No answer eh? On a shipping forum where people claim to know about ships or at least be interested in them I’d have thought a basic understanding of ship construction may be found?:confused: OK, an easier one, why do you put a propellor at the stern?:confused: Or am I pissing in the wind thinking your knowledge might extend beyond memorising tech lists off the web and PR guff?:confused:

No, you dont get off that easy. Answer the questions asked of you, behave in a decent manner, and then you might be treated to a civilized debate, which frankly, you have shown little ability so far to conduct. As I said before, you made some extremely silly, and intentionally provocative comments viz. the topic under question, re: the indigenous content and nature of the Indian arms industry. When it was shown that you didnt know about it, off you went to this useless charade. Bluff and charade work well in magic shows, not in the public space. What next, a musical band and dancing bears, because you made some boo-boo in a presentation to your boss?:rolleyes:

Turbinia, according to this warning I had ro reread the forum rules and all of a sudden I found out this forum is for people that are interested in ships NEXT to aircraft. I guess we don’t belong here (although I know turbines extend to aircraft too). Better get to a different board my friend, you know where to go.
For me it’s not at all necessary to point anything out to children. Can’t expect to be considered the boss over here as you’re not Indian nor Chinese and you’re not dreaming enough.
Let’s get back to shipbuilding in our hidden agenda’s because these guys over here think it’s smarter to assume their enemy is weaker than them.

Neptune, that pitiful cover-myself-now-that-enough-people-have-noticed-it sort of commentary is very interesting, but the fact of the matter is simple:

1. You have a big chip on your shoulder and are unable to conduct a polite debate when challenged on your opinion. Rudeness and comments on how your comments are justified because other posters are stupid, is NOT an answer.Trying to provoke silly flamewars, of the kind that Indian and PRC posters have avoided on the IN vs PRC Navy, is also not appreciated.

2. Trying to insinuate that you and Turbinia automatically have the right to use silly and provocative talk which belongs in the schoolyard (“you must be p-p ing, your weener this that) even when somebody tries to address provocative questions politely (as Harry and I did) is also not likely to get you and your friend, appreciation.

3. I dont believe you have an agenda, but I do believe you have an urge to patronize. That urge is visible in the Korean thread, and several others throughout, wherein for no reason at all, you pick up on some topic and then start talking of how xyz is being nationalistic, and you of course know better and etc etc. There is no reason for you to constantly patronize other people, irrespective of Belgium’s (or whichever country you wish to tom tom) achievements or not. Surely, you can create a love Belgium’s nautical industry thread if you feel that is underappreciated.

4. Any forum runs on mutual respect. Constantly calling others (who dont share your point of view) children, or implying that you have been discriminated against even when your acquaintance, “Turbinia” started on his provocative commentary and schoolyard language, with you continuing in that vein, is also not likely to gain appreciation.

Also, by acting in this manner, you provoke intemperate replies- which you then point to and say, “aha, thats why I act like the way I do” and try to paint all those who rebut your comments, in the same light. Seriously, do you think that this debating tactic is somehow unnoticeable?

5. The issue is not with the forum, its with your insistence that you be given the right to behave in whatever manner you see fit without other members calling you and your mates on it. That, is very unlikely to happen.

6. Your opinion as a member is welcome, so are your insights and whatever commentary you put forth. You would notice that nobody seeks to mock you and belittle you either and you are indeed asked pertinent queries and thanked for them. But if you constantly seek fights and then say that your rudeness is justified, members here will continue to disagree.

Have a good day.

Nice one, keep up the good work, how is the weather in fantasy land:diablo: I’ll let Neptune have his fun pointing out where all that foreign expertise is:D :diablo:

In other words you dont know jack squat about what you spouted off on, you cant justify your statements on your own and want Neptune to bail you out of the doo doo which you have landed yourself in via your juvenile statements AGAIN. Is there anything more pathetic? What will you do when Daddy Neptune isnt around to get poor wee diddums Turbinia out of trouble? :rolleyes:

Help, Help, ickums Turbinia is in trouble, he wants some some support!

OK Nick, you want to demonstrate knowledge of shipping, tell me, why would you use thinner shell plate amidships?

