i remember Tsarkar or some one mentioning Barak will likely be fitted in later refits, taken from existing vessels that are being retired.titash wrote:To the right of the LW-08 antenna are 2 white colored (assuming white canvas/plastic covered) domes that look like the AK-630. The Delhi class has the AK-630 in exactly the same location - makes sense since the kolkatas are a derivative class
It is hard to compare ranges' since most range quoted are theoretical and each manufacturer has different criteria on the target speed. But based on what i am hearing BARAK-8 is supposed to be on par with ESSM when it comes to its performance and between Aster 15 and 30.The ELTA 2248 is smaller and lighter than the SPY-1A/D and will consequently have lesser performance & range. The Barak-8 is about half the size and weight of the SM2-MR/SM6 and will consequently have less range
Re: Indian Naval Discussion
To put in perspective what the Barak-8 brings to the fleet:
Barak-1 was meant to defend the fleet against any missiles that broke through the SA-N-1 and SA-N-7 screen. Barak-1 has CLOS and the 2 illuminators can handle 2 missiles in flight, which essentially means one ship can only handle 1 sea skimmer coming at it ~ 10km from the ship
The Barak-8 on the other hand has a phased array radar that controls multiple missiles in flight because of intertial navigation and time-sharing. An active radar seeker means that the the number of targets are not dependent on the number of shipborne illuminators, and targets can be engaged beyond the shipborne illuminator radar horizon. The Barak-8 should be able to handle a dozen sea skimmers coming at the fleet ~ 25-30 kms away
Note that the active radar capability is only now coming to the USN in the form of the SM6. IMHO it is worth waiting for the working weapon than install Shtil-1 and rip the ship apart 2 years later for a 1 year long refit
Barak-1 was meant to defend the fleet against any missiles that broke through the SA-N-1 and SA-N-7 screen. Barak-1 has CLOS and the 2 illuminators can handle 2 missiles in flight, which essentially means one ship can only handle 1 sea skimmer coming at it ~ 10km from the ship
The Barak-8 on the other hand has a phased array radar that controls multiple missiles in flight because of intertial navigation and time-sharing. An active radar seeker means that the the number of targets are not dependent on the number of shipborne illuminators, and targets can be engaged beyond the shipborne illuminator radar horizon. The Barak-8 should be able to handle a dozen sea skimmers coming at the fleet ~ 25-30 kms away
Note that the active radar capability is only now coming to the USN in the form of the SM6. IMHO it is worth waiting for the working weapon than install Shtil-1 and rip the ship apart 2 years later for a 1 year long refit
Re: Indian Naval Discussion
The P-8I can be refuelled in mid-air as long as the new AAR aircraft that the IAF purchases have refuelling boom that can refuel aircraft with receptacles.Philip wrote:The Bears can be used to carry stand-of missiles and with inflight refuelling,can be scorted by our Flankers.The P-8s do not have the range to fly for example down to S.Africa and return.
Which is another advantage of the A330 MRTT over the Il-78 Midas tankers. With aerial refuelling, the P-8I's range of 1200+ NM can be extended greatly, with crew fatigue being the only limiting factor. Even so, Boeing states that a P-8 can remain airborne for 20 hours (!) with airborne refuelling. I don't think that range is then an issue.
You keep stating that Harpoons are inferior to the Brahmos as if they're just useless AShMs. A 500 lb warhead is nothing to scoff about and with an engagement range in excess of 65NM, it gives the P-8I the ability to fire from well outside of an enemy ship's defenses. It's only you who claims that the long range maritime strike role cannot be done by the P-8I with the Harpoon. Even the IN won't buy such arguments.We do lack ELINT aircraft and perhaps if we acquire at some point dedicated bombers like Backfires/Blackjacks convert the remaining Bears into specialist aircraft.Their endurance is phenomenal.The US has for decades used specially equipped and disguised Orions for Elint purposes.With the P-8s being dedicated mainly to the ASW role,and s they can olny carry inferior Harpoons,the LR maritime strike role has to be done by other aircraft.For the moment we have the Bears available for the job.
