Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

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.
John
BRFite
Posts: 1792
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby John » 31 May 2018 22:23

chola wrote:John you are right and I confused the total cost of the P28 program for all four corvettes instead of one at $1B. Yeah, I might be even more confused and pessimistic by the cost inflation over the years and took the $1B figure in a lot of the wiki sites at face value.

Okay taking the 1700 crore figures, then the Gepard at $100M and even the Steregushchiy at a reported $130M are still less than half as expensive.

Those Gepard $$ i am guessing are from local builds? They were asking 170 million each from Vietnam in 2006 for exported model. If you adjust it for inflation and usual India price escalation along with Brahmos you are talking about well over 300 million each.

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2685
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby chola » 31 May 2018 22:41

^^^ As I said earlier, I think our corvette needs to be domestic and cheap enough that we can build in numbers and form a backbone for our ship-building industry. I thought the P28 is too expensive for that role. The Russian estimates are put up as a possible reason why the Navy would look at them.

So what is your opinion? The P28 won’t be cheap enough to take the role of the NOPV and if the Gepard or Steregushchiy aren’t either then they are totally redundant to domestic models and we should never consider them.

Maybe we needed the NOPV to be made in multiple yards.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 63107
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Singha » 31 May 2018 22:50

Why not build 20 saryu class with more weapons
These days good enough is better than perfect

Its long range diesel engines and size ensure good reach and staying power

All it needs is a few mods for humsa and towed sonar
6 uran missles in inclined tubes
A better air search radar
2 x ak630 guns
3 x lwt tubes on each beam with internal reload
1 seahawk heli

All of this is already cots and proven and can be done fast

Instead we will mess around for years tendering for some cheap but uber stealth elo corvette when we need boots on the ground / ships off every coast

Cheen is rolling out such ships like dosas off a hot plate

John
BRFite
Posts: 1792
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby John » 31 May 2018 22:55

chola wrote:^^^ As I said earlier, I think our corvette needs to be domestic and cheap enough that we can build in numbers and form a backbone for our ship-building industry. I thought the P28 is too expensive for that role. The Russian estimates are put up as a possible reason why the Navy would look at them.

So what is your opinion? The P28 won’t be cheap enough to take the role of the NOPV and if the Gepard or Steregushchiy aren’t either then they are totally redundant to domestic models and we should never consider them.

Maybe we needed the NOPV to be made in multiple yards.

Singha already replied below but navy needs to reduce it scope and rather than waste time and $$ coming with latest design with radar cross section reduction. Designs like Steregushchiy are overstuffed with features since russia cannot afford to larger FFG/DDG so have turned to Corvettes to fill that role.

Navy doesn't need, all we need is platform that can reliability carry Brahmos and has decent point defense system. So we need to crank out a cheap and reliable design like Saryu in large numbers.
Last edited by John on 31 May 2018 23:00, edited 1 time in total.

Kakarat
BRFite
Posts: 1410
Joined: 26 Jan 2005 13:59

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Kakarat » 31 May 2018 22:59

chola wrote:Maybe we needed the NOPV to be made in multiple yards.


If you are talking about Saryu-class then its design is owned by GSL and i doubt they will be happy to share it with competitors, but GSL can be asked to modify the superstructure and come up with a corvette design

But didn't the GoI issue a RFI in 2015-16 under Buy Indian and Make Indian category for Next Generation Missile Vessels in 2000-2,500 tonnes range? any idea what happened to it?

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2685
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby chola » 31 May 2018 23:20

Kakarat wrote:
chola wrote:Maybe we needed the NOPV to be made in multiple yards.


If you are talking about Saryu-class then its design is owned by GSL and i doubt they will be happy to share it with competitors, but GSL can be asked to modify the superstructure and come up with a corvette design

But didn't the GoI issue a RFI in 2015-16 under Buy Indian and Make Indian category for Next Generation Missile Vessels in 2000-2,500 tonnes range? any idea what happened to it?



No, Project 21 from Pipavav. It is supposed to be the followon to the Saryu. Smaller at 1500tons so less expensive. The NPA tag on Reliance and the yard had thrown the class into question. Same issue with ownership I guess. But multiple yards would mean the class won’t die if one yard bankrupts.

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2197
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Cybaru » 01 Jun 2018 04:12

Shipyards don't die, holding companies do. They trade hands and will be owned by someone else. The process is painful, but eventually it will produce products.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19592
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Philip » 01 Jun 2018 06:09

Yes, a few years ago we were discussing upgrading our OPVs, wasted opportunity, but their design is rather obsolete for a modern corvette or light FFG.The twin stacks prevent weaponry being located on the beams amidships , TTs and gatlings for instance, and finding space for SSMs too a problem.Even L&T's OPV has precious little space forward for anything but a peashooter!
We should've as said before, designed our OPVs for the role of a multi-role corvette/light FFG, but fitted with less eqpt. in peacetime like SSMs .Mine countermeasures and ASW TAS though std., as enemy subs will be our greatest threat.The cost factor is what has in my opinion limited their capability, as they have really been designed for " policing" duties not a "man-o'-war" or "ship of the line".

The Gepard is better shaped for stealth and is a very compact design like all Sov./ Ru vessels carrying a strong package of weaponry and sensors.

Kakarat
BRFite
Posts: 1410
Joined: 26 Jan 2005 13:59

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Kakarat » 01 Jun 2018 13:56

chola wrote:No, Project 21 from Pipavav. It is supposed to be the followon to the Saryu. Smaller at 1500tons so less expensive. The NPA tag on Reliance and the yard had thrown the class into question. Same issue with ownership I guess. But multiple yards would mean the class won’t die if one yard bankrupts.


Project 21 cannot be called a follow on or a successor design to Saryu because it was two tenders won by two different agencies and the ships have nothing in common. The Project 21 is a imported design while Saryu is a inhouse design of GSL. Smaller 1500 ton ship also means less capable than a 2000+ ton ship and the russian designs being compared are all 2000+ ton designs. The Project 21 ships were designed for Pipavav by a US company so how do you think Pipavav will share the design with competitors, except for Pipavav all other major yards have a inhouse design capability so why would they be interested in building others design. How do you think Project 21 is a better design when not even one ship is functional yet?

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2685
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby chola » 01 Jun 2018 16:49

Kakarat wrote:
chola wrote:No, Project 21 from Pipavav. It is supposed to be the followon to the Saryu. Smaller at 1500tons so less expensive. The NPA tag on Reliance and the yard had thrown the class into question. Same issue with ownership I guess. But multiple yards would mean the class won’t die if one yard bankrupts.


Project 21 cannot be called a follow on or a successor design to Saryu because it was two tenders won by two different agencies and the ships have nothing in common. The Project 21 is a imported design while Saryu is a inhouse design of GSL. Smaller 1500 ton ship also means less capable than a 2000+ ton ship and the russian designs being compared are all 2000+ ton designs. The Project 21 ships were designed for Pipavav by a US company so how do you think Pipavav will share the design with competitors, except for Pipavav all other major yards have a inhouse design capability so why would they be interested in building others design. How do you think Project 21 is a better design when not even one ship is functional yet?


Successor for the Navy doesn’t have to have anything to do with the predecessor. The Saryu ended at 6 vessels. The NOPV is the current corvette we are building. It is as simple as that.

No, I did not say the NOPV is a better design but that it is a successor which is smaller at 1500 tons approved by the MoD (and I assume the Navy too) meaning something less expensive which I hope we could make in numbers.

I also said that now with Pipavav in NPA maybe we should make far more than six Saryu. We can restart the class. The problem with our industry are these small batches from single yards even with small ships.

Look at what the chinis are doing with their 1500 ton corvette class the Type 056. Since 2012 they’ve built 40(!!) across at least four separate yards and with more coming. High volume makes the thing cheap with them exporting variants of it at $50M.

On paper that fvcking thing outguns the Saryu by a mile even though it is much smaller. The one big advantage to the Saryu is the hangar.

Saryu:
Displacement: 2230 tons
Speed: 25 knots
Armament:
1 × 76 mm/62 Oto Melara gun
2 × 30 mm/65 AK-630 CIWS
Aircraft carried:
1 × HAL Dhruv

Type 056:
Displacement: 1500 tons
Speed: 25 knots
Armament:
1 × AK-176 76 mm. gun
2 × 30 mm. cannon
2× 2-cell YJ-83 anti-ship missiles, amidships
1 × 8-cell FL-3000N SAM launcher
2 × triple 324 mm. torpedo tubes
Aviation facilities:
Helipad for 1 medium-lift helicopter

We need a design cheap enough that we can build in the same large numbers. Capability wise, it doesn’t need to be a frigate. OPV/Corvette are mainly littoral (and here too we’ve seen the 056 operating with their carrier out to the SCS and in the Western Pacific.)

Kakarat
BRFite
Posts: 1410
Joined: 26 Jan 2005 13:59

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Kakarat » 01 Jun 2018 17:22

Saryu was designed to be a Offshore Patrol Vessel as per Navy's request had a chance to visit this ship during the Defexpo 18 and its very spacious. yes you are right on the small order numbers but might be constrained by the budget. GSL had also displayed a 75mm ~1500 ton ship model since 2014 Defexpo armed with 8 asm, but there has not been any order for such vessels by the Navy.

Goa Shipyard unveils new OPV design for export at DEFEXPO 2014
Image

Anyways GoI issue a RFI in 2015-16 under Buy Indian and Make Indian category for Next Generation Missile Vessels in 2000-2,500 tonnes range but there has not been any news about it after that

Kakarat
BRFite
Posts: 1410
Joined: 26 Jan 2005 13:59

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Kakarat » 01 Jun 2018 23:15

Indian Navy issues RFIs for unmanned surface, underwater vessels

The Indian Navy has issued two separate requests for information (RFIs) for unmanned underwater and surface vessels.

The RFI for unmanned surface vessels (USVs) indicate a requirement for 12 vehicles with replaceable mission modules and a simulator that can assist in training for a variety of roles, including mine countermeasures (MCM) and anti-submarine warfare (ASW) missions. Each vehicle should be no longer than 12 m.

Meanwhile, the RFI for submerged systems calls for eight high endurance autonomous underwater vehicles (HEAUVs) of modular design with dedicated mission modules for operations that also include MCM, ASW, and oceanographic data collection, and one simulator.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19592
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Philip » 02 Jun 2018 10:34

The Goa design is an improvement but it has no anti-missile defences of note, no SAMs and partial ASW systems.The 8 SSMs would be better located amidships and the space vacated for SAMs.
Quite right about the Chin corvettes, meant to safeguard their large coastline and brown water territory.Endurance the limiting factor.

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2685
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby chola » 03 Jun 2018 15:43

Singha wrote:Why not build 20 saryu class with more weapons
These days good enough is better than perfect

Its long range diesel engines and size ensure good reach and staying power

All it needs is a few mods for humsa and towed sonar
6 uran missles in inclined tubes
A better air search radar
2 x ak630 guns
3 x lwt tubes on each beam with internal reload
1 seahawk heli

All of this is already cots and proven and can be done fast

Instead we will mess around for years tendering for some cheap but uber stealth elo corvette when we need boots on the ground / ships off every coast

Cheen is rolling out such ships like dosas off a hot plate


Yes, let’s revisit the Saryu. But 20 can only happen when break the small batch, single yard mold.

The design can be dusted off and built across shipyards. It makes no sense for a PSU yard to not be able to share its design. The key is GOI’s willingness to make this work across both PSU and private yards and of course GOI’s budget to make 20 at one go.

I would nix the Uran and AK630 unless they are easily available. Waiting around for phoren chit is a damn issue as well with half-finished hulls of everything from the P15B to the P28 to Vikrant clogging up the docks for years. These are OPV types that don’t need to be armed like frigates.

The reason the chinis can cook up ships like dosas is because of multiple yards making them concurrently and no wait for their weapons and subsystems to be fitted. Look at even their 13K ton Type 055, we’ve counted at least 6 being built right now all at the same time.

We can certainly do this for the 2K ton Saryu with all Indian systems. Nine at a time, three separate yards, two to three years each. We’ll get 20 in six to 9 years.

In the end, it comes down to organization and planning. I’ve said repeatedly a lot of sh1t we see which creates endless delays and backlog (like sitting around for YEARS waiting for components) would never past muster in the business world.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17467
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby chetak » 04 Jun 2018 00:51

An old article but still relevant.


Failure to Launch



Failure to Launch
by Angad Singh • August 23, 2017



Image

The Naval Light Combat Aircraft (N-LCA) | Photo: Angad Singh

The Indian Navy’s Hunt for a New Carrier Fighter Hits Rough Seas
Angad Singh explains why the Indian Navy faces difficulties as it begins its search for new carrier fighters.

At the annual Navy Day press conference, held on December 02, 2016, Chief of Naval Staff Admiral Sunil Lanba told media that the Indian Navy had elected not to field the naval variant of the Light Combat Aircraft (LCA), and would look abroad for new fighters. For the less well informed, this was a stunning volte-face from the Service that has unstintingly backed domestic procurement programmes and has contributed considerable funding to the development of an indigenous carrier fighter.

To the slightly more clued in, however, the announcement had been a long time coming. Navy officers – from operational naval aviators to flag officers – have privately expressed reservations about the Naval LCA for a long time.

The Trouble with the LCA

Image

The Naval Light Combat Aircraft (N-LCA) | | Photo: Angad Singh

The present N-LCA prototypes (the Navy never adopted the ‘Tejas’ moniker for their programme) use the same GE F404 afterburning turbofan engine as the IAF Tejas, but incorporate, among other modifications, a strengthened undercarriage and fuselage, tailhooks for carrier landings, leading-edge vortex controllers (LEVCONs) at the wing roots for additional lift and control authority at low speeds, and extensive usage of new corrosion-resistant materials for sea-based operation.

The LCA’s well-documented weight and power issues have only been magnified in maritime garb, where structural changes have added further weight penalties. Proposals to re-engine both variants of the LCA with higher-thrust GE F414 engines were put forward as early as 2007, but when the MoD doubled down on the F404-engined LCA Tejas Mk.1A for the IAF last year, all but abandoning the new engine programme (or at least pushing it back significantly), the Navy was forced to re-consider its own fighter plans. However, even as Admiral Lanba nixed the operational future of the N-LCA, he stressed that the service would continue to support the development of a home-grown carrier fighter as it evaluated foreign options.

Comments from senior flag officers after Admiral Lanba’s announcement indicate that apart from the usual credibility concerns regarding the ability of Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) and the DRDO’s Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA) being able to develop and deliver a fighter by the promised deadlines, the principal worry was that the over-weight and under-powered land-based LCA would take some serious fettling to safely fly from the unforgiving environs of a carrier flight deck. Poor ‘bolter’ (go-around, where the aircraft has to accelerate back into the air after missing all three wires on the carrier’s deck) performance at typical landing weights and speeds was repeatedly cited – although it should be noted that this has yet to be physically tested and is among the last (and most risky) test points in the flight envelope certification process.

Navy sources later indicated that the Service was hoping to acquire aircraft that would be able to operate off the STOBAR Project 71 Indigenous Aircraft Carrier (IAC-1, to be commissioned as INS Vikrant) under construction at Cochin Shipyard Limited (CSL), as well as the planned CATOBAR IAC-2 (which remains un-funded by the MoD). A month after the controversial announcement, even as furious debate raged over the decision to drop the N-LCA, the Navy issued a Request For Information (RFI) for 57 ‘Multi-Role Carrier Borne Fighters’ (MRCBF).

The RFI indicates that the MRCBF is to be day, night and all-weather capable, and will be employed for Air Defence (AD), Air-to-Surface Operations, Buddy Refuelling, Reconnaissance, and Electronic Warfare (EW). The document is generally exploratory in nature, seeking details of available fighters worldwide, in order to frame appropriate qualitative requirements to be issued with the eventual Request For Proposals (RFP). Crucially, the RFI also indicates that technology transfer and licence production of the fighters in India will be preferred, with aircraft deliveries expected to commence within three years of contract signature and be completed within a further three years (a rate of 19 deliveries per year).

Of the three in-production types likely to be offered, at least two (Boeing’s F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and Dassault’s Rafale) can meet this build rate. The maximum build rate at Russia’s RSK-MiG, which delivered 45 MiG-29K/KUBs to the Indian Navy at the rate of about six per year, remains unclear. In the days following the RFI, commentary in news media seemed to indicate that the Western fighters were front-runners for the MRCBF requirement.

Why MRCBF?
IAC-1 was designed to operate the MiG-29K and Naval LCA, yet the decision to evaluate a broad field for MRCBF instead of simply expanding the MiG-29K fleet to account for the lack of N-LCA of appears rooted in an unstated acceptance that the STOBAR MiG-29K, while certainly more potent than anything fielded before, is essentially a technological cul-de-sac. Acquiring more such aircraft, with 25-year/6,000-hour service lives for carriers projected to enter service from the mid-2020s onward is seen as a retrograde step when more capable (or at least CATOBAR-compatible, and therefore ‘future proof’) aircraft could be sought instead. In addition, it is understood through Government audit reports that the MiG-29K is far from a trouble-free asset, suffering from significant structural and reliability issues. Having essentially financed the development of the modern-spec MiG-29K and now stuck ironing out the in-service kinks, the Indian Navy is simply reluctant to acquire more Fulcrums with the same problems as opposed to more capable and reliable fighters.

It is for this reason that the MRCBF RFI specifically demands information regarding the ability of any proposed aircraft to operate off the STOBAR IAC-1 (Vikrant) with its ski-jump and Svetlana arresting system, as well as the planned CATOBAR IAC-2 which could use C-13 series steam catapults or electro-magnetic catapults (EMALS) for launch and Mark 7 Mod3 or Advanced Arresting Gear (AAG) for recovery. Without explicitly spelling it out, MRCBF is a programme intended to account for the removal of the N-LCA from the Navy’s plans in the near term, and supplant the MiG-29K in the longer term.

The Contenders

Image

A U.S. Navy Boeing F/A-18F Super Hornet on board the USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN-71) during Exercise Malabar in October 2015 | Photo: Angad Singh

Boeing’s Super Hornet has been in contention as an Indian Navy carrier fighter for the better part of a decade. The fighter was briefly considered for the INS Vikramaditya in the late 2000s, with Boeing even going to the trouble of simulating ski-jump take-offs, discovering “that not only could the Super Hornet take-off from a ski-jump, but could do so with a significant weapons load.” Landing was not expected to be a problem since the Proletarsky Zavod ‘Svetlana’ three-wire aircraft arresting complex on Vikramaditya (also installed on IAC-1) is configured to halt aircraft at up to 20 tonne landing weights and typical carrier approach speeds with maximum deceleration forces not exceeding 5g, broadly similar to American arresting systems to which the Super Hornet is certified. The most mature carrier fighter in contention for the MRCBF requirement, the Super Hornet also has an edge when it comes to armament, and is certified to employ the widest range of air-to-air, air-to-ground and anti-ship weapons.

Dassault have also run STOBAR simulations with the Rafale M, albeit revealing far fewer details regarding the results than Boeing. On the weapons front, the Rafale will have MBDA’s Meteor BVRAAM integrated at time of delivery, giving it a significant boost in the air-to-air stakes, even if the type does not boast the wide variety of guided and unguided weapons that the Super Hornet can show-off. Importantly, for a carrier fighter operating with limited organic tanking support, the Rafale has significantly greater range and endurance than the Super Hornet, an advantage that is extended with more stores mounted, since the Super Hornet’s canted pylons dramatically increase aerodynamic drag in flight.

Image

An Indian Navy MiG-29K | Photo: Angad Singh

The MiG-29K, though not favoured by Navy for this round, is probably the easiest pick on technical grounds. It is by now a familiar asset, warts and all, and is a drop fit on IAC-1, that carrier having been designed to host the Fulcrum from the outset. However, it lacks the electronically-scanned radars (AESAs) of the two Western fighters, and further development of the type is far from assured given the parlous state of Russian carrier aviation and the aerospace industry as a whole.

Saab has offered the Gripen Maritime (formerly the Sea Gripen), based on its new Gripen E shore-based fighter, and would likely offer a broadly similar weapons package and kinematic performance. Since the proposal is still on the drawing board, however, it is impossible to guess at much more detail.

The Navy has no easy options. Beyond the Navy’s reluctance to acquire more MiG-29Ks, the type faces a significant hurdle if the Navy elects to firm up around CATOBAR-compatibility so that the MRCBF can operate not just from IAC-1, but also future Indian carriers. It is not feasible for RSK-MiG to offer CATOBAR certification with any catapult-launch system under consideration given the military sanctions that would preclude any co-operation between US catapult makers and the Russian military industry.

The Super Hornet will be EMALS/AAG certified from the outset, as well as compatible with legacy launch/recovery systems, but will require a full round of certification for STOBAR operations, given that it is intended, at least initially, to operate solely from a STOBAR carrier. The Rafale M would similarly need to be fully STOBAR certified, but would need a second round of trials with EMALS/AAG should the Indian Navy select those systems for IAC-2, which would add to the Navy’s cost burden either up-front or further down the road (depending on when they elect to carry out the certification).

The Show Stopper

Image

INS Vikramaditya at the International Fleet Review off the coast of Visakhapatnam in February 2016 | Photo: Saurabh Joshi/StratPost

Despite recent reports that the two Western MRCBF competitors could operate from INS Vikramaditya in addition to the Indian Navy’s future carriers, this is simply not possible. The converted Soviet-era ‘aircraft carrying cruiser’ has two aircraft elevators that are located within the flight deck, instead of on the deck-edges, and both are too small to accommodate either the Super Hornet or the Rafale. The larger forward lift, beside the carrier’s superstructure, is 18.8 x 9.9 metres, while the Super Hornet’s wings fold to just under 10 metres and the Rafale’s wings, slightly less than 11 metres wide, do not fold at all. The aft lift is narrower, with an 8.6-metre width that is barely able to fit the MiG-29K’s 7.5-metre folded span. The Naval LCA, with a wingspan of a little over eight metres, would certainly have fit the forward lift if not the aft one – the Navy prefers for aircraft carrier elevators to be sufficiently larger than the aircraft they will carry for ease of aircraft handling and movement.

The real ‘show stopper’ for the entire MRCBF requirement, however, is the configuration of IAC-1. Unlike Vikramaditya, and like most contemporary carriers, the aircraft lifts on IAC-1 are positioned on the starboard edge of the deck allowing longer aircraft to ‘hang out’ over the water with only their landing gear on the platform. But because the carrier was designed around an air wing of MiG-29Ks and Naval LCAs, the lifts were sized for wingspans no larger than eight metres. 10 x 14 metres, to be precise. While MiG-29Ks and N-LCAs can fit on these lifts with parts of their noses or empennages hanging over the edges, the Super Hornet and Rafale once again cannot.

Both Boeing and Dassault are apparently working on solutions to allow their aircraft to fit the lifts. Sources close to the programme said that Boeing is considering a system that would allow the Super Horner to sit canted on the lift, the tilt of the (folded) wings thereby resulting in a slightly shorter overall span measured parallel to the deck. With its fixed wings, the Rafale cannot offer such a solution, and Dassault is understood to be exploring a detachable wingtip, although this involves greater engineering and certification challenges.

Whatever the final form of the eventual MRCBF RFP, and whatever the proposals that arrive in response, it is clear now that the process for procuring the Navy’s next carrier fighter will be far from straightforward. None of the aircraft on offer can be operated by the Indian Navy without significant expenses for non-recurring engineering, modification and certification that will have to be amortised over a relatively small 57-aircraft requirement. This will drive the cost of the overall programme up, and certainly make induction of new aircraft in time to fly off IAC-1 in 2023 all but impossible. If the Navy elects to modify the deck-edge lifts on IAC-1, which is certainly within the realm of possibility, it could push the carrier programme back enough to allow it to sync up with likely MRCBF procurement time lines, but further postponements in commissioning and operationalising the already-delayed carrier are not likely to go down well with the MoD and broader national leadership

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2685
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby chola » 04 Jun 2018 02:58

^^^ We had long and bloody discussion over this for the past year.

Everything boils down to this:
The real ‘show stopper’ for the entire MRCBF requirement, however, is the configuration of IAC-1. Unlike Vikramaditya, and like most contemporary carriers, the aircraft lifts on IAC-1 are positioned on the starboard edge of the deck allowing longer aircraft to ‘hang out’ over the water with only their landing gear on the platform. But because the carrier was designed around an air wing of MiG-29Ks and Naval LCAs, the lifts were sized for wingspans no larger than eight metres. 10 x 14 metres, to be precise. While MiG-29Ks and N-LCAs can fit on these lifts with parts of their noses or empennages hanging over the edges, the Super Hornet and Rafale once again cannot.


How could we have designed something that would limit us to the MiG-29 on a vessel expected to serve a half century?

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5703
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Rakesh » 04 Jun 2018 03:14

Rakesh wrote:https://twitter.com/indiandefence11/status/1000720677471567872 ---> Two Indian navy Shishumar Class diesel electric attack submarines and a Sindhughosh Class submarine as seen from a HENSOLDT OMS 110 Digital Periscope of INS Shankul (Shishumar Class).

HENSOLDT OMS 110 Digital Periscope ---> https://www.hensoldt.net/solutions/sea/ ... s/oms-110/

https://twitter.com/indiandefence11/sta ... 2702746624 ---> Indian Navy Commander looking through a HENSOLDT SERO 400 periscope on a Shishumar-class submarine. Indian Navy procured OMS-100/110 optronic mast and the SERO-400 direct view periscope for its Shishumar-class through a mid-life refit.

Image


kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2643
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby kit » 04 Jun 2018 11:22

chola wrote:^^^ We had long and bloody discussion over this for the past year.

Everything boils down to this:
The real ‘show stopper’ for the entire MRCBF requirement, however, is the configuration of IAC-1. Unlike Vikramaditya, and like most contemporary carriers, the aircraft lifts on IAC-1 are positioned on the starboard edge of the deck allowing longer aircraft to ‘hang out’ over the water with only their landing gear on the platform. But because the carrier was designed around an air wing of MiG-29Ks and Naval LCAs, the lifts were sized for wingspans no larger than eight metres. 10 x 14 metres, to be precise. While MiG-29Ks and N-LCAs can fit on these lifts with parts of their noses or empennages hanging over the edges, the Super Hornet and Rafale once again cannot.


How could we have designed something that would limit us to the MiG-29 on a vessel expected to serve a half century?


That's tactical planning

Not strategic that needs out of the box thinking

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2685
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby chola » 04 Jun 2018 13:13

kit wrote:
chola wrote:^^^ We had long and bloody discussion over this for the past year.

Everything boils down to this:


How could we have designed something that would limit us to the MiG-29 on a vessel expected to serve a half century?


That's tactical planning

Not strategic that needs out of the box thinking


The problem is it wasn’t out of the box thinking because all modern carrier designs included oversized lifts for ease of handling and potential increase in size of future aircraft. In my view, making the lifts fit only one of today’s carrier AC takes a deliberate decision to limit the Vikrant choices. I wonder who made the decision. The Russians or our babus.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17467
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby chetak » 04 Jun 2018 16:13

kit wrote:
chola wrote:^^^ We had long and bloody discussion over this for the past year.

Everything boils down to this:


How could we have designed something that would limit us to the MiG-29 on a vessel expected to serve a half century?


That's tactical planning

Not strategic that needs out of the box thinking


Didn't the lifts come from russia??

They did not agree to give us anything else, IIRC.

I could be wrong.

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2643
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby kit » 04 Jun 2018 16:34

chetak wrote:
kit wrote:
That's tactical planning

Not strategic that needs out of the box thinking


Didn't the lifts come from russia??

They did not agree to give us anything else, IIRC.

I could be wrong.


cutting the body to fit the shirt !! :roll:

vonkabra
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 56
Joined: 09 Oct 2003 11:31

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby vonkabra » 04 Jun 2018 16:42

Philip wrote:The Goa design is an improvement but it has no anti-missile defences of note, no SAMs and partial ASW systems.The 8 SSMs would be better located amidships and the space vacated for SAMs.


Whatever happened to the NGMV corvette program?

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17467
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby chetak » 04 Jun 2018 16:47

kit wrote:
chetak wrote:
Didn't the lifts come from russia??

They did not agree to give us anything else, IIRC.

I could be wrong.


cutting the body to fit the shirt !! :roll:


If such were actually the case, why did we agree to buy??

Nobody else was willing to supply without onerous pre-conditions??

Japan has a history of carrier design. Those companies are still around. Maybe we could have worked out some sort of a deal. We certainly have enough leverage on them.

John
BRFite
Posts: 1792
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby John » 04 Jun 2018 16:55

Philip wrote:The Goa design is an improvement but it has no anti-missile defences of note, no SAMs and partial ASW systems.The 8 SSMs would be better located amidships and the space vacated for SAMs.
Quite right about the Chin corvettes, meant to safeguard their large coastline and brown water territory.Endurance the limiting factor.

It mentions the design can be tweaked but based on user needs. You can remove the ak-630 for qrsam/barak SAM. Most importantly the mast can mount 3d-CAR radar which should be sufficient for either systems.

Not point in speculating Navy NGMV calls for 35 knots and 2000+ ton displacement which rules out this design.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19592
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Philip » 04 Jun 2018 19:07

30 kts adequate for a missile corvette with a few extra kts. at full speed.The old " R" class DDs of the original destroyer sqd. were capable of 37+ kts. The Petyas too could do the same and the Tarantula missile corvettes in the mid 30s.

The problem with our PVP designs are the twin-stack arrangement, preventing any weaponry on the beams, where aft on either side of the helo hangar and it's helo deck, gatlings, SR SAMs, or a gun/ missile BPDMS like the Kashtan follow on systems can be installed.This also allows space for at least 2 twin-tube torpedo launchers.Amidships 2 quad pack SSMs and forward a main gun, VLS silos for the preferred location for SR SAMs ,plus an MBU forward of the main gun would give a good all round package for the vessel. This is doable in around 2000+t looking at the Gepard design which is quite compact and stealthy.

As was done with the Krivaks, using a very good hull with radical design top sides, a similar proven hull design could be suitably used to accommodate our weaponry and sensor needs.At least 12 , preferably 16 such corvettes/ light FFGs must be built, say 4 at 3 yards simultaneously , if the Gepard is acquired, then an initial batch of say 3 from the OEM and 9+ built at home.As mentioned earlier, China is building around 40 corvettes for its brown water tasks at record speed.

Another news item says that yet another Kilo is shortly to be floated out in an Ru yard after its second refit/ upgrade.There was a good pic in one report showing the screw, attenuater strakes and silver anodes. 6 of the 9 left
have been upgraded and I ghink that the last two which were acquired came with their Klub capability .A great pity about the SR though.

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2685
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby chola » 04 Jun 2018 19:35

chetak wrote:
kit wrote:
cutting the body to fit the shirt !! :roll:


If such were actually the case, why did we agree to buy??

Nobody else was willing to supply without onerous pre-conditions??

Japan has a history of carrier design. Those companies are still around. Maybe we could have worked out some sort of a deal. We certainly have enough leverage on them.


What? The lifts needed to be imported? I can see the gears and winching systems being bought overseas but the platform which must be different from one ship to another? That doesn’t make any sense to me.

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2685
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby chola » 04 Jun 2018 19:42

Filipov, corvettes are “green” water meaning littoral or coastal.

Ze “brown” water which means rivers, basins and estuarine mouths.

Blue water we all know to be open ocean vessels.

The Saryu and Type 056 are green water vessels not brown, Comrade.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19592
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Philip » 04 Jun 2018 20:03

Sorry for ze error.I was mentally thinking of our ASW inshore corvettes planned.Ze brown water wonders!
However, we've taken our Khukri/ Koras all over the place, esp. to sev.ASEAN nations in the company of larger warships.A larger 2000t light frigate/ corvette would certainly be able to do the same.Not fully "yes, but " blue-green" or "turquoise" perhaps? :rotfl:

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2506
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby tsarkar » 04 Jun 2018 21:01

chola wrote:Filipov, corvettes are “green” water meaning littoral or coastal.

Ze “brown” water which means rivers, basins and estuarine mouths.

Blue water we all know to be open ocean vessels.

The Saryu and Type 056 are green water vessels not brown, Comrade.

Arent the waters of the Indian Ocean or Atlantic green? :D

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2506
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby tsarkar » 04 Jun 2018 21:10

Aircraft Carrier Elevators can always be custom built. MacTaggart Scott built the old INS Vikrant elevators and more recently supplied for HMS Queen Elizabeth carriers.

http://www.mactag.com/86_DefenceProducts.html

http://www.mactag.com/cms/files/sdi_case_study.pdf

One recent major contract was the £13million job designing and developing aircraft elevators for the new Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers. There are two per ship, and each one can lift two aeroplanes at a time – a total moving load of about 230 tonnes – making them the largest aircraft elevators in the world.


They have supplied steam catapults for INS Vikrant, Beartrap/RAST, helicopter hanger doors, active fin stabilizers, towed array bodies and other heavy duty stuff as well.

They participated in Defexpo 2018 as well http://www.mactag.com/news/Def-Expo-2018_88.html

It was just a moment of Bhai Bhai and urgency after Kargil that we went to Russia to design the aviation complex of new INS Vikrant.

Redesigning the elevators is no big deal. Old carriers moving from piston engined aircraft to larger jets changed elevators all the time.

13 mil GBP is 116 Cr in today's date. Just worth 1-2 fighters.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21909
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Austin » 04 Jun 2018 23:09

As China tensions abate, Indian navy reduces participation in US-Japan-India exercise Malabar

http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2018/06/ ... -navy.html

Kakarat
BRFite
Posts: 1410
Joined: 26 Jan 2005 13:59

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Kakarat » 05 Jun 2018 00:53

Austin wrote:As China tensions abate, Indian navy reduces participation in US-Japan-India exercise Malabar

http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2018/06/ ... -navy.html


The article also has a table on no of participating ships in last 5 years and India has always participated with only 3 or 4 ships except for 2017 when it was held in Bay of Bengal India's backyard, So where is the question of reduced participation?

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19592
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Philip » 06 Jun 2018 11:26

Budgetary constraints too.

jaysimha
BRFite
Posts: 645
Joined: 20 Dec 2017 14:30

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby jaysimha » 06 Jun 2018 11:55

https://www.indiannavy.nic.in/sites/default/files/tender_document/EOIRST%20RFI.pdf
Ministry of defence (Navy)
Request for Information (RFI) for procurement of
Electro optical Infra-RED search and track system (EOIRST)

jaysimha
BRFite
Posts: 645
Joined: 20 Dec 2017 14:30

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby jaysimha » 06 Jun 2018 11:57

https://www.indiannavy.nic.in/sites/default/files/tender_document/RFI%20FOR%20HEAUV-001.pdf
request for information (RFI) for procurement of
high endurance autonomous underwater vehicle

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3493
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby JayS » 06 Jun 2018 12:17

Underwater unmanned autonomous thinggy was under development in DRDO Naval lab. I had heard about it like 3yrs ago. They were doing some tests that time. Bove RFI looks related. Any uodated info on desi option for above RFI..? Or its gonna be another import..?

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2643
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby kit » 06 Jun 2018 14:00

Austin wrote:As China tensions abate, Indian navy reduces participation in US-Japan-India exercise Malabar

http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2018/06/ ... -navy.html


Probably the realisation that the US is not a reliable partner.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17467
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby chetak » 06 Jun 2018 14:02

tsarkar wrote:Aircraft Carrier Elevators can always be custom built. MacTaggart Scott built the old INS Vikrant elevators and more recently supplied for HMS Queen Elizabeth carriers.

http://www.mactag.com/86_DefenceProducts.html

http://www.mactag.com/cms/files/sdi_case_study.pdf

One recent major contract was the £13million job designing and developing aircraft elevators for the new Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers. There are two per ship, and each one can lift two aeroplanes at a time – a total moving load of about 230 tonnes – making them the largest aircraft elevators in the world.


They have supplied steam catapults for INS Vikrant, Beartrap/RAST, helicopter hanger doors, active fin stabilizers, towed array bodies and other heavy duty stuff as well.

They participated in Defexpo 2018 as well http://www.mactag.com/news/Def-Expo-2018_88.html

It was just a moment of Bhai Bhai and urgency after Kargil that we went to Russia to design the aviation complex of new INS Vikrant.

Redesigning the elevators is no big deal. Old carriers moving from piston engined aircraft to larger jets changed elevators all the time.

13 mil GBP is 116 Cr in today's date. Just worth 1-2 fighters.


sirji,

The RAST came to us from DAF canada.

Fitted first on Taragiri, IIRC.

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2506
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby tsarkar » 07 Jun 2018 00:09

^^ Indeed Sir!

Kavach Chaff launchers onboard INS Kulish
Image

And a beautiful photo of a partnership before CAATSA
Image


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests