International Naval News & 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.
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19882
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby Philip » 15 Jun 2015 16:56

Checking China’s military build-up in the South China Sea
Creating an armed peace is the best alternative to war

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... z3d8FeyytU

Creating an armed peace is the best alternative to war.

South China Sea map to accompany Lyons article of June 15, 2015

South China Sea map to accompany Lyons article of June 15, 2015
By James A. Lyons and Richard Fisher - - Sunday, June 14, 2015

China intends to ignore the Obama administration’s demand that it halt its military base-building in the South China Sea. It is time for Washington to face a new reality: Either it leads the way to a new “armed peace” in this region, or China will soon commence a war for domination.

First, it is important to understand why China will continue to ignore Washington, as it has rebuffed nearly 20 years of regional diplomacy seeking to avoid conflict over this crucial maritime region, now used annually by 40 percent of the world’s merchant ships.

Simply put, for China’s Communist Party leadership, control of the South China Sea is essential to protect Hainan Island as a base from which it intends to project global military and space power, and which it views as essential to ensuring the survival of its political dictatorship.

Already, Hainan Island has become a base for projecting nuclear power from China’s growing fleet of nuclear-powered and nuclear-armed ballistic missile submarines. In the late 1990s, China started building a new underground base there to protect these submarines. Hainan will also host one or two aircraft carrier and large amphibious assault ship groups. These can be used to protect the submarines and to project Chinese military influence to the Middle East and beyond.

From 2016, a new space launch center on Hainan for Chinese heavy space-launch vehicles will support China’s military ambitions in low earth orbit and on the moon. Most of these launches will be vulnerable as they pass over the South China Sea, so China’s People’s Liberation Army (PLA) is militarizing this region to better impose eventual control.

Perhaps as early as next year, China could start basing up to 30 combat aircraft and a squadron of combat ships at its new base at Fiery Cross Reef. Similarly sized PLA forces could follow on new bases being built on Subi Reef and Mischief Reef — a mere 134 nautical miles from the Philippines but 800 nautical miles from mainland China and the vital commercial sea lanes of the Palawan Trench.

There should be no doubt that China will impose military control when it is able and unchallenged. China used deadly force to take the Paracel Islands away from South Vietnam in 1974, and in 1988 massacred Vietnamese troops on reefs in the Spratly Island group. Beijing exploited an ebb in U.S.-Philippines relations to capture Mischief Reef in 1995 and then forced Filipino ships off Scarborough Shoal in 2013.

Since late 2013, China has deployed hundreds of civilian transports to build its islands, and with additional PLA support, this force could be used to assault islands occupied by the Philippines, Taiwan and Vietnam.

China’s quest for dominance, however, can be turned into a major strategic blunder, but only if Washington corrects the mistake of successive administrations of undervaluing security in the South China Sea as a matter of American interest. It is central to U.S. naval (and air) operations to maintain unimpeded access and freedom of navigation in clearly recognized international waters and air space. For 30 years, U.S. officials have refused to come to terms with China’s ambitions, in part because of China’s “low intensity” strategy.

It is not yet too late for Washington to neutralize China’s ambitions in the South China Sea and severely crimp its global ambitions.

The plan is simple: work with the Philippines to build new island bases astride the Palawan Trench and then deploy and transfer the means to destroy China’s new islands bases should it use them. As a first line of defense, Manila and Washington could build three new island bases armored with missiles close to Palawan, the Visayas and Luzon.

Washington should then quickly deploy and transfer to the Philippines multiple squadrons of multi-role fighter aircraft. A new lend-lease protocol should be instituted to facilitate such a transfer. But more essential would be the rapid development and deployment of a longer-range version of the Lockheed-Martin short-range ballistic missile equipped with deep penetrating and fuel-air-explosive warheads. About 300 of these could immediately destroy China’s new island bases if it uses force from them.

In response, China should be expected to threaten nuclear conflict. This is why President Obama should reverse his ill-advised 2010 decision to destroy the last secure U.S. tactical nuclear cruise missile, and rapidly deploy a replacement. Existing missiles should be immediately be restored in our submarine force. It would be a credible deterrent to both China and to North Korea as well.

Only when its regional and global military ambitions can be thwarted by this level of force will Beijing be deterred from imposing military dominance and return to non-military solutions, of which there are plenty. The latest peace plan was offered on May 25, when Taiwan’s President Ma Ying Jeou suggested shelving respective territorial claims in favor of mutual economic development.

China has proven that it regards war as a means to obtain its goals in the South China Sea. Only when it concludes that it cannot win such a war will Beijing then consider the alternatives. For Washington, the states of Southeast Asia, Japan and Taiwan, creating conditions for an “armed peace” offers the best alternative to war.

• James A. Lyons, a U.S. Navy retired admiral, was commander-in-chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet and senior U.S. military representative to the United Nations. Richard Fisher is a senior fellow with the International Assessment and Strategy Center.


Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66605
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby Singha » 15 Jun 2015 18:01

the admiral is talking of the atacms-er missile.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7479
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby brar_w » 16 Jun 2015 20:56

Navy: EMALS, AAG Will Give Designers More Options for Future Carrier Aircraft





The new class of Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78) aircraft carriers, with its software-driven Advanced Arresting Gear (AAG) and Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS), will put so much less stress on aircraft that Navy engineers will be able to think about future aircraft design in a whole new way, the Navy’s director of air warfare told reporters Monday.

Rear Adm. Michael Manazir said the current Mk 7 arresting gear and Mk 13 steam catapults on the Nimitz-class (CVN-68) aircraft carriers function via pure mechanics – hydrolics, cables, pulleys and more can very crudely adapt to the weight of the aircraft, but the planes have to be designed to withstand severe physical forces during launch and recovery – and that durability tends to equate to added weight.

The new EMALS system, on the other hand, uses electromagnetic fields to create a smoother acceleration – and without subjecting the flight deck to steam. The AAG software senses the weight of the aircraft that’s landing and can fine-tune the arresting gear’s reaction to put less stress on the planes, Program Executive Officer for Aircraft Carrier Rear Adm. Tom Moore said in the same media roundtable.

While many people are excited about the benefits this will have for heavier aircraft – F/A-18 Super Hornets and F-35C Lightning II Joint Strike Fighters, for example — “what it also does is open up … the envelop for lower-weight aircraft. So as we start exploring where we’re heading with unmanned aircraft, it gives us a lot of flexibility from a warfighting standpoint that the Mk 7 Mod 4 doesn’t,” Moore said.

Manazir said this is an important factor for him as he considers early ideas of what the future carrier airwing might look like.

“Typically in our manned aircraft designs, you have to build an airplane that fits within the operating envelops of the Mk 7 arresting gear and the Mk 13 catapults. So you kind of start with an operating envelop that gets you sort of a design of aircraft like we have now – F-18 Super Hornet, Growler, Joint Strike Fighter,” he said.
“The aircraft are structured that way, they’re strengthened … you build weight and structure into the airplanes to accommodate the violence of the arrested landing. With the Advanced Arresting Gear and the ability to land an airplane – it’s still a controlled crash, but relatively more softly, and to launch it relatively more softly, and so a graduated kind of force as the airplane goes up – you can now start to do things with aircraft design that you couldn’t do before. It might allow us some more margin in weight, in size, and in structure and capability.”

Manazir said industry often wants to marinize existing designs for aircraft, weapons and more so they can operate at sea. But he said adapting aircraft designs for carrier use goes beyond typical marine concerns, and reinforcing the frame to survive catapult launches and trap landings can add so much weight that the payload capacity shrinks, or can rule out design concepts altogether.

“Some of the concepts that are out there with structure and with outer mold line and size, the advanced technology of our AAG and EMALS is going to allow us to kind of open the envelope,” he said.

Ultimately, this new freedom of design may make the most difference with unmanned vehicles that may not take on the same shape and weight as manned aircraft. Manazir said the Navy’s carrier airwing of 2025 will include Super Hornets, Growlers, F-35s and the Unmanned Carrier-Launched Airborne Surveillance and Strike (UCLASS) aircraft. But in 2040, the flight deck will look drastically different.

“As I look to about 2040, when I think about what we generically call strike fighters – which are the F-18 E and F and the F-35C off the carrier, covered by the EA-18G Growler – when I think about strike fighters operating in a heavy electromagnetic spectrum and I look forward to those airframes, what I see in 2040 is F-35C as the legacy airplane, a UCLASS airframe which is probably up to Increment 2 or 3 by then, and then a FA-XX, which could be manned, unmanned or optionally manned.”

He said the Navy started initial analytical work on FA-XX in conjunction with the Air Force’s early work on their F-X future fighter. But he believes FA-XX will be a family of systems with at least some unmanned capability, and the relative freedom AAG and EMALS bring to engineers may allow for more innovation than would be possible with the legacy launch and recovery systems.



http://news.usni.org/2015/06/16/navy-em ... r-aircraft

Document: Report to Congress on China’s Naval Modernization and Implications for U.S. Navy

http://news.usni.org/2015/06/15/documen ... r-u-s-navy

Opinion: India and U.S. Grow Closer Against a Backdrop of An Expansionist China

http://news.usni.org/2015/06/15/opinion ... nist-china

Aditya G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3391
Joined: 19 Feb 2002 12:31
Contact:

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby Aditya G » 17 Jun 2015 02:17

Singha wrote:a rather weakly armed ship for its size - one heli, 16 x mrsam, only exocets, low cost heracles radar....

a DDG51 it is not. thats a ship that can go into serious threat zones and start beating up people.


They have the Horizon class for that role.

This one is broadly equivalent of our Project 17 frigates.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23315
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby Austin » 17 Jun 2015 12:56

Pictures: Inside the last surviving Typhoon SSBN

http://kuleshovoleg.livejournal.com/385307.html

Anurag
BRFite
Posts: 395
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby Anurag » 17 Jun 2015 19:10

The Truth About Diego Garcia: 50 Years of Fiction About an American Military Base
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-truth- ... se/5455763

copying the first paragraph from the article to give you a sense...

