Indian Navy News & Discussion - 22 April 2015

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 06 Feb 2016 20:33

download and share all the meat boys before someone pulls the plug

arshyam · Post by **arshyam** » 06 Feb 2016 20:54

Excellent pics, TFS Singha-ji. Here's another, not the usual Navy pic.

I would love to get my hands on the original. Per the above link, the original resolution of this pic is: 57.7 MP 9600×6012

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 06 Feb 2016 20:56

must be someone with a industrial grade medium format stabilized rig on a chetak heli - hasselblad/mamiya types

member_29328 · Post by **member_29328** » 06 Feb 2016 21:00

Great pictures. WOW. But Dil maange more!
Gautam

arshyam · Post by **arshyam** » 06 Feb 2016 21:02

Both carriers reporting for duty:

For the first time in recent memory, we are spoilt for pics! (IFR Photo gallery) Not the usual TFTA stuff, but our very own SDRE ones. Yeh jingo bahut khush hua!

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 06 Feb 2016 21:31

xheer size of behemoth brahmos just coming out of tube is amazing....

sanjaykumar · Post by **sanjaykumar** » 06 Feb 2016 23:23

Great photos. The Harrier seems to be a composite.

Sid · Post by **Sid** » 06 Feb 2016 23:59

Singha wrote:xheer size of behemoth brahmos just coming out of tube is amazing....

Thats not Bhrahmos, either Klub or maybe Kaliber

sohamn · Post by **sohamn** » 07 Feb 2016 00:28

It looks like an SAM to me, possibly Shtil 9M317 SAM.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 07 Feb 2016 00:38

Soham correct

Sid · Post by **Sid** » 07 Feb 2016 02:27

Missile seems to have launched from behind the Shtil single arm launcher. Also its VL.

Shivalik class only houses SSM behind Shtil launcher

member_20067 · Post by **member_20067** » 07 Feb 2016 02:28

Can someone tell me what are those white protruding "fish rods" from the deck of Vicky?

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 07 Feb 2016 02:29

It is klub ashm variant

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 07 Feb 2016 06:07

Yup its not Shtil no fins..

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 07 Feb 2016 06:30

I know its klub. I was referring to another rather penile pic. once the 'foreskin' bull snorts away the real f*ing starts

its like a oak tree suddenly growing from the deck.

srai · Post by **srai** » 07 Feb 2016 06:30

Singha wrote:

Are those Barak-1 VLS (2 X 8 cells) mid-ship next to AK-630 gun mount?

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 07 Feb 2016 06:36

yes I think so.

John · Post by **John** » 07 Feb 2016 06:48

Yes and Shivalik will be fitted with barak 8 reportedly ( likely replacing shtil ).

Shreeman · Post by **Shreeman** » 07 Feb 2016 10:48

The 8 cells have always seemed odd. In the class, a total of 24 cells, compared with 8x4 in any single lighter example. what is the role of the ship? 8 cells arent doing any land stuff.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 07 Feb 2016 10:58

if u mean the 8 klub/brahmos on the talwar and p17 class, they are ASMs.
I do not think IN has any envisaged any land attack role with these as the army seems to be receiving the later marks of brahmos for land attack and periodically tests them.

if nirbhay works out , the P15B onward might carry a few but primarily this is a task best done by submarines as the range of 1000km means you cannot go in so close except weak players like TSP.

Shreeman · Post by **Shreeman** » 07 Feb 2016 11:59

I see. So the role of these units will likely be around a carrier? Stand alone (yes, the asm is supersonic, great, whatever) 8 cells are still not all that threatening. they are threatening enough for bakistan but thats not the point. a ship should fulfill its designated role, regardless of the opponent. p28s and p17s standing guard for p15s who are at the periphery of r33 seems very very defensive. a lot of resupply for altogether 24 cells? r33 doesnt have any. so you get may be a couple p15s, a couple p17s and a couple p28s or the like to make a reasonable point force.

the point is, at some point a pair of bears with its quicker turn around could drop more on the same area without putting 1000s at risk. by comparison, if you had 16 cells on p17s and 32 on p15s you would be able to mix/match and perhaps serve a meaningful role like the kh25s? on the old p61.

if a 1500t p61 can carry 16 then what excuse is there to build in only a 8 cell vs on a 7000+t p17 unless reloadable (are they?) or NONE in the p28s. Not even token 4. they are homemade, cost cant be the reason. why this consistent over-manning and under-arming?

Nothing ever has had more than a 4x4. it is almost as if there were an mtcr type invisible cap on numbers!

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 07 Feb 2016 12:06

Viz a viz the IN, I dont think it is fair to relate displacement with number of VLS.

In real war, how many missiles will a destroyer get to fire? 8 Brahmos for say 4-6 ships conservatively ... even that will be an amazing figure.

There is an element of cost as well. I would rather have 8 VLS and each containing a missile rather than having empty ones. Futhermore, I doubt IN will ever do a "shock and awe" style campaign by overwhelming the opponent with missiles.

