skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Followers
Blog Archive
-
▼
2009
(62)
-
▼
July
(12)
- ATV Schematics
- Pakistan's Home-Grown Solutions: Part-3
- Pakistan's Home-Grown Solutions: Part-2
- Pakistan's Home-Grown Solutions: Part-1
- The Truth About Krasnopol-M Firing Trials In India
- R-77 BVRAAM Handling/Storage Procedures
- V-22 Osprey For IAF & Indian Navy?
- Beidou Satellite Navigation System
- SSGN Design For Indian Navy
- Airborne Multi-Mode Radar Data
- PAF F-16s Being Upgraded
- Will Goliath Prevail Over David?
-
▼
July
(12)
66 comments:
Thanks Prasun. Do you have a complete outline of the ATV, specially the hump section holding the silos?
Do you have Brochureof IDS's Nighthawk High Altitude Long Endurance (HALE) UAV which has 15hr endurance ???????????????
u sure this is atv achematice? naah man, i think it is a schematic of the concept alone... the ATV in real looks nothing like that. Pls reply... cheers
To Harpreet: Yes, I do, along with the rear view showing the propeller as well. The hump is presently empty and it can accommodate either eight VLS cells for BrahMos-type missiles or four 8,500km-range SLBMs. Also, the flank-array sonars and the winch for thin-line towed-array sonar have yet to be installed. The hull-mounted sonar--the Ushus--is a temporary installation as this system is totally ineffective at the kind of operational depths the ATV is meant to go down to. All in all, a lot more refitting to be done before true sea trials can begin by 2011. Am working on the full feature-length article covering the ATV's genesis, R & D phases and the projected sea trials in conjunction with the yet-to-arrive Akula-3 (INS Chakra). Will try to upload it tonight.
To Anon@3:47AM: Like it or not, the 'real' ATV resembles a bloated Typr 877EKM, or a Type 093 Shang-class SSN. Personally, I'm not surprised at all as I had always calimed and still do that the ATV will be only a technology demonstrator and the first homegrown operational SSGN will emerge only after 2015, and I had in fact uploaded its picture at: http://trishulgroup.blogspot.com/2009/07/ssgn-design-for-indian-navy.html
prasun check out ajai's, shiv's and bua's comment forms... may wanna reply some allegations made there on u
btw why moderation?
prasun,
If what u say is true abt ATV resembling Type 877EKM then that would explain the Kilo of the IN under a permanant refit(talk abt using an utter Fukc-job of local upg to ones advantage!!!)
Also do post the schematics of ATV.And the 8500 km seemes to have an designation(don't know if its official) by the name of K-X.Wht r ur thoughts on this
To Anon@6:23AM: Why? It's simple. What do you do when someone posts the same reply 14 times? What do you do when someone cannot make sense of terminologies like SSGN and SSBN and instead lumps it all together under a term 'nuke submarine'? What do you do when someone cannot figure out why exactly a nuclear-powered submarine is referred to as the ATV, instead of either a SSN or SSGN or SSBN if indeed it is a vessel destined to enter operational service at a future date? Despite my repeated explanations for the past several months, these spamming nerds still can't figure it all out, preferring instead to indulge in over-simplistic day-dreaming. They can't figure out why the ATV's major Indian military-industrial vendors are from the private sector and why the PSU shipyards with prior experience in diesel-electric submarine fabrication were completely excluded from the ATV construction programme. They can't figure out how exactly (or whether) can India fabricate a nuclear-powered ATV at a time when even experienced PSU shipyards have to strike licenced-production alliances with foreign shipbuilders for fabricating far simpler diesel-electric SSKs. They also can't figure out why exactly all retired senior Indian Navy officials interviewed by the broadcast media over the past three days have been striking a note of caution and being conservative in their estimates of operationalising and weaponising the ATV. For these nerds an oversimplistic scenario is all that matters. Therefore, if a serving naval officer is appointed as the officer-in-command of the ATV's crew complement, it is automatically presumed that the ATV is an operational platform! That's like saying since test-pilots from the IAF and Indian Navy have flown the Tejas LCA's PVs and LSPs, it will be these very variants that will be inducted into operational service. I could go on and on, but this will suffice for the moment. There's a thin but distinct red line to be drawn when it comes to abusive spamming that does not in any way contribute to any kind of meaningful interactive intellectual discourse.
When the Chinese built their first underwater nuclear missile launch platform, it was just a SSB. I think a modified Golf class boat. Can Pakistan take a similar approach? Can they, with obvious Chinese help, build an ordinary diesel electric sub with AIP & VLS for the SLBM variant of their Shaheen missile?
To Sachin Sathe: That Kilo-class SSK, INS Sindhukirti, was opened up by Hindustan Shipyards, which now is clueless about putting it back to its original form. This exercise was not authorised by the submarine's OEM and consequently the Navy is the now paying the price of its folly.
Regarding the K-X, it is not the designation of the SLBM, but for the vertical launch silo. The 700km Shourya used the submerged K-15 launcher. Now, a couple of other clarifications are on order:
1) A simple glance at the hydrographic maps of the Bay of Bengal will tell any discerning navigator that nowehere in the Bay of Bengal can any submarine dive to depths of 500 metres. The entire seabed of the Bay of Bengal area is not that deep. Therefore, to state that the ATV will undergo sea acceptance trials in that area is totally erroneous. The only areas where such trials can be held are in the Indian Ocean area south of the Maldives and south-west off southern Sumatra.
2) Prior to conducting sea acceptance trials in the designated area, that entire area must be pre-surveyed to draw up the seabed's map and acquire the necessary hydrological data. And both these tasks can be done only by another nuclear-powered submarine capable of attaining such submerged depths. This is where the leased Akula-3 SSGN comes in to play such a vital role. This surveying activity to be conducted by the Akula-3 will be initiated only early next year and will last for almost two years. Another four to six months will be spent on preparing the required hydrographic navigational charts and only after all these have been uploaded into the ATV’s ECDIS navigational system will the ATV be able to undertake its maiden voyage into the high seas and it will always have to be escorted by the Akula-3.
3) However, venturing out into the deep waters of the Indian Ocean will also require two other vital pieces of hardware that have yet to be sourced: the DSRV in case the ATV suffers any kind of catastrophe during its sea trials, and a network of coastal seabed-based LOFAR sonar transducers forming a protective arc around the planned new berthing areas of both the ATV and Akula-3. Both these nuclear-powered vessels will not be berthed deep inside the Vizag-based naval base due to nuclear safety reasons and it is hoped that the berthing facilities at the Navy’s new naval base south of Vizag are up and running latest by next November, so that the ATV’s sea trials can get underway. That, then leaves one with only one deficiency: the procurement of the DSRVs, which were ‘almost’ ordered in 2005, but could not be ordered due to allegations of corruption in the MoD’s selection process at that time. Unless the DSRVs are ordered immediately (they will be delivered only 2.5 years after contract signature), it will be extremely risky to send the ATV into deep waters for its sea trials.
In conclusion, if you take all these fac tors into consideration, it is clear that the stated 2-year period for conducting the ATV’s sea acceptance trials phase is a shortsighted oversimplification of the challenges that lie ahead.
To Kaushik: I reckon India has made it amply clear through official statements that the sea-based survivable 2nd strike nuclear deterrent is China-specific, and is not being developed for any kind of application against Pakistan. However, if Pakistan still feels threatened and decides to deploy a sea-based nuclear weapon it will most likely be the three Agosta 90B SSKs whose torpedo launchers will have to be modified (enlarged to 650mm diameter or more) to accommodate nuclear warhead-carrying variants of the Babur. Such modifications will be more realistic and technologically feasible, rather than ripping apart the hull to accommodate a VLS module containing silos for SLBMs.
http://cache-media.britannica.com/eb-media/43/1643-004-7DCD3DAC.gif
Going by this picture we can conduct sea trials of Arihant off the Tamil Nadu Coast
Technically, yes. But those areas off Tamil Nadu's coastline are busy shipping lanes where extended maritime quarantine zones cannot be established.
Also to be factored in are the seabed trenches that are considered ideal locations for launching SLBMs while staying submerged. It was for this very reason that the area surrounding The Maldives has long been considered as the optimum location from where to launch the SLBMs. This consequently led to the decision to develop an SLBM with a range of 8,500km.
Prasun I think you were right, Arihant is indeed a technology demonstrator..have a look at this
Russia had way back in 1988 agreed to supply two laboratory-level prototype reactors used earlier for developing the KLT-40C reactor (these were designed to deliver 23.5 propeller mW from the 85mW reactor and using 20-45% enriched uranium-aluminium alloy, clad in zircaloy), their related heat exchangers and steam generators, plus their detailed engineering drawings off-the-shelf. The pressure vessel for the reactor is 4.6 metres high and 1.8 metres in diameter, enclosing a core 1 metre-high and 1.2 metre in diameter. This propulsion system, however, is not brand new, but was originally designed for usage on board civilian ice-breaking ships. In addition, Moscow insisted that such hardware be used for replication only, and be integrated with any functional propulsion system on-shore, and not be installed on any shipborne platform. Adoption of this approach meant that while Russia was not violating its obligations made under the NPT and START-2 nuclear non-proliferation and arms reduction treaties, it was, on the other hand, helping the DRDO and the DAE to overcome the R & D ‘know-how’ challenges by leapfrogging straight ahead to the ‘know-why’ stage. The two reactor models arrived at BARC by 1993 and by 1996 trial production of the reactor components/modules began. The definitive prototype went critical at Kalpakkam in early 2000, but the main engineering challenges were faced in the fabrication of heat exchangers and the steam generator (which were being fabricated by BHEL and TATA Power). It was for this reason that the ATV could not be launched in 2007 as scheduled earlier. For the projected SSGN the reactor will be rated at 140mW.
USHUS sonar is smaller and is meant for diesel subs while for ATV the sonars supposed to be much larger,powerful with longer detection range
The right part of second photo is obviously a Sea Wolf class submarine.
sengupta, but u were the one who said navy will have nothing to do with it!! i guess u were wrong in that aspect!
prasun
The Navy like all military and paramilitary forces is paying for the babus fukcing around with defence procurement without a vision and most importantly maturity bcoz India is going to have to fight for every inch of respect and recognition it wants and needs to be a global player & tht it can only be earned by having a military capable of defending itself and having a strong political will and vision as it is going to take decades to build such a status(the governing system i.e. democracy is quite stable and well established structure in India).
Regarding the ATV test i think the IN is already facing the checkmate (again a political fukc-up) as the proactive chinese have already established ties with Maldives with the hambandota port project.Wht r ur thoughts on this?
Regarding the ATV testing timeline, if the ATV's initial resemblance to russian subs as reported is true (russians could hav given a totally diff design thx to their well established and successful design facilities) the testpoints to be validated will be greatly reduced and thus the only limiting factors would be DSRV procurements and the Seabed mapping by Nerpa. Wht r ur thoughts on this?
The ATV in my opinion will be a fall-back option(sort of last resort) for deterrent if all else fails. It will mainly be a submarine lab for DRDO and the Navy to validate new ideas.
As for pakistans Nuke deterrent based on sea it would make sense for them to procure modified chinese sub in limited no fitted with babur cruise missiles as it would allow them to keep their tactical fleet intact. wht do u think?
I don't know much about defence industries. But why do countries that sell a lot of equipment always start from scratch and not carry basic things "in stock" as it were e.g. ships and submarines and aircrafts, can't they just have the framework ready and then purpose built when an order is placed?This would reduce delivery times.If someone had no possible buyer then it is understandable, but like USA or France or Germany wonder why they only start building when an order is finalised.I mean if no one bought it at least they could use for their own defence need!One example is like the MMRCA. If India say order F/A 18 S/Hornet it would take years before delivery. I am sure if the basic structure/frame was in place fitting electronics etc would be a lot quicker.Prasun you know all these things so can you clear my ignorance in this area please?
any pictures and Brochureof IDS's Nighthawk High Altitude Long Endurance (HALE) UAV which has 15hr endurance? please sir
How close is this to the real thing?
To Harpreet: Very close, as far as the missile silos go. But the flank-array sonar suite has not yet been fitted and the bulbous stern section ahead of the tailfin rudders/stabilisers wll house the winch for the thin-line towed-array sonar.
To Anon@5:34PM: That photo was supplied by Italy's RIVA Calzoni.
To Anon@5:52PM: I had consistently stated that the entire R & D effort for the ATV was financed, administered, managed and implemented by the DRDO, with the DAE playing a supportive role for developing the nuclear propulsion system. The Indian Navy had no say in the design of the ATV, nor were the Directorates of Naval Design, and Warship Construction/Acquisition involved in any manner. That's what meant by "navy will have nothing to do with it". Even when it comes to conducting the HATs and SATs more than 95% of the required human resources will hail from the DRDO and its Russian/Indian vendors. The Indian Navy will supply only the supervisory crew complement just to ensure that systems performance validation takes place in an unbiased manner. Only then will the ATV's performance, safety and maintenance manuals be drafted and approved for type-rating the required sets of crew complement. These all are SOPs that will be adopted in stages. No end-user anywhere--in India or abroad--takes full charge of a first-of-type technology demonstator from Day 1 of its unveiling.
To Harpreet: Will be great if you could desin a collage of the CAD of both Arihant and the Akula-3, since ALL illustrations of the Akula reproduced so far show the Akula 2, and not the Akula-3. Both the Nerpa and its sister vessel, the K-335 Gepard, are the first ‘3+ generation’ nuclear-powered submarines of Russian origin that have a centralised integrated platform management system (IPMS) and a combat management system (CMS), all of which have resulted in the crew complement being reduced to only 73. The IPMS is called ‘Molibden-1’ and has been developed by the Krylov Central Research Institute, while the CMS was developed by the St Petersburg-based Aurora Research & Production Association FSUE, which has also supplied the 15-module submarine monitoring-cum-data recording system. The integrated sonar suite has been developed by Morphyspribor Central Research Institute and Akvamarin JSC, and built by FSUE Taganrog Priboy Plant.
The Nerpa’s most visible distinguishing features are the more elongated and slightly pugged barriers (to its port and starboard) for retractable gear and a more aft-mounted compact gondola mounted on the aft vertical fin, which houses a low-frequency thin-line towed-array sonar suite.
Prasun great information.
How does Nerpa or Akula-3 compare with the latest American Virginia/Seawolf SSN , are they on par with respect to noise and firepower ?
Did Russia demonstrate to IN the Akula submarine in any exercise conducted by IN before we went on for a lease ? If so how did it perform ?
Hi prasun!
can the propulsion technology developed for the nuclear sub be used to power an aircraft carrier?
Thanks for the informative feedback. Subject to availability of time I would definitely like to work on a collage of new Indian Navy submarines. I think displaying Arihant and Nerpa next to smaller Scorpene would illustrate our arrival into big boy's club. As of now I am struggling with lack of information. I wish some of those who witnessed ATV launch ceremony had decent submarine recognition skills. I hope GOI will lift the veil of needless secrecy. Deterrence is about display, isn't it?
To Anon@5:39AM: The Virginia-class SSGN is still generations ahead of the Akula-3 and it must also be borne in mind that the Akula-3 was designed in the early 1980s and has a totally different mission profile than those of the Virginia-class SSGNs. In addition, neither Russia nor India have yet attained the kind of core technological competencies reqd for developing new-generation spherical sonar transducers for SSGNs/SSBNs. In fact, that's the reason why the ATV incorporates a 'temporary' cylindrical array bow-mounted sonar transducer, while the flank-array transducers have yet to be developed by the DRDO/NPOL.
To Indranil: Sure it can be done, but an aircraft carrier will need at least two 85mW PWRs to cater to the increase electric power reqmts, with the other option being to design a single bigger PWR. In any case, once a country attains core technology competency for fabricating miniaturised PWRs and the related but equally vital heat exchangers and steam generators (all three forming an integrated powerpack), coming up with follow-on applications for principal surface combatants or for floating barges isn't a challenge at all.
To Harpreet: I've uploaded for your usage some more schematics. Hope you can make good use of them. Have also superimposed on your CAD some of the on-board sub-systems. All in all, your CAD rendering is 90% accurate, far better than anyone else has come up with thus far. Kudos for that. Must also give due credit to Sandeep Unnithan for having the presence of mind to do the rough sketches within the time limitations he must have faced during the launch ceremony. Cheers!
Prasun thanks , but from what I have read the Yasen SSGN will have a spherical sonar and will be of a 4th Gen type submarine.
Is it true that US has found extremely difficult to track an Akula ?
To Anon@10:47AM: If what you say is true then it will take the Russians at least another 10 years to perfect this technology and series-produce such sonars. In the meantime, as far as India goes, importing such sonars from France's THALES seems to be the only available option, since similar systems are unlikely to be supplied by the US or Germany.
Tracking any submarine, whether conventional or nuclear-powered, on a near real-time basis is very much possible provided the necessary assets like hunter-killer SSGNs, MR/ASW aircraft and space-based ocean-recce satellites are all working together in a synchronised manner.
Read about the test of the land based version of Brahmos. What kind of role is it going to be deployed in...I mean what kind of targets is it likely to engage?
To Sachin Sathe: Even if the ATV is based on a 'proven and tested' design, its structural aspects (hull intregity) and the relisbility of the propulsion systems and its operational safety aspects will still have to be exhaustively evaluated, fine-tuned, and validated simply because this is the first time the fabrication of the hull and its propulsion system was done by Indian heavy engineering industrial entities with no prior experience in undertaking such heavy-duty activities. Consequently, in accordance with the 'crawl-walk-run' approach, what will be done from now on is not just conducting the HATs and SATs of the ATV itself, but also, concurrently, evaluate the industry-level QC consistency of all the involved vendors. It was thus the 'industry-level' challenges that led to the ATV being launched five years behind schedule. All this, however, will in no way affect the on-going series-production of the inner pressure-hull and the outer hull as both of these came directly from Russia (yes, Russia did not provide the technological know-how for indigenising the high-strength steel to India), while the sheet metal steel reqd for fabricating the various compartment modules was supplied to L & T off-the-shelf by Russia. All that was left for L & T to do was the moulding and machining, which of course is a challenging task. Only the piping and wiring materials were sourced by the DRDO from Indian industrial entities.
Follow-on orders all these types of hardware-related components for the first two ATV-derived SSGNs were placed last year and they've already started arriving at the Shipbuilding Centre in Vizag, where the final fabrication of the various compartments takes place (and not at L & T's Hazira facility, contrary to popular belief).
To Indranil: The same as that for the previous two test-firings, i.e. land-based static high-value targets. This was the final validation test-firing of the BrahMos Block-2 land-attack variant and this time a high-level Russian military-industrial delegation was invited to witness the test-firing, since the BrahMos' predecessor--the Yakhont--was never meant to be employed for land-attack. Therefore, this latest test-firing was an eye-opener for the visiting Russians.
to prasun
thanks for this presentation,but you did mention one container has 3 missiles other one is shown having 6 containers can't understand this,
also which sonar have been shown?
are t80 tanks also produced by russia as well?
The VLS for six missiles is for the BrahMos. The single VLS containing three missiles is designed for the Shourya's SLBM variant. The missile ATV's compartment is modular so that it can accommodate up to three different types of VLS for test-firing cruise missiles and ballistic missiles. But do note that the it is an 'either-or' configuration, meaning only one type of VLS can be installed at any one time, and not three VLS types at the same time. The cylindrical bow-mounted transducer is that of the Ushus.
The T-80 MBTs are produced at Nizhny Tagil, Russia.
The T-80 MBTs are produced at Nizhny Tagil, Russia.
----------------------------
but ukrain is also producing t80.
also when did india bought t90 was t80 in there sight?did india evaluate t80?
is the engine of t80 more efficient than t90's engine?
there can be 12 missile launchers on the submarine instead of just 4
pprasun,
The Indian defense industry has always had two bottlenecks (propulsion and ultra high end metallurgical production houses). The steel use for subs is on the same technical-inteluctal level as the advanced blades for jet engines nobody be it Russia or France will give it up.
Even though the task of validating the test points such as the hull integrity, the propulsion loop integrity and efficiency will take major part of next two yrs(my own estimation based on public reports) the fact tht the comparitive data is available is going to make the life of scientists and the IN personnel a lot simpler than wht it would have been if they were fishing in the dark(the LCA story comes to mind) and would have been validating the platform for at least a decade rather than 3 maybe 4 yrs.wht r ur thoughts?
Regarding the succeeding subs it makes sense to send hull modules directly to SBC rather thn to Hazira & then to SBC.
I strongly believe tht the BrahMos LACM is a more of test-platform for seacker and comm. techs being developed for the ADM's land based version i expect it to be unveiled sometime after the air-launched varient itself.wht do u think.
Since the ATV is a test platform ther is no need for it to have all the VLS configs at the same time it will probably be drydocked number of times as it is a unique sub which will be used to develop various technologies.wht r ur thoughts?
Prasunda, if i am not wrong some years ago a chinese SSGN was abled to roam freely within the area of a naval exercise -held between USN & Japan /Taiwan's navy(can not remember the exact opponent/s,please help me ) & even it emerged between aircraft carriar & escorting destroyer.If US is so effective to track SSGN,jhen how chinese SSGN abled to roam freely in between naval exercise?
& finally what is your thought about the report of TOI which tells about failure of russian URAN,Klub missiles during testing?
Thanks again for your support. I will prepare a cutaway of Arihant. Meanwhile ATV & Scorpene. The "baby boomer" is not such a baby after all.
Prasun , the Yasen is already gone into production and a modified Yasen SSGN Kaban was laid this week
The entire sonar suite which includes spherical sonar is called Irtysh-Amfora sonar suite.
Check link below
http://www.janes.com/articles/Janes-Underwater-Warfare-Systems/Irtysh-Amfora-Russian-Federation.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y69gJPFC_ts
This video actually shows the hull of INS Arihant.
Prasun, here is the 3 missile launch container added to Arihant. Thanks for the container diagram.
If more than one missiles are put in the same canister, then when one missile is fired, won't it fire the other missiles too in heat ???
To Harpreet: Many thanks. Will shortly upload a few more schematics and illustrations for your reference. After I do that, kindly pay close attention to the Akula-3's more aft-mounted compact gondola mounted on the aft vertical fin, which houses a low-frequency thin-line towed-array sonar suite. There are a lot of ill-informed nerds that don't know about this distinct visual difference and therefore have repeatedly and erroneously claimed that the Nerpa is an Akula-2.
To Sachin Sathe: As I mentioned earlier, the planned HATs and SATs of the ATV will be hampered more by the current lack of shore-based infrastructure (the majority of which will have to be allocated for the Akula-3) and seaborne hardware like the DSRV. On top of that, the DRDO has yet to begin work on designing the 8,500km-range SLBM. Therefore, the ATV will in all likelihood remain a technology demonstrator platform until the SLBM is ready for service induction, probably after 7 to 10 years. In the meantime, the submerged test-firings from the VLS of the BrahMos will be carried out, purely for design launch validation purposes, as BrahMos Aerospace desperately requires such work to be undertaken if it is to offer the BrahMos for the planned six Project 75A SSKs. Other systems to be tested out on board the ATV will be the flank-array sonar and the spherical bow-mounted sonar (they were not available from either Russia or France when the ATV's design was frozen and therefore on the ATV now the flank-array sonar is missing, while the existing Ushus cylindircal sonar transducer is still a low-frequency system (like the Humsa-NG, and both of these are a generation away from the ultra-low frequency spherical sonars already operational with the US Navy and now entering service with the French Navy). The spherical sonar on the Russian Yasen SSGN too is of the low-frequency-type, i.e. a generation behind contemporary systems. I will soon be uploading the Yasen's cylindrical bow-mounted sonar transducer, and also the inner pressure hull sections of the ATV while they were being welded together at the SBC.
To ABHINABA: Actually, the PLA Navy SSN that was shadowing the US Navy carrier battle group during the exercises was tracked by both JMSDF and USN Seahawk ASW helicopters and P-3C Orions. It was only AFTER the conclusion of the exercises, when the carrier battle group was vound back to its homeport that the SSN reappeared and surfaced, God knows why! Now what happened after that is a very interesting story. The US Navy launched a crash programme in great secrecy to deploy an ultra-low frequency dunking sonar in an innovative manner to ensure speedy deployment. Accordingly, a RHIB was hastily modified as an unmanned surface vessel and was equipped with a hydraulic winch connected to a HELRAS untra-low frequency dunking sonar developed by L-3 Ocean Systems Division. Up until then the HELRAS, although developed in the US, had been ordered only by Egypt and Italy (Singapore followed later). For the past two years now, such RHIBs equipped with the HELRAS are mandatorily deployed by all US Navy carrier battle groups in the Western Pacific. The Indian Navy too has openly declared its interest in acquiring this dunking sonar, instead of the low-frequency and inferior Mihir system. Just to give you an idea, while the Mihir can 'theoretically' detect submerged targets in shallow waters out to a mere 7nm, the HELRAS has a detection range exceeding 20nm!
Prasun,in
this report, U have mentioned about SSGN launched cruise missile...but isn't that the Rafael's air launched cruise missile concept which was displayed at the LeBourget '09.
To Harpreet: As you can see for yourself, the VLS drawings were in fact installation drawings from a consortium of Russian companies led by Malachite (responsible for overall SSGN design), while the Rubin Central Marine Engineering & Design Bureau was overall in-charge for integrating the VLS cells with the inner pressure hull. The Russia-designed SGPFS 8-cell VLS for the Club-N/S and BrahMos comes from a different entity, i.e. Concern Morinformsystem-AGAT JSC and they have no involvement with the ATV. Even the 8-cell and 16-cell VLS cells for the BrahMos (on the Project 1135.6 FFGs Batch 2 and 3 and on the Project 15A/15B DDGs) are fabricated by L & T, and not the Russian company. And do kieep the propellers on the ATV design exposed for now, there's no propulsor (which of course will not be evident to the BR wannabes who in their all-knowing wisdom cannot even distinguish between a 'paraiah' and a 'pariah', and are too bankrupt to visit the defence/aerospsace expos worldwide to get first-hand data on military-industrial developments! I will also upload for you later the detailed schematic of the Scorpene SSK. Once again, congrats and keep up the good work.
To Anon@10:51AM: You must pose this question to those 'experts' at Bharat Rakshak who have no qualms about claiming that the ATV is a 100% Made-in-India product whose original Russian design was 'improved' by Indian R & D entities! I wonder which independent design house or design validation consultant entity (Indian or foreign) with a proven track record of supplying such expertise was involved in authorising and approving such 'improvements'.
To Anon@3:08PM: No, RAFAEL did not publicly unveil any such cruise missile at Le Bourget last June.
You must pose this question to those 'experts' at Bharat Rakshak who have no qualms about claiming that the ATV is a 100% Made-in-India product whose original Russian design was 'improved' by Indian R & D entities!
-------------------------------
well i think there is no entity specially in india which can improve russian designs this but i am sure russians can do this
moreover i think that USHUS sonar is too small and for nuke sub there is need for larger sonar so i am hoping that this sonar for ATV is imported.
or sonar on ATV may be same as on akula-2 just wild guess
The location of the bow torpedo tubes clearly indicates that a cylindrical bow-mounted cylindrical sonar transducer and its imported fibre-glass dome is fitted on to the ATV. The Akula-3 (Nerpa) too is fitted with a cylindrical transducer. Will try to get some technical data and graphic designs in the near future on the Yasen's spherical array transducer.
but prasun, u have yourselves claimed that the pic is the RAFAEL's air delivered concept in this blog..
http://trishulgroup.blogspot.com/2009/06/india-specific-assorted-news-briefs.html
to prasun
and as for towed arry sonar there is no need to have pod for this example american submarines don't have pods but still have TAS
Yes, I did say that RAFAEL is involved in co-developing this cruise missile. But I never said that this very cruise missile was publicly displayed or unveilled at Le Bourget. They are two separate issues.
there are two separate things
1. you said in that blog that its an air delivered concept....do u agree? then how come it becomes a missile to be launched from a SSGN ?
2. I never said that the missile was publicly displayed ....what i said was that the concept was publicly displayed at stalls by both Rafael and IAI.
prasun
i think the ATV or Arihant will do its basic tests in the bay of bengal till the time nerpa does the seabed mapping for deep sea tests.Thus the ATV will spend major time in the bay of bengal also this area can be sanitized better by IN with existing infrastructure.
Why is the IN is considering BrahMos for P-75a ssk?wht i mean is for Land Attack purposes the range of 290 km is rather too short and Anti-ship work is better done by a torpedo.
Shiv's blog reports wht u said some 6-8 months ago abt the P-75a being based off S-1000 ssk(the russo-italian proposal) but the dimentions of the sub look too small(infact smaller than Scorpene) so adding a module of LACM's in between would only further hamper the performance and thus would result in total redesign of the sub is it worth it considering the time constraints?wht r ur thoughts?
Also i think with things moving on P-75a front can u make a detailed presentation(if u hav time) on each of the conestants?
As far as the SLBM goes the intention is i think to first achieve ICBM capability on land-based leg evaluate it & validate it then customize the missile for submarine use. I say this because producing a smaller-more compact missile(abt13-14m in length) with 8500km range for land based leg would also give better mobility to land based assets which currently use A2 which i think is some 16-17 mtres long.Thus the Agni-5 tests would be crucial as it would be validating the basic technologies reqd for developing ICBM(techs like advance composits for structural use,better more accurate rlgs,communication modules,launch modules DefMin indicated it could be canisterised)).ur thoughts?
To Anon@5:14PM: OK, I get it now. At Le Bourget both IAI and RAFAEL had posters showing, among other things, artist's renderings of a conceptual new-generation standoff precision-guided cruise missile capable of conventional strike. But the definitive design of the type I uploaded earlier was never displayed by either company, nor was it mentioned anywhere by either company that it is also destined to go on board any submarine. And such things will never be displayed or mentioned in public either.
http://www.hinduonnet.com/2005/03/23/stories/2005032303021300.htm
Does this arrangement extend to Arihant class submarines too? If so we can start Arihant's sea trials without waiting for a DSRV.
To Kaushik: No, the arrangement with the US Navy is for the Indian Navy's diesel-electric submarines only.
To Sachin Sathe: In my view, the ATV's harbour acceptance trials alone will last for mote than 18 months, while the sea trials will last for up to four years. The Agni-5 will not form the basis for the SLBM. The SLBM will be required for obvious reasons tobe more compact without any limitations on the operationally mandated range envelope. Consequently, the SLBM will be a brand-new design.
Regarding Project 75A, the only viable contenders include the joint Fincantieri/Rosoboronexport offer of the S-800A, and DCNI's SMX-22. The S-1000 from Fincantieri is NOT on offer as it is derived from the much smaller Amur 650. But people make mistakes since the design of the S-800A has not yet been publicly released, but it does exist and the Indian Navy was briefed about it TWO YEARS AGO.
" But the definitive design of the type I uploaded earlier was never displayed by either company, nor was it mentioned anywhere by either company that it is also destined to go on board any submarine. And such things will never be displayed or mentioned in public either."
If thats the case then why did you put up the same pic at both places and claiming it to be an air delivered concept in one place while assuming it to be an SSGN launched one in another place.
did u take picture of the hull yourself
hi can you describe more about the antennas used there??
Post a Comment