Indian Naval News & Discussion - 12 Oct 2013

sum · Post by **sum** » 04 Mar 2015 10:58

Observers contend that the 10 years of power held by the UPA Government will go down in history as a period when India’s military modernisation programme took a serious hit under the baton of former Defence Minister AK Antony, who was obsessed with maintaining his ‘squeaky clean image’ rather than dealing with inordinate delays in the prompt supply of spares and refits caused by stubborn bureaucrats. One joint secretary under Antony’s turf, Ram Subhag Singh, is understood to have been instrumental in not clearing any requests from the forces on emergency supplies for years. One such, for a change in submarine batteries, was kept pending by him for over a year-and-a-half. Subhag Singh’s long and disruptive tenure ended after Prime Minister Narendra Modi took charge last year and shunted out several joint secretaries across ministries for being inefficient and having spent long tenures at the same post. Singh was posted to NAFED as its managing director in the very first lot of transfers ordered by the Modi Government.

The Government’s decision on Dhowan itself took 50 days, and was then announced with undue haste even as last year’s General Election neared in May. That is when interested parties, ranging from influential Congress leaders to others, combined to push through an announcement at the earliest. As the intrigue grew, a strategy was crafted. Antony’s opposition to naming a new Naval chief so close to the polls notwithstanding, he was ordered to fall in line in the first fortnight of April 2014. Antony was called on the phone and directed to abort his poll campaign in Thiruvananthapuram and rush back. The then Defence Minister gave his assessment of all three candidates: Vice Admirals Shekhar Sinha, Robin Dhowan and Satish Soni.

Intelligence Bureau inputs were then sought. The then vice chief’s record did not have the requisite clearance from the IB. But the ubiquitous weapons lobby had thrown its support behind one of the chief of naval staff probables. IB Chief Asif Ibrahim was then summoned, and, according to sources, he was directed to submit a report. A former IB chief, who by then was part of the national security establishment, played a key role in securing Ibrahim’s ‘all clear’ for the process. However, there was a problem. A key member of the Appointments Committee of the UPA Cabinet was Home Minister Sushil Kumar Shinde, who was busy campaigning in Sholapur, Maharashtra. Time was running out.

A special aircraft was kept on standby. Shinde was contacted and informed of the decision. The file signed by all other members of the ACC was flown with a special messenger to Sholapur, where Shinde penned his signature that sealed the fate of Shekhar Sinha, who had been assured by Antony that his seniority would be respected.

Despite the model code of conduct by the Election Commission already being in force, the UPA Government appointed a new Navy chief. When the decision was announced, the BJP protested.

The 10 years of UPA1/2 were really lost years for Desh!

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 04 Mar 2015 12:09

The damage done to India tx to the Snake-Oil regime of Dr."Quack" Singh,is incalculable. More damage was done to the armed forces and security of the country than any pro-active effort by both Pak and China combined.It was a strategic victory for our enemies that our modernisation programmes were sabotaged Some insiders say that this was also at the behest of a western power,who wanted us to remain weak. While this cannot be confirmed,it is sufficient to note that the "pro-active inaction" of the Cong/UPA delighted our enemies and those wishing to see us kept firmly "subdued and stunted below the Himalayas". Most galling of all was the utter dereliction of duty when it came to the health and safety of the IN's sub fleet,allowed to virtually rust and disintegrate thanks to non-supply of sub batteries,components,etc.,leading to cannibalization of subs for parts,and fatal accidents including the SR tragedy.

Remedying the situation will take a few years at least,it cannot be achieved overnight or within a year too. The politics that also grew in the higher echelons of the three services,the VKS affair,Adm.Joshi's sad resignation after cheap accusations from the "Saint" AKA,saw the IN bearing the brunt of the mismanagement. Despite the neglect of the service,the manner in which it has relentlessly pursued the goal of indigenisation has been magnificent. With swift decision-making by the NDA-2,to augment and improve the force structure of the IN, It can look for far better times ahead in the next 5 years.

srin · Post by **srin** » 04 Mar 2015 22:05

I'd take the cost escalation reports of naval projects (and most of our indigenous projects) with a pinch of salt. Even a couple of billion dollars for three Kolkata class is pretty cheap. A single Type45 (rough equivalent in terms of generation and armament) costs over a billion pounds (per wiki). So initial estimate of half a billion for three ships reflects bad price estimation rather than cost overrun.

OTOH, definitely there is a pretty bad delay of in the naval projects. Again that's been our track record for all projects, and we need to factor in our plans. Hopefully, the concurrent order to two shipyards for P17A will ensure timeliness and should be the template for the future.

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 04 Mar 2015 22:44

Pipavav OPV. Looks like a mini talwar class.

There was a news item that they secured an export order for a "west african" nation. Whatever happened to that?

John · Post by **John** » 04 Mar 2015 23:26

Look like it is based on Saryu class which was designed by Severnoye who also designed Talwar.

There was a news item that they secured an export order for a "west african" nation. Whatever happened to that?

Most likely it is false, the news article was never confirmed.

titash · Post by **titash** » 05 Mar 2015 00:35

AFAIK, the Pipavav OPV was designed by an American/Canadian company "Alion" and the Saryu class was an in-house design by GSL.

John · Post by **John** » 05 Mar 2015 02:58

^ Titash, Err my mistake regarding Saryu got the name confused with Goa shipyard OPV contract. But for what it is worth Janes reported Pipavav OPV was bought from Severnoye. Which is also used as source in wiki page take it with a grain of salt since Janes didn't list any source for that report.

Pipavav OPV are 110m, 2000-2500 tonne offshore patrol vessels with maximum speed of 24 knots and long endurance. They will be fitted with radars and EW systems supplied by Bharat Electronics Ltd and a 76-mm automatic Oto-Melara gun assembled by Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd.. As per the 'Buy Design Abroad and Build In India' clause of the contract it is based on an OPV design procured from the Severnoye ( Northern Dockyards) Ship Design Bureau located at St Petersburg, Russia.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 05 Mar 2015 07:25

will there be barak1 SAMs in the raised block between the bridge and the main gun?

vardhank · Post by **vardhank** » 05 Mar 2015 07:51

Philip wrote: Some insiders say that this was also at the behest of a western power,who wanted us to remain weak.

"Some insiders" say this was at the behest of little alien puppy dogs who want to take over India and turn it into a giant pink marshmallow. "Some insiders" can say pretty much anything we want them to say, hmm?

More than a Western power, I'd look at a Eurasian power, whose name rhymes with Shmussia, who might be more interested in keeping us from developing our own mil-ind complex. Who benefits? Who benefits if we don't go in for full-scale production of the Arjun and instead keep buying T-90s? Who benefits if we let the LCA die and buy more MiG-29s, MiG-35s, or even, wonder of wonders, new MiG-21s? Would it be a Western power who, in its own reprehensible way, wants us to be the shock troops against China (and therefore needs us to be muscular), or this fictional country called Shmussia who needs us to keep buying their equipment, and indeed, seems to be very good at getting us to abandon our projects and buy theirs?

I don't have a thing against Russian equipment, nor do I have a thing against conspiracy theories, but this constant "Russia! Russia! Woo! Rah! West bad bad!" is tiring. If we want to look at why the UPA government messed up, let's do so, by all means, but using every single topic in the forum to promote Russia or accuse the USA isn't ok in my book.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 05 Mar 2015 10:01

These "insiders" have been v.accurate in their info. over years.For obvious reasons,they are nameless.

In one of the articles during the air show,reg. the NLCA,should the MK-2 naval version arrive,the IN wants "50+".The interesting thing about this titbit is where these aircraft will be operating from and when will we get them.We will possess only 2 carriers for the next decade+,the Vik-A and IAC-1.Both these carriers will have their full complement of 45+ MIG-29s and multi-role/AEW helos.IAC-2,where N-power is being toyed with ,larger at 65,000t,will only arrive nearer to 2030. The timeframe for the MK-2 versions from collated info/statements from the air chief,DRDO (Aero) boffin Dr.T., and Proj Dir.Mr.H.S.,is that the first prototype will fly in late 2018,IOC expected in the "early 2020s".Only the MK-2 swill meet the 1998 ASRs of the IAF.The IAF will not order more Mk-1s,whose slow production rate will see that the 40 on order will be completed until Mk-2 production arrives.So that give us at the most optimistic timeframe,8 years of production of Mk-2s in the next decade until 2030.Unless the production rate is more than 16-20/yr. rught from the start,there is no way that HAL can meet both the IAF and IN's demand for LCA MK-2s.

The larger IAC-2 will by then,a decade+ from now, demand a far superior twin-engine naval aircraft than the small LCA and even the current MIG-29K. The IN may look at the naval variant of the FGFA shown in some models of planned new Russian carriers,or even look at the JSF USN variant,(not USMC STOVL variant) if a CATOBAR system is adopted. Could the NLCA be operated aboard our planned 4 amphibs for close support? Until the design of the amphibs are chosen and seen,one cannot know.

jamwal · Post by **jamwal** » 05 Mar 2015 10:19

There is no harm in navy having a large air wing as long as the fundis are coming and air force isn't affected.
Our long term vision must be to have a powerful navy. Air force can fight only localised wars.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 05 Mar 2015 10:24

IN will eventually grow into a 10 carrier navy.

2 Small 40 K ton ships( Vik+Vik ). + 4 large 60 K ton ships (Vishal + 3) + 4 large Helo carriers.

This will require the INs fleet air arm to have some sharp teeth.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 05 Mar 2015 15:30

MiG-29K Looking at a Bigger Role in the Indian Navy

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 05 Mar 2015 16:33

Tx NR for that bit of info.That means with the 56 or so LCA MK-2s planned,the IN will have 6 sqds. of medium and light strike aircraft. Intriguing Qs as to where the NLCAs will be deployed.

vishvak · Post by **vishvak** » 05 Mar 2015 20:39

I don't have a thing against Russian equipment, nor do I have a thing against conspiracy theories, but this constant "Russia! Russia! Woo! Rah! West bad bad!" is tiring. If we want to look at why the UPA government messed up, let's do so, by all means, but using every single topic in the forum to promote Russia or accuse the USA isn't ok in my book.

Sir, on one hand there are few details about what constraints will be once Americans make issues out of "foundation" deals. This even after experience of invasive inspection clauses that have to be considered by IN on certain naval platform (p8i naval surveillance platform? link) after paying in hard cash. This when USA is already a naval superpower, it only means that USA is trying to secure its interests. This is very open and even claimed so on this board as it is several times. On the other hand, there are vague references of political confidence in USA not objecting/supporting platforms at times of conflict(only?), thereby able to push one side in certain way. What other options we have, for say, naval Aerial platforms? Very few countries have top of the line platforms available for sale, and this is probably the main issue that we are facing now(for naval platforms, not USA/Russia). We can not sign such one sided agreements, when in future several options possibly may become available. So why bother with American platforms? The only other option we have is Russia, which does not involve a lot of push and pull in terms of use during war -which is the most important time when such platforms will be needed. I think this is the main reason why people see it -and in naval aviation, Russians do not have matching platforms on offer as the naval superpower USA. As usual, people who are very critical of Russian equipment are silent about such constraints coming the way of IN. A tangential example is MMRCA (Air force, not navy) thread, where the most stringent criticism comes from those who prefer American planes (according to me), while clearly Russian platform (Sukhoi 30MKI, not any naval option there) CAN offer a very good optional deal in terms of money/capabilities. I think we need to take this off topic, and deal with this so that such discussions do not resurface again and again.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 05 Mar 2015 22:14

vardhank wrote:
Philip wrote: Some insiders say that this was also at the behest of a western power,who wanted us to remain weak.
"Some insiders" say this was at the behest of little alien puppy dogs who want to take over India and turn it into a giant pink marshmallow. "Some insiders" can say pretty much anything we want them to say, hmm?

More than a Western power, I'd look at a Eurasian power, whose name rhymes with Shmussia, who might be more interested in keeping us from developing our own mil-ind complex. Who benefits? Who benefits if we don't go in for full-scale production of the Arjun and instead keep buying T-90s? Who benefits if we let the LCA die and buy more MiG-29s, MiG-35s, or even, wonder of wonders, new MiG-21s? Would it be a Western power who, in its own reprehensible way, wants us to be the shock troops against China (and therefore needs us to be muscular), or this fictional country called Shmussia who needs us to keep buying their equipment, and indeed, seems to be very good at getting us to abandon our projects and buy theirs?

I don't have a thing against Russian equipment, nor do I have a thing against conspiracy theories, but this constant "Russia! Russia! Woo! Rah! West bad bad!" is tiring. If we want to look at why the UPA government messed up, let's do so, by all means, but using every single topic in the forum to promote Russia or accuse the USA isn't ok in my book.

+1

John · Post by **John** » 06 Mar 2015 00:48

Singha wrote:will there be barak1 SAMs in the raised block between the bridge and the main gun?

Possible but without a 2nd STGR Barak 1 will have limited coverage and same applies for Ak-630 guns'.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 06 Mar 2015 10:35

From "informed sources",the indecision of the UPA-2 on defence and security was deliberate and promoted by a powerful western entity.This entity wanted us to surrender our interests to Pak ,remember Baluchistan" at S-Al_Sheikh? It is no secret that certain powers ,east and west want us to remain stunted beneath the Himalayas,and a watered down force in world affairs.All that is expected of us is to be cannon fodder as we were in WW1 and WW2,a huge market of a billion+ and to join the current anti-China military coalition of US lackeys. Any intelligent individual can see that clearly. As far as arms procurements are concerned,ny mantra has always been,"horses for courses".It does not matter from which country the weapon system comes from. Product USP,tech,capability,delivery,cost and lifetime support are the usual criteria for decisions. Diversification is fine if the product fits the requirement,but diversification cannot be a virtue on its own.

Every attempt is being made to inveigle the new govt. to join the anti-China bandwagon and dump the BRICS relationship that is growing steadily. The Chinese arrogance isn't earning it new friends in India,fact. Chinese encirclement of India,esp. in the maritime sphere has seen us intensify our cooperation with the anti-China nations in the US coalition,also a fact. However,we should instead focus on enlargening our independent bi-lateral cooperation rather than getting sucked into a military bloc led by the US whose adventurism over the last couple of decades,was based upon lies and chicanery and has seen the US and its allies suffer defeat after defeat and retreat after retreat.

The best example of a bum-chum promiscuous relationship with the US and its rewards is that of Pak! Do we have to emulate it?

PS:Xcpt. from a report.
http://in.rbth.com/economics/2015/02/24 ... 41559.html

Any plans of further cooperation with the Indian Navy, which has already received six frigates…

There should be negotiations in India regarding the operation of three ships that we built for the Indians. At the same time the possibility of building on new orders for the Indian Navy by our factory will be discussed. In any case, India has already expressed an interest; it was regarding four ships of more advanced modifications. The factory is ready for such work, we got a great deal of experience working on the previous contract for India, and we consider this cooperation fruitful and mutually beneficial. So, should the factory get the contract, it will fulfill it at proper quality level

Nick_S · Post by **Nick_S** » 06 Mar 2015 17:51

Pratyush wrote:IN will eventually grow into a 10 carrier navy.

LoL... please stick to reality.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 07 Mar 2015 14:22

Philip wrote:From "informed sources",the indecision of the UPA-2 on defence and security was deliberate and promoted by a powerful western entity.

These 'informed sources' don't happen to speak Russian as a second (or even first) language do they Philip?

Because all the on-the-surface non-conspiratorial common-sense sources paint a very different picture.

US wants India’s help in multilateral naval engagements in Asia-Pacific

US cannot counter China in Asia without India's support: MK Narayanan

Not that we should join a US-led alliance, but certainly rubbishes the 'keeping us down' conspiracy being promulgated.

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 07 Mar 2015 22:53

http://www.isn.ethz.ch/Digital-Library/ ... ?id=186083

...

While India’s land-based ASW helicopters and short-range maritime patrol aircraft (MPA), like its 14 Do 228 aircraft, are valuable to protect its key ports, the Indian navy must use long-range aviation assets to patrol the vast expanses of the Indian Ocean. Historically, that mission has fallen to the navy’s handful of Soviet-vintage prop-driven aircraft. Its four Tu-142M MPAs based at Rajali naval air station are responsible for the waters off India’s east coast; and its five Il-38 MPAs based at Hansa naval air station for the waters off its west coast. But both sets of aircraft are showing their age. Even setting aside the quality of their ASW sensors and the quantity of sonobuoys and weapons they can carry, the aircraft themselves are relatively slow compared to modern MPAs. That is an important factor, given the long distances they need to cover in the Indian Ocean.

Hence, it was significant that the Indian navy began to upgrade its long-range MPA fleet in late 2008. At that time, Chief of the Naval Staff Admiral Sureesh Mehta explained the need for better “maritime domain awareness and network-centric operations along with a reliable stand-off deterrent” to deal with China’s naval rise. That approach was reflected in India’s purchase of twelve P-8I MPAs from the United States. Based on the Boeing 737 jet airliner, the P-8I provides the Indian navy with not only a more capable suite of ASW sensors and weapons, but also greater speed. The aircraft has a cruising speed over 100 miles per hour faster than India’s current MPA fleet, allowing it to better prosecute any submarines that it detects at longer ranges.

Long-range detection and prosecution are important if the Indian navy is to conduct ASW on an oceanic scale. Fortunately for India, geography helps to some extent. The eastern approaches into the Indian Ocean are funneled through narrow straits created by the Indonesian archipelago. The most significant of these are the Malacca, Sunda, and Lombok Straits. They offer Chinese submarines the most direct routes from their bases in southern China, particularly a major new one at Yalong Bay, into the Indian Ocean. Naturally, the Indian navy would want to monitor those straits for the passage of Chinese submarines.

However, the Indian navy must watch its western flank too. There, Pakistan—China’s “all-weather friend”—has drawn ever closer to Beijing in the wake of America’s scaled back engagement from Afghanistan. Recently, Pakistani military spokesman Major General Asim Saleem Bajwa went so far as to say that “Pakistan sees China’s enemies as their own.” Though his comment was directed at China’s Xinjiang militants, it also raised eyebrows in India, which has had a long history of conflict with Pakistan. Hence, the Indian navy must also have ASW resources ready to counter the possibility that Chinese submarines may use a Pakistani port as a base of operations or that Pakistan’s five French-built Agosta-class diesel-electric attack submarines may even sortie in support of China.

Considering these strategic parameters, we can gauge the number of long-range ASW aviation assets that India would need to conduct oceanic ASW in the Indian Ocean. We can assess that the Indian navy would have to establish at least two ASW barrier patrols along the eastern and western peripheries of the region (as well as keep a sufficient reserve for escort duty). Given an operational readiness rate of 75 percent, we can then estimate that India would require a force of 40 to 48 long-range MPAs, likely divided into five or six squadrons of eight aircraft.[ii]

The Indian navy could assign three of these MPA squadrons to its Eastern Naval Command, which would likely operate them from not only Rajali, but also Utkrosh naval air station in the Andaman Islands. From these bases, it could use one squadron to establish an ASW barrier patrol at the western exit of the Malacca Strait and a second squadron to do the same further south, closer to the exits of the Sunda and Lombok Straits. Finally, it could use a third squadron to support its surface fleet operations. On the other side of the Indian subcontinent, the navy could assign the other two or three MPA squadrons to its Western and Southern Naval Commands to monitor the western approaches to India’s coast as well as the waters around Sri Lanka for submarine activity.

No one said that oceanic ASW was going to be easy or inexpensive. But Asia’s changing strategic environment has begun to force India to reassess the kinds of resources that it will need to maintain its naval position in the Indian Ocean. Given the pace of China’s military modernization, India would do well to mobilize those resources faster.

Shreeman · Post by **Shreeman** » 08 Mar 2015 05:32

Even setting aside the quality of their ASW sensors and the quantity of sonobuoys and weapons they can carry, the aircraft themselves are relatively slow compared to modern MPAs. That is an important factor, given the long distances they need to cover in the Indian Ocean.

This is propaganda. --SD and 142 overhaul. The sea hasnt gotten any bigger than it ever was. Jets dont give you higher endurance.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 08 Mar 2015 05:59

No,none (informed sources,very desi) speak it at all to the best of my knowledge! Our LRMP assets are at the moment inadequate.Just 8 P-8Is,a similar force of aging TU-142s,which can be upgraded/life extended as is being done in Russia,and 5 IL-38s. The problem with the P-8I is that for "low and slow" ops,painstaking detecting,tracking and targeting enemy subs at lower altitudes,slower turboprops are better platforms. Why the RuN has inducted new upgraded IL-38s.For prosecuting surface warships,etc. A faster jet would be able to do the business better armed with anti-ship missiles,but even here too the Bear originally a bomber,has a top speed almost equiv to that of a jet. Bears are now making regular sorties off the British coast.With their massive range and endurance,they could be used for patrols of the Indo-China Sea. Ideally,the IN should add more P-8s and IL-38s (much cheaper) to the inventory,to cover "all bases".Smaller medium sized ASW aircraft will have lesser endurance and capability,but would be useful if ordered in significant number to support the larger LRMP aircraft.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 08 Mar 2015 06:55

Philip wrote:Ideally,the IN should add more P-8s and IL-38s (much cheaper) to the inventory,to cover "all bases".Smaller medium sized ASW aircraft will have lesser endurance and capability,but would be useful if ordered in significant number to support the larger LRMP aircraft.

The Il-38 is NOT in production nor is it intended to be brought back into production. All that's been delivered at the moment is upgraded units of the legacy Il-38 to the RuN. These 'new' Il-38Ns are basically analogous to the IN's 'new' Il-38SD. BTW the Tu-142's also long out of production.

Bottom-line is new Il-38s are not an option for the Indian Navy. If however you're concerned about 'low and slow' ops at lower altitudes and want a turboprop for the task, grit your teeth and brace yourself because our best option to meet those requirements... is the SC-130J.

Shreeman · Post by **Shreeman** » 08 Mar 2015 07:25

"X is out of production" -- with p8s, and 38sd and 142s and do228s, there is still some room for "make in india". the do228 is localised. why not build one at home for the next lot? Get a Cseries, SSJ or 190 and tinker with grown up version of 228.

Anything you buy from the LM stable subsidizes the baki F16s. The C130s should never have been bought in the first place. Enough with the quid pro quo.

member_23370 · Post by **member_23370** » 08 Mar 2015 07:32

Why not an Embraer or gulfstream based platforms?

Shreeman · Post by **Shreeman** » 08 Mar 2015 07:39

Bheeshma wrote:Why not an Embraer or gulfstream based platforms?

The 190 is EMB. You want something medium-ee or they will start with the "not big enough", "not different enough" from 228ng.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 08 Mar 2015 07:43

Bottom-line is new Il-38s are not an option for the Indian Navy. If however you're concerned about 'low and slow' ops at lower altitudes and want a turboprop for the task, grit your teeth and brace yourself because our best option to meet those requirements... is the SC-130J

The problem with that is that those interested in a fair evaluation of the capability actually have to be interested in the capability in the first place. The USN has doubled down and the feedback from the initial Pacific deployments has reaffirmed their choice. The other Military MPA market also sees a jet based lineup at different price-points and capabilities depending upon customer options. Expect the top Navies of the world to embrace jet based options with either the P-8 or other MPA's on offer. It would be a wise option for the IN to pursue a smaller jet based platform that complements the larger P-8's. Something like the Boeing Challenger but indigenously developed ( a new craft, not based on the challenger) with interoperability with the P-8 and the Triton if that platform is ever purchased.

Anything you buy from the LM stable subsidizes the baki F16s. The C130s should never have been bought in the first place. Enough with the quid pro quo.

As you are probably aware, the sale of C-130's to the IAF has absolutely no bearing on what the FMS sale or Military aid posture is of the US Government towards Pakistan. All FMS sales from Lockheed are built to the US DOD requirements and they are paid by the US DOD. Regardless of what price Pakistan pays, or whether they pay anything at all, Lockheed gets paid as per the contract they sign with the Pentagon. Any other sale of any other military hardware to other customers has absolutely no bearing on this and does not "subsidize" any sale to any other customer nation in any shape or form. That being said, the close proximity of China and pakistan has virtually ensured that the Pakistanis get absolutely no high tech equipment from the US in the future. They can forget advanced fighters (hence they are left drooling over the J-31), or weapons of any kind. They would continue to get support and possible upgrades to what has been handed to them in the past but even that is likely to be minimal once the US withdrawal from Afghanistan is complete.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 08 Mar 2015 08:09

Anything you buy from the LM stable subsidizes the baki F16s. The C130s should never have been bought in the first place. Enough with the quid pro quo

[OT]
No longer a topic for discussion.

And, no matter what India *has* to get her house in order WRT non military dimensions. For India to survive economically (on which depends her def spending), she has to make precise moves in the next few years. India is in a near perfect-storm - environment, sex imbalance, population size, population feeding into the job market, etc. Just read somewhere that India needs to generate 10 million jobs a year to just keep up. GoI estimates of 8% (fudged?) GDP better translate into something, else that 25% of red India is bound to climb.

Quid pro quo or not things are coming to a head.
[\OT]

shaun · Post by **shaun** » 08 Mar 2015 08:40

Navy seems to be unhappy ( according to some old reports ) with the sea dragon for its effectiveness or the Russians inability to integrate brahmos with it . what ever might be the reason , P8i going to rule IOR and navy is not interested on any propeller driven ASW platforms other than UAVs and helos.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 08 Mar 2015 08:45

P8i going to rule IOR and navy is not interested on any propeller driven ASW platforms other than UAVs and helos

The P-8I and P-8 is going to get incremental capability addition (mostly software but also replacement of some hardware) over the next 5-6 years as the platform spirals towards its ultimate capability objective. Also looking at the global fleets of MPA's, the P-1, Challenger, and the IAI EL/I-3360 MPA are going to be dominating the market (not so much the P-1)..The Turboprop based options entering the market (or looking for customers) are extremely low end and not a Mini-version of the higher end systems. Indra's MRI comes to mind here.

Here is Jane's Intel on Maritime Patrol Aircraft

http://www.filedropper.com/insearchoflo ... pabilities

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 08 Mar 2015 08:51

Shreeman wrote:"X is out of production" -- with p8s, and 38sd and 142s and do228s, there is still some room for "make in india". the do228 is localised. why not build one at home for the next lot? Get a Cseries, SSJ or 190 and tinker with grown up version of 228.

The Do-228 is already under production for the Navy. However, for the task in question (i.e MRMP equipped with sonar & EW/EO kit plus ASMs & torpedoes/depth charges) its a complete non-starter, as much as I wish that were not the case.

The C-series, SSJ et al. are all foreign aircraft. And if local production is an imperative, the C-130J is still a better bet than each of them with the line also serving further IAF orders. If the Tata-Airbus deal goes through then we can consider the C-295 for the role, though I have doubts about its payload & fuselage volume being sufficient for a suitable naval variant.

Anything you buy from the LM stable subsidizes the baki F16s. The C130s should never have been bought in the first place. Enough with the quid pro quo.

Once the Afghan business is wrapped up, the only subsidies the PAF can forward to are from China and they know it (which is why they capped their Blk 50/52 & Erieye orders).

No quid pro quo advocacy from my end at least. Go with the merits of the platform (and I suspect the SC-130J will do well on that count).

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 08 Mar 2015 08:59

brar_w wrote:The problem with that is that those interested in a fair evaluation of the capability actually have to be interested in the capability in the first place. The USN has doubled down and the feedback from the initial Pacific deployments has reaffirmed their choice. The other Military MPA market also sees a jet based lineup at different price-points and capabilities depending upon customer options. Expect the top Navies of the world to embrace jet based options with either the P-8 or other MPA's on offer.

The USN's experiences is irrelevant as is that of other 'top navies'. The Indian Navy has a stated requirement for a 'Medium Range Maritime Patrol' aircraft, the USN & Co. don't. Unless a jet based solution can be proven to be cheaper (on direct or indirect costs), the SC-130J is very much a viable option as long as it can demonstrate the required operational cruise speed of 300 knots.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 08 Mar 2015 09:03

Viv S wrote:
brar_w wrote:The problem with that is that those interested in a fair evaluation of the capability actually have to be interested in the capability in the first place. The USN has doubled down and the feedback from the initial Pacific deployments has reaffirmed their choice. The other Military MPA market also sees a jet based lineup at different price-points and capabilities depending upon customer options. Expect the top Navies of the world to embrace jet based options with either the P-8 or other MPA's on offer.
The USN's experiences is irrelevant as is that of other 'top navies'. The Indian Navy has a stated requirement for a 'Medium Range Maritime Patrol' aircraft, the USN & Co. don't. Unless a jet based solution can be proven to be cheaper (on direct or indirect costs), the SC-130J is very much a viable option as long as it can demonstrate the required operational cruise speed of 300 knots.

Is there a requirement that the Medium range MP has to be a turbo prop, because that was what I was getting to (That there is broader acceptance of jet based options, whether that is in the 737 sized category or a smaller business jet affordable category)?

Lockheed competes in the Long Range mission with the SC-130, and unless Singapore comes through there isn't much hope with that version from what I gather. Also the Challenger and the IAI offering are in the 40-55 million cost bracket whereas the Herc is going to cost significantly more than that with the payload. Not sure it would have a lot of takers or would be cost-competitive with the other two offerings.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 08 Mar 2015 09:14

brar_w wrote:Is there a requirement that the Medium range MP has to be a turbo prop, because that was what I was getting to (That there is broader acceptance of jet based options, whether that is in the 737 sized category or a smaller business jet affordable category)?

The operational requirement (300 knots) has been spelled out, and AFAIK turboprops have not been ruled out as long as they meet the operational criteria. Aside from the high end 737 based P-8, there are a total of only two jet aircraft serving in a MPA role (both in the Mexican Air Force). So there's no broad acceptance of a jet based solution for an MRMP aircraft. There are far more turboprop based aircraft in service performing the same role (over a dozen C-295Ws).

