Indian Navy News & Discussion - 22 April 2015

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.
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Indian Naval News & Discussion - 22 April 2015

Postby Singha » 16 Feb 2016 06:38

the round thing atop the heli hanger was a satcom antenna I think. since it needs no hull penetration could relocated anywhere.

John
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2508
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: Indian Naval News & Discussion - 22 April 2015

Postby John » 16 Feb 2016 07:43

Aditya G wrote:
John wrote:That is not P 15b the Brahmos VLS cells are stacked horizontally not vertically as per computer rendered model displayed during Visakhapatnam launch. Also the turret in model does not resemble oto 127 mm.


Sir, confirmed as Project 15B


Yes the superstructure matches the computer rendered image but the gun displayed in model is to small to be Oto-127 mm possible they got dimensions wrong i suppose it does resemble it. Perhaps layout for VLS cells was changed again since Vishak's launch.

Differences:

RBU-6000 mount different
VLS layout slightly different and closer together
Main gun different
Bridge shape and windows layout different

That doesn't even resemble any Rbu 6000 mounts either it is entirely new system with just 6 rockets or very bad model :lol: Most important different is VLS config, super structure changes and oto 127mm. All which would make this easily far bigger in displacement than P-15As.

andy B
BRFite
Posts: 1619
Joined: 05 Jun 2008 11:03
Location: Gora Paki

Re: Indian Naval News & Discussion - 22 April 2015

Postby andy B » 16 Feb 2016 07:57

Singha wrote:to me main diff looks like 48 or 40 vs 32 barak8 and same for barak1 as well in the back .
the brahmos cellcount is also increased by some 8 more I think with more efficient packing arrangement.
this opens up room for a mixed load of say 8 brahmos and 16 nirbhays to permit some long range land attack role.


GD doubt this bad boy will carry Barak 1s this possibly will be Barak 8 and ERs all the way with a much bigger count than 32 fingers crossed!

Also IIRC wasnt the original proposal to have 16 brahmos and 16 nirbhay on this mean dog of the sea :twisted: Hell even 24 is a very respectable load.

John saar whats your estimate for full displacement vis P15A? I reckon > 7500 tonnes with fully loaded well over 8000 tonnes?

John
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2508
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: Indian Naval News & Discussion - 22 April 2015

Postby John » 16 Feb 2016 08:22

If Janes article about Barak 8 ER is correct they can be easily fitted into existing platform that carry Barak-8. But in place of 8 launchers there will be only 6 Barak-8 ER launchers. Article also mentions there are no customers and is still in development, not sure if navy would go for another weapon system that is still in testing phase at this point.

andy B wrote:John saar whats your estimate for full displacement vis P15A? I reckon > 7500 tonnes with fully loaded well over 8000 tonnes?

P-15A full load displacement is around 7300-7500 tons depending on the source, early literature for P-15B has 7300 tons which could be its standard displacement that would put its full load around 8000 tons. IMO i don't think it would be bigger than Type 45 but clearly one of biggest surface combatants apart from Russian cold war vessels or any of Aegis class DDGs.

http://www.ndtv.com/india-news/all-about-the-ins-visakhapatnam-navys-newest-destroyer-755476

Also this article list some of improvements, i cannot see much of any changes in the mast in the model.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21056
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Naval News & Discussion - 22 April 2015

Postby Philip » 16 Feb 2016 09:20

Naval SAMs have always had the secondary potential of being used as anti-ship weapons.During the Cold War,some Russian SAMs were credited with this dual capability. In the light of being left behind in the anti-ship supersonic race,Raytheon, a major missile contractor of the USN is fast-tracking its best selling LR SAM into a very potent anti-ship supersonic Mach 3.5 missile with a range of 250KM. At present,the USN has only the subsonic Harpoon aboard its warships with Tomahawaks being dedicated to land attack missions.There is no equiv. to BMos ,Klub or Moskit at all, hence the SM-6 "twofer" role.

The IN with its new Barak-8 SAM could also leverage that missile into having a dual use capability.Other legacy SAMs may have already been tasked for the same.

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2 ... ssile.aspx
Surprise! The U.S. Navy Has a New Ship-Killing Missile
The Navy repurposes Raytheon's most advanced antiaircraft missile for surface warfar

Raytheon Company's (NYSE:RTN) Standard Missile 6 (SM-6) is one of America's most advanced missiles.
Up, up, and away goes Raytheon's Standard Missile-6. Will profits go up, too? Image source: Missile Defense Agency via Raytheon.

Built upon the company's legacy Standard Missile airframe, and boasting guidance technology imported from the company's air-to-air missile expertise, SM-6 takes AMRAAM tech out of the air, and stows it aboard a ship -- there to shoot down incoming anti-ship missiles. Designed to slot right into a MK 41 VLS canister, SM-6 can be carried aboard any of the U.S. Navy's fleet of Ticonderoga-class guided missile cruisers and Arleigh Burke-class guided missile destroyers. It's tailor-made for defending U.S. warships from hostile anti-ship missiles.

And now the SM-6 is being turned into an anti-ship missile itself.

The best defense is... a pretty good offensive weapon, too
Last week, U.S. Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter announced a new initiative to modify Raytheon's powerful SM-6 "so that in addition to missile defense, it can also target enemy ships at sea at very long ranges." In what the SecDef called a "twofer," the SM-6 will be tweaked so that, depending on the mission, one single missile can be tasked with either a defensive role -- shooting down incoming missiles and aircraft -- or an offensive role -- targeting enemy warships.

In an anti-ship role, SM-6 would use targeting data from an E-2D Advanced Hawkeye aircraft overhead at the outset, then switch to its own on-board radar on final approach. When it's linked into a naval squadron's integrated fire control battle network, National Interest magazine posits that an SM-6 could strike targets as far out as 250 nautical miles (or more) when assigned an anti-ship mission.

Mind you, designed for primarily an anti-air role, the SM-6 doesn't carry a large warhead. But NI notes that when traveling at Mach 3.5, the missile would contain significant kinetic energy upon striking a target. By my calculations, a 1.5-ton SM-6 missile, moving at Mach 3.5 (1,200 meters per second), would strike with the energy equivalent of a quarter-ton of TNT. That's close to the destructive force of Boeing's (NYSE:BA) new-and-improved "Harpoon Next Generation" anti-ship missile with its 500-pound warhead.

What it means to investors
I don't mention Boeing here by chance, either. Because, as it just so happens, Boeing and its Harpoon are currently racing against Raytheon to win valuable Navy contracts to boost the offensive potential of its missile force.

Boeing's betting that the Navy will go with the proven performance of its Harpoon -- 7,500 units sold over the past 40 years. Raytheon, on the other hand, may have a stronger case to make for a "twofer" SM-6 missile, which can be used on both anti-air and anti-ship missions, thus satisfying two needs for the Navy while taking up only one missile's-worth of valuable ship space.

That's a powerful argument in Raytheon's favor -- but how much might it be worth to the company and its investors?

It's hard to say, exactly. According to the military hardware specialists at BGA-Aeroweb, Raytheon only shifted into full-rate production on the SM-6 -- Raytheon's most advanced Standard Missile variant -- in 2013, and only delivered its first full-rate-production SM-6 in April of last year. Over time, though, the Navy plans to buy a total of 1,800 SM-6 missiles. At an estimated $3.2 million per missile, the SM-6 program could be worth as much as $5.8 billion in revenues to Raytheon. At the 13% operating profit margin common within Raytheon's missile systems division, that works out to more than $765 million in pure profit for Raytheon -- or more than $2.50 per share. And that's if the Navy doesn't increase its purchases of SM-6 missiles in response to their newfound ability to do double duty aboard ship.

So in short, how big of a deal is SecDef's decision to declare the SM-6 a "twofer?"
It's a pretty big deal.


Sid
BRFite
Posts: 1653
Joined: 19 Mar 2006 13:26

Re: Indian Naval News & Discussion - 22 April 2015

Postby Sid » 16 Feb 2016 09:28

USN used to have RIM 8 Talos, grand daddy of Brahmos, which they could use as ASM.

Image

RIM 116 RAM can also be used against surface targets.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4699
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Indian Naval News & Discussion - 22 April 2015

Postby srai » 16 Feb 2016 11:24

Singha wrote:to me main diff looks like 48 or 40 vs 32 barak8 and same for barak1 as well in the back .
the brahmos cellcount is also increased by some 8 more I think with more efficient packing arrangement.
this opens up room for a mixed load of say 8 brahmos and 16 nirbhays to permit some long range land attack role.


