Bharat Rakshak Forum Announcement

Hello Everyone,

A warm welcome back to the Bharat Rakshak Forum.

Important Notice: Due to a corruption in the BR forum database we regret to announce that data records relating to some of our registered users have been lost. We estimate approx. 500 user details are deleted.

To ease the process of recreating the user IDs we request members that have previously posted on the BR forums to recognise and identify their posts, once the posts are identified please contact the BRF moderator team by emailing BRF Mod Team with your post details.

The mod team will be able to update your username, email etc. so that the user history can be maintained.

Unfortunately for members that have never posted or have had all their posts deleted i.e. users that have 0 posts, we will be unable to recreate your account hence we request that you re-register again.

We apologise for any inconvenience caused and thank you for your understanding.

Regards,
Seetal

International Naval News and Discussion

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.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5895
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby brar_w » 21 Oct 2017 16:50

Growler Ball 2017 cruise video


brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5895
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby brar_w » 22 Oct 2017 16:57

Hour long discussion and update on the Ford Class carriers, EMALS/AAG etc

https://livestream.com/wab/tailhook2017 ... /162551304

Summary:

- Design changes explained (baseline Nimitz)
- F-35C and E-2D traps and launches expected soon
- Over 1000 EMALS launches (dead loads) on the ship till date
- 500-1000 traps and launches of NAVAIR aircraft ahead (on ship) during developmental testing
- Plan on finishing up Developmental Testing of the systems including EMALS, AAG and the Dual-Band-Radar by the summer-autumn of 2018 with Operational Test and Evaluation on the ship using operational crews currently scheduled to begin in the October-November 2018 timeframe.
- Currently looking into moving Shock Trials to the second ship, allowing Ford to go on her first deployment by mid-late 2020. Otherwise add 6 or so months for FSST and subsequent reporting-->clearances etc.
- First ship ONLY one to have the SPY-3/4 Dual-Band Radar (X and S band GaAs AESA antennas with common processing and back end). All subsequent ships to be fitted with the EASR (S-Band GaN AESA). [ EASR is a shrunk down version of the AMDR-S or SPY-6. Eventually plan is to compete an AMDR-X and it is assumed that there will be an EASR-X also a shrunken down version of AMDR-X].
- Directed Energy Weapons on the roadmap
- No regulatory limit exist for testing/using EMALS when in port. This is different from legacy carriers where regulations (limit on no loads based on environmental impact) did not permit training and testing of the system when in port.
- Towards the end, they ID and explain the Vibration issue with SH and heavy external loads during EMALS launch. Fix has been designed, tested and verified and is purely based on software. A more detailed explanation of how the situation was overcome has been posted here earlier.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5895
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby brar_w » 23 Oct 2017 14:54

Via SPF. ESSM block II with a new Active RF seeker (still maintains the passive modes of block I using illuminators). Completes interceptor upgrades for bulk of the USN AEGIS and non AEGIS systems. SM3 IIA, SM6, SeaRAM (RAM Block II) and now ESSM-II. Next up is to up an active seeker on legacy SM2s. Most notably, the ESSM Block II also gains capability to intercept Short Range Ballistic Missiles, something that the Block I could not do.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fuUbLU-DdgA

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17601
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby Philip » 08 Nov 2017 19:20

Now SoKo want N-subs.Japan too but its constitution forbids it,hence the poor man's N-sub,the Soryu.
http://www.newindianexpress.com/world/2 ... 94604.html
South Korea 'in talks to buy nuclear submarine' from US: Reports
By AFP | Published: 07th November 2017 05:56 PM |
Last Updated: 07th November 2017 05:56 PM | A+A A- |

Image for representational purpose only
SEOUL: South Korea is negotiating with the United States to buy nuclear-powered submarines to guard against threats from Pyongyang, local reports said Tuesday, as President Donald Trump said Seoul would buy "billions of dollars" of US weapons.

Nuclear-powered submarines can stay submerged for months, giving them a far greater range than their diesel-powered counterparts, and are also crucial to any seaborne nuclear deterrent.

Such a purchase would redraw the balance of power in northeast Asia, and could trigger a regional arms race.

Japan -- another US ally -- does not have nuclear-powered submarines, and is barred from having a military under its post-World War II pacifist constitution. :((

And while China's increasingly powerful navy does include them in its fleet, Beijing would undoubtedly be infuriated by any such acquisition by Seoul.

After a summit in South Korea with his counterpart Moon Jae-In, Trump on Tuesday said Seoul would be buying a large amount of US weapons "whether it's planes, whether it's missiles, no matter what it is".

"South Korea will be ordering billions of dollars of that equipment, which for them makes a lot of sense and for us it means jobs, reducing our trade deficit with South Korea," he said.

While Moon did not give specific details of the purchases, he described them as essential for national defence.

Multiple South Korean media outlets said the two leaders ordered officials to begin the purchase talks "immediately", citing a senior official who gave an anonymous briefing.

"The strategic assets under discussion include a nuclear-powered submarine and a sophisticated surveillance asset," the reports quoted a senior official of Moon's office as saying.

"We will have close consultations with the US about these two in the future," the official was quoted as saying.

Seoul heavily relies on its security guarantor Washington, which has 28,500 troops stationed in the South, for national defence to protect itself against potential attacks by the nuclear-armed North Korea.

But growing atomic and missile threats by the North in recent years prompted calls in the South to have more sophisticated weapons of its own, with some even demanding that Seoul develop its own nuclear weapon.

The country is currently barred from developing atomic weapons under the deal with the US, which in turn offers Seoul "nuclear umbrella" against potential attacks by the North.

Pyongyang staged a sixth atomic test in September and has test-launched multiple missiles capable of reaching the US mainland, sparking global alarm over its military ambition.

Trump also said the US had agreed to remove a 500 kilogram (1,100 pound) warhead weight limit on Seoul's ballistic missiles.

The allies had agreed in principle to do so in September following the North's latest nuclear test, by far its most powerful to date.

Moon, noting "ever-growing threats" from the North's missiles and nuclear weapons, said Tuesday the two allies had reached a "final agreement" to remove the restriction.

"We also reaffirmed our stance to put maximum pressure and sanctions on the North until it... comes forward for genuine negotiations," he told reporters.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17601
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby Philip » 10 Nov 2017 10:34

SoKo really does not need N-subs when it has only one principal enemy,NoKo. OK,add China to the list,NoKo's erstwhile chief sponsor.Even here,China is close by and land-based missiles and its current crop of AIP subs can do the biz.perhaps some more may be reqd. to keep a more intense watch on the activities of the PLAN in the region.If it wants to possess a secret UW strat. deterrent,then it should go the Israeli way.Conv. subs armed with N-tipped LRCMs.

https://thediplomat.com/2017/11/will-so ... tack-subs/
Will South Korea Build Nuclear Attack Subs?
The leaders have reportedly discussed the acquisition of nuclear-powered submarines during their recent summit.
By Franz-Stefan Gady
November 08, 2017

U.S. President Donald Trump and his South Korean counterpart, Moon Jae-in, have reportedly discussed the development or procurement of nuclear-powered attack submarines (SSN) for the Republic of Korea (ROK) Navy during a bilateral summit held in Seoul today, according to a ROK government official.

While the ROK government official did not provide additional details of the discussion, the fact that president Moon mentioned South Korea’s interest in developing or purchasing nuclear submarines during today’s summit is indicative of the ROK government’s growing desire to acquire a SSN capability in the not too distant future.

The primary reason for the Moon administration’s push to acquire nuclear-powered SSNs reportedly is North Korea’s burgeoning submarine force including new conventionally-powered ballistic missile subs capable of firing the KN11/Pukguksong-1 submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM). Nuclear-powered subs, unlike diesel-electric submarines, can stay underwater for prolonged periods of time, which purportedly would allow them to track North Korean boomers more effectively.

Enjoying this article? Click here to subscribe for full access. Just $5 a month.
Yet, how realistic is it that the ROK Navy will operate a small fleet of SSNs?

For starters, it is highly unrealistic to assume that the United States will sell or lease nuclear submarines such a Virginia-class or soon to be retired Los Angeles-class SSNs to South Korea for a number of reasons including nuclear proliferation fears, an unwillingness to share sensitive submarine technology with an ally, and the fact that the U.S.-made subs may just be too expensive to operate for the ROK Navy.

“The U.S. has never sold its nuclear-powered submarine to a foreign country,” a ROK government official said in September. Consequently, “if we choose to acquire (such subs), it would be in the form of indigenous development.” The ROK Navy would be interested in fielding at least three SSNs to guarantee round-the-clock patrols. Total cost for the acquisition of three subs plus supporting infrastructure could well approach $9 billion excluding operating cost, according to some estimates.

According to local media reports, South Korea launched a clandestine military project in 2003 code-named ‘362 initiative’ with the aim of developing an indigenous nuclear sub capability. Yet the program was shut down in 2004 when it became public and was brought to the attention of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Before that, however, South Korea’s own atomic energy agency purportedly finished basic design work for a miniaturized nuclear reactor for a new class of SSNs.

Various obstacles both political and technical would need to be overcome to fulfill the Moon administration’s dream of a nuclear-powered submarine fleet. A major challenge for any future ROK Navy SSN fleet would be how to secure nuclear fuel. Under a revised U.S.-ROK nuclear deal signed in 2015, Seoul is prohibited from enriching uranium and reprocessing spent-fuel for military purposes, although it does allow enriching uranium for civil nuclear energy in the future. While a SSN could still run on low-enriched uranium, the United States would likely oppose such a move due to nuclear proliferation concerns.

“The two countries have yet to review whether or not the revision would allow South Korea to secure uranium necessary for a nuclear submarine,” a ROK defense ministry official told The Korea Times on the condition of anonymity in 2016. South Korea has also ratified the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in 1975 and remains formally committed to it.

It would take at least five years for South Korea to build its first nuclear sub even with outside help, according to naval experts. An indigenous SSN program without foreign assistance is unrealistic. Potential international partners could include India, France, and the United States. The Trump administration has so far not publicly endorsed South Korea’s plans to push ahead with the project despite some media reports to the contrary.

The military utility of a SSN fleet also remains debatable.

The ROK Navy, a force primarily involved in littoral operations, is expected to field 18 diesel-electric attack subs by 2019–all which will be fitted with advanced sonar technology and air-independent propulsion systems. These subs will be able to stay submerged for two weeks or longer. Consequently, additional conventionally-powered subs could also guarantee persistence patrols around North Korean submarine bases.

Furthermore, diesel-electric submarines are generally quieter and harder to detect than nuclear boats. They would also be substantially less expensive than SSNs and could therefore be fielded in larger numbers. The ROK Navy could also field other assets besides submarines including anti-submarine warfare aircraft to detect and track North Korean subs.


Staggering US N-sub costs.It reminds one of the huge costs of maintaining (only) an N-sub fleet.

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/15 ... perational
Navy Trims New Missile Sub Cost to $7.2B, But Struggles to Keep Existing Subs Operational
The service is looking to build three subs a year, or more, but more than a dozen boa

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5895
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby brar_w » 10 Nov 2017 15:51

The cost is that of the Columbia which is an SSBN and something that will be the sole undersea component of the strategic deterrent for many many decades to come. The reason cost is high is because of the size of the sub (>2.5 times the displacement of each Virgnia SSN), the technology, the strategic nature of the mission and the fact that only 12 are to be produced under the program of record and will be bought at a rate of 1 every other year. Now take that and contrast this with the Virginia SSN which has is now being acquired at 2 per year and will be produced well into the 2030s at that rate. The SSN cost actually is competitive with some of the new diesel electric subs out there being sold as new programs to western nations. Columbia cost is still in line with the deterrence mission and the time it is going to serve in that role. Once you factor in the overall cost of the program with it being a 1/3 of the triad, it comes out to be reasonable when you factor in the size of the US budget and economy.

BTW, APUC aside the Columbia SSBN estimates for recurring unit costs for sub 2-12 are in the $6 - $6.5 billion range since the first in class sub carries a fair bit of non recurring costs. Overall, the acquisition comes in at roughly $100 Billion including Research and Development and this cost will be spread over nearly 2 decades. That is a pretty small %age of the overall DOD or naval budget to pay for something that assures modernization of a 1/3 of your triad for many decades to come.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17601
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby Philip » 10 Nov 2017 16:23

Yes.Huge costs of SSBNs.I wonder what the actual costs of the Ru Borei class is,the "B" variant to be launched soon.The debate about AIP systems continues.In a conversation with a 3* + gent, we came to the same conclusion that the best AIP system is an N-sub!.
Why the IN should resist the temptation of trying to
turn its P-75I subs into the poor man's equiv of an SSN.
We should build as many med. sized SSNs as far as poss., and as many conv./AIP boats which come in at 50/60% of the cost of expensive western/European boats. Our Scorpenes are costwise scandalous- without AIP too.Kilo-2s armed with Shkval and Kalibir far more cost-effective.They're having a ball in the Syrian spat.V.keen to see the Amur/Lada in action. Russia should've sent one to the Meditt. to put it through its paces.Are these subs Baltic specific though?