Did you not read the article properly before going off on a rant against MD? The IN has the bulk of the share of the blame with a very large number of changes over the P-15 as well as delayed decision making over weapons fit and Change Requests for design elements that should have been finalised before any work began.Our inordinately long time in warship construction and attitude of non-accountabuility at the taxpayer's expense,is why we have ythe rusting hulls of the P-15As at MD.
Re: Indian Naval Discussion
Yeap Active seeker gives' us IN capabilities that i previous didn't have and welcome addition over Shtil-1 but i do agree we do need a backup option if Barak-8 doesn't pan out or runs into delays. Do need to point out that beyond horizon engagement is not possible without detection and tracking from launch ship or another network ship/airborne platform in the vicinity, latter is advertised for Barak-8 and newer version SM etc but i don't believe it till they prove it out.titash wrote:The Barak-8 on the other hand has a phased array radar that controls multiple missiles in flight because of intertial navigation and time-sharing. An active radar seeker means that the the number of targets are not dependent on the number of shipborne illuminators, and targets can be engaged beyond the shipborne illuminator radar horizon. The Barak-8 should be able to handle a dozen sea skimmers coming at the fleet ~ 25-30 kms away
Re: Indian Naval Discussion
@ John Sir
My understanding is that the high mast mounted 2248 radar guides several missiles on an optimized flight path to the general vicinity of the target(s). At that point, the shipborne illuminator (with a shorter range than the main radar) doesn't come into the picture since the active radar homing kicks in
Please feel free to make corrections,
My understanding is that the high mast mounted 2248 radar guides several missiles on an optimized flight path to the general vicinity of the target(s). At that point, the shipborne illuminator (with a shorter range than the main radar) doesn't come into the picture since the active radar homing kicks in
Please feel free to make corrections,
Re: Indian Naval Discussion
I have a small doubt regaring ship defense systems. It is said that missiles are flown at sea level to avoid detection. Considering this, how much time does a ship have against sea skimming missiles? Does a missile with a greater range give a larger advantage in the absence of AEW&C? If so, does that mean that a helicopter would be airborne at all times to detect missiles early?
Thanks in advance.
Thanks in advance.
Re: Indian Naval Discussion
El/m 2248 has to detect and track the sea skimming missile in order to even fire the missile in first place and this is limited by radar horizon (which varies depending on placement of the radar and altitude of the target coupled with capabilities of the radar to detect the target). Can't just fire a missile and expect it to be able to lock on to a target at terminal phase.titash wrote:My understanding is that the high mast mounted 2248 radar guides several missiles on an optimized flight path to the general vicinity of the target(s). At that point, the shipborne illuminator (with a shorter range than the main radar) doesn't come into the picture since the active radar homing kicks in
For example in a hypothetical against a target even 20 km away by the time Barak-8 approaches it (5-10 km from that location) the target if it is supersonic missile could be 10 km from the original location (assuming 0 seconds reaction time for barak-8 system which is unlikely in real world scenario) or anywhere with in 78 sq km area the target could be. So tracking radar in the ship needs to pass in thru data link accurate information of the target to increase kill probability. Also i doubt the active seekers on missile could even pick up a harpoon sized target more than couple KMs away.
I know USN plans to have Hawkeyes' be used as platform to guide missiles' in the future but i will believe it when they are able to successfully prove it out. A hawkeye could be detect a missile launch near Iranian shore for example and cue up aegis ddg to intercept the missile almost immediately.
Re: Indian Naval Discussion
@ John
You make a very good point sir. Clearly there is no substitute for a large eye-in-the-sky. Even the most advanced US/European AAW destroyers will be hard pressed to simultaneously engage multiple sea skimmers, given the limited radar horizon
By that same logic, the anti-sea skimmer capability of a system like SM6/Aster 30/Barak-8 etc is dependent not on the missile's size and range (or the radar's size and range), but by the following factors:
- missile's agility
- missile seeker and detection algorithms
- missile warhead size
Because all engagements against sea skimmers will necessarily take place within the natural horizon, missile range is irrelevant, and choice of SM6/Aster 30/Barak-8 does not matter
I guess the missile range (and therefore choice of SM6/Aster 30/Barak-8 and associated radar) comes into play more to deny attacking aircraft the higher altitudes. Also high altitude cruise missiles can be knocked out at longer ranges
Interestingly the Brahmos/Klub are high altitude cruise missiles for the most part, and become sea skimmers only at the end of their run. The Barak-8 will make a major contribution towards simultaneous interception of these kinds of threats
Regards,
You make a very good point sir. Clearly there is no substitute for a large eye-in-the-sky. Even the most advanced US/European AAW destroyers will be hard pressed to simultaneously engage multiple sea skimmers, given the limited radar horizon
By that same logic, the anti-sea skimmer capability of a system like SM6/Aster 30/Barak-8 etc is dependent not on the missile's size and range (or the radar's size and range), but by the following factors:
- missile's agility
- missile seeker and detection algorithms
- missile warhead size
Because all engagements against sea skimmers will necessarily take place within the natural horizon, missile range is irrelevant, and choice of SM6/Aster 30/Barak-8 does not matter
I guess the missile range (and therefore choice of SM6/Aster 30/Barak-8 and associated radar) comes into play more to deny attacking aircraft the higher altitudes. Also high altitude cruise missiles can be knocked out at longer ranges
Interestingly the Brahmos/Klub are high altitude cruise missiles for the most part, and become sea skimmers only at the end of their run. The Barak-8 will make a major contribution towards simultaneous interception of these kinds of threats
Regards,
Re: Indian Naval Discussion
Asking for expensive Brahmos down the steam-pipe for everything from CVNs to rubber dinghies is not going to be productive.
There are so many ripe targets that can be taken out instantly by a Harpoon launched from a P8I, without waiting for heavy-hitter backup. Submarine tenders caught in the act, fleet tankers, armament replenishment vessels, anti-sub corvettes with light SAM load outs.... the list is pretty long.
Lightly armed logistics ships are the key to a blue-water navy that wish to conduct sustained operations in far off places. In addition to throwing a few sonars, the P8I can do the extra job of scanning 1000s of sqkms of seas and dispatching these irksome ships off, before they know what hit them.
There are so many ripe targets that can be taken out instantly by a Harpoon launched from a P8I, without waiting for heavy-hitter backup. Submarine tenders caught in the act, fleet tankers, armament replenishment vessels, anti-sub corvettes with light SAM load outs.... the list is pretty long.
Lightly armed logistics ships are the key to a blue-water navy that wish to conduct sustained operations in far off places. In addition to throwing a few sonars, the P8I can do the extra job of scanning 1000s of sqkms of seas and dispatching these irksome ships off, before they know what hit them.
Re: Indian Naval Discussion
^^^hnair garu, while the Bears are good to have, one must accept the reality that these aircraft are long in the tooth. Talk to anyone from the Bear Squadron and he'll tell you what it takes to maintain these babies. There are no comparable alternatives in terms of range and we'll need to do with the best option. I think P-8I is the best option out there and should serve our requirements well. Let us not forget that it is not about only the range...the sensors are way more critical in today's environment, IMO. And P-8I gives us the best of the breed sensors.
Re: Indian Naval Discussion
IN freezes the configuration of "Vishal"
The Indian navy is likely to call an end to its tryst with ski-jump aircraft carriers, deciding that its next big vessel will be a flat-top with a catapult-launch system.
While India's first home-built carrier, known as the Vikrant, is to be a 44,000-ton short-takeoff-but-arrested-recovery (Stobar) carrier, the second ship—tentatively titled Vishal (“Immense”)—is seen as a 65,000-ton flat-top with a steam-catapult system.
......
A commodore with the Naval Design Bureau says, “A decision has been taken to move away from conventional Stobar and short-takeoff-or-vertical-landing (Stovl) operations."
......
Re: Indian Naval Discussion
it can support dorniers and thats about it. needs massive changes to be considered a strike airbase.