Which sub would you like to have?An Amur armed with a 300km supersonic Brahmos,or a Scorpene armed with a 70-100km subsonic Exocet?I think that on this score-the weaponry aboard, the two subs the Amur wins handsomely.It really is a no-contest if one bas seriously studied the immense capability that Brahmos brings with it.In fact,sub launched Brahmos misssiles are the answer for dealing wuith enemy task forces operating in the IOR.Also armed with tube launched anti-sub Klub missiles,an Amur possesses extraordinary all round capability.It is the weaponry that the sub carries that makes it what it is,silencing notwithstanding.Here,the Amur comes out on top.
As far as machinery and sophistication of combat systems are concerned,the Scorpene is a virtual nuclear sub without its reactor.Here,the sophistication and refinement of the French sub would win .It is this sophistication,resulting in smaller crewing and ease of operation thanks to automation,that the IN would like to get its hands on,as these tchnologies would come in very handy for our future nuclear sub designs.At the moment we are operating three sub types.The U-209 series is doomed ,for several reasons.Had it not been for the controversy about the kickbacks and the blacklisting of the Germans,fruther acquisition of German sub technology would've been our easiest way forward.Since this is not going to happen,the practical way forward is to acquire the Scopene and use it primarily in the hunter killer mode against enemy subs (hoping that the sub launched versions of Klub can be integrated onto this platform),whilst the Amurs would deal with attacking enemy task forces and land based targets too.Scorpenes,Amurs and Kilos (which would be phased out in the next decade,when the new subs come into operation) would form the backbone of the sub fleet along with the ATV and Akulas.The next generation of conventional subs could then combine the best of the French and Russian designs,while we begin to build more nuclear subs for the fleet.Ultimately,the In should have at least one-third of its sub fleet being nuclear.Nuclear powered subs are far too capable to be compared with AIP subs,which cannot use full power when in AIP mode.The ability of nuclear subs to also carry UUCVs is another impotant plus factor.
Project 75 & Submarine Options
Good Analysis Philip , Just adding my 2 cents.
a ) " Sub Silencing is the Gospel Truth" , Ignoring it will be risking the subs main strength "Stealth" , the US sub community grew believing(Designing & Maintaining ) in it and hence one finds tremendious advantage of US subs over other in many areas primarly Silencing.
b ) There is a version of Turbofan variant of Exocet underdevelopment think its called Exocet Block-3 which has a range of 180 Km ( probably more ) which could/will arm the Scorpene. Also there was a Fiber Optic Guided Missile underdevelopment for German Subs , which also had anti-aircraft capability particular for the sub , even one can look in to it for the Scorpene.
a ) " Sub Silencing is the Gospel Truth" , Ignoring it will be risking the subs main strength "Stealth" , the US sub community grew believing(Designing & Maintaining ) in it and hence one finds tremendious advantage of US subs over other in many areas primarly Silencing.
b ) There is a version of Turbofan variant of Exocet underdevelopment think its called Exocet Block-3 which has a range of 180 Km ( probably more ) which could/will arm the Scorpene. Also there was a Fiber Optic Guided Missile underdevelopment for German Subs , which also had anti-aircraft capability particular for the sub , even one can look in to it for the Scorpene.
the French by themselves have no readymade german AIP or VLS soln. afaik not even their SSNs have VLS cells
it will cost a bazillion $$ and a decade to design a plug in VLS module, integrate Brahmos with the french VLS system, get the germans to work with the french for the AIP.
IMO its a pipedream . Its difficult to get two people to work together let alone three countries with different levels of warmth to India and different foreign policies. Nobody will be happy, including India.
So jmho the only option is:
* License the Amur (biggest version) , perhaps buy 3 outright and let L&T
setup the production line, work to integrate as much Indian stuff on it as possible like sonars, electronics, radar, machinery, NSTL decoys and torpedoes etc. whatever we dont know try to learn and make sure we can come up with a domestic design in 10 yrs. and integrate the Klub or Brahmos ofcourse...with a land attack mode.
* License the Scorpene and get started in MDL. use the MESMA AIP and sign a deal to get the 180km Exocet whenever its ready. get some desi stuff in there like NSTL torpedoes. Try to get Klub in there as well. dont go for the VLS. establish a JV as part of quid pro quo to develop and improve on submarine and ship combat systems (integrated ones that fuse all sensors) for future IN ships and submarines.
it will cost a bazillion $$ and a decade to design a plug in VLS module, integrate Brahmos with the french VLS system, get the germans to work with the french for the AIP.
IMO its a pipedream . Its difficult to get two people to work together let alone three countries with different levels of warmth to India and different foreign policies. Nobody will be happy, including India.
So jmho the only option is:
* License the Amur (biggest version) , perhaps buy 3 outright and let L&T
setup the production line, work to integrate as much Indian stuff on it as possible like sonars, electronics, radar, machinery, NSTL decoys and torpedoes etc. whatever we dont know try to learn and make sure we can come up with a domestic design in 10 yrs. and integrate the Klub or Brahmos ofcourse...with a land attack mode.
* License the Scorpene and get started in MDL. use the MESMA AIP and sign a deal to get the 180km Exocet whenever its ready. get some desi stuff in there like NSTL torpedoes. Try to get Klub in there as well. dont go for the VLS. establish a JV as part of quid pro quo to develop and improve on submarine and ship combat systems (integrated ones that fuse all sensors) for future IN ships and submarines.
first of all, if u consider 'confusing' as a terrible and insulting word coz of which u tend to become hot headed, I simply can't help u man. But my reply in no way was to offend anyone and there absolutely was nothing offending, if u can't comprehend that, let it be what it is. If ur LA life has made u as arrogant as an American, u need to change ..... or expect the same or something different response from the members .... now to what u said w.r.t to the AIP.Marcos....
OK Let us start with the assumption that I am a thoroughly confused guy as regards to the AIP (Air Independent Propulsion) Theory...
So let’s get a step by step analysis of what I proposed. Luckily I was cut a break and in one of the adjoining discussion threads I came up with the following URL.http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/cno ... ulsion.htm This URL discusses various (generalized) theories about AIP.
It mentions all the four possible AIP techniques viz.
Closed-cycle diesel engines, generally with stored liquid oxygen (LOX)
Closed-cycle steam turbines
Sterling-cycle heat engines with external combustion
Hydrogen-oxygen fuel cells
this is what u posted earlier which gave me the feeling that u have got confused with both systems ...
Do u see the liquid Nitrogen that u filled in the Russian Oxygen tanks, or the heavy doasage of IR that u left out or the engine cycle that u closed ???..... so for ur post of that, I replied with the article that appeared in the Military Parade with this and other para ....there are several ways of developing AIP ......the AIP which the russians use, uses liquid nitrogen to run their closed cycle engines... please take a close look at the oxygen tank clearly depicted in the URL that you have posted... this kinda AIP system has the drawback that they emit a very strong IR signal due to their hot water exhaust...
... Yet, the air independent propulsion with an electrochemical generator proved more economical and it had lower levels of acoustic and thermal fields. Besides, it turned out much more environmentally friendly as the electrochemical generator produced only one by-product - distilled water.
and I really doubt ur arrogance (?) made u read what i posted, as this one clearly mentions the by-product of the Electrochemical Generators (EG) as DISTILLED WATER .....
