The distance of the SAM does not matter, the quality of the system does, increase the distance of the missile to 150kms, what good will that do, if the aggressor can see your ship a huge, massive chunk of metal at 300 kms distance, they can fire their missiles and stay away from the effective area of your SAM systems, then its the same game of shooting down the missiles.

The point was about which threats there may be against IN. You suggested there weren’t any that the current capability can’t deal with. I beg to differ. A ship not in EMCON will give its position away irrespective of whether or not it is stealthy. (how do ships at sea detect air threats severla hundreds of km away without going active?) Besides, the agressor by have an SSK shadowing a group of opposing vessels, again making the radar related stealthiness of ships less relevant.

If a navy has an aircraft carrier with a squadron or two of naval fixed wing fighter aircrafts, they could send these aircrafts to deny the hostile aircraft an opportunity to fire their weapons.

Yes they could, if they detected them. How well will a SHAR handle a Su-30MK#? Or a Mig-29 an F15E? How many will be available to defend the task group?

The total area out to which a ship can provide cover can be off-set by distributing the capability amongst your vessels, for e.g the frigates carry very near the same sensors, systems and weapons as the destroyers, and thus they can provide a screen for a major vessel like a Aircraft carrier.

Then the issue about an AAW vessel becomes a moot point because all escorting vessels are considered AAW vessels (but none of these is particularly specialized and hence all are less capable than a specialised vessel would be, unless all are top of the line AAW ships, which they aren’t)

No i was responding to the very elaborate list of planes you had quoted and making my point that the real threat is the one you can not detect in time, a plane and a missile in open sea can be found through sensors at long ranges and appropriate countermeasures can be taken to respond.

Without going active and revaeling the position of the stealthy ship?

With what will the IN see the incoming aircraft/missiles? AEWH?

“There are only four helicopter-based AEW platforms in existence. One is the Royal Navy Sea King ASaC7 naval helicopter. It is operated from the Royal Navy’s Invincible-class aircraft carriers. The creation of Sea King ASaC7, and earlier AEW.2 and AEW.5 is the consequence of the harsh lessons learnt by the Royal Navy task force sent to the South Atlantic in the 1982 Falklands War. The lack of AEW coverage for the task force was a major tactical shortcoming at the time. Also, the Spanish Navy fields the SH-3 Sea King in the very same role, operated from the carriers Principe de Asturias and Juan Carlos I
Another helicopter is the Russian-built Kamov Ka-31, deployed by Indian Navy on Krivak-III frigates and reportedly used by the Russian Navy on its sole Kuznetsov aircraft carrier. It is fitted with E-801M Oko (Eye) airborne electronic warfare radar which can track up to 20 targets simultaneously with aerial detection range 90 mi (150 km) and surface warships up to 160 mi (250 km).
The most modern helicopter-based AEW is the AgustaWestland EH101 AEW of the Italian Navy.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airborne_early_warning_and_control

Su-30
Kh-31A mod 1 50 km.
Kh-31A mod 2 69 km.
Kh-31P mod 1 150 km.
Kh-31P mod 2 200 km.
Kh-59ME : 200 km (110 nmi)
Kh-59MK : 285 km (150 nmi)

A few pairs of aircraft on different vectors and there you have it.

That was the way how one of the first Russian ASMs KSSch was operating, which dropped warhead into water app. 60 m from the target.

What would happen to the delivery vehicle? Would this also hit the target (double whammy)?

pictures or it didn’t happen:cool:

I suspect ‘succesful’ means it hit its intended target (rather than just that it launched and flew correctly)?

Hi,

the folded blade feature on the Appaches is a standard or is specific to the versions aboard Invencible?

regards
Ayala Botto
Lisbon, Portugal

I think it has become standard on A and D models, it is at least available in kit form. A blade fold kit, developed by The Boeing Company for use on the WAH-64 Apache Longbow, was unveiled Sept. 28 1998 in Mesa, Ariz., at the rollout of the first WAH-64 Apache Longbow for the United Kingdom. The US adopted it in 2003 after the US Army asked Boeing to develop a system that would substantially reduce the time it takes to reassemble and have Apaches ready to fly after they roll off a transport. The blade fold system, produced by Boeing in Mesa, Ariz., speeds deployment of the Apaches shipped by cargo aircraft. The new blade fold system allows the main rotor blades to be folded along the aircraft’s length without being removed. The solution also provides for storage of the Apache Longbow’s radar dome on the aircraft aft of the rotor hub for transport. Also available for the Blackhawk and variants. This blade fold kit allows a maintenance team to fold and drop the blades on the Black Hawk for air-transportability. Blade fold is fully manual so that operations may be accomplished in undeveloped areas.

http://www.boeing.com/rotorcraft/military/ah64d/news/1998/news_release_981015n.htm
http://www.boeing.com/rotorcraft/military/ah64d/news/2003/q2/nr_030619m.html
http://www.davisaircraftproducts.com/products/helicopter-blade-restraint-systems-and-hoist-clamps/helicopter-blade-restraint-systems1/boeing-apache-ah-64.html
http://www.davisaircraftproducts.com/products/helicopter-blade-restraint-systems-and-hoist-clamps/helicopter-blade-restraint-systems1/sikorsky-uh-60-series.html
http://www.tpub.com/content/ahapache/TB-1-1520-238-20-135/TB-1-1520-238-20-1350001.htm

So it seems that the IN is getting 2 decommissioned Osprey class minesweepers from the US.

article link

Derivative design of the Italian Lerici/Gaeta class, which also served as the basis for ships of the Royal Malaysian Navy (as the Mahamiru class), the Nigerian Navy, the Royal Australian Navy (as the Huon class), the Royal Thai Navy (as the Lat Ya class) and the Mito class under construction for the Finnish Navy. The Republic of Korea Navy apparently operates an unlicensed derivative (Swallow class).

That there is no way Project 15B will be built outside India.

Even if that is so, it doesn’t mean it will be a worldclass AAW ship (which I think the original discussion was about).

There has been plenty of news about P-15B, nearly all suggests it is a follow on variant of P-15, will have the same propulsion, machinery systems, some weapon systems might be added/changed depending on their availability, the Israeli sensors, weapons and management systems will remain the same, their will be changes to the superstructure, much like their were changes made to the existing P-15A destroyers as new requirements were added (the design started out different).
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NAVY/Images/P15a.jpg
http://i31.tinypic.com/23r41l.jpg

a completely new design will require the whole process to start again, and IN has issues with the build time and project costs.

If there has been news about it, let’s see some references to sources that have proven reliable in the past. CGs that are about P15A are not cutting it.

Mod Edit: Please do not post substantial cut-and-pastes from external sources.

We have had complaints from other publishers about this practice.

A summary and a link is quite sufficient.

My apologies.

The design will be done in India, with consulting where ever it is required, that is the trend that can be followed back to the last few decades. All the institutions involved in defining, designing, and constructing the project will be the same ones that were involved with the Shivalik Class.

So?

The construction will include new modular techniques and the navy wanted the first two to be built in shipyards with experience while the methods were absorbed into Indian shipyards, however now the Ministry of defence has decided that all of the ships will be built in India
http://www.business-standard.com/india/news/seven-new-stealth-frigates-to-be-built-in-india/365019/

“A Request for Information (RFI) was reportedly issued to about 12 international firms, mostly in Europe and Russia. By soliciting tenders from so many foreign firms, and insisting on improved stealth requirements, India is implicitly creating the option of having Project 17-A ships use a very different base design than the Project 17 Shivalik class frigates.”
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/india-issues-rfi-for-stealth-frigates-02866/

… even if they were all to be build in India.

They didn’t go off…:eek:

>Chuckles<

All nicely hit the hull`though 😉