Indian Naval Discussion

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 13 Jul 2009 18:23

Rahul M wrote: sanku ji, wiki isn't too reliable. I can change the # to 10 now if you want. that info was based on the initial plans not what finally materialised.

I understand Rahul M, however I just thought that the speculation that Backfires are a part of the deal was buttressed by Wiki quoting a link. Along with Shankar's channels, this means there is some merit in this rumor, that at least more than one source finds it credible enough to speak confidently in public domain.

On the question of OSA etc. personally I think as long as none of us who actually knows this information from a reliable non open-source speaks on it (I for example quote wiki

) I suppose a certain amount of speculation may not be unhealthy.

John · Post by **John** » 13 Jul 2009 18:29

@ all people talking abt backfire.
backfire was dropped out of the equation in 2005 itself.the reason for dropping out is not either because of maintainance/spares/costs.Both yindo and russia agreed to have a common base with common maintainance facilities for the so....
the reason for yindia dropping out backfires is a diff one.which is the changing mindsets along with geoplitical aspects/considerations.We felt the need of a strategic and stealthy bomber that can go deep into the chinese/yanks heartland in case we give green signal to our pilots. And the solution was on table at that time but which takes a lot of time and cost and still the strategic folks okayed the one in principle.

It is Backfire not Blackjack, Tu-22m3 is maritime strike aircraft not a strategic bomber.

Oh man back to conspiracy theory , there are no backfires , IN changed its mind and decided not to go with the backfire part of deal ( which was Groshkov + Akula 2 + Backfire ) , reason being given is its expensive to maintain a fleet of only 6 Backfire.

Austin I already told them two pages back don't waste your breath.

Well, the leaflet says there are two versions - with individual canisters and without.

Good to know latter seems to offer more versatility (with ability to carry Klub) hopefully it is chosen for the P-17A.

negi · Post by **negi** » 13 Jul 2009 19:51

If India would have had Backfires there would have been atleast a hundred paper/articles published by NPA's and wannabe arms control freaks on this subject ; it is virtually impossible to conceal the existence of a inducted and operational aircraft as against the one under development . On a sidenote I have heard similar rumors about SouthBlock being protected by the S-300/300-PMU system

.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 13 Jul 2009 20:28

Austin wrote: its better to have a fleet of 25 P-8I which is more effective

Is that the ultimate plan ??

I hope IN orders its 8 options as well.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 13 Jul 2009 20:36

negi wrote: If India would have had Backfires there would have been atleast a hundred paper/articles published by NPA's and wannabe arms control freaks on this subject ; it is virtually impossible to conceal the existence of a inducted and operational aircraft as against the one under development .

Just for the argument sake, if the assets need to be concealed it can be done in many ways. It can be placed along side the russian assets or in one of their bases.

On a sidenote I have heard similar rumors about SouthBlock being protected by the S-300/300-PMU system

"rumor" is those "S-300s" are meant for BARC complex.

Jamal K. Malik · Post by **Jamal K. Malik** » 13 Jul 2009 21:55

Procurement of aircraft carrier Admiral Gorshkov

The Russian side has been invited for price negotiation and the details of the final prices would be known only after completion of these negotiations.

KrishG · Post by **KrishG** » 14 Jul 2009 00:27

Sub in dry dock at SBC Vizag!!!!!!! Don't know whether ATV! Have a look!

Go to Bing Maps and there to Vizag SBC. The length is close to 100 maybe + or -. It could be Foxtrat or ATV.

Vinito · Post by **Vinito** » 14 Jul 2009 00:44

Kanson wrote:
negi wrote: If India would have had Backfires there would have been atleast a hundred paper/articles published by NPA's and wannabe arms control freaks on this subject ; it is virtually impossible to conceal the existence of a inducted and operational aircraft as against the one under development .
Just for the argument sake, if the assets need to be concealed it can be done in many ways. It can be placed along side the russian assets or in one of their bases.

On a sidenote I have heard similar rumors about SouthBlock being protected by the S-300/300-PMU system
"rumor" is those "S-300s" are meant for BARC complex.