I think the missile load out is similar. You can count the silos and they are the same between P-15A and P-15B. The main difference seems to be bigger main gun up-front, which has nessisiate reduction to the VLS mound area in P-15B.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21056
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Naval News & Discussion - 22 April 2015

Postby Philip » 16 Feb 2016 16:55


How India's Navy is becoming indispensable


By Harsh V Pant 15 February 2016
The Indian Navy underlined its growing prowess at the International Fleet Review (IFR) 2016 early this month. Though it was largely a ceremonial inspection of naval warships by the head of the Indian State, it provided an opportunity for the Navy to showcase its might and rapidly expanding capabilities.

It was in 2001 that an event of such a scale was first held in India, and since then the Navy has only grown bigger with a fleet comprising 75 frontline ships and submarines besides 24 ships from across the world.

This year saw the participation of naval contingents from around 50 nations, including Australia, Bangladesh, Brazil, China, France, Indonesia, Iran, the Maldives, the UK and the US.
Aircraft carrier INS Vikramaditya. The Indian Navy has emerged as an indispensable tool of diplomacy in recent years.

Strategy

Flagging the threat of sea-borne terror and piracy as two key challenges and underlining the need to respect navigational freedom against the backdrop of the South China Sea dispute, Prime Minister Narendra Modi declared that India will be hosting the first-ever Global Maritime Summit in April.

He made it clear that the Indian Ocean remains his government’s priority given the country’s 1,200 island territories, and its huge Exclusive Economic Zone of 2.4 million sq km and the region serving “as a strategic bridge with the nations in our immediate and extended maritime neighbourhood”.

Underlining the need for a “modern and multi-dimensional navy, Modi stressed that India would continue to actively pursue and promote its geopolitical, strategic and economic interests on the seas, in particular the the Indian Ocean.

The Indian Navy has emerged as an indispensable tool of diplomacy in recent years, making it an imperative for Indian policymakers and naval thinkers to consider anew the role of naval forces.

Despite a general understanding among Indian political elites that it was the littoral dominance by European powers that led to their colonial ascendancy in India, the focus on land frontiers led to the dominance of the Indian Army in the national security discourse.

Until the end of the Cold War, the maritime dimension of India’s security did not figure adequately in national consciousness.

Indian policymakers did not perceive the advantage of building up maritime sinews as the country remained concerned with the north and north-western frontiers after Partition, rather than the seas.

Yet despite the Navy’s marginalisation, it was largely successful in maintaining a credible force.

Policy

Today, the Indian Navy’s original local sea-control and shore-defence orientation, which largely focused on preserving the integrity of Indian waters from regional threats, have given way to a more ambitious posture.

India’s naval policy is geared towards ensuring the freedom of navigation for shipping and safety of sea lines of communication as well as to safeguard its interests in contiguous waters, Exclusive Economic Zone and island territories.

The Navy would eventually like to emerge as a world-class blue-water force, equipped to meet regional challenges and to safeguard India’s maritime interests.

Indian naval expansion is being undertaken with an eye on China, and INS Arihant and INS Vikrant notwithstanding, India has nautical miles to go before it can catch up with its powerful neighbour, which has made some significant advances in waters surrounding India.

The launch of an aircraft carrier is seen as critical for the Navy as it remains anxious to maintain its presence in the shipping lanes of the Indian Ocean and the Arabian Sea.

Expansion

Indian naval planners have long argued that if it is to maintain continuous operational readiness in the Indian Ocean, protect sea lanes of communication in the Persian Gulf and monitor Chinese activities in the Bay of Bengal, it needs a minimum of three aircraft carriers and a fleet of five nuclear submarines.

There are some suggestions that the Indian Navy could be close to realising the dream of operating three carriers by the end of the decade, but that may be rather optimistic.

Other serious challenges remain, as exemplified by the enduring problems of safety and reliability which the Navy has been grappling with for decades.

The Navy has a poor accident record with several mishaps in recent years. Even as its surface fleet expansion has been progressing well, the submarine fleet is not only ageing but also depleting fast with the induction of new submarines not on track.

Despite some recent successes, India’s indigenous defence production has been marred by serious technical and organisational problems, leading to significant delays in the development of key defence technologies and platforms.

The Indian Navy, much like the other two services, has found it difficult to translate its conceptual commitment to self-reliance and indigenisation into actionable policy, resulting in a perpetuation of reliance on external sources.

