Bharat Rakshak

Consortium of Indian Defence Websites
It is currently 02 Oct 2014 17:13

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 ... 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90 ... 136  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: 07 Nov 2012 00:41 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21
Posts: 2918
chetak wrote:
Vikramaditya is limited by the size of the aircraft lifts. :x

That's why the compromise aircraft was the MiG 29K.

Much better aircraft were available around the time that the purchase was made.


The only other STOBAR capable available aircraft was the Rafale M. If the lift works for a Mig-29K, it would work for Rafale.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 07 Nov 2012 07:21 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Posts: 32968
Location: Col of the regiment, ORR JTF unit
the Rafale-M due to its heavier weight and less powerful engines than Mig29K (not sure of engine part) might not have the payload of the 29K in STO mode?
but overall a far more polished and survivable a/c. maybe in A2A role it would not matter.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 07 Nov 2012 09:01 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21
Posts: 2918
Singha wrote:
the Rafale-M due to its heavier weight and less powerful engines than Mig29K (not sure of engine part) might not have the payload of the 29K in STO mode?
but overall a far more polished and survivable a/c. maybe in A2A role it would not matter.

I was not comparing the aircrafts. I was just negating the point that the dimension and capacity of the lifts decided the aircraft of choice.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 07 Nov 2012 11:17 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00
Posts: 6211
indranilroy wrote:
Singha wrote:
the Rafale-M due to its heavier weight and less powerful engines than Mig29K (not sure of engine part) might not have the payload of the 29K in STO mode?
but overall a far more polished and survivable a/c. maybe in A2A role it would not matter.

I was not comparing the aircrafts. I was just negating the point that the dimension and capacity of the lifts decided the aircraft of choice.




The Sukhoi was what really interested the planners at that stage.

The russians would never have let in a rafale.

For the russians, the deal was to maximize sales of their hardware only.

Sorry that I did not make it clear.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 07 Nov 2012 11:21 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 2129
Location: NullPointerException
chetak wrote:
indranilroy wrote:
I was not comparing the aircrafts. I was just negating the point that the dimension and capacity of the lifts decided the aircraft of choice.




The Sukhoi was what really interested the planners at that stage.

The russians would never have let in a rafale.

For the russians, the deal was to maximize sales of their hardware only.

Sorry that I did not make it clear.


But lesser numbers if the embarked aircraft were Su-33 derivatives, correct? MiG-29K and variants were much better developed than Su-33, that would have also been a factor. Rafales, as you say, were a no go on a Russian AC.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 07 Nov 2012 11:55 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46
Posts: 2408
merlin wrote:
But lesser numbers if the embarked aircraft were Su-33 derivatives, correct? MiG-29K and variants were much better developed than Su-33, that would have also been a factor.


They weren't actually. Both the MiG-29K and the Su-33 were 80s vintage designs that were more or less shelved as far as modernization was concerned. The MiG-29K was only revived by the Indian Navy's order. Its the investment from India that is being capitalized by Russia with the decision to replace the Su-33 with the MiG-29K after the former retires. Point being, had the Su-33 been ordered in lieu of the MiG-29K in 2004, the Indian Navy would have received a Su-33MKI variant of the Su-33K, rather than the obsolescent models currently in service with the Russian Navy.

Which of course in no way changes the Gorshkov/Vikramaditya's limitations vis-a-vis its aircraft lift.


Quote:
Rafales, as you say, were a no go on a Russian AC.


Well, the aircraft carrier was being offered for 'free' in return for a MiG-29K order (that bit always makes me chuckle). Had the MoD/Navy known what they were getting into they wouldn't have touched it with a barge pole. The Rafale M based on a Fincantieri built carrier would have been a far better choice with follow-on orders for the carrier being serviced by domestic shipyards.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 07 Nov 2012 12:42 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31
Posts: 11353
Vikramaditya deal was also linked to Akula-2 lease and possibily even ATV assistance , so it was take it or leave it deal ...it was good and bad in that aspect


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 07 Nov 2012 13:11 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 22 Sep 2010 21:07
Posts: 492
so we are getting more fuels for our nuke subs

India and Canada finalise terms for their nuclear deal, paving the way for
Canadian firms to export uranium to India.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-2023 ... icRSS20-sa


