Indian Navy Developments & Discussions

[vampyrbladez]

View: https://x.com/MazagonDockLtd/status/1878731204268322857

 

[Fatalis]

The US is aiming for 99 Arleigh Burke (FLT I/II/III) at a rate of 2-3 per year based on this very argument, not to mention a casual 20 Constellation class frigates and DDG(X).

Actually US Navy is planning to have 87 LSC which will include DDG(X) and AB Flight III. Also, they are planning to field 87 FFGs.

 

[Ayan Barat]

That clips not from IN, it's from USS Rodney M. Davis. I simply used it to examples of low level task from which humans can be freed.

For example, point 1 is wrong - Repeatedly it has been shown that apart from technical aids, having a dude talking the pilot through landing has the least accident rate

What I'm saying is a relatively new piece technology and only in the past 5 or so years countries have seriously started to pursue it so I'd like to see the empirical evidence you're using for this accident rate statement.
By the way, here's one recent from USN

Same for point 3, this "dudes pushing heli" doesnt happen, if you see the channels on the deck, those are what the heli is dragged through automatically into the hangar. Also been implemented in the Indian navy.

Those channels are called rails and it's an older piece of technology because even with rails you'd be needing those "dudes pushing heli" to straighten and align the helicopter with the rail after it lands, the rail simple pulls the helicopter in and out of the hangar in a straight line...for any king of maneuvering you still need good ol human Mk-1.

I'm talking about advanced versions of Rail Less Helicopter Traversing Systems. Take the example of INDAL MANTIS

Or even with rails you can have something like the Twin Claw, that doesn't require human intervention


Automation, whenever used to free up humans from simple tasks are always useful. Ask an old ATGM gunner who trained initially on Konkrus but now got MP-ATGM; what's his opinion about automation.

 

[vampyrbladez]

Actually US Navy is planning to have 87 LSC which will include DDG(X) and AB Flight III. Also, they are planning to field 87 FFGs.

That is the projected LSC for the USN however older Raleigh Burke (FLT I) may be kept in service for much longer.

Department of the Navy plans to operate 12 Arleigh Burke class (DDG 51) Flight I Destroyers beyond their 35-year expected service life.

The decision, based upon a hull-by-hull evaluation of ship material condition, combat capability, technical feasibility and lifecycle maintenance requirements, will result in an additional 48 ship-years of cumulative ship service life in the 2028 to 2035 timeframe.

https://www.navy.mil/Press-Office/P...sions-for-12-destroyers-to-keep-more-ready-p/

 

[Binayak95]

That clips not from IN, it's from USS Rodney M. Davis. I simply used it to examples of low level task from which humans can be freed.

What I'm saying is a relatively new piece technology and only in the past 5 or so years countries have seriously started to pursue it so I'd like to see the empirical evidence you're using for this accident rate statement.
By the way, here's one recent from USN
View attachment 21748

Those channels are called rails and it's an older piece of technology because even with rails you'd be needing those "dudes pushing heli" to straighten and align the helicopter with the rail after it lands, the rail simple pulls the helicopter in and out of the hangar in a straight line...for any king of maneuvering you still need good ol human Mk-1.

I'm talking about advanced versions of Rail Less Helicopter Traversing Systems. Take the example of INDAL MANTIS
View attachment 21756
Or even with rails you can have something like the Twin Claw, that doesn't require human intervention
View attachment 21757

Automation, whenever used to free up humans from simple tasks are always useful. Ask an old ATGM gunner who trained initially on Konkrus but now got MP-ATGM; what's his opinion about automation.

L&T is trialing one search rail-less traversal system onboard a warship at the moment, except its far ahead of this bakchodi, think YoLo like ML model to detect the helo and orient pucks on the deck to lock onto the gears.

 

[Hawkeye]

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.

 

[shade2]

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.

1) Gareebi, and goras, chings etc have all their SAM VLS on the bow, our guys have 2x modules on the bow and 2x midships but you get 32 missiles only, for frigates this is standard world-wide.


2) As for muh Mk41, muh Sylver, those have quad-packed missiles, so an 8-cell module can carry 4 missiles per cell so 32 missiles per module, IN doesn't seem to bother with this even with VL-SRSAM and it's VLS module, besides per rumors, DRDO is having trouble with handling even a single missile within the VLU, the missile's launch puts pressure on the VLU casing etc so they're going for a redesign of VLU.

 

[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.