Comparing PLAN to Indian Navy

[Number1azn365]

Nah i was referring to the new FAC (2208 - 22XX)... Thats really true, we dont really know nothing about the Yuan. Some say its just a Song on steroids and others say it may be in the same category as the Kilo. There have been "rumors" or maybe "confirmations" that 2 more 052C destroyers will be put down this year?

 

[doggychow14]

I'm pretty confident that the songs are first generation. Loud and annoying.

I dunno about that. I think i read somewhere that the Song uses a german Diesel. If they were loud and annoying PLAN would not be still producing them.

 

[Number1azn365]

I dunno about that. I think i read somewhere that the Song uses a german Diesel. If they were loud and annoying PLAN would not be still producing them.

I agree with doggychow14, why would China be upgrading the Songs if they are loud and annooying...?

"The Type 039 (NATO codename: Song class) is China’s new design conventional submarine intended to replace the ageing Ming and Romeo class in service with the PLA Navy (PLAN). The Type 039G is the modified variant with a redesigned sail to improve its underwater performance. Currently Wuhan Shipyard, Wuhan and Jiangnan Shipyard, Shanghai are building the third variant of the submarine with some further modifications, possibly including the air independent propulsion (AIP) system."

 

[dabrownguy]

Lack of choice. You do remember PLAAF inducting the obsolete J-8's don;t you?
Quite possibly one of the worlds worst jets but because it was the only BVR capable fighter China could produce, PLAAF inducted them.

 

[doggychow14]

Lack of choice. You do remember PLAAF inducting the obsolete J-8's don;t you?
Quite possibly one of the worlds worst jets but because it was the only BVR capable fighter China could produce, PLAAF inducted them.

Back then china had no choice. The russians were not selling and the j-10 was still in its early stages. Its either that or more j-7s.

 

[dabrownguy]

I would have gone for the J-7. It has more potiental and has endurence. PLAAF never seems to "glaot" about the J-8.

 

[Pathfinder-X]

How did we get from comparison of naval power to combat aircrafts? Please get back on topic.

 

[dabrownguy]

I got the latest new on IN developments.
Apparantly the IN's P-16A and P-15 hold 32 VLS barak!:coffee
Its assumed they still use two CWIS.

 

[doggychow14]

I got the latest new on IN developments.
Apparantly the IN's P-16A and P-15 hold 32 VLS barak!:coffee
Its assumed they still use two CWIS

Can you give the specs of the barak? I'm not familar with the sam. How does it campare with the SA-N-12 or hq-9?

 

[tatra]

On Delhi class, of each pair of AK630 on each beam, the forward AK630 was removed and replaced by 2x8 VL cells for Barak. Also, the standard Bass Till firecontrol radars associated with AK630 were removed. On each beam, the radar supporting sponson was extended outwards and an Elta El/M-2221 radar director installed. This will control both Barak and remaining Ak630. Starting with INS Delhi, all three vessels of P15 class apparently now so fitted.

On P16 (Godavari) class, the original SAM was removed and replaced by 4x8 VL Barak. At least 1 El/M2221 was installed on the bridge. There probably is another one on the helkicopter hangar or rear mast to provided all round coverage. Also, there is a new Elta search radar mounted on the forward mast. Although INS Ganga was first, all 3 P16 class apparently now so fitted.

A similar fit can be expected for the P16A Brahmaputra class, which apparently has also been refitted already.

Carrier INS Viraat had received 1 Elta El/M-2221 radar director and 2x8 VL Barak to augment its 2x AK630. The Barak cells are mounted on the vehicle park section of the flight deck. This is just behind the island structure, next to a large crane.

This accounts for 10 of the 17 systems ordered by India from Israel. I expect to see the remaining systems probably on the first 4 of 6 planned Project 28and on 3 upgraded Rajput (Kashin II) classes but also possibly on INS Vikramaditya (ex-Gorshkov) and/or P17 (though these are more likely to get the russian Kashtan gun-missile CIWS units).

See following links for details on Barak;
http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/missile_systems/sea_missiles/barak/Barak.html
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NAVY/Barak.html

 

[Number1azn365]

Does the Indian navy have anything like the 052C... I know the 052B's and Delhi's are comparable.

 

[tatra]

No, I don't think so. Then again, unlike China, the Indians have carrier based aviation, which covers the air defense role.

 

[doggychow14]

No, I don't think so. Then again, unlike China, the Indians have carrier based aviation, which covers the air defense role.

China, however, does not need an aircraft carrier at the moment as they are not a blue water navy and are currently trying to counter Taiwan and the US weapons in a possible taiwan conflict.

 

[aaaditya]

well i beleive carriers would be quite usefull to china if it wants to take on usa,as a matter of fact i beleive china should go in for a heavy nuclear powered carrier(they already have a defensive nuclear reactor technology and iam sure they can build huge ships and then mate the two together.:coffee

 

[Number1azn365]

Well GF has stated a few times in different threads that the new officer or w/e of PLAN is an ex-submarine guy so I think the Chinese will concentrate on submarines for the time being.