I'd like to put forth a general question as to Y the west cud only come up with their Fuell-cells only now and not in the early 90's??? ..... where as the Russian fuel-cell was already accepted by the MoD, not to mention is the Vodoka Unkil, who virtually threw open everything to the west .... and for u again, read this and the ones below that.Also as given in the article that I have mentioned above, If you happen to observe carefully every single one of them (Except for one the Hydrogen-oxygen fuel cells) produce a vast quantity of heat and CO2. Both these bi-products are released in the ocean which can be easily detected.
I would like to point it here that the Germans have the only working submarine based on this theory.
In 1991, the St. Petersburg-based Special Boiler Design Bureau (SKBK) completed development of the Kristall-20 AIP system for the Piranha Class small submarines (Project 865). The AIP underwent comprehensive testing and was accepted by the customer - the Ministry of Defense. However, AIP systems were never installed in submarines due to reductions in defense spending.
and please don tell that AIPs are actually tested on the submarine and thats a must. But its a fact that due to finance a submarine equipped with the AIP module never saw operation, but based on that, to conclude that it wasn't developed or not fit is simply not correct.
Yet, the air independent propulsion with an electrochemical generator proved more economical and it had lower levels of acoustic and thermal fields. Besides, it turned out much more environmentally friendly as the electrochemical generator produced only one by-product - distilled water.
Russia has developed several schemes of underwater diesel operation, using oxygen stored in a liquid or gaseous state, CO2 removal by dissolving it in sea water or by absorbing it by chemical substances. Russia and Germany are working successfully on the creation of electrochemical generators - the so-called fuel cell plants, which are supposed to be used in addition to the main plants on several diesel-electric submarines of the next generation submarines at the beginning of the 21st century.
Russia gives preference to the fuel-cell plant, since it boasts higher efficiency compared to the aforementioned, is less noisy, its power rating can be easily adjusted and it is environmentally friendly. Its main advantage is high safety, since the working cycle is static and the plant has no rotating or moving components. Due to this fact, no oxygen and hydrogen leaks are feasible.
what a pun man ....... i can't just wonder, what u actually understood from what i posted, if this is what u made out from the para abt the Russian AIP. And u got it wrong again, its not that Kristal-27E works on the prnciple as the German fuel cells, but the German fuel-cells work on the principle that the Russians developed and also that was used on Russian space craft for producing electricity.Now lets say that the Kristall-27E works on the same principle as the German fuel cells, but then again the Russian navy has rejected the use of these AIP means due to the very fact that their own fuel cells need quite a bit of shore base infrastructure.
Oh oh...and the silliest part ........ now that the Russian source put the REAL FACT abt the infrastructure meant for the AIP, u now accuse the Russian system of huge infrastructure needed......what a pun man. U need to understand that the German one goes along the line of Typical western media aka the salesman way of presenting the product and for their own image where as the Russian gave all the things thats related to an AIP.
I expect u to put what all infrastructure - if at all, as per u - is needed for the western developed Fuel-cells. And frankly, do u really think that no infrastructure, whatsoever, is needed for an AIP??
Another pun. first u quote from a western source and even after reading the two - Russian and Western - source u cud not get the fact of the huge gulf between the Russian and Western approach of reporting. In the Russian one u can see all the facts mentioned abt the western stuffs and also due credit (if u want I'll post the article in full) but in the western one, u find just one mention of the pre-war Soviet development of AIP and to that is clubbed the German AIP tech, let alone the newer Soviet/Russian AIPs that was tested and any mention of the life support system on the space flights/station. But they never failed to mention the regular 'doses' more so as an insulting tool as when they mentioned the 'cigarette lighter' and they succed in their mission as their targeted audiance take it in good faith, as its of western origin.Above and over this the Russians are at the best offering things which they themselves have not yet fully demonstrated on a working submarine… Their only working AIP(demonstrated on a actual submarine platform) has been on submarines called "cigarette lighters" (due to their tendency to light up) by their crew.
and since u seems to have understood very little , i am posting some from the earlier para that i quoted .... abt the safety testing and others.
this was the para that talked abt the safety of the first series built subs with AIP in the Soviet Navy....
Closed-cycle diesels which are developed for future AIP submarines have been known in Russia since the 1930s. The Soviet Union developed several types of the closed-cycle propulsion units (CCPU) for submarines, which could propel both surfaced and submerged boats. The Soviet Navy was the only one in the world for which in the 1950s submarines with CCPUs (Project A 615) were series-produced.
These engines increased submarines’ submerged range. However, they were extremely fire - and exlposion - hazardous and were the cause of several serious accidents. Due to this, Project A 615 submarines had an ill reputation in the Navy. Yet, the CCPUs themselves were very promising. However, with the development of nuclear power plants started, the development of CCPUs ceased in the U.S.S.R. and other countries.
And this is abt Russia's first EG and the solution for the same that came from the Space Industry
Russia’s first auxiliary AIP system with a hydrogen/oxygen EG, installed in the S-273 submarine, occupied very much space. Its four large reservoirs for storing liquid oxygen and hydrogen, built into the inner hull, made the sub look ugly and, most importantly, impaired its hydrodynamic characteristics. However, many elements of future AIP systems were tested on the S-273, specifically to exclude fire and explosion hazards. The solution of the problem of the propulsion unit size came from the space industry: spacecraft of various kinds used electrochemical generators that directly converted chemical energy into electricity.
Now also let me expect u to chose ur preference as to which of these two has the highest possiblity of the human life getting saved - a Submarine or a Space vehicle/Orbiter. Also, how many space flights did the Germans carry out and how many space station did the entire west have in Total and for how many years?
so u intend to say that Russians have no experience whatsoever and are dumb and what they earlier developed and tested does not count, since they cud not put their 2nd Gen AIP into a sub? As for seeing the actual thing working, fund it and see the results. But i won't expect any positive response from those who go by western belief, as any development w.r.t to Russian can't be anything but the usual.Hence my assumption of ruling out anything russian which is only claimed and not demonstrated on actual working platforms. (here I would surely like to know if there is an actual working AIP amur or kilo based on techs like kristall-27E)
U made me mention that simply coz u showd that in ur reply. So now u r putting the layers, did u not think abt these same earlier ...... but what we were talking abt was that of a missile firing from a VL tube and that of a TT. So y don u stay on topic and give ur conclusion abt the depth from which a TT launch can be carrierd out and from how far more than the VLS ...... and now that u have had some good laugh, i think its time for u to rest.Marcos ....
in your previous mail u mentioned that i was an utterly confused fellow... hmm.....well yes ..... i was confused and i did not know if I should reply at all to this rather childish mail of yours... your opening remark was amazingly laughable... god ... ne ways fun and jokes aside... say one submarine (say having a gas based torpedo ejection system) opens its doors at say 300ft and there is one more hunter lurking right aboveit at say 80 ft do u think that the hunter will immideatly be alearted to the other submarine? if your answer is yes i'd suggest u do some reading up... [Hint:- think on the possiblities of thermal layers]
Another show-off , typical American way ...... but since u know very much, I request u to enlighten me, as to the process that we all saw in the climax of U-517.also how many types of torpedo ejection systems do u know..
