Bharat Rakshak

Consortium of Indian Defence Websites
It is currently 16 Sep 2014 18:11

All times are UTC + 5:30 hours




Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 5428 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85 ... 136  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: 04 Oct 2012 13:14 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 31 Aug 2011 10:39
Posts: 1256
Quote:
What can't Indian sailors eat eggs on toast/cereal and coffee/tea the rest of the world ?


Because they will end up being like the rest of the world.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 04 Oct 2012 13:51 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13
Posts: 5701
Is Indian food so bad, that you need toast and egg and cereals, for meals??

:P


Last edited by Pratyush on 04 Oct 2012 15:35, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 04 Oct 2012 14:07 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31
Posts: 11286
I think they would be served different meals including idli , dosa , apam , set dosa ,cereals ,egg , toast the menu list for breakfast lunch and dinner would be a long one :)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 04 Oct 2012 14:08 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31
Posts: 11286
Repair of Indian Carrier to Take 3 Months, No Longer


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 05 Oct 2012 10:47 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31
Posts: 11286
Austin wrote:
Aircraft Carrier Killers - Malakhit, Bazalt, Granit, Oniks, Brahmos, Club-K

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-cm-f2JpiI


So just 3 Brahmos is needed to break the back of aircraft carrier that is quite impressive. I think the 3 Brahmos will attack from 3 different direction and total warhead of 600 kg when hit at the right place with KE would sink the carrier.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 05 Oct 2012 11:43 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Posts: 32879
Location: Col of the regiment, ORR JTF unit
sinking a supercarrier is tough without damage below the waterline in the key structural area near the bottom. massive internal damage though and rendering it scrap or in dock for N years.

a trio of heavy torpedoes exploding below the keel would likely cause far more structural problems while doing less internal damage imo.

if you recall Forrestal had a massive fire , but nowhere near sinking.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 05 Oct 2012 12:02 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25
Posts: 6698
Any chance a Bramhos attack can expose the enriched material in reactor to the ship, that will make crew abandon ship, also these ships store a lot of munitions and Jet fuel, much more fuel and than oil burning ship for its own engines, if these storeage areas are hit , the ship will blow up pretty quick.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 05 Oct 2012 12:19 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 11 May 2005 06:56
Posts: 4480
Location: Duke Nukem
Singha wrote:
sinking a supercarrier is tough without damage below the waterline in the key structural area near the bottom. massive internal damage though and rendering it scrap or in dock for N years.

a trio of heavy torpedoes exploding below the keel would likely cause far more structural problems while doing less internal damage imo.

if you recall Forrestal had a massive fire , but nowhere near sinking


Just ONE torpedo amidships will sink any ship. The modern torpedoes do not smash into the side of the ship like in WWII (they knew it, but couldn't get it working reliably for the most part inWWII), but just explode below the keel, literally creating a massive bubble , followed by a jet of water (which cuts just like a water jet), that lifts the part of the ship out of the water and when the bubble collapses, the ship sags into the void. The buckling motion just snaps the ship into two.

Check out these Animation and footage torpedo


Rockets can cause massive fires and above surface damage , forcing the carrier to be writtien off (even if it is not sunk). Even in Midway, the Japanese carriers were struck by dive bombers which started uncontrollable fires and the carriers were reduced to burned out hulks which were later torpedoed by their own escorts for the most part.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 05 Oct 2012 13:24 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31
Posts: 11286
Even a partial damage or a crater atop the carrier on middle of runway will make it practically useless for any take off and landing for a long time to come making it a mission kill.

Aircraft carrier are as must as useful as tool for sea control as it is vulnerable.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 05 Oct 2012 13:53 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Posts: 32879
Location: Col of the regiment, ORR JTF unit
there are supposedly "classified" protection measures underwater to guard against torpedo hits and to protect vital areas like reactor zones.on a 330m long carrier with a huge flat bottom, I doubt just breaking the "keel" at one spot will sink it.....the spine is designed to flex and infact apparently flexes 3 ft up and down in heavy seas ..... if a couple vertebra or ribs get broken, the structural integrity of the rest of ship should still be intact in a huge carrier case. there will be watertight compartments and deck levels to contain damage. for DDG downward I agree one torpedo is enough.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 05 Oct 2012 14:03 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 31 Aug 2011 10:39
Posts: 1256
The Brahmos Block II was called carrier killer for a reason. It has top down attack capability which will do a mission kill. During war, an ACC is nothing but a floating strip. Once its aircrafts are grounded (or floated), the other ships will be incredibly vulnerable to air based attacks.

We also have Dhanush as an AC killer. Inshallah Dhanush tech is incorporated into K 15 variants allowing stealthy elimination of ACs.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 05 Oct 2012 14:21 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 22 Nov 2011 18:59
Posts: 450
Killing an aircraft carrier and super carrier are two completely different things. Many have Carriers, only one has Super carriers, one cannot sink a super carrier and live long enough to claim victory or glory, you can atbest disable it but one can be sure of a fitting Unkil response that would leave the enemy paralysed for thousands of years if not wiped out. Besides to kill one super carrier you must knock out it's own defences i.e 90 4.5gen fighters, EW aircraft, helos armed to teeth with cutting edge eletronic sensors and surrounded by AEGIS. they do have hordes or SM-2/3, Sea Sparrows, RAM and guns, the net is very tight. The only possibility is to have a brahmos fly lo-lo-lo fired out from 120km because if the brahmos is fired at 300km, it will knocked out at high alt flight by SMs, even then we would need atleast 10 to be fired at the same time, some will be shot down, some will get through, disabling it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 05 Oct 2012 14:49 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 31 Aug 2011 10:39
Posts: 1256
Septimus saar, check out the Oscar class submarines. One CVN one sub. Total ~11. Lurkers of the deep where no chauthi peedi fighter & samudri chidiya dare roost. Get some SDREs to put Tsangmos in one of these big bad boats & watch the manchurian fry.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 05 Oct 2012 17:30 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 23 Jul 2011 16:05
Posts: 246
Location: On the sofa.
Another Vik pic :
http://www.balancer.ru/sites/i/c/ic.pics.livejournal.com/igorriw/19720361/25971/25971_original.jpg


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 05 Oct 2012 21:59 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 21 Jul 2012 02:37
Posts: 153
Septimus P. wrote:
Killing an aircraft carrier and super carrier are two completely different things. Many have Carriers, only one has Super carriers, one cannot sink a super carrier and live long enough to claim victory or glory, you can atbest disable it but one can be sure of a fitting Unkil response that would leave the enemy paralysed for thousands of years if not wiped out. Besides to kill one super carrier you must knock out it's own defences i.e 90 4.5gen fighters, EW aircraft, helos armed to teeth with cutting edge eletronic sensors and surrounded by AEGIS. they do have hordes or SM-2/3, Sea Sparrows, RAM and guns, the net is very tight. The only possibility is to have a brahmos fly lo-lo-lo fired out from 120km because if the brahmos is fired at 300km, it will knocked out at high alt flight by SMs, even then we would need atleast 10 to be fired at the same time, some will be shot down, some will get through, disabling it.

:rotfl: Yeah sure,these jokers can't even get a grip on their own foreign policy,stopliving in lala land and come back to the ground my friend... unkil wastes a lot of money on stupid defense projects , atleast double the total amount spent by other 26 countries below it .... this forum is quite weird, the name is "bharatrakshak" but is filled with anglo-saxxon mental slaves to the brim... :evil: no offence to septimus :)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 06 Oct 2012 00:15 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 03 Nov 2011 21:43
Posts: 500
P.Bhagat wrote:
Septimus P. wrote:
Killing an aircraft carrier and super carrier are two completely different things. Many have Carriers, only one has Super carriers, one cannot sink a super carrier and live long enough to claim victory or glory, you can atbest disable it but one can be sure of a fitting Unkil response that would leave the enemy paralysed for thousands of years if not wiped out. Besides to kill one super carrier you must knock out it's own defences i.e 90 4.5gen fighters, EW aircraft, helos armed to teeth with cutting edge eletronic sensors and surrounded by AEGIS. they do have hordes or SM-2/3, Sea Sparrows, RAM and guns, the net is very tight. The only possibility is to have a brahmos fly lo-lo-lo fired out from 120km because if the brahmos is fired at 300km, it will knocked out at high alt flight by SMs, even then we would need atleast 10 to be fired at the same time, some will be shot down, some will get through, disabling it.

