Indian Navy News & Discussions

[Echo_419]

Bro the Fulcrum can't operate as an AEW/aerial tanker (it has buddy refueling pods but those only go for a certain length, the point is to have organic long range long endurance AEW and ASW capabilities for your CBG itself). This is meant as a replacement for the Kamov (instead of say the V-22) and not as a replacement for the Fulcrums.

Btw the design and platform is far more contemporary than say the E-2 Hawkeye.

There is no connection between a F-35 or Rafale's role and the role of such a prospective platform- they fall under completely different capability and operational spheres.
@Abingdonboy I primarily meant this :-

This is so cute
where can i Get a Stuffed toy version of it

 

[faithfulguy]

Inda's needs do not warrant an F-35 order. F-35 cannot survive in air combat with anything better than
a Su-35S.



Yeah, you are so advanced that you don't know where a tailhook should be placed on a plane.

Go ahead and make fun of America. BTW, you are welcome for taking the delivery of our C-17 and more too come. Make sure you check for the correct tail hook position of that plane.

 

[Gessler]

Go ahead and make fun of America. BTW, you are welcome for taking the delivery of our C-17 and more too come. Make sure you check for the correct tail hook position of that plane.

Wow, what a post.

1. I'm not making fun of America.

2. You have 6,125 posts in the forum and still you don't know that C-17 does not need a tailhook because
it is not supposed to operate from an aircraft carrier.

3. We paid you money and you gave us C-17s in return. We bought C-17s because our needs mandated
our acquisition of them.

What I want you to explain is: - how is any of that related to India's fighter requirement for IAC-2 carrier?

And here's your rofl back -

(the second rofl is a bonus, for delivering C-17 on time)

 

[faithfulguy]

Wow, what a post.

1. I'm not making fun of America.

2. You have 6,125 posts in the forum and still you don't know that C-17 does not need a tailhook because
it is not supposed to operate from an aircraft carrier.

3. We paid you money and you gave us C-17s in return. We bought C-17s because our needs mandated
our acquisition of them.

What I want you to explain is: - how is any of that related to India's fighter requirement for IAC-2 carrier?

And here's your rofl back -

(the second rofl is a bonus, for delivering C-17 on time)

Some how, I feel America will regret selling defense equipment to India. In any case, C-17 is a off the shelf plane. So it can be delivered quickly. By the time IAC-2 carrier is ready, F-35 should be an off the shelf plane. but not PAKFA-N or Rafael-N. They won't be ready. Unless you predict India will take 30-40 years to build IAC-2, than F-35 would be almost outdated.

 

[Penguin]

I guess the thread has been merged here. Anyway I was asking about Zif-121 laucher!! How effective is this compare to other such systems?

The launcher itself is not new. This twin 140mm rocket system was the first widely-adopted Soviet decoy launcher. (you find it e.g. on the 1980s Sovremenny's, but also on the Delhi class). The Zif-121 is just the launcher portion. A total of 198 rounds are carried in the below-decks magazine. PK-2 describes the overall system. Despite it’s age the system remains in service. It’s size and the need for a below-decks magazine limit it to destroyer-sized ships or larger. The original ammunition is a 3’3”-long rocket with a parachute in the nose and an active jammer in the body. The Soviets designed this complicated (for the era, anyways) round as they felt at the time that chaff was unsuitable due to the wide variety of high-powered radars carried aboard most Soviet ships. This was not entirely successful and a basic chaff round was designed later, today it is almost exclusively used. Recently a third option (a floating flare) has entered service; this is not fired at all but rather ejected into the water via the PK-2’s dud disposal chute. PK-2M is a modernized version. It can be controlled by the SMETA-E control system.

Carried by
AK Kuznetsov
AK Kiev/ Admiral Gorshkov
ARKR Kirov
BAK Admiral Kuznetsov
BKR Slava
BKR Sovremenny
BPK Udaloy I / II
D 51 Rajput (Kashin II)
D 61 Delhi
KR Kara
KR Kashin Mod
KR Kresta I / II
KR Kynda

See
http://content.yudu.com/A1znx7/WTOCT2006/resources/content/29.swf (about midway the right column)
http://issuu.com/spguide/docs/sp_s_naval-force_02-06 (page 15, bottom right column)

 

[Gessler]

@faithfulguy I will not answer to any of the off-topic content of your posts.

By the time IAC-2 carrier is ready, F-35 should be an off the shelf plane. but not PAKFA-N or Rafael-N. They won't be ready.

You don't know a thing about N-FGFA, and as such, what's the point in talking about it?

It is RafaLE, not RafaEL.

Are you so ignorant you do not even know the correct names of the planes you are
mentioning? And BTW, Rafale-M is already operational on French Charles De Gaulle aircraft carrier, and is
already available as an off-the-shelf buy, but if Rafale-M is selected for IAC-2 after 2020 (whenever the
carrier is nearing completion), Rafale production line in India will be in full swing. At this point, buying
the ones made with ToT will be cheaper than buying off the shelf due to import duties.

N-FGFA will also be produced in India at the same production line as Air Force version, but if this center
is too busy catering to IAF's needs, the N-FGFAs will be bought off the shelf from Russia.

Either way F-35 is out of the question because 1. It is too costly and 2. It does not offer enough capability,
especially in A2A combat, to justify the cost, and finally 3. It is likely to come with too many restrictions
forbidding it from being used in certain situations or against certain adversaries.

Unless you predict India will take 30-40 years to build IAC-2, than F-35 would be almost outdated.

You mean F-35's useful service life is only 30 years down the line? Too bad, this makes it's case even worse.

 

[gslv mk3]

[MENTION=21732]
It is RafaLE, not RafaEL.

leave him,like usual chinese trolls,he spell GLSV instead of GSLV

 

[Penguin]

It is RafaLE, not RafaEL.

Not to be confused with the Israeli defence company....

www.rafael.co.il

 

[Gessler]

Not to be confused with the Israeli defence company....

www.rafael.co.il

Many confuse them both...I've had instances where the French plane was referred to as RAFAEL and
the Israeli company was called RAFALE, in the same thread, from the same person.

 

[AUSTERLITZ]

The launcher itself is not new. This twin 140mm rocket system was the first widely-adopted Soviet decoy launcher. (you find it e.g. on the 1980s Sovremenny's, but also on the Delhi class). The Zif-121 is just the launcher portion. A total of 198 rounds are carried in the below-decks magazine. PK-2 describes the overall system. Despite it’s age the system remains in service. It’s size and the need for a below-decks magazine limit it to destroyer-sized ships or larger. The original ammunition is a 3’3”-long rocket with a parachute in the nose and an active jammer in the body. The Soviets designed this complicated (for the era, anyways) round as they felt at the time that chaff was unsuitable due to the wide variety of high-powered radars carried aboard most Soviet ships. This was not entirely successful and a basic chaff round was designed later, today it is almost exclusively used. Recently a third option (a floating flare) has entered service; this is not fired at all but rather ejected into the water via the PK-2’s dud disposal chute. PK-2M is a modernized version. It can be controlled by the SMETA-E control system.

Carried by
AK Kuznetsov
AK Kiev/ Admiral Gorshkov
ARKR Kirov
BAK Admiral Kuznetsov
BKR Slava
BKR Sovremenny
BPK Udaloy I / II
D 51 Rajput (Kashin II)
D 61 Delhi
KR Kara
KR Kashin Mod
KR Kresta I / II
KR Kynda

See
http://content.yudu.com/A1znx7/WTOCT2006/resources/content/29.swf (about midway the right column)
ISSUU - SP's Naval Forces 02-2006 by SP Guide Publications Pvt Ltd (page 15, bottom right column)

Penguin,ur thoughts on the shtil-1,and RBU-6000 systems?

 

[Penguin]

Penguin,ur thoughts on the shtil-1,and RBU-6000 systems?

Neither system very new, but kept up to date with new munitions (missiles, rockets)

RBU-6000 > complement to heavyweight torpedoes used for ASW on surface vessels (contrast NATO: 324mm lightweight ASW torps, no back up; ChinaL 324mm torpedoes with RL-ASW backup) > RBU-6000 is a close in anti-sub system that can also be used against incoming torpedoes (usefull feature).

Shtil-1: See batch 2 Talwars > IN apparently confident engough to only back it up with AK630s rather than Kashtan or Barak.

 

[notsuperstitious]

Neither system very new, but kept up to date with new munitions (missiles, rockets)

RBU-6000 > complement to heavyweight torpedoes used for ASW on surface vessels (contrast NATO: 324mm lightweight ASW torps, no back up; ChinaL 324mm torpedoes with RL-ASW backup) > RBU-6000 is a close in anti-sub system that can also be used against incoming torpedoes (usefull feature).

Shtil-1: See batch 2 Talwars > IN apparently confident engough to only back it up with AK630s rather than Kashtan or Barak.

I thought the batch 2 talwars have Kashtan???

Edit - may be not. I'm surprised though. Maybe Barak is planned for a refit.

 

[Gessler]

I thought the batch 2 talwars have Kashtan???

Edit - may be not. I'm surprised though. Maybe Barak is planned for a refit.

There is word that Kashtan does not work properly in the conditions in and around IOR. It was made keeping in mind possible engagements with NATO vessels in the Baltic Sea, Black Sea and some other places closer to the Arctic Circle.

Batch 2 of Talwar FFGs do not have Kashtan, only AK-630Ms.

The best defence compliment on any IN frigate has to be with the 3 x P-17 Shivalik-class FFGs. They have 24 x 9M317 Shtil, 32 x Barak-1 close-in SAMs and 2 x AK-630Ms.

@Penguin

I do not think the 9M317 series are very good at intercepting inbound sea-skimming ASCMs. Hence IN had to install VLS cells for Barak-1 SAMs for this purpose on the Shivalik. But installation of Barak-1 on Talwar-series was probably avoided due to the additional costs involved in modifying the superstructures to accommodate new VLS units.

But I believe Talwar's anti-ASCM SAM defences to be no worse than the HQ-16N(Chinese clone of 9M317ME), 32 of which equip PLAN's Type-054A Jiangkai-II FFGs.

 

[Penguin]

The best defence compliment on any IN frigate has to be with the 3 x P-17 Shivalik-class FFGs. They have 24 x 9M317 Shtil, 32 x Barak-1 close-in SAMs and 2 x AK-630Ms.

Yes, but take into account that the P17 Shivalik class frigate is pretty much the same size as the P15 Delhi class destroyer, which has 2x24 9M317, 4x8 Barak-1 and 2x AK 630.... Talwar class is 2/3 displacement of Shivalik class, and P16/16A is yet a little smaller!

As re. Kashtan, I would like to hear more details about the apparent problems as experienced by IN. What is the issue in IOR: heat, humidity? If so, what effect to the Kashtan? WHy? Is it the guns, the ammo supplyu system, the missiles, the missile storage or the missile reloader, or the radar or the optics, or the command module that is giving trouble?

It should be noted new Russian (project 22350) and Russian made export ships (e.g. to Vietnam) are getting Palma/Palash. Question is why. Kashtan systems in use are not being removed and replaced, though.

Meanwhile, IN could have chosen to adopt that instead of Kashtan, and/or backfit to earlier Talwar's. But they have not done so. Question is again why.

I do not think the 9M317 series are very good at intercepting inbound sea-skimming ASCMs. Hence IN had to install VLS cells for Barak-1 SAMs for this purpose on the Shivalik. But installation of Barak-1 on Talwar-series was probably avoided due to the additional costs involved in modifying the superstructures to accommodate new VLS units.

Cost may be one factor, space another (where to put the Barak VLU's?). Moreover, it would require installation of at least 1, but more likely 2 Elta radar directors (where to put those, without interfering with the existing radars and radar illuminators?). Also, the Talwars initially had integration problems between the combat management and weapons systems, notably Shtil. Adding in yet another weapon system may cause new problems in this respect.

 

[notsuperstitious]

@Penguin its a pleasure to learn from you. Is your biodata available on the forum if one wishes to trace back your knowledge to your professional career?