Indian Naval News & Discussion - 12 Oct 2013

KiranM · Post by **KiranM** » 20 Aug 2014 18:26

Vishnu saar, any more pics? This looks like a photo of a would be bride in half ghunghat.

nikhil_p · Post by **nikhil_p** » 20 Aug 2014 18:29

Can someone, anyone with permission from Vishnu please post the images here. Unable to access twitter in office....

TIA.

Vishnu · Post by **Vishnu** » 20 Aug 2014 18:34

No other pics my friend ... ! Half ghunghat it is !!

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 20 Aug 2014 18:36

nikhil_p, its now on ndtv.com also

Ranjani Brow · Post by **Ranjani Brow** » 20 Aug 2014 18:47

CT: NDTV walas will only disclose more pics of INS Arihant on their exclusive Defense show with Pallava Bagla.

Vishnu · Post by **Vishnu** » 20 Aug 2014 19:07

hecky wrote:CT: NDTV walas will only disclose more pics of INS Arihant on their exclusive Defense show with Pallava Bagla.

No, no, we have no more pictures. I assure you !

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 20 Aug 2014 19:08

beautiful, that is way beyond whatever the chinese made, so much for all the comparisons to jin, delta, charlie etc on BR earlier.
clearly our own unique design.

Ranjani Brow · Post by **Ranjani Brow** » 20 Aug 2014 19:25

Singha wrote:dumb question. why is the sonar area in front painted white? is it made of small hull steel or a different material?
http://www.nti.org/media/images/Jan-27- ... 1327691864

fiberglass (?)

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 20 Aug 2014 19:30

I like half ghunghat

We do nto want SF like overexposure

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 20 Aug 2014 20:07

If its fiberglass how will it resist water pressure.

John · Post by **John** » 20 Aug 2014 20:13

brar_w wrote:
It is been speculated with whole network centric capabilities similar claims have been made about SM-6 as well
Speculations aside, the SM6 has actually tested this capability.

http://www.janes.com/article/40550/us-n ... pts-at-sea

The pipeline required for this is not straight-forward, its a lot of data links, some LPI/LPD others with very high data capability all linked up to create the sensor -- weapon -- target chain (Plus the big question of actually having an "ORBIT" of sensors flying overhead constantly to actually provide the qualitative data to get a kill (Unless one wants to just happen to have something up at the right place at the right time) ). That's why i asked whether this has ever been performed in a live scenario. The USN has spent hundreds of millions of dollars to develop the back end and chart out the Baseline 9 capability of AEGIS which enables NIFCA to actually do OTH intercepts using the SM6 missile and shoot off targets over land as recently demonstrated.

Israel rarely reveals the capabilities of its weapon systems that openly like US and IN is not forthcoming either , Barak-1 videos didn't emerge till RSN tested them.

negi wrote:Looks like bean counting types have prevailed here; had the same ship been imported we would have spent 2x the amount + time and cost spent in user trials and re-calibration of sensors for sub continent (which happens for all ships imported from Russia). Classic case of penny wise pound foolish.

Beyond the horizon engagement ? That only applies to a scenario where the range of missile is much more than the ground/surface based Radar coverage, SM-6 has a range in excess of 200 km while Barak only engages targets in vicinity of 70km former could benefit with more accurate speed vector info from a airborne radar closer to the target , Barak 8 will not need it for 70km is well within the Radar horizon of MFSTAR.

Horizon for MF Star against sea skimmer should be no more than 30-35 km probably around 40-45 km against aircraft that flying low to avoid radar detection (like Falklands).

Singha wrote:going by this slide, the navy designed the P15A with 32 sams only. whatever 'hedging/cost cutting' is being referred to was not a afterthought but baked into the design. probably they will add some barak1 later from R- or godavari class ships to supplement the ak630.

Singha i haven't seen any info that MF-STAR can provide Command guidance to missiles' like Barak-1, i think without STGR or TMX- Tracker we cannot fit Barak-1 in the future. Active seeker point defense like Maitri is whole different story.

negi · Post by **negi** » 20 Aug 2014 20:44

hecky wrote:
Singha wrote:dumb question. why is the sonar area in front painted white? is it made of small hull steel or a different material?
http://www.nti.org/media/images/Jan-27- ... 1327691864
fiberglass (?)

Me thinks it is in principle like AC's radome i.e. most probably this part of the surface has to be permeable to acoustic signals to be transmitted and received by the sonar transducers in that section.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 20 Aug 2014 20:46

Israel rarely reveals the capabilities of its weapon systems that openly like US and IN is not forthcoming either , Barak-1 videos didn't emerge till RSN tested them.

I understand that however given a 70-90 km range of the system the OTH envelope would be limited to lower threats such as sea skimmers that would perhaps go down low around 40-50 km out and this is where some of that capability may be useful if it actually has been developed and tested/verified etc. Then it comes down to orbits and what resources the operating vessel has at its disposal to maintain constant orbits around the vessel to provide data for OTH targeting given that the missile would probably be in this stage for around 40-50 seconds.

Horizon for MF Star against sea skimmer should be no more than 30-35 km probably around 40-45 km against aircraft that flying low to avoid radar detection (like Falklands).

Yeah i agree, but then the question comes down to targeting, how does the attacking force look to provide itself with the SA when it goes down and low and at what range would the low_flying opposition force launch its weapons. I don't see the PLAN using such tactics..They would probably stand off and launch the YF12 from 100-150 nm miles or so simply because tactically/doctrine they would be aiming to defeat the SM6 threat to launch aircraft as a matter of capability development and the range of the SM6 is classified but is largely believed to be in the 200nm class. The SM6 has been designed and fielded along with the ESSM (and future versions of the same) so that targets could be shot down OTH making them much simpler to target from long distances..Any supersonic or subsonic missile launched from outside of the AEGIS+ BL9 envelope would have a large flight portion at altitude..THis is where the SM6 comes in and kills the missile before it goes down for the last 50km or so..For other ships without SM6 this would mean ESSM having to deal with sea skimming threats from within its 50km range which depends upon the radar horizon and the altitude. Spy1 gets about 30-35Km (iirc) at 50 feet..Together the ESSM and SM6 layer up to provide multiple killing options for subsonic and supersonic ASM's. The problem i see (for the future) is that the Chinese are aiming to defeat the SM6+ESSM+AMDR-AEGIS+(E2D, Triton, UCLASS) trio and are arming themselves accordingly.

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 20 Aug 2014 20:57

abhik wrote:
Vishnu wrote:Can never figure out how to post an image here. Forgive me ... You can get the full image of Arihant on my twitter handle: @VishnuNDTV
There

On head from older picture looked like sliver type of metal:

negi · Post by **negi** » 20 Aug 2014 20:59

If a huge and resourceful Radar like MFSTAR cannot detect a sea skimmer beyond 30 km at sea, chances of the same being TRACKED(not just detected) by a puny airborne platform using it's on board radar are bleak, not only we do not have carrier based AWACs AC like Unkil remember radar range when operating in look down mode against sea clutter is even worse. Having said that yes in theory it is possible for another ship to track the missile which happens to sailing ahead of say a Kolkata class destroyer .

Picklu · Post by **Picklu** » 20 Aug 2014 21:06

Sadly missing admiral. Akula na sahi, at least Arihant displacement ka mithai to milna chahiye

vina · Post by **vina** » 20 Aug 2014 21:14

Singha wrote:If its fiberglass how will it resist water pressure.

It is outside the pressure hull. That is how. only the pressure hull will have to resist huge pressure differences. This is subject to same pressure on both sides. So even at 300m( ie 30 atm pressure, 10m of water is 1 atm), that get squeezed like chappati dough from water pressure on both sides and probably elongate, but wont buckle and collapse.

The entire bow sonar would be in a free flooding sound permeable ship shape nose space. In he US designs, the torpedo tubes are behind the sonar (spherical), and he ship an listen potentially to all parts except directly behind with that sonar. Arihant seems like a semi circular sonar array in that shiny part with tubes under that, sort of like Brit designs I think.

negi · Post by **negi** » 20 Aug 2014 21:22

Fiberglass is a poor acoustic conductor so imho that possibility can be ruled out .

Ranjani Brow · Post by **Ranjani Brow** » 20 Aug 2014 21:33

Interior of Sonar dome is flooded with water so it has same pressure on both sides.

Ranjani Brow · Post by **Ranjani Brow** » 20 Aug 2014 21:36

negi wrote:Fiberglass is a poor acoustic conductor so imho that possibility can be ruled out .

"Lt. Cmdr. Jeff Davis, a spokesman for the Pacific Fleet, said yesterday that the sonar dome, made of fiberglass, shattered in the crash and that parts of the dome were hanging loosely when the submarine returned to port."

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/28/natio ... html?_r=1&

SagarAg · Post by **SagarAg** » 20 Aug 2014 21:40

Here another Indian submarine has the same feature.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 20 Aug 2014 21:50

Yes...it has to be sound permeable and water on both sides.
brit designs upto astute are cylinders...but very big and occupies whole nose..so torp room is behind that like usn subs.
on kilo nd arihant sonar is top half of nose with tt bottom half.

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 20 Aug 2014 21:50

Vishnu wrote: The dents on the conning tower indicate to me that they took her all the way to crush depth and then beyond .. all in the harbour !!! Thats one deep harbour they got !!

I noticed them too, kind of peculiar on the submarine no? I started looking for similar photos of other subs, but did not find any. Whhyy ssso?

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 20 Aug 2014 21:54

OK can someone explain why exactly the conning tower looks like it was hammered by hand and pasted together like an SDRE while the rest of the sub looks as smooth as a TFTA?

I noticed Vishnu saying something about the sub having been taken down to crush depth, etc... but can someone explain for the layman what really is the cause for this?

Before someone compares it to a scooter helmet, that is.

Ranjani Brow · Post by **Ranjani Brow** » 20 Aug 2014 22:03

It seems like Anechoic tiles are only applied on conning tower. (-_-)ゞ゛

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 20 Aug 2014 22:13

wavy weld line thingys are common on modern warships. more a factor of shadow than actual irregularities on the surface.

saptarishi · Post by **saptarishi** » 20 Aug 2014 22:53

its supposed to be top secret....

it makes me extremely proud as an indian. the submarine draws heavy influence from lada class (amur) and kilo class. it still has the hump like the british vanguard class ( though not as prominent as delta class and jin class type 094 ). french ( le triomphant/le terrible )and us (ohio class ) boomers have a flatter surface comparatively

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 20 Aug 2014 23:01

Fitments Of Project 15A DDG INS Kolkata D-63

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 20 Aug 2014 23:51

negi wrote:If a huge and resourceful Radar like MFSTAR cannot detect a sea skimmer beyond 30 km at sea, chances of the same being TRACKED(not just detected) by a puny airborne platform using it's on board radar are bleak, not only we do not have carrier based AWACs AC like Unkil remember radar range when operating in look down mode against sea clutter is even worse. Having said that yes in theory it is possible for another ship to track the missile which happens to sailing ahead of say a Kolkata class destroyer .

Negi, its not got to do with MFSTAR but radar horizon.
Basically height of radar placement matters.
http://members.home.nl/7seas/radcalc.htm
Thats the big advantage of naval AEW&C, the radar horizon and hence footprint expands considerably.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 20 Aug 2014 23:53

JE Menon wrote:OK can someone explain why exactly the conning tower looks like it was hammered by hand and pasted together like an SDRE while the rest of the sub looks as smooth as a TFTA?

I noticed Vishnu saying something about the sub having been taken down to crush depth, etc... but can someone explain for the layman what really is the cause for this?

Before someone compares it to a scooter helmet, that is.

