All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
China is carrying out anti-piracy drills in Indian Ocean Region – something that Indian Navy was quick to notice and respond to, albeit in a cheeky way! This time the Indian Navy took to Twitter to send a strong message to the Chinese Navy. In two tweets the Spokesperson of the Indian Navy told the Chinese that they were being watched in the Indian Ocean Region (IOR). The Indian Navy tweet extended a warm welcome to the Chinese 29th Anti-Piracy Escort Force in the Indian Ocean Region by saying “Happy hunting”.
Hyderabad: City-based Bharat Dynamics Limited (BDL) has signed a ‘Licensing Agreement for Transfer of Technology’ for productionisation of the anti-submarine torpedo called Varunastra, according to a press note issued here on Wednesday. The document was presented to BDL chairman and managing director V Udaya Bhaskar by Union Minister of State for Defence Subhash Bhamre in the presence of Union Defence Minister Nirmala Seetharaman in Chennai. Chief of Naval Staff, Defence Secretary, and senior officials from the Union Ministry of Defence and the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) were present on the occasion. Varunastra is an advanced ship-launched heavyweight anti-submarine torpedo, designed and developed by the Visakhapatnam-based Naval Science and Technological Laboratory (NSTL). As per the agreement, DRDO would transfer the technology for manufacturing, testing and maintenance of Varunastra to BDL which will now manufacture and supply Varunastra torpedo systems to the Indian Navy.
Very good news, Has Varunastra been intergrated with our submarine fleet or is it fired only from our Surface fleet as of today? We know it will fit in 533mm tubes but is it length Russian standard-i.e Kilo, INS CHakra, INS Arihant/Arighat capable or is there a 21 foot version capable of being fired from the Scorpenes and U209's also. I hope there are versions which we can use fleet wide- may be thats why we have not bought Torpedos for the Scorpenes.
We also had a great FOCEF – Vice Admiral RKS Ghandhi. For the ship’s annual inspection, apart from Part 1 (Harbour) and Part 2 (Sea) he started a Part 3 in which he would give a task, which the ship was expected to perform in 24 hours.
For our Part 3 inspection the Signal from the FOCEF came at about 1000 hrs. Our ship was tasked to host a Sheikh and his wife on the verge of delivering a baby. We immediately got into action, rigged the awning on the quarter deck, covered the hatches and spread 2 trucks full of sand over that. A makeshift tent with 3 partitions was also put up. All these arrangements were made the same day.
Next day after lunch FOCEF arrived dressed as a Sheikh. He was taken into the tent where air cooling arrangements were organised. One of our sailor’s one-week old child was brought and presented to him after a while as the new born baby.
Though we got Bravo Zulu it took 3 days to clear the sand from the quarter deck.
Indian P17A stealth frigate model surfaces at DefExpo. Take a close look at the deck features. What do you think? Deliveries from MDL & GRSE from 2022-25. Discussion thread: https://www.facebook.com/Livefist/posts ... 5326387083 …
Cross posting from defexpo 8 Brahmos and 32 Barak-8 for P-17a kinda what I expected. Presence of Lw-08 and Oto 76mm SR are bit disappointing.
Oto76 imo is better and rapid fire for aa anti missile role than oto 127
The lwt tipped asrocski missile being worked on also needs silos in that 24 or box launchers amidships
We need one in back also imo or 2 in front like italy orizzonte
Large computer packed 7500-9000t hulls with uvls and modular mfr are the future and we need to stdize on long peoduction runs like the type52d and ddg51
What is the need to have RBU on the ship. As by the time a modern enemy sub is detected it would have shot it torpedoes of would be on the verge of shooting them.
Please don't tell me. That it being used as a hard kill anti torpedo defence measure.
1. I'm pretty sure that's an LO 127mm housing looking at the scale and shape.
2. If we delete the RBUs and use UVLS for all missiles including LRSAM then there looks to be capacity for 48 cells easily. If we figure out quad packing for the SAMs then it will be a generously equipped ship.
3. Taking a leaf from the Type 54s, we can have smaller RBUs mounted further up on the bow or amidships/around the hangar.
USN DDGs have 80 silos! I am sure that tbe P-17A's load out can be augmented. Push the main gun further forward with MBUs on a little behind on either side and free up space in B and C position for 16 BMos and 24 LR SAMs( B-8s).
Amidhsips on either side of the stacks or mizzen mast, more SAMs, more B-8s if also reqd.
along with gatlings. Otherwise they are going to be heavily underarmed.
DDGs flight I has 90 and II has 96. Still no news on follow on for P-15B destroyers. Hope we will have similar silos for them. Out destroyer building has been very slow.
Jaeger wrote:1. I'm pretty sure that's an LO 127mm housing looking at the scale and shape.
2. If we delete the RBUs and use UVLS for all missiles including LRSAM then there looks to be capacity for 48 cells easily. If we figure out quad packing for the SAMs then it will be a generously equipped ship.
3. Taking a leaf from the Type 54s, we can have smaller RBUs mounted further up on the bow or amidships/around the hangar.
Yes it looks like 127mm but the poster from MDL said 76mm gun.
As for Rbu-6000 they have multiple usage apart from ASW including use as a hard kill defense system against torpedoes, shore bombardment, other surface vessels ( for example small vessels close to shore fitted with anti tank missiles or explosive would be hard for Main gun to engage and CIWS guns lack frontal coverage ).
But that said I would not mind removing it for 32 Barak-8 but I think current fit has more to do keeping costs low than maximizing firepower. Each Barak-8 system costs around 150 million. Overall cost is around 45k crores for 7 vessel which works to around 1 billion USD each. Type 26 FFG which were approved around the same time cost around 1.5-1.6 billion USD.
Pratyush wrote:What is the need to have RBU on the ship. As by the time a modern enemy sub is detected it would have shot it torpedoes of would be on the verge of shooting them.
Please don't tell me. That it being used as a hard kill anti torpedo defence measure.
It's akin to 30mm CIWS for air defense. Provides 6km close-in defense against submarines, torpedoes and other underwater threats like divers.
But it takes so much space that aaw and other important capacity is reduced. Besides I am not sure if the RBU 6000 is actually very effective in the intended role. As a modern sub has no need to get within the range of RBU. Secondly, the RBU is not a guided weapon, so it will be a very lucky shot if it is used as Anti torpedo defence weapon.
Thirdly, the addition of that on the deck increases RCS of the ship.
Forth, the space used is space not available for additional sam or additional Brahmos. Or even ASROC type anti sub torpedo.
Pratyush wrote:But it takes so much space that aaw and other important capacity is reduced. Besides I am not sure if the RBU 6000 is actually very effective in the intended role. As a modern sub has no need to get within the range of RBU. Secondly, the RBU is not a guided weapon, so it will be a very lucky shot if it is used as Anti torpedo defence weapon.
Thirdly, the addition of that on the deck increases RCS of the ship.
Forth, the space used is space not available for additional sam or additional Brahmos. Or even ASROC type anti sub torpedo.
SSK are rather slow operating in batteries, the minute they engage a vessel other vessels and helos will move to hunt for them. They have no choice but to move slowly in their batteries which is where rbu come to play, since it's very hard to detect them with sonar and engage them with torpedoes. And yes rbu-6000 also has guided rounds the 90r.
In other hand RBU-6000 are not as effective against SSN because of their speed and diving capabilities.
unless we make domestic ASM, SLCM, LRSAM and SRSAM, looks like cost will always keep the silo count low .... even empty silos are not being planned for anymore.
but we need the teeth because for every ship that IN brings to the fight, PLAN will bring 2 , of similar or bigger size and packed to the gunwales.
wasting valuable foredeck area for RBU shows a timid design approach though. these smallish defensive weapons are best kept amidships and near the hanger.
Singha wrote:unless we make domestic ASM, SLCM, LRSAM and SRSAM, looks like cost will always keep the silo count low .... even empty silos are not being planned for anymore.
but we need the teeth because for every ship that IN brings to the fight, PLAN will bring 2 , of similar or bigger size and packed to the gunwales.
wasting valuable foredeck area for RBU shows a timid design approach though. these smallish defensive weapons are best kept amidships and near the hanger.
Soviets had massive submarine fleet. Did US naval destroyers have RBU kind of weapons during cold war? if No, and if US navy didn't feel it's necessary to have RBUs to protect their ships from Soviet subs, then why do we persist with that? Far too much real estate space is taken by this system.
Singha , RBU are equivalent of CIWS for AD , if your long range under water weapons fail and if you have a torpedo approaching at your ship or have a SSK pretty close by undetected giving you little time to react then RBU could save your day by doing what CiWS for target that manages to slip the outer layer of AD.
The placement is dependent on the area you wish to cover and under deck space for many reloads , foredeck placement with rotable launcher covers most of Ships Defence Zone
Tuchkov explains: "The rocket is aimed at its target (vessel or torpedo) using information about its location received from the ship's sonar station. After splashdown, the gravitational projectile separates and, with the aid of an acoustic homing head, finds its target and directs itself toward it. The 90R has a contact fuse." The 90R1, meanwhile, features an inductive noncontact fuse what goes off when the projectile reaches a certain predetermined distance from its target, thus further improving its efficiency.
"The 90R has advantages over traditional torpedoes in use against submarines. Because its gravitational projectiles lack an engine, they can move without being tracked by enemy sonar. They can be detected with the help of active sonar, but this mode of operation by an enemy vessel gives away its location even further. Moreover, it doesn't make much sense anyway: As a rule, major underwater targets are targeted by volleys of twelve rounds at once, and due to the reflection of the sonar waves from all twelve projectiles, a complex interference pattern is obtained, making it impossible to accurately determine the position of attacking warheads."
Singha wrote:
but we need the teeth because for every ship that IN brings to the fight, PLAN will bring 2 , of similar or bigger size and packed to the gunwales.
wasting valuable foredeck area for RBU shows a timid design approach though. these smallish defensive weapons are best kept amidships and near the hanger.
I agree. Cost is not entirely valid because we can employ the 'for but not with' concept: leave the real estate and infrastructure in place and actually integrate the weapons systems when we have the money.
We need to be thinking aggressively in terms of weapon load: with a 48-cell UVLS and quadpacking we can have 32 LRSAM + 40 Nirbhay/ASROC-type/whatever ASCM. The space being used for the rear LRSAM VLS can be used for an RBU-type unit with atleast 270° traverse. This would also be much more effective than the current position which covers the forward 180° at best.
Austin wrote:Singha , RBU are equivalent of CIWS for AD , if your long range under water weapons fail and if you have a torpedo approaching at your ship or have a SSK pretty close by undetected giving you little time to react then RBU could save your day by doing what CiWS for target that manages to slip the outer layer of AD.
The placement is dependent on the area you wish to cover and under deck space for many reloads , foredeck placement with rotable launcher covers most of Ships Defence Zone
Same query to you as well, Spruance class destroyers of USN, which operated during cold war didn't have RBU equivalents. They were to go against biggest sub force at that time. In fact, haven't seen one in any western design warships. Why is it that we need to have them at the expense of other main missiles such as BrahMos and Barak 8?
The reasons why western navies don't have RBU equivalent is because the Russian subs till about 1985 were very noisy. Also they could be detected long way off. So the belief was that they could be dealt with by ASROC or the ship based anti submarine helo. Or light weight ship based torpedo.
^^ the US task forces were always accompanied by their considerable SSN fleet & P3 Orions/ S3 viking (protected by carrier aviation) which meant enemy subs had less chance of making it in with torpedoes...hence the russians developed really long range passive wake homers like Type53 and a range of sub launched ASMs to score hits from longer range with the top end being the mighty Granit. USN had stealthier subs and relied on the relatively puny harpoon and HWT to target soviet shipping
with our meager submarine fleet , and paltry lack of even 2xASW helos per ship, we will not have any such assets for a long time and has to be SSNs to keep up with 30 knot bursts of the ships....mostly they are on their own and lurking enemy subs could release shots from short range.
our sub fleet will take a long time to grow, but we must get 100+ ASW helis asap and towed sonar for all ships .... also atleast for peacetime ops we need some of these special sonar ships to prowl around in usual areas
Austin wrote:Singha , RBU are equivalent of CIWS for AD , if your long range under water weapons fail and if you have a torpedo approaching at your ship or have a SSK pretty close by undetected giving you little time to react then RBU could save your day by doing what CiWS for target that manages to slip the outer layer of AD.
The placement is dependent on the area you wish to cover and under deck space for many reloads , foredeck placement with rotable launcher covers most of Ships Defence Zone
Same query to you as well, Spruance class destroyers of USN, which operated during cold war didn't have RBU equivalents. They were to go against biggest sub force at that time. In fact, haven't seen one in any western design warships. Why is it that we need to have them at the expense of other main missiles such as BrahMos and Barak 8?
So if Spurance class destroyer of USN did not have RBU equivalent then should we or Russian not have it if weapons and doctrine exist for it ?
USN does not have a Brahmos equivalent nor did it have any supersonic missile like SU did in 70 and 80's so by your logic we should give up on Brahmos and on RBU because USN does not have it ?
Karthik S wrote:
Same query to you as well, Spruance class destroyers of USN, which operated during cold war didn't have RBU equivalents. They were to go against biggest sub force at that time. In fact, haven't seen one in any western design warships. Why is it that we need to have them at the expense of other main missiles such as BrahMos and Barak 8?
So if Spurance class destroyer of USN did not have RBU equivalent then should we or Russian should not have it if weapons and doctorine exist for it ?
USN does not have a Brahmos equivalent nor did it have any supersonic missile like SU did in 70 and 80's so by your logic we should give up on Brahmos and on RBU because USN does not have it ?
You didn't get the logic right. Am talking about necessity of a defensive weapons system, not "we should have what US has and we shouldn't have what US doesn't have".
You mentioned that these are required against submarines, for which I gave US SU scenario, wherein one adversary (if that makes you happy rather than saying US) faced same threat although on a much larger scale than we'd ever have to face. Don't think Cheen will outdo Soviet submarine fleet numbers. Ofcourse, the navy knows better, but just 48 missiles and only 32 of which are for air defense in a 8000T frontline destroyer is pretty underwhelming.
When I look at the so called advantages of RBU and the disadvantage of not having it. I would be happy to get rid of the RBU. For a simple reason that it absence will help in reducing the RCS of the ship. Where it presence and capabilities will not help in saving the ship in case of war. Simply because a modern conventional sub will have weapons that will out range consequently will not need to be in range.
Additionally the anti torpedo capacity is purely a figmant of someone's imagination.
So why not delete it and add additional vls to add anti air and anti sub capicity to the ship.
IF a weapon system and doctrine exist then there is a good reason it is there , RBU are CIWS for Subs and Torpedoes , Plus we have indiginous this system make it here like AK-630, neither US or IN follow the same doctrine or have same weapon system on board and we have things they dont and we need systems on our ships which they don't so comparision is futile . These system works and is reliable and works against different types of targets.
There was a long discussion on this earlier and IIRC tsarkar had given a detailed explaination on why RBU exisit on ships.
48 vs 32 we focus our design on better sea keeping qualities of ships under all sea state condition , longer legs and sustainance at sea , there is a trade off involved and we take what works for us
Pratyush wrote:When I look at the so called advantages of RBU and the disadvantage of not having it. I would be happy to get rid of the RBU. For a simple reason that it absence will help in reducing the RCS of the ship. Where it presence and capabilities will not help in saving the ship in case of war. Simply because a modern conventional sub will have weapons that will out range consequently will not need to be in range.
Additionally the anti torpedo capacity is purely a figmant of someone's imagination.
So why not delete it and add additional vls to add anti air and anti sub capicity to the ship.
Not sure what you mean by figment of imagination, it can be used against torpedoes and that's one major advantages of guided 90r projectiles.
Sir, has the capability demonstrated by any one. And if so when. Do let us know. And under what conditions for it so the job.
Such as will it be able to intercept a torpedo set to run a 300 meter deapth and then make a near vertical approach against the target. Or for that matter approach the ship from astern.
Also educate me as to the characteristics of modern torpedoes. As I am thinking that the modern sub launched torpedo is no longer straight running and shallow running device from ww2.
Once you have learnt about modern torpedoes in an effort to educate me. Think again about the RBU and it's abilities in interception of torpedoes.
MBU/RBU ASW rocket launchers do have anti- torpedo capability.No "figment of the imagination"!
They set up a triple barrier defence of acoustic sensors, charges at specific depths by buoys and a third barrier of explosives. However most navies are also pursuing hard kill anti- T torpedoes for the latest
long endurance wake-homers which keep making repeated attacks.
The MBU/RBUs can also fire anti- missile decoys.A very versatile weapon why the IN continues to arm almost all its surface combatants with it.There is a wealth of available info on the same.Ck out Polmar's classic Naval Weapon Systems.
Kartik, looking at the Kol DDG, a simple rearrangement of the weapons on the foredeck will enable enough space for at least 32 Sam's, 16 BMos, the 2 MBUs- located slighty behind on either side of the main gun at the first elevated level, with the main gun where it is.This arrangement is being found on some new designs.The P-17As which have all their weaponry on one flat deck should also adopt this modification.A similar no. of SAMs can easily be accommodated aft.
I feel that the paltry no of missiles is due to cost.In addition, the 4 gatlings on either beam could have at least one mounting with a LW gun/missile turret like the naval equiv. of Pantsir which has performed v.well in Syria.There is no secondary anti- missile weapon on board these capital ships with its small
no. of its principal LR/MR SAM leaving it v.vulnerable to repeated massed missile attacks.One must not forget that these DDGs are supposed to primarily protect our CBGs ! They will quickly run out of SAM's .
Pratyush wrote:Sir, has the capability demonstrated by any one. And if so when. Do let us know. And under what conditions for it so the job.
Such as will it be able to intercept a torpedo set to run a 300 meter deapth and then make a near vertical approach against the target. Or for that matter approach the ship from astern.
Also educate me as to the characteristics of modern torpedoes. As I am thinking that the modern sub launched torpedo is no longer straight running and shallow running device from ww2.
Once you have learnt about modern torpedoes in an effort to educate me. Think again about the RBU and it's abilities in interception of torpedoes.
Yes I am pretty sure your googling experience of modern torpedoes is enough to prove the system is useless and manufacturer and Indian navy are foolish to use it for that reason. You didn't even know 90r exisisted couple posts ago and now you're claiming it's useless.
The system like all others can be defeated but it is one of many options to defeat a torpedo as part of a layered defense, see Philip post above.
Even if Rbu-6000 are removed navy I doubt navy would fit another vls launcher in place, IMO current fit is done to provide capability required while meeting the budget requirements. Additional barak system will cost another ~100 million (each barak-8 system costs about 150 million don't think that includes STAR radar). You are more likely to see another gun mount in its place than more launchers ( I believe GRSE CGI of P-17a which was later discredited actually displayed a gun mount in place of rbu6000).
Karthik S wrote:If the navy wants RBU on it ships, no option but to go for 10000T DDG. Need atleast 48 SAMs and 48 LACMs/AShMs.
Not necessarily IMO, If you notice the amount of unused space between UVLS (brahmos launchers) and barak 8 launchers and if you properly use that space. You can easily fit 32 vls launchers the size of mk 41 and fire brahmos or quad pack Barak-8 in those launchers. Can probably fit another 8-16 by the ak-630 mounts. This way navy could keep costs low and buy 32 barak-8 + spares and purchase more later on, where as now navy has to procure a complete system from IAI.
By using locally produced truly universal vls launchers you can keep costs low and pick and choose the armament (qr-sam,AAD, Nirbhay can also fitted in later on) rather being tied to single line of launchers for every missile system. This goes to show the lack of true universal vertical launch system like mk41 and how it affects fitment.
Amazing image. they have managed to reduce the size of Barak to 10 cm diameter and Brahmos to maybe 20-30 cm. And they have fitted such a huge gun. Maybe railgun? Or railway inside gun..
Once a fish, or more likely two, are fired by a sub against target , preferably to attack the target from different directions, at least one wire-guided depending upon the range of the target, the target has few options.The most common are noise-makers; acoustic decoys that simulate as accurately as possible the signature of the vessel.
Next are depth charges to explode at set depths.Our old Nilgiri frigates had a twin-barelled Bofors mortar forward of the 4.5" main turret.Sov. and Ru warships have the MBUs .They have varied rounds as mentioned above and have a fighting chance of destroying or sending a torpedo off course by a series of violent explosions underwater throwing the incoming torpedo off course thus protecting the vessel.
But what do you do with wake-homers? Acoustic decoys could fool the fish, but as said with the new fish under dev. which make repeated attacks, only a hard- kill solution suffices.Here too the MBU has its value.The latest development is that of mini-torpedoes which can detect and attack incoming fish. But they require both integral sonar seekers to detect an incoming projectile, as well as input from the warship if poss.,whose sonars would be far more powerful .This would necessitate communications between the warship and mini-torpedoes, the mini- torpedo best requiring wire-guidance.
In the case of an incoming being a 200kmh Ru Shkval short range shot, the best defence is to hide under a table, put your head between your legs and kiss your ar*e goodbye!
PS: The reason I prefer the MBUs forward is because the higher deck level closer to the superstructure/bridge ,allows for lengthier missiles to be accommodated at that location which would be the old "B" and "C" turrets in the WW2 era.Thus both BMos and B-8 Can be packed in in larger numbers.Given the cost and size of B-8s, there is a need for a smaller QR SAM with a range of around 20km as the last ditch missile defence, which can also be fired in multiple rounds.Final defence,gatlings.With more supersonic /anti- ship missiles being fielded each year, both anti-torpedo and anti-torpedo missile defences have to have multiple defensive suites.
We immediately got into action, rigged the awning on the quarter deck, covered the hatches and spread 2 trucks full of sand over that. 
A makeshift tent with 3 partitions was also put up. All these arrangements were made the same day. 
