Indian Navy Developments & Discussions

[125mm_Smoothbore]

View: https://x.com/indiannavy/status/1878084667963818183

Navy is on a pr campaign

 

[shade2]

View attachment 21440

This ((( employees must work even on Sundays ))) company can't even put the details of their stuff on the website.
If it wasn't for DFB i'd never know they make triple torpedo launchers and RBU-6000 in India

 

[shade2]

View: https://x.com/indiannavy/status/1878084667963818183

Navy is on a pr campaign

Good they make these videos + are active with pictures on Twitter wagera, the Indian Navy website is down since sometime last year and the "recruitment" website has no info about the ships, subs and weapons used by Navy.

On their website when it was online they would give specs of the ships atleast, would clarify a lot of stuff, otherwise here we were playing CID over finding out if 533m Triple Torpedo Tube launcher exists or not.

 

[Ayan Barat]

I think this was displayed in 2022..

View attachment 21432

View attachment 21440

Good job lads, after seeing that video I was kind of sure that those are 324mm, but my theory was bit too weird, size of head is not small enough for a 533mm.
So then ultimately it's
L&T with 90hr workweek - 1
Vampyrbladez - 0

Anyways, people say the only thing I do is cry so will continue crying...

Our ASuW range decreased from 50km to 20km

 

[Ayan Barat]

Enough of memes, now a take.

We often compare our ships and packing density with that of USA but perhaps even more stark difference would be if we compare them with modern Russian designs. Like take the example of the new Talwars compared to Nilgiri

- Talwar is narrower by about 2.5m but still manages to cram slightly more ordnance
- both have pretty much the same 1x 8-cell BrahMos launcher
- Shtil-1 missile is substantially bigger compared to Barak-8
- though it's just one compared to two but still the RBU-6000 take lesser space on Talwar
- Talwar features a higher caliber gun

One explanation to all these would be the one that's usually given; it's just a way to future proof the ships. So whenever they go into their MLU, all the weapons that would have been developed by then would be added. If it's the case then nothing can be better than this but if not then there's some serious optimization problem going on.

Another interesting point I found while going through all these was automation, may be @Binayak95 Sir can shed some light on it but what are the levels of automation compared to our contemporaries?
• Mogami, 5,500t - 90
• Iver Huitfeldt, 6,600t - 165
• Baden-Württemberg, 7,200t - 110
• Absalon, 6,600t - 100
But in our case even the 900t ASW-SWC has a crew of 57 or for 6,600t Nilgiri it's 226. So is this the maximum accomodation capacity that's erroneously quoted everywhere as complement or do we really need more hands on deck?

 

[Blood+]

Good job lads, after seeing that video I was kind of sure that those are 324mm, but my theory was bit too weird, size of head is not small enough for a 533mm.
So then ultimately it's
L&T with 90hr workweek - 1
Vampyrbladez - 0

Anyways, people say the only thing I do is cry so will continue crying...

Our ASuW range decreased from 50km to 20km

Sometimes I wonder what was even the point of producing these 6800 ton 'frigates'.

Enough of memes, now a take.

We often compare our ships and packing density with that of USA but perhaps even more stark difference would be if we compare them with modern Russian designs. Like take the example of the new Talwars compared to Nilgiri
View attachment 21495
- Talwar is narrower by about 2.5m but still manages to cram slightly more ordnance
- both have pretty much the same 1x 8-cell BrahMos launcher
- Shtil-1 missile is substantially bigger compared to Barak-8
- though it's just one compared to two but still the RBU-6000 take lesser space on Talwar
- Talwar features a higher caliber gun

50% is not something that can be considered 'slight', bud. The adjective you were looking for is 'SIGNIFICANT'.

One explanation to all these would be the one that's usually given; it's just a way to future proof the ships. So whenever they go into their MLU, all the weapons that would have been developed by then would be added. If it's the case then nothing can be better than this but if not then there's some serious optimization problem going on.

Another interesting point I found while going through all these was automation, may be @Binayak95 Sir can shed some light on it but what are the levels of automation compared to our contemporaries?
• Mogami, 5,500t - 90
• Iver Huitfeldt, 6,600t - 165
• Baden-Württemberg, 7,200t - 110
• Absalon, 6,600t - 100
But in our case even the 900t ASW-SWC has a crew of 57 or for 6,600t Nilgiri it's 226. So is this the maximum accomodation capacity that's erroneously quoted everywhere as complement or do we really need more hands on deck?

BINGO!! Been saying this for years now (and took much flak for it too).

