Indian Home-built Stealth Frigate Sahyadri At Pearl Harbor For RIPMAC 14

[janon]

@Basel : Ships are big, but the sea is bigger!

The point is that the oceans are very, very large, and nobody can continously scan such large surface areas all the time. Think about how difficult it would be to find a car hidden somewhere in Pakistan. Now think how much bigger a ship is than a car, but also how much bigger the ocean is than Pakistan. Findind a needle in a haystack would be much easier.

Pakistan (or anybody else) cannot continously monitor the entire ocean. Check out how much surface area can be monitored by a P-3C Orion, and check out how many Orions you have. Same goes for Indian assets. Without some prior intelligence, they cannot keep tracking every enemy ship all the time. India has 160 ships, at least a 100 of them big warships. (Not counting the coast guard's assets.) Does Pak have any way to track so many ships in the open ocean all the time?

The world's oceans are several times larger than the earth's landmass.

So maritime reconnaisance aircrafts have to keep scanning areas of interest and hope to detect hostile ships or subs. If those hostile ships are stealthy, then it is all the more difficult to spot them. And even after spotting, it is difficult to track them if they don't reflect radar waves. And an anti ship missile will also find it very difficult to lock on to a stealthy ship, as opposed to a non stealthy one.

@gambit can explain better.

 

[Abingdonboy]

Hyper-sonic missile are incorporated in it or not ?

Bhramos-2 will be integrated once it is in service later this decade.

 

[gambit]

Low radar observability is more important to a ship than to a fighter aircraft for a simple reason: speed.

A maneuvering aircraft can changes its aspect angles to a seeking radar far much more rapidly than a ship can and in radar detection, consistency and patterns are killers to any complex body caught inside a radar beam.

A maneuvering fighter can present the large plate aspect (top or bottom views) to the seeking radar in one micro-second and a much smaller edge or frontal aspect on the next micro-second, hoping for, and often successfully, breaking radar lock. A ship do not have the speed to execute rapid aspect angles changes so much prefers environmental assistance, usually surface level water base phenomena, to diffuse or even absorb radar signals, to avoid detection.

A maneuvering aircraft have 3D spatial freedom. A ship is restricted to 2D.

Speed, or rather much less capable thereof, and limited spatial translation ability of the ship do not present the 'dwell time' problem for the seeking radar to establish consistent radar lock.

What is 'dwell time' ? It is essentially how long must a radar be on a body before there is sufficient echo energy for the radar computer to establish a determination that there is a 'target'.

This is a two-way street that involves:

1- The seeking radar must be 'looking' at the body for a certain duration.

2- The body should present a steady state of physical being.

3- Beam width.

A maneuvering aircraft create problems for item 2. A ship restricted to 2D space is far less problematic, so much less that a ship is statistically nil when it comes to dwell time as a problem. The longer a target is cooperative for item 2, the greater the S/N ratio for the seeking radar to establish certainty that there is a target. The larger the beam width, the more energy on the target per scan/sweep cycle.

Put all three items into a relationship, and a ship is considered a highly 'cooperative' target for radar detection, whereas with the fighter aircraft, item 2 is highly inconsistent, which demands higher and higher time on item 1, and because this is a maneuvering target, the required operating freq gets higher and higher, which generally results in smaller and smaller beam width, which affects item 1 precisely because the fighter is problematic for item 2. This make the fighter aircraft already a 'non-cooperative' target without any 'stealth' enhancements.

 

[The Great One]

@Basel : Ships are big, but the sea is bigger!

The point is that the oceans are very, very large, and nobody can continously scan such large surface areas all the time. Think about how difficult it would be to find a car hidden somewhere in Pakistan. Now think how much bigger a ship is than a car, but also how much bigger the ocean is than Pakistan. Findind a needle in a haystack would be much easier.

Pakistan (or anybody else) cannot continously monitor the entire ocean. Check out how much surface area can be monitored by a P-3C Orion, and check out how many Orions you have. Same goes for Indian assets. Without some prior intelligence, they cannot keep tracking every enemy ship all the time. India has 160 ships, at least a 100 of them big warships. (Not counting the coast guard's assets.) Does Pak have any way to track so many ships in the open ocean all the time?

The world's oceans are several times larger than the earth's landmass.

So maritime reconnaisance aircrafts have to keep scanning areas of interest and hope to detect hostile ships or subs. If those hostile ships are stealthy, then it is all the more difficult to spot them. And even after spotting, it is difficult to track them if they don't reflect radar waves. And an anti ship missile will also find it very difficult to lock on to a stealthy ship, as opposed to a non stealthy one.

@gambit can explain better.

While the surface area of all the oceans is indeed MASSIVE. Pakistan P-3C's doesn't have to scan all of it. They only have to scan the area relevant to them i.e the one from where IN could attack them or perhaps block their shipping routes. While the latter is certainly beyond their reach, the former is not. Surface radars, AWACS's, P-3C's and PN's own naval assets can cover them pretty well.

Now, @gambit
Stealths ships seems rather useless from your post. But then why would everyone make one if it was so?(Not a rhetorical question)


EDIT: Correction. LOL I finally saw that your post was trying to explain why VLO was needed for ships.

 

[janon]

While the surface area of all the oceans is indeed MASSIVE. Pakistan P-3C's doesn't have to scan all of it. They only have to scan the area relevant to them i.e the one from where IN could attack them or perhaps block their shipping routes. While the latter is certainly beyond their reach, the former is not. Surface radars, AWACS's, P-3C's and PN's own naval assets can cover them pretty well.

And which areas are those, and how much surface area is that? Are there any geographic features that give them an advantage, like we have the Malacca straits WRT the Chinese? To prevent the PLAN from attacking us, we don't need to scan the entire IOR - if we continuously monitor the tiny Malacca straits, that ought to prevent them from entering IOR undetected. But does PN have any such bottlenecked areas vis a vis the IN?

 

[The Great One]

And which areas are those, and how much surface area is that? Are there any geographic features that give them an advantage, like we have the Malacca straits WRT the Chinese? To prevent the PLAN from attacking us, we don't need to scan the entire IOR - if we continuously monitor the tiny Malacca straits, that ought to prevent them from entering IOR undetected. But does PN have any such bottlenecked areas vis a vis the IN?

I don't know. I am not a military planner. But the longest range missiles used by the IN aren't more than 300 km so make your guess(K-15 is a non operational nuclear tipped missile, hence excluded). The much greater threat for them is from the IAF.
But the problem isn't as exaggerated as your post seems to indicate. Anyway, let's wait for Gambit's reply on stealth ships.

 

[janon]

I don't know. I am not a military planner. But the longest range missiles used by the IN aren't more than 300 km so make your guess(K-15 is a non operational nuclear tipped missile, hence excluded). The much greater threat for them is from the IAF.
But the problem isn't as exaggerated as your post seems to indicate. Anyway, let's wait for Gambit's reply on stealth ships.

The primary task of the IN would not be land attack. The IAF and IA can do that much more easily. The IN would be expected to do naval duties - blockading their trade routes, preventing their ships from attacking our merchant ships, and so on. To that aim, our ships can sail pretty much anywhere in the IOR and approach their ships from N number of directions.

 

[The Great One]

The primary task of the IN would not be land attack. The IAF and IA can do that much more easily. The IN would be expected to do naval duties - blockading their trade routes, preventing their ships from attacking our merchant ships, and so on. To that aim, our ships can sail pretty much anywhere in the IOR and approach their ships from N number of directions.

And as I said earlier they can do nothing about it.
PN on the other hand will be lodged up alongside their coast (or will run away to RSA) and operate under air cover and hence the importance of range, which we lack.

 

[IND151]

Low radar observability is more important to a ship than to a fighter aircraft for a simple reason: speed.

A maneuvering aircraft can changes its aspect angles to a seeking radar far much more rapidly than a ship can and in radar detection, consistency and patterns are killers to any complex body caught inside a radar beam.

A maneuvering fighter can present the large plate aspect (top or bottom views) to the seeking radar in one micro-second and a much smaller edge or frontal aspect on the next micro-second, hoping for, and often successfully, breaking radar lock. A ship do not have the speed to execute rapid aspect angles changes so much prefers environmental assistance, usually surface level water base phenomena, to diffuse or even absorb radar signals, to avoid detection.

A maneuvering aircraft have 3D spatial freedom. A ship is restricted to 2D.

Speed, or rather much less capable thereof, and limited spatial translation ability of the ship do not present the 'dwell time' problem for the seeking radar to establish consistent radar lock.

What is 'dwell time' ? It is essentially how long must a radar be on a body before there is sufficient echo energy for the radar computer to establish a determination that there is a 'target'.

This is a two-way street that involves:

1- The seeking radar must be 'looking' at the body for a certain duration.

2- The body should present a steady state of physical being.

3- Beam width.

A maneuvering aircraft create problems for item 2. A ship restricted to 2D space is far less problematic, so much less that a ship is statistically nil when it comes to dwell time as a problem. The longer a target is cooperative for item 2, the greater the S/N ratio for the seeking radar to establish certainty that there is a target. The larger the beam width, the more energy on the target per scan/sweep cycle.

Put all three items into a relationship, and a ship is considered a highly 'cooperative' target for radar detection, whereas with the fighter aircraft, item 2 is highly inconsistent, which demands higher and higher time on item 1, and because this is a maneuvering target, the required operating freq gets higher and higher, which generally results in smaller and smaller beam width, which affects item 1 precisely because the fighter is problematic for item 2. This make the fighter aircraft already a 'non-cooperative' target without any 'stealth' enhancements.

Nice explanation..................

 

[axisofevil]

I used to have an issue with the workmanship of Indian ships but reading the facts brought on by some INdian posters, I am glad to be wrong! Good job @ Kloitra and Abingdong,,,,,

 

[janon]

I used to have an issue with the workmanship of Indian ships but reading the facts brought on by some INdian posters, I am glad to be wrong! Good job @ Kloitra and Abingdong,,,,,

Abingwhat?

 

[sudhir007]

 

[Aepsilons]

In these two pictures; to the right; The JS ISE, Japan's Helicopter Destroyer/ Carrier.

These are of the Hyuga Class. The 2 new ones we are building of the Izumo Class is 3 times as large.