Dont try to divert the issue – tilting at windmills and diverting the topic is a game only the infantile play. You made specific comments about weapons development programs; when shown to be wrong, dont take recourse in generics.

What next, you will demonstrate your knowledge of the intricacies of lavatory flushing on oil rigs after talking about weapons programs? :rolleyes:

Quick, Turbinia lets talk about body parts, and add a couple of “oh yeahs”, “so there”, “uh huh”..that reply should do the trick.

Broncho’s reply is exactly what we mean. Turbinia, and sometimes me too, say such things in a rude way because you don’t seem to understand the gentle way. If we say something like Victor mentioned then you will keep coming with stupid arguments because you know we won’t reply anymore. In mature forums that’s not a problem, in the kindergarten over here that’s something totally different.

Sorry Neptune thats BS, and you know it. If you act in a patronizing manner towards other members you will get treated in the same manner. Several members here also find your arguements stupid, ignorant and masked in condescending arrogance- even so we endeavour to reply politely, as Victor did. The problem is not with this forum, its with you, you expect to be treated as a top dawg and boss everyone around – sorry, it doesnt work that way. Life is rarely that simple.

That’s the type of encouraging replies that makes such people posting dumb arguments. Turbinia didn’t have to reply to Harry’s point as we had already pointed out that without foreign aide they simply can’t build a real warship.

That is nonsense, and that was NOT what Turbinia said. He made a generalized slam on the Indian MIC in general, and it is obvious that he was doing a handwave. When asked to justify his comments he reacted with petulant anger. Now its moving the goalposts again and all your covering him apart, and the simple fact is that the IN maintains a consistent % indigenization figure and is increasing it, and a comparison with the PRC is pointless since India is not spending on the same level.

Harry’s good points were? Pxx,Pxx etc. (he started peeing and that requires a weener which Turbinia indicated :p ) How many of those are actually in service? And how much of those is actually Indian? Indeed, the main point is that they can’t do it themselves. Yes they made progress, but far from what China did.

Again, you are speaking more drivel, and this kind of silly juvenile tone apout peeiing and the like which you have adopted throughout the discussion is entirely why you get retorts in return. India currently manufactures ALL those items which Harry mentioned. The 3D CAR for instance, is in manufacture for the Indian Air Force as well.
Coming to “how much is actually Indian”- how much of the PRC’s is actually PRC’s? I mean, sincerely, who gives a damn, beside juvenile adolescents eager to brag about how someone else developed something on forum flamewars? What matters is whether a country can manufacture that item, and whether they can use that experience on other programs or derivatives. Both India and PRC have demonstrated that they have this capability. The rest is navel gazing.

China indeed has had many failed projects and up till now type 52C hasn’t even received her SSMs yet, but the point is that they have at least some systems in service by now, which can’t be said of the Indian ones.

Indian ships use a variety of Indian sonars, EW fits, as well as other systems. You are clutching at straws here.

Anyhow, time to go, have fun and keep P’ing with the weeners (big and small)

Considering your obsession with weeners, you definitely need some professional help.:rolleyes: :p

and how will you fit it into the diesel submarines then? per the article from prasun moron gupta

Forget Sengupta, think ATV. Scorpenes will only use exocet. Follow on Amurs might use Club/ Brahmos.

Panda,

Programs can change/metamorphose depending on funds and access to tech.

I think India was working on 4 programs-

Ramjet based LRCM- using Akash tech, might be cancelled
1000 KM Brahmos derivative- might be a scaled up derivative- Ref Natrajan
SLBM – Project K-15
LRCM based on Lakshya with turbojet

Now whichever is Sagarika take your pick.

I guess you’re not seeing the point. Turbinia isn’t “on a high horse”. He brought up points which were correct. If they are afterwards countered by very obscure and not even true ways, then I think Turbinia is correct. If the other party (this case Harry) doesn’t want to give up and keeps going, then it’s Turbinia’s right to tell him the discussion is over and that’s what Turbinia meant with his last reply.

Nice try, but it doesnt work. If Turbinia’s behaviour cannot respond to Harrys specific details, then it does not mean that a few glib snarky comments compensate.