The U.S. military facility on the island of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean represents a horrific example of the human costs of war and imperialism.

First, they tried to shoot the dogs. Next, they tried to poison them with strychnine. When both failed as efficient killing methods, British government agents and U.S. Navy personnel used raw meat to lure the pets into a sealed shed. Locking them inside, they gassed the howling animals with exhaust piped in from U.S. military vehicles. Then, setting coconut husks ablaze, they burned the dogs’ carcasses as their owners were left to watch and ponder their own fate

member_28756
BRFite
Posts: 240
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby member_28756 » 20 Jun 2015 10:16

http://www.news.com.au/technology/innov ... 7405344686

Icebergs ahead for expensive US, UK aircraft carrier projects Military
by: Jamie Seidel From: News Corp Australia Network This story was published: 1 day agoJune 19, 2015 2:38PM

The never-before seen electromagnetic aircraft launch system (EMALS) appears to be a bit dodgy.

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

Each of the planned four catapults is supposed to use electrically-controlled and generated magnets to sling 36 tonnes of heavily laden aircraft into the air.

Ten years later the ship’s ready. The electromagnetic catapult isn’t.

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

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

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

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

But there’s more.

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

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

Once again, in the case of this super carrier it’s out with the old and in with a largely untested, unproven new concept.

Once again, the ship is ready. The arresting gear isn’t.

It reportedly has a failure rate of once in every five landings. An urgent, but untested, upgrade is being retrofitted to the ship.

If these problems aren’t fixed fast, and we’re talking by March next year, the US Navy faces a severe capability gap. Its older nuclear aircraft carriers have been used hard amid all the wars of recent decades. They’re tired. The USN also says it cannot afford to refuel and refurbish the older USS George Washington — even though it’s only half way through its designed life cycle.




Britain waves goodbye to ruling the waves

The US isn’t the only nation struggling to find reality among defence industry marketing and politics.

The first of Britain’s two Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers is due to be handed over next month.

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

But there is a problem.


This huge new carrier is not fitted with a catapult. Nor does it have arrestor wires.

It’s a choice made to save money: Even the old versions of these technologies don’t come cheap.

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

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

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

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

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

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7479
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby brar_w » 20 Jun 2015 17:05

EMALS is going to have first in class issues that will take time to resolve. It would be nice to have those issues not appear but nothing is perfect and you cant solve all the kinks until you build something, put it on the ship and then test, test and test some more, make the necessary changes and then test some more. The ship will go through the paces over the next few years. As a de-risking measure the EMALS system has launched hundreds of sorties on land over the last few years including all types from the F-18 to the F-35, E-2D etc so major issues should not arise and they'll have to sort out the niggles.

As far as the QE carriers and the F-35 is concerned, the Marines IOC in a couple of weeks. There is nothing stopping the UK from declaring IOC when they get the full SDD capability along with the USN in 2018 just in time for the carrier which is expected to be ready after trials by 2018-2019. They were slow to commit financially to the program as far as their acquisition is concerned. The time it takes for them to take the F-35 enterprise and put it on a ship is not limited by the delay in F-35 development (the QE would not have been ready had they received their aircraft in the UK in 2014 as iirc was originally scheduled) but by the pace of their order, pace of their pilot training and how fast they conclude the ski trials at PAX and how fast they can qualify pilots. They are doing that at a pretty fast pace now but were slow to get the ball rolling with their first 4 or so orders most likely due to budgetary issues that have slowed every program down for them.

The USN is in interesting times. Ships have first in class issues, its nothing new and nothing that will go away. They have an awfully lot of first few ships in new classes including the LCS, Ford Carrier, DDG-1000 and soon the next block Virginia..Lots of press that will show the pains associated with new system development and introduction as is to be expected.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19882
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby Philip » 20 Jun 2015 20:19

Sputnik Int. has a report about a new Russian robot UUV the size of a torpedo that can detect any kind of ship or sub staying underwater for upto 180 days.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23315
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby Austin » 22 Jun 2015 10:15

Only 10 subs , 6 971 and 4 949.
http://sputniknews.com/military/2015062 ... 68919.html

Most likely the upgrade will be carried on last 6 and 4 of Subs while the rest would be discarded after end of life.

On Delta 4 yes the core hardware remains the same but the backend is changed like Digital Signal Processor , Processors , Algo etc they made an analog subs partially digital too , also new gen rubber coatings not a full M type upgrade but partial modernisation.

More details http://militaryrussia.ru/blog/topic-703.html
Last edited by Austin on 22 Jun 2015 10:25, edited 1 time in total.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66605
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby Singha » 22 Jun 2015 10:23

until the borei class, all their SSBN were hamstrung by lack of miniaturization in the SLBMs like sineva. so either they had humps, or were very big(typoon) or a giant box section like delta that kept increasing in size until delta4.

the borei is their first with the looks of a compact sleek western ssbn.

since all their ssbn patrols are in arctic region and far east , all they have to fly to crush the great satan and western europe is max 6000km ...... so not sure why they went for huge slbms perhaps to pack in more warheads.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23315
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby Austin » 22 Jun 2015 10:47

The throw up Weight of Liner ( 4 T with 10 Warhead )is more than 300 % greater than Bulava SLBM ( 1.2 T 4-6 warhead ) , that factor alone will dictate Liner would have larger SIZE and Weight.

The other things just follow the SLBM like if both carry 16 of these then logically Delta 4 would need larger size to carry a much larger missile ......also many generational leaps in Electronics means something designed in 70's would be larger compared to one ones in 2000

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16239
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby NRao » 24 Jun 2015 02:20

More FUD, but one that needs to be followed:

Russian Navy to Build New Aircraft Carrier After 2025

“Work for creating an aircraft carrier has never stopped. The Navy has strict demands for an aircraft carrier, but we so far don’t see anything in their demands that we can’t accomplish. We plan to begin construction of an aircraft carrier no earlier than 2025 or 2030,” the source told RIA Novosti.

Earlier, the head of the Russian Navy’s shipbuilding management department, Capt. 1st Rank Vladimir Tryapichnikov, said that it was likely an aircraft carrier would be built by 2026 or 2027

member_22539
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2022
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby member_22539 » 24 Jun 2015 06:01

^Why don't they just plan to build the Starship Enterprise in some 200 years or so, since they have such big "plans" for everything.

John
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2035
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby John » 25 Jun 2015 07:24

Aditya G wrote:
Singha wrote:a rather weakly armed ship for its size - one heli, 16 x mrsam, only exocets, low cost heracles radar....

a DDG51 it is not. thats a ship that can go into serious threat zones and start beating up people.


They have the Horizon class for that role.

This one is broadly equivalent of our Project 17 frigates.


They dont have enough Horizon for them to be actively deployed in the fleet. French navy has scrapped the idea of DDG and plans to utilize anti aircraft variant of FREMM to fill that void.

FREMM IT have better AAW capability and are nearly size Kolkata but AAW suite still seems to be inferior to Kolkata.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66605
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby Singha » 25 Jun 2015 08:54

the italian horizons also have a strong oto 76mm gun coverage for ciws unlike the french. guns are good to have - cheap, reliable, high rate of fire, lots of reload even underway and immune to any EW or decoys. with long range and smart proximity fused ammo and radar guidance from the ship the 76mm AA/anti-missile gun is a great asset.

SNaik
BRFite
Posts: 506
Joined: 26 Jul 2006 10:51
Location: Riga

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby SNaik » 28 Jun 2015 11:54

Almaz design bureau article on Russian corvettes, includes pictures of 20386 ;)
http://oborona.ru/includes/periodics/na ... tail.shtml

John
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2035
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby John » 28 Jun 2015 19:56

Singha wrote:the italian horizons also have a strong oto 76mm gun coverage for ciws unlike the french. guns are good to have - cheap, reliable, high rate of fire, lots of reload even underway and immune to any EW or decoys. with long range and smart proximity fused ammo and radar guidance from the ship the 76mm AA/anti-missile gun is a great asset.

Oto SR with Dart sounds great on paper but still unproven tech in my eyes. Rate of fire is still bit limited compared to a Gatling gun, You are still taking about 10-12 rds at a sea skimmer vs 200+ rds. I think mixture of both systems is the best solution.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23315
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby Austin » 28 Jun 2015 21:29

SNaik wrote:Almaz design bureau article on Russian corvettes, includes pictures of 20386 ;)
http://oborona.ru/includes/periodics/na ... tail.shtml


Looks strange just see 16 VLS and 1 Gun, no radar etc ... What's the tonnage and have they ordered it ?

John
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2035
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby John » 28 Jun 2015 21:42

Looks like radar is mounted on superstructure. The image only shows starboard but I see what looks 2 flat panels perhaps one for Air search and the other for surface search.

Cosmo_R
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3407
Joined: 24 Apr 2010 01:24

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby Cosmo_R » 28 Jun 2015 21:49

Arun Menon wrote:^Why don't they just plan to build the Starship Enterprise in some 200 years or so, since they have such big "plans" for everything.


Modi will be offered a make in India partnership for the NCC-1701 MKI when he visits.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19882
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby Philip » 29 Jun 2015 11:14

Thais to buy Chinese 039B subs.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19882
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby Philip » 29 Jun 2015 11:18

Neat slick looking Ru designs. I like the detail where the ASW helos is housed below deck.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66605
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby Singha » 29 Jun 2015 11:52

imo these corvette designs are too small for any extended deep sea work..very narrow beam .... and why do they need stealth for what is essentially just coastal patrol....

I am more the type who favours the big P15A and Spruance class "large empty hulls" with lots of sea legs and room to add tons of stuff later.

SNaik
BRFite
Posts: 506
Joined: 26 Jul 2006 10:51
Location: Riga

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby SNaik » 29 Jun 2015 12:17

Austin wrote:
SNaik wrote:Almaz design bureau article on Russian corvettes, includes pictures of 20386 ;)
http://oborona.ru/includes/periodics/na ... tail.shtml


Looks strange just see 16 VLS and 1 Gun, no radar etc ... What's the tonnage and have they ordered it ?

No, there are no orders placed yet. It should be slightly larger than current 20380, around 2500 full load. COGLAG propulsion, MFI-RLS radar (4 double faces on superstructure slopes), mission bay adjacent to submerged hangar. 16 9M96 SAM, 1 AK-190 with new stealth cover, 2 AK-630M, 2x4 Paket, 2x4 Uran.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66605
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby Singha » 29 Jun 2015 14:40

japan funding upg of aegis fleet to handle TBMD + ASM/CM simultaneously
http://asia.nikkei.com/Politics-Economy ... d-US-ships

good pic of 4 kongo ships side by side.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23315
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby Austin » 02 Jul 2015 11:55

The contract for the construction of two submarines of Project A26 for Swedish Navy

Swedish defense procurement agency Försvarets Materielverk (FMV) June 30, 2015 signed with the group Saab AB contracts worth 8.6 billion Swedish kronor (1.08 billion dollars) for the construction of the Swedish Navy for two non-nuclear submarines of the new project A26, as well as conducting medium repair and modernization of the two are in the ranks of non-nuclear submarines of Project A19 (type Gotland).


Image

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19882
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby Philip » 02 Jul 2015 18:05

Full Steam Ahead: Russia to Maintain Naval Shipbuilding Despite Economy
Read more: http://sputniknews.com/russia/20150702/ ... z3ejwOu0lq
02.07.2015
Russian Deputy Defense Minister said that Russian Navy’s shipbuilding plans will not be cut back over the current economic situation.

Russian Pacific Fleet's 16th Krasnoznamennaya Submarine squadron, base in Vilyuchinsk

Russian Strategic Sub Groups to ‘Be Constantly Updated’ – Navy Commander
ST. PETERSBURG (Sputnik) – The Russian Navy’s shipbuilding plans will not be cut back over the current economic situation in the country, Russian Deputy Defense Minister Yuri Borisov said Thursday.

“We will not decrease our shipbuilding program for the fleet. Everything that was announced will be built,” Borisov told journalists.

Borisov said that the Russian Navy expects 10 first- and second-rank ships and another 40 support vessels to enter into service by the end of 2015.



http://news.usni.org/2015/07/01/new-pac ... by-october
New Pacific Russian Nuclear Missile Submarine Facility Could Open by October
By: Sam LaGrone
July 1, 2015
Upgrades to the Russian Navy’s ballistic nuclear missile submarine (SSBN) base in the Pacific could be completed by October, Russian Navy chief Adm. Viktor Chirkov said on Wednesday according to Russian state-controlled media.

The improvements to the Russian Navy’s boomer base on the Kamchatka peninsula will include improvements that will allow the operation of the new Project 955 Borei-class submarines.

“The system for basing the Borei-class strategic submarines in Kamchatka is moving along according to schedule and the work will be completed by October 1 of this year,” Chirkov said in the Sputnik news service.

The new construction includes medical and recreation facilities for sailors as well as warehouses and a new crane used to install missiles on the Boreis.

At the height of the Cold War, the Russian Navy based more than a dozen SSBNs at the Kamchatka Rybachiy Nuclear Submarine Base but that number dwindled following the collapse of the Soviet Union.

The Russian Navy accepted the latest Borei-class boomer — Vladimir Monomakh (K-551) — in December.

The 19,400-ton boat is armed with 16 Bulava nuclear submarine launched ballistic missiles (SLBM) and is slated to replace the Project 941 Typhoon-class and Project 667BDRM Delta IV-class boomers.

The next Borei — Knyaz Vladimir — is designated as a Project 955A Borei II and could field up to 20 Bulava missiles, according to Naval Institute’s Combat Fleets of the World.

The planned class of eight boats will serve as the backbone of the Russian sea-based nuclear deterrence force.


PS:The IN also needs to have at least two dedicated N-sub bases ,one on each seaboard to accommodate our strat. forces SSBNs and sister SSGN/SSNs. These should be able to house,service, accommodate the weaponry, warheads, crews, eqpt., etc. for the subs.There should also be other bases on each seaboard which can also house our conventional sub fleet ,which needs more frequent turnarounds,replenishment,crew rotation,repair and maintenance,etc.Our naval bases,esp. those for subs will be primary targets in any spat with China.They need to be secure able to withstand any N-attack.


Neshant
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4840
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby Neshant » 03 Jul 2015 21:59

Saab Unveils World’s Most Advanced Stealth Submarine With ‘Ghost’ Mode

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/saab-unveils- ... 42778.html

Bade
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7212
Joined: 23 May 2002 11:31
Location: badenberg in US administered part of America

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby Bade » 03 Jul 2015 22:19

Maybe the Navy should look at Colachel on the south west coast again for a future sub-base. Not sure if being close to the international shipping lanes can be a problem.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19882
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby Philip » 04 Jul 2015 12:47

I've managed to get the Ru article translated myself,,took time,v.interesting.To sum it up,it says that larger surface combatants,DDGs,FFGs,etc. are being built in lesser no. with greater number of corvettes,multi-pourpose combatants of tonnage approx. 2500-3000t being built. (P-28 for ex).

The traditional roles of surface combatants-anti-surface,anti-air,anti-sub,etc.,are being added with other duties,anti-piracy,mine warfare,etc. Due to high costs,building larger warships and dedicated types for a variety of roles/tasks is not affordable by most navies,including major ones.Therefore,some navies have been experimenting with multi-role corvettes,which have modular packages for certain specific duties (The Danes for ex. with their STANFLEX design?) .

The requirement therefore is for smaller displacement vessels,with smaller crews,electric/other economical propulsion systems which allow a variety of speeds for diff. duties,as well as high speeds.This results (in the Ru design) the hull form shown.The apparent narrow hull (L to B ratio not given,needs to be found out) which Singha was doubtful of,has been specifically designed for better seakeeping. Less rolling,etc. The hull also is conventional (proven) for costs,etc.,though exotic hulls-cats,trimarans,wave piercing,etc., are being experimented with in other navies,LCS,etc.

This flexibility and modularity of weapon systems requires on board eqpt. that allows handling of weaponry/systems,supplies efficiently,with greater automation to allow for a lesser crew.The requisite elec.,hydraulic,mech. systems must be provided for to accommodate all options. The crew too ,though significntly reduced due to greater automation ,must be sufficient for general duties like firefighting,leaks,battle damage,etc. Both on-board and offshore facilities for crews should be provided for.The USN uses two crews for the LCS.

The key design element in the Ru corvette is the absence of a helo hangar-uses up valuable space topside,locating the hangar below deck accessed by a lift that also allows for other items to be transported below deck. (Incidentally some time ago I mentioned this as an option in an FFG concept,whereby an FFG could increase the no. of helos/UAVs by providing a below-deck hangar).This also reduces the amt. of structure topside increasing the stealth factor.

Reg. weaponry,there will be some permanent weaponry which cannot be modular like the main gun,VLS
silos for missiles,etc. As can be seen in the Ru design,these are located forward,with the missile silos forward of the main gun,perhaps due to weight distribution,shiphandling reasons. The modular packages are at the aft section below deck,as shown in the diagrams,where containers that can carry TTs,etc, can be located.

This is a very interesting concept,as can be seen from the diagrams/pics and something that the IN's naval design team should chew upon.I've always advocated greater flexibility and standardisation in naval vessels for reasons of cost-effectiveness both in terms of material,plus operational reasons.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19882
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby Philip » 07 Jul 2015 12:20

http://www.themoscowtimes.com/business/ ... 25045.html
Russia Plans New Interceptor and Carrier-Killer Nuclear Submarines
The Moscow Times
Jul. 05 2015
sevmash.ru

The original designs for the Borei- and Yasen-class vessels date back to the end of the Soviet Union and early 1990s.

Russia will design two new classes of nuclear-powered submarines as part of President Vladimir Putin's 20 trillion ruble ($356 billion) rearmament campaign through 2020.

[b]Though the designs have not yet been named, one will be classified as an "underwater interceptor" and the other an "aircraft carrier killer," the head of the state-owned United Shipbuilding Corporation's state defense order department, Anatoly Shlemov, told news website Lenta.ru late last week.[/b]

After years of decline in the wake of the Soviet Union's collapse, Russia's Defense Ministry has poured money into the construction of a new generation of nuclear-powered submarines. The first new types, the Borei- and Yasen-class, have already entered service.

But the original designs for the Borei- and Yasen-class vessels date back to the end of the Soviet Union and early 1990s, and do not take advantage of improvements in technology and manufacturing.

Russia's Malakhit design bureau will be responsible for the initial work on the new submarines, Shlemov added.

"The main purpose of the [underwater interceptor] is to protect groups of [ballistic] missile carrying submarines, and to battle with enemy submarines," Shlemov said.

"The second ship will be a cruise missile carrier [used] for defeating coastal and surface targets," he said, referring to the "aircraft killer" variant.

The two new types of nuclear submarine will be based on a common design, the difference being in the weapons compartment of the submarine. This simplifies construction of the two classes by relying as much as possible on common components and design.

The two designs will replace Soviet-era submarines still in service such as the Oscar II-, Sierra-, and Victor-class multipurpose nuclear-powered submarines, Lenta reported.

The new Borei- and Yasen-class nuclear submarines currently under construction will replace Soviet stalwarts like the massive Typhoon- and Delta IV-class nuclear missile launching submarines and the fast Alfa- and Akula-class attack submarines.


http://www.tasnimnews.com/english/Home/Single/791094
Russia Ready to Supply Iran with Naval Equipment
July 05, 2015 - 17:05

TEHRAN (Tasnim) – Russia has expressed its readiness to provide Iran with naval equipment, a Russian news agency quoted a military source as saying.

Russia is ready to supply to Iran a wide range of naval equipment and armaments, a military diplomatic source told TASS at the International Maritime Defense Show (IMDS) in Saint Petersburg on Saturday.

A high-ranking delegation headed by Iranian Navy Commander Rear Admiral Habibollah Sayyari is in the Russian city of Saint Petersburg to attend the Show.

"Talks between the Iranian delegation and the Russian side were held at the show today," a spokesman for the Iranian military delegation said.

"They spoke about boosting bilateral military-technical cooperation, including on deliveries of a wide range of naval equipment and armaments," the spokesman added.

The Seventh International Maritime Defense Show (IMDS-2015) is underway under the Russian Federation Government's order from July 1 to 5.

The organizer of IMDS-2015 is the Ministry of Industry and Trade of the Russian Federation. The Exhibition is held with participation of Russia's Ministry of Defense, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and Federal Service for Military-Technical Cooperation, the Government of St. Petersburg and Rosoboronexport OJSC.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23315
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby Austin » 08 Jul 2015 13:12

Photo Report : 20380 Corvette at IMDS 2015

http://kuleshovoleg.livejournal.com/395037.html

they still carry the Uran missile amidship and AK-630 for CIWS no different from many of our ships

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19882
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby Philip » 08 Jul 2015 15:48

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/589 ... n-military
Britain at 'SIGNIFICANT risk from Putin's new undetectable torpedo-firing submarines'

RUSSIA is developing a fleet of mini-submarines which could pose a "significant" threat to Britain, it has been revealed.
By Tom Parfitt

PUBLISHED: 06:29, Wed, Jul 8, 2015

Vladimir Putin is reportedly pumping £230million into the Russian military
The Piranhas can come extremely close to land and are almost impossible to detect as they are so small

President Vladimir Putin is set to recommission the virtually undetectable Piranha vessels as part of a £230million military spending spree.

Piranhas, which can lay mines and fire torpedoes, were developed but axed during the Cold War.

A source said: "Putin is breathing life into many old programmes and thinks subs are an effective way of getting what he wants militarily.

"The Piranhas can come extremely close to land and are almost impossible to detect as they are so small.

"They could represent a significant threat to Britain if despatched here."


http://www.haveeru.com.mv/news/61090
Chinese subs in the Maldives?
Defence Ministry asked if Chinese submarine entered Maldives
Jul 08, 2015 -

The submarine is heavily armed – equipped with torpedoes, anti-ship missiles and air-independent propulsion that enhance its endurance.

The submarine is heavily armed – equipped with torpedoes, anti-ship missiles and air-independent propulsion that enhance its endurance.

Opposition MP Eva Abdulla has proposed to question Defence Minister Moosa Ali Jaleel if a Chinese military-grade submarine had crossed into Maldivian waters.

Her resolution asked if China's Yuan Class 335 submarine had entered Maldivian waters and whether the defence forces would know if they did.

The submarine is heavily armed – equipped with torpedoes, anti-ship missiles and air-independent propulsion that enhance its endurance.

India Today, a newspaper based in New Delhi, reported that the Indian navy was alerted as submarine passed Indian waters and docked in Karachi.
The paper described this deployment as a ‘new cat-and-mouse game in the region’.

“It must be noted that China will be selling some eight Yuan class submarines to Pakistan within the next few years” the article read.


Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23315
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby Austin » 10 Jul 2015 11:42

Close up pics of P-1000 Vulcan anti-ship missile

http://i.imgur.com/xUVBciQ.jpg

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66605
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby Singha » 10 Jul 2015 11:53

if thats a E2, it would be in 200,000t range.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7479
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby brar_w » 10 Jul 2015 14:24

I posted more pictures a few months ago of this design that was developed by an institute in Russia.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19882
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby Philip » 10 Jul 2015 15:14

In continuation to Austin's posting of pics of a P-1000 Vulkan missile, here are some more details which describe how lethal it is.A salvo of 8 missiles is usually fired against a carrier,all missiles networked,some keeping their sensors shut down (receiving target info from the others/missile leader) ,with others ready to take over if the "missile-leader" is shot down. USN carriers will be hard put to knock out these SSMs. BMOs is said to have some similar networking features when also fired in salvoes.

http://warship-pics.blogspot.in/2009/08 ... ssile.html
Russian SS-N-12 anti ship missile
(SS-N-12 Sandbox) and P-1000 Vulkan Presently, the P-500 Bazalt (SS-N-12 Sandbox) remains only on surface ships, but it is still one of the most capable Russian naval weapons. For a long time it was underestimated in the West. Since the missile was similar in appearance to the P-6/P-35 series, it was not even recognized for a long time, especially as the main armament of Echo II submarines. Development of the intended P-6/P-35 replacement was initiated on the very same day as the P- 120 Malakhit program (February 28, 1963). It was to be a surface-launched missile for both submarines and surface ships. To avoid any counterattack from a carrier group, the missile's range was to be 500 km, outside the usual operational radius of carrier-protection forces. At the same time, the guidance system and missile survivability were to be greatly improved and in line with evolving tactics. For the first time, it was assumed that any attack on a carrier group would be of a massive character. The tactics of such an attack is described later, but it is worth describing some P-500 Bazalt features beforehand. The P-500 missile is similar in appearance to the P-6/35 and was powered by a liquid-fuel sustainer and solid-rocket booster. It has a speed of Mach 2 at high altitude and Mach 1.5-1.6 at low altitude. The flight profile of the missile varies from 30 to 7,000 m (low-low or low-high). Guidance is based on a digital INS on a gyro- stabilized platform and an active-radar seeker, which periodically switches to passive mode. For the first time, the missile was equipped with a digital computer (Tsifrova Vichislenna Mashina, "digital computing device"). The guidance system was also equipped with a datalink to communicate between missiles in a salvo, with a salvo consisting of eight missiles launched at short intervals. Usually, one of the missiles flies high (5,000-7,000 m) to pick up the target, while the rest remain at medium to low altitude with their radar seekers switched to passive mode. The leading missile then transmits targeting data to the others and allocates individual targets, with half of the salvo directed at the aircraft carrier and half at other ships in the area, one apiece. The onboard radar seekers are turned on at the last moment, just before reaching the target. If the lead missile is shot down, another one (in a programmed sequence) takes over and climbs to a higher altitude to continue directing the salvo. All the missiles have active radar jamming to disrupt any defensive action from fighters and shipboard air-defense systems. In addition, vital parts of the P-500 missile are armored to increase survivability. Early trials of the first version of the P-500 system were conducted from 1969 to 1970, and from 1971-75, tests of the final version, with a 550 km range, were completed. The missile has a 1,000 kg HE warhead or a 350 kT-yield nuclear warhead. In 1975 the P-500 system was introduced to service on 10 out of the 29 Echo II-class submarines then in service. Nine of them received the Kasatka-B system for receiving data from the Uspekh and Legenda targeting systems (radar picture only), while one received the Uspekh interface only, without access to the Legenda space targeting system. Communications with targeting systems could be conducted from periscope depth with the antenna above the surface. Usually, Soviet submarines carried six conventional and two nuclear P-500 missiles on combat patrols. All of the submarines armed with P-500 missiles were withdrawn from service in the mid-1990s. The P-500 Bazalt system, however, was not only used on submarines. In 1977 the system was accepted into service onboard Kiev-class aircraft carriers, four of which were built. The first three had a battery of eight launchers in the forward deck. The last ship of the class, commissioned the Baku in 1987, was built to a modified design and had no less than 12 launchers. All of these ships were withdrawn from service in the 1990s, but the last ship, renamed Admiral Gorshkov , is to be sold to India - after stripping off the P-500 missiles. The only ships still armed with the P-500 Bazalt system are Slava-class cruisers. The first ship of the class, commissioned in 1983, underwent a major overhaul in the 1990s and was renamed the Moskva . It serves with the Russian Navy's Black Sea Fleet. The Northern Fleet operates the Marshal Ustinov , commissioned in 1986, while the Pacific Fleet operates the Varyag , commissioned in 1989. According to unconfirmed sources, however, the last was re-armed with the P-1000 system (see below). The first two ships (and possibly all three) have a tremendous battery of 16 P-500 Bazalt missiles, which can be directed at targets with the assistance of embarked Ka- 27 Helix helicopters. A fourth cruiser, the Ukrainian Ukraina , was armed with the P-500 system. The ship was completed in late 2001, but after lengthy deliberations, it never entered service with the Ukrainian Navy. Declared spare, it now is to be sold abroad. The P-1000 Vulkan was one of the most mysterious missiles in Soviet service. It was also the last Russian missile that required a submarine to surface for launch. Its existence was never discovered by NATO, despite the fact it was operational on five submarines. It was generally similar to P-500 but had titanium armor, and many of its steel parts were replaced by titanium ones. This enabled a significant decrease in launch weight. At the same time, a more powerful booster and a more powerful and more fuel-efficient sustainer turbojet engine was employed. This increased the range to about 700 km. Its development was initiated in May 1979, and it underwent tests in the mid- 1980s. The P-1000 was introduced into service in about 1987. In the late 1980s, five Echo II-class submarines were modernized to accommodate the new P-1000 Vulkan system, but all five were withdrawn from service in the mid-1990s. Thus, it was in front-line service for only about seven or eight years (unless it has, in fact, been installed on the Varyag).

Russian Designation P-350 (4K77), P-500 Bazalt (4K80) P-1000 Vulkan (3M70)
NATO / Designation SS-N-12 Sandbox n.k.
Manufacturer NPO Mashinostroenia Chelomey
Guidance Mid-course autopilot; terminal active- radar
seeker Mid-course autopilot; terminal active-radar seeker and passive anti-radiation Warhead 1,000 kg HE semi-armor piercing or 350 kT nuclear Propulsion
two solid-fuel booster, liquid-fuel sustainer Range 550 km 700 km Speed Mach 2.5 / 835 m/sec Mach 2.8 / 935 m/sec Length 11.70 m n.k. Body Diameter 884 mm 884 mm Wingspan 2,600 mm n.k. Launch Weight 4,800 kg n.k. Development Start 1963 1979 Date Operational 1975 1987 Launch Platforms Project 1143 (Kiev) aircraft carriers, Project 1164 (Slava) cruisers, Project 675 (Echo II) submarines Project 675 (Echo II) submarines Users Russia and Ukraine


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Feedfetcher and 48 guests