First Project-15B Bangalore-class DDG hull : satellite pics

[Abingdonboy]

and toward the aging helicopter fleet of the navy and any possible replacements.

The IN is already working on inducting the S-70B as for the NLUH I think the BELL 429 is likely to win out.

 

[Penguin]

Off-topic question what is your thought towards a replacement for the RBU6000, and toward the aging helicopter fleet of the navy and any possible replacements.

Sea Kings are getting long in the teeth, for sure. Perhaps some Sikorsky S-92 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia aka Sikorsky CH-148 Cyclone - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

RBU6k is old and 'close in' but does provide potential hard kill anti-torpedo CIWS capability. In that sense, replacement with just 324mm torps may not be improvement.

 

[IndoUS]

The IN is already working on inducting the S-70B as for the NLUH I think the BELL 429 is likely to win out.

Will the S-70b be replacing our helis on Kolkata and other ships or would they for the future ships only?

 

[Abingdonboy]

Will the S-70b be replacing our helis on Kolkata and other ships or would they for the future ships only?

Simple- ALL Sea Kings in service today will be replaced by the S-70B so yes- where ever a Sea King is deployed (or meant to be) now (Destroyers, ACCs, Frigate etc) the S-70B will be operating from in the future.

 

[Dillinger]

It is not in the missiles but in the radar and CMS.


Tender for a 03 Ft Ship Model of P15B as per TSP

1.6.4 02 DECK:
SL. DESCRIPTION QTY. NOS
1 BR. LAUNCH MODULE (8 NOS) 2 SET
2 S.M. LAUNCH MODULE (16 NOS) 1 SET
11 AK 630 M 4
16 SM. LAUNCH MODULE (16 NOS) 2 SET > i.e. doubling the rear VLUs. OR 16 cells, split in 2 seperate 8- cell units

1.6.6 BRIDGE TOP/04 DECK
SL. DESCRIPTION QTY.
NOS
4 GN. BAL-E 1
8 ANT 5P –10E 1
10 LW-8 MK- III/RAWL-02 1 <<<!!!!!

SM. LAUNCH MODULE (16 NOS) 2 SET CANNOT BE TAKEN TO MEAN 16 CELLS DIVIDED INTO TO TWO BANKS OF 8 CELLS.

Why?

It is known that the primary munitions cells number 16, this much is verified and corroborated.

These 16 cells for the AShMs have been represented as "BR. LAUNCH MODULE (8 NOS) 2 SET".

Thus "(8 NOS) 2 SET" translates to 16 cells or in mathematical terms 8*2

And therefore "(16 NOS) 2 SET" will translate to 32 cells or in mathematical terms 16*2 rather than 16/2.

IF "(16 NOS) 2 SET" meant 16 cells divided into banks of 8 THEN the 16 AShM cells would have been represented by " BR. LAUNCH MODULE (16 NOS) 2 SET".

Simple- ALL Sea Kings in service today will be replaced by the S-70B so yes- where ever a Sea King is deployed (or meant to be) now (Destroyers, ACCs, Frigate etc) the S-70B will be operating from in the future.

The model shows no change in the ASR/VSR, it retains the RAWL 2D radar!

IF this model shall be the definitive representation of the final product then this shall be an upset.

 

[Omega007]

SM. LAUNCH MODULE (16 NOS) 2 SET CANNOT BE TAKEN TO MEAN 16 CELLS DIVIDED INTO TO TWO BANKS OF 8 CELLS.

Why?

It is known that the primary munitions cells number 16, this much is verified and corroborated.

These 16 cells for the AShMs have been represented as "BR. LAUNCH MODULE (8 NOS) 2 SET".

Thus "(8 NOS) 2 SET" translates to 16 cells or in mathematical terms 8*2

And therefore "(16 NOS) 2 SET" will translate to 32 cells or in mathematical terms 16*2 rather than 16/2.

IF "(16 NOS) 2 SET" meant 16 cells divided into banks of 8 THEN the 16 AShM cells would have been represented by " BR. LAUNCH MODULE (16 NOS) 2 SET".



The model shows no change in the ASR/VSR, it retains the RAWL 2D radar!

IF this model shall be the definitive representation of the final product then this shall be an upset.

Yeah,and for expressing your frustrations you become a "spoiled rotten"!!Welcome to PDF.

 

[Dillinger]

Yeah,and for expressing your frustrations you become a "spoiled rotten"!!Welcome to PDF.

Lol, Penguin has been observing navies evolve for some time now, when we get impatient he tends to get exasperated, so he said that we should think on terms of decades rather than a few years.

 

[Omega007]

Lol, Penguin has been observing navies evolve for some time now, when we get impatient he tends to get exasperated, so he said that we should think on terms of decades rather than a few years.

I know that and I appreciate his level of knowledge very much,in fact I would be understating if I say I just appreciate him.I actually envy him for his knowledge on naval ships and their assorted systems.

But in my humble opinion, stating our anxiety as "spoiled rotten" is stretching it a bit too far.Because looking at the size and displacement of the P 15B,its weapons and sensor suits given at that pdf seems somewhat inadequate to say it gently;and hence our disappointment isn't totally unfounded or illegitimate to be termed as "spoiled rotten".

 

[Echo_419]

The IN is already working on inducting the S-70B as for the NLUH I think the BELL 429 is likely to win out.

Will there be any Offsets or TOT's from these contracts or we will get nothing in Knowhow

 

[Dillinger]

Will there be any Offsets or TOT's from these contracts or we will get nothing in Knowhow

Phir wahi savaal!

Know how is present even when one is fabricating cabins for the helos, it is present when HAL builds the Sukhoi's engines etc. AND IT MEANS NOTHING! There is nothing called ToT, not in the terms that you are imagining it to be.