JEM, those are anechoic tiles (rubber/polymer/composite pads to soak up sound i.e. sonar), they seem to have been applied to (probably to begin with) only to the conning tower..but the pic isnt high rez enough to make out whether different tiles are applied to the rest of the sub.
They look messy in pics without lighting.. here is one with good lighting..http://www.vancouversun.com/cms/binary/ ... e=620x400s
There are definitely large anechoic tiles on the conning tower and could be others on rest of sub

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 21 Aug 2014 00:04

Right got it KM

thanx a bunch.

vsunder · Post by **vsunder** » 21 Aug 2014 00:15

JEM look at the top where the gents are resting their hands. That ledge looks flat and smooth, dead give away, anechoic tiles. The crush depth comment was joke.

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 21 Aug 2014 00:22

J E Menon,

Anechoic tiles are usually rubber tiles whose function is to absorb sonar signals. However, they are relatively low durability materials and have to be discarded/replaced after X days or Y nautical miles of exposure to sun & saltwater.

I'm given to understand that even US F-22 uses conceptually similar sprayed/painted/pasted RAM material that need to changed after every flight.

Now with regards to hull structure & strength, since someone invariably brings it up,

Russian shipbuilding standard steel thickness 5 mm UK shipbuilding standard 8 mm corroborated here http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/loss ... 15626.html

INS Shivalik & INS Kolkata & later use steel thickness 10 mm as referred in Transition to Guardianship: The Indian Navy 1991–2000 by Vice Admiral GM Hiranandani Chapter 17, Project 17 Stealth Frigates under paragraph Hull Structures & Layouts

The hull structure was evolved to give a robust design with all shell and No 1 deck plating being above 10 mm

I hope this, for once & for all, closes all doubts on the structural integrity of warships built in India. I would request Mods to put this piece of information on the start of the thread so that asinine comments based on visual perceptions can be avoided.

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 21 Aug 2014 00:28

vsunder wrote:JEM look at the top where the gents are resting their hands. That ledge looks flat and smooth, dead give away, anechoic tiles. The crush depth comment was joke.

OK, now you point it out... dead clear. Re "crush depth"; well, crushed by my own ignorance

Thanks tsarkar for that deeper explanation.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 21 Aug 2014 08:15

the hazy pic inside the SBC released much earlier seemed to have that wavy pattern on the hull also. which indicates one replacement cycle atleast was done.

negi · Post by **negi** » 21 Aug 2014 09:11

Karan M wrote: Negi, its not got to do with MFSTAR but radar horizon.
Basically height of radar placement matters.
http://members.home.nl/7seas/radcalc.htm

Well as I mentioned in my post earlier India does not have ship borne AWACs AC so if MFSTAR cannot TRACK an incoming bogey at that distance chances that it will be tracked by something else are bleak unless there is another IN warship which happens to be further ahead on the same course .

Even this being the case Unkil has at least 10-20 times successfully demonstrated this CEC (Coopertaive engagement capability) as way back in 1990s when a missile was detected and tracked by a platform and shot by another well beyond latter's LOS just based on tracking info supplied by former but that handshaking needs much more than a data-link.

http://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/CR ... C/cec.html

One of the technical challenges of achieving this capability was to
develop a "networking architecture" to allow the individual radars and
weapons systems onboard the firing ship or battery and airborne
surveillance/tracking sensors to operate as a single composite air
defense system. The networking architecture must meet the very
stringent requirements necessary to transfer radar and missile status
data with high accuracy and precise timing to provide for interceptor
missile control and homing. This networking requirement was met by the
Navy's Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC). CEC provides an
identical, real time, fire control quality picture of the battle space
as though it were viewed through the collective eyes of all
participants in the CEC network. (We do not have this kind of setup in IN fleet, yet)

Other technical challenges were modifications to surface-to-air
missile performance, missile control, and airborne radar. Required
changes to Navy STANDARD missile terminal homing performance were
incorporated in several of the latest SM-2 Block IIIA missiles
specially modified for this experiment. At this stage in their
development, the representative airborne elements have not been
installed in aircraft. Representative airborne elements were installed
on Kokee mountain in Kauai, Hawaii - thus the name "Mountain Top" - as
a surrogate aircraft at 3800 foot elevation. (to simulate AWACS AC) The Radar Surveillance
Technology Experimental Radar (RSTER) used in this demonstration was
developed by the Navy in conjunction with the Defense Advanced
Research Project Agency, features advanced signal processing
techniques, and was paired with an ADS-18S advanced phased array
antenna mounted atop a 100 foot tower. A Navy Mark 74 Tartar missile
fire control system used for target tracking and illumination was
collocated with the CEC antenna on an adjacent tower. (Key thing to note so you need a fire control unit on board the vessel which is Tracking the bogey not just on board the vessel which is supposed to engage and fire the interceptor) Equipment for
these sensors was housed in buildings at the Kokee site.

