Indian Naval News & Discussion - 12 Oct 2013

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 15 Jul 2014 10:43

Why do we want Brahmos/Nirbhay on our SSK's so badly? We have (and are going to have) precious few of them even if P-75I materializes. Better to just select a currently available design, get them built fast and let them do what they do best, stealthily hunt enemy surface ships and submarines with torpedos or the occasional Exocet/Klub. And side by side work on a SSGN design as similar as possible to the Arihant with the same reactor but better hydrodynamics to improve speed, which can carry 12-16 Brahmos/Nirbhay missiles. Lot more useful than a short legged (even with AIP) SSK with a weight/speed penalty capable of firing a few Brahmos.

alexis · Post by **alexis** » 15 Jul 2014 18:00

^
+1

Why do we need to gold plate all our assets with Brahmos? Klub and Uran/Exocet are more than sufficient in most cases.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 15 Jul 2014 18:33

I think its more to do with nirbhay capability ie unleash some damage on land with a conventional weapon.

with only 3 arihant class reserved for n-deterrence from IOR using K4, there is no other platform but P75I that could sneak into the east asian seas and deliver some heat on target before escaping.

we do not have long range ALCM bombers or carrier groups strong enough to make a beeline for hainan and other interesting places.

with brahmos they could also lurk around choke points and ambush passing units from a distance much longer than torpedoes...effectively out of intercept probability by the target groups organic ASW helis.

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 15 Jul 2014 19:04

Singha wrote:...
a Soryu with 8 VL brahmos/nirbhay + 25 heavy torps would be a useful machine in the IOR.

A diesel-electric submarine would be less efficient/useful in the open ocean or seas far from home ports and a limited replacement for SSNs. Better to go for real SSN than to invest in supersized SSKs.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 15 Jul 2014 19:13

abhik wrote:
Singha wrote:...
a Soryu with 8 VL brahmos/nirbhay + 25 heavy torps would be a useful machine in the IOR.
A diesel-electric submarine would be less efficient/useful in the open ocean or seas far from home ports and a limited replacement for SSNs. Better to go for real SSN than to invest in supersized SSKs.

A diesel-electric submarine is stealthy and quiet.

The nukes are cacophonous clankers in comparison.

Both have their uses.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 15 Jul 2014 19:26

The reason for BMos is that one BMos missile is the equiv to 3-4 subsonic ones in lethality.Speed,range and kinetic lethality factor. Dr.Pillai has just come out with his book on BMos with loads of interesting facts about the programme. One gem,when asked whether the target ship was hit,the answer was its still floating....but had a hole in exactly the centre of the hull,a veritable bulls-eye!
Our future blue water subs should be able to carry a cocktail of BMos,the Klub variants,including the ASW missile,Nirbhay ,Shkval apart from a load of heavyweight TTs.6 Scorpene,4 upgraded U-209s and upto 6/8 Kilos would give the IN 18 conventional subs for littoral warfare. If the Amur AIP class is found acceptable,there are several variants,smaller versions for the littorals armed with klub and and larger ones with the BMos package,extra endurance,whatever.

Now the Scorpene is just too small a sub for the wider operational plans for the P-75I.It is noteworthy that Oz,which already operates larger Collins class subs,is now on the verge of buying the Japanese Soryu class at around 4,000t dplmt. Ordering more Scorpenes at its obscene price $600m+ (twice that of a new larger 636.3 Kilo),which makes the price of the Akula sub lease ($1B), 5 times larger more than double the armament and a nuclear boat to boot,look like winning the lottery, In past conversations with sr. naval officers,the general consensus is that the only true AIP sub is a nuclear sub! Hence the report that 6 nuclear boats are being planned for.One hopes that these are over and above the 3 SSBNs in the pipeline,with a total of 5-6 SSBNs planned for.We need such long ranged and long endurance subs with a 90 days patrol time to counter the PLAN within and without the IOR,into the Indo-China Sea and the Pacific. Regular naval exercises with Russia as is taking place at Vladivostok is a good step to eventually have a permanent presence in the pacific theatre,esp. the "first island chain" which lies closest to the Chinese coastline,remembering that all China's main industrial hubs are mainly established on its coastline. A fleet of IN nuclear subs operating in the Indo-China Sea,supported by conventional subs using Vietnamese ports/bases for logistic support will be the best forward defence of the IOR and our A&N territories in the future.

However,both the P-75I and SSGNs will take at least 4-5 years to start arriving even if orders are placed today.Therefore,the lease of the second Akula is critical as well as ordering at least 2 new 636.3 Kilos to replace the two Kilos lost.They can arrive within 3 years as the Russians are turning them out like sausages;just see how quickly and cheaply Vietnam is getting their 6 new Kilos,which the IN will train them for. Alternatively,one could even ask Russia to lease us a couple of their existing Kilos as they are also building at least 6 new boats for the Ru Navy. Eventually we need at least 12 N-subs both SSBNs and SSGNs apart from 18+ conventional/AIP boats.The PLAN will sport 75+ boats,Pak 12+,Iran several Kilos plus a dozen+ mini-subs,and another 40-50 dozen subs belonging to ASEAN-Asia-Pacific nations apart from the USN .

titash · Post by **titash** » 15 Jul 2014 19:32

Philip wrote:The reason for BMos is that one BMos missile is the equiv to 3-4 subsonic ones in lethality.Speed,range and kinetic lethality factor. Dr.Pillai has just come out with his book on BMos with loads of interesting facts about the programme. One gem,when asked whether the target ship was hit,the answer was its still floating....but had a hole in exactly the centre of the hull,a veritable bulls-eye!
Our future blue water subs should be able to carry a cocktail of BMos,the Klub variants,including the ASW missile,Nirbhay ,Shkval apart from a load of heavyweight TTs.6 Scorpene,4 upgraded U-209s and upto 6/8 Kilos would give the IN 18 conventional subs for littoral warfare. If the Amur AIP class is found acceptable,there are several variants,smaller versions for the littorals armed with klub and and larger ones with the BMos package,extra endurance,whatever.

