ATV and K15 missile - News & Discussion

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Postby Sanku » 06 Mar 2008 12:13

Arun_S wrote:As an aside the Yindoo Injuns mind is so dhimmified that while renovating the backyard and sweating 20 days to dig the foundation trench he finds an ancient pot of gold coins, the Yindoo cant belive it and calls Panchayat to ask "who conspired to bury the gold coins in his backyard?".

Kudos to the Dhimmified and twisted Yindu mind :twisted: :twisted:


It hurts Arun_S yes it hurts; I see the jewels of India rolling in the dust and being picked up by others to put in their crowns. And the same jewels have no understanding of their brightness and their abilities and value of the land which produces them.

I cry with you for our fellow countrymen.

Raj Malhotra
BRFite
Posts: 997
Joined: 26 Jun 2000 11:31

Postby Raj Malhotra » 06 Mar 2008 13:24

Su-30MKI was also the leading tech when it was transferred. Yasen design is an evolutionary design from Akula and was finalised in mid nineties.

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Postby Sanku » 06 Mar 2008 13:30

Raj Malhotra wrote:Su-30MKI was also the leading tech when it was transferred. Yasen design is an evolutionary design from Akula and was finalised in mid nineties.


What was the tech transfer in Su 30 MKI? Was it to the level we can design it ourselves now or a upgrade thereof?

Because thats the case in ATV; the level of "transfer" we are talking of in the two cases is quite different.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Postby Austin » 06 Mar 2008 13:38

Raj Malhotra wrote:Su-30MKI was also the leading tech when it was transferred. Yasen design is an evolutionary design from Akula and was finalised in mid nineties.


Every thing about Yasen is speculation , it can be evolutionary or revolutionary who know , unless that thing gets commisioned in 2009.

If you need a design for ATV you will opt for a proven design , I see a better chance of Charlie or Akula design , rather than the Yasen.

Its the case of we wish we had that.........

Sri Harsha
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 12
Joined: 07 Nov 2007 22:41
Contact:

Postby Sri Harsha » 06 Mar 2008 13:49

Sanku, you stole the words from me!!! :)

What was the technology transfer for Su-30 MKI . Did they transfer the technology for the AL-31F engine. I don’t think so(Please correct me if I am wrong).

If you say we paid for it, I don’t even agree that, as they are losing substantial market for the sale or lease of their sub’s. As there is no other country willing to sell or lease Nuclear Sub’s to India during 90’s.

Time will decide all these gossips, once the ATV is out in the sea.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Postby Austin » 06 Mar 2008 14:18

Sri Harsha wrote:Sanku, you stole the words from me!!! :)

What was the technology transfer for Su-30 MKI . Did they transfer the technology for the AL-31F engine. I don’t think so(Please correct me if I am wrong).


They did some kind of deep TOT for the AL-31FP engine :wink:

Raj Malhotra
BRFite
Posts: 997
Joined: 26 Jun 2000 11:31

Postby Raj Malhotra » 06 Mar 2008 14:29

Deep tech transfer was mandated for Su-30MKI and as idiots were babus are, due to some stupid calculations they found it more economical to be assemblers. Now the costing theory has also been proved wrong. Morons twice over in one project as per their usual practice.


Digging in backyard does not get nobody a SSBN

p_saggu
BRFite
Posts: 1058
Joined: 26 Nov 2004 20:03

Postby p_saggu » 06 Mar 2008 14:39

The Delhi class destroyers were built in india. But the missiles, guns, targetting radar, SAM were russian (So was the Propeller???). Tech transfer or not, our shipyards did get the confidence to do the basic engineering work in designing and building a modern warship.
Also slowly but surely, indigenous tech in all of the above is making it into our warships. Ultimately will we be completely self reliant. No, and I think it would be foolish to be completely so.

So ATV-1 with K-15 and Brahmos, and Nirbhay later on will only the first of greater things to come. Next will be the much larger ATV-2, a true SSBN with the A3SL. (The timelines of the two seem to concide)
Last edited by p_saggu on 06 Mar 2008 14:41, edited 1 time in total.

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Postby Sanku » 06 Mar 2008 14:40

Raj Malhotra wrote:Deep tech transfer was mandated for Su-30MKI and as idiots were babus are, due to some stupid calculations they found it more economical to be assemblers. Now the costing theory has also been proved wrong. Morons twice over in one project as per their usual practice.


While its easy to blame babu's and say that ToT was offered but not taken; what we know now for a fact is that there was no ToT. Also we have seen factually Russian offer of ToT for other products mentioned; not to mention their great help in Upgrading Mig 21 with Indian products and many such items.

