Indian Naval News & Discussion - 12 Oct 2013

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.
manjgu
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2451
Joined: 11 Aug 2006 10:33

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby manjgu » 15 Mar 2014 06:36

the pilots are aware of no radar coverage areas....the pilot takes the plane down to a low altitude to escape detection when in radar areas and diverts plane to a area with no land mass ... one has to also take in account that the pilot was kind a geek... must have planned all this in detail.

member_28502
BRFite
Posts: 281
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby member_28502 » 15 Mar 2014 09:23

NRao wrote:They should. Because before they entire one they are given a altitude, speed and direction to fly at - by a computer that determines all that using an algorithm.

Else planes are liable to break the (vertical/horizontal) separation rules.

IIRC, some newer planes have some capability to do some of these things. But I am not sure how it fits into the bigger picture.




The Saudi Arabian Airlines Boeing 747-168B,[1] registration HZ-AIH, was due to operate Flight 763 (SVA763) from Delhi to Dhahran and Jeddah, with 312 occupants on board; the Kazakhstan Airlines Ilyushin Il-76TD,[2] registration UN-76435, was on a charter service from Chimkent to Delhi as KZA1907.[3] SVA763 departed New Delhi at 18:32 local time. KZA1907 was, at the same time, descending to land at New Delhi. Both flights were controlled by approach controller VK Dutta. The crew of SVA763 consisted of Captain Khalid Al Shubaily, First Officer Nazir Khan, and Flight Engineer Edris Arabia. On KZA1907, Gennadi Cherepanov served as the pilot and Igor Repp served as the radio operator.[4]
KZA1907 was cleared to descend to 15,000 feet (4,600 m) when 74 miles (119 km) from the airport while SVA763, traveling on the same airway as KZA1907 but in the opposite direction, was cleared to climb to 14,000 feet (4,300 m). About eight minutes later, around 18:40, KZA1907 reported having reached its assigned altitude of 15,000 feet (4,600 m) but it was actually lower, at 14,500 feet (4,400 m), and still descending.[2] At this time, Dutta advised the flight, "Identified traffic 12 o'clock, reciprocal Saudia Boeing 747, 10 miles (16 km). Report in sight."
When the controller called KZA1907 again, he received no reply. He warned of the other flight's distance, but it was too late. The two aircraft had collided, the tail of KZA1907 cut through SVA763's left wing and horizontal stabilizer. The crippled Boeing quickly lost control and went into rapidly descending spiral motion towards the ground with fire trailing from the wing. The Boeing broke up in air under the stresses before the wreckage hit the ground at almost 1,135 km/h (705 mph). The Ilyushin remained structurally intact as it went in a steady but rapid and uncontrolled descent until it crashed in a field.[5] Rescuers discovered four critically injured passengers from the Ilyushin, but they all died soon afterwards. Two passengers from the Saudi flight survived the crash, still strapped to their seats, only to die soon after of internal injuries.[6] [7] In the end, all 312 people on board SVA763 and all 37 people on KZA1907 were killed.
Captain Timothy J. Place, a pilot for the United States Air Force, was the sole eyewitness to the event. He was making an initial approach in a Lockheed C-141B Starlifter when he saw that "a large cloud lit up with an orange glow".[8]
The collision took place about 60 miles (97 km) west of Delhi.[9] The wreckage of the Saudia aircraft crashed near Dhani village, Bhiwani District, Haryana. The Kazakhstani aircraft wreckage hit near Birohar village, Rohtak District, Haryana.[10] This was the first mid-air collision between two commercial aircraft since the Dniprodzerzhynsk mid-air collision in 1979.[3]



Note the Khazak plane had no radome

srin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2011
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:13

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby srin » 15 Mar 2014 11:46

Not sure if a radar would have helped - civilian aircraft radar is weather radar, and also the angle of interception was pretty oblique.
This was a classic usecase for TCAS. The TCAS relies only on transponder signals.

manjgu
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2451
Joined: 11 Aug 2006 10:33

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby manjgu » 15 Mar 2014 12:04

is this a silent revenge for recent chinese action on ughurs? this could be a possible motive...

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16814
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby NRao » 15 Mar 2014 12:16

Note the Khazak plane had no radome


* No-radar refers to ground radar coverage
* (For kicks) do we know if the Kazakh plane had a transponder (that was turned on)? IF it did, then his "still descending" should have been detected
* Even then I have never heard of opposing flight paths overlapping. They should have both V and H separation. (Which year was this? I am fairly confident it will not happen today. His advise "12 o'clock" is ominous - 10/2 o'clock for H and then there should be at least 2000 ft V) (*dunno*)
* IIRC India attained international standards only around 2008-9. ?????