Shreeman wrote:I see. So the role of these units will likely be around a carrier? Stand alone (yes, the asm is supersonic, great, whatever) 8 cells are still not all that threatening. they are threatening enough for bakistan but thats not the point. a ship should fulfill its designated role, regardless of the opponent. p28s and p17s standing guard for p15s who are at the periphery of r33 seems very very defensive. a lot of resupply for altogether 24 cells? r33 doesnt have any. so you get may be a couple p15s, a couple p17s and a couple p28s or the like to make a reasonable point force.

the point is, at some point a pair of bears with its quicker turn around could drop more on the same area without putting 1000s at risk. by comparison, if you had 16 cells on p17s and 32 on p15s you would be able to mix/match and perhaps serve a meaningful role like the kh25s? on the old p61.

if a 1500t p61 can carry 16 then what excuse is there to build in only a 8 cell vs on a 7000+t p17 unless reloadable (are they?) or NONE in the p28s. Not even token 4. they are homemade, cost cant be the reason. why this consistent over-manning and under-arming?

Nothing ever has had more than a 4x4. it is almost as if there were an mtcr type invisible cap on numbers!

Shreeman · Post by **Shreeman** » 07 Feb 2016 12:19

aditya,

As we see even with the lowly houthis, or the talipaan, or for that matter in syria -- the old single role doctrine simply doesnt apply anymore. This is why, if there were more cells, you could do "shock and awe" in water and on land.

when the element of surprise is gone, during active hostilities, your argument may be more valid. but there you have 26/11 type actors. clearly the only long range element is the asm. the 3inch isnt going to work in any situation not amounting to hot pursuit.

so in both cases, whether shock-and-awe(tm) or routine use during hostilities 8 cells will be inadequate. the opponent can mount 8cells on two azmats anytime they like and claim stalemate. there just isnt the deterrent value of a 64cell mixed use loadout. even the lowly 4500t gorshkov thinks 32.

what this is doing is stifling the navy role to sea denial. given that there isnt much coming by the way of sea that the coastguard couldnt handle, 7000+t seems wasteful. the weapons dont contribute any real weight in the 7000t as it stands (evidence being the p61 with its 4x4).

I posit also that just as the alvind or its compatriots are not taken seriously (they can do some real damage with those silkworms on steroids!) nor would a p17 alone offer anything serious in the south china sea. thereby limiting it to a rather brown water role.

who knows what the challenges will be in the 30-50 year life span. but by keeping the kid just with an 8cell high school diploma the career prospects are severly limited. almost as if someone said "credible minimum" and no more!

ps -- dont buy the cost argument either. the empty cells wouldnt cost. and the asm is home made, much cheaper in large numbers than an mrca. navy too is returning money to the budget, not overspending. cost really doesnt apply here. operate a large large 8 cell platform, or a 4500t 32 cell one! compare the talwars with gorshkov. same tonnage. cost is not the reason. space is not the reason. the operating costs of a smaller boat alone would make up for the extra cells.

Akshay Kapoor · Post by **Akshay Kapoor** » 07 Feb 2016 13:22

Shreeman,

you are incorrect in saying P17 has 24 cells. It has 8 Klub + 32 Barak 1+ 24 Shtil 1. So if we go by your cell argument the number is 64 ! The cell argument doesn't work because the missiles and cells are not interchangeble. That way P15 A has only 48 cells - 32 Barak 8 + 16 Bramhos. So depending upon role the cells are independent of each other. A Barak 1 can't do the job of a Brahmos. Are you suggesting 64 UVLS cells which can take any missile as need be with missile storage on board ? That sounds great but I imagine would be very expensive.

I do think that IN ships have in the recent past become seemingly underarmed but there may be a reason for it. I don't know. Myabe TSarkar sir can shed some light. But I would prefer more than 8 Ashm missiles on our frigates. Maybe 12 if we can find the space?

Shreeman · Post by **Shreeman** » 07 Feb 2016 13:32

akshay,

3xp17s total ==24cells, not just one p17, but the whole class!

8 or 12 is immaterial at 7000t. you would think one would design 32 or 64.

edit -- i dont get this expensive bit. a, use 50% of budget and return 50% back each year, b, buy 7000t platform that is delivered after 10+ years, c, buy $$b razor and worry about $$m homemade blades?

edit -- the 24cells above were highlighting the insufficiency of a p15+p17 together! little better than the good old p61 if bakis are concerned. clearly delhi is still carrying kh35s? so they arent useless against the western challenge. p61 == 2xp17, 2p61s>>p15+p17? that doesnt compute by cost. but it does by cells.

MN Kumar · Post by **MN Kumar** » 07 Feb 2016 15:10

Singha wrote:

Which missile is this? Looks like a ripple fire. Traces of smoke from a previous launch can be seen.

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 07 Feb 2016 15:19

^ Klub AShM.

Neat observation on ripple fire.

MN Kumar · Post by **MN Kumar** » 07 Feb 2016 15:23

Aditya G wrote:^ Klub AShM.

Neat observation on ripple fire.

Agreed looks like the first one from the below pic:

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 07 Feb 2016 19:23

as seen in the benis pic the sheer size of the brahmos is a deterrent to carrying many ASM cells.

I do agree we need more LRSAM cells but thats to be seen in future ships as the shtils likely will never be replaced on current ships.

unless we make our own UVLS like china has done, we will not be able to put barak8, nirbhay or other missiles into it from various sources.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 07 Feb 2016 19:27

since we are going to be stuck with unique vls for each type of missile for a while, we should build larger ships of 20m beam and take a leaf from zumwalt book of peripheral vls to increase the loadout
just line them up along the sides

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 07 Feb 2016 21:15

Aditya G wrote:Viz a viz the IN, I dont think it is fair to relate displacement with number of VLS.

In real war, how many missiles will a destroyer get to fire? 8 Brahmos for say 4-6 ships conservatively ... even that will be an amazing figure.

There is an element of cost as well. I would rather have 8 VLS and each containing a missile rather than having empty ones. Futhermore, I doubt IN will ever do a "shock and awe" style campaign by overwhelming the opponent with missiles.
]

What would perhaps be of more value is if the bmos uvls can be quadpacked...so perhaps a couple of cell can carry four urans thus giving more fire power

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 07 Feb 2016 22:21

John · Post by **John** » 08 Feb 2016 05:03

Cain Marko wrote:
Aditya G wrote:Viz a viz the IN, I dont think it is fair to relate displacement with number of VLS.

In real war, how many missiles will a destroyer get to fire? 8 Brahmos for say 4-6 ships conservatively ... even that will be an amazing figure.

There is an element of cost as well. I would rather have 8 VLS and each containing a missile rather than having empty ones. Futhermore, I doubt IN will ever do a "shock and awe" style campaign by overwhelming the opponent with missiles.
]
What would perhaps be of more value is if the bmos uvls can be quadpacked...so perhaps a couple of cell can carry four urans thus giving more fire power

There is no VL launched uran and also l&t Brahmos UVLS launchers appear to be different than the Russian Universal launchers (which are used in 2nd batch of Talwar FFG). I don't think former is compatible with Klub.

srai · Post by **srai** » 08 Feb 2016 05:51

Time for Indian 8m UVLS (standard 8-cell) that can handle both hot/cold launches:

Brahmos-1
Brahmos-M
Nirbhay
Barak-8 LR-SAM (multi-pack per silo)
SR-SAM (multi-pack per silo)

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 08 Feb 2016 06:17

Any pics of the Arihant?

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 08 Feb 2016 08:28

warship hulls are widest on deck and meet at bottom. to fit a certain cuboid inside the width has to increase all through.

for comparison the DDG51 ships are about 20m wide and the heaviest and longest missile they carry in mk41 vls is 1.5tons 7m SM6. our biggest ddg the p15a is about 17.4m wide and has to cart the 3ton 8.4 meters long brahmos. others like shivaliks and talwars are 16.xm range,,with a corresponding decline in potential height of vls and how many cells wide it can be.

so we have these brahmos raised one deck level up from the gun deck to cope and cannot have them flush unless we have a type45/ffg51 size 10,000t ship 2+m wide

I think we can still stretch these designs a bit though to put in 8 more cells.

PVLS is not feasible in convetional hulls as it slopes in. in zumwalt it slopes out.

Karthik S · Post by **Karthik S** » 08 Feb 2016 08:52

Singha wrote:warship hulls are widest on deck and meet at bottom. to fit a certain cuboid inside the width has to increase all through.

for comparison the DDG51 ships are about 20m wide and the heaviest and longest missile they carry in mk41 vls is 1.5tons 7m SM6. our biggest ddg the p15a is about 17.4m wide and has to cart the 3ton 8.4 meters long brahmos. others like shivaliks and talwars are 16.xm range,,with a corresponding decline in potential height of vls and how many cells wide it can be.

so we have these brahmos raised one deck level up from the gun deck to cope and cannot have them flush unless we have a type45/ffg51 size 10,000t ship 2+m wide

I think we can still stretch these designs a bit though to put in 8 more cells.

PVLS is not feasible in convetional hulls as it slopes in. in zumwalt it slopes out.

I am by no means a ship designer but feel in P15s, the cells could have been arranged in two 8*4 cells in fore and aft for a total of 64 missiles. The fore cells could have carried entirely brahmos or nirbhays while the aft could have carried the Barak 8. With the present design, I think lot of area is going untilized between the brahmos cells and the barak 8 cells in fore.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 08 Feb 2016 12:41

Locating smaller missiles on either beam adjacent to the hull is becos they act as a sort of ERA for incoming missiles which might strike the vessel and reduce damage. Once BMos-M arrives,with a reduced length,our warships could accommodate more SSMs in silos. Larger surface combatants could also feature KLUB variants plus Nirbhay.The IN should start looking at more innovative hulls like the AUSTAL cats.Tri-marans offer great scope.