Indian Naval Discussion

SNaik · Post by **SNaik** » 23 Feb 2013 18:31

Austin wrote:Cant blame the Israels thats the risk indian navy took knowing very well that P-15A commisioning would depend on when the Barak-8 would be ready and it was just at the very initial stage even as late as 2009.

If the IN wanted a ready LR SAM it would have opted for Aster-15/30 , Delays are inevitable for any new system under development , IN had put similar faith in Trishul SAM and the net result was they had to commision P-16A without the SAM unless after a year or two they were forced to opt for Barak-1

You may still have to opt for Aster, Barak 8 is not even close to being ready. Otherwise P-15A has all the potential to follow Russian 22350 frigate - ship ready, no weapons.

arun · Post by **arun** » 24 Feb 2013 12:04

Article titled “ Fast craft feature prominently in India’s coastal security plan “ which had appeared in the January 2012 edition of Warship Technology, the in-house magazine of the The Royal Institution of Naval Architects .

While a little over a year old, nonetheless a useful round on the smaller vessel and craft acquisitions of both the Indian Navy and the Indian Coast Guard:

WT Page 29

WT Page 30

keshavchandra · Post by **keshavchandra** » 24 Feb 2013 18:40

GSL designs pontoon for INS Vikramaditya.
SOURCE: NAVHIND TIMES.

Last in the series of five pontoons indigenously designed and being built by Goa Shipyard Ltd for the Indian Navy’sprestigious aircraft carrier INS Vikramaditya left GSL on February 21, more than two months ahead of delivery schedule. The pontoons are intended for mooring and berthing the 40,000 ton Aircraft Carrier INS Vikramadityaon a jetty and for providing services alongside the aircraft carrier.

Significantly, GSL had bagged the order for design and construction of the five special purpose Pontoons from Indian Navy against stiff open competition from private players and the contract for the same was signed between GSL and the Indian Navy on June 2011.

GSL has already completed delivery of four pontoons to Indian Navy ahead of schedule. Two pontoons have been delivered at Naval Dockyard, Mumbai while the balance two at Naval Base, Karwar. With receipt of the Service Barge pontoon at Mumbai, the Indian Navy would be ready to receive the prestigious Vikramaditya.

The 40 mt pontoons are non-self propelled craft designed to serve as spacers between the berthing structure and the aircraft carrier to absorb the high energy of the Aircraft carrier as she comes alongside the pier.

They have been designed to be efficiently towed at sea with a streamlined hull form. The delivery marks a smallbut nonetheless yet another milestone in GSL’s contribution to indigenous defence preparedness at economical cost, with on time delivery and meeting the customers’ qualitative requirements.

http://www.navhindtimes.in/business/gsl ... kramaditya

Shrinivasan · Post by **Shrinivasan** » 27 Feb 2013 09:20

keshavchandra wrote:GSL designs pontoon for INS Vikramaditya.
SOURCE: NAVHIND TIMES. http://www.navhindtimes.in/business/gsl ... kramaditya

I stil don't understand what is the benefit of these pontoons? are they like a poor man's floating dock?

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 27 Feb 2013 11:24

^^Prevents the steel ship from banging against the concrete pier due to action of waves & tides. Chota boats use old rubber tyres while bada boats need 40 meter pontoons.

Russian rubber tyres here http://www.rusembassy.in/images/stories ... kshak1.jpg
Indian pontoon here http://img-fotki.yandex.ru/get/6510/836 ... baa25f4d_L

The 40 mt pontoons are non-self propelled craft designed to serve as spacers between the berthing structure and the aircraft carrier to absorb the high energy of the Aircraft carrier as she comes alongside the pier.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 01 Mar 2013 03:00

X-post...

Tsarkar, Please comment....

http://www.deccanherald.com/content/315 ... nched.html

First naval satellite may be launched this year
Kalyan Ray, New Delhi, Feb 28, 2013, DHNS:

India’s first military satellite may be launched later this year with the Indian Space Research Organisation (Isro) securing the service of a foreign rocket to launch the 2.5 tonne satellite for the Navy.

The UPA government had sanctioned more than Rs 400 crore to book a berth for its GSAT-7 satellite on a commercial Ariane-5 rocket launched by the French company “Arianespace”. The rockets are launched from Kourou, the company’s launch pad in French Guiana.

The 2013-14 budget allocates only a meagre Rs 14 crore for the GSAT-7 launch service.
But the revised estimates of 2012-13 let out the crucial information. In the last fiscal, the government initially sanctioned Rs 207 crore for the launch service but later raised the allocation by more than double to Rs 448.51 crore, signalling advanced launch vehicle booking for the naval satellite. Isro does not officially admit GSAT-7 as a naval satellite, but navy officials confirmed it as being the first naval platform in space.

GSAT-7 is a user funded communication satellite, which was initially planned for launch on-board GSLV. But in the absence of an operational GSLV and due to the “schedule criticality” of the satellite, provision is made for the launch through procured launch service, says the budget document. In the last year’s document, Isro said in the absence of GSLV, permission from the government was sought for the foreign launch of the military payload. The generous hike of Rs 241 crore is a clear indication of the go-ahead from the government.

Isro’s 2011-12 annual report said the satellite employs standard 2.5 tonne bus platform with a power handling capability of around 2,600 W and a lift-off mass of 2,550 kg.

A year ago, the space agency in its 2010-2011 annual report stated GSAT-7 was a multi-band satellite carrying payloads in ultra-high frequency, S-band, C-band and Ku-band.

The satellite is meant to link up various naval warships and submarines pushing the navy closer to network centric operations.

The Isro’s budget has been enhanced to Rs 6,792 crore from last fiscal’s revised estimate of Rs 4,880 crore, which is an increase of Rs 1,912 crore. .

Reason for

After the Loral sats fiasco with PRC launch vehicles in the early 1990s, the launch vehicle providers want all the details of the satelite to ensure it doesn't fry the vehicle electronics. To have a Navy satellite that will be used for communicating with all Navy warships and subs its totally foolish to let a foreign launch vehicle service to send it into orbit. And the Navy too should have thought it through unless this is another silly CBM.

Might as well give them the transponder and say hit me!

Prem Kumar · Post by **Prem Kumar** » 01 Mar 2013 04:14

Unfortunately, PSLV capacity to GTO is 1.4 Tonnes, per Wiki. This is good enough for IRNSS (thank goodness) but not for GSAT-7

At any rate, why is eager-beaver Deccan Herald scooping this piece of news?

Once we deliver the satellite to Ariane, do our engineers get to babysit it to prevent hanky-panky?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 02 Mar 2013 06:50

To be able to integrate the sat the launch vehicle folks will run all kinds of tests and need to know the entire circuitry. Thats how it works.

maz · Post by **maz** » 02 Mar 2013 10:11

Speaking of aircraft carriers, the IN as well the major western navies, like to think that the PLA Navy will take many, many years to achieve operational competence with carrier aviation. In response, I would like to humbly poiunt out one truism: past success is no guarantee of future success.

Given the extremely rapid pace at which Chinese aerospace and defense industries have been able to produce new systems and platforms, the IN would be remiss if it did not look at the "actual situation" vs the "perceived situation" as it pertains to Chinese naval developments. The key, as many of you on BR have pointed out, is a "good enough" system as opposed to the "optimal" system.

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 02 Mar 2013 11:28

So Maz Chinese Aircraft carrier don't not need Poontoons, don't see the link, we are building our IAC-1 at Cochin.

We need to what we need to, the Chinese have the money, they will what they need to do.

Cheez when this self flagellation end.

GSL does a lot of things and doesn't do a lot, but when they build Pontoons why compare with some else building a carrier. Its not as if Indian ship yards are only building Pontoons and Pontoons are not required. Why not appreciate for a small job well done.

member_23455 · Post by **member_23455** » 02 Mar 2013 19:34

The carrier race between China and India is certainly interesting but it will be as interesting to see what the dragon's non-carrier naval aviation order of battle is going to look like. Given Japan and US hold an overwhelming advantage in that arena and India too will have P-8Is in squadron strength in the next 5 years, it would be very strange if China was not to focus on such platforms.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 02 Mar 2013 20:05

only a C919 derivative looks suited for that role among their domestic options.

wig · Post by **wig** » 02 Mar 2013 20:15

Navy hones combat skills with major exercise in Arabian Sea

The Navy has fine-tuned its operational strategy and honed its combat skills after a major exercise, which saw both the western and eastern fleets come together for intensive manoeuvres, in the Arabian Sea over the last 30 days.

Over 50 warships, including the new stealth frigates as well as nuclear-powered submarine INS Chakra, as well as 75 fighter jets, patrol aircraft and helicopters took part in the exercise called "Tropex'' (theatre-level readiness and operational exercise), which stretched across the entire western seaboard.

"All possible scenarios, from full-fledged combat operations to anti-piracy drills, were practiced during the exercise. It also included an amphibious component involving over 2,000 Army troops, tanks, amphibious vehicles and associated equipment,'' said an official.

"Elements from the IAF, like their maritime strike Jaguar fighters, and the Coast Guard also took part in the exercise. The lessons learnt will be suitably incorporated in the operational strategy,'' he added.

The exercise also witnessed the Navy practice operational concepts like maritime manoeuvre from the sea'', designed to ensure the maritime force Navy is capable of favourably influencing the outcome of the land-air battle in the short, swift and high-tempo conflicts of the future.

The armed forces have also been practising amphibious warfare drills over the last few years to ensure they can effectively take the battle to enemy shores. This has come after Navy acquired the 16,900-tonne strategic sea-lift vessel INS Jalashwa from US as well as inducted large landing ship tanks like the 5,650-tonne INS Shardul and INS Airavat.

The Army, on its part, has three specifically-earmarked 'amphibious brigades', with almost 10,000 soldiers, one based in South India, another in West India and the third at Andaman and Nicobar Islands.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 766155.cms?

maz · Post by **maz** » 02 Mar 2013 20:46

Aditya, thank for your comments. Again, this is not meant to denigrate GSL's good work so my apologies if it came across as such.

Guess what I was getting at is that the overall pace of warship production is still very slow. I suppose it would be encouraging to read of progress on the IAC1 from CSL or P-28 from GRSE or P-15A from MDL.

Shreeman · Post by **Shreeman** » 03 Mar 2013 11:22

http://daily.bhaskar.com/article/NAT-SC ... 2-PHO.html

wig wrote:Navy hones combat skills with major exercise in Arabian Sea

The Navy has fine-tuned its operational strategy and honed its combat skills after a major exercise, which saw both the western and eastern fleets come together for intensive manoeuvres, in the Arabian Sea over the last 30 days.

Over 50 warships, including the new stealth frigates as well as nuclear-powered submarine INS Chakra, as well as 75 fighter jets, patrol aircraft and helicopters took part in the exercise called "Tropex'' (theatre-level readiness and operational exercise), which stretched across the entire western seaboard.

"All possible scenarios, from full-fledged combat operations to anti-piracy drills, were practiced during the exercise. It also included an amphibious component involving over 2,000 Army troops, tanks, amphibious vehicles and associated equipment,'' said an official.

"Elements from the IAF, like their maritime strike Jaguar fighters, and the Coast Guard also took part in the exercise. The lessons learnt will be suitably incorporated in the operational strategy,'' he added.

The exercise also witnessed the Navy practice operational concepts like maritime manoeuvre from the sea'', designed to ensure the maritime force Navy is capable of favourably influencing the outcome of the land-air battle in the short, swift and high-tempo conflicts of the future.

The armed forces have also been practising amphibious warfare drills over the last few years to ensure they can effectively take the battle to enemy shores. This has come after Navy acquired the 16,900-tonne strategic sea-lift vessel INS Jalashwa from US as well as inducted large landing ship tanks like the 5,650-tonne INS Shardul and INS Airavat.

