Indian Naval Discussion

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.
Post Reply
Lalmohan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13257
Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Post by Lalmohan »

naval ucavs could do the job, but we need a big step up in terms of C4ISTAR first
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21537
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Post by Philip »

Singha,there are large numbers,dozens of them,of both Russian turboprops mothballed,that is if we require multi-role aircraft.If we want an out-an-out surface strike aircraft then the best bet as I said is the Backfire,of which Russia can deliver a couple of sqds. even, if we require then.They have the speed,range and can carry Brahmos especially and any other LR cruise misssile that might also be available in the future.They will require upgrading though ,but have at least two decades of life left in them.
Lalmohan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13257
Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Post by Lalmohan »

Philip
I am sure there are plenty mothballed, I'd worry about serviceability, airworthiness, combat capability and opex for the above... might be more of a headache than help
dinesha
BRFite
Posts: 1212
Joined: 01 Aug 2004 11:42
Location: Delhi

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Post by dinesha »

Dated but excellent article (posted previously)

UP PERISCOPE
-Aug 03 2008

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/up-periscope/343796/0

...

The first challenge was to build two sub-sections of 6.2-metre diameter for the capsule as a trial. A Scorpene is around 67 metres long and is made in phases where 16 sub-sections comprising 83 circular frames are joined to form the rib cage of the hull. “Only a perfect circle can withstand extreme pressure conditions in deep waters,” says Bharti. And it was anything but easy. “Unlike the earlier SSK class submarine, where the hull circle had a tolerance of less than 5 mm, this one has a tolerance of 1 mm, which means once bent into shape, the circle from any level should have a diameter of 6.2 metres with an allowance of 1 mm,” he said. “This means it can either be 6.199 metres or 6.201 metres but not a millimetre more or less. This was really tough for our welders who were used to the earlier model and we simply did not get it right.”
uddu
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2508
Joined: 15 Aug 2004 17:09

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Post by uddu »

P-8I
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66589
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Post by Singha »

strong, square jawed, crew cut stuff... the guys in drdo who release shaky hand held camcorder videos and photos of our own products being tested should learn a lesson from this. the top guys both build a good product and 'talk a good game/run the psyops machine like clockwork' (if we look at the P8I and C130J media handouts...)..and these are for them quite minor sized deals.

lets sign a e-petition to have Boeing do a C17 film with rows of stone faced SF troopers and Arjun tanks deplaneing in Leh and heading to hunt themselves some prey in the steppe :twisted:
rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7831
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Post by rohitvats »

^^^That is one amazing video...and the yanks know which buttons to press.

The section about P-8I and Harriers dealing with a dhow (mothership) and two small crafts is real good......and the albatross logo at the end..quite cheeky!
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34981
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Post by shiv »

Full marks to the Khans. But screw the Khans - even the Paquis and their prime brothel customers the Chinis are good at psy ops photos and videos.

Aren't we the people who keep boasting that we are a "software superpower"? Well - why can't someone do something remotely like that?
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66589
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Post by Singha »

almost any wedding videographer in jayanagar should be able to produce better imagery than the drdo handouts. they just do not seem interested in any form of publicity. only the IN/IAF calenders tend to be good and that is obviously done by their own crew or invited people with good eqpt and serious intent.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34981
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Post by shiv »

In 2007 I gave a lecture to a guy in a DRDO unit in an Aero India stall who were exhibiting metal products - it might have been MDN. But instead of having a shiny new piece (a gear in this case) they had a brown rusty one. It looked so idiotic I got irritated and asked why they could not just put something shiny on display even if they actually produce shit. These guys were putting crap on display and claiming they produce gold. :roll:
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66589
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Post by Singha »

:hits head on wall:
nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9207
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Post by nachiket »

Well if Boeing does not produce shiny handouts and breathtaking videos, and their competitors do, they might lose the deal and/or their reputation. And if they lose often enough, they will have to close down. No such considerations for DRDO are there?
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19335
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Post by NRao »

Singha wrote::hits head on wall:
For once glad to be of some help:

Image
Gaur
Forum Moderator
Posts: 2009
Joined: 01 Feb 2009 23:19

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Post by Gaur »

Am I the only one who found the video to be childish? OK..all PR stunts are childish..but I mean more childish than usual specially with all the filmy camera work and techno rock?
Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5301
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Post by Viv S »

Gaur wrote:Am I the only one who found the video to be childish? OK..all PR stunts are childish..but I mean more childish than usual specially with all the filmy camera work and techno rock?
Nope. I found it strange as well particularly the showcase of the crew's faces K-soap style. It seemed like a half hearted but poorly executed attempt to Indianize what would otherwise be a regular promo video. The video itself was okay (similar to those for the US and other NATO forces), its music that really got on my nerves, the howling in particular.
Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5873
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Post by Kartik »

I agree with those who say that DRDO apparently cannot wrap its head around the value of PR. Foolish PSU mentality at its worst, without a doubt. If they had such slick videos showing the capabilities of Akash SAM, Brahmos, Tejas, etc. it would give a lot of ammo to people who want to counter the negative impression of the DRDO.

Anyway, what the P-8I video did show, which was rather impressive was the level of "sensor fusion" that the P-8 has. Being able to take multiple sensor inputs and present the data in an easy to understand format for the operators on board the P-8 will make it that much more effective.

The IN would do well to order another 4 in addition to the 8 firm + 4 options that it has currently got plans for. That would allow 4-5 P-8Is to be operational at any given time and give 24 hour protection to 2 CBGs from subs and surface warships. The submarine detection, tracking and attack capability is the handiest, with subs being the biggest threat to IN fleets. The more P-8Is the IN has to deal with sub threats, the better.

The Medium Maritime Patrol aircraft without sub prosecution abilities will lack a very important capability. Maybe it is the costliest aspect of the MPA, and hence deleted from the RFI.

Best would be go to for a cheap, but plentifully available MPA, like those available with ATRs and European sensor suite.
Aditya G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3486
Joined: 19 Feb 2002 12:31
Contact:

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Post by Aditya G »

An IFR capability will be a bonus.
Surya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5030
Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Post by Surya »

Philip - two words - availability & uptime - where IL38SD and Tu142 does not score heavily. neither is in production and no plans exist to put them into new production anytime soon.

third word - comfort for crew - which leads to better performance for longer periods.
Juggi G
BRFite
Posts: 1070
Joined: 11 Mar 2007 19:16
Location: Martyr Bhagat Singh Nagar District, Doaba, Punjab, Bharat. De Ghuma ke :)

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Post by Juggi G »

Juggi G
BRFite
Posts: 1070
Joined: 11 Mar 2007 19:16
Location: Martyr Bhagat Singh Nagar District, Doaba, Punjab, Bharat. De Ghuma ke :)

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Post by Juggi G »

uddu
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2508
Joined: 15 Aug 2004 17:09

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Post by uddu »

Guys, don't blame the DRDO. Yes some kind of responsiblity rests with them. But they cannot make videos like this. Who is going to provide $ for it. Government? :rotfl: DRDO will surely not want CAG on their back for "misusing Rs.1000 for creating an animation for entertainment purpose". And all the media headline goes. DRDO misused funds meant for developing weapons. So more of this responsiblity is on the sholders of Nanna/Budda Mujahids and Maulanas. How many of you will attend the Aero India 2011 and how many of you will release the photo/images/videos under Creative commons license? Not of the Red Motorhams. It also need to be looked into whether it's possible to build animations by BR. Good quality animations can be made today. But it requires expertise.
rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7831
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Post by rohitvats »

^^^If anyone thinks that TU-142 in IN service can even come close to P-8I in terms of equipment profile, crew comfort and sheer scale of operations is living in the cuckoo land. The phenomenal range of TU-142M is because it sacrifices everything else to achieve that range. The crew quarters are cramped and there is hardly any elbow room. There is no way in hell you can install more than one terminal (the kind shown in video of P-8I) into the Bear......They have done their job and it is time to move on.
saurav.jha
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 40
Joined: 16 Dec 2009 20:53

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Post by saurav.jha »

Indian Navy, Coast Guard to receive 127 ships in 2010-11: Defence Minister

In recent years, the Indian MoD has been able to ensure improved results in the delivery of warships and submarines. During 2009-2010, these numbers stood at 120 vessels for the Indian Navy, Coast Guard and coastal states. In the current financial year, 85 vessels have already been delivered and by March 2011, a total of 127 vessels will be delivered, according to Indian defence minister, A K Antony.
.
.
.

http://www.defenseworld.net/go/defensen ... 20Minister
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21537
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Post by Philip »

The "Bear" inferior to the P-8? Perhaps in terms of the modernity of the airframe,engines,"crew comfort",no doubt.Keeping the TU-142s in service would require a more comprehensibe maintenance regime,but its utlility is unquestionable.The P-8 is based upon the 737,a very successful platform,but in capability,in several aspects it is inferior to the TUI-142. Take a detailed look at an Oz study,a very comprehensive study of the several varaints of the Bear,which they say "outperforms" even the B-52 and has multiple roles ,as a nuclear strike bomber,EW,LRMP.etc. and can communicate with SBNs,etc. at phenomenal ranges.If as reported,the TU-142s are to be retained,upgraded and equipped with Brahmos,they would complement the new P-8s very well.

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Bear.html#mozTocId65338
Tupolev Tu-95 and Tu-142 Bear

Technical Report APA-TR-2007-0706
by Dr Carlo Kopp, SMAIAA, MIEEE, PEng
Updated August 2009

Russia's Tupolev Tu-95/142 Bear is without doubt the most outstanding descendent of the Boeing B-29, and if production life is any measure of success, it has outperformed its counterpart, the Boeing B-52, decisively, remaining in full rate production well into the 1990s. While the Bear is often regarded to be antiquated, it remains a highly effective cruise missile carrier, ISR and targeting platform, encompassing a much wider range of roles than the more specialised B-52 series.
Given the prospect of regional operators such as China acquiring variants of the Bear, the aircraft should be of considerable interest to observers of regional capability.
To better assess the strategic impact of the Tu-95/142 Bear in the regional environment APA will explore this aircraft in some detail.
An airframe with the prodigious range and endurance of the Bear was a natural candidate for intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance (ISR), targeting and maritime patrol roles. Unlike the strike role, which saw only two major variants, one of which evolved through multiple subtypes, a multiplicity of surveillance, reconsaissance, intelligence gathering, targeting and maritime patrol variants were built. In a sense the common perception of the Bear as a 'bomber' does not reflect the reality that strike variants formed only a fraction of the total Bear construction.
Tu-142 Bear F LRMP/ASW Variants / Ту-142 Противолодочный самолет
The Tu-142 Bear F Long Range Maritime Patrol (LRMP) aircraft was introduced into service in 1972, and incorporates significant design changes, including integral wing tanks rather than bladders, an extended forward fuselage, an extended-chord rudder, improved undercarriage, but retaining the 'classic' glazed nose of the Bear A.

The Bear F is a 'bigger and better' P-3 in its role, and is equipped with a comprehensive ASW/ASuW avionic suite. It's large size and endurance makes it unusually potent in the LRMP and ASW roles, as it can outrange and outstay smaller airframes.


Four unique variants exist, the Tu-142 Bear F Mod.1, the Tu-142M Bear F Mod.2, the Tu-142MK Bear F Mod.3 and Tu-142MZ Bear F Mod.4. A single Tu-142MRTs, a variant intended to replace the Bear D, was trialled with the Uspekh-1AV system during the 1980s, but it was abandoned in favour of the Sistema Morskoi Kosmicheskoi Razvedki i Tselkazaniya (SMKRITs) satellite system.

The Tu-142M Bear F Mod.2 variant introduced the Leninets Korshun surface search radar, later replaced with the improved Korshun-K in the Mod.3 and Korshun-KN-N in the Mod.4, both types replacing the earlier Leninets Berkut-95 radar common to the Il-38 May the baseline Tu-142. The Tu-142M also introduced the Pingvin thermal imager, the Visla-2 towed MAD sensor, a infrared tracker and a diesel fume sniffer, with the NPK-142M navigation suite.

The Tu-142MK Bear F Mod.3 added the MMS-106 Ladoga MAD boom on the vertical stabiliser.

The Tu-142MZ Bear F Mod.4 added an upgraded Zarech acoustic system, NK-12MP engines, GSh-23 guns adopted from the Backfire, an improved EW suite, improved AAR equipment and some were fitted with enlarged weapon bays - the Tu-142MZ Bear F Mod.4 entered service in 1993. The last Bear to leave the Taganrog production line was a Tu-142MZ in 1994.

The Bear F is equipped with a sonobuoy bay for up to 176 buoys, typically the RGB-15, RGB-25, RGB-55A and RGB-75 buoys, and can carry up to 12 torpedoes, FAB 250 dumb bombs and PLAB-250-120 depth charges. Weapon types cited include the AT-1M 450mm torpedo, the AT-2M 533mm torpedo, the UMGT-1 400 mm antisubmarine torpedo, and the rocket propelled APR-1, APR-2 and APR-3 ASW missiles.

India remains currently the sole export client, with at least 8 Tu-142ME/MKE aircraft in service, introduced in 1988.

EU sources indicate that an upgrade program for Russian Bear Fs to Tu-142MN configuration was planned, including a new Leninets core avionic suite, including the Leninets Morskaya Zmeya (Sea Snake) radar claimed to have an AMTI (Air Moving Target Indicator ie AEW&C) capability, and eight pylon stations for either Kh-35U Kharpunski missiles, or Kh-61 Yakhont supersonic missiles. If the latter does proceed the Bear F's role would expand from LRMP/ASW to encompass ASuW, following Western practice.

Tu-142MR 'Orel' Bear J ELF C3 Relay / Ту-142МР 'Орел' Самолет-ретранслятор
The Tu-142MR 'Orel' Bear J is the final major variant of the Bear and is a VLF band radio communications relay similar in concept to the US E-6A TACAMO. It provides a communications relay capability to submerged SSBNs, SSGNs and SSNs. The Bear J is based on the Bear F airframe but has unique systems. The ventral fairing contains the VLF antenna cable reel, also note the unique nose radome and antenna on the vertical tail.

The Tu-142MR Bear J is Russia's TACAMO, used to relay messages via a VLF radio link to submerged submarines. Note the large ventral housing for the trailing VLF antenna reel, the dorsal satcom blisters and the unique nose antenna suite (via Russkaya Sila, US DoD).

Now for some P-8 facts:
In mid-2008, the Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) deleted the requirement for the P-8A to be equipped with magnetic anomaly detection (MAD) equipment. This was part of a NAVAIR-directed effort to reduce P-8A aircraft weight by 3,500 lb (1,600 kg) to improve aircraft range and endurance. P-8Is destined for the Indian Navy will continue to retain MAD. The P-8A will use a new Hydro-Carbon Sensor to detect fuel vapors from diesel submarines and other conventionally powered ships.[11]

In January 2008, Boeing proposed the P-8I, a customized export variant of the P-8A, to the Indian Navy.[23] On 4 January 2009, the Ministry of Defence of India signed an agreement with Boeing for the supply of eight P-8I Poseidons at a total cost of US$2.1 billion. These aircraft would replace Indian Navy's aging Tupolev Tu-142M maritime surveillance turboprops.[24][25][26] Each aircraft will cost about US$220 million.[27] The deal not only made India the first international customer of the P-8, but also marked Boeing's first military sale to India.[28] On 4 October 2010, the Defence Acquisition Council of the Ministry of Defence cleared the purchase of 4 additional P-8Is, which if ordered would increase the acquisition to 12 aircraft and raise the total cost to over US$3 billion.[citation needed]

The Data Link II communications technology for the P-8I was received by Boeing from Bharat Electronics Limited in April 2010. The communications system will enable exchange of tactical data and messages between Indian Navy aircraft, ships and shore establishments. Boeing will install the system during P-8I final assembly.[29][30][31] Deliveries of P-8Is are to begin in 2013.[32]


In comparison,the P-8 will carry Harpoon ASMs,vastly inferior to the TU-142's Brahmos.The P-8's range is only 1200nm,compared with the TU-142's combat radius of 3,500nm.The Bear can fly to S,Africa and back without refuelling and if upgraded with better NCW equipment,would be the ideal aircraft for surveillance of the IOR and beyond,which could trnasmit real time data to other air,surface and subsurface assets.Amazingly,the max. speed for the venerable turboprop Bear is 500kts,marginally more than the jet-engined P-8's 490kts.
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66589
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Post by Singha »

I think its fairly unreasonable for one set of crew in the bear to efficiently use its vast loiter time. does it carry a relief crew in a mix of bunks and business class seating? because thats the only way I see to have fresh people on the job in a full range wartime patrol.

the P8 will have 10 plush seats for the 2nd set of crew/trainees, restroom, galley etc and 5 mission consoles for the on-duty crew.
http://www.flightglobal.com/airspace/me ... poster.jpg
rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7831
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Post by rohitvats »

^^^Can you please tell me where above it says that Bear as a platform is better than a P-8I? And how comprehensive is the P-8I sensor suite as compared what a Bear carries now and can carry post upgrade? And why did IN go for P-8I and not upgrade on Bears?

Why harp only about range? Bears were good till their time lasted......time to let go off them. There is cost and benefit associated with everything.
rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7831
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Post by rohitvats »

^^^Average sortie time is at least more than 4-5hours........and you speak of bunks? The space can hardly seat the crew comfortably.....imagine the stress levels on higher duration - 7hours and more - flights and which, btw, are not uncommon.
Lalmohan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13257
Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Post by Lalmohan »

but rohitbabu, surely you are forgetting that the bear carries the famous krasnaya zvezda weapons suite!?
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21537
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Post by Philip »

The Bears are not fitted for luxury accomodation as with the P-8s one agrees,but they were designed primarily as long range bombers and one cannot say that they are impossible to fly/serve in.Their longevity speaks for itself.The problem is that they have been out of production for some time and though numbers exist in large qtys.,it would require a sustained effort to keep very large numbers (dozens) operational.However,the IN's 8+ are sufficiently large to justify keeping them on until 2020 with upgrades,etc.,as some of their virtues described supersede that of the P-8 which cannot operate in the "low and slow" mode,which the Bear can,required to prosecute subs.The weaponry that the Bear can carry also is superior to anything that the P-8 can carry.That's why a special wing kit is being developed so that the P-8 can drop anti-sub torpedos.The Bear can also carry a larger wepaons payload,most importantly supersonic Brahmos,vastly superior to the inferior subsonic Harpoons that come with the P-8 which Pak also has! The Bear can also carry other versions of Russian missiles meant for both land attack or anti-ship.

The reason why we've gone in for the P-8,as was explained to me is that other alternatives like the ATR,etc.,were too short ranged in comparison.There is no doubt that the P-8's platform is a tried and tested one,the big Q is what level of sensors will she be equipped with (only P-3 Orion std. say some informed reports equivalent to Paki Orions),so as not to upset the regional balance of power with respect to Pak.In addition,the MAD tail will increase weight and reduce range/combat radius.Until 2020,Bears and P-8s,plus the Il-38s ,still rated high by IN aviators,will suffice.Post 2020 we will need a new LRMP with the range of the Bear,given our IOR,S.China Sea and Pacific tasks, and this will have to be a 4-engined jet preferably both for range and payload.Some time ago I suggested that a version of the IL-76 be thougt of.Alternatively there are Airbus platforms that could be modified too.But for LR anti-ship strike,to deal with the future PLAN carrier task force threat (details below),we need a dedicated bomber like the Backfire or even Blackjack.The "janata" P-8 stripped of most eqpt. and only capable of launching Harpoons would be quite inadequate.It would also make little sense as an SU-30MKI,especially an upgraded one,would be able to fly a few thousand Kms+ or more with refuelling and launch Brahmos missiles!

PLAN carrier ambitions:
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htnava ... 01223.aspx

Xcpts:
December 23, 2010: An obscure, but unclassified, Chinese government report revealed China's carrier aviation plans. These call for a non-nuclear, 60,000 ton, carrier to be launched within four years, and enter service by the end of the decade. The plan calls for a larger, nuclear powered, carrier to be launched within ten years. Meanwhile, the Shi Lang (the refurbished Russian Varyag) is to enter service as a training carrier within two years....
The Varyag has been in a Chinese shipyard at Dailan since 2002. For a long time, there were few visible signs of work. There was a new paint job (in the gray shade used by the Chinese navy) and ongoing work on the superstructure (particularly the tall island on the flight deck.) Many workers could be seen on the ship, and material was seen going into (new stuff) and out of (old stuff) of the ship. Shipyard workers reported ever tighter security on the carrier, and stern instructions to not report details of what is happening on the ship.

The Varyag is one of the Kuznetsov class carriers that Russia began building in the 1980s. Originally the Kuznetsovs were to be 90,000 ton, nuclear powered ships, similar to American carriers (complete with steam catapults). Instead, because of the high cost, and the complexity of modern (American style) carriers, the Russians were forced to scale back their plans, and ended up with the 65,000 ton (full load ) ships that lacked steam catapults, and used a ski jump type flight deck instead. Nuclear power was dropped, but the Kuznetsov class was still a formidable design. The 323 meter (thousand foot) long ship normally carries a dozen navalized Su-27s (called Su-33s), 14 Ka-27PL anti-submarine helicopters, two electronic warfare helicopters and two search and rescue helicopters. But the ship can carry up to 36 Su-33s and sixteen helicopters. The ship carries 2,500 tons of aviation fuel, allowing it to generate 500-1,000 aircraft and helicopter sorties. Crew size is 2,500 (or 3,000 with a full aircraft load.) Only two ships of this class exist; the original Kuznetsov, which is in Russian service, and the Varyag.

The Chinese have been in touch with Russian naval construction firms, and may have purchased plans and technology for equipment installed in the Kuznetsov. Some Chinese leaders have quipped about having a carrier by 2010 (this would have to be a refurbished Varyag), but it soon became clear that 2012 was more likely. Even that may be too soon, as the Chinese have been burned before when they tried to build new military technology in a hurry. The Chinese appear intent on getting it right the first time.

Two years ago, China announced that its first class of carrier aviators had begun training at the Dalian Naval Academy. The naval officers are undergoing a four year course of instruction to turn them into fighter pilots capable of operating off a carrier. China already has an airfield, in the shape of a carrier deck, built at an inland facility. The Russians have warned China that it may take them a decade or more to develop the knowledge and skills needed to efficiently run an aircraft carrier. The Chinese are game, and are slogging forward.
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12686
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Post by Pratyush »

Philip,

Any modern day alternative to Tu 142 in terms of range will be based on the A 330/340 or the boeing 777 or the dreamliner. If they are affordabe and can be converted to the intended role. Then I am all for it. Till then the P8I is the best new platform for the role.

The Russian platform today is obsolete regardless of the range. Moreover, for the cost of the upgrade, if you are looking at the sea dragon you can have a brand new P8 with its full service life ahead of it.

So this looks a better deal from that point of view.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34981
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Post by shiv »

Philip - I suspect that the real problem with the Bears would be obsolescence and unavailability of basic stuff needed to keep the aircraft flying. With Russia having built hundreds for the cold war - they can continue to cannibalize - but I doubt if some older items are manufactured any more particularly components that are now electronically controlled rather than huge coils, cables or mechanical contacts.
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21537
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Post by Philip »

Let's see what develops within the next efw years.Till then a Merry Christmas and a happy New Year to all! I'm going to do the disappearing act as usual.
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Post by Austin »

The Russian industry is pushing the government for a ASW variant of Tu-204P to replace the Tu-142 , having said that the bomber bear will serve RuAF till atleast 2040 with modernisation.
Kapil
Webmaster BR
Posts: 282
Joined: 16 Jun 2001 11:31

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Post by Kapil »

The Tu is good for a few more years. They wont give up that kind of a capability anytime soon.

I like the catering truck in the P-8 animation,and that has to be the best Viraat animation ever.Probably done in Gurgaon :(

BTW,Meery Christmas-INS Deepak has touched Mumbai port,will undergo Customs and other requirements and will be inducted in Jan 11.

Will post pics

Kapil
Kapil
Webmaster BR
Posts: 282
Joined: 16 Jun 2001 11:31

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Post by Kapil »

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66589
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Post by Singha »

will it passive defensive armament like decoys/chaff/RWR or continue to remain totally unarmed?
putnanja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4728
Joined: 26 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: searching for the next al-qaida #3

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Post by putnanja »

Fleet tanker Deepak arrives
The first of the two fleet tankers for the Indian Navy, built by Italian Shipyard M/s Fincantieri, arrived in Mumbai today.
...
...
Couple of photos at the site too. Click on the images below for bigger sized ones ...

Image

Image
Luxtor
BRFite
Posts: 262
Joined: 28 Sep 2003 11:31
Location: Earth ... but in a parallel universe

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Post by Luxtor »

shiv wrote:
NRao wrote:A 2009 artists impression had F-15s.

That guy, who approved it, has resurfaced again.

Sigh.
:lol: Well you can't say that he's not getting wiser, At least the F-35 will have a naval version which the F-15 never had. We can look forward now to 2011 for the next surprise the Indian Navy artist will spring on us no :roll: :shock:
Yea, just when you think that, someone will depict the P-8I landing and taking off from an IAC. :rotfl: But still nice artworks though.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34981
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Post by shiv »

shiv wrote:Philip - I suspect that the real problem with the Bears would be obsolescence and unavailability of basic stuff needed to keep the aircraft flying. With Russia having built hundreds for the cold war - they can continue to cannibalize - but I doubt if some older items are manufactured any more particularly components that are now electronically controlled rather than huge coils, cables or mechanical contacts.
After I made this post I contacted my unkal Googal and asked her about spares for Bears.

There appear to be two versions.

The Russian version is that they love their bears and there's no shortage of spares.

The weshtern version is "spares problem". There a private western company that is dedicated to procuring/producing spares for Bears.
arun
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10248
Joined: 28 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Post by arun »

X Posted from the Indian Missiles and Munitions thread.

US Congress notified of likely sale of Harpoon Block II to India.

21 AGM-84L HARPOON Block II Missiles and 5 ATM-84L HARPOON Block II for use on the Boeing P8-I’s:

India – AGM-84L HARPOON Block II Missiles
Post Reply