:rotfl: Yeah sure,these jokers can't even get a grip on their own foreign policy,stopliving in lala land and come back to the ground my friend... unkil wastes a lot of money on stupid defense projects , atleast double the total amount spent by other 26 countries below it .... this forum is quite weird, the name is "bharatrakshak" but is filled with anglo-saxxon mental slaves to the brim... :evil: no offence to septimus :)


Actually you are sounding like a totally clueless individual here.. using rolling emoticons do not make you a smart... Whatever the gentleman has said above is not far from truth. Hitting one of the USN might still be possible but the political fallout from that and subsequent military reaction (since no siting US president worth his salt will survive without using maximum possible retaliation) will make that one hit rather irrelevant. If the same comment of hitting US Carrier was made by a Chini--- you would have taken Khan's side... It is time to show some maturity instead of being personal


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 06 Oct 2012 02:23 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 21 Jul 2012 02:37
Posts: 153
Prithwiraj wrote:
Actually you are sounding like a totally clueless individual here.. using rolling emoticons do not make you a smart... Whatever the gentleman has said above is not far from truth. Hitting one of the USN might still be possible but the political fallout from that and subsequent military reaction (since no siting US president worth his salt will survive without using maximum possible retaliation) will make that one hit rather irrelevant. If the same comment of hitting US Carrier was made by a Chini--- you would have taken Khan's side... It is time to show some maturity instead of being personal


The comment was directed towards Septimus so I see no reason for you to get angry and I don't play the games of taking sides... they may have political strength but their planning sucks miserably and it is a fact, even after spending billions upon billions on military projects their results haven't been remarkable at all. Moreover I see no reason why we are discussing US carriers when we are taking about Indian navy, shouldn't it strictly adhere to Indian Naval discussions ??


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 06 Oct 2012 02:28 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 03 Nov 2011 21:43
Posts: 500
P.Bhagat wrote:
Prithwiraj wrote:
Actually you are sounding like a totally clueless individual here.. using rolling emoticons do not make you a smart... Whatever the gentleman has said above is not far from truth. Hitting one of the USN might still be possible but the political fallout from that and subsequent military reaction (since no siting US president worth his salt will survive without using maximum possible retaliation) will make that one hit rather irrelevant. If the same comment of hitting US Carrier was made by a Chini--- you would have taken Khan's side... It is time to show some maturity instead of being personal


The comment was directed towards Septimus so I see no reason for you to get angry and I don't play the games of taking sides... they may have political strength but their planning sucks miserably and it is a fact, even after spending billions upon billions on military projects their results haven't been remarkable at all. Moreover I see no reason why we are discussing US carriers when we are taking about Indian navy, shouldn't it strictly adhere to Indian Naval discussions ??


I am not taking any sides here.. It is obvious in Asymmetric warfare US screwed up big time --- however I doubt over the claim that this forum is full of khan fanboys.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 06 Oct 2012 02:48 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Posts: 32879
Location: Col of the regiment, ORR JTF unit
way I see it Noko or Iran if they are doing down will take ther shots. let us ignore retaliation or political fallout.

my contention was 1 HWT below the keel might not be enough to SINK a heavy supercarrier. 3-4 might do it though. there are silent wake homing torpedoes that use optical sensors to pick up a ships wake and approach from the noisy rear quadrant. they are designed to explode below the keel after crossing below the ships propellers from behind.

1 HWT a fairly cheap weapon (say $2 mil) will definitely mission kill a CVN ($15b) and make it limp home. the cost of repair is likely to be fair higher than a ASM hit of a similar warhead size unless the ASM got lucky and ignited a fuel or munition store deep within the ship to cause a large fire. munitions are stored in armoured magazine many levels down and come up in a system of lifts and are armed in a ready room just before being rolled out to waiting a/c per the discovery chan Ark Royal program.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 06 Oct 2012 03:58 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 24 Apr 2010 01:24
Posts: 1730
Location: Been there, still doing it
Prithwiraj wrote:


"... Hitting one of the USN might still be possible but the political fallout from that and subsequent military reaction (since no siting US president worth his salt will survive without using maximum possible retaliation) will make that one hit rather irrelevant.


Absolutely 'on target' as it were. Whatever happens to the carrier (repeatedly described by the Pentagon as 'floating US Territory') will happen to the country that launched its torpedo/CM first.

If the question is about what happens to a typical CVN if x missile or torpedo hits in y or z place, then it's just asking a question.

Realistically, this event would not occur in a vacuum. Example: let's say the US bombs Iran first and the Iranians retaliate with their hybrid super duper sea skimming cruise missile cum super cavitating torpedo and mission kill or even sink a CVN, there would be a tremendous political price for POTUS but it likely would not trigger an even more massive counter retaliation.