The Army, on its part, has three specifically-earmarked 'amphibious brigades', with almost 10,000 soldiers, one based in South India, another in West India and the third at Andaman and Nicobar Islands.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 766155.cms?

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 04 Mar 2013 19:02

@Ramana, any equipment is capable over a wide frequency range, and while generic details over a broad range will be shared, specific details will not. Most communication capability these days is software defined, so its doubtful someone will be able to download the executables and reverse engineer that to understand capabilities. Malware could be introduced but ISRO scientists will be jointly doing all the integration testing to maintain oversight.

http://www.sac.gov.in/SACSITE/GSAT-7.html

GSAT-7 payload design includes Multiband operation in S, UHF, C & Ku bands, Multi-beam coverage in C and Ku-band

rgsrini · Post by **rgsrini** » 04 Mar 2013 20:16

Why not a Russian launcher, instead of a European one? More trustworthy in my opinion compared to the western countries.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 05 Mar 2013 08:04

The global mkt. for conventional subs will grow by about 2%.The demand now is for brown water subs rather than blue water subs for shallow coastal patrol,etc.,says UYPI in this report.

http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Securi ... 362396969/

If the report is true,then the modular design of the various sizes of the Amur/Lada class which is supposedly cheaper than the Kilo (single-hulled with more automation) will be a cost-effective solution for medium and smaller navies and those who have yet to operate subs but have ambitions (B'Desh).For established navies with blue-water operations (OZ),the demand will be for larger AIP conventional subs.China is selling Pak a number of AIP conventional subs which are supposedly also tasked to carry Pak's N-tipped cruise missiles.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 05 Mar 2013 16:16

Indian Navy mainstay Fighter M¡g-29K

http://youtu.be/TqeG0jcES6s

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 05 Mar 2013 18:45

Breaking news

Navy helicopter crashes off the Vishakhapatnam harbour

Two of four Navy helicopter crew members missing

SagarAg · Post by **SagarAg** » 05 Mar 2013 18:59

Two Navy personnel died and four others were injured on Tuesday evening when a Navy helicopter crashed near Dolphin Nose in Visakhapatnam after the pilot attempted an emergency landing.

As the fresh reports came in, the Chetak-445 helicopter was crashed 6 nautical miles away from the Dolphin Nose in the port city. The chopper left the Navy base at 2 pm and was disconnected with the radar link at 3 pm, sources said.

The Navy officials confirmed helicopter crashing and the injured were reached ashore safe, sources added.

RIP brother.

Hoping the injured get well soon.

rgsrini · Post by **rgsrini** » 05 Mar 2013 19:59

What a tragedy!
Thank you for your esteemed service and supreme sacrifice for our country!
Heartfelt condolonces to family and friends! I hope the Navy and the Government of India takes care of the soldier's family and ensure a financially secure life for them.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 05 Mar 2013 21:39

Sad Indeed , RIP . Condolence to their families

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 06 Mar 2013 00:26

Awful tragedy,sincere condolences to the families concerned.It also illustrates why we need to quickly replace the older helos still in service-DESPITE the AW scandal.All that needs to be done is to include a stiff financial penalty clause (10-15% of the contract cost) if is proven that kickbacks have been paid.

SNaik · Post by **SNaik** » 07 Mar 2013 16:41

Flag facilities on Vikramaditya:
http://setcorp.ru/main/pressrelease.pht ... ge=english

koti · Post by **koti** » 07 Mar 2013 22:10

http://rt.com/politics/russia-vietnam-a ... -deal-891/

The Russian navy might consider abandoning the base at Cam Rahn. What if IN can take this opportunity to setup a Coco Island style SIGINT facility to monitor the PLAN activities. Is this ever considered/feasible?

member_23370 · Post by **member_23370** » 07 Mar 2013 22:27

Russians abandoned it a while ago. Now with the new sub deal they might make a come back

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 08 Mar 2013 10:27

Sino-Russian def. deals yet again?

http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/t ... 485335.ece

Vlad. Radyuhin veteran scribe on Russian news,has this report which if true would have serious consequences for India.A few weeks ago I posted news of Russian potential sales of Amur subs to China.U-35 sales are also on the anvil.While India has slept over some def. deals,Russia has been under pressure from China for some time for newer more lethal products ,with which to deal with the US.Obviously,such modern weaponry will have consequences for India.

The point about the SU-35 being superior to the Rafale is one that some on BR have pointed out some time ago.Why buy an allegedly inferior more expensive aircraft costing about the same? Both SU-35 and Rafale are also single-seaters.There is still time to put the proverbial spoke in the wheel.Time to ponder for Sn.Anthony...but the window of opportunity is fast closing.

The dragon gets a bear hug
China import - Meet 950+ Suppliers In Hong Kong Int'L Lighting Fair 2013. 6-9 Apr www.hktdc.com
Ads by Google
Vladimir Radyuhin
Share · Comment · print · T+
Russia supplying China with weapon platforms more powerful than Russian-built systems India has in its arsenals reverses what was the rule in the past.
The Hindu Russia supplying China with weapon platforms more powerful than Russian-built systems India has in its arsenals reverses what was the rule in the past.
TOPICS
diplomacy international relations
peace negotiations
politics diplomacy

Russia and China are revitalising defence ties at a time when relations of both with the U.S. have run into rough waters

Russia is resuming the supply of advanced weapon platforms to China in a move that may have implications for India.

At the end of last year, Russia concluded a framework agreement with China for the sale of four Amur-1650 diesel submarines. In January it signed another intergovernmental agreement for the supply of Russia’s latest Su-35 long-range fighter planes.

If the deals go through, it will be for the first time in a decade that Russia has delivered offensive weapons to China.

It will also mark the first time that Russia has supplied China with more powerful weapon platforms compared with Russian-built systems India has in its arsenals. In the past, the opposite was the rule.

For example, the Su-30MKK jet fighters Russia sold to China were no match for the Su-30MKIs supplied to India at about the same time. The Chinese planes had an inferior radar and without the thrust vectoring engines the Indian version had.

This time the situation looks reversed. The Amur-1650 submarine is far more silent and powerful than the Kilo-class submarines the Indian Navy has in its inventory. India’s Su-30MKI will be no match for China’s Su-35 which is powered by a higher thrust engine and boasts a more sophisticated radar, avionics and weapons, according to a leading Russian military expert, Konstantin Makienko.

China’s acquisition of the Su-35 will also question the wisdom of India’s plan to buy the French Rafale, the expert said.

“The sale of Su-35s to China will shoot down the value of the Rafale for India,” Mr. Makienko, who is deputy head of Russia’s top defence think tank, Centre for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies, told The Hindu.

“The Rafale will stand no chance against China’s Su-35,” the expert explained. “The Su-35’s Irbis radar has more than twice the detection range of the Rafale’s Thales RBE2, and will lock onto its target well before the Russian plane becomes visible for a retaliatory strike. The 117S engines of the Su-35 are also far more powerful than the Rafale’s Snecma M88.”

The Russian Air Force is just beginning to take delivery of the new aircraft and China may become the first country to import it. The relatively small number of Su-35s China plans to buy, 24, should not deceive anyone, Mr. Makienko said. China followed the same buying pattern for the Su-27, initially ordering 24 planes and ending up with more than 200 Su-27s and its licence-built version, the J-11.

The supply to China of more advanced weapon platforms than those available to India appears to contradict some basic geopolitical realities. India remains Russia’s most trusted partner whose defence requirements have never been refused. By contrast, Russia has always been apprehensive of the Chinese dragon and suspicious of its intentions towards resource-rich and population-poor Siberia.
Calls for restraint

There is consensus in the Russian strategic community that Moscow should exercise maximum restraint in providing China with advanced military technologies. Experts were shocked to find out that Chinese engineers had mastered the production of clones of most weapon systems cash-strapped Russia supplied to China in the 1990s and early 2000s.

Russian arms sales to China plummeted in recent years as China switched to domestic production, while Moscow became more cautious in offering Beijing cutting-edge technologies. Not only did China illegally copy Russian weapon systems, but it also began to export those undercutting Russian sales of higher-priced original platforms.

Some experts even called for a complete halt to arms sales to China, arguing that demographic pressures and a growing need of resources may one day push China to turn Russian weapons against Russia.

“We should stop selling them the rope to hang us with,” warned Alexander Khramchikhin of the Institute for Political and Military Analysis.

However, the risks of selling advanced weapons to China took a back seat in Moscow’s calculations after Vladimir Putin returned to the Kremlin for a third term a year ago. Last year, Russia’s state arms exporter, Rosoboronexport, signed contracts with China worth $2.1-billion, the company’s head Anatoly Isaikin said recently. The renewal of sophisticated weapon supplies to China should be seen in the context of geopolitical games in the China-U.S.-Russia triangle.

“The balance of power between America and China will to a large extend depend on whether and on which side Russia will play,” said Fyodor Lukyanov, foreign policy analyst.

Russia and China are revitalising defence ties at a time when their relations with the U.S. have run into rough waters. Moscow is deeply disappointed with Mr. Obama’s policy of “reset,” which is seen in Moscow as a U.S. instrument of winning unilateral concessions from Russia, while Beijing views Mr. Obama’s strategic redeployment in the Asia-Pacific region as aimed at containing China.
Profit motives

Russian defence sales to China are also driven by profit motives as arms manufacturers seek to compensate for the recent loss of several lucrative contracts in India, where they face growing competition from the U.S., Europe and Israel. Also, Moscow seems to be less concerned today about the so-called “reverse engineering” of Russian weapons in China as the ability of the Chinese industry to copy critical technologies appears to have been overrated.

“China’s programme of developing the J-11B family of aircraft based on the Su-27 platform has run into problems,” said Vasily Kashin, expert on China. “China’s aircraft engines, which are essentially modified version of Russian engines, are way too inferior to the originals and China continues to depend on the supply of Russian engines.”

In the past three-four years, China has bought over 1,000 aircraft engines from Russia and is expected to place more orders in coming years.

“When and if China succeeds in copying Russia’s new weapon platforms the Russian industry will hopefully move ahead with new technologies,” Mr. Kashin said.

India can also easily offset the advantage that new Russian arms supplies may give China, experts said.

“To retain its edge in military aviation, India needs to speed up the development of a 5th-generation fighter plane with Russia and go for in-depth upgrade of its fleet of Su-30MKI fighters,” Mr. Makienko said.
Trade differences

However, the resumption of massive Russian arms supplies to China could still be a cause for concern in India. Closer defence ties between Moscow and Beijing are an offshoot of strong dynamics of their overall relations. China is Russia’s top commercial partner, with bilateral trade expected to touch $90 billion this year and soar to $200 billion by 2020. Mr. Putin has described China’s rise as “a chance to catch the Chinese wind in the sails of our economy.”

This contrasts with sluggish trade between India and Russia, which stood at $11 billion last year; even the target of $20 billion the two governments set for 2015 falls short on ambition. India risks being eclipsed by China on the Russian radar screens. As Russia’s top business daily Kommersant noted recently, even today, Russian officials from top to bottom tend to look at India with “drowsy apathy,” while Mr. Putin’s visit to India last year was long on “meaningless protocol” and short on time and substance.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 08 Mar 2013 11:46

The recent buy from Russia by China is is accelerated by US decision to move 60 % of its Naval fleet towards the Pacific theater a clear indication by US its aimed at containing China a move Beijing has opposed. Russia too is unhappy with the move and is more than willing to help China bolster its military might.

alexis · Post by **alexis** » 08 Mar 2013 12:19

^^
If China is procuring Su 35, it means thay are faltering in their indigenous production of flanker series and J10B and facing delays in J-20 aircraft development.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 08 Mar 2013 12:23

J20 is meant for a different role. but yes the J10B, J11 and domestic engine projects have yielded unspectacular results probably.
the Amur news is also shocking when the domestic Yuan class was in full production.

now it remains to be seen when (not if) Rus sells the Yakhont to Cheen

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 08 Mar 2013 12:41

Philip wrote:“The Rafale will stand no chance against China’s Su-35,” the expert explained. “The Su-35’s Irbis radar has more than twice the detection range of the Rafale’s Thales RBE2, and will lock onto its target well before the Russian plane becomes visible for a retaliatory strike. The 117S engines of the Su-35 are also far more powerful than the Rafale’s Snecma M88.”

Nonsense. Russia is trying to scaremonger India. Russia annexed resource rich population sparse Siberia in 17th century from China, so there is more possibility of the arms being used against itself than resource poor population dense NE & N India. Which is why Russia gives low tech arms to China, and not for any love for India

India is specifically getting AESA in Rafale, which has more LO features than Su-35. Rafale is more aerodynamic and sub-system weights are lower than comparable Russian systems, so doesnt need a higher power engine.

Case in point -
Klimov RD-33 Series 3 turbofan weight 1.055 tons 49.4 kN static 81.4 kN afterburning
GE F404-GE-IN20 turbofan weight 1.072 tons 55.5 kN static 84 kN afterburning
GE F414 weight 1.109 tons 98 kN afterburning

Elta 2032 100 kg
Zhuk M 240 kg

ashi · Post by **ashi** » 08 Mar 2013 12:47

alexis wrote:^^
If China is procuring Su 35, it means thay are faltering in their indigenous production of flanker series and J10B and facing delays in J-20 aircraft development.

The main purpose of getting Su35 (if it is true) probably is to allow China to take a good look on the 117S engine. That explains the small number of order, which is probably an acceptable number to both buyer and seller. Engine is still the bottleneck of China's military technology, else I think China is doing very well.

Don · Post by **Don** » 08 Mar 2013 12:53

Singha wrote:J20 is meant for a different role. but yes the J10B, J11 and domestic engine projects have yielded unspectacular results probably.
the Amur news is also shocking when the domestic Yuan class was in full production.

now it remains to be seen when (not if) Rus sells the Yakhont to Cheen

YJ-12 similar performance to yakhont, J10b should be entering service this year.

Don · Post by **Don** » 08 Mar 2013 12:57

ashi wrote:
alexis wrote:^^
If China is procuring Su 35, it means thay are faltering in their indigenous production of flanker series and J10B and facing delays in J-20 aircraft development.
The main purpose of getting Su35 (if it is true) probably is to allow China to take a good look on the 117S engine. That explains the small number of order, which is probably an acceptable number to both buyer and seller. Engine is still the bottleneck of China's military technology, else I think China is doing very well.

And it is also has some similiarity to MKI although far superior will be good to study its weaknesses.

Thats why only buy small number of 24.

Nikhil T · Post by **Nikhil T** » 08 Mar 2013 13:01

Is INS Vikramaditya delayed again? This is going beyond ridiculous.

Major repairs for INS Viraat, as replacement delayed again by Russia

"This is the last major refit that INS Viraat is likely to see" a senior navy official told NDTV.

Its replacement, the INS Vikramaditya, which is being bought for 12,500 crores from Russia, will reach India in 2014, and not November, as last promised by Russia. The induction of the 45,000-tonne aircraft carrier that can carry about 30 aircraft has already been delayed by a year, provoking a sharp reprimand recently for Moscow by Defence Minister AK Antony.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 08 Mar 2013 13:19

ashi wrote:Engine is still the bottleneck of China's military technology, else I think China is doing very well.

Engine is a critical bottle neck but how the entire aircraft performs along with associated weapons system , avionics,EW etc also remains a mystery , Chinese aircraft are not widely exported so even late model J-10 performance remains a mystery.

I think the fact that Chinese are planning to buy the entire aircraft and not just the engine ( if it wanted the engine it could have just orderd that ) plus the Amur buy is an indication the weapon system as a whole has not been performing as they would have expected.

Once China starts displaying it ware at airshows outside china and exporting it to few countries or even exercising with other Airforces like IAF does for instance , then the quality of its weapon system/aircraft and pilot would be better known , till then the jury is out but I would expect Chinese posters on board to claim every thing is well and engine is the only problem.

ashi · Post by **ashi** » 08 Mar 2013 13:29

Austin wrote:
ashi wrote:Engine is still the bottleneck of China's military technology, else I think China is doing very well.
Engine is a critical bottle neck but how the entire aircraft performs along with associated weapons system , avionics,EW etc also remains a mystery , Chinese aircraft are not widely exported so even late model J-10 performance remains a mystery.

I think the fact that Chinese are planning to buy the entire aircraft and not just the engine ( if it wanted the engine it could have just orderd that ) plus the Amur buy is an indication the weapon system as a whole has not been performing as they would have expected.

Once China starts displaying it ware at airshows outside china and exporting it to few countries or even exercising with other Airforces like IAF does for instance , then the quality of its weapon system/aircraft and pilot would be better known , till then the jury is out but I would expect Chinese posters on board to claim every thing is well and engine is the only problem.

Russian are pretty good businessmen (just look at how they deal with Indians in military orders). They sure know no way China is going to order large batch of Su-35s as their mainstream fighters. But at the same time they want to squeeze more money from China. So the ticket for looking at the 117S engine is to buy a small number of the Su-35s. Kinda like China bought two Sovremenny Class destroyers in the 90's to get the 3M-80E Moskit AShM.

Export of military equitment is not just pure business. It has a lot to do with political reasons. It is not easy for China to make a huge breakthrough in the market. It takes time. Meanwhile, it is perfectly normal that you are not convinced about the actual capabilities of Chinese military hardware.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 08 Mar 2013 13:42

ashi wrote:Russian are pretty good businessmen (just look at how they deal with Indians in military orders). They sure know no way China is going to order large batch of Su-35s as their mainstream fighters. So the ticket for looking at the 117S engine is to buy a small number of the Su-35s. Kinda like China bought two Sovremenny Class destroyers in the 90's to get the 3M-80E Moskit AShM.

Beyond business of selling toys the key factor remains Geo-Strategic alliance and commonality of interest that pursues them , The West including the US has banned export of Weapons to China for a long time which means the only option for them is via Russia ( Recently China leader thanked Russia for helping them developed its armed forces when none did ).

Both Russia and China shares a common interest in preventing NATO expansion ( hence SCO ) and US ABM program meant to degrade Strategic offensive capability for both nations in the guise of deterring Noko or Iran.

US clear desire to contain China along with its allies by moving 60 % of its Fleet to Pacific has been a very clear signal on US intention in the region , Russia too has fleet in pacific and it would feel the impact.

Selling selective Weapons in export model would help China not to get too off balanced and at the same time helps Russia meet its strategic goal of making sure US does not get too powerful in the region.

Nations have long memory and if Russia decides to instead confront china with which it shares long border then in a decade it will become a powerful enemy , if China has to build its armed forces with weapons it cannot match with west then the Russians would be happy that it build using its Weapon for obvious reason.

Export of military equitment is not just pure business. It has a lot to do with political reasons. It is not easy for China to make a huge breakthrough in the market. It takes time. Meanwhile, it is perfectly normal that you are not convinced about the actual capabilities of Chinese military hardware.

I am not sure when has Politics prevented china from not exporting its weapons , Like you said its not easy for China to make breakthrough in arms market so dominated by US, Russia and Europe .... China has a long way to go before it can build quality products in a cost effective manner where it can compete with the dominant players but right now they are more keen to arm it self and when its own equipment short falls of desired expectation then importing from Russia is the only choice.

There was even news that China would be the first country to which S-400 will be exported.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 08 Mar 2013 13:47

the Su35 has more similarity to the Su27 than the Su30 family. it does the feature the canards because Rus moved away from that to a more advanced FCS.

Cheen has had Su30MKK for a long time now...all the time to study its weak and strong points and pass it along to the Pakis...su35 is a different beast.

"getting a good look" at the AL31FM and RD93 engines for a couple of decades has not helped Cheen clone them to a reliable level...and neither will the 117S other than copying the basic arrangement.