There is air launched Uran/Kh-35 which IN Mig-29Ks have been spotted carrying and Upg IAF Mig-29 will also likely carry them. As for Exocet, it is likely France insisted on Exocet for Scorpene i doubt they would have integrated Harpoon (RSN had similar dilemma when they wanted Harpoon for Formidable but were forced to go with Exocet as well).bhavani wrote:I think we will be replacing club with Brahmos. i never got the point of Exocet, we could have acquired Harpoon sub launched for scorpene's. we could have gone with Uran's in air launched and other roles. I think IN was not fully satisfied with Uran, even though Uran is comparable with harpoon, we still went for Harpoon in air launched version. Uran's air launched version was never developed.
Indian Naval Discussion
Re: Indian Naval Discussion
Re: Indian Naval Discussion
Bheeshma and others have rightly commented upon the IN's backward slant in acquiring obsolete Harpoons and Exocets for its subs and P-8s.This too at a time when the western navies are frantically trying to develop an antidote to the 'dreaded" Klub missile-with its terminal supersonic warhead,not to mention Brahmos! The success of a French Aster SAM ,supposedly at a range before Klub detaches its terminal supersonic warhead,is still only one successful trial and as of now there is no genuine antidote to either Klub or Brahmos.
It is therefore astonishing that the IN has settled for less,and the paltry number of Harpoons on order should be limited to that,with either an indigenous long range cruise missile or klub later fitted.One is not sure about the integration of B'mos into the system,but certainly on our TU-142s and Il-38s Brahmos/Klub should be carried.
Coming back to the inadequacies apparent in the armament of the P-28s,there is an excellent feature by the world-renowned analyst and historian Norman Friedman in Naval History about the size of warships and their capability to stay relevant as the years pass on.In his article "Judging the Good from the Bad",studying many designs from WW2,Friedman says that when it comes to warships,"bigger is usually better" and the most successful at "adapating to changing times and technologies".Old-timers on BR will perhaps remember my decade+ eulogy to the carrier class which in some navies like the IN (Viraaat/Hermes) have served for over 50 years! How and why? It is because of the space available to insert/replace new eqpt. for old,far more difficult or impossible in smaller warships,and as in the carrier,the same hangars and flight deck accommodating newer naval aircraft developed.
If we look at the IN's own modernisation drive,we see that relatively obsolete Kashin class DDGs have been given a new lease of life with Brahmos fitted removing the rear SAM launcher.Barak has also given the Viraat,destroyers and frigates new anti-missile teeth.Friedman lauds the Spruance class,saying that "cruiser sized DDGs" were able to accommodate newer modern weaponry and eqpt.In today's massed missile launches of land-attack cruise missiles from warships and subs against key ground targets as we have seen in the GWs and Libyan conflicts,the more weaponry a warship carries along with a greater "salvo potential",its capability will climb geometrically.larger warships as I've also pointed out in the past have better survivability capabilities too than smaller warships.
Our anti-sub warships therefore should be if ,ocean-going in a blue water role,not less than 3000-3500t in displacement and possess a varied integral ASW package apart from a large ASW helo/UAV and UUVs too.Smaller ASW corvettes for coastal and brown water roles also need to have a mix of weaponry that includes long endurance and shallow water TTs,ASW mortars,an ASW helo with its own dunking sonar and ideally another MR ASW system like Medvedka,etc.In bad weather in the tropics,ASW helo ops may be severely curtailed or impossible,neccessitating an integral alternative depending upon the range of the ship's sonar package-hull and towed body,plus any UUVs carried.The trade-off could be the absence of an anti-missile system,if the vessel is too small for it to be also included, and gatlings and MANPADS used instead.Since these vessels are unlikely to come in for airborne attack,will be under land based air cover and if used in the high seas along with other more capable larger vessels,such a package should suffice.
It is therefore astonishing that the IN has settled for less,and the paltry number of Harpoons on order should be limited to that,with either an indigenous long range cruise missile or klub later fitted.One is not sure about the integration of B'mos into the system,but certainly on our TU-142s and Il-38s Brahmos/Klub should be carried.
