Indian Naval Discussion

All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
RayC
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4333
Joined: 16 Jan 2004 12:31

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby RayC » 30 Oct 2009 00:09

I am a patient man.

I believe in the goodness of people.

I appeal.

I think they will come to their senses.

As per the rules, three warnings and then poof!

It does not take time.

But is that what one should do?

People do ride their favourite hobby horses and get hot behind their collar. So, one must ease the tension. A slight helping hand is an appeal. Then a warning. Then it is curtains!

It is 0025h here. I am equally keen to quit and hit the bed. I am hoping that this does not go too far to be beyond my control!

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5251
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Kartik » 30 Oct 2009 00:19

sunny y wrote:Hi

Pardon me for my courage to ask this question. I just noticed that Date of joining in NRao & George sir's profile is showing year 1970 :shock:

Is it real or it's some mistake in database ?? I mean, Is BRF really that old ??


funny you ask that, because I've wondered about it myself for a long time..BRF has gone through some issues where old members lost their post count (mine went down from nearly 2000 or so to 50 or thereabouts). probably those who are given as 1970 are the ones who were the earliest members of BRF.

Gaur
Forum Moderator
Posts: 2009
Joined: 01 Feb 2009 23:19

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Gaur » 30 Oct 2009 00:24

yossarian wrote:Ray - Sto.... indulged in...

A fellow Catch 22 fan I see.
Reading through all the grim conversation, the name made me smile. :)

yossarian
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 35
Joined: 07 Jun 2009 06:52

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby yossarian » 30 Oct 2009 00:30

Gaur wrote:
yossarian wrote:Ray - Sto.... indulged in...

A fellow Catch 22 fan I see.
Reading through all the grim conversation, the name made me smile. :)


Extremely OT, but loved the fact that at least one got it.. Grim? Well laughing through it was the only way to stay awake actually :)

Ray - I know I am testing your patience now.. Sorry !!!

RayC
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4333
Joined: 16 Jan 2004 12:31

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby RayC » 30 Oct 2009 00:33

It is 0044h here.

Please give me a break.

Let's all shake hands. Sing 'He is a Jolly Good Fellow' and forget what has happened! 8)

George J
BRFite
Posts: 312
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby George J » 30 Oct 2009 00:34

At the risk of getting banned......at least its for a good cause.....

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_zUe7sq7m3h0/S ... h/IVCS.JPG
This is close up of what is clearly labeled as IVCS-6.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_zUe7sq7m3h0/S ... e+view.JPG
Look at the bottom left of the pic...its the SAME console IVCS-6 as above. notice the display, the green sticker and the small panel to it right. And its pretty obvious that its on the bridge.

Now we can do shiny brouchures from L3 labelled IPMS.....or we can do OEM tech specs. If this is still BRF then I guess OEM tech spec trump anything from any other source.

http://www.bel-india.com/index.aspx?q=&sectionid=109
OEM BEL says this is part of Versatile Console System (VCS Mk.II)

VCS MK II is a versatile communication system designed to provide internal communication facilities and display of status of various equipment and systems onboard Naval ships. The system is highly flexible and re-configurable and can be configured for all classes of ships.

SERVICES PROVIDED
# Voice Communication Interphone (Point - To - Point)
# Intercom (Point - To - Multipoint)

Data Communication
# Status Of Ship's Householding Equipment
# Log, GPS, Wind Instruments, Rudder, Propeller
# Status Of Weapons & Sensors
# Radars, Sonars, Missile Systems
# Alarms - Activation & Reception

#
VCS MK II consists of the following main units
IVCS (Intelligent Versatile Console System)
# User console of VCS Mk II
# Displays status of weapons/sensors/equipment/services
# Facilitates operation of minor controls, initiation & reception of alarms
# Facilitates internal voice communication - Interphone, Intercom




Now since BRF says that Ajai Shkla does not know what he is talking about, lets assume everything he says about Shivalik is false...but if this is still BRF....then what OEM says still holds true

http://www.bel-india.com/index.aspx?q=&sectionid=79
AISDN (ATM based Integrated Shipboard Data Network) is a multi-services shipboard network designed to converge all voice traffic, real time video and traditional data communications onto a single broadband infrastructure. It is a triple redundant, flexible, reliable and modular network supporting multiple services for Naval ships. It integrates various equipment and systems on board namely Radars, Sonars, Fire Control Systems, EW Systems, CAIO (Computer Aided Information Organization), and a number of other equipment for Ship's Household Data (SHHD).


If you still care you can compared what he wrote in the The Shivalik the lethal video game section.
...The nerve centre of the Shivalik’s battlefield capability is an indigenous design triumph called the AISDN (short for ATM-based Integrated Services Digital Network). This is a backbone network that allows all electronic information from the Shivalik’s systems and sensors --- e.g. engines, navigation devices, radars, weaponry, radio sets and control systems --- to be transmitted digitally all over the warship on a common data base. Designed by Bharat Electronics Limited (BEL) in partnership with Centre for Development of Telematics (C-DOT), this common carrier takes vital information to the Shivalik’s commanders in real time on multi-function displays. “This is as good, if not better than comparable systems on any warship in the world”, says Captain Sunder.


So going by the current BRF trends...he is putting words in Capt. Sunder's mouth...or the good Capt. does not know what he is talking about. Again that what BRF implies by dismissing what Ajai Shukla says.

