INS Vikrant: News and Discussion

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 03 May 2016 17:18

if you're going to be land based, then stick to phalcon, etc.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 03 May 2016 18:03

Well .......... C or D ....................... OK.

On the rejection of the E-2D:

NG made a presentation, on the E-2D, to the IN around 2014is.

USN offers design help in 2015 (not EMALS, but to design the boat).

News item in 2016 claiming IN interested in E-2D for Vishal.

MP mentioned end of this month to sign some agreement of help with carrier. I guess we will have to wait till then to get more definitive news.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 03 May 2016 18:37

Lalmohan wrote:if you're going to be land based, then stick to phalcon, etc.

Phalcon is L Band. E-2C/D are UHF. There are advantages to be in UHF vs LO/VLO.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 03 May 2016 18:45

Karan M wrote:Phalcon is L Band. E-2C/D are UHF. There are advantages to be in UHF vs LO/VLO.

L band has better counter stealth capability , its decameter radar

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 03 May 2016 19:28

^ The lower you go the better you are for bands designed for higher frequency radar cross section reduction. UHF and VHF are among the best with obviously the accompanying processing headaches required to make them work (and that's where design trades and mission needs comes in deciding which type to pick). For the counter low RCS, low altitude Cruise missile defense missions and surveillance, in the US the preffered bands are L, UHF and VHF, with more modern ESA's going to UHF (UHF MEADS surveillance, E-2D), and VHF (Raytheon JL AESA Surveilance radar).

The lower freq. radars are also more optimized for larger search volumes given power and cost thresholds [- the reason why in the missile defense application the stacked TPY-2 (even with GaN) proposal offered lower range performance, with higher power, and at a higher cost to the S band GaN setup they currently chose- of course X-band offers better discrimination but you can't use what you can't afford]. This is the same reason why no one puts a ginormous X-band radar on an AWACS

.

Processing and computing advances over the years has allowed them to look at more optimized lower frequency solutions so we have seen AWACS move away from C band down to L and UHF radars being tasked with more and more critical volume search and detection duties (such as the E-2C and E-2D difference allowing them to act as a node for AEGIS CEC). The challenge is obviously to develop higher end processing capability to meet more and more mission needs with these radars, and the increase in size that comes with the frequency being chosen being other obvious one.

2 slightly different classifications but..,

Below you'll find a graph from an old paper showing the relationship with a typical in service fighter and a couple of other reference fighter like aircraft from research studies into RCS. The FJ-2 referred to in the graph is in fact the F-86. The other two reference jets and scale model are taken from other research studies from the late 60's to early 70's (not related to any type that existed back then in service) and of course this only applies to types that are designed for Low RCS in specific bands and not broadband stealth considerations as you'll see in say the B-2 etc.

The X axis takes you from VHF all the way to the upper limits of X-band (The F86 data ends at S band)

The AN/APY-9 (E-2D radar) grew out of a US Navy funded developmental program in the late 80's or early 90's that brought together Lockheed Martin, Raytheon and MIT Lincoln Laboratory to test beam forming, clutter rejection and anti-jam techniques for a UHF radar geared towards low RCS cruise missile targets. Lockheed was able to continue R&D on its own and offer it to NG for the E-2D where the Navy wanted to retain the band coverage with its benefits but wanted to offload missions to it that would have demanded quite a bit of advanced processing capability essentially resulting in a complete overhaul of the sensor, and back end and a switch to an electronically scanned array hybrid.

Mihir · Post by **Mihir** » 03 May 2016 22:58

Interesting discussion. The UHF radar is certainly impressive, but how useful would its low-RCS capability be in actual operations? Even if it manages to detect low-RCS cruise missiles and missile carriers, those targets would still be difficult for your air defence missiles to acquire. So you would know that something is coming, but wouldn't be able to do much about it, right? Or am I missing something?

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 03 May 2016 23:18

but how useful would its low-RCS capability be in actual operations?

Even if it manages to detect low-RCS cruise missiles and missile carriers, those targets would still be difficult for your air defence missiles to acquire. So you would know that something is coming, but wouldn't be able to do much about it, right? Or am I missing something?

Cruise missiles and aircraft are a bit different since the latter come with support however, E-2D's + SM6's have just begun shooting down incoming low RCS subsonic surrogates, and faster supersonic missiles OTH to AEGIS using CEC. They will be demonstrating this for a few years still as the various blocks of the E-2D are fielded operationally. Over the next couple of years the USN will be integrating both the F-18E/F and the F-35C (F-18E/F is already integrated but more modes will be added) to NIFC-CA, allowing them to cue through E-2D which acts as both the sensor and the node for the SM6. Currently, there is only one known platform capable of doing this (E-2). Its not like the USN is new to using long range surveillance UHF radars, the predecessor to the APY-9 also operates in that range, however the difference is that the mission demands are different with the new sensor since they are more worried about subsonic and supersonic cruise missiles as opposed to bombers that are more easier to find and fix from afar. Israel is headed the SM6'esque direction with the Barak-8ER and its also an active missile that they'll probably look to open up for CEC at some point. They are planning to quite rapidly provide the ability to supplement the UHF E-2 radar with X-band AESA from both the F-18E/F and F-35 to expand the range and capability further downrange. On the ground side Raytheon paired their VHF radar with an X-Band AESA for the same purpose and Lockheed does the same for MEADS (UHF + X). The Chinese and the Russians use stepping radars as well in their ginormous IAD complexes.

