Malabar Naval Exercises

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21825
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Postby Austin » 08 Sep 2007 17:09

Singha wrote:You need a spread of torpedoes to really hurt these CVNs or obese heavy
ASMs like Granit. the older AS-6 kingfish was itself big as Mig21 to me.


The only torpedo capable of sinking a CVN with a direct hit is the Russian 650mm Type 65 wake homer .

Hope we get them with the Akula 2 :twisted:

I have been told that during the past decade or so , on few occasions the Kilo came close enough of its firing range of Torpedo against an American CVN. It was just the usual cat and mouse game we played when a Carrier visited or passed through this part of the world.

JCage
BRFite
Posts: 1562
Joined: 09 Oct 2000 11:31

Postby JCage » 08 Sep 2007 17:14

You dont need to sink a carrier- you just need to slow it down and make it vulnerable. A carriers greatest strength is its mobility. It can move where you dont anticipate, and launch. Slow it down, and it become a floating fortress- either out of the fight, or a liability for its defenders who have to defend it, come what may.

Nayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2553
Joined: 11 Jun 2006 03:48
Location: Vote for Savita Bhabhi as the next BRF admin.

Postby Nayak » 08 Sep 2007 17:50

Image

US naval crew-members signal as a fighter aircraft prepares to take-off from the US super-carrier USS Kitty Hawk in the Bay of Bengal, during the Malabar exercise. A top US navy commander involved in Indian Ocean wargames said Friday the exercises were not aimed at sending a message to either China or Iran.(AFP/Deshakalyan Chowdhury)

Nayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2553
Joined: 11 Jun 2006 03:48
Location: Vote for Savita Bhabhi as the next BRF admin.

Postby Nayak » 08 Sep 2007 17:51

Image

US naval crewmembers hold the tow chains on the US super-carrier USS Kitty Hawk in the Bay of Bengal, during the Malabar exercise.

Nayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2553
Joined: 11 Jun 2006 03:48
Location: Vote for Savita Bhabhi as the next BRF admin.

Postby Nayak » 08 Sep 2007 17:54

Image


A US navy officer watches as a fighter plane shoots out from the USS Kitty Hawk in the Bay of Bengal, during the Malabar exercise.


Nayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2553
Joined: 11 Jun 2006 03:48
Location: Vote for Savita Bhabhi as the next BRF admin.

Postby Nayak » 08 Sep 2007 17:55

Image

US and Indian naval officers on the USS Kitty Hawk in the Bay of Bengal, during the Malabar exercise invloving craft from the United States, Australia, Japan and Singapore and hosts India(AFP/Deshakyalyan Chowdhury)

Nayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2553
Joined: 11 Jun 2006 03:48
Location: Vote for Savita Bhabhi as the next BRF admin.

Postby Nayak » 08 Sep 2007 17:56

Image

A US naval crew-member holds the tow chains on the US super-carrier USS Kitty Hawk in the Bay of Bengal, during the Malabar exercise, 07 September 2007.

Nayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2553
Joined: 11 Jun 2006 03:48
Location: Vote for Savita Bhabhi as the next BRF admin.

Postby Nayak » 08 Sep 2007 17:57

Image

A US naval officer checks a fighter craft before take off on the US super-carrier USS Kitty Hawk in the Bay of Bengal, during the Malabar exercise, 07 September 2007.

Nayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2553
Joined: 11 Jun 2006 03:48
Location: Vote for Savita Bhabhi as the next BRF admin.

Postby Nayak » 08 Sep 2007 17:59

Image

A U.S. Navy aircraft engineer works on a C2A aircraft onboard the aircraft carrier USS Kitty Hawk CV63 during Exercise Malabar 2007, in the waters of the Bay of Bengal, India, Friday, Sept. 7, 2007.


Is that Japanese/Chinese ?