There has always been news post the Kargil conflict that the Indians had purchased six S-300PMU2 systems to protect key Indian installations in the wake of a nuclear war....it was a hush-hush purchase but somehow jane's got wind of it and went public. The Indian government till date never admits this....

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 14 Jul 2009 00:47

KrishG wrote:Sub in dry dock at SBC Vizag!!!!!!! Don't know whether ATV! Have a look!

Go to Bing Maps and there to Vizag SBC. The length is close to 100 maybe + or -. It could be Foxtrat or ATV.

The maps by Bing or Google aren't updated in real time. They are usually updated once in 6 months or an year. Chances are very high that this might be an old map.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 14 Jul 2009 00:48

KrishG wrote:Sub in dry dock at SBC Vizag!!!!!!! Don't know whether ATV! Have a look!

Go to Bing Maps and there to Vizag SBC. The length is close to 100 maybe + or -. It could be Foxtrat or ATV.

The ATV or leased russian nukes( past and future) are onlee in fully covered docks, never open ones.

To prevent snooping satellites from having a looksee.

p_saggu · Post by **p_saggu** » 14 Jul 2009 01:24

There is a Foxtrot class sub (Length ~ 90 m) and a Kilo class sub (Length 70 m) in that drydock there. This kilo class is probably the INS Sindhudhwaj (Which has been undergoing "repairs" and "upgradation" there for the last 7 years) I suspect the prolonged repairs where this sub has been cut in half has more to do with the ATV construction next doors at the Shipbuilding center there.
There is a Kilo class sub on the berth close by.

The ATV is inside the long enclosed pen next to the dry dock you mention. The ATV is not in the water yet. They will open the gates of the drydock and flood it to "launch" the ATV a few days from now.

But this is interesting, Bing and microsoft virtual earth are alternatives to google earth. For example the Hydrabad airport is visible in high res on these two, but not on google earth. Infact Bing takes its maps from Microsoft virtual earth.

p_saggu · Post by **p_saggu** » 14 Jul 2009 01:43

Another thing.
The Bing map of hydrabad is even older than the google map!!! You can compare the airport next door, which is yet to receive the asphalt covering on Bing/Microsoft virtual earth, while a part of the runway has that on google earth.

kit · Post by **kit** » 15 Jul 2009 10:13

http://www.janes.com/news/defence/jdw/j ... _1_n.shtml

Would that mean that the Russian built Indian warships are also not of quality ?

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 15 Jul 2009 10:35

kit wrote:http://www.janes.com/news/defence/jdw/j ... _1_n.shtml

Would that mean that the Russian built Indian warships are also not of quality ?

Yes thats right , infact every time a Talwar class moves out , the NHQ is always worried that it may just break up midway in the high seas due to poor quality of construction and being stealthy they will find it hard to recover it as well out in the seas.

andy B · Post by **andy B** » 15 Jul 2009 10:45

^^^ Austin Ji ki Jai ho!!!

Kit the Russian navy is having problems due to under-funding, their shipyards are also facing problems but given money (much like the case of the shipyards that produced the Talwars) they are able to churn out quality products...

p_saggu · Post by **p_saggu** » 15 Jul 2009 10:53

This seems to be psy ops against the russians. Running down their shipyards, as a suggestion that orders with russian shipyards be somehow shifted to the western shipyards???

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 15 Jul 2009 11:23

Yes,if the ships were so badly constructed,then what on earth is the IN doing in sending them to Somalia to do battle with pirates and considering ordering another 3rd batch of three? Yes,there was an issue with the first lot according to media reports during their trials,as the class is a much modified version of the Cold War Krivaks and the hulls prhaps needed some strengthening.The Shtil SAM system did have problems as did upgraded Kilos with their Klub missile launches,but both have been rectified.Reports on western shipyards is also not all that flattering,with the Greeks rejecting German U-boats and even the British had a corvette rejected by an ASEAN client.France has had its share of woes also with the carrier CDGaulle for some time.barring the Gorshkov which is virtually being rebuilt internally,plus ski jump,etc.,the pace of shipbuilding in Russian yards is generally much better than Indian yards,which have several connstraints,lacking modern large cranes and eqpt. for modular construction and space constraints.The new shipyards being proposed on both seaboards,some in the private sector,will do a lot to alleviate the backlog of orders.In the future,we should be able to build all types of naval vessels from carriers to nuclear subs and other specialised types like advanced minewarfare vessels,DSRVs,etc....on time and within budget!

p_saggu · Post by **p_saggu** » 15 Jul 2009 11:26

Well you know Janes.
It is a good source of Info, even though sometimes you have to have your "filters" in place to detect the psy ops going on.