In an anti-air capacity, the E-2D won't be generally looking to target something like the J-20 with an SM6, the idea would be to have them picket at stand off ranges and guide figthers for interception but LO to VLO aerial targets (manned fighters) have other tricks up their sleeves as well but regardless, the sensor choice lends itself to longer ranges in the surveillance sense and also better performances in case the aircraft, or the RAM is optimized for more higher frequency radars generally encountered and required to defeat (such as C, S and X band radars). Also, most of the organic broadband EW suites cover acquisition radar jamming and don't look to jam a very long range surveillance radar for obvious reasons.

Some errors in the article below but it gets most of it right (SM6 uses AMRAAM seeker technology, not the AMRAAM seeker since the differnces are yyyuuuuggeee to put it mildly )
http://breakingdefense.com/2014/08/non- ... ep-inland/

More stuff : viewtopic.php?f=3&t=5098&start=3280#p1967663

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 03 May 2016 23:22

IN has stated that we want a 3 carrier fleet. CSL has claimed that they can build a second Vikrant CV in 5 years if given the order now thanks to learning, streamlined processes etc. Judging by progress on Project 75I, SSNs, LPDs and other large orders, a 65000 ton carrier with EMALS, organic AEW, new aircraft will take at least 10-20 years ahead of 2025 to acquire. By which time Vikramaditya will be limping and we will be back to a 2 carrier fleet with disparate air wings and operating methods.

Building a Vikrant CV now will give me 3 carriers in 2025. It will give me the capability to position air power in 2-3 different corners of the ocean. IN will get the chance to stabilize training, SOPs, tactics around the STOBAR concept and perfect them. A smaller, cheaper aircraft carrier can also be used as a ASW platform like the Japanese navy. I doubt IN going to risk their one of a kind crown jewel to ASW missions.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 04 May 2016 00:16

Austin wrote:
Karan M wrote:Phalcon is L Band. E-2C/D are UHF. There are advantages to be in UHF vs LO/VLO.
L band has better counter stealth capability , its decameter radar

Brar' gave ze band stuff. So I will show you this how this stealth stuff dont work against ze mighty PRC

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1i2957SGqY

(Top secret)

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 04 May 2016 00:22

Mihir wrote:Interesting discussion. The UHF radar is certainly impressive, but how useful would its low-RCS capability be in actual operations? Even if it manages to detect low-RCS cruise missiles and missile carriers, those targets would still be difficult for your air defence missiles to acquire. So you would know that something is coming, but wouldn't be able to do much about it, right? Or am I missing something?

You detect at range and then cue your high powered higher band systems to concentrate on the known sectors and track targets for weapons guidance. They can still guide missiles in but would otherwise lose the crucial long distance pickup.

TSJones · Post by **TSJones** » 04 May 2016 01:59

supposedly China has super duper coastal radar that can pickup a/c carriers up to a 1000 miles away and then vector a nuke missile to the target.

for a first strike it might work, but after that the sub mafia will go to work and eliminate those radars with various options.

that won't help the poor squids who got nailed with the first strike though.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 04 May 2016 02:02

Mihir wrote:Interesting discussion. The UHF radar is certainly impressive, but how useful would its low-RCS capability be in actual operations? Even if it manages to detect low-RCS cruise missiles and missile carriers, those targets would still be difficult for your air defence missiles to acquire. So you would know that something is coming, but wouldn't be able to do much about it, right? Or am I missing something?

All radars can track low-RCS targets, the only variable is the range that which they do so. You basically use your E-2D for early detection. The APY-9 cues your SPY-1D FCR (or in IN's case the MF-STAR) which enables ESSM (or LR-SAM) launch at max possible range, with the missile's seeker going active in the terminal stage. The seeker range will be reduced vs a low-RCS target but the missile will also continue to receive mid-course updates through the data-link, so the missile's pK doesn't necessarily drop by a lot.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 04 May 2016 02:14

Aditya G wrote:IN has stated that we want a 3 carrier fleet. CSL has claimed that they can build a second Vikrant CV in 5 years if given the order now thanks to learning, streamlined processes etc. Judging by progress on Project 75I, SSNs, LPDs and other large orders, a 65000 ton carrier with EMALS, organic AEW, new aircraft will take at least 10-20 years ahead of 2025 to acquire. By which time Vikramaditya will be limping and we will be back to a 2 carrier fleet with disparate air wings and operating methods.

Building a Vikrant CV now will give me 3 carriers in 2025. It will give me the capability to position air power in 2-3 different corners of the ocean. IN will get the chance to stabilize training, SOPs, tactics around the STOBAR concept and perfect them. A smaller, cheaper aircraft carrier can also be used as a ASW platform like the Japanese navy. I doubt IN going to risk their one of a kind crown jewel to ASW missions.

Some risk has to be taken to acquire new capabilities. Prefer Vishaal to be a STOBAR, 50-60,000 tons with nuclear propulsion. Nuclear propulsion with Russian help to minimize risk, same plant as on SSN * 2. Backup plan conventional powered Vishaal. Carrier should allow for a future with FGFA and AMCA and can start with LCA and Mig 29.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 04 May 2016 02:35

ShauryaT wrote:Some risk has to be taken to acquire new capabilities. Prefer Vishaal to be a STOBAR, 50-60,000 tons with nuclear propulsion. Nuclear propulsion with Russian help to minimize risk, same plant as on SSN * 2. Backup plan conventional powered Vishaal. Carrier should allow for a future with FGFA and AMCA and can start with LCA and Mig 29.

That means you now have to hope that the AMCA & N-FGFA can take off from a ramp with an acceptable payload, forgo to option of tandem launch and recovery operation while also dropping the idea of operating a fixed wing AEW aircraft. All to ensure we avoid an EMALS acquisition...

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 04 May 2016 03:37

Aditya G wrote:IN has stated that we want a 3 carrier fleet. CSL has claimed that they can build a second Vikrant CV in 5 years if given the order now thanks to learning, streamlined processes etc. Judging by progress on Project 75I, SSNs, LPDs and other large orders, a 65000 ton carrier with EMALS, organic AEW, new aircraft will take at least 10-20 years ahead of 2025 to acquire. By which time Vikramaditya will be limping and we will be back to a 2 carrier fleet with disparate air wings and operating methods.

Building a Vikrant CV now will give me 3 carriers in 2025. It will give me the capability to position air power in 2-3 different corners of the ocean. IN will get the chance to stabilize training, SOPs, tactics around the STOBAR concept and perfect them. A smaller, cheaper aircraft carrier can also be used as a ASW platform like the Japanese navy. I doubt IN going to risk their one of a kind crown jewel to ASW missions.

Aditya ji,

You remind of the internet feature &t=1000, used for skipping the first 1000 seconds of a vid. That is what you have (inadvertently?) done.

Since I have some time to waste (my job got outsourced to India and the Philippines, so rebooting) here are some excerpts:

Pre-1989 India had planned on two "Air Defense Ships", both at 28,000 tons, with Harriers as part of their air wings. But that is too early, so will let it slide.

The former HMS Hermes was acquired from Britain in 1987 and was to serve only for five years after which she would be replaced by two indigenous aircraft carriers in the early 1990s. However, a decade-long delays in the IAC programme meant that the carrier had to serve for another two decades.

That is the genesis of Made in India carrierS. TWO of them. One per coast.

In 2009:

India's first indigenous aircraft carrier, the IAC, will be launched next year and commissioned in 2014, navy chief Admiral Nirmal Verma said at his maiden navy week press conference on Wednesday.

He hinted that the second aircraft carrier (IAC-2) which is to follow will be of a different type. "We are re-looking at the design. It won't be a copy of what we have today," Verma said.

....................................

Concepts currently being examined by the Directorate of Naval Design for the IAC-2 are for a conventionally powered carrier displacing over 50,000 tons and equipped with steam catapults (rather than the ski-jump on the Gorshkov/Vikramaditya and the IAC) to launch fourth generation aircraft.

So, in 2009, conventional power, 50,000 tons, steam cat and 4th Gen planes. Got that?

And, in 2009, the tooth fairy reappears:

Senior naval officials denied knowledge of receiving feelers for the sale of one of two Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers currently being built for the Royal Navy. A UK newspaper reported that budget cuts had forced the UK to sell off one of the 65,000 ton carriers which cost 2 billion pounds.

I think India should have bought those two and insisted on the UK purchasing the Indian carriers at that time. But, simple life has no fun in it.

All the above from: http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/Firs ... 73256.html

Now t=2011.

“Currently, there are two carriers under construction. The future Navy is based on two carrier battle groups (CBG), one on either coast. And if you have to ensure two CBGs, there has to be a third one. But the stage at which it happens is obviously linked to funding and today, there are greater funding priorities over a third aircraft carrier for the Navy.”

Here was the logic for three carriers. We need two, but to ensure there are two a third can be in the docks. Make sense.

SO, even with three carriers, the IN THEN had figured only TWO would be needed to handle any situations. Absolutely: One for BD + SL and the other for Pakis.

But, at that point in time the carriers were still the Russian Vicky, IAC I @ 40,000 and IAC II @ 50,000 tons. The first two ski and third a CATOBAR.

May, 2012 had an article that the Chinese were developing EMALS!!!!! Ding, ding, ding. The bells ring (I guess) (not going to track their carriers, but may be it is worth the while).

t=May, 2013:

The Indian Navy is planning to equip its second domestically built Vikrant-class aircraft carrier, INS Vishal, with General Atomics' (GA) new-generation catapult, Electro-Magnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS).

Still steam.

From: http://www.naval-technology.com/news/ne ... ft-carrier

Looks like the increase in weight came around 2014/15, not looked at it hard enough.

"Nuclear" was introduced in 2015.

So, there you have the skinny.

As such if you really want three carriers, what you have to recommend is building 4. The IN has marked one to be in the dock at all times.

Fun times.

I think the original plan (for the IAC II) had the AEW in it (no source for that as yet).

srai · Post by **srai** » 04 May 2016 03:49

One aircraft carrier per decade. This would stabilize around 4 or 5 carriers as old ones retire every 40-years.

Three SSN/SSBN per decade. This would stabilize around 12 to 15 nuclear submarines as old ones retire every 40-years.

No more one-offs without continuity. That has been one of the biggest detriment towards building up on know-hows. It needs to be continuous.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 04 May 2016 03:53

Well there is some indication that the intention to explore CATOBAR was referenced to in the IN released LOR -

The Indian Navy (IN) has invited responses by 22 July from overseas contractors to assist in designing a 65,000-tonne aircraft carrier, industry sources said.

The IN sent a letter of request (LoR) to BAE Systems, DCNS, Lockheed Martin, and Rosoboronexport on 15 July. It requires them to provide technical and costing proposals for the Indigenous Aircraft Carrier-2 (IAC-2) within a week.

On 17 July a BAE Systems spokesperson in New Delhi confirmed receipt of the LoR two days earlier.

IN sources said the LoR follows the 13 May allocation to the IN of INR300 million (USD4.83 million) by the ministry of defence (MoD) to begin concept work on IAC-2, likely to be named Vishal (Grand).

According to the LoR, the IAC-2 is envisaged as a 300 m-long flattop vessel with a catapult-assisted take-off but arrested recovery (CATOBAR) capability that can embark around 35 fighters and 20 helicopters.

The LoR also includes the option of the IAC-2 being fitted with General Atomics' Electro Magnetic Aircraft Launched System (EMALS) that will equip the US Navy's (USN's) Gerald Ford-class carrier, which is due to be commissioned in 2016.

While the IN envisages the carrier having a top speed of around 30 kt, the LoR does not specify the IAC-2's propulsion system - whether nuclear, conventional diesel or gas turbine - nor the type or class of combat aircraft that will comprise its air group, but invites recommendations.

Directorate of Naval Design (DND) architects said the installation of EMALS would enable the IAC-2 to launch fighters heavier than the IN's MiG-29Ks in addition to airborne early warning and control (AEW&C) platforms and unmanned combat air vehicles (UCAVs).

An evaluation of all such platforms is under way for the IAC-2, DND sources said.

Around 20 MiG-29K fighters are embarked on INS Vikramaditya (ex- Admiral Gorshkov ), the 44,750 tonne refurbished Kiev-class carrier that joined Indian service in January 2014.

An equal number comprise the air group of Vikrant , the 40,000 tonne Project 71 IAC-1 that was floated out at Cochin Shipyard Limited in June and is scheduled for commissioning in 2018.

To date the IN has acquired 45 MiG-29Ks for around USD2.8 billion, deliveries of which will be completed by 2016-17.Debate is under way within the DND about the IAC-2's proposed CATOBAR configuration - a radical departure from the 'ski jump' platforms that the IN has operated for more than five decades - its propulsion system and fighter complement.

Senior DND officials told IHS Jane's that it would take six to seven years to finalise the IAC-2's design details, identify a shipyard to build it locally and to develop its capacity to construct such a large vessel. None of the existing Indian shipyards is capable of building a 65,000 tonne warship without substantial expansion.

Meanwhile, in January the IN and USN established a working group of naval architects and technicians, which met recently, to further co-operation in aircraft carrier technology.

The United States is seeking to provide the EMALS capability through the recently launched bilateral Defence Trade and Technology Initiative (DTTI) that involves the transfer of 17 major technologies to India for co-development and co-production.

Industry sources said this aspect was discussed during US defence secretary Ashton Carter's visit to India in June, which included a trip to the IN's Eastern Command at Vishakhapatnam.

http://www.janes.com/article/53056/indi ... us-carrier

Khalsa · Post by **Khalsa** » 04 May 2016 04:00

Dear Brar Sir

Thanks for the detailed response on the previous page on the V22 as an AWACS.
Much enlightened

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 04 May 2016 04:02

I would like to, and plan on, seeing what events actually impacted each of these decisions. Going fro 28,000 ton ADS to 40,000, then 50,000 and finally 65,000 ton, considering nuclear propulsion in a matter of 20 years has to have some major events shape them.

Also, given these are carriers, this is one time I am glad that the Indians have been late. I think more time would help produce a mature design for its times and needs - global.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 04 May 2016 04:09

brar_w wrote:Well there is some indication that the intention to explore CATOBAR was referenced to in the IN released LOR -

The Indian Navy (IN) has invited responses by 22 July from overseas contractors to assist in designing a 65,000-tonne aircraft carrier, industry sources said.

The IN sent a letter of request (LoR) to BAE Systems, DCNS, Lockheed Martin, and Rosoboronexport on 15 July. It requires them to provide technical and costing proposals for the Indigenous Aircraft Carrier-2 (IAC-2) within a week.

On 17 July a BAE Systems spokesperson in New Delhi confirmed receipt of the LoR two days earlier.

........................................

The LoR also includes the option of the IAC-2 being fitted with General Atomics' Electro Magnetic Aircraft Launched System (EMALS) that will equip the US Navy's (USN's) Gerald Ford-class carrier, which is due to be commissioned in 2016.

While the IN envisages the carrier having a top speed of around 30 kt, the LoR does not specify the IAC-2's propulsion system - whether nuclear, conventional diesel or gas turbine - nor the type or class of combat aircraft that will comprise its air group, but invites recommendations.

Directorate of Naval Design (DND) architects said the installation of EMALS would enable the IAC-2 to launch fighters heavier than the IN's MiG-29Ks in addition to airborne early warning and control (AEW&C) platforms and unmanned combat air vehicles (UCAVs).

.........................

Meanwhile, in January the IN and USN established a working group of naval architects and technicians, which met recently, to further co-operation in aircraft carrier technology.

The United States is seeking to provide the EMALS capability through the recently launched bilateral Defence Trade and Technology Initiative (DTTI) that involves the transfer of 17 major technologies to India for co-development and co-production.

..............
http://www.janes.com/article/53056/indi ... us-carrier

Yeah, some of us, then, believed it was slanted towards the US. One week response time, with costs, proposals for propulsion that includes nuclear and EMALS? Yeah. I have one RFP response in my back pocket too - just for such an instance.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 04 May 2016 04:26

Yeah, some of us, then, believed it was slanted towards the US.

^ So slanted that HII didn't even get a mention. For shipbuilding Lockheed will take a week to figure out where to begin a proposal

then they'll call someone that actually knows what they're talking about.

sudeepj · Post by **sudeepj** » 04 May 2016 05:18

Viv S wrote:
ShauryaT wrote:Some risk has to be taken to acquire new capabilities. Prefer Vishaal to be a STOBAR, 50-60,000 tons with nuclear propulsion. Nuclear propulsion with Russian help to minimize risk, same plant as on SSN * 2. Backup plan conventional powered Vishaal. Carrier should allow for a future with FGFA and AMCA and can start with LCA and Mig 29.
That means you now have to hope that the AMCA & N-FGFA can take off from a ramp with an acceptable payload, forgo to option of tandem launch and recovery operation while also dropping the idea of operating a fixed wing AEW aircraft. All to ensure we avoid an EMALS acquisition...

Ha! A general and vague distrust of the US seems to be the only argument that the nay-sayers have. A carrier minus its AEW wing is a purely defensive ship. OK if you have other sticks to beat up your opponent, but not an opponent that is itself capable.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 04 May 2016 05:38

brar_w wrote:Well there is some indication that the intention to explore CATOBAR was referenced to in the IN released LOR -

In 2009. Steam version though.

That article is from 2015.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 04 May 2016 05:39

Karan M wrote:
Brar' gave ze band stuff. So I will show you this how this stealth stuff dont work against ze mighty PRC

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1i2957SGqY

(Top secret)

Good god..that animation and sound

Anyways, LO and Counter LO is a lot more complicated than that since there are a host of capabilities that make stealth what it is besides simple RCS calculus. As a recent paper I read said - "Treat stealth as Passive EW" and go from there. If the reds play have an over-reliance on very low freq. sensors, and that is driving there investment tracks than you are winning the battle. Thats the job of stealth, at least on a fighter or UAV to push the cost to find, fix and target higher and higher and higher and allowing you the ability to mess that SA up since its poorer in quality and get your weapons in. Problem is, if the enemy has a lot of good low RCS stuff then you run into the same issues, as physics is physics. There is quite some time for China to develop that level of Stealth though imho as there will be a curve.......

Mihir · Post by **Mihir** » 04 May 2016 06:18

Brar, Karan, Viv, thanks! So the missile essentially behaves as a command guided missile for most of its flight and flies under it's own active guidance for only a short portion of it. Interesting. The bandwidth required by the comms system when dealing with a propah swarm attack must be immense!

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 04 May 2016 06:26

^ Essentially that but for the fact that the AEGIS system calculates the target intercept (using its own sensor data or the fused data from the E-2D) and launches the SM6 so it flies autonomously prior to a update.... Same with the ESSM Block II but that doesn't have the range for OTH work. Under NIFC-CA the E-2D acts as the sensor and the node, connecting multiple AEGIS sensors and passing on tracks. The Missile communicates with AEGIS, with the E-2D providing OTH tracks to the main sensor (AEGIS or AMDR, DBR etc). The reason for that is to provide the strongest anti-jam data-link for the missile since no matter what DL the missile carries you won't get a beam stronger from the aircraft than the AEGIS sensor. They are also working on a dual band data-link system for interceptors, allowing multiple DL types to provide cues. The pipelines and waveform management is huge hence CEC hasn't really caught on in a big way until the last few years when initial blocks NIFC-CA have been put through their paces and released to the fleet. The SM6 really allows them the ability to do this and to think there is the possibility of another growth in range on that missile based on the SM3 growth plan..

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 05 May 2016 11:57

The primary need for Catobar is to operate a larger AEW aircraft than our Kamov AEW helos. Of course aircraft can be launched with heavier payloads,etc., but possessing AEW aircraft that would extend the EW coverage substantially helps carrier/task force air defence. The Q now arises what AEW aircraft? What is available and would be provided by the US,Ru,etc. Hawkeye ideal or are there better options in the future with even unmanned long endurance AEW aircraft envisaged. Since IAC-2 is going to be in service for at least 3-4 decades, there are key fundamentals that have to be factored in from the start,esp that of propulsion. For the moment another Vikrant class CV would be an excellent interim solution until the exotic tech for IAC-2's design is identified,including what type of aircraft will be aboard,the design conceptualised and budgeted for.It would cost at least twice as much as an IAC-1 follow on.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 05 May 2016 20:31

Philip wrote:The primary need for Catobar is to operate a larger AEW aircraft than our Kamov AEW helos. Of course aircraft can be launched with heavier payloads,etc., but possessing AEW aircraft that would extend the EW coverage substantially helps carrier/task force air defence. The Q now arises what AEW aircraft? What is available and would be provided by the US,Ru,etc. Hawkeye ideal or are there better options in the future with even unmanned long endurance AEW aircraft envisaged. Since IAC-2 is going to be in service for at least 3-4 decades, there are key fundamentals that have to be factored in from the start,esp that of propulsion. For the moment another Vikrant class CV would be an excellent interim solution until the exotic tech for IAC-2's design is identified,including what type of aircraft will be aboard,the design conceptualised and budgeted for.It would cost at least twice as much as an IAC-1 follow on.

I would like the Navy, along with Air Force, to take a real hard look at land based options, with launch points in A&N, Vietnam, Mauritius apart from mainland. On an IL-76 platform, we can provide our own unique solution for our needs for our region. Do not have to copy the US model in everything. High time we use the principle of objectives to match capabilities and not the other way around.

sudeepj · Post by **sudeepj** » 05 May 2016 21:11

ShauryaT wrote:
Philip wrote:The primary need for Catobar is to operate a larger AEW aircraft than our Kamov AEW helos. Of course aircraft can be launched with heavier payloads,etc., but possessing AEW aircraft that would extend the EW coverage substantially helps carrier/task force air defence. The Q now arises what AEW aircraft? What is available and would be provided by the US,Ru,etc. Hawkeye ideal or are there better options in the future with even unmanned long endurance AEW aircraft envisaged. Since IAC-2 is going to be in service for at least 3-4 decades, there are key fundamentals that have to be factored in from the start,esp that of propulsion. For the moment another Vikrant class CV would be an excellent interim solution until the exotic tech for IAC-2's design is identified,including what type of aircraft will be aboard,the design conceptualised and budgeted for.It would cost at least twice as much as an IAC-1 follow on.
I would like the Navy, along with Air Force, to take a real hard look at land based options, with launch points in A&N, Vietnam, Mauritius apart from mainland. On an IL-76 platform, we can provide our own unique solution for our needs for our region. Do not have to copy the US model in everything. High time we use the principle of objectives to match capabilities and not the other way around.

Talk to anyone with even a passing familiarity with doctrine about using force, and s/he will tell you that forces need to be concentrated. In other words, slam the enemy with your fist, don't tickle him with your fingers.

Land based AEW for use over a CBG spreads your resources instead of interleaving them in a way so that they all protect each other and thus multiply their potency. The fighters protect the AEW, the AEW provides early warning to the fighters, they both enable strike missions, and all of them enable the rest of the ships in your fleet to control/dominate the shipping in that area. Leave one of them missing and you have a fortress that has all of its gates well defended except one.

If you don't like US Emals/steam cats, that's OK. Lets get our own.. I mean.. how difficult can it be?

But lets stop this nonsensical charade that land based AEW can work for us. If land based AEW could work, why not a land based fighter air cover as well? The Sus have tremendous staying power..

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 05 May 2016 21:19

sudeepj wrote: If you don't like US Emals/steam cats, that's OK. Lets get our own.. I mean.. how difficult can it be?

But lets stop this nonsensical charade that land based AEW can work for us. If land based AEW could work, why not a land based fighter air cover as well? The Sus have tremendous staying power..

Look, I realize organic AEW is best. We do not have that option indigenously, do not know of any investments done in catapult steam or EMALS. Against the idea of acquisition in general and a US acquisition in particular, unless no other options exist. So, I am exploring the feasibility of the options. Can we explore those options instead of being a la poodle?

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 05 May 2016 21:26

E-2 may be an excellent system but there would be performance limitations on weight power range etc.

A land based a-330 solution could actually bring advantage. Say vikrant is 2 hours away and the platform has a 8 hour range. You could have 4 hours on station.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 05 May 2016 21:35

I realize organic AEW is best

WI (what-if) it is the only option? In 2030+?

Just asking

vikrant is 2 hours away

WI, 10 hours away? North of Japan - because that is where Indian national interests are? In 2040+.

Lets get our own.. I mean.. how difficult can it be?

I wish.

I was so high on the news that they were ready to invest in an engine for a tank - something a *lot* of Indians are actually doing in the US (and perhaps elsewhere). Have no clue where it stands today. 1500 HP machine. That is all.

The question is in the life span of that particular boat will it need to travel very long distances. And, if teh ans is yes, then what would it need for her and the safety of the accompaniment, in addition to providing safety for the "national interests".

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 05 May 2016 22:02

Do people feel that the IN will keep to a radius of 2-4 hours from Indian land form? That should provide a framework for this discussion.

I happen to think in 20 years Indian interests would span the globe. And, that Indian interests would feel the push back of a number of nations that have given in into nations like China - right in India's backyard, there is not one nation today that would support India. I just cannot see India backing down to such pressure across the globe. IF that is the scenario: where India is an economic power with NO supporting military might, India would be true coolie nation. Or supporting military only in the IOR is as bad.

BTW, IF Indian economy grows to - say $5 trillion (in X years). What exactly is India going to spend the 2.5% Def budget on? Importing everything and puttering around the IOR?

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 05 May 2016 22:18

Aditya G wrote:E-2 may be an excellent system but there would be performance limitations on weight power range etc.

A land based a-330 solution could actually bring advantage. Say vikrant is 2 hours away and the platform has a 8 hour range. You could have 4 hours on station.

True and if you can eliminate round trips to the same base and instead do routes which criss cross the IOR/SCS, you can have more hours on station.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 05 May 2016 23:26

ShauryaT wrote:Look, I realize organic AEW is best. We do not have that option indigenously, do not know of any investments done in catapult steam or EMALS. Against the idea of acquisition in general and a US acquisition in particular, unless no other options exist. So, I am exploring the feasibility of the options. Can we explore those options instead of being a la poodle?

The Vikrant will be powered by a set of GE engines (as will its sister ship, if ordered), same as the IN's fleet of P-17 & P-17A frigates. The N-Tejas will be powered by GE engine. It'll share the deck/hangar with the S-70 and work together in the air with the P-8I (and possibly the MQ-4C).

What exactly is so game-changing about the EMALS that it'll throw the entire's country's geopolitical status out of whack, to the point where we ought to embrace the idea of hamstringing the IN's next carrier to preserve the status quo?

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 05 May 2016 23:49

NRao,

You are repeatedly making the point that our interest may lie far away (eg: Japan) in the future which warrants us buying into a more larger and more capable platform compared to Vikrant Class.

My problem with this argument is:

1. It means that anything less USN style super carrier is not good enough. Vikramaditya and Vikrant will always loose the beauty contest with Ford Class or even CDG.

2. It does not consider that even if the carrier can operate in that area, and however large and powerful the carrier is, it need a matching compliment of ships. So you are looking not only at an expensive carrier ship, but at least 1 SSN, 1 nuclear cruiser, 1-2 destroyers or frigates, 1 fleet tanker to even venture into operational zone. to have 1 SSN in place you will need at least 1 more in the yard and another transiting to the area. You will need communication means with these SSNs. You will still need land based P-8Is to sanitize the sea. Uranium fuel supply for all of these. How feasible is this?

We should be wise to focus on building a capability and capacity which is robust and available on call within a certain radius from the mainland. I am suggesting that IOR seems the most doable with a relatively conservative and safe option of 40,000 STOBAR carriers. Your vision of ops in Japan will remain vapourware if you cannot even deploy and control IOR and SCS.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 05 May 2016 23:53

Aditya G wrote:E-2 may be an excellent system but there would be performance limitations on weight power range etc.

A land based a-330 solution could actually bring advantage. Say vikrant is 2 hours away and the platform has a 8 hour range. You could have 4 hours on station.

2 hours for an A-330 is about 1,500 km. For one, that puts 75% of the Indian Ocean out of the reach, unless we reduce the required time-on-station. Doing so, in turn, will result in more aircraft being required to get the job done. 24 hour AEW coverage of CBG, for example, will require a fleet of at least four AWACS working in relay. If you need to push down south beyond 2000 km (just to put that in perspective, Seychelles is about 2,800 km away), you may need upwards of six AWACS. The EMALS (~$1bn) plus 3-4 E-2Ds ($250 mil/unit) may, in fact, be the cheaper option.

Then there's the escort factor. You can dominate sovereign airspace with a mix of ground and air based assets. The same cannot be said when it comes to the skies over the entire ocean. The AWACS running relay to provide cover to the CBG are going to require fighter escort, which even the long-legged Su-30MKI will be hard pressed to deliver at such ranges. The alternative is to let them fly unescorted and risk being intercepted, or worse, giving away the CBG's general location. A carrier's biggest asset is its mobility, making it hard to track, given the sheer size of the ocean. An unfortunate consequence of that is that it'll be equally hard to track a PLAN CBG in the IOR, making it a persistent threat to A-330 ops.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 06 May 2016 00:20

Viv S: These discussions are not understood in terms of specific technologies. So, questions like if we have X from the US, why not Y also. We can go on with these discussions forever. The thing to understand is the following. When you buy US arms, you are not just buying those arms, you are buying into a security architecture. EMALS will not be without their involvement in ship design and of course the very next thing one will say, why not F-35 then and the hawkeye and the refuelers and the UAV's!! With EMALS comes a whole host of treaties and EUMA. Also, what do you do about propulsion, which they will not give for any price. I have it on reliable knowledge that a larger design of our propulsion will require Russian assistance.

When you have an ex-NSA working for the premier US think tank and express that buying into the US security architecture is OK, for people like me who have aspirations for India being an independent power, it becomes very concerning. Now the question becomes to what degree do we have to buy into that architecture. For good or bad, we have allowed them a foothold or shall we say a wide doorway by now into our military domain. We should replace this ASAP, Why?

The day the US departs from this role of being THE global security provider and being the global hegemon is the day, we welcome buying from them like we do from any other. Until then, they also remain a long term strategic competitor in the IOR - our primary area of interest. It is a competing power in the region by definition, who's interests differ substantially from Indian interests in what, how, when to deal with issues and in what manner in the IOR and its littoral states. A competitor who's services are useful in the pacific domain, until India can stand up to a rising China and if need be challenge her on our own strength.

The expectations is India shall not help them play their global games in the Pacific and in exchange do not expect their security umbrella in our back yard. We take that risk. India as a great power is not possible without our own investments and these investments have to reflect Indian objectives and priorities and capability evolution. India CANNOT be a power on borrowed strength. A castrated India living on borrowed strength is not my idea, even if many in GoI across political spectrums have effectively accepted, argued for or have hoodwinked in some cases the Indian public, leading us towards that objective of being a "free rider" of the US system. One thing the US has taught me is there is nothing free.

You do not become a $10 trillion economy first and then worry about protecting your interests. You define what your interests are FIRST and then protect it with increasing investments and capabilities. I do not buy this notion that one day we will become big and be on our own for one second. No precedence for the same in history. Not when Monroe put his doctrine, not when Elizabeth built her fleet and not when Mao defined ONE China! Yeltsin's mistakes in Russia is a stark reminder on what happens when you let your competitors too close - you compromise on your interests and loose geo-political power. This is not about EMALS as much, it is about power and interests and keeping a competing power out of your hairs. Provide me with an alternative for the P8 and I would want it replaced yesterday. So, support the light howitzer for now till ATAGS comes online and so forth.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 06 May 2016 02:32

Multiple points, but here goes:

Aditya G wrote:NRao,

You are repeatedly making the point that our interest may lie far away (eg: Japan) in the future which warrants us buying into a more larger and more capable platform compared to Vikrant Class.

No, nothing to do with me.

It is Modi, whose desire it is to grow the Indian eco to $20 trillion (PPP)(I assume in two terms in office, so another 8 years?) and the likes of World Bank that have projected India to be #2 (PPP) at $42 trillion in 2050.

I have asked this question before: with that kind of projections what does one see IN to look like in 2050?

Let me also quickly add another dimension: the same projections for 2050 expect Japan, South Korea and Australia to pretty much slide out of the economic picture. Which leads into my other question: Indian leadership in ASEAN. DO you see a need for Indian leadership under these two circumstances? I do. And that leadership can only be supported by a vibrant IN in THAT region.

There are other related question: as an example, with that kind of an eco, what will India do with her share of the Def budget, which should be around 5 times now?

(And I will leave the Indian internal black money eco out of thsi picture. SUpposedly it is twice as big as teh Indian eco.)

My problem with this argument is:

1. It means that anything less USN style super carrier is not good enough. Vikramaditya and Vikrant will always loose the beauty contest with Ford Class or even CDG.

I have provided the thumb rules that I have read. You see it as a "beauty contest" (Eh?). I do not. I see force projection. Serious projection.

China TODAY is talking to nations in her 'hood to disregard the US "pivot" and join China. This is in 2016. Seriously, in 2030 what do you think is going to happen? I am betting GoI will do more withdrawal of visas and IN will hold IFRs. With TWO Chinese naval bases on the Western side of India, I am betting no Indian politician will ever think of blockading Karachi. (Which brings up can India do without other nations, but that is a touchy topic. Right? Remember, no foundational agreements.)

I see China becoming MUCH stronger in the IOR and India MUCH weaker outside the IOR and insignificant in the IOR.

For each ship India invests in, China is building 1/3 to 1/2 for countries around India. I bet IN will be more busy fighting these small nations.

2. It does not consider that even if the carrier can operate in that area, and however large and powerful the carrier is, it need a matching compliment of ships. So you are looking not only at an expensive carrier ship, but at least 1 SSN, 1 nuclear cruiser, 1-2 destroyers or frigates, 1 fleet tanker to even venture into operational zone. to have 1 SSN in place you will need at least 1 more in the yard and another transiting to the area. You will need communication means with these SSNs. You will still need land based P-8Is to sanitize the sea. Uranium fuel supply for all of these. How feasible is this?

Yup. A $42 trillion eco needs that is my arg. Counter?

BTW, the Indian CBG for teh Vikrant should ahev been in palce by now - if thinsg were done on time.

We should be wise to focus on building a capability and capacity which is robust and available on call within a certain radius from the mainland. I am suggesting that IOR seems the most doable with a relatively conservative and safe option of 40,000 STOBAR carriers. Your vision of ops in Japan will remain vapourware if you cannot even deploy and control IOR and SCS.

In 2040 China will donate their first carrier to Pakistan and defy India to take on Pakistan when Pakis play around with India. No GoI will ever have the guts by then.

So, my args are not def based. They are eco based. And they are based on teh threat China is building in the IOR.

So, India needs a real blue water navy + needs collaborative efforts.

?????????? Have at it, but based on these points. I have no problem with a 40000 carrier as long as it putters around for IFRs, etc. Recall I had rejected the Vicky even before it came into Indian territorial waters. Today who even talks of her? Same will happen to teh Vikrant is what I am saying. No time to waste.

sudeepj · Post by **sudeepj** » 06 May 2016 02:48

ShauryaT wrote:You do not become a $10 trillion economy first and then worry about protecting your interests. You define what your interests are FIRST and then protect it with increasing investments and capabilities.

Thats axiomatic, and you are assuming that others have not done so when they argue for a closer security arrangement with the US including sourcing significant technological pieces from them.

What is the specific interest that is damaged by such an arrangement?

[And dont say, 'strategic autonomy'.. autonomy to do what? Also dont say itll damage own technological base.. because we arent investing in it anyway.. Also dont say, 'US is unreliable' .. au-contraire, US is an extremely reliable partner, *when* interests align. Witness the now 60+ year old partnerships with Japan and Europe..]