Indian Naval News & Discussion - 12 Oct 2013

[Neshant]

Maybe its like inkjet printers.

Lowball the price of the printer (sub) and then over-charge for the cartridge (armament).

Although with the Scopene subs costing an arm and a leg, how much more can they price gouge before other potential buyers of this sub run off in fear. They will surely be looking to India's experience with this sub before they make any purchase decision.

[Austin]

IIRC correctly Scorpene sub was signed in 2004 during ABV era by GF for a cost of $3.8 Billion , we had 2 terms of MMS and new term of Namo starting and we are still atleast a year away from commisioning the first sub...atleast more than a decade since we signed in dotted line.

They could have procured couple of Kilo during this time to keep the fleet number up.

[Philip]

One of the reports say that she is partly doublehulled.Some doublehulled.This (former) has been a feature on some sub types.It is most likely that being developed with Russian assistance ,where most sub types are double hulled,she is either of the two.It would enable her to dive far deeper than single-hulled subs.Actual figures will be highly classified,like the range of her missiles.

However,her follow on sisters should carry far more ICBM silos,a min of 12-16,with ranges of at least 8,000km.Our N-warhead inventory should factor in the numbers of both Pak and China.One can deal with Pak with land based mobile missiles and a fleet of strategic bombers,but for China,apart from long range strategic bombers ,a fleet of undetectable SSBNs that can launch their missiles from a distance of 6-8000km away is highly desirable.I mentioned the auxiliary option of ICBMs housed in UG bases fitted to barges to augment numbers at sea.Their existence and number will be totally an unknown qty. as they need to be used perhaps just once if ever.

[srai]

Thanks.

Not a scam but the delay that was part of Anthony working culture as DM.

I wonder why they float a separate tender for Torpedoes makes sense to buy the Weapons Package Along with Submarine from DCN......Unless they want to show as two separate items purchased to keep the cost of Submarine down.

We always bought Torpedoes for HDW and Kilo from the same manufacturer and never floated a separate tender

If everything was to be signed upfront for the Scorpene SSKs, the cost would have been prohibitly expensive. From $3.8 billion, it would have ballooned to be more like $7 billion+. It's the same we are seeing with the Rafale deal. If India wants everything (aircrafts, TOT, weapons, infrastructure (production & support), lifecycle, training etc.) upfront, the price would easily top $20 billion. So the government, following practices seen with T-90S and Scorpene SSK deals, will break it up into multiple-tenders with the big one first (since that is what everyone remembers) which is the signing of an initial contract for 126 Rafales "within" budget of around $12 billion (exact contract details of what will be included in this won't be available in public domain). Then, in a much lower limelight, a series of smaller deals will be made over the course of many years that will pay for weapons, infrastructure and TOT (in bits and pieces). Eventually India will end up paying that $20 billion+ (plus inflation), but most people will only remember the deal as a $12 billion one.

[chackojoseph]

Its simple. They want to buy whats the latest available in Torpedoes. By the time the sub is into weapons trial, the torpedoes will arrive.

[Philip]

One of the reports say that she is partly doublehulled.Some doublehulled.This (former) has been a feature on some sub types.It is most likely that being developed with Russian assistance ,where most sub types are double hulled,she is either of the two.It would enable her to dive far deeper than single-hulled subs.Actual figures will be highly classified,like the range of her missiles.

However,her follow on sisters should carry far more ICBM silos,a min of 12-16,with ranges of at least 8,000km.Our N-warhead inventory should factor in the numbers of both Pak and China.One can deal with Pak with land based mobile missiles and a fleet of strategic bombers,but for China,apart from long range strategic bombers ,a fleet of undetectable SSBNs that can launch their missiles from a distance of 6-8000km away is highly desirable.I mentioned the auxiliary option of ICBMs housed in UG bases fitted to barges to augment numbers at sea.Their existence and number will be totally an unknown qty. as they need to be used perhaps just once if ever.

http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/navy ... 78850.html
Meanwhile the IN has taken a major leap forward by establishing the first MIG-29K sqd. at INS DEga Vizag.
It's what I've been advocating for some time,that the IN takes up the responsibility/co-responsibility of air defence also of the island offshore territories such as the A&N islands,etc.,using land-based LRMP aircraft as well as multi-role aircraft which can also do duty aboard our carriers and proposed amphib ships.,MIG-29Ks,NLCAs,etc.This will allow the IAF to transfer some of its valuable assets to the Himalayan frontiers,north-east and west to deal with China and Pak.MIG-29Ks available at just $32-35M a pop equivalent to the capabilities of the IAF's MIG-29UGs and NLCAs at $25-30M,will be very cost effective aircraft with which to defend our far flung maritime territories and coastal bases.Supported by our existing LRMP aircraft and even strategic bombers equipped for the maritime role ,leased Backfires/Blackjacks,the IN will have a reach far beyond the IOR region,capable of operations into the Indo-China Sea and Pacific Ocean.

EXCLUSIVE: Navy initiates 'Look East' for lethal MiG29K
Jugal R Purohit Vishakapatnam, August 25, 2014
Read more at: http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/navy ... 78850.html

Increasing Chinese presence in the Indian Ocean will soon have to put up with some mean company from the skies.

Two weeks ago the navy received orders to implement a tectonic shift. The most lethal fighters flying the Indian colours as on date, navy's MiG29K/KUB, will for the first time in over four years of their service, 'look east'. Preparations have begun to deploy and permanently base a full squadron (consisting 17 aircraft) of these fighters to strengthen the security of India's energy-rich and trade-wise vital, eastern seaboard. Next year onwards, these jets will make the naval airbase INS Dega, in Vishakapatnam, their home. Earlier this month, an initial sanction of Rs.450 crore was accorded for building related technical support and infrastructure facilities here.

Barring training and detachment duties, these fighters, till date, have remained at their home base INS Hansa in Goa when not embarked on aircraft carrier INS Vikramaditya.

Basing the MiG29K/KUB in Vishakapatnam will not just provide a fillip to the immediate maritime security scenario but also bring closer the island territories in Andaman and Nicobar in addition to creating a ready window into the increasingly volatile south-east Asian waters. These multirole jets are designed to function without requiring an overhaul. They can fly over 1200 miles in a single sortie, which brings parts of north eastern states too under their reach, if the situation so demands. Their ability tank up mid-air only means that there will be no limit to their reach in areas where India is increasingly looking at joint exploration of offshore sites with friendly nations as also further up inland.

In the long term scenario, this move has been made also keeping in mind the arrival of the indigenously made aircraft carrier 'Vikrant', work on which is going on at the Cochin Shipyard Limited (CSL), Kochi. The 'Vikrant', which is being designed to carry a mix of MiG29K/KUBs and the naval version of the Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) Tejas, is expected to commence her trials by the end of 2016 and will be the first aircraft carrier to operate under the Eastern Naval Command (ENC).

Unlike the Western Naval Command (WNC), which has its ships and aerial assets spread out across the coastline, the ENC enjoys the fruits of co-location of its dockyard and aerial assets at Vishakapatnam. "With the expansion of INS Dega, there will be an inherent ease making our training and operations more effective," said a senior naval officer.

INS DEGA

Conceived more than five years ago, the plan envisages a massive expansion of the airbase, in terms of size as well as capabilities. In the final scenario, from the present size of 1100 acres, the INS Dega will be spread out to over 1500 acres.

The volume of naval aviation that the airbase is slated to handle will bring it almost at par with the largest naval airbase INS Hansa. The workload will include accommodating the full squadron of MiG29K/KUBs as well as the Advanced Jet Trainer (AJT) Hawks, nine of which are already operational and eight more will arrive by June 2016, along with their required infrastructure and support set up. INS Dega will also field a large chunk of aircraft which form a part of future acquisitions like Multi Role Helicopter (MRH), 56 Naval Utility Helicopters, Naval Multi Role Helicopters (NMRH) as well as Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs).

At present, the INS Dega houses ship-based helicopters like the Kamov28 Anti Submarine Warfare (ASW) and UH3H when the ships are in harbour, apart from the single-engine Chetak. In the fixed-wing category, it houses the trainer Hawk and Dornier, used for medium range reconnaissance and parachute training.

A parallel taxi track at the INS Dega is also in the offing which will cut down the runway occupancy time since the base shares space with a civil terminal where international airlines have already begun operating. "The construction will be such that we will, if required, use the track as a secondary runway for our fighters to land," said a senior naval officer.

It is pertinent to the note that the Indian Air Force (IAF) had only last year, commissioned and operationalised its base at Thanjavur in the Southern Air Command which will house its premier warplane, the Sukhoi30MKI. In conjunction, these moves are bound to provide teeth to formations in the peninsular region as also enhance offshore security.

With the Singapore-based Silk Air commencing international civil flights to Vishakapatnam 2012, the navy, which owns and operates the civil terminal, converted the airport into a round-the-clock functional airport from January of this year.

MiG29K/KUB: A Profile

Fourth generation plus, air dominance fighter designed and manufactured by United Aircraft Corporation (UAC) in Russia.First ever flight took place in January 2007.Indian Navy was the first in the world to induct this aircraft in February 2010, even before Russian Navy.India has contracted for a total 46 MiG29K/KUB aircraft.Maximum speed achieved is 1370MPH.Service ceiling is above 57400 feet.Fuel capacity for a single seater MiG29K is 4800kg.Smokeless engine.Multi mode radar for range, air patrol, air to ground attack and weather information.Reduced signature in radar range.Eight external hard points for enhanced weapons load.Can accommodate weapons of Russian-origin as well as those from the west.
l

With the proposed increase in runway length,infrastructure at the IN's Campbell Bay base,the MIG-29Ks and NLCAs,et. can also be based there giving the tri-service A&N command a more lethal forward presence.Along with a fast tracked effort to augment the IN's sub fleet and development of indigenous min-subs,UUVs,SOSUS too,the choke points into the IOR can be effectively sanitised to keep out any PLAN subs and surface combatants during times of crisis.

The 4 planned amphib vessels must have an air capability too,just as the Japanese are planning for their so-called "larger aviation DDGs",in reality med. sized carriers.AS other reports posted have said,they've had a look at USN amphib warships which are around 45-50,000t,which will operate JSFs.AS mentioned earlier,SAAB offered us a naval version of the Gripen to operate even from the deck of INS VIraat. Either the Gripen-N or NLCA if perfected within the next few years,should be able to operate from the decks of our amphib vessels to provide close air support,plus other air combat duties in support of the fleet.Having a string of navai air stations around the Indian coastline and in our island territories ,would give the Fleet Air Arm of the IN immense flexibility in operations.Given such ambitions,the IN should also seriously think about a naval variant of the FGFA for its future large carriers,which should have nuclear propulsion given the huge demands of electrical power aboard warships today,EMALS,rail-gun,etc. in the future too.

[brar_w]

Given that the real advantage of an LHD like configuration comes up when one wants to project a land force X KM out with a proper force structure backing i really do not see a make shift sea fighter that is meant for light carriers being incorporated into that configuration. If a light or a mini-carrier is to be used its better to develop a dedicated carrier or just procure a few extra ones that the IN plans to induct (Non nuclear ones). An amphibious ship's fighter role is to provide top cover and CAS for the landing party and the troops that are to be deployed. Here take off and bring back capacity is important, hence you will see Japan also choose a STOVL fighter if it wishes to arm its future ship with a fighter. An LHD's concept of ops is a bit different from a min-carrier even though folks at times refer to them as such (probably due to the displacement figures of the USS Americas). Operate 10-15 fighters from them and you loose the entire point and may as well develop dedicated min-carriers.

Neither the Mistral, USS Americas, Juan Carlos/Canberra, Dudoko, Osumi, or the Izumo can spot anything but STOVL fighters and most of these (with the exception of the USS Americas) are going to require upgrades. The Sea gripen won't work on any one of these (Its designed for STOBAR ops). If you begin to take away some of the Ambhib. assault ship features and start adding Small Carrier like features then you might as well develop small carriers for you will have a ship thats neither here nor there. Ambhib. assault ships will continue to demand STOVL from their fighter fleet especially if the STOVL can demonstrate Rolling landings with a good bring back weight (UK is doing this at the moment along with the USMC) otherwise most operators will continue to operate helicopters off of these crafts (JAPAN, South Korea, Russia, France, Australia etc). VARIOUS like systems will offer further added utility with a full fledged X plane program just having been announced for the same. Australia is currently studying using a fixed wing STOVL but i doubt they'll make that shift (no need atm) until much later. Japan has clearly left the door open for limited fixed wing tac operations on the Izumo and the future ship they are planning. Japan has a need for such flexibility if china decides to increase its maritime reach with newer carriers and sea planes making strategic deployments easier and larger. Large scale tactical fighter deployment from an LHD like vessel has some "serious" challenges which need to be addressed. The cost to address these is going to be prohibitive for most tasks other then a few niche capabilities. A 40-50 ton STOBAR is a much better option to deploy a few dozen fixed wing tac fighters.
The USMC strategy is to use the WASPS as true amphibious LHD's, use the 2 Americas (6 and 7) as stand off & support LHD's for the Wasp, and allied LHD's (Japanese and Soko) and the rest of the USS americas to be again full fledged traditional LHD's having a well deck and all. You have to trade off quite a bit of stuff to get a decent sized air-wing and then your ops will be limited logistically to a very few (too many challenges to overcome). These "issues" aren't limited just to the USMC but to all those designing and building LHD class (French, Russian, South Koreans, Japanese, Spanish etc)

Read this - http://www.sldinfo.com/the-uss-america- ... dgehammer/

Depending upon where the IN wishes to use its 4 ships it may be able to get away without a fighter fleet operating from them.

[negi]

Wow khan is ages ahead of others with its Mk 48 torpedo in its speed + range combo, all others so behind:


So how would 2 nuke subs fight if they are 500 meters down facing each other while their torpedos aren't capable of such depth?

Torpedos at those ranges will never be used to engage Submarines for they cannot be detected leave alone tracked at those ranges. Torpedoes at those ranges will be mostly used against surface vessels.

[negi]

Isnt Blackshark the Torpedo chosen for Scorpene Subs ?

Till date no contract has been signed for any torpedo

Well DCNS is haggling with SDREs on TOT for Torpedo tubes (yeah tubes), torpedos are for another day.

[abhik]

Wow khan is ages ahead of others with its Mk 48 torpedo in its speed + range combo, all others so behind:

I would think a lot has to do with the propulsion some having thermal(including Mk 48) and others having electrical/battery. Each would have its own pros and cons.

[brar_w]

Given the sensitivity of under sea warfare and its importance at time of war all the good stuff when it comes to torpedoes and sub and counter sub warfare are likely to be closely held secrets (For all parties concerned). This is one area where an indigenous capability at ANY COST is a must and its a big big achievement for the IN.

[Philip]

The US has the luxury of numbers of flat tops..Plus a large VSTOL inventory in the form of its Harriers which the IN lacks.Given the cost of a current STOVL fighter at around $100M (F-35B),one can acquire 3-4 NLCAs for that amount.Air support for amphib ops has to come from somewhere.The IN''s surface combatants are underarmed ,with poor gunfire support capability.Russia's amphibious Mistrals will use marinised versions of the KA-52 ,as their projected ops are closer to the mainland (Georgia,Black Sea,Baltic,Arctic,Kuriles) where air support from land based aircraft is easily and plentifully available.The Russians have no adventurist "expeditionary warfare" maritime ambitions unlike the US!

In the IOR region alone,the IN may have to operate in the Maldives,Mauritius,Sri Lanka,etc.,apart from its own island territories.Barring some limited integral air support in the A&N islands,land based air support is ruled out.Therefore where will the air support come from? The IN's few carriers may or may not be available.During the Kargil War the Viraat was in refit.For the forseeable future,until 2025 or so,the IN will operate only two carriers,with one perhaps unavailable in a crisis.The amphib task force will then be vulnerable especially if the other carrier is also on duty elsewhere on the opposite seabooard,unable to sail back in time.Therefore,the IN's amphibs should have some integral air capability and using a light fighter that is available fits the bill.Remember how for decades the A-4 was used by the USN aboard its flat tops.The IN plans to build/acquire 4 amphibs.If these are sufficiently large enough,Juan Carlos size at least,they could operate the NLCA provided an angled deck is provided.Remember that even the Viraat was used in a multi-role manner in the Falklands,with both an amphib complement plus its force of Sea Harriers. The mix of aircraft/helos can be fixed according to the number of amphib vessels used for the mission.

IN amphibs possessing this multi-role swing ability will be effective force multipliers especially if we have to deal with a Sino-Pak JV ,remembering that Gwadar is to be a future Chinese naval base.

[brar_w]

The US has the luxury of numbers of flat tops..Plus a large VSTOL inventory in the form of its Harriers which the IN lacks.Given the cost of a current STOVL fighter at around $100M (F-35B),one can acquire 3-4 NLCAs for that amount

How will you operate the NLCA on an LHD and with what tempo can you run them? What would be required to be sacrificed in capability to obtain even a modest air-wing and how that capability will differ from a small 40K non nuclear aircraft carrier?

Air support for amphib ops has to come from somewhere

What do you think all the flat top makers around the world have been doing? Challenges and design trade-offs have been made by one and all. If you actually sit down and think about it for a few minutes you'll realize that the trade-off is so huge that you are better off using a dedicated mini-carrier or using STOVL in limited numbers. Each and every designer or operator has come to that conclusion - i.e. an air wing comes with too many compromises and if a limited number is required STOVL is the best option.

The biggest problem with LHDs is that a very large amount of "ASSAULT SPACE" needs to be traded for even a small number of fighters that require a moderate tempo of operations. The the 6 and 7 Americas do make this compromise but only because they can stand off and have the WASPS, allies ships and other Americas go in and do the offloading. A high tempo ops ability even in a decent "smallish" fighter fleet of 10-15 requires a huge logistical footprint underneath. How will the IN transport a GE F414 to an LHD at a moment's notice? I guess they'll store them and with that you open up some more space for heavy spares and maintain requirements. All this space takes away from the primary mission of the ship. The WASP has a very limited number of F-35B's or Harriers that it can deploy with without having to trade off a lot of capability just to support the CAS aircraft onboard. Its a vicious circle, provide more CAS assets and you don't have enough troops to actually use the CAS for. Go easy on the CAS aspect and you leave your troops vulnerable. For most this is too complicated to execute as the ships would then need to go bigger and bigger and even then still only be able to execute medium tempo ops.

Like I said, want a mini carrier - go build one and leave the LHD's for things they are designed to do best.

In the IOR region alone,the IN may have to operate in the Maldives,Mauritius,Sri Lanka,etc.,apart from its own island territories.Barring some limited integral air support in the A&N islands,land based air support is ruled out.Therefore where will the air support come from?

That has to be decided. If organic better develop a STOVL aircraft or buy some Harriers or else just up the number of conventional carriers. An LHD sacrifices too much for the sort of air-support that is required if nothing else is available. The entire point is to project force ashore, if you require heavy protection better have support. Same applies to USMC ops, they will send in the WASPS and americas with a modest F-35B load for dual a2a and CAS knowing full well that big brother (CVN) and allied fighters would be waiting at a moments notice.

The IN plans to build/acquire 4 amphibs.If these are sufficiently large enough,Juan Carlos size at least,they could operate the NLCA provided an angled deck is provided

The Juan Carlos uses STOVL and does not have accommodation for a STOBAR aircraft. There are some very serious logistical issues with running even moderate-high tempo ops from LHD's (fighter ops). Think about it for a second, i bet you can list a few (or a few dozen ). There is a reason why no one (including the USMC) is planning on such a thing.

Remember that even the Viraat was used in a multi-role manner in the Falklands,with both an amphib complement plus its force of Sea Harriers

The Virat was an aircraft carrier not an LHD. Big difference. Check the Mistral and Canberra drawings posted above. Read what these ships are supposed/designed to do.

[Manish_Sharma]

Given the sensitivity of under sea warfare and its importance at time of war all the good stuff when it comes to torpedoes and sub and counter sub warfare are likely to be closely held secrets (For all parties concerned). This is one area where an indigenous capability at ANY COST is a must and its a big big achievement for the IN.

Yes there have hardly been any news regarding our own Varun / Takshak Torpedos. Maybe IN found them good enough for scorpenes hence no hurry for WASS?

[Manish_Sharma]

Wow khan is ages ahead of others with its Mk 48 torpedo in its speed + range combo, all others so behind:

http://www.tldm.org/News22/RussiasShkva ... ngElse.htm

I would think a lot has to do with the propulsion some having thermal(including Mk 48) and others having electrical/battery. Each would have its own pros and cons.

Though I hope this news is half true:

In addition to the Russian Navy, the Shkval rocket-assisted torpedo has been sold to India, Iran and Ukraine. In 2008 it was said that Iran may use the Shkval underwater rocket to target the US Navy's aircraft carriers in the Persian Gulf. According to some reports they may use small fast boats as launch platforms. Russia claims that Ukraine sold five brand-new Shkval underwater missiles to Georgia prior to August 2008 conflict. Its development started in times of the Soviet Union and was completed by Russia after 2000. This missile system has been pointed out as the source of the fatal accident that shrunken the Russian Navy's Kursk nuclear-powered boat in August 2000. Apparently, the missile was undergoing tests aboard the doomed submarine.

1977 - After more than a decade of research and development, the Soviet navy secretly introduces the rocket-powered supercavitating Shkval torpedo. By travelling in a gas-generated cavity of air, the weapon can reach speeds not previously thought possible. Although it flies through water at 100 metres per second, the early-version Shkval is not guided and can only travel in a straight line. However, if equipped with a nuclear warhead, it could blast any enemy submarine before there is time to react.

I hope this part isn't true:

1998 - There are reports that China has bought around 40 Shkval torpedoes from Kazakhstan, posing a possible threat to American naval forces if they face a battle with China in the Taiwan Strait. Some reports also say the Shkval has been sold to Iran.

http://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2 ... ng-torpedo

But the supercavitating torpedo—a rocket-propelled weapon that speeds through the water enveloped in a nearly frictionless air bubble—may render obsolete the old submarine strategy of sly maneuvering and silent running to evade the enemy. The superfast torpedo could be outfitted with conventional explosive warheads, nuclear tips or nothing at all—a 5,000-pound, 230-mph missile could do enough damage on its own. The Russians invented the concept during the Cold War, and their version of this underwater killer—dubbed the Shkval (“Squall”)—has recently been made available on the international weapons market; the United States, of course, wants a new, improved version of the original.


The hard part about building a rocket-propelled torpedo isn’t so much the propulsion as clearing a path through the ocean. Water creates speed-sapping drag; the best way to overcome that drag is to create a bubble that envelops the torpedo—a supercavity. A gas ejected uniformly and with enough force through a cavitator in the nose of the torpedo will provide such a bubble, permitting speeds of more than 200 mph and a range of up to 5 miles (traditional torpedoes have slightly longer ranges, but lumber at only 30 to 40 mph).

[Philip]

As said before the US has the luxury of 10 carriers carrying 100+ aircraft each to support dedicated amphib ops anywhere on the planet.The IN's amphib requirements are much smaller.We do not even have a marine corps.10 JSFs will cost us $1B.Therefore the IN has to be innovative and marshal its resources carefully.Having an air capability aboard its amphibs will give it additional capability.The NLCA might be a very effective force multiplier.This capability is not meant to mirror full-fledged carrier strike capability but provide a better measure of air support than attack helos,more vulnerable to anti-air defences.In any case below the hangar deck,the remaining decks and well deck are are used for the assortment of armoured and logistic support vehicles and landing craft.The hangar deck and deck lifts could easily accommodate the smaller NLCA.Both Viraat and Vikrant are flat tops than the JC class.The basic deck design can be tweaked for NLCA flight ops as in any case the vessel is designed to operate the STOVL JSF.Nothing ventured nothing gained.

[brar_w]

As said before the US has the luxury of 10 carriers carrying 100+ aircraft each to support dedicated amphib ops anywhere on the planet.

And who is arguing with that?

The IN's amphib requirements are much smaller

So, how does that alter the design trade-offs that come with designing an LHD type ship like a mini carrier?

We do not even have a marine corps

That makes absolutely no difference to the basic design of an LHD. Plenty of other navies have LHD like ships while lacking a marine corpse.

Therefore the IN has to be innovative and marshal its resources carefully

And precisely, and designing a ship with the sort of compromises that a mini-carrier LHD provides makes absolutely no sense. The USS America 6 and 7 is one such compromise, but the USMC can make it on 2 ships since it has others to do the more classical LHD like missions, but even the 6 and 7 won't act like mini carriers and would not be able to operate at a tempo even remotely close to a mini carrier.

The NLCA might be a very effective force multiplier

First of all you would need to totally go against the trend and design an LHD with a STOBAR capability. Then you'd need to figure out the displacement of the darn thing. How close do you want it to your carriers? Then you'd need to root out a ton of ASSAULT space and pack an air wing in there, then you would need to store everything required for a carrier like tempo in house because you will be limited with supply based on a small LHD unless you want to get really big (USS AMERICAS SIZE) and approach the size of your carriers but even then unless you acquire the V-22 you cannot get an F-414 onto the ship so you would have to store all the heavy supplies which take away more space from the Assault mission. All in all, your suggestion makes a design trade-off that no one ever designing an LHD has made. Not the Mistral, not the WASP, not the AMERICAS, not the Juan Carlos/ Canberra and neither of the japanese or South Korean ships. Its just a very bad idea given how much space one would require to equip an air wing and prep it for high tempo ops (such as you would expect from a mini-carrier). You'd end up with an LHD that operates like a mini carrier. A 45K class LHD that operates like a mini carrier will still be much inferior to a 45K class carrier designed around that role. Better to concentrate on 25-30K LHD's with either STOVL or do away with fixed wing assets altogether and build a couple of mini carriers to provide air cover. There is only a limited amount of stuff that one can take out of an LHD to get an air wing before it seizes to be an LHD and becomes a mini carrier. Mix the missions and you get a ship that is an incompetent LHD and an unsurvivable carrier (tempo is everything for carrier ops). The USS Americas is often reffered to as a mini-carrier and i believe this is the source of much confusion. Let me tell you that it IS NOT A MINI CARRIER. The F-35B's onboard are for CAS and cannot perform the full gamut of carrier ops at the required tempo to be called a carrier. The moment you start trading F-35B's for V-22's and assault space you end up diminishing your LHD ability of the ship. At best the AMERICAS and the WASPS will operate 6-8 F-35Bs at a time in CAS like tempo and most of them will forward deploy with advancing troops. A carrier aircraft tempo is much much higher.

The LHA 6,7 do about 6-8 F-35's at a higher tempo but at the expense of other things (well deck for one, and other LHA like missions). Thats a 45K class LHA. Want 10-15 Aircraft operating and your compromise would be even more severe especially if you want a carrier like tempo of operation. How close do you want an LHA to be to the carriers being designed/operated at the moment?

Both Viraat and Vikrant are flat tops than the JC class.The basic deck design can be tweaked for NLCA flight ops as in any case the vessel is designed to operate the STOVL JSF.Nothing ventured nothing gained

You are comparing flat top carriers to flat top LHA's. Go read up on what each does and what advantages each has vs the other while operating in its own configuration

The NLCA would not be able to take off from any of the LHA's that are operational at the moment, and neither can the Gripen in any form.

[Gagan]

1998 - There are reports that China has bought around 40 Shkval torpedoes from Kazakhstan, posing a possible threat to American naval forces if they face a battle with China in the Taiwan Strait. Some reports also say the Shkval has been sold to Iran.

Kazakhstan is land-locked, and only has access to the Caspian sea. I don't think they have subs there or will used torpedos like the Shkval there. Almost the entire shore line of that sea is filled with oil rigs, pumping up millions of gallons of crude

[sattili]

^^^^^

Wiki says:

The torpedo is manufactured in Kyrgyzstan by a state-owned factory. In 2012 the Russian government purchased a 75% ownership of the factory in exchange for writing off massive Kyrgyz debt to Russia

It could be typo that the report says Kazakhstan instead of Kyrgyzstan. And Russia bought 75% ownership in 2012, god knows what happened prior to that time.