Now we come to the picture that is the source of ALL trouble...and which is/was labeled CIC or Command+Control.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_zUe7sq7m3h0/S ... centre.JPG

The SAME IVCS displays plus other stuff (no open source no point identifying them). But OEM BEL says IVCS is used for EVERYTHING see above...including weapons control. And this is NOT the bridge...and its been identified as CIC.

Now suppose, this IVCS was in the galley of the ship it would not show Barak status or engine status...it would show fresh water, electrical power etc That's ship householding stuff but that does not mean this display cannot do different things at different place.

If this does not convince you how wrong BRF is, nothing will.

a_kumar
BRFite
Posts: 481
Joined: 18 Jun 2008 23:53
Location: what about it?

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby a_kumar » 30 Oct 2009 01:04

Indian Navy and Indonesian Navy have commenced Coordinated Patrol (CORPAT) Press Information Bureau.


The 14th cycle of the Indian Navy-Indonesian Navy coordinated patrol codenamed ‘IND-INDO CORPAT’ is scheduled from 18 Oct to 05 Nov 09. The operation will be under the overall control of Vice Admiral Devendra Kumar Joshi, Commander-in-Chief of Andaman Nicobar Command (CINCAN) and Commander of Indonesian Western Fleet Command (PANGARMABAR). The units operating will be under the tactical command of the Naval Officer-in-Charge (Andaman & Nicobar) at Port Blair and DANGUSKAMLABAR (Commander of Sea Security Group of Western Fleet) located at Tanjung Pinang.

India and Indonesia share an International Maritime Boundary of about 300 nm. In pursuance of navy to navy cooperation in the Indian Ocean Region the Indian Navy and the Indonesian navy conduct coordinated patrols of the International Maritime Boundary Line. The purpose of the coordinated patrols is to prevent Piracy, armed robberies, poaching, illegal immigration, drug trafficking, and other illegal activities.

The Indian Navy will be deploying one Landing Ship Tank (Medium) INS Mahish under the command of Cdr MVR Krishna and one Fast Attack Craft INS Trinkat under the command of Lt Cdr Pushkar Kumar. In addition there will be one Indian Naval Dornier. The Indonesian Navy will be deploying one corvette and a Dornier aircraft.
An opening ceremony for the CORPAT is scheduled on 19 Oct 09 at Belawan, Indonesia and the Naval Officer-in-Charge (Andaman & Nicobar) Cmde P Suresh, will lead the Indian delegation. The closing ceremony will be conducted on 04 Nov 09 at Port Blair.

a_kumar
BRFite
Posts: 481
Joined: 18 Jun 2008 23:53
Location: what about it?

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby a_kumar » 30 Oct 2009 01:12

INS Vikramaditya: Waiting for Gorshkov… Defence Industry Daily (DID)

This free-to-view DID Spotlight article offers an in-depth look at India’s troubled attempt to convert and field a full-size aircraft carrier, before time and wear force it to retire its existing naval aviation and ships.

Right now, there are 2 major concerns in India. One is slipping timelines. INS Viraat was scheduled to retire in 2009. It’s only semi-operational, and nearing the limits of its mechanical life, even as shortages of flyable Sea Harrier fighters are creating issues of their own. Meanwhile, the delivery date for India’s locally-built 37,000t escort carrier project appears to be slipping to 2015 or so. This leaves India’s Navy with a serious scheduling problem, and no significant carrier force.

The other concern involves Vikramaditya’s 3-fold cost increase, including worries that Russia will raise it rates yet again once India is deeper into the commitment trap. The carrier purchase has now become the subject of high level diplomacy, involving a shipyard that can’t even execute on commercial contracts. An agreement in principle reportedly exists, but negotiations that began in 2007 have yet to lead to a revised contract.

Recent Russian demands have continued to raise the price, even as advance work related to India’s new MiG-29K naval fighters continues. The latest news is no news, as an expected agreement during an official Indian visit to Moscow remained elusive…

On Jan 20/04 India and Russia signed a $947 million deal to refurbish and convert the 40,000t Soviet/Russian Admiral Gorshkov into a full carrier, to be re-named INS Vikramaditya. Initial reports of delays sparked controversy and denials in India, but subsequent events more than justified them. The INS Viraat’s retirement is now set for 2010-2012 – but it soon became clear that even that might not be late enough. Slow negotiations and steadily-lengthening delivery times quickly pushed delivery of the Gorshkov back to 2010, and then to 2012 or later, even as Russia’s asking price more than doubled. Unless the price dispute is resolved, the continued absence of a contract that Russia will honor is likely to create even more delays.

The Vikramaditya project demands extensive modifications to the original ship. The cruiser-carrier’s guns, anti-shipping and anti-air missile launchers on the front deck would be removed and replaced with a full runway and ski jump, the deck would be widened in numerous places, its boilers would be changed to diesel fuel, the rear aircraft elevator would be enlarged and strengthened, and other modifications would be put in place to make Gorshkov a fully modern ship. The announced delivery date for INS Vikramaditya was August 2008 – an ambitious schedule, but one that would allow the carrier to enter service in 2009, around the time as their 29,000t light carrier/LHA INS Viraat (formerly HMS Hermes, last of the Centaur class) was scheduled to retire. The new carrier would berth at the new Indian Navy facility in Karwar, on India’s west coast.

