dark light

RayR

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 946 through 960 (of 1,560 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Rafale news II : we go on #2513300
    RayR
    Participant

    Ok, Fox Three started in 2000.
    No really, Eurofighter’s marketing was a full generation ahead of Dassault’s. 😀

    😀

    in reply to: Stupid ? F-22 vs Typhoon? #2513318
    RayR
    Participant

    The irony is that if AFM had posted a letter/article saying that the MKI had toasted the Typhoon it would now have passed into legend as an insurmountable truth.

    I dont recall anybody claiming that.
    I will say this much that I only wish IAF guys had that much liberty to post on such forums or write such letters to editors.The OSA which is demonic and farcical can have you courtmartialled for the tiniest piece of insignificant information.Although there are a lot of them on the net on social networking sites.

    in reply to: Your favourite what-if fighter #2513442
    RayR
    Participant

    http://www.imagehost.ro/pict/2020090247938e3ebeb8d.jpeg

    in reply to: Stupid ? F-22 vs Typhoon? #2513756
    RayR
    Participant

    The only thing incorrect is the “S” in “SARH”. The rest of it is completely accurate. Go read the article yourself if you don’t believe it.

    What else did I say?

    in reply to: Stupid ? F-22 vs Typhoon? #2513761
    RayR
    Participant

    True, AW&ST stated and alluded to this several times. Statements about leaving their F-15C’s equipt with the (V)2 radars, “-9X” and, HMDS were left at home for these aircraft were already scheduled for an air exercise with the Singapore AF. That they realize the ROEs agreed upon took away their best effort by limiting the USAF SARH missile firing eighteen miles on the offensive and twenty miles on the defensive plus the opposition was able to ARH missiles (Adders and MICAs).

    Adrian

    This is totally wrong and I remember having said to you before.Both sides were using “NOTIONAL” ARH missiles 20 mi range.Nobody was using SARH.And they didNOT simulate real missiles like Adders Mica etc.

    The only fair gripe the US can have is limiting the engagement range to 20 mi with a 3:1 ratio against and no awacs.They already practice against 3:1 and it is important to remember that all the aircraft against included strike aircraft defended by escorts.Not 12 a2a vs 4 F-15s.Anyway I seriously doubt whether any engagement in real world occurs at distances much beyond 20mi.

    in reply to: Top 5 fighters as of today. #2513789
    RayR
    Participant

    Are with talking purely Air Superiority Types or Strike Fighters? Otherwise, we are comparing Apples and Oranges. With all do respect………:confused:

    With all DUE respect
    :diablo:

    in reply to: Indian navy – news & discussion #2039116
    RayR
    Participant

    LOL, it looks so cute, like a mini Akula…
    Now, what in heavens name means “DDM”.?

    DDM means dorky defence media or desi(indian) dork media.But this reporter is still one of the better ones in Indian defence.
    The picture is an artists impression.It could be based on the actual thing but applying DDM caveats again it may not be so.So that remains to be seen.

    All it says is

    Possibly the last “gift” to India from the now-extinct Soviet Union, it was designed with Russian assistance in the late ’80s. Based on an entirely new design, the 6,000 tonne submarine (not the elderly Charlie class N-sub as thought earlier)

    in reply to: Indian navy – news & discussion #2039120
    RayR
    Participant

    Summary @ P_saggu

    1. 104m long, 6000 ton displacement, affectionately called “Baby Boomer” because of its smaller size
    2. 80 MW reactor with 45% enriched uranium. BARC design “failed”, the article claims, before russian designs were purchased (Circa 2004).
    The 80 MW reactor will have to run near maximum power due to its being of smaller capacity. Thus life will be around 10 years when the hull will have to be cut to refuel the reactor.
    3. the sub carries 12 K-15 Missiles in 4 silos, each silo carrying 3 missiles.
    4. L&T has begun construction of the 2nd hull at hazira.
    5. Currently reactor has been installed, and final integration and sealing is going on. This will be followed by welding the tail section of the sub. A 7 blade, brass highly skewed propellor will provide propulsion.
    6. Dry dock will be flooded in April 2009 seatrials for 1 year induction in 2010.
    7. Nuke sub fleet will be housed in a new base at Rambilli south of vizag.
    8. Unit cost 3000 cr. Plan for 3 units.
    9. Initial design work on a much larger sub has also begun.

