Indian Navy Developments & Discussions

Ayan Barat said:
Flex karta hai mad...
View attachment 13804

And on top of everything those J-11Bs should be perhaps the most capable Flankers currently in service; carrier capable, new engines, AESA radar, improved EW.
Click to expand...
Ek carrier mai bhar bhar ke, dusre mai naa barabar.

Inko aur 10 saal lagenge competent banne mai in carrier ops. But THEY WILL GET COMPETENT.
 
Some news in link with P75 (and Rafale M ?) :

MBDA is on track to study a new missile to replace SM39 (and probably AM39 as they are very similar) : SM40.
SM40 probably (???) used all or part of the MM40 block 3 Exocet, with its range over 200km.

www.meretmarine.com

Sous-marins : MBDA travaille à la succession du missile antinavire Exocet SM39 | Mer et Marine

Mis en service il y a bientôt 40 ans, le SM39, version du célèbre missile antinavire Exocet conçue pour être tirée depuis un sous-marin en plongée, ar...
www.meretmarine.com www.meretmarine.com
 
BON PLAN said:
Some news in link with P75 (and Rafale M ?) :

MBDA is on track to study a new missile to replace SM39 (and probably AM39 as they are very similar) : SM40.
SM40 probably (???) used all or part of the MM40 block 3 Exocet, with its range over 200km.

www.meretmarine.com

Sous-marins : MBDA travaille à la succession du missile antinavire Exocet SM39 | Mer et Marine

Mis en service il y a bientôt 40 ans, le SM39, version du célèbre missile antinavire Exocet conçue pour être tirée depuis un sous-marin en plongée, ar...
www.meretmarine.com www.meretmarine.com
Click to expand...
I made an error : range targeted is 120km, and not 200.
Probably because the future SM40 will be shorter than MM40 (to fit in a sub vehicule to reach the surface) so less fuel.
 
1000004584.webp
 
haldilal said:
View attachment 14515
Click to expand...
Yeah without outrage they didn't think of data security, looks like they don't know what are the implications of data in wrong hands like we don't have enough examples from all over the world. even in India rampant scams which one way or another have same origin of lax data security.

Feels like they don't take their own security seriously if they have to think on this only now. Looks like we need a better cybersecurity course for policymakers.
 
Binayak95 said:
Ek carrier mai bhar bhar ke, dusre mai naa barabar.

Inko aur 10 saal lagenge competent banne mai in carrier ops. But THEY WILL GET COMPETENT.
Click to expand...

I think it will take less time.
There was an article i read that said they've hired ex-RAF pilots for a long time to train their PLAAF boys, for carrier ops also some similar long-existing setup must be there.

Ayan Barat said:
Always knew this comparison was coming and here it's

Two "Near Peer Adversaries"

View: https://x.com/Hurin92/status/1852377845051310149?s=19
Click to expand...


Our Navy isn't sadly near or peer to PLAAN, it's peer is the USN now

notaname said:
Yeah without outrage they didn't think of data security, looks like they don't know what are the implications of data in wrong hands like we don't have enough examples from all over the world. even in India rampant scams which one way or another have same origin of lax data security.

Feels like they don't take their own security seriously if they have to think on this only now. Looks like we need a better cybersecurity course for policymakers.
Click to expand...

The top brass decision makers need to have a general "be paranoid" mindset tbh.
 
Last edited:
One Q i have, sure this has been asked before, why are our destroyers under-armed in terms of missiles and VLS compared to something like Arleigh Burke which has 96 cells total

Next Project 18 destroyers have equal-equal amount of missiles to international ships however, but it als is supposed to have 10k tons displacement
 
OutForVendetta said:
Bhaiyo, i don't know if this has been discussed here previously or not but have a look.

www.twz.com

Navy Just Reloaded A Vertical Launch System For The First Time While Underway At Sea

Having the ability to replenish surface combatants' vertical launch system cells while underway is seen as critical to sustaining a fight in the Pacific.
www.twz.com www.twz.com

US navy has successfully replaced VLS cells on board a Ticonderoga class cruiser
Click to expand...


Well from Layman terms.

1. The VLS system should have been mounted which can be removed easily.
2. The same VLS system should be available in an replenishment ship.
3. Then an crane/rope system needs to move the entire block from one ship to another ship.
4. Remounting the new Vls in the ship
5. Older one stored in replenishment ship.

I think the point 3 be difficult in the transfer.
 
shade2 said:
why are our destroyers under-armed in terms of missiles and VLS compared to something like Arleigh Burke which has 96 cells total
Click to expand...
Extremely short and crisp answer that no one's going to tell you...our pockets aren't deep enough to have something like a Sejong the Great or Type 055. That's it

We paid close to $2.5 billion for just 220 BrahMos. Just 220 because its enough for only one complete mag dump by all the frontline ships. P-15A 3x16, P-15B 4x16, Talwar 3x8, Shivalik 3x8, Nilgiri 7x8 and you get max of 216 BrahMos.

So theoretically we can also have 128 cell VLS per ship on paper but on ground almost ⅓ of those cells would be empty.
shade2 said:
Next Project 18 destroyers have equal-equal amount of missiles to international ships however, but it als is supposed to have 10k tons displacement
Click to expand...
Nope.
Again the same reason
 
ArjunMK1A said:
3. Then an crane/rope system needs to move the entire block from one ship to another ship.
Click to expand...
> The recipient ship is continuously moving in all six DoFs
> The replenishment ship is also continuosly moving in all six DoFs
> A single Mk-14 AUR is almost 2 tons
> You need sub-centimetre precision while loading an AUR
> Both the ships should always maintain a certain minimum distance between them to prevent accident

So it's slightly more than just "difficult"...
 
Ayan Barat said:
Extremely short and crisp answer that no one's going to tell you...our pockets aren't deep enough to have something like a Sejong the Great or Type 055. That's it

We paid close to $2.5 billion for just 220 BrahMos. Just 220 because its enough for only one complete mag dump by all the frontline ships. P-15A 3x16, P-15B 4x16, Talwar 3x8, Shivalik 3x8, Nilgiri 7x8 and you get max of 216 BrahMos.

So theoretically we can also have 128 cell VLS per ship on paper but on ground almost ⅓ of those cells would be empty.

Nope.
Again the same reason
Click to expand...

Thanks for the reply, on r/IndianDefense the plebbitors were also asking about this and one of the reasons was poverty, thanks for confirming.
 
Blood+ said:
That is definitely not the main reason for it though. The real reason is a lack of an UVLS system, that's it.
Click to expand...
That is an interesting theory but it fails as soon as it's applied to every Russian and pre-Type-52D Chinese ships.

Type-52C for example is a 7kT ship, tad bit lighter than Kolkata but still packs 8x AShMs and 48x S-300 class SAMs
Or even Slava class (definitely bit heavy) with 16x AShMs, 64x S-300 class SAMs and 40x SR-SAMs

None of these use an Universal Vertical Launching System.

*Before someone points to the Russian UVLM, then no, it's not a true U-VLS...it is called "Universal" because it can launch two similar types of surface to surface missiles, nothing more than that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Unknowncommando
Indian Navy VBSS
Replies
7
Views
488
vampyrbladez
vampyrbladez
P
Indian Navy's Next Generation Offshore Patrol Vessels
Replies
10
Views
820
vampyrbladez
vampyrbladez
hit&run
Indian Navy's Daring Rescue Operation. Critical Chinese Mariner Rescued | India Today
Replies
2
Views
233
samsaptaka
samsaptaka
haldilal
Indian Navy Anti Piracy Operations
Replies
0
Views
130
haldilal
haldilal
Unknowncommando
Indian Navy Multimedia
2 3
Replies
50
Views
3K
VictorDelta4
VictorDelta4

Latest Replies

Featured Content

Trending Threads

Share this Site

Back
Top