When reports first surfaced that this delivery date would not be met, India’s Ministry of Defence initially tried to deflect the issue with denials. Then, in May 2007, Chief of Naval Staff Admiral Sureesh Mehta said the ships will be delivered:

”...by late 2008 or early 2009…. Our officials, who are stationed at the spot, have said that the work is going on as per schedule and we can have a month long delay once the work is completed as that part of Russia is frozen for a long time.”

Later comments on this issue included this May 1/07 quote:

“The work is only three to four months behind schedule and we can expect the aircraft carrier to be delivered by late 2008 or early 2009”

Subsequent updates, however, have proven the critics to be more than correct. Cost estimates and reports concerning the Gorshkov’s final total now hover in the $2.9 billion range, of which about $600 million has reportedly already been paid. As is customary with Indian defense procurement issues, that transparency eventually came after all other alternatives had been exhausted. After the delivery delays could no longer be denied, the initial approach was to minimize their length. February 2008 news reports, however, began to give figures of up to 3-4 years before refurbishment and testing could allow the ship to enter service. Subsequent reports by Indian and Russian sources stress 2012, or even later.

That risks a gap with no serving carriers in the fleet if further delays occur, or if INS Viraat cannot have its life or its aircraft extended for another 4 years of unanticipated service. An official Indian CAG report adds that even if inducted, the warship will have no aerial defenses until 2017, whereupon it is scheduled to be retrofitted with a last-ditch CIWS gun.

Meanwhile, China is working hard to refurbish the 58,000t ex-Russian carrier Varyag, and some analysts believe the ship could be operational in a testing capacity by 2010.

Those sunk construction costs, Russian possession of the Gorshkov, the difficulty in finding a substitute carrier to replace the Gorshkov sooner than 2013, and the Chinese push with the Varyag, have all combined to give the Russians substantial leverage in their negotiations. They have exploited that leverage to the fullest. The latest Russian offer would triple the originally-agreed contract price, and reports place the current negotiating gap as sitting between India’s proposed $2.2 billion final price and Russia’s $2.9 billion.

Many of Gorshkov’s key modifications are aircraft-related, including the new arrester gear and ski jump. New boilers and wiring are the other major components. The timelines and cost figures for delivery of the ship do not include the aircraft, however, which are bought separately.

The original carrier’s complement was 12 Yak-38 Forger V/STOL fighters, 12 Ka-28 helicopters, and 2 Ka-31 airborne early warning helicopters. The removal of the Gorshkov’s forward missiles, addition of the ski ramp, and other modifications will improve the ship’s air complement somewhat.

The nature of its original design, however, means that INS Vikramaditya will still fall short of comparably-sized western counterparts like the 43,000t FNS Charles de Gaulle nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, with its 40-plane complement that leans heavily to fighter jets. For instance, the Gorshkov would be large enough to operate full naval AWACS aircraft, but it lacks a launch catapult. If rumors prove true and India does indeed buy E-2C+/E-2D Hawkeyes, they would be likely to operate from shore.

Carriage ranges given for the refitted Vikramaditya seem to average 12-16 fighters and 4-16 of the compact Ka-28/31 helicopters; diagrams seem to suggest total stowage space for a “footprint” of no more than 15-16 MiG-29Ks, with each Kamov helicopter sporting a comparative footprint of about 0.4, and about 5-6 open footprint spots on deck.

A related $740 million contract for 16 MiG-29K (12 MiG-29K, 4 two-seat MiG-29KUB) aircraft plus training and maintenance was confirmed on Dec 22/04, with an option for another 30 MiG-29Ks by 2015. They would be operated in STOBAR (Short Take-Off via the ski ramp, But Assisted Recovery via arresting wires) mode. The MiG-29K was reportedly selected over the larger and more-capable navalized SU-33, because India also hopes to operate them from smaller “Project-71” indigenous carriers.

In addition to its fighters, the Gorshkov-Vikramaditya’s complement will include Kamov Ka-31 AEW and/or Ka-28 multi-role helicopters, along with a complement of torpedo tubes, and a CIWS gatling gun for close in defense after 2017.

maz
Webmaster BR
Posts: 348
Joined: 03 Dec 2000 12:31

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby maz » 30 Oct 2009 01:13

GeorgeJ, as I have mentioned earlier, it is time to drop the whole IPMS/ CIC/ MCR business and move on to more useful things. Can you use your considerable powers of research to figure out what SSR the p-17 has? or what decoy launchers for that matter?

harbans
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4883
Joined: 29 Sep 2007 05:01
Location: Dehradun

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby harbans » 30 Oct 2009 03:03

I came across a very very interesting debate on a forum recently. It will possibly shake the foundations of what specially non-Naval people think of Ships, Ship operations and situational awareness on ships. Will post some excerpts and the link:

Originally Posted by Allwyn View Post
New3M:

Lets consider a simple equation whose desired output is = Reaching a ship safely from point A to Point B = X.

We achieve the above through many inputs and not just by way point markings on the GPS to the Chart. What are these variables/ constants that help achieve the desired output X? Ok we can easily put a few inputs here..

