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.
Katare
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2579
Joined: 02 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Katare » 19 Jun 2009 02:00

I spent some time looking through tenders issued/completed by MDL on their website to see if I can get some update on P17/P15a/P75 projects.

There are a lot of contracts being awarded for P15A and P75 program, its gaining momentum.

No supply tender has been issued for P17 in last 8-9 months or more. That means all the ships are under final touches and at least the first one is under sea trials

I found one tender for testing/Analytical Labs (Here)

According to this tender it seems like they had 4 bolts, that hold main shaft seal, broke during sea trial sometime before March 09. Now MDL geniuses have issued a tender for labs to bid on inspecting those bolts to tell it what is wrong with them.

I am amazed that MDL doesn't have a basic physical/chemical analytical lab of its own. If they can't afford one (which is ridiculous if true) then they should have a tie up with one of the university, a science lab or one of the DRDO labs. When I get in these situations, I am on phone with Analytical lab within minutes and usually drop/ship samples that very evening for analytical testing.

Most of their tenders are for few thousands of Rupees (few hundred dollars) to few hundred thousands of Rupees (few thousands of dollars). Most of these fittings, pipes, metal stocks, wires etc should be available with in the dock as regulation supplies. They also need to buy these in bulk (yearly or multi-year contracts) to get the cost drastically down and improve availability of parts. In USA most companies would have pre approved price catalogues and suppliers would keep large inventory at the customer's premises for immediate delivery.

These guys are working in a early 19th century system, although they have managed to digitized it and have also put some of it on-line.

No wonder it is more than 6 years since they launched the first P17 but still haven't finished it.

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

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby harbans » 19 Jun 2009 09:28

^^
Thats a tender for a dry dock with a limited time frame. They possibly would be having basic test facilities, but then he issue of liability or claims also arises. Inner shaft seal retaining bolts being proved defective/ spurious and not OEM parts by an independent agency could reduce liability for MDL. I don't what project this drydock is about, but the turnabout time is quick. Outsourcing chemical composition analysis work to a specialized laboratory is not a bad idea. Drydock specs can be pretty exhaustive and specialized chemical analytical work migh not be in MDLs gambit possibly also. JMT/

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21854
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby chetak » 19 Jun 2009 10:38

Katare wrote:I spent some time looking through tenders issued/completed by MDL on their website to see if I can get some update on P17/P15a/P75 projects.

I am amazed that MDL doesn't have a basic physical/chemical analytical lab of its own. If they can't afford one (which is ridiculous if true) then they should have a tie up with one of the university, a science lab or one of the DRDO labs. When I get in these situations, I am on phone with Analytical lab within minutes and usually drop/ship samples that very evening for analytical testing.




MDL has a tie up with Naval Chemical and Metallurgical Lab. (NCML) is situated inside the Naval Dockyard in Bombay.

NCML is a DRDO lab and is very well equipped ofr all types of analysis.

p_saggu
BRFite
Posts: 1058
Joined: 26 Nov 2004 20:03

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby p_saggu » 19 Jun 2009 10:41

http://www.vif2ne.ru/smf/stuff/Derevyan ... 326464.jpg
INS Beas on the walkaround. Poor construction quality from Garden Reach.
How is the finish on the Delhi class, P17s etc?

SivaVijay
BRFite
Posts: 136
Joined: 09 Apr 2009 19:23

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby SivaVijay » 19 Jun 2009 11:09

^^^
What causes those dimples on the hull???

K_Rohit
BRFite
Posts: 186
Joined: 16 Feb 2009 19:11

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby K_Rohit » 19 Jun 2009 11:14

SNaik wrote:Nice walkaround of Beas in SPB:
http://www.dishmodels.com/wshow.htm?p=1083


From the multitude of pictures, can anyone see if Barak is installed on Beas? We should be able to make out from the radar directors, right?

SKrishna
BRFite
Posts: 151
Joined: 21 Jan 2008 19:18
Location: Bombay
Contact:

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby SKrishna » 19 Jun 2009 11:48

Gorgeous pics of P-8 flying!!! from shiv aroor's blog:

Photo 1
Photo 2


Looks so much better in the Navy paint. Longing to see in the IN colours.. :D :D

Gurus.... What kind of external modifications would you see when aft-radar, DIRCM and MAD are added?

