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.
Okay, Dhruv having folded blade is not some thing new
It can be done manually but the issue is " the navy wants an automatic blade folding facility, of the kind that is installed in its Sea King helos. In this, onboard electrical or hydraulic actuators fold up the blades quickly, rather than having to go through the longer and more painstaking process of manually folding the blades. Remember, that in the smaller warships, the tips of the main rotor blades extend beyond the deck, overhanging the sea. So manually folding them --- by removing bolts and supporting the blades during folding/unfolding --- is an exercise that the navy would rather avoid "
From the present report , i could not get anything about any automatic folding system but a mechanism where , the 12 O' clock and 6 O'clock blade will stay at their position and 3 O'clock and 6 O'clock blades ,will fold towards 6 O'clock blade . This way they can keep 2 dhruv in a single hanger . Entry and exit wont be a problem , even if another helo is occupying the hanger.
"The navy’s initially stated requirement was for the rotors to be folded within a width of 3.5 metres" , HAL worked on the problem and came up with the concept of “segmented blades”, which would be 5.1 metres wide instead of the navy’s requirement of 3.5 metres. HAL says the navy has agreed to the 5.1 metre width, and that the process of manually folding the “segmented blades” has been demonstrated to the navy."
shiv, That turn form vertical to horizontal is called ahead steering.
It shows the precise milliseconds timing of the ignition circuits and the sensor integration. The circuits turn on at precise height which is sensed by axial acceleration!!!!
A French official cited by defense news website Defense One said that Moscow has signaled that Russian telecommunications and missile control systems installed onboard the Mistral helicopter carriers may not be removed, if Egypt or India were to purchase the warships.
Singha wrote:scorpene as it stands is too small to have brahmos UVLS tubes without a hump. strangely DCN itself seemed not interested in offering a reworked scorpene to meet such new reqs....its more busy cooking up futuristic concepts like SMX-21, 25 and 26.
check out the 25.
Well ... I would think smaller Brahmos-M/NG would be better fit for SSKs. They would be able to be launched from torpedo-tubes. Brahmos-1 is too large for a capability that offers only 290km range. I would think VL launching B-1 at those ranges would be too close for comfort. Wouldn't the enemy be able to triangulate your position fairly quickly? Other types of AShM like Exocet are launched silently in a torpedo-like canister and it can be maneuvered to a safe distance prior to having it launch out of the water.
In a bid to test the features of MiG-29K fighter jet, a Short Take Off and Arrestor Recovery operation was conducted at the Naval Air Station INS Hansa in Goa.
This was demonstrated to the Consultative Committee of Ministry of Defence (MoD). Members of the Consultative Committee of MoD were shown the latest facilities and infrastructure made for MiG-29K. A demonstration of a take off from the Shore Based Test Facility as also an Arrestor Recovery was shown to the MPs.
INS hansa has long had this facility. what is untested is single engine arrested recovery...perhaps we should go ahead on our own instead of never ending wait for the russians to test it ... we have operatedt the mig29 for a long time now.
this will permit the vikky to roam far and wide.
testing it in Hansa gives a nice cushion if things dont work as expected.
Singha wrote:INS hansa has long had this facility. what is untested is single engine arrested recovery...perhaps we should go ahead on our own instead of never ending wait for the russians to test it ... we have operatedt the mig29 for a long time now.
this will permit the vikky to roam far and wide.
testing it in Hansa gives a nice cushion if things don't work as expected.
I think it was INS Hansa's launch and recovery system being tested here.
US warships that will participate in next month's excercise
Top of the line US warships and a nuclear powered submarine will be in the Bay of Bengal next month for a naval exercise involving the US, India and Japan. The USS Theodore Roosevelt, a 1 lakh tonne sea-borne aircraft carrier with space for 90 fighter jets and helicopters on board, will lead the US fleet.
It is currently deployed in the Persian Gulf and is used by the US to launch attacks on terror group IS-controlled areas. The nuclear powered warship is 332 m long and is one of the most potent warships from US’ Nimitz-class carriers.
Littoral combat ship USS Fort Worth, nuclear-powered Los Angeles-class submarine and guided-missile carrying cruiser USS Normandy will be part of the fleet for the naval exercise — ‘Malabar’.
