Bharat Rakshak Forum Announcement

Hello Everyone,

A warm welcome back to the Bharat Rakshak Forum.

Important Notice: Due to a corruption in the BR forum database we regret to announce that data records relating to some of our registered users have been lost. We estimate approx. 500 user details are deleted.

To ease the process of recreating the user IDs we request members that have previously posted on the BR forums to recognise and identify their posts, once the posts are identified please contact the BRF moderator team by emailing BRF Mod Team with your post details.

The mod team will be able to update your username, email etc. so that the user history can be maintained.

Unfortunately for members that have never posted or have had all their posts deleted i.e. users that have 0 posts, we will be unable to recreate your account hence we request that you re-register again.

We apologise for any inconvenience caused and thank you for your understanding.

Regards,
Seetal

Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

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.
Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5052
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Viv S » 17 Aug 2017 02:01

negi wrote:Americans could not install the EMALs on Nimitz class that is powered by two A4W reactors which have a capacity of about 550 MW each ; the G Ford class which has the EMALs has new reactors supposedly with much higher power output . To get sense of relative size Charles de gaulle has two reactors of 150 MW each , I wonder what kind of power source we have in mind for IAC-II and more importantly the form factor to be able to provide both propulsion and power to the EMALs , things do not add up for me.

A catapult expends ~70MJ to launch a near MTOW Super Hornet. Cycle time is between 45 secs (peak) and 90 secs (average). To recharge the reservoir would require 1.5 MW per catapult at peak frequency (plus losses).

The reported average power requirement for the EMALS is 6.35 MVA.

The installed power capacity on the Nimitz is well well in excess of what the EMALS requires. The electricity generation and transmission equipment however, could be of an older vintage. No to mention the economics of ripping out the steam equipment from deep in the hull (generated at the reactor) and installing a new system.

Also worth noting - before reverting to the STOVL configuration for the QE (because construction had already commenced based on fixed-price contracts), the UK MoD had placed a DSCA request for the EMALS, while in parallel pursuing the Converteam EMCAT option.

ManuJ
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 258
Joined: 20 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby ManuJ » 17 Aug 2017 03:08

Indranil wrote:Vina,

I remember Dr. Saraswat lambasting the strawman argument that LCA's wing cannot fold (at the moment). But I don't remember the height issue. Mig-29k and NLCA have the same height.

I hope IN sticks with LCA Navy Mk2.
...

The only reasons for not going with LCA that the IN Chief provides have to do with the powerplant and power-to-weight ratio.
Interesting, since I had thought MK2 would have taken care of those issues?
What the Navy wants is a deck-based fighter, but the LCA Navy Mk 1 doesn’t meet that requirement. Its power-to-weight ratio, the thrust the engine generates [are insufficient] and it’s underpowered for the airframe. Unfortunately, even the Mk2 variant doesn’t qualify.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5741
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Indranil » 17 Aug 2017 05:19

I don't understand either.

Because if its ski-launched, even the Rafale and F-18 will suck. If it is CAT-launched, the TWR doesn't matter for launch weight.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2758
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Cain Marko » 17 Aug 2017 07:19

An 8 ton fighter (at the very least) loaded with 3.5 tons fuel @ 10 ton max thrust will not have a very promising TWR - the IN decision reflects this.....
Both the Rafale and the Shornet will have a better TWR. WHat's so hard to understand?

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 60360
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: Lupine but moderately dharmic

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Singha » 17 Aug 2017 08:10

informative article on coastal surveillance grid
http://www.delhidefencereview.com/2017/ ... o-be-done/

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19751
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Austin » 17 Aug 2017 11:04

Indian Navy goes hunting for heavyweight torpedoes for submarines, approaches global companies
The Indian Navy has approached a select few global manufacturers to buy heavyweight torpedoes for submarines. Heavyweight torpedoes are critical for submarines and the Indian Navy has an acute shortage of these torpedoes.

India will be getting its Kalvari Class submarines - conventional diesel- electric boats made by DCNS of France - soon after a gap of three decades. These submarines, however, won't have any heavyweight torpedoes. Without the heavyweight torpedoes, the new submarines will be almost "toothless." The next of the Kalvari class - INS Khanderi - is expected to join the Indian Navy by end 2017.

