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

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Baldev » 28 Jan 2011 06:32

you can see the Cochin shipyard in google maps, aircraft carrier being built how far the construction has gone and also the building blocks for aircraft carrier lying all over in shipyard

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

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Singha » 28 Jan 2011 07:34

er but the images are not updated on a regular monthly schedule...so its hard to guess current status except through chaiwallah cousins. hopefully with Fincantieri with their Cavour exp overseeing the process and design, no major issues will bite us.

Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11204
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Gagan » 28 Jan 2011 10:03

Baldev-ji, that picture on google earth is now exactly a year old today.

A more recent picture (I think 6 months later) was posted by Col Shukla in Broadsword, that he took across the channel from the navy base. That shows the carrier much more completed.

Hope google earth updates the pictures soon.

BTW, under agreement / threat from GoI, google earth did not update pictures of Cochin all the while the INS Viraat was there undergoing a refit. This was also the time period around Mumbai 26/11 and there was a high threat assessment of a sea route terrorist attack. That threat remains high today with reports of the LET / Pakistanis scouting Lakshadweep for bases, maldivian nationals having gone to Pakistan for training, and the recent pappi-jhappi between the Lankans and the Pakistanis with reports of LET men sheltering in mosques in Colombo.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20513
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Philip » 28 Jan 2011 14:43

The US is looking at 60,000t carriers now.There is also a wealth of info (RN studies) abotu its future carriers,STOBAR vs CATs,ski-jump ,etc,ec.Here is one detailed analysis 20 pgs+ from the Naval War College Review.Though a decade old,the RNs QE carrier design reflects the thinking in the article.

Excerpt from just one pg.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m ... 6334/pg_7/

Future Carrier Aviation Options: A British Perspective
Naval War College Review, Summer, 2001 by David J. Jordan
Previous 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 … 21 Next

Nonetheless, the CTOL carrier seems unlikely. Arrested landings are regarded as unnecessarily complicated by the Royal Navy after some twenty years' experience of STOVL operations. (31) There are other considerations. Steam catapults are labour intensive, while an electromagnetic aircraft-launch system appears to promise a reduction in the number of personnel involved. For a small force such as the Royal Navy this might not be enough, however; its personnel levels are such that any reduction in the complement of an aircraft carrier would be welcome. STOVL operations allow deck crews to be kept small; no catapult or arresting personnel are required, and barriers are unnecessary. Furthermore, electromagnetic launch might be too expensive or inadequately proven by the time CV(F) has to be fitted out.

The key point that the Royal Navy's conception of a large aircraft carrier is different from that of the U.S. Navy must be noted once more. British aircraft carriers, for instance, have tended to embark relatively few support aircraft. Advances in technology may allow support functions to be performed by heliborne or tilt-rotor designs. Further, and perhaps most importantly, it is almost certain that the CV(F) will not be nuclear powered. (32)

STOBAR Options

The short-takeoff-but-arrested-recovery design has a number of operational problems. First, rapid flight operations are difficult unless an angled deck is employed. Even then, if the aircraft requires most of the flight deck to gain sufficient velocity to fly, aircraft will be unable to land while launches are taking place. (33) A STOBAR carrier needs arresting gear, which, as noted, demands a large deck crew at a time when the Royal Navy will be seeking to embark as small a complement on the CV(F) as is viable.

Nonetheless, there is a reason for believing that the STOBAR option is not out of the running. The Eurofighter Typhoon is currently the subject of a British Aerospace study to assess its viability as a carrierborne aircraft, and it is quite clear that although the study is at an early stage, it is being taken seriously. (34) In the past, attempts to convert land-based aircraft into carrier aircraft have not been entirely successful, particularly with regard to stresses imposed on the airframe--especially in landings, inasmuch as carrier aircraft typically strike flight decks with greater force than land-based aircraft do runways. In the past, either the airframe has not proved strong enough or the weight increases caused by strengthening have imposed too-great penalties on performance. (35)

In the case of a STOBAR Typhoon, the considerations are a little different. Structural strengthening would undoubtedly be required, but the weight increases may be minimised thanks to advanced technology. The Typhoon's advanced flight-control system could be programmed to reduce the stresses of landing, particularly if integrated with a carrier-landing datalink. This would have a number of advantages. For instance, sudden pitching of the carrier deck would be recognised by the system, which would feed in last-second control corrections, ensuring that the aircraft landed within set limits. This would permit the airframe to be strengthened only as required for operations within those parameters--this, at least, is the theory that the British Aerospace study will investigate. There is little doubt that the use of thrust vectoring, already being planned for the Typhoon, coupled with a high-lift wing design, could provide near-optimal short-takeoff-and-landing capabilities for a "Sea Typhoon." The use of a ski ram p would only enhance STOL performance.



PS:It is worth noting here that several options have recently been ofered to the IN including Sea Gripens.by the time IAC-2 arrives,the UAV/UCAV options earlier mentioned would also be available.The USN would've already started ops wit the X-47B.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20513
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Philip » 28 Jan 2011 15:03

Another quote from the above article.The paper should be read in full as there is excellent info about Harrier ops,capabilities,etc.,design,ops,experience of past RN carriers,etc.

More generally, operations with the Invincible class have already demonstrated the manifest advantages that STOVL has over CTOL. These can be characterised as means of operability. First, because of the ski jump, a STOVL aircraft always leaves the deck on an upward trajectory, preventing a potentially dangerous lack of clearance between aircraft and ocean in rough seas with a pitching deck. Second, the likelihood of a "fouled deck" (from which aircraft can be neither launched nor recovered because others are in the way, either being moved or suddenly broken down) is far less acute. The vertical landing capability allows STOVL types to land even if their usual landing spots are blocked. There are no "bolters" (forced last-instant decisions of pilots not to land) on STOVL vessels; it has been proven that even when the carrier is blanketed in thick fog, with the pilot unable to see the vessel, landing is possible. During the Falklands conflict, one pilot returned from patrol to Invincible in just such weather co nditions and nearly out of fuel. A searchlight was shone upward from the carrier, through the fog, and the pilot descended following the beam. (49) Finally, the STOVL type can land on vessels that are not designed to operate it. This was taken to extremes in June 1983 by Sub-Lieutenant Ian Watson, who, through lack of fuel, could not return to the carrier; he instead landed on a passing Spanish merchant ship, the Alraigo. This saved an aircraft that would otherwise have had to be abandoned. It is not difficult to envisage situations where the ability to land aboard other vessels in a battle group would be advantageous. (50) The United Kingdom has already commissioned HMS Ocean as an LPH, and that ship could operate a small number of STOVL types if need be. (51)



(24.) The Harrier GR 7 is a very different machine from the Harrier of 1982. The "big wing" Harrier has a far greater load-carrying capability than the Sea Harrier, with eight under-wing hardpoints (two dedicated for the use of Sidewinder), compared to the Sea Harrier's four. As recently seen over Kosovo, the GR 7 can easily provide self-designation for laserguided weapons, through the TIALD system, mounted on an under-fuselage pylon. The combination of Sea Harrier and Harrier GR 7 provides greatly increased flexibility for British maritime operations. The GR 7 (as well as the GR 5 model, which preceded it) suffered at first from a number of problems affecting the engine and weapons. One of these problem areas was the new 25 mm ADEN cannon, specially designed for the Harrier GR 5/GR 7; after years of trying to integrate it with the Harrier's weapon system, it was decided to abandon the idea. The considerably less advanced 30 mm ADEN (based on the German 30 mm cannon designs of 1944-45) still functions perfect ly, but it can only be carried by the Sea Harrier. All the surviving GR 5 aircraft have now been upgraded to the GR 7 standard.

(25.) This criticism usually revolves around the capabilities of the Sea Harrier. In spite of its upgrade, it must be recalled, the Sea Harrier is a first-generation STOVL type, based on the P.1127, which was never designed to carry a war load. The Harrier GR 7, as an evolved, second-generation type, gives better insight into the potentialities of STOVL for naval use.

(26.) It is not bard to posit such a scenario--for example, had Italy not permitted the use of its airfields for Nato operations against Serbia, the only nearby alternatives were either not Nato-compatible (e.g., in Hungary) or not adequate (as in Albania).


I have posted the last quote with respect to the thoght of acquiring a few doz. early retd. RN Harriers (GR7s) ,60+ available,for use on the Viraat/amphibious warships for multi-role use.These Harriers hve already served superbly in the Gulf Wars and Afghanistan too.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20513
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Philip » 28 Jan 2011 15:12

Operating E-2Cs pose problems with smaller carriers and their ight decks even with the CDG which required the carrier's deck lengthened to operate the Hawkeye!

44.) The Charles de Gaulle suffered embarrassing power-plant problems (related to auxiliary engines, not the nuclear reactor) on its maiden voyage, being forced to return to port early. It was also discovered that the flight deck was not large enough for its E-2C early warning planes to manoeuvre safely. See "Carrier Concerns," Jane's Navy International, March 1999, p. 8; and "Up Close: Charles de Gaulle Finds Its Sea Legs," Jane's Navy International, November 1999, pp. 10-1.


Later on the CDG suffered reactor radiation problems,a screw fell off and other glitches emabrassing the French.

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

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Singha » 28 Jan 2011 15:39

while I agree that SVTOL has its rugged survivalist advantages, pls do remember the quality & density of opposition in small bush wars like falkland or kosovo is a far cry from going out and taking on the PLAAF+PLANAF far far away from our own land based air support, or fighting Su27 clones flying from PLANs future carriers. we need a/c to perform as good as flying from land (payload, fuel) to stand a chance and not handicap ourselves at the starting gate.

the Harrier in any incarnation would be hard pressed in ACM or bvr gaming vs even a 4th gen a/c like M2k/F16 not to speak of the rafale/ef/f18ef/su27 types. the JSF SVTOL isnt looking so hot either.its small nose cripples it from carrying the big radars that are essential now...(like 4" screen is the minimum desirable smartphone now)

so far I see Catobar carriers ONLY as being of use in such heavy fighting regimes....if someone comes up with a naval SVTOL pakfa or ef thats as good as the land based version AND does not suffer payload penalties we can look at it.

autopilot landings for carriers is a matter of time imo. Globalhawk has completely hands off takeoff and landing iirc and even the F-18E/F has a hands off automated takeoff (the pilot just holds the handles and computer flies it up)

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20513
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Philip » 28 Jan 2011 16:01

Singha,ex-RN Harrriers buy ONLY in the context of keping the Viraat operational (ship fine say naval experts for another decade,but Harriers in short supply) until IAC-2 arrives.The aircraft can still be used on any amphibious assets we ave in the coming decade too.These aicraft would be complemntary to the MIG-29Ks,naval LCAs if available,which will do duty on the Gorky/Vik and IAC-1.It would b a great coup for the IN to have three carriers operational by 2020,remembering that the PRC will probably have at least two of its 60,000t carriers afloat by then,with the varyag about to o duty from late 2011 itself,supposedly as a "training carrier",with teeth!

jai
BRFite
Posts: 366
Joined: 08 Oct 2009 19:14

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby jai » 28 Jan 2011 17:53

Bit of a catch 22 right now...STOVL - Aircraft issue - short range and payload, no choice of available aircraft

CATOBAR - current tech - Need more people and a lot of power, besides, we don't have the technology.....

The IN should aim to get the IAC 1 and 2 nuclear powered and then go CATOBAR....ask for Khan tech where ever required....make use of the so called good relationship and our "nuclear" agreement with the Khan :wink: This will also put to test all the Khan friendship promises.

Picking up the British 7' Harriers is a good idea, Viraat can run for another decade while IAC gets ready, and can be used from other LPD's also.

For the future, both Khan and its brother from another mother across the ocean are going for EMALS - former to use it with Nuclear power, and the later to use it without. Would still only be operational with them by 2015 or so..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EMALS

Lalmohan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13262
Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Lalmohan » 28 Jan 2011 19:36

viraat + gr7's for another decade or more is quite useful. its enough for policing duties in the outer indic islands and friendly territories off africa; frees up the 29K loaded big boys for PLAN countering duties in Aden and Malacca. Makes financial and operational sense

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

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Singha » 28 Jan 2011 19:42

dang! pirates again near lakshadweep

The yindu:
Naval aircraft foils piracy attempt


A Coast Guard Dornier maritime recce aircraft operating from the Southern Naval Command in Kochi on Friday morning thwarted a piracy attempt by two skiffs closing in on a merchant vessel about 300 nautical miles off Lakshadweep.