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 08 Mar 2015 09:19

Aside from the high end 737 based P-8, there are only two jet aircraft serving in a MPA role and that is with the Mexican Air Force. So there's no broad acceptance of a jet based solution for an MRMP aircraft

At the moment the P-1 and the P-8 obviously stand out but looking out there are Boeing and IAI competitors that are both showing up with a Business jet type setup. The other turboprop based systems are much lower end and not really meant for a high_low fleet mix with the P-1's and P-8's. Expect both these designs (Boeing and IAI) to do well in the international market over the next 10-20 years with the former looking at a mix P-8/Challenger customer with the latter (IAI) looking at markets that cannot afford the P-8.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 08 Mar 2015 09:23

brar_w wrote:At the moment the P-1 and the P-8 obviously stand out but looking out there are Boeing and IAI competitors that are both showing up with a Business jet type setup. The other turboprop based systems are much lower end and not really meant for a high_low fleet mix with the P-1's and P-8's. Expect both these designs (Boeing and IAI) to do well in the international market over the next 10-20 years with the former looking at a mix P-8/Challenger customer with the latter (IAI) looking at markets that cannot afford the P-8.

Everyone is showing up with their own design, but showing up is hardly proof of a successful product. And there is nothing at all that prevents a turboprop from being a low end complement to the P-8.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 08 Mar 2015 09:27

Every one is showing up with there own design, but showing up is hardly proof of a successful product. And there is nothing at all that prevents a turboprop from being a low end complement to the P-8

Of course nothing prevents it from being a capable complement to the P-8. But companies looking to compete (especially when they have spent personal money on development and integration) are increasingly offering jet based solutions and that is a fairly good indication of where some of the top players see the market heading. Lets see if any new product shows up at Le bourget but the market seems to have shown more interest in developing platforms in a jet based solution. Those interested in a turboprop based modern system may just have to front the cash to be the first customer for some of the companies that may be able to work with them. Lets see how the market shapes up over time. The C295 is a much better option given it actually has a customer (second one is also assured) and it may also be a low end option for a P-8 mix for the RN. It all depends how qualitative capability they want from an interoperability stand point. Do you want a clean sheet system or do you want high interoperability and complementary capability to the P-8. There a C-130 based system may do better because it can probably integrate a significant portion of the P-8 suite.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 08 Mar 2015 09:47

brar_w wrote:Of course nothing prevents it from being a capable complement to the P-8. But companies looking to compete (especially when they have spent personal money on development and integration) are increasingly offering jet based solutions and that is a fairly good indication of where some of the top players see the market heading. Lets see if any new product shows up at Le bourget but the market seems to have shown more interest in developing platforms in a jet based solution.

All of the companies you're referring are already working with jet aircraft for other roles (ISTAR/AEW&C). And so far their successes in the MPA market stand at zilch. Not to mention for every company offering a jet solution, there's one offering a turboprop. The latter is as much a barometer for 'the market' as the former. More importantly, its the customer who decides what it wants and what suits its particular requirements best, not the company and/or market.

Those interested in a turboprop based modern system may just have to front the cash to be the first customer for some of the companies that may be able to work with them. Lets see how the market shapes up over time. The C295 is a much better option given it actually has a customer (second one is also assured) and it may also be a low end option for a P-8 mix for the RN.

I can't speak for the RN's requirements, but for the C-295W, meeting the IN's 300 knot cruise speed requirement will be a challenge.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 08 Mar 2015 09:56

All of the companies you're referring are already working with jet aircraft for other roles (ISTAR/AEW&C). And so far their successes in the MPA market stand at zilch

Their success won't be determined by what they have done so far. They don't expect orders until a few years from now anyhow given some of the offerings are only now taking off as far as actually putting stuff together.

Not to mention for every company offering a jet solution, there's one offering a turboprop

Sure, I am not saying that there aren't turboprop options but for the higher end systems (actually integrating ) you pretty much have Airbus going up against Boeing and IAI. That is likely to play out (Boeing v Airbus) for the RN contract and for the other missions where fleet s may be a mix.

The latter is as much a barometer for 'the market' as the former

The problem here is that the system integration and development contract has gone to a few players that are now looking to offer smaller and more affordable options. Boeing obviously going to control the larger global high end market and are looking to leverage their team's development in that end to scale it down to more modest requirements and capabilities for affordability reasons. IAI seems to be looking at competing head on with this.

I can't speak for the RN's requirements, but the C-295 will have trouble meeting the IN's 300 knot cruise speed requirement

Any high end sensor or SI work on the C-295 from Airbus would most likely happen for this competition since the numbers would be decent. This is still very much a Boeing competition to loose given the level of integration of the RN with the USN and there routine training on P8's. There was some talk last year of doing a mixed fleet with the lower end of the fleet being open for both the Boeing Challenger and the EMB295.

As far as meeting IN's options, i guess that leaves the C-130, but the problem there is that it costs close to 150 Million in its current form.