tphuangvery simple, China does not want to sell J-10. It wants to sell JF-17. Any more questions?
tphuangI already posted far more on propeller technology than one needs for a basic understanding. But wait, from your side we’ve had more gems on the lines of 80 propellors beat 79 etc without even taking into account hydrodynamic loading and many other factors that drive the choice of propellor.
read my post, I never used number of blades as the sole argument, but you continue to put words in my mouth. Why would I even mention pumpjet propellor if I think adding blades is the only answer?
I pointed out a flaw in your post with regards to your claim of IN inducting the Scorpene because it was the fanciest etc, I merely noted that it was inducted because it fit best into a long term submarine production plan. This has little to do with “minding my own business”. If you post claims on a public board, surely you do expect responses, especially when you refuse to heed polite clarifications and continue to muddle ahead with even more misleading comments.
lol, you have been anything but polite.
nope, you are the one who has an issue with my post. You mistakened my intention with that reply. Yet, can’t admit you mistakened and continue to insist on what you think I meant.
LOL indeed. Your posts do far more damage than any statement made by me. 😮
lol, so you say so.
More drivel! First the Indian subs at refit are getting six blade propellors. Now please inform us all what 80’s technology was used to design these versus the 90’s technology for the 7 blade ones …
Its because of silly assertions like these that your arguements take a knock.
The latest new kilos (636) being built are not using 6-blade propellors, but using a new 7-blade propellor, what does that tell you?
Oh wow. A new strawman, Kilo of 2006 vs Agosta. Your original point was that the Russians couldnot get adequate specs about their subs vs “quet targets”, and now its off on another tangent..sigh!
Next it will be Amur vs Agosta, as can be expected, no data will be presented to back up your assertions.
off to what tangent? I’ve been stating this all along – that the newly built kilos using a hull that first came out in the 80s is not as good as a newly built agostaB that first came out in the 90s and now using MESMA AIP.
More nonsense. Russia, a nation with decades of sub-building experience, now needs MPA’s to keep itself abreast of advances in quietening technology and how its equipments performance needs to keep apace. Sigh.
again, twisting more words. What I said was the Americans (and also their allies) have far more readings on the accoustic signature of modern submarines than the Russians.
If you dont visit this forum and spend all your energies elsewhere, this forum is indeed lucky, unlike the others on the net which have you hammering big round nails into square shaped holes and vice versa.
It shows the kind of person that you are that you first said you will “stop here” and continued anyways, doesn’t it?
Why? If diesel subs, including Russian ones were such clankers, then they wouldnt eh?
lol, do you do anything other than twist my words? I stated kilos are not as quiet agosta 90B. And then USN is practicing against quiet diesel subs to improve their ASW techniques.
What, more ABCD person is expert from blah di blah forum?
it’s called news reports. But hey, since they are written in Chinese, you probably won’t believe them.
Oh wow. Now is BR, the IN?
The fact is that the IN chose the Sea Dragon for its Mays and is proceeding ahead with that program.
The Sea Dragon for the IN’s Tu-142’s was too expensive and time-consuming. Russian insistence on a high price also put paid to that effort.
So they are going for a polyglot mix of Israeli and Indian components.
What was its competition? And what were their prices.
tphuangAnd they are noisy because wait, they didnt have 20 bladed propellers or whatever..
Go search up on propellor technology, you can keep on denying.
Again, you simply dont know the reasons for the induction, which are related to the IN’s long term sub building plan…not just because Scorpene was fancier than the Agosta…
No, that’s not what I think is the reason of Scorpenes induction. I read plenty about IN’s plan to dominate the Indian Ocean and of modernizing its navy. You were obviously pissed of at my post, so trying to pick on my post. Maybe you should stop guessing what I’m thinking and stick to minding your own business?
Oh sheesh, you still dont get it. The choice of blades has to do with hydrodynamic loading and preventing cavitation. It has nothing to do with x number is better than y, where x is greater than y.
wow, insinuating I’m stupid, lol. Another new method. Read my freaking post. I didn’t say that a 7 blade propellor is automatically less noisy than a 5 blade propellor. The 7 blade propellor on kilos are developed using newer technology than the 5 blade propellor on Indian kilos. But hey, if you don’t think a sub using 80s propellor technology is nosier than the same sub using 90s propellor technology, maybe the Russians should drop pump jet propellors and go back to 5 blade propellors.