i'd like to know that... [Hint:- there really are a few different types]
you might be aware (i certainly hope so that you are) that clubs are launched from our existing kilos... could u please tell me as to how they are launched...[Hint:- This is open source material]
Now u shud be putting what all u know over here to educate us poor chaps over here than shooting ur mouth like u behaved to some in the thread earlier. So I'm expecting u to put forth ur ideas. BTW, u can also post the link to the open source of how the Klubs are launched rather than pretending to be a dumb, or is it that u don understand what u got as u seems to be putting some question to me and asking me to educate u, while in Brackets u put the Hint. R u fully confused?
if u actually know, what u r talking abt, u wud not have asked this in the first place, buddy.also let me know if you think for a verticle launch can be done at all depths and compare that against torpedo tube launches..[Hint:- vls gas pressure requirements]
I thought this was a discussion board and not a quizzing board. If u like quizzing, come over to AFM and post the Quiz in the Naval section.I think this much of home work is enought for you for today...
I'll ask a few more questions on your remaining paragraphs later...
And finally. i expect some maturity from u by posting what all u know rather than carry-on with ur current un-impressive and poorly executed Show-offs. And this cud be the last reply to ur post, if i don find any change in ur attitude as I don feel like diving to ur level in this forum.
--------------------------
srai,
Now that opens up a new chapter & questions ------- as to if the Future subs will only be classified as N-subs and non-nuclear electric submarines ???
Thats coz , if the AIP cud be used to have the subs attain the cruising and maximum speed for the entire length of its endurance (say 30-45 days) and the diesel is seldom used, whats the use of installing a diesel unit??.... probably, with the 3rd Gen and future AIPs, the non-nuclear submarines design might well be moving towards a diesel-less submarine or a purely Electric Submarines.
Tks for noting that. So if we take the fact abt the current AIP's, to make the best out of it or say to make the maximum submerged endurance from it, the subs will need to engage diesel and the AIP. The sub can't achieve its maximum knots under water as the battery quickly gets dischared and hence the talk abt Burst speeds. But in the case of 3rd Gen AIPs , that problem or the lack of enough power does not come in as can be seen from this quoteAmur-1650 spec
Endurance, ------ 45 days
Amur-950 V2 spec
Endurance, ------ 30 days
That 60-90 days submerged endurance will be longer than the endurance of the vessels themselves!
which means that for a SSK with an endurance of 30-45 days, an AIP with 60-90 days means that the sub wud be able to do higher knots w/o loosing its breath. Thats the reason y its been specifically mentioned that the 3rd Gen AIP wud ceased to be regarded as an 'auxillary power' source and will be referred to as all-mode power source.According to the Director General of the Special Boiler Design Bureau, Vladimir Zinin, and its Chief Designer Veniamin Avakov, these propulsion systems will cease to be regarded as auxiliary and will be referred to as all-mode CCPUs which will fully meet the requirements for underwater and surface cruise in the entire range of loads.
Now that opens up a new chapter & questions ------- as to if the Future subs will only be classified as N-subs and non-nuclear electric submarines ???
Thats coz , if the AIP cud be used to have the subs attain the cruising and maximum speed for the entire length of its endurance (say 30-45 days) and the diesel is seldom used, whats the use of installing a diesel unit??.... probably, with the 3rd Gen and future AIPs, the non-nuclear submarines design might well be moving towards a diesel-less submarine or a purely Electric Submarines.
Guys, this is a quote that made me bring this very unfortunate thing over here. And as usual we Indian's always miss out .... and as usual with my theories, we shud have moved ahead involving the C-DAC and branding this chip under ------ C-DAC ----- can u get a more perfect Brand Name and a touch of Technology in every word of the name other than AMD ?? .... well I guess not and thats what I believe. What this in other sense cud have meant is that, there wud have been a complete Indian processor, and we wud have been filling our huge market with our chips, but as usual with India, when we need to have been actiing, we were caught sleeping. Its really unfortunate.I think we r quite aware of this by now that most russian claims are at best just that "claims ". To put those claims into a working piece needs a lot of tinkering, time and money.
The Russians Are Coming?
The Cold War Yields a Superchip
IA-64
Intel uses Russia military technologies
Russian "Itanium Killer" Isn't Dead Yet
Russian Itanium slayer samples first 130nm processor
500MHz MCST R500, Russian server processor
Intel Buys Russian Hardware Developers
and if u guys have never heard abt Soviet Computer History, here is one brief article for all .....
Soviet Computer History
Marcos wrote:...
Thats coz , if the AIP cud be used to have the subs attain the cruising and maximum speed for the entire length of its endurance (say 30-45 days) and the diesel is seldom used, whats the use of installing a diesel unit??.... probably, with the 3rd Gen and future AIPs, the non-nuclear submarines design might well be moving towards a diesel-less submarine or a purely Electric Submarines.
http://users.otenet.gr/~kostast/AIP.htm
...
The Future
The maximum power output of current AIP installations is typically on the order of 400 horsepower (300 kilowatts). In comparison, the conventional diesel-electric plant of the U 212 class is rated at over 3,000 horsepower, and a typical nuclear submarine propulsion plant produces over 20,000. Since the power required to propel a submerged body varies with the cube of its velocity, it should be apparent that at least for the near future, AIP will be valuable primarily as a low-speed, long-endurance adjunct to the under- water performance of conventional submarines. There is little short-term prospect for AIP to become a primary, full-performance alternative to either diesel or nuclear power. However AIP submarines could be a particularly formidable threat when operating in coastal waters, marginal ice zones, or maritime straits and other global "choke points".
MAJOR CHARACTERISTICS OF AIP PROPULSION SYSTEMS
NUCLEAR POWER
-- Autonomy (500 GWh/kg U235 )
-- Huge installation
-- Low effectiveness
-- Thermal - acoustic signature
THERMAL ENGINE
-- Relatively low cost of installation
-- Easy fuel storage
-- Low fuel cost
-- Limited autonomy
-- Engine exhaust discharge procedure
-- Relatively higher acoustic signature
-- Low effectiveness
-- Thermal signature
FUEL CELL
-- High effectiveness
-- Minimum Thermal signature
-- Minimum acoustic signature (no moving parts)
-- Limited autonomy
-- High cost of installation
-- Limited fuel storage
-- High fuel cost
-
George J
Aaaaaaaah AFM....home of Star49: Oracle of 'Twu BVR'.....thats certainly a place of higher learning. You know you dont need to be here....I am sure you and Star can come up with scintillating stuff on your own on AFM.....like U571 armed with Clubs.....Marcos wrote:Another show-off , typical American way ...... but since u know very much, I request u to enlighten me, as to the process that we all saw in the climax of U-517.also how many types of torpedo ejection systems do u know..i'd like to know that... [Hint:- there really are a few different types] you might be aware (i certainly hope so that you are) that clubs are launched from our existing kilos... could u please tell me as to how they are launched...[Hint:- This is open source material]
I thought this was a discussion board and not a quizzing board. If u like quizzing, come over to AFM and post the Quiz in the Naval section.