[Singha]

Kazakhstan is actually where the leading torpedo design bureau of the soviet union is located. they use a lake there for testing. secure and away from any khan efforts to steal runaway protos.
we were also working with them for the varunastra HWT which is still not IOC I believe.

[Manish_Sharma]

Kazakhstan is actually where the leading torpedo design bureau of the soviet union is located. they use a lake there for testing. secure and away from any khan efforts to steal runaway protos.
we were also working with them for the varunastra HWT which is still not IOC I believe.

OT alert/

Singha ji have you seen this 5 minute video of 3rd world war where Bharat fights against Islamistan (arab to pork) + China?



Second is blood rushing video of our preparation:



just trying to provoke you to write another scenario

[kmkraoind]

Vishal Thapar ‏@thaparvishal : 1st photo of the completed hull of the Scorpene submarine at MDL Mumbai. 1st sub to be put in water by Sept 2015

[SNaik]

Kazakhstan is actually where the leading torpedo design bureau of the soviet union is located. they use a lake there for testing. secure and away from any khan efforts to steal runaway protos.
we were also working with them for the varunastra HWT which is still not IOC I believe.

Kyrgyzstan it is. Both Lake Issik-kul and Dastan TNC are located there.
http://kabar.kg/eng/politics/full/7524

[Philip]

Tx. for your comments.You are too heavily invested in US concepts to understand Indian innovative concepts.We do not need amphibs designed for the needs of the USMC,which has an extensive expeditionary warfare agenda.I have studied the design of amphib vessels in detail for a long time.I posted an analysis over 4 years ago,long before you joined BRF,on the merits and differences of the JC and Mistral classes ,in pursuing an amphib agenda for the IN for over a decade,long before the IN declared its planned requirement for the 4 amphibs.You have missed the plot entirely.No one is advocating a full air wing for an aviation capable LHPD as on a regular carrier.The IN has a very poor gunfire support capability in its inventory,unlike the US.Its surface combatants are woefully undergunned.Land attack missiles carried too are limited in number and very expensive.How is it going to support amphib ops then? It also does not have any worthwhile attack helo for amphib ops unlike the Russian KA-52 which the RuN has earmarked for its Mistrals.It will have at the most 3 carriers only by 2025 onwards with the need for a carrier on each seaboard with one in refit/repair.The two carriers that it will possess before 2025,the Vik-A and IAC-1,will not carry more than 40+ fixed wing aircraft as they require a sufficient number of ASW /EW helos as well.In a Jscenario with a Sino-Pak JV that our defence planners are now factoring in into our requirements,iThe IN's carriers and aircraft will be insufficient in number to pursue the multifarious ops that may arise,and amphib ops weakened by the lack of gunfire/close support.There is also a limitation to range extension of land based aircraft using tankers which will be in heavy demand should we face off with China.We've just had the news about the establishment of the first MIG-29K sqd. at Vizag,again echoing my advocation of the IN taking a greater share of air defence./offensive maritime ops also using land based aircraft,allowing the IAF with its limited numbers to concentrate more on the Sino-Pak fronts.

Had the IN a sizeable stock of Harriers they would've sufficed for the amphibs.We missed the bus when the RN early-retired its 70+ Harriers,snapped up lock stock and barrel by the USMC.The JSF at its cost is simply prohibitive.Just 10 JSFs will cost us around $1B,peanuts for the USN but a huge amount for the IN.We can acquire 3-4 NLCAs for just one JSF.SAAB have already given the IN a Gripen-N concept for the Viraat. The JC is a far larger design than the Viraat too.What one is proposing is a design with a large through hangar deck that can take a mix of light NLCA/equiv sized aircraft ,UAVs (UCAVs too in future) and helos (plus space on the deck for more in a crisis) depending upon the mission,with the lower decks and well deck dedicated for the rest of the amhipb package,armour,vehicles,LCs,etc. Possessing its own integral sir support will give the amphib flat tops a quality of their own,with considerable swing capability in the Indian context. From the last century onwards one has been advocating that all capital ships over 12,00t have flat tops,to multiply its air options using STOVL and helo assets,extending the reach of such warships far beyond the range of VLS missiles.It is heartening to see Japan and SoKo arriving at similar conclusions with their induction of flat-topped aviation "destroyers" /amphibs of the Osumi,Dodko and larger follow on classes in the pipeline.

One can see exactly how Japan is pursing similar objectives in its future amphib op ambitions with this report.

http://www.janes.com/article/40626/onod ... ault-ships
Onodera sets out plans to buy amphibious assault ships

Kosuke Takahashi, Tokyo and James Hardy, London - IHS Jane's Defence Weekly
09 July 2014
Japan is looking for a platform similar to the US Navy's Wasp-class amphibious assault ship, its defence minister said after touring USS Makin Island on 7 July in San Diego. Source: US Navy file photo

Japanese Defence Minister Itsunori Onodera has said that Tokyo is to consider the purchase of at least one amphibious assault ship.

"We are intending to acquire a transport ship capable of promptly sending out Self-Defense Force (SDF) units on missions to defend Japan's remote islands," Onodera told reporters after inspecting the Wasp-class assault ship USS Makin Island (LHD at the US Navy's San Diego base on 7 July.

"It's a multifunctional transport ship capable of providing assistance in a timely manner when a major disaster breaks out," he said.

The Japanese Maritime Self-Defense Force (JMSDF) already operates three Osumi-class tank landing ships (LST), JS Osumi , JS Shimokita and JS Kunisaki , which all have a well deck embarking two Landing Craft Air Cushion (LCAC) hovercraft and a parking deck that can embark land vehicles.

Access is via lifts to the main deck or a ramp on the starboard side. The main deck is split between space for more land vehicles and a large helicopter landing pad aft the superstructure.

The Japanese Ministry of Defence confirmed to IHS Jane's in January that the Osumi class will be upgraded to allow them to embark BAE Systems AAV7A1 amphibious assault vehicles and Bell-Boeing MV-22 Osprey tiltrotor aircraft, both of which Japan intends to buy from the United States.

Asked about the difference with the existing Japanese ships, Onodera pointed to the fact that the Wasp class can carry many more LCACs below deck, and that the upper deck can carry many aircraft including MV-22s. He also said the ship is also fully compatible with operations using AAV7s.
COMMENT

Onodera's comments are in line with the Mid-Term Defense Programme (FY2014-18), which was adopted in December 2013 and stated that "the SDF will consider what the role should be of a multipurpose vessel with capabilities for command and control, large-scale transportation, and aircraft operations, which can be utilised in various operations such as amphibious operations, and reach a conclusion regarding its acquisition" by FY2018.

The Osumi-class upgrade can be seen as one element of this but the move to purchase a new platform is a longer term aim. Osumi was Japan's first flattop in the post-war period and so had its capabilities limited by defence planners to avoid any suggestion that it could have an offensive amphibious role.

This sensitivity has been trumped by the perceived threat from China to Japan's offshore islands, which has dominated MoD strategic planning discussions in recent years due to the escalation of the Senkaku/Diaoyu island dispute in the East China Sea.

In addition to platform procurements and upgrades, Japan is also setting up a marine corps-style force from Western Army troops based in Nagasaki, and has undertaken an increasing number of amphibious drills with the US Marine Corps and other countries.

Nonetheless, in San Diego Onodera was keen to stress the disaster relief capabilities of Makin Island and another Wasp-class ship USS Essex , which he said "played a crucial role" in the response to the March 2011 earthquake and tsunami in northeastern Japan.

He also failed to mention one key element of the Wasp class' capabilities: that it embarks fighter aircraft in the form of BAe-McDonnell Douglas AV8B Harrier IIs, which are to be replaced by the Lockheed Martin F-35B Lightning II.

Wasp aviation mix:

Aircraft carried: Variable by mission:
• 12 × CH-46 Sea Knight helicopters
• 4 × CH-53E Super Stallion helicopters
• 6 × AV-8B Harrier attack aircraft
• 3 × UH-1N Huey helicopters
• 4 × AH-1Z Viper helicopters
• MV-22 Osprey VTOL tiltrotor

[Philip]

Meanwhile ,here is JNI's take on the P-28 design.The top speed is given as 30kt,which seems to be more accurate for an ASW vessel rather than the slower 25kts mentioned in some of our press reports,plus the lack of key eqpt. to live up to its intended task,hunting subs.

http://www.janes.com/article/42400/indi ... w-corvette

India inducts first locally built ASW corvette
Ridzwan Rahmat, Singapore and Rahul Bedi, New Delhi - IHS Jane's Navy International
26 August 2014
Indian Navy's lead Kamorta (Project 28)-class anti-submarine warfare (ASW) corvette. Source: Indian Navy

The Indian Navy (IN) commissioned INS Kamorta , the first of four 3,500-tonne Project 28 anti-submarine warfare (ASW) missile corvettes, at Naval Dockyard Visakhapatnam in Andhra Pradesh on 23 August.

Kamorta was originally scheduled for delivery in 2012. However, construction delays and the ship running aground in October 2013 during sea trials off Kolkata delayed the arrival of India's first indigenously built ASW corvette. With the commissioning, the vessel has been formally inducted into India's Eastern Naval Command, where it will assume patrol and maritime surveillance duties.

The class replaces 11 Soviet-era Petya III-class corvettes that entered Indian service from 1968 and were all decommissioned by 2003.

Kamorta is the first of four vessels in a class designed jointly by the IN's Directorate General Naval Design Surface Ship Group and Garden Reach Shipbuilders & Engineers (GRSE). The vessel design includes a full beam superstructure and inclined ship-sides for reduced acoustic, infrared, and radar cross-section (RCS) signatures.

IN officials said nearly 90% of the INR19 billion (USD316 million) Kamorta had been indigenously sourced. "It's time we cease to remain the world's largest buyer of defence equipment and become an important manufacturer," defence minister Arun Jaitley said after commissioning Kamorta .

Kamorta has a 109-member crew - including 15 officers - and is powered by four 3,888 kw licence-built SEMT Pielstick diesel engines capable of achieving speeds of up to 30 kt with an operating range of 1500 n miles. The corvette is armed with an Oto Melara 76/62 Super Rapid Gun as its main armament, two AK-630M close-in weapon systems (CIWS), and improved versions of the Russian RBU-6000 rocket launchers and DTA-53 533 mm twin torpedo launchers. It also carries the Eurotorp MU 90 Impact lightweight torpedo.

A statement by the IN about the vessel's induction claimed that Kamorta 's Bharat Revathi 3-D E/F-band radar can detect targets more than 200 km away.

Although the IN was initially expected to operate up to 12 vessels in the class - the programme is designed to secure India's offshore waters at a time of continuing Chinese submarine modernisation - only four vessels have been confirmed to date. The three other corvettes - Kadmatt , Kiitan , and Kavaratti - will all be delivered at one year intervals by 2017, IN spokesman Captain D K Sharma told IHS Jane's . The latter two are being built with a carbon-composite superstructure.
COMMENT

Despite Kamorta 's low acoustic signature, in its present configuration the corvette is unable to perform its primary ASW role as it is without the advanced array towed sonar (ATAS), which has been under acquisition from Germany's Atlas Electronix since 2010.

The ATAS is vital for the corvette to detect submarines in the relatively warm and shallow waters of the Arabian Sea. Instead, it relies on the locally designed low-frequency Hull Mounted Sonar Array-Next Generation (HUMSA-NG) which IN officials concede is not as effective.

Kamorta also lacks air defence and land-attack capability as its short-range surface-to-air missile (SR-SAM) remains under development.

The corvette also lacks an ASW helicopter as the procurement of 16 multirole helicopters, to replace the ageing fleet of IN Sea King Mk 42B/Cs, have been delayed by over four years.

Jaitley, however, played down Kamorta 's operational deficiencies. "If one of the weapons is not there it is because it is in the process of production or procurement. It shall be installed expeditiously as it is available," he said.

"This is a process that takes time. It is a learning curve for India's defence industry and for our own research institutions," he added.

With the latest partial ban on FinnM,where existing contracts will be continued,but new contracts not signed will be suspended,means that the NH-90 is going to have a tough time in being selected for the huge ASW helo requirement.Unless Eurocopter comes up with a contender,or the GOI relents in view of the urgent requirement,one of the two American helos offered are likely to bag the order.

http://www.janes.com/article/42409/indi ... nmeccanica

India opts for 'partial ban' on Finmeccanica
Rahul Bedi, New Delhi - IHS Jane's Defence Weekly
26 August 2014

India's Ministry of Defence (MoD) imposed a "partial ban" on Finmeccanica on 26 August that permits the Italian defence conglomerate and its subsidiaries to pursue ongoing local contracts but prohibits them from bidding for any new tenders.

The announcement follows the 1 January termination of a 2010 contract for 12 AW101 helicopters from Finmeccanica subsidiary AgustaWestland on grounds of corruption. The MoD then imposed a ban on all dealings with the Finmeccanica Group pending the outcome of an inquiry by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) into the AW101 purchase.

On 29 July the Italian authorities cleared Finmeccanica of any wrongdoing in the AW101 contract, although the CBI is continuing with its investigation.

[Manish_Sharma]

Seeing how IN ships of every category are becoming bigger and bigger the bigger '13 ton CH-148 Cyclone', should be considered for NMRH instead of 10 tonners like SH-70 or NH-90!

[brar_w]

@ Phillip, the ability to be flexible with the WASP or any other LHA type (Americas included) is rather limited when one wants to increase the fighter count to match that of something even remotely capable of being called a "mini carrier" with a tempo to match. There are huge logistical considerations which for most (including the USMC to a large extent) are too challenging to overcome and then there is the basic underlying fact that a ship that is in the 40K range and swings between an LHA and a mini carrier (if all the logistical issues can be solves) will still be much inferior to a 30-40K carrier and would pretty much be inferior to a 25-30K LHA type ship as well in the Assault role.

Hypothetically the USMC can remove all the rotary winged assets from the WASP and pack the deck with F-35B's, but "realistically" there isn't space or the logistical capability to maintain that large a number of F-35B's or Harriers on an LHA for a decent amount of tempo (that would make it worthy to call it a mini carrier). Where the F-35B adds over the harrier is that while the harrier was primarily for front line CAS and required an F-18 Hornet top cover the F-35B's from WASP, and from other LHA (6 and 7) further back can swing between the CAS and the Air defense mission and can penetrate further into the front line. Still not a mini-carrier by a long shot.

[Singha]

^^ sustained sortie rates will be too weak to support the CAS/BAI mission over land and surge rates too weak to fight back swarm attacks on the SAG.
as you rightly said, its neither here nor there. even a 40kT CTOL carrier barely manages to fulfill both these roles adequately.

let there be no doubt, CTOL is the big stick in terms of payload fraction too. and 4 catapults beats 1 ski jump by a long way.

Janes article:
> an operating range of 1500 n miles

it must be a typo, should read as 15000n miles.

[Philip]

A total of 8-12 aircraft can make a huge difference from zero support.Don't imagine that we are conducting USMC style amphib ops on a large scale.The The USN Wasp carries just 6-8 Harriers.As of now even the Viraat has barely 8 Sea Harriers operational.The US has 10 super carriers to support any amphib op as well.The IN will not have that many air assets,which is why it needs to augment air capability wherever it can.The more integral air assets,you have the more potent the force.As I said before,one should not confuse the IN with the USN/USMC.The agenda is different.The US has a global agenda.Ours is primarily controlling the IOR and our island territories,plus safeguarding the interests of some of our allies in the region.No one is disputing the appeal of a dedicated flat top supporting the amphib task force,great when possible,but if resources are strained and unavailable,then what?

Take '71 for instance and the landings at Cox's Bazaar.Support came from the Vikrant's vintage Seahawks and Alizes.They give an idea of some of the type of ops the In may be called upon in the future.

The second need is for the IN to place heavier guns aboard all its DDGs and FFGs in the future,with ER munitions.The USN has made a massive leap ahead with the EM rail gun.A larger DDG class or CG class upto 12000t may be required with LR SAMs with ABM capability,heavier guns ,LT anti-ship/land attack missiles,and a potent ASW/EW package of wepaonry,helos,UAVs,UUVs,sonars,etc.

[krishnan]

http://www.deccanherald.com/content/427 ... ality.html

The first Scorpene submarine, to be named INS Kalvari post-commissioning, is almost ready and will go on trial within a year, following which it will be inducted into the Navy in 2016

[Manish_Sharma]

^^more good news fromt the same article:

Two more submarines are in the outfitting stage and are likely to be delivered to the Navy at a gap of eight months each from the commissioning of the first submarine.All the six boats would be ready for operational use by 2018-19, giving the much needed boost to the Navy's depleting under water wing.

As Defence Minister Arun Jaitley and Navy chief Admiral R K Dhowan reviewed the progress in the Scorpene project at the Mazgaon dock in Mumbai, officials said the systems of the first submarine are being “set to work”, which means bulk of the manufacturing is over and what is left now is virtually tightening the nuts and bolts.

The first batch of crew of 10 Navy officers and 35 sailors, headed by the submarine's skipper Commodore S D Mahendale, have been sent for training, sources told Deccan Herald.

Six French-origin SSK submarines are under construction in a Rs 18,798 crore project at Mazgaon dock under technology transfer from DCNS.

Bold underlined part means they can start building next 6 subs also since we paid so much money for ToT and now only nut bolt tightening work is left why now go for next 6 too?

[Rien]

We always bought Torpedoes for HDW and Kilo from the same manufacturer and never floated a separate tender.

If everything was to be signed upfront for the Scorpene SSKs, the cost would have been prohibitly expensive. From $3.8 billion, it would have ballooned to be more like $7 billion+. It's the same we are seeing with the Rafale deal. If India wants everything (aircrafts, TOT, weapons, infrastructure (production & support), lifecycle, training etc.) upfront, the price would easily top $20 billion. So the government, following practices seen with T-90S and Scorpene SSK deals, will break it up into multiple-tenders with the big one first (since that is what everyone remembers) which is the signing of an initial contract for 126 Rafales "within" budget of around $12 billion (exact contract details of what will be included in this won't be available in public domain). Then, in a much lower limelight, a series of smaller deals will be made over the course of many years that will pay for weapons, infrastructure and TOT (in bits and pieces). Eventually India will end up paying that $20 billion+ (plus inflation), but most people will only remember the deal as a $12 billion one.

Srai, makes you want to keep a running tally of Defence deals and produce a total lifecycle cost. Does anyone do that at this moment in time? At the quoted cost, and the ridiculous length of time it has taken, we could have had an all nuclear navy.

[brar_w]

^^ sustained sortie rates will be too weak to support the CAS/BAI mission over land and surge rates too weak to fight back swarm attacks on the SAG.
as you rightly said, its neither here nor there. even a 40kT CTOL carrier barely manages to fulfill both these roles adequately.

let there be no doubt, CTOL is the big stick in terms of payload fraction too. and 4 catapults beats 1 ski jump by a long way.

Janes article:
> an operating range of 1500 n miles

it must be a typo, should read as 15000n miles.

Totally correct. The problem is that the 6-10 Fixed winged aircraft are seen as something that can do everything from ship defense, to airspace defense for the forward deployed troops to CAS. This is not the case and this is also not an underlying assumption in the CONOPS for the WASP, USS Americas or any other LHA that has a fixed winged asset onboard. Most Navies who have made the tradeoff against fixed winged aircraft from flat top LHA like ships have done so because they lack the proper support to allow for such a thing. Start trading off deck space or other space and you greatly diminish the capability the craft is specifically designed for and what you get in return is not much in terms of CAP and fleet defense capability. You cannot run the 6-10 F-35B's in an intensity / tempo that would require proper ship/fleet defense. They are meant to support the landing troops and then move ashore.

To design a LHA like ship for CV STOBAR operations would most likely mean a size comparable to the smaller carriers operating today and in return you get a very mediocre assault ship and a non-survivable mini-carrier.

[Aditya G]

... DTA-53 533 mm twin torpedo launchers. It also carries the Eurotorp MU 90 Impact lightweight torpedo.
.....

When did MU90 purchase happen?

[Philip]

Xcpts. from a USNI article on the growing ASW warfare challenges from China and Russia and US countermoves.
The reference to a Chinese N-sub entering IOR waters-reported some time ago,has very ominous repercussions for India,whose sub inventory is in a deep crisis,where China possesses 4-5 times the number of subs,both nuclear and conventional and is further growing at a pace outstripping India.

http://news.usni.org/2014/08/27/opinion ... NI+News%3A
Opinion: A New Era in Anti-Submarine Warfare

By: Lt. Cmdr. Jeff W. Benson, USN
Published: August 27, 2014

China and Russia’s submarine forces are flexing their prowess in the undersea domain by operating further from their respective country’s homeport – in some cases within striking distance of the United States.

Given the expansion in operations, anti-submarine warfare (ASW) platforms on both coasts of the United States will be required to monitor and defend the nation more frequently.

Foreign submarine operations near the homeland are not necessarily immediate threats, but do require careful thought as the Navy prepares to execute future ASW missions. As budget and naval policymakers continue to plan for the future, ASW must remain a high priority for either homeland or overseas defense. The good news is that the U.S. Navy has new platforms and technology coming online that can provide a significant advantage in the undersea domain.

China
An undated photo of a Jin-class Type 94 nuclear ballistic missile submarine (SSBN). PLAN Photo

Adm. Sam Locklear, Commander, Pacific Command, earlier this year stated, “China’s advance in submarine capabilities is significant. They possess a large and increasingly capable submarine force.” China has expanded their undersea reach as evident in this year’s deployment of a Chinese nuclear submarine to the Indian Ocean. The deployment demonstrates extended submarine operations and the capability for China to deploy nuclear submarines within ballistic missile launch range of the United States, within the exclusive economic zone (EEZ), or potentially closer to territorial waters. As China continues sustained undersea operations, proficiency will likely improve with time as well.

The expansion of China’s nuclear submarine fleet will also allow operations further from the Asia Pacific region in the coming years. China is in the process of building four new improved variants of the Shang class nuclear submarine and working on a robust diesel submarine fleet. Given China’s submarine capability to transit and operate in the Indian Ocean and with continued submarine growth, a future nuclear submarine deployment off the West Coast of the United States may occur in the next five years or possibly sooner.

The purpose of future submarine deployments may serve as a deterrence, presence or collection mission against the United States – creating an increased requirement for naval assets to monitor and ensure security for the nation. This development should not come as a surprise to those in the national security community. Senior policymakers and naval leaders should develop an operational and strategic plan in how to deal with Chinese submarine operations closer to the United States.

Russia
Russian Borey-class (Project 955) ballistic nuclear missile submarine Yuri Dolgoruky during sea trials. RIA Novosti Photo

As China increases their submarine role in maritime operations, Russia is simultaneously increasing their Navy’s importance. “The navy, for our country, is her pride, strength and dignity,” Russia’s President Vladimir Putin last month said. “The power and strength of the Russian navy will only grow.”

The Russian submarine force is also set to grow.

In the next two years, Russia will begin construction on nine submarines. Russia has already commissioned two Borei class nuclear submarines and plans to build six more. This new submarine is a notable threat carrying sixteen SS-NX-32 Bulava intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) and six SS-N-15 cruise missiles. In addition, the Russian navy plans to add seven Severodvinsk class nuclear attack submarines by 2020 with intentions for reaching a total of sixteen.

With Russia’s construction of new submarines and leadership touting naval strength, more submarine operations near the United States are possible. Since the end of the Cold War, Russia for the most part has been non-existent in operating nuclear submarines near the United States, but that may change. In 2012, a Sierra class nuclear submarine operated off the east coast of the U.S. – a trend that could continue in the future. In addition, Russia recently increased rhetoric against possible U.S. submarine operations. Russia publicly stated an IL-38 ASW aircraft chased away a U.S. nuclear submarine that was operating in the Barents Sea – a claim U.S. naval leaders quickly rebuked.

American ASW
P-8A Poseidon, operated by Patrol Squadron (VP-16) in February, 2013. US Navy Photo

A future increase in submarine construction and operations by both countries are not the only development of concern in the undersea domain. Internationally, the development and use of unmanned underwater vehicles (UUVs) for military, education, and commercial use are expanding. In the military realm, developed countries are exploring UUV deployment from submarines that will create a new dynamic in the undersea domain. As autonomous technology becomes more mature, UUVs will also operate independently in areas of potential crisis or strategic importance. With a future increase in UUV operations, the ability to track UUVs in the undersea will be equally difficult and require improved sensor and processing capability.

To meet expanded foreign submarine operations and UUV technological advancements, the U.S. surface naval force employs state of the art ASW technology aboard numerous Arleigh Burke class destroyers. The SQQ-89A(V)15 Combat System, which will be aboard 64 destroyers by 2020, and the new Multi-Functional Towed Array (MFTA) are game changers in ASW operations. The combined capabilities alter how the surface navy searches and tracks submarines. With enhanced sensor capability and data processing, the surface naval forces have an increased role in integrated ASW operations. ASW surface ships can remain longer on station in comparison to aircraft and also provide real time command and control capability beyond that of a submarine.

In stride with the surface navy’s technological advancements, the aviation community has new platforms to meet the ASW mission. The MH-60R Sea Hawk helicopter and the P-8A Poseidon aircraft are to be fully integrated in the fleet by 2020. The new platforms are already providing an improved ASW capability in fleet operations. The MH-60R has been forward deployed in Japan and operating in the Asia Pacific region since 2012.

Additionally, the rotary aircraft has an enhanced active dipping sonar advertised to increase detection ranges from three to seven times compared to legacy systems.

Earlier this month six P-8A aircraft completed an inaugural and successful deployment to the Asia Pacific. The P-8A adds an improved sensor search capability by utilizing a multi-static active coherent (MAC) system, which is comprised of sonobuoys (source and receiver) and advanced processing. In addition to the new platforms and technological advancements, all ASW ships and aircraft in the future will employ the Mk 54 lightweight torpedo, which integrates several years of weapons technology. By 2020, these new improvements collectively in the surface and aviation communities will create a powerful ASW capability. However, the Navy must further improve requisite training to meet the new capabilities, and foster a fleetwide culture that prioritizes the ASW mission.

The CNO’s Sailing Directions offers, “The Navy will continue to dominate the undersea domain using a network of sensors and platforms.” The navy is building a fleet (sensors and platforms) with enormous ASW capability that will create an integrated ASW machine. Additionally, the CNO has articulated that warfighting is the Navy’s primary mission and people are the Navy’s foundation. To ensure the U.S. Navy succeeds in ASW, a focus on warfighting and people must occur in tandem.

[member_28722]

Does anyone know the armament on the INS Chakra II?
It is supposed to be able to carry 22 Granat missiles which have been replaced with Klubs. In theory this should significantly increase its armament as the Klub has 1/7th the range of Grant and so should be much smaller.

[Philip]

The armament will be highly classified.One would imagine however that all the Klub versions would be carried,including the anti-sub version given the Akula's LR sonar capability.An Akula-2 usually has a weapons load of around 40 types. The second boat,deal hopefully concluded,will reportedly have VLS cpapbility as well to house either BMos or even larger missiles.This may feature the ATV type VLS silos which would give it considerable extra punch should she carry upto 12 K-15 missiles too.

Incidentally,here is a report on China's Liaoning carrier's aviation capability.It can carry a mix of upto 36 aircraft and helos.
http://www.wantchinatimes.com/news-subc ... 0828000110
Lineup of 36 aircraft on China's Liaoning carrier revealed
Staff Reporter
2014-08-28

[ravip]

@ANI_news 29m
16 multi role helicopters worth Rs 1800 crore for Navy have been cleared, bid will be opened as two vendors have been shortlisted: Sources

[Philip]

Any idea which helos were shortlisted for these 16? There are other IN multi-role helo requirements too.

[Ranjani Brow]

Any idea which helos were shortlisted for these 16? There are other IN multi-role helo requirements too.

NH-90 and S-70B.
IN also issued a global RFI for 123 NMRH worth $6-8 billion.