Indian Naval Discussion

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 12 Jul 2009 00:07

About the Backfires, I wouldn't be too sure if they won't be useful. They have far better range, payload characteristics than the MKIs. A single backfire could carry close to 6 Brahmos plus other munitions. you'd need 6 or more MKIs to do the same. Deep strikes (Chengdu?) or close to the S.China sea may be possible with such assets with MKIs from A&N flying escort. JMT.

CM.

sunilUpa · Post by **sunilUpa** » 12 Jul 2009 00:47

Austin wrote:
sunilUpa wrote: No you are missing the point. The treaty has been interpreted to limit the deployment of 'Russian' and US 'Tactical' nuclear weapons on board of 'Russian' and US surface and sub-surface assets. Both Russia and US have to submit the list of Nuclear weapons/delivey systems annually. Even though the Akula is 'leased', it will carry Indian flag and 'may' have 'Indian' nuclear assets which are not part of Russian inventory (therefore not included in the annual declaration).
Look a leased submarine is part of Russian Navy and not India , one cannot have a simplistic view when it concerns tactical nuclear weapons on a foreign submarine and try to by pass a treaty/understanding which has far reaching implication on deployment of nuclear weapons.

By that logic a US submarine can have tactical weapons of UK and Russia from India and may be declared as not being part of each country inventory.

In any case, this situation is very similar to US state dept declaring Paki F-16's can not be configured to carry Nukes and Brahmos can not be configured to carry Nukes etc.
Not sure , but did pakistani leased the F-16 from US , or did US and Soviet had an agreement not to arm fighter with tactical nukes ?

Sigh..please go though START text..the actual names of missiles covered are specified, it's not a name all cover all treaty. Morever missiles under 600 km range are not covered.

The legal owner of the Sub may be Russia, IN retains the operational control. Otherwise when Ghazi attacked IN, it would mean US has declared war on India.

One has to look in to context and associated declarations of a treaty, not merely take literal interpretation of an article on treaty.

On second thought , who needs nuclear cruise missile on submarine which is like a poor man's solution for Nuclear deterrent , only SLBM is the real thing , for the rest a conventional Torpedo and cruise missile is good enough for most task.

Venkarl · Post by **Venkarl** » 12 Jul 2009 02:01

No doubt Backfires have an advantage of range and payload. The point I want to understand is when will they be used?
is it after achieving air superiority over target land?
or have them escorted with mkis based at tezpur to target equipped with an anti-AWACS missile?
or achieve air superiority and then have them escorted to target?
will it be a part of 1st strike or 2nd strike?
how good the countermeasures of the aircraft are against S-A and A-A missiles?

sorry...couldn't help myself with so many mice running inside my skull...please pardon my ignorance if I said something silly..

Guddu · Post by **Guddu** » 12 Jul 2009 02:17

NRao wrote:
Singha wrote:as a coincidence I was studying a book on Indonesia last night for another reason (Vina datalink on Bali vacation opps). what I realized is that indian ocean to pacific ocean submerged voyages is not at all easy.

Malacca straight submerged passage is neither safe nor would singapore permit anyone to cross their backwater with hostile intent.

.........................................

unless indonesia and singapore give them a ticket, a SAG will find it tough to
force their way through in either direction, but submerged submarines can
presumably sail through the sunda and lombok straits and pursue wars of
sea denial in IOR and South Chinasea.

given the huge distances involved and limited duration of a Indo-PRC conflict
(assumed), even AIP subs are useless due to lack of sustained submerged
sprint speed. Only nuclear subs that are already on patrol or slip from their
mooring immediately have any chance of making a impact.
1) No matter where, they have to sail through relatively shallow seas. No exception. Do not know what India plans, but a string of strategically placed hydrophones should help
2) The huge distances is the reason why Chicom has the string of pearls. Rest areas. I would not be surprised if they apply for green cards at these locations and settle down with plenty of Hans in tow.

If you know what to look for, check this out
http://earth.google.com/ocean/

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 12 Jul 2009 03:25

Guddu wrote: If you know what to look for, check this out
http://earth.google.com/ocean/

Very interesting. There goes a few hours for the next few days/nights.

Thx.

sum · Post by **sum** » 12 Jul 2009 10:02

From the Russian article:

Scattered reports suggest that even more nuclear-powered submarines may be leased to India in the future. In late 2008, the Director of the Russian Federal Service for Military-Technical Cooperation Mikhail Dmitriev said it was quite possible that Russia would lease «a few nuclear-powered submarines of the same class and Project as the Nerpa.»32 This fits with reported plans of the Indian Navy to acquire or build 10–12 nuclear-powered submarines by 2018. 33

p_saggu · Post by **p_saggu** » 12 Jul 2009 10:13

There was a chai-wala's report of 4 akula subs on a rotating lease. Two would serve at all times with the IN. Two with the RuN. When ever a sub goes to Russia for servicing / repairs, a sub from RuN will replace the one with IN.

I think the report is referring to the second Akula-II?

p_saggu · Post by **p_saggu** » 12 Jul 2009 13:03

This is what the ATV will look like. Except that there are VLS doors just behind the conning tower, and there is a big pod for the towed array sonar on the vertical sail. The number of VLS tubes as per Sandeep Unnithan's article is 4 with 3 Sagarika missiles per tube, to be replaced with one Agni 3 SL per tube later on.
ATV seems to be the platform that DRDO seems to be waiting for to test their SLBMs, as many scientists have said on numerous occasions about the limitations of testing from the pontoon.
I have seen that CGI graphic on you tube, which shows a brahmos launch from a VLS system which shows an ATV like sub with 5-6 x 2 VLS tubes. I guess we will know more on vijay diwas or swatantrata diwas.

Shankar · Post by **Shankar** » 12 Jul 2009 13:07

Good to see interest popping up among members with regard to the launch of the ATV. Well i am from vizag and residing a couple of kilometers from SBC(ship building centre). These days i could see hecthic activity at the centre round the clock. All the buildings are being painted in dirty yellow colour and ofcourse the main dome inside which the Atv is being built. I had been seeing the centre for the past 9 years ever since the submarine construction had started, but never had i seen the center with so much activity. and more even the berth at which the atv would be housed in the harbour had been completed, it measures about 110 mts(as on google scale) and is completly covered all around with concrete sheets(not seen on google). What ever i am very much pleased to see the "baby bommer" come out, eversince i was waiting for it for the past 14 years.
Regards
Prudhvi RAj

This matches nicely with my speculation that Indian nuclear submarine is almost identical to Akula 2 - whcih means we have finally aquired not just the technology for nuclear submarine but one of the best there is -shankarosky is very happy

Akula 2 has a length od 108 meters and in later versions 114 meters nerpa is i think 110 meters exact

Shankar · Post by **Shankar** » 12 Jul 2009 13:11

Shankarji, how about some posts in the scenarios thread also

that is what i am doing onlee -speculating on our nuke submarine and its specification

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 12 Jul 2009 13:18

I wonder what will be the ASM armament of the Chakra? perhaps the sub launched Klub being already in service is the weapon of choice - nice punch and good range.
the sub launched exocet does have a module that can go underwater in any direction to disguise the launch position.

Tom clancy will soon have a new entry in his threat matrix ?

old Carlo kopp must already be stuffing supplies into his outback bunker with Shang and Chakra class SSNs blocading Darwin

Shang class is also around 110m long, 11m beam, 7000t dived but has the look of
a 688 template than the victor-III/Akula shape. it does not feature VL tubes or towed sonar housing.

btw its sea trials lasted 4 years after launch, so the 2 yr est for Chakra maybe a bit optimistic considering plan has been operating the Han class since 1975ish.
but maybe the discreet presence of bear experts and sharing of test data from the
akula project could help in covering many test cases in a simpler fashion and save some time.

Shankar · Post by **Shankar** » 12 Jul 2009 13:21

ATV will carry brahmos of course in vertical laucnh mode

Russians have recently demonstrated ability to laucnh smaller missiles from large torpedo tubes (SPB 2009) buy incorporating an insert i think

SNaik · Post by **SNaik** » 12 Jul 2009 13:25

New VLS for 2nd batch of Talwars. This seems the same VLS which is going to be on Severodvinsk sub, Adm.Gorshkov frigate and follow-on hulls of Stereguschy corvette. Seems that India will have two different VLS for Brahmos.
http://i56.photobucket.com/albums/g191/snake65/3-14.jpg
http://i56.photobucket.com/albums/g191/snake65/_1.jpg
http://i56.photobucket.com/albums/g191/snake65/_2.jpg

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 12 Jul 2009 13:32

what is the 91PT32 (Club-N) missile with a range in chart as 5-42km? its speed is
listed as 570m/sec if I can guess the writing.

is it some kind of SAM modification of the Klub looking at its shape? or a version of
the SA-N-12 ?

Shankar · Post by **Shankar** » 12 Jul 2009 13:46

he Admiral vigorously assisted the Indian Navy towards becoming a blue water force, and assets built during his time contributed to the success of the Indian Navy in blockading Karachi as well as in effective action against the Pakistani Navy during the 1971 Bangladesh Liberation War.

One of the Soviet Union’s, and Russia’s, greatest Admirals, he was a good friend of India in the good old days of Indo-Soviet relations, and visited India a few times.

In the late 1960s, the Indian Navy got what it asked for; Petya class ships, Project 641 (or Foxtrot) Submarines, a submarine tender INS Amba, Osa class missile boats, and a host of associated weapons and P 15 Styx missiles. He helped lay the foundations of the Indian Navy. It is this inventory of ships that helped the Indian Navy to carve out a glorious role for itself in the 1971 war.

Gorshkov admired how ingeniously the Indian Navy employed the missile boats off Karachi on 4th December 1971.

Admiral Gorshkov also agreed to lease a Charlie class nuclear submarine K-43, to India. Named as INS Chakra by the Indian Navy, it arrived in India in 1987, two years after he had retired. The old timers in the Indian Navy still recognize him as the architect who laid the foundations of today’s powerful Indian Navy.

He supported the Indian Navy generously, and established close friendships with Indian Admirals of his time including Admiral S M Nanda, Vice Admiral N Krishnan and Rear Admiral S G Karmarkar who corresponded with him through demi-official letters to cut the bureaucratic red tape. The Soviets supplied equipment against easy credits.

Gorshkov wrote a thesis on Sea Power which was shared with Indian officers, and they read it with admiration.
The Indian Navy will long remember the Tovarish (Comrade) Admiral who gave India Druzba (Friendship) and introduced missile power into the Indian Navy.

read the full write up at

http://www.indiastrategic.in/topstories156.htm

Shankarosky

SNaik · Post by **SNaik** » 12 Jul 2009 14:15

Singha wrote:what is the 91PT32 (Club-N) missile with a range in chart as 5-42km? its speed is
listed as 570m/sec if I can guess the writing.

is it some kind of SAM modification of the Klub looking at its shape? or a version of
the SA-N-12 ?

It's anti-sub missile, carrying UMGT torpedo.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 12 Jul 2009 14:40

then I think its a useful kit for our P17, Talwar-1 &2, P25 and P28 ships in box launchers on deck if need
be replacing some Urans because submarine threat is far more likely than a PN surface flotilla coming out to play.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 12 Jul 2009 15:23

Nice find Naik.The missile launching silos are rather innovative,appear able to launch a cocktail of missiles,depending upon the mission.
Adm.Gorshkov was a truly great friend of the IN.He was the world's greatest maritime thinker during the 20th century and the manner in which the Soviet Union/Russia overcame their geographical handicaps through the use of heavy firepower with missiles aboard their ships and subs was masterful.The IN has a unique blend of RN traditions with Indo-Russian tactics using mainly ships and weaponry of mainly Russian origin.Brahmos is a splendid example of the Gorshkov legacy being continued into the 21st century.

If the ATV is going to be the mainstay of our nuclear deterrent and all/almost all such subs will be strategic in mission,then there will be little chance of India building another line of nuclear attack subs like the Akulas,as two conventional lines of subs will also be in production.Therefore,it is a certainity that a second Akula and perhaps a new class of SSGN,perhaps slightly smaller than the Akulas will be procured from Russia to protect our SSBNs and conduct true blue water multi-ocean ops.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 12 Jul 2009 18:33

India's home-built nuke sub

The original idea was for the PM to finish his independence day speech and then travel to Vizag to launch the submarine,' a senior official told The Straits Times, using the abbreviation for Vishakhapatnam, a city on India's eastern seaboard. 'But that was not considered feasible. So we are planning the event a few days ahead of that, depending on the PM's schedule.'

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 12 Jul 2009 22:04

Could we get back on topic please. This naming the ATV business has been done ad nauseum. Let us wait till MMS breaks the coconut and chooses a suitable (or not) name.

We can then reconvene in the whine thread....

SNaik · Post by **SNaik** » 12 Jul 2009 22:51

A video of Yantar shipyard. Mainlt deals with keel laying of Seliger DSRV tender, but gives a couple of glimpses of 1st and 2nd Talwar-2.
http://rutube.ru/tracks/2116697.html?v= ... 71f4b0e8b0

Venkarl · Post by **Venkarl** » 12 Jul 2009 23:15

Am I expecting too much out of our BRF on my post regarding backfires? I know its going OT...

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 12 Jul 2009 23:37

Venkarl, since the reports about backfire-c talked about induction by IN only, the only possible role could have been anti-surface shipping, both military and cargo, if situation so demanded.

at most strikes on ports and similar facilities could have been looked into.

but w/o the actual machine all this is moot !

Venkarl · Post by **Venkarl** » 12 Jul 2009 23:54

Rahul M wrote:but w/o the actual machine all this is moot !

John · Post by **John** » 13 Jul 2009 00:27

SNaik wrote:New VLS for 2nd batch of Talwars. This seems the same VLS which is going to be on Severodvinsk sub, Adm.Gorshkov frigate and follow-on hulls of Stereguschy corvette. Seems that India will have two different VLS for Brahmos.
http://i56.photobucket.com/albums/g191/snake65/3-14.jpg
http://i56.photobucket.com/albums/g191/snake65/_1.jpg
http://i56.photobucket.com/albums/g191/snake65/_2.jpg

Interesting compared to L&T brahmos vls launcher (which is simply a steel structure that holds 8 canisters), looks like the missiles for this sytem are stored in a large canister which can hold 4 i guess it won't it accommodate the individual canister that each brahmos is stored in?

SNaik · Post by **SNaik** » 13 Jul 2009 02:46

John wrote:Interesting compared to L&T brahmos vls launcher (which is simply a steel structure that holds 8 canisters), looks like the missiles for this sytem are stored in a large canister which can hold 4 i guess it won't it accommodate the individual canister that each brahmos is stored in?

Well, the leaflet says there are two versions - with individual canisters and without.

Shankar · Post by **Shankar** » 13 Jul 2009 11:37

No doubt Backfires have an advantage of range and payload. The point I want to understand is when will they be used?
is it after achieving air superiority over target land?
or have them escorted with mkis based at tezpur to target equipped with an anti-AWACS missile?
or achieve air superiority and then have them escorted to target?
will it be a part of 1st strike or 2nd strike?
how good the countermeasures of the aircraft are against S-A and A-A missiles?

The backfires are ideal for long range maritime strike on short notice against any adversary including a USN carrier force with stand off high speed cruise missile

In fact the backfire idea originated after ocean dominance by US during gulf war 1

US acting like that against india in future is a real possibility though we officially try not not to acknowledge it like a good old ostrich

A Squadron of backfire equipped with brahmos may be tipped with 20 kt nuclear warhead will be very effective deter ant in such a situation

Tu 160 would have been better but not available on date

Vinito · Post by **Vinito** » 13 Jul 2009 12:29

Shankar wrote:
No doubt Backfires have an advantage of range and payload. The point I want to understand is when will they be used?
is it after achieving air superiority over target land?
or have them escorted with mkis based at tezpur to target equipped with an anti-AWACS missile?
or achieve air superiority and then have them escorted to target?
will it be a part of 1st strike or 2nd strike?
how good the countermeasures of the aircraft are against S-A and A-A missiles?
The backfires are ideal for long range maritime strike on short notice against any adversary including a USN carrier force with stand off high speed cruise missile

In fact the backfire idea originated after ocean dominance by US during gulf war 1

US acting like that against india in future is a real possibility though we officially try not not to acknowledge it like a good old ostrich

A Squadron of backfire equipped with brahmos may be tipped with 20 kt nuclear warhead will be very effective deter ant in such a situation

Tu 160 would have been better but not available on date

Although the Backfire is great in this kind of scenario we have to keep in mind that there has been a tremondous increase in the ability of the Americans in areas of detectyion and also handling mutiple missile attacks on the carrrier. The SEA-RAM had been developed specifically to meet this requirement given the limitations of the Phalanx which was able to handle missiles in the 1-1.5km envelope whereas the SEA-RAM can handle tragets in the 4-5km range. The AN-SPY1/2 Aegis systems on the accompanying cruisers & destroyers (Arleigh Burke class and Ticonderoga class) can track the backfire from a long distance even before it launches any missiles and can scramble fighters to intercept it. Let us not forget that apart from the SPY system the carrier force also keep the E-2D Hawkeye system in the air for such eventualities wherein any intruder can be intercepted before it gets within launch range.

When the Russians deployed the Backfires it was equipped with the AS-15 Kent (3000km range) & AS-16 Kickback(400nm) which enabled them to not enter the battelfied at all. The Brahmos is a bottleneck as the carrier aircraft will have to get within detection range before it is launched. It is also possible that it will be intercepted much earlier due to the E-2D. If the brahmos is tracked well in advance the SM-2 Standard SAM can definitely take care of it nuclear or not.

In order to circumvent these obstacles the Backfire would have to be brought up-to-date like the B-1in terms of electornics and armaments. But this has never happened. It is important that as the defence improves so must the methods to tackle it. But this was never done for the Backfire hence it will not be able to survive against the US carrier force.

andy B · Post by **andy B** » 13 Jul 2009 13:04

Errr Vinito Saheb why are you running a scenario of the Indian Armed Forces attacking a USN battle group

I believe we do have a lot higher chance running into a shooting fight with our great friends to the east and taller than mountain friends to the west.

Agreed that the Brahmos has a range handicap compared the the Kickback and Kitchen however the Brahmos is almost a whole generation ahead of these missiles. Also range will be increased potentially in the newer versions. The Plan has no where near the assets or the technology to detect and deal in the same was as the USN when it comes to Backfire threats!

Vinito · Post by **Vinito** » 13 Jul 2009 13:20

andy B wrote:Errr Vinito Saheb why are you running a scenario of the Indian Armed Forces attacking a USN battle group

I believe we do have a lot higher chance running into a shooting fight with our great friends to the east and taller than mountain friends to the west.

Agreed that the Brahmos has a range handicap compared the the Kickback and Kitchen however the Brahmos is almost a whole generation ahead of these missiles. Also range will be increased potentially in the newer versions. The Plan has no where near the assets or the technology to detect and deal in the same was as the USN when it comes to Backfire threats!

Hi Andy, my response was just directed at Shankar's statement that there was a remote possiblity of the USN moving against India in a naval scenario...Against the PLAN & our other foes the Backfire stands a much better chance.

vavinash · Post by **vavinash** » 13 Jul 2009 13:27

Why discuss backfires when there are no backfires? A 300 km range brahmos on Tu-22 is a threat to anyone. Only USN can counter it yet.

Shankar · Post by **Shankar** » 13 Jul 2009 13:46

Much has changed since then: China has become Russia’s largest export client for weapons; Western investment in Russia has dried up; Russia’s relationship with the United States cooled off since the Iraq War; and the Russian Air Force still faces serious funding difficulties. Most of its Backfire fleet is grounded for lack of funds: it cannot afford needed upgrades. India was to lease four Backfires, so an export precedent has been set. The Russians have encouraged competition between India and China, reflected in tit-for-tat acquisitions of Su-30MK, R-77, 3M-54/3M-14E missiles, A-50 AWACS, Il-78 tankers and submarines.

The political and strategic impediments to the mid-1990s Backfire export are now gone. The Sukhoi exports to China and India are, for Rosoboronexport and Tupolev, a prime example of decades of support and upgrade funding. By limiting the weapons package on Backfires targeted for export to China and not fitting internal fuel system plumbing for aerial refuelling probes, Russia can truthfully argue that it is exporting a regional rather than a strategic weapon.[3]

In practical terms it is now inevitable that China will eventually acquire Backfires. The only issue will be how soon, how many and with what weapons package and upgrades.

China has strong strategic incentives to deploy the Backfire. For one, it is competing with India for strategic primacy on the Asian mainland, and several squadrons of Backfires add significant potency to China's position. Closer to home, simmering tensions with Taiwan put a high premium on assets capable of deterring U.S. Navy CVB Gs.

It is reasonable to surmise that increasing tensions over Taiwan have intensified interservice competition for funding in the PLA. The Backfire, which would be instrumental in deterring U.S. CVBGs and blockading Taiwanese shipping lanes, is a good and affordable near-term choice for the PLA-AF, given the monies long earmarked for PLA-N submarines and aircraft carriers. Acquiring the Backfire would also strengthen Beijing’s hand against Washington’s. The United States is now restructuring its PacRim forces by increasing more responsive air and naval power at the expense of ground forces. Deploying the Backfire would effectively frustrate—that is, counterbalance—this U.S. effort.

The likely PLA-AF units to first receive Backfires would be those elements of the 8th (merged with the 48th), 10th and 36th Bomber Divisions, flying the oldest H-6 Badgers in the fleet. The displaced Badgers could be converted to H-6U tankers and assigned to the 2nd and 9th Bomber Divisions, or used as reserve airframes for remaining Badger squadrons. Should a firm Backfire sale be concluded in the next two years, a credible Initial Operational Capability could be achieved around 2010.

http://www.strategycenter.net/research/ ... detail.asp

not exactly us defense against abrahmos fired from backfire is yet to be proven .How good is SM3 guided by SPY/AEGIS against brahmos on sea skimming mode is very very uncertain and their lies the advantage of half a dozen backfires that have come /supposed to have come with the akulas

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 13 Jul 2009 15:07

Wiki says India has 4 backfires...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backfire_bomber

India

* Indian Navy : 4

I think the question to ask now is the one Shankarosky raised -- where are we hiding them.

vavinash · Post by **vavinash** » 13 Jul 2009 16:01

Tu-142's were not hidden by IN nor will the Tu-22's be. If there are any that is to say.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 13 Jul 2009 16:17

vavinash wrote:Tu-142's were not hidden by IN nor will the Tu-22's be. If there are any that is to say.

Actually hidden does not mean literally "hide" here of course.

Shankar · Post by **Shankar** » 13 Jul 2009 16:19

Tu-142's were not hidden by IN nor will the Tu-22's be. If there are any that is to say.

the difference between 142 and 22 is much more than numbers

navy has every reason to hide backfires - that is its ultimate surprise to any enemy who tries to blacmail india to submission -point is where are they -my guess -RAJALI

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 13 Jul 2009 16:31

Oh man back to conspiracy theory , there are no backfires , IN changed its mind and decided not to go with the backfire part of deal ( which was Groshkov + Akula 2 + Backfire ) , reason being given is its expensive to maintain a fleet of only 6 Backfire.

Also I do not see the need either , its better to have a fleet of 25 P-8I which is more effective then have a fleet of 16 P-8I and 6 - 8 backfire which makes a maintenance nightmare.

Now thats the end of story and stop speculating

jaladipc · Post by **jaladipc** » 13 Jul 2009 17:30

@ all people talking abt backfire.

backfire was dropped out of the equation in 2005 itself.the reason for dropping out is not either because of maintainance/spares/costs.Both yindo and russia agreed to have a common base with common maintainance facilities for the so....

the reason for yindia dropping out backfires is a diff one.which is the changing mindsets along with geoplitical aspects/considerations.We felt the need of a strategic and stealthy bomber that can go deep into the chinese/yanks heartland in case we give green signal to our pilots. And the solution was on table at that time but which takes a lot of time and cost and still the strategic folks okayed the one in principle.

I am not sure if i can spill the water here by going more deep into the issue.....

P.S: After the row over china ends up US will be in line as our next enemy.
Some of the planners already witnessed a strategy game with the new friends and new enemies after 2020.By then China will be busy with its new democratic government ,changing constitution,laws and everything being confined to its pre 1950`s land mark.(meaning Tibet and Xinxiang freed up)And the only player in the Asia pacific region contending our moves and motives will be none other than US which will be in its either today or tomorrow dying state cause of economical loss and restless citizens protesting for every penny cause with a high level of social unrest,........

You people will laugh at me if i reveal the position of US after 2025 and how the world strategists are thinking about it........

SivaVijay · Post by **SivaVijay** » 13 Jul 2009 17:58

We felt the need of a strategic and stealthy bomber that can go deep into the chinese/yanks heartland in case we give green signal to our pilots. And the solution was on table at that time but which takes a lot of time and cost and still the strategic folks okayed the one in principle

seems china is not the only one with military secrets....

after ATV now is time for ATF(Advanced Technology Flight).....

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 13 Jul 2009 18:05

guys, put a lid on all this. on BR don't discuss anything that is not open source. semi-open projects that are reported in the media are exceptions. in fact, if this is actually secret you shouldn't even be discussing it ! OSA still reigns supreme.
Rahul.

sanku ji, wiki isn't too reliable. I can change the # to 10 now if you want. that info was based on the initial plans not what finally materialised.