    K-15 Missile:
    1. Tested 3 times
    2. Initial range 250Km now extended to 750 Kms
    3. 7 m long, three missiles housed in a single silo.
    4. (DDM Warning) Each missile carries MIRV with upto 96 warheads in 12 missiles
    5. Currently 5000Km A3 missile is being readied for sub launch.
    6. Missile is ejected from the sub by igniting an underwater gas booster. The missiles rises (DDM Warning – sic) 5 Km above the ocean, where the solid booster ignites.

    in reply to: Indian navy – news & discussion #2039122
    RayR
    Participant

    The secret undersea weapon
    Sandeep Unnithan
    January 17, 2008

    Located up the winding shipping channel in Visakhapatnam harbour is a secret, completely enclosed facility known only as the Shipbuilding Centre (SBC).

    Inside this dry dock, nearly 50m below ground level, is a cylindrical black shape, which is as tall as a two-storey building and at 104 m in length, is longer than the Qutub Minar lying on its side.

    Technicians working on it confess to a surge of national pride: India’s first nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarine or SSBN is arguably its greatest engineering project.

    For over a quarter of a century, the Advanced Technology Vessel (ATV), smaller than the USS Alabama from Crimson Tide, has been among the most highly-classified government programmes, if not the most delayed.

    Officials still refuse to confirm the existence of the project or the sea-based ballistic missile. A decade after India came out of the nuclear closet in the sands of Pokhran, it has moved some tantalising steps closer to realising the third and possibly the toughest of the three legs of the triad enunciated in its nuclear doctrine: a sea-based deterrent or a secure underwater platform for launching nuclear weapons.

    “Things are developing as per schedule,” Defence Minister A.K. Antony recently said of ATV. Early last month, Chief of the Naval Staff Admiral Sureesh Mehta was the first government official to not only confirm its existence but also lay down a timeframe: “It is a DRDO project and a technology demonstrator. It is somewhere near completion and will be in the water in two years.”

    The admiral had reason to feel confident about the project. Just last month, an 80MW nuclear reactor, smaller than a bus, was pushed into the hull of the submarine and successfully integrated—a milestone in the project approved by the then prime minister Indira Gandhi in 1970.

    By April 2009, the submarine will be launched and will begin sea trials before it is inducted into the navy. The goal is to field a fleet of three SSBNs by 2015, one in reserve and two on patrol, each carrying 12 nucleartipped ballistic missiles (Artist’s impression of India’s nuclear-propelled ballistic missile submarine) .

    Possibly the last “gift” to India from the now-extinct Soviet Union, it was designed with Russian assistance in the late ’80s. Based on an entirely new design, the 6,000 tonne submarine (not the elderly Charlie class N-sub as thought earlier) will make India the world’s sixth nation to operate a “boomer”.

    Part of the acceleration in the programme has to do with the rapid buildup of Chinese nuclear forces. China operates 10 nuclear submarines, and in the past year, has fielded as many as three new Jin-class SSBNs, each carrying 12 submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBM). “Given the growing military asymmetry with China, India’s need for a reliable nuclear deterrent that can survive a first strike has never been greater,” says strategic expert Brahma Chellaney.

    Click here to enlarge
    ATV is in line with India’s nuclear doctrine enunciated in 1999, which calls for its nuclear forces to be effective, enduring, diverse, flexible and responsive to the requirements in accordance with the concept of credible minimum deterrence. The doctrine calls for high survivability against surprise attacks and for a rapid punitive response.

    A nuclear submarine that can remain submerged almost indefinitely and cannot be detected underwater, therefore, meets all these criteria and offers an almost invulnerable launch platform for nuclear weapons.

    For a country like India with a no-first use policy, it is vital because it prevents a potential adversary from launching a crippling first strike that can knock out all nuclear weapons (see box). It also allows India to inflict considerable damage to the aggressor.

    “One submarine carries at least 12 missiles with Multiple Independently Targetable Reentry Vehicles, which could mean as many as 96 warheads. When such a submarine goes out to the sea, that many missiles are removed from our own territory. The enemy’s targeting of that many sites gets neutralised,” says Rear Admiral (retired) Raja Menon.

    ATV, with its suitably muted acronym, was a euphemism for a longdelayed project. Shrouded in obsessive secrecy for decades, it has been under the direct supervision of the prime minister, who also chairs ATV’s apex committee.
    Nearly 200 naval officers and technicians are directly involved in the project that is managed by a vice-admiral who functions out of ATV headquarters in Delhi Cantonment. Funding was never a problem, even during the lean days of defence spending, like in the pre-1990s. An estimated Rs 2,000 crore was spent even before work on the submarine was started.

    The excessive secrecy, say experts, was based on a misinterpretation of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)—that building a nuclear submarine would be a violation. There was, therefore, a lack of accountability, which harmed the project.

    Project officials in Vizag are now sealing the reactor with a special shield and plugging in the control systems, turbines and piping. The next few months are critical. After the reactor compartment is sealed, the tail sector— which includes the propeller and the shaft—will be welded in and the submarine will be ready. By April next year, the dry dock will be flooded and the vessel will be officially launched.

    After it hits the water, the nuclear reactor will be jump-started and the submarine’s propellers— seven highlyskewed brass blades—will be tested. After the reactor and all its associated control systems are successively proven, the submarine will be towed out of the harbour for extensive sea trials lasting over a year before it is inducted into the navy around 2010.

    While the impending launch of ATV is reason for cheer, the actual fielding of a secure second-strike capability is still three years away. This is the time it will take to integrate and successfully test fire the missile from the submarine. Without its nuclear missiles, the submarine is just a platform.

    The missile is being concurrently developed under an equally-classified programme. Announcing its successful test in April last year, DRDO chief M. Natarajan called it “a strategic system which I cannot talk about”.

    The enigmatic two-stage missile— dubbed K-15 under the Defence Research and Development Organisation’s (DRDO) Sagarika (oceanic) project— is a technological breakthrough. Rapidly ejected from the submarine’s launcher by igniting an underwater gas booster, it rises nearly 5 km above the ocean.

    When it reaches a pre-determined height, it ignites a solid booster and travels to a range of nearly 750 km. Tested three times from a specially-designed submersible pontoon, the yetto-be-named “naval missile” is another feather in India’s cap.

    The 100-member crew, which will man the submarine, is being trained at an indigenously-developed simulator in the School for Advanced Underwater Warfare (SAUW) at the naval base in Vizag. Hands-on training will be done on the INS Chakra, a 12,000-tonne Akula-II class nuclear-powered attack submarine being taken on a 10-year lease from Russia next year.

    SBC in Vizag is to become the assembly line for three ATVs, costing a little over Rs 3,000 crore each or the cost of a 37,000 tonne indigenous aircraft carrier built at the Cochin Shipyard.

    Click here to enlarge
    Larsen and Toubro (L&T) has begun building the hull of the second ATV at its facility in Hazira, to be inducted into the navy by 2012. The SSBN fleet will be housed on the east coast at a new naval base in Rambilli, a few kilometres south of Visakhapatnam, where nearly 3,000 acre of land has been acquired for India’s first strategic base, to be manned entirely by military personnel.

    Unlike the narrow single channel in Visakhapatnam, it will offer the nuclear fleet direct access into the sea. The first phase of the project, costing approximately Rs 1,500 crore, will be ready by 2011.

    Why has the project taken so long? For a country that built only two conventional submarines of the Germandesigned HDW Type 1500 class in the early ’90s, building a nuclear submarine was the ultimate challenge: a DRDO official sees the learning curve to be the equivalent of a scooter mechanic building a Mercedes.

    The key challenge, however, was not in designing or fabricating the hull, but the reactor and containment vessel, which consumes one-tenth (nearly 600 tonne) of the vessel’s total displacement. The hydrodynamics of a vessel with one-tenth of its weight concentrated in one place is a formidable naval engineering challenge, but miniaturising a nuclear reactor the size of a football field to fit inside an 8m enclosure is an even bigger hurdle.

    This was among the reasons for the decade-long delay in the project. The nuclear reactor in a submarine generates heat to convert water into saturated steam to turn the submarine’s turbines. Unlike an oilfired boiler, it does not require air to operate. All other parts of the submarine are the same as any steam-powered turbine plant’s.

    The reactor operates on uranium enriched to nearly 45 per cent (uranium used in civilian nuclear reactors is less than 5 per cent and bombs use uranium enriched to over 90 per cent).

    In 1998, L&T began fabricating the hull of ATV but the struggle with the reactor continued. After BARC designs failed, India bought reactor designs from Russia.

    By 2004 the reactor had been built, tested on land at the IGCAR and had gone critical. Its modest size, around 6,000 tonne (the Ohio class SSBN in the movie Crimson Tide weighs over 14,000 tonne), has led experts to call it a “baby boomer”. While the present project ends at three units, defence officials have not ruled out building larger submarines on the basis of national strategic imperatives. These have changed since the conception of the project.

    The plan, until late ’80s, was to build an SSN—a fast-moving deep-diving nuclear-powered attack submarine, which would hunt surface ships.
    Atv Project Sites

    Like pieces of a complex jigsaw puzzle, ATV project sites are scattered across the country.

    Kalpakkam
    Indira Gandhi Atomic Research Centre near Chennai fabricates ATV’s light water nuclear reactor.

    Visakhapatnam
    ATV production line at the Ship Building Centre.
    School of Advanced Underwater Warfare (SAUV) for training ATV crews.
    Indigenously developed control room simulator.
    Evolution of strategic submarine operational doctrines.

    Rambilli
    Strategic submarine base south of Vizag will be commissioned by 2011.

    Delhi
    ATV project headquarters.

    Ratnahalli
    Rare Materials Project near Mysore supplies enriched uranium for ATV reactor.

    Hyderabad
    Sagarika complex is fabricating and developing SLBM. Project began in 1994.

    Balasore
    Special underwater launch test platform for test-firing ATV’s missile.

    Kochi
    Naval Physical and Oceanographic Laboratory developing ATV sensors.

    Around the time India leased a Charlie-I class nuclear-powered attack submarine from the Soviet Union, it had already veered towards building a submarine carrying ballistic missiles. The hull design was lengthened and the SSN quietly transformed into an SSBN.

    There are, however, some key challenges to be overcome. ATV’s SLBMs have a range of only 750 km, a big leap from its start of 250 km a decade ago, but still smaller than the SLBMs deployed by the Big Five, which boast ranges in excess of 5,000 km. DRDO is working on fielding a submarine launched variant of the 5,000-km Agni III missile, which will give the submarine true striking power and flexibility.

    Scientists believe the submarine’s present reactor output of around 80 MW is limited because it imposes operational restrictions on the submarine’s speed and will mean that the reactor will have to function near peak power at most times.

    The reactor would also need constant refuelling— a fairly expensive process where the hull is cut open and the nuclear cores replaced every decade. For the moment, however, the immediate challenge lies in successfully sending the submarine out to the sea.

    posted by p_saggu@BR
    Link

    http://img264.imageshack.us/img264/3091/k15missileet5.jpg

    http://img152.imageshack.us/img152/6673/atvil1.jpg

    in reply to: Ability of RuAF and Russian Navy to destroy US CBG #2515322
    RayR
    Participant

    Before you claim something seriously, you have to give the circumstances related to that or you damage your reputation, by quoting a press notice only. Some important details are.
    Was that sub in question shadowed by by SSNs of that task force? Why did it surface at all? Was it close enough for a torpedo-shot? What was the task of that sub? When did it reach that area or was it in a “waiting position” at all? Was it alone or did it share informations with other recce assets? What do you exspect from a CBG against an unknown sub in international waters? To sink it by force or to force it to submerge, when too close for comfort?
    Please give the written details about that and we can do a fair judge. Strong claims about questionable capabilities are of little help.

    No country has billions to waste or is looking into carriers any more if your claim is correct. What countries do field carriers and have the intention to do so in the near future?!

    Lets see what my supposed “strong claim” is ….

    Wasnt there reports of some recent incident where a Chinese Song class sub surfaced just next to Kitty Hawk when some wargames were going on..

    I think carriers are more easy to find and destroy than people think.

    And in the subsequent post…

    This is not to say that it is easy but certainly the impression I was getting while going through this thread is that the carrier group is like an invisible force undetecable and undestroyable is very wrong

    Now the question is can you read english?:rolleyes:
    It is clear what I said..carriers are not invisible or indestructible but they are certainly hard to find or is difficult to destroy.And if anybody could take on a US carrier group it is Russia because they have that capability.It is a cat and mouse game.

    No country has billions to waste or is looking into carriers any more if your claim is correct. What countries do field carriers and have the intention to do so in the near future?!

    What an one sided piece of commentary!If one has to go one-sided then it should be said in reply to the above that ..so the countries whose enemies are inducting the carriers should disband their navies and leave..?

    Sheesh..looking for a storm in a teacup:rolleyes:

    in reply to: Ability of RuAF and Russian Navy to destroy US CBG #2515675
    RayR
    Participant

    Under the the most favourable conditions that can happen, but that does not mean that this is the rule.
    Something similar did happen near Norway, when during an exercise a CVN did “run over” a German sub. For exercises a given area is noted and the participants are known in advance. Without related details every conclusion about that is questionable to stay polite.

    Yes , if the general location is known it will be easy to find.But even then they should have detected the sub when in vicinity.Many reasons can be given like “they were not in a full state of alert” , “this wont happen in actual war” blah blah etc.but what it says is things can and do happen.This is not to say that it is easy but certainly the impression I was getting while going through this thread is that the carrier group is like an invisible force undetecable and undestroyable is very wrong.Even in WWII carriers were detected and sunk.As the defensive options have increased for the carriers so have the methods of detection and attack.If Russia with all those sats ,MPAs and cruise missile launchers and subs cannot engage a carrier group , then it might well be invisible and indestructable to stay polite.

    in reply to: Ability of RuAF and Russian Navy to destroy US CBG #2515860
    RayR
    Participant

    Wasnt there reports of some recent incident where a Chinese Song class sub surfaced just next to Kitty Hawk when some wargames were going on..

    I think carriers are more easy to find and destroy than people think.

    in reply to: Ability of RuAF and Russian Navy to destroy US CBG #2516010
    RayR
    Participant

    Guess that’s one way to look at it.

    Wonder what the Russians have been doing with the Klub variants lately…

    About the Klub
    Return to Sender: India Rejects Kilo/Klub Sub & Missile Upgrades

    in reply to: Indian Missiles – News and Speculations #1789135
    RayR
    Participant

    http://www.imagehost.ro/pict/15200000478cf4a0bc3f7.JPG
    http://www.imagehost.ro/pict/15200051478cf4d36b8c0.JPG

    in reply to: Indian Missiles – News and Speculations #1789139
    RayR
    Participant

    India to develop high speed interceptors

    Visakhapatnam (PTI): After demonstrating capabilities in missile defence, India aims at developing long-range, high speed interceptors that can strike down missiles fired from deep within the enemy territory.

    We are now going to build AD-1 and AD-2 — high speed interceptors for engaging 5000 km class targets,” V K Saraswat, Project Director, Air Defence wing in the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) told reporters here.

    These systems are essential to shoot down enemy missiles launched from locations from deep inside hostile territory.

    Currently, we have capabilities to defend ourselves from 2500 km range ballistic missiles. But suppose missiles are launched by our immediate neigbours from their rear formations, they will be using long-range missiles — Intermediate Range Ballistic Missiles and Inter-Continental Ballistic Missiles.

    “We should now develop technologies to defend against them. That is our effort,” he said.

    Defence scientists have already demonstrated the capability to shoot down enemy missiles at an altitude of 50 km. as also 15 km.

    In November 2006, DRDO scientists tested an exo-atmospheric anti-missile system that could intercept targets 50-km above the atmosphere while last month it fired supersonic interceptors that shot down enemy rockets 15-km within the atmosphere known as the endo-atmospheric zone.

    Link

Viewing 15 posts - 946 through 960 (of 1,560 total)