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 07 Nov 2012 13:19 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Posts: 32968
Location: Col of the regiment, ORR JTF unit
only indirectly. imports of uranium for power projects will free up limited local deposits for military use - not just subs but n-weapons.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 07 Nov 2012 13:52 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 21 Nov 2008 04:10
Posts: 2230
Location: Bharathavarshey Bharathakhandey Jumbudweepey Kaveryaha Uttare Teerey
tushar_m wrote:
so we are getting more fuels for our nuke subs

India and Canada finalise terms for their nuclear deal, paving the way for
Canadian firms to export uranium to India.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-2023 ... icRSS20-sa


Such fuel would be under full time supervision of IAEA. As Singha ji said, these would free up the un-safeguarded fuel for our weapons use.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 07 Nov 2012 18:44 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 22 Sep 2010 21:07
Posts: 492
Yogi_G wrote:
tushar_m wrote:
so we are getting more fuels for our nuke subs

India and Canada finalise terms for their nuclear deal, paving the way for
Canadian firms to export uranium to India.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-2023 ... icRSS20-sa


Such fuel would be under full time supervision of IAEA. As Singha ji said, these would free up the un-safeguarded fuel for our weapons use.



you didn't get the point ..........if i may

if we get fuel for our nuke reactors that are currently running on fuel produced/mined in India then

our home made fuel will be enough for our subs & other military activities..........correct me if m wrong


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 08 Nov 2012 10:24 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13
Posts: 5785
^^^ The Vikramaditya deal was a gift from the Russians but was contingent upon the following factors.

1) India pays for the refurbishment of the ship in a Russian yard.
2) India picks a Russian Air group.

A better aircraft was not available for the ship back in the day. Nor is one available today, for that specific ship.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 08 Nov 2012 10:30 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 03 Nov 2011 21:43
Posts: 513
^^
You are repeating what he has said.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 08 Nov 2012 10:50 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00
Posts: 6211
Prithwiraj wrote:
^^
You are repeating what he has said.



One wonders why, if after such a long time and prolonged delays in delivery of the carrier to India, the thought of modifying the aircraft lifts was not seriously thought of. It would have made for a more versatile carrier, giving the planners many operational possibilities.

OTOH it may have been technically very challenging, maybe even beyond the capability of the present dockyard where the refit is being undertaken.

It ties the carrier for it's life time to the MiG 29K and it's undoubtedly very expensive derivatives. Alternates are a horizon far away.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 08 Nov 2012 16:55 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 23 Jul 2011 16:05
Posts: 246
Location: On the sofa.
^ Also, Gorky superstructure is not on the extreme right as is normal in aircraft carriers. That resulted in less space (width) available for the take-off runway. Then it was determined that Su-33k would not be able to operate safely with its larger wingspan on take-off.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 08 Nov 2012 22:01 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06
Posts: 3423
Location: Dark Side of the Moon
The Indian Navy's New 'Expeditionary' Outlook - Abhijit Singh
Quote:
Conclusion
A robust crisis response capability in the distant littorals will need India to deploy the full spectrum of its military capabilities, including the capability for offensive intervention and forcible entry. The expeditionary crisis-response force will need to be organized, trained, equipped, and deployed to project military power overseas. Since there is no predicting a potential crisis, the Indian Navy's response matrix will need to cater to a broad range of possibilities, rather than a specific threat. To begin with, the Indian Navy could revive the concept of a dedicated Maritime Rapid Reaction Force (MRRF) endowed with a strategic sealift capability that fits in with India's vision of being a rising power in the Asia-Pacific region. To enable the MRRF, the navy could first look at raising a marine force of about 1000-2000 personnel.

The ongoing naval modernisation and build-up in the Asia-Pacific does, in fact, have strong implications for the Indian Navy's order of battle (ORBAT) and its maritime doctrine. The force being developed must have the capability to maintain itself in a continuous state of readiness, ready to deploy rapidly and able to adapt to a broad range of operating environments on short notice. In the final analysis, the navy's expeditionary capability will be critical to India's response to international contingencies where Indian interests are at stake or to avoid the “spillover” effect of crises and prevention in the escalation of human casualties.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 09 Nov 2012 08:00 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31
Posts: 11353
Russia Set to Hand India another Missile Frigate

Quote:
KALININGRAD, November 9 (RIA Novosti) – The second of three stealth frigates that Russia builds for India at the Yantar Shipyard in Russia’s Baltic exclave of Kaliningrad will be handed over to the Indian Navy on Friday.