Utter nonsense is your silly belief that just because Russia doesnt have access to an Agosta or whatever, it cannot continue to progress in subquietening technology or benchmark its products to high standards based on taking current data and extrapolating it statistically.
I never stated that nor do I believe that the Russians can’t make a sub quieter than Agosta, but a 90s kilo (or even a 2006 kilo) is not quieter than Agosta.
Right…by those same standards, even the claims of French subs being quieter than Russian ones fail to pass muster..
getting relative accoustic readings should be easier than getting exact accoustic readings. And secondly, the Russians aren’t like the Americans who have their MPAs buzzing around different oceans tracking submarines. The Americans got a lot more data on the accoustic readings of submarines.
[quote]
No…I just like to know whom I am debating with and in this case, I think I shall stop here, because you do appear to be the quintessential energizer bunny on such topics on the internet, and go on and on and on and on…
I dont have the time or energy…so sayonara..
[quote]
really, I haven’t visited this forum since my last post. And before that, the post before that. Interesting how you reply to my posts so fast.
Yawn..Russia makes SSKs…so much for that claim..
Americans are practicing against quieter subs.
Good lord, more nationalistic drivel…
do a google search if you don’t believe me.
In general is correct….generally I can make a lot of speculative comments based on “gut feel”, but I’d hold off without proof…something which should be considered by you too.
I think the fact that BR put Sea Dragon not satisfying IN for tu-142 is plenty of evidence.
tphuangThe Yak-141 lost its funding at the same time pretty much everything else in the Soviet Union lost its funding. Now that money is available again fixed wing aircraft cen perform the role the Yak-141 was designed to perform… ie offer fixed wing speed and range from a Russian carrier.
BTW while crowing about the F-35s VSTOL performance perhaps you ignore the enormous contribution the Harrier program had toward US knowledge of VSTOL aircraft in service, and also the Yak-141 technology used in the F-35 as well.
what I stated had nothing to do with this. The increment from F-35B over Yak-38 is an example of how far the Russians would have to do to develop 1 of the 3 variants of JSF. Basically, indicating that an engineer have no way of knowing how much JSF development can cost.
tphuangAnd thats the extent of your arguement? You do realise that active searches dont distinguish between quite and non quiet subs.
right, keep on having noisy subs, then. good for you
You misread the reason for its induction.
no, I’m stating the results of its induction. but hey, you seem to want to pick a fight with me, so whatever.
Again, you are talking utter nonsense. Please read the portions described previously and you should then realise propeller selection depends upon a variety of factors and the advantages gained vary as well. Its not simply 20 propellers are more silent than 19 or 18 better than 17..
It does depend more than just the # of blades, but 7 blade propellors is a newer technology compared to 5 blade propellor. and pump jet are more advanced than 7 blade propellors. There is a reason nobody use 5 blade propellors any more.
Thats your personal tilt speaking.
we will see who is right.
Utter nonsense again. “Couple of tests on their kilos”. LOL, sure.
what’s utter nonsense, what else do they have to test on?
Care to point out where I said so? I noted that you can extrapolate performance against different parameters given what you already have. Simple..
you can’t get an accurate reading on a much quieter sub unless you really test on it. Especially since some of these numbers are confidential.
Having done a search on you and seeing the wide variety of your posts, I can only say “whatever”…
wow, I’m flattered that you would put so much effort into this.
Thats the one sensible thing you have said so far…but what you fail to understand is that with the cold war over, a vast array of commercial technologies and processors are now available to the Russians, and hence the quality of their products has seen a marked jump.
USN put a lot more resources into this. And they actually practice against modern SSKs like Gotland and Collins just so that they can improve their ASW suite. Russian commercial processors/technologies? They are really nothing to talk about. They are even behind China in those areas
Unless you have the technical specs of whats being provided to Pak, export specs and compare it to the suite on the Israeli/ Russian modded IN Tu’s and Ils’, your claims are speculation.
I don’t care about what’s provided to Pak. I’m arguing P-3C ASW suite against sea dragon in general. Is there anybody non-Pakistani here who actually have the illusion that PN has a chance of surviving against IN?
tphuangIndeed he knows how much cost rise it will be with STOL version R&D.
These people dont make statments without substance. There will be multiple variants of 5th generation fighter like Naval.
yak-141, whatever happened to that, hmm, you can fill the blanks.
You are basically going from Yak-38, a plane that can take off and maybe fly a few circles around the carrier to F-35B, a supersonic jet, that is stealth, capable of firing the latest missiles/PGMs and can actually carry out real missions with payload.
Sure, he really knows.
tphuangNope. He didnot post inaccurate finances. It is u who is taking his statement out of context. He merely gave opinion that JSF R&D should be around $10B (which is supposedly based on his own analysis of JSF capabilities known to him). so it is irrelevant whether some on actually spend more on it. It is like saying Russian Olympic commitee should be spending the same amount of money on Olympic atheletes to produce the same amount of medal in Olympics as West not considering the size of olympic contingent, kind of sports, Size and diversity of population base.
well, considering the only VSTOL fighter that the Russians ever deployed to service was the almighty Yak-38 and how much money the Americans probably are spending on developing F-35B and the capability gap between them. He really should know what the cost of R&D should be, lol.
tphuangBallistic missile trajectories normally dont change mid course, this isnt counting the new Anti-Anti-ballistic-missile warheards
well, there are advantages to being slower for sure. You can make sharper turns and have more time to seek the target and distinguish between the ship and its decoys. But my point is that the argument about supersonic missiles not giving air defense enough time to shoot them down is not true, if missiles 6 times faster can get shot down.
tphuangHmmm….and how many years of service experience or technical domain expertise do you have to have your ranking being a de facto acceptable statement?
there are people who automatically sounds like they know what they are talking about. Then, there are people that sound like Qantaz
The question is of the level of effective reduction…there is a lot that can be done and is done..
you can improve the LA class as much as you want and it’s not going to be as quiet as a sea wolf. You can improve a kilo as much as you want and it’s not going to be as quiet as an amur.
Once again, this simplistic best there is comparison is ridiculous. The IN is getting the Scorpenes not just because they “outgun” the Agostas (Scorpenes wont be used to hunt the Agostas anyway), but because they tie into the IN’s long term planning for its own local sub manufacture.
what comparison? what the heck are you talking about? I’m saying the Scorpenes is a great sub.
This “x” propeller is noisy, and “y” is not is fairly ridiculous. The refurbished IN kilos got six blade props btw- Austin should have details.
Please look up more on the subject. Its all about hydrodynamic loading and which propeller suits which sub best.
certain propellors are much quieter than other propellors. 4-blade propellors are loud, 5 blade propellors are less loud, and then 6 blade are less loud, 7 are less loud and the pump jet propellors are pretty modern. Look, but if you think some 80-90s kilo sub using old propellor technology can be less noisy than a kilo using new propellor technology. I guess there really is nothing I can say.
So to pigeonhole as you have done is misleading..
I have no idea what you are talking about.
And there are a dozen reports saying the opposite. The IN Def Min ties himself up into knots whenever the topic comes up. You seriously dont think either side wants to publicize this or the Russian assistance for the ATV project, do you?
I don’t deny ATV. But as for akula, I will believe IN is getting it the day that it joins IN.
They definitely do have their own, which are top notch. That apart, they can definitely benchmark performance via other tests. One does not need a stealth fighter to determine that a radar can detect a target at 0.001 mtr sqr RCS in the X Band, if the same radars performance at another figure is known, and its scaled proportionately..
yeah, they’ve done a couple of tests on their kilos. What else do they have? You think the kilos can compare in noise level to the Gotland subs or the Sea wolf?
Yawn. Given your Canadian why should you even be bothered with China in the first place, but there you are..
yeah, but I’m Chinese Canadian, there is a difference. I’m not affiliated to Pakistan in anyway. I’m simply arguing for P-3C and American ASW platforms in general. The Americans have always put more resources than the Russians in this field to defend against the Soviet sub threat. After 1989, I think it’s quite logical that the gap between American ASW platforms and Russian ones have widened.
tphuangSupersonic speed in cruise phase will ensure ships will not be able to move much farther away from the estimated position. As a result the missile will be able to start active radar search closer to target on a narrower sector of 40-45 degree. Hence the targets ESM detection and countermeasure will have just 3.3 seconds to react.
sounds like bs, where did they get the 3.3 seconds stuff from?
If SM-3 has succeeded in shooting down ballistic missiles that go mach15+, how can something that goes mach2.5-3.0 in the case of Russian AShM be harder than that.
tphuangTPH,
FWIW, i’ve hung around stratpage and it reeks of a prowestern bias esp. vis a vis the Russian, I gave up on them the moment I found keypubs and acig. i’d take WAB anytime.
strategypage is generally low in quality, but there are a small number of quality posters. From all of the forums I post in, I’d rank him in top 3 in terms of knowledge and respectability.
Greenday,
Don’t underrate an upgraded sub – upgrades often include some superb tech diminishing the tech advantage considerably. A comparison between Greek upgraded 209s and new 214s might be a good exercise. It is only the age factor that cannot be reduced with an upgrade. First of all IN is extremely secretive about subs, and let us not be forgetting the SSNs, which seem to be almost a surety now.
regards,
USS.
well, in terms of subs, you can upgrade the control system and weapon, but the noise level simply cannot be reduced as a new design.
I mean, that’s why IN is getting Scorpene after all. It will be the most advanced sub in Indian Ocean once it is inducted.
Is the Agosta-90B better than a Kilo? Without doubt, better than the unupgraded Kilo but the upgraded ones are a different matter, especially with Klub-S. But with a mere 3 Agostas, little can be acheived, especially against ships protected by ASW choppers. By the time new subs are ordered, the Scorpenes and nuke subs would be inducted.
the Indian kilos still use 5 blade propellors, which is more noisy than the 7 blade propellor kilos, which is more noisy than Amur, which is probably more comparable to Agosta 90B. And how are you so sure that the Agostas will be detected? American navy had trouble detecting Gotland SSK. Modern SSKs are not easy to detect.
you might find this interesting
Russia is not conducting talks with India on possible leasing of a Project 971 Nerpa nuclear submarine (NATO-codename Akula-2), the deputy head of the Russian federal service on military and technical cooperation, Vladimir Paleshchuk, told a news conference on Wednesday.
In reply to an Itar-Tass question on prospects of using Nerpa that was recently
set afloat from the Amur shipyard, Paleshchuk said the talks on leasing of
Russia’s submarines, but not nuclear ones are in progress.Earlier, some mass media reported that after tests Nerpa would be leased to
India.Project 971 nuclear submarines have in service eight torpedo launchers, cruise
missiles Granit and underwater missiles Shkval.Nerpa was designed back in 1991, but funds shortages delayed the construction
for 15 years.
Sea Dragon is most certainly one of the highest end of sensor systems
Any proof for this? What kind of subs have the Russians had to test with this?
However, a comparison of subs and MPAs are merely a wrestling match of nationalistic pride for MPAs are’nt going to be shooting at each other and subs are going to go after ships mostly.
just to make it clear, China is getting Sea Dragon with Be-200 and already have upgraded kilos. So, I’m not arguing against Sea Dragon and kilos out of nationalistic sentiment.
tphuangThanks SOC.
Ok, before the same old same old starts again, are there any SAMs currently tested & in operation which have proven capable of taking on supersonic ASMs (sea skimmers)? With the Brahmos/ Moskit/ KH-31 (iirc even thats supersonic) & that the Klub also has a terminal high speed approach, iirc some Chinese missiles claim likewise…this is an interesting question.
Answers welcome.
didn’t IN say that Barak can intercept every AShM in their inventory?
I’d think all the modern naval SAM systems should be able to intercept supersonic ASM.
tphuang….and we rest who watch this with little wink in our eyes do realise, that it would have been rather queer event in cold wars history if participants of two hostile camps would have bougth weapons beyond-block by simply picking the best performer, How do you think that you can confince the indian side to take you seriously at all?? Just I simple question, thats all. You can leave it to your heads or start ranting me over making it… 😉 😉 😉
com’on Golly, you can do better than that. My original post was just a little musing to respond to Qantaz. You should know my style by now.
tphuangThe Sea Dragon suite has found its way on the IL 38s but NOT on the TU 142s, which seem to have some kinda Israeli package centered around the EL/M-2022A (V3) radar. Tphuang please check this on the same link that you posted. also the IN currently seems quite pleased with the capability of the IL 38SD, in fact if recent new reports are to be believed an order for 3 more is in the offing.
qantaz asked me if I know about Sea Dragon
To compare PN capabilities either in term of technology or sheer numbers against the IN is a rather farfetched joke. No doubt the PN submarines are getting better, but many IN surface combatants (even frigates and corvettes) have ASW capabiliity by using helos like Seaking, Ka28/31 and to some extent the Dhruv as well. This is apart from their bears and upgraded il 38s.
Regards,
USS.
well, I don’t think any reasonable person would argue that PN capabilities isn’t behind IN both qualitatively and quantatively, but what annoys me is the way that someone like qantaz talk.
A who? Has he been inside an Il-38?
he normally posts in DT and strategypage forum. You can check up on his posts to see their quality and his credential.
Your genius “respected” poster does’nt even know that the Il-38SDs are flown exclusively by the Indian Navy and have nothing to do with the IAF. He is BSing. In fact, there was a big fight between the IAF and IN, on who gets to fly these MPAs, when they were first bought.
So, you are saying IAF would have no clue of what goes on in IN? btw, his post was in response to the MPA competition that includes IL-38 and P-8.
Its true that the Sea dragon suite was facing hiccups during Intensive Flying Trials. But that happens with every new piece of equipment being inducted. I can’t comment on how it compares to systems like the EL/M-2022A-V3/MOSP but it does offer some superb performance. Even the old radar was quite praised.
I’m not sure what radar the new PN’s refurbished P-3Cs will be getting, but the old APS-115 is a piece of junk compared to the Sea Dragon. The P-3Cs also do not have true 360 degree radar coverage as the gondolas on the Tu-142M and Il-38SD offer.
right, did IN actually get both APS-115 and Sea Dragon to be able to say that Sea Dragon is much better?
btw, Harry. I really do think you should do something about Qantaz. He has been very confrontative in this thread.
tphuangDo you know anything about the Sea dragon suite or simply pulling facts out of your as-s? Tu-142 outclasses the P-3c’s in range, endurance and load carrying capability by a huge margin. Fact remains P-3c’s during a war would either be shot down or remain hangar queens unless PN goes for a dedicated squardon to protect them. Lets just say I don’t trust PAF with the job.
For a noob, you seriously do talk quite big.
lol, Sea dragon? yeah. And what do you know? Do you honestly think those Russian ASW suite is better than American ones?
Let’s read this, this is from BR by the way
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NAVY/Tu-142.html
In the same March 2004 report, Defense News reported that the Indian Navy had approached Rosoboronexport in November 2003 to upgrade their fleet of Tu-142s for a cost no more than USD $555.5 million. However the proposal put forward by Rosoboronexport to upgrade these aircraft with the Morskoy Zmei (Sea Dragon) multi-mission avionics and electronic warfare suite was rejected. The primary reasons were reportedly system performance issues and an exorbitant price tag, listed at USD $888.9 million by Rosoboronexport. In January 2004, a team of Indian Naval Aviation pilots visited Russia to evaluate a Sea Dragon-equipped Tu-142 aircraft. However the Sea Dragon suite failed to meet essential parameters and its detection capabilities were found inadequate. In February 2004, the Indian Navy approached Rosoboronexport again to have Israeli firms collaborate with Russian firms to customise a MMA and EW suite. However that proposal was rejected by Rosoboronexport, on the basis that the upgrade would have to be wholly Russian and must include the Sea Dragon suite.
Tu-142 is developed from tu-95, so of course it has more load and range. But then, if you are talking about Pakistan, why would its p-3c need to go that far?
Anyhow, this is an interesting commentary by gf0012-aust of DT. Probably one of the most respected posters online on IL-38.
I can’t believe they are still pushing the IL-38 barrow. Indian AF personnel were in australia in 2001 complaining about the russians trying to flog off older non supportable airplanes and with electronic suites that were inferior to french stuff more readily available and supportable. Hell, even the Russians are struggling to support their IL-38’s – its why theyr’e so keen to flog them off so that they smarten up their own redundant platform lines. We managed to get a look at various IL-38 systems at their request – and I’d have to say that if was not an awe inspiring event.
why would you even consider staying with an airframe that is unsupported – and with a sensor suite that still has some problems. Its not as if ASW technologies are greenfield. Far better for India to French, UK or US ASW systems where capability is not in question.
but honestly, if you still want to believe that Russian sonar is better than French, US or UK sonar, you can go ahead believing so.
Sign In