Live civilian air traffic, hover your mouse over any of the flight, double-click to get more details of the flight, including altitude AND boat load of other details:

http://www.flightradar24.com/41.72,-88.11/3

However, if any of them turns off the transponder - phooof. All bets are off.

Paul
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3579
Joined: 25 Jun 1999 11:31
Contact:

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Paul » 15 Mar 2014 12:41

^^^If it is uighurs why would they hijack a MH plane, would a China airlines plane not be more suitable to make a statement?

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

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby KiranM » 15 Mar 2014 13:23

NRao wrote:
Note the Khazak plane had no radome


* No-radar refers to ground radar coverage
* (For kicks) do we know if the Kazakh plane had a transponder (that was turned on)? IF it did, then his "still descending" should have been detected
* Even then I have never heard of opposing flight paths overlapping. They should have both V and H separation. (Which year was this? I am fairly confident it will not happen today. His advise "12 o'clock" is ominous - 10/2 o'clock for H and then there should be at least 2000 ft V) (*dunno*)
* IIRC India attained international standards only around 2008-9. ?????


I watched the Air Crash Investigation series on this mishap on Nat Geo. The investigation proved that the altimeter in the Kazakh plane was faulty leading to the collision. The Kazakh plane was tryng to maintain the instructed Vertical separation as per the altimeter which registered the change in altitude in a faulty way.

manjgu
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2451
Joined: 11 Aug 2006 10:33

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby manjgu » 15 Mar 2014 15:23

@paul .. a armed hijacking maybe is not so easy ? a committed pilot is the only one who can destroy a plane without resorting to arms, explosives !

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12270
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Aditya_V » 15 Mar 2014 17:51

My worry is more about something as Large 777 with its transponder shut off able to cross A&N islands with no news from Indian Navy/Airforce. Hope that is not true.

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

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Singha » 15 Mar 2014 17:58

China airlines planes likely have armed marshals, Malaysia may not

nishu
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 62
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 19:49

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby nishu » 15 Mar 2014 19:22

With South china sea , Andaman sea and Malacca straits becoming a militarized zone with all countries in the region building there military , Probably this area is under surveillance by a number of countries and the radar zones will overlap .
And add to that Andaman islands are a strategic base for our military and it should have radar that can scan much deeper into the Malaysian territory and near by waters .
I believe there is a conspiracy going on and all are trying to cover this up . May be some one shot the plane down like soviet union did to south Korean plane .
May Be :?:

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16814
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby NRao » 15 Mar 2014 19:34

@KiranM,

Thanks. Nice data point. That resolves the vertical separation, not the horizontal one. Anyways, let it slide.

@Aditya_V

I do not think anyone has sufficient data to make a good determination. Which is why they are fishing in multiple search zones.

@nishu

They should have picked up a debris field. Or, someone - fishermen, other ships - will in the future.

manjgu
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2451
Joined: 11 Aug 2006 10:33

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby manjgu » 15 Mar 2014 20:14

till now the systems on a a/c have been designed with the assumption that pilot will never wilfully destruct the aircraft. I think now there should be systems which are totally independent of pilots intervention ...which run autonomously ( and with own power supply?) and cant be shut down by pilot and in a part of the plane not accessible during flight.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16814
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby NRao » 15 Mar 2014 20:56

A UAV within a civilian aircraft? Interesting.

John
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2436
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby John » 15 Mar 2014 21:50

Singha wrote:China airlines planes likely have armed marshals, Malaysia may not


As per news report China doesn't have any marshals neither does Malaysia however Singapore does have them. China is investigating Uighur passenger there is still lot of confusion one unconfirmed reports suggest he is a professor and he had some ties to extremists.

Austin wrote:Dont understand IN , They can use Barak-1/AK-630 CIWS as they use on other new ships and standardise on it , why the need for global tender etc will delay the process and would leave the ship without CIWS.


Take that news article with grain of salt i think it pure DDM throwing darts and hoping they were right. Only point defense systems that can easily be strapped on are Barak-1 or VL-MICA or RAM or perhaps Russian Palma everything else require extensive deck penetration which is very unlikely IN would undertake till Vikrant is ready.
Last edited by John on 15 Mar 2014 21:52, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby KiranM » 15 Mar 2014 21:51

NRao wrote:@KiranM,

Thanks. Nice data point. That resolves the vertical separation, not the horizontal one. Anyways, let it slide.


As per wiki, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charkhi_Dadri_mid-air_collision; both planes were assigned the same airway flying in opposite directions. So I guess horizontal separation was not intended. Only vertical separation. But wiki does not list the faulty altimeter finding.

IIRC, the problem with the altimeter was that a change in every 1000ft was recorded as lesser.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16814
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby NRao » 15 Mar 2014 22:25

ToI:

Speaking to TOI, air traffic controllers' guild secretary Sugata Pramanik said that while flight MH370 could have avoided detection on the Secondary Surveillance Radar, the blip by the huge Boeing 777-200 ER aircraft would surely have been spotted by the Air Force that uses Primary Surveillance Radars to detect such intrusions. Any flight that moves in the north-western direction towards Kazakhstan from Malaysia, as suggested by Razak, is bound to pass through Kolkata Flight Information Region. (FIR).

"If an aircraft wants to avoid being seen, they can easily become invisible to a civilian radar by switching off the transponder that relays information about the plane. But it cannot avoid defence systems. The Indian Air Force has radars in multiple installations across the country and it is inconceivable that none of them spotted the odd blip with no flight clearance," he said.


Guild member Sushil Mondal concurred, explaining that all hell would break loose if Air Force detected an aircraft that did not have air defence clearance. Any plane flying through Indian airspace is first required to submit the flight plan and manifest to the air traffic controls in its flight path. This is then relayed to the Air Force for permission.

"There are times when the Air Force finds a blip that does not match a flight plan. That usually happens when flight plans going missing at their end due to a system or link failure. They then immediately contact us for information. If the plane flight plan isn't of suspicious nature, a clearance is granted. Or else, it is asked to return to wherever it came from. In case, we too don't have any information of the aircraft, all hell will break loose and the Air Force may even scramble jets to take the plane down. Nothing of the kind happened last Saturday," said Mondal.

Kolkata airport has an Automatic Dependence Surveillance Radar and Controller-Pilot Datalink Communication that enables it to not only trail planes when it is in the radar zone of 60 nautical miles or nearly 120 km and beyond through very high frequency radio but also through the data link when the plane goes out of voice communication range. There are large areas in the Kolkata FIR, particularly over Bay of Bengal, that have no radar coverage at present. A radar has been installed in Andaman and Nicobar Islands but is yet to be commissioned.

Not that it would have helped though. According to the Malaysian PM, those in control of MH370 had deliberately switched off all communication devices to fly undetected for nearly seven hours after it was last sighted on radar.


http://www.samachar.com/Missing-Malaysi ... jaifh.html

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8186
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Indranil » 15 Mar 2014 23:02

KiranM wrote:
NRao wrote:@KiranM,

Thanks. Nice data point. That resolves the vertical separation, not the horizontal one. Anyways, let it slide.


As per wiki, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charkhi_Dadri_mid-air_collision; both planes were assigned the same airway flying in opposite directions. So I guess horizontal separation was not intended. Only vertical separation. But wiki does not list the faulty altimeter finding.

IIRC, the problem with the altimeter was that a change in every 1000ft was recorded as lesser.


I remember that episode pretty well. There was no horizontal separation, as at that time Delhi had only one corridor for both incoming and outgoing planes (owing to IAF's restrictions). After this accident, this was relaxed and two dedicated corridors one each for incoming and outgoing planes were created.

Also it was not a problem in the altimeter. The pilot of the Kazakh airlines never leveled out while coming down from 23000 to 15000 feet (his assigned height). He continued to descend below 14,000 feet and 2 seconds before the impact ordered full throttle to climb back to 15000 feet. Unfortunately this was too late. In fact if he hadn't ordered the climb back, he would have flown below the other aircraft.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16814
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby NRao » 16 Mar 2014 21:27

FYI for the missing plane and an important data point for future discussions:

Missing Malaysia plane: MH370 and the military gaps

The plane was apparently at one stage heading in the direction of India's Andaman and Nicobar islands. But it has been reported that military radars there might not even have been operating, as the threat level there was perceived as low.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20890
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Philip » 16 Mar 2014 22:05

Yes,we've learnt nothing from 26/11 where the threat there was high!

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16814
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby NRao » 17 Mar 2014 00:20

Ahemmmm

Air Force debunks 'Missing Malaysian jet for 9/11-type attack on India' theory

The theory that the missing Malaysian aircraft could have been hijacked for a 9/11-type attack on India was today debunked by the IAF and strategic experts who said it would not have escaped detection had it entered the Indian air space.

Senior IAF officers said India has multi-layered and seamless radar coverage over the areas suggested as the possible route for the aircraft in the theories in this regard and the aircraft would have been detected.


Looks like the Indian radars were functioning, after all.

The theory about the possibility of the plane, which has been missing for over a week, being used as a missile to target India like the September 11, 2001 attack in New York was propagated by former US Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott.

In a tweet, he wrote, "Direction, fuel load and range now lead some to suspect hijackers planned a 9/11-type attack on an Indian city."

Ruling out such a possibility, a senior IAF officer said in the US attacks, the planes were going from one city to another and deviated shortly before their designated landing places to carry out attacks.

"In this case, the aircraft will have to enter India undetected for long hours before carrying out such an attack and this would be impossible due to the extensive radar coverage in the Northeast and the Western sectors of the country," he said.

In case, any such aircraft is detected, the IAF has a Standard Operating Procedure.

"If the aircraft is not identifying itself, it is intercepted and directed to follow our instructions. If it does not comply, it can be destroyed also because you don't know its intentions and it may even carry out bombing or other kind of attacks," the IAF officer said.

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

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Singha » 17 Mar 2014 07:14

the AN radars were patchy in first place and probably switched off. moreover its not integrated into the ATCs on mainland which are integrated somewhat with the IAF sector radar rooms.

so we lose 1000km worth of early warning, vital time in which fighters can be armed and sent up before any threat reaches the coast.

secondly there is a huge distance between chennai and kolkata with just small bubbles of ATC radar coverage at vizag and bhubaneswar with dark territories offering inviting ingress routes to any miscreant. its our soft underbelly.

any smart miscreant would avoid the NE and Indo-TSP border and instead stab us in the belly.

and someone pls tell me where long range fighters are based on the east coast - there is none. the nearest fighter base that can tackle the east coast is likely Pune and Bagdogra! the bagdogra has Bisons which have no range to run these missions so east is basically nanga. and to get from Pune to middle of BOB means refueler has to be arranged.

we need fighters in a few places like Chennai, Vizag, Kalaikunda to attempt to close these gaps.

Yogi_G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2400
Joined: 21 Nov 2008 04:10
Location: Punya Bhoomi -- Jambu Dweepam

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Yogi_G » 17 Mar 2014 07:41

Singha wrote:the AN radars were patchy in first place and probably switched off. moreover its not integrated into the ATCs on mainland which are integrated somewhat with the IAF sector radar rooms.

so we lose 1000km worth of early warning, vital time in which fighters can be armed and sent up before any threat reaches the coast.

secondly there is a huge distance between chennai and kolkata with just small bubbles of ATC radar coverage at vizag and bhubaneswar with dark territories offering inviting ingress routes to any miscreant. its our soft underbelly.

any smart miscreant would avoid the NE and Indo-TSP border and instead stab us in the belly.

and someone pls tell me where long range fighters are based on the east coast - there is none. the nearest fighter base that can tackle the east coast is likely Pune and Bagdogra! the bagdogra has Bisons which have no range to run these missions so east is basically nanga. and to get from Pune to middle of BOB means refueler has to be arranged.

we need fighters in a few places like Chennai, Vizag, Kalaikunda to attempt to close these gaps.


Upcoming deployment of Sukhois in Tanjore and LCA in Sulur should help, no?

Bob V
BRFite
Posts: 389
Joined: 26 Jul 2009 04:29
Location: Out at the sea
Contact:

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Bob V » 17 Mar 2014 07:46

What's the purpose of the airbase at Tambaram ? Just for training cadets on Kirans or do we have any heavy assets there ?

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16814
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby NRao » 17 Mar 2014 07:50

Well. There are local and regional ATCs. The local - per one of the articles, filters beyond a certain altitude. So aircraft's above are deliberately not seen. But the regional and the primary radars should pick up *any* aircraft, especially such a big one.

India, supposedly, conforms to international standards, for civilian stuff, since 2008.

Check out the tracker I posted. It provides you with which radar is painting that aircraft. And it also shows you the flight path from origin.