Sergei Mikhailov, a spokesman for the Yantar Shipyard, the solemn ceremony of delivering the warship will be held in Kaliningrad and be attended by high-ranking military officers both from Russia and India.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 09 Nov 2012 18:03 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 26 Jul 2006 10:51
Posts: 447
Location: Riga
Austin wrote:
Russia Set to Hand India another Missile Frigate

Quote:
KALININGRAD, November 9 (RIA Novosti) – The second of three stealth frigates that Russia builds for India at the Yantar Shipyard in Russia’s Baltic exclave of Kaliningrad will be handed over to the Indian Navy on Friday.

Sergei Mikhailov, a spokesman for the Yantar Shipyard, the solemn ceremony of delivering the warship will be held in Kaliningrad and be attended by high-ranking military officers both from Russia and India.

Image

Image

Image

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 10 Nov 2012 09:08 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 21 Feb 2012 15:54
Posts: 287
http://ajaishukla.blogspot.in/2012/11/new-chinese-stealth-fighter-heightens.html

Quote:
Was last week’s inaugural flight of China’s second stealth fighter linked to the ongoing 18th National Congress of the Chinese Communist Party? Was President Hu Jintao demonstrating his relationship with the People’s Liberation Army (PLA), a powerful lever for elevating his protégés to the apex Politburo Standing Committee?


Several unanswered questions surround the Oct 31 debut of the J-31 Shenyang fighter, which the pathologically secretive PLA took unusual pains to publicize. Having already unveiled the J-20 Chengdu stealth fighter in Jan 2011, China is the only country that is developing two separate stealth fighters. The US is developing the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, albeit in three versions; Russia is working on a single design, the PAK-FA, to which India has hitched its wagon. Separately, Japan is developing the ATD-X demonstrator.


Other intriguing questions include: Given the J-31’s close resemblance to the US F-35 fighter, has China reverse-engineered it from blueprints that Lockheed Martin had reported stolen in 2009 from the computers of six American aerospace subcontractors? Is the J-31 for export only, which would explain the publicity that the PLA is giving it? Or will the PLA use the J-31 as an air superiority fighter while the larger J-20 strikes ground targets, an allocation of roles that mirrors the employment of the F-22 Raptor and the F-35 by the US Air Force? Or is the F-31 a competitor to the J-20, with the better of the two designs destined to go into production?


But the question that most worries the Indian Navy is: does the sturdy landing gear that experts have spotted on the J-31 indicate that the new fighter will operate from Chinese aircraft carriers, giving the PLA Navy, or PLA(N) an aerial combat capability that would outmuscle India’s in the Indian Ocean?


China is focusing keenly on naval air power. Just a month ago China’s first aircraft carrier, the Liaoning, had joined the PLA(N) fleet. The 58,500-tonne Liaoning --- bought as scrap from Ukraine for a floating casino, but then renovated in Dalian shipyard into an operational carrier --- is the PLA(N)’s first attempt at learning the complex skills of aircraft carrier operations. This is difficult learning. The US Navy lost some 12,000 aircraft and 8,500 airmen from 1949-1988 in developing its naval aviation skills. But Indian planners believe that the Chinese will learn quickly, especially when the Liaoning is joined by more modern aircraft carriers that are already being built in China.


Indian Navy planners tell Business Standard that the PLA(N)’s three-pronged process --- learning aircraft carrier operations; building one or two modern carriers; and inducting the J-31 --- could take a decade or more. But after that, PLA(N) aircraft carrier battle groups could operate in the Indian Ocean, fielding fighters that are superior to India’s.


The Indian Navy’s 45 Russian MiG-29Ks, purchased for two new aircraft carriers, are capable fighters today, but would certainly be outclassed by the stealthy J-31 whenever it enters service. The navy’s new carriers --- the 44,000-tonne INS Vikramaditya that could join the fleet next year; and the unnamed, 40,000-tonne Indigenous Aircraft Carrier (IAC) that will be ready only by 2017 --- are both fitted with ski-jumps that are custom-built for the MiG-29K to take off.


If the navy wants a more capable fighter, e.g. the Dassault Rafale, which the Indian Air Force is buying, or the F-35C, which is the naval version of the Joint Strike Fighter, it will need an aircraft carrier with a catapult rather than a ski-jump. If the navy designs its second IAC (a 60,000-tonne vessel that is still being conceptualized) with a catapult on the flight deck, a 5th-generation stealth fighter could soon follow.


The navy has already signaled such an interest. In 2006, and again in 2007, New Delhi asked Lockheed Martin (which runs the F-35 programme) for briefings on the F-35B, a short take off and vertical landing (STOVL) variant that the US Marine Corps will fly off its smaller aircraft carriers called Landing Helicopter Docks. While the F-35B could operate from a ski-jump, the F-35C needs a catapult to propel it off the flight deck.


Will the J-31 push the navy towards more advanced fighters and a second IAC with catapult assited launch? All options remain on the table. Then naval chief, Admiral Nirmal Verma, speaking in Delhi on Aug 7 shortly before he retired, did not rule out “having an entirely different carrier with a different complement of aircraft.”


That decision, however, would be a difficult one, keeping in mind that two carriers would already be fielding the MiG-29K, and a new fighter would complicate training and logistics.


“I can’t rule out anything or rule in anything. It is something at the concept stage and it will take a couple of years before we firm up our ideas on this,” said Admiral Verma.


The navy’s eyes will be focused on the Zhuhai Air Show, in China, in mid-November for more details that might emerge about China’s new stealth fighter.


What I don't understand is why does the response to the Chini J 31 have to be another stealth fighter. Too linear a thought, No?

Shouldn't it be a combination rather than a mere tit for tat approach of my D*** is bigger better than yours approach:
a) Better AAW destroyers (including better networked & integrated radars and missiles), AND
b) Better (read longer distance) stand-off missiles (Anti-ship and CM) to do some serious damage to their naval assets, AND
c) Stealth fighters


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 10 Nov 2012 09:15 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31
Posts: 11353
Vikramaditya to be handed over to India mid 2013 – shipbuilding company official

Quote:
KALININGRAD, November 10 (Itar-Tass) —— The Vikramaditya aircraft carrier (formerly Russia’s The Admiral Gorshkov) will be handed over to India in the middle of next year, the vice-president of the United Shipbuilding Corporation, Sergei Forafonov, told the media in Kaliningrad. He took part in the ceremony of the transfer to the Indian Navy of another frigate (The Tarkash), build at the Baltic shipyards Yantar.

“The negotiations with the Indian side are practically over. The Vikramaditya aircraft carrier will be handed over to the customer in the middle of 2013 after the insulation of boilers has been replaced,” Forafonov said.

He recalled that the insulation of the aircraft carrier’s boilers failed during sea trials.“It was not designers’ mistake. The insulation materials were used at the request of the Indian side. The partners had not taken into account the factor of vibration and the hull’s deformation while the ship is on the move,” Forafonov said. “As a result, we have the result that we have.”

Forafonov said the boilers would be covered with a different sort of insulation. The Indian partners agreed with that and put their signatures to the specifications of the new coating.

The work will be done at the Baltic shipbuilding plant, which had manufactured the boilers for the aircraft carrier.

“Next year the Vikramaditya will be fully restored and handed over to the Indian side,” Forafonov said, adding that that might happen in June 2013.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 10 Nov 2012 10:00 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Posts: 32968
Location: Col of the regiment, ORR JTF unit
I am betting the iac2 will have cats , bams uav and jsf and e2. The era of ski jumps is over.... Bigger roles need bigger sticks.

Aaw ddg ae fine and necessary but nowhere near the coverage and protection of 4 hawkeyes and 50 jsf of a 60000t pa2 sized ship. To reduce risk we could hook in dcn for its pa2 design which is already built for cats and hawkeyes.

Just avoid the dog vstol jsf thats all... The main naval version will be fine once khan is done throwing money and people to fix whatever ails it. And it will have superb sensor and weapons pkgs.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 10 Nov 2012 21:23 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 29 Sep 2010 17:33
Posts: 393
INS Mumbai:

http://www.manw.nato.int/Images/ocean%2 ... umbai3.jpg

INS Mumbai on the High Seas


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 10 Nov 2012 23:27 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 10908
Location: Illini Nation
Nothing to do on a grey, wet, warm (70*F) Nov morning ........................

J-31!!!