So while you may speculate that ToT was offered but not taken by idiot Babus. What we see today is that there has been no ToT and thats the final fact.

Digging in backyard does not get nobody a SSBN


Whose backside err back yard should we dig in then? Whose backyard did Russian dig in? And others?

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Postby Sanku » 06 Mar 2008 14:49

p_saggu wrote:So ATV-1 with K-15 and Brahmos, and Nirbhay later on will only the first of greater things to come. ...


While all that is true; it still is not germane to speculation on which design was ATV based on. After all there are many subs in a particular weight class. That does not mean that each of the design is based on the other.

Cooperation and inputs are not ruled out by a long chalk; but saying that XYZ is based on ABC design is a very strong statement; the kind of product for which we can say this truly is a J10 type of case; and in those the paper and design trail on which the product is based on is fairly clear.

At the moment ATV details and Yasen details are all speculation. Thus concluding that one was drawn from other is hyper speculation.

Shankar
BRFite
Posts: 1905
Joined: 28 Aug 2002 11:31
Location: wai -maharastra

Postby Shankar » 06 Mar 2008 15:14

Sure Russia didn't have the finances to build a Yasen then, Perhaps this design was shared with India or a MKIsed Akula to carry SSBNs was developed. Either way if the reactors came (There is a somewhat similar precedent in the cryogenic engines for the GSLV programme), they came as sealed units with not much tech sharing.


There is no such thing as a cryogenic engine coming in as a sealed unit -it came with the complete supporting infrastructure that included assembly-preflight testing ,trouble shooting procedure and equipment and informal exposure of Indian engineers on the intricacies of handling high volumetric flow and pressure particularly liquid hydrogen which till then no one had any practical exposure to whatsoever

There are numerous reports in the open source which says a large tranche of technology for manufacture of cryogenic engines were already passed on till the sanctions sponsored by US kicked in .Whatever was left was not difficult to "manage" from the cry acceleration blocks already supplied till then

The technology transfer problems started with we getting closer to US militarily without any significant benefit till date except buying some C-130 at exorbitant price or a few weapon locating radars .

It is true we paid or will pay may be 800 million dolars more for goroshkov ot few million a piece more for mkis but for getting buddy buddy with US we shall in all likelihood pay a far heavier price -the price of strategic independence -the nuke deal is just the begining



[code][/code]

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Postby Sanku » 06 Mar 2008 15:22

Good post Shankar -- in fact post the Cryo deal; the Russian tech transfer in all manner dried up big time due to Yelstin. There was never any real "tech" transfer post that. Things were beginning to get better during 98-2003 time frame but with Yesltin equivalents on our end thing again have gone down hill. Also Russia has never violated treaties after it became a part of it. Although it does try to skirt around those which is fair.

Given this trend there is very little window of opportunity for India and Russia to have cooperated meaningfully on ATV post 92. What that means is that despite Russian inputs India did go it alone mostly in the space.

Eventually what it seems to indicate to me is that the design and implementation was mostly home grown with Russian stepping in only if really sorely needed on a few technology pieces at a high enough level (not blueprints etc but more like Profs) so as to not violate any treaties or need complicated tech transfer negotiations.

Raj Malhotra
BRFite
Posts: 997
Joined: 26 Jun 2000 11:31

Postby Raj Malhotra » 06 Mar 2008 18:12

I completely agree that terms of even a bad deal with Russians is better than terms and price of good deal with USA.

6 props for Rs. 4000 crores - what nonsense!

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36416
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Postby SaiK » 06 Mar 2008 18:25

Austin wrote:
Sri Harsha wrote:Sanku, you stole the words from me!!! :)

What was the technology transfer for Su-30 MKI . Did they transfer the technology for the AL-31F engine. I don’t think so(Please correct me if I am wrong).


They did some kind of deep TOT for the AL-31FP engine :wink:

my question is, did we learn anything out of it. the only way we can measure in public is the performance of Kaveri and LCA based on ToTs.

furthermore, the "deep" tot is questionable.. there are tots and deep tots, but ain't "some kind of deep tot" fall in just tot. the deepness is measured by the depth of knowhow learned, or needed to be done.

SC crystals to combustion science, and high kelvin composites all measuring to much more required thrust to weight ratio. Long way to go!.. No one will Tot us that.

in a sense, there is never going to be deeper tots with anyone for that matter. its all babu science and their ways of making money.