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5895
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby brar_w » 10 Nov 2017 17:01

A dozen small, modern (new program with at least some modern R&D) DE submarines that Australia is buying from France cost roughly $40 Billion (way more than what USN pays for its Virginia SSN). Compared to that, a dozen 20,500+ ton nuclear powered strategic ballistic missile carrying vessel @ $100 Billion is pretty much a steal given its value as a deterrent.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17601
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby Philip » 10 Nov 2017 17:07

Igzackly!

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5895
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby brar_w » 10 Nov 2017 18:02

I wonder what the actual costs of the Ru Borei class is,the "B" variant to be launched soon.


There are costs associated with preparing infrastructure to build new vessels and then there are material costs which don't vary drastically by nation. However the largest component, actually paying the designers, workers etc is going to hugely vary given the huge disparity in the economies of the US and Russia. This is why folks look at these things in a relative context as in..what is the cost of a dozen such new submarines to Russia as a fraction of its economy or projected GDP over the time-period vs the same to the US. Like I said, $100 Billion R&D and acquisition spread over 2+ decades is a pretty small amount relative to the US economy and defense spending given what it buys in terms of an undersea component of the triad for the next 4+ decades.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5895
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby brar_w » 12 Nov 2017 04:45

A very detailed article in the November edition of Jane's Navy International on the UK's Carrier trials that lie ahead in 2018 as they put their new ship, new sub-systems and the F-35B through its paces. Putting only a small part of the article here as it pertains to the specific flight trials on board the AC next year : -

Strike command: UK prepares for return to carrier group operations; Jane's Navy International; November-10, 2017

Preparations ramp up for F-35B First Of Class Flying Trials


Plans are now well advanced for a programme of fixed-wing FOCFTs scheduled to take place from HMS Queen Elizabeth off the US eastern seaboard in the last quarter of 2018. It is expected that a pair of F-35B development aircraft will operate from the ship for two embarked periods, each lasting approximately four weeks.

FOCFT test points are intended to define the safe envelope for the operation of the F-35B from Queen Elizabeth and Prince of Wales . Test planning for FOCFT is already well under way across a team of government, navy, and industry stakeholders located on either side of the Atlantic. These stakeholders include the RN, the Ministry of Defence (MoD), Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR), the F-35 Integrated Test Force, Lockheed Martin, and BAE Systems.

“As a team, we are developing the detailed test points that we need to trial, and where they need to be around the operating envelope that we believe we’re going to be able to release to service,” said David Atkinson, BAE Systems’ aircraft-to-ship integration lead. "We will start from the initial ‘heart’ of the envelope, where we always start testing [and] we will progress out to the edges of the envelope which we need to get to give the maximum capability from the F-35B when operating from Queen Elizabeth.

“That has been a progressive piece of work that we started in around 2009, when we laid out the outline plan and what we thought were the aspirational envelopes [based on] the maximum that we could achieve based on our knowledge of the [F-35B] aircraft, from Queen Elizabeth , and what we knew about the [ship’s performance] at sea and the capability to generate wind-over-the-deck. All of those are important parameters in determining the operating envelope."

From March through to July 2017, an intensive set of flight simulation trials were conducted to provide evidence which is now being used to underpin what the test envelopes should be for flight trials.

“We’re preparing two things. First, we and Lockheed Martin are preparing the flight clearance evidence to NAVAIR, and this will provide a flight clearance recommendation to the MoD for what they believe the envelopes are through which the aircraft should be permitted to conduct flight trials. The MoD will then take that forward through the airworthiness authorities and release a flight test permit to allow those flight tests to occur,” Atkinson said.

The other aspect concerns developing the fine detail of the individual test points and the overall test plan. “That will go through the test authorities in exactly the same way as any test plan goes through for the F-35 test team,” Atkinson explained. “So it will go through a test review panel, and then it will go to an executive review.”

He added, “We’re also working more broadly on exactly where in the ship [and] what facilities [in the ship] the test force will need, and where the equipment is going to come from to support the aircraft. There is a huge amount of detail, and lots of planning across all the different lines of development that will be touched by a deployed aviation operation.”

The detail of each of those areas is being planned within Navy Command by the CSG, Atkinson said. "We are feeding information and evidence to inform that [and] to ensure that we have a complete kit of parts to support the aircraft, and to connect the aircraft from both physical and data points of view." This includes fuelling, electrical power supplies, maintaining the aircraft in the hangar, and extracting data from it.

“We’re there to collect flight test evidence. The data extract, and the way the flight test aircraft are configured to allow us to conduct the tests, is critically important."

Additionally, the two F-35Bs operating from Queen Elizabeth for FOCFT will both be telemetered back to the ship, so a telemetry system will be temporarily fitted for this purpose.

While ski-jump launch and vertical landing envelopes will be prioritised in the test programme, shipborne rolling vertical landings (SRVLs) have also been included in the plan, Atkinson noted. “We have conducted a lot of work on SRVL in the simulator, but we have never flown an SRVL with an F-35 to a real ship before.

“In that case, we must progress cautiously .... [SRVL] is in a very different state of maturity than vertical landing. In the latter case, we are absolutely 100% confident we know the capability we can obtain, and possibly extend beyond what is already available on the [US Navy’s] LHDs because our islands are so much further way from our landing spots. So the airflow characteristics over the deck for a vertical landing ought to be good.”

Airflow and air pattern measurement trials are planned ahead of FOCFT. Lessons identified will be taken into account in the subsequent test progression.

“No matter what we predict, when we’re doing flight testing we are always extremely cautious,” said Atkinson. “It’s only what you’ve tested that is real. Everything else is a prediction to help you make good decisions on where to test.

“Until you’ve actually been to test, you don’t trust the analysis 100%.”



brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5895
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby brar_w » 15 Nov 2017 03:06

Some great HD footage of the Ford Class carrier along with touch n go's, and traps...


Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20337
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby Prem » 15 Nov 2017 09:59


Manish_P
BRFite
Posts: 884
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby Manish_P » 15 Nov 2017 11:22

^ and so the Naval UAV/UCAV progresses. Thanks for sharing Prem ji

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5895
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby brar_w » 15 Nov 2017 20:27

General Atomics MQ-9 Used in Successful Anti-Submarine Warfare Demonstration


The remote detection and tracking of submerged contacts, such as submarines, was demonstrated using an MQ-9 Predator® B Remotely Piloted Aircraft (RPA) during a U.S. Naval exercise on October 12th. General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, Inc. (GA-ASI) participated in this successful demonstration of new maritime patrol capabilities that included anti-submarine warfare.Sonobuoys were deployed by U.S. Navy helicopters and acoustic data gathered from the sonobuoys were used to track underwater targets. The data was transmitted to the MQ-9 and processed onboard, then relayed to the MQ-9’s Ground Control Station (GCS) several hundred miles away from the target area. The event successfully paired sonobuoy receiver, supplied by Ultra Electronics, and data processing technology, provided by General Dynamics Mission Systems-Canada, onboard the MQ-9. A track solution was calculated and transmitted from the aircraft to the Ground Control Station (GCS) via SATCOM. This technology will provide long-range patrol and relay capabilities to the MQ-9 to augment maritime mission sets.

“This test demonstrated the ability of our RPA to detect submarines and provide persistent tracking of submerged targets,” said Linden Blue, CEO, GA-ASI.

The MQ-9 was also equipped with GA-ASI’s Lynx® Multi-mode Radar. The Lynx radar featured its Maritime Wide-area Search (MWAS) mode, which detects maritime surface targets over a wide area with Inverse Synthetic Aperture Radar (ISAR) for target classification. The aircraft’s Electro-optical/Infrared (EO/IR), high-definition Full-motion Video (FMV) camera supports the identification of surface vessels. These sensor contacts are correlated with the Automatic Identification System (AIS) to verify target identity. Additionally, the MQ-9 can be fitted with a centerline pod that can house a longer-range, 360-degree field of regard maritime surface search radar for enhanced surveillance over water.

The flight test was conducted over the Southern California Offshore Range (SCORE) west of San Clemente Island.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17601
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby Philip » 18 Nov 2017 21:05

Argentina's SAN Juan sub has been missing for 2 days.A massive rescue effort is with help from the US in particular to detect the location of the Sherman built TR-1700t class sub acquire in the late '80s.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5895
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby brar_w » 18 Nov 2017 23:34

Night take-offs and landings using EMALS/AAG aboard the first Ford Class carrier :



Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Dileep, nishu, sanjayc and 46 guests