Coming back to the inadequacies apparent in the armament of the P-28s,there is an excellent feature by the world-renowned analyst and historian Norman Friedman in Naval History about the size of warships and their capability to stay relevant as the years pass on.In his article "Judging the Good from the Bad",studying many designs from WW2,Friedman says that when it comes to warships,"bigger is usually better" and the most successful at "adapating to changing times and technologies".Old-timers on BR will perhaps remember my decade+ eulogy to the carrier class which in some navies like the IN (Viraaat/Hermes) have served for over 50 years! How and why? It is because of the space available to insert/replace new eqpt. for old,far more difficult or impossible in smaller warships,and as in the carrier,the same hangars and flight deck accommodating newer naval aircraft developed.
If we look at the IN's own modernisation drive,we see that relatively obsolete Kashin class DDGs have been given a new lease of life with Brahmos fitted removing the rear SAM launcher.Barak has also given the Viraat,destroyers and frigates new anti-missile teeth.Friedman lauds the Spruance class,saying that "cruiser sized DDGs" were able to accommodate newer modern weaponry and eqpt.In today's massed missile launches of land-attack cruise missiles from warships and subs against key ground targets as we have seen in the GWs and Libyan conflicts,the more weaponry a warship carries along with a greater "salvo potential",its capability will climb geometrically.larger warships as I've also pointed out in the past have better survivability capabilities too than smaller warships.
Our anti-sub warships therefore should be if ,ocean-going in a blue water role,not less than 3000-3500t in displacement and possess a varied integral ASW package apart from a large ASW helo/UAV and UUVs too.Smaller ASW corvettes for coastal and brown water roles also need to have a mix of weaponry that includes long endurance and shallow water TTs,ASW mortars,an ASW helo with its own dunking sonar and ideally another MR ASW system like Medvedka,etc.In bad weather in the tropics,ASW helo ops may be severely curtailed or impossible,neccessitating an integral alternative depending upon the range of the ship's sonar package-hull and towed body,plus any UUVs carried.The trade-off could be the absence of an anti-missile system,if the vessel is too small for it to be also included, and gatlings and MANPADS used instead.Since these vessels are unlikely to come in for airborne attack,will be under land based air cover and if used in the high seas along with other more capable larger vessels,such a package should suffice.
Re: Indian Naval Discussion
well, are counter measures are that specific missile to missile? i am thinking if they fall into a seeking category or bandwidth, should be enough to smack them. MMW jammer, Infra jammer, chaffs and flares, laser jammer?, etc. ?
Re: Indian Naval Discussion
Old timers after hearing for the 100th time one of your predictable "as I said...' or "if you remember I said .." , pretty much accept that everything you write was predicted or will be.Old-timers on BR will perhaps remember my decade+ eulogy
Re: Indian Naval Discussion
BrahMos is also considering a smaller BrahMos missile for making it compatible with many other platforms in IN and IAFbhavani wrote:The basic problem with Brahmos family is that it is too big and heavy for lot of platforms and even Club is too big in air launched version or is not fully evolved. We went for heavier and faster missiles and they are not compatible with a lot of platforms. So we had to go initially for Uran and then for Harpoon.
BrahMos Considers All-New AShM For MiG-29K & MMRCA
Livefist wrote:BrahMos Corp. is looking to develop a new anti-ship missile with a smaller diameter and lighter weight than the present BrahMos supersonic cruise missile. The proposal, tentatively called BrahMos-3, is aimed at putting together a potent anti-ship/anti-surface missile for the Indian Navy's MiG-29K and IAF MMRCA.
...
Re: Indian Naval Discussion
Surya,I come not to convert the righteous,but the poor innocent sheep! Ha!Ha! 
PS:Years of espousing the need for amphibians and smaller coastal ASW craft seems to have been heard! It is akin to diligently chanting a mantra for aeons.Finally it works.
PPS: A report on the RN's need for "sea drones' for ASW, minewarfare,etc.This is an area where the In should push very strongly ahead given the huge coastal areas,number of ports and bases to defend and sanitise.It would also reduce manpower needs considerably.
http://news.in.msn.com/international/ar ... =250465710
Britain wants sea drones to attack submarines
London: The British defence ministry wants to develop a new generation of unmanned sea drones that would be able to attack submarines and launch missile attacks on enemy vessels, a media report said.
Xcpts:
PS:Years of espousing the need for amphibians and smaller coastal ASW craft seems to have been heard! It is akin to diligently chanting a mantra for aeons.Finally it works.
PPS: A report on the RN's need for "sea drones' for ASW, minewarfare,etc.This is an area where the In should push very strongly ahead given the huge coastal areas,number of ports and bases to defend and sanitise.It would also reduce manpower needs considerably.
http://news.in.msn.com/international/ar ... =250465710
Britain wants sea drones to attack submarines
London: The British defence ministry wants to develop a new generation of unmanned sea drones that would be able to attack submarines and launch missile attacks on enemy vessels, a media report said.
Xcpts:
According to the Telegraph, the Royal Navy is already using "unmanned underwater vehicles" (UUVs) to help stop Iran from laying mines in shipping lanes.
The UUVs are also being considered for deployment in the pirate-infested waters off Somalia.
The tasks are anti-submarine warfare, mine countermeasures, anti-ship missile defence, counter-piracy operations and support to future submarine operations. It also makes clear they could be used to attack potential enemies.
Lieutenant Commander Kevin Giles says in the report that sea drones are wanted for "dirty, dangerous and repetitive" tasks, and to keep costs down, according to the Guardian.
Re: Indian Naval Discussion
Manish, I checked page 64 and found most members were ruing not equipping P28 with a balanced weapons fit. So here's my PoV.
Suppose I have a potent weapon like Brahmos AShM or Shtil SAM or 533 mm torpedo and I decide to build a ship around it.
I need to accommodate some quantity of it – atleast 8 of Brahmos or 24 of Shtil. That increases displacement & cost.
Weapons are useless without sensors. So for Anti Surface, I need a good radar + OTH targeting capability using AEW helicopters for improving detection reliability & redundancy. For Anti Air, I need two search/tracking radars in different bands for same reason. For Anti Submarine, I need a hull mounted + towed array sonar for same reason. This increases displacement & cost.
Now after packing so much sensors & weaponry, I need to add fuel tanks for good range – say 6000 nautical miles. Otherwise the ship will be all decked up with nowhere to go! This increases displacement & cost.
I also need to provision for speed, so I add gas turbines. This increases displacement & cost.
For manning all the above I need crew. This increases displacement & cost.
But with all the above, I end up with a Shivalik or Kolkata!
The lifecycle cost of a ship far exceeds the acquisition cost. So we cannot afford sufficient numbers of above. Unfortunately for a country like India, we need different ships for different situations. We need a constable with a fiber glass baton at traffic signals where a Tavor armed SF would be overkill and financially disastrous.
So ship design is a mix of threat vs capability vs cost vs similar other factors.
The Singapore ships cited my many use only diesels, reduced range, have a single radar and sonar without redundancy. They offer a wide span of capabilities without having depth in capabilities. This is OK for defending waters around an island like Singapore.
Similarly, Pakistani F-22 ships lack depth of capability – only 8 SAMs. Their AShM missiles are half the ranges of a Klub or Brahmos.
On the other hand, IN has a requirement for sustained operations, so needs depth in capabilities. So P28 has two sets of ASW weaponry and two sets of ASW sensors, compared to single sets on the Singapore & Pakistani ships. But P28 can provide far greater ASW capabilities than both the above.
In 1971, PNS Hangor lay out of Mumbai harbour. For taking such threats out, ASW corvettes like Abhay and Kamorta are sufficient. There are no air or surface threats accompanying such sub-surface threats against our SLOC. And a Talwar or Shivalik will be an overkill.
If we replayed Hangor vs Kukhri with Khalid vs Kamorta, guess in whose favor are the odds stacked now? The helicopter will beat the shit out of Khalid even before it gets within range.
Suppose I have a potent weapon like Brahmos AShM or Shtil SAM or 533 mm torpedo and I decide to build a ship around it.
I need to accommodate some quantity of it – atleast 8 of Brahmos or 24 of Shtil. That increases displacement & cost.
Weapons are useless without sensors. So for Anti Surface, I need a good radar + OTH targeting capability using AEW helicopters for improving detection reliability & redundancy. For Anti Air, I need two search/tracking radars in different bands for same reason. For Anti Submarine, I need a hull mounted + towed array sonar for same reason. This increases displacement & cost.
Now after packing so much sensors & weaponry, I need to add fuel tanks for good range – say 6000 nautical miles. Otherwise the ship will be all decked up with nowhere to go! This increases displacement & cost.
I also need to provision for speed, so I add gas turbines. This increases displacement & cost.
For manning all the above I need crew. This increases displacement & cost.
But with all the above, I end up with a Shivalik or Kolkata!
The lifecycle cost of a ship far exceeds the acquisition cost. So we cannot afford sufficient numbers of above. Unfortunately for a country like India, we need different ships for different situations. We need a constable with a fiber glass baton at traffic signals where a Tavor armed SF would be overkill and financially disastrous.
So ship design is a mix of threat vs capability vs cost vs similar other factors.
The Singapore ships cited my many use only diesels, reduced range, have a single radar and sonar without redundancy. They offer a wide span of capabilities without having depth in capabilities. This is OK for defending waters around an island like Singapore.
Similarly, Pakistani F-22 ships lack depth of capability – only 8 SAMs. Their AShM missiles are half the ranges of a Klub or Brahmos.
On the other hand, IN has a requirement for sustained operations, so needs depth in capabilities. So P28 has two sets of ASW weaponry and two sets of ASW sensors, compared to single sets on the Singapore & Pakistani ships. But P28 can provide far greater ASW capabilities than both the above.
In 1971, PNS Hangor lay out of Mumbai harbour. For taking such threats out, ASW corvettes like Abhay and Kamorta are sufficient. There are no air or surface threats accompanying such sub-surface threats against our SLOC. And a Talwar or Shivalik will be an overkill.
If we replayed Hangor vs Kukhri with Khalid vs Kamorta, guess in whose favor are the odds stacked now? The helicopter will beat the shit out of Khalid even before it gets within range.
Re: Indian Naval Discussion
X Posted from the Indian military aviation thread.
Dummy harpoon missile underslung, Indian Navy P8I (IN 320) escorted by chase plane touching down:
Clicky
Dummy harpoon missile underslung, Indian Navy P8I (IN 320) escorted by chase plane touching down:
Clicky
-
Manish_Sharma
- BRF Oldie
- Posts: 5128
- Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17
Re: Indian Naval Discussion
Thanks for explaining Tsarkar ji 
Re: Indian Naval Discussion
@ tsarkar
Thank you sir, for taking the time to explain in detail
Regards,
Thank you sir, for taking the time to explain in detail
Regards,
Re: Indian Naval Discussion
Tsarkar,
Any Updates on Barak 8 and Kolkatas?
Any Updates on Barak 8 and Kolkatas?
-
member_23370
- BRFite
- Posts: 1102
- Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14
Re: Indian Naval Discussion
In a group the P-28's can do without AShM. but if they are going into deep oceans then I fail to see why they can't have 4-8 Urans. As for Harbour protection why aren't Abhay's with shore based Helis sufficient?
-
putnanja
- BRF Oldie
- Posts: 4727
- Joined: 26 Mar 2002 12:31
- Location: searching for the next al-qaida #3
Re: Indian Naval Discussion
Navy one billion dollar chopper tender to be delayed further
New Delhi: A more than six year-old tender of the Navy to procure multirole helicopters would be further delayed as the two participating vendors in the deal have been asked to extend the validity of their proposals for six more months.
This is the second time in the last one year that the Defence Ministry has asked the American Sikorsky and European NH Industries to extend the validity of their proposals for the tender expected to be worth over $ one billion for buying 16 choppers.
"We have been asked by the Defence Ministry to extend the validity of our proposal for the tender," Sikorsky India head AVM (retd) A J S Walia told PTI here.
Defence ministry sources confirmed the development but refused to elaborate.
...
...
-
putnanja
- BRF Oldie
- Posts: 4727
- Joined: 26 Mar 2002 12:31
- Location: searching for the next al-qaida #3
Re: Indian Naval Discussion
A first: US allowed to check Indian warship
New Delhi, Aug. 6: India has for the first time permitted the US to inspect an Indian warship to ensure that the navy was not distorting its use, a senior source in the defence establishment has confirmed to The Telegraph.
This is the first time that India permitted an “intrusive” inspection of one of its key military platforms by foreigners.
...
...
The equipment the US inspectors asked to check were night-vision devices used by the INS Jalashva landing platform dock and its six onboard UH-3H Seaking maritime utility transport helicopters.
Distinctly uncomfortable with the US request to inspect the equipment, the navy at first tried to fob it off. But then reached a compromise.
The navy told the US inspectors that it would remove the components from the Jalashva that is based at the eastern fleet headquarters in Vishakhapatnam where they could be checked.
It is understood that the devices were removed from the ship and the helicopters and taken to an airfield/helipad where the inspection was carried out.