Tch tch..all the BR jingos didnt know that...shame on them....if only we had folks like Indian1973, Brute on BR...where would we have been....we would have known that Indians should now buy U571's and equip them with Clubs.
Are you saying CDAC should be making chips.. THe posts are too lenghty for me to follow.Marcos wrote:and as usual with my theories, we shud have moved ahead involving the C-DAC and branding this chip under ------ C-DAC ----- can u get a more perfect Brand Name and a touch of Technology in every word of the name other than AMD ??
For people interested in facts ....
here are a few things about vertical and horizontal launcher techs that you might wanna check out...
given below are a couple of different techniques used to launch a cruise missile horizontally...
1> complete solid rocket booster tech... the cruse missile is ejected out from the normal torpedo tubes...the cruse missile travels a safe distance from the sub ....the rocket ignites in the water...it boosts the missile out of the water and to towards its intended target...
Thiokol TE-260G is an example of just such a booster rocket..
guys more interested in this tech can please look it up at http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-44.html
2> a canister launch.....cruse missile is placed inside a canister and ejected out from torpedo tubes... the canister heads up towards the surface in a vertical attitude ... once on the surface the canister literally pops up...the booster rocket inside the cruse missile takes over and the missile is directed towards its heading....
again guys more interested in taking this up this launch tech can refer...http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-125.html.... details of this can be even found at http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/smart/agm-84.htm look for the word "ENCAP"... btw i also do have a few pictures where one can see the the actual ENCAP pop up and the missile burst away... but i'll post it some other time...
.....
I had asked someone if it possible for a submarine at say 80 feet to detect a submarine at say 300ft... the answer is it is verrrrrrrrrrrrrrry difficult ... unless u wanna use active ping and give away your location doing it...
well in an ocean (saline environment) there are these things called as sound channels which are formed due to change in salinity and temperature which make sound wave propagate in channels over long distances...a good start up point for just such a topic is the following URL http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encycl ... /sonar.htm...
I had mentioned in my previous mails about hydrodynamic noise... and noise caused by submarines at various speeds... and how a particular shape refines this sound signature.. and how add on packages might distort this shape... a good starting point to engage in this study is
http://www.fas.org/spp/eprint/snf03221.htm
for a submarine to fire off a salvo of missile through its vertical launch system which is horizontal to the attitude of the submarine it needs to come to a certain depth and be at a certain speed... this speed and depth are a verrry closely guarded military secret... but one can find references of these on sites like http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/russia/667A.htm....
for example the yankee class could fire missile from a depth of 40-50 meters below the surface, while the submarine is moving at a speed of up to 3-4 knots...
sorry guys i really cant keep spoon feeding all the references .....
I think i'll just reaterate what i have been saying all along....
a simple comparison of the two techs
Torpedo tube launch
1> can be launched at any depth and speed. Last I knew there is no limit where a torpedo cannot be launched..
Vertical launch system
1>Submarine has to come to a particular depth and have a particular speed
Torpedo tube launch
2> Launch can be relatively silent if a proper combination of water ram torpedo ejection system is employed with a ENCAP'ed cruse missile.
Vertical launch system
2>pressurized air is used to launch these missiles and the probability of giving up your position is extremely high.
Torpedo tube launch
3> It is not necessary to change the submarine shape of a torpedo launch system. ... a shape as close to the ideal tear drop is more quitter at patrolling speeds of 10-15kts
vertical launch systems
3> If a submarine is not designed from the onset to be a boomer adding a vls platform will cause noise, however minor changes to the ideal shape of the submarine it might be... this change will cause the sub to be inherently that much more noisy as compared to a more sleek submarines at patrolling speeds...
torpedo tube launch
4> cannot launch a salvo of cruise missiles ...the number of launches are limited by the number of torpedo tubes capable of firing missiles...
vertical launch system
4> capable of firing a quick salvo of missiles usually equal to the number of vertical firing tubes...
(it would be also worth noting that the more missiles that are carried in a vertical cell arrangement the longer is the submarine.. and hence needs more power to drive it...the more power required to drive a submarine results in more power produces, distributed, stored, all of which again increase size and the austic signature of a submarine...)
Guys ,.... I think i rest my case.......man i am going crazy posting too lengthy posts...
here are a few things about vertical and horizontal launcher techs that you might wanna check out...
given below are a couple of different techniques used to launch a cruise missile horizontally...
1> complete solid rocket booster tech... the cruse missile is ejected out from the normal torpedo tubes...the cruse missile travels a safe distance from the sub ....the rocket ignites in the water...it boosts the missile out of the water and to towards its intended target...
Thiokol TE-260G is an example of just such a booster rocket..
guys more interested in this tech can please look it up at http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-44.html
2> a canister launch.....cruse missile is placed inside a canister and ejected out from torpedo tubes... the canister heads up towards the surface in a vertical attitude ... once on the surface the canister literally pops up...the booster rocket inside the cruse missile takes over and the missile is directed towards its heading....
again guys more interested in taking this up this launch tech can refer...http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-125.html.... details of this can be even found at http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/smart/agm-84.htm look for the word "ENCAP"... btw i also do have a few pictures where one can see the the actual ENCAP pop up and the missile burst away... but i'll post it some other time...
.....
I had asked someone if it possible for a submarine at say 80 feet to detect a submarine at say 300ft... the answer is it is verrrrrrrrrrrrrrry difficult ... unless u wanna use active ping and give away your location doing it...
well in an ocean (saline environment) there are these things called as sound channels which are formed due to change in salinity and temperature which make sound wave propagate in channels over long distances...a good start up point for just such a topic is the following URL http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encycl ... /sonar.htm...
I had mentioned in my previous mails about hydrodynamic noise... and noise caused by submarines at various speeds... and how a particular shape refines this sound signature.. and how add on packages might distort this shape... a good starting point to engage in this study is
http://www.fas.org/spp/eprint/snf03221.htm
for a submarine to fire off a salvo of missile through its vertical launch system which is horizontal to the attitude of the submarine it needs to come to a certain depth and be at a certain speed... this speed and depth are a verrry closely guarded military secret... but one can find references of these on sites like http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/russia/667A.htm....
for example the yankee class could fire missile from a depth of 40-50 meters below the surface, while the submarine is moving at a speed of up to 3-4 knots...
sorry guys i really cant keep spoon feeding all the references .....
I think i'll just reaterate what i have been saying all along....
a simple comparison of the two techs
Torpedo tube launch
1> can be launched at any depth and speed. Last I knew there is no limit where a torpedo cannot be launched..
Vertical launch system
1>Submarine has to come to a particular depth and have a particular speed
Torpedo tube launch
2> Launch can be relatively silent if a proper combination of water ram torpedo ejection system is employed with a ENCAP'ed cruse missile.
Vertical launch system
2>pressurized air is used to launch these missiles and the probability of giving up your position is extremely high.