The Indian Navy will field its stealth frigate INS Shivalik and warships INS Ranvir and INS Betwa, besides a diesel-electric powered submarine and a fleet tanker. The Japanese have so far confirmed the participation of its warship JS Fuyuzuki
fuyuzuki is a powerful akizuki class DDG designed to defeat swarm ASM attacks on the fleet. it has high mounted four radar panels to control salvos of sams.
there will surely be a oil tanker and hopefully a Soryu as well
Singha wrote:fuyuzuki is a powerful akizuki class DDG designed to defeat swarm ASM attacks on the fleet. it has high mounted four radar panels to control salvos of sams.
there will surely be a oil tanker and hopefully a Soryu as well
From wiki "Anti-submarine and Electronic Warfare (EW) capabilities of the Akizuki class have been enhanced, with a new OQQ-22 integrated sonar suite sub-system (hull-sonar and OQR-3 towed array; - a Japanese equivalent of the American AN/SQQ-89), and the NOLQ-3D digitalized EW suite sub-system. These sub-systems communicate across a NOYQ-1B wide area network. In totality these systems are comparable to those of theZumwalt destroyer."
Including Japan in the regular exercises is good thing. It has 16 subs, 4 Heli destroyers, 3 Landing ships, 37 destroyers - some of the with 10k ton wight, 6 corvettes etc. Most of which has significant tech capabilities and not some outdated junk. This is a formidable force. Japan may be a foremost naval power in Asia even now. But there is hardly any fear or concern of Japan in any of the other nations in the area as of now. Bit surprising.
Japan also said to be developing a new rail gun and a laser close in defense system. May be we can join them in developing the same.
I have had a question for the longest time and reading much about it, has not really resolved the question.
From an Indian perspective, is it worthwhile (cost/capability ratio) to have large (16 inch) guns on its destroyers for the purposes of a sustained artillery shore barrage? Or is it that, just like for the US the air wing of carriers, frigates, and LACM carrying destroyers can perform much of these roles at a lower cost and risk?
Also, can one really separate the heavy armor on erstwhile battleships from the guns themselves or both go hand in hand? Meaning one cannot exist without the other?
A destroyer hull will not absorb/withstand recoil forces of a 16" gun.
However can withstand rockets and missiles.
Also need to look at roles and capabilities.
A 16" gun was needed in the days of battle ships i.e. between 1880 to 1941.
Shore bombardment is a US task after there was o more role for a battleship.
Need both armor and guns. The armor provides protection from enemy counter fire and also deadweight to absorb the shock.
Also read about Battle of River Plate where the Graf Spee raked HMS Exeter and killed most of the crew due to lack of protection.
^^^ its important to remind everyone the first experiences of BattleCruisers - without additional armor and reinforcement - early battlecuisers had the problem of buckling hull when 13 - 15 inch guns were fired. Many early WW 1 battlecruisers needed additional reinforcement to fire a full broadside.
ShauryaT wrote:....From an Indian perspective, is it worthwhile (cost/capability ratio) to have large (16 inch) guns on its destroyers for the purposes of a sustained artillery shore barrage? Or is it that, just like for the US the air wing of carriers, frigates, and LACM carrying destroyers can perform much of these roles at a lower cost and risk?...
The modern use case for battleships lies only in shore bombardment ("Naval Gun Fire Support"). As such, NGFS is required only if you are planning to make beach assaults, or at least wage war close to the sea.
Viz-a-viz cost and capability, there is largely an unresolved debate in the US whether there is any substitute for the fire lost since Wisconsin and Iowa retired. Just last week, Donald Trump declared his intention to bring back these ships into active service! The USN proposed that the DDG-1000 will at least partially fill in the gap.
In India, I don't see any requirement of battleship level NGFS as we are unlikely to make a beach assault of that scale or audacity. Moreover, smaller guns have other uses as well, especially in air defence. I think 76 mm really is the optimum size for IN ships, but I would like to see at least 2 per destroyer instead of the scarce single unit. Perhaps we can opt for 127 mm and 76 mm combination on some destroyers.
the italians who have a world famous gun in oto-breda deviated from the french in their first line horizon DDG and put in some 3 x 76mm guns. french have one less.
there are two in the front below the bridge and one in the back, permitting for most part 2 guns to engage inbounds in any direction..without needing to turn the ship..because in worst case ship might be moving to deal with torpedo threats also.
their only drawback from being considered omnirole is carrying just one helicopter not two. even the more numerous FREMM ships usually have just 1. I think they want to run ASW units from their LPH ships.
What's the range of the said 16-inch guns ? How close does it need to come to the shore to do a shore bombardment ?
A ship is vulnerable close to the shore from shore launched missiles and "fishing boats". Hezbolla fired a cruise missile and damaged an Israeli warship during the Lebanon war.
the WW2 era guns had a range of around 30km I think...the armor piercing shells weighed in around 1 ton though, vs around 45 kg for a modern 155mm HE round. ie. each shell is a bunker buster of 2400lb.
that is why the two battleships in ODS were used to strike deeply buried bunkers and weapon storages in range.
the ERGM 100km guided shells, italian vulcano 127mm ER shells none of these will have the sheer throw weight of these oldies...there are merely 155mm at most...6"..but range and firing rate much higher.
Battleships were armed with large heavy guns,as it was the flavor of the day that such ships would slug it out in classic "crossing of the line",from the days of sail Trafalgar,etc,right down to the battle of Jutland.They were also heavily armoured. The "battlecruiser" was a hybrid,heavy guns with thinner armour,meant to protect convoys/merchantmen from raiders ,but as the English found at Jutland,the compromise was flawed when 3 BCs were sunk by the Germans. This thinking still prevailed right into WW2,when the Japanese built the mightiest of BBs of all, the Yamato and Musashi,with 18.1" guns,even bigger than the US's BBs. The Musashi was sunk in the Subiyan Sea battle, a major skirmish during the run-up to the battle of Leyte Gulf.After Pearl Harbour,it was evident that the carrier was the new top dog of the sea.The sinking of the RN's Prince of Wales and Repulse off the Malayan coast in '41 by Japanese aircraft also signaled the end of the BB as top dog.
However,the value of the big guns was seen at Normandy and in the Pacific War,and even in the Meditt decades later,when the USS New Jersey shelled Beirut in the Lebanese civil war.That was after her role providing gunfire support in Vietnam. Her 16''/50cal guns could fire a shell 37km. The Yamato and Musashi of 72,000t,were considered "Super-BBs".A third,the Shinano was converted into a carrier,but was sunk at the fag end of the war by a US sub,Archerfish,after 4 torpedo hits.Poor flood control saw her capsize.She is the largest ever warship sunk by a sub. The Yamato was sunk by US carrier aircraft during OpTen-Go,taking 10 torpedo hits plus sev. bombs. The Yamato's 18.1" main guns in 3 triple turrets could fire a shell out to 42km! Todays main guns,far smaller than those of WW2
behemoths,have greater ranges with ER ammo,and the new US rail-gun will eventually have a range of 100+km,using its kinetic energy alone to destroy a warship/target.
The modern equiv of a BB/BC is perhaps the Soviet Cold War era Kirov class of nuclear powered battle-cruisers.These are v.heavily armed with LR missiles ,nuclear tipped ,along with an arsenal of other weaponry including LR SAMs,etc. There is an excellent series on TV on right now,"The last ship",a must for BRF afficianados,which features an Arleigh Burke DDG and a Russian Kirov BCG.
The IN has poor gunfire support capabilities,with the largest guns being the 4.5" guns which were on the retired Leanders.Vindhyagiri sank after the collision at Bombay and Taragiri is the last survivor of the improved Leander class of FFs. The largest calibre now is the 100mm A-190 on the Talwars.Even the Delhis/Kol class DDGs have only 76mm main guns. Chinese/Russian Sovs have 130mm main guns. the USN's newer surface combatants DDG class, will feature 155mm main guns with around 900 rounds of LRAP ammo.
The US Capitol still has a huge affinity for 16inchers. A decade after the last Iowa class got retired, they still hold hearings from senior Naval planners about the need for "old fashioned fire support". They even hauled the Iowa out of mothballs, because "law says so". Curious logic in the age of PGMs and extended range 155mms, unless there is some hidden X-files requirements against the thick hide of Godzilla
The argument is that 155mm is not going to replace the 16 inchers
Question for Naval gurus - what is our doctrine that leads us to have just 32 VLS cells for SAMs in our Project 15 A and B destroyers. There must be some logic to this ??
No logic! Probably a case of budgetary constraints.There may be space left over for "extras" at a later upgrade/date,considering the space that appeasr unfilled/available,but considering the wave of multiple salvoes of missiles launched against task forces,nothing less than about 64 SAMs of both PD and LR,will be the minimum for an FFG sized warship. Current surface combatants FFG and above,should have a layered defence .LR,SR and BPDMS gun/missile systems,Decoys too.Detection time is growing much smaller with the advent of supersonic and stealth missiles. The objective should be to detect first and shoot first.The moment an unidentified contact is detected in a war scenario/combat zone,the order should be "let go!"
The success of the big guns for shore-bombardment from close range requires co-operation from enemies also being old-fashioned in not having weapon tracking radar and using counter-battery fire.
If you want to soften a place prior to amphibious landing, mount an MLRS like Smerch on a ship, fire a salvo and move away very quickly.
India and the US have created a "joint challenge coin" to symbolise their unique partnership in creating a next-generation aircraft carrier for the Indian Navy.
One side of the coin reads "Forward Together We Go" and "Chale Chale Saath Saath" in Hindi; which is the vision statement of US President Barack Obama Prime Minister Narendra Modi, issued in their first meeting at the White House last September.
The other side of this coin, which is golden in colour, has the maps of India and the United States and an aircraft carrier floating on blue water.
The "joint challenge coin" was created by the joint working group at their first meeting in US last month "to symbolise partnership", Keith Webster, Director and International Cooperation Office of the Under Secretary of Defence for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics told PTI.
During Obama's visit to India in January, the two countries had announced the establishment of a working group for a next-generation aircraft carrier to bolster the Indian Navy's blue-water capabilities, which held its first-ever meeting here last month
Gimmicks don't a carrier create! What would be more relevant in the joint exercise is to identify the key elements of a large CV which the US will provide us with the required tech. First and most crucial item,the N-plant.If Russia could assist is us in developing the N-reactor for the ATV/Arihant and providing us with detailed designs,drawings,etc,for its construction,the US should follow their example now that we've signed an N-deal with them. EMALS probably no.2,but here,the cost of EMALS which was too expensive even for Britain for its QE CVs,needs to be factored in at the beginning,with the other option of ski-jump/STOBAR. Integral LR SAMs for ABM defence to counter the PLAN's anti-CV BMs a requirement.Rail-gun tech for anti-air/missile systems would be most welcome.Lasers for the same purpose.Lastly,drone tech for the future carrier-based UCAVs. There are several aircraft options both from east and west,but naval UCAVs are going to be one of the key factors in future carrier ops.
Apart from the exotica,more mundane items like conformal radars,sensors,etc. are par for the course. The US has the most extensive history and experience of carrier ops,from WW2 days ,and the task today is identifying a futuristic design which will be survivable in the next decade from the latest BM and other missile and sub threats.
Philip wrote:EMALS probably no.2,but here,the cost of EMALS which was too expensive even for Britain for its QE CVs,needs to be factored in at the beginning,with the other option of ski-jump/STOBAR.
Britain never seriously considered the EMALS - they had their own design by Converteam called the EMCAT. And it was 'too expensive' because the ships had already been designed for STOVL operations, the contracts had already been issued and the construction had already commenced. The cost difference between the F-35B & F-35C was small in comparison.
Very different situation when the ship is being designed from inception for catapults (by the time the EMALS tech should also have matured considerably).
Akshay Kapoor wrote:Question for Naval gurus - what is our doctrine that leads us to have just 32 VLS cells for SAMs in our Project 15 A and B destroyers. There must be some logic to this ??
Not entirely sure but am hoping it is because a quad packed uvls is round the corner...32 vls then would be plenty...but still there is plenty of room still on those decks, maybe nirbhays well join the brahmos not too far in the future on the p15a. Jmt np.
