Indian Navy News & Discussion - 22 April 2015

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

Re: Indian Naval News & Discussion - 22 April 2015

Postby NRao » 22 Feb 2016 04:08

sure the n-power ask came from India, but honestly, do you think it makes sense to consider EMALS without n-power? As you say, it is the natural follow-on, so what's the point of offering to talk about EMALS without nuke propulsion? Are we supposed to be such idiots to want to build such an energy intensive tech powered by gas turbines? Heck, can gas turbines even support the energy surge needed for each launch, with more in succession?


Too many points to talk about, but, will address a few - in brief.

[OT]
One Indo-US relations are never black and white. They are a shade of every distrust and misunderstanding there is. DTTI is an effort to start cleaning up those shades - in the defense area. A very, very, very long way to go. Messy as it gets.

Two US is -geographically - a very large country. But i has a smallish population (about 1/3 of India). BUT, her interests are all over the globe and across pretty much every item of interest, in every field that there is - space, to poles, under the ocean, name it and someone in the US has some interest. Well, it is THE job of a gov to protect those interests (like any other nation). As a result the US has umpteen babus - empowered in their own ways to protect such interested - national interests as it normally called. Well, this creates two problems, within and without. So, without getting into any details, anyone doing anything across the globe attracts attention - that is the way super powers have operates all through history.
[/OT]

Three now to subsets of DTTI: Carrier JWG and Engine JWG. As I had stated, EMALS was proposed by the US, rest is *all* India. I will leave it at that (been discussed plenty of times).

On nuclear propulsion (Carrier JWG):

The role of USN is to share their experiences *once IN has decided what they want in Vishal*. India requested this role and the US defined it. This has to be understood. The USN will NOT open their mouth until IN has clearly stated what their needs are - share experience only related to events of concern to IN. This should not be confused with the EMALS offer, which is an offer to provide a leading edge technology, which no one else - so far - has and will probably take years to develop.

I asked and got no answer for Arihant nuclear pack, so here is my research. Arihant will need to be refueled every 10 years (the boat will be cut into two, everything replaced and welded back again). Subs in the US are between 5-20 years, mostly 20. And, US carriers 25 years. So, I suspect the decision within India is about what to use, a reactor that is certified for 10 years or redesign one for 10+X years. I bet that is the debate. Once that is decided, then the rest of the boat needs a total redesign, since everything changes. The US cannot help here. Unless they dust off an older design and hand it over to the IN. That is not going to happen.

I think we are wasting our time on this.


In what way? I have posted my views - from selling the Vicky to building larger Carriers and steaming way north and east of SCS, so I will not repeat them. So, would be curious to listen to various views. BTW I am not a proponent of another Vikrant. It *may* address a short term need, but not a long term or a strategic one, IMHO. The exception *may be* IF IN decides to retire the Vicky once Vikrant II comes on line?

Finally, the IN does not agree with "wasting our time" or do you really/seriously think that the IN is actually wasting time?

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

Re: Indian Naval News & Discussion - 22 April 2015

Postby shiv » 22 Feb 2016 05:50

Karthik S wrote:OT; was going through CDG wiki page and landed at this:

http://www.thehindu.com/2002/07/04/stor ... 221200.htm

PARIS JULY 3. For ten days at the height of the military standoff between India and Pakistan, French aero-naval forces created a buffer between the two belligerents, the French daily Liberation reported today.

For the first time, France's new combat aircraft, the hugely expensive Rafale, carried out missions of "combat air patrol'' from its base on board the newly refurbished aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle, the newspaper said. Flying off the Indian and Pakistani coastline, these fighters "neutralised'' the zone, military experts told reporters.

Alongside Hawkeye spy planes, the French navy's Rafales participated in maritime and aerial surveillance in the Arabian Sea. With their dissuasive presence, the Rafales prevented Indian and Pakistani fighter planes from using the sea route to carry out incursions into each other's territory, as was their wont in the past, the report said.

In 1999, India had shot down a Pakistani Breguet Atlantic on a spy mission.

Armed with air-to-air missiles, the Rafales undertook several daily two-hour-long patrols in collaboration with the U.S. Navy's F 14s and F18s present in the region.


How did this happen??

