Indian Navy News & Discussion - 22 April 2015

member_23370 · Post by **member_23370** » 18 Aug 2015 10:49

Good if it finally gets the SAM's. But B-8 will probably go to the Kolkotas first.

member_24684 · Post by **member_24684** » 19 Aug 2015 08:49

Philip wrote:Vik-A to go in for a 4 month refit after the naval Review at Vizag next year most likely at Pip. Given the short period of the refit,it is possible that the LRSAM B-8 may be installed aboard it,supposed to be tested in Oct. in Israel. There were earlier reports that B-1s from a G class FFG were to be fitted to it.

I don't think so, Barak 8 can't be installed in Vikky,
don't enough room and Radar systems.

The Vikky already comes with AK 630 and Barak 1

The Israeli-supplied Barak-1 point defence missile system and the Russian-origin AK-630 close-in weapon system, borrowed from a to-be-decommissioned Godavari-class ship, were installed on the carrier.

July 15 Hindu

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 19 Aug 2015 09:33

IDRW is reporting the first short refit of the vikky next yr (4 months) might be done at pipapav shipyards ultra long drydock.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 19 Aug 2015 12:01

glad to know vikrant is well looked after.
https://www.ibcworldnews.com/2015/08/18 ... tray-boat/

tushar_m · Post by **tushar_m** » 19 Aug 2015 13:31

Indian Navy's INS Arihant nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarine back from sea trials?

http://asian-defence-news.blogspot.in/2 ... clear.html

Jaeger · Post by **Jaeger** » 19 Aug 2015 13:53

^That's a Kilo. Hull-mounted diving planes, as opposed to sail-mounted. Also, there is no evidence of silos behind the sail, which is in the center as opposed to being towards the fore-end as it would be on the Arihant.

tushar_m · Post by **tushar_m** » 19 Aug 2015 17:55

My mistake got over excited over that website's news.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 21 Aug 2015 09:30

news.usni.org
http://news.usni.org/2015/08/20/indian- ... rrier-ford

The head of India’s Western Naval Command led a delegation of aircraft carrier designers to meet with U.S. officials in Washington, D.C. and visit under-construction carrier Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78), according to Indian press reports.

Vice Adm. SPS Cheema and his team’s visit is part of India’s effort to build a second domestic carrier as part of the Indian Navy indigenous aircraft carrier-II (IAC-II) program with U.S. help.

The working group which met from Aug. 12 to 14 was part of an agreement sharing carrier technology and design and establish a working group under a larger January bilateral agreement. In addition to meeting with U.S. Navy officials, the Indian delegation toured Huntington Ingalls Industries’ Newport News Shipbuilding to tour Ford.

“[Indian Navy] architects involved with the project told IHS Jane’s that it would take at least five years for the basic IAC-II design to evolve and that discussions with the [U.S. Navy], among other foreign navies, had been initiated recently,” reported Jane’s Defense Weekly.

The Indian Navy sent letters of request (LoR) to U.K. firm BAE Systems, DCNS in France, Lockheed Martin and Russia’s Rosoboronexport in July for information for carrier design.

Vishal is planned to be a 65,000-ton carrier catapult- assisted take-off but arrested recovery (CATOBAR) — an expanded capability from India’s short-take off but arrested recovery (STOBAR) on its Soviet-built Vikramaditya and the 40,000-ton domestically built Vikrant (IAC-I).

India is exploring including the General Atomics’ Electro Magnetic Aircraft Launched System (EMALS) from the Ford class.

“They are interested in obviously learning from us big picture stuff about how you start from a clean sheet of paper and what are the processes used to build a carrier,” Program Executive Officer for Aircraft Carriers Rear Adm. Tom Moore told USNI News in late May.

“But they’re really in the process of figuring out, ‘how big do I want it to be, how many planes do I want it to carry,’ along those lines. So once we’ve had those conversations with them, we’ll certainly be happy to engage with them where it makes sense for us.”

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi has moved to accelerate production of India’s carrier program in the last few years and has the Indian Navy has devoted $5 million to the design effort.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 21 Aug 2015 13:59

5 years. That's an awful long time to let the PLAN forge ahead with carrier aviation.A second Vikrant should immediately be sanctioned which will arrive by 2020+ just in time for the yard to start work on the 65K+ N-powered CV. A lot can happen in a span of 5 years to change specs.

Vik-A SAMs.Given the PLAN's development of anti-carrier CVs,meant primarily for killing USN carriers,the PLAN will also be able to target and attack our CVs. B-1 will be inadequate to deal with this threat.The B-8s being fitted onto our warships should have some BM defence capability just like the US SM series. If B-8 is a success in Oct. in Israel,then the same should be fitted on the VIK-A and the Kol class DDGs. No harm in having both B-1 and B-8 and ADGs.A multi-layered defence against air/missile attacks decreases the risk.

amit · Post by **amit** » 21 Aug 2015 14:05

^^^^^

Yes! Build another Vikrant so that we're forced to order a further batch of MiG29Ks!

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 21 Aug 2015 15:49

the basic shape and size of the vessel might solidify sooner. 5 yrs might be the time needed to produce all the detailed design.

hence construction preparations and ordering of steel could start sooner. for a while steel will be the only material used to build up the ships hull from keel up. these bulk steel orders need to be placed atleast 2 yrs ahead of keel laying to ensure no shortages or production bottlenecks. SAIL will need time to plan their production schedule.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 21 Aug 2015 17:06

This comment is surprising to me:

“But they’re really in the process of figuring out, ‘how big do I want it to be, how many planes do I want it to carry,’ along those lines. So once we’ve had those conversations with them, we’ll certainly be happy to engage with them where it makes sense for us.”

So, the tonnage has been decided upon. Now the decision being made is 'how big and how many planes'?

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 21 Aug 2015 17:09

amit wrote:^^^^^

Yes! Build another Vikrant so that we're forced to order a further batch of MiG29Ks!

I think he meant sell the Vicky and replace it with a spanking new and fully functional boat.

Makes sense.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 21 Aug 2015 17:33

Tonnage == how big is not decided per that post

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 21 Aug 2015 17:53

How big - in terms of volume/size? Or how big in terms of weight?

IN has published 65,000 tons.

I have no clue, but could they hold the weight a constant and design varying sized/volumn boats?

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 21 Aug 2015 18:28

Where has IN published it?

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 21 Aug 2015 19:54

That was what was published in news items, a letter of interest went to: include Russia’s Rosoboronexport, the United States’ Lockheed Martin, France’s DCNS, and the United Kingdom’s BAE Systems. No?

I thought the 65K was a done deal from the IN PoV.

I would be thrilled if anyone says no - assuming it would grow further.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 21 Aug 2015 20:06

http://www.business-standard.com/articl ... 032_1.html

^^^ its unclear above if the 65k is empty or full load.

for example consider this the retired USS Ranger
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Ranger_%28CV-61%29
Displacement: 56,300 long tons (57,200 t) light
81,101 long tons (82,402 t) full load
Length: 1,046 ft (319 m)
air wing - 70-80

for ships of that size seems to be 20,000t diff between empty and full load. i checked kitty hawk also.

I am hoping the goalposts are shifted a bit so we end up with a ship that is 55k empty, 75k full load and 315meters long with a airwing of 75 .... the incremental cost will not be much in exchange for 15-20 extra planes which is priceless

I am SICK of the SMALL and LIGHT thing. mumble mumble apolegetic posture. either do it properly or not at all.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 21 Aug 2015 21:16

The Indian Navy’s Naval Design Bureau clarified other features: the carrier will travel at 30 knots, a hair above the Vikrant, and come in at a length of 300 meters, longer than the 262 meter Vikrant. The Navy’s letter of request also outlines plans for the carrier to field between 30 and 35 fixed-wing combat aircraft and 20 rotary wing aircraft.

OK. It just may explain the delta between what we see in the news and the USN Adm. Would not be surprised if the US is trying to push the IN and thus India in a certain direction. And, I suspect that India is not prepared for it both politically (remember all this was formulated 10-15 years ago and change is hard to come by) and financially.

I too have advocated a 100,000 class ship. But that requires a LOT of moving parts to gel together.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 21 Aug 2015 22:09

Singha wrote:..
I am SICK of the SMALL and LIGHT thing. mumble mumble apolegetic posture. either do it properly or not at all.

Ditto. We have to get out of this Folland Gnat knife-fighting mindset.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 22 Aug 2015 09:04

http://in.mobile.reuters.com/article/id ... 1?irpc=932

The group hopes to schedule a second meeting in India early next year, according to the U.S. embassy in New Delhi, which posted an item about the meeting on the website of U.S. Pacific Command.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 22 Aug 2015 12:18

It's good that we're in no indecent haste to build a 65K CV. A lot can happen by 2020 when the design is finalized with respect to CV ops,aircraft,UCAVs,ASW helos,etc.A swift second Vikrant instead of one of the amphibs planned would be a better acquisition,giving us an extra flat top to meet both PLAN and Paki mischief. The IN also needs to build a new class of flat-top CGs about 12,000t,armed with a variety of flush-deck missiles,which could also as a bonus,operate about 8-10 MR helos or even STOVL aircraft/UCAVs at a pinch.These could accompany smaller task forces for lesser duties and pack considerable firepower with a heay warload of LR SSMs and SAMs. In WW2,the Japanese even converted merchant ships into flat tops.The USN had the "Jeep" escort carriers.

http://www.bing.com/knows/search?q=esco ... &mkt=zh-cn

Escort carrier U.S. Navy Service
Meanwhile the U.S. discovered their own use for the escort carriers. In the North Atlantic, they supplemented the escorting destroyers by providing air support for anti-submarine warfare. One of these escort carriers, USS Guadalcanal, was instrumental in the capture of U-505 off North Africa in 1944.

In the Pacific theater, escort carriers lacked the speed to sail with fast carrier attack groups, so were often tasked to escort the landing ships and troop carriers during the island-hopping campaign. In this role they provided air cover for the troopships and flew the first wave of attacks on beach fortifications in amphibious landing operations. On occasion, they even escorted the large carriers, serving as emergency airstrips and providing fighter cover for their larger sisters while these were busy readying or refueling their own planes. They also transported aircraft and spare parts from the U.S. to remote island airstrips.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 22 Aug 2015 12:26

Philip some moskva class type asw lead ships would be nice indeed to lead saryu and p28 groups.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 22 Aug 2015 13:50

Which Moskva class? HMS Ocean was built to merchant navy stds.Cheaper.It would be an interesting exercise to see if merchant ships,container vessels for example,heaps are for sale,can be converted into aux. flat tops. The IN has got to be more innovative as we need numbers a swell as capability.Shivaliks and P-28s are v.expensive. ASW helos that can operate from almost every IN warship would make life difficult for enemy subs as well as surface vessels,if they could also carry AShMs.If the NLCA is perfected,it would be the ideal small aircraft able to operate from smaller flat tops.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 22 Aug 2015 15:08

Indian Navy: Ensuring secure seas for a resurgent nation

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 22 Aug 2015 17:17

sir I meant for a ASW lead ship it needs to be fast 30 knots, not the plodding 20 knot of typical LPH ships.
a ship with say 12 helis will generate far more sorties than a couple of DDG with 2 each.
it can also have a solid battery of barak8, new srsam, and Klub ASW missiles if reqd.
using its helis it can deliver ASM strikes with harpoons some 300km out and hence deal with medium threats.

rather than the mighty Izumo or juan carlos types which are really vstol carriers, I was thinking the old soviet moskva class type
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FlCYF2U4nn4
The Moskva class helicopter carriers were the first operational Soviet Navy aircraft carriers. The Soviet designation was Project 1123 Kondor.

These ships were laid down at Nikolayev South (Shipyard No.444). The lead vessel was launched in 1965 and named Moskva; she entered commission two years later. Moskva was followed by Leningrad, which was commissioned in late 1968; there were no further vessels built, reportedly due to the poor handling of the ships in rough seas. Both were conventionally powered.