The Pentagon’s Defence Sales Cooperation Agency (DSCA) classified night-vision devices as highly sensitive equipment. Modern night-vision devices used on warships are sophisticated digitised machinery packed into waterproof containers with telescopic sights.
An image intensifier highlights the target being sighted and magnifies it to a level of light that allows the trained human eye to interpret them. The digital records of the images sighted through the device can be logged. Theoretically, an inspector can go through the logs to check the images that have been sighted and recorded.
...
...
Military equipment, such as the INS Jalashva, purchased through a government-to-government foreign military sales programme are subject to inspections under the Pentagon’s “Golden Sentry” programme that dispatches “Tiger Teams” to do the job.
Direct commercial sales of military hardware by US-based companies to India are subject to inspections under a programme called “Blue Lantern”.
Re: Indian Naval Discussion
All "black-box" & "sensitive" devices could be made to log a lot of data. What better way to know what other militaries are up to and that too with their own consent.putnanja wrote:A first: US allowed to check Indian warship
...
An image intensifier highlights the target being sighted and magnifies it to a level of light that allows the trained human eye to interpret them. The digital records of the images sighted through the device can be logged. Theoretically, an inspector can go through the logs to check the images that have been sighted and recorded.
...
Re: Indian Naval Discussion
good fms buying. keep it up!
Re: Indian Naval Discussion
To give their own taste of medicine, they should also make the Americans sign a contact stating that all equipments carried by the "Tiger" teams be held in secure confinement under watch of Indian Armed Forces for 3 days to make sure they are "safe" and all their activity video/voice taped. All log data downloaded would need to be revealed. The new agreement would be called Trust&Transparency (hehe)
Do you think the Americans would go for that?
Do you think the Americans would go for that?
Re: Indian Naval Discussion
Way to go....really great to see such warmth in bilaterla relationship.The navy told the US inspectors that it would remove the components from the Jalashva that is based at the eastern fleet headquarters in Vishakhapatnam where they could be checked.
It is understood that the devices were removed from the ship and the helicopters and taken to an airfield/helipad where the inspection was carried out.
The Pentagon’s Defence Sales Cooperation Agency (DSCA) classified night-vision devices as highly sensitive equipment. Modern night-vision devices used on warships are sophisticated digitised machinery packed into waterproof containers with telescopic sights.
Lets go buy more Amriki high-end sensitive maal. Wonder where the P-8I will have to be taken for inspections by the "Tiger teams"?
Re: Indian Naval Discussion
About 10+ years ago I was told by a MiG-21 SLeader that India does the same with MiG-21s. (MiG-21s do have components that are Indian and never exposed to Russians)sum wrote:Way to go....really great to see such warmth in bilaterla relationship.The navy told the US inspectors that it would remove the components from the Jalashva that is based at the eastern fleet headquarters in Vishakhapatnam where they could be checked.
It is understood that the devices were removed from the ship and the helicopters and taken to an airfield/helipad where the inspection was carried out.
The Pentagon’s Defence Sales Cooperation Agency (DSCA) classified night-vision devices as highly sensitive equipment. Modern night-vision devices used on warships are sophisticated digitised machinery packed into waterproof containers with telescopic sights.
Lets go buy more Amriki high-end sensitive maal. Wonder where the P-8I will have to be taken for inspections by the "Tiger teams"?
Just that with the US it is more transparent.
France I am told/informed India pays ahead, so they do not really care what goes on.
Until India gets her own set up it is BOHICA.
Re: Indian Naval Discussion
"With friends like the US,who needs .......?"
This is going to be a great bore as we acquire more and more US eqpt.,which is one key reason ,apart from the performance of the aircraft why the US lost the MMRCA contract. The impending visit of ACM Browne to Russia supposedly to review the progress on the FGFA,MTA,etc.,is of crucial importance,esp. the FGFA programme,since the LCA's gestation even for MK-1 is so torturous.By the time MK-2 arrives, given the current schedulemwe will have the FGFA also arriving or in service!
Going back to my earlier post reg. Friedman's research into ship size,capability and longevity,where he has done tremendous research,the same holds good for subs.Larger sized subs can carry more sensors and weaponry apart from more powerful engines/reactors.With the advent of helos aboard warships,the need for excessive speed has been made unneccessary.The enormous effort to give a ship a few knots of extra speed is meaningless in the above context,where the helo can prosecute a contact far ahead.
However,the history of shipbulding classes of large numbers of small PT boats,fast attack craft,etc. by various navies in order to keep numbers happy,vs smaller numbers of larger warships,needs to be examined.Ideally,a navy builds enough new warships to replace those being pensioned off.Here too,the advantage and extra capability of the larger warships outweigh the apparent disadvantage of smaller ships.There was a post about the size of our ASW corvette/light frigates reaching Talwar or Shivalik size if equipped with a good ASW package.I think thta minus the heavy anti-ship missiles,one large multi-role helo,ASW TTs and ASW Klub/Medvedka with a main gun and gatlings/MANPADs or Kashtan style mount would give us a very capable dedicated ASW escort under 3000t.Alternatively,if the P-28 deisgn is "tweaked" and made slightly larger so that it can accomodate a LR/MR anti-sub missile,it might suffice.
This is going to be a great bore as we acquire more and more US eqpt.,which is one key reason ,apart from the performance of the aircraft why the US lost the MMRCA contract. The impending visit of ACM Browne to Russia supposedly to review the progress on the FGFA,MTA,etc.,is of crucial importance,esp. the FGFA programme,since the LCA's gestation even for MK-1 is so torturous.By the time MK-2 arrives, given the current schedulemwe will have the FGFA also arriving or in service!
Going back to my earlier post reg. Friedman's research into ship size,capability and longevity,where he has done tremendous research,the same holds good for subs.Larger sized subs can carry more sensors and weaponry apart from more powerful engines/reactors.With the advent of helos aboard warships,the need for excessive speed has been made unneccessary.The enormous effort to give a ship a few knots of extra speed is meaningless in the above context,where the helo can prosecute a contact far ahead.
However,the history of shipbulding classes of large numbers of small PT boats,fast attack craft,etc. by various navies in order to keep numbers happy,vs smaller numbers of larger warships,needs to be examined.Ideally,a navy builds enough new warships to replace those being pensioned off.Here too,the advantage and extra capability of the larger warships outweigh the apparent disadvantage of smaller ships.There was a post about the size of our ASW corvette/light frigates reaching Talwar or Shivalik size if equipped with a good ASW package.I think thta minus the heavy anti-ship missiles,one large multi-role helo,ASW TTs and ASW Klub/Medvedka with a main gun and gatlings/MANPADs or Kashtan style mount would give us a very capable dedicated ASW escort under 3000t.Alternatively,if the P-28 deisgn is "tweaked" and made slightly larger so that it can accomodate a LR/MR anti-sub missile,it might suffice.
Re: Indian Naval Discussion
For harbour protection, there is a new class of inshore ASW craft whose tender was posted by Arun. These ships are for keeping Sea Lines of Communications clear of submarines when no Air or Surface threat is expected or Airborne Early Warning or Anti Air Destroyer cover is available. All IN ships are datalinked, all sensors are networked and the relevant IN shooter will take out the hostile ship or aircraft.Bheeshma wrote:In a group the P-28's can do without AShM. but if they are going into deep oceans then I fail to see why they can't have 4-8 Urans. As for Harbour protection why aren't Abhay's with shore based Helis sufficient?
Saw the Kolkata at MDL 3 months back, & it should be ready for commissioning by 2013. Dont know the progress on Barak-8AbhiJ wrote:Tsarkar,Any Updates on Barak 8 and Kolkatas?
Re: Indian Naval Discussion
Is INS Vishal the official name for the IAC-2?
http://newindianexpress.com/nation/article583809.ece
http://newindianexpress.com/nation/article583809.ece
Re: Indian Naval Discussion
The Delhi class were supposed to get upgraded new Uran's as per BR page.
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NAVY/Ships/Active/182-Delhi-Class.html
Why isnt Brahmos being considered? We have installed them in inclined launchers on INS Rajput.
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NAVY/Ships/Active/182-Delhi-Class.html
IIRC the above quote is quite old by almost 4 yrs.The Delhi Class will be retrofitted with the GLONASS-steered, land-attack 3M24E1 Uranium AShM at a later date. The 3M24E1 AShM - export variant of the 3M24M1 - has more fuel, which extends range to 250 km.
Why isnt Brahmos being considered? We have installed them in inclined launchers on INS Rajput.
Re: Indian Naval Discussion
does the Uranium even exist in service anywhere?
looks like a case for inclined tube brahmos. maybe 6 tubes.
looks like a case for inclined tube brahmos. maybe 6 tubes.
Re: Indian Naval Discussion
There is no reports of such a missile ever being exported to India besides we have a lot of Uran in stock it is likely not cost effective to replace them till they reach NEOL, speaking of that heck we haven't even phased out P-20Ms yet.
Re: Indian Naval Discussion
The Sea Eagles are near retirement if they've not been retired already. the Jaguar IMs will also carry the AGM-84D Harpoon missiles. While having such a diverse variety of AShMs is a maintenance headache, it will also be a headache for the enemy to counter so many different types of AShMs.Aditya G wrote:Sea Eagle for Jaguar
Uran for IL-38
Brahmos for Su-30
Klub for FFGs
Brahmos for DDGs
Harpoon for P-8I
Exocet for Scorpene
WTF?
-
member_23370
- BRFite
- Posts: 1102
- Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14
Re: Indian Naval Discussion
Ppl have forgotten the P-20M.
Re: Indian Naval Discussion
Hearsay...NRao wrote: About 10+ years ago I was told by a MiG-21 SLeader that India does the same with MiG-21s...
No evidence from the over the 50 years we have been using MiG 21s.
Re: Indian Naval Discussion
There is no such thing called Uranium must been some western publication that made up that name.
What is under works is X-35UE an ugrade of X-35E that Indian Navy uses , its range has been extended to 260 km from 130 Km by using fuel efficient turbofan engine.
This antiship missile is under joint development by Vietnam and Russia similar to indo-russian Brahmos project.
Some specs of missile
http://www.ktrv.ru/production/68/673/899/
What is under works is X-35UE an ugrade of X-35E that Indian Navy uses , its range has been extended to 260 km from 130 Km by using fuel efficient turbofan engine.
This antiship missile is under joint development by Vietnam and Russia similar to indo-russian Brahmos project.
Some specs of missile
http://www.ktrv.ru/production/68/673/899/
Re: Indian Naval Discussion
Navy’s aircraft carrier not to be ready until 2017
New Delhi, Aug 8, 2012, DHNS:
New Delhi, Aug 8, 2012, DHNS:
The Navy’s first indigenous aircraft carrier (IAC) will not be ready before 2017, overshooting the delivery schedule by more than three years, Navy Chief Admiral Nirmal Verma has admitted.
“There were problems in manufacturing the gear box, which involves complex technology. The truck bringing generators overturned near Pune last year, further delaying the schedule,” Verma said. is there no other way of transport?
The keel of the 40,000 tonne-carrier was launched on February 28, 2009 by defence minister A K Antony when the Navy and Cochin Shipyard aimed at launching the ship in water by 2010 and equipping it with arms and fighter aircraft in another four years.
To be named ‘INS Vikrant’, the carrier was to be inducted in the service by 2014. With almost three years‘ delay now, IAC’s launch in water may happen only sometime in 2013 or early 2014.
Its design was initially approved by the government in 2003. The modular construction began in 2005.
Explaining the problem encountered with the gear box, a navy officer said the Indian company picked for the job could not meet the laid down specifications.
After some time lapse, a German firm, was roped in and the manufacture expedited. The first gear box has already been shipped and the second is on its way.
IAC-2 with improved features and bigger was on anvil but its final configuration was yet to be finalised, the Navy chief said.
Though he would not specify if IAC-2 would have advanced features like catapult-assisted take off from deck, barrier-assisted recovery and nuclear-powered engine, the Navy chief added that version 2 would almost sure to be heavier than IAC-1.
...
Re: Indian Naval Discussion
that is called risk management.. it never exists in many places [chalta hai.. public ka paisa!].
yes, they could have shipped it over sea.
yes, they could have shipped it over sea.
Re: Indian Naval Discussion
Is the APR3-E anti-submarine missile, part of the Il-38/Tu-142 upgrade package?
From the info given on this page, seems like a good system to have.
http://www.ktrv.ru/production/68/673/692/
From the info given on this page, seems like a good system to have.
http://www.ktrv.ru/production/68/673/692/
Re: Indian Naval Discussion
Touchdown
Re: Indian Naval Discussion
I always hear that cats are unkil only technology and some how it is so complex that no one else tried to develop it. From a layman's POV what is it that makes it such a complex/expansive technology?
Is it possible that no one else even tried it because no one built such a large carrier except Khan? Or is it an oxymoron, smaller carriers need cats more than large ones but no one could make a cat that would add enough payload advantages to fighters?
From basic science and engineering POV, I can't see need for exotic alloys or extra strong materials or single crystal fabrications or complex software or electronics or other sensors!?! Power requirements can't be too high (moving 5-20 ton excess weight over couple of thousand feet/launch). Large amount of steam can be stored in relatively small tanks to meet short peak pulse needed for short takeoffs. Boiler technology so well understood and developed so that I can't be an issue either. What gives?
Is it right to say that cats only make sense (due to weight etc) for carriers larger than 65K tons and since no one built them except khan no one needed cats? Hence can I deduct that India is going for such a large, 65K tons, IAC2 because it wants to take advantage of cats.
Is it possible that no one else even tried it because no one built such a large carrier except Khan? Or is it an oxymoron, smaller carriers need cats more than large ones but no one could make a cat that would add enough payload advantages to fighters?
From basic science and engineering POV, I can't see need for exotic alloys or extra strong materials or single crystal fabrications or complex software or electronics or other sensors!?! Power requirements can't be too high (moving 5-20 ton excess weight over couple of thousand feet/launch). Large amount of steam can be stored in relatively small tanks to meet short peak pulse needed for short takeoffs. Boiler technology so well understood and developed so that I can't be an issue either. What gives?
Is it right to say that cats only make sense (due to weight etc) for carriers larger than 65K tons and since no one built them except khan no one needed cats? Hence can I deduct that India is going for such a large, 65K tons, IAC2 because it wants to take advantage of cats.
Re: Indian Naval Discussion
we must jumpstart to EMALS!
-
negi
- BRF Oldie
- Posts: 13112
- Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
- Location: Ban se dar nahin lagta , chootiyon se lagta hai .
Re: Indian Naval Discussion
Katare saar Unkil's CAT system is powered by steam to produce, regulate and condense it takes a lot of space. Iirc there is a whole layout of the system from one of the USN's carriers on the web.Btw even French Charles De Gaulle uses a version of cat system sourced from Unkil. All these carriers are huge and nuclear powered so generating steam is easier for them.
Re: Indian Naval Discussion
From wiki-
First cat launched 1912
Types - Compressed air, hydraulic, steam and now EMALS
navies currently using Cats - US, Brazil and France
Gas turbine powered carriers don't need additional boiler heating mechanisms.
I think US carriers have such a large foot print to comply with the nuclear safety regulations.
Vikram already has 6 boilers in it all it would have needed is an steam accumulator and the actual cat/piston lay out.
First cat launched 1912
Types - Compressed air, hydraulic, steam and now EMALS
navies currently using Cats - US, Brazil and France
Gas turbine powered carriers don't need additional boiler heating mechanisms.
I think US carriers have such a large foot print to comply with the nuclear safety regulations.
Vikram already has 6 boilers in it all it would have needed is an steam accumulator and the actual cat/piston lay out.
Re: Indian Naval Discussion
Katare, the technology is not the stumbling block; the issue is that it is a unique, one-off, and *very* expensive subsystem that only the US, given the sheer size of its carrier fleet, can afford to produce economically.
After all, the catapults on the old Vikrant were British.
For the Charles de Gaulle, the French planned to go with indigenous cats as well. The problem was that the short, high-acceleration cats they designed would have broken pilots' necks with the G forces they imposed. Not good for morale and all that. Ultimately, the effort was shelved and the American C-13-3 was bought instead.
After all, the catapults on the old Vikrant were British.
For the Charles de Gaulle, the French planned to go with indigenous cats as well. The problem was that the short, high-acceleration cats they designed would have broken pilots' necks with the G forces they imposed. Not good for morale and all that. Ultimately, the effort was shelved and the American C-13-3 was bought instead.
Re: Indian Naval Discussion
Mihir, I get the rest but why would it be*very* expansive? old cities/factories used to have miles of steam pipes carrying/disposing huge quantities of steam.
Cats were invented by British navy (wiki) and has been used around WW2 by many countries but they slowely faded away. So it appears that they are neither unique nor exclusive to khan. Although except Khan everyone else have abondend cat technology for some reason.
Cats were invented by British navy (wiki) and has been used around WW2 by many countries but they slowely faded away. So it appears that they are neither unique nor exclusive to khan. Although except Khan everyone else have abondend cat technology for some reason.