Shankar
BRFite
Posts: 1905
Joined: 28 Aug 2002 11:31
Location: wai -maharastra

Postby Shankar » 06 Mar 2008 18:28

Would like to ask our PM one simple question

sir if (i hope not) the nuke deal is signed what will be the price we will have to pay in money terms for each 1000 MW LWR and what is the amount we paid to Russians for the two 1000 MW reactors now under installation

any of you guys who still support the deal care to answer the question

Just compare the price of the 6 C-130 J s againt IL-76 /An 32s of equivalent payload capability and you will get the answer

rrao
BRFite
Posts: 134
Joined: 13 Feb 2007 22:17

Postby rrao » 06 Mar 2008 18:41

edited
Last edited by rrao on 07 Mar 2008 01:07, edited 2 times in total.

ksmahesh
BRFite
Posts: 209
Joined: 10 Jan 2007 17:55
Location: Mt Everest - its the coolest one

Postby ksmahesh » 06 Mar 2008 19:49

rrao wrote:shankar saab,

you please also ask our beloved PM why our airforce guys still struggle with vintage valve based fighter Radars of MIG21 a/c and why have we been cheated by the russians by installing non working KOPYO radars in the name of upgradation. The valve era is over! even in these days if we dont give modern weapons to our armed forces and ask them to fight an enemy armed to the tooth with sophisticated weapons ,it is a crime beyond words! what about gorshakov deal! its now dog eat dog race in the arms market!


I would like to read the references behind such assertions. rrao I hope you would be kind enough to provide the basis of the above highlighted statements.

rrao
BRFite
Posts: 134
Joined: 13 Feb 2007 22:17

Postby rrao » 06 Mar 2008 20:08

edited
Last edited by rrao on 07 Mar 2008 01:10, edited 1 time in total.

Paul
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3609
Joined: 25 Jun 1999 11:31
Contact:

Postby Paul » 06 Mar 2008 21:08

rrao, welcome to the forum. Us BRFites rely on the press on defence procurment to get partial reports which do not tell the whole story.

Can you elaborate on the issues that we are facing with the Russians?

p_saggu
BRFite
Posts: 1058
Joined: 26 Nov 2004 20:03

Postby p_saggu » 06 Mar 2008 21:12

rrao wrote:If vintage spares are not available from russia,my job is to redesign/find suitable replacement for the items used in these radars,in order to keep them working. This is the basis.

rrao saheb, since you have let out a state secret on a public forum. And also your employer will be none too happy.
May I recommend naukri.com (Just Kidding - But please don't be this specific for your own sake)

rrao
BRFite
Posts: 134
Joined: 13 Feb 2007 22:17

Postby rrao » 06 Mar 2008 21:56

edited
Last edited by rrao on 07 Mar 2008 01:11, edited 1 time in total.

BijuShet
BRFite
Posts: 1575
Joined: 09 Jan 2008 23:14
Location: under my tin foil hat

Postby BijuShet » 06 Mar 2008 22:02

rrao saar please consider editing your earlier post and clearing all identifying information. We would never want a true Bharat Rakshak to suffer for offering justifications to us arm chair rakshaks.

John Snow
BRFite
Posts: 1941
Joined: 03 Feb 2006 00:44

Postby John Snow » 06 Mar 2008 22:56

It is no secret that Mig 21 has Vacuum tubes in its electronics, and HAL hyderabad converted all modules to solid State circuits. Besides the days of bisons are numbered...

rrao
BRFite
Posts: 134
Joined: 13 Feb 2007 22:17

Postby rrao » 07 Mar 2008 01:15

biju, as per your advice i have edited all my posts, just not to cause any further inconvenience.Thank you.admin, please bear with me. my intention is not to derail the topic.

Raj Malhotra
BRFite
Posts: 997
Joined: 26 Jun 2000 11:31

Postby Raj Malhotra » 07 Mar 2008 16:31

I think that I need to clarify my position a bit here.

First is that I am saying that Indian ATV "may" be much larger than Charlie class if the SLBM K-15 is 11m long. This will match the India
today article that it is completely new design

Second is I am saying that India may be on route to join the SSN & SSBN categories in ATV as even Agni-IIISL may fit in ATV.


Third I am saying is that sub carrying more SLBMs of Agni-3SL class may just be the issue of elongating the ATV rather than going in for new class.

I said ATV may be "inspired by" Yasen class rather than "it is" yasen. If ATV is empty 6000 tons then it is very close to what has been reported for yasen class till date.