SanjibGhosh · Post by **SanjibGhosh** » 15 Jul 2009 12:37

Is the Gorshkov Aircraft Carrier India’s best option?

http://www.defpro.com/daily/details/355/

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 15 Jul 2009 14:09

A bit late for the "option" part! Rich beggars like India can't be choosers.We squandered the opportunity for decades to build a successor to the Vikrant,which served us so well in '71,mainly due to political indifference and inter-service rivalry,where the IAF did a lot of damage trying to sink the IN's fleet air arm.That dereliction of duty saw us in a scramble to set things right with the Gorshkov deal and delayed work on the IAC at Cochin,which thankfully due to the delays had a silver lining in that the earlier ADS was of far smaller size,which would'bve been limited to meet present and future challenges.What worries me is that we do not have any future STOVL aircraft on the horizon for the IN,as this kind of aircraft is ideal for carrier ops.The RN has found that out in its decades of using the Harriers.No one other than the US can afford to build a dozen massive 100,000t supercarriers with heavy and expensive catapult launching facilities.Even the French CDG is half the size.The IN should seize the opportunity of the 5th-gen fighter project and request a STOVL version of it too like that of the JSF.

vina · Post by **vina** » 15 Jul 2009 14:22

No one other than the US can afford to build a dozen massive 100,000t supercarriers with heavy and expensive catapult launching facilities

The "expense" part of the super carriers come from the fact that it is 100,000 t and Nuke powered. What I think is ideal would be a 35 to 40k ton carrier, powered by gas turbines and ability to launch with Cats. The 25k ton / VTOL business is sub optimal and has very limited bang for buck. Plus the cost of developing a VTOL plane has to be factored in. A CTOL plane adapted to carrier is much better with far less limitations and marginal development cost over the land version (Rafale, NLCA, Mig 29K, Su 33K etc).

Yeah, the limitation vis-a-vis a super carrier will be in terms of size of air arm and the sortie generation rate. Nukes generate enormous amount of steam and have close to unlimited energy reserve to shoot 4 cats to launch out planes at the rate of 2 a min and also do recovery simultaneously , along with unlimited endurance at sea. The conventional 40K carrier would be limited by the energy reserve of the bunker it carries. All the same, the Kitty Hawk had a pretty good service record, despite being conventionally powered. What I think would be ideal would be a somewhat shrunk Kitty Hawk!.

Honey, I shrunk the Kitty!

kit · Post by **kit** » 15 Jul 2009 14:32

Right .. an Indian Air Defence ship in the 50,000 class with nuclear propulsion is the ideal ..

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 15 Jul 2009 16:21

The advatntages of a VSTOL/STOVL carrier is that you don't always have to launch into the wind,with the ski jump,plus launching,or rather taking off and recovery by STOVL is far easier and safer than recovery by arrester wires.Aviators remark how tension free and safe such recoveries are.Moreover,a catapult is both expensive,requires steam power,and weighs a lot.That's why the British are going to build-if they have the money,two 50,000t carriers with JSF STOVL strike aircraft aboard.There is also faster reaction time for takeoff without a catapult and launching and recovery simultaneously is possible,wheras a STOBAR lunch requires a rather lengthy take off,sometimes intruding into the landing path depending upon load and mission,which is why both the IAC and Gorshkov will not be able to launch and recover aircraft simultaneously unless one of these is a Harrier or another STOVL aircraft.

If a 50,000t + carrier comes with nuclear power,it would be ideal for the IN.
The key factor though that makes carriers last so long in service ,is that thye can easily adapt to carry any new kind of aircraft type that is developed.The next revolution for naval aviation is going to be UCAVs aboard,which for the USN is just around the corner with tests of the Boeing X-45 or Norhtrop Grumman's X-47B which won the UCAS-D contract,tests expected late 2009 .The IN should begin to think in this direction,as modifying ancient Alouette-3 airframes for a UCAV (though a novel idea) is at best a cost-effective UAV solution,which has very limited capability for strike at worthwhile ranges.Using drones/UCAVs is becoming the norm these days as they excite far less controversy than using manned aircraft.Prosecuting terror camps and targets within Pak for example using UCAVs would be a dream for the IAF/IN as they would be stealthier,and even if shot down would have no pilot to be paraded for the world's press.

vina · Post by **vina** » 15 Jul 2009 17:05

The advatntages of a VSTOL/STOVL carrier is that you don't always have to launch into the wind,with the ski jump,

That is simply not true, unless the plane is lifting off in VTOL. If that is the case, the mission load be negligible and close to useless. Even for STOVL , you will need the carrier to be moving , preferably into the wind, so that the relative wind over the deck is higher by that much , for eg, if take off speed in still air is 150knots and carrier is steaming at 25 knots, into the wind , which is blowing at 5 knots , the effective take off speed , relative to deck will be 120knots and the take off run will be that much less.. Okay, you can argue that for a given load, the STOL run will be less than for a conventional aircraft. But that doesnt matter. For a given aircraft, ,if you are not steaming into the wind, the relative wind speed drops and even for a STOL run, you will take off with a far less load than you would otherwise will be capable off . In plain speak , if ship was not traveling, you will have to accelerate to full take off speed of 150 knots and not 120 knots in the limited deck length and you cant do that with full load and you will have to shed weight!.

plus launching,or rather taking off and recovery by STOVL is far easier and safer than recovery by arrester wires

The accident rate of the Harrier is far higher than an aircraft like F18 etc with arrested recovery. And that is primarily because of the problem of engine failure in hover (primarily exhaust ingestion into intake) and in case of engine failure, it falls like a stone (it is not flying anymore remember?).

And more importantly, the bring back load will be far less than a conventional plane. The bring back load in a VTOL will be limited by the engine thrust in hover mode, which will have to support the weight of the plane in addition to the load!.

All in all VTOL has huge compromises.. The advantage is it greater flexibililty in terms of tactical deployment (dont have carriers ?) well, a short underprepared strip will do!

The Brits just want a follow up to the Harrier and that is why they are pushing it. More than the RN, it is the RAF and USMC which will have far greater use of the Harrier, especially in close support roles. It is really not the primary fighting arm when facing a very capable enemy. It is primarily meant to intimidate the smaller coastal states with no or minimal air power (like Argentina for instance). The far sensible thing for the brits to do is to go the French way, adopt cats like the French are going to do for the same carriers and BUY THE RAFALE ..oops, that will be a huge loss of face and honor if they have to buy a plane from the Frogs.. Okay, buy the CTOL version of F-35, the "C" version instead !

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 15 Jul 2009 17:38

some say onlee a 60000t Kuznetsov/Khawk sized carrier has the internal hanger
space to carry a air wing of sufficient number and diversity to function as a potent offensive air arm of the fleet with no compromises.

anything below that one needs to sacrifice this or that to compensate.

It is for good reason the first of the US supercarriers - forrestal , saratoga, ranger and independence were 60,000t marking a break from the WW2 era 45000t Essex class carriers and ushering in the era of strong carrier dominance in sea control warfare.

given the massive construction time of a carrier (10 yrs) in domestic shipyards, it is quite urgent we set both our house in order and start on 2 x 60000t hulls in parallel right after the ADS1 is completed.

this means work on a additional drydock and sheds in Cochin needed to have started long back. 1000s of additional people have to be trained, hundreds of machines purchased, supply chains mapped out, new competencies and technologies explored - its no less challenging than tejas or kaveri or agni projects, perhaps more so.

all I hear is periodic bleating about a "3-4 carrier navy" as if they are going to appear from PPT decks ? and there isnt one more gorshkov around to salvage.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 15 Jul 2009 18:28

How much a/c is needed or can be accomodated for the countious air operation ? How much the aircraft lauch system helps in that ? These deteremines the effectiveness of the aircraft carrier.

some say onlee a 60000t Kuznetsov/Khawk sized carrier has the internal hanger
space to carry a air wing of sufficient number and diversity to function as a potent offensive air arm of the fleet with no compromises.

People used to say with 6o+ kton, the carrier can have countinous operaion of all kinds.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 15 Jul 2009 19:03

Well the Brits,who have the most experience of using the Harrier after the USMC,are opting for the STOVL version of the JSF for good reason as they believe such an aircraft is superior for carrier ops than a conventional aircraft which requires catapults,morepowerful powerplants,etc.,etc.The French cannot discard their naval Rafales and thus will stick with a conventional carrier.One can't see then buying the JSF either.I suppose it depends upon tradition and familiarity.Britain earlier used conventional aircraft on its carriers and were the inventors of the armoured flight deck,the angled deck and the ski-jump+ Harrier.The Harrier's were also almost unbeatable in air-to-air combat with their "viffing" ability.I still feel that a STOVL version of the 5th-gen fighter is needed fior the IN.It would be very interesting to see which way Spain,Italy and other Harrier users go when they have to phase out the Harriers and build new carriers.Most will probably buy the JSF using medium sized carriers.

Rolling landings by the Harrier are also possible,so bringing home the "bangers " isn't a major problem.The problem is that unless a carrier is a large one,of around 70,000t,nuclear powered so that power forn the cats is always at hand,and where the flight deck is large enough for simultaneous launches and landings,one will face the problem that the IAC and the Gorshkov,which has a very narrow flight deck ,of not being able to conduct simultaneous take offs and landings as in the case of the larger carriers.The smaller the carrier,the space taken up for machinery and stores,etc. results in fewer aircraft and helos carried aboard.A Brit study found that carriers needed to be around a min. size of 50,000+ to be able to carry out required missions with enough aviation asets.For the IN,building such large carriers is both technologically very difficult as well as being enormously expensive,and unneccesary as we need several to conduct ops on both seaboards as well as outside the IOR if need be in the far east waters.

The IN has a unique opportunity in that it will be using both conventional and VSTOL aircraft for the next decade with the upgraded Sea Harrier and the MIG-29K aboard its carriers.It would be very interesting to see the results of such operations and the assessment of the IN in the pros and cons of each type and its future direction in naval aviation.
The IN will also have to invest significantly in greater numbers of new LRMP aircraft as the Indian sub-continent should be seen as an unsinkable carrier in the middle of the IOR and in any global crisis will play in many respects a similar role as Malta did in the Meditt. during WW2.The Indian landmass sits astride the SLOCs that convey the world's major petro-product shipments to the far east,the ASEAN nations,China,Japan and the Koreas.Any impediment in such supplies will have catastrophic effect upon their industry and economies.

vina · Post by **vina** » 15 Jul 2009 19:20

some say onlee a 60000t Kuznetsov/Khawk sized carrier has the internal hanger
space to carry a air wing of sufficient number and diversity to function as a potent offensive air arm of the fleet with no compromises.

That would be true in the old world of dedicated "strike" and interceptors. Like if you want a no compromises strike like an A-6 and a dedicated interceptor /fleet defense like F-14 and then a couple of choppers, an AEW like Hawkeye and of course dedicated antisub fixed wing like S-3 etc .

Now with fighters going truly multirole, you can put up more airframes out of the total into a particular package and shrink the total number of air planes you need for a "multi function" carrier. With a F-18 or Rafale or F-35 C or Mig 29K, you have a pretty competent strike AND interceptor/fighter force and . Eg even if you carry 30 Rafales, in total, you have all 30 for carrier /air defense and also strike, rather than have 20 F-14 + 20 A6 , you can still put up more airplanes into a particular task than a "dedicated" package. And remember, a flight of 20 Rafales can also defend itself in a strike mission and doesnt need a top cover of F-14s (or maybe a few of the remaining Rafales can accompany with an Air Defense load out).