Seems to me is a copy of the F-35. Do not know to what extend did the Chinese rob LM, but I for one certainly hope the Chinese did not get the sensors package. They can make as many shells as they want without good sensors.

PAK-FA - per Russian reports - was expected to be greater than the F-22, but was not expected to compete with the F-35. IF true then the J-31 = F-35 > PAK-FA > F-22.Where does PMF (the new FGFA) fall in this I am not sure, but PMF should be better than the PAK-FA, so .................... Do we have a naval PMF on the DBoard?

I for one would not be too concerned about the J-31 and IOR. That plane, among others, will threaten a ton of other nations before the IOR and the IN. Time enough for IN to respond.

I am very, very glad that the Chinese have come out with the J-20 and 31. This is exactly what India needs to perk up her response.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 10 Nov 2012 23:35 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 28 Apr 2011 11:27
Posts: 348
The only problem with going in for Catas for IAC 2 is that you put the balls of the IAC in the hands of Uncle. No one else has CAT tech so Uncle is the only one you can get it from. Everytime Uncle has a fetish , he can squeeze them and make you dance and there will be nothing you can do about it.

Catas for the IAC2 are the need of the hour though.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 11 Nov 2012 08:30 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 10996
Location: India
Though this should be on the intl.N. thread,I'm cross-posting it here as it has relevance to understanding the PRC/PLAN's naval strategy,which as the author says has grown into a fully three-dimensional nuclear power with long range capability to strike at the US or anywhere.

http://shanghaiist.com/2012/11/10/beiji ... _diaoy.php

Beijing's true purpose for the Diaoyu conflict, a submarine 'safe haven'


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 11 Nov 2012 09:43 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 08 May 2007 17:04
Posts: 8333
Location: (IT-vity && DRDO) nagar
X-post:
sum wrote:
Not so good news on Arihant front:

INS Arihant will miss December deadline

Quote:
The INS Arihant, India's first nuclear-powered submarine, will not go for its much-awaited sea trial by December—the deadline set by the Navy.

The 80 Mwe nuclear reactor on-board the submarine is yet to be functional more than three years after the submarine was launched in water. The reactor is yet to produce the energy required to propel the 6000-tonne submarine.

The non-functioning of the Arihant nuclear reactor has more to do with the completion of a large number of other systems and components inside the submarine vessel rather than any problem with the nuclear reactor.
“At the earliest, Arihant can go for sea-trial only in 2013,” sources in the department of atomic energy told Deccan Herald.



[quote]“Everything was made in India up to the last nuts and bolts. Also the industry was not well developed when we started. We faced a lot of problems on materials,” said a nuclear scientist who was closely associated with reactor development.

But when the submarine was launched in water in July 2009, many systems and components were not in place. Over the last two years, the project management team was putting the instruments in place. The circular design of the submarine’s interior panel made the job more complicated for the team.
“More than 150 systems have to work simultaneously for the submarine to operate,” the sources said.



Quote:
At the moment, the N-submarine has 125 K-15 short range ballistic missiles with a one-tonne nuclear warhead, which can hit the target at a distance of 700 km. Eventually they will be replaced by 3500 km range submarine launched ballistic missiles, which are currently under development.

Construction has also begun for the second nuclear-submarine and its nuclear reactor as numerous systems and components are being readied. But the final assembly for the reactor as well as the vessel is yet to start.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 11 Nov 2012 12:19 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 20 Sep 2000 11:31
Posts: 1168
Singha wrote:
I am betting the iac2 will have cats , bams uav and jsf and e2. The era of ski jumps is over.... Bigger roles need bigger sticks.

Aaw ddg ae fine and necessary but nowhere near the coverage and protection of 4 hawkeyes and 50 jsf of a 60000t pa2 sized ship. To reduce risk we could hook in dcn for its pa2 design which is already built for cats and hawkeyes.

Just avoid the dog vstol jsf thats all... The main naval version will be fine once khan is done throwing money and people to fix whatever ails it. And it will have superb sensor and weapons pkgs.


Which cats, steam or EMAl ?

Even 60K is small, should be slightly biggish say 75K ?

JSF ? Suicide ?

RAFALE & TEJAS !!!!