Availability of desired Engine power = a
Availability of steering gear and machinery = b
Availability of fuel = c
Availability of purification/ transfer facilities for fuel management and storage for safe voyage = d
Availability and tracking of adequate inventories = e
Availability of qualified manpower = f
Availabiliy of Electrical power = g
Availability of food, water, cold storage facilities = h
Availability of Radar, ARPA, GPS = i
Availability of communication facilites = j

So we can add many more variables or constants depending on how ou want to weigh them in the equation..but obviously:

a+b+c+d+e+f+g+h+i+j = X (the desired output)

To say i am in charge of the entire safety of the ship because i handle 'i' and 'j' is arrogance.

You are indeed in charge of 'i' and 'j' and it is indeed a significant responsibility. Collision avoidance is important and so is a look out, but these are only a part of the input package if we want X.

When you state i do (I + J) and i am in charge of the full ship, you are bringing subjectivity into the realm and undermining the contributions of others by bringing all other factors as a subset of I and J. Hence the Command system.

If i break the useful components which contribute pretty equally to X and allow focus on core competencies a to j, i can create a better system than the one you focus with all variables as a subset of I and J. Hence i talk a Modern management system

By treating it as above, i do not reduce focus on I and J. I enhance it, as i mentioned freeing up the mate for purely I + J duties by bringing in a Deck Engineer.

I am also not averse to a 21 year old managing I + J, no way i meant that.


http://gcaptain.com/forum/professional- ... ystem.html

People tend to think the Bridge is the ultimate monitoring console and ops center of a ship. Unfortunately that's not really true, specially in the 21st century. While the debate may rage on, fact is the tech operations on board ships have become so too significant a non-tech Exec cannot be really held responsible for not knowing ship operations in their complete holistic aspect.

About the most complex operation from a tech point a Nav Off would do is Cel Nav. Something which trained BE Engineers could learn and do almost as accurately on the fly. Technical skill sets in Ship ops are paramount and primary today from trouble shooting to getting crew safe one point to another. Getting to know ship ops through non Tech folks may be a cause of friction as evidenced in the link that i have given above. But it takes some patience and reading.

Those who know will understand why the contradictions in the last few pages. These must not be deleted. They give a fantastic insight into perspective.

JMHT/

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 22516
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby chetak » 30 Oct 2009 03:31

harbans wrote:I came across a very very interesting debate on a forum recently. It will possibly shake the foundations of what specially non-Naval people think of Ships, Ship operations and situational awareness on ships. Will post some excerpts and the link:



harbansji,

The " Ships, Ship operations and situational awareness on ships." on a man of war is essentially quite different to what happens on a merchantman.

One environment is sensor and manpower rich while the other is not so. One vessel is built to absorb punishing damage, the other may not be so very robust. One is agile and maneuverable, the other is not so much. One has a high power to weight ratio, the other not so much.

Basic things like machinery handling and firefighting etc may have some basic similarity but in a warship they are levels removed in complexity and sophistication. All spaces on a warship are frequently and physically monitored by watch keepers but the same may not be so on a merchantman where for instance, the automated engine room may be manned only from 9-5, with an occasional visit there after till the next morning.

One has fairly simple threats and accidental collisions to be wary of and the other has an array of threats in three dimensions actively seeking to destroy it.

This calls for a different kind of situational awareness and response
reactions.

The points mentioned in your quote is but a subset of what actually happens routinely on a warship at sea.

George J
BRFite
Posts: 312
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby George J » 30 Oct 2009 03:39

maz wrote:GeorgeJ, as I have mentioned earlier, it is time to drop the whole IPMS/ CIC/ MCR business and move on to more useful things. Can you use your considerable powers of research to figure out what SSR the p-17 has? or what decoy launchers for that matter?


IVCS....and it's dropped.

Frankly I am not kidding.....my method of data gathering about the Navy literally revolves around if I get cake or not. I am afraid I will be required to bring along SHQ this time "to make a day of it", I can spend a lifetime there but SHQ does not and then it gets complicated. You have my email...will fill you in off line.

harbans
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4883
Joined: 29 Sep 2007 05:01
Location: Dehradun

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby harbans » 30 Oct 2009 04:08

The points mentioned in your quote is but a subset of what actually happens routinely on a warship at sea.

Valid, but to doubt the complexity of technology on say Dynapos, OSVs or LNG/ LPG, tankers, self unloaders some which do with 90000 BHP with say only 2 main engineers with capability of troubleshooting these systems is foolhardy. Your point is valid. The Navy operates with a massive component of people most with a specialized focus on a few equipment. I am well aware of that. It's who you interact and shows you around the ship that matters. There may be several console rooms for monitoring equipment in different types of ships. Some ships may have just 2 main consoles for equipment, some may have more. In most cases, it's obvious that a person only with a tech background could explain exactly what a particular set of consoles is depicting or what their role is. A non tech Exec Officer would possibly not be able to explain most functional consoles on board. And certainly not even the equipment. I was just gently pointing to the fact, that getting just someone who's on board to escort and show around may not lead to a tangible comprehension on console info. :)

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 22516
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby chetak » 30 Oct 2009 04:36

harbans wrote:The points mentioned in your quote is but a subset of what actually happens routinely on a warship at sea.

