Indian Naval News & Discussion - 12 Oct 2013

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

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Austin » 18 Aug 2014 10:05

The numbers for Naval ASW Helo looks big enough for us to develop one on our own instead of importing from Europe or US.

HAL can develop a Medium Helicopter with JV partner Europe/US/Russia and then navalise it should be done by end of decade , meanwhile adapt ALH for Naval use.

This way we can also replace Mi-8 with our own produce next decade.

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

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Austin » 18 Aug 2014 10:17

On the Barak-8 numbers , I think the number 32 is fine on P-15A considering these are medium range SAM of ~ 70 km , Reason for low numbers I can think of is Cost and Non-Proven system still in test stage.

I recollect the IN went from 8 x SS-N-22 Sunburn to 16 SS-N-25 for Delhi class as the cost of 8 Sunburn was more then 1/3 cost of Delhi class ship. ARH SAM like Barak-8 are expensive systems. P-15A is suppose to be multidimensional ship and not AAW type.

They need to beef up on CIWS , AK-630M is not good enough CIWS as they dont have more than 4 km effective range and the ship has no defence between 1-15 Km for Close in Defence from fast moving antiship missile should it manage to evade Barak-8 net , AK-630 is woefully inadequate for a capital ship !

Best option is for VLS Astra system with its ARH seeker that can do ~ 10-15 km in SAM role and pack it with 32-48 SAM for CIWS. Barak-1 is dead end cant defend against supersonic missile and Maitri is expensive and we have effective alternate in Astra system for CIWS.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16768
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Rahul M » 18 Aug 2014 10:25

Austin, your explanation doesn't explain why we dont have any regular baraks on it.
more than the number of barak-8's, it's that which surprised me. could it be that they are looking to standardise on some new fleet-wide QRSAM ?

bmallick
BRFite
Posts: 303
Joined: 05 Jun 2010 20:28

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby bmallick » 18 Aug 2014 10:33

Rahul M, I think the lack of regular Barak-1 can be attributed to the number of Barak-1 systems, we had procured. All that we had acquired are currently installed on one or the other vessel. Procurement of more missile systems, was out of question due the investigation going on. It is after a long wait and on urgent need that the acquisition of more missiles stock for existing systems was cleared.

So, since we did not have any more systems, no Barak-1 on Kolkata class. I guess that the same reason , why a large ship like the Kamorta too has no Barak-1, though IIRC the models had shown 2x8. I guess everything has to wait for either Maitri to shape up, or VLS Astra. The latter is a better bet in my opinion.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16768
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Rahul M » 18 Aug 2014 10:41

IOW we are moving away from barak-1, hence no provision for it either. makes sense.

Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4065
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Manish_Sharma » 18 Aug 2014 10:55

Austin wrote:The numbers for Naval ASW Helo looks big enough for us to develop one on our own instead of importing from Europe or US.

HAL can develop a Medium Helicopter with JV partner Europe/US/Russia and then navalise it should be done by end of decade , meanwhile adapt ALH for Naval use.

This way we can also replace Mi-8 with our own produce next decade.


With navy rejecting ALH and Kolkata deploying one Chetak that gives porki agostas more than fair chance of succeeding, developing etc. will eat up another decade until then sub-hunting capabilities will suffer.

Even if going for developing our own with europeans, meanwhile for elite ships like P 15A/B, Vikrant we can order off the shelf 20-25 NH-90s this will let navy form whether its sufficient or what more they should develop in new medium weight helis.

So basically with 1 Chetak and 32 Baraks Kolkatta can just about defend itself.

Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4065
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Manish_Sharma » 18 Aug 2014 11:04

Austin wrote:Best option is for VLS Astra system with its ARH seeker that can do ~ 10-15 km in SAM role and pack it with 32-48 SAM for CIWS. Barak-1 is dead end cant defend against supersonic missile and Maitri is expensive and we have effective alternate in Astra system for CIWS.


What will replace B1 then, Astra or Maitri?

Tsarkar ji said Maitri about replacing Barak 1 and also ToTwise:
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=6806&p=1696821#p1696821

tsarkar wrote:^^ Both VL-MICA & Spyder were considered for the LLQRM requirement & Spyder was selected. Maitri project is more from a ToT perspective since developing a small compact missile is challenging by itself.