If the dia of ATV - 10/12m for single hull or 12/15m for double hull then it will fit in Agni-3SL

Lastly, the only thing keeping us for assuming that ATV is 6500tons empty and 9000 tons submerged combat weight is that reactor is 80MW.

So the issue is - Is it 80MW or is it disinformation? Or can it be that 80MW is with 7% to 20% enrichment of fuel and the power output would go up higher degree of enrichment is increased to 45% to 90%?

Even assuming it is 80MW, what will be the max speed of 9000tons ATV?
Last edited by Raj Malhotra on 07 Mar 2008 17:50, edited 1 time in total.

Raj Malhotra
BRFite
Posts: 997
Joined: 26 Jun 2000 11:31

Postby Raj Malhotra » 07 Mar 2008 17:27


Raj Malhotra
BRFite
Posts: 997
Joined: 26 Jun 2000 11:31

Postby Raj Malhotra » 07 Mar 2008 17:28

Posting free extract of aforesaid link as don't know if info will be permanently available

Appearing in
Jane's Underwater Warfare Systems

Publication date
Mar 01, 2005

Type
Nuclear powered attack submarine.

Description
The Advanced Technology Vessel (ATV) nuclear-powered attack submarine is under development by the Defence Research and Development Organisation at Hyderabad and the Department of Atomic Energy at Kalpakkam. The boat will be around 105 m in length, with a diameter of about 15 m and it is claimed that it will be invisible to satellite detection. Fabrication has begun with launching due in 2006 and in service date of 2008. Construction will be undertaken at Mazagon Dockyard Ltd from parts fabricated at Vishakapatnam.The boat may be armed with a short-range ballistic missile, and the Sagarika cruise missile. There have been reports that the boat will be fitted with vertical launch missile silos. Displacement will be around 6,000 t surface and 6,500 to 7,000 t submerged.A single Pressurised Water Reactor (PWR) using enriched uranium and developing 40-55 MW will drive a steam turbine of 47,000 hp (34,590 kW) to power a single shaft with a seven-bladed propeller. The PWR will use enriched uranium fuel rods. The reactor is being developed at the Bhaba Atomic Research Centre near Mumbai. Speed will be in the region of 30 to 34 kt submerged. Maximum diving depth will be 300 m. The boat will be fitted with two 650 mm tubes for launching missiles and four 533 mm torpedo tubes. It is planned that a class of five will be built.

Raj Malhotra
BRFite
Posts: 997
Joined: 26 Jun 2000 11:31

Postby Raj Malhotra » 07 Mar 2008 17:46


sunilUpa
BRFite
Posts: 1795
Joined: 25 Sep 2006 04:16

Postby sunilUpa » 11 Mar 2008 20:17


ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54822
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby ramana » 11 Mar 2008 21:43

Sunil, Please post the TSS article in full. The K-15 air booster and vehicle design are quite unique and appear to have multipurpose use. This is the proverbial universal missile.

p_saggu
BRFite
Posts: 1058
Joined: 26 Nov 2004 20:03

Postby p_saggu » 11 Mar 2008 22:23

ramana wrote:Multipurpose use, universal missile

Pray, plij to elaaaaborate onlee

John Snow
BRFite
Posts: 1941
Joined: 03 Feb 2006 00:44

Postby John Snow » 11 Mar 2008 22:29

Refers to malhotra ji's post "for the technically minded"

Based on the dissertation, It seems the LEU reactor can achieve Powe/speed requirements equivalent HEU reactor provided it is designed as per French Integral model, because the LEW reactor is more bulky and therefore contributes to the dimensions of the reators and weight, except in Integral design.

Based on Indian requirements of HEU for other purposes and limited profuction of HEU, it would be safe to assume the ATV reactor would be of the LEU type, hence the larger dimensions of the ATV? Assuing the reactor is not of the integral (french conceptual design), fair assumption on the premise that ATV is more akin to Russian designs?

SKrishna
BRFite
Posts: 151
Joined: 21 Jan 2008 19:18
Location: Bombay
Contact:

Postby SKrishna » 11 Mar 2008 23:04

Shankar wrote:Would like to ask our PM one simple question

sir if (i hope not) the nuke deal is signed what will be the price we will have to pay in money terms for each 1000 MW LWR and what is the amount we paid to Russians for the two 1000 MW reactors now under installation

any of you guys who still support the deal care to answer the question

Just compare the price of the 6 C-130 J s againt IL-76 /An 32s of equivalent payload capability and you will get the answer


Not a penny more! Whats more, Russia would like to sell us more reactors only if 123 agreement, NSG clearence and India Specific safeguards are in place. In fact they have clearly indicated that all future reactor deals have to await NSG clearence.

I dont know why have you made the nuclear deal such a bogey and fail to recognise that it is a gateway for free nuclear commerce with not only US but also with rest of the world. (Your beloved russia included)

BijuShet
BRFite
Posts: 1575
Joined: 09 Jan 2008 23:14
Location: under my tin foil hat

Postby BijuShet » 11 Mar 2008 23:16

sunilUpa wrote:Strike power
ramana wrote:Sunil, Please post the TSS article in full. The K-15 air booster and vehicle design are quite unique and appear to have multipurpose use. This is the proverbial universal missile.


Let me do the honors on behalf of Sunil saar.

Posting the Frontline Article in Full from the link above :-

Frontline Article
Volume 25 - Issue 06 :: Mar. 15-28, 2008
INDIA'S NATIONAL MAGAZINE
from the publishers of THE HINDU

Strike power
T.S. SUBRAMANIAN

The successful launch of Sagarika, or K-15, demonstrates India’s submarine-to-surface missile capabilities.

IN missile technology, the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) has arrived. In the past few months, it has had a phenomenal run of success with its various missiles, and it proved on February 26 that it had acquired the capability to launch ballistic missiles from under the sea. On that day, a ballistic missile named Sagarika, or K-15, blasted off flawlessly from a pontoon submerged to a depth of 50 metres in the Bay of Bengal off the coast of Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh. It knifed upwards as the water around it sizzled, rose into the sky, traced a parabola, and reached its full range, a point more than 700 kilometres away. The pontoon simulated the conditions of a submarine.

India thus joins the select club of countries, which includes Russia, the United States, France, China and the United Kingdom, with submarine launch capabilities. What affirmed India’s entry into this league was that this was the fifth launch of the Sagarika missile from a submerged pontoon and, according to DRDO missile technologists, all the five were “consistently successfulâ€

derkonig
BRFite
Posts: 952
Joined: 08 Nov 2007 00:51
Location: Jeering sekular forces bhile Furiously malishing my mijjile @ Led Lips Mijjile Malish Palish Parloul

Postby derkonig » 12 Mar 2008 00:17

Sukhoi-M30


AoA :eek:

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54822
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby ramana » 12 Mar 2008 01:10

From the article by TSS

[quote]
Sagarika is a product of the DRDO’s missile complex at Hyderabad. The missile complex consists of the DRDL, the Advanced Systems Laboratory (ASL) which is headed by Avinash Chander, and the Research Center Imarat (RCI). Sagarika is a versatile missile that can be launched from different platforms: from submarines, from the ground and from mobile launchers. It is about 6.5 m long and weighs about 7 tonnes. It can carry nuclear warheads weighing up to 600 kg. According to another version, it is 10 m long. It is a single-stage missile powered by solid propellants. DRDO officials describe it as “light and shortâ€

sunilUpa
BRFite
Posts: 1795
Joined: 25 Sep 2006 04:16

Postby sunilUpa » 12 Mar 2008 01:20

Thanks Biju, I had to run to airport to pick up Head SHQ (Mother-in-law), so couldn't post it earlier.

Interesting to read about different versions of K-15. Essentially one is 6.5 M long and 700 km range, other is 10 M long. Versatile too, capable of launch from Sub/Ship and Land (I guess now the picture of 'Garika Annexe' makes sense-canisterized.. :)

Ship borne ballistic missile, now if we convert it to ABM role....

p_saggu
BRFite
Posts: 1058
Joined: 26 Nov 2004 20:03

Postby p_saggu » 12 Mar 2008 01:33

Hmm, Third leg of the ABM is still to be revealed.
I also remember Kalam-ji stating in an article that India can intercept objects (read Satellites) at 200 Km height / orbit.

Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8012
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Postby Gerard » 12 Mar 2008 01:57

Interesting to read about different versions of K-15


Or was that a reference to different versions of reports describing the K15?

sunilUpa
BRFite
Posts: 1795
Joined: 25 Sep 2006 04:16

Postby sunilUpa » 12 Mar 2008 02:04

Gerard wrote:
Interesting to read about different versions of K-15


Or was that a reference to different versions of reports describing the K15?


Possible, it's also possible that two different versions exist, especially land based system. Just wondering why DRDO is absolutely silent on K-15. Not a single press release by officials.

Very interesting times ahead.


Return to “Mil-Tech Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests