FWIW the coast guards operates 84 mm recoil less rifles off its ships. I have a picture somewhere.vic wrote:I think light crafts of coast guard and navy should be mounted with Helina missile
Good looking ships btw
FWIW the coast guards operates 84 mm recoil less rifles off its ships. I have a picture somewhere.vic wrote:I think light crafts of coast guard and navy should be mounted with Helina missile
With all of the advances made in small boat radars, it has gradually become a "mandatory" option when outfitting a new boat. Affordable prices and user-friendly systems have also caused owners looking to re-outfit their "experienced" hulls to consider adding radar to their electronics arsenal. The biggest challenge facing many first-time radar users is to select the appropriate unit for their particular application from a long list of options that includes CRT or LCD screens, monochrome or color format, supported by either an enclosed radome or open array antenna
Yes.Dhananjay wrote:Is it legally allowed for private boats (fishing, yatch etc.) to have a radar or sonar?
I was thinking as so many accidents happening with boats banging in naval ships, maybe DRDO can develop a small radar/sonar package (sold at subsidesed rate) just enough to locate ship from some distance; so the boatmen can manuever beforehand to avoid.
Also these can be connected to some coast guard station to do some scanning work for coast guard while the boat is moving.
Sagar G wrote: [re p-8A bloomberg report]
So non performing foreign gear doesn't equal to India having to pay for it !!!! Wow ground breaking insights here.
Heavy Machine guns, AGLs and Even Carl Gastaffs cannot match what a couple of Helina can do!Aditya G wrote:FWIW the coast guards operates 84 mm recoil less rifles off its ships. I have a picture somewhere.vic wrote:I think light crafts of coast guard and navy should be mounted with Helina missile
Good looking ships btw
Sorry to go OT! I respectfully disagree sir! May be some members but if you separate the wheat from the chaff, BRF is the exact opposite of what you suggested above.barath_s wrote: The comments on lack of nuance, technical/scientific illiteracy and innumeracy and sensationalism apply even more so to bharat rakshak forums. <snip>
Built by Craftway Engineers, Mumbai - which is owned by SHM Shipcare run by Saifuddin H. Hajee.
Is it so ? I thought SHM Shipcare was an indigenous setup.Built by Craftway Engineers, Mumbai - which is owned by South African Conglomerate SHM Group run by one Sayed H Mia . (http://www.shmgroup.co.za/home/directors/)
These "Immediate Support Vessels" were built using DIAB's core composite materials. (DIAB is a Scandinavian composites manufacturer and consultant).
In reality despite this boat being "made" in India, its mostly "phoren" from materials to engineering.
It is for safe training and testing. If you havn't got it right, you would not pass. but you won't be killed.SaiK wrote: q: why did not they have the carrier platform as raised platform (say 3 ft/or the height of lift that could lead to the actual runway) to be more realisitic, especially useful for landing?
nice to have : would have been some water body all around the platform to say atleast 5 feet in breadth.
I wish they had put the RWS (remote weapons station) on this. Saving costs is all very well, but having a manned, unstabilized weapon is not going to do wonders for accuracy or even operation under bad weather. Plus the crew man is exposed to return fire.
Exactly, my thought.Karan M wrote: I wish they had put the RWS (remote weapons station) on this. Saving costs is all very well, but having a manned, unstabilized weapon is not going to do wonders for accuracy or even operation under bad weather. Plus the crew man is exposed to return fire.
You don't take on the nurburgring when learning to drive. The success criterion is practice t/o and landings (traps) on as close to real as possible. If you can do that you can graduate to the other harder courses.SaiK wrote:I understand.. but is the facility created with near real conditions to validate success? so, IOW, what is the success criteria?
Hmmm...I think you may be barking up the wrong tree on this one if the fundamental assumption in your thinking is that the SBTF is a simulator for a carrier landing. If not, I apologise!SaiK wrote:I understand.. but is the facility created with near real conditions to validate success? so, IOW, what is the success criteria?
The Scorpene programme has been marred by a lot of controversies and criticism because of delays and price rise. From DCNS’ perspective, what have been the lessons learnt? In your experience now with the Indian shipyards, both in the public and the private sector, what do you think are their strengths and limitations?