Valid, but to doubt the complexity of technology on say Dynapos, OSVs or LNG/ LPG, tankers, self unloaders some which do with 90000 BHP with say only 2 main engineers with capability of troubleshooting these systems is foolhardy.


harbansji,

Some IN vessels also had dynamic postioning systems. Your LNG/LPG and OSVs operate away from commercial routes. Their crews are specially trained and certified. Its a tough and rigid life with many restrictions related to the dangerous cargo carried.

I am not doubting the complexity of the machinery and associated control systems on a merchantman.

My kid brother is a Chief Engineer of long standing. He also brings out new ships from the builders for his company. He keeps me abreast of the impressive technology that they handle on board their ships.

Merchant ships are technology intensive in a few important and relevant areas only. In a warship, the breadth, scale and range of high technology is very much more.

However, if you take the engine room only, or even cargo handling machinery, I would have to admit that the merchantman has better and newer technology installed and maintained by far less manpower than any Navy uses.

I whole heartedly second your point on the console info :)

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2958
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby tsarkar » 30 Oct 2009 13:26

George,

1. You are very incorrect when you say, “But OEM BEL says IVCS is used for EVERYTHING see above...including weapons control.”

Nowhere in the BEL description of IVCS is this written, especially weapons control. From the links you posted –

“STATUS Of Weapons & Sensors”
# DISPLAYS STATUS of weapons/sensors/equipment/services
# FACILITATES operation of MINOR controls, initiation & reception of alarms

2. From Ajai’s own words, http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2009/03/ ... ewest.html
“Assisting the Captain in managing the battle would be a multi-function, touch-screen console called the Integrated Versatile Console System (IVCS), providing pinpoint navigational information, the ship’s course, position, and its engine parameters.”

Nowhere is it written “command & control of missiles and sensors”

AISDN is a communication system, EMCCA is the Electronic Modular Command and Control Application.

3. Lastly, the writeup is accurate but I have issues with this particular picture. Many things are not right about it. Like –

• Door – Ship compartments are designed to function independently even if other compartments have been damaged/flooded. Especially the CIC. So they have very robust doors. In this picture http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_zUe7sq7m3h0/S ... centre.JPG we have a common house door with an ornate knob and plywood frame. Contrast that with the doors here http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_zUe7sq7m3h0/S ... e+view.JPG and here http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_zUe7sq7m3h0/S ... r+deck.JPG
• Pipes in the middle of the room (indicates very shoddy design, even Nilgiri didn’t have them).
• Overall layout of consoles looks very un-ergonomic
• Plywood table in the middle of the room that will fly even in sea state 3. Never seen that type of table on a ship, unless it was temporarily brought in by the workers to assist them.

Lots of those small things that somehow don’t add up. Hence I have doubts on this specific picture. Rest of the article and pictures are OK. Anyways, lets park it here until we have more information at hand.

Igorr
BRFite
Posts: 598
Joined: 01 Feb 2005 18:13
Contact:

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Igorr » 30 Oct 2009 16:13

MiG-29K cockpit manufacturing in Obninsk with nano-molecular (90 nm) golden covering reducing radar signature.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20721
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Philip » 30 Oct 2009 17:10

Tx. Igorr for that very interesting clip.Is there any mentioned composite percentage of the aircraft at all from official sources?

Yagnasri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9801
Joined: 29 May 2007 18:03

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Yagnasri » 30 Oct 2009 19:03

Any latest news on Kaveri N engine

Baldev
BRFite
Posts: 501
Joined: 21 Sep 2009 07:27

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Baldev » 30 Oct 2009 19:14

SSridhar wrote:Baldev, does the above post of yours have relevance to the discussion about the Indian Navy ? Please let me know. Otherwise, desist from posting unwanted and irrelevant information.
yes that has relevance to IN because this show the fire control system for YAKHONT/BRAHMOS,URAN,
TORPEDOES/R6000 which IN ships have ,only one was out of thread which is Radiolocating system for AMUR submarines

and this is the company which provide radar station for GARPUN BAL radar
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NAVY/Imag ... un-Bal.jpg
http://www.granit-electron.com/products/img/3c_25_2.jpg

Raveen
BRFite
Posts: 769
Joined: 18 Jun 2008 00:51
Location: 1/2 way between the gutter and the stars
Contact:

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Raveen » 30 Oct 2009 20:23

SSridhar wrote:Baldev, does the above post of yours have relevance to the discussion about the Indian Navy ? Please let me know. Otherwise, desist from posting unwanted and irrelevant information.



If you haven't noticed (and honestly if you have been on BR the last few weeks it is impossible not to notice), Baldev likes to post links to various Russian weapon sites that have little or no direct relevance to the topic being discussed to the post above his own (if you ask him, he will give you some remote relevance to the forum, but none to the posts preceeding his own). In fact, if anything, this billboard like posting of various links that have absolutely no relevance to the topic being discussed by two individuals is not only annoying to the extent that one loses track of the discussion (and eventually the discussion gets derailed) but is also very disrespectful to the extent that Baldev has no respect for the individuals and the topic being discussed.

All he seems to be interested in doing is post links without actually contributing anything to increase his post count (Joined Sept 2009 and he has nearly 250... :roll: ) and promote his idea of buying only Russian arms. Why the BRAdmins haven't noticed or addressed this is beyond me.

If one were to average out over the his posts, he would at least have a 1:1 or 2:1 ratio of links (solely of Russian arms) vs. sentences

If this member is contributing at 250 posts a month and all of them are valuable and conducive to open discussion then Kudos to him; make him an Admin cause this member must be a prodigy. Else, read his posts, and count the number of posts without links in them and add the number of posts with more than 50 typed words, subtract that from his count and then tell me what he has REALLY contributed and what he brings to the table. Last time I checked this was not CraigsList where ppl could just come and advertise, but I am obviously wrong since the BRAdmins seem to ignore this behaviour. This is why I avoid forums where he posts like the plague...I don't want any commercial breaks (aka Baldev posts) when i am in the middle of a discussion with another member.

Example:

These are 2 posts and a grand total of 21 typed words over 2 posts and 8 links, that is 10.5 words per post + 4 links = 2.5 words per link
It's like saying: "Here is link http://www.google.com" 4 times every post

Let me try and say something valuable in 10.5 words th...
(...at makes sense and adds to the discussion.)
sorry ran out of words :roll:


Baldev wrote:Radiolocating system KRM-66E
http://www.granit-electron.com/products ... m_66_1.jpg
http://www.granit-electron.com/products ... m_66_2.jpg

Fire control system "Purga" for bombs and torpedoes
http://www.granit-electron.com/products/img/purga2.jpg

Shipborne equipment of the control system "Yakhont"
http://www.granit-electron.com/products ... u1_sml.jpg

Ship-borne equipment of the control system "Uran E"
http://www.granit-electron.com/products/img/uran2.jpg

Small-size antisubmarine complex for surface ships "Medvedka"
http://www.granit-electron.com/products ... edka_2.jpg

http://translate.googleusercontent.com/ ... anAIUS4How

brahmos seeker is provided by this company

Mr prasun posted this picture in his post

Integrated devices and arrangements
http://www.granit-electron.com/products ... rated1.jpg
and this is from GRANIT ELEKTRON
Last edited by Raveen on 30 Oct 2009 22:53, edited 2 times in total.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54422
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby ramana » 30 Oct 2009 20:50

X-posted...

csharma wrote:http://www.upiasia.com/Security/2009/09/24/maritime_india_cruises_to_power/9640/

Maritime India cruises to power

Militarily, India realized its potential as a naval power during the 1971 war with Pakistan, when its strategy to control the Arabian Sea and the Bay of Bengal succeeded in ensuring victory in East Pakistan, which became Bangladesh. What struck military analysts was the impotence of the United States and China to come to the succor of Pakistan. Even the U.S. aircraft carrier USS Enterprise rapidly withdrew from the area after receiving intelligence of a kamikaze raid by the Indian Air Force in the Bay of Bengal.
Is this really true. First time I am hearing of this.



Raveen, Why are you targetting Baldev? How does it matter what his post count is to you? The Admins will take care if there is problem. To me looks like you have takleef with him. Suggest don't let that come in the way.

Thanks, ramana

Raveen
BRFite
Posts: 769
Joined: 18 Jun 2008 00:51
Location: 1/2 way between the gutter and the stars
Contact:

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Raveen » 30 Oct 2009 20:59

ramana wrote:
Raveen, Why are you targetting Baldev? How does it matter what his post count is to you? The Admins will take care if there is problem. To me looks like you have takleef with him. Suggest don't let that come in the way.

Thanks, ramana


I don't know him personally and therefore can not have any takleef with him. My takleef is with his "CONTRIBUTION" that actually derails valid discussions and makes BR less interesting for ppl to follow. I am just bringing this to the BRAdmin and general population's attention. Nothing ever gets done unless someone points stuff out; it can be staring us in the face but someone needs to say it.

His post count (and most of his posts) is immaterial; how he got there is material (by playing the system and not contributing while ruining REAL discussions).

I am not targetting him or anyone and I can assure you I have no takleef with anyone. I am diligently pointing out something I noticed and backing it up with real evidence as I must. I know ppl are likely to think I have something against him or I am slinging mud, but I sincerely have no such intentions or interests. Here is a peace flag to him and a HUGE request; PLEASE don't SPAM every forum with links, and please either add to the discussion and it's direction or resist the temptation to bombard us with links that have nothing to do with the topic of the previous few posts, it's a PUT OFF!

No takleef therefore nothing is going to come in the way.

Thanks,
Raveen

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54422
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby ramana » 30 Oct 2009 21:16

Good.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17006
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Rahul M » 30 Oct 2009 22:36

Raveen, while his posts may not be relevant to the immediate discussion, the detailed technical info he hunts for and posts is appreciated by many, me included. such information is not always easy to locate and to find those at the same place is a great help.
to his credit he doesn't copy-paste whole pages of info, just the links and subject, the way it should be. as long as the links relate to equipment in use by India it's ok.
regards.

Raveen
BRFite
Posts: 769
Joined: 18 Jun 2008 00:51
Location: 1/2 way between the gutter and the stars
Contact:

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Raveen » 30 Oct 2009 22:41

Rahul M wrote:Raveen, while his posts may not be relevant to the immediate discussion, the detailed technical info he hunts for and posts is appreciated by many, me included. such information is not always easy to locate and to find those at the same place is a great help.
to his credit he doesn't copy-paste whole pages of info, just the links and subject, the way it should be. as long as the links relate to equipment in use by India it's ok.
regards.


Could we instead create a thread where one can dump such links and useful information, a repository of sorts (maybe even a wiki). While I appreciate the your point of view I must also point out it leads to confusion and a loss of focus when an irrelevant post is inserted in between a focused and lively discussion.

Thanks,
Raveen

shanksinha
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 98
Joined: 17 Aug 2009 16:48

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby shanksinha » 31 Oct 2009 03:18

Surely the purpose of BR Forum is not limited to a "lively discussion". Baldev's posts though prolific have some useful bunch of info for anyone interested in equipment of Russian origin, potentially used by Indian Navy. I wonder if the instant problem here is to their irrelativeness or their "Russianness".

For once the adminullahs have done well, to object to the same.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5251
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Kartik » 31 Oct 2009 04:45


Raveen, Why are you targetting Baldev? How does it matter what his post count is to you? The Admins will take care if there is problem. To me looks like you have takleef with him. Suggest don't let that come in the way.
Thanks, ramana



I second that what Raveen is pointing out makes sense. Please tell me what use is it to have links upon links posted of Russian weapons systems that are completely out of context with the rest of the discussion going on ?

If he opens a new thread under the name "Brochure and weapons specs thread", and posts all those links to his heart's content, no one will complain. But to keep posting links to brochures with little relevance to any discussion on every thread is really distracting and basically does nothing more than to increase the noise to signal ratio on the threads. At least he should be asked to simply post if he has something to talk about or when he is continuining a discussion. again, its not personal, so please don't take it in that sense.

Igorr
BRFite
Posts: 598
Joined: 01 Feb 2005 18:13
Contact:

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Igorr » 31 Oct 2009 07:10

Philip wrote:Tx. Igorr for that very interesting clip.Is there any mentioned composite percentage of the aircraft at all from official sources?

15% by weight on MiG-29K is composites, it's officially. By volume or area it is sightly more.

Baldev
BRFite
Posts: 501
Joined: 21 Sep 2009 07:27

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Baldev » 31 Oct 2009 08:18

ok, discussion threads are not just for discussion,
one can post links of different systems being used by armed forces in relevant thread and its perfectly legal

i don't disturb anyone who is discussing something

and many people don't like discussion instead they just want to get more knowledge about which systems being used by armed forces and how these systems look like with specifications and which companies produce these systems and this is something i like and i will appreciate if you can provide similar info

if i find some info i will post it whether its Russian or Western

a_kumar
BRFite
Posts: 481
Joined: 18 Jun 2008 23:53
Location: what about it?

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby a_kumar » 31 Oct 2009 08:37

Thank god! I was worried that the Page24 might become clean with more meat.. Thankfully, somebody rose to the challenge and saved the day.

So here goes another page because somebody wanted to pick on somebody else... where have we seen that?

vijyeta
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 90
Joined: 01 May 2006 03:10
Location: Olympus Mons

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby vijyeta » 31 Oct 2009 09:17

Baldev wrote:ok, discussion threads are not just for discussion,
one can post links of different systems being used by armed forces in relevant thread and its perfectly legal

i don't disturb anyone who is discussing something

and many people don't like discussion instead they just want to get more knowledge about which systems being used by armed forces and how these systems look like with specifications and which companies produce these systems and this is something i like and i will appreciate if you can provide similar info

if i find some info i will post it whether its Russian or Western


Baldev, there will be no objection if you post an F-18 link. Try the MRCA thread :lol:

SNaik
BRFite
Posts: 522
Joined: 26 Jul 2006 10:51
Location: Riga

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby SNaik » 31 Oct 2009 12:57

tsarkar wrote:• Door – Ship compartments are designed to function independently even if other compartments have been damaged/flooded. Especially the CIC. So they have very robust doors. In this picture http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_zUe7sq7m3h0/S ... centre.JPG we have a common house door with an ornate knob and plywood frame. Contrast that with the doors here http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_zUe7sq7m3h0/S ... e+view.JPG and here http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_zUe7sq7m3h0/S ... r+deck.JPG
• Pipes in the middle of the room (indicates very shoddy design, even Nilgiri didn’t have them).
• Overall layout of consoles looks very un-ergonomic
• Plywood table in the middle of the room that will fly even in sea state 3. Never seen that type of table on a ship, unless it was temporarily brought in by the workers to assist them.

Lots of those small things that somehow don’t add up. Hence I have doubts on this specific picture. Rest of the article and pictures are OK. Anyways, lets park it here until we have more information at hand.


Door. It looks that the proper hatch door isn't installed yet and a temporary plywood/cardboard door is plastered over it for convenience of civilians who are working on calibrating the consoles etc. The table is from the same opera considering the equipment which is on it. The pipes you refer look more like posts to prop something temporary up. I don't think this is a shore-based facility, too much work is put into amortisators of consoles.

Raveen
BRFite
Posts: 769
Joined: 18 Jun 2008 00:51
Location: 1/2 way between the gutter and the stars
Contact:

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Raveen » 31 Oct 2009 19:31

Baldev wrote:ok, discussion threads are not just for discussion,


Yes, which is why they are called DISCUSSION threads?


Kartik wrote:

Raveen, Why are you targetting Baldev? How does it matter what his post count is to you? The Admins will take care if there is problem. To me looks like you have takleef with him. Suggest don't let that come in the way.
Thanks, ramana



I second that what Raveen is pointing out makes sense. Please tell me what use is it to have links upon links posted of Russian weapons systems that are completely out of context with the rest of the discussion going on ?

If he opens a new thread under the name "Brochure and weapons specs thread", and posts all those links to his heart's content, no one will complain. But to keep posting links to brochures with little relevance to any discussion on every thread is really distracting and basically does nothing more than to increase the noise to signal ratio on the threads. At least he should be asked to simply post if he has something to talk about or when he is continuining a discussion. again, its not personal, so please don't take it in that sense.


Thank you Kartik, it appears there are just 3 ppl who get offended/irritated when a honestly good chain of thought is disturbed by remotely relevant (if that) commerical break.
I think the solution you suggested is even better than the one I suggested, I strongly support the creation of "Brochure and weapons specs thread" to post link after link without risking breaking a chain of thought.


Baldev wrote: and many people don't like discussion instead they just want to get more knowledge about which systems being used by armed forces and how these systems look like with specifications and which companies produce these systems


Based on Baldev says, I don't think he is opposed to such a solution either, a thread for people interested in doing what Baldev described so eloquently wihtout increasing the S/N ratio in the DISCUSSION threads. Easy fix in my opinion, after all don't we have threads for every valid interest here?
If some ppl don't like discussion then let's give them thier own thread...even Baldev agrees that those posts are not discussion, not meant to add to the ongoing discussion and therefore serve no purpose in discussion threads. They belong in Knowledge Base threads.

As for the rest of you, well the BRAdmins Rahul and Ramana seem to understand that I have nothing personal against anyone here, I would sincerely hope the rest of you would extend the same courtesy. I bought this up for the general well being of BR and to preserve the quality of the threads and discussion (and obviously SSridhar and Kartik agree). I once again assure you, this is a self-less motive and has no personal undertones; if you choose not to believe me, I cant help it.


My last post on this topic, beyond which I leave it to the BRAdmins to decide in favor or against the proposed solutions. Jai Hind!

Thanks,
Raveen
Last edited by Raveen on 31 Oct 2009 19:42, edited 3 times in total.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17006
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Rahul M » 31 Oct 2009 19:34

ok guys, that's enough on this. people have made their points, let's leave it at that.

sunny y
BRFite
Posts: 298
Joined: 29 Aug 2009 14:47

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby sunny y » 31 Oct 2009 20:46

Hi.....I think due to the lack of new activity in defence circle everybody in BRF is getting frustrated. :evil:

Earlier there was confrontation between tsarkar & george & now this between Raveen & baldev. Maybe IN folks see this, take some new decisions & get us some news for the sake of national peace. :D


Thanks

a_kumar
BRFite
Posts: 481
Joined: 18 Jun 2008 23:53
Location: what about it?

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby a_kumar » 31 Oct 2009 21:46

sunny y wrote:Hi.....I think due to the lack of new activity in defence circle everybody in BRF is getting frustrated. :evil:

Earlier there was confrontation between tsarkar & george & now this between Raveen & baldev. Maybe IN folks see this, take some new decisions & get us some news for the sake of national peace. :D


Ekjacktly!! :D

I spent an hour yesterday hunting in WWW for some useful articles so that "flame-density" might come down. For all the effort, all I found were two articles I posted above, its really barren out there right now!! (Thx Igorr for the video) In any case, all was in vain!

This thread was in a state where "who was right/wrong" or "who needed to be taught a lesson" should have been the forbidden flavor. We just needed some meaningful exchange, and if we got a few brochures, so be it (maybe not be so in other threads). Hell, now am even up for filling this page with trite, I just hope my post doesn't become first in next page :wink:

Added Later :
PS : I can see that admins showed enormous patience and restraint on this thread (hopefully this won't be needed for long). Would have hated to see any more jingos take the bullet.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4387
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Cain Marko » 01 Nov 2009 00:03

Igorr wrote:MiG-29K cockpit manufacturing in Obninsk with nano-molecular (90 nm) golden covering reducing radar signature.


Igorr,

What in the world are those white circles on the radome for - around 2:06 i think? Anybody?

CM.

vijyeta
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 90
Joined: 01 May 2006 03:10
Location: Olympus Mons

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby vijyeta » 01 Nov 2009 00:28

Cain Marko wrote:Igorr,

What in the world are those white circles on the radome for - around 2:06 i think? Anybody?

CM.


Could be linked to radar performance/testing. I have heard references to anti-static paint/material which is applied like this to radomes - in both civil and mil craft ( Since the radome 'shell' itself can build up static)

If thats what these circles are - then they have just not been painted over yet.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 22516
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby chetak » 01 Nov 2009 00:58

vijyeta wrote:
Cain Marko wrote:Igorr,

What in the world are those white circles on the radome for - around 2:06 i think? Anybody?

CM.


Could be linked to radar performance/testing. I have heard references to anti-static paint/material which is applied like this to radomes - in both civil and mil craft ( Since the radome 'shell' itself can build up static)

If thats what these circles are - then they have just not been painted over yet.



I can not get Igorr's youtube link to run despite best efforts.

Magnify the image and take a look see.

If the circles are silver /metallic colored then they are for lightening protection. Most radomes have them barring some of the really older ones.

Mahesh_R
BRFite
Posts: 185
Joined: 17 Aug 2009 00:46

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Mahesh_R » 01 Nov 2009 03:22



Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests