INS Dalda, first of the Dalda class of boats.shiv wrote:False. Ati Tasty Vanaspati (ATV) is a well known brand in India.ravi_ku wrote:Officially there is no such project as ATV

INS Dalda, first of the Dalda class of boats.shiv wrote:False. Ati Tasty Vanaspati (ATV) is a well known brand in India.ravi_ku wrote:Officially there is no such project as ATV
There already is one big naval establishment in A&N....Willy wrote:Me thinks that the A&N Islands should be developed into a major base. Hell with whatever concerns the south east asian countries have. They should realise that a major base at the A&N will be a deterent to the Chinese. Read that the Southeast countries made a major noise when there were plans to turn the A&N into a seperate command and we gave in and just decided to have a joint command there. A major base at the A&N could just choke the Chinese inspite of their string of pearls strategy.
Singha JI,Singha wrote:I recall Ru had to negotiate for years to get some of the tu160 stuck in the ukraine when the ussr split. in total I think they only have <15 and each is considered a strategic asset suitable for launching very long range nuclear ALCMs onlee.
its not on the table at all.
instead we must nurse our hatred and use low cunning to get what we
need done. a bomber conversion of a EMB jet dropping say 4 nirbhay ALCM
out of the bomb bay would do nicely - a reasonably fast (800kmph, extra fuel tanks to boost combat radius to 2000km, good engines and avionics and no issues with exotic parts).
http://www.embraercommercialjets.com.br ... mb_195.asp
Strategic bombers are an important asset due to their large weaponloads in addition to their inter-continental ranges. For eg. a blackjack can carry 40,000 kg of ordnance, almost 5 times that of an F-16. Although I agree that they would be little use to IN, it would an important asset to the Airforce.Austin wrote:What purpose will Tu-160 serve for IAF or IN ? its a trans intercontinental bomber with long range conventional/nuclear cruise missile capability , these types of bomber are good only in USAF and RuAF inventory cold war legacy.
I am not sure which version, I will check and post later (at work now). But it is IAF and the info was attributed to an unnamed Senior Officer of strategic command (or IAF? I will check later).Rahul M wrote:22m you mean ? doubt IAF will ever go for the vanilla 22.
and IAF not IN ??
With regards to India acquiring the TU-22M3 Backfire bombers it would serve no real purpose as they were specifically designed to accomodate the AS-15 Kent ALCM & AS-16 Kickback SRAM's and the US under no circumstances allow these missiles to fall in Indian hands given the MTCR agreement. If India will opt to have it retrofitted to accomodate the "Brahmos" missiles it would require changes to the rotary launcher which will result in the Russians further inflating the prices of these aircrafts. Also as part of the START agreement the US had agreed to have the Russians operate the aircraft only if they had removed the IFR from all of these aircrafts as they had been classified as bombers capable of reaching American soil. The TU-22 now does not hold the edge compared to the B-1 or TU-160 hence buying them will be a big mistake given their electronics & limited capabilities. The Russians had plans to upgrade the aircraft to the TU-22M5 standard which unfortunately never took place.KrishG wrote:Strategic bombers are an important asset due to their large weaponloads in addition to their inter-continental ranges. For eg. a blackjack can carry 40,000 kg of ordnance, almost 5 times that of an F-16. Although I agree that they would be little use to IN, it would an important asset to the Airforce.Austin wrote:What purpose will Tu-160 serve for IAF or IN ? its a trans intercontinental bomber with long range conventional/nuclear cruise missile capability , these types of bomber are good only in USAF and RuAF inventory cold war legacy.
krish, we do know the definition of strategic bombers !KrishG wrote:Strategic bombers are an important asset due to their large weaponloads in addition to their inter-continental ranges. For eg. a blackjack can carry 40,000 kg of ordnance, almost 5 times that of an F-16. Although I agree that they would be little use to IN, it would an important asset to the Airforce.Austin wrote:What purpose will Tu-160 serve for IAF or IN ? its a trans intercontinental bomber with long range conventional/nuclear cruise missile capability , these types of bomber are good only in USAF and RuAF inventory cold war legacy.
When did you read it? There was reports from Russian of IN not IAF getting Tu-22m3 part of gorshkov deal but i do not think IN really had much intrested in them . i do not know why IAF would want Tu-22.sunilUpa wrote:I am not sure which version, I will check and post later (at work now). But it is IAF and the info was attributed to an unnamed Senior Officer of strategic command (or IAF? I will check later).Rahul M wrote:22m you mean ? doubt IAF will ever go for the vanilla 22.
and IAF not IN ??
Other titbits - One of the future carriers will be Nuke propelled. ATV's will have 12 missiles, Brahmos is already configured to carry 20 kt new-clear warhead onlee. If permitted, I can post the scans of relevent pages.
Ok I screwed up, I interchanged TU-22 with TU 160. IAF wants to acquire TU-160 as per Bharat Karnad in his latest book India's Nuclear Policy. Here is the scan of the relevant page.John wrote:
When did you read it? There was reports from Russian of IN not IAF getting Tu-22m3 part of gorshkov deal but i do not think IN really had much intrested in them . i do not know why IAF would want Tu-22.
the answer was in this part :naird wrote: Thanks Rahul ..
Even if we assume that missile will be fired in the general direction of a target , how would the pilot know which direction to fire the missile in , in other words since this time radar will be switched off and target being BVR, pilot will not know the target location or cordinates.
Rahul M wrote:however, on-board missile seekers do not have the range for the whole envelope of a BVR missile, i.e a BVR missile can have a range of 50-90 km but its seeker has a range of only about 20 odd km.
therefore, the mother aircraft feeds in target information to the missile before launching it(previously this information could only come from the aircraft's radar, nowadays this info can be passed on by other radar platforms active in the area by datalink. I would hazard a guess that this is what the article is talking about) and the missile is guided by its on-board inertial navigational system to the approximate location of the target.
ummm, I didn't say that actually. I said range will be limited if mid-course guidance is not used.Also, as you rightly pointed out this type of scenario will be applicable only in case of stationary target or maybe a seaborne target.
only for long ranges.When fighter plane comes into picture then missile would need constant guidance.
for long range missiles, yes. R-77 which is our primary BVR shot has mid-course guidance.Secondly a pretty naive question , does all our missiles have capability to receive datalink information ? Is that like a standard feature in missiles ? If missiles do have that capability then what would be the challenge of providing a constant guidance from a data linked aircraft to a missile ?
Sandipan wrote:In my personal opinion we need a strategic bomber for IAF, Why because, First of all we are trying to convert certain MKIs into strategic bombers by making them capable to carry the Brahmos.
So, it is not that IAF is not thinking in those terms. If we acquire a true blue strategic bomber, need not be a Blackjack, but which can carry multiple cruise missile and can clear the hump of Himalaya it will be a great asset. Secondly, apart from Russia & USA, China too has hundreds of Bears which can carry Cruise missiles and they can be used against us to launch the first strike. So by acquiring these bombers we increase the range of missiles and can act as a counter to Chinese Cruise missile carriers.
CM if that was the case the article won't have talked about datalink at all.Cain Marko wrote:Rahul,
The scenario you describe seems to be somewhere near the ball park. The rafale (based on arthuro's posts on AFM) can in fact do MCU sans the radar and launch the mica IIR entirely passive @ BVR ranges. Nasty piece of work really, the enemy a/c won't have a clue. In case of the Shar in the IN, it will mean going v.close to seeker range before firing the shot/s. my guess. How far is that useful, esp. with a slowpoke like the Shar?
CM.
Rahul M - some reasons why it makes sense to have strategic bombers:Rahul M wrote:
krish, we do know the definition of strategic bombers !![]()
the question is why would IAF want to have this white elephant (or white swan in this case) ?
This sounds like there will be only one akula after all.India has already managed to `reduce' the $600 million figure being asked by Russia for the 44,570-tonne Gorshkov's year-long sea trials in the Barents Sea slated for 2011-2012.
http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news- ... -officialsIndia is expected to launch a locally built nuclear-powered submarine later this month, making it one of only a handful of countries with the technology to produce such a vessel. Manmohan Singh, India’s prime minister, is scheduled to visit the Visakhapatnam naval base in Andhra Pradesh on July 26 to inspect the submarine before it is launched from its dry dock for sea trials, senior government officials said
...
- We are planning 3 carriers including Gorky which implies the next carrier after the current being built at Cochin will be nuclear...One of the future carriers will be Nuke propelled. ATV's will have 12 missiles, Brahmos is already configured to carry 20 kt new-clear warhead onlee
Boss.......not all subs look alikeSivaVijay wrote:- We are planning 3 carriers including Gorky which implies the next carrier after the current being built at Cochin will be nuclear...One of the future carriers will be Nuke propelled. ATV's will have 12 missiles, Brahmos is already configured to carry 20 kt new-clear warhead onlee
-If we are planning 5 ATV each with 12 missiles which are MIRVed(assuming 3 as UK) and that these missiles will not be transferred between subs(ie the one coming in for maintenance and other leaving for patrol) then are we looking at 180 active warheads(ready to go boom)![]()
This is for navy alone....plus the Brahmos news...
can anyone please clarify...
Manmohan Singh, India's prime minister, is to visit the Visakhapatnam naval base in Andhra Pradesh on July 26 to inspect the submarine before it is launched for sea trials, senior government officials told the Financial Times.
The country lags behind China's naval might in the region. C. Uday Bhaskar, director of the Delhi-based National Maritime Foundation, said Beijing had a fleet of eight nuclear submarines, some with ballistic missile capability. The Chinese navy has three times the number of combat vessels (about 630) as India and five times the personnel.
DDM at workWilly wrote:Headlines today running a news snippet on the Indian Nuclear submarine right now quoting a classified govt document. Bold text at the bottom of the screen says that the nuclear submarine will carry ICBM's.
Drevin, please refer sunilUpa's prev posts(I just quoted him), according to that post India is to have a nuclear powered carrier.....Drevin wrote:Siva can you plz point me to the link/article that mentions the possible indian nuke carrierthanks in advance.
diesel electrical ones are silent killers, far silent than any nuke one could ever be.Nihat wrote:Why bother with diesel subs anymore or is there a distinct advantage which diesel electric propulsion subs hold over nuke subs.