The reasons for the initial teething problems of the P-75 project, though normal, have been overcome and the P-75 submarines are now being constructed as per schedule.
The reasons for the initial delays are threefold: First, MDL had stopped manufacturing submarines for over a decade. Any shipyard confronted with such inactivity in this complex industrial field would lose its expertise and skilled workforce. The second reason is that no on job training at the OEM’s facilities was possible since all six submarines are being built in India. Usually, the first one or two first submarines for such large programmes are made in the OEM’s facilities to allow absorption of the building process through OJT for the customer shipyard. The third reason has been some material package procurement difficulties. Some small size European suppliers of specific material were not used to MDL’s complex and comprehensive procurement policies and were not able to respond to some RFPs.
DCNS has been abiding strictly to all the terms and conditions of the contract since the beginning. No request for any increase in contracted prices has been done.
We believe private public partnerships (PPP) could be an efficient way to synergise the comparatives advantages of the public and private shipyards by combining the skills and experience of the public sector with the more flexible procurement and management policies of the private sector.
There is an increased focus on indigenisation in the Indian defence manufacturing. How do you think you can partner in this?
DCNS is strongly committed to the indigenisation process under the P75 programme. In fact, we can proudly state that DCNS is one of the very few foreign companies to have invested and achieved high indigenisation levels and at no additional cost to the Indian Navy/ministry of defence, despite the fact that indigenisation for a small quantity (four) has an additional cost which could reach 40 per cent compared to the original price of the European OEM.
Despite having no contractual obligation to reach any specific level of local content, DCNS has strived to develop a sound base of qualified Indian companies to indigenise as much as possible the equipment forming an integral part of the submarine. Today, more than 50 per cent of the Mazagon Procured Materials (MPM) originally manufactured and/ or supplied by DCNS have been successfully subcontracted by DCNS India to Indian industries. Factory Acceptance Tests (FATs) have already been successfully conducted in the facilities of these Indian vendors in the presence of the Indian Navy and MDL and delivered to MDL for integration in P-75 submarines.
As far as the pressure hulls are concerned, MDL has now successfully absorbed the transfer of technologies allowing them to manufacture these high-tech and vital hulls as fast as we can do it in our facilities in France with the same level of quality.
DCNS is willing to extend its participation in on-going and future projects for the modernisation programme of the Indian Navy and help the Indian government to achieve its goal of maximum indigenisation in defence manufacturing. We view our relationship with India as a strategic industrial partnership and hence a permanent presence is vital.
Coming back to the Scorpene programme, what kind of life-cycle support and training will you be providing to the Indian Navy?
Today, we have proactive approaches with end-users and the procurement agencies to further enhance the performance of our in-service support. As systems are complex and budgets constrained, we move towards shared gains initiatives to deeper optimise the quality of the support system and the cost of ownership. On an industrial point of view, we jointly look at ways to facilitate access and logistics to improve productivity. We have designed and set up advance bases so that skills and tools are directly available besides the ships. We also prepare standardised spares sets based on the input from the scheduled works. On a contracting point of view, we look at risk-sharing to lower the cost of the in-service support.
India to procure NASA aircraft for cyclone prediction
Cyclones too interested in our Eastern Coast..
An amphibious assault warship suffered damage after it ran aground off the Vishakhapatnam coast last week, bringing the Indian Navy’s worrying safety record under further scrutiny.
The latest mishap involving INS Airavat, a platform capable of transporting men and equipment to launch a beach assault, takes the Navy’s warship accident tally to eight since the INS Sindhurakshak blew up and sank at a Mumbai harbour last August, killing all 18 men onboard.
The news comes in on a day HT reported that the Navy’s failure to keep its main harbour channel navigable in Mumbai may have risked operations and also led to a few vessels running aground.
An unreasonable delay in awarding a crucial dredging contract to keep the approach to the Mumbai naval base clear has raised serious concerns about safe passage of boats in the shallow waters.
The INS Airavat is the third warship to hit the seabed in less than a month. Vessels can run aground if the seabed is not excavated periodically, though mostly such mishaps happen due to navigational errors, navy sources said.