Probably did not happen at all. Our news media get inputs only from sources with an agenda and just because nothing happened it cannot be concluded that nothing happened because the French were stopping it which sounds like a load of bollocks to me. The "news" sounds like an advertisement for the efficacy of one carrier with Rafales holding two kaalu slave Sooth Asian air forces at bay.

arshyam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3799
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Naval News & Discussion - 22 April 2015

Postby arshyam » 22 Feb 2016 06:18

NRao wrote:[OT]
One Indo-US relations are never black and white. They are a shade of every distrust and misunderstanding there is. DTTI is an effort to start cleaning up those shades - in the defense area. A very, very, very long way to go. Messy as it gets.[/OT]

Agreed, OT, so only a brief reply. This mistrust will exist as long as the US wants to have its cake and eat it too. It cannot expect to openly arm Pakistan and then turn be all pally with us, without us raising some uncomfortable questions. But, as the cliche goes, this relationship is not a one-trick pony, so let's look at other aspects: nuclear energy: no progress, solar energy: that WTO case, trade relations: vilification of us batting for our interests at the WTO/TFA, FDA blacklists inspired by big pharma, etc., tech industry: visa fee increases, ignoring terrorism against us by their pet, lectures on tolerance just prior to visiting an intolerant desert kingdom, etc. All of the above are culminated by the periodic reminder by some senator asking for sanctions or some such for hyooman rights, USCRIF reports, etc. None of this indicates that the US deep state is really well-disposed toward India, hence the mistrust.

Because of that mistrust, I for one, take a very dim view of American offers of whatever. So far, my scepticism hasn't been proven wrong, so I'll stay with it. We can discuss this further in the US thread, if needed.

NRao wrote:Three now to subsets of DTTI: Carrier JWG and Engine JWG. As I had stated, EMALS was proposed by the US, rest is *all* India. I will leave it at that (been discussed plenty of times).

On nuclear propulsion (Carrier JWG):

The role of USN is to share their experiences *once IN has decided what they want in Vishal*. India requested this role and the US defined it. This has to be understood. The USN will NOT open their mouth until IN has clearly stated what their needs are - share experience only related to events of concern to IN. This should not be confused with the EMALS offer, which is an offer to provide a leading edge technology, which no one else - so far - has and will probably take years to develop.

I really cannot object to this statement, if this is how it transpired. I am open to revising my views, provided I see the US walk the talk when we decide on our course of action and engage with them. Let's see, but I will stay sceptical till then.

NRao wrote:
I think we are wasting our time on this.

In what way? I have posted my views - from selling the Vicky to building larger Carriers and steaming way north and east of SCS, so I will not repeat them. So, would be curious to listen to various views. BTW I am not a proponent of another Vikrant. It *may* address a short term need, but not a long term or a strategic one, IMHO. The exception *may be* IF IN decides to retire the Vicky once Vikrant II comes on line?

Finally, the IN does not agree with "wasting our time" or do you really/seriously think that the IN is actually wasting time?

In this instance, with the limited facts available in front of me, I do think IN is wasting its time. I find it hard to say it, since I respect the Navy the most when it comes to supporting Indian tech, but it must be said. I am happy to revise my opinion on this if new facts emerge, but till then, these are my views:

I don't have any problems with the Navy looking for future tech that will mature over the next few decades - that's actually a continuation good strategic vision that they have exhibited over the past 30-40 years. But in this instance, it looks like they are looking at EMALS and n-powered carrier tech at the cost of immediate needs, which are:
  • A follow on for the Vikrant for full sea-control over the IOR. The Navy itself has a requirement of 3 carriers at minimum, and they have an opportunity to captialise on the gains made at CSL viz. tech, skills, etc. and quickly churn out two more carriers over the next decade. That will ensure they have 3 operational carriers at any given time, with one in refit, while they work on the long term play of nuke+EMALS.
  • The submarine arm is still relatively neglected and needs some serious and sustained investment. The Navy would do well to prod/lobby the govt more to address this faster. This is the key to keep China off balance in its home waters, and can addressed sooner than the carrier plan.

IMHO, the above are the minimum investment needed to fully secure the IOR, which is our immediate priority, and also have some deterrence against China through our subs operating in SCS and ECS. Sending a n-powered carrier group to the SCS is not on the horizon, unless it is backed by serious power and range, and enough muscle to secure the home waters. It will also need serious airside support, Hawkeye-type AEW, etc., an air complement that can handle anything China can throw at us, and of course, underwater assets.

All of the above sounds very enticing, and I hope to see that day sometime, but it's definitely not soon :). In the meantime, we need to invest more in subs to loiter in the SCS/ECS, and carriers to take care of the home waters. Otherwise, we can be content to play second-fiddle to the USN, which is really what they want. The the joint patrol trial balloon, for instance. I understand why they would us prefer us to be the junior partner (new competitor, etc.), and that's why I am not too enthu about it.

agupta
BRFite
Posts: 304
Joined: 13 Oct 1999 11:31

Re: Indian Naval News & Discussion - 22 April 2015

Postby agupta » 22 Feb 2016 07:13

Maz - that one post alone makes it worthwhile wading through 10 pages of flotsam ... many thanks

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20741
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Naval News & Discussion - 22 April 2015

Postby Philip » 22 Feb 2016 07:19

When the much touted US assistance on an N-powered EMALS CV was first reported,I was sceptical maily becos of the huge cost factor and an N plant abso necessary for power reqs.Thw RN decided to operate STOVL JSFs simply for reducing costs,with cats adding enormously to the cost and power reqs.
So much for our great "strat partners"! Bogus bumchums who cannot give up the Paki bl*wjob!.

I heartily agree with those who advocate another Vikrant class CV,perhaps a little larger but with N-power with help from reliable Russia.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19537
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Naval News & Discussion - 22 April 2015

Postby Karan M » 22 Feb 2016 08:00

• RAWL 03, a multi-function active phased array radar with Solid State Transreceiver for land and naval applications

http://www.indiandefensenews.in/2016/02 ... stems.html

Which License produced system is this?

maz
Webmaster BR
Posts: 348
Joined: 03 Dec 2000 12:31

Re: Indian Naval News & Discussion - 22 April 2015

Postby maz » 22 Feb 2016 08:32

The non-specialist BEL guy denied that the RAWL 03 is license produced despite my leading questions as to the provenance of the radar - i.e Israel, Poland, etc? I think he is ill informed.
The Revathi, for instance, is derived from the Polish origin CAR.

raghava
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 88
Joined: 29 Jul 2009 18:40

Re: Indian Naval News & Discussion - 22 April 2015

Postby raghava » 22 Feb 2016 08:50

Many many thanks Maz ji.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19537
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Naval News & Discussion - 22 April 2015

Postby Karan M » 22 Feb 2016 08:53

Maz, the 3D CAR was a JV between LRDE and PIT to develop a class of radars together but both countries went their own ways after that with different systems.

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/login.js ... %3D1017879

A family of mobile S-band radars has been developed with close cooperation of LRDE (India).


After both countries did their groundwork & leveraged the program, they went their different ways. The Poles have the TRS-19 and 17 IIRC but there are differences in targets handled, ranges etc though they "look similar" and basically share the same layout especially the distinctive antenna hoist mechanism.

The 3D CAR for instance had a completely different (and local) signal processing and data processing system. The 3D CAR was then developed into the Rohini by India which replaced even the original JV's antenna, beamforming system. Plans were even the last holdout, the TWT was replaced by MTRDC with a local equivalent.

The Revathi in turn was an even further along derivative, which included a different antenna than the Rohini & also brought in L&T to develop the stabilized platform plus new signal processing for the naval role. Poland has nothing similar.

The above RAWL-03 description seems to lose something in translation. If it has a single TWT, then its PESA. But it states its an active system, and does not use a limited set of TX/RX modules either which would have made it like the Aslesha.

Perhaps they meant the RAWL-03 is an upgrade of the RAWL-02? Confusing.

The DRDO AESA radars for the AF are still in developmental trials and not in production yet so this can't be a local system.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19537
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Naval News & Discussion - 22 April 2015

Postby Karan M » 22 Feb 2016 08:54

If you have a pic of the RAWL-03 we can hazard a guess. BEL may have pulled a rabbit out of its hat but its very unlikely that this is an all up new system.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19537
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Naval News & Discussion - 22 April 2015

Postby Karan M » 22 Feb 2016 09:09

Speaking of the capabilities of Revathi, etc - we were in the market for a coastal defense system to replace the Styx.
Poland took its TRS-15s made a variant called the TRS-15M (a simpler task than making a Revathi on a ship) and created this:
http://www.nafomag.com/2013/08/poland-t ... toral.html

In our case, we now have the 3D CAR (Akash), Rohini (AF surveillance), Revathi (IN), TCR (Army AD). TCR was very much a BEL led program to make a compact variant for AAD (2 vehicles instead of 3). No reason why we cant make a Rohini/Revathi derivative for Naval surveillance and add in the NSM as well.

Right now, LRDE is taking the basic layout and making an AESA out of it, the Ashwini. Images will show the first proto
https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-FTWdi7dDIPM/ ... nd+MPR.jpg

raghava
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 88
Joined: 29 Jul 2009 18:40

Re: Indian Naval News & Discussion - 22 April 2015

Postby raghava » 22 Feb 2016 09:10

Karan M wrote:• RAWL 03, a multi-function active phased array radar with Solid State Transreceiver for land and naval applications

http://www.indiandefensenews.in/2016/02 ... stems.html

Which License produced system is this?


The non-specialist BEL guy denied that the RAWL 03 is license produced despite my leading questions as to the provenance of the radar - i.e Israel, Poland, etc? I think he is ill informed.
The Revathi, for instance, is derived from the Polish origin CAR.


IMHO, it could be the Thales NS100

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19537
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Naval News & Discussion - 22 April 2015

Postby Karan M » 22 Feb 2016 09:15

Can you explain the reasoning? You were at IFR so you may have an inside track, ;)

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4699
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Indian Naval News & Discussion - 22 April 2015

Postby srai » 22 Feb 2016 09:18

Karan M wrote:Speaking of the capabilities of Revathi, etc - we were in the market for a coastal defense system to replace the Styx.
...


Any reasons why that wouldn't be land-based Brahmos-1?

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12054
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: Indian Naval News & Discussion - 22 April 2015

Postby Aditya_V » 22 Feb 2016 10:41

srai wrote:
Karan M wrote:Speaking of the capabilities of Revathi, etc - we were in the market for a coastal defense system to replace the Styx.
...


Any reasons why that wouldn't be land-based Brahmos-1?


Apart from Cost I cant think of a better choice.

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

Re: Indian Naval News & Discussion - 22 April 2015

Postby GeorgeWelch » 22 Feb 2016 10:56

Philip wrote:When the much touted US assistance on an N-powered EMALS CV was first reported


Again, reactors for a carrier were never on offer.

Philip wrote: cats adding enormously to the cost


Cat operations are more expensive, both for the cat itself and the planes (F-35C costs more than F-35B) and additional training and certification that crew have to go through. Enormously so? Not really.

On the other hand, cats are enormously more capable, not just for additional fuel and payload for existing planes but also for entirely different classes of aircraft that become available, like the E-2D.

Philip wrote:and power reqs.


The power requirements were never a problem.


Shreeman
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3762
Joined: 17 Jan 2007 15:31
Location: bositiveneuj.blogspot.com
Contact:

Re: Indian Naval News & Discussion - 22 April 2015

Postby Shreeman » 22 Feb 2016 11:10

here is a fuzzy one from the fleet review http://gallery.oneindia.com/ph-big/2016 ... 299140.jpg

why the hell do they hold public events if there is not one decent picture afterward.

edit D55 -- http://i.huffpost.com/gadgets/slideshow ... 0_free.jpg

edit -- slightly better pic http://www.newsroompost.com/wp-content/ ... 00267B.jpg
Last edited by Shreeman on 22 Feb 2016 11:26, edited 2 times in total.

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12054
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: Indian Naval News & Discussion - 22 April 2015

Postby Aditya_V » 22 Feb 2016 11:14

I hope we order anther Vikrant class with necessary modifications to carry to 5th Gen aircraft the IN will deploy, thee earliest such a craft ordered today will join will be 2026-28. INS Vishal will take 20 plus years to build, I guess we need to work on carriers at the same time if we are going to have INS Vishal with EMALS and Nuke power by atleast 2030-32.

maz
Webmaster BR
Posts: 348
Joined: 03 Dec 2000 12:31

Re: Indian Naval News & Discussion - 22 April 2015

Postby maz » 22 Feb 2016 11:25

I will post IFR pix shortly. Sadly, my camera settings were quite off - due to too much thirst the night before- and picture quality suffered :(

Updated my post with pix of Rajput and a correction to the name of the HSL built IPV which is Rani Rashmoni.

Kirch P62 had the regular Oto Melara housing at the IFR. P61 Kora has the stealth mount
https://www.facebook.com/161832030661901/photos/a.521947814650319.1073741829.161832030661901/521950271316740/?type=3&theater

Kora is shown here Image

Shreeman
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3762
Joined: 17 Jan 2007 15:31
Location: bositiveneuj.blogspot.com
Contact:

Re: Indian Naval News & Discussion - 22 April 2015

Postby Shreeman » 22 Feb 2016 11:29

maz -- does my second edit correctly show P61?

ps -- thanks for the pics.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Indian Naval News & Discussion - 22 April 2015

Postby Austin » 22 Feb 2016 11:37

maz wrote:I will post IFR pix shortly. Sadly, my camera settings were quite off - due to too much thirst the night before- and picture quality suffered :(

Updated my post with pix of Rajput and a correction to the name of the HSL built IPV which is Rani Rashmoni.

Kirch had the regular Oto Melara housing at the IFR. Wonder why the stealthy mount was removed?
https://www.facebook.com/161832030661901/photos/a.521947814650319.1073741829.161832030661901/521950271316740/?type=3&theater


Hi Maz , Whats that Radar on Kirch RAWL03 ? Or Revathi ?

Not sure what stealth mount would do in an other wise unstealthy ship

maz
Webmaster BR
Posts: 348
Joined: 03 Dec 2000 12:31

Re: Indian Naval News & Discussion - 22 April 2015

Postby maz » 22 Feb 2016 11:52

AJ, it looks like the Elta 2238 AMDR to me. But I could be wrong. Would be curious for inputs from others on the forum.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20741
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Naval News & Discussion - 22 April 2015

Postby Philip » 22 Feb 2016 12:54

CATS/EMALS v,.expensive,why the RN rejected them.
The expected technical problems led in part to the costs of fitting "cats and traps" spiralling from £950m to £2bn

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-18008171
Government in £100m U-turn over F35-B fighter planes
10 May 2012
Defence Secretary Philip Hammond: "The responsible thing to do is be willing to change your mind"
The government has changed its mind over the type of fighter planes it is ordering for the Royal Navy's new aircraft carrier.

Defence Secretary Philip Hammond said the F35-C had hit development problems and it would be cheaper in the long term to order F35-B jump jets, as originally planned by Labour.

The cost of the U-turn is likely to be about £100m, he told BBC News.
Labour said it was an "omnishambles" which risked "international ridicule".

Mr Hammond said delays to the F-35C Joint Strike Fighter programme, a multinational venture led by American company Lockheed Martin, meant they would have not been operational until 2023 - three years later than planned.

"When the facts change, the responsible thing to do is to examine the decision made and be willing to change, however inconvenient that may be," said Mr Hammond.
'Facts have changed'

As part of its SDSR defence spending review in 2010, the government decided to "mothball" one of the two aircraft carriers, HMS Prince of Wales and HMS Queen Elizabeth, ordered by Labour.
Why did costs escalate?

The F-35C was seen as an attractive option for the UK's non-nuclear carriers as it does not need steam from reactors to power its launch catapult or "cat"
Its Electromagnetic Arrestor Launch System (EMALS) works on land but there were problems with its arrestor gear in testing
The F-35C can fail to catch the wire or "trap" on landing due to the design of its hook
The US is paying for modifications
But any delays to new American carriers meant the UK could have been the first country to install EMALS on a ship
The expected technical problems led in part to the costs of fitting "cats and traps" spiralling from £950m to £2bn
The F35-B does not need "cats and traps" as it uses a short take-off "ski jump" ramp and can land vertically
But it also experienced testing problems and has only recently escaped the threat of cancellation

Abandoning the plan to fit the "catapults and traps" needed by the F35-C to one of the carriers while mothballing the other, opened up the possibility that both could eventually become operational, said Mr Hammond.

"The 2010 SDSR decision on carriers was right at the time, but the facts have changed and therefore so too must our approach. This government will not blindly pursue projects and ignore cost growth and delays," said the defence secretary.

"Carrier strike with 'cats and traps' using the carrier variant jet no longer represents the best way of delivering carrier strike and I am not prepared to tolerate a three-year further delay to reintroducing our carrier strike capability.

"This announcement means we remain on course to deliver carrier strike in 2020 as a key part of our Future Force 2020."

The estimated cost of fitting the "cats and traps" system to HMS Prince of Wales had risen from £950m to £2bn "with no guarantee that it will not rise further".


But, he revealed, the government had spent between £40m and £50m on design and assessment work and there would also be penalty costs associated with scrapping the F-35C deal.
'Incompetence'

He told MPs the eventual cost of the U-turn would be "nowhere near" the £250m claimed by Labour and warned "fiscal incontinence" over defence procurement would undermine "the support we should offer our armed forces".

When pressed about the cost of the rethink on BBC Radio 4's The World at One he said it would be in the region of £100m. Labour has called on Mr Hammond to publish the full costs.

Unveiling the decision to "mothball" one of the carriers and order the F35-C in October 2010, as part of the government's defence review, David Cameron attacked Labour's "appalling legacy" on defence procurement and said decisions were "now being made in the right way and for the right reasons".


Icebergs ahead...! A report last year.
http://www.news.com.au/technology/innov ... 35e0ef42a2
Icebergs ahead for expensive US, UK aircraft carrier projects
June 19, 2015

WOULDN’T trust Australia to build a canoe? Check out the problems the United States is having with its new $17bn aircraft carrier.

For $US17 billion a pop ($US13 billion if somebody else is paying for the research and development costs) you’d expect some big bangs for your buck.
*(THat's why the IN is being seduced by the USN!)

In the case of the US Navy’s latest and most advanced supercarrier, the glossy brochure certainly makes the promises.

It’s 100,000 tonnes of awesome at 337m long and 78m wide. Inside the 25 decks hold some 4200 officers and sailors. Two nuclear reactors are intended to power this behemoth through the water at more than 30 nautical miles an hour (56km/h).
Risky business ... The aircraft carrier Gerald R. Ford (CVN 78) at Newport News dockyard. It has been completed with experimental catapult and landing systems. Neither are fully functional. Source: US Navy

Risky business ... The aircraft carrier Gerald R. Ford (CVN 78) at Newport News dockyard. It has been completed with experimental catapult and landing systems. Neither are fully functional. Source: US NavySource:Supplied

The object of its existence is to carry its 60 combat aircraft to within range of a target, launch them, land them, refuel and repair them.

There is a problem, however.
The first of this ultra-advanced class of ships, the USS Gerald R. Ford, has been delivered to the US Navy for testing.
USS Gerald R. Ford
The never-before seen electromagnetic aircraft launch system (EMALS) appears to be a bit dodgy.

It’s still experimental, you see. At some point it was decided to incorporate this cutting-edge technology into the ship even before testing and development work was completed.

Each of the planned four catapults is supposed to use electrically-controlled and generated magnets to sling 36 tonnes of heavily laden aircraft into the air.
Ten years later the ship’s ready. The electromagnetic catapult isn’t. :mrgreen:

Apparently, it misfires. Exactly how often is somewhat confused: the US Navy does not seem keen to reveal the latest figures. According to defence industry sources, it’s either once in every 10 slings — or one in every 240.
F-35C Catapult Launch

Given a string of failures at a recent media public relations event where weighted sleds wire shot off the ship at low-power settings, the former figure seems more closer to reality than the latter.

Even the 240 figure is scary when you take into account the supercarrier is intended to launch 120 aircraft each day. When you consider this means throwing away a perfectly good $60 million F/A-18 Super Hornet or $100 million F-35C Lightning II (and their pilots) each time, it could get real expensive real fast.

If the catapult’s manufacturer can’t get it right soon the only other option is to cut the USS Ford open, rip it out — and rebuild the ship around the old-style system.


But there’s more.

It seems aircraft cannot land on the USS Gerald R. Ford either.

F-35C Sea Trials

Aircraft are ‘trapped’ on the deck of an aircraft carrier when hooks slung beneath their tails ‘grab’ a wire slung across the ship. A complex array of pulleys and hydraulics haul the heavy aircraft to a stop fast — but not too fast.

Once again, in the case of this super carrier it’s out with the old and in with a largely untested, unproven new concept.
Once again, the ship is ready. The arresting gear isn’t.
It reportedly has a failure rate of once in every five landings. An urgent, but untested, upgrade is being retrofitted to the ship.

If these problems aren’t fixed fast, and we’re talking by March next year, the US Navy faces a severe capability gap. Its older nuclear aircraft carriers have been used hard amid all the wars of recent decades. They’re tired. The USN also says it cannot afford to refuel and refurbish the older USS George Washington — even though it’s only half way through its designed life cycle.
Clear decks ... The amphibious assault ship USS America (LHA 6) during a training exercise. The newly commissioned ship has proven unable to operate the F-35 jump jets and Osprey heavy lift aircraft it was designed for. Source: US Navy

Clear decks ... The amphibious assault ship USS America (LHA 6) during a training exercise. The newly commissioned ship has proven unable to operate the F-35 jump jets and Osprey heavy lift aircraft it was designed for. Source: US NavySource:Supplied

Watch the Carrier's rise to dominance during crucial engagements of WWII. From the attack on Italian battleships anchored at Taranto to Pearl Harbour to the Doolittle Raids.

An assault carrier without the assault, or the carry
The US Navy’s super carriers aren’t the only ships suffering from overoptimistic expectations.
It also appears to be the case with the USS America — an amphibious assault ship intended to support the deployment of US Marines.

Strangely, it was built without any of the usual amphibious capabilities associated with the task: The ability to carry landing craft, hover craft — or even to offload trucks and tanks to a wharf.

Instead it was built to carry F-35B Lightning II jump jets and Osprey heavy lift aircraft. It’s really just an aircraft carrier going under another name.

The 45,000 tonne warship was accepted into service amid the usual fanfare last year.

It since turns out the ship isn’t really ready — and neither are the aircraft.

F-35B takeoff, landing tests

The USS America is back in dock having her deck pulled apart. It was discovered it couldn’t handle the heat generated by landing F-35s and Ospreys.
:rotfl:

The B variant of the F-35 is designed for short takeoff and vertical landing: It lands by directing the full force of its jet engine downward. It appears this can burn through decks.

Why this is a problem is yet to be fully explained: The USS America was supposedly designed specifically to operate the F-35B.

The fix, reportedly, will never be complete. This aircraft carrier will permanently have limits on how may F-35B Lightning IIs and Ospreys it can land each day.

As the Lightning II is not yet ready to go to sea, the USS America will have to contend with only the Osprey’s down draft for the foreseeable future.
Empty promise ... The Royal Navy's largest ever warship HMS Queen Elizabeth is gently floated out of her dock in Rosyth, Scotland. The ship has no aircraft. Source: Wikipedia
Britain waves goodbye to ruling the waves

The US isn’t the only nation struggling to find reality among defence industry marketing and politics.
The first of Britain’s two Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers is due to be handed over next month.

It’s the first time in three decades that the proud seafaring nation has had a ‘real’ aircraft carrier. The three Illustrious-class ships it recently scrapped were designated ‘through-deck cruisers’ to fool politicians into thinking they were cheaper than the real thing.

But there is a problem.
HMS Queen Elizabeth

This huge new carrier is not fitted with a catapult. Nor does it have arrestor wires.
It’s a choice made to save money: Even the old versions of these technologies don’t come cheap.

This shouldn’t have been a problem when it came to Queen Elizabeth’s intended air group — F-35B Lightning II short take off, vertical landing fighters.

Problem is, these aircraft are almost a decade behind schedule. No operational examples have yet been delivered and many technical hurdles are yet to be overcome.

For the UK, there is no fallback. Britain’s force of Sea Harriers and RAF ground-attack Harriers have long since been scrapped: To save money.

And its small force of Typhoon combat jets isn’t designed for use on aircraft carriers. Even if they were, they’d need a catapult and arresting wires …

The end result? Two enormous aircraft carriers without aircraft, for the foreseeable future at least.

maz
Webmaster BR
Posts: 348
Joined: 03 Dec 2000 12:31

Re: Indian Naval News & Discussion - 22 April 2015

Postby maz » 22 Feb 2016 13:16

By my count, the IN has 47 ships and submarines on order plus another 80 odd platforms approved or planned. The big question is when will all these ships be built?

John
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2388
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: Indian Naval News & Discussion - 22 April 2015

Postby John » 22 Feb 2016 16:31

maz wrote:AJ, it looks like the Elta 2238 AMDR to me. But I could be wrong. Would be curious for inputs from others on the forum.

Thanks Maz. Looks like smaller version of EL/M-2238. Rawl 03 will offer a phased alternative to Revathi radar but based on its size i think the ranges should be comparable.

raghava
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 88
Joined: 29 Jul 2009 18:40

Re: Indian Naval News & Discussion - 22 April 2015

Postby raghava » 22 Feb 2016 17:02

Maz sir,

when you were at the IFR expo, did you by any chance get to speak to the gents from the INS Tunir stall? I wanted to ask them what exactly did they do to convert the subsonic missile to supersonic. However, on the day that I visited, they had taken a break and did not return again.

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

Re: Indian Naval News & Discussion - 22 April 2015

Postby GeorgeWelch » 22 Feb 2016 19:57

Really Philip you need to stop digging up old news that is irrelevant.

The F-35C landing problem that you keep highlighting was already fixed over two years ago and fully verified over a year ago

maz
Webmaster BR
Posts: 348
Joined: 03 Dec 2000 12:31

Re: Indian Naval News & Discussion - 22 April 2015

Postby maz » 22 Feb 2016 22:27

Raghava, the fuel delivery system was modified on the P-21 (and I presume the missiles' cruise profile too). The converted missile mimics a supersonic (>Mach 1) sea skimmer. The IN still has substantial stocks of these powerful legacy missiles so they are used as targets for CIWS like Baraks and such like. Not sure if it can perform terminal evasive maneuvers like the more modern missiles. Still, they can be a powerful weapon simply because of its size/ warhead/unburnt fuel.

The Tunir people appear to have a strong emotional bond with these babies :)

raghava
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 88
Joined: 29 Jul 2009 18:40

Re: Indian Naval News & Discussion - 22 April 2015

Postby raghava » 22 Feb 2016 22:46

Thank you Maz sir, you've made my day...

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

Re: Indian Naval News & Discussion - 22 April 2015

Postby Lalmohan » 22 Feb 2016 22:51

styx used in swarm attacks would probably overwhelm the best that the TSPN can do

maz
Webmaster BR
Posts: 348
Joined: 03 Dec 2000 12:31

Re: Indian Naval News & Discussion - 22 April 2015

Postby maz » 23 Feb 2016 00:39

Exactly! Imagine a dozen or sixteen P-21 family missiles coming at a target or a clustered group of targets. Four 1241 RE missile boats or a combination of 1241 RE/ Khukri/ G force/ Kashins can launch them. If the IN wanted to do a low end and hi end mix of missiles, then I guess a few Brahmos and/or Klubs would be fired in the mix. It would certainly pose a very major headache for those on the receiving end.

Despite all the issues, the qualitative gains achieved by the IN in the last five or so years have been very substantial. While things may not be optimal, there is adequate capability - for now. That said, certain capability gaps - ASW helos, new subs, MCMV - really need to be filled sooner than later.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19537
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Naval News & Discussion - 22 April 2015

Postby Karan M » 23 Feb 2016 00:44

John wrote:
maz wrote:AJ, it looks like the Elta 2238 AMDR to me. But I could be wrong. Would be curious for inputs from others on the forum.

Thanks Maz. Looks like smaller version of EL/M-2238. Rawl 03 will offer a phased alternative to Revathi radar but based on its size i think the ranges should be comparable.


Have to agree.. it looks like a 2238 derivative. And its clearly not a MF AESA but a phased array antenna (probably in elevation) like the DRDO one, and with a solid state transmitter.. looks like we'll have to wait for our local AESA designs..for BEL to mass produce them..

Aditya G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3421
Joined: 19 Feb 2002 12:31
Contact:

Re: Indian Naval News & Discussion - 22 April 2015

Postby Aditya G » 23 Feb 2016 02:25

P62 Kirch: Lynx has replaced the Orekh radar

Maz, you said its "P21 NOPV" - is that "Project 21"?

Any news on ASW-SWC?

How about certain subs being built in Vizag? come on let slip some morsels.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4699
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Indian Naval News & Discussion - 22 April 2015

Postby srai » 23 Feb 2016 04:07



What is that fellow doing in the front? Isn't that a remote weapon system (RWS)?

maz
Webmaster BR
Posts: 348
Joined: 03 Dec 2000 12:31

Re: Indian Naval News & Discussion - 22 April 2015

Postby maz » 23 Feb 2016 05:21

P21 = Project 21

I did not ask about the 'objects' being built at Vizag. I gather locals can see S2 sortie from time to time. I think just about everyone wished for the the Chakra and S2 to be part of the IFR but it was not to be.

Sorry, no news about SW ASWV. I am guessing that a design has not yet been finalized. Besides, there are several delayed projects - P-75, LCU, FOWJFAC, P15A, NOPV, CTS, Survey Cats - that need to be delivered before the shipyards embark on the multi-yard 16 ship SW-ASWV program. That said, this year could see 8-11 warships being delivered if all goes well. This is not counting yard craft.

Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21160
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: Indian Naval News & Discussion - 22 April 2015

Postby Prem » 23 Feb 2016 06:51

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/new ... 098650.cms
India’s first nuclear submarine INS Arihant ready for operations, passes deep sea tests

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

Re: Indian Naval News & Discussion - 22 April 2015

Postby NRao » 23 Feb 2016 07:00

Have they tested firing a missile?

member_23370
BRFite
Posts: 1103
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Naval News & Discussion - 22 April 2015

Postby member_23370 » 23 Feb 2016 07:17

Aha that's why Epron was the Russian entry for IFR. Good move by IN. I hope someday K-4/5 launch video will be made available.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5252
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Indian Naval News & Discussion - 22 April 2015

Postby Kartik » 23 Feb 2016 09:55

India US talk carrier technology

The second, three-day meeting of the Indian Navy (IN)/US Navy (USN) Joint Working Group on Aircraft Technology Co-operation (JWGACTC), tasked with advancing plans to build a 65,000-tonne carrier in India, concluded in New Delhi on 18 February.

Conducted under the bilateral Defence Trade and Technology Initiative (DTTI), the JWGACTC discussed the possibility of equipping the proposed Indigenous Aircraft Carrier-II (IAC-II) with the Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS) and advanced arrestor gear technology, official sources said.

Under the DTTI - introduced in 2012 and confirmed in January 2015 - the United States is negotiating to transfer some 30-40 technologies to strategic ally India for co-development and co-production, including know-how for aircraft carriers.



Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests