The top two diagrams illustrate the EMDINA combat management system (CMS) originally co-designed by the Indian Navy's Weapons and Electronic Systems Engineering Establishment (WESEE) and TATA Power as part of project MEDINA. This centralised CMS architecture has been adopted for the Navy's three Project 17 guided-missile frigates (FFG), three Project 15A guided-missile destroyers (DDG), and the four Project 28 ASW guided-missile corvettes. The following two diagrams illustrate the EMCCA Computer Aided Action Information System (CAAIS), also co-developed by WESEE and TATA Power, under Project MECCA and is presently on board the three Project 16 FFGs, three Project 16A FFGs and three Project 15 DDGs. The Fregat-M2EM radar can be found on board all six Project 1135.6 FFGs and the three Project 17 FFGs, while the Fregat MAE-4K radar has been developed by FSUE Salyut for installation on board the aft mast of the Project 1135.6 FFG and Project 17 FFG. However, these have not yet been installed, and the Indian Navy will likely select a L-band radar of either Indian or Israeli origin. The SGPFS vertical launch system for the Club-M is the bottom-most illustration. This VLS is on board both the first three Project 1135.6 FFGs and Project 17 FFGs. For the follow-on three Project 1135.6 FFGs now being built by Russia's Kaliningrad-based Yantar Shipyard the UVLM system will be installed. The UVLM module is built by Larsen & Toubro for the BrahMos supersonic MRCM and it is this module that will also be on board the three upgraded Kashin 2-class DDGs and three Project 15A DDGs.--Prasun K. Sengupta 
27 comments:
What is the range of Fregate m4k radar?
Hello Mr Prasun, in the article above you have mentioned Project 16A guided Missile destroyers (DDG) then again in the following lines, Project 16 FFGs and three Project 16A FFGs.
It doesn't quite make sense. I am sure you meant Project 15A DDGs in the first line.
You might want to correct that.
Thanks
Mr Prasun, in the article above you have mentioned three upgraded Kashin 2 destroyers. Could you please tell which are the three Kashins that have been upgraded, and if the upgrades are complete. And what is in store for the remaining two?
Thanks in advance!
To Nixdude: You're right. Correction done. Thus far, the INS Rajput, Ranvir and Ran Vijay have been earmarked for upgrades and the work is still in progress.
Is there any plan of indian navy to install Brahmos in existing krivak class frigate?
No. They will retain the Club-Ns on board.
Prasun,
Shipbuilding is a complex science. Unfortunately marketing people and journalists speculate a lot that unnecessarily confuses people. To eliminate the confusion –
The Soviets designed the Krivak class frigates from the 70s to 90s in three sub classes I, II & III. It was an anti submarine design. There are loads of pictures at http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/row/rus/1135.htm for analysis. The Soviets NEVER designed the class with a second mast. This is evident from all the above pictures.
The Type 1135.6 Talwar class proposed for India was based on Krivak III class that serves with the Maritime Border Guard and Ukraine. You can see the similarities in the pictures below.
http://www.afsouth.nato.int/organization/CC_MAR_Naples/images08/0058.jpg
http://www.afsouth.nato.int/organization/CC_MAR_Naples/images08/0038.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e3/INS_Talwar_%28F40%29.jpg
The second mast that you’re repeatedly incorrectly referring to is just a lattice to support the radio antenna in both. Masts in any ship penetrate the deck significantly for structural support. In all these ships, the lattice is on top of the helicopter hanger. Obviously it DOESN’T penetrate the helicopter hanger. Hence structurally it just cannot support a radar.
Coming to your poster that shows a photo-shopped secondary radar on Talwar, the Fregat MAE-4K was designed for smaller ships like missile boats and corvettes. Comparing its features vis-à-vis full sized radars used in frigates, I’ll use data from brochures posted by you. Fregat M2EM detects a fighter at 230 km RAWL detects fighter at 185 km and the Fregat MAE-4K detects a fighter ONLY at 58 km. This is one-fourth the range of a full sized frigate radar. Will anyone want a half penny radar like that atop one of his major surface combatants? The photo-shopped poster is a cheap Russian marketing gimmick that our professional IN never fell for. And despite the reduced weight, the lattice just cannot structurally support Fregat MAE-4K. Its better NOT to have secondary radar than go with that 58 km toy useless in combat.
Hence there will NEVER be a secondary radar on Talwar.
On Shivalik, IN increased the displacement and dimensions of the Krivak design and added a powerplant design of smaller dimensions (GE LM2500 & Pielstick vis-à-vis earlier Zorya). This allowed for a second mast penetrating the deck FORWARD of the helicopter hanger.
Secondly, NO company in Israel manufactures ship borne L-Band search radar. All their ship borne radars are S-Band.
The only L Band radars presently available to IN are Thales LW-08 customized to local requirements and manufactured as RAWL and Thales SMART-L installed in German Sachsen and Dutch De Zeven Provinciën and customized as S1850M for British Daring, French Forbin and Italian Andrea Doria. The original intent was to procure Thales SMART-L, hence the phased array radar seen on models and artist impressions. However the prohibitive cost and the need to customize & optimize it for operations in tropical waters made IN stick to proven and effective RAWL. More were ordered for Kolkata class – refer Thales press release –
http://www.thalesgroup.com/markets/Activities/News-List/News-Result/News-Article.html?link=7b6f7e2d-7d3c-3a6e-5e03-772563413a11:central&locale=EN-gb&Title=Bharat+Electronics+Ltd.+awards+LW08+contract+to+Thales&dis=1&marketId=65570204-0F18-343C-661E-5D3025785E02&type=Market
Incidentally South Korea has installed SMART L on its Dokdo amphibious ships. The IAC models & artist impressions still show it.
Yesterday Revati today Israeli . . . why speculate? Just publish the facts and leave it open where information is simply unavailable?
Reason why the poster is a photo shopped cheap sales gimmick by the manufacturer -
MAE-4K image on Talwar is an exact compressed version of the larger MAE-4K image on brochure page 2.
The circled MAE-4K image is a mirror image of the MAE-4K on Talwar. For reference, note the IFF interrogator on top. On Talwar and second page, the IFF interrogator is on top right of MAE-4K. Even if the antenna had rotated to the position shown in circled image, the IFF interrogator would have still been on the top right of the antenna. Instead its on top LEFT on the circled image. That happens only incase of a mirror image.
To Cdr T G Sarkar, IN, Retd: I have no qualms about engaging in spirited but well-defined and confined discussions or arguments such as the one posted by you above. Kindly allow me to elaborate. The Russian brochure on Fregat MAE-4K obviously has made a typographical mistake in misquoting the radar's range as common sense would suggest that a figure of 400km will be the realistic figure. Surely no one will believe that a company like FSUE Salyut will produce a radar with only 53km-range. In fact, during both the IMDEX Asia and IMDS naval expos in Singapore and St Petersburg in 2005 and 2007 the scale-mode of the Project 1135.6 FFG displayed by Rosoboronexport State Corp clearly showed the two radars fitted on board. Now you can brush these away as marketing gimmicks, but the fact remains that the concerned Russian OEMs stand by their exhibits and have given more than convincing explanations of such sensor fitments to several well-meaning customers in my presence at the above-mentioned expos. Therefore, logically, I'm more inclined to believe what the OEMs say and I myself have seen rather than accept what you're asserting.
Secondly, while you've done a good job highlighting which Indian Navy warship has on-board L-band radars you've failed to explain why the Project 17 FFGs and Project 1135.6 FFGs don't have them on board.
Thirdly, I can't accept your claims of NO L-band shipborne radars being produced by any Israeli OEM, for the simple reason that during Aero India 2009 I was briefed in detail about at least two of them in existence. I will of course upload their brochures in due time. Incidentally, lest you forgot, I was also the first to upload the NDB-issued definitive illustration of the Project 15A DDG that showed the RAWL and EL/M-2248 MF-STAR fitments.
Fourthly, I went on board the Dokdo LHD during the LIMA 2007 expo and had a first-hand look at it. But this radar has NOT YET been selected for the IAC as well. While the IAC's scale-model and illustrations do show it having a radar atop the island of such dimensions, one cannot say with certainty that it is indeed the SMART-L. And if you choose to dig deeper by talking to the Israeli OEMs you will find out what that radars will be on board the IAC and whether or not Israeli OEMs built L-band shipborne radars.
Lastly, one is again speculating that just like the S-band Rohini, the Revati too will be an S-band radar. A lot bit more research by you in this matter will help you clear the fog of uncertainty surrounding this issue. It isn't me that's speculating. Information may not be available to you per se, but that doesn't mean it isn't available to others.
to prasun
Brazil buys $12 billion of Helicopters, Submarines from France
-----------------------------
Friday, Jan 09, 2009
Brazil signed contracts worth $12 billion to purchase five submarines and 50 EC-725 military transport helicopters from France, the current issue of Defense News magazine reported.
The submarine deal involves the purchase of four conventionally-powered Scorpene attack submarines and the construction of a nuclear-powered submarine to be built with French cooperation, the magazine said.
A French official traveling with President Nicolas Sarkozy in Brazil last month said the contracts were $9.4 billion for the submarines and $2.6 billion for the helicopters, the article said.
The French government will pocket around six billion euros (8.4 billion dollars) of that total, with the rest going to private defense firms involved in the contracts.
------------------------------------------
thats one heck of price $ 12 billion for just 5 scorpenes subs
and some people in india think
$ 2.1 billion for gorky is too much
if brasil can pay this much for this little
then isn't
16 mig29k+6 helicopters+
gorky(after cost
escalation) = $2.9 billion
3 krivak ships =$ 1.6 billion
mig29 upgrade =$ 1 billion
40 su30mki =$ 2.2 billion
80 mi17-v5 =$ 1 billion
------------------
=$ 8.7 billion
r cheaper than what brasil paying to france
The submarine deal between France and Brazil includes about US$3.6 billion for the nuclear submarine programme, plus about US41.5 billion for creating the infrastructure required for licence-assembling the Scorpenes. The EC-725 Cougar package is quite expensive, no doubt. By the way, the deal for 80 Mi-17V-5s for the IAF is worth US$870 million, and not $1 billion.
ya but india bought 6 scorpenes for $ 3.5 billon dollars including full TOT which is much cheaper
by the way france not helping them with nuke power plant only brazil made nuke power plant will be used but hull will be made from france's help
You're right, but France will also help Brazil design and build the shore-based nuclear safety facilities and human resource training facilties needed for type-certifying the nuclear submarine's crew complement, which won't come cheap as India has also discovered. By the way, a third batch of three Improved Project 1135.6 FFGs will be ordered for the Indian Navy before the year's end, probably by this October. Each of them will have on board the VL Shtil-1. Will post the FFG's technical data later today.
our p15a ships r already very late and kashins r getting older
and don't know that how long MDL will take to build next type of destroyers
just c how fast UK is building type 45 destroyers
better order upto 5 destroyers to replace kashins from russia
with S400 SAM on them as its not in MDL capability
This is what happens when you combine a low-cost ($400k/missile) weapon with high-cost requirements (stealth, standoff, precision guidance). The air force has to learn that they can't wage precision warfare on the cheap and also expect to buy high reliability.
It's also become evident that the baseline JASSM missile's 250-mile-or-so range means that the launching aircraft must come within the engagement zone of the S400 surface-to-air missile system, meaning that the act of launching the missile may become something of a suicide mission for the lucky pilot.
The S400 is the latest version of Russia's robust SAM technology.
The JASSM-ER is necessary to ensure that a strike on a target protected by the S400 is a success.
That doesn't mean the JASSM is useless, but merely limited -- in addition to having what appears to be a chronic reliability problem.
Leave alone the delays with the Project 15A DDGs, even the Project 17A FFG programme is in limbo. The imported design should have been selected by 2007! Then you have the three Project 16A Brahmaputra-class FFGs that don't even have an on-board SAM since 2002!!! The Kashin 2-class DDGs and remaining Leander-class FFGs should have been decommissioned by now or been reassigned as training vessels or weapons operational test & evaluation vessels. And the Type 877EKM SSK that has been rotting at Vizag's Hindustan Shipyards Ltd since the late 1990s has officially been written off and is now being cannibalised for salvagable spares.
project 16A frigates have barak SAM's on them.
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NAVY/Images/Brahmaputra2.jpg
project 16A (INS Betwa)with EL/M-2221 STGR radar on top of the bridge. The EL/M-2221 STGR radar is used by Barak SAM
That's right.But the Barak-1 is a close-in weapon system meant to intercept inbound anti-ship cruise missiles. The Project 16A FFGs are also meant to have E-SHORADS on board, like its Project 16 predecessors. That has not yet been installed on board.
point well taken sir, but the problem i had with your earlier statement was that you mentioned presence of no SAM on P 16A ffg's. Now to a lay person who doesnt know diff between things like CIWS, shorad, e-shorad etc that would appear that there are no SAM's on that ship and gives rise to rumours like. "OMG Indian ships suck, have no SAM's. Indians cant do anything right." Also people are more likely to believe what a distinguished person like you say than what a anonymous person like me says.
No problems. Point taken. Hopefully, the vertically-launched SR-SAM showcased by MBDA during Aero India 2009 will eventually find its way on board the Project 16A FFGs. That will give these three FFGs a credible air defence capability against manned combat aircraft.
Lastly, one is again speculating that just like the S-band Rohini, the Revati too will be an S-band radar. A lot bit more research by you in this matter will help you clear the fog of uncertainty surrounding this issue. It isn't me that's speculating. Information may not be available to you per se, but that doesn't mean it isn't available to others.
Prasun, you are speculating. The Revathi is also a S Band radar. Just have a talk with its antenna designers, f.e.
No I'm not. I'm neither claiming that it is S-band or X-band or L-band radar. I'm just asking where exactly it is officially written by DRDO or LRDE or anywhere else that the Revathy will be a S-band radar. I know exactly what the answer is as I've spoken to officials from GRSE as well as members of the Navy's Project Team associated with the P-28 programme. Just as I'm aware of the existence of both L-band and X-band shipborne AESA radars developed by Israeli companies. Just because they're not yet highlighted on the company websites or are not mentioned in Wikipedia does not mean such radars don't exist. Given the choice between believing official statements from OEMs versus the claims of anonymous and faceless bloggers who most definitely are not well-meaning friends of India judging by the content of their comments, I'd believe the former any day. Afterall, I'm not running my blog to convince anyone or drive my assertions down anyone's throat; I'd be quite happy if one adopts a take-it-or-leave it approach, instead of arguing how right or how wrong the contents of my blog are.
Prasun,
If you know exactly what it is to begin with, your post to tsarkar suggested otherwise.
And you should know the band of the Revathi has been specified publically two years back in RadarCon by LRDE officials, as well as at REFLECT-08 held last year.
You might in particular want to take a look at Dr. Revankars comments as well which he made about Rohini and Revathi both. (Despite having worked on a different system actually).
Given the choice between believing official statements from OEMs versus the claims of anonymous and faceless bloggers who most definitely are not well-meaning friends of India judging by the content of their comments, I'd believe the former any day. Afterall, I'm not running my blog to convince anyone or drive my assertions down anyone's throat; I'd be quite happy if one adopts a take-it-or-leave it approach, instead of arguing how right or how wrong the contents of my blog are.
So telling the truth is not being a friend of India?
So correcting you on the errors that you make about india's indigenous radar efforts, as you have done several times before, is being an enemy of India?
All we are doing is providing you information so that those opposed to you dont run you down using these incidents. Instead you attack those who help you. That is weird.
And if you put a blog up on the net, its a given that people will comment, after all that is what a blog is, a medium of communication.
Lastly, given the reality of these affairs in India, anonymous commenters are what you are going to get. All the rest will be fanboys who dont know any details.
Its the way of things.
As I explained above, what constitutes the truth--claims by anonymous bloggers or official statements by OEM/R & D organisations--is a debatable issue and I for one have made my own personal choice. And like I stated earlier, I'm not trying to force my remarks or assertions down anyone's throat and at the same time I don't want others to force their assertions down my throat. I'm not the one engaging in one-upmanship or fighting for credibility. Those who know me personally or professionally know exactly what I'm writing about and why. If any blogger continues to claim that he/she is more credible while at the same time remaining anonymous, rest assured that I will not only disregard them, but will also remove their comments/assertions as they have no basis and can't stand the test of credibility. Why? because their comments are of no use and of no consequence to me. This was recently proven when a blogger called T Sarkar made some ludicrous counter-claims about 'Citadels' and combat management systems', which clearly revealed that such anonymous entities have yet to step on board any Indian warship of 1980s or 1990s vintage. Such entities can't even understand what are the linkages between a centralised CMS, a centralised IPMS, a centralised BDCS, and how exactly these three elements dictate the number and disposition of the on-board 'citadel'.
hey Prasun da plz can u post about MBT arjun.. wats its state, and any new development, mkII etc.
The turret seems to be a strange one, are they changing it..
pardon if all this have been posted before..
Post a Comment