Hawkeyes, will all desi maal.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 12 Nov 2012 06:28 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31
Posts: 11353
Mig-29K Lands on Vikramaditya ( Pg 20 Take Off Mag )

http://en.take-off.ru/arhiv/746


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 12 Nov 2012 06:32 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 10908
Location: Illini Nation
Austin wrote:
Mig-29K Lands on Vikramaditya ( Pg 20 Take Off Mag )

http://en.take-off.ru/arhiv/746


Take-off, Nov, 2012 (pdf version)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 12 Nov 2012 06:42 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 10 Aug 2006 21:11
Posts: 14926
Location: Hindu Enclave, Narrow-Mind Street
^
Quote:
The first phase of the sea trials of the Vikramaditya aircraft carrier (the former Admiral Gorshkov heavy aircraft-carrying cruiser prior to her modernisation), which took 108 days, was completed on 23 September 2012. Its key results include the practicing of carrier operations by carrierborne aircraft, in the first place the MiG-29K/KUB multirole carrierborne fighters developed, produced and delivered to the air arm of the Indian Navy by MiG Corporation. The first deck landing of the MIG-29KUB conducted by MiG Corp.’s test pilots Mikhail Belyayev and Nikolai Diorditsa on deck of INS Vikramaditya in the Barents Sea took place on 28 July 2012. Over almost two months, Russian test pilots had performed 41 MiG-29K/KUB takeoffs and deck landings on the new aircraft carrier, including doing so with various configurations of their weapons suites and in the tanker plane variant. Following the completion of Phase I of her sea trials, the Vikramaditya returned to the Sevmash shipyard in Severodvinsk for improvements. She is slated for delivery next year.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 12 Nov 2012 19:48 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 10996
Location: India
Despite the much touted arrival of two Chinese stealth fighters,after careful analysis of the available facts,the PRC have one huge problem to overcome....their lack of aero-engine technology.Though they may be ahead of India by illegally reverse engineering Russian engines used on their Flankers,a stealthy engine for stealth aircraft has yet to be developed by them.This is going to be a major drawback for them unless they beg,borrow or steal the tech,which also requires huge metallurgical skills.It is why they have signed a deal with Russia to acquire the engines for the TU-22 Backfire bomber,of which they hope to build 30+.The PRC also lack the level of sophisticated avionics and AESA radar tech that the west and Russia possess.

Manned aircraft operating from carriers will now have a rival-UCAVs which in the future,by the end of this decade will be operating freely from the decks of US carriers.These smaller aircraft will require less infrastructure aboard carriers than manned aircraft and while not replacing them will complement them.One can envisage in the future,one or two manned aircraft acting like mother aircraft for a small number of UCAVs in all kinds of missions.

The classified Indian stealth UCAV under development must also be designed/tasked for naval carrier ops.Also on the anvil are ultra long endurance land-based stealth UAVs,which can stay aloft for days,especially useful in the maritime role.We are on the cusp of a RMA in maritime/naval warfare with the US leading the pack with rail guns and laser weaponry expected to be operational by the decade's end.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 12 Nov 2012 20:10 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 09 Jan 2009 19:24
Posts: 154
Location: Bangalore
@Phillip second that!

Also, I donot think I will live to see a day when we go asking for a fight into the South China Sea. Stealth or not, they have to first sail past the Malacca Straits. We have the biggest unsinkable aircraft carrier -- our peninsula and the Andaman Chain --- in the region. Stealth fighters or any other are no good without a carrier that will outlast the first day of the fight.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 12 Nov 2012 20:20 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 05 Jun 2010 20:28
Posts: 291
+1 to that @Phillip.

Infact, the two most important game changer's for us are the UCAV & Nirbhay cruise missile. What they would provide us is the ability to hit deep inside the enemy territory, their communication nodes, rail infrasructure, radar network etc, with out resorting to lobbing ballistic missiles, which can be construed as a nuclear launch.

Hence, in my opinion these two are even more important than AMCA.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 12 Nov 2012 21:20 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 10996
Location: India
Tx guys fro similar thoughts.Here's some new news about the dev.

http://www.militaryaerospace.com/articl ... ances.html

Railgun technology continues to advance as phase II of the EM Railgun program moves forward

Quote:
Electromagnetic Railgun program was started in 2005 with a goal of creating a weapon that can launch a projectile 100 nautical miles. Phase One saw the creation of launcher technology with adequare service life, reliable pulsed power technology and component risk reduction for the projectile. Phase Two of the program began in 2012, and is concentrating on acheiving a 10 rounds per-minute firing rate, which will involve thermal management techniques for both the launcher and the pulsed power system.