Looking closely on the 2nd photo on the tail one can see a slight protrusion. Is that where the MAD would go? If so why put the structure in P-8A, which does not have a MAD?

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2932
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby tsarkar » 19 Jun 2009 11:51

P_saggu – Please explain “Poor construction quality from Garden Reach” after checking the following in full resolution.

http://media.shipspotting.com/uploads/p ... Daring.jpg

http://www.navy.mil/management/photodb/ ... 6B-231.jpg

I believe they are built at the world’s best shipyards very recently, unlike Beas.

Plates buckle because of temperature/humidity effects and the battering of waves. There are not an indicator of construction quality or structural integrity. Request a little bit of research and fact finding before publishing conclusions.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Singha » 19 Jun 2009 11:56

iirc as per Vick sir, those are not dimples but depressions between structural ribs and called the "hungry horse effect" ..and all ships are supposed to have them even
before they leave the shipyard.

submarines use a much harder steel and dont have it.

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

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby harbans » 19 Jun 2009 12:28

It's not poor construction. The plates neither are buckled. These plates are welded onto stiffeners boh vertical and horizontal. According to the hull shape, plates are bent and welded onto stiffeners in blocks that are then assembled ogether during consruction phases. All ships one can notice these given the correct angle of light. With a tendency to use higher tensile steel, hull plating thickness is coming down exposing the ribby feel. But that does not depict poor consruction. Every piece of steel plate is certified, every stiffener is inspected, every bit of plate welded to these are inspected and certified.

Srivastav
BRFite
Posts: 142
Joined: 24 Jan 2009 17:23
Location: where the polar bears live

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Srivastav » 19 Jun 2009 12:33

K_Rohit wrote:
SNaik wrote:Nice walkaround of Beas in SPB:
http://www.dishmodels.com/wshow.htm?p=1083


From the multitude of pictures, can anyone see if Barak is installed on Beas? We should be able to make out from the radar directors, right?


http://www.vif2ne.ru/smf/stuff/Derevyan ... 057569.jpg In this picture you can see the EL/M 2221 STGR, which is used by BARAK.

you can see a pic and read bout EL/M 2221 STGR here http://www.iai.co.il/33795-26345-en/ELTA.aspx

Although just the presence of the radar doesnt mean that the BARAK is there but it is very likely.

Ofcourse some of the learned members here can confirm if its really there or not.

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2932
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby tsarkar » 19 Jun 2009 13:03

Harbans - you're right in your description here, however what ever defomation we notice on INS Beas, has two main reasons -

One is due to residual stresses and deformations from cold bending and welding - that as Singha said - is called hungry horse phenomenon.

Other is hydrodynamic stresses that causes some buckling in the supporting members. One such phenomenon is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hogging_and_sagging

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

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby harbans » 19 Jun 2009 13:54

One is due to residual stresses and deformations from cold bending and welding - that as Singha said - is called hungry horse phenomenon.

Indeed, no issues about that. But his ribby feel has less to do with stresses and deformations due to welding plates on stiffeners. It's like you have a rib section and use different size sections for mounting on a unit area of rib/ stiffener section. The larger the area of the plate used over the unit section the less the ribby effect. To take care of residual stresses is a reason why modules of ribs and plates are made separately and then welded togeher. Hydrodynamic deformations are supposed to be taken care of by stiffeners because of troughs existing at different points along the ship length at sea. Deformation of plates due to hydrodynamic deformation is serious business. The pics certainly do not depict that. JMT/

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2932
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby tsarkar » 19 Jun 2009 14:40

I agree with you. There isnt anything on the pictures that show any hydrodynamic deformation.