Net result, with planes becoming multi role, you can do with far less airframes (similarly Choppers do both SAR and ASuW and ASW) and hences shrink the carrier to 45K tons or so. . So in a 45K ton carrier, you can do with probably 20 Multirole fixed wing airframes, 5 multi role Choppers and 2 AEW. Will be pretty well rounded

rajsunder · Post by **rajsunder** » 15 Jul 2009 19:29

andy B wrote:^^^ Austin Ji ki Jai ho!!!

Kit the Russian navy is having problems due to under-funding, their shipyards are also facing problems but given money (much like the case of the shipyards that produced the Talwars) they are able to churn out quality products...

read long back in India today that the thickness of steel used of any war ship in cold waters is less than the ones used in warm waters. And the ships that are built in Russia are built used the thinner steel than and that its not suitable for warm waters of Indian Ocean.

vina · Post by **vina** » 15 Jul 2009 19:30

the angled deck and the ski-jump+ Harrier

Physics behind ski jump is interesting. The ski jump increases the angle of attack (at launch) of the aircraft and therefore there is sufficient lift generated at a lower speed than if on a flat deck. Also, becuase of the ski jump, the total distance of the take off run is increased by a couple of meters, allowing the engines to work for just that little bit longer and build up increas total energy (PE + KE at the point where it launches at the top of the ski jump). So because of the increased lift and total energy, you can take off with more payload!.

So why dont they do it in a CTOL ?. The answer is that it is very difficult to make a steam catapult with sufficient sealing to follow the profile of the ski jump. Easier brute force is to increase the power of the catapult depending on payload and accelerate aircraft to launch speed and that is what gets done. Now with electromagnetic rail gun in the next gen Unkil's carriers, you could possibly see ski jumps make an appearance in Unkil's carriers (thought the speculative drawings of Gerald R. Ford) doesn't have ski jumps) , now that the technical limitation of steam cats are gone.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 15 Jul 2009 20:33

Partial cat, rest ski jump? Best of both worlds? Doesn't work eh?

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 15 Jul 2009 20:36

amirkhan CVN have 4 cats - 2 in front and 2 off the waist angled deck.

the waist section being used for recovery, there is no way to put a
ski jump on those cats unless you ask pilots who miss to ski jump again on the fly

having ski in front and flat on waist wont be used because they complicate calculations of payload. theres no guarantee in a fast developing situation as a plane comes up fully armed on one of the three elevators which one it will get to use. suppose its in high payload mode for ski jump and then something blocks that.

my expectation is amirkhan will replace the bulky steam cats with
clean and sophisticated EM cats, keep the decks flat and use the addl
space for storing more stuff/hangers/burger king outlet/food court etc.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 15 Jul 2009 20:46

vina wrote:
some say onlee a 60000t Kuznetsov/Khawk sized carrier has the internal hanger
space to carry a air wing of sufficient number and diversity to function as a potent offensive air arm of the fleet with no compromises.
That would be true in the old world of dedicated "strike" and interceptors. Like if you want a no compromises strike like an A-6 and a dedicated interceptor /fleet defense like F-14 and then a couple of choppers, an AEW like Hawkeye and of course dedicated antisub fixed wing like S-3 etc .

Now with fighters going truly multirole, you can put up more airframes out of the total into a particular package and shrink the total number of air planes you need for a "multi function" carrier. With a F-18 or Rafale or F-35 C or Mig 29K, you have a pretty competent strike AND interceptor/fighter force and . Eg even if you carry 30 Rafales, in total, you have all 30 for carrier /air defense and also strike, rather than have 20 F-14 + 20 A6 , you can still put up more airplanes into a particular task than a "dedicated" package. And remember, a flight of 20 Rafales can also defend itself in a strike mission and doesnt need a top cover of F-14s (or maybe a few of the remaining Rafales can accompany with an Air Defense load out).

