Indian Navy Developments & Discussions

[FalconSlayers]

View: https://x.com/larsentoubro/status/1879053530029556025

 

[Blood+]

Why packing density of Barak 8 vls unit system looks so comically low. Always felt like you could get more vls and missiles with a system like sylver or mk41. This goes same with that of vlsrsam vls block.

And on discussion about about about NGX vessels, what exactly puts the 'NG' in them. Afaik they are not getting any of the supposedly next gen features in our case like an integrated mast or maybe our own radars like that of MfStar, don't know what happened to SBR or it's supposed to come out derivatives. We are not even getting our own VLS system or even towed sonar as well. Not sure if drdo ALTAS is being inducted or not.

Only things which are in pipeline and are confirmed are
1.) VLS system for all Indian missiles. Atleast when this happens, hopefully IN can ask for mission specific missiles.
2.) A radar like Lanza-N, indicating that we are not moving away from a twin mast radar type design anytime soon.
3.) An integrated system like UNICORN of Japan which combines Tacan, elint etc etc, I mean it's an integrated mast but not really as doesn't have multi function radars, surface scan radars etc etc other active sensors on it. Collobration with Japanese
4.) Twin line towed array sonars in development, don't know if that's the future or not.
5.) Gatling CIWS with programmable fuze, own sensors and other stuff, as mentioned in tech foresight in drdo site. Not sure if that will morph into a combine gun missile system or not as IN has often asked for such a system in future requirements.

We definitely need to have our own integrated mast with all indigenous sensors in it for all of our future ships. But I haven't seen even a single mention of it anywhere.

And it's definitely a stupid thing that we have to import even a rotating S-band radar.

Because we suck bollocks at product optimization and apparently, in the forward thinking and common sense departments as well.

 

[shade2]

View: https://x.com/IndiannavyMedia/status/1878993279397871650

 

[125mm_Smoothbore]

View: https://x.com/IndiannavyMedia/status/1878993279397871650

so many of our capital ships in this video i se vikramaditya and few kolkata class

 

[Ayan Barat]

Why packing density of Barak 8 vls unit system looks so comically low.

If you want a concise, no nonsense reply then Blood has already answered.

For yapping, I'm always here.
The case of Barak-8 is quite interesting. I don't know what were the design choices but if there indeed was something that made them go with this specific scheme then it's all right but otherwise it's just laziness.

1. That's your quintessential missile with four fins. If you make a VLS to encompass this shape then the minimum possible simple cross section would be a circle. But here you've two problems, one you're taking too much of empty space and two, circle are not very efficient at packing unless you use a staggered arrangement.
2. And this is you typical solution to that problem; fold the fin. By folding the fin you drastically reduce the cross section and also make it a square which is better for packing; you can pack four such inside one big without wasting any space.
This same arrangment is used for ESSM, CAMM and FM-3000N
3. Enters Barak-8 (land version). Folds the fins but don't know why uses a tube of circular cross section to surround them. If you look up images of LRSAM launcher you'll see just 8 toobs welded together like some Grad.
4. Hold my beer, says Barak-8 (naval version). Instead of something like staggering the tubes it uses a cell of octagonal cross section to house a tube of circular cross section; wasting more space.

Instead of all these shenanigans if they had simply gone for the [2] arrangement then they could have had 4 missiles in place of every 3 they currently have.

This goes same with that of vlsrsam vls block.

A single cell of a VL-SRSAM is pretty optimised but they've placed those eight cells bit too far from each other. You typically don't find such high inter-cell gaps.

And on discussion about about about NGX vessels, what exactly puts the 'NG' in them.

Minor improvements compared to the class they're replacing. Things like RCS reduction, use of composites, better propulsion, radars...

There's difference between the meaning of NG in USAF's NGAD and our NGMV; our threshold is bit lower.

 

[shade2]

A single cell of a VL-SRSAM is pretty optimised but they've placed those eight cells bit too far from each other. You typically don't find such high inter-cell gaps.

Thanks for the info on Barak-8 VLS cells

btw for quad-packing what are the additional complexities involved?

I assume DRDO is having trouble with the current VL-SRSAM VLS design for even single missiles, perhaps that is the reason they haven't gone for quad-packing yet?

quad-packed VLS would be a good and space saving solution for the current under-armed state of IN ships.

 

[Ayan Barat]

btw for quad-packing what are the additional complexities involved?

The biggest is preventing missile from getting damaged by intense pressure and heat. In case of separate cell there's enough gap and also every cell is self contained so you've minimal impact of a launch on un-launched missiles. In case of quad packed arrangement the missiles are very close to one another. So the 4th missile would have to go through the stresses of all three getting fired before it.

Other than this all other things are just optimisation problem.

is the reason they haven't gone for quad-packing yet?

The reason is that you don't make a new cell by bunching together four existing missile. Rather you try to make a new missile that can be "quad packed" in an existing cell; hence the name quad packed. For example, the cell size of Mk-41 VLS was finalized in 1981 and the development of ESSM started in 1995.

It'll always be tough if we take a backwards route.

 

[shade2]

The biggest is preventing missile from getting damaged by intense pressure and heat. In case of separate cell there's enough gap and also every cell is self contained so you've minimal impact of a launch on un-launched missiles. In case of quad packed arrangement the missiles are very close to one another. So the 4th missile would have to go through the stresses of all three getting fired before it.

Other than this all other things are just optimisation problem.

The reason is that you don't make a new cell by bunching together four existing missile. Rather you try to make a new missile that can be "quad packed" in an existing cell; hence the name quad packed. For example, the cell size of Mk-41 VLS was finalized in 1981 and the development of ESSM started in 1995.

It'll always be tough if we take a backwards route.

They can make a bigger cell to fit in 4x VL-SRSAM though no? the VLS being designed for it is custom made afaik, it's not supposed to be a UVLS.

This bigger cell VLS can then also be used for atleast 2 of the Project Kusha missiles( i guess the last one is too long ) apart from Barak-8s

 

[Ayan Barat]

They can make a bigger cell to fit in 4x VL-SRSAM though no? the VLS being designed for it is custom made afaik, it's not supposed to be a UVLS.

This bigger cell VLS can then also be used for atleast 2 of the Project Kusha missiles( i guess the last one is too long ) apart from Barak-8s

You're not getting the point.
Let's say we make a bigger cell whose dimensions are 2x VL-SRSAM X 2x VL-SRSAM. So this cell is perfectly optimised for 4x VL-SRSAM as you're neither wasting space nor there's scarcity of it.

Now you fit a different, independently developed missile in this cell, let's say a Kusha. Is this single Kusha going to be as optimised as the earlier set-up? Or you're wasting space and then again we're discussing here on this thread that how the packing density of new VLS sucks.

But let's say we design a cell to accomodate the biggest missile; BrahMos. But now the problem for VL-SRSAM would be something like this cell is approximately 2.75x VL-SRSAM long by 2.75x VL-SRSAM wide. Can you use 0.75 VL-SRSAM? So now this cell too is under-optimised as you're wasting space.

That's why, generally a cell is the first thing that's designed. Then subsequently missiles are designed for different purposes, constrained by the cross section of this cell.

 

[Blood+]

They can make a bigger cell to fit in 4x VL-SRSAM though no? the VLS being designed for it is custom made afaik, it's not supposed to be a UVLS.

Of course they can. In fact, common sense should dictate that that's what ought to be done from the very beginning!! Heck, given their dimensions, even Barak 8s can be quad packed (the missile body itself is even sleeker than that of ESSM) if the navy decides to go for an UVLS design with slightly wider cells (like the Mk-57 for example).

This bigger cell VLS can then also be used for atleast 2 of the Project Kusha missiles( i guess the last one is too long ) apart from Barak-8s

That will depend on the dimensions of the 2nd stage booster, but for that to happen, you'd have to build the damn UVLS first and THEN design and build your missiles to its specs, as @Ayan Barat pointed out. But we Indians love to do things a bit more hatke than the rest of the world as we like to put the cart before the horse for some reason.

