JonSI just stated that if threre is any missile which requires replacement before Uran , Its the lumbering Styx , Uran would be replaced by a better system possibly Brahmos , but highly likely in the distant future , as its not even a decade that its serving the Navy.
issue is not when uran is procured, as i keep saying if you make that argument many of the 2Ds are barely a decade old as well, last batch of termits arrived around 97 and uran was procured in early 97 onwards so u can argument that some termit/2Ds are even newer than uran.
I still have to get any kind of credible information from you that Uran is an inferior system .
and were is the proof that 2Ds are obsolete or that urans wont be replaced anytime soon. Everything is based on opinion atleast i have pointed out some facts, harpoon block 1s are being phased out by other navies and the earliar brahmos article hints that uran will be replaced by it. Harpoon Block II,NSM and Exocet block 30 are only better than harpoon block I mainly terms of its onboard seeker only but most navies are still replacing it were as Brahmos is better than Uran/Block I in every way why shouldnt IN do the same.
As per news report there is plans to replace Brahmos on older ships , with the target being One Ship per year . One never knows when it will be carried in Delhi , and if at all it will be fitted with Brahmos in the near future.
dont know how much credibility you can give to that statement because if its 1 ship per year by the time kashin are upgraded which will be around 2009, godavari will be neol as will first 11 tarantuls.
JonS, if you like the Styx, you’ll like this,
yeap harry, with Uran IN couldnt have pulled off something like that on karachi.
JonSi believe recall reading that russians had problems devoloping catapult system capable of launching the flankers. I am not sure if the problem is related to the weight because F-14 weight about the same.
JonSSteveO
If it builds STOVL supercarriers like I have suggested, it should use them like the USA does. They would sail the world showing the Chinese flag and demonstrating their ambitions, participation in UN operations would strengthen their standing in international politics.
china is rarely into UN participation and i doubt that stance will change anytime soon. Anyway main reason USN adopted carriers as did RN was because of their colonies/territories they had 1000 of kms from their mainland same doesnt hold true with china.
I didnt mean first strike as first strike but conterattack. Chinese carrier will easily be sunk by a counterattack because of a close proximity to her rivals. How do u suggest China can protect any carrier from a fleet of 120 orions or RoC’s 300 F-16/Mirage fitted with harpoons. That said more or less PLAN is still geared to fight RoC so a carrier doesnt really suite that purpose and will be more of liability than a asset.
Only reason i would see china build carrier is for PR purpose and even then it would possibly be rebuilt something like varyag with an indigenous fighter like FT2000 or J-10.
edit:latest image of varyag?
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/attachment.php?attachmentid=79143
JonSThe 2 CVFs will be built as STOVL carriers which can be converted to CTOL carriers if necessary. If 1 CVF was converted to a CTOL carrier and the other kept STOVL, I’m pretty sure maintenance costs would be higher for the CTOL CVF. Catapults and arrestor gear require regular maintenance, ski jumps do not.
cost of maintaining arrestor and catapult its hardly much the main cost is actual weight and cost of installing such mechanison. But than more than makes for the improved capability for example F-35C will have 60% more range and payload than 35B not to mention CTOL will be able to embark AEW aircrafts.
Srbin
The Yak-141 did not seem as maneuverable or as fast as the Mig-29K would’ve been, however the Yak-141 had it’s radar and in BVR combat it would’ve been no sitting duck. It’s payload I think was smaller than that of Mig-29K too. However since it requires less space and such, wouldnt have the Gorshkov for example carried more Yak-141s due to it’s S/VTOL capabilities?
maybe but not much, but there overhead cost of having justify the cost to maintain a new platform for the IN, i mean no one else would have operated yak-141 not even the russian navy. Main reason i believe mig-29 was chosen over rafael was because the former was already operated by IAF.
SteveO
Although still not a match for the full capabilities of the USN, China has dramatically shifted the balance of power in the Pacific with relatively little effort.
china still doesnt have capability to protect a carrier as i mentioned before its naval bases are dangerous close to rivals, RoC or Japan can easily take out most of its vessels if they were to launch a first strike. Also PLAN lacks airborne assests i mean only decent helo they have is 8 ka-28s hardly enough if you are planning operate carriers.
JonSWheres the info for the claims about the RNs V/STOVL experience?
mostly from reading tidbits here and there this page has some good info on it. navy matters has some good info on cvf costs and maintenance as compared to invincible class. To summarise it maintenence cost is mainly due to the crew size, and while smaller STOVL would be cheaper to build it still maintence cost is only slightly lower than cvf. Since it requires a complement of atleast 1000 where as CVF would require around 1200-1400 (depending on design).
I was suggesting that Yak could have developed a V/STOVL fighter with performance superior to the Sea Harrier and capabilities similar to a Mig-29.
thats big if,even on paper yak-41 wasnt close to matching mig-29 let alone its improved variants.
JonSI was asking whether the IN would have replaced their Sea Harriers with a advanced VTOL Yak if it was available, or whether they would still go for CTOL carriers.
I would have thought that the VTOL option would be desirable to India in terms of value for money.
Cheaper VTOL carrier = more carriers?
thats why i was questioning over because IN isnt going for ctol, gorshkov and ads will be stobar. As for VTOL, RN experience showed cost saving from VTOL carrier is quite minimal in long term and wont necasarrily mean more carrier. Also it all depends on how capable Yak aircraft you are mentioning is, as i mentioned 41 wasnt in anyway better than mig-29. Unless its something very capable its rather unlikely IN would spend $$ on new platform.
JonSWould China and India be operators, or would they stick to their CTOL ambitions?
what do you mean IN already has operated CTOL with vikrant. And both gorshkov and ADS are STOBAR. As for whether IN would gone for yak if it was made more capable rather unlikely, mig-29k and naval-lca are better addressing INs requirement than yak-41.
JonSHmmmm I don’t doubt their capabilities but Subs are very complex machines, you can’t just throw one together and say it works.
I’d be very intereasted to see how this goes and some pics! If it is true, I’ll bet my bottom dollar that China had a hand in it!
before we get into consipiracy theories it susposedly is midget submarine something in displacement of 200 tons, my guess perhaps something based on north korea sang-o or a serbian design. Atlast that was my impression after seeing the video with model of it in some iranian newspaper websites.
JonSKDX-II uses SM-2 Block IIIA, not SM-1.
its shame thou since it doesnt have capability to fully exploit it because of its radar suite, it has 2 stir illuminators and its MW-08 3-d radar isnt that capable (max detection range is only around 110 km).
JonSMy statement was If there is any missile that requires replacement in IN inventory it was styx first and not Uran , and to support my statement one of the Kashin class which had styx has already been converted to Brahmos and tested very recently , the first inducted operational test of Brahmos by the navy.
thats not what u said in the begining i recall you orginally stated that uran’s will never be replaced flip-flop?
Uran Is a Relatively new system , there is hardly any chance of it being phased ou
Where did i not say styx will not replaced first, yes i was the one who said in the begining first few vessels with styx will be replaced first and i have stated before in other posts as well. But i said once thats done which shouldnt take that long, brahmos will be fitted on delhi. So know you are agreeing to what i am saying?
It should be noted i believe not all vessels with styx might be retrofitted with brahmos, because some are NEOL (first 2 kashin, first 4 tarantul) .
The name Sagarika is mythical and has too many things attributed to it , right from cruise to BM , So to say that Sagarika is Naval Prithivi is in correct.
you are barking up the wrong tree just posted what i have read in BR cant assert to knowing anything about them, if you want to learn more go talk to them or read the updated prithvi BR page.
JonSDhanush is a TD to demonstrate launching of missile from a moving ship from a stabilised launcher and to demonstrate navigation of missile from a sea based environment , How do you propose to fit those Dhanush on Delhi class . Dhanush is a pure TD program and not an operational missile , not atleast from prime ships .
Sagarika , Huh , Can you enlighten us what Sagarika is , we have seen alll kind of missile associated with Sagarika from cruise , BM to the famous pics of Sagarika Annexe shown on DRDO website.
Sagarika is the naval prithvi, dhanush is the name of the launching platform according to current info. Dhanush was orginally intented for delhi as well once it moves beyond the testing phase there was discussion on it while back. But i assume with current availability of brahmos/klub it didnt get past the testing phase, as for how it would fitted onto delhi it would have been similar to the installation on Sukanya from what i read.
You were the one who said that Uran were *inferior* , and all the crap about its seeker , you still have to provide me with a single credible link which says Uran are inferior.
You are not gonna find open source info on uran or any other ashm, do you have link that says Styx-2D is obsolete dont think so. There have been reports that IN had problems integrating uran as mentioned before, as for its seeker its worthing noting harpoon I seeker can very easily be jammed or decoyed away.
Current soft/hard kill mechanisms s are quite capable of dealing with harpoon like missile and even iai showed off its barak and ESM systems against target drones simulating harpoon.
As i mentioned before you dont have yet to point any proof that Urans wont be replaced, i already pointed some hints here and there that shows that to be true. Unless you can come up with something this discussion will really go nowere.
JonSChina’s carrier program is more a question of “When will she put to sea” as opposed to “When will they start building one”? Remember how Japan hid their Yamato class Battleships under such extreme security. I feel that China is doing something very similar.
well its a lot different now with satellites imaging available to even the public its rather hard to conceal a construction of a carrier, also its very hard to conceal anything from chinese public its rather easiar to find photos of chinese vessels and subs construction on the internet shot by naval ethusiasts. Also as i mentioned before china doesnt have capability to protect its carrier if a naval confrontation were to flare up with one of its rivals.
Here a few countries that also are building LPD/LPH:
Anyway indonesia i believe has purchased a few LPDs from Daewoo? wont be suprised if they are acquire LPH in the near future.
South korea is currently constructing 3 LP-X they can carry 10 helos and along with possibly VSTOL aircraft in the future.
JonS@JonS: Most naval vessels built in the 80s in my part of the world had gas turbines. But that’s besides the point since I wasn’t talking 80s but today, which is 15-25 years beyond the 80s.
no there was quite a lot of vessels powered by steam turbines especially large ones for ex: Wasp LHD till upto Iwo Jima.
JonSI think the usage of the word need is wrong, want is probably more appropriate, a carrier as with most other military force today is about what the countrys rolein the world is, If north korea wanted a similar role to the USA,it would arguably need an aircraft carrier.
its not just role it also depends on location of the country, if its bases are next to her rivals they would have hard protecting a carrier during war time or in a suprise attack. This is the dilemma faced by navies such as PLAN.
JonSdont the IAF Gulfstream IIIs have blue markings?
Sign In