Yet, India’s reliance on its Navy is only likely to increase in the coming years as naval build-up continues apace in the Indo-Pacific region. With India’s economic rise, New Delhi is trying to make the Navy integral to its national grand strategy.

The writer is a professor of international relations, King’s College London

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/indiahome/in ... z40KiiTguk

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Indian Naval News & Discussion - 22 April 2015

Postby Singha » 16 Feb 2016 18:20

i do not see what the vulcano 127mm brings to the table for a escort DDG like the P15B. would have been better to increase number of missiles and keep same gun as P15A. the close packing now clearly shows there is room to increase the loadout even in 15A.

Aditya G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3481
Joined: 19 Feb 2002 12:31
Contact:

Re: Indian Naval News & Discussion - 22 April 2015

Postby Aditya G » 17 Feb 2016 22:30

Project 17 alpha render?

Image

John
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2508
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: Indian Naval News & Discussion - 22 April 2015

Postby John » 18 Feb 2016 00:04

Looks like we got first glimpse of P17A.

Aditya G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3481
Joined: 19 Feb 2002 12:31
Contact:

Re: Indian Naval News & Discussion - 22 April 2015

Postby Aditya G » 18 Feb 2016 00:20

Notes:

- Bulbous MF-STAR mast (vs thin mast in previous render)
- Large VLS module (like in P-17)
- Flush deck confirmed
- RBU-6000 discarded?
- bulbous bow like P-15B

Image

Aditya G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3481
Joined: 19 Feb 2002 12:31
Contact:

Re: Indian Naval News & Discussion - 22 April 2015

Postby Aditya G » 18 Feb 2016 00:30

Ships under construction by yard:

01 CSL
15 MDL
17 GRSE (I have counted 8 LCU vs 7 on the poster - has 1 been commissioned?)
05 Pipavav
02 ABG (I have counted 2 vs 3 on the poster)
03 AAG (I have counted 3 vs 6 on the poster)

01 HSL - OSS (this is probably not a Navy order on paper, and hence not counted)
03 SBC
15 Solas Marine
06 Bharati Shipyard - dont know what type but could be minor vessels

Karthik S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5380
Joined: 18 Sep 2009 12:12

Re: Indian Naval News & Discussion - 22 April 2015

Postby Karthik S » 18 Feb 2016 02:57

Think the SSN orders will go to L&T.

John
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2508
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: Indian Naval News & Discussion - 22 April 2015

Postby John » 18 Feb 2016 04:02

Aditya

Second cgi render you posted i believe is not an official image. It came out around the time of talks of JV with foreign SY to build P17A. Of course those plans were scaled back.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4699
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Indian Naval News & Discussion - 22 April 2015

Postby srai » 18 Feb 2016 04:07

P-15B and P-17A render looks the same to me on that poster.

Surya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5034
Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31

Re: Indian Naval News & Discussion - 22 April 2015

Postby Surya » 18 Feb 2016 04:28

except where are the minesweepers :(

member_23370
BRFite
Posts: 1103
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Naval News & Discussion - 22 April 2015

Postby member_23370 » 18 Feb 2016 04:58

And 16 Janta class ASW corvettes? GSL should be able to do the, fast enough.

Shreeman
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3762
Joined: 17 Jan 2007 15:31
Location: bositiveneuj.blogspot.com
Contact:

Re: Indian Naval News & Discussion - 22 April 2015

Postby Shreeman » 18 Feb 2016 09:21

6 shipyards. 2 sub lines. in another generation this would form a remarkable MIC if the fight elements are home made, guns and ciws exist. Fix the cruise and ballistic elements, introduce LPD and cruiser classes. You would have a reasonable chain that will keep up with the chinese.

John
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2508
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: Indian Naval News & Discussion - 22 April 2015

Postby John » 19 Feb 2016 03:23

^ Why exactly do we need a cruiser class for?


Singha wrote:i do not see what the vulcano 127mm brings to the table for a escort DDG like the P15B. would have been better to increase number of missiles and keep same gun as P15A. the close packing now clearly shows there is room to increase the loadout even in 15A.