Torpedo tube launch
3> It is not necessary to change the submarine shape of a torpedo launch system. ... a shape as close to the ideal tear drop is more quitter at patrolling speeds of 10-15kts
vertical launch systems
3> If a submarine is not designed from the onset to be a boomer adding a vls platform will cause noise, however minor changes to the ideal shape of the submarine it might be... this change will cause the sub to be inherently that much more noisy as compared to a more sleek submarines at patrolling speeds...
torpedo tube launch
4> cannot launch a salvo of cruise missiles ...the number of launches are limited by the number of torpedo tubes capable of firing missiles...
vertical launch system
4> capable of firing a quick salvo of missiles usually equal to the number of vertical firing tubes...
(it would be also worth noting that the more missiles that are carried in a vertical cell arrangement the longer is the submarine.. and hence needs more power to drive it...the more power required to drive a submarine results in more power produces, distributed, stored, all of which again increase size and the austic signature of a submarine...)
Guys ,.... I think i rest my case.......man i am going crazy posting too lengthy posts...
Last edited by sudipn on 10 Mar 2005 03:30, edited 2 times in total.
-
George J
Alexis:
Read the quote/point/question (which is what I believe the quote feature is used for) and read the reply. The question was about how Clubs are launched from circa 2000 877EMK Kilo, the answer implies that the readers refer to a wonderfully entertaining purely fictional hollywood thriller based on a circa 1940 German U-Boat. Thats neither logical nor intelligent....but then again what do I know...I am not on AMF to quiz the Naval Not it alls out there.
On the bigger issue IN knows what it wants....IN will get what it wants within its resources. As with EVERY topic on this forum no one here is an expert of the technical, procedural or the diplomatic miasma involved in getting a new system online.
Cy:
Dont bother.....his references are mostly 1999-2004 and the buck stops there coz the company was bought out by Intel. But from his tone its pretty obvious he is simply not aware of ANURAG and its work...
Read the quote/point/question (which is what I believe the quote feature is used for) and read the reply. The question was about how Clubs are launched from circa 2000 877EMK Kilo, the answer implies that the readers refer to a wonderfully entertaining purely fictional hollywood thriller based on a circa 1940 German U-Boat. Thats neither logical nor intelligent....but then again what do I know...I am not on AMF to quiz the Naval Not it alls out there.
On the bigger issue IN knows what it wants....IN will get what it wants within its resources. As with EVERY topic on this forum no one here is an expert of the technical, procedural or the diplomatic miasma involved in getting a new system online.
Cy:
Dont bother.....his references are mostly 1999-2004 and the buck stops there coz the company was bought out by Intel. But from his tone its pretty obvious he is simply not aware of ANURAG and its work...
-
George J
I think, the salvo strike is very important in the situation, when the submarine have deal with a group target with great anti-submarine capability. In that situation the submarine may be not have a chance for a second strike after torpedo tubes recharging. If you looking on Amur-950 capability to strike group target like Carrier Battle Group, you see that in one strike it can to attack up to 14 target before you need recharging – 10 from the vertical start tubes and 4 from the torpedo tubes.. Some big targets like air-carrier must be attacked by 2-3 torpedoes or missiles like brahmos to loss counter-strike capability.sudipn wrote: torpedo tube launch
4> cannot launch a salvo of cruise missiles ...the number of launches are limited by the number of torpedo tubes capable of firing missiles...
vertical launch system
4> capable of firing a quick salvo of missiles usually equal to the number of vertical firing tubes...
Now if you compare its calculation with the American Seewolf submarine data http://www.naval-technology.com/project ... specs.html , you see that the last have only 8 torpedo tubes for the strike before need recharging. That mean it has per 1.75 times less capability for knockout blow against big navy group with per 6.5 times more crew and 7.5 times more ton displacement relative to Amur-950 http://www.ckb-rubin.ru/eng/project/submarine/noatompl/ .
In addition, we must take in to account relative low capability of counter-missiles measures against salvo strike.
28.02.2005 On the Admiralty shipyards (Saint Petersburg) will place the 2-nd diesel submarine of last generation.
"Admiralty shipyards" in 2005 will approach building of second NAPL of project 677 "Lada", ITAR- TASS reports. The first boat of this project - "Saint Petersburg" - went down to the water at the end of October. It also built in ship-building enterprise "admiralty shipyards" in Saint Petersburg. DPL of project 677 of "Lada" was developed BY TSKB MT "Rubin". The single-hull submarines of this project are equipped with the new models of torpedoes and antiship missiles, which they are started from the torpedo tubes. Furthermore, for these boats were developed the perfect means of the detection of targets, aim designation to torpedoes and to the rockets on the complete distance. Aboard these ship inculcated system complex- automate control for all mechanism and system, which make it possible considerable reduce number crew in comparison with old DPL this class - project 877. The ships of project 677 possess large independence and cruising range, high combat capabilities, acoustic reticence and reliability. Meanwhile at present the management of "admiralty shipyards" carries out the negotiations about sale abroad the uniform to "Lada" submarine of project "Amur -1650" (export name for Lada series). With what precisely country the contract can be concluded, the "Russian ship-building portal", which extended this information, does not report. According to the representative of shipyards, until now, "Amur" was complicated to sell because similar submarines did not stand in the arsenal of Russia navy; however, to make this began to be considerably easily with the introduction "Saint Petersburg" into the service.
http://rustrubprom.ru/view.php/2677_0_3_0_C/
http://www.admship.ru/en/html/ships/sub_amur
P.S. I have just repeated my post, that was deleted because of the (?) server crash...
came across this in the Daily Pioneer
Russia refuses to lease out nuclear submarines to India
Russia refuses to lease out nuclear submarines to India
India had planned to get two nuclear powered submarines on a five-year lease worth over one billion dollars from Russia and talks were on for the last three years in this regard. However, Russia's recent hesitation to lease these vessels has now caused some concern amongst the naval strategy planners, sources here said.
Russia reportedly expressed its inability to India recently on the grounds that it did not have an independent agency, experience and expertise to procure these submarines from manufacturers and then lease out to India. Sources said, it would have been possible in the erstwhile Soviet Union when some regions, which are now independent countries, used to enter into such agreements with friendly countries.
Having drawn up plans to replace the ageing fleet of submarines in the next five years, this development can leave large operational gaps in the preparedness, they said, adding, the focus is now likely to shift to diesel powered submarines like Amur from Russia and Scorpene from France.
In fact, the entire process of technical evaluation and price negotiations for the two billion dollar deal for the six Scorpene submarines was completed some months back and the navy is now waiting the nod from Cabinet Committee on Security(CCS). However, talks are still in the middle stages as regards Amur submarines, it was learnt.