The Dornier, which was on a routine surveillance sortie, sighted two white skiffs in the vicinity of the Bahamas-flagged container carrier CMA CGM Berdi. “The aircraft descended and passed over the skiffs and chased them away. A mother vessel (a hijacked Thai trawler) Prantalay was also sighted by the patrol aircraft in the area,” said the Navy in a media communiqué.

For the last two months, the Navy and the Coast Guard have been maintaining vigil west of the Lakshadweep Islands for pirate boats. “This has been extremely effective and the area has been free of piracy incidents,” the Navy said.

“Because of the timely arrival of the aircraft, the merchant vessel is now safe and heading for its next port of call in East Asia. The suspicious mother vessel Prantalay continues to be monitored by the Navy and the Coast Guard units. Anti-piracy patrols and surveillance over the East Arabian Sea will continue in order to assure merchant vessels using the international shipping lanes in the Arabian sea of their security,” the release added.

Lalmohan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13262
Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Lalmohan » 28 Jan 2011 19:49

shouldnt the prantalay have an appointment with a Klub soon?

GeorgeWelch
BRFite
Posts: 1393
Joined: 12 Jun 2009 09:31

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby GeorgeWelch » 28 Jan 2011 20:00

Philip wrote:The US is looking at 60,000t carriers now.


Where?

Philip wrote:There is also a wealth of info (RN studies) abotu its future carriers,STOBAR vs CATs,ski-jump ,etc,ec.Here is one detailed analysis 20 pgs+ from the Naval War College Review.Though a decade old,the RNs QE carrier design reflects the thinking in the article.

Nonetheless, the CTOL carrier seems unlikely.



Which is of course exactly what they have decided on.

Why would the Brits with a lot of experience in STOVL operations and a conventional (non-nuke) carrier not much bigger than the rumored IAC-2 decide to jump straight to a full-up CATOBAR operation? Obviously they felt there were significant advantages that could NOT be overcome with all the fanciful ideas being presented here.

Something to think about.

krishnan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7342
Joined: 07 Oct 2005 12:58
Location: 13° 04' N , 80° 17' E

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby krishnan » 28 Jan 2011 20:20

Last edited by krishnan on 28 Jan 2011 21:32, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Singha » 28 Jan 2011 21:09

its apparent for a carrier, the Gorky will end up with a much smaller deck area than a purpose built ship.

ASPuar
BRFite
Posts: 1538
Joined: 07 Feb 2001 12:31
Location: Republic of India

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby ASPuar » 28 Jan 2011 22:58

Vina wrote:Exactly, "boosters" including the folks at Vayu Magazine projected as if the Russians had a stroke of genius and invented STOBAR (why is that Indian Defense forces ,esp the ex service types seem so awed by supposedly magical Russian prowess is something I could never understand,and that extended to areas where Russians were absolute duds, like medicine for instance!)


I will explain why. Because during the crucial and dangerous years of our republic, in which most of todays "ex service types" fought for our freedom (1950-1980s), most of the World simply stopped selling us weapons, and the Russians kept doing so. So, to them, its what they fought with, and was good. So it is natural that the influence of their experiences creeps through!

And as for medicine I have never heard of our medical brass proclaiming russian medicine as being the best, but they (The Russkies) certainly werent duds at medicine! Off the top of my head, I can think of Radial Keratomy, Virotherapy, Mechnikov on immunisation, and a variety of other discoveries and personages from SU/Russia which were world class for their time. Their average doctor may have been a bumbler, but that doesnt mean anything. We never used their avg doc, only learned from their best....

negi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13105
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Ban se dar nahin lagta , chootiyon se lagta hai .

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby negi » 29 Jan 2011 00:15

Well since this is about STOBAR and CATOBAR the important thing to note is difference in the philosophy of the USN and RuN the former were very clear about use of carriers for projection of air power and they had a head-start in this area when compared to the Russians, thanks to the war in the pacific. The Russians on the other hand were heavily building up their submarine fleet (the numbers at peak of cold war are :eek: ) and they never had a dedicated aircraft carrier instead they had these cruiser-aircraft carrier hybrids (original Baku/Kiev class did not even have a ski jump for that area was reserved for Granit missiles) the Kuznetsov class came much later. Russians are not playing the international policeman it is Unkil who wields the stick and hence the need for CBGs. CATOBAR is obviously a natural choice when one has to operate as many and as wide a variety of AC as Unkil does from any one of it's carriers.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36405
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby SaiK » 29 Jan 2011 01:41

Is there any mil fighter a/c equipped with reverse thrusters?

hnair
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3826
Joined: 03 May 2006 01:31
Location: Trivandrum

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby hnair » 29 Jan 2011 01:44

Pooch - Why go through all these hassles of steam, EM cats etc if the only advantage is for launching all sorts of crafts? Can't they use a single-shot solid rocket powered sled where the CAT latches on and the sled is either discarded or lets go of the booster at the end to fall into sea (like an arty shell casing)?? Anyway the blast slabs will be up when the afterburner gets going, so this extra blast during lighting up is not going to hamper ops of other crew teams elsewhere on the blacktop. The advantage of a rocket booster is the simplicity in reloading (just trundle in a new charge and latch on to the sled), maintenance and retrofitting(just add on grooves or ruts for the sled guidance a la current CAT grooves)

Or say use chemical liquid propellants to work the CAT ram instead of steam.

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

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Singha » 29 Jan 2011 08:41

thats the infamous 'power catapult' thing Rus had considered. apart from having a solid fuel rocket running down the deck repeatedly potentially damaging the deck with flames/safety issues...there is question of how many rockets a ship can carry and space for these. it has to be a very large bore rocket to quickly develop 3 sec worth of full thrust needed to hurl a 15t fighter airborne...so short and fat which makes it unwieldy.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5033
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Kartik » 29 Jan 2011 08:44

This Boeing Frontiers article is quite old, but gives a lot of details of the IN's pilot training program in the US, where pilots were trained on how to land on carriers using arrested recovery techniques that will be needed for the MiG-29K and N-LCA. I had found Sub-Lt Yash Aggarwal on orkut way back then in 2007 and had offered to send him a copy of that mag. That was when a lot of these pilots were posting their personal pics and one could easily see them as privacy settings were rather primitive.

vic
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2412
Joined: 19 May 2010 10:00

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby vic » 29 Jan 2011 08:51

vina wrote:
in WW2, carriers used to 'turn into the wind' before launching deckloads .... not sure if any particular orientation was used to recover a/c - due to straight decks they could not launch and recover at same time...


Exactly, "boosters" including the folks at Vayu Magazine projected as if the Russians had a stroke of genius and invented STOBAR (why is that Indian Defense forces ,esp the ex service types seem so awed by supposedly magical Russian prowess is something I could never understand,and that extended to areas where Russians were absolute duds, like medicine for instance!)

Your post punctures that hollow. All carriers before the jet age WERE stobar! WWII carriers did not have Cats and turning into the wind and working up speed during take off AND landing was absolutely required (to increase the relative wind across the deck and hence aircraft lift). It is only when aircraft sizes started increasing very quickly after jet engines, the introduction of highly swept , low aspect ratio wings in Navy Fighters (needed for supersonic. WWII planes had straight high aspect ratio wings, great for subsonic and short take off and landing and high lift), and thrust to weight limitations of early jet engines and indeed the rather limited thrust vs rpm (compared to piston) of jet engines, all necessarily meant invention of the Cat!

Now when jet engines improved and T:W ratios started getting better, it became feasible if you accepted performance limitations (like restricted payload etc) you could go back to the old STOBAR concept and that is what the Russians did (this time in addition, taking the brit idea of Ski jump to make it more possible with sufficient margins).



I was reading somewhere that a huge aircraft like C-130s can be made to land and take off from Aircraft carriers!

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby shiv » 29 Jan 2011 08:58

SaiK wrote:Is there any mil fighter a/c equipped with reverse thrusters?

Tornado

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby shiv » 29 Jan 2011 09:06

ASPuar wrote:
And as for medicine I have never heard of our medical brass proclaiming russian medicine as being the best, but they (The Russkies) certainly werent duds at medicine! Off the top of my head, I can think of Radial Keratomy, Virotherapy, Mechnikov on immunisation, and a variety of other discoveries and personages from SU/Russia which were world class for their time. Their average doctor may have been a bumbler, but that doesnt mean anything. We never used their avg doc, only learned from their best....


Well if we want to talk medicine - I think I have a few inputs - having been in business for 33 years now. Russian medicines (Remember "Novalgin"?) were invariably referred to like Russian products - as inferior compared to the Anglosphere's TFTA products. The results of that attitude is now beginning to tell on humans as it is being gradually discovered that all the much touted "safe and efficacious" drugs come with side effects that nobody wanted to talk about then.

Russian medicines may not have been that great - but we who stand up and say rah rah rah to "Weshtren" medicine need to recall what was done with Ayurveda in an earlier era. After 3 plus decades I am finding out how little is known in the field and how much that was already known was discarded as trash.

Sorry OT.

Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21125
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Prem » 29 Jan 2011 09:21

Please excuse the OT ,
Doc ,
I friend of mine have US Designed equipment with Russian Laser ( soon to be applied for FDA clearance ) to open the narrow breathing passage ways for Feena Noses without blood letting or what they call non invasive suregery . The Russians are claiming it can even regenerate or repair the damaged cratilages in aging bodies by heating at certain temperature and specially good for the Spine problems . Since i am not a Hakeem , i dont know what they are talking about. Any Idea ?

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby shiv » 29 Jan 2011 09:24


D Roy
BRFite
Posts: 1176
Joined: 08 Oct 2009 17:28

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby D Roy » 29 Jan 2011 10:05

I was reading somewhere that a huge aircraft like C-130s can be made to land and take off from Aircraft carriers!


Oh, that's the famous USS Forrestal landing experiments.

akimalik
BRFite
Posts: 133
Joined: 14 Apr 2010 11:27

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby akimalik » 29 Jan 2011 10:22

hnair wrote:Pooch - Why go through all these hassles of steam, EM cats etc if the only advantage is for launching all sorts of crafts? Can't they use a single-shot solid rocket powered sled where the CAT latches on and the sled is either discarded or lets go of the booster at the end to fall into sea (like an arty shell casing)?? Anyway the blast slabs will be up when the afterburner gets going, so this extra blast during lighting up is not going to hamper ops of other crew teams elsewhere on the blacktop. The advantage of a rocket booster is the simplicity in reloading (just trundle in a new charge and latch on to the sled), maintenance and retrofitting(just add on grooves or ruts for the sled guidance a la current CAT grooves)

Or say use chemical liquid propellants to work the CAT ram instead of steam.


Hi,

I had 2 thoughts on the issue of launching heavier a/c from our carriers:
1. Can we use a mechanical means to drive the CATs ... e.g. the Carrier would be ~60k tons, the a/c perhaps ~30 tons. Now if we perhaps there is something that translates the momentum of the carrier into the force to be applied on the CAT. An example of this could be that to have a hydraulic CAT wherein the hydraulic force is provided by sea-water getting pushed into the CAT's piston (the sea-water being fed via a scoop at the bottom of the carrier).

2. Another thought that I had was trying to reduce the frictional losses encountered by a a/c as it accelerates for take-off. What if we place the a/c on special low-friction rails which are rolling on metallic balls etc. This could also allow the a/c tyre pressures to be set more appropriately for maximizing deceleration while landing.

Does anyone find merit in these thoughts? :-).

Regards,
a

sudeepj
BRFite
Posts: 1779
Joined: 27 Nov 2008 11:25

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby sudeepj » 29 Jan 2011 11:39

There was some talk about a (gun) powder catapult for the gorshkov.. Has that idea been shelved?
http://www.hinduonnet.com/fline/fl2103/ ... 603500.htm

geeth
BRFite
Posts: 1195
Joined: 22 Aug 1999 11:31
Location: India

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby geeth » 29 Jan 2011 12:44

thats the infamous 'power catapult' thing Rus had considered. apart from having a solid fuel rocket running down the deck repeatedly potentially damaging the deck with flames/safety issues...there is question of how many rockets a ship can carry and space for these. it has to be a very large bore rocket to quickly develop 3 sec worth of full thrust needed to hurl a 15t fighter airborne...so short and fat which makes it unwieldy.


There used to be something called JATO (Jet Assisted take off) for take off from airfileds at high altitudes (Leh) and in some cases from the aircraft carriers. But now it is impractical and improvements in performance would be marginal

geeth
BRFite
Posts: 1195
Joined: 22 Aug 1999 11:31
Location: India

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby geeth » 29 Jan 2011 12:45

edited - duplicate post

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

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Singha » 29 Jan 2011 13:16

^ meant 'powder' catapult not power catapult above.

saab viggen also seems to have a reverser of some sort.

I am sure sher khan must have played with launching RATO C130 off CVNs on the sly....a few such C130 RATO were supposed to take off from within a sports stadium in teheran for Eagle Claw.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20513
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Philip » 30 Jan 2011 15:48

Will trawl for the recent link/article about the US examining 60,000t carriers in the wake of the Chinese anti-carrier ballistic missile.

The pics of the new Russian Sev. class sub in the Intl. thread by Baldev are great.Here is an article from our neighbour on the added firepower coming to the IN shortly.

http://www.thenews.com.pk/TodaysPrintDe ... =1/29/2011

The forgotten sea frontier
Taj M Khattak

... India is expected to receive one more Akula II submarine to train its crews, for a total of five nuclear submarines. The indigenous production of two more Arihant-class submarines in the near future is also on the cards

VinodTK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2292
Joined: 18 Jun 2000 11:31

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby VinodTK » 30 Jan 2011 18:15

Indian Navy scouts for amphibious warfare craft

The navy has issued a request for information to global ship-builders to know if they can deliver the craft to India within the specified time frame and also meet its requirements, a senior naval official told IANS, speaking on condition of anonymity as he was not authorised to speak to the media.


jsbawa
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 10
Joined: 29 Jan 2011 01:16

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby jsbawa » 30 Jan 2011 19:46

Naval vessel INS Vindhyagiri collides with foreign
merchant ship off Mumbai harbour, say Coast Guard officials.
Fire breaks out in the naval vessel after collision, say
officials.

- Agencies

kmc_chacko
BRFite
Posts: 326
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 10:10
Location: Shivamogga, Karnataka

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby kmc_chacko » 30 Jan 2011 19:46

Philip wrote:Will trawl for the recent link/article about the US examining 60,000t carriers in the wake of the Chinese anti-carrier ballistic missile.

The pics of the new Russian Sev. class sub in the Intl. thread by Baldev are great.Here is an article from our neighbour on the added firepower coming to the IN shortly.

http://www.thenews.com.pk/TodaysPrintDe ... =1/29/2011

The forgotten sea frontier
Taj M Khattak

... India is expected to receive one more Akula II submarine to train its crews, for a total of five nuclear submarines. The indigenous production of two more Arihant-class submarines in the near future is also on the cards


It will form part of the lethal arsenal of the country's first nuclear-powered submarine, Arihant, which is undergoing sea trials. India is building two more such submarines.


http://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Che ... 134320.ece

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

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Singha » 30 Jan 2011 19:52

INS Vindhyagiri and a container ship M V Nordlake collided near Sunkrock lighthouse at the entrance of Mumbai harbour at 5 pm today. No casualties are reported. INS Vindhyaagiri has been brought to the naval dockyard.

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2226
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Vivek K » 30 Jan 2011 21:16

Singha wrote:INS Vindhyagiri and a container ship M V Nordlake collided near Sunkrock lighthouse at the entrance of Mumbai harbour at 5 pm today. No casualties are reported. INS Vindhyaagiri has been brought to the naval dockyard.

What is wrong with the navy? If naval vessels cannot avoid merchant ships, how do they expect to avoid the enemy?

Deans
BRFite
Posts: 1091
Joined: 26 Aug 2004 19:13
Location: Moscow

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Deans » 30 Jan 2011 21:28

Singha wrote:INS Vindhyagiri and a container ship M V Nordlake collided near Sunkrock lighthouse at the entrance of Mumbai harbour at 5 pm today. No casualties are reported. INS Vindhyaagiri has been brought to the naval dockyard.


Ridiculous to have a collision, that too at the entrance of your home port. The CO ought to face a court martial.


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 29 guests