The reasoning is that it would be seen as a combat loss. But that retaliation has to happen within a certain time window (24-72-96 hours?). Else, curiously, it would be considered a separate event. Logic? none except that it's a different news cycle.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 06 Oct 2012 04:25 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46
Posts: 2394
Singha wrote:
way I see it Noko or Iran if they are doing down will take ther shots. let us ignore retaliation or political fallout.

my contention was 1 HWT below the keel might not be enough to SINK a heavy supercarrier. 3-4 might do it though. there are silent wake homing torpedoes that use optical sensors to pick up a ships wake and approach from the noisy rear quadrant. they are designed to explode below the keel after crossing below the ships propellers from behind.


I doubt 3-4 hits could sink supercarrier. A light carrier, certainly. At 100,000 tons, there's a tremendous amount of buoyancy in play, enough to keep it afloat even if some bulkheads are flooded.

That said, I agree with your basic premise that an undersea attack has a greater probability of succeeding in an attack on a US CSG than a conventional missile attack. The Soviet aviation had the capacity to put regiment after regiment of Bears, Badgers and Backfires in the air and they still couldn't be sure of swarming the air defences of carrier and its escorts. The technical challenge has escalated in the years since. Between the Ticonderoga cruiser and AB DDG squadron they have the fire-power to handle most air threats including supersonic sea skimmers.

For a submarine on other hand, its the tracking of a carrier that remains easier said than done. Wake homing is viable only if the carrier group is transitioning through a choke-point like the Hormuz or Malacca Straits and even there a function like friend/foe identification isn't possible. The ocean is a huge place and a submarine can sustain a top speed of only around 30km/h. Plus Soviet subs were the USN's primary threat outside of the North Sea during the Cold War, and you can bet in even today in wartime they'd be one or two LA class SSNs shadowing the carrier looking for a tail.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 06 Oct 2012 11:46 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31
Posts: 11286
A 3 hits by Brahmos on a USN CVN would at the least cause a mission kill for the Carrier and couple of assets defending it , thats almost 700kg of warhead hitting at 3 different sides and no matter where it hits it will cause enough fire and damage to continue with the mission , I am discounting the KE impact which would be 8 times more over any subsonic missile and the secondary explosion caused by flammable material on board that is very unpredictable as secondary explosion are known to cause more damage and fire then a small explosive that might hit area where these materials are placed.

If its bad luck then it might just hit the areas where the engines are running or worst reactors are which might make the ships going back on its own power back to safe base impossible till they tow her back making her sitting targets for further hits.

These days ships are not armored as they used to be during WW2 and warhead are more complex designed to cause maximum damage in large area but what is certain the 3 hits from Brahmos wont sink a CVN unless ofcourse the unpredictable secondary explosion takes the toll


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 06 Oct 2012 12:29 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 22 Nov 2011 18:59
Posts: 450
A single shot Brahmos at the right place is enough to have a mission kill, the carrier itself will stay afloat, hit the command center and it will have to limp back to base for extensive repairs but like I said to dare to hit the super carrier fleet will evoke a response that is more than any can handle. The super carrier remains the deadliest battle formation on the planet. A CBG has enough fire power to take on all comers.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 06 Oct 2012 12:49 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 13 Sep 2008 22:04
Posts: 313
Location: New Delhi
Better to worry about Swarm attack.
Because china has more missile than us no matter how advance or back ward they are, we should have a big setup to protect self from it either on land or seas. what true for US same for us too.
Make navy strong enough that nobody think of attacking us and one more thing if Brahmos can fit on truck than why not on small fast attack craft. Just make a few smart agile & stealthy FAC.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 06 Oct 2012 14:55 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Posts: 32879
Location: Col of the regiment, ORR JTF unit
people have a love of small stealth FACs. take a look at the chinese stealth waterjet FACs...looks uber cool. but the drawbacks are
- very limited to no air defence - even a helicopter armed with exocets will take down easy
- very little radar equipment or decoys
- short legs
- unable to operate in heavy sea states far out in deep ocean
-zero ASW kit

so unless the enemy surface group is moving in brown water zone or near islands where these FACs can launch ambush attacks from, they are pretty much useless against carrier type strike groups.

in chokepoint areas with lots of small islands to hide in like norway fjords, parts of the baltic sea, hormuz straits they are useful and the adjoining navies have a use for them. but for us, other than 1st tier "screening" defence of andaman chains and gujarat coast not much use. thats why IN is not bothered about replacing any of the older tarantul and other FAC boats.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 06 Oct 2012 17:20 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 13 Sep 2008 22:04
Posts: 313
Location: New Delhi
Singha wrote:
people have a love of small stealth FACs. take a look at the chinese stealth waterjet FACs...looks uber cool. but the drawbacks are
- very limited to no air defence - even a helicopter armed with exocets will take down easy
- very little radar equipment or decoys
- short legs
- unable to operate in heavy sea states far out in deep ocean
-zero ASW kit

so unless the enemy surface group is moving in brown water zone or near islands where these FACs can launch ambush attacks from, they are pretty much useless against carrier type strike groups.

in chokepoint areas with lots of small islands to hide in like norway fjords, parts of the baltic sea, hormuz straits they are useful and the adjoining navies have a use for them. but for us, other than 1st tier "screening" defence of andaman chains and gujarat coast not much use. thats why IN is not bothered about replacing any of the older tarantul and other FAC boats.



You misunderstood it IMHO small decent but Fast purely attack purpose with little air defense and if you make it fast than you don't have to worry about subs, minimal sub detecting should be on board to pass info to other anti-sub assets in the area and keep moving forward at FAST speed for attacking and decoying purpose

We still hold the area where this FAC could be very effective. Evan we can protect our coast with these FAC rather than fully loaded Ships you know net centric communication very handy in this case. i saw pics of styx on truck in Mumbai on netand now i am sure IA moving get few Anti ship land based Brahmos too, so these two can compliment each other.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 06 Oct 2012 17:38 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Posts: 32879
Location: Col of the regiment, ORR JTF unit
I think the pakis need these more than we. we dont expect to be fighting a defensive surface battle near any of our coast.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 06 Oct 2012 18:04 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 13 Sep 2008 22:04
Posts: 313
Location: New Delhi
Singha wrote:
I think the pakis need these more than we. we don't expect to be fighting a defensive surface battle near any of our coast.

So according to you nothing sneak in and keep our coast defense less.
Coastal defense is not about just Battle but security.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 06 Oct 2012 19:11 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Posts: 32879
Location: Col of the regiment, ORR JTF unit
why would anyone want to commit suicide when a sub could fire a few missiles and escape cleanly?

fr security we have coast guard, new coastal radar netwk, amosp do228, likely dhruvs fr cg and p28 ships so relax...we have it covered


Last edited by Singha on 06 Oct 2012 21:03, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 06 Oct 2012 20:26 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 08 Nov 2008 21:23
Posts: 2126
Location: Samjhautha Express with an IED
Sikorsky S-70B – Right choice for the Indian Navy MRH program

Quote:
The Indian Navy’s Multi Role Helicopter (MRH) competition has been the source of much discussion with regards to which of the two final candidates (NH90 & S-70B) is best suited for the Indian Navy requirements. I would like to offer my opinion as to why I believe the Sikorsky S-70B is the best choice. The following are what I believe to be key data points as to why I believe their choice should be the S-70B


by Rik Lammers - Richard (Rik) Lammers is a retired principal engineer from Sikorsky Aircraft with over 33 years of experience in the implementation and management of systems & software design and integration of Flight Management, Mission Management, and Weapons Management systems for both commercial and military aircraft.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 07 Oct 2012 03:03 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 10882
Location: India
...and Eurocopter will also say that the NH-90 is the best bet! Tough decision though and heaps of arm twisting will happen from both sides.

Unless a large salvo of missiles is fired at a carrier ,the higher the chances of it being able to absorb the damage and fight on if struck by a single or pair of missiles.The compartmentalisation of spaces and fire zones will allow the carrier to soak up battle damage and still be operational.There were many studies of WW2 carrier battle damage from bombs and torpedos.The Yorktown is a classic case of being quickly repaired after receiving much damage in the battle of the Coral Sea and in only 48 hrs was repaired sufficiently to take part in the Battle of Midway where she was sunk after being hit by bombs and the coup-de-gras,two torps .

In the Falklands,the number of RN ships sunk or damaged by dumb iron bombs alone indicated that lightly armoured frigates and destroyers of the post WW2 era were very vulnerable to air attack and that new measures to fight fires and deal with battle damage needed to be incorporated in new warship designs.One particular design change was to make bulkhead doors and hatches much wider so that sailors could move through them wearing their cumbersome firefighting gear,hampered by narrow hatchways.

Wik:
Quote:
As soon as the attackers had been picked up on Yorktown's radar at about 1329, she discontinued fueling her CAP fighters on deck and swiftly cleared for action. Her returning dive bombers were moved from the landing circle to open the area for antiaircraft fire. The Dauntlesses were ordered aloft to form a CAP. An auxiliary 800 gallon gasoline tank was pushed over the carrier's fantail, eliminating one fire hazard. The crew drained fuel lines and closed and secured all compartments.

All of Yorktown's fighters were vectored out to intercept the oncoming Japanese aircraft, and did so some 15 to 20 miles (32 km) out. The Wildcats attacked vigorously, breaking up what appeared to be an organized attack by some 18 "Vals" and 6 "Zeroes."[3] "Planes were flying in every direction", wrote Captain Buckmaster after the action, "and many were falling in flames." The leader of the "Vals", Lieutenant Michio Kobayashi, was probably shot down by the VF-3's commanding officer, Lieutenant Commander John S. Thach. Lieutenant William W. Barnes also pressed home the first attack, possible taking out the lead bomber and damaging at least two others. Despite an intensive barrage and evasive maneuvering, three "Vals" scored hits. Two of them were shot down soon after releasing their bomb loads; the third went out of control just as his bomb left the rack. It tumbled in flight and hit just abaft number two elevator on the starboard side, exploding on contact and blasting a hole about 10 feet (3 m) square in the flight deck. Splinters from the exploding bomb killed most of the crews of the two 1.1-inch (28 mm) gun mounts aft of the island and on the flight deck below. Fragments piercing the flight deck hit three planes on the hangar deck, starting fires. One of the aircraft, a Yorktown Dauntless, was fully fueled and carrying a 1,000 pound bomb. Prompt action by Lt. A. C. Emerson, the hangar deck officer, prevented a serious fire by activating the sprinkler system and quickly extinguishing the fire.

The second bomb to hit the ship came from the port side, pierced the flight deck, and exploded in the lower part of the funnel. It ruptured the uptakes for three boilers, disabled two boilers, and extinguished the fires in five boilers. Smoke and gases began filling the firerooms of six boilers. The men at number one boiler remained at their post and kept it alight, maintaining enough steam pressure to allow the auxiliary steam systems to function.

A third bomb hit the carrier from the starboard side, pierced the side of number one elevator and exploded on the fourth deck, starting a persistent fire in the rag storage space, adjacent to the forward gasoline stowage and the magazines. The prior precaution of smothering the gasoline system with carbon dioxide undoubtedly prevented the gasoline from igniting.

While the ship recovered from the damage inflicted by the dive-bombing attack, her speed dropped to six knots; and then at 14:40, about 20 minutes after the bomb hit that had shut down most of the boilers, Yorktown slowed to a stop, dead in the water.

At about 15:40, Yorktown prepared to get steaming again; and, at 15:50, the engine room force reported that they were ready to make 20 knots (23 mph; 37 km/h) or better.

Simultaneously, with the fires controlled sufficiently to warrant the resumption of fueling, Yorktown began refueling the fighters then on deck; just then the ship's radar picked up an incoming air group at a distance of 33 miles (53 km). While the ship prepared for battle, again smothering gasoline systems and stopping the fueling of the planes on her flight deck, she vectored four of the six fighters of the CAP in the air to intercept the raiders. Of the 10 fighters on board, eight had as little as 23 gallons of fuel in their tanks. They were launched as the remaining pair of fighters of the CAP headed out to intercept the Japanese planes.
Yorktown is hit on the port side, amidships, by a Japanese Type 91 aerial torpedo during the mid-afternoon attack by planes from the carrier Hiryu.

At 16:00, maneuvering Yorktown churned forward, making 20 knots (23 mph; 37 km/h). The fighters she had launched and vectored out to intercept had meanwhile made contact with the enemy. Yorktown received reports that the planes were "Kates." The Wildcats shot down at least three, but the rest began their approach while the carrier and her escorts mounted a heavy antiaircraft barrage.

Yorktown maneuvered radically, avoiding at least two torpedoes before another two struck the port side within minutes of each other, the first at 16:20. The carrier had been mortally wounded; she lost power and went dead in the water with a jammed rudder and an increasing list to port.

As the ship's list progressed Commander C. E. Aldrich, the damage control officer, reported from central station that, without power, controlling the flooding looked impossible. The engineering officer, LCDR. J. F. Delaney, soon reported that all boiler fires were out, that all power was lost and that it was impossible to correct the list. Buckmaster ordered Aldrich, Delaney, and their men to secure and lay up on deck to put on life jackets.

The list, meanwhile, continued to increase. When it reached 26 degrees, Buckmaster and Aldrich agreed that capsizing was imminent. "In order to save as many of the ship's company as possible", the captain wrote later, he "ordered the ship to be abandoned."

Over the next few minutes the crew lowered the wounded into life rafts and struck out for the nearby destroyers and cruisers to be picked up by their boats, abandoning ship in good order. After the evacuation of all wounded, the executive officer, Commander I. D. Wiltsie, left the ship down a line on the starboard side. Buckmaster, meanwhile, toured the ship one last time, to see if any men remained. After finding no "live personnel", Buckmaster lowered himself into the water by means of a line over the stern, by which time water was lapping the port side of the hangar deck.


Supersonic anti-ship missiles today and heavyweight torpedoes stand a far better chance of disabling or sinking a modern carrier.The fact that a carrier is stuffed with so much of inflammable objects like aircraft,stores/munitions,etc.,will ensure that serious damage has to be factored in its design,which will have to be compartmentalised,plus use of fire curtains, etc.,with several automatic firefighting devices installed to limit damage from fire.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 07 Oct 2012 04:44 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31
Posts: 4614
if the sikorskies can be built at the Tata plant - then even if a tad lessor than the NH 90 - I would go for it


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 07 Oct 2012 06:38 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Posts: 32879
Location: Col of the regiment, ORR JTF unit
more proven than NH90 for sure and EU credentials in ASW are far less than USN.

modern carriers with COGAG or nuclear plants should not be as vulnerable to boiler damage as the yorktown. at some point the US WW2 carriers also moved to steel decks from wooden decks.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 07 Oct 2012 06:51 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 11 May 2005 06:56
Posts: 4480
Location: Duke Nukem
Quote:
more proven than NH90 for sure and EU credentials in ASW are far less than USN.

The bitter experience with the earlier Sikorsky model (aka Sea King) in IN Service should be considered. While a great aircraft, it was grounded due to sanctions and US wouldn't release spares even for Search and Resuce use!

Now pay back time for Unkil. Karma after all is a Female Dog! Do exactly what we did with the BAE Hawk deal. Inisist that 100% of the items are non US (not a screw or nut of US origin), and bargain like mad with the Oieroes (thanks to the e-con crisis, we have all the leverage) and go with the NH-90. Atleast those wont turn hanger queens at the drop of a hat based on the fickle political hee-haws of the US.

The US is NOT a reliable supplier. Do not go US for core warfighting stuff. Anyways, a good signal that their actions have long term consequences is absolutely needed. They understand it only when it hits their wallet. Go with the NH-90 now and insist that they need to show "good behaviour" for a period of two decades to build trust and good faith, before we are willing to go for critical systems with them.

Quote:
modern carriers with COGAG or nuclear plants should not be as vulnerable to boiler damage as the yorktown. at some point the US WW2 carriers also moved to steel decks from wooden decks.


Well, even the armored decks are nowhere close to what you would see on a battleship. In US carriers (until after Midway class I think),the flight deck was just "superstructure" and not a strenght deck.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 07 Oct 2012 06:59 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Posts: 32879
Location: Col of the regiment, ORR JTF unit
NH90 has a huge order book on paper, but its operational experience appears to be very limited. the EC725 looks more proven but a tiny order book.
perhaps the RN with its Merlin was a better bet, but its too big for 2 Merlins on our ships.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 08 Oct 2012 05:05 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 10882
Location: India
Singha,I think that there is an IN requirement for a Merlin sized multi-role helo,esp for the carriers.In a recent Vayu (?) issue,the huge helo requirement for the IN and the other servcies was elaborated upon.One point though.US naval helos do not have the high tail boom design feature as in European helos,but have the tail and fuselage in one line.Will this hamper operations in heavy seas with heavily pitching decks on smaller warships like frigates and destroyers? US warships are generally much larger in size than warships of other navies and are more stable in rough seas.Moreover,they usually operate from carriers and amphibious warships.The now aging Perry class is perhaps the smallest sized USN warship operating helos.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 08 Oct 2012 19:50 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 21 Feb 2012 15:54
Posts: 287
http://ajaishukla.blogspot.in/2012/10/unions-stall-private-sector-entry-into.html

Quote:
The Defence Ministry’s (MoD’s) belated move to speed up warship building by bringing in the private sector has been delayed, apparently due to pressure from workers’ unions in the MoD shipyards.


In July, defence shipyard Mazagon Dock Ltd (MDL) --- snowed under with naval warship orders and running years behind schedule --- formed joint venture companies (JVs) with two private sector warship builders, Pipavav and L&T, to speed up the building of surface warships and submarines respectively. This would marry MDL’s expertise with the private sector’s new capacities.


Two months later, not a single order has been placed on the JVs, apparently for fear of angering MDL’s powerful workers’ unions. Instead, MDL has engaged a consultant, IDBI Capital, to advise the shipyard on what work to transfer to the JVs.


Top MoD officials say that MDL workers’ unions would resist the transfer of work to the two JVs, despite the public sector yard’s unmanageable order book, and its inability to deliver warships on time.


“MDL’s unions will have to be satisfied that there is a case for taking work away from MDL and giving it to the JV. They will have to be convinced that they will not suffer,” says the MoD official.


Ironically, this roadblock comes at a time when the navy desperately requires more warships, operating with 134 vessels against an assessed requirement of 160. In 2010, a Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) audit found that the navy has just 61, 44 and 20 per cent respectively of the frigates, destroyers and corvettes that are its minimum requirement. The CAG report notes that “The lead ship in all projects is delivered or expected to be delivered after a delay ranging from four to five years from the original delivery date.”


The JVs with Pipavav and L&T were to end these delays, by outsourcing work on surface warships to Pipavav’s Rs 3,000 crore shipyard near Dahej; and L&T’s submarine yard at Hazira and its 3,500 crore shipyard at Kathupally, near Ennore.


“After signing the Share Holders Agreement, we are waiting for MDL to decided the scope of work to be allotted to the JV,” says MV Kotwal, who heads L&T’s heavy engineering division and oversees its defence initiatives.


But MDL says that engaging a consultant is inescapable, since guidelines specify that the JVs can only be given work that is beyond the public sector’s capacity and capabilities.


“An assessment of what work can be transferred to the JVs is best done by a third party, which can provide an objective assessment that is based on our existing order book, seen in the light of our performance in the past,” says Rear Admiral (Retired) Rahul Shrawat, the MDL chief.


Shrawat says that IDBI Capital, the selected consultant, would also identify the minimum quantum of work --- called Minimum Economic Order Quantity, or MEOQ --- that would have to be placed on the JV. This assured business would be necessary to make the JV economically viable and nurture it through is initial days.


Pipavav and L&T worry that their JVs are now at the mercy of a consultant, IDBI Capital, which has no experience in warship manufacture. MDL officials, however, say that the company is experienced in infrastructure-related consultancy.


Besides the issue of work share, the MDL-L&T JV also faces a problem of intellectual property rights (IPR). This relates to the technology that MDL has obtained from French submarine builder, DCNS, for building six Scorpene submarines under Project 75. According to Admiral Shrawat, “we will have to take our collaborators, DCNS, into confidence before we can transfer Scorpene work to a partner.”


Project 75 is already running more than three years late. The first Scorpene, which MDL was to deliver in 2012, will not be joining the navy before 2015. But MDL officials say that the JV is not likely to substantially speed up work, since it cannot be given any substantial outfitting work for at least the first two or three Scorpenes.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 08 Oct 2012 19:54 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Posts: 32879
Location: Col of the regiment, ORR JTF unit
IDBI I thought was best known for industry financing and for home loans through its banking arm :mrgreen:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 09 Oct 2012 05:36 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 10882
Location: India
MDL is blackmailing the nation with its dog-in-the-manger attitude.If it was at least 75% capable of meeting targets,one could nurse it along,but fear of unions is the road to disaster.The MOD should care a hoot about MDLs unions and award contracts to other pvt. yards.MDL has enough on its plate and even the pvt. yards plus state shipyards are incapable of meeting the needs of the IN in the timeframe given by analysts ,in order to meet the challenge of replacing old vessels and adding new ones as the IN and CG expand.There is enough "food" on MDL's plate for quite some time,with the last Scorpene emerging only in 2018....if we're lucky!

If MDL is mollycuddled thus,new imports are the only way in which the IN's rapidly depleting numbers of subs and replacing obsolete warships is possible.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 09 Oct 2012 07:00 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Posts: 24849
Location: NowHere
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NEWS/news ... wsid=19694
Russians must be laughing..but hiding and at the same time, we are showing tight face, with a smile and constipated look.
Do you think Russians will honor contractual terms?

Is there a way out?


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 5428 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85 ... 136  Next

All times are UTC + 5:30 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group