IN needs SR-SAM as a replacement for Barak-1, and that will be fitted to Kamorta & Kolkata class ships that presently lack PDMS.

SR-SAM will be ARH or IIR guided, and a significant improvement over CLOS Barak1

wig
BRFite
Posts: 1645
Joined: 09 Feb 2009 16:58

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby wig » 18 Aug 2014 11:12

FWIW, excerpt; from a Taiwan based paper
India's defense ministry made emergency orders over concerns of the country's declining defense capabilities. India has skipped the bidding process and ordered two diesel-electric Amur-Class submarines 677 from Russia to enhance its sea combat capabilities.


http://www.wantchinatimes.com/news-subc ... 0817000070

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

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Austin » 18 Aug 2014 11:13

I am not sure if Maitri project has been signed , looks like an expensive billion $ project to get VLS Mica money better spent on making VLS Astra.

negi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13102
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Ban se dar nahin lagta , chootiyon se lagta hai .

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby negi » 18 Aug 2014 11:16

John's post about 16 Brahmos cells could be a possible explanation of just 32 cells for SAM , There are 2 Brahmos UVMLs on Kolkata class instead of 1 on Talwar or Shivalik . On the deck while we see a lot of real estate for more VLS cells I am not sure how does it affect ship's sea keeping may be this is a design compromise.

In future Shourya or much more portable AsHMs will have to be deployed and Brahmos numbers be limited for niche use, once we gain enough maturity on our indigenous missile platforms perhaps then we will be in a position to design a MK41 type universal VLS for our missiles that is when we will truly attain parity with the first world naval platforms in every respect.

Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4065
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Manish_Sharma » 18 Aug 2014 11:36

wig wrote:FWIW, excerpt; from a Taiwan based paper
India's defense ministry made emergency orders over concerns of the country's declining defense capabilities. India has skipped the bidding process and ordered two diesel-electric Amur-Class submarines 677 from Russia to enhance its sea combat capabilities.


http://www.wantchinatimes.com/news-subc ... 0817000070


8)
I'm impressed, didn't know the PM, FM+DM read my posts and suggestions:

Dhananjay wrote:I think it'll be a good idea to just order 1 amur sub with brahmos as russkies are claiming, anyway we are now short of 3 kilos, one lying opened up in the yard, 2 gone with accidents.

So navy can run it for couple of years, see how it performs in case it does well or even reasonably well with some niggling issue which navy thinks that can be solved, start negotiating for more numbers.

In case its a dud, its a dud and we've bought just one dud instead of whole fleet.

I think govt. has ample reasons to do a quick purchase like mms govt. did C-17 thing.

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=6653&p=1698068&hilit=amur#p1698068

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

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Singha » 18 Aug 2014 11:45

probably some of the barak1 units on viraat and oldest R-class will be removed on retirement and reused on new ships like 15A.
that apart the order for more barak1 missiles is also approved. but the VL and tracking systems can be reused from retired ships being only around 10 yrs old.

member_28305
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 41
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby member_28305 » 18 Aug 2014 12:25

http://idrw.org/?p=41829
"India’s defense ministry made emergency orders over concerns of the country’s declining defense capabilities. India has skipped the bidding process and ordered two diesel-electric Amur-Class submarines 677 from Russia to enhance its sea combat capabilities."


Any truth in this report?? :roll: :?:

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

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Singha » 18 Aug 2014 12:28

http://static.ibnlive.in.com/pix/slides ... edited.jpg

if we compare the sizes of the fore and aft missile arrays - I do not think the aft array (if barak8) is more than 8 missiles....it is clearly way smaller than the front array and cannot be 16+16

it could either be:
16 barak8 in front, 16 barak1 in back(smaller cell size)
16 barak8 in front, 8 barak8 in back

what do you say? I assume press was not allowed on the roof in the back?

a quick fix in MLU would be moving the brahmos to the back and putting in 32 cells in the front and 32 barak1 along the sides.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16768
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Rahul M » 18 Aug 2014 12:59

perhaps something to do with the shadow ? looks similar sized here : http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-yBR_4ZDAEPc/U ... C_0163.JPG

btw, did any knowledgeable jingo weigh-in on why we still have the ancient thales radar on the P15A ?
TIA.

Ranjani Brow

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Ranjani Brow » 18 Aug 2014 13:03

@Singha
INS Kolkata 1
INS Kolkata 2

definitely 32 x Barak-8

Vishnu
BRFite
Posts: 287
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31
Location: New Delhi

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Vishnu » 18 Aug 2014 13:26

Singha wrote:http://static.ibnlive.in.com/pix/slideshow/08-2014/in-pics-indias/sixthimage-edited.jpg

if we compare the sizes of the fore and aft missile arrays - I do not think the aft array (if barak8) is more than 8 missiles....it is clearly way smaller than the front array and cannot be 16+16

it could either be:
16 barak8 in front, 16 barak1 in back(smaller cell size)
16 barak8 in front, 8 barak8 in back

what do you say? I assume press was not allowed on the roof in the back?

a quick fix in MLU would be moving the brahmos to the back and putting in 32 cells in the front and 32 barak1 along the sides.



Singha ... :evil: I repeat 32 SAMS total ... While I didn't go to the back, I see no reason why 3 officers, including an Admiral and the Chairman of MDL would all lie to me the total number of SAMs. Chacko Joseph who was with me was told the same thing at the same time ! There is enough real estate even in the front to pack in 16 more SAMs ... of that I am sure ... but as I mentioned, I don't know what lies below deck.

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

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Austin » 18 Aug 2014 13:48

Rahul M wrote:Austin, your explanation doesn't explain why we dont have any regular baraks on it.
more than the number of barak-8's, it's that which surprised me. could it be that they are looking to standardise on some new fleet-wide QRSAM ?


Could be that they dont have enough Barak-1 to currently fit on it and its on order which seems to be the case the CCS recently approved additional Barak-1 IIRC and even Vikram does not have it but would be fitted later. This seems most likely.

It not unusual to have Barak-1 fitted later as happened with many capital ships but to imagine a new Capital Ship without PDMS and relying on the venerable AK-630M is unthinkable.

No new PDMS is on order atm just news on Maitri which is like 5 years in making .....I would rather bet on navalise Astra for PDMS and put my money on it much like they have done for VLS MICA.

Found the new of 262 Barak-1 order in Dec 2013 ....likely they will end on P-15A and Vikramaditya once it available

http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.ph ... fleet.html
Last edited by Austin on 18 Aug 2014 13:55, edited 1 time in total.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16768
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Rahul M » 18 Aug 2014 13:51

I agree Austin.

Vishnu, Chacko, did anyone ask about the rationale for using the venerable thales radar when modern options are available ?

sankum
BRFite
Posts: 592
Joined: 20 Dec 2004 21:45

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby sankum » 18 Aug 2014 14:35

CH 148 cyclone with 13T MTOW and 7T empty weight will be the best choice for NMRH and will be in required folded dimensions of 15.5m by 5.5m.

Present Mi17 acquired between 2000-15 by IAF will be retired between 2030-45 and will be 179 nos and IA requires minimum 80 nos Mi17 type helicopter i,e. 260nos.

Now HAL IMRH will be based on present tested helo engine and transmission system with new airframe and 5 blade main rotor system.

So CH 148 with 3000hp twin engine will be the best choice for HAL co development where width of cabin is increased from 2m to 2.34m of mi17 and production @16/year from 2025-45 can replace mi17 of IAF and fulfill requirement of IN and IA as well.

sankum
BRFite
Posts: 592
Joined: 20 Dec 2004 21:45

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby sankum » 18 Aug 2014 14:55

There were reports by media lobbies that MRH 48 nos helo requirement has been clubbed with 75 nos NMRH requirement to have a total requirement of 123nos NMRH to be licensed produced by HAL.

For me it makes sense to cancel MRH requirement as it is in favor of sea hawk and therefore NH is putting all kind of roadblocks by putting non compliance complaints.

NH90 and other NMRH contenders will have 50% more endurance than Sea Hawk in ASW missions.

Immediate requirement can be fulfilled by naval ALH as a stop gap measure.

chackojoseph
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4297
Joined: 01 Mar 2010 22:42
Location: From Frontier India
Contact:

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby chackojoseph » 18 Aug 2014 15:26

Rahul M wrote:Vishnu, Chacko, did anyone ask about the rationale for using the venerable thales radar when modern options are available ?


Which one?

Actually, Commdore Ranjit Rai was given complete walkround after commission. I spoke to him in the morning. he said all stuff related to barak-8 in media, including numbers, korean flight etc are misplaced or blown outta propotion.

Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4065
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Manish_Sharma » 18 Aug 2014 15:31



CH 148 Cyclone is a big mother, but lands easily on a small frigate also. Nice this will be perfect to hunt agostas!

Wiki specifications:

General characteristics

Crew: 4 (2 pilots, 1 tactical coordinator TACCO, 1 sensor operator AES OP)
Capacity: 6 in mission config, up to 22 in utility config.
Length: 68 ft 6 in [S-92 data] (20.9 m)
Rotor diameter: 58 ft 1 in [S-92 data] (17.7 m)
Height: 15 ft 5 in [S-92 data] (4.7 m)
Disc area: 2,650 ft² [S-92 data] (246 m²)
Empty weight: 15,600 lb [S-92 data] (7,070 kg[45])
Max. takeoff weight: 28,650 lb (12,993 kg)
Powerplant: 2 × General Electric CT7-8A7 turboshaft, 3,000 shp (2,238 kW) each
Fuselage length: 56 ft 2 in (17.1 m)
Fuselage width: 17 ft 3 in (5.26 m)

Performance

Maximum speed: 165 knots (190 mph, 306 km/h)
Cruise speed: 137 knots (158 mph, 254 km/h)
Service ceiling: 15,000 ft (4,572 m)

Armament

2 x MK-46 torpedoes on BRU-14 mounted in folding weapons pylons
Door-arm mounted general-purpose machine gun

chackojoseph
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4297
Joined: 01 Mar 2010 22:42
Location: From Frontier India
Contact:

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby chackojoseph » 18 Aug 2014 15:39

And frankly, the ship finish was absolute grace. During Shivalik commission, I had triggered a debate on the hull with war hourse kind of beaten look. This time, Kolkata was simply awesome.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16768
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Rahul M » 18 Aug 2014 17:13

chackojoseph wrote:
Rahul M wrote:Vishnu, Chacko, did anyone ask about the rationale for using the venerable thales radar when modern options are available ?


Which one?

Actually, Commdore Ranjit Rai was given complete walkround after commission. I spoke to him in the morning. he said all stuff related to barak-8 in media, including numbers, korean flight etc are misplaced or blown outta propotion.

thales RAWL lic manuf. by BEL.

negi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13102
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Ban se dar nahin lagta , chootiyon se lagta hai .

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby negi » 18 Aug 2014 17:53

^ What are the alternatives ? We could have gone down import route but no desi alternatives exist, right ?

negi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13102
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Ban se dar nahin lagta , chootiyon se lagta hai .

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby negi » 18 Aug 2014 18:01

John wrote:- Shivalik CODOG gives it better range and GE turbines are far more reliable than the Zorya Mashproekt turbines.

Is this based on anecdotal references or data or general view that US HW is more reliable than Ru (which might be true most of the time) ? R class uses M8E plant which also comes from Zorya and even till this date no surface ship in the IN comes close to the R class when it comes to number of hours clocked without undergoing a refit.

I know that Shivaliks until very recently could not hit their designed speed because the bearings in the gearbox were for some reason getting overheated.

Ranjani Brow

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Ranjani Brow » 18 Aug 2014 18:36

negi wrote:^ What are the alternatives ? We could have gone down import route but no desi alternatives exist, right ?


ELM-2238 STAR which is also on Shivalik class Frigates of Indian Navy.

abhik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2435
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby abhik » 18 Aug 2014 18:39

I had a couple Qs on the P15a's propulsion based on wiki
1> It says it has 4 Zorya gas turbines, any idea on the their power rating(hp/kW)?
2> It also says it has 2x 9,900 hp diesel engines, are these for CODAG propulsion?

Mihir
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 879
Joined: 14 Nov 2004 21:26

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Mihir » 18 Aug 2014 18:58

Rahul M wrote:btw, did any knowledgeable jingo weigh-in on why we still have the ancient thales radar on the P15A ?
TIA.

AFAIK, it still does well enough in the air search role. It's resists clutter and ECM really well. It's reliable. It's cheap. And it's made in India.

negi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13102
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Ban se dar nahin lagta , chootiyon se lagta hai .

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby negi » 18 Aug 2014 19:03

^ One another thing to note is ELM-22XX series operate in S band while Thales RAWL operates in L band , attenuation(increases with frequency of operation) and hence latter is better suited for long range search (heading and bearing info only) . Even otherwise it makes sense to cover a wider frequency band in case the targets are better designed to absorb/scatter wavelengths corresponding to S band EM waves.

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

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Austin » 18 Aug 2014 21:20

L band radar is good for long range detection of Stealth targets . With AESA they can play smart trick with its narrow beam/energy to focus at long range to track these targets that L band detects initially with dual band overlapping coverage with sensor fusion.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17952
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Karan M » 18 Aug 2014 22:25

Exactly

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16768
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Rahul M » 18 Aug 2014 22:30

dhanyabad.

negi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13102
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Ban se dar nahin lagta , chootiyon se lagta hai .

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby negi » 18 Aug 2014 22:56

Austin wrote:With AESA they can play smart trick with its narrow beam/energy to focus at long range to track these targets that L band detects initially with dual band overlapping coverage with sensor fusion.

They have this dual band radar concept for Zumwalt class in talk/works but we or even EU or RU do not have this kind of sensor fusion as such, for different radars the DSP and rendering of info is separate and need to have dedicated MTI and MMIs for each of these radars.

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

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Austin » 18 Aug 2014 23:06

They have varying degree of sensor fusion specially with new CMS and SW system integration but thy dont advertise it like Americans

negi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13102
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Ban se dar nahin lagta , chootiyon se lagta hai .

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby negi » 18 Aug 2014 23:37

^ Integration of systems so that one's output can be used to trigger another system is not sensor fusion it is just system integration. In case of a RADAR antenna is the sensor , sensor fusion by definition in this context would require that data from different Radar antennas be collected and processed at a central place however this is not what happens in today's surface ships a 3 D search Radar like RAWL will function as a standalone unit it has it's own dedicated antenna, duplexer, DSP , power source and MTI so has MFSTAR depending on what RAWL detects MFSTAR can be tasked to track those specific targets and eventually engage them however we have not fused any sensor data here as such. In this case CMS is the hub where both RAWL and MFSTAR will feed their data.

What Massa is trying to implement on Zumwalt class is eliminate the need for dedicated search and weapon targeting ; basically different Antennas TX and RX in their respective bands will be managed by a common backend unit, data from different sensors (antennas) will be processed at one place.

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

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Austin » 19 Aug 2014 08:45

Negi , I mean sensor fusion onleee where radar from Ships own Source and even external source like Ka-31 are processed and sensor fused to present a single picture for tactical and weapons capability ,there are some stand alone system too for certain weapons , if you know some one who visited P-17 Shivalik they would tell you it has these capabilities in varying degree with P-15A they would have move ahead , IN is moving toward netcentricity of its platforms but since the Navy does not advertise its capability of its modern CMS and what it can do it remains unknown.

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

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Singha » 19 Aug 2014 09:29

Cheen has a 'anti stealth' type radar mounted a special mast between the fore and aft mast on some ships. looks like a old doordarshan tv antenna.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... troyer.JPG

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/e ... gh_res.jpg

it is a meter wave VHF radar

Vishnu
BRFite
Posts: 287
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31
Location: New Delhi

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Vishnu » 19 Aug 2014 11:07

chackojoseph wrote:
Rahul M wrote:Vishnu, Chacko, did anyone ask about the rationale for using the venerable thales radar when modern options are available ?


Which one?

Actually, Commodore Ranjit Rai was given complete walkround after commission. I spoke to him in the morning. he said all stuff related to barak-8 in media, including numbers, korean flight etc are misplaced or blown outta propotion.


Chacko, I think its important to be realistic is attempting to analyse what this warship is all about. I too have had a chat with the good Commodore, in fact for half an hour, this morning. And while he does, correctly, explain the enormous advances made in this warship, there is a blank when it comes to explaining the lack of SAMs, and whether or not it was right to commission a warship of this size with a 76mm gun.

I really do feel sad that we came so close to building the finest destroyer in the world but inexplicably fell short in typical `we are like that only' fashion. I do hope that is corrected ... otherwise this warship will essentially remain a defensive asset ... fine in our extended waters but incapable of being a world class carrier escort if we ever choose to venture into someone else's backyard.

Cheers.
Vishnu


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: brar_w and 40 guests