There are plenty of overflights, over India.

manjgu
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2451
Joined: 11 Aug 2006 10:33

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby manjgu » 17 Mar 2014 07:54

@singha ..the radar coverage is based on threat perception.... we dont expect many hostile a/c coming from that direction during normal course/peace time. unless china has a a/c carrier in the vicinity and there is a war between india/china , i dont see any other miscreant coming from that direction!!??

one cant not have 24*7*365 coverage everywhere ... even this mysterious MH370 did not come to india !!

manjgu
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2451
Joined: 11 Aug 2006 10:33

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby manjgu » 17 Mar 2014 07:59

tambaram is FIS ie (officer) Flying instructors school. training establishment !! and a airmen selection centre. Many years ago a 737 landed there mistaking it for chennai airport!!! :-)

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20890
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Philip » 17 Mar 2014 09:04

If the A&N islands,"Fortress Andamans" is to be the first line of defence of the Indian mainland,and which has a "Fortress Commander",as said before as effective as "Fortress Singapore" of WW2 infamy,we will be up the creek and without a paddle should a concerted effort be made to annex the islands. One would've imagined a whole string of radars atop the hills of the major islands ,similar to what we've been doing around the Indian coastline,radars atop lighthouses,etc.,providing a 24X7 coverage.The Chinese have viewed the Malacca ZStraits and A&N islands as a "steel mesh ,",but must be delighted to discover that the steel mesh is nothing more deadly than the equivalent of a frayed nylon fishing net!

In truth,apart from a string of high-powered radars and sensors to detect threats from both air,sea and sub-sea, a comprehensive UAV and UUV inventory is required to assist the static sensors. A SOSUS style UW string of sensors is essential to monitor subs ingressing into the IOR through the Straits and we must exploit as much as possible the relationship with Vietnam who have offered us naval facilities to monitor the Indo-China Sea. since we are supposedly training the Vietnamse navy in submarine warfare. There are holes in ous island defences which need to be filled asap.

symontk
BRFite
Posts: 920
Joined: 01 Nov 2001 12:31
Location: Bangalore

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby symontk » 17 Mar 2014 09:05

All nuke facilities are covered by fighters. Tambram does have some. The same reason why Tuticorin will have some too

vaibhav.n
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 575
Joined: 23 Mar 2010 21:47

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby vaibhav.n » 17 Mar 2014 13:24

A map showing the search areas where Indian Armed Forces are focusing their hunt from the air for the missing MH370.
Image


A Real-Time map of initial search ops detailing the designated search area for flight MH370 released by Indian Navy MOC
Image

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16814
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby NRao » 17 Mar 2014 13:30

India, I think, has called of the search. The two arcs are the areas of interest, with the area west of oz being the most likely spot.

Interesting that Malaysian AF let an unidentified object fly right through!!! And they tracked the object too. Did not raise alarm not intercept it.

The pilot named Shah is said to be rather close to the opp jailed leader.

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12270
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Aditya_V » 17 Mar 2014 13:43

Well I am sure Navy has air defence radars around Vizag, Chennai basis and DRDO must have all kinds of radars at Orissa, so I say fat chance the 777 went through mailand India and would have certainly been tracked while exiting, unless thee Pilot Circumnavigated the Indian penunsula

Paul
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3579
Joined: 25 Jun 1999 11:31
Contact:

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Paul » 17 Mar 2014 14:55

There are ballistic missile tests happening over Orissa all the time which would be covered by radars. DRDO chief wanted to set up a Anti missile testing range over A&N region.

There must be more Indian coverage here. Only thing is that it is all used based on Threat perception.

srin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2011
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:13

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby srin » 17 Mar 2014 16:48

I'd expect mainland to be sufficiently covered from all approaches. Btw, what surveillance radar does IAF have ? Because even if you take Rohini radar with approx 200km as stated range, we will require many dozens of them in the mainland and yet most of deep sea areas of BoB is out of range.

It is however a bad news that A&N doesn't have continuous surveillance. Though I think things are in progress ...

http://www.spsnavalforces.com/exclusive/?id=46&h=Indian-Navy-for-new-airport-surveillance-radars
In an effort to ramp up navigation and surveillance systems at its airfields across the country, the Indian Navy has announced interest in acquiring an unspecified number of airport surveillance radars (ASR), including a secondary surveillance radar, for its naval air stations. The ASR will be used to detect aircraft and helicopters, automatically track them, identification of cooperative air targets with respect to aircraft identification, altitude etc, and provision of SSR data on the radar display, and weather data to the ATC. The tender is expected to be the first in a slew of radar purchases expected from the navy in the short term.

The Navy's brand new air station INS Baaz—India's southernmost air station—at Campbell Bay on the Nicobar Islands will receive one of these radars. The air station is currently capable of receiving only transport aircraft and helicopters, but may in the future be expanded for fighter operations.

Hemanth
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 26
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Hemanth » 17 Mar 2014 21:15

Aditya_V wrote:My worry is more about something as Large 777 with its transponder shut off able to cross A&N islands with no news from Indian Navy/Airforce. Hope that is not true.


I thought the same. Even if it managed to circumnavigate India, it should've been picked up the Chineese tracking stations. Otherwise, we've seriously over-estimated the capabilities of IAF & PLAF.

My hunch: If the flight took the northern arch, one of the AF's shot it down.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20890
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Philip » 17 Mar 2014 22:08

Funny,no local media coverage at all,esp. if a Brit. N-sub with a leaky reactor was "diverted to India"!


[/quote]
Nuclear submarine HMS Tireless refused United Arab Emirates entry

By Claire Jones
BBC News Online
HMS Tireless HMS Tireless's visit to the Gulf of Oman was "delayed"

A nuclear submarine had to be diverted to India after it was refused entry to the United Arab Emirates (UAE)
.
It is understood Plymouth-based HMS Tireless sat in international waters for more than a week while a replacement crew waited in the port.

Families of those on board who travelled to meet the crew had to return to the UK without seeing them.
The Royal Navy said it was only a "delay" and "not a safety issue". UAE authorities have not commented.

Continue reading the main story
HMS TIRELESS
The nuclear submarine was launched on 17 March 1984
It holds a crew of 130, and 18 officers
In 2000, a fault was discovered on board which forced 12 UK nuclear submarines to undergo intensive inspections. The submarine became stranded in Gibraltar in May of the same year due to leaking pipe work
In 2003, the vessel - which has a top speed of 32 knots or 36.8 mph - collided with an object at sea prompting a Ministry of Defence inquiry
In 2007, two mechanics died on board when a self-contained oxygen generator exploded while the vessel was at the North Pole
In 2012, HMS Tireless returned to Plymouth after a leak in its nuclear reactor

A week after the vessel was not given clearance, a decision was taken to dock in Goa.

Some families are understood to be seeking compensation for the cost of flights and a week of accommodation while in the UAE.

The Royal Navy said: "We do not discuss submarine movements for reasons of security.

"However, I can confirm that HMS Tireless's visit programme in the Gulf of Oman was delayed. We do not routinely comment on submarine operations so we are unable to discuss the detail, although we can confirm it was not a safety issue.

"A small number of families did travel to the region at their own expense in anticipation of the visit. They were kept informed of the situation by local Royal Navy personnel ashore."

The Foreign and Commonwealth Office denied there were any diplomatic issues between the UK and the UAE.

It said: "The UK has a long history of co-operation and friendship with the UAE.

"We maintain regular contact at the most senior levels and work together on shared interests and security challenges across the region."

In 2011, 30-year-old HMS Tireless spent 10 months on deployment to the Middle East.
[/quote]

vishvak
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5836
Joined: 12 Aug 2011 21:19

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby vishvak » 17 Mar 2014 22:23

Similar to specific protests only in India by Europeans' backing but not within Europe, say in France or Ukraine even!

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Viv S » 17 Mar 2014 23:41

Philip wrote:Funny,no local media coverage at all,esp. if a Brit. N-sub with a leaky reactor was "diverted to India"!


There are 130 people living in the submarine; if it were a safety issue I'd imagine they'd have been a rush to evacuate all non-essential members of the crew. Its more likely to be a diplomatic snub by the UAE in response to last month's resumption of diplomatic relations between the UK and Iran.

TSJones
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3022
Joined: 14 Oct 1999 11:31

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby TSJones » 17 Mar 2014 23:53

Viv S wrote:
Philip wrote:Funny,no local media coverage at all,esp. if a Brit. N-sub with a leaky reactor was "diverted to India"!


There are 130 people living in the submarine; if it were a safety issue I'd imagine they'd have been a rush to evacuate all non-essential members of the crew. Its more likely to be a diplomatic snub by the UAE in response to last month's resumption of diplomatic relations between the UK and Iran.


+1 I agree with your assessment.

Ajit.C
BRFite
Posts: 160
Joined: 10 Sep 2008 13:15
Location: Middle East
Contact:

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Ajit.C » 18 Mar 2014 00:58

Donot think UK and Iran relation was a reason. Since UAE is very keen in west rebuilding relations with Iran, same with Oman.


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 22 guests