EHOG, well that shows you quite rapidly that there are no Indian warships with indigenous SAM, SSM, radars, torpedoes and helicopters in service. Without those things you don’t really have a warship do you?
As for China, in case you’re not satisfied with the first argument, we see they have plenty of indigenous SSMs, radars and now even SAMs. We of course do not know the effort they have done to reach this, but all together they are now reaping a tremendous harvest from that

.

Sorry- it only goes to show the fact that you are comparing apples to oranges and then insisting that you are correct whilst no other POV is possible. The Indian Govt has but recently authorized programs to develop items for the limited quantities the IN needs for a handful of ships each year- this includes the Barak-NG SAM, Heavy torpedos- both electrical and thermal (which recently cleared technical trials and should be along in another 2 years). Lightweight torps are already in service, so are EW systems on frontline Navy ships, sonars, and combat information systems. As regards ASMs the Navy is standardising on the Brahmos, which they can make in India. Helicopters- the ALH is already in service, and more have been ordered. The next program is to uprate them with a more powerful engine which is being developed by HAL and Turbomeca in a joint program.

So seriously, what are you on about? Its hardly as if India has stopped its programs and they are not delivering; if anything with proper funding, the last few years have seen a number of systems operationalized.

Speaking of the Akash & Trishul, you have any idea how many PRC programs have been cancelled and how much work they had to do? Sure you do. So what makes you think that the Indian experience will be different? Each of the PRC programs had some spinoffs- for India it is much the same, the 3D CAR program is from the Akash, its other radar and software are also being used by Indian services. The Trishul, when it became clear that it would be delayed beyond redemption, India moved to supplant it with the Barak-1. BDL in India has already been designated as the production agency if the IN wishes to standardize further on the type and not look for anything better.

Secondly have some sense of context please.

India’s economic troubles of the 90’s meant that it could not order ships themselves, let alone launch multiple programs to develop all sorts of items which the Navy or anyone wants. As far as the Navy is concerned, they have declared a 70% minimum limit for indigenization, which all ships must meet- of the amount of equipment that has to be sourced from India, one way or the other, whether locally developed or license produced to ensure reliable spares supply. This number is rising consistently- the latest IN Beas is at the 80% level.

Just compare the current status of Chinese and Indian military technology and look at the relative positions of both countries 20 years ago. Where is the indigenous light fighter and main battle tank? Why is the army wanting 100’s of extra T90’s when there has been a home grown tank in development for years? Or why buy an old Russian Frigate with updates and then ask for bids for “stealth” frigates from foreign design houses (didn’t they claim the Talwar as stealth anyway?). Fighter jets, looking at buying Russian and European and possibly American, it goes on. Nothing wrong with that if it is Indian policy to use external designs, but it is obvious that it has been a policy objective of India to develop an indigenous defence capability that so far has not delivered a great deal.

For gods sake please dont pass judgement on topics you know little of. The Indian Army is buying T90S’s because they are cheap, and offer reliable tanks at almost a third of the price (factoring in logistical costs) of the Arjun, which was designed to face off a threat which never came- heavy tanks like the M1 which were the threat profile (there was much talk of them being procured by Pakistan, and they were trialled there as well). Ask any Army officer and he’ll gladly admit that the Arjun has better armour, better technology- the latest FCS for instance, but he will also point out that its also much more expensive and that the Armys budget has to match its current ambitions, which is to network the entire Army with battle management systems, give every soldier in a million man Army proper modern equipment AND upgrade its artillery pool with state of the art Arty, whether howitzers or MBRS. In contrast, the Russians are offering equipment which is at practically rock bottom prices when one compares it to their competitors and providing full Transfer of technology to ensure reliable spares supply.
If one merely looks at local procurement-the Indian Army has also ordered many regiments of its local MBRS and purchased a couple of the Smerch.
Its all about threat requirements. If tomorrow the Paks get something heavier, then the Arjun project will take procurement precedence. Current plans are to buy a first batch of 124, have the troops get used to it, iron out the teething issues common to any new equipment, and then hit the GOI for more funds later down the road for a few hundred more. Secondly, using the Arjun projects technology, most of the Indian Army’s T-72’s are being upgraded. Also, look around the world, bar the US, no country operates more than 3-400 of a heavy MBT. And several of these countries have much larger defence budgets, for smaller forces than India. Even considering the pay disparity (thanks to Purchasing Parity calculations), heavy equipment doesnt come cheap.