 

[tatra]

China, however, does not need an aircraft carrier at the moment as they are not a blue water navy and are currently trying to counter Taiwan and the US weapons in a possible taiwan conflict.

The point was how each navy is dealing with its naval air defense requirement. Since both face a different situation, requiring a different capability, you see that reflected in where they each put emphasis (AAW destroyer versus CV)

 

[wp2000]

Well GF has stated a few times in different threads that the new officer or w/e of PLAN is an ex-submarine guy so I think the Chinese will concentrate on submarines for the time being.

Can you quote me as saying China will start to refit and build ACs very soon as well?

Ha, just kidding. Anyway, personally I think AC is not that urgent. But as I have said in other threads, PLAN thinks differently. So what can you do?

 

[berry580]

For god's sakes is there even a point for the Indians having carrier group?
America built so many carrier battle groups in the past was a symbol of power to confront the Russians during the Cold War and the Russians countered it with air & sea launch long rang anti-ship missiles. For now, the carrier battle groups are there for projectional power. As we all can see, the Americans can basically bully any country as long as they don't have nuclear weapons to play with.
But what purpose does it serve for India? Symbol of power? Well a carrier battle group where most of the important component being bought apparently doesn't serve its purpose for symbolism too effectively, when also considering the number of carrier that India has.
Projectional power? Well apparently America is in total control of the sea, their bases are almost everywhere, India's influence is almost nil besides to neighbouring country. Their major rival neighbouring China and Pakistan has nuclear weapons, so this 'projectional power' doesn't affect them.
So what purpose does this carrier battle group serve? Well it's simple, it serves no purpose but to use up HIV researching funds and keeps the Russian scientists thinking + Russian arms company running.

 

[berry580]

Can you quote me as saying China will start to refit and build ACs very soon as well?

Ha, just kidding. Anyway, personally I think AC is not that urgent. But as I have said in other threads, PLAN thinks differently. So what can you do?

So what purpose would a carrier serve for the PLAN?
Symbolism of power? Well apparently, China seems to possess the technology in building a mid-sized carrier but haven't. Possibilties is that their recent arms modernisation has caught enough attention worldwide, and an addition of a carrier will only cause more problem politically. In other words they have created more than enough symbol of their power and they probably don't need more.

For projectional power? Their current main problem is Taiwan. Apparently, a carrier does actually serve a purpose for attacks on Taiwan as it acts as a military command & control + refuel base for PLA troops and sea air base to provide air support. But protection for a carrier requires many years of experience and large amount of funds, and it seems like PLA generals has realised this point that the PLA don't have the time and funds to allow this fighting format doable. Especially when considering their opponent may not be only Taiwan but also America. China currently is pretty much surrounded by American bases, and a carrier battle group will do no good for projectional power since the USN carrier battle group is likely to be bigger and more technologically advanced and more experienced, meaning they'll have no chance in competing 1 for 1.
And the alternative would be a force of submarine which cost relatively less but more effective if against the Americans as a submarine force possess the element of surprise and can act as a deterrent which is an even better bet.
For what purpose can a carrier serve for the PLA?
It basically serves no purpose if beyond the Taiwan Strait. Within it and if is in war with Taiwan, then it can act as an airbase for PLANAF fighters to provide air over for landing troops on Taiwan and be a command & control center and should all go well IF America doesn't intervene.
If the Americans intervene, the carrier either represents a running elephant or a giant sea coffin.

 

[doggychow14]

So what purpose would a carrier serve for the PLAN?
Symbolism of power? Well apparently, China seems to possess the technology in building a mid-sized carrier but haven't. Possibilties is that their recent arms modernisation has caught enough attention worldwide, and an addition of a carrier will only cause more problem politically. In other words they have created more than enough symbol of their power and they probably don't need more.

For projectional power? Their current main problem is Taiwan. Apparently, a carrier does actually serve a purpose for attacks on Taiwan as it acts as a military command & control + refuel base for PLA troops and sea air base to provide air support. But protection for a carrier requires many years of experience and large amount of funds, and it seems like PLA generals has realised this point that the PLA don't have the time and funds to allow this fighting format doable. Especially when considering their opponent may not be only Taiwan but also America. China currently is pretty much surrounded by American bases, and a carrier battle group will do no good for projectional power since the USN carrier battle group is likely to be bigger and more technologically advanced and more experienced, meaning they'll have no chance in competing 1 for 1.
And the alternative would be a force of submarine which cost relatively less but more effective if against the Americans as a submarine force possess the element of surprise and can act as a deterrent which is an even better bet.
For what purpose can a carrier serve for the PLA?
It basically serves no purpose if beyond the Taiwan Strait. Within it and if is in war with Taiwan, then it can act as an airbase for PLANAF fighters to provide air over for landing troops on Taiwan and be a command & control center and should all go well IF America doesn't intervene.
If the Americans intervene, the carrier either represents a running elephant or a giant sea coffin.

well both India and China are beginning the transition to a green water navy to a blue water navy. When a country operates a blue water navy, carriers are almost vital. nothing can match the fire power of an aircraft carrier unless you consider ssbns.