Navy Mountain Top culminated in missile firing tests conducted on
20-21 January 1996. The AEGIS cruiser, USS Lake Erie (CG-70), fired
four STANDARD missiles and achieved four target kills at ranges more
than three times greater than typically achievable with today's
deployed systems.

USS Lake Erie, equipped with CEC for this demonstration, was stationed
approximately 30 miles downrange from the Kauai shore. A typical
firing scenario began when a sea-skimming target launched from PMRF,
was flown out beyond radar range, and turned back toward the ship or
toward shore. The developmental radar at the Kokee site detected the
target and provided tracking data to USS Lake Erie via CEC. USS Lake
Erie evaluated the threat, completed fire control solutions, and
ordered the target engaged while it was still well beyond the
ships AEGIS SPY-lB radar horizon. That caused CEC to
automatically cue the Mark 74 system tracking radar/illuminator at the
Kokee site to acquire the target and provide radar position
measurement data directly to the AEGIS Combat System via CEC. AEGIS
used this remote composite track data for initialization, launch and
midcourse guidance of a STANDARD missile. When the missile passed
beyond the ship's radar horizon it was guided to the target by
reflected signal energy from the tracking radar illuminator at Kokee.
Because target tracking and terminal homing illumination were provided
by the surrogate aircraft via CEC, the SM-2 could intercept a
low-flying target at long range, thus dramatically extending the air
defense horizon.

By the way these tests were not carried against sea skimmers , some time back when USS Stark got hit by a Exocet (fired at about ~40-50 km from the ship) the AWACS (I presume Hawkeye) did detect the Mirage AC and also saw it bank but it was not able to detect missile being released so USS Stark had no prior warning and since Phalanx was down (as per reports) it got hit.

Rien · Post by **Rien** » 21 Aug 2014 09:28

tsarkar wrote:<snip>
Now with regards to hull structure & strength, since someone invariably brings it up,

Russian shipbuilding standard steel thickness 5 mm UK shipbuilding standard 8 mm corroborated here http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/loss ... 15626.html

INS Shivalik & INS Kolkata & later use steel thickness 10 mm as referred in Transition to Guardianship: The Indian Navy 1991–2000 by Vice Admiral GM Hiranandani Chapter 17, Project 17 Stealth Frigates under paragraph Hull Structures & Layouts
The hull structure was evolved to give a robust design with all shell and No 1 deck plating being above 10 mm
I hope this, for once & for all, closes all doubts on the structural integrity of warships built in India. I would request Mods to put this piece of information on the start of the thread so that asinine comments based on visual perceptions can be avoided.

Excellent information and seconded! I don't know if this is professional experience or just good google fu, but that is an A+ post. Mods please sticky it.

negi · Post by **negi** » 21 Aug 2014 09:31

^ Yes it is , further googling reveals it is from

Transition to Guardianship: The Indian Navy 1991–2000
By Vice Admiral GM Hiranandani

Because of possible Copyright issues, I am not linking the book url; curious ones can google it up.

kmkraoind · Post by **kmkraoind** » 21 Aug 2014 11:01

If L&T can build hull sections of Arihant and some of inners, what stops India going for non-nuclear Arihants that can built be locally. Use the space of nuclear reactor for batteries and AIP. At least we can have Soryu weight class submarines.

One area where Japan can cooperate with India is AIPs, sonars.

krishnan · Post by **krishnan** » 21 Aug 2014 11:35

thats something which i always thought , we can build nuke sub , so whats so hard about non-nukes once

L&T could build 5-6 in no time