Coming to the light fighter project, its going ok and will enter service. More funding has meant that even the engine project will be supported, pretty much what the PRC did when it brought in Russian expertise when it had to. The GOI is buying fighters from abroad because of the need to get a range of fighters, it never started local programs for– no fighters in the Flanker class or even the MRCA. If the PRC had access to the same kind of equipment India has, without an European/ American embargo, it would snap them up too. It too has purchased Flankers, and so has India.

Coming to the stealth frigates, the orders will be placed locally, only if the shipyards can handle it. The IN had clearly indicated to the GOI that the lack of orders in the 90’s meant that they would have to purchase some ships from abroad, the GOI said ok. The alternative is to invest heavily in additional capacity at the shipyards, which excess capacity will be idle once the rush is over- that money is better spent on submarine production and an additional line for the L&T project.

Its all about prioritizing. India’s defence procurements are driven by what its economy can support, and its proceeding on those lines.

Latest AWST has this:

Fair use, etc.

Aviation Week & Space Technology
12/04/2006, Craig Covault, Cape Canaveral

Advanced Chinese space technology initiative is off to disastrous start

The catastrophic breakdown of China’s new Sinosat 2 direct broadcast satellite is the worst spacecraft failure in the history of the Chinese space program and a major setback to China’s development of a new generation of larger, more powerful civilian and military satellites.

The failure of this largest, most complex spacecraft ever developed by the Chinese–launched by China’s most powerful rocket portends a shakeup [/b]in the management of Chinese space system testing and quality control.[/b]

The spacecraft’s solar arrays spanning more than 100 ft. and its large antennas all failed to deploy as Sinosat 2 was maneuvered toward its geosynchronous orbit station west of Sumatra.

Built by the China Academy of Space Technology (CAST), a huge Chinese military and aerospace contractor, Sinosat 2 was to be operated by the Beijing-based Sino Satellite Communications Ltd. (Sinosat).

THE LOSS WILL SET back Chinese plans to deploy a domestically built spacecraft to deliver direct-to-home television services to millions of Chinese from Tibet in the west to the highly populated east coast.

Sinosat 2 was to transmit television signals to antennas as small as 18-in.-dia. and provide television and digital broadband multimedia services to Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan in addition to mainland China. It was also destined to provide television, for the first time, to China’s vast rural population unable to access cable. Before launch, the Chinese estimated Sinosat 2 services by 2010 would reach 100 million households, the equivalent of 300-400 million people.

As a fallback, Sinosat plans to launch Sinosat 3, a much smaller and different type satcom next spring. But that satellite, to be based on a mid-1990s Chinese military satcom design, is not intended to be a complete backup to the capabilities of the more advanced spacecraft. Development of a full replacement will take three years.

To illustrate scale, if Sinosat 2 was unfolded at mid-floor of a basketball court, its solar arrays would have extended well past the baskets on either side with the center-mounted antennas extending to half the floor’s width.

China is assessing whether to continue diagnostic testing with what little electricity remains, or to dive the 5-ton platform back into the atmosphere for a reentry that would prevent space debris and clear that slot for follow-on spacecraft.

Designed for 15 years of operations, Sinosat 2 began to fail after only about a week aloft in early November.

A failure of such magnitude could have been caused by a major electrical or computer fault, or even a collision of the booster nose faring with the satellite during launch on its Long March 3B booster. Command errors have also been the cause of major U.S. European satcom losses in the past.

The mission was launched Oct. 29 from the Xichang space center and solar array and antenna deployments were to have taken place into November.

It is not uncommon for spacecraft to have individual hinges and latches on single solar arrays or antennas hang up. Such a mechanism failure is, for example, suspected in the apparent loss of the NASA Mars Global Surveyor spacecraft. But to have all major solar array and antenna deployments halted by a broader failure is almost unheard of in modern satellite operations.

THE CHINESE government only acknowledged the loss Nov. 28 after word began to leak in space business circles and was aired by the Hong Kong-based Information Center for Human Rights and Democracy, a Chinese human rights watchdog organization.

In U.S. or Western European terms, the total mission hardware and development costs would total about $500 million, but the Chinese acknowledge about $190 million in costs based on the value in yuan. However, the loss to China’s space program will be higher than its monetary value.

Sinosat 2 was to be the vanguard for major new Chinese space developments more in line with existing U.S. and Western European spacecraft. In communications satellite terms, it was to be a Chinese equivalent to spacecraft like the Alcatel Space Bus 3000, Boeing Model 702 and Lockheed Martin A2100AX.

It was also to be the first operational use of China’s complex Dongfanghong (“The East is Red”) DFH-4 spacecraft bus under design for years by a new generation of young Chinese managers and engineers. Hundreds of Chinese personnel have been working not only at CAST but as vendors on DFH-4 hardware.

The DFH-4 is important for future civil and military space operations requiring extensive electrical power and robust attitude control. Sinosat 2’s long solar arrays were to be capable of generating 10,000 watts, even after 15 years in space.

But now the new high-powered bus and the engineering and quality control abilities of CAST facility that built it are under a cloud.

An official at CAST in Beijing flatly refused to speak with Aviation Week & Space Technology. “We’re very busy with the investigation,” she said.

Although it is a painful way to initiate reform, such a major loss has prompted Chinese aerospace to rise to higher standards in the past.

Chinese quality control measures were tightened across the Long March booster program after fatal launch accidents at Xichang in the early 1990s. The international-user community became openly critical about quality control, and test and oversight deficiencies were corrected. As a result, the Long March program has conducted 10 years of launch operations without a failure.

The loss of such a critical spacecraft could spark similar reforms in the satellite industry as China moves into development of other major new reconnaissance navigation, military/civil communications and remote-sensing spacecraft. Japan went through the same thing when in the mid-1990s it ran into serious failures as it began upgrading to more modern spacecraft.

The failure will also delay the widespread delivery of Chinese-developed direct broadcast satellite services to the citizenry for at least three years, according to Fan Xinming of Sinosat. “The company is drafting a replacement plan. But the substitute satellite will not be a carbon copy of the previous one and we are expecting more technical upgrades,” he told Xinhua, the government news agency. “We will not lose confidence in the domestic space manufacturing industry despite the setback,” he said.

Sinosat 2 was to be key in broadcasting the 2008 Olympics Games in Beijing to the Chinese masses.

OTHER SPACECRAFT may pick up the slack. But anything like the loss of Sinosat 2 that shakes up communist Chinese government planning for a perfect presentation carries political implications for Chinese aerospace technology managers–a few of whom who may be looking at a forced early retirement because of the failure.

According to Sinosat managers, the spacecraft is now in a “quasi-geosynchronous orbit” at about 92.2 deg. E. Long., meaning its positioning was also not completed after the failure.

Sinosat 2 carries 22 transponders. Eighteen of these were to operate at 36 MHz. while the others were to function at 54 MHz. It was initially commanded from the Sino Satellite Communications Co. control center north of Beijing.

Sino Satellite Communications was formed in 1994 in connection with the Commission of Defense Science & Technology (Costind), and the China Aerospace Corp. The company was originally heavily financed by German banks.

The one other older and much smaller satellite still in operation, Sinosat 1, was built at Cannes, France, in the late 1990s by what was then Aerospatiale.

The Sinosat 3 satellite that China hopes to launch in May to help recover some of the communications satellite service lost will be based on the DFH-3 military spacecraft bus. That spacecraft, however, will not be nearly as capable as Sinosat 2 was planned to be.

“The Sinosat 2 failure won’t have any influence on plans for Sinosat 3,” Fan told Aviation Week & Space Technology. “Sinosat 2 used the DFH-4 platform, but Sinosat 3 will use DFH-3, which is ‘mature.'”