Now the Scorpene is just too small a sub for the wider operational plans for the P-75I.It is noteworthy that Oz,which already operates larger Collins class subs,is now on the verge of buying the Japanese Soryu class at around 4,000t dplmt. Ordering more Scorpenes at its obscene price $600m+ (twice that of a new larger 636.3 Kilo),which makes the price of the Akula sub lease ($1B), 5 times larger more than double the armament and a nuclear boat to boot,look like winning the lottery, In past conversations with sr. naval officers,the general consensus is that the only true AIP sub is a nuclear sub! Hence the report that 6 nuclear boats are being planned for.One hopes that these are over and above the 3 SSBNs in the pipeline,with a total of 5-6 SSBNs planned for.We need such long ranged and long endurance subs with a 90 days patrol time to counter the PLAN within and without the IOR,into the Indo-China Sea and the Pacific. Regular naval exercises with Russia as is taking place at Vladivostok is a good step to eventually have a permanent presence in the pacific theatre,esp. the "first island chain" which lies closest to the Chinese coastline,remembering that all China's main industrial hubs are mainly established on its coastline. A fleet of IN nuclear subs operating in the Indo-China Sea,supported by conventional subs using Vietnamese ports/bases for logistic support will be the best forward defence of the IOR and our A&N territories in the future.

However,both the P-75I and SSGNs will take at least 4-5 years to start arriving even if orders are placed today.Therefore,the lease of the second Akula is critical as well as ordering at least 2 new 636.3 Kilos to replace the two Kilos lost.They can arrive within 3 years as the Russians are turning them out like sausages;just see how quickly and cheaply Vietnam is getting their 6 new Kilos,which the IN will train them for. Alternatively,one could even ask Russia to lease us a couple of their existing Kilos as they are also building at least 6 new boats for the Ru Navy. Eventually we need at least 12 N-subs both SSBNs and SSGNs apart from 18+ conventional/AIP boats.The PLAN will sport 75+ boats,Pak 12+,Iran several Kilos plus a dozen+ mini-subs,and another 40-50 dozen subs belonging to ASEAN-Asia-Pacific nations apart from the USN .

The cheaper solution to a proliferation of subs in our neighborhood is not more subs, but rather a vast increase in our naval air arm - ASW helicopters, MPAs, UAVs, Naval Satellites, etc. Exactly the same lessons as the Battle of the Atlantic 60 years ago.

A small force of SSNs with BrahMos/Nirbhay will be enough to threaten Hong Kong and the neighboring industrial hubs

titash · Post by **titash** » 15 Jul 2014 19:37

We need to start using the Kaveri engine in it's *current* form to enable a large air arm:
- Kaveri equipped UAV/UCAV
- 3x (or 4x) Kaveri equipped Maritime Strike Bombers (just like the Tu-22 Backfires)...can easily carry 3-4 BrahMos in an internal rotary launcher

Prem Kumar · Post by **Prem Kumar** » 15 Jul 2014 22:17

Singha wrote:http://navy-matters.blogspot.in/2013/09 ... etter.html

The example of Harpoon missiles is instructive. While we technically have an inventory of thousands of Harpoons, relatively few of them are serviceable. They’ve all exceeded their official shelf lives and are being rotated into storage as they fail their diagnostic checks. We have very few usable Harpoons left.

And this is the missile we are buying for gold-plated prices (paying for Pakistan's inventory too)! I am sure Khan sold it as "this is an all-new missile, with the latest avionics", like the F16 Block-654. Hopefully this is just a stop-gap arrangement. Hope the Brahmos-Mini comes onboard & once Nirbhay is ready, we will build a high subsonic, cheap, stealthy AshM variation of the same which we could carry in numbers in our ships, launch from subs & from the air. I dont think the era of subsonic AshM's are dead. We don't need a Brahmos for every conflict scenario & adversary. Having a couple of AshM variants will keep the enemy guessing

John · Post by **John** » 15 Jul 2014 22:33

titash wrote:We need to start using the Kaveri engine in it's *current* form to enable a large air arm:
- Kaveri equipped UAV/UCAV
- 3x (or 4x) Kaveri equipped Maritime Strike Bombers (just like the Tu-22 Backfires)...can easily carry 3-4 BrahMos in an internal rotary launcher

Why not just use Flankers for this purpose, those maritime bombers will be easy picking for PLAAF Flankers patrols and will require air support.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 16 Jul 2014 01:29

We will have enough land based aircraft and infrastructure in the A&N to support both IAF and IN assets if the plans to increase the number of airstrips and upgrade existing ones to 11,000ft materialise. The IN also require over 100 new multi-role medium helos for the various warships in the fleet to replace old Sea Kings and Kamovs.Extra med. MRP aircraft are also on the anvil.New P-8Is are arriving.The Bears need to be upgraded and with the existing Il-38SDs are a valuable asset.Russia has more of both types in mothballs and as I posted some time ago,is using the Bears as strategic bombers-their original role yet again.Equipped with LR stand-off missiles,these aircraft have massive range and escorted by IN/IAF aircraft could play havoc in the Indo-China Sea.Operating out of Vietnamese bases they would be even more penetrative with unmatched endurance.

However,as was pointed out,in WW2 in the Battle for the Atlantic,German U-boats wreaked havoc .It was ULTRA,the breaking of the German code that allowed Britain to locate German subs and use its ASW aircraft to hunt them down.Had the Germans also established sufficient air power operating out of French bases to counter Allied ASW aircraft ,the tide may have turned.Goering's defeat in the Battle of Britain and loss of air superiority meant that the subs had to operate without the cover of air support.Today with nuclear subs requiring no snorkelling and AIP subs extending their underwater endurance,the situ is quite different.Prosecuting subs today is going to be a difficult task,especially as the advent of UUVs has complicated the game.In the Falklands War,just one RN N-boat sent the entire Argie fleet back to port and safety,after the Belgrano was sunk.Faulty torpedoes saw their U-boats fail to sink the RN's carriers.24X7 sat coverage of Hainan and key PLAN bases is required,with a permanent fleet of N-subs in particular operating in the Indo-China Sea to prevent the PLAN from breakout into the IOR and destruction of PLAN SSBNs.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 16 Jul 2014 03:33

Singha wrote:http://navy-matters.blogspot.in/2013/09 ... etter.html

Navy Matters
Naval analysis provided by ComNavOps, Commander - Naval Opinions

Friday, September 6, 2013
...
The example of Harpoon missiles is instructive. While we technically have an inventory of thousands of Harpoons, relatively few of them are serviceable. They’ve all exceeded their official shelf lives and are being rotated into storage as they fail their diagnostic checks. We have very few usable Harpoons left. I don’t know the situation as it applies to Tomahawks but I suspect that shelf life is a serious issue.

...

And that is why periodically the US MIC starts wars. It's the sell by and subscription model.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 16 Jul 2014 04:19

And that is why periodically the US MIC starts wars. It's the sell by and subscription model

The Harpoon is an old missile, not replaced (but constantly updated) because of the serious threat to the surface ships from other missiles and ships greatly reducing post cold-war-end. Comparing the US investment or Interest in anti ship missiles to the projects outside will show that the USN has under-funded such weapons over the last decade and more.

With the Pacific rebalance, things will change beginning with this

titash · Post by **titash** » 16 Jul 2014 04:25

John wrote:
titash wrote:We need to start using the Kaveri engine in it's *current* form to enable a large air arm:
- Kaveri equipped UAV/UCAV
- 3x (or 4x) Kaveri equipped Maritime Strike Bombers (just like the Tu-22 Backfires)...can easily carry 3-4 BrahMos in an internal rotary launcher
Why not just use Flankers for this purpose, those maritime bombers will be easy picking for PLAAF Flankers patrols and will require air support.

The Flanker will carry 1 BrahMos + 4 AAMs. A dedicated bomber can carry a significantly larger payload increasing the chances that 1 missile will always get through. Given that the Flankers will also have to fight their way through, the chances of a mission kill are equally high whether you send 4x Flankers with 1 BrahMos each or 4x Tu-22 type Bombers with 4-6 BrahMos each.

Moreover, every rupee spent on a defence import is a rupee that is not spent on a road or hospital or an IIT/IIM for our kids. Importing high performance 9G fighters for air superiority on our borders is one thing, but maritime patrol/strike? I think we can have a cheaper home grown solution marrying Kaveri + BrahMos.

srai · Post by **srai** » 16 Jul 2014 10:03

^^^

Su-30MKI should be able to carry 3 or 4 Brahmos-Minis. This picture shows the size difference between Brahmos-A and Brahmos-M:

member_20453 · Post by **member_20453** » 16 Jul 2014 12:37

I think P-75I can be a AIP diesel eletrict variant of the Arihant. Wtih the Arihant we already know has a good design, once in the next year it proves its stealth, speed and other characteristics, it would be rather easy to use the same design to have a home made Diesel Eletric sub with AIP. India's own home made AIP will be ready soon enough and will go on the last two Scorpenes. With some basic redesigning we can have these home made subs ready by early 2020s. It would take some serious quick thinking and allocation of funds. With such a design we can easily have Sagarikas/ Brahmos/ Nirbhays loaded onto these subs. Based on what we know about Arihant's launchers, there is enough space in each launcher to contain 5 Brahmos/Nirbhay cruise missiles allowing us the ability to carry 20 missiles. I think an eventual fleet of around 10-12 such AIP subs can be made. We already have the production line, we just have to expand it.

I think this will help in maturiting our sub production + subsequent post production support abilities. Why bother with expensive imports which will come just as late when we can allocate a similar amount of money into a local design.

member_20453 · Post by **member_20453** » 16 Jul 2014 12:46

I also think we need to have more N-powered Arihants, this current order of 3 is laughable at best, we need to be looking at a fleet of atleast 10-12. Why give up on a design after spending soo much time and effort getting it ready.

We should have 10-12 N-Arihants and 10-12 AIP Arihants with production planned till 2030 and big enough line. We need blocks and technology improvements over time. Older blocks can subsequesnly be upgraded to latest block standards.

In the mean time we can start work on SSN and true large Boomers for long range ballistic & hypersonic cruise missiles.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 16 Jul 2014 13:00

Let the Arihant first finish her sea trails. Once that is done we can think in terms of more boats. BTW, do we have a clear indications on when the Scorpeans will begin to enter the fleet. If it is going to be 2015/16, then the first one ought to have hit the water. Some time early this year.

As a boat needs at least 2 to 3 years of fitting out and sea trails before she can enter service.

krishnan · Post by **krishnan** » 16 Jul 2014 13:16

2020 seems to be the proper date when we can expect them to enter service

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 16 Jul 2014 19:29

Dr.Pillai speaking in KL in April said that the MKIs would carry 3 BMs,MIG-29Ks 2.So would the FGFA probably Bmos-M in the internal weapons bay.In the release of his book on the missile he said that Russia would also start inducting BMos onto its warships despite its current ban on using foreign weapons.

Here is a news item on the latest "H" version of the upgraded Il-38.The IN operates 5 IL-38SDs.Russia has many more in stock.The ASW MP aircraft is particularly good at the "low and slow" method of prosecuting subs,which jet aircraft like the P-8Is cannot do.They also require a special delivery system to drop ASW torpedoes.The IN has a requirement for several medium sized ASW MP aircraft.

http://voiceofrussia.com/news/2014_07_1 ... raft-8713/
Russian Navy receives first upgraded Il-38H anti-submarine aircraft

The solemn handover of the first modernized Il-38H anti-submarine aircraft to the Russian Navy has taken place in Zhukovsky near Moscow.

"Today, we are solemnly handing this plane over to the Russian Defense Ministry," Yuri Yudin, General Director of OAO Ilyushin Aviation Complex, said during the ceremony.

The plane, named after outstanding Russian aircraft designer Radiy Petrovich Papkovsky, is the first of five Il-38 anti-submarine jets to get the newest Novella-P38 tracking and targeting system under a contract with Ilyushin Aviation Complex.
Read more: http://voiceofrussia.com/news/2014_07_1 ... raft-8713/

titash · Post by **titash** » 16 Jul 2014 20:30

Philip wrote: Here is a news item on the latest "H" version of the upgraded Il-38.The IN operates 5 IL-38SDs.Russia has many more in stock.The ASW MP aircraft is particularly good at the "low and slow" method of prosecuting subs,which jet aircraft like the P-8Is cannot do.They also require a special delivery system to drop ASW torpedoes.The IN has a requirement for several medium sized ASW MP aircraft.

I thought the P-8 flew at high altitudes to optimize cruising efficiency as well as stay out of the range of newer submarine launched SAMs. Hence the high altitude torpedo glide mechanism.

John · Post by **John** » 16 Jul 2014 20:39

Philip that is incorrect, P-3 pilots found P-8 to be better than P-3 at extreme low altitudes. Sure it's range might drop off a bit at those low altitude but it doesn't mean it cannot accomplish that mission.

"There were very few things that the P-3 did better. In fact, when operating at extreme low altitude, which had been reported [in the media] as being perhaps problematic for the P-8, the feedback has been that it is actually better due mainly to cockpit enhancements, such as a head-up display and other situational awareness improvements,"

"The P-3′s notoriously rough ride at low altitudes and the gunpowder-like stench from the launch tube shooting sonar buoys out the back meant that, “typically, every mission or two you’d have somebody get sick [and] start throwing up into their air sickness bag,” said Navy Captain Aaron Rondeau, a P-3 veteran who now runs the P-8 program. “We haven’t seen that much with the P-8.”"

titash wrote:
The Flanker will carry 1 BrahMos + 4 AAMs. A dedicated bomber can carry a significantly larger payload increasing the chances that 1 missile will always get through. Given that the Flankers will also have to fight their way through, the chances of a mission kill are equally high whether you send 4x Flankers with 1 BrahMos each or 4x Tu-22 type Bombers with 4-6 BrahMos each.

Moreover, every rupee spent on a defence import is a rupee that is not spent on a road or hospital or an IIT/IIM for our kids. Importing high performance 9G fighters for air superiority on our borders is one thing, but maritime patrol/strike? I think we can have a cheaper home grown solution marrying Kaveri + BrahMos.

Sure if IN has funding of 20 bill+ a year that would make sense but considering we have yet to induct enough helos to equip our fleet or keep the submarine #s intact. That is better ways to burn money that procuring Tu-22m3 to perform mission that Flankers can accomplish. Tu-22m3 are cold war relics they have very little chance of surviving against modern SAM threats without extensive EW/ECM upgrade (heck even Georgians brought one down with an obsolete SAM system in its first sortie ).

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 16 Jul 2014 20:52

John wrote:Philip that is incorrect, P-3 pilots found P-8 to be better than P-3 at extreme low altitudes. Sure it's range might drop off a bit at those low altitude but it doesn't mean it cannot accomplish that mission.

"There were very few things that the P-3 did better. In fact, when operating at extreme low altitude, which had been reported [in the media] as being perhaps problematic for the P-8, the feedback has been that it is actually better due mainly to cockpit enhancements, such as a head-up display and other situational awareness improvements,"

"The P-3′s notoriously rough ride at low altitudes and the gunpowder-like stench from the launch tube shooting sonar buoys out the back meant that, “typically, every mission or two you’d have somebody get sick [and] start throwing up into their air sickness bag,” said Navy Captain Aaron Rondeau, a P-3 veteran who now runs the P-8 program. “We haven’t seen that much with the P-8.”"

titash wrote:
The Flanker will carry 1 BrahMos + 4 AAMs. A dedicated bomber can carry a significantly larger payload increasing the chances that 1 missile will always get through. Given that the Flankers will also have to fight their way through, the chances of a mission kill are equally high whether you send 4x Flankers with 1 BrahMos each or 4x Tu-22 type Bombers with 4-6 BrahMos each.

Moreover, every rupee spent on a defence import is a rupee that is not spent on a road or hospital or an IIT/IIM for our kids. Importing high performance 9G fighters for air superiority on our borders is one thing, but maritime patrol/strike? I think we can have a cheaper home grown solution marrying Kaveri + BrahMos.
Sure if IN has funding of 20 bill+ a year that would make sense but considering we have yet to induct enough helos to equip our fleet or keep the submarine #s intact. That is better ways to burn money that procuring Tu-22m3 to perform mission that Flankers can accomplish. Tu-22m3 are cold war relics they have very little chance of surviving against modern SAM threats without extensive EW/ECM upgrade (heck even Georgians brought one down with an obsolete SAM system in its first sortie ).

FARNBOROUGH: US Navy and Boeing praise P-8A

Though Boeing’s P-8A Poseidon anti-submarine warfare (ASW) aircraft remains years away from reaching full operational capability, it is already proving its mettle on deployments with the US Navy, according to programme officials.

Capt Scott Dillon, the service's programme manager for marine patrol and reconnaissance, speaking at a Farnborough briefing, said the fleet of 14 P-8As are performing “exceptionally on deployment” and matching the capability of the service's to-be-retired Lockheed P-3 Orions.

Concern about the P-8A’s ability to operate at low altitude over the ocean has proved unfounded, Dillon says, noting that head-up displays provide improved situational awareness for pilots.

Despite positive feedback, the programme has not been without hiccups or criticism. Though officials note the programme still calls for Boeing to build 117 aircraft, the USN’s fiscal year 2015 budget proposal limits the service to ordering eight aircraft, not 16, next year.

Export deals are also being pursued, however. So far, India has ordered eight P-8Is and Australia has approved orders for eight aircraft with a further four options.

Fred Smith, business development director at Boeing, says more countries are being courted. “We are looking forward to garnering many international orders in the near future,” he says.

Initial aircraft have small-area ASW systems similar to those carried by older P-3s, but lack broad-area acoustic search systems carried by new examples, according to a US Department of Defense report. As a result, the report says, the P-8A’s initial “ASW search capabilities provide only a small fraction of what is needed.”

Officials point out that the P-8A roadmap calls for “incrementally” improving the platform.

By fiscal year 2016, aircraft will receive automated identification systems, high-altitude ASW weapons capabilities and multi-static active coherent acoustics, which will provide limited broad-area search ability. Further ASW upgrades and sensor and software improvements are planned for fiscal year 2021, says the navy.

Mayuresh · Post by **Mayuresh** » 16 Jul 2014 20:58

Ref: http://bharat-rakshak.com/NEWS/newsrf.php?newsid=21135

Since INS Kolkata has completed trials and has already been handed over to the navy, I presume the commissioning is just a formality and the ship can de deployed as necessary even wiothout the official commissioning ceremony. If that is the case, I don't undertsand the hue and cry. Also, I think we need to get creative with chief guests and not always have a high ranking minister. I would be very happy if Hon.Cap. (retd.) Bana Singh PVC is invited as the chief guest. He is a civilian now, so the issue of a high ranking naval officer having to salute him should not exist.

titash · Post by **titash** » 17 Jul 2014 01:59

John wrote:
titash wrote:
The Flanker will carry 1 BrahMos + 4 AAMs. A dedicated bomber can carry a significantly larger payload increasing the chances that 1 missile will always get through. Given that the Flankers will also have to fight their way through, the chances of a mission kill are equally high whether you send 4x Flankers with 1 BrahMos each or 4x Tu-22 type Bombers with 4-6 BrahMos each.

Moreover, every rupee spent on a defence import is a rupee that is not spent on a road or hospital or an IIT/IIM for our kids. Importing high performance 9G fighters for air superiority on our borders is one thing, but maritime patrol/strike? I think we can have a cheaper home grown solution marrying Kaveri + BrahMos.
Sure if IN has funding of 20 bill+ a year that would make sense but considering we have yet to induct enough helos to equip our fleet or keep the submarine #s intact. That is better ways to burn money that procuring Tu-22m3 to perform mission that Flankers can accomplish. Tu-22m3 are cold war relics they have very little chance of surviving against modern SAM threats without extensive EW/ECM upgrade (heck even Georgians brought one down with an obsolete SAM system in its first sortie ).

John - keep in mind the proposed funding will be for a desi project; that money is pushed into the local economy. Hardly the same as coughing up 20 billion USD or purchasing ASW helos from Europe/US.

No one is proposing to purchase a cold war relic like the Tu-22. An all new design with proper ESM/ECM/MAWS etc. is called for. Several potential missions...maritime strike, ASAT (which will be increasingly important in case of a PLAN/PLAAF stand off), etc. There is a reason why dedicated bombers exist in the USAF/RuAF...else their entire fleets would be F-15s and Su-27s.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 17 Jul 2014 02:41

The use of sub-launched SAMs is controversial,as any such attempt to down an ASW aircraft/helo reveals the sub's presence.The type of missiles carried too as of now could be defeated by anti-missile decoys.The P-8's preferred cruising alt. is more akin to it being a jet,not a turboprop.SAMs are carried on the IN's Kilos ,"the submarine has a launcher for eight Strela-3 or Igla surface-to-air missiles. These missiles are manufactured by the Fakel Design Bureau, Kaliningrad. Strela-3 (Nato designation SA-N-8 Gremlin) has a cooled infrared seeker and 2kg warhead. Maximum range is 6km. Igla (Nato designation SA-N-10 Gimlet) is also infrared guided but heavier, with a maximum range of 5km and speed of Mach 1.65."

http://www.sonalystscombatsims.com/dang ... tkilo.html

Dubbed “The Black Hole” by NATO personnel for its uncanny ability to disappear, the ultra quiet Kilo and its crew stand poised to protect littoral water from intrusion by enemy submarines and surface ships. Its six torpedo tubes can be loaded out with the latest in Russian wire-guided and wake homing torpedoes as well as anti-sub, anti-ship and land attack missiles making it a deadly opponent. With its anechoic hull coating, two 120-cell batteries providing 9.700 kw/hr and an air regeneration system providing enough breathable atmosphere for 260 hours of operations with a full crew, this is not your grandfather’s World War II diesel submarine!

COMBAT SYSTEMS:
Only the two outer torpedo tubes in the lower row can accommodate TEST-71 wire-guided torpedoes, while all tubes can launch 53-65KE, SET-53ME and other torpedoes; an automatic reload system permits reloading within 3 minutes. Torpedoes can be launched down to 240-m depth. With 12 in the torpedo tubes and 12 in the racks, 24 mines can be carried in lieu of some torpedoes.

The combat system is the digital MVU-110EM, which has three computer/processors; five targets can be tracked simultaneously (two automatically). The MGK-400 sonar suite is said to be able to detect submarines at a range of 16-20 km and surface ships at 60-80 km.

Here is a site showing the extensive evaluation of the P-8 and current capability and shortfalls .
http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2 ... seidon.pdf

Xcpt:

...as a result of these two sensor shortfalls, the P-8A cannot execute the full range of mission tasks required by the ASW concept of operations. In fact, current P-8A ASW search capabilities provide only a small fraction of what is needed for most Navy operational plans. P-8A non-acoustic search capabilities also very limited for evasive targets attempting to limit exposure to detection by radar and other sensors.Existing MK54 torpedo limitations also reduce P-8A attack effectiveness against evasive targets.The P-8A is not effective for the intel,surveillance and reconnaisance (ISR) mission.Radar performance deficiencies,sensor integration problems and data transfer system interoperability shortfalls degrade imagery intellligenc ecollection and dissemination capabilities.The ESM sensor provides a limited ELINT capability.

Recommendations included improvements for its high-alt ASW broad area and search and attack capability,and better protection against RF -guided threat systems.

Tu-22M3s can be upgraded with current avionics,etc. the Q is at what cost.However,Russia as mentioned before is using its Tu-142 Bears very well in the strat. bombing role.It has dozens more mothballed and if the IN need some more,easily available in addition to the 8 we already have,whose lifespan was supposed to be extended with upgrades.The massive range of these aircraft (able to fly to SAfrica and back without refuelling),weapons load and endurance on station,are unequalled by any LRMP flying today.It does require a demanding maintenance regime.Unless the IN tweaks its P-8Is in fashion similar to what we've done with the MKIs (other than the MAD boom diff.),their capability will be akin to that of the US's.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 17 Jul 2014 02:48

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 17 Jul 2014 03:48

P-8 and current capability and shortfalls

Its a spiral development program, just like the F-18 program and unlike the JSF program. The capability was always designed to be fielded in such a fashion i.e in increments over a 6-8 year period.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 17 Jul 2014 04:07

As to the P-8's sensor short-comings, the Indian version has a Magnetic Anomaly Detector and an aft mounted APS-143 Ocean Eye radar added on, which are not present in the P-8A. Don't know how much of a difference they make.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 17 Jul 2014 05:31

IN had access to all the info we all have before they opted for the P-8I. There could have been a political angle to it. ????

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 17 Jul 2014 06:12

As to the P-8's sensor short-comings, the Indian version has a Magnetic Anomaly Detector and an aft mounted APS-143 Ocean Eye radar added on, which are not present in the P-8A. Don't know how much of a difference they make

Like the wedgetail its not a sensor shortcoming as much as a systems integration i.e. software delay in debugging and capability addition. But then the program has performed quite well given that its a spiral development. The capability at IOC for the P-8 was never intended to be 100% of the P-3's it is replacing. The plan called for an incremental addition to the capability. Full spectrum capability is not expected till 2020, but thats the nature of development if one follows the spiral development approach.

Increasing P-8A Capability

Boeing is testing the first P-8A maritime patrol aircraft to be produced for the U.S. Navy under the third Low Rate Production (LRIP-3) batch, marking the start of a new expansion phase which will see the operational fleet increase to 21 by the end of 2014. The aircraft, which is due for delivery in June, will join the force around the time that the second operational P-8A patrol squadron, VP-5, is scheduled to deploy.

The first squadron, VP-16, based at Naval Air Station Jacksonville, Fla., has achieved initial operational capability and the third squadron, VP-45, will start its transition from the P-3C later this year after returning from a deployment to the Western Pacific. This year also sees a significant build up in tactical capability with the integration of the next step in the multi-phased ‘Increment’ upgrade program. The first operational aircraft are configured with a standard Increment 1 equipment suite based on an improved version of the P-3 anti-submarine warfare (ASW) system. The Navy is now rolling in the first part of Increment 2 which includes a refresh of the acoustic processor on the LRIP-2 aircraft.

The acoustic processor update enables the follow-on introduction in LRIP-3 aircraft of the multi-static active coherent (MAC) anti-submarine search system which is due to be brought into the fleet in two blocks, or engineering change proposals (ECPs). The first, ECP1, also including an update to the interface with the TacMobile ground station that currently support the existing P-3 Orion fleet. The first phase introduces the MAC shallow water acoustic search capability while ECP2, covering the second phase of the MAC, will provide deep water capability.

The second element of Increment 2, currently set for introduction with the start of full-rate production in 2016, will include full MAC capability and a raft of other upgrades including additional improvements to the TACMobile system. The aircraft will also be loaded with Rapid Capability insert software upgrades, a High-Altitude ASW Sensor and the High-Altitude ASW Weapon Capability (Haawc), a Mark 54 torpedo fitted with a GPS-guided wing and tail kit which will enable the weapon to be launched from altitudes up to 30,000 ft. This upgrade phase is also scheduled to include integration of the ship-tracking Automatic Information System.

Increment 3, scheduled for initial operating capability in 2020, will introduce a ‘net-ready’ systems architecture for more flexible software-based enhancements and net-enabled anti-surface warfare weapons and targeting. This is expected to include interfaces to work, and possibly task, the Northrop Grumman MQ-4C Triton unmanned air vehicle as well as expanded intelligence gathering capabilities. The phase will also see the introduction of the electronically-scanned Advanced Aerial Sensor (AAS) high-resolution surveillance radar on the P-8A.

Spiral development is a way to avoid long delays and cost overruns that ultimately lead to a unfavourable position of a program resulting in the numbers being slashed which then threatens a Nunn mccurdy breach resulting in a cost spiral of death ultimately leading to an ineffective acquisition program. The US Navy prefers spiral development for its tactical aircraft, as has been seen on the F-18 Super Hornet, E-2D and P-8 aircraft in addition to the Triton UAV.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 17 Jul 2014 06:52

hopefully we get some of these new sw and hw capabilities and not saddled with a export model with much stuff never to be integrated.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 17 Jul 2014 07:18

I believe the patches and incremental upgrades would be released to the P-8I's as well for upgrades in addition to other P-8's that are sold before the final configuration is delivered. There was some talk about offering the Triton for the IN to partner up with the P-8's, that won't be possible without the Increment 2 and later capability. The entire aircraft is in LRIP, and as such many years of hard systems development, integration, testing and maturation is going to happen before increment block builds are ready to go the customers.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 17 Jul 2014 12:40

This is a unique development,X-posted in the Intl.Av. td. Posted here as it would be of great support to carrier aviation,being a vertical landing drone.Ideal for use in our island territories as well. The size could also possibly see it used aboard smaller warships like DDGs with folding wings.

http://en.ria.ru/military_news/20140709 ... ion.html[b]
Russia Presents Unique Drone at Innoprom-2014 Exhibition[/b]

MOSCOW, July 9 (RIA Novosti) – Russia’s United Instrument-Making Corporation, a Rostec subsidiary, presented the unique and innovative Chirok drone at the Innoprom international technology exhibition, the press service of the state corporation reported.

"The innovative technology, air-cushion landing system, allows the drone to take off without an air strip. This technology is absolutely unique. The drone is able to take off from soft soil, water, marshy terrain and loose snow. It can also land on these surfaces, whereas other aircraft can neither take off from nor land on them," the press service said.

The drone model presented at Innoprom has already been tested in Zhukovsky, a city in Moscow Region that hosts the MAKS air show. The unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) has no analogues in the world, and other models with air-cushion landing systems are not in mass production.

In ordinary life, Chirok can be used to observe and assess different situations – to monitor the threat of fire in forests, disaster areas and road and traffic conditions, as well as for patrol. As for military utility, Chirok is intended for reconnaissance and can also be used as an offensive operations drone, capable of carrying weapons.

Chirok’s maximum takeoff weight is up to 700 kilograms, the payload weight limit is up to 300 kilograms. The UAV can carry opto-electronic devices for various types of monitoring, and the transport of bombs, rockets and high-precision missiles. The drone can rise to a height of 6,000 meters (approximately 19,600 feet), with a range of up to 2,500 kilometers (approximately 1,550 miles). Currently, specialists at the military-industrial complex are working on further improving Chirok’s technical capabilities.

Russia’s Innoprom is an international industrial exhibition held annually in Yekaterinburg, in the Ural Federal District. This year the exhibition opened July 9 and runs through July 12.

Ck the link for the pic.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 17 Jul 2014 12:57

NR,the P-8I was perhaps the first post N-deal order of US mil. eqpt. signed.Certainly a quid-pro-quo.There was little news before the deal was sealed. The aircraft being a 737 twin built on the same production line,would be easy to support in India due to the large number of 737s in civilian livery.However,it is the ASW package inside which is the key that matters.The US P-8s as has been posted have some drawbacks esp. in the "low and slow" role. ASW torpedoes have to be launched from high alts. with a spl. glide kit.In terms of range,no comparison with the Bear.Missiles carried too,no info whether BMos will be carried,only Harpoon thus far.BMos may see it carried aboard the Bears and Il-38SDs,all 5 of which have been fully upgraded.It would be prudent for the IN to acquire a few more Il-38s (apart from a further 4 P-8s hinted at,once the aircraft has proven itself),as they're available and the number of ASW LRMP aircraft .Certainly the P-8Is would be easier to maintain than the Bears.However,these aircraft have a strategic N-capability as well being used yet again by Russia.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 18 Jul 2014 20:18

The P-8 Poseidon is revolutionary when it comes to sensor management, data fusion, and connectivity...

Following a few deployments with the P-3C, my squadron transitioned to the new P-8A Poseidon. The P-8A is derived from the Boeing 737. The aircraft features a Boeing 737-800 fuselage mated to 737-900 wings and is equipped with raked wingtips optimized for low altitude flight and long endurance. In place of a cargo hold, the aircraft boasts additional fuel tanks and a weapons bay. The reliability, speed, and sensor capabilities equate to a significant improvement over the legacy aircraft (the P-3). In the Poseidon, the Navy married advanced sensors and communications connectivity with a modern, highly reliable and efficient airframe that already existed on the commercial marketplace.

If I sound like a Poseidon lover, well then consider me guilty. I am, and admit it honestly. The aircraft is powerful, reliable, and easy to fly. It was a challenge transitioning from a straight wing turboprop to a high altitude, swept wing jet, but I personally found the P-8A to be intuitive and comfortable to fly. The largest difference is not in flight characteristics, but rather in how the pilot interfaces with the aircraft. The P-3C is flown hands-on, with little if any automation. In the Poseidon, the pilot utilizes the Flight Management Computer and a highly advanced coupled autopilot to fly the jet. Whether flying on airway routes or positioning the aircraft to employ sensors, the Poseidon utilizes high levels of automation. This is not harder or easier than flying hands-on, simply different, and requires a different approach.

The tougher part about the jet is acting as a tactical operator and employing the sensors of the aircraft. The P-8A is revolutionary when it comes to sensor management, data fusion, and connectivity. The challenge for operators is not having insufficient sensor performance, but rather how to manage so many capable sensors, process the information, and transmit actionable data to commanders through a variety of communications networks and datalinks.

The P-8A boasts five mission crew workstations, all of which feature dual reconfigurable touchscreen displays and data entry keyboards. The ability to do any job from any workstation makes load sharing possible and is indeed critical to success during a mission. For example, during an information, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) missions we might have extra electronic warfare operators in the seats scanning for radar emitters while another operator scans the radar and maps where those emitters are located. Conversely, during an ASW mission we can place extra acoustic operators in the seats to interpret sonar signals and track a submarine. The flexibility is extremely impressive.I won't claim the P-8A does everything better than the P-3C. For one, the controls feel very different between the two aircraft. I find the P-3C to be a bit crisper on the controls, especially at low altitude and in the landing pattern. This isn't surprising, given the Orion's thick, straight wing and the swept wing and spoilers on the Poseidon. Also, the lack of a Magnetic Anomaly Detector (MAD) aboard the P-8A is a drawback.

Many folks ask if I feel less comfortable with two engines in the P-8A rather than four in the P-3C. Realistically, I'll take Poseidon any day. The reliability of the CFM-56 turbofans on the jet is generations ahead of the T-56 turboprops on the Orion. CFM-56 shutdown rates are on the order of three per million flight hours. In fact, P-8A has been flying for more than three years and has yet to have an in-flight engine shutdown. I'll take the reliability of the P-8A every time over the P-3C.

Overall, I've found the P-8A allows crew-members to focus more on tactical employment and getting every ounce of performance out of the jet's sensors and weapons. While the Orion is a very safe airplane statistically, it was designed in another age with different design philosophies. It's very hands-on and user intensive especially for pilots and flight engineers. Because of the fact that the P-3C is honestly trying to break, catch on fire, or generally kill you during any given flight, we have to devote a great deal of energy simply to operating it safely. This isn't a hit on the P-3C, any airplane of that generation is like that, and the fact that some of these birds are over 40 years old is a testament to the engineers who designed them and our maintainers who keep them flying. Because reliability is baked into the P-8, we can focus more on tactical effectiveness. The result is higher situational awareness (SA) and much better mission performance in the new jet.

There are currently two schools of thought in the community right now when it comes to how the P-8 should be used...

Many people are curious about the capabilities of limitations of P-8A. It's interesting to note that when the Navy solicited program offers for the aircraft that became P-8A they called the project the 'Multi Mission Maritime Aircraft' or MMA. The computer systems and networks on the Poseidon are open-architecture, reconfigurable, and can grow in a low-cost, flexible manner. The stores management and data-transfer systems are all digital, meaning that the only variable for growth is cost and software upgrades. Combine the ability to 'plug and play' new sensors and weapons with the aircraft's communications connectivity, excellent crew coordination abilities and flexibility and you have a weapons system that is honestly limited only by weight, the training of it's operators, and the tasking assigned by the commander. In other words, the P-8A can be as 'Multi-Mission' as commanders desire it to be.

P-8A acquisitions and capabilities have been planned around incremental upgrades. With today's technology and budgetary environments, acquiring every capability, sensor, and weapons system concurrently is too expensive and too high-risk. P-8A hit the fleet with baseline ASW capability and a limited ASuW capability via the inclusion of AGM-84 Harpoon capability. Follow-on increments will add multi-static sonobuoys to achieve wider area detection of submarines. Future capabilities will likely feature net-enabled weapons like AGM-154 Joint Standoff Weapon (JSOW) and very likely the upcoming Long Range Anti-ship Missile or LRASM, a derivative of the AGM-158 JASSM-ER. This is all a great thing in a military that is seeing more and more platform winnowed away by budget cuts and massive "sacred-cow" programs like F-35.

Unlike the F-35, which sought a revolutionary approach with technologies such as the Distributed Aperture System and extremely advanced sensor fusion, Boeing and the Navy minimized the P-8A's risk by getting baseline capabilities online and jets out to the Fleet and then building on those technologies with steady upgrades. It's a work in progress but I think Boeing and NAVAIR had a lot to be proud of with Poseidon so far.

There are currently two schools of thought in the Maritime Patrol Community right now when it comes to how the P-8 should be used. One where it works closely along the lines of its predecessor, and follows the P-3's traditional mission sets of ASuW, ASW and limited ISR, and another where the P-8 can be adapted more dramatically for a litany of missions, including direct attack on ground targets. Personally, I believe the P-8A should also be equipped with a more robust set of weapons and sensors for the fight against smaller vessels in constrained littoral environments.

Harpoon is a great weapon, but it's too imprecise to use with civilian shipping nearby and in dense target environments close to shore. P-3C had a robust short range ASuW capability with AGM-65 Mavericks, and we saw that used in Libya. We took a major step back capability-wise with only Harpoon being deployed aboard the P-8. I would equip P-8A with an off-the-shelf targeting pod such as the AAQ-33 Sniper, which is currently found on everything from USAF F-16s to B-52s. Couple the targeting pod with short range, laser guided munitions such as AGM-65 Laser Mavericks, AGM-176 Griffon, and/or or Small Diameter Bombs and you have a lethal and persistent weapons system.

The Marines have done a similar upgrade with their KC-130 "Harvest HAWK" program and the Air Force is moving in a similar direction with it's new AC-130W Stinger II and MC-130J Combat Spear aircraft. I am actually quite curious as to why senior leadership insists on utilizing expensive bombers and fighter aircraft requiring extensive tanking to provide precision fires that can be achieved by lower cost, persistent assets such as a P-8A or C-130 in low-threat environments? Are they just in love with their 'sexy' weapons systems or do they want to get the most bang for their acquisition buck?

I also believe that P-8A should be equipped with a more robust set of radio frequency countermeasures. Long range SAM systems such as the S-300, S-400, and HQ-9 are rapidly proliferating around the globe, bringing high-value ISR platforms such as P-8A or RC-135 into threat ranges of land based air defense sites. If commanders desire intelligence up to and after the first shot of a conflict is fired, they need to provide their previously 'untouchable' ISR assets with more robust countermeasures mirroring those provided to penetrating bombers such as B-1B and B-52. A jamming pod such as ALQ-184 and a towed radar decoy such as the ALE-50 or ALE-55 would greatly benefit the Poseidon and make this high value aircraft survivable on the modern aerial battlefield.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 19 Jul 2014 09:06

Exclusive: Navy & Coast Guard send SOS to Defence Ministry on chopper crisis

Notwithstanding the dramatic images of a Coast Guard Chetak helicopter, rescuing stranded firemen atop Mumbai's Lotus Business Park, for the men in white, charged with India's maritime security, the scenario is that of an unending nightmare. And it concerns the helicopter fleet of the Indian Navy (IN) and the Indian Coast Guard (ICG). No sizeable acquisition in over a decade, an unforgiving procedure and the ghost of the AgustaWestland scandal have together ensured that the helicopters that these forces have been asked to make do with are rapidly dwindling, both in numbers and capabilities.

Such is the situation that when on Saturday, Defence Minister Arun Jaitley chairs his first meeting of the Defence Acquisition Council (DAC) - Ministry of Defence's highest decision-making body, he is likely to find this flagged up, right at the top.

Indian Navy

From protecting own ships to tracking and attacking enemy ships and submarines, the use of a helicopter for a war-fighting force can be overlooked only at the cost of compromising national security.

A senior naval officer, who spoke on the condition of anonymity said, "The manner in which the navy and the MoD went about this in the past proves their clear lack of vision. Simply inducting more and more ships is not enough. How well are we enabling these ships is as important."

Investigation revealed the navy has a mess on its hands.

Modern platforms, often built at a staggering expense to the exchequer, are roaming the seas without helicopters onboard. Many warships, which have two hangars onboard are steaming past without even a single helicopter onboard. For instance, between the six Talwar class frigates, which include the recently inducted frigates Teg, Tarkash and Trikand, only three carry a helicopter. Some other frigates don't have even one helicopter between them. Coming to larger ships like the destroyers, one Kamov helicopter is being shared between five Rajput class ships. Remarked a senior naval officer, "The availability of helicopters is at 20 per cent of what it should be. We are sharing helicopters to ensure the show goes on. It is a tragic situation."

With a requirement of over 100 helicopters across different categories, and yet going nowhere, the navy's predicament is clear. Said an MoD official, "The Indian Navy had to get 16 choppers as a direct replacement for Seaking 42A helicopters which came with the INS Viraat in 1987 and were decommissioned by the end of the century. Categorised as 'Multi Role Helicopter' acquisition, it is yet to take off even today." Then there is the Naval Multi Role helicopter deal to replace the Chetaks which were first introduced into the Indian armed forces in the 60s, and the Naval Utility Helicopter deal. It is all hanging in balance.

At present, officers from the navy say, their MRH quest has landed them with two shortlisted probable vendors of which one has a 'link' to Finmeccanica, the parent company of AgustaWestland. "Though nobody will say so on paper, we have been asked to go slow on this," said a MoD official.

As for the NMRH, the navy shall soon float a Request For Information (RFI) whereas the NUH is not even there.

Indian Coast Guard

"It is a crisis on a daily basis. After the Mumbai attacks we had hoped that government attention on coastal security would ensure our demands are met, little really has materialized," said a senior Coast Guard officer.

As per the charter of responsibilities, the ICG is responsible for saving lives within India's Exclusive Economic Zone which extends upto 200 nautical miles from anywhere along India's 7500 km long coastline, intercept and seize contraband, protect environment as well as thwart maritime terrorism. To do all of it, not even a single ship of this force today has an integrated helicopter flight - a concept which was once propagated for every single ship.

The biggest hurdle in doing its duty is its malnourished fleet of under 20 ageing Chetak helicopters and two Advanced Light Helicopter (ALH) Dhruv both which are deployed solely at Porbandar to keep an eye on the International Maritime Border Line (IMBL) with Pakistan. Efforts of more than 15 years to acquire a modern helicopter have been reduced to nothing. To top it, on orders of the previous administration, ICG was asked to 'gift' one of its ALH helicopters to the Maldivian National Defence Forces (MNDF), last year.

Given this situation, the ICG has no option but to position merely one or two Chetaks at every air station. "Plus Chetaks being single engine helicopters, can't fly for too long," said a source. India, he said, would rank among the very few countries of the world where a maritime force is making do with a single engine helicopter. "You may not be aware but the DGCA norms do not allow a flight over water by single engine helicopter," he added.

"To patrol when a ship moves, the helicopter onboard is meant to fly around and enhance the reach and surveillance of the ship. If you take the helicopter out, a ship's capability drastically reduces," explained a senior MoD official.

On an immediate basis, the ICG requires 16 light helicopters, for which it has chosen the indigenous ALH Dhruv Mark III and hopes to get Jaitley's nod in the upcoming meet as well as 14 10-tonne plus, heavier helicopters, where its technical evaluation has zeroed down the scope between the European EC725 and American S90.

"For a while now, we have trained ourselves to ignore that our ship can even house a helicopter," a Commanding Officer of a Coast Guard ship said. "When terrorists struck Mumbai in 2008 and a frantic search was launched to track down the point of entry of the terrorists, it was a Coast Guard helicopter which located the ship, MV Kuber that they had hijacked. Hope the government doesn't forget that," he added.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 19 Jul 2014 13:36

I think getting Antony as india's defence minister was an ISI op, given how much he and the worthless UPA harmed national security.

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 19 Jul 2014 14:23

Those Naval helicopters don't come in cheap, we are talking 40-50 million $ each. We are going to end up paying for not pursuing the development of a medium helicopter after the ALH.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 19 Jul 2014 15:30

if atleast the development of naval ASW mission kit were funded a decade ago, we might have been able to buy the bare shell now and have the local kit installed.
but now everything down to keyboard and mouse will be imported as a turnkey soln.