Net result, with planes becoming multi role, you can do with far less airframes (similarly Choppers do both SAR and ASuW and ASW) and hences shrink the carrier to 45K tons or so. . So in a 45K ton carrier, you can do with probably 20 Multirole fixed wing airframes, 5 multi role Choppers and 2 AEW. Will be pretty well rounded

A carrier to have a full capability should be able to sustain air ops for 24 hrs in different sectors in different missions at the same time. Wondering whether a compliment of 20 multi-role a/c could do that. During the AG negotiations..a section of IN officers were not so happy with AG capabilites as it gives only marginal increase(in capability) in consideration with previous a/c carriers that India operated. And that weighs ~ 40k ton. The swing role that these multirole a/c offers needs reconfiguration for every ops. That needs landing and relauching. A speedier recovery & relauch which is crucial during wartime needs systems like CATOBAR and that takes more space and tonnage. Your thoughts ?

SNaik · Post by **SNaik** » 15 Jul 2009 20:52

Sonar MGK-400EM "Irbis" control console. Inside Nerpa (Project 09719).
http://i56.photobucket.com/albums/g191/ ... _09719.jpg

negi · Post by **negi** » 15 Jul 2009 20:55

Yes the SKI JUMPs are simply 'REDUNDANT' on a ship equipped with CATs the latter is capable of hauling a F-14 tomcat armed to teeth on a flattop so there should be no issues for contemporary A/C .

Lets keep an eye on this EM tech this has been tom tom'd as next big thing since the days of 'ERASER' .

Baljeet · Post by **Baljeet** » 15 Jul 2009 21:34

SNaik wrote:Sonar MGK-400EM "Irbis" control console. Inside Nerpa (Project 09719).
http://i56.photobucket.com/albums/g191/ ... _09719.jpg

WTH, is this inside a submarine or some workshop. If this is inside the submarine, I have my doubts

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 15 Jul 2009 21:42

---
Massive firepower demonstrated during surge in Ops

August 4th 1997:NNS3205. WASHINGTON (NWSA) -- The massive fire power projected from the flight deck of a forward deployed carrier battle group (CBG) was demonstrated like never before during a recent high tempo exercise involving USS Nimitz and the embarked Carrier Air Wing Nine.

SURGEX was a strike warfare demonstration conducted by the Nimitz Carrier Battle Group in July off the coast of Southern California. The demonstration was designed to surge the number of strike sorties a CBG can fly from approximately 100 to 200 per day for four consecutive days. The significant impact on operations and forward presence is evident from the 1000+ sorties launched during the 98 hours of continuous flight operations, more than 800 of which were strike sorties. This four-day surge was made possible by augmenting ship's company with just 200 additional personnel to help provide around-the-clock operations.

Strike sorties flown during the four days totaled 195, 193, 202 and 212 during each 24-hour period. That doesn't take into account the intensive 14 hours-a-day of flight ops conducted in the six days prior the SURGEX demo as part of the overall JTFEX.

The aircraft carrier continues to be the centerpiece of the forces necessary for forward presence. Carriers support and operate aircraft that engage in attacks on airborne, afloat and ashore targets that threaten free use of the sea, and engage in sustained operations in support of other forces.
-USN-

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 15 Jul 2009 21:44

now imagine what a combined TF of 4 such CVNs plus additional JSFs embarked on say 4 more LPHs can bring to bear

when its time to kick a$$ nobody does it like unkil.

Baljeet · Post by **Baljeet** » 15 Jul 2009 21:49

Singha wrote:now imagine what a combined TF of 4 such CVNs plus additional JSFs embarked on say 4 more LPHs can bring to bear

when its time to kick a$$ nobody does it like unkil.

And yet, unkil has been caught with pants down in Afghanistan.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 15 Jul 2009 22:21

AF , CAR, interior PRC and interior Russia are about the only places
on earth difficult to attack from the sea.

so they had to fall back on land based planes as a supplement. nothing wrong in that.

the conventional phase of the war was a great success - less than 200 KIA to chase the talibs entirely out of the north and main cities in south.

later...you can hardly blame the F18 for failings of american policy.