GDM,
I am not saying that 9M311 is inferior to the Barak; the Indian Navy is saying that – and unlike you and me they have experiance with both. Look at the trouble they went to get Barak included in the Vikramaditya rather than the Kortik.
Its GDL, but please call me Glenn. If this is the case then why stick with it and why not insist on Barak for the P15A? I say again, a combined gun/missile system has got to be better than one of them alone. Is it the Barak’s larger warhead that they want, is it the VLS capability they want (if so why not SA-N-9?), or is there something about the Barak that is just better?
Have to admit they are a nice looking vessel, and the new photos are GREAT! Still can’t wait to get some solid specs on them.
It’s a head-scratcher.
I’d be extremely cautious about saying that any of the Akulas are actually “gone” (decommed) rather than just in reserve pending repair- assumptions like this have been made before- for example, that the Admiral Tributs (Udaloy) was to be scrapped after a 1995 fire, yet it sailed in the first ever US/UK/Russian naval exercises a few weeks ago. Or the Delta III SSBN that was recently put back on duty in short order when funding was provided for it.
Quite right Vympel, and I am assuming here, shouldn’t be really. They could very well be in reserve, sitting dormant in port. But the Janes info that I have makes no mention of inactive reserve hulls. The World Defence Almanac however, does state that all remaining AKULA Is and VICTOR IIIs will be retired in/from 2005, so maybe they are there waiting to be decommisioned and scrapped. Who knows. I think funding for the SSN fleet is starting to move more away from maintaining the older hulls, and more to the new Pr.885 YASEN-class been built.
Don’t worry, found them on the HD. 🙂
Kashtan-M instead of Barak is an retrograde step and not an improvement.
So you are saying the Russian 9M311 missile (or SA-N-11) is inferior to the Barak SAM? If so, but what degree? And with the Khastan-M you are also getting a dual mode CIWS system, guns and missiles. Surely better than just a missile alone.
The 9M311
Glenn i thought that it was the Akula-II’s which was under construction and not the Akula-I’s
Hi Blackcat,
At least two Improved AKULA Is, and a couple of AKULA IIs had their construction suspended a few years ago now.
SM-2: Its official
The RAN will be getting SM-2s for four of the FFGs.
Navy gets $550m missile upgrade
So will this mean they will be fitted with ESSM and SM-2?
Hi GDL,
They already got those launcher tubes installed on the 052C, and they’re clearly not the squared launchers for the C-803.
Whoops, sorry, I meant the 052Bs, they have the box type tubes fitted. Do you have another pic of the 052C and their cylinder type AShM tubes Crobato?
Glenn , thislink will help you a bit in charting out the different akula class sub constructed so far , Most of the sites I have visited and read about have rated Vepr as the first of the Akula-2 class subs built so far ,Gepard being the second of the class , Three more were being built( Kuguar,Kaban,Rys) when construction was suspended .
One more querry , the Akula carry something which is know as ” Non-acoustic Means of detection system” what exactly does that mean , what are the other way and means besides the conventional Active/Passive Sonars and Sonobuyos of detecting subs and other targets, Do western subs carry such means of detection
Thanks Austin but unfortunately the data in the table is out of date, as most of the original AKULA Is appear to be gone now. The article itself is almost 3 years old as well. As for the non-acoustic sensors, I am not sure, will have to dig a little to find more. They do appear to be one of the distinguising features between the Improved AKULA/AKULA II, and the older AKULA I.
GDL I assume by content you are taking radar, engine as a single component ? what about the structures like wings, ribs, body panels should they be classified as a single complex component?
for an a.c
– radar
– engine(s)
– wings+body panels
– actuators
– cockpit avionics (navigation)
– avionics (mission – a2a, a2g)
– wheels!
– fuel system, FADEC
– mission computers
– FCS computers
– ejection seat
– weapons
– pylon electronics
– radio / comm systems
– ECM offensive – jamming pod/internal
– ECM defensive RWR , MAWS
– lasing/FLIR pod
I would take the whole airframe, internal and external, as a single component too. But, again, it could be made up of parts from foreign and local sources, or entirely sourced from either. When it comes to defining indigenous in the broader sense, I think, if the aircraft is designed at home, has a reasonable % of local parts built in (not necessarily critical systems), and is then finally fully assembled at home, 99 people out of 100 in that country will label it local.
Now that the RNZAF no longer have any combat capabilities, will it seek to have it again?
Will depend on politics and money in time. I don’t see it happening for a while though.
It’s subjective when it comes to 50%+ foreign content. Some people would say yes it is still domestic, and others would say no.
I’ve always regarded Japanese women as among the most beautiful in the world
Seeing your fiance only justifies my views, your a lucky man
Thanks Steve. Lucky indeed! 🙂
yup…although there are certain programs that are talked about which exist but nothing is said about them
And they are?
I would tend to agree with Crobato on this. I think the C-803 is a further development – and refining – of the earlier C-802, which more range, possibly a new warhead, data link, improved seeker, and computer possibly too, who knows. As for the AShMs on the Type 052C DDG, I think they may very well be C-803s. Time will tell.