This May, India cancelled its previous contract to buy 98 Black Shark heavyweight torpedoes at an estimated cost of $200 million. The manufactures of the torpedo - Whitehead Alenia Systemi Subacquei (WASS) - is a subsidiary of Italian arms manufacturer Finmeccanica.

The Italian arms manufacturing giant was blacklisted after it was alleged that another subsidiary of the company - AgustaWestland - had paid bribes to secure a contract to sell 12 medium lift helicopters to India.

Sources told India Today, that the select foreign manufacturers will have to choose their Indian partners and that torpedoes will be manufactured using the Strategic-Partnership (SP) route.

The Modi-led NDA government is keen to reduce India's dependence on foreign equipment manufactures. It has opened up defence manufacturing to Indian private sector.

The SP route envisages that the Indian private companies will tie-up foreign manufactures to get technology and in return the government will assure orders and allow exports as well.

vina
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6018
Joined: 11 May 2005 06:56
Location: Doing Nijikaran, Udharikaran and Baazarikaran to Commies and Assorted Leftists

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby vina » 17 Aug 2017 11:13

Indranil wrote:Vina,

I remember Dr. Saraswat lambasting the strawman argument that LCA's wing cannot fold (at the moment). But I don't remember the height issue. Mig-29k and NLCA have the same height. .


He was talking about the tail not the wing.

negi
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 12905
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Trying to mellow down :)

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby negi » 17 Aug 2017 11:20

Viv S wrote:A catapult expends ~70MJ to launch a near MTOW Super Hornet. Cycle time is between 45 secs (peak) and 90 secs (average). To recharge the reservoir would require 1.5 MW per catapult at peak frequency (plus losses).

The reported average power requirement for the EMALS is 6.35 MVA.

The installed power capacity on the Nimitz is well well in excess of what the EMALS requires. The electricity generation and transmission equipment however, could be of an older vintage. No to mention the economics of ripping out the steam equipment from deep in the hull (generated at the reactor) and installing a new system.

Also worth noting - before reverting to the STOVL configuration for the QE (because construction had already commenced based on fixed-price contracts), the UK MoD had placed a DSCA request for the EMALS, while in parallel pursuing the Converteam EMCAT option.

My comment was based upon

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electroma ... nch_System

A proposal to retrofit it into Nimitz-class carriers was scuttled. John Schank said, "The biggest problems facing the Nimitz class are the limited electrical power generation capability and the upgrade-driven increase in ship weight and erosion of the center-of-gravity margin needed to maintain ship stability." [43]
See also[edit]

QE story is well known however the point remains valid our carrier is a lot smaller our issue is first to find a nuclear reactor for it then see how much excess installed capacity it has for a catapult and other such fancy items, system working on G ford has luxury of large real estate , unless we move to higher tonnage we will be hard pressed to fit everything into a small carrier a la LCA.

vina
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6018
Joined: 11 May 2005 06:56
Location: Doing Nijikaran, Udharikaran and Baazarikaran to Commies and Assorted Leftists

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby vina » 17 Aug 2017 11:22


Yawn.. Another "Kalidasa Manoeuvre" (i.e. chopping the very branch one is sitting on), this time by the Modi Govt.
Face it. There are only 3 who make these kind of things . Not sure of the Atlas Electronik HWT will fit with the combat systems of the Scorpene.All this tech transfer is nonsense. How many torpedoes is the IN going to buy ? A hundred in total ? And remember the HDW is the one of the sticks (the Bofors was the other) the BJP used to beat Rajiv Gandhi with. And now they will go crawling on their knees to the Germans for torpedoes. How do you know that he Germans are NOT going to pass on the classified info that you need to share with them to others (think South Africa again for instance) ?

You can't even standardise on tube diameter. One set of boats has the Russian standard, the other the western ! Talk about more "Kalidasa Manoeuvres". The DRDO thermal torpedoes are probably Russian tube dia specs. Same for the Arihant etc. You can't even develop a common torpedo given this mish mash.

The Navy of course couldnt go to the Frenchies and tell them that they want Russian sized tubes in the Scorpene. For all else they want "customisation" , i.e. mish mash of incompatible eastern and western stuff "integrated" after back braking work. But no.. You can't even get a common standard across your sub and surface fleet, so that you can have economies of scale and actually make /buy the torpedoes in numbers and have a viable industry.

Sigh..

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19751
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Austin » 17 Aug 2017 11:32

vina wrote:Yawn.. Another "Kalidasa Manoeuvre" (i.e. chopping the very branch one is sitting on), this time by the Modi Govt.
Face it. There are only 3 who make these kind of things . Not sure of the Atlas Electronik HWT will fit with the combat systems of the Scorpene.All this tech transfer is nonsense. How many torpedoes is the IN going to buy ? A hundred in total ? And remember the HDW is the one of the sticks (the Bofors was the other) the BJP used to beat Rajiv Gandhi with. And now they will go crawling on their knees to the Germans for torpedoes. How do you know that he Germans are NOT going to pass on the classified info that you need to share with them to others (think South Africa again for instance) ?


Agree all this tech transfer is non-sense , Torpedo are highly guarded secret that no one will share even if we buy 1000 of those , Most likely it would be Pvt companies that would assemble and maintain these torpedoes
You can't even standardise on tube diameter. One set of boats has the Russian standard, the other the western ! Talk about more "Kalidasa Manoeuvres". The DRDO thermal torpedoes are probably Russian tube dia specs. Same for the Arihant etc. You can't even develop a common torpedo given this mish mash.


You have just 533 mm TT those are standards be it Russian or Westen ...that is not an issue at all. 650 mm torpodoes are not used any ways
The Navy of course couldnt go to the Frenchies and tell them that they want Russian sized tubes in the Scorpene. For all else they want "customisation" , i.e. mish mash of incompatible eastern and western stuff "integrated" after back braking work. But no.. You can't even get a common standard across your sub and surface fleet, so that you can have economies of scale and actually make /buy the torpedoes in numbers and have a viable industry.


There are no Russian sized torpedoes its standard 533 mm TT that can fit Russian Western or Indian one dont need any customisation.

But integrating even Western Torpedoes other than Black Shark will be a pain be it German or other .....IN will have to pay for evaluation and integration of these weapons.

They should just buy Black Shark torpedoes to get this over quickly and remove any hindrance

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 60360
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: Lupine but moderately dharmic

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Singha » 17 Aug 2017 11:40

i think TT dia in IN is all 21" but problem is interface to fire control systems incl the trailing wire and the length of the HWT which vary between western and eastern. the handling eqpt which moves the fish from the racks into the tube may need modding.

i assume one the fish swim out, a part of it gets left behind in the tube and is one end of the trailing wire which unrolls from the HWT. the TT door also has to remain open. when they shout 'cut the wire' after HWT goes active, I guess this leftover bit which interfaces with the sub FCS to pass commands to the fish is ejected by compressed air from the TT and the door is closed.

i have never seen a video explaining this.

negi
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 12905
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Trying to mellow down :)

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby negi » 17 Aug 2017 13:32

Anyone who imports this kind of stuff will never have the 'time' and 'luxury' to think about standardization and logistics . That can only happen when we take the matter in our own hands induct our own torpedo , remember best way to ensure failure is to aspire for Blackshark performance with your first torpedo we should aim for 1960s-70s performance make it easy to fabricate , highly safe and stable to handle with OK performance . Use it for 2-5 years get 'confidence' iterate and build better version within 2-3 years repeat the process. Chipanda does that by copying things literally to the bone should we do the same ? I don't know .

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15849
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby chetak » 17 Aug 2017 13:40

vina wrote:
Indranil wrote:Vina,

I remember Dr. Saraswat lambasting the strawman argument that LCA's wing cannot fold (at the moment). But I don't remember the height issue. Mig-29k and NLCA have the same height. .


He was talking about the tail not the wing.


as you grow older, it's the tail that becomes more interesting, no?? :wink:

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5052
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Viv S » 17 Aug 2017 14:21

negi wrote:My comment was based upon

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electroma ... nch_System

A proposal to retrofit it into Nimitz-class carriers was scuttled. John Schank said, "The biggest problems facing the Nimitz class are the limited electrical power generation capability and the upgrade-driven increase in ship weight and erosion of the center-of-gravity margin needed to maintain ship stability." [43]
See also[edit]

EMALS was not a design consideration when the Nimitz design was originally conceived. So ship's reactor may be in a position to deliver additional shaft power the electrical power generated would likely to be capped by the capacity of the alternators and the electrical grid.