 

[Ayan Barat]

took much flak for it too

Don't worry Comrade, I'm relieving you

 

[Blood+]

Don't worry Comrade, I'm relieving you

I'm waaaaaaaaaay past that point, mate. Anyway, I added some more content to that post.

 

[Nutcracker]

Anyways, here's something interesting.
The Navy would never tell you this, but you can definitely build two 2BHKs on the bow of the new Nilgiri Class frigate. Imagine what else is the Navy hiding from us...
View attachment 21343

Navy twitter handle literally says...

 

[Bleh]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=URVmmCQ977c

Always use Youtube, because X's video compression sucks.

View attachment 21361View attachment 21359View attachment 21360View attachment 21358View attachment 21357View attachment 21356View attachment 21355View attachment 21354View attachment 21353View attachment 21352

God's this thing is beautiful!

YES, but...

 

[Bleh]

made this low quality edit. NGMV is the worst looking design we have came up with... or maybe the aswswc is

I love it!

 

[shade2]

- Shtil-1 missile is substantially bigger compared to Barak-8

Isse yaad aaya, this question was bugging me but never asked before, Shtil-1 is bigger than Barak-8 even i've noticed, but how does Barak-8 have 100km range and Shtil-1 only 50km?

Barak-8 uses better rocket fuel? Barak-8 carries lighter warhead?

 

[Blood+]

Isse yaad aaya, this question was bugging me but never asked before, Shtil-1 is bigger than Barak-8 even i've noticed, but how does Barak-8 have 100km range and Shtil-1 only 50km?

Barak-8 uses better rocket fuel? Barak-8 carries lighter warhead?

Single pulse vs dual pulse, more energetic fuel, a narrower, more streamlined body and smaller wings thus less drag.
Warhead size is pretty much the same.

 

[shade2]

Single pulse vs dual pulse, more energetic fuel, a narrower, more streamlined body and smaller wings thus less drag.
Warhead size is pretty much the same.

Ok thanks, looks like will have to do some reading on rocketry and missiles

btw is it true our Project Kusha missiles are based on Barak-8 design, i see renders on the interwebs and those resemble Barak-8 with a booster, but those are fan-made most likely

 

[Ayan Barat]

btw is it true our Project Kusha missiles are based on Barak-8 design, i see renders on the interwebs and those resemble Barak-8 with a booster, but those are fan-made most likely

It's called convergent evolution where two different systems independently evolve but because they're meant to do the same role, they resemble each other.

Moreover LRSAM was a joint venture with Israel concerned with all the subsystems and we with basic schema and most importantly, the rocket motor. The work on dual pulse rocket motor is solely because of us that's why you'd see that after this breakthrough, there was a flurry of all kind of indigenous missiles getting a dual pulse motor. Astra Mk-1 was upgraded with a dual pulse rocket motor in Mk-2. NGARM also features one. Even in the new extend range RGB-60 you'd find traces of a dual pulse motor.

 

[Corvus Splendens]

God's this thing is beautiful!

YES, but...View attachment 21511

Rest of the real estate reserved for Viswa Yoga Divas. Smart.

 

[shade2]

It's called convergent evolution where two different systems independently evolve but because they're meant to do the same role, they resemble each other.

Moreover LRSAM was a joint venture with Israel concerned with all the subsystems and we with basic schema and most importantly, the rocket motor. The work on dual pulse rocket motor is solely because of us that's why you'd see that after this breakthrough, there was a flurry of all kind of indigenous missiles getting a dual pulse motor. Astra Mk-1 was upgraded with a dual pulse rocket motor in Mk-2. NGARM also features one. Even in the new extend range RGB-60 you'd find traces of a dual pulse motor.

Tracks with what i saw on the Nitin Gokhale factory tour of BDL the Commodore who is the head there was describing Barak-8 production, the seekers come from Israel but the rocket motor was India's work.
Thanks for these details about dual-pulse motor though, didn't know it's used in the other missiles also

 

[Dharmocrat]

Enough of memes, now a take.

We often compare our ships and packing density with that of USA but perhaps even more stark difference would be if we compare them with modern Russian designs. Like take the example of the new Talwars compared to Nilgiri
View attachment 21495
- Talwar is narrower by about 2.5m but still manages to cram slightly more ordnance
- both have pretty much the same 1x 8-cell BrahMos launcher
- Shtil-1 missile is substantially bigger compared to Barak-8
- though it's just one compared to two but still the RBU-6000 take lesser space on Talwar
- Talwar features a higher caliber gun

One explanation to all these would be the one that's usually given; it's just a way to future proof the ships. So whenever they go into their MLU, all the weapons that would have been developed by then would be added. If it's the case then nothing can be better than this but if not then there's some serious optimization problem going on.