 

[shade2]

Final trailer


View: https://x.com/narendramodi/status/1879177875070623927

There are some seconds showing MDL, what looks like one Nilgiri nearly complete and another right next to it partially done are visible.

 

[shade2]

Y'all nibbiars know what type of mine-countermeasure will the L&T MPV be able to do?
Is it dragging the minesweeper behind or the modern kind with ROVs to find and blow up the mines?


View: https://x.com/AdithyaKM_/status/1845777277834949072

 

[Ayan Barat]

INS Surat, INS Nilgiri & INS Vaghsheer
"That's one small step for Navy, one giant leap for MIC"

PM Modi commissions 3 naval vessels: Why INS Surat, INS Nilgiri, INS Vaghsheer are a game-changer?

Prime Minister Narendra Modi has commissioned three ships – INS Surat, INS Nilgiri and INS Vaghsheer — into service at the Naval Dockyard in Mumbai today (January 15). But what do we know about these ships? Why are they special?

www.firstpost.com

 

[Corvus Splendens]

D67 with FS Chevallier

 

[Blood+]

View attachment 21903
D67 with FS Chevallier

Mein Gott!! Even their tanker looks more stealthy than our 'stealth' destroyer.

 

[Ayan Barat]

View attachment 21903
D67 with FS Chevallier

A nice serene sunset, the faint rays of sun touch your face one last time before they vanish behind that endless horizon, the vast ocean making you realise what more is your existing than a mere spec of dust, your whole life flashes by your eyes, that breathtakingly pretty girl you once saw in your college, this job, the family back at home...you contemplate everything while standing on top of 300kg of pure high explosive, 2t worth of kerosene and few hundred kilos of solid rocket fuel.

You ask one last time; what was your existence?

 

[Anants]

Mein Gott!! Even their tanker looks more stealthy than our 'stealth' destroyer.

yes with extra stealthy vertical pillars, and special bionic arm which looks like crane makes its super stealthy

 

[shade2]

Y'all nibbiars, What was the "original" armament config of P-15A/Kolkata class does anyone know?

I guess originally it was meant to be a iterative improvement design on arm-launcher toting Delhi class but IN made changes to get it to the current state, where the design/armament gulf between P-15 Delhi and P-15A Kolkata is much wider as compared to the minor changes between P-15A and P-15B

Dangerous consequences of warships built in India

According to a 2010 CAG report on warship building, this year the navy will have just 44 per cent of the destroyers it needs; 61 per cent of the frigates; and 20 per cent of its requirement of corvettes, reports Ajai Shukla.

www.rediff.com

Per this ancient article IN demanded changes to integrate the Barak-8 VLS SAM( was MF-STAR also added or was it originally planned ? ) in place of "Kashtan SAM" ( The ciws or is this something else? )

According to the CAG's audit report, the Kashtan surface-to-air missile was replaced with the Long Range Surface to Air Missile (LR-SAM), which the Defence R&D Organisation (DRDO) is still co-developing with Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI).

IN also demanded changes to "gun mount" but i can't make out if this is the 76mm front cannon replacing the Roosi 100mm cannon or some other gun.

Similarly, the navy decided to change the gun mount in March 2008, after the first ship was launched. This "necessitated redesign of the entire structure around the gun mount" says the CAG.

 

[shade2]

Mein Gott!! Even their tanker looks more stealthy than our 'stealth' destroyer.

Not stealthy but it sure looks sexy as compared to our utilitarian looking under-construction HSL class tankers

 

[Blood+]

yes with extra stealthy vertical pillars, and special bionic arm which looks like crane makes its super stealthy
View attachment 21905

Han, abhi baal ke khaal nikalte raho aap. And it's not as if our stealth destroyer is lacking when it comes to vertical surfaces and clothe hangers sticking out of every bit of available real estate.