JonSInteresting concept, I think the Ulyanovsk looks better from an aesthetical point of view but the operational advantages of catapults are preferrable, I suppose.
however it will result in higher cost with CTOL option anyword on radar indicated in Ulyanovsk i assume the phased radar shown is the Mars-Passat?
JonSI should add here before replying that your argument is based on shifting ground , Just look at your reply so far . Its consistently , Inconsistent.
its you that seems to changing your statements intially you said uran shouldnt be replaced, then you it should eventually be replaced and now you are saying it should replaced once exsisting styx are replaced. Also you started out saying that uran is pretty advanced SSM, now you dont want to compare it with klub or block II harpoon.
By all accounts Styx is a much easier target to incercept than an Uran , because of its size,RCS/IR , and its cruising profile both of Missile & CIWS.
yes if you want believe that i am just pointing out styx has superior penetration capability but however has its share of drawbacks. No were did i say is it better than uran but it does have its share of advantages.
Considering Uran is not even a decade old , There is a slim chance to it getting replaced immediately when there other ships with 2-3 decade old missile system that require urgent replacement.
what do you mean you just said while back Uran is 80s technology unless you meant the date that missile was procured, if you meant that didnt i already mentioned that 2D/termit were procured from 93 to 97 by your theory some of them are less than a decade old too. As i mentioned before countries have been replacing Block Is with Block II harpoon and same is happening with exocet as well considering that those missiles arent in anyway greatly superior to missiles they are replacing, where as brahmos is compared to uran. Do you have any proof to prove otherwise?
Yes and now you want to remove one hanger and well I would guess you were part of the design team that built delhi and wanted that mythical sagarika to be part of it and preferring to loose the helo capability .
huh? what do you mean it was already discussed while back in br back when dhanush/sagarika? was testfired someone mentioned plans by IN of fiting the missile onto delhi class.
Here is intresting model of brahmos fitted onto mod tarantul i dont recall IN having plans to build anymore of those. Its probably hint at what brahmos upgrade of those last two tarantul might look like. Eitherway as i mentioned before you dont proof that uran wont be replaced only time will tell whose right chances are any such upgrade of delhi will take place before naval review, we will see then whose right. edit fixed the uploaded image.
JonSWhat KE enery are you talking about , Both Uran and Styx are high susonic missile about Mach 0.9 , Yes Styx carries a larger warhead , But Its a Huge Lumbering missile , and goes in a Sea Skimming Mode in the end of its Run , so in
physics 101 styx has a greater mass.
Really , So Uran will be obsolete and Styx will be current for ever , And can you point to me how many countries still uses the Harpoon Block 1C and how many of them are replacing it with Block-2 .f you start comparing with US , well then the term obsolence will be used more often , as I said stop comparing with US , They are in a class of its own. Its an unfair comparasion.
huh? were did i styx isnt obsolete. Too lazy too look up countries that operate 1c but for one pakistan is procuring Block II i believe there is plans to upgrade there earliar variants as well. How am i comparing with USN, a lot of nations are updating their hapoons or replacing them as i said above pakistan is updating theirs so has few southeast asian nations, egypt etc. So is it wise to have main capital ship of IN carry a inferior missile compared to harpoon Block II fitted on those dinky pakistani missile boats just because we want to save a few million.
In the Aft where , where is the space to fit the VLS launcher for Bhramos.
in place of one of those hangers, losing ability to carry 1 helo is better than orginal plan for fiting sagarika on them and losing ability to carry any helos at all.
JonSLong range sam is important with the proliferation of Supersonic Cruise Missle , The effective way of neutralise such missile is to intercept at long range rather than wait for the CIWS system to do the job .
what do u mean there is no SAM system that can intercept missiles at range greather than 30 km because of targeting over horizon difficulties, even the aster range is around only 15 km against SSMs.
JonSAs for the Exocet report, I too have read that report which mentioned like 36 x Exocet being already sold to India (what a pun!) … so its more likely that the French have been taking hard stance that its going to be there missile and anything other means a heavy increase in price (and unfortunate that Indian talk abt pressurising only Russia, to lower cost) …. which a cash strapped IN wud not like to see. Also, plzz do all u guys rem that, integrating a western systemn to Russian one is cheaper coz of the currency value difference, where as the integration of the Russian system on the Western ones means more costly, as the work cost is higher there.
its not just integration drawback of klub is its size, even the large kilo can from what i understand carry max of less than half- dozen of those. I doubt the smaller scorpene or u-214 can carry any more than handful of them. Also it mentioned sm-39 but didnt mention which block, it could very well be block 3 variant with 180 km range.
I do count and its just no more than 11 ships with just 3 which have got the punch to stop any opponent, with every single ship lacking a decent (yeah i think so) long-range AD missile. … and u guys are still wondering as to if we need to order more or not ….
IN priority is not that concerned about Area defense because as demonstrated in falklands greatest threat comes from low flying airstrikes to deal with that point defense SAM system is just as effective as area defense system. These days most navies/sam systems are focused on dealing with low flying saturation attacks (PAAMS, APAR etc) rather that soviet style threat of hi flying maritime bombers.
Anyway gorshkov should be ready 2008 (some russian reports know claim 2007 now). As for talwars new ones wont come cheap adj for inflation it will cost 450 million each if same ones are procured.
As for IN vessels in construction i already indicated them 3 pages back
P-17: 3 06-07
P-15A:3 07-09
P-16A:1 05
P-28:6 08-??
OPV:9 ??
MCMV:8 08-??
FAC:4 05-06
LST:3 05-07
Gorshkov:1 08
ADS:1 12
Unconfirmed
DSRV:2 07?
P-17:3 08- 2nd batch
LST:3 ?? 2nd batch
ACV:?? goa shipyard
JonSMay be Russia is sweetening the pot so that the IN buys another 3 Krivak III
yeap thats strong possibility especially with recent labor problems in MDL.
JonSIts not about sinking , Its about penetrating the layered defence , 3-4 Uran fired at a say Destroyer has a better chance of penetrating its defence ( SAM,CIWS ) than the lumbering Styx , Attacks from multiple direction can be planned with Uran to overwhelm its ship defence.
Kinda but still active/ir seeker of termit would be harder decoy away and the size makes it harder to shoot down with AAAs because KE. Also the warhead means that even if its shot down the blast and fragmentation can still do critical damage to the vessel.
Uran and Klub are hardly a comparasion , Uran developed in mid 80’s as a competetor to Harpoon where as klub was developed in mid 90’s , You will realise that the first Klub ( in VLS mode ) appeared on surface ships from Talwar onwards , which is around 2003 , about 6 years after the Uran entered service with delhi and other ships.
that is my point Uran is 80s missile based on 70s missile, it will reach obsoletion soon as i noted harpoon is being phased with newer variants or newer missiles. As for talwar design with klub was designed on 98 the orginal design had tor and uran which IN was reluctant to approve that.
It make more economic and operational sense to replace the Styx first with Bhramos than the Uran , IN have never been know to replace system immediately just because a better one is avilable and so goes for othet navies.
quite the contrary IN has been pretty quick on fiting new systems on its vessels past few years (barak, rafael ew/ecm, Humsa, Elta radar etc) some of them have replaced recently built systems. Yes in due time uran will replaced as well thats my point but in case of some vessels like delhi it could happen quite soon. Also do note that there is still possibility that brahmos will still be fitted along with uran (in vls configuration in the aft).
JonSso whats current status of J-10? didnt kanwa or remember reading some report that production is suspended at 50 in favor of sukhoi?
JonSUran is a much smaller missile , It can be carried in Numbers ( 16 of them in case of delhi ) , There is generational difference in design , Its powered by Turbojet motor , has low flight traj from launch , ( which is not the case with Styx ) , Sytx is huge , powered by liquid fuel and cumbersome.
as you pointed out before it requires more missiles for uran to sink target that makes up for its advantage with more no of missiles. Yes uran is inferior compared to missile russia was capable of devoloping or had in its arsenal, with a few million novatar came with Klub has it not.
As for replacing Uran, it makes more sense to fit brahmos especially with pakistan in mind because it improves IN strike capability. Fact of the matter is IN has been looking at fiting land attack missiles on delhi and if u recall there was even plans for IN funding 3M24M1 with 250 km range to be fittied delhis ( and there even mention of sagarika being fitted on it few years back). With availability of PJ-10 i do expect it to be fitted on delhi for the reason mentioned above there is no reason not to. I guess only time will tell.
JonSYou are right in that different websites have different data on the E variant. There is no definate data on that . For example this says it may be 250Km
its globalsecurity probably getting air launched version confused with ship launched version, either way not the credible source of info.
IN is not adding more SS-N-25 , but its Klub and Bhramos , Just because the US is moving to this or that system what has it to do with it , The US has multiple systems and they are class apart , As long as the Uran meets our need and it does , I dont see the Navy replacing the Uran too soon , Heck we have a lot of Styx to replace , Uran just came lately with delhi.
You do realise SS-N-2D were only procured recently in fact the delivery was only completed around 1997? So by the virtue of your argument we should keep those P-22s operational since they are new? I dont understand what do u mean by shorter range, P-22s/2D have a range of around 100 km so it meets our AsuW need just as well as Uran.
As for US they operate only 1 type of Ashm on their vessels and operating three different types of Ashm’s will increase logistic & maintenance costs. So apart from saving $$$ in the long run, brahmos is far more capable than uran and retrofitting it wont cost much money either.
Victor, yes i have seen someone mention that there was problems with uran before it was while back.
JonSChina already has the 3M-80E an improved variant of the Basic Sunburn , the improved variant has a range of 160 Km as also it was recently posted in keypubs that a longer variant of Sunburn with a range of 200+ Km will be fitted on newer ships , That the one under testing and is completely funded by China.
according to janes 3M-80E has a range of 120 km not 160 km, heck even the russian arms brochure puts it 10-120 km. i dont know where sinodefense got that from. And the orginal missiles given to china were 3M-80s 50 of them to be exact i havent seen data to indicate 3M-80E were ever transferred over (sipri, UN arms etc) i also believe 3M-80Es require different launchers than 3M-80. Here is good russian site on moskit
http://www.testpilot.ru/russia/raduga/kh/41/moskit.htm
Can you provide any credible link wich says that the Uran is a inferior system in its category. Try to read on the SS-N-25 Uran before you make any comments on its inferiority.
its based on harpoon 1c which i mentioned before is being replaced by harpoon IIs and harpoon itself was to be replaced by Supersonic equivalent as far back as 1990 but was axed due to end of the cold war. So you think wise to put $$ in a platform which based on 20 yr old missile which in many navies will be replaced by the likes of NSM, Exocet MM40 Block 3.
JonSChina has asked for an upgraded SunBurn and Initial Batch were supplied from Russian Inventory and then the Chinese got a modified SunBurn with a Range of 200+ KM.
that was because russia didnt have ability to produce moskit at the time i remember reading about that unless you have link that says otherwise. Because those that were transferred to china were non export version something russia rarely does, as for improved varaint they have nothing to do with orginal sovremenny they were throwins to get china approve the construction of 956em. Those improved moskit are still undergoing testing.
Fact of matter uran is based on inferior missile compared to exsisting russian AshM simply to appeal for export purpose, even Harpoon I’s are being replaced by Harpoon IIs and there are plans for Harpoon II+ with multimode seeker.
JonSAnd we are operating Klub on surface ship and subs , so why do you think Russians would not be Thrilled to assist as long as they get the money for doing that.
less scorpene = more amurs.
Can you provide me with a link which says IN willing to pay 150 million for the SM-39
Sipiri arms trade 99-04 has it listed and it was also reported in Agence France Presse no longer archived.
“As part of the deal, the European consortium EADS will sell 36 SM-39 submarine-to-surface missiles costing a total of 150 million euros, according to European industry sources. The missile can fire at a range of up to 50 kilometers (31 miles) without detection.”
JonSBut HDW or Scorpene both should be capable of firing the Klub TT launched missile , B
i believe there needs to be structural modifications in order for either of those to fire Kilo because of size of the Klub? Also there is integration problem i dont think russians will be too thrilled about assisting that, i think klub is out of question for them if that werent the case why would IN pay around 150 million for SM-39s along with scorpene.
As for brahmos in SSK fact that it requires VLS means there needs to be design changes which considering the size of these vessel would degrade the platforms performance, brahmos for P-75 is something worth looking down the road after IN is famliar with these platforms because it requires testing not something you want to implement right away.
But The Navy Chief can clearly stated in an interview to Asian Age that the HDW was considered along with Scorpene , But Scorpene was chosen over HDW obviously Money is not a Factor here ,
what he said was too vague, superior package might have very well meant the fact that HDW couldnt offer SSM and ICS. which the earliar quote i posted suggest IN was concerned about in HDW offer.
JonSWell where has it been said that the IN navy selected the Scorpene over the U-212/214 just because it has Subtics and Exocet , IN has better AshM than Exocet Block 3 , Its a whole package which has proved better than HDW subs which made the day for Scorpene.
i havent read anywere that DCN is offering a superior package than HDW, HDW has said it willing offer for less than what DCN has.
http://www.outlookindia.com/full.asp?fodname=20050425&fname=Pranab+(F)&sid=3
Then there are the naval HQ’s worries on the HDW submarine, considered unsuitable since the firm does not manufacture missiles. The ones currently available are the French Exocet and the American Harpoon. With the Indian military hesitant on acquiring US hardware, the Exocet is the only viable option left—which brings us back to the French connection, and Scorpene. But it wasn’t the capability of the French sub that came up for at the CCS meeting. Instead, politics took over.
Sign In