Igor,
well yes you are right... saturation model is a good way of taking down enemy defenses ... saturation can be done by both cruse missiles and also ballistic missile either independently or together ..coming in as a salvo ...
verry simply put the underlying principle of a saturation attack is to bring the difference between missiles detected to missiles serviced(actually engaged in the multi layered defence) to a figure below 0 (-ve). This would mean that at least one missile found its mark...
but Igorr having numbers is not the only way of saturating an enemy defense system.. a wolf pack (a pack of highly maneuvering, intelligent, situation aware) missiles can actually cause a higher service time per engagement... there by being able to saturate a missile defense much more efficiently ...
a complete analysis (mathematical modeling) of this type of attack can be found at the following site... please have a look at it...
http://www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR1 ... 49.ch3.pdf
further more the amur-950 has only 4 torpedo tubes that does not mean that every other submarine has only 4 torpedo tubes... in fact the Israeli dolphin has 10 tubes... still not the 14 but a good enough number... considering the other inherent benefits i'd always still go in for tube launched salvo to a vls launched one...
well yes you are right... saturation model is a good way of taking down enemy defenses ... saturation can be done by both cruse missiles and also ballistic missile either independently or together ..coming in as a salvo ...
verry simply put the underlying principle of a saturation attack is to bring the difference between missiles detected to missiles serviced(actually engaged in the multi layered defence) to a figure below 0 (-ve). This would mean that at least one missile found its mark...
but Igorr having numbers is not the only way of saturating an enemy defense system.. a wolf pack (a pack of highly maneuvering, intelligent, situation aware) missiles can actually cause a higher service time per engagement... there by being able to saturate a missile defense much more efficiently ...
a complete analysis (mathematical modeling) of this type of attack can be found at the following site... please have a look at it...
http://www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR1 ... 49.ch3.pdf
further more the amur-950 has only 4 torpedo tubes that does not mean that every other submarine has only 4 torpedo tubes... in fact the Israeli dolphin has 10 tubes... still not the 14 but a good enough number... considering the other inherent benefits i'd always still go in for tube launched salvo to a vls launched one...
Thank you, sudipn about your shortcut to the good publication!
It is exactly what I mean about : the capability to overcome a defense like Aegis. With another things being equal, a salvo strike can more probability to be successefull. I can partial agree with your "a wolf pack (a pack of highly maneuvering, intelligent, situation aware) missiles can actually cause a higher service time per engagement... there by being able to saturate a missile defense much more efficiently", BUT the seewolf missile set – is Tomahawks. They are 1) very long range 2) subsonic. They are pretty good against week enemy, like Irak, Yugoslavia or terrorists: the submarine launch it from 1000-2000 km, the missiles guided by GPS and cartographic image without great difficulty or effort fly to their targets. Against an enemy with strong antimissiles defense and probably anti-satellite measures it may be not so good because while they fly the strong enemy battle group not only have time to intercept the missile but to destroy the submarine. I think, if we speak about strong enemy, The only chance for a submarine to die with some results at least – is to steal up as close as possible (10-20 km) and launch salvo of highly supersonic missiles with torpedoes. Even a submarine is going to be destroyed by the counter-attack, she exploit the chance to destroy the enemy at the best.
Do you paid your attention to the follow in the shortcuted to me publication:
"The defending ships can detect, identify, and track attacking enemy
missiles. What they are less able to do is predict how the enemy will
distribute these missiles over time. Knowing the attack distribution
contributes directly to the allocation of missile interceptors and
therefore to the survivability of both the cruisers and the friendly infrastructure
targets. A measure of how well the alternative command
and control procedures and networks perform (MOP) therefore is the
degree to which the friendly commander “knows” the enemy’s attack
distribution".
- However, the ability of the defense to know the enemy's attack distribution is greatly depending of suddenness – closer range of attack + higher speed of the missiles.
About your comparing between Amur-950 and Dolphin: note please the Amur-950 displacement and crew – is about a half of the Dolphin's. Another way to explain what I mean: the question is not about what is better – the vertical tube or a torpedo tube. The right dilemma is between a) only torpedo tube and b) the torpedo tube + VSL. What is better: to be with 'A' torpedo in tubes and 'B' missiles in the store, or – with 'A' torpedo in tubes and 'B' missiles in VSLs? I think, the answer is obvious enough.
It is exactly what I mean about : the capability to overcome a defense like Aegis. With another things being equal, a salvo strike can more probability to be successefull. I can partial agree with your "a wolf pack (a pack of highly maneuvering, intelligent, situation aware) missiles can actually cause a higher service time per engagement... there by being able to saturate a missile defense much more efficiently", BUT the seewolf missile set – is Tomahawks. They are 1) very long range 2) subsonic. They are pretty good against week enemy, like Irak, Yugoslavia or terrorists: the submarine launch it from 1000-2000 km, the missiles guided by GPS and cartographic image without great difficulty or effort fly to their targets. Against an enemy with strong antimissiles defense and probably anti-satellite measures it may be not so good because while they fly the strong enemy battle group not only have time to intercept the missile but to destroy the submarine. I think, if we speak about strong enemy, The only chance for a submarine to die with some results at least – is to steal up as close as possible (10-20 km) and launch salvo of highly supersonic missiles with torpedoes. Even a submarine is going to be destroyed by the counter-attack, she exploit the chance to destroy the enemy at the best.
Do you paid your attention to the follow in the shortcuted to me publication:
"The defending ships can detect, identify, and track attacking enemy
missiles. What they are less able to do is predict how the enemy will
distribute these missiles over time. Knowing the attack distribution
contributes directly to the allocation of missile interceptors and
therefore to the survivability of both the cruisers and the friendly infrastructure
targets. A measure of how well the alternative command
and control procedures and networks perform (MOP) therefore is the
degree to which the friendly commander “knows” the enemy’s attack
distribution".
- However, the ability of the defense to know the enemy's attack distribution is greatly depending of suddenness – closer range of attack + higher speed of the missiles.
About your comparing between Amur-950 and Dolphin: note please the Amur-950 displacement and crew – is about a half of the Dolphin's. Another way to explain what I mean: the question is not about what is better – the vertical tube or a torpedo tube. The right dilemma is between a) only torpedo tube and b) the torpedo tube + VSL. What is better: to be with 'A' torpedo in tubes and 'B' missiles in the store, or – with 'A' torpedo in tubes and 'B' missiles in VSLs? I think, the answer is obvious enough.
-
George J
The noise level of Amur-class seems to be better than the Kilo's. However, it is depending also of engine – AIP or only the diesel. About the possibility of buying Amur instead Scorpen or along with it: As I can understand the logic of GOI, the buying Amur – is very probable option, and let me explain why. Scorpen – is very good submarine even without VLS and AIP (as option), but she has one big political problem: France has sold three Agosta-class subs to Pakistan (the 3-th with AIP). India – is the biggest world democracy. Thus, the government feels the need to explain for a people what it going to do and why. Now, I think, for the GOI will be hard to explain for the people why it going to buy Scorpen when exist the same option (at least) with Amur.ajaybhutani wrote:along with scorpenes is there any chance that we get amurs too for offensive operations.??
BTW how do the two fare wrt noice levels?
P.S. For sudipn. Yesterday I found the article about See Wolf. There is speaking about 12 VLS in addition to 10 torpedo launchers. I never saw such information before. I also have saw See Wolf pictures without VSL in internet. Thus I hard to explain it. May be, the only the last (3-th) sub of that series has the VSL?
Problem with amur its still very much in testing phase and no one wants be guniea pig for a new SSK class IN is probably well aware of all the difficulties Aussies are having with their collins. With scorpion u have atleast chilean and malaysian navies who will be operating scorpion by the time production of it commences in MDL so any problems can be dealt with.Scorpen – is very good submarine even without VLS and AIP (as option), but she has one big political problem: France has sold three Agosta-class subs to Pakistan (the 3-th with AIP). India – is the biggest world democracy. Thus, the government feels the need to explain for a people what it going to do and why. Now, I think, for the GOI will be hard to explain for the people why it going to buy Scorpen when exist the same option (at least) with Amur.
-I agree, but to be "the devil advocate", I try to ask myself what I should fear in place of GOI?john wrote:Problem with amur its still very much in testing phase and no one wants be guniea pig for a new SSK class IN is probably well aware of all the difficulties Aussies are having with their collins. With scorpion u have atleast chilean and malaysian navies who will be operating scorpion by the time production of it commences in MDL so any problems can be dealt with.Scorpen – is very good submarine even without VLS and AIP (as option), but she has one big political problem: France has sold three Agosta-class subs to Pakistan (the 3-th with AIP). India – is the biggest world democracy. Thus, the government feels the need to explain for a people what it going to do and why. Now, I think, for the GOI will be hard to explain for the people why it going to buy Scorpen when exist the same option (at least) with Amur.
The opposition can ask some questions, like:
1) Do you sure, France tomorrow not to go sell Scorpens to Pakistan also (or more Agostas)? May be, they mean: "if we shall sell more Agostas to the Paks, the Indians also would want more Scorpens" ?
2) Then other countries may come to the "Lahori logic": look, to sell something to India, you must first to sell the same to Pakistan. Thus, you can push the competitors: France have sold the Agostas to Paks and was granted by Indian contract. The conclusion: without selling weapon to Pakistan you never have chance to push Russians on Indian market.
3) Now Russia say it never go to sell military equipment to Paks. But Russia now is democratic country. In 2008 there will be a new election, and the opposition in Duma could ask? how Putin foreign politics was good. Do you think, the Russian electorate will be happy to know, that the president "never sell weapons to Pakistan even other players do it"?
4) Do you know, that the Russians delivered first Amur-class submarine in October -November 2004. If you already wait some years with the Scorpene deal, why you cannot wait some month to be sure, that the Amur submarine real work good?
5) Did you think, before you have sign the Scorpen deal, about a possibility to integrate this submarine with the most perspective brahmos missile? Do you sure, the integration will not became big problem?
6) What do you think about the "lost possibility" to equip the navy with the advance non nuclear sub's VSLs ?
7) Do you sure, the Russians would not give to India their subs much cheaper? (partially because they understand the certain risk relative to Scorpen)
Last edited by Igorr on 16 Mar 2005 21:35, edited 1 time in total.
-
Raju
It appears to be strong arm tactic to favour Amur deal instead of scorpene, whenever Russia see an Indian requirement coming, they put up something on the drawing board to match that specification and arms twist India into purchasing those products.Vasu wrote:came across this in the Daily Pioneer
Russia refuses to lease out nuclear submarines to India
India had planned to get two nuclear powered submarines on a five-year lease worth over one billion dollars from Russia and talks were on for the last three years in this regard. However, Russia's recent hesitation to lease these vessels has now caused some concern amongst the naval strategy planners, sources here said.
Russia reportedly expressed its inability to India recently on the grounds that it did not have an independent agency, experience and expertise to procure these submarines from manufacturers and then lease out to India. Sources said, it would have been possible in the erstwhile Soviet Union when some regions, which are now independent countries, used to enter into such agreements with friendly countries.
Having drawn up plans to replace the ageing fleet of submarines in the next five years, this development can leave large operational gaps in the preparedness, they said, adding, the focus is now likely to shift to diesel powered submarines like Amur from Russia and Scorpene from France.
In fact, the entire process of technical evaluation and price negotiations for the two billion dollar deal for the six Scorpene submarines was completed some months back and the navy is now waiting the nod from Cabinet Committee on Security(CCS). However, talks are still in the middle stages as regards Amur submarines, it was learnt.
No matter how much we say that we have independent decision making, unless we resist and go with something we want this arm twisting will continue.
Forget about Akula, work on ATV, get scorpene tech and go from there.
Yes we had some good deals and technology from Russia that does not mean we should do and say what they want us to do.
Hello Igorr...Igorr wrote:BUT the seewolf missile set – is Tomahawks. .... Against an enemy with strong antimissiles defense and probably anti-satellite measures ....
sorry it takes me quite a long time to reply to your posts...also others complain that long posts are boring ... so let me keep them short and sweet... the wolf pack of missiles that i am talking about, is the Brahmos missile... It does have an intelligent, situation aware seeker head and is a low RCS highly maneuvering missile... also one has to understand that with a 300kg warhead traveling at over 2 times the speed of sound (which gives it amazing kinetic energy) it would require just one hit to deliver the fatal blow..
And honestly considering the scenario that u envision a sub firing from say 20 km .. say brahmos travels at around 2 times the speed of sound (340.29 m / s is the speed of sound at sea level) so for simplicity sake lets assume 500 m/sec to cover 1 km it takes 2 sec's so 20 kms is 40 secs.. + lets assume 10 secs for coming out of the water + 10 secs for other activity that gives us a min... now lets say a launch was detected at the time of launch that gives them 60 secs.. lets assume we fired the entire lot of 4 torpedo tubes thats 4 missiles... they have about 15 seconds to react to each missile.... and you just need one hit to take the enemy surface out...
keeping the element of surprise with us... do you really think any one has the remotest chance against this scenario...
Igorr wrote:The noise level of Amur-class seems to be better than the Kilo's. However, it is depending also of engine – AIP or only the diesel. About the possibility of buying Amur instead Scorpen or along with it: As I can understand the logic of GOI, the buying Amur – is very probable option, and let me explain why. Scorpen – is very good submarine even without VLS and AIP (as option), but she has one big political problem: France has sold three Agosta-class subs to Pakistan (the 3-th with AIP). India – is the biggest world democracy. Thus, the government feels the need to explain for a people what it going to do and why. Now, I think, for the GOI will be hard to explain for the people why it going to buy Scorpen when exist the same option (at least) with Amur.ajaybhutani wrote:along with scorpenes is there any chance that we get amurs too for offensive operations.??
BTW how do the two fare wrt noice levels?
P.S. For sudipn. Yesterday I found the article about See Wolf. There is speaking about 12 VLS in addition to 10 torpedo launchers. I never saw such information before. I also have saw See Wolf pictures without VSL in internet. Thus I hard to explain it. May be, the only the last (3-th) sub of that series has the VSL?
France sold agosta so what, it also sold Mirage to Pak, it still sells mirage to Pak. And still India went for M2k and wants more of it.
Russian tech is reaching pak, through china anyways. Russia also sold 40 Mi-17 to pak recently. the rd-33 tech will be in FC-1 etc. If Pak would be a big market Russia could not care less about India's objection, so does France. It is only that Indian market is big enough to ignore Pak. Will they do the same to China no, one thing Russia is not selling everything is that it can be threat to Russia itself, so all this talk about strategic, friendship died down with Soviet Union, now pragmatism and realism defines the deal.
Russia wants to reap the benefit through China and indirectly from Pak, and India, without disturbing the balance. Well India is getting threat from Russian weapons either from China or Pak directly or indirectly. We need to work on our own tech and diversify, if Russian tech is better go with it, otherwise shop elsewhere.
Amur is not tested, maybe too small. why did not Russia provide tech for Kilos. if we have them why not setup facilities for Kilo and add more to that than a separate model all together.
If Kilo has vertical launch and all that perhaps use it. it is bigger so it should have bigger space for AIP if one is available, let it integrate AIP in kilo. and lets see how it operates.
It is a good question what happing with it... I do not know, excepting the things saying on the forum.Raju wrote:Mr. Igorr, what has happened to that whole Akula deal ?? Have the americans pinched that deal ??
Because if they successfuly have done that then that is a big dampener, and something which the likes of Amur can never fulfill !!!
Before 2 years Ivanov said "There are mutually agreement btw R and I, that NSubs deal – is a part of "packet deal", but I still do not know what "packet" he meant.
Now there is only one independent source said about the problem with a deal. Let us time to see information from another source.
- Mi-17 - is not military variant, RD-33 - the russians said not give permision to China for equip it on pakistan fighters.ragupta wrote: Russia also sold 40 Mi-17 to pak recently. the rd-33 tech will be in FC-1 etc. .
About the pragmatism... To know: India ask Russia not to sell weapon to pakistan, but India DO NOT ask russia to stop selling to China. At least I never hear so.
Both the Scorpene and Amur will come
The Scorpene first ( did CCS cleared on Feb 22 per rediff) 6 of the class will be build as part of Proj-75
As part of Proj-76 (6-8) Amur will be built . IN has a requirement for 24 subs (SSK) ,the remaining subs will be of indegenous design taking the best of what East & West has to offer ie amur + scopene.
As far as ATV goes. CNS in an interview to FORCE stated that its a good chance/possibility that we will get 2 Akula-2 .
The Scorpene first ( did CCS cleared on Feb 22 per rediff) 6 of the class will be build as part of Proj-75
As part of Proj-76 (6-8) Amur will be built . IN has a requirement for 24 subs (SSK) ,the remaining subs will be of indegenous design taking the best of what East & West has to offer ie amur + scopene.
As far as ATV goes. CNS in an interview to FORCE stated that its a good chance/possibility that we will get 2 Akula-2 .
The difference, I think, must be like between the sniper and the terrorist-kamikaze. If the enemy not so strong – you would prefer to be sniper with high precision long range gun. However, if your enemy strong enough, your only way to beat him is to steal on and suddenly start to shot. It is not 100% chance, but it is a chance.sudipn wrote:And honestly considering the scenario that u envision a sub firing from say 20 km .. say brahmos travels at around 2 times the speed of sound (340.29 m / s is the speed of sound at sea level) so for simplicity sake lets assume 500 m/sec to cover 1 km it takes 2 sec's so 20 kms is 40 secs.. + lets assume 10 secs for coming out of the water + 10 secs for other activity that gives us a min... now lets say a launch was detected at the time of launch that gives them 60 secs.. lets assume we fired the entire lot of 4 torpedo tubes thats 4 missiles... they have about 15 seconds to react to each missile.... and you just need one hit to take the enemy surface out...
keeping the element of surprise with us... do you really think any one has the remotest chance against this scenario...
This is a good point, and I often wonder the same thing myself -- WTH does it matter what Pakistan gets, if it is also the best for India. You hear this same thing repeated all the time, "Pakistan has the F16, so we can't get it. Pakistan has the Agosta, so we can't get it or the Scorpene", etc. etc.ragupta wrote:France sold agosta so what, it also sold Mirage to Pak, it still sells mirage to Pak. And still India went for M2k and wants more of it.
I am completely baffled by this argument. If there is some specific technical/political reason to avoid buying a particular weapon system, fine. But to simlpy say we can't get it because Pakistan has it is silly.
Three types of frontline SSKs plus two types of SSNs? Yikes, I didn't know the IN was that well fundedAustin wrote:Both the Scorpene and Amur will come
The Scorpene first ( did CCS cleared on Feb 22 per rediff) 6 of the class will be build as part of Proj-75
As part of Proj-76 (6-8) Amur will be built . IN has a requirement for 24 subs (SSK) ,the remaining subs will be of indegenous design taking the best of what East & West has to offer ie amur + scopene.
As far as ATV goes. CNS in an interview to FORCE stated that its a good chance/possibility that we will get 2 Akula-2 .
I know that the IN wants to hedge its bets and not rely on a single design but jeez, three SSKs from three different countries? That sucking sound is the sound of money being spent on logistics...
Now Igorr lets see why it has a chance... well it has a chance because we assume in the first place that the sub could some how creep to about 20 miles from its intended target... which to my mind is the key... you have to come as close as possible to the target...Igorr wrote: It is not 100% chance, but it is a chance.
now here are some interesting facts... as i have repeatedly said before .... different noises are predominant sound sources in a submarine at various speeds... hydro dynamic noise created due to a perticular shape of a submarine is an important consideration.. if a VLS system is an addon to the shape like in a amur 950 it is only going to worsen this noise level...
however say in a 1400 class from HDW which does not have VLS tech but operates missiles launched from casisters launched from silent water ram torpedo systems ... the diference between the actual time launch detect and the time to impact is minimized there by allowing a greater hit probablity...
also if one is gonna pop up a cruise missile from a container ...you pop up a exocet or you pop up a brahmos its gonna be one and the same... russian decrees of not helping to intigrate with third parties is absolutely not gonna hold...
further more as this now becomes a game where there are multiple sellers it becomes advantageous to the buyer...
the ToI reports the same. Scorpene first and Amur later.
Wait for Scorpene may soon be over
Wait for Scorpene may soon be over
"The Cabinet note and all other procedures required for the deal, hanging fire since 2001, are in place now. Defence minister Pranab Mukherjee has received a detailed briefing on the project. The next CCS meeting, or the one after that, should give it the final clearance," top-level sources said.
The "final approval" for the project, under which at least six Scorpene submarines will be manufactured at Mazagaon Docks in Mumbai, was in fact discussed when French chief of defence staff General Henri Bentegeat came here earlier this month.
The Scorpenes are to be built in India under the 30-year perspective programme to acquire indigenous capability in design, development and construction of submarines. Russian Amur submarines are likely to be part of this programme at a later stage.
Well when the scorpene deal is inked and by the time the first subs are out it would be 5-6 years , so the T-209 will be on its was out , The Scorpene are a replacement for the t-209( numbers being larger ) ,hree types of frontline SSKs plus two types of SSNs? Yikes, I didn't know the IN was that well funded Rolling Eyes
I know that the IN wants to hedge its bets and not rely on a single design but jeez, three SSKs from three different countries? That sucking sound is the sound of money being spent on logistics...
Ditto for the amur , when amur start coming in , the oldest of Kilo will be going out( amur deal is a long was off ) .
So its replacment and increase in strength of the sub fleet rather than 3 new class of subs.
As far as 2 SSNGoes ,we are leasing it for 10years ( 2 Akula ) to maintain
N-deterrence and to checkmate the growing strength of Chinese Navy, We never knowwhen the aTV will be out .