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: 5897
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby brar_w » 01 Oct 2016 15:35

The SM3 cannot handle threats within the atmosphere. It Its minimum engagement altitude is in excess of 150 km. Its purely for BMD/ASAT purposes. For Air breathing threats (and/or endoatmoshpereic BM intercepts) the USN carries SM2's, or SM6's along with ESSM and RAM.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5897
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby brar_w » 02 Oct 2016 04:07

US Carriers Deploy New Torpedo Defense System

The Navy is arming aircraft carriers with a prototype high-tech torpedo defense technology able to detect, classify, track and destroy incoming enemy torpedoes, service officials said.
The Anti-Torpedo Defense System, currently installed on five aircraft carriers and deployed on one carrier at the moment, is slated to be fully operational by 2022.

The overall SSTD system, which consists of a sensor, processor and small interceptor missile, is a first-of-its-kind "hard kill" countermeasure for ships and carriers designed to defeat torpedoes, Navy officials said.

The emerging Surface Ship Torpedo Defense technology includes the Anti-Torpedo Defense System, or ATTDS and an SLQ-25 Acoustic Device Countermeasure; the ATTDS consists of a Countermeasure Anti-Torpedo program and Torpedo Warning System. “The ATTDS is designed to detect, classify, track and localize incoming torpedoes utilizing the Torpedo Warning System leading to a torpedo hard-kill by employing the Countermeasure Anti-Torpedo,” Collen O’Rourke, spokeswoman for Naval Sea Systems Command, told Scout Warrior.

Thus far, the ATTDS has completed three carrier deployments. The ATTDS Program of Record plan for future ships includes additional carriers and Combat Logistic Force ships.

Earlier this year, the ATTDS was installed and operated on the USNS BRITTIN (TAKR-305) over a six day period during which the latest system hardware and software was tested. The results of the testing are instrumental for continued system development, O’Rourke added.
The technology is slated for additional testing and safety certifications.

The emergence of a specifically-engineered torpedo defense system is quite significant for the Navy - as it comes a time when many weapons developers are expressing concern about the potential vulnerability of carriers in light of high-tech weapons such as long-range anti-ship missiles and hypersonic weapons. An ability to protect the large platforms submarine-launched torpedo attacks adds a substantial element to a carrier’s layered defense systems.
Ships already have a layered system of defenses which includes sensors, radar and several interceptor technologies designed to intercept large, medium and small scale threats from a variety of ranges.For example, most aircraft carriers are currently configured with Sea Sparrow interceptor missiles designed to destroy incoming air and surface threats and the Phalanx Close-in-Weapons System, or CIWS. CIWS is a rapid-fire gun designed as an area weapon intended to protect ships from surface threats closer to the boat's edge, such as fast-attack boats.

Torpedo defense for surface ships, however, involves another portion of the threat envelope and is a different question. SSTD is being rapidly developed to address this, Navy officials explained.

The system consists of a Torpedo Warning System Receive Array launched from the winch at the end of the ship, essentially a towed sensor or receiver engineered to detect the presence of incoming torpedo fire. The Receive Array sends information to a processor which then computes key information and sends data to interceptor projectiles - or Countermeasures Anti-Torpedos, or CAT - attached to the side of the ship.

The towed array picks up the acoustic noise. The processors filter it out and inform the crew. The crew then makes the decision about whether to fire a CAT, Navy officials said.

The CATs are mounted on the carriers' sponson, projections from the side of the ship designed for protection, stability or the mounting of armaments.

The individual technological pieces of the SSTD system are engineered to work together to locate and destroy incoming torpedos in a matter of seconds or less. Tactical display screens on the bridge of the ship are designed to inform commanders about the system's operations.

After being tested on some smaller ships such as destroyers, the SSTD was approved for use on aircraft carriers in 2011 by then Chief Naval Officer Adm. Jonathan Greenert, according to the Navy.

The SSTD effort is described by Navy officials as a rapid prototyping endeavor designed to fast-track development of the technology. In fact, the Torpedo Warning System recently won a 2013 DoD "Myth-Busters" award for successful acquisition practices such as delivering the TWS to the USS Bush on an accelerated schedule. The TWS is made by 3 Phoenix.

The Countermeasure Anti-Torpedo is being developed by the Pennsylvania State University Applied Research Laboratory, officials said.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17607
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby Philip » 04 Oct 2016 17:24

Has OZ picked a lemon with the DCNS sub choice? This article thinks so. The IN's next sub acuisition-conventional,which may be a G-to-G buy of German U-boats or/plus more Ru conventional boats ,should keep the OZ decision in mind.Since we are to build 6 new SSNs,there is no neeed to follow the OZ example of trying to equip an N-boat design with conventional powerplants,etc.

http://www.theage.com.au/national/publi ... eType=text
Is DCNS's imaginary Shortfin Barracuda submarine Australia's biggest defence blunder?

Date: October 3 2016
Jon Stanford
It's not too late to steer clear of this costly catastrophe.

The Turnbull government's decision on the future submarine represents bad policy. It is bad for the navy, bad for the taxpayer and bad for Australia's future defence. Given the key role the submarine is meant to play in the future of the naval shipbuilding industry, it's also bad news for South Australia.

The navy's requirement is for a uniquely large conventional submarine (SSK) that can undertake force-projection missions far from home. This in itself raises important strategic questions. Is this an appropriate role for Australia? Does the United States want Australian submarines to operate in the South China Sea? In practice, should only nuclear submarines (SSNs) undertake such missions?

But accepting the defence requirement for what it is, the concerns around the decision to acquire the DCNS Shortfin Barracuda submarine are considerable. They relate as much to the very substantial risks involved as to the excessive cost.

In terms of the acquisition costs budgeted by defence, $4.6 billion represents an eye-watering price for an SSK. A nuclear-powered Barracuda costs less than half this in France. A very large Virginia class SSN costs $3.6 billion in the US. Most SSKs cost less than $1 billion.

The French submarine appears to be easily the most expensive of the three proposals submitted under the competitive evaluation process. The German contender, TKMS, offered to build 12 advanced submarines in Adelaide for about $20 billion, the same cost as in Kiel. At about $750 million in Japan, an improved Soryu-class submarine would cost more to build in Adelaide, but far less than $4.6 billion.

Turning to risk, there is a fundamental flaw in the process itself. By eliminating all competition before a detailed design has been produced, the navy faces substantial risks. What if the eventual DCNS design is untenable on technical grounds? What if the price quoted by DCNS, now a monopolist, is unacceptable? Australia could be forced to buy an existing design off the shelf from overseas that might not meet all the navy's needs.

This scenario is possible because the French proposal involves major technical challenges. No one has ever converted a nuclear submarine to a conventional sub before. Many experts doubt it can be done. The hull forms are different. The use of pump-jet propulsion in the Barracuda, while a breakthrough technology in SSNs, may be far less efficient at the low speeds associated with an SSK.

Another technical risk with the DCNS proposal is that, unlike the other two contenders, it doesn't incorporate air-independent propulsion. This propulsion allows an SSK to remain submerged for up to three weeks, albeit moving at slow speeds. Because of improved anti-submarine technologies, which allow SSKs to be detected when "snorting" (recharging their batteries close to the surface), air-independent propulsion is a sine qua non for an advanced SSK in the 21st century.

A major risk with the French proposal is the tardy delivery schedule, with the first submarine not entering service until the 2030s. This will necessitate a major upgrade to the Collins submarines to keep them in service until the 2040s. This involves massive risk. Collins can't be converted to embody air-independent propulsion. Deep diving will become increasingly dangerous as the platform ages. The likely cost of the Collins upgrade is more than $15 billion, but it might not deliver a credible submarine capability.

Given the Australian Defence Force's preference for American weapons and systems, a further risk is the US will refuse to allow the full transfer of sensitive technology to a French platform. The recent comprehensive leak of DCNS's top-secret submarine data is likely to make the US more wary of providing sensitive technologies to France. This means an American combat system, as well as US cruise missiles and torpedoes, may be unavailable.

One popular theory suggests the choice of the Shortfin Barracuda is merely an artifice to allow the nuclear version of the platform to be acquired down the track. Australian Strategic Policy Institute executive director Peter Jennings certainly thinks so: "It's probably a good bet to say that the reason we've gone with the Barracuda is that some of the 12 builds can be nuclear," he said.

If this is defence's cunning plan, it's highly questionable. First, the Germans and Japanese don't produce nuclear submarines and were taking part in the competitive evaluation process, in good faith, on the basis of a false prospectus. Second, it's also a highly risky approach to replacing Collins. Even if we started now, it would take 15 years to develop the hard and soft infrastructure needed to operate SSNs. We don't know if this will ever be politically acceptable in Australia. We haven't undertaken any process to determine whether a French SSN would be more appropriate to the navy's needs than an American or British design. We might well also need to procure SSKs to complement the putative long-range SSNs, and the Shortfin Barracuda is unlikely to be the best available platform for that role.

Overall, the risks involved in the DCNS proposal are so high as to be unacceptable, particularly in light of the costs involved. A senior defence official told The Daily Telegraph last month: "If you asked someone to devise a new submarine program with the highest risk factors at every stage, you could not have done a much better job. It will almost certainly end in tears and possibly a catastrophe."

Fortunately, it's not too late to change course. To date, the only agreement with DCNS is for the development of a detailed design. The solution is to keep the competitive process alive by extending the competitive evaluation process and resuscitating the other proposals. As the Australian National University's Professor Hugh White has said: "What we need is a competitive project development study phase, in which two or more contenders develop detailed designs and provide tender-quality prices on which a fixed-price contract can be based. That is standard in this kind of project, or used to be." As well as proposing a tender price for building them overseas, each contender would also be required to provide a detailed plan for building the submarines in Adelaide under a fixed-price contract.

Apart from the benefits of re-establishing a competitive process, extending the evaluation process would also help repair relations with Australia's friends in Japan and Germany. There was considerable angst in both countries not only about the process's outcome but, more fundamentally, about the process itself. Defence rejected the German and Japanese proposals for reasons the proponents regard as largely spurious.

Extending the evaluation process wouldn't delay the acquisition. Indeed, our future submarines may be in the water sooner than presently projected. At the same time, the major risks in the current process would be substantially reduced and there is a much greater likelihood that the navy would be provided with the right submarine at an acceptable cost.

Jon Stanford is a director of Insight Economics. He is a past head of the industries division in the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet


TSJones
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3022
Joined: 14 Oct 1999 11:31

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby TSJones » 06 Oct 2016 23:53

the CNO never mentioned Russia.

he said the US Navy would go anywhere in the world's oceans regardless of a2/ad. thus he wanted to get rid of the term a2/ad because it was too negative in thinking.

I would expect nothing less from the CNO. just doing his job.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17607
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby Philip » 07 Oct 2016 17:20

Fat chance of Indian acquiring the JSF too.The USMC will also have its work cut out with its STOVL version for its amphibs.
http://www.naval-technology.com/news/ne ... -nao-warns
UK’s F-35 JSF 'cannot land vertically in warm climates', NAO warns :rotfl:
13 May 2013
F-35 JSF landing on a ship
A report from the National Audit Office (NAO) has warned the UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) that the Lockheed Martin-built F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) aircraft variant, selected for the Royal Navy, will not be capable of performing vertical landing on ships in warm weather conditions.

In May 2012, the UK MoD changed its decision and reverted to the short takeoff, vertical landing (STOVL) version of the aircraft.

The NAO report stated that the STOVL variant 'is unable to land vertically on to a carrier in hot, humid and low-pressure weather conditions without having to jettison heavy loads'.

The JSF is scheduled to carry out operations aboard the Royal Navy's two new Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers, HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales, from 2020.

In addition to raising landing concerns, the report also highlighted several flaws related to the F-35 project, including full operational capability (FOC) of the early warning 'Crowsnest' radar that will be installed on the aircraft.

"Flawed ministerial decisions have wasted millions of pounds of taxpayers' money at a time of mass service sackings and cuts to pensions and allowances."
The radar is set to undergo testing before being declared FOC in 2022.

Commenting on the report, UK shadow defence secretary Jim Murphy said: "Flawed ministerial decisions have wasted millions of pounds of taxpayers' money at a time of mass service sackings and cuts to pensions and allowances."

However, defence secretary Philip Hammond justified the MoD's decision saying that the landing problem of the aircraft would be 'overcome by the time the first carrier is ready for service in 2020'.

Delay to Crowsnest deployment would not weaken the safety of the aircraft carriers, he insisted.

"Until then, its maritime surveillance capabilities will be augmented by other platforms and systems, including the state-of-the-art radar on the Type 45 destroyers, working together in a layered defence," Hammond said.

Image: The F-35 JSF aircraft is designed to perform STOVL aboard ships. Photo: file image.

Defence Technology

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5897
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby brar_w » 07 Oct 2016 17:29

.The USMC will also have its work cut out with its STOVL version for its amphibs


No it won't. Research the envelope for STOVL aboard the amphibs and indeed the carrier.

The NAO report stated that the STOVL variant 'is unable to land vertically on to a carrier in hot, humid and low-pressure weather conditions without having to jettison heavy loads'.


The UK currently is developing/testing (with BAE and Lockheed/Raytheon) and will continue to use SRVL to bring larger payloads back, as was the plan all along (The marines planned it as well for the USN carriers before they shifted to buying C's to augment the Navy purchase).

It would be quite safe to assume that since the Flight Control work is being done by the Brits, the Marines will incorporate the SRVL modes into their F-35B's for ground operations just as they do with the current Harriers (search Harrier rolling landing on youtube).

The current bring-back VL envelope specifies (USMC requirement) the temperature and other conditions as is for most USMC requirements (Tropical day, 10Knts WOD etc) during which it must perform with respect to take-off distance and bring back payload/fuel. Its right there in the KPP. Much like harriers currently operated by the Marines, when conditions become less favourable (as in you move to temperatures in excess of 100 Degrees F) you adjust bring-back payload, tinker the reserve fuel requirement (enough for 2 IFR passes and complete vertical landing), or do a RVL. This isn't going to change with the F-35B.

SRVL is a tried and tested way for STOVL aircraft to increase the bring back weight.

http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php ... &start=165



This how it will look on the UK Carrier -



US and UK join forces in recent F35 ship integration trials
We've been actively involved in the design of the Shipborne Rolling Vertical Landing (SRVL) manoeuvre being developed for the UK MOD when the F35B Lightning II Short Take-off and Vertical Landing (STOVL) aircraft and the new Queen Elizabeth Class (QEC) Aircraft Carriers come into operational service.

The SRVL manoeuvre provides enhanced ‘bring back’ meaning the aircraft is capable of bringing back more payload i.e. weapons and fuel over vertical landings owing to the wing lift created by forward airspeed at touchdown. Joint research efforts on both sides of the Atlantic have developed enhanced aircraft flight controls and displays which are applicable to both the F35C Carrier Variant arrested recovery and the F35B STOVL variant SRVL recovery to the aircraft carrier, albeit separated by some 70 knots approach airspeed.

The recent flight simulation trials at Warton tested these enhanced control law modes for F35C arrested recoveries to a Nimitz class carrier and gained positive feedback from the US Navy and F35 test pilots involved in the trial.

James Denham (Aeromechanics division at the US Naval Air Systems Command) said “During this trial we’ve identified improvements to deliver more accurate touchdowns, less bolters and reduced pilot training. Ultimately, what we’ve been able to test in this simulated environment allows us to inform future Concepts of Operation. The co-ordination and co-operation between us all has been extraordinary.”

Our facility at Warton is currently engaged in supporting UK carrier integration and risk reduction studies, realistically simulating the landing and take-off characteristics of a F35B STOVL variant to and from the Queen Elizabeth class carrier allowing engineers and pilots to help define and refine the design, layout and operations for both platforms. The work being undertaken in the simulator is generating large savings as refinements can be fed into the design phase of both programmes.

The simulator can also be switched to represent the F35C Carrier Variant and US Nimitz carrier deck, as was demonstrated in this trial. Further trials are due to take place soon to test the same control law mode for F35B SRVL recoveries to the UK’s QEC aircraft carriers with the US Navy observing.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17607
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby Philip » 12 Oct 2016 18:14

More details on the attempted missile attack against a USN DDG.What is significznt is that a USN warship successfully defended itself against a Chinese Silkworm type SSM,using SM-2,ESSM and the Nulka decoy system. Good news for its assets in the Indo-China Sea/pacific theatre.
However,how effective they will be against the more advanced anti-ship missiles in the PLAN inventory,supersonic Moskit and late model Silkworms,is yet to be determined.

https://news.usni.org/2016/10/11/uss-ma ... les-attack
USS Mason Fired 3 Missiles to Defend From Yemen Cruise Missiles Attack
By: Sam LaGrone
October 11, 2016
USS Mason (DDG-87) fires an SM-2 during a March 2016 exercise. US Navy Image

The crew of a guided-missile destroyer fired three missiles to defend themselves and another ship after being attacked on Sunday in the Red Sea by two presumed cruise missiles fired by Iran-backed Houthi-forces, USNI News has learned.

During the attack against USS Mason (DDG-87), the ship’s crew fired the missiles to defend the guided-missile destroyer and nearby USS Ponce (AFSB(I)-15) from two suspected cruise missiles fired from the Yemini shore, two defense officials told USNI News.

Mason launched two Standard Missile-2s (SM-2s) and a single Enhanced Sea Sparrow Missile (ESSM) to intercept the two missiles that were launched about 7 P.M. local time. In addition to the missiles, the ship used its Nulka anti-ship missile decoy, the sources confirmed. Mason was operating in international waters north of the strait of Bab el-Mandeb at the time of the attack.

According to a defense official on Monday, Mason “employed onboard defensive measures” against the first suspected cruise missile, “although it is unclear whether this led to the missile striking the water or whether it would have struck the water anyway.” The official did not specify that the defensive measure was a missile fired from the ship.

USNI News understands, as of Monday, the crew of the ship was uncertain if the suspected cruise missile was taken out by an SM-2 or went into the water on its own. In the Monday statement, the Pentagon said an investigation was ongoing.
Afloat Forward Staging Base (Interim) USS Ponce (AFSB(I)-15) on April 11, 2016. US Navy Photo

The second missile launched from Yemen hit the water without being struck by a U.S. interceptor, the Petnagon said.

Pentagon spokesman Capt. Jeff Davis would not confirm Mason launched missiles to USNI News on Monday. On Tuesday, Davis told reporters the missiles coming from Yemen might have been intended to strike Ponce and that the U.S. “will take action accordingly,” in response to the findings of the ongoing investigation.

While the Pentagon will not confirm details of Mason’s engagement, the use of both missiles by the U.S. is, “very significant,” Bryan Clark, a naval analyst at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments and former aide to retired former-Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Jonathan Greenert, told USNI News on Monday.

“It might be the first time the SM-2 used against an actual threat for which it was designed,” Clark said.
“It’s definitely the first time ESSM has been used… This is obviously a huge deal.”


The SM-2s – more than two decades old – were specifically designed to tackle Cold War cruise missile threats to a guided-missile destroyer, much like the ones Iran has presumably given to the Houthis in Yemen.

Last week a Houthi-launched cruise missile caused significant damage to the UAE-leased HSV Swift – an unarmed aluminum high-speed transport vessel used to move supplies and wounded in the region, UAE officials said. UAE is part of a Saudi Arabia led coalition that has fought against the Iran-backed Shi’a Houthis in Yemen since last year.

While U.S. sources haven’t confirmed the type of missiles, open source naval analyst and retired Navy Capt. Chris Carlson told USNI News on Monday the damage on Swift appears to be from the warhead used in a Chinese-built C-802 anti-ship missile (NATO reporting name CSS-N-8 Saccade). The C-802 is based on Cold War-era French technology.

Analysis of damage on HSV Swift by retired US Navy Capt. Chris Carlson. Used with permission

Specifically, the damage on Swift indicates the missile had an explosively formed penetrator (EFP) warhead – a well-known feature of the C-802. An EFP expands on impact launching additional pieces of shrapnel once the missile has penetrated the outer skin of a target around its circumference.

EFP warhead blast pattern via Chris Carlson

While the guidance system is largely 1990s vintage, the C-802 carries a, “very damaging warhead,” Carlson said.
The attacks on Mason and Ponce follow an airstrike that killed more than 140 people and injured more than 500 during a funeral in Yemen. The Saudi-led bombing has prompted a review of U.S. support of the conflict fought between the collation and the Houthis since last year, according to a report in The Wall Street Journal.

Prior to the Saudi strike, Houthi rebels have told Saudi Arabia and its allies — via Iranian state media — to stay out of Yemen, “territorial waters.”
However the Houthis, “denied firing at the USS Mason guided missile destroyer and the USS Ponce,” according to a Tuesday report from the Reuters newswire.
Davis told reporters on Tuesday, there’s no short-term anticipated change in U.S. posture in the region.

Related

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17607
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby Philip » 16 Oct 2016 20:21

Speed of construction of Chinese missile corvettes..V.interesting low cost corvette/escorts which when built in large numbers ,help to sanitise/patrol a wider area like the ICS.

http://www.janes.com/article/64596/chin ... -corvettes
China launches three more corvettes
Andrew Tate, London - IHS Jane's Defence Weekly
13 October 2016

China has launched three more Jiangdao-class (Type 056/056A) corvettes. This photograph shows two of the corvettes at Liaonan shipyard together with Pennant Number 512, which is expected to be commissioned soon. Source: haohanfw.com
Photographs posted on Chinese online forums show that a further three Jiangdao-class (Type 056/056A) corvettes have been launched. The latest of the vessels was launched at the Wuchang shipyard in Wuhan around 3 October and is the 39th of the class to enter the water.

On 19 June satellite imagery showed the two other corvettes under construction in a dry dock at the Liaonan shipyard in Lushun. By early October photographs of the fitting-out berths in the yard showed that the ships had been launched and that the installation of sensors, antennas, and missile launchers was continuing with the ships afloat.

Online sources suggest that these ships were launched about 14 September.

A total of 27 Jiangdao-class corvettes are currently in service with the People's Liberation Army's Navy (PLAN), according to IHS Jane's World Navie
s .

The vessels displace around 1,500 tonnes, are armed with four YJ-83 anti-ship missiles, a 76 mm gun, two triple-barrelled lightweight torpedo launchers, and an eight-cell HQ-10 short-range surface-to-air missile launcher.

While a number of the class are equipped with a variable depth sonar, the photographs available of the three recently launched ships do not show whether any of them are the anti-submarine variant.

The rate of production of the Jiangdao-class ships averages about one every six weeks. :shock:
Twelve ships of the class are currently being fitted out or undergoing pre-commissioning trials at the four shipyards involved in their construction: three each at Liaonan, Wuchang, Hudong, and Huangpu.

Fitting out and sea trials for these ships takes around 12 months, so four of these are likely to enter service before the end of the year.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5897
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby brar_w » 18 Oct 2016 18:20

Image


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 » 22 Oct 2016 02:53


brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5897
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby brar_w » 24 Oct 2016 20:51

ACTUV (Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW) Continuous Trail Unmanned Vessel) + TALONS (Towed Airborne Lift of Naval Systems )


brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5897
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby brar_w » 26 Oct 2016 20:05

Excellent write up on the SDRJ GQM-163A Coyote Supersonic target missile in the October issue of Jane's IDR. Some excerpts below, will post the entire article later.

Following the unguided launches, five controlled/guided EMD development flight tests were conducted between May 2004 and April 2005, with the flight mission profiles structured to be progressively more complex. All flights were conducted from San Nicolas Island, located within the Naval Air Warfare Center Weapons Division sea range at Point Mugu, southern California.

EMD-1 was performed on 18 May 2004. This first controlled flight test - which also marked the first US flight of a solid-fuel ducted rocket ramjet - demonstrated verification of booster ignition and stable first-stage flight; verification of the transition of the ramjet from booster separation to inlet start; and verification of the ramjet ignition and powered flight performance. It also demonstrated component performance, and both inertial and GPS guidance, with the air vehicle cruising at 300 ft for the full mission duration and performing a single turn. Inlet pressure data was lost part way during flight.

EMD-2, performed on 27 August 2004, was flown at an altitude of 100 ft, with the laser altimeter in data gather mode. Five 5 g half-cycle horizontal turns were performed, as well as 4 g vertical turns, with all mission points demonstrated.

The third flight test, EMD-3, was completed on 14 December 2004 and further increased the level of complexity. Altitude control, using the laser altimeter, was demonstrated down to 30 ft, and 10 g horizontal weave and 6 g combined manoeuvres were executed. Again, all mission points were demonstrated, including the vehicle destruct function at the end of the flight.

EMD-4, which followed on 24 March 2005, involved a 10 g weave at an altitude of 15 ft, and a combined manoeuvre (11.2 g ) at the same altitude. All mission objectives were achieved.

The final development flight test, EMD-5, was flown on 22 April 2005. The mission profile included a moving ship waypoint, 12 g horizontal and 11 g combined manoeuvres, and stressing inlet manoeuvres. During this mission, the GQM-163A vehicle achieved cruise velocity of Mach 2.5 while travelling about 49 ft above the sea surface and reached a peak velocity of Mach 2.8. It also successfully navigated to, and passed within 20 m of, a moving remotely controlled target ship at a range of more than 50 km from its launch point. The mission took about 120 seconds and covered about 100 km from its initial launch point on San Nicolas Island. All mission points were demonstrated, with positive inlet margins recorded during turns.



Recent enhancements and capability additions -

In March 2006 PMA-208 started working in conjunction with Orbital to develop a modification that would enable the GQM-163A to perform a powered dive in order to replicate the high-altitude cruise/near-vertical dive attack profile associated with a specific high-diving missile threat. A single GQM-163A was adapted to support the high-diver modification: this was in large part a software modification, but the extended flight time of the vehicle in high-diver mode also presented a challenge in terms of heat build-up and thermal management, necessitating some minor engineering changes to improve the thermal resistance of the on-board electronics.

A successful operational flight demonstration of the new high-diving mode was completed in July 2010. A number of mission-specific equipment kits were subsequently purchased to support GQM-163A targets configured with the heritage FES; the high-diver capability can be incorporated as a kit in all OFES targets and has been partially integrated into FRP-8 assets and beyond to reduce build time.

"To date, there have been 13 high-diver missions since the demo flight," said Capt Cecil, adding, "Additional modifications to high-diver capabilities continue to be made to meet test requirements. The GQM-163A recently completed high-diver flights at White Sands Missile Range that flew higher and faster than previous operations [52,000 ft and Mach 4]."


Image

Image


brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5897
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby brar_w » 30 Oct 2016 20:38

Could be the active RF seeker from the Harpoon..Given the ATACMS is no longer in production, and the Army's shift to the LRPF it makes sense to use the modified ATACMS in this role as the LRPF replaces the attack weapons in the Army's inventory. There are probably 2500+ ATACMS still in service. There is also a good chance that the same seeker will also find its way onto the LRPF which has an objective requirement of 499 km range.

Pentagon ‘Frankensteining’ Army Missile To Destroy Ships

The Pentagon’s Strategic Capabilities Office (SCO) is “Frankensteining” another long-serving U.S. missile system, adding a seeker to the Lockheed Martin-built Army Tactical Missile System (Atacms) for strikes against moving land and maritime targets.
Dubbed “Multidomain Atacms,” the surface-to-surface weapon will be adapted for strikes on vessels up to 186 mi. (300 km) off the coast, providing the Army with its first coastal defense weapon in decades. The initiative was revealed by Defense Secretary Ashton Carter at a Third Offset Strategy forum in Washington on Oct. 28, but does not appear to have entered flight testing yet.

The anti-ship, moving-target Atacms is the latest in a series of long-running, previously classified SCO projects revealed by Carter at various forums throughout the year, starting with the Arsenal Plane and fighter-launched Perdix microdrone during his fiscal 2017 budget release in February, and followed up with ship-hunting adaptations of the Raytheon Standard Missile-6 and Tomahawk Land Attack Missile. SCO will also demonstrate a new type of electronic attack payload on the Raytheon Miniature Air-Launched Decoy.

This latest revelation comes after Deputy Defense Secretary Bob Work unveiled the Army’s Multidomain Battlefield doctrinal initiative for “cross-domain fires and maneuver” at the Association of the U.S. Army conference in Washington on Oct. 4. That operating concept places a premium on flexible Army weapons able to attack air, land, sea and potentially space targets, as well as go after targets in the electromagnetic spectrum and cyber domains.

The 24-in.-dia. Atacms missile was developed in the late 1980s, and it remain the Army’s primary tactical ballistic missile. Until now, its range of targets has been limited to fixed land targets. It is equipped with the 500-lb. high-explosive unitary warhead, and which could soon be turned against sea targets and roaming vehicles.

“By integrating an existing seeker onto the front of the missile, they’re enabling it to hit moving targets both at sea as well as on land,” Carter says. “This previously Army surface-to-surface missile system can now project power from coastal locations up to 300 km into the maritime domain.”

Atacms is set to be replaced under the Army’s Long-Range Precision Fires program, with production and fielding expected in the early 2020s. The Army has not been said if that weapon will also be equipped with a seeker.

Speaking on the sidelines of the Third Offset Strategy conference, SCO director William Roper, who has led the organization since its inception in 2012, said adding a seeker makes Atacms a more useful weapon in situations where the GPS signal may be disrupted. He confirmed that SCO has been partnered with the Army Atacms program office for “a couple of years” and is looking at different seeker options. If the chosen seeker can be successfully integrated into the same factor and demonstrated, the Army can choose to adopt it for operational use.

“My job is to create an idea and a goal line with the service partner,” Roper says. “In the case of the Atacms upgrade, we’re bringing in seeker technology that’s being developed in the department and my goal is to develop and demonstrate that ATacMS is capable of hitting moving targets at land and sea. We’re very likely to succeed on this because we’ve got the technologies in hand, it’s just a question of if we’re lucky and they fit together Frankenstein-style or whether there’s some peculiarity of the missile that makes putting a seeker on it difficult.”

Roper did not identify what type of seeker is being considered, and he gave no indication that live-fire experiments had already taken place.

Roper said it was up to the Army to decide how much live-fire testing it requires to inform future procurement and budgeting decisions.

Asked how it relates to the Army’s Multidomain Battlefield push, Roper said: “It fits in really well. You’ve seen a lot of evolution in Army thinking about what land power is, and we’ve tried to help from the very beginning. The Multidomain Atacms was one of the first examples.”

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19750
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby Austin » 02 Nov 2016 17:45

Improved Formidable class frigate of the Republic of Singapore Navy

Image

https://twitter.com/D__Mitch/status/793366718013997056

Sid
BRFite
Posts: 1492
Joined: 19 Mar 2006 13:26

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby Sid » 02 Nov 2016 18:48

Austin wrote:Improved Formidable class frigate of the Republic of Singapore Navy

https://twitter.com/D__Mitch/status/793366718013997056


32 Aster-30 on a frigate is a lot. And minus long range SSM (harpoon) it's firepower is similar to Kolkata class. That's second frigate on this thread which is almost as densely packed as our frontline ship. What are we missing here?

John
BRFite
Posts: 1534
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby John » 02 Nov 2016 19:25

^ I don't believe Aster 30 has been approved for anyone outside of EU bloc. So they will carry only Aster 15. Ironically one of reasons Israel started developing Barak-8 and started looking for partners (originally Singapore then it became India) was because of EU's reservation on selling Aster.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17607
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby Philip » 08 Nov 2016 16:54

https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/n ... 17759.html

SoKo will possess more subs than India very shortly.
South Korea launches eighth 1,800-ton submarine

South Korea launched its eighth 1,800-ton submarine on Tuesday in an effort to reinforce its maritime combat capability in the face of North Korea's growing threat including its submarine-launched missiles.

The Lee Beom-seok submarine, named after a renowned independence fighter, was unveiled in the shipyard of its manufacturer Daewoo Shipbuilding & Marine Engineering Co. (DSME) in Geojedo, 333 kilometers (207 miles) south of Seoul.

It is scheduled to be deployed in late 2018 after a test and review process, the Navy said.

South Korea is striving to catch up with the North in terms of submarine capability. Seoul currently has 15 submarines, nine 1,200-ton and six 1,800-ton vessels, far less than Pyongyang's 70, according to the defense ministry.

The Navy plans to increase the number to 18 by 2019 and add nine 3,000-ton submarines in the 2020s. *(27+ subs!)

In 2000, South Korea began the new submarine project, dubbed KSS-II, and selected the German shipbuilder Howaldtswerke-Deutsche Werft's 214-type subs as its next-generation submarines.

The KSS-II submarine, 65 meters (213-foot) long and 6.3 meters wide, has a crew of 40 and a maximum underwater speed of 20 knots (37 km/hour), according to the Navy.

It is capable of striking aircraft and submarines, planting mines in enemy-controlled waters. It also carries long-range cruise missiles that could hit the enemy's core facilities.

It is the eighth of nine same-class submarines whose orders placed by the Navy to Hyundai Heavy Industries Co. and Daewoo Shipbuilding in early 2000s, DSME spokesman Yoon Yo-han said.

Hyundai Heavy has built five out of six vessels under the contract and Daewoo Shipbuilding has delivered all of three ships, he said.

The new submarine's name came from Gen. Lee Beom-seok, who fought for the country's independence from Japan's colonial rule (1910-45) and served as prime minister and defense minister after liberation. The Navy makes it a rule to name new submarines after patriotic heroes. (Yonhap)

K_Rohit
BRFite
Posts: 178
Joined: 16 Feb 2009 19:11

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby K_Rohit » 08 Nov 2016 18:03

Sid wrote:
Austin wrote:Improved Formidable class frigate of the Republic of Singapore Navy

https://twitter.com/D__Mitch/status/793366718013997056


32 Aster-30 on a frigate is a lot. And minus long range SSM (harpoon) it's firepower is similar to Kolkata class. That's second frigate on this thread which is almost as densely packed as our frontline ship. What are we missing here?


Range, sea keeping?

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 » 09 Nov 2016 23:06

South Korea will develop a submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM) fitted on the KSS-III (aka Jangbogo-III), the Republic of Korea Navy’s largest and latest attack submarine class currently under construction, Korea JoongAng Daily reports, based on information provided by a high-ranking military official.“On the 3,000-ton Jangbogo-III submarine, which is currently under production, we are installing a vertical launching pad,” he said. “The installation of a vertical launching pad indicates that the SLBM is already under development.”The SLBM is purportedly being developed by the state-run Agency for Defense Development (ADD), which has also been responsible for developing land-based ballistic missiles, including the medium-range Hyunmoo-2B.


http://thediplomat.com/2016/06/south-ko ... c-missile/

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3460
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby Kartik » 16 Nov 2016 03:34

Bangladesh receives 2 refurbished Type 035 submarines from China

Key Points
Bangladesh has received two diesel-electric submarines from China
Boats will increase the Bangladesh Navy's presence in Bay of Bengal

The Bangladesh Navy has taken delivery of two refurbished Type 035 (Ming)-class diesel-electric submarines (SSKs) from China, the Bangladesh defence ministry's inter-services public relations directorate (ISPRD) confirmed with IHS Jane's on 15 November.

The boats, which were previously in service with the People's Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) with pennant numbers 356 and 357, were handed over to Bangladesh Navy chief, Admiral Nizamuddin Ahmed, on 14 November at a shipyard in Dalian, China.

The SSKs have since been named Nabajatra, and Joyjatra respectively, said Taposhi Rabeya, a spokeswoman at the ISPRD, in response to questions from IHS Jane's . "The vessels are expected to arrive in Bangladesh either in January or February 2017", she added.

Citing a Dhaka-based news agency, IHS Jane's reported in December 2013 that Bangladesh has acquired the two submarines under a BTD16 billion (USD203 million) contract. The report also noted that Bangladesh is believed to be building a submarine base near Kutubdia Island in preparation for the submarine deliveries.

According to IHS Jane's fighting Ships, the 1,800-tonne Ming class features an overall length of 76 m, and overall beam of 7.6 m and a hull draught of 5.1 m. The platform has a top speed of 18 kt when dived, 15 kt when surfaced, and 10 kt while snorting.

The submarine features eight 533 mm tubes that can deploy the weapons such as the Yu-4 anti-surface heavyweight torpedo, and can carry up to 32 naval mines in lieu of torpedoes. Each boat can accommodate a crew of 57 including 10 officers.

Nabajatra and Joyjatra are scheduled to undergo a series of crew familiarisation exercises over the next few weeks, in preparation for their departures to Bangladesh in early 2017.

Hitesh
BRFite
Posts: 793
Joined: 04 Jul 1999 11:31

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby Hitesh » 16 Nov 2016 21:32

target practice for the IN

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 60359
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: Lupine but moderately dharmic

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby Singha » 16 Nov 2016 22:16

I think BD is not concerned with India but trying to go one-up on Myanmar.

Khalsa
BRFite
Posts: 1000
Joined: 12 Nov 2000 12:31
Location: NZL

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby Khalsa » 17 Nov 2016 04:39

We welcome Nations engaging in a race with us.
It ties their destiny to their defence budgets.

Bheeshma
BRFite
Posts: 592
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 22:01

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby Bheeshma » 17 Nov 2016 05:33

SoKo Type-209's would have been a better and smarter choice but would have cost more.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17607
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby Philip » 17 Nov 2016 17:15

Two problematic western warship types.
USN's latest stealth Zumwalt class DDGs can't field expensive gun munitions (70KM range) due to v.high cost, almost as much as LT missiles which have over 10 -20 times the range!

Now the RN too cos of budget costs are unable to field the
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11 ... with-guns/
Royal Navy to lose missiles and be left only with guns
HMS Iron Duke firing a Harpoon missile
Ben Farmer, defence correspondent
15 NOVEMBER 2016 • 4:13PM
Royal Navy warships will be left without anti-ship missiles and be forced to rely on naval guns because of cost-cutting, the Ministry of Defence has admitted.

The Navy’s Harpoon missiles will retire from the fleet’s frigates and destroyers in 2018 without a replacement, while there will also be a two year gap without helicopter-launched anti-shipping missiles.

Naval sources said the decision was “like Nelson deciding to get rid of his cannons and go back to muskets” and one senior former officer said warships would "no longer be able to go toe-to-toe with the Chinese or Russians".

Pakistan prepares operational plan, selects targets in India: Report

HMS Montrose testing a Harpoon missile, which has a range of up to 80 miles CREDIT: CROWN COPYRIGHT
Harpoon missiles are unlikely to be replaced for up to a decade, naval sources said, leaving warships armed only with their 4.5in Mk 8 guns for anti-ship warfare. Helicopter-launched Sea Skua missiles are also going out of service next year and the replacement Sea Venom missile to be carried by Wildcat helicopters will not arrive until late 2020.

One Naval source said: “We will be losing our missile capability in total for two years. We will still have the gun, but the range of that is about 17 miles, compared to Harpoon, which is about 80 miles”.

Watch: preview of the new Royal Navy frigatesPlay! 00:38
The source said the new helicopter-launched Sea Venom missile will have a shorter range than the Harpoon and helicopters are also vulnerable to bad weather and being shot down.

“The moment you put it up against a frigate or a destroyer, you will be inside their weapons range,” the source added.

Rear-Adml Chris Parry, said: "It's a significant capability gap and the Government is being irresponsible. It just shows that our warships are for the shop window and not for fighting."

Lord West of Spithead, a former First Sea Lord, said: “This is just another example of where the lack of money is squeezing and making the nation less safe.

“We will have this gap of several years without missiles. Well, that’s fine if you don’t have to fight anybody in the meantime.”

The Royal Air Force has long axed its own anti-ship missiles.

Nick Childs, a naval expert at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, said Britain was cutting its anti-ship missiles just as America had decided they were becoming more critical to maritime fighting.

“It must be a great concern that this capability is going to be removed without immediate or direct replacement because we are moving into an era of concern about a more contested maritime environment,” he said.

A spokesman for the Navy said: “All Royal Navy ships carry a range of offensive and defensive weapons systems. Backed by a rising defence budget and a £178 billion equipment plan, upgrade options to all our weapons are kept under constant review.”
y

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5897
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby brar_w » 18 Nov 2016 05:30

USN plans extended range JSOW test

The US Navy (USN) is finalising plans to move forward with testing of a powered, extended-range variant of Raytheon's air-launched AGM-154C-1 Joint Standoff Weapon (JSOW).

In a pre-solicitation notice posted on 8 November, the Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) said that the Precision Strike Weapons Program Office (PMA 201) intended to enter into sole-source negotiations with Raytheon Missile Systems for a JSOW Extended Range (JSOW ER) all-up-round (AUR) flight test programme. A cost-plus-fixed-fee contract award is planned for the first quarter of 2017.

JSOW is a medium-range air-to-surface precision-guided glide weapon employing a GPS/inertial navigation system and a terminal imaging infrared seeker. The JSOW C-1 variant, which achieved initial operational capability (IOC) with the USN in 2016, adds a two-way Link 16 Strike Weapon Data Link (SWDL) and upgraded seeker software to meet the navy's requirements for a network-enabled weapon able to precisely strike moving maritime targets at ranges up to approximately 70 n miles.

The turbojet-powered, extended-range JSOW has been the subject of technology maturation and demonstration for almost a decade. Leveraging the JSOW C-1 datalink and seeker, but additionally incorporating a Hamilton Sundstrand TJ150 turbojet, JSOW ER has been conceived as a low-cost, precision-guided stand-off weapon with a maximum range in the order of 300 n miles.

A free-flight demonstration test was conducted from an F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet fighter aircraft off California in November 2009. The weapon flew over 260 n miles and, according to Raytheon, met all test objectives.

In late 2011, Raytheon completed a first test of the JSOW ER warhead and fuze. The company said that testing "met all objectives and validated a Raytheon-funded analysis that showed that JSOW ER's proposed warhead and fuze are interoperable".

According to NAVAIR's pre-solicitation notice, Raytheon will provide technical support to PMA 201 for JSOW ER AUR testing over a 24-month period. "The upgrade includes hardware modification to add a production representative engine/fuel/inlet system to the AGM-154C-1 variant, as well as software modification to optimize mid-course and endgame performance for the powered JSOW," NAVAIR said.

Continued USN interest in JSOW ER reflects the service's desire to increase the stand-off capability available to tactical aviation in the face of increasingly robust anti-access/area-denial (A2/AD) threats. JSOW ER would confer a capability to strike both land-based and moving maritime targets from outside the A2/AD envelope of modern surface-to-air missiles.



Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17607
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby Philip » 24 Nov 2016 13:58

The USN's most expensive DDG ever breaks down in the Panama Canal,tsk,tsk!

http://dailycaller.com/2016/11/22/navys ... ama-canal/
Navy’s ‘Most Advanced Warship’ Had To Be Dragged Out Of The Panama Canal
RYAN PICKRELL
11/22/2016

USS Zumwalt ports briefli in Rhode Island before heading to its commissioning ceremony. Photo: U.S. Navy/James E. Foehl

The U.S. Navy’s most technologically-advanced warship broke down in the Panama Canal Monday and had to be towed to a nearby port.

The guided-missile destroyer USS Zumwalt (DDG-1000) lost propulsion while traversing the canal, and leaks were reportedly detected in the ship’s Advanced Induction Motors (AIM), which power the ship’s systems, revealed U.S. Naval Institute (USNI) News. The remainder of its journey through the canal had to be completed with the assistance of tug boats.

As it was being pulled out the canal, the USS Zumwalt made contact with the lock walls, causing cosmetic damages to the outside of the ship.
The Navy decided that the ship was unfit to continue its voyage without repairs.
:mrgreen:

The missile destroyer is undergoing repairs at Rodman, a former U.S. naval base in Panama. The schedule for the repairs is still being determined, according to Defense News.

Once the ship has been repaired, it will continue on to San Diego, where it will be outfitted with all necessary combat systems. The destroyer was initially expected to arrive in San Diego before the end of the year. Combat system installation is expected to continue throughout most of next year, and the USS Zumwalt should joint the Third Fleet as a fully-operational warship in 2018.

The multi-billion dollar USS Zumwalt was commissioned into active service October 15. At the time, it was praised by the Navy as “America’s newest and most technologically advanced warship.”

Prior to its commissioning, a seawater leak was discovered in the propulsion motor drive lube oil auxiliary system for one of the ship’s shafts. The destroyer also experienced unspecified engineering problems during its stay at Mayport Naval Station in Florida towards the end of last month.

The Navy is in the process of constructing two similar vessels, the USS Michael Monsoor (DDG-1001) and USS Lyndon B. Johnson (DDG-1002)

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5897
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby brar_w » 24 Nov 2016 21:45

JSOW - C1 (Glide) vs a Ship --


John
BRFite
Posts: 1534
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby John » 26 Nov 2016 18:13

Bheeshma wrote:SoKo Type-209's would have been a better and smarter choice but would have cost more.

I doubt the deal was about enhancing the Bangladeshi navy, it has more to do with filling up the piggy banks of various parties involved. Wiki leaks had already had leaked info on millions various chinese individuals have laundered into US banks, thanks in part to arms deals in south asia..


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 » 30 Nov 2016 08:05

'Black hole': What makes Russia's newest submarine unique?

The submarine will be based at a new Russian naval base in the city of Novorossiysk in the Krasnodar Territory, 760 miles south of Moscow. However, until a dock for it has been completed, the new submarine will be carrying out service duty in the Black Sea and will undergo maintenance at the port of Sevastopol.According to Igor Kasatonov, a former deputy commander-in-chief of the Russian Navy and former Black Sea Fleet commander, the submarine is capable of detecting targets at a distance three to four times in excess of the capabilities of enemy radar systems."The capabilities of these new submarines were first demonstrated late last year when [a submarine of this project] the Rostov-na-Donu carried out a strike with Kalibr missiles against terrorist targets in Syria," Kasatonov told RBTH.Once the Kolpino comes into service, the Russian Black Sea Fleet will have completed the formation a full-fledged submarine brigade based in Novorossiysk.By 2020, six similar submarines will be built for the Pacific Fleet too, said Kasatonov.

http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Securi ... 480423270/

Manish_P
BRFite
Posts: 885
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby Manish_P » 30 Nov 2016 11:02

the submarine is capable of detecting targets at a distance three to four times in excess of the capabilities of enemy radar systems.


Do they mean sonar :?:

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17607
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby Philip » 30 Nov 2016 12:57

Israel's sub scandal that could topple Bibi? Shades of HDW.

http://www.defensenews.com/articles/in- ... arine-buys
In Israel, Furor Over Super Fast-Tracked Submarine Deal With Germany

By: Barbara Opall-Rome, November 18, 2016 (Photo Credit: Dominik Bindl/Getty Images)
TEL AVIV — It took more than seven years for Israel to reach its 2010 agreement with Washington on its first squadron of F-35s, the debut pair of which is scheduled to arrive here next month.

The process involved intensive staff work within the Israel Air Force (IAF) under three commanders; continuous coordination with American government and industry representatives; and the support of three Israel Defense Forces (IDF) chiefs and the same number of successive defense ministers and prime ministers.

But according to explosive headlines here over the past few days, it took less than a year to conclude an Israeli-German agreement for three new submarines; just six months if one counts back to the removal in May of former Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon, who opposed the deal.

While a former Ministry of Defense (MoD) director-general last February conditionally endorsed the need to start procuring submarines in the out years well beyond the recently approved five-year plan, the deal was essentially negotiated by one office and spearheaded by one man: Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

According to Netanyahu’s office, the Israeli Cabinet unanimously approved the German deal on Oct. 26.

Even now, details of the estimated €1.2 billion (US $1.3 billion) deal with the government of German Chancellor Angela Merkel remain a mystery to the Israeli Navy and the IDF General Staff.

“The Navy is in initial study phases for a next-generation submarine,” a general officer here told Defense News on Thursday.

“It’s going to take years of work since we’re talking about an entirely different submarine from the Dolphin or the Dolphin AIP,” he said, referring to the first three Israeli-designed Dolphins and the follow-on, three air-independent propulsion submarines contracted with ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems (TKMS).

When asked about Navy involvement in the recently approved deal, the officer said: “Whatever went on did not happen at the professional level. It’s all political, and we’re not dealing with these stories.”

A top-tier industry executive whose firm has worked hand-in-hand with the Israeli Navy to design a good portion of the combat weapons suites supporting Israel’s undersea force said he had no idea what the deal involved. “We were never approached by anyone to prepare anything associated with this package. It’s all so highly unusual,” the executive told Defense News.

Israel’s daily Ma’ariv first reported last month that Netanyahu’s office was secretly negotiating with counterparts in Berlin a package of three nuclear-capable submarines and two anti-submarine surface (ASW) ships in order to prepare for an eventual confrontation with Iran later in the next decade, after the nuclear deal with Tehran expires.

According to Ma’ariv senior security analyst Ben Caspit, Netanyahu secured assurances that Berlin would underwrite some 30 percent of the costs of the package.

But it wasn’t until a Nov. 15 report on Israel’s Channel 10 that the story gained traction, when the network flagged a potential conflict of interest between Netanyahu and the Kiel, Germany-based TKMS shipyards where the new submarines are to be built.

According to the network, Netanyahu and the Israeli agent for TKMS share the same attorney, and that attorney’s law partner is the same man who Netanyahu entrusts to negotiate the most sensitive affairs of state.

Since then, Israeli news outlets and outraged lawmakers who were left out of the loop have raised serious questions about the connection between Netanyahu and his personal attorney, David Shimron, who is also representing Micky Ganor, a retired Navy officer and authorized TKMS agent who happens to live near the prime minister in the plush seaside golf community of Caesaria.

To add to the intrigue, Shimron shares a law firm with Yitzhak Molcho, Netanyahu’s confidante and attorney on official matters, including negotiations with foreign governments.

“David Shimron and Yitzhak Molcho work for Netanyahu for one shekel a year: never has the currency rate of the shekel been higher,” wrote Nahum Barnea, a veteran columnist for Israeli daily Yediot Ahronot.

Since the Channel 10 report, Netanyahu’s office put out several statements, all insisting that the process “was done in an orderly and professional [manner] with no outside influence and with the recommendation of professions in the security establishment, the National Security Council and the Foreign Ministry.”

On Nov. 17, as prospects mounted for a special prosecutor to probe the so-called submarine affair, Netanyahu’s office’s sought to clarify “once and for all” the following points:

“The first time the prime minister became aware that attorney Shimron represented a business interest connected to the Navy procurement project was two days ago, when Channel 10 came to us for a response. Attorney Shimron never discussed the matter of submarines, ships or any other subject concerning this client or any of his other clients.

“Everyone surrounding the prime minister, including David Shimron, know well that the prime minister prohibits anyone turning to him for business matters. The only consideration in the eyes of the prime minister is strengthening Israeli might with strategic sea vessels that are essential to ensure our future.”

Shortly after Netanyahu’s notice, former Defense Minister Ya’alon went public with his version of events, insisting that he had “vigorously opposed” the project since new submarines at this time were not needed.

“I don’t know what was done and what was signed after I left the Defense Ministry,” Ya’alon wrote. He added that “the very disturbing reports” should trigger a “comprehensive investigation by the relevant parties.”

In an interview, former Defense Minister Amir Peretz, one of Ya’alon’s predecessors at the MoD, told Defense News he didn’t know of a single case where a major procurement project was advanced without the backing of the minister of defense.
Dolphin Sub Israel Navy
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu attends a ceremony for Israel's new submarine on Sept. 23, 2014, in the northern Israeli port city of Haifa. The INS Tanin was the fourth Dolphin-class submarine made in Germany for the Israeli Navy.
Photo Credit: Kobi Gideon/Israeli Government Press Office via Getty Images
“It’s just not done,” said Peretz, an opposition lawmaker and longtime member of the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee.

Peretz acknowledged that, at times, defense ministers did not require support from the IDF General Staff to promote a project deemed vital to Israeli security. Peretz did just that following the 2006 Lebanon war, when he directed the MoD to award its first procurement contract to Rafael for the Iron Dome defense system.

“The defense minister is not always beholden to the General Staff, but in matters of major military investments, the defense minister and the prime minister should see eye to eye,” he said.

In a show of support for Netanyahu, Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman, Ya’alon’s successor, told reporters he was in favor of the German submarine deal.

“I think it’s very correct, in light of the arms race in the region," Lieberman said. "There were discussions on the submarines and I think it’s a necessary acquisition. The defense establishment had an integral role in the decision-making and in negotiations. All the data was provided by the defense establishment.”

However, in a subsequent timeline released by Netanyahu’s office, it appears that only after the prime minister’s first meeting with Merkel, in October 2015, and prior to his second meeting with the German Chancellor, in February 2016, was the defense minister and the MoD director asked to get involved in the process.

Once Lieberman replaced Ya’alon in May of this year, it took only six months for Netanyahu’s government to unanimously approve the deal. Now supporters of the deal hope to conclude negotiations and secure a final agreement with Merkel prior to Germany’s federal elections scheduled in less than a year from now.

Netanyahu spokesman David Keyes did not respond to repeated requests for clarification on whether the Cabinet-approved deal with Germany would also include two ASW surface ships.

However, it appears that the ASW ships have been dropped from the agenda, due to Lieberman’s unwillingness to challenge fierce resistance within the IDF to what is widely considered a superfluous and unnecessary investment.

Two teams of Israeli Navy specialists are working full time with TKMS and German Naval Yards Kiel to build Israel’s sixth strategic submarine — the Dolphin AIP INS Dakar — and four new 2,000-ton Sa’ar-6 corvettes.

The first Sa’ar-6 is scheduled to arrive here by early 2020, about a year before the Dakar is planned to reach its home base in Haifa, Israel. In a May 31 interview, Rear Adm. Yosef Ashkenazi, head of Navy Materiel Command, referred to the undersea vessel now taking shape in Kiel, Germany, as the service’s “sixth and final” Dolphin-class submarine.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17607
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby Philip » 30 Nov 2016 12:57

http://www.defensenews.com/articles/pak ... s-facility

Pakistan Unveils VLF Submarine Communications Facility
By: Usman Ansari, November 16, 2016 (Photo Credit: Syed Zargham/Getty Images)
ISLAMABAD — Pakistan on Tuesday unveiled a very low frequency (VLF) communication facility that will enable it to communicate with deployed submarines.

Mansoor Ahmed, a postdoctoral research fellow at the Harvard Kennedy School's Belfer Center and expert on Pakistan’s nuclear program and delivery systems, said the facility is vital for command and control of submarines carrying a nuclear deterrent patrol, and the announcement essentially confirms Pakistan has established a preliminary, sea-based arm of its nuclear deterrent.

"The Naval Strategic Force Command inaugurated in 2012 is now closer to being the custodian of the country's second-strike capability," he said.

According to an official news release by the military’s Inter Services Public Relations media branch, the VLF facility is at a new base, PNS Hameed, near Pakistan’s main port of Karachi, and is the first of its
kind in the country.

“The secure military communication link in the VLF spectrum will add new dimensions by enhancing the flexibility and reach of submarine operations," the news release said.

Present at the unveiling were Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee Gen. Rashad Mahmood; Chief of Naval Staff Adm. Muhammad Zakaullah; Lt. Gen. Mazhar Jamil, the director general of the Strategic Plans Division that overseas all aspects of Pakistan’s nuclear program; and Shahid Nabeel chairman of the National Engineering and Science Commission (NESCOM). The National Defense Complex, a branch of NESCOM, developed Pakistan’s Hatf/Vengeance VII Babur cruise missile.

Ahmed said Pakistan likely will deploy a nuclear-armed, sub-launched variant of Babur “during the next decade.”

The Babur is similar to the United States' BGM-109 Tomahawk and has long been speculated to be modified for launch by Pakistan’s three French-designed Agosta 90B submarines, thereby offering the shortest route to a second-strike capability.

A dedicated nuclear role places an additional burden on the submarines, however, with the two Agosta 70 subs near obsolete.

Author, analyst and former Australian defense attaché to Islamabad, Brian Cloughley, said Pakistan’s submarines are the “only means that Pakistan will have to seriously counter the Indian Navy. No matter
how professional the surface fleet might be — and it's very impressive — it's tiny and would be the target of concentrated Indian strikes.”

Therefore, a continuous at-sea deterrent capability may only be realized once the eight Chinese-designed, AIP-equipped submarines on order begin to commission from 2022 onward.

However, according to Ahmed, a “dedicated VLF facility will ensure that Pakistan has operationalized the naval leg of its triad.” He also noted that Pakistan is playing catch up to archrival India, which “has already commissioned a similar, dedicated communications facility in the recent past.”

Regarding VLF communication, Cloughley said the signals “can penetrate only about 20 meters,” meaning “the subs have to come up from the depths” closer to the surface.

Although this is “better than having to surface or send up an antenna on a float," the Indians are “much more advanced with their new site” compared to Pakistan’s VLF capability, he added. “The Indians have become more sophisticated and now have an [extremely low frequency] facility,” which is kept under wraps and “apparently very effective.”

In contrast to VLF radio signals, ELF signals can penetrate hundreds of meters below the sea surface but cannot transmit as much information as VLF signals. ELF signals can therefore be used to summon a
submerged submarine closer to the surface so it can receive more detailed messages via VLF radio.

Pakistani subs will have to venture closer to the surface at prearranged times to check for VLF communication signals.

Nevertheless, Ahmed said establishing the VLF facility was “logical” for Pakistan, as it will “reinforce the message that the country is investing in maintaining a credible and survivable nuclear deterrent.”

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5897
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby brar_w » 30 Nov 2016 16:01

The "SM6 is my wingman" proof of concept is a Day-1 capability for all F-35's with any US Navy ship that has been upgraded with the Aegis Baseline 9 which is now the current AEGIS standard.

If the range is short they do a direct MADL to Ship link and if the F-35 is farther away they use either an EA-18G, or an E-2D gateway (The Air Force can use its BACN). At the moment the F-35 relies on an AN/APG-81 radar track to pass on targeting information back to the SPY-1, but in the future this could extend to the electro-optical sensors as well.


Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19750
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby Austin » 30 Nov 2016 17:08

Malachite Design Bureau has released the first official picture of 5th Gen Medium SSN/SSGN Husky , Displacement ~ 6000+ Tons

Image

Image

Karan M
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 14454
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby Karan M » 30 Nov 2016 21:35

that looks.. so russian. mean brawler.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ParGha and 61 guests