As reported first by HT on January 26, the captains of two frontline warships were stripped of their positions, with the navy blaming them for disturbing lapses that led to accidents under their command. One of those warships, INS Betwa, had run aground on January 4.
Nikhil T wrote:Is it time for us to have a Military Naval Safety thread?
Another Navy warship runs aground, damaged
An amphibious assault warship suffered damage after it ran aground off the Vishakhapatnam coast last week, bringing the Indian Navy’s worrying safety record under further scrutiny.
The latest mishap involving INS Airavat, a platform capable of transporting men and equipment to launch a beach assault, takes the Navy’s warship accident tally to eight since the INS Sindhurakshak blew up and sank at a Mumbai harbour last August, killing all 18 men onboard.
The news comes in on a day HT reported that the Navy’s failure to keep its main harbour channel navigable in Mumbai may have risked operations and also led to a few vessels running aground.
An unreasonable delay in awarding a crucial dredging contract to keep the approach to the Mumbai naval base clear has raised serious concerns about safe passage of boats in the shallow waters.
The INS Airavat is the third warship to hit the seabed in less than a month. Vessels can run aground if the seabed is not excavated periodically, though mostly such mishaps happen due to navigational errors, navy sources said.
As reported first by HT on January 26, the captains of two frontline warships were stripped of their positions, with the navy blaming them for disturbing lapses that led to accidents under their command. One of those warships, INS Betwa, had run aground on January 4.
I don't think these incidents are because of greater number of operations. In any case, our operations haven't increased by the same factor as these accidents seem to indicate. Maybe tsarkar can throw light on how many of these are actual navigational/crew errors versus the dredging issue.Vivek K wrote:It seems that there is increased naval activity. I am confident that this will lead to a better navy. Remember that only those that sit on their behinds don't have any accidents. The navy is moving and I have confidence in it that they will fix these issues. I do not think they are incompetent.
In yet another setback for the Indian Navy, its amphibious ship INS Airavat suffered damages while returning back to the harbour on Thursday night. According to the sources, the incident occurred on account of the dredging work going on in the channel.
INS Airavat, built by the Garden Reach Shipbuilders & Engineers in Kolkata, was returning to the harbour when its propellers hit the ground.
Although, the ship did not suffer any major damage but it is a serious issue for the Navy as the incident indicates towards a navigational error.
What is more surprising is we don't have fall back plan (compare with PLAN which had 3 parallel development programs for naval defense systems) at the very least should have developed naval AAD that could be have been dual packed into existing Brahmos VLS launchers and naval Akash that could be fitted into existing single arm shtil launcher. Should have been quite straight forward to integrate that with MF-STAR.Austin wrote:Strange considering the Navy made clear that they wont commission any ships without having full weapons and sensors tested and deployed , this happened after P-16A/Trishul fiasco
It's only the first step ... wind speeds, navigation, layout , etc will all differ. Finding and landing on a target that has traveled some distance from where you started, is bouncing and pitching, has obstacles, surrounded by sea, in the dark of night and often having to do it on operational schedule has been described as one of the more sphincter tightening experiences in flying. Bonus points for short on fuel, radio/light silence, dealing with other operational complications such as other aircraft taking off and bolters etc.SaiK wrote: Very nice pictures of Indian land based mock aircraft carrier (Field Carrier Landing Practice) deleted.
so the only unreal ...
Protecting mainland IN is protecting one land... Protecting Andaman is like protecting 572 lands."There is a real threat that poachers, smugglers, narcotics traffickers or terrorist groups could occupy some of the uninhabited islands and create a Kargil-like situation," Adm. Arun Prakash
Never knew Indonesia had these bigger ambitions. A hidden desire."Another threat arose during the 1965 war (with Pakistan), when (Indonesian president) Soekarno ordered his navy to occupy some of the southern islands as a show of solidarity with Pakistan. Fortunately the war ended before anything could happen,"
In the 1980s the army and the navy had embarked on major amphib exercises off Andamans aimed at a) Developing contingencies for Sri Lanks b) Sending a warning to the Indonesians about any Falkands type misadventure.sarkar wrote:
Never knew Indonesia had these bigger ambitions. A hidden desire.
For it but not with it yet?Rupak wrote:The LR-SAM I understand has been qualified and that the Alpha's are already equipped for it.