Newbie Corner & Military Miscellaneous

The Military Issues & History Forum is a venue to discuss issues relating to the military aspects of the Indian Armed Forces, whether the past, present or future. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
Carl_T
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2533
Joined: 24 Dec 2009 02:37
Location: anandasya sagare

Re: Newbie Corner & Military Miscellaneous

Postby Carl_T » 27 Jan 2010 02:38

In the MRCA competition, there seems to be a range of aircraft that don't seem to equivalent... why are single engine planes like the F-16 and Gripen competing against twin engine planes like F-18/Mig-35/Eurofighter?

If we are looking for twin engine fighters, why not procure more MKIs?

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7663
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Newbie Corner & Military Miscellaneous

Postby nachiket » 27 Jan 2010 02:51

Carl_T wrote:In the MRCA competition, there seems to be a range of aircraft that don't seem to equivalent... why are single engine planes like the F-16 and Gripen competing against twin engine planes like F-18/Mig-35/Eurofighter?

If we are looking for twin engine fighters, why not procure more MKIs?


You have clubbed the Mig-35 with the wrong crowd. Even though its a twin engined aircraft its size and payload is a lot less than the MKI and is comparable to the single engined F-16.

But the other three twin engined aircraft are comparable in range and payload to the MKI. IAF wasn't looking for these at the beginning. The original request was for the Mirage-2000-5. When the MoD wanted a multi vendor tender the original choices were Mig-29ovt, Mirage -2000-5 and Gripen. Because of Indo-US bonhomie the F-16 got included. So then Boeing decided to jump in with the SH. Dassault got tired of keeping the Mirage assembly lines open for us and decided to field the Rafale instead. EADS not to be left behind offered the tiffy. The whole competition changed at this point. IAF started looking at this as a way to get its hands on some sophisticated technology (like AESA radars) which was currently unavailable to it.

Hope this clarifies your doubt.

Carl_T
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2533
Joined: 24 Dec 2009 02:37
Location: anandasya sagare

Re: Newbie Corner & Military Miscellaneous

Postby Carl_T » 27 Jan 2010 03:12

nachiket wrote:
Carl_T wrote:In the MRCA competition, there seems to be a range of aircraft that don't seem to equivalent... why are single engine planes like the F-16 and Gripen competing against twin engine planes like F-18/Mig-35/Eurofighter?

If we are looking for twin engine fighters, why not procure more MKIs?


You have clubbed the Mig-35 with the wrong crowd. Even though its a twin engined aircraft its size and payload is a lot less than the MKI and is comparable to the single engined F-16.

But the other three twin engined aircraft are comparable in range and payload to the MKI. IAF wasn't looking for these at the beginning. The original request was for the Mirage-2000-5. When the MoD wanted a multi vendor tender the original choices were Mig-29ovt, Mirage -2000-5 and Gripen. Because of Indo-US bonhomie the F-16 got included. So then Boeing decided to jump in with the SH. Dassault got tired of keeping the Mirage assembly lines open for us and decided to field the Rafale instead. EADS not to be left behind offered the tiffy. The whole competition changed at this point. IAF started looking at this as a way to get its hands on some sophisticated technology (like AESA radars) which was currently unavailable to it.

Hope this clarifies your doubt.


Thank you, I do now notice that the MKI is a lot bigger than all the aircraft in the competition, however it does seem to be similarly priced as well.

k prasad
BRFite
Posts: 632
Joined: 21 Oct 2007 17:38
Location: Somewhere over the Rainbow
Contact:

Re: Newbie Corner & Military Miscellaneous

Postby k prasad » 27 Jan 2010 11:04

shiv wrote:
durgesh wrote:Can LCA carry nukes ?


As long as any payload is in a container of the right size and weight and can be fixed to a pylon on the LCA - it will be able to carry nukes, flowers, cowdung, milk or anything that one may choose to send. The plane itself has no specific preference for what is inside the container carrying the payload.

Whether the LCA can be used for fuzing and toss bombing of nuke payload is not information that has been discussed in public as far as I know.


I'm not sure exactly, but from my reading of WoP, it appears that given their importance, and how dangerous accidental arming or release would be, nuke payloads have some extra requirements, in terms of extra arming and safety protocols, signals only given through very high voltage signals (there was a discussion on capacitors in WoP for this reason), and the like.

I'm not sure if these requirements will be present on a normal aircraft weapons interface, which is probably why we've heard talk of TSP and gang adapting their fighters for the role.

Can some guru answer these please.

AdityaM
BRFite
Posts: 1962
Joined: 30 Sep 2002 11:31
Location: New Delhi

Re: Newbie Corner & Military Miscellaneous

Postby AdityaM » 28 Jan 2010 10:07

what are they wearing on their helmets.
the device on the rifles are some targetting practice unit?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:India ... rifles.jpg

andy B
BRFite
Posts: 1598
Joined: 05 Jun 2008 11:03
Location: Gora Paki

Re: Newbie Corner & Military Miscellaneous

Postby andy B » 28 Jan 2010 10:15

^^^ Those beads on ze helmets basically collect shots that are fired at the person wearing it by others. the device on the rifle fires those shots (laser) and then those beads collect them. IIRC its from one of em exercises with Khan forces.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17004
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Newbie Corner & Military Miscellaneous

Postby Rahul M » 28 Jan 2010 10:31

jamwal wrote:Sorry, I meant driver, not gunner in my original post.
Rahul jee, going by picture you posted, driver's head definitely will be crushed if the turret rotates. But it's not a likely scenario in combat as other members suggested

eh ? how come ? driver's head is clearly ahead of the turret. which part of the turret will do you think will be able to come to such a position ?
viewtopic.php?p=811407#p811407

Bhushan
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 11
Joined: 20 Jan 2010 13:13

Re: Newbie Corner & Military Miscellaneous

Postby Bhushan » 28 Jan 2010 14:04

Can somebody please explain why does JAS Gripen (C/D Version) carry more weapons payload of upto 6000kg than LCA Tejas Mk1 which can carry just 4000kg of weapons payload. I am wondering how does the older version of Gripen carry more 50% more payload despite the LCA Tejas being lighter than it but yet having a slightly more powerful engine (85 kN thrust General Electric F404-GE-IN20 turbofan) while the JAS Gripen (C/D Version) has 80 kN thrust Volvo Aero RM12 which is the same version of engine the LCA Tejas Mk1 has?

Thanks in advance!

bkumar
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 10
Joined: 01 Jun 2007 07:05

Re: Newbie Corner & Military Miscellaneous

Postby bkumar » 28 Jan 2010 14:34

Indian Army's artillery procurement plan suggests requirement of self propelled, towed, and ultra light.

Why doesn't the truck mounted (self propelled wheeled) artillery piece replace the towed variant altogether? What is the advantage of towed artillery over self propelled (wheeled) artillery?

TIA

krishnan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7342
Joined: 07 Oct 2005 12:58
Location: 13° 04' N , 80° 17' E

Re: Newbie Corner & Military Miscellaneous

Postby krishnan » 28 Jan 2010 14:41

The key advantage of self-propelled over towed artillery is that it can be brought into action much faster. Before the towed artillery can be used, it has to stop, unlimber and set up the guns. To move position, the guns must be limbered up again and brought — usually towed — to the new location. By comparison self-propelled artillery can stop at a chosen location and begin firing almost immediately, then quickly move on to a new position. This ability is very useful in a mobile conflict and particularly on the advance.

Conversely, towed artillery was and remains cheaper to build and maintain. It is also lighter and can be taken to places that self-propelled guns cannot reach, so despite the advantages of the self-propelled artillery, towed guns remain in the arsenals of many modern armies.

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

Re: Newbie Corner & Military Miscellaneous

Postby shiv » 28 Jan 2010 19:13

krishnan wrote: stop at a chosen location and begin firing almost immediately, then quickly move on to a new position. This ability is very useful in a mobile conflict and particularly on the advance.


The other thing AFAIK is that with weapon locating radars an artillery piece has to fire just one shell and the enemy radar will pinpoint it and a volley of retaliatory fire can destroy your artillery piece unless you scoot pronto.

vijyeta
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 90
Joined: 01 May 2006 03:10
Location: Olympus Mons

Re: Newbie Corner & Military Miscellaneous

Postby vijyeta » 28 Jan 2010 20:25

shiv wrote:....The other thing AFAIK is that with weapon locating radars an artillery piece has to fire just one shell and the enemy radar will pinpoint it and a volley of retaliatory fire can destroy your artillery piece unless you scoot pronto.


Brig Chittaranjan Sawant would call it 'Daago aur Bhaago' in describing the Bofors during republic day parade coverage on DD.

Fidel Guevara
BRFite
Posts: 348
Joined: 21 Jan 2010 19:24
Location: Pandora

Re: Newbie Corner & Military Miscellaneous

Postby Fidel Guevara » 30 Jan 2010 00:46

shiv wrote:
durgesh wrote:Can LCA carry nukes ?


As long as any payload is in a container of the right size and weight and can be fixed to a pylon on the LCA - it will be able to carry nukes, flowers, cowdung, milk or anything that one may choose to send. The plane itself has no specific preference for what is inside the container carrying the payload.

Whether the LCA can be used for fuzing and toss bombing of nuke payload is not information that has been discussed in public as far as I know.


Shiv, thanks for clarifying this. We've read in many places that the Paki F-16s cannot carry nukes due to limitations in the plane.

My question is : if the F-16 can carry a regular 2000lb bomb, what prevents the Pakis from placing a nuke inside the casing of a regular 2000lb bomb, and setting a fuze based on time or impact or GPS location or altitude, or any other criteria - all built into the bomb? As far as the plane is concerned, it is dropping a standard iron bomb.

Nukes may well have much more security features under responsible usage, and the F16 may prevent those from triggering the fuze, but what if the Paki military losing a major war, just want a bomb that explodes the second time it crosses 2000 ft altitude, as long as the second time is at least 30 minutes after the first time? Is this too simplistic a picture?

Shameek
BRFite
Posts: 806
Joined: 02 Jan 2009 20:44
Location: Ionosphere

Re: Newbie Corner & Military Miscellaneous

Postby Shameek » 30 Jan 2010 11:45

Anyone know what this is about?

[youtube]R4Hski-QnfE&feature=related[/youtube]

RayC
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4333
Joined: 16 Jan 2004 12:31

Re: Newbie Corner & Military Miscellaneous

Postby RayC » 30 Jan 2010 13:20

Brig Chittaranjan Sawant would call it 'Daago aur Bhaago' in describing the Bofors during republic day parade coverage on DD.


Brig Chittaranjan Sawant from the Army Education Corps?

Chinmayanand
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2585
Joined: 05 Oct 2008 16:01
Location: Mansarovar
Contact:

Re: Newbie Corner & Military Miscellaneous

Postby Chinmayanand » 31 Jan 2010 03:19

Why does IAF insist so much on twin seater fighters? What are the advantages and disadvantages over a single seater ?

Klaus
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2168
Joined: 13 Dec 2009 12:28
Location: Cicero Avenue

Re: Newbie Corner & Military Miscellaneous

Postby Klaus » 01 Feb 2010 05:42

Have a question for experts: Given that the PAK-FA/FGFA has flown and is known to have a very short take-off distance (300-400 m), it may be suitable for carrier based operations in its naval based avatar. However, my question is how would a "stealthy" fighter be useful when based off a non-stealthy a/c carrier?

AFAIK, stealth ships do exist. Hence i once again come to the question, will there be any real benefit by having stealthy naval carrier based fighters?

This is also part of the dilemna facing the USN with the "Sea Raptor" project, so answers will be welcome.

andy B
BRFite
Posts: 1598
Joined: 05 Jun 2008 11:03
Location: Gora Paki

Re: Newbie Corner & Military Miscellaneous

Postby andy B » 01 Feb 2010 06:35

durgesh wrote:Why does IAF insist so much on twin seater fighters? What are the advantages and disadvantages over a single seater ?


please check some of the latest pages of the Su30 dhaga to get some basic insight on this topique.

krishnan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7342
Joined: 07 Oct 2005 12:58
Location: 13° 04' N , 80° 17' E

Re: Newbie Corner & Military Miscellaneous

Postby krishnan » 01 Feb 2010 12:18

Klaus wrote:Have a question for experts: Given that the PAK-FA/FGFA has flown and is known to have a very short take-off distance (300-400 m), it may be suitable for carrier based operations in its naval based avatar. However, my question is how would a "stealthy" fighter be useful when based off a non-stealthy a/c carrier?

AFAIK, stealth ships do exist. Hence i once again come to the question, will there be any real benefit by having stealthy naval carrier based fighters?

This is also part of the dilemna facing the USN with the "Sea Raptor" project, so answers will be welcome.


Can you really make a ship stealth against submarine?

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 22492
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Newbie Corner & Military Miscellaneous

Postby chetak » 01 Feb 2010 13:54

krishnan wrote:
Klaus wrote:Have a question for experts: Given that the PAK-FA/FGFA has flown and is known to have a very short take-off distance (300-400 m), it may be suitable for carrier based operations in its naval based avatar. However, my question is how would a "stealthy" fighter be useful when based off a non-stealthy a/c carrier?

AFAIK, stealth ships do exist. Hence i once again come to the question, will there be any real benefit by having stealthy naval carrier based fighters?

This is also part of the dilemna facing the USN with the "Sea Raptor" project, so answers will be welcome.


Can you really make a ship stealth against submarine?



A normal ship can be heard underwater by unaided ear in a submarine many many kilometers away.

If one listens carefully, it is even possible to distinguish between different types as well as make out individual ships from their hull and prop noises.

Underwater stealth for surface ships may be far away by current technology.

RayC
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4333
Joined: 16 Jan 2004 12:31

Re: Newbie Corner & Military Miscellaneous

Postby RayC » 02 Feb 2010 06:18

STEALTH SHIPS, SUBMARINES AND AIRCRAFT

by G. V. Joshi

Stealth technology makes ships, boats, vehicles, aircraft or missiles nearly invisible to enemy radar or other electronic detection.

U. S. Navy scientists are developing stealth submarines that have artificial muscles in place of propellers.



The Indian Navy is likely to induct two ‘stealth’ ships in the next three to four months. At present, the ships are undergoing extensive sea trials in Russia. Around 500 Indian officers and sailors have been in Russia for the last several months training on the two ships. On being inducted, the two Talwar class frigate ships, INS Talwar and INS Trishul, will add more punch to the Navy’s capabilities. They will be the first Indian warships to avoid easy detection by enemy forces, equipped with sophisticated weapon systems, including eight vertical missile launch cells.......

Stealth

Venu
BRFite
Posts: 158
Joined: 26 Oct 2009 17:23
Location: rimbola..rimbola

Re: Newbie Corner & Military Miscellaneous

Postby Venu » 03 Feb 2010 11:22

One noobie question.

Why isn't any one installing (or atleast workinging towards) a micro CIWS system on aircrafts something as seen in the below pic on the car?

Image

This makes a very good anti A-A missile system.

BTW, this pic is of the Ians Fleming James bond's car from the movie 'Die Another Day'. I am big fan this gentleman.

My manager just saw me looking this pic. Poor fellow is thinking I still has fetish towards toys, not know what I am thinking.

Mayuresh
BRFite
Posts: 128
Joined: 27 Aug 2009 16:01

Re: Newbie Corner & Military Miscellaneous

Postby Mayuresh » 03 Feb 2010 16:17

Newbie question:

DRDO says that the Akash missile is better than the Patriot because unlike the Patriot, which coasts for most distance, the Akash's engine is "on" throughout the flight. However, given the relative ranges (Akash = 30 km and Patriot = 160km), the Patriot may also have its engine "on" for atleast 30 km. It shall coast the rest of the distance. How is the Akash then, better than the Patriot?

Since the Akash has comparable dimensions, weight and comparable propulsion technology to the Patriot, the Akash could also increase its range by coasting. Why did DRDO not build that capability in the missile, given that no extra propulsion is required and probably only additional fins and some more coding in the s/w / additional avionics would be required? Hopefully range shall be increased in the next version if we develop it

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

Re: Newbie Corner & Military Miscellaneous

Postby shiv » 03 Feb 2010 21:35

Venu wrote:One noobie question.

Why isn't any one installing (or atleast workinging towards) a micro CIWS system on aircrafts something as seen in the below pic on the car?


How small is micro?

A Phalanx CIWS weighs 6 tons and fires 50 shells per second (3000 rpm)

Even if you reduce that to 1000 kg for an aircraft, you still have to fire at least 20 mm shells - any smaller and they will be useless. Assuming 100 grams per shell and 30 seconds ammunition - that adds 150 kg.

To aim the cannon in any direction it would have to be mounted on a turret - making the aircraft look like a WW2 bomber - with all the penalty for drag and weight. That is why the task was given to James Bond onlee.

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

Re: Newbie Corner & Military Miscellaneous

Postby Bob V » 03 Feb 2010 23:07

^^
shiv saar , did you get the answer to your query regarding laser collision avoidance systems for helicopters? I had sent you a link describing the ' Hellas ' system, sometime ago.

Juggi G
BRFite
Posts: 1070
Joined: 11 Mar 2007 19:16
Location: Martyr Bhagat Singh Nagar District, Doaba, Punjab, Bharat. De Ghuma ke :)

Re: Newbie Corner & Military Miscellaneous

Postby Juggi G » 04 Feb 2010 09:09


chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 22492
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Newbie Corner & Military Miscellaneous

Postby chetak » 04 Feb 2010 12:56

Mayuresh wrote:Newbie question:

DRDO says that the Akash missile is better than the Patriot because unlike the Patriot, which coasts for most distance, the Akash's engine is "on" throughout the flight. However, given the relative ranges (Akash = 30 km and Patriot = 160km), the Patriot may also have its engine "on" for atleast 30 km. It shall coast the rest of the distance. How is the Akash then, better than the Patriot?

Since the Akash has comparable dimensions, weight and comparable propulsion technology to the Patriot, the Akash could also increase its range by coasting. Why did DRDO not build that capability in the missile, given that no extra propulsion is required and probably only additional fins and some more coding in the s/w / additional avionics would be required? Hopefully range shall be increased in the next version if we develop it


They haven't gotten out of the habit of peddling snake oil even today. :) Khandhani business hai.

Natt
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 76
Joined: 17 Jan 2010 01:26
Location: Where eagles dare

Re: Newbie Corner & Military Miscellaneous

Postby Natt » 04 Feb 2010 14:07

chetak wrote:
Mayuresh wrote:Newbie question:

DRDO says that the Akash missile is better than the Patriot because unlike the Patriot, which coasts for most distance, the Akash's engine is "on" throughout the flight. However, given the relative ranges (Akash = 30 km and Patriot = 160km), the Patriot may also have its engine "on" for atleast 30 km. It shall coast the rest of the distance. How is the Akash then, better than the Patriot?

Since the Akash has comparable dimensions, weight and comparable propulsion technology to the Patriot, the Akash could also increase its range by coasting. Why did DRDO not build that capability in the missile, given that no extra propulsion is required and probably only additional fins and some more coding in the s/w / additional avionics would be required? Hopefully range shall be increased in the next version if we develop it


They haven't gotten out of the habit of peddling snake oil even today. :) Khandhani business hai.

I guess the missiles now have to be better in terms of kill rate by virtue of actually hitting the target by countering the counter measures to the counter measures(...)..Akash then may have a better accuracy. May I also add that akash may not have been tested as much as the patriot which has been around for quite some time. Regardless, IAF is going ahead to procure close to a 1000 missiles in their inventory..so that says they musta liked em...

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17004
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Newbie Corner & Military Miscellaneous

Postby Rahul M » 04 Feb 2010 14:42

Mayuresh wrote:DRDO says .......

where did you get that bit ?

Gaur
Forum Moderator
Posts: 2009
Joined: 01 Feb 2009 23:19

Re: Newbie Corner & Military Miscellaneous

Postby Gaur » 04 Feb 2010 14:57

^^
http://www.drdo.gov.in/dpi/prahlada_interview.html

That way, DRDO scientists consider Akash superior to the US Patriot.

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

Re: Newbie Corner & Military Miscellaneous

Postby shiv » 04 Feb 2010 20:14

Bob V wrote:^^
shiv saar , did you get the answer to your query regarding laser collision avoidance systems for helicopters? I had sent you a link describing the ' Hellas ' system, sometime ago.


I did thx

Manu
BRFite
Posts: 765
Joined: 28 May 2003 11:31

Re: Newbie Corner & Military Miscellaneous

Postby Manu » 05 Feb 2010 03:36

Is there anything that the PLA, PLAN and the PLAAF possess today that they do not make domestically and do not have the ability to mass produce with only domestic resources - even critical systems?

If the answer is what I think it is, does the Indian method of acquiring best of breed for a Technology Edge have a lasting benefit?

David Saenz
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 26
Joined: 01 Sep 2009 00:13

Re: Newbie Corner & Military Miscellaneous

Postby David Saenz » 05 Feb 2010 10:12

Lately, we have been getting news of transfer of single crystal blades from Eurojet.
Eurojet management today confirmed that if required they are willing to transfer single crystal turbine blade technology.
source

Does this imply that after transfer of this tech. we will be completely able to manufacture the required thingy from scratch on our own?
If yes, are we bound in any way wherein this technology can be used ONLY for the manufacture of the particular item (the EJ200 in this case). Or can we use this know-how acquired (and further modify/develop) in our own domestic projects without any restrictions that may also include possible overseas sale of a domestically developed product utilizing this technology.
TIA.

Gaur
Forum Moderator
Posts: 2009
Joined: 01 Feb 2009 23:19

Re: Newbie Corner & Military Miscellaneous

Postby Gaur » 05 Feb 2010 10:43

^^
One can only guess about this since no deal has been made.
But you will be interested to know that Russia has already provided us with Single Crystal Tech via Su-30MKI serial production. Yet, our problems persist. So the issue is not so simple.
This topic has already been discussed extensively on BR.
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=4042&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=1200
Start looking from this page.

Natt
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 76
Joined: 17 Jan 2010 01:26
Location: Where eagles dare

Re: Newbie Corner & Military Miscellaneous

Postby Natt » 05 Feb 2010 15:34

Bhushan wrote:Recently China conducted a Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) test ON 11th January 2010. Some media reports say that China is the second or third country to posses this ABM technology after USA and Russia. I was just wondering how true this was because it is well known open fact that Israel and India already have proved to possess this technology along with the other two countries mentioned before. So that should make China as the fifth country to possess and test this technology?

I just wanted to know if its correct that China is second or third country to posses this ABM technology? Or its a case of mistaken reporting? If China indeed happens to be second or third country to posses this ABM technology could some body please enlighten me as to how the Chinese ABM system is different than the Indian ABM system?

Thanks in advance!

Well to the first part I can say that Russia and US are the only two with an ACTIVE system. Rest all including India are still developing the tech and unless the weapon is inducted in the armed forces we cannot officially claim we have it. Although I dont think China has actually inducted the ABM but just tested it much like India,rather, DRDO did last year. 8)
All ABM have similar basic mechanism of tracking,homing and destroying the enemy missile. The difference is the altitude at which they intercept, Endo or exo.
Hope that helps.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17004
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Newbie Corner & Military Miscellaneous

Postby Rahul M » 05 Feb 2010 16:00

I suspect this is one of the S-400 or derivative system that china uses rather than a de novo design.

jaladipc
BRFite
Posts: 456
Joined: 15 Jan 2009 20:51
Location: i CAN ADA

Re: Newbie Corner & Military Miscellaneous

Postby jaladipc » 06 Feb 2010 00:41

Ok, Its now my turn.

Lets take MRCA for eg, the contract worth is some $10+ billion and includes TOT and other crap.According to the deal,the OEM has to supply the intimal lot while the rest will be made by HAL. How does the contract work?
We are paying $10 billion to OEM and it includes 30-50% offset and again HAL makes the birds using TOT and domestic raw materials to some extent.

I didnt get it ,how the money is shared.Who is paying for the expences incurred by HAL in making the aircraft?
If it is OEM, then its a big robbery,since made is india cost very less and the amount offloaded to OEM is high.
Can some one put all the economics in a cleargel perspective so that my tiny little brain can try to understand :P

Klaus
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2168
Joined: 13 Dec 2009 12:28
Location: Cicero Avenue

Re: Newbie Corner & Military Miscellaneous

Postby Klaus » 07 Feb 2010 16:14

nachiket wrote:
Klaus wrote:Another question i have is with regard to a CBG. At this point we do not have a N-powered a/c carrier, so if SSBN's are part of this CBG and an eventuality (such as a temporary shutdown of power or a fire in the engine room of the carrier) takes place, will the Mig-29's be able to take orders from the lead SSBN, i.e. will the SSBN be able to take operational command of the CBG till the carrier is back to a 100%? I understand that this was one of the factors which led to the conversion of 4 Ohio class subs to a SSGN role.

P.S: I'm assuming the Gorky will be the carrier here with its Mig-29K's, assume the CBG is on a strike operation.


Why would an SSBN be part of a CBG? Did you mean SSN? AFAIK SSBNs are lone wolves and operate silently and alone to avoid detection.


With 2 SSN's as part of an IN CBG (Vikramaditya and 2 destroyers, all of them conventional), will the SSN be able to take operational command of the CBG (Mig 29's in particular) assuming they are on a strike operation far away from home shores.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17004
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Newbie Corner & Military Miscellaneous

Postby Rahul M » 07 Feb 2010 16:23

:shock:
even if I ignore the fact that ships don't control anything, the officers on them do, how (and why ?) will a SSN take command of a CBG ?

Klaus
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2168
Joined: 13 Dec 2009 12:28
Location: Cicero Avenue

Re: Newbie Corner & Military Miscellaneous

Postby Klaus » 07 Feb 2010 16:40

^^^ Sir, I am just presenting a hypothetical scenario wherein the CBG is on an operation far from home shores (no shores based assistance available) and the carrier has to be temporarily shutdown due to issues with the powerplant, in this case will the SSN be able to take charge of the CBG till the carrier is back to full function or will this task be assigned to one of the destroyers instead?

We are just discussing contingencies in case of technical snags, nothing else!


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: anupamd, deejay, manish singh, ravikr, SandeepR, sanjayc, VickyAvinash and 94 guests