The Moskvas were not true "aircraft carriers" in that they did not carry any fixed-wing aircraft; the air wing was composed entirely of helicopters. They were designed primarily as anti-submarine warfare (ASW) vessels, and her weapons and sensor suite was optimized against the nuclear submarine threat. Their strategic role was to defend the Soviet ballistic missile submarine bastions against incursions by Western attack submarines, forming the flagships of an ASW task force

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 22 Aug 2015 20:07

So, five years to figure things out, why not order another Vikrant, which CSL promises to churn out in that time. Rant on... I am sick of this piece meal order stuff...3 of this and 2 of that and then moving on to another design....prime example is the AEW bird. /Rant off.

arshyam · Post by **arshyam** » 22 Aug 2015 20:19

^^ +100. Two in hand is better than one in a growing bush that is located very far away.

If the 29K air wing is the problem and the Navy is not too keen on ordering over the current 45, can't the Navy ask for a set of NLCA Mk-Is to start using with a lower payload (they can have one MiG-29K as the designated buddy re-fueler to extend legs), while the Mk-II starts arriving 2022 onwards? The Mk-Is can then be upgraded to Mk-1A and assigned shore duty from Rajali or Kochi, or Thanjavur. They can work in conjunction with the AF boys for cross training and patrolling. This will give the Navy the opportunity to grow their air wing with more assets available for training. Finally, it will also give the extra orders that HAL is hankering for, and more importantly, provide a massive boost to the program itself, and not be too costly over the cost of the carrier. Win win, I would think.

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 23 Aug 2015 02:34

Singha wrote:Philip some moskva class type asw lead ships would be nice indeed to lead saryu and p28 groups.

Moskva class ASW cruisers were considered failures, due to the unstable, front heavy design.

The Kiev class (i.e. Vikramaditya) was a far better design.

A Vikrant Class carrier with ASW choppers and special operations capability is a worthy consideration even if the fighter air wing is small in size or comprised of low capability Tejas variants.

Edit.

Breakdown in Alang:

We could have acquired these ships probably in a better state than PLAN got Varyag.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 23 Aug 2015 13:50

The Moskvas supposedly had some problems with turbulence behind the large stack and superstructure.They were interesting ships though. A regular flat top with batteries of flush-deck missiles and able to operate around 10-12 helos-even NLCAs/STOVL aircraft if an innovative design can be engineered,will give a heavy cruiser sized combatant the ability to punch far higher than its weight. The ASW barrier will be expanded with More helos available and a limited fleet air defence/strike capability of some aircraft are also accommodated. A few of these vessels would augment the larger CVs admirably and would be v.useful in disaster relief,cheaper to operate. It is in the ASW sphere that they would be best suited,with enough ASW helos to prosecute subs,TAS,bow,sonars,UUVs,could all be part of the package. SAAB had an option for a Sea Gripen which could operate from the Viraat. Using the NLCA,a suitable design could evolve.This is where the NLCA could come into its own,for use on smaller platforms.

srai · Post by **srai** » 24 Aug 2015 05:26

amit wrote:^^^^^

Yes! Build another Vikrant so that we're forced to order a further batch of MiG29Ks!

NLCA Mk.2 would be ready by the time "second" Vikrant class (if ordered within the next couple of years) joins the fleet around 2024. Current batch of 45 MiG-29Ks will act as frontline and backup plan till then. With NLCA, since it is indigenous know-how it could be reconfigured for catapult launch when Vishal arrives post 2030+ to fill the gap until N-AMCA arrives. 60 NLCA Mk.2 are planned. No need for imported planes going forward.

Three carriers means two available at all times with the third undergoing refit, or serving as training vessel, or acting as reserve. Current orders of 45 MiG-29Ks are sufficient for three squadrons and could be activated on a third carrier if situation demands it. For the most part, the third will rotate with other squadrons for shored-based stint.

Shreeman · Post by **Shreeman** » 24 Aug 2015 05:52

Per shirimati Wiki, both vikramaditya and vikrant will have less than 20 fixed wing, with some NLCAs among them. The 45 can easily do three carrier squadrons, one under strength, for each carrier. Supplemented by NLCA. The vikrant is going to board some NLCAs, the pure 29k is plan B. And the viraat soldiered as a one harrier carrier for how many years?

The fixed wing is there. Just the third platform is nowhere in sight.

srai · Post by **srai** » 24 Aug 2015 07:25

^^^

When Kargil took place, Viraat was undergoing refit! Now Vikramaditya is schedule to undergo refit for 4 months or more to install AD.

Three carriers are required to maintain two carrier groups most of the time. Ideally, you need at least four carriers to guarantee two at all times plus one additional as active reserve. You need margins during war. Also, this reserve vessel should be used for basic crew training freeing up others from this role. With 20-to-30-year gap between first vessel and the fourth vessel (if one carrier added per decade), it is expected that one of the carriers would always be undergoing some form of refit and repair. Major refits can take a few years.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 24 Aug 2015 07:46

I did not mean license build the moskva design but a superior design of similar nature smaller than the kiev class around 12000t. with ASW helis no need for a through deck.

think of something like the haruna class ASW leader ship, with new superstructure, wider beam, VL arrays in front, 1 5" gun and 6-9 ASW helis in the back
http://www.military-today.com/navy/haruna_class_l2.jpg

dont try to fit too many things like brahmos, VSTOL etc on it...just keep what is needed to hunt nuclear submarines and no more.

arshyam · Post by **arshyam** » 24 Aug 2015 09:17

srai wrote:Also, this reserve vessel should be used for basic crew training freeing up others from this role.

Precisely - that's also why I suggested ordering more NLCA MK-I's as a temporary air wing for this new carrier before Vishal - it will give us more options for training, refit, etc. and will enable us to embark an air wing when this carrier arrives around 2022. As the MK-II starts getting delivered, the Navy can phase them in, while the 29Ks remain the longer-legged ones.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 24 Aug 2015 09:30

It better to have 2-3 Carrier of Vikrant Class for Fleet Defence and ASW as part of CBG , rather then needlessly thinking we need 60 . 80 or 10 thousand ton ship because USA has it.

IF we build first Vikrant says by 2020 then its better to fund 2 more vikrant class and build it in parallel so that by 2030 we have 4 CBG and atleast 2 can remain operational at any point in time for Eastern and Western fleet.

Much of the time even new CBG spends some time in Dock for mandatory refit and older one spends more time , Even during Kargil or 26/11 we had Viraat in refit , now it possible that its just coincidence Viraat was much younger in 2001 then it is now.

But the fact is you may have to face such a thing or enemy might just plan its action based on certain known facts , when you have 4 new CBG , atleast you can have 2 guranteed at sea at any time and thats what matters.

amit · Post by **amit** » 24 Aug 2015 10:12

srai wrote: NLCA Mk.2 would be ready by the time "second" Vikrant class (if ordered within the next couple of years) joins the fleet around 2024. Current batch of 45 MiG-29Ks will act as frontline and backup plan till then. With NLCA, since it is indigenous know-how it could be reconfigured for catapult launch when Vishal arrives post 2030+ to fill the gap until N-AMCA arrives. 60 NLCA Mk.2 are planned. No need for imported planes going forward.

Three carriers means two available at all times with the third undergoing refit, or serving as training vessel, or acting as reserve. Current orders of 45 MiG-29Ks are sufficient for three squadrons and could be activated on a third carrier if situation demands it. For the most part, the third will rotate with other squadrons for shored-based stint.

But would that be an optimal use of another carrier? As per my understanding the NLCA would be used mainly for point defence of the carrier while the larger MiG-29K would be offensive arm for shore based bombing runs.

I don't think it's a good idea to have a carrier based on just one aircraft type, it so happens that the lifts of the Vikrant is not wide enough for a Rafale, not really a big aircraft.

The point is the Navy has expressed unhappiness with the MiG29K's performance and I don't think they will commit to another aircraft carrier which would have a lifespan of at least 50 years without clarity on what aircraft types will fly from it.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 24 Aug 2015 10:19

if a vikrant2 is authorized, the necessary design changes must be made to accomodate the largest possible a/c for the design, which is the F-18SH/JSF.

it was a bad design choice to rule out the rafale for the price of 1-2m extra of steel. this will bite us in the future if the Mig ecosystem craps out and we have 50 WG30 type white elephants. knowing this fact is also a incentive for mig to rape us on cost of spares and support.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 24 Aug 2015 10:30

+++.The newer Vikrants could also be slightly larger if need be,just as we've done with larger Delhis,the Kol being at least 1000t larger,with more powerful GTs. Extra 29Ks are always available as they're in production for the RuN too. The NLCAs when perfected should be bought as much as HAL can produce,as they will be very useful even stationed in forward island bases. The larger "flagship" of 65K++ whatever,in any case is planned to arrive only arund 2030.

The sub need is critical.NoKo has just sent out 75% of its sub fleet,an amazing 50 subs to lurk outside SoKo naval bases. That is a great achievement for any navy,with NoKo possessing vintage CW tech subs.Numbers do matter.

70 pct DPRK submarines undetected with high-level talks underway: Seoul
English.news.cn 2015-08-23

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2015- ... 546359.htm
The IN should possess at least 36-40 subs both conventionala dn nuclear.

PS: Morocco's planned Amurs.10 missiles in VLS + 18 torpedoes,etc.

Morocco and Russia are close to reaching a deal on the delivery of a Russian-made Amur-1650 (project 677E) submarine which would be the kingdom’s first submarine, World Tribune reported.

Diesel submarine of the Varshavyanka class
© Sputnik/ Vitaliy Ankov

Russia to Upgrade Submarine Forces of Black Sea Fleet in 2016
The contract is expected to be signed during King Mohammed VI’s trip to Moscow later this year. The two countries have been in talks on the issue in several stages since 2013, according to the media outlet.

The sum of the deal may be €300 million ($342 million), Afrik.com reported.

During the DSA-2014 international arms forum in Malaysia, the Malaysian navy also expressed interest for the submarine.

"Malaysian navy commander visited our display and expressed interest in our Amur-1650 submarines," a Rosoboronexport spokesman told Rossiskaya Gazeta.

The Amur-1650 diesel-electric powered submarine was developed by the Rubin design bureau. In addition to an air-independent power plant, the submarine is equipped with a regular diesel generator and a set of accumulator plants. While surfaced it is propelled by the diesel-electric power plant, and by the accumulators and the air-independent power plant while submerged. Thus, the submarine has the technical specs close to a nuclear-powered one.

A Sukhoi Su-35 fighter

© Sputnik/ Grigoriy Sisoev

Indonesia May Buy Russian Su-35 Jets by 2017 – Ambassador
In comparison with its predecessors, the Amur-1650 submarine is capable of multiple missiles firing (up to six missiles at once) and has a hydroacoustic system with unique sonar for detecting low-noise targets at various distances.

The main feature of the Amur-1650 is its extreme quietness. According to experts, the new submarine outperforms the submarines of Varshavyanka (project 636) class which are now believed to be the most silent submarines in the world.

The Amur-1650 has a length of 66.8 meters and a beam of 7.1 meters. While submerged, the submarine can reach speed of 21 knots (39 kmh) at a distance of 650 miles. The submarine can submerge at a depth of 250 meters. The armament includes 18 torpedoes and 10 vertical silo-based missiles.

Read more: http://sputniknews.com/military/2015082 ... z3ji1u12ca

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 24 Aug 2015 10:46

^^ Re Bhai what has NoKo or Morroco has to do with IN Thread ? You can post that in Intl Navl Thread.

Going after different design will never get rid of Childhood Diseases , They always build class of ship to get economic of scale and get rid of childhood disease in subsqeuent production.

We really need more ships out at sea and not big ships spending time for refit ,operationally you can never have of all your fleet up at any point of time , conservatively you can say 50 % of fleet is available at any point in time, that goes even for supporting ships ( frigate/destroyers) and submarine of CBG , what good is an Aircraft Carrier if you dont have enough of frigate . destroyers , tanker , N Submarine to accompany it ? some will be in refit/dry dock always , when you have sufficient numbers of ships built then you can think of bigger class and build that in numbers.