I believe it is to provide some large bombardment capability especially in counter insurgency ops who knows were UN is going to get pulled in, israelis demonstrated the usefulness in gaza and leb conflicts. They also showed the importance of keeping the vessels outside of radar horizon when hizb decided to lob some ashm at them. Vulcan ammo should come handy for that.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Indian Naval News & Discussion - 22 April 2015

Postby Singha » 19 Feb 2016 06:53

imo its better to mount such LR cannons on a Saryu class ship if at all need is felt. rest of it can be kept cheap and austere as usual. deputing our largest and most complex ships to UN missions to bombard huts on some shore is a waste of our time and money...same way DDG51 ships were way overkill and clumsy for anti-piracy missions. CG cutters are best but US has more DDGs than CG cutters

hnair
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3994
Joined: 03 May 2006 01:31
Location: Trivandrum

Re: Indian Naval News & Discussion - 22 April 2015

Postby hnair » 19 Feb 2016 07:48

That cannon is a cheap way to ensure a blockade and also to take out logistics. Disable unarmed ships feeding the enemy with the cannon, like the U-boats used to do.

eg: a P-teen IN capital ship, rushing to an engagement with hostile capital ships, comes in contact with a bunch of cheen/pak logistics vessels. Do you sink these targets of opportunity with costly Tier 1 missiles like Brahmos/Nirbhay, less costlier Tier 2 Exocet/harpoon or use the 127mm at leisure? Remember there is a bigger fight coming up, that needs a larger stock of the upper-Tier stuff

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21056
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Naval News & Discussion - 22 April 2015

Postby Philip » 19 Feb 2016 09:30

If you look at the Kol class DDGs,there is enough space for fitting the two MBUs forward of the main gun ,which will be moved a little rearwards. This opens up huge spaces for B-8 SAMs,at least 24 forward of the bridge,plus 8X2 anti-missile B-1s hullside, acting like ERA as planned for USN surface combatants,with at least 16-24 SSMs BMos/Klub. between the B-8s and the main gun. Another 24 B-8s SAMs aft with 8X2 B-1 (or equiv) anti-missile SAMs. Add to this an auto MANPADS point between each of the 30mm ADG gatlings on either side of the mainmast ,instead of 2 Kashtan gun.missile combos,and one would have a triple layered missile defence system apart from the main gun and gatlings. The P-15B design could be stretched a little to take in these modifications. With the extra space/silos,ASW Klub could be added if not already accommodated through use of the 2 twin TTs. This would avoid the need for a new cruiser class and be both cost-effective and faster and cheaper to build.

In a def mag,an ex-IN Cmde. has given thought for building more Shivaliks (P-17As) instead of extra Talwars. The tonnage is at least 2-2500t extra.Most of the weaponry is the same,with extras for the Shivaliks. However,he seems to have got his figures wrong on costs,as the Talwars are shown to be 50% more than the Shivaliks.A comparative table is given.With the same weaponry and most of the sensors,how is it possible for the 4000t Talwars with some lesser weaponry and one ASW helo less,cost less than opposed the 6,000t Shivaliks ? I fear that he has got his sims mixed up. In an earlier debate on the same issue last year,costs and building time for the P-17s were shown to be about 50% extra and took twice as long to build.
Nevertheless,less-expensive extra Talwars will be very welcome as well as Shivaliks for the IN ,as both types are needed,with the Shivaliks esp. with enhanced ASW features ,required to escort our CVs with P-15s as principal anti-air ,anti-surface assets in the CBG.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Indian Naval News & Discussion - 22 April 2015

Postby Singha » 19 Feb 2016 11:40

in ships costing nearly $750 mil each , we should be looking at 64 barak8, 32 barak1 and 24 strike missiles. going in with big guns can be left to the saryu class imo or rack up some cheap 16 pack urans amidships if you have a real desire.

32 barak8 in front and 32 in back behind the helicopter space. this also gives more redundancy against damage.
32 barak1 in 2 boxes somewhere along the sides perhaps next to ak630
24 strike length tubes
no main gun
2 x 76mm oto guns like italian horizon class where the RBUs used to be

deejay
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4008
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Naval News & Discussion - 22 April 2015

Postby deejay » 19 Feb 2016 15:45

INS Virat is on her last journey. The news is from 13th Feb.

Livefist
‏@livefist
India's INS Viraat aircraft carrier begins her farewell journey on the east coast. This is off Paradip, Odisha

Image

Aditya G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3481
Joined: 19 Feb 2002 12:31
Contact:

Re: Indian Naval News & Discussion - 22 April 2015

Postby Aditya G » 20 Feb 2016 00:41

Bheeshma wrote:And 16 Janta class ASW corvettes? GSL should be able to do the, fast enough.


What outline will this class of vessel take?

Wiki has detailed specs down to the foot :roll:

Displacement: 700 tons
Length: 70 metres (230 ft)
Beam: 10.2 metres (33 ft)
Draught: 2.7 metres (8.9 ft)
Speed: 25 knots (46 km/h)+
Range: 1,800 nautical miles (3,300 km) at 14 knots (26 km/h)


This cannot take a RBU-6000.

What dunking sonar though?

member_23370
BRFite
Posts: 1103
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Naval News & Discussion - 22 April 2015

Postby member_23370 » 20 Feb 2016 01:00

Most likely 2X2 533 mm ITL and Indian TAS. Too much to expect anything more than Igla-SAM and AK-630

nrshah
BRFite
Posts: 578
Joined: 10 Feb 2009 16:36

Re: Indian Naval News & Discussion - 22 April 2015

Postby nrshah » 20 Feb 2016 23:15

India, US talk aircraft carrier technology, but key point off the menu

The bilateral strategic clinch may be getting tighter but the US is unwilling to offer help to India in nuclear propulsion technology for proposed construction of INS Vishal

http://m.economictimes.com/news/defence ... 065723.cms

So much for the deepening relationship and DTI or whatever

member_23370
BRFite
Posts: 1103
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Naval News & Discussion - 22 April 2015

Postby member_23370 » 21 Feb 2016 00:51

I hope IN goes for atleast 1 more Vikrant sized 45k tonne ship till they sort out this catobar fetish. No american fighter will ever serve in IAF or IN so all this is pointless.

Aditya G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3481
Joined: 19 Feb 2002 12:31
Contact:

Re: Indian Naval News & Discussion - 22 April 2015

Postby Aditya G » 21 Feb 2016 02:50

Reference and comparison with ASW-SWC project.

Project 23420 Small ASW ship.

You gotta hand it to the Russians....

Image

Image

Note innovating TTL placement

ARTILLERY
1 x 76-mm AK-176MA gun (152 rounds) or
1 x 30-mm AK-306 gun (500 rounds)
AIR DEFENCE SYSTEM
1 x 3M-47 Ghibka gun ring
20 x Igla(S) MANPADS
FIREARM
2 x 12.7-mm machine-guns (2000 rounds)
AWS
1 x Paket-E/NK system (2 x launchers, 8 x torpedoes) or
1 x RPK-8E system (1 x RBU-6000, 48 x 90R ASW missiles and RGB-60 depth bombs)
ANTI DIVER WEAPONS
2 x DP-64 grenade-launchers (240 rounds)
AVIATION
1 x Gorizont-AIR-S-100 unmanned aerial vehicle suite (2 x UAVs)
ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT
1 x Sigma-E CMS
1 x Pozitiv-ME1.2 detection and target assignment radar
1 x Gorizont 25 integrated navigation radar
2 x IFF 67R items
1 x Blokirovka suite
SONARS
1 x MGK-335EM-03 sonar suite
1 x Anapa-ME anti-diver sonar or
1 x Lovat dipping sonar
1 x Vinietka-EM sonar]
COUNTERMEASURES
1 x 120-mm PK-10 system (2 x launchers, 40 x rounds)
NAVIGATION
1 x Kama-NS-V navigation system
COMMUNICATIONS
1 x Buran-E communications suite
Communication equipment complying with GMDSS requirements for A1+A2+A3 areas or
foreign-produce equivalent according to a customer’s proposal


http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.ph ... ew&id=3578

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16831
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Indian Naval News & Discussion - 22 April 2015

Postby NRao » 21 Feb 2016 04:31

India, US talk aircraft carrier technology, but key point off the menu

The bilateral strategic clinch may be getting tighter but the US is unwilling to offer help to India in nuclear propulsion technology for proposed construction of INS Vishal

http://m.economictimes.com/news/defence ... 065723.cms

So much for the deepening relationship and DTI or whatever


IIRC it was never on the table:

top defence ministry sources on Friday said the ongoing bilateral discussions did not include "any nuclear propulsion" for INS Vishal


How could anyone expect the US to part with weapons grade nuclear techs?

But as per the terms of reference for the JWGACTC "only conventional propulsion systems" (gas turbines or diesel-electric systems) are under discussion as of now. "The US has its own export control laws... nuclear propulsion is not on the table," said an MoD source.


The nuclear propulsion was from the Indian side, never from the US.

BTW, do we know how long does Arihant's nuclear reactor last between refuels? Or what kind of nuclear fuel (purity) does it use?

BTW both the JWGs are a special offshoot within the DTTI framework. EMALS and help with design/construction were offered, anything outside that would be close to a miracle. Parrikar seems to be happy with progress on the "Jet Engine" - have no clue what that translates to (I am assuming it has to do with high temp materials).

Closeness is relative (to where they were, say, in 2000). I do not expect too many things to come out in the near future, perhaps, may be, in the more distant future.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16831
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Indian Naval News & Discussion - 22 April 2015

Postby NRao » 21 Feb 2016 04:58

I hope IN goes for atleast 1 more Vikrant sized 45k tonne ship till they sort out this catobar fetish. No american fighter will ever serve in IAF or IN so all this is pointless.


Do not closely follow such matters, but the CAT was a old thought, EMALS offer came much after that. The E-2D too was an old thought, first mooted as a land based asset. And I cannot recall the IN considering any US plane other than the JSF. Once EMALS was offered, the nuclear option was a natural follow-on, but an Indian one.

Karthik S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5380
Joined: 18 Sep 2009 12:12

Re: Indian Naval News & Discussion - 22 April 2015

Postby Karthik S » 21 Feb 2016 07:51

The displacement may well be 45k but CAT/EMALS must be used going forward, can't have fighters carry less fuel and armament as is the present case with STOBAR.

Karthik S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5380
Joined: 18 Sep 2009 12:12

Re: Indian Naval News & Discussion - 22 April 2015

Postby Karthik S » 21 Feb 2016 08:12

OT; was going through CDG wiki page and landed at this:

http://www.thehindu.com/2002/07/04/stor ... 221200.htm

PARIS JULY 3. For ten days at the height of the military standoff between India and Pakistan, French aero-naval forces created a buffer between the two belligerents, the French daily Liberation reported today.

For the first time, France's new combat aircraft, the hugely expensive Rafale, carried out missions of "combat air patrol'' from its base on board the newly refurbished aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle, the newspaper said. Flying off the Indian and Pakistani coastline, these fighters "neutralised'' the zone, military experts told reporters.

Alongside Hawkeye spy planes, the French navy's Rafales participated in maritime and aerial surveillance in the Arabian Sea. With their dissuasive presence, the Rafales prevented Indian and Pakistani fighter planes from using the sea route to carry out incursions into each other's territory, as was their wont in the past, the report said.

In 1999, India had shot down a Pakistani Breguet Atlantic on a spy mission.

Armed with air-to-air missiles, the Rafales undertook several daily two-hour-long patrols in collaboration with the U.S. Navy's F 14s and F18s present in the region.


How did this happen??

uddu
BRFite
Posts: 1873
Joined: 15 Aug 2004 17:09

Re: Indian Naval News & Discussion - 22 April 2015

Postby uddu » 21 Feb 2016 08:43

Most probably monitoring operations. Notice "in collaboration with the U.S. Navy's F 14s and F18s present in the region." statement. So NATO monitoring operation or coercive mission. Possibly we dont know about USN Carriers in the region from the article. If the French are there then surely the big daddy will be right there and the French only get called to support them.Also the British.

John
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2508
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: Indian Naval News & Discussion - 22 April 2015

Postby John » 21 Feb 2016 21:21

Aditya G wrote:Project 23420 Small ASW ship


It's interesting design do note it carries Palash gun system in the image not a Ak 306 as indicated by article.

nirav
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2020
Joined: 31 Aug 2004 00:22
Location: Mumbai

Re: Indian Naval News & Discussion - 22 April 2015

Postby nirav » 21 Feb 2016 21:29

Karthik S wrote:
For the first time, France's new combat aircraft, the hugely expensive Rafale, carried out missions of "combat air patrol'' from its base on board the newly refurbished aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle, the newspaper said. Flying off the Indian and Pakistani coastline, these fighters "neutralised'' the zone, military experts told reporters.

Alongside Hawkeye spy planes, the French navy's Rafales participated in maritime and aerial surveillance in the Arabian Sea. With their dissuasive presence, the Rafales prevented Indian and Pakistani fighter planes from using the sea route to carry out incursions into each other's territory, as was their wont in the past, the report said.

In 1999, India had shot down a Pakistani Breguet Atlantic on a spy mission.

Armed with air-to-air missiles, the Rafales undertook several daily two-hour-long patrols in collaboration with the U.S. Navy's F 14s and F18s present in the region.


How did this happen??


Let them try and be "dissuasive" now. :twisted:

arshyam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3939
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Naval News & Discussion - 22 April 2015

Postby arshyam » 21 Feb 2016 22:14

nrshah wrote:India, US talk aircraft carrier technology, but key point off the menu

The bilateral strategic clinch may be getting tighter but the US is unwilling to offer help to India in nuclear propulsion technology for proposed construction of INS Vishal

http://m.economictimes.com/news/defence ... 065723.cms

So much for the deepening relationship and DTI or whatever

The US seems to be leading us up the garden path by the nose, promising us this and that with fancy sounding titles like DTTI. Ultimately, nothing will come off it, except that our domestic programmes will be delayed; in this case follow-ons to Vikrant. In the hope of a n-powered Vishal with EMALS and CATOBAR, we are not ordering a follow on to the Vikrant, while CSL promises a vastly-reduced delivery time. Why am I getting the feeling that perhaps it was the intended end result by our "strategeric allies"?

NRao wrote:Do not closely follow such matters, but the CAT was a old thought, EMALS offer came much after that. The E-2D too was an old thought, first mooted as a land based asset. And I cannot recall the IN considering any US plane other than the JSF. Once EMALS was offered, the nuclear option was a natural follow-on, but an Indian one.

NRao-ji, sure the n-power ask came from India, but honestly, do you think it makes sense to consider EMALS without n-power? As you say, it is the natural follow-on, so what's the point of offering to talk about EMALS without nuke propulsion? Are we supposed to be such idiots to want to build such an energy intensive tech powered by gas turbines? Heck, can gas turbines even support the energy surge needed for each launch, with more in succession?

I think we are wasting our time on this.

While EMALS is a good tech to have and will suit our future needs, perhaps the Navy is better off asking DRDO and BARC to start some research on this front, while turning out 2 more Vikrant sized carriers in the next decade. It will help us reach our (current) stated goal of 3 operational carriers at any given time, and also not worry about the Vikramaditya's retirement in the late 2030s. This USN association can happen on its merits, but I don't see why we should delay our programmes on some promises and demonstrations.

GeorgeWelch
BRFite
Posts: 1393
Joined: 12 Jun 2009 09:31

Re: Indian Naval News & Discussion - 22 April 2015

Postby GeorgeWelch » 21 Feb 2016 23:09

arshyam wrote:but honestly, do you think it makes sense to consider EMALS without n-power? As you say, it is the natural follow-on, so what's the point of offering to talk about EMALS without nuke propulsion? Are we supposed to be such idiots to want to build such an energy intensive tech powered by gas turbines? Heck, can gas turbines even support the energy surge needed for each launch, with more in succession?


Easily, it's not a problem at all.

In fact the Brits almost converted the QE2 to exactly that configuration before deciding that conversion costs would be too high

sohamn
BRFite
Posts: 318
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 12:56
Location: the Queen of the Angels of Porziuncola
Contact:

Re: Indian Naval News & Discussion - 22 April 2015

Postby sohamn » 21 Feb 2016 23:41

arshyam wrote:but honestly, do you think it makes sense to consider EMALS without n-power? As you say, it is the natural follow-on, so what's the point of offering to talk about EMALS without nuke propulsion? Are we supposed to be such idiots to want to build such an energy intensive tech powered by gas turbines? Heck, can gas turbines even support the energy surge needed for each launch, with more in succession?


Energy surge can be handled by using high capacity capacitors. Please remember that US had Gas Turbine driven super carriers and it served them well. Numerous steam cat AC were built without nuclear power and there were no issues at all. So if India wants a gas turbine driven AC then they can very well do it. Also - India has a fully functioning reactor which they can trust inside a submarine, I don't think they should have a problem in trusting in an surface ship. So I don't think India needs help from US with regard to Nuclear Propulsion, the main areas of help are around design optimization and EMALS.


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 20 guests