Sontu
BRFite
Posts: 103
Joined: 06 Aug 2008 19:32

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Sontu » 19 Jun 2009 15:07

Srivastav wrote:
SNaik wrote:Nice walkaround of Beas in SPB:
http://www.dishmodels.com/wshow.htm?p=1083


http://www.vif2ne.ru/smf/stuff/Derevyan ... 057569.jpg In this picture you can see the EL/M 2221 STGR, which is used by BARAK.

you can see a pic and read bout EL/M 2221 STGR here http://www.iai.co.il/33795-26345-en/ELTA.aspx

Although just the presence of the radar doesnt mean that the BARAK is there but it is very likely.

Ofcourse some of the learned members here can confirm if its really there or not.


Yes Barak 8 is installed on Beas..see those two small box with inclined covers ..behined the BEL Shikari (based on the Contraves Seaguard) opto-electronic trackers (just infront of the Bridge).
http://www.vif2ne.ru/smf/stuff/Derevyan ... 419481.jpg

In this picture only one 8 cell launcher is visible though...

There are two 8 cell Barak 8 installed in the front and one 8 cell Barak 8 is installed in the rear.

also absence of Khastan (with SA-N-11 missile system ) also proves that for short range air defence Baraks are installed....as in the Beas, I can see only 4 AK-630 gatling guns are installed.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23385
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Austin » 19 Jun 2009 15:12

We have gained self sufficiency in developing special steel for surface ships but what progress have we made in development of special steel for submarines i.e HY80 and HY100 types sub grade steel.Do we still import them ?

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2932
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby tsarkar » 19 Jun 2009 15:37

Here you go Austin
Original Intent http://www.financialexpress.com/news/sa ... on/138755/
Production orders for 249B http://www.prdomain.com/companies/S/SAI ... 359700.htm
Detailed technical description http://www.iitk.ac.in/infocell/announce ... kondia.pdf

Rohit - the outfitting is complete but the actual VLS haven't been installed yet. Check my discussion with SNaik a few pages back. Also check the Godavari page on BR for Maz's pictures showing a frigate with similar protective housings.

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2932
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby tsarkar » 19 Jun 2009 18:04

I missed this earlier and not sure whether others have noticed, so here goes http://www.navy.mil/management/photodb/ ... 5K-094.jpg

Rana has the same upgrade as Ranjit. AK-630M instead of the older AK-230. The two MR-104 guiding the AK-230 are gone and I find no MR-123 guiding AK-630M. RAWL-02 replaces older MR-500 Kliver.

Sontu
BRFite
Posts: 103
Joined: 06 Aug 2008 19:32

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Sontu » 19 Jun 2009 20:24

tsarkar wrote:I missed this earlier and not sure whether others have noticed, so here goes http://www.navy.mil/management/photodb/ ... 5K-094.jpg

Rana has the same upgrade as Ranjit. AK-630M instead of the older AK-230. The two MR-104 guiding the AK-230 are gone and I find no MR-123 guiding AK-630M.RAWL-02 replaces older MR-500 Kliver.


I think now a days BEL Shikari (Contraves TMX-EO/TMK-EO based) tracker are guiding AK-630Ms ,as these Shikari's also guiding Oto Melera SRGM s in IN ships.

Kersi D
BRFite
Posts: 1383
Joined: 20 Sep 2000 11:31

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Kersi D » 19 Jun 2009 21:07

Sontu wrote:
tsarkar wrote:I missed this earlier and not sure whether others have noticed, so here goes http://www.navy.mil/management/photodb/ ... 5K-094.jpg

Rana has the same upgrade as Ranjit. AK-630M instead of the older AK-230. The two MR-104 guiding the AK-230 are gone and I find no MR-123 guiding AK-630M.RAWL-02 replaces older MR-500 Kliver.


I think now a days BEL Shikari (Contraves TMX-EO/TMK-EO based) tracker are guiding AK-630Ms ,as these Shikari's also guiding Oto Melera SRGM s in IN ships.


D 52 INS Rana looks exactly like it was the day it left Russian waters 20+ years ago.

F 20 INS Godavari looks different, she has been upgraded. She now has a 76 mm Oto Melra replacing the Russian twin 57 mm guns

K

Vinito
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 85
Joined: 16 Jun 2009 18:33

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Vinito » 19 Jun 2009 22:31

Hey guys...I am a newbie when it comes to forums but I do have a deep interest in anything related to military hardware. Just had a question thats been on my mind for a long time.

Rather than using a mediocre Russian radar system whenever we come up with a new ship design cant we explore other AESA options. I mean, I saw a picture of the Shivalik class but am just wondering why cant we replace the radar system with something from the West. I know that the Americans wont always supply their stuff but I am sure that the British, French & Israelis wont mind.

My dream configuration for the Shivalik class.
Aegis AN-SPY-1D / CEFAR
German Leopard 155/52 cal gun / or maybe test that G6 system from Denel for shipboard use
8-10 Brahmos Land Attack Missiles
SA-N-6 grumble VLS (8 of them) - Long Range
2 Kashtan systems + 2 Barak systems - Short Range
Shkval Torpedo systems

Agreed that the weight wud increase to 8000+ tons but u have a killer on ur hands then

With this configuration I feel we should be able to take on any foreign designs.

p_saggu
BRFite
Posts: 1058
Joined: 26 Nov 2004 20:03

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby p_saggu » 19 Jun 2009 22:50

Cross post form the International Military discussion

The US is moving a radar on a offshore platform like this over to Hawaii in view of a possible North Korean Missile test aimed at the Hawaii Islands.
Image

Gives you ideas for protection of Bombay High.
A radar like this along with an Anti Missile Shield would be a great idea.

Sontu
BRFite
Posts: 103
Joined: 06 Aug 2008 19:32

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Sontu » 20 Jun 2009 00:26

SKrishna wrote:Gorgeous pics of P-8 flying!!! from shiv aroor's blog:

Photo 1
Photo 2

Gurus.... What kind of external modifications would you see when aft-radar, DIRCM and MAD are added?

Looking closely on the 2nd photo on the tail one can see a slight protrusion. Is that where the MAD would go? If so why put the structure in P-8A, which does not have a MAD?


SK ,
We know that India's P-8Is are downgreded ones compared to US Navy's P-8 A and logically correct since US doen't give or sale their best or latest technical avionics systems to their best friends even like UK,Japan or Australia.
So my question is apart from a customized commercial platform like Boieng 737, WHICH are those specific latest US made Avionics items that are being sold to India as part of this P-8I deal...could some Gurus please post a detailed update/report on this, that we are spending 2+ bn USD on 8 platforms?
(We know P-8Is will have some Israely items too as US declined to provide their equivallent hardware in this deal).
I guess using 2 bn USD in India we can build 200 high end Hospitals and 1000 very good schools in every state of our country.

Regards,

sunilUpa
BRFite
Posts: 1795
Joined: 25 Sep 2006 04:16

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby sunilUpa » 20 Jun 2009 01:07

^^^ :roll: :roll: :roll:

Andrew DeCristofaro
BRFite
Posts: 178
Joined: 14 Jun 2009 22:37

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Andrew DeCristofaro » 20 Jun 2009 01:18

Sontu wrote:
SKrishna wrote:Gorgeous pics of P-8 flying!!! from shiv aroor's blog:

Photo 1
Photo 2

Gurus.... What kind of external modifications would you see when aft-radar, DIRCM and MAD are added?

Looking closely on the 2nd photo on the tail one can see a slight protrusion. Is that where the MAD would go? If so why put the structure in P-8A, which does not have a MAD?


SK ,
We know that India's P-8Is are downgreded ones compared to US Navy's P-8 A and logically correct since US doen't give or sale their best or latest technical avionics systems to their best friends even like UK,Japan or Australia.
So my question is apart from a customized commercial platform like Boieng 737, WHICH are those specific latest US made Avionics items that are being sold to India as part of this P-8I deal...could some Gurus please post a detailed update/report on this, that we are spending 2+ bn USD on 8 platforms?
(We know P-8Is will have some Israely items too as US declined to provide their equivallent hardware in this deal).
I guess using 2 bn USD in India we can build 200 high end Hospitals and 1000 very good schools in every state of our country.

Regards,

and there is no israeli system going to be incorporated in P8I except some subsystems if this was be the case then there could be israeli ELTA2022A radar along with israeli COMINT,ELINT could be used but US doesn't allow someone else stuff on their aircraft thats why only apy10,ELINT,COMINT,MAD systems will come from US only but they are allowing some indian developed stuff in P8I because india being to customer

and their is nothing superior in when it comes to radar,elint,comint which israel is not able to provide and US can.

japan left this aircraft and 2.2 billion is development money for P8 which is going from indian pocket

and when india issues RFP for next 3 AEWACS then 737 AEW will surely be there,and it will be selected even barring israeli AEWACS,and if india wants israeli phalcon on 737 plateform then US would simply refuse and they will insist that only US would be only which will provide radar system for 737 AEW

sunilUpa
BRFite
Posts: 1795
Joined: 25 Sep 2006 04:16

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby sunilUpa » 20 Jun 2009 02:05

Andrew DeCristofaro wrote:japan left this aircraft and 2.2 billion is development money for P8 which is going from indian pocket

and when india issues RFP for next 3 AEWACS then 737 AEW will surely be there,and it will be selected even barring israeli AEWACS,and if india wants israeli phalcon on 737 plateform then US would simply refuse and they will insist that only US would be only which will provide radar system for 737 AEW


:roll: :roll:

The following article was written in 2002, before P-8 was announced,

Maritime patrol market: Escaping the doldrums

The other two large MPA markets are Britain, which has its Nimrods, and Japan, which has initiated a costly indigenous solution, the P-X. In December 2001, Japan’s Defense Agency selected former P-3 prime Kawasaki to lead this effort. The Japanese military wants to buy 80 P-Xs, plus 40 C-X transport planes, whose design will have considerable commonality with the P-X.

A purely Japanese solution has no guarantees of securing adequate funding. But as long as the P-X effort is alive, the U.S. can only propose a cooperative program to ensure P-X/MMA commonality, probably with a common mission system. And the MMA will continue as a purely U.S. program.


Yawn..

Andrew DeCristofaro
BRFite
Posts: 178
Joined: 14 Jun 2009 22:37

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Andrew DeCristofaro » 20 Jun 2009 02:28

sunilUpa wrote:
Andrew DeCristofaro wrote:japan left this aircraft and 2.2 billion is development money for P8 which is going from indian pocket

and when india issues RFP for next 3 AEWACS then 737 AEW will surely be there,and it will be selected even barring israeli AEWACS,and if india wants israeli phalcon on 737 plateform then US would simply refuse and they will insist that only US would be only which will provide radar system for 737 AEW


:roll: :roll:

The following article was written in 2002, before P-8 was announced,

Maritime patrol market: Escaping the doldrums

The other two large MPA markets are Britain, which has its Nimrods, and Japan, which has initiated a costly indigenous solution, the P-X. In December 2001, Japan’s Defense Agency selected former P-3 prime Kawasaki to lead this effort. The Japanese military wants to buy 80 P-Xs, plus 40 C-X transport planes, whose design will have considerable commonality with the P-X.

A purely Japanese solution has no guarantees of securing adequate funding. But as long as the P-X effort is alive, the U.S. can only propose a cooperative program to ensure P-X/MMA commonality, probably with a common mission system. And the MMA will continue as a purely U.S. program.


Yawn..

japan left because development cost of both cx and p-1 MPA is 3 billion and the development cost of P8 alone is over 3 billion

and 2.2 billion going from indian pocket

b_patel
BRFite
Posts: 150
Joined: 22 Feb 2009 04:08

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby b_patel » 20 Jun 2009 03:12

Rather than using a mediocre Russian radar system whenever we come up with a new ship design cant we explore other AESA options. I mean, I saw a picture of the Shivalik class but am just wondering why cant we replace the radar system with something from the West. I know that the Americans wont always supply their stuff but I am sure that the British, French & Israelis wont mind.
Aegis AN-SPY-1D / CEFAR
German Leopard 155/52 cal gun / or maybe test that G6 system from Denel for shipboard use
8-10 Brahmos Land Attack Missiles
SA-N-6 grumble VLS (8 of them) - Long Range
2 Kashtan systems + 2 Barak systems - Short Range
Shkval Torpedo systems
Agreed that the weight wud increase to 8000+ tons but u have a killer on ur hands then
With this configuration I feel we should be able to take on any foreign designs.

But that is a very formidable combination, but the Long range system is still inadequate compared to the Aster-30. The Grumble is only 90KM though. But it would still be better than any other destroyer in Asia except mayble SK and Japans Ageis destroyers.
I personally think that India should consider integrating the AGEIS into their new destroyers. Yes its expensive but its much better than anything Russia will provide India with. Plus they said that they wouldn't mind Integrating some Indian Systems into the Indian version of the Ageis.
But then again Elta's MF-star array is supposed to be superior to the Ageis, at least that is what they claim. Since the Barak 8 is supposed to be the missile used in the offensive/defensive systems of Elta's "AGEIS" system it might be a better bet to stick with this.
I always wondered why the Barak system was ridiculously priced 2.5 Billion for the Barak and the MR-SAM, maybe it include the MF-Star array?

Andrew DeCristofaro
BRFite
Posts: 178
Joined: 14 Jun 2009 22:37

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Andrew DeCristofaro » 20 Jun 2009 03:15

b_patel wrote:
Rather than using a mediocre Russian radar system whenever we come up with a new ship design cant we explore other AESA options. I mean, I saw a picture of the Shivalik class but am just wondering why cant we replace the radar system with something from the West. I know that the Americans wont always supply their stuff but I am sure that the British, French & Israelis wont mind.
Aegis AN-SPY-1D / CEFAR
German Leopard 155/52 cal gun / or maybe test that G6 system from Denel for shipboard use
8-10 Brahmos Land Attack Missiles
SA-N-6 grumble VLS (8 of them) - Long Range
2 Kashtan systems + 2 Barak systems - Short Range
Shkval Torpedo systems
Agreed that the weight wud increase to 8000+ tons but u have a killer on ur hands then
With this configuration I feel we should be able to take on any foreign designs.

But that is a very formidable combination, but the Long range system is still inadequate compared to the Aster-30. The Grumble is only 90KM though. But it would still be better than any other destroyer in Asia except mayble SK and Japans Ageis destroyers.
I personally think that India should consider integrating the AGEIS into their new destroyers. Yes its expensive but its much better than anything Russia will provide India with. Plus they said that they wouldn't mind Integrating some Indian Systems into the Indian version of the Ageis.
But then again Elta's MF-star array is supposed to be superior to the Ageis, at least that is what they claim. Since the Barak 8 is supposed to be the missile used in the offensive/defensive systems of Elta's "AGEIS" system it might be a better bet to stick with this.
I always wondered why the Barak system was ridiculously priced 2.5 Billion for the Barak and the MR-SAM, maybe it include the MF-Star array?

there is also another option SAMPSON and SMART L radars as well which are available with TOT and BEL still making LW08 radars

for 360 degree scanning there are 4 faced radars but consume more power because of power is needed in each face of radar

other option is 3 faced radar for 360 degree scanning

and last one is two faced radars one behind other just like freget m2em on shivalik class and its most efficient radar configuration and needs less power than above two configuration ,this configuration is also better than a single faced radar which revolves in 360 degree for scanning

and there is nothing wrong with russian naval radars as well the freget m2em 3D radar provides 300km search range and it can also be configured like 4 faced MF STAR

also naval rohini radar can be configured in 4 face,3 face,2 faces like freget m2em,or only single face for scanning now it depend on naval personnel which configuration they like
Last edited by Andrew DeCristofaro on 20 Jun 2009 07:32, edited 1 time in total.

sunilUpa
BRFite
Posts: 1795
Joined: 25 Sep 2006 04:16

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby sunilUpa » 20 Jun 2009 03:29

Andrew DeCristofaro wrote:

japan left because development cost of both cx and p-1 MPA is 3 billion and the development cost of P8 alone is over 3 billion

and 2.2 billion going from indian pocket


Please post a reference that Japan ever joined the program in the first place and then talk about Japan leaving it. Japan's P-1 program predates P-8.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16518
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby NRao » 20 Jun 2009 03:38

We know that India's P-8Is are downgreded ones compared to US Navy's P-8


Do we know what India asked for? As compared to a P-8A it may be downgraded, but from what India asked for it may be what India wanted or even perhaps upgraded.

Andrew DeCristofaro
BRFite
Posts: 178
Joined: 14 Jun 2009 22:37

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Andrew DeCristofaro » 20 Jun 2009 05:35

sunilUpa wrote:
Andrew DeCristofaro wrote:

japan left because development cost of both cx and p-1 MPA is 3 billion and the development cost of P8 alone is over 3 billion

and 2.2 billion going from indian pocket


Please post a reference that Japan ever joined the program in the first place and then talk about Japan leaving it. Japan's P-1 program predates P-8.

japan had requirement for new MPA to replace P3 but
japan did not joined P8 because when they saw the development cost estimates for P8

moreover japan also had requirement for transport aircraft along with MPA,then they thought of making both aircrafts at home thinking that they have built P3 with tech transfer and in how much amount it will take for development for both aircrafts and when kawasaki told how much it will take japan decided not to go for P8

there are similarities in wings and fuselage of P-1 and P3 except tail design and turbofan engines.

sunilUpa
BRFite
Posts: 1795
Joined: 25 Sep 2006 04:16

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby sunilUpa » 20 Jun 2009 07:20

Andrew DeCristofaro wrote:
Please post a reference that Japan ever joined the program in the first place and then talk about Japan leaving it. Japan's P-1 program predates P-8.
japan had requirement for new MPA to replace P3 but
japan did not joined P8 because when they saw the development cost estimates for P8

moreover japan also had requirement for transport aircraft along with MPA,then they thought of making both aircrafts at home thinking that they have built P3 with tech transfer and in how much amount it will take for development for both aircrafts and when kawasaki told how much it will take japan decided not to go for P8

there are similarities in wings and fuselage of P-1 and P3 except tail design and turbofan engines.


:rotfl: :rotfl: Japan's MPA programe predated P-8 by full three years, yet according to you Japan walked out of P-8 program because of cost, never mind that fact that development cost for USA going alone was US$3.89 billion and Japan would have spent far less than US$ 3 billion it has spent for P-X and C-X till now if it had shared the development cost of P-8A. It was not the development cost, but to involve and develop local industry, Japan had decided to develop it's own MPA.

But have it your way, it's a waste of time discussing with you.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16518
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby NRao » 20 Jun 2009 07:42

Every chat site needs a comic relief person. We have found ours.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Singha » 20 Jun 2009 07:43

my dream DDG for IN:

- MF_star radar for targetting
- thales sirius-irst for missile detection
- towed sonar array (desi)
- UUV/SF chariot bay deployed off the stern
- 2 x NH90 armed with exocet & desi LWT
- 1 x rotary drone
- S1850 surveillance radar on aft-mast
- 32 x barak1 for close in defence ( above the heli hanger )
- 2 x goalkeeper 30mm cannons for ciws
- 64 cell vls on foredeck with mix of barak8
- 16 cell 'long' vls on foredeck with mix of brahmos and nirbhay
- No 5" gun !! use that space to accomodate more vls without increase in
ship size. when was the last time a DDG had to use a main gun in the
deep seas? and we have cheaper and safer ways to pound the rare land
target. I submit the main gun is kept for sentiment onree. the CIWS can
shred any pirate/jihadi schooner at 2km range very quickly indeed.
- 2 LWT lauchers one on each side, behind flush sliding door
- diesel propulsion , + electric motor for slow speed 'drifting' when faced with
torpedo threats
- NO pine tree RBU6000 , replaced with new AT rockets fired from stealth turrets on each side. :evil:
- well integrated desi combat system
- Heron flying & downlink console
- KA31 downlink
- co-operative engagement datalinks to sister ships and Delhi class to share threat
picture and allocate targets

maybe around 8000t to shoehorn all that in and for extra spaces kept to introduce
new electronic systems later
Last edited by Singha on 20 Jun 2009 07:45, edited 1 time in total.

Andrew DeCristofaro
BRFite
Posts: 178
Joined: 14 Jun 2009 22:37

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Andrew DeCristofaro » 20 Jun 2009 07:44

sunilUpa wrote:
Andrew DeCristofaro wrote:
Please post a reference that Japan ever joined the program in the first place and then talk about Japan leaving it. Japan's P-1 program predates P-8.
japan had requirement for new MPA to replace P3 but
japan did not joined P8 because when they saw the development cost estimates for P8

moreover japan also had requirement for transport aircraft along with MPA,then they thought of making both aircrafts at home thinking that they have built P3 with tech transfer and in how much amount it will take for development for both aircrafts and when kawasaki told how much it will take japan decided not to go for P8

there are similarities in wings and fuselage of P-1 and P3 except tail design and turbofan engines.


:rotfl: :rotfl: Japan's MPA programe predated P-8 by full three years, yet according to you Japan walked out of P-8 program because of cost, never mind that fact that development cost for USA going alone was US$3.89 billion and Japan would have spent far less than US$ 3 billion it has spent for P-X and C-X till now if it had shared the development cost of P-8A. It was not the development cost, but to involve and develop local industry, Japan had decided to develop it's own MPA.

But have it your way, it's a waste of time discussing with you.

if japan would have to spent far less than 3 billion on two aircrafts ,good joke

then why india spending 2.2 billion alone on P8 and what if india also supposed to be launch customer of something similar to kawasaki cx and then how much india has to pay for two aircrafts/// i say well over 4 billion

if japan would have joined P8 project then they would also be paying money like india has to pay that is 2.2 billion and then they had to spent extra for kawasaki C X
and the total would have been 4 billion.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16518
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby NRao » 20 Jun 2009 07:49

Are there any thoughts/efforts on new (eg: cat) hull designs?

sunilUpa
BRFite
Posts: 1795
Joined: 25 Sep 2006 04:16

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby sunilUpa » 20 Jun 2009 08:19

Bharat Karnad mentions nuclear propulsion for the third carrier and he too mentions 12 missiles on out Nuclear Sub.

Another interesting point, IN did negotiate for TU-22M and almost stuck the deal. But the deal fell through because IN wanted Russian Tu-22M to be serviced in the service station to be set up in India, so as to share the cost!

According to him IAF will lease Tu-160 soon.

KiranM
BRFite
Posts: 575
Joined: 17 Dec 2006 16:48
Location: Bangalore

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby KiranM » 20 Jun 2009 11:38

Andrew DeCristofaro wrote:if japan would have to spent far less than 3 billion on two aircrafts ,good joke

then why india spending 2.2 billion alone on P8 and what if india also supposed to be launch customer of something similar to kawasaki cx and then how much india has to pay for two aircrafts/// i say well over 4 billion

if japan would have joined P8 project then they would also be paying money like india has to pay that is 2.2 billion and then they had to spent extra for kawasaki C X
and the total would have been 4 billion.


Please post links to news snippets or statements made by Japanese authorities that Japan was interested in P-8 program while it was being concieved, but due to what you claim they moved to their own program. If you don't have any to back you up, please say that it is your assumption for discussion. This is the least forum discussion manners that you can and should follow.

Regards,
Kiran

PS: If you do not completely understand what I say, please say so. I will try to explain in simpler language.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21854
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby chetak » 20 Jun 2009 12:04

harbans wrote:It's not poor construction. The plates neither are buckled. These plates are welded onto stiffeners boh vertical and horizontal. According to the hull shape, plates are bent and welded onto stiffeners in blocks that are then assembled ogether during consruction phases. All ships one can notice these given the correct angle of light. With a tendency to use higher tensile steel, hull plating thickness is coming down exposing the ribby feel. But that does not depict poor consruction. Every piece of steel plate is certified, every stiffener is inspected, every bit of plate welded to these are inspected and certified.



Not to mention the welders who are specially certified, examined regularly and made to do test welds at regular intervals just to ensure that they are and continue to perform up to speed.


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 31 guests