The railgun stands to change naval warfare and even costal bombardment. With such massive range and devastating power, one megajoule is equivalent to a one-ton vehicle moving at 100 miles per hour, railguns are devastating weapons that also save money by not relying on chemical propellants. The program has made enormous strides in technology, and with the second prototype delivered it's only a matter of time before we see ships outfitted with railgun technology.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 13 Nov 2012 06:48 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31
Posts: 11353
Russia in talks to build another 3 frigates for India - Rogozin link

Quote:
Russia and India are negotiating the construction of three frigates of Project Tarkash for the Indian Navy at JSC "Baltic Shipyard" Yantar "(part of the USC), said Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin, at the meeting of the Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev, deputy prime ministers.

"Negotiations on the third trio," - he said.

Rogozin said that while there is a contract for the building of six ships of the project for the Indian Navy, the first ship was delivered to the customer on November 9.

"The Indian side is satisfied with the quality of this ship," - said Rogozin.

He added that the six ships of the same project, now being built for the Russian Navy.

Читайте далее: Russia in talks to build another 3 frigates for India - Rogozin | RIA Novosti


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 13 Nov 2012 21:05 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 19 Feb 2002 12:31
Posts: 1726
Image

ID weapon system and ship


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 13 Nov 2012 21:27 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Posts: 32968
Location: Col of the regiment, ORR JTF unit
Trenton?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 14 Nov 2012 00:43 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 08 Oct 2009 17:28
Posts: 1177
INS Jalashwa

M242 25mm Bushmaster cannon.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 14 Nov 2012 07:31 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Posts: 32968
Location: Col of the regiment, ORR JTF unit
had seen a similar weapon onboard hms ark royal in "mighty ships" pgm.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 14 Nov 2012 07:57 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Posts: 14996
Location: Chennai
Rescue of Indian submarines demonstrated at naval exercise - The Hindu
Quote:
Four Indian naval submarines, from both Sindhughosh (EKM) and Shishumar (HDW) classes, took part in the Indo-U.S. exercise, Indiaex-2012, held off Goa early this month where the compatibility of the submarine rescue system of the U.S. Navy with Indian Navy submarines was tested for the first time.

The fortnightly exercise, meant to demonstrate the rescue of personnel from a disabled submarine, held special significance for the Indian Navy, which operates an ageing fleet of submarines but does not have a Deep Submergence Rescue Vessel (DSRV) of its own.

During the sea phase of the exercise, the Submarine Rescue Diving and Recompression System (SRDRS) of the U.S. Navy’s Undersea Rescue Command was pressed into action to bring to safety Indian submariners holed up in Indian submarines simulating various distress scenarios. In all, four Indian submarines took the dive, one daily, during the mock-up.

Responding to the distress alert, a pressurised rescue module from the launch and recovery system fitted on board a non-military vessel was launched and manoeuvred to the required depth to mate with the forward hatches of the submarine in distress. Pressure inside the submarine and the rescue system was equalised before opening the hatch to effect the safe transfer of personnel.

The Indian submarines that took part in the exercise underwent minor modifications to be able to pair off with the pressurised module, which can secure up to two dozen personnel at a time.

INS Nireekshak, Indian Navy’s deep sea diving support vessel with an on-board submersible capsule called ‘Bell’, assisted in the conduct of the exercise providing safety back-up. It also documented the procedures key to developing interoperability with the U.S. Navy in submarine rescue operations.

Commander S.S. Sarna, Commanding Officer of Nireekshak that is based in the Southern Naval Command in Kochi, termed the interaction with the U.S. Navy in the niche field of submarine rescue a professionally satisfying experience.

While it has been toying with the idea of buying a couple of DSRVs for sometime now, the Indian Navy still has a lot of ground to cover in possessing a failsafe submarine rescue capability. At present, it relies a great deal on Russian-made pressurised escape suits in the Sindhughosh-class submarines and rescue spheres that can be punched out during trouble (as in fighter aircraft) in Shishumar-class submarines.

Nireekshak’s clearance divers operating out of ‘Bell’ could also be of help at limited depths.


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 ... 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90 ... 136  Next

All times are UTC + 5:30 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 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