Another interesting point I found while going through all these was automation, may be @Binayak95 Sir can shed some light on it but what are the levels of automation compared to our contemporaries?
• Mogami, 5,500t - 90
• Iver Huitfeldt, 6,600t - 165
• Baden-Württemberg, 7,200t - 110
• Absalon, 6,600t - 100
But in our case even the 900t ASW-SWC has a crew of 57 or for 6,600t Nilgiri it's 226. So is this the maximum accomodation capacity that's erroneously quoted everywhere as complement or do we really need more hands on deck?

It's the lesson learned from the battles of Royal Navy ( still the navy with the most action seen historically ) like the battle of Trafalgar, with Nelson.

The British had fewer ships but were able to keep them operating despite taking shit load of casualties because trained manpower was available. It's a gold standard lesson, one which every navy will incorporate into its doctrine if it's fighting to win, not just be a glorified Coast Guard.

Naval fighting is serious business, not just a dck measuring contest of who has the latest greatest shinier kit. The critical component of whether a ship can take hits and still keep fighting is the number of crew and their training. Short of getting sunk in one hit, every scenario would need crew numbers to become operational again with redundancy to account for battle casualties.

Lets say a ship running on automation with minimal crew components because it's the latest fad faces some action. What makes you think that ship can keep fighting after taking a hit? Or do you think a hit that takes out half of the mission critical systems will somehow spare the automation systems?

It's in the nature of warfare that you will take hits. Smart and serious people will take that into consideration and plan for fighting even with a half crippled ship, because it is far better to have a half crippled ship capable of fighting than just be a load on the existing infra for SAR, which is limited and already would be stretched to its limits during full scale war.

 

[Ayan Barat]

It's the lesson learned from the battles of Royal Navy ( still the navy with the most action seen historically ) like the battle of Trafalgar, with Nelson.

The British had fewer ships but were able to keep them operating despite taking shit load of casualties because trained manpower was available. It's a gold standard lesson, one which every navy will incorporate into its doctrine if it's fighting to win, not just be a glorified Coast Guard.

Naval fighting is serious business, not just a dck measuring contest of who has the latest greatest shinier kit. The critical component of whether a ship can take hits and still keep fighting is the number of crew and their training. Short of getting sunk in one hit, every scenario would need crew numbers to become operational again with redundancy to account for battle casualties.

Lets say a ship running on automation with minimal crew components because it's the latest fad faces some action. What makes you think that ship can keep fighting after taking a hit? Or do you think a hit that takes out half of the mission critical systems will somehow spare the automation systems?

It's in the nature of warfare that you will take hits. Smart and serious people will take that into consideration and plan for fighting even with a half crippled ship, because it is far better to have a half crippled ship capable of fighting than just be a load on the existing infra for SAR, which is limited and already would be stretched to its limits during full scale war.

So we'll use the lesson learnt on 21st October, 1805 to plan for our war of 2040? Ask Horatio Nelson, what do he think of the idea of an flying vehicle with rotating blades dropping self guided rockets that go underwater and a small boat, without a crew that can fire a self guided rocket to take down that aircraft with rotating blade. He'll have the best laugh of his life

With every two hands on deck there comes a mouth to feed, a lump of flesh to save from fire, NBC and give medical support. And space for it to sleep. With every eight hands you need one life raft.

I guess every single navy in the world from USA, to Korea, to China, to France, to Germany, to Japan is stupid. Armies too, who keep replacing the loader with an auto-loader and truck drivers with self driving UGVs.

 

[Blood+]

It's the lesson learned from the battles of Royal Navy ( still the navy with the most action seen historically ) like the battle of Trafalgar, with Nelson.

The British had fewer ships but were able to keep them operating despite taking shit load of casualties because trained manpower was available. It's a gold standard lesson, one which every navy will incorporate into its doctrine if it's fighting to win, not just be a glorified Coast Guard.

Naval fighting is serious business, not just a dck measuring contest of who has the latest greatest shinier kit. The critical component of whether a ship can take hits and still keep fighting is the number of crew and their training. Short of getting sunk in one hit, every scenario would need crew numbers to become operational again with redundancy to account for battle casualties.

Lets say a ship running on automation with minimal crew components because it's the latest fad faces some action. What makes you think that ship can keep fighting after taking a hit? Or do you think a hit that takes out half of the mission critical systems will somehow spare the automation systems?

It's in the nature of warfare that you will take hits. Smart and serious people will take that into consideration and plan for fighting even with a half crippled ship, because it is far better to have a half crippled ship capable of fighting than just be a load on the existing infra for SAR, which is limited and already would be stretched to its limits during full scale war.

Name checks out.