Whenever you here ToT in our context (be it the Rafale being compliant with the ToT conditions or any other system) it refers to M-ToT, the latter term denotes what "ToT" means properly.

At best, it allows for operational independence, the ability to produce spares and rotables in country, the ability to deal with programmable systems in country, the ability to program say the digital library of an EWS/ECMS, the ability to integrate 3rd party non-OEM munitions or systems independently.

IT does not translate to a transfer of the "KNOW WHY". What jingos think is posited by the term "ToT" actually deals with the Know Why rather than the Know How and they conflate the two. The Know Why is NEVER transferred except for in rarest or rare cases (in India's context, the Europeans and Muricans go about it quite happily between each other).

 

[spectribution]

Hey guys, got an idea while thinking about the P 15B class. The P 15 A and P 15B are virtually identical right?
Even VSR is now shown to be the same. So I kinda looked at the pic and came to a pretty surprising conclusion.

If you guys see the first two cavities they look like the 8 cell Brahmos UVLM module right and just behind that a bigger cavity for the LR SAM? Then behind that we see the crane and the cavity for the mast and behind that two smaller cavities for LRSAM. The same arrangement is found in the below picture of INS Kolkata.

The tender said 2 X 8 CELL BRAHMOS UVLM
2 X 16 CELL LRSAM
2 X 8 CELL LRSAM

By dimensions the Barak 8 VLS is smaller than the Brahmos UVLM. So my guess is that the longer cavity behind second Brahmos cell is for the 2 X 16 Barak 8 and the two smaller ones near the hangar are the 2 X 8 cell Barak 8. Thus the P 15B has 48 LRSAM.

Hence we can also assume that because the P 15B is almost identical to P 15A in armament and the position of the VLS cells with respect to one another is same, can the P 15A also be having 48 Barak 8 LRSAM in it's inventory?

 

[Omega007]

I just don't understand why this craving for the so called "ToT"??What purpose it has served our country so far other than delays and cost overruns??How much this "ToT" crap has helped to evolve our military industrial complex??

OFB has been producing T 72M1s and T 90s for a long time now,has it helped us even a bit in designing the Arjun??No.

HAL has been producing Migs,Jags and Su s including the engines for a long long time.Has it helped us in designing our LCA??Not at all,at least not in any significant ways.

MDL has in the past built HDW Type 209 diesel electric submarines,yet it's facing difficulties in producing the Scorpenes.

I simply don't understand why our government opted for "full" ToT for Rafale when it's already well-known that "full ToT" is nothing but a joke,no country would never give out the critical parts which they developed through years of hard work and millions of investments so that we can make a copy,then market it at a cheaper price and they loose their businesses!!This opting for ToT is making things worse since HAL would take additional years to build the facilities,their rate of production will be definitely lower compared to Dassault and HAL produced birds will cost significantly greater.

Instead the GoI should have bought the planes directly from Dassault in fly away condition and invested in through life product support from the OEM.

 

[Dillinger]

I just don't understand why this craving for the so called "ToT"??What purpose it has served our country so far other than delays and cost overruns??How much this "ToT" crap has helped to evolve our military industrial complex??

OFB has been producing T 72M1s and T 90s for a long time now,has it helped us even a bit in designing the Arjun??No.

HAL has been producing Migs,Jags and Su s including the engines for a long long time.Has it helped us in designing our LCA??Not at all,at least not in any significant ways.

MDL has in the past built HDW Type 209 diesel electric submarines,yet it's facing difficulties in producing the Scorpenes.

I simply don't understand why our government opted for "full" ToT for Rafale when it's already well-known that "full ToT" is nothing but a joke,no country would never give out the critical parts which they developed through years of hard work and millions of investments so that we can make a copy,then market it at a cheaper price and they loose their businesses!!This opting for ToT is making things worse since HAL would take additional years to build the facilities,their rate of production will be definitely lower compared to Dassault and HAL produced birds will cost significantly greater.

Instead the GoI should have bought the planes directly from Dassault in fly away condition and invested in through life product support from the OEM.

Lol, the Type 209 thing was a somewhat genuine case of ToT, even today we have the right to produce more. But since we discontinued the line we lost most of the fabricating and floor level expertise, which we are now trying to reattain with the scorpenes (which is another story altogether, with the sort of skulduggery the MoD has engaged in in that regard).

 

[Omega007]

Lol, the Type 209 thing was a somewhat genuine case of ToT, even today we have the right to produce more. But since we discontinued the line we lost most of the fabricating and floor level expertise, which we are now trying to reattain with the scorpenes (which is another story altogether, with the sort of skulduggery the MoD has engaged in in that regard).

Oh really!!You mean like the FH 77B??Sorry, I didn't know that,could you kindly elaborate the case a bit and why was it discontinued??!!And if indeed that was the case,then don't you think that MoD and IN should have gone for the follow up Type 214 SSKs instead of going for a totally different design??What's your take??

 

[Dillinger]

Oh really!!You mean like the FH 77B??Sorry, I didn't know that,could you kindly elaborate the case a bit and why was it discontinued??!!And if indeed that was the case,then don't you think that MoD and IN should have gone for the follow up Type 214 SSKs instead of going for a totally different design??What's your take??

Spot another navy for me which somehow wants to operate 3 different submarines, from three different OEMs concurrently (and yes the Kilos will serve for quite some time side by side with the Scorpene given that vessels of the class have been undergoing upgrades in the late 2000s).

We discontinued the line because the MoD in its wisdom felt like it, we picked a different OEM for Project-75 because that's how we roll and IF better sense does not prevail we might pick a different class of subs for the P-75I because we want to teach the whole wide world a lesson in inanity!