The Nimitz's catapults are propelled by steam from the reactor heat - you cannot transfer that energy to the EMALS which is designed for electrical power only. The weight distribution will be a problem as well - the EMALS is considerably smaller and lighter than the steam assembly.

None of this should be an issue for a clean sheet design - where these considerations have been factored at inception.

QE story is well known however the point remains valid our carrier is a lot smaller our issue is first to find a nuclear reactor for it then see how much excess installed capacity it has for a catapult and other such fancy items, system working on G ford has luxury of large real estate , unless we move to higher tonnage we will be hard pressed to fit everything into a small carrier a la LCA.

A nuclear reactor while a viable option is not a prerequisite for a CATOBAR carrier. The IAC-2 will be almost the same size as the QE per all public information. Perhaps slightly smaller but given that the design is far from finalized, it may even end up being larger than the QE.

negi
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 12905
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Trying to mellow down :)

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby negi » 17 Aug 2017 14:58

^ QE's powerplants are more or less bespoke right only other sister ship will have same config ? If we go down that route we will end up importing more . I would have guessed that whatever powers the Arihant should be juiced up I mean after-all nuclear plant inside a cramped sub under water should be a far more harder feat to achieve than making a reactor where real estate and operating conditions are much more forgiving . It is the power output which is going to be the key here. As per open source Arihant reactor gives out 80MW of power whereas if we compare with medium carrier like CDG it has two reactors of 150 MW each . So things will have to go to drawing board for using N power for IAC-II.

Zynda
BRFite
Posts: 1280
Joined: 07 Jan 2006 00:37
Location: J4

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Zynda » 17 Aug 2017 15:15

Wiki says Varunastra HWT is inducted in to service...currently I think it is ship launched. DRDO was supposed to conduct trails of sub launched Varunastra variant from Kilos. Any word on the performance of our HWTs?

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5052
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Viv S » 17 Aug 2017 16:05

negi wrote:^ QE's powerplants are more or less bespoke right only other sister ship will have same config ? If we go down that route we will end up importing more .

The QEs use Rolls Royce & Converteam systems because they're domestic companies for them. We'll obviously be using LM2500 series engines and an appropriate transmission/alternator solution. Doesn't have to be an all-electric setup like the QE.

I would have guessed that whatever powers the Arihant should be juiced up I mean after-all nuclear plant inside a cramped sub under water should be a far more harder feat to achieve than making a reactor where real estate and operating conditions are much more forgiving . It is the power output which is going to be the key here. As per open source Arihant reactor gives out 80MW of power whereas if we compare with medium carrier like CDG it has two reactors of 150 MW each . So things will have to go to drawing board for using N power for IAC-II.

The CdG's K15 reactors were adopted from the 14,500 ton Triomphant class SSBNs (the Arihant is maybe 6,500 tons).

The reactors may be rated for 150 MW but what they actually drive are a pair of 30 MW Alstom turbines.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5052
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Viv S » 17 Aug 2017 16:14

vina wrote:Face it. There are only 3 who make these kind of things . Not sure of the Atlas Electronik HWT will fit with the combat systems of the Scorpene.

The Kalvari is currently armed with SUT torpedoes produced by Atlas EG (for the Shishumar).

Interestingly, the Pakistanis opted for the DM2A4 for their Agostas instead of the French F17.
Last edited by Viv S on 17 Aug 2017 16:18, edited 1 time in total.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19751
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Austin » 17 Aug 2017 16:17

Torpedoes are like black boxes very tightly integrated with submarine sonars and other sensors , Integrating a German or other torpedo with French Sonars/Sensor would only be a sub-optimum solution , Just go for black shark torpedo and cut out losses in time/effort/money and a less than desirable solution.

Why should a torpedo maker pay price if some one purchasing chopper has committed a scam and then blanket black list them , Such policy has screwed us in past with Bofors , HDW and South African Howitzer on Arjun chassis deal etc

chola
BRFite
Posts: 1670
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby chola » 17 Aug 2017 16:20

Indranil wrote:
chola wrote:The C-17s are among the most well received imports we ever had. The wind tunnel offset is an extra on top of what we got. Nothing about the C-17 or M2K deals mortgaged our future like the Vikrant if MiG's statement has any real bite.

This is a case of "my bias is better than your bias".

The wind tunnel was not on top of it. It was "part of the offset". It was a way of circumventing the problem that India couldn't have had a way to produce 30% in offset so late in the game. Now, let us come to the wind tunnel itself. It is a 50 year old model which Boeing was about to pack and throw away. Instead of paying people to discard it, they got it accounted for in offsets! Great for them I say. On our side, I have not read or heard of a single run on the said wind tunnel till now. Has anybody else from the industry heard anything about it? On the other hand, I know that GTRE is setting up a couple of tunnels. ISRO has already set up theirs. So, you can infer ....

You may hand waive as much as you want but the IAF/IA/IN would not have been a meaningful force without the almost free equipment from USSR, and the PAF/PA/PN from America. And all four countries were working in their own self-interest. The equations have changed and yet all 4 countries are working in their self-interest. Any other way to paint this is bias.

When things line up, an aircraft carrier is always designed around the aircraft it is designed to carry. If you design yours to carry SH/Rafale, you would be strategically dependent on USA/France. There is no other way to paint that either.



I will graciously accept that I am biased toward western equipment.

That said, our history as the one great carrier power in Asia was built on western traditions and equipment from our origins in the RN, from Sea Hawks to Sea Harriers. They were the best in the world at carrier operations.

Now we are locked into Russian equipment for possibly the next two to three decades even with our OWN carrier when the Russians NEVER fully got their carrier operations together right. We are trading our first-rate legacy for a future of decisively inferior Russian equipment based on decisively inferior Russian carrier practices and designs.

When the IN complains about needing to ruggedize the structure of the MiG-29K and MiG saying there is nothing wrong then there is a completely different view on how carrier ops are handled between those in India (and the West) and Russia. Maybe, the Russians expect their crew to recalibrate everything on an aircraft after each landing.

In the Western sense, it is a no-brainer that a carrier aircraft should have been designed structurally to take landings! If it needs to be "ruggedized" then it is not a carrier aircraft but a landbased one.

But it seems in Russian practices, the MiG-29K and all its scarily loose fittings are expected.

Every decade that passes with Russian equipment will move us towards the shitty Russian way of running carrier ops and further away from our top-notch western legacy.

negi
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 12905
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Trying to mellow down :)

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby negi » 17 Aug 2017 16:32

Viv I am not talking about power at the shaft or what turbine finally produces idea was to get a sense of what a medium sized n powered carrier uses as a power source . It gives one some sense of context. It does not matter where CDG's reactor comes from what matters is what numbers it is churning out , Arihant's reactor is smaller for the sub is smaller that is an obvious thing however key part is with CDG's numbers and displacement it tells us what kind of power requirements IAC will have and hence Arihan't reactor may not be a direct fit .

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5052
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Viv S » 17 Aug 2017 16:48

negi wrote:Viv I am not talking about power at the shaft or what turbine finally produces idea was to get a sense of what a medium sized n powered carrier uses as a power source . It gives one some sense of context. It does not matter where CDG's reactor comes from what matters is what numbers it is churning out , Arihant's reactor is smaller for the sub is smaller that is an obvious thing however key part is with CDG's numbers and displacement it tells us what kind of power requirements IAC will have and hence Arihan't reactor may not be a direct fit .

I mentioned the origins of the K15 reactor to put the CdG's nominal installed power in context. The actual power delivered to the ship is 60 MW.

Assuming the IAC-2 requires 90 MW (50% larger), two PWRs from the Arihant (70 MW each) should be quite sufficient for our purposes.

negi
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 12905
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Trying to mellow down :)

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby negi » 17 Aug 2017 17:52

^ Ah so you mean the 80MW of Arihant is not the thermal power but power in MWe ? Net power generated by the turbinebb and not just the thermal output from fission ? I based my argument based on assumption that K15's thermal output is 150MWt and Arihant also gives 80MWt

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19751
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Austin » 17 Aug 2017 20:10

Submarine reactor are different from Ship based reactor they have low thermal effeciency , If we need reactor for ship then we can design one with better thermal efficiency compared to Sub Reactor

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19751
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Austin » 17 Aug 2017 20:12

negi wrote:^ Ah so you mean the 80MW of Arihant is not the thermal power but power in MWe ?


Seriously 80Mwt would be like 15-18 MWe for sub reactor ......Charka reactor are rated at 190 MWt and 35MWe if Janes is to be believed.

negi
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 12905
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Trying to mellow down :)

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby negi » 17 Aug 2017 21:10

Austin I thought we wanted to standardize upon inventory :) Anyways good thing about N plants is they usually need refueling only handful of times during a ship/sub's lifetime so one can live with bit of inefficiency but a stable and rugged design that is dependable ; of course nothing like having Massa like ecosystem where 4-5 organizations have competing working designs and vying for the tender.

Kakarat
BRFite
Posts: 1076
Joined: 26 Jan 2005 13:59

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Kakarat » 17 Aug 2017 21:43

Defence ministry clears proposal to buy six Apache attack helicopters for Indian Army

The other deal cleared by the DAC is for purchasing two gas turbine engines from Ukraine, which will then be given to Russia for two frigates that it is making for India. This will cost around Rs. 490 crore.

An inter-governmental agreement for four frigates through partnership between Russian and Indian shipyards was signed during Russian President Vladimir Putin’s visit to India in October last year.

While two frigates will come from Russia, two others will be constructed at an Indian shipyard with Russian cooperation.

The class’s original gas turbines were made by Ukrainian state-owned enterprise Zorya-Mashproekt. With tension continuing between the two nations, Ukraine has refused to supply any more engines to Russia.


ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4971
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby ShauryaT » 17 Aug 2017 21:51

Austin wrote:
negi wrote:^ Ah so you mean the 80MW of Arihant is not the thermal power but power in MWe ?


Seriously 80Mwt would be like 15-18 MWe for sub reactor ......Charka reactor are rated at 190 MWt and 35MWe if Janes is to be believed.
29 MWe for Chakra/Akula. Russian sub reactor thermal to electric conversion is not as efficient as the American one's. We have only one accessible to us. :P

Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3870
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Manish_Sharma » 17 Aug 2017 22:06

vina wrote:[
Yawn.. Another "Kalidasa Manoeuvre" (i.e. chopping the very branch one is sitting on), this time by the Modi Govt.

..


1. BlackShark italian torpedo is a dud, even a reject by Italian navy. Antonia & Antony influenced their induction by failing superior German DM4 torpedo. Thank god for vvip heli kaand by chornia otherwise we'll be facing porki DM4 by dud BlackShark.

2. French f21 is the most advanced as they made it jointly with Germans, it's uuv-cum-torpedo. But they refuse to sell it for Aridaman Sub as after Sindhu accident IN wanted non-russki torpedo. But frogs say we will only give for Scorpenes and nuke subs if they are made jointly with us. See govt wants same torpedo for Aridaman onwards Scorpenes and P75i

3. IITian Parrikar was thoroughly impressed by German torpedoes that has range of 104 km :shock: and longer range 140km :eek: and German defence minister had promised good ToT too. Probably with MP a govt to govt fms deal would have happened, but now it's back to mmrca type circus.

F21:


https://indiandefencereview.wordpress.c ... dian-navy/

India is likely to go in for a government-to-government deal with Germany for heavyweight torpedos after having scrapped plans to purchase them from a subsidiary of chopper scam-tainted Italian defence conglomerate Finmeccanica.

Defence sources said the government had written to various countries looking for options. The two torpedos that were of interest were F21 from France and SeaHake from Germany’s Atlas Elektronik. Sources said the French wrote back saying they are willing to provide F21 but only for French submarines or those built with French help.

This meant that in case the French don’t make the cut in future submarine contracts with India, the government will have to look for options. As per the plans, the torpedos that were to be fitted on the six under-construction Scorpene submarines being built in collaboration with France’s DCNS, would have eventually made it into the next project called P75 I and others.

scorpene class submarines

Torpedoes are self-propelled weapons with explosives packed in their nose and are submarine’s primary weapon. All alternatives are being worked out since we will not be going in for the Italian torpedos, defence sources said, adding, Atlas Elektronik is the front-runner. The ministry had carried out a detailed study looking into various options before deciding to scrap the plans to procure Black Shark torpedoes, made by Whitehead Alenia Sistemi Subacquei (WASS), a subsidiary of Finmeccanica.

The company had emerged the lowest bidder during the UPA era to arm the Scorpene submarines the first of which will be handed over to the Navy by September this year. However, the proposal to acquire it had been stuck for long time. Various controversies surrounded the deal which former Defence Minister A K Antony had not signed on. The deal eventually got embroiled in the VVIP chopper scandal, sources said. The Navy had been pushing for it citing “operational necessity”.

Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3870
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Manish_Sharma » 17 Aug 2017 22:12

Austin wrote: , Just go for black shark torpedo and cut out losses in time/effort/money and a less than desirable solution.

BlackShark is even rejected by italian navy. It's a dud. Only due to Antonia & Antony pressure they were chosen.

That's why even porkies went with German torpedoes on french agostas.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19751
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Austin » 17 Aug 2017 22:47

Manish_Sharma wrote:
Austin wrote: , Just go for black shark torpedo and cut out losses in time/effort/money and a less than desirable solution.

BlackShark is even rejected by italian navy. It's a dud. Only due to Antonia & Antony pressure they were chosen.

That's why even porkies went with German torpedoes on french agostas.


Black Shark Torpedoes are used by Malaysian and Chilean navys on Scorpene Class , Ecquoderian navy on Type 209 and Italian navy on U 214 class.

The IN did not question the technical capability of blackshark but was forced to find an alternative due to Ban

On Paki subs I find google mention as French F17 torpedo but lets assume they use German Torpedoes that is likely bcoz Black Shark was available since 2004 while Agusta90B was first commisioned in 1999

Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3870
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Manish_Sharma » 18 Aug 2017 02:01

Austin wrote:Black Shark Torpedoes are used by Malaysian and Chilean navys on Scorpene Class , Ecquoderian navy on Type 209 and Italian navy on U 214 class.

The IN did not question the technical capability of blackshark but was forced to find an alternative due to Ban



http://ajaishukla.blogspot.in/2015/04/i ... o.html?m=1

. Underwater systems experts, including serving Indian Navy admirals, say WASS’ Black Shark torpedo --- now banned --- was always a poor choice. They say the better solution, both tactically and strategically, was the Seahake torpedo that Atlas Elektronik offered, but was controversially pushed down to second place.

Seahake advocates argue that even the Italian Navy rejected the Black Shark, instead choosing Atlas Elektronik torpedoes. As its next-generation choice, Italy has plumped for the F-21 Future Heavyweight Torpedo, that Atlas Elektronik is co-developing with French company, Thales. France too rejected the Black Shark.

With the Italian, French and German navies having rejected the Black Shark, this torpedo is fielded by only five small navies --- those of Chile, Ecuador, Malaysia, Portugal and Singapore. In contrast, Atlas Elektronik is the largest international supplier, having supplied torpedoes to 18 navies worldwide.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5052
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Viv S » 18 Aug 2017 02:16

negi wrote:^ Ah so you mean the 80MW of Arihant is not the thermal power but power in MWe ? Net power generated by the turbinebb and not just the thermal output from fission ? I based my argument based on assumption that K15's thermal output is 150MWt and Arihant also gives 80MWt

No that's 80 MWt. I'm going by the Wiki page that quotes 70 MW for the linked turbine (though the reference has expired).

Its worth noting though that we do have a 160 MW reactor in development for the second generation of SSBNs.

Deep Designs- The Week
Arihant and Aridhaman are learnt to be of 6,000 tonnes each and would be powered by a 83MW nuclear reactors; S-3 Plus will be powered by a 160MW reactor. So, will be two others, codenamed S-4 and S-5.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19751
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Austin » 18 Aug 2017 16:55

Manish_Sharma wrote:
Austin wrote:Black Shark Torpedoes are used by Malaysian and Chilean navys on Scorpene Class , Ecquoderian navy on Type 209 and Italian navy on U 214 class.

The IN did not question the technical capability of blackshark but was forced to find an alternative due to Ban



http://ajaishukla.blogspot.in/2015/04/i ... o.html?m=1

. Underwater systems experts, including serving Indian Navy admirals, say WASS’ Black Shark torpedo --- now banned --- was always a poor choice. They say the better solution, both tactically and strategically, was the Seahake torpedo that Atlas Elektronik offered, but was controversially pushed down to second place.

Seahake advocates argue that even the Italian Navy rejected the Black Shark, instead choosing Atlas Elektronik torpedoes. As its next-generation choice, Italy has plumped for the F-21 Future Heavyweight Torpedo, that Atlas Elektronik is co-developing with French company, Thales. France too rejected the Black Shark.

With the Italian, French and German navies having rejected the Black Shark, this torpedo is fielded by only five small navies --- those of Chile, Ecuador, Malaysia, Portugal and Singapore. In contrast, Atlas Elektronik is the largest international supplier, having supplied torpedoes to 18 navies worldwide.


The Navy Did not reject the Black Shark Torpedoes , it has not choice but to scout for other because of the ban .....No where the IN stated they were rejecting Black Shark Torpedoes due to its technical capabilities.

Ajai jee quoting unnamed Admiral and Sea Hake advocate is poor reporting at best or hit job at wost. ......Thats like quoting unnamed admiral and black shark advocate to say Sea Hake is bad.

Even Indonesian Navy is now interested in black shark for its Types 209
http://www.janes.com/article/73172/indo ... submarines

JTull
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2012
Joined: 18 Jul 2001 11:31

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby JTull » 18 Aug 2017 17:06

Viv S wrote:
negi wrote:^ Ah so you mean the 80MW of Arihant is not the thermal power but power in MWe ? Net power generated by the turbinebb and not just the thermal output from fission ? I based my argument based on assumption that K15's thermal output is 150MWt and Arihant also gives 80MWt

No that's 80 MWt. I'm going by the Wiki page that quotes 70 MW for the linked turbine (though the reference has expired).

Its worth noting though that we do have a 160 MW reactor in development for the second generation of SSBNs.

Deep Designs- The Week
Arihant and Aridhaman are learnt to be of 6,000 tonnes each and would be powered by a 83MW nuclear reactors; S-3 Plus will be powered by a 160MW reactor. So, will be two others, codenamed S-4 and S-5.


I vaguely recollect that Arihant is S-2 and Aridhaman is S-3. The name S-1 was for used for the onshore prototype.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5052
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Viv S » 18 Aug 2017 17:54

JTull wrote:I vaguely recollect that Arihant is S-2 and Aridhaman is S-3. The name S-1 was for used for the onshore prototype.

Correct. The "S-3 Plus" is likely an experimental unit, similar to the S-1, proofing the design for the next generation (S-4 & S-5).

Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3870
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Manish_Sharma » 18 Aug 2017 18:40

Austin wrote:
Ajai jee quoting unnamed Admiral and Sea Hake advocate is poor reporting at best or hit job at wost. ......Thats like quoting unnamed admiral and black shark advocate to say Sea Hake is bad.

Even Indonesian Navy is now interested in black shark for its Types 209
http://www.janes.com/article/73172/indo ... submarines


Seahake advocates argue that even the Italian Navy rejected the Black Shark, instead choosing Atlas Elektronik torpedoes. As its next-generation choice, Italy has plumped for the F-21 Future Heavyweight Torpedo, that Atlas Elektronik is co-developing with French company, Thales. France too rejected the Black Shark.

With the Italian, French and German navies having rejected the Black Shark,
this torpedo is fielded by only five small navies --- those of Chile, Ecuador, Malaysia,


The thing to focus on is that italian navy itself has rejected their own product, it was antonia-antony duo that sneaked in italian BlackShark.

Italy anyway is enemy country they formed coffee club alongwith greece and pakistan to oppose Bharat's bid for permanent seat at UNSC.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4971
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby ShauryaT » 18 Aug 2017 18:55

Viv S wrote:Deep Designs- The Week
Arihant and Aridhaman are learnt to be of 6,000 tonnes each and would be powered by a 83MW nuclear reactors; S-3 Plus will be powered by a 160MW reactor. So, will be two others, codenamed S-4 and S-5.
Can we get corroboration for the news in the report of a 160 MWt reactor for S-4 & S-5? If true, it is a game changer.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 60360
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: Lupine but moderately dharmic

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Singha » 18 Aug 2017 19:47

could be based off the akula reactor family which is still used for latest subs
http://gentleseas.blogspot.in/2015/10/s ... needs.html


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Aditya_V, Eric Leiderman, g.chaks, nvishal, shivatar and 52 guests