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21825
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Postby Austin » 08 Sep 2007 18:39

JCage wrote:You dont need to sink a carrier- you just need to slow it down and make it vulnerable. A carriers greatest strength is its mobility. It can move where you dont anticipate, and launch. Slow it down, and it become a floating fortress- either out of the fight, or a liability for its defenders who have to defend it, come what may.


A modern carrier is designed to take a good amount of damage ( above/below deck ) and still continue to remain partially operational .

So in such a case depending on the damage it takes and sustains , it can still continue to remain operational , at worst it would be in a position to save most of its assets even if its damaged badly.

The Type 65 is designed to Sink a carrier in a single hit (conventional) , So that the carrier gets little to no chance to even save its assets forget about remaining partially operational.

Besides its nearly half a ton warhead & range/speed , its wake homing capability makes it difficult to spoof the system

There is this famous quote from an American Admiral which said that he would prefer to have a frigate between the Type 65 and his carrier

The Type 65 was one of the most feared weapons of Cold War.

The IN deploys a smaller Type 52 wake homer torpedo on Kilo and according to a IN gent it is a very effective and potent weapon

Pls Chk mail

Raymond
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 62
Joined: 21 Oct 2006 20:41

Postby Raymond » 08 Sep 2007 18:52

Singha wrote:a couple of Sea Eagles hitting the Nimitz wont do much other than destroying
a few ac on deck and closing ops for an hour until the junk is simply pushed
overboard.

See this type of analyses seems silly [no offence intended].
Number one..no report is saying that 2 jags penetrated the CAP barrier.Number two,you cant say for sure.It depends on where it strikes[where it has been aimed].There are various places where it could strike and put the carrier out of commission.Also there is the missile barrier and CIWS not only from the carrier but also the escorts which may or maynot be able to intercept.So really how many missiles are likely to hit cannot be calculated easily.
You need a spread of torpedoes to really hurt these CVNs or obese heavy
ASMs like Granit. the older AS-6 kingfish was itself big as Mig21 to me.

IMHO,a saturation attack with antiship missiles is more likely to succeed than a spread of torpedos simply because I think that it is a LOT easier to get those missiles in air and on target than torpedoes.Even if subs get close enough to a carrier I think they would better be off launching AShMs from a safe distance rather than torpedoes for which they probably have to penetrate[or get very close to and thereby endanger themselves] the ASW escort barrier to come within torpedo range.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35825
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Postby SaiK » 08 Sep 2007 18:56

USS Princeton conducted Visit, Board, Search and Seizure exercises with their Indian, Japanese and Australian counterparts in the Bay of Bengal.
http://bharat-rakshak.com/NEWS/newsrf.php?newsid=9406


By doing this ops, what are the interoperability measures that we should see taken as "gain" by USA?

from the same link, and rightly pointed out:-
[quote][url=http://www.indianexpress.com/story/215163.html]
IAF Jaguars ‘sink’ USS Nimitz, F-18s return the favour to INS Viraat[/url]

Manu Pubby
Posted online: Saturday, September 08, 2007 at 0000 hrs Print Email
Malabar Exercise: From tracking nuclear submarines to managing 200 aircraft and taking on deep-sea terror threat, five Navies cover sweeping range of maritime operations

ON BOARD USS Kitty Hawk (150 miles west of Port Blair), September 7: As the small green dots approached closer on the radar screen, the Indian officer sitting deep inside USS Nimitz knew it was too late to save the ship. Jaguar maritime fighters of the Indian Air Force (IAF), operating from the Car Nicobar air base, had managed to come dangerously within striking range to successfully launch anti-ship missiles on the super carrier.

Related Stories

India stalls payments to Russia for upgrading Il-38 patrol aircraftMinistries fight over use of forest land as firing rangeThe swing stateGoodbye MiG-21, new-look Tezpur air base to welcome latest aircraftService chiefs lock horns over posts’ upgradation
Ad Links

Indian Express News Aircraft Carrier Picture Navy Gifts

The IAF registered its first “killâ€

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21825
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Postby Austin » 08 Sep 2007 19:03

Raymond wrote:IMHO,a saturation attack with antiship missiles is more likely to succeed than a spread of torpedos simply because I think that it is a LOT easier to get those missiles in air and on target than torpedoes.Even if subs get close enough to a carrier I think they would better be off launching AShMs from a safe distance rather than torpedoes for which they probably have to penetrate[or get very close to and thereby endanger themselves] the ASW escort barrier to come within torpedo range.


A hole in ships keel is far more dangerous to the ship than an explosion on deck.

There are ways where you can get closer to the ship undetected , fire your torpedo undetected and get away with it. How you do it is a trade secret :twisted:

Raymond
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 62
Joined: 21 Oct 2006 20:41

Postby Raymond » 08 Sep 2007 19:06

Another thing which comes to my mind is that having a carrier with 14-16 a/c can be a problem.I dont mean to say that its useless,but it can very quickly turn into a liablilty.With that small no. of a/c its very hard to provide an effective 24 hour CAP thats number one.Ok still some amount of CAP is better than none plus you get the strike option.But if say 3/4 a/c break down/or is lost to enemy then the carrier cannot carry out its roles.Then all of the other ships of the escort are just tied up protecting the carrier...which becomes a liability.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19535
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Postby Philip » 08 Sep 2007 19:12

I'm not sure about the Nimitz,but future US carriers'keels are being designed to take torpedo hits and survive.During WW2,ships had "bulges" to minimise damage from torpedo attacks.A wake homing torpedo that hits a carriers stern would cause massive damage to the screws and rudders.What happened to the Bismark when she was similarly hit will happen.She will become a sitting duck for future attacks.

Raymond
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 62
Joined: 21 Oct 2006 20:41

Postby Raymond » 08 Sep 2007 19:14

Austin wrote:A hole in ships keel is far more dangerous to the ship than an explosion on deck.

Its dangerous for sure.but I think that getting a hole in the side of the ship is far harder than say getting the superstructure or the runway/catapult etc which will put it out of work and need dock repair...
There are ways where you can get closer to the ship undetected , fire your torpedo undetected and get away with it. How you do it is a trade secret :twisted:

There are also ways where the ASW frigates can detect those sneaking subs when they come particularly close and blast them.. :twisted:

Okay.,okay..I cant say for sure which way is prefered and in what circumstances..so I will take your word for it.. :)

Raymond
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 62
Joined: 21 Oct 2006 20:41

Postby Raymond » 08 Sep 2007 19:23

Also lets replace the two sea-eagles with two Brahmos..does that change the preferred mode of attack on a CVN?

JCage
BRFite
Posts: 1562
Joined: 09 Oct 2000 11:31

Postby JCage » 08 Sep 2007 19:30

Austin wrote:A modern carrier is designed to take a good amount of damage ( above/below deck ) and still continue to remain partially operational .


Austin, it is meant to survive and protect the crew, but if it loses propulsion or has reduced speed, its pretty much out of the fight, if the propulsion was damaged significantly. Thats all I was trying to get at.

Thanks for the info on the Type 65!

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21825
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Postby Austin » 08 Sep 2007 19:39

Raymond wrote:There are also ways where the ASW frigates can detect those sneaking subs when they come particularly close and blast them.. :twisted:


Yes agreed , At the end of the day its a cat and mouse game , But the stealthy nature and laws of physics favours the sub.

JC point taken.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35825
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Postby SaiK » 08 Sep 2007 20:20

wouldn't hitting nimitz propulsion means amount to taking a nuclear angle? how much of the people can survive the radiations? another interesting point, is how much of this needs to be applied to say our jehadic neighbor who might be hearing very closely what we talk in a bad sense.

regarding mig29k and gorshkov, doesn't 29ks have better range than SH even with fuel tanks? in the sense, the gorshkov can keep that much distance away from the enemy.

q: can a c2a platform with its cargo capacity can be converted to a mid air re-fuelers? c2a based awacs, cargo, refulers, and that catapultin nimitz makes it mightier than even one can think off. they can lock-stock-barrel move/operate at a mere hit.

jmaxwell
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 81
Joined: 27 Jun 2007 13:44
Location: San Diego, CA

Postby jmaxwell » 08 Sep 2007 22:03

IAF Jaguars ‘sink’ USS Nimitz, F-18s return the favour to INS Viraat
Manu Pubby
Posted online: Saturday, September 08, 2007 at 0000 hrs Print Email
...
However, USS Nimitz, which headed home today after reaching the end of its deployment period, will be missed by the Indian fighters.


What is the author trying to convey here? Why would it be "missed" by Indian fighters? Besides, I nary believe the sentiment is being reciprocated.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5595
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Postby Rakesh » 09 Sep 2007 00:54

Click on link below, scroll down till you see the Malabar 07-02 photo gallery and enjoy! :)

http://www.c7f.navy.mil/

emsin

Postby emsin » 09 Sep 2007 01:28

wouldn't hitting nimitz propulsion means amount to taking a nuclear angle? how much of the people can survive the radiations? another interesting point, is how much of this needs to be applied to say our jehadic neighbor who might be hearing very closely what we talk in a bad sense.


YOU just get a direct hit on the twin screws from the rear and you've got any Carrier in a jam. Moment the screws are gone..the staff on board can't replace it. Gotta go to dock. If the missile makes any hole in the rear portion or aft side the ship is as good as sunk. Good chances you got fuel tanks or penetrated critical machinery spaces on board for staff on board to fix. The ship will sink if not it's useless.

Airavat
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2326
Joined: 29 Jul 2003 11:31
Location: dishum-bishum
Contact:

Postby Airavat » 09 Sep 2007 02:17

Rakesh wrote:Click on link below, scroll down till you see the Malabar 07-02 photo gallery and enjoy! :)

http://www.c7f.navy.mil/


Thanks for the link Rakesh...awesome pics.

vina
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6046
Joined: 11 May 2005 06:56
Location: Doing Nijikaran, Udharikaran and Baazarikaran to Commies and Assorted Leftists

Postby vina » 09 Sep 2007 04:33

Austin wrote:A modern carrier is designed to take a good amount of damage ( above/below deck ) and still continue to remain partially operational .

So in such a case depending on the damage it takes and sustains , it can still continue to remain operational , at worst it would be in a position to save most of its assets even if its damaged badly


Any ship is built to take a certain amount of damage. For eg,in commercial /cargo there must be enough reserve buoyancy so that the ship doesn't sink if a bulkhead gets penetrated and two adjacent holds are flooded. Similary, with double hull, certain allowances for keel damage and also side damage are factored in.

Without these no registrar will certify your ship and you simply will not be able to insure your ship and cargo! .

Naval vessels of course designed to take more punishment .. Primarily by greater compartmentalization/ subdivision and more robust fire fighting and damage control equipment. Carriers by nature of their big size have higher reserve buoyancies as well.

The problem with these air launched anti ship missiles is that they usually dont sink the targets right away (esp on larger ships), but cause sufficient damage for mission kill /out of action for over a year kind of thing. For a single missile to sink a large sized ship, it should be very lucky and hit something like an ammo store or something. or at best you end up creating massive damage in like a 20 cross section.which will put it out of action and. which while being serious damage, can't sink the platform.

Why even a 500 kg Jihadi DAM on USS Cole right at the waterline couldn't sink it! ..Dunno how many bulkheads were punctured(would guess none) , maybe just the side and one compartment got flooded.. It was touch and go anyways.

Babui
BRFite
Posts: 161
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Shrewsbury, MA

Postby Babui » 09 Sep 2007 05:02


shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Postby shiv » 09 Sep 2007 05:39

An Aircraft carrier sustaining any hit, "effective" or "ineffective" means that there has been a serious lacuna in defences. It must not be allowed to occur because even "ineffective" hits cause fires and damage that move human resources away from the primary task of the carrier towards fire control, casevac, damage assessment and repair. Besides, until the ship is actually hit, there is no predicting that the hit will be ineffective and the carrier operational after the hit.

Like a soldier who keeps advancing on an enemy bunker after being hit -a damaged carrier may continue to be effective, but that damage is best avoided in the first place.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Postby shiv » 09 Sep 2007 05:47

Babui wrote:Any idea why the rifles are blue? http://www.c7f.navy.mil/news/2007/septe ... /index.htm


They look like dummies when you enlarge two of those pictures

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Postby shiv » 09 Sep 2007 05:51

vina wrote:Why even a 500 kg Jihadi DAM on USS Cole right at the waterline couldn't sink it! ..Dunno how many bulkheads were punctured(would guess none) , maybe just the side and one compartment got flooded.. It was touch and go anyways.


This is an interesting point - but wasn't that a boat with explosives that rammed the ship? Unless the explosion is underwater, or the explosive material is designed to penetrate armor plating before exploding, an atmospheric explosion will dissipate most of the energy away from the ship - as per my detailed ballistic knowledge from Discovery and National geographic channels.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21825
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Postby Austin » 09 Sep 2007 06:05

vina wrote:Why even a 500 kg Jihadi DAM on USS Cole right at the waterline couldn't sink it! ..Dunno how many bulkheads were punctured(would guess none) , maybe just the side and one compartment got flooded.. It was touch and go anyways.


The Jihadi used about 100 ~ 200 kg of C4 explosive against USS Cole , the ship was attached while she was at harbored and not high seas

Facing a Torpedo approaching at 80 + km/hour and even with ~200 Kg of shaped charged /conventional explosive under your keel will be a different challenge

vina
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6046
Joined: 11 May 2005 06:56
Location: Doing Nijikaran, Udharikaran and Baazarikaran to Commies and Assorted Leftists

Postby vina » 09 Sep 2007 06:36

against USS Cole , the ship was attached while she was at harbored and not high seas

Facing a Torpedo approaching at 80 + km/hour and even with ~200 Kg of shaped charged /conventional explosive under your keel will be a different challenge[/quote]

Yeah, agree. The torpedoes are set to go off under the ship's keel and literally "break" her back structurally, and breaking her apart like a twig . Notice all the old WWII2 pics of ships literally in two pieces after being torpedoed.

However, anti ship missiles will penetrate from the side , and I would guess will cause direct damage to a 20m so of cross section and, with blast effects be able to puncture 2 or more adjacent bulkheads , while ripping open the side shell plating to let water in. That is the best case (other than hitting ammo or some such thing) for it to sink the platform. A shaped charge will just punch a hole right in and could in fact go right through the ship via the othe sider.. But that will not be enough to sink it, if puncturing only one compartment . You need blast and shock wave effects to crumple the bulkheads and eat up all the reserve buoyancy for her to sink.

venkat_r
BRFite
Posts: 263
Joined: 20 Feb 2001 12:31

Postby venkat_r » 09 Sep 2007 06:55

Rakesh wrote:Click on link below, scroll down till you see the Malabar 07-02 photo gallery and enjoy! :)

http://www.c7f.navy.mil/


Seems like Other than US and Indian navies others had just a token presense going by the pics.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21825
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Postby Austin » 09 Sep 2007 07:05

vina wrote: A shaped charge will just punch a hole right in and could in fact go right through the ship via the othe sider.. But that will not be enough to sink it, if puncturing only one compartment . You need blast and shock wave effects to crumple the bulkheads and eat up all the reserve buoyancy for her to sink.


Emm.. True, The shaped charged torpedo was developed to take care of submarines and not surface ships. More precisely double hulled submarine.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 62928
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Postby Singha » 09 Sep 2007 08:39

it seems the Type65 other than being 2 inches thicker is also around TWICE longer than the average 18ft long torpedo. it is also 3 times
heavier.
i.e. it needs a purpose designed torpedo room, ordinary ones
cannot accomodate. there is no way a small SSK can carry this, a Akula
sized vessel is necessary.

DT
Length: 11 m
Weight: 4,500 kg (dry)
Range: 54 n miles (100 km)
Max speed: 50 kt
Warhead: 450 kg


Mk 48 torpedo
# Length: 19 ft (5.79 m)
# Weight: 3,695 lb (1,676 kg) (Mk-48 ADCAP)
# Diameter: 21 in (533 mm)

Raja Bose
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19481
Joined: 18 Oct 2005 01:38

Postby Raja Bose » 09 Sep 2007 08:57

Are these VBSS teams composed of MARCOS or ordinary sailors on the Indian side?? They seem to be carrying ol' sterlings....not exactly the armament preferred by MARCOS. However, webbing and other gear seems to be pretty top class even compared to the americans'. Good to see that. :mrgreen:

Also, on the US side are they composed of marines, SEALs(doesnt look like it since SEALs usually look pretty big and bulky) or ordinary sailors?

shiv wrote:
Babui wrote:Any idea why the rifles are blue? http://www.c7f.navy.mil/news/2007/septe ... /index.htm


They look like dummies when you enlarge two of those pictures

Surya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5038
Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31

Postby Surya » 09 Sep 2007 09:03

Actually Raja

big and bulky guys do not make it in Seals

Seals are mostly rangy

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 62928
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Postby Singha » 09 Sep 2007 09:33

so how did Marcinko of 'rogue warrior' fame make it in ? I believe their
AGL/MMG operators are atleast kept of that size ?

wonder why dummy Leo Toys rifles are in use ? Massa troopers cant be
so bad they cant be trusted with their own weapons ? this aint the Iraqi
or Paki militia here

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Postby shiv » 09 Sep 2007 09:57

Singha wrote:so how did Marcinko of 'rogue warrior' fame make it in ? I believe their
AGL/MMG operators are atleast kept of that size ?

wonder why dummy Leo Toys rifles are in use ? Massa troopers cant be
so bad they cant be trusted with their own weapons ? this aint the Iraqi
or Paki militia here

GD my encyclopediac knowledge of Discovery channel/NatGeo tells me (after watching several re runs of the USS Forrestal fire) that minor fires are common on big A/Cs and everything is done to minimize the use of live explosive material in a peacetime scenario.

negi
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 12913
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Trying to mellow down :)

Postby negi » 09 Sep 2007 10:04

me thinks its some black(I did not see any red col guns) v/s blue team drill akin to capture the flag drills and rifles too are coloured coded accordingly. 8)

Arun_S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2800
Joined: 14 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: KhyberDurra

Postby Arun_S » 09 Sep 2007 11:11

vina wrote:However, anti ship missiles will penetrate from the side , and I would guess will cause direct damage to a 20m so of cross section and, with blast effects be able to puncture 2 or more adjacent bulkheads , while ripping open the side shell plating to let water in. That is the best case (other than hitting ammo or some such thing) for it to sink the platform. A shaped charge will just punch a hole right in and could in fact go right through the ship via the othe sider.. But that will not be enough to sink it, if puncturing only one compartment . You need blast and shock wave effects to crumple the bulkheads and eat up all the reserve buoyancy for her to sink.


Re, Coupling efficiency: This problem was well studied and many weapons were accordingly developed by all maritime powers. Thus all missiles designers tried to design a system that will in the final seconds dip and hit the target ship below waterline. As missile tech has advanced today IMHO all new missiles do the job under the water (this involves a manuvere similar to Anti Tank top attack manuvere, but its target is to intercept the waterline before the ship at desired angle to ensure water penetration (as against being skimmed off water at low incidence angle). The Brahmos pic of test flight puncturing the hull in/out is an elementary baby step to the final confign (if you recall they erected a net over the mast to ensure they can catch a near miss / close fly by); equivalent to the first pot shot from a newly designed rifle.


Return to “Military Exercises Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests