Indian Naval Discussion

[sgopal]

ARay,

I have been lurking in this thread for the last two days. I understand that you want IN to start looking into cruisers first, get them operational and in meantime continue building the ACs. I also got the point that these cruisers can be armed with a lot of ASMs and AShMs and we can start blockading the Chinese fleet at their / near their bases, including the subs.

Can you please answer the following questions:

a. is it possible to replenish these cruisers with their armament at sea? what will happen to these cruisers after they have fired all their missles?
b. I also understand that even these cruisers will have their own support group, otherwise they will be a dead duck in the sea after they expend their armament. What will be their turn around time after they expend their missles?
c. What will these cruisers do if they are under saturated air attack?
d. What kind of AEW will these cruiser have?
e. These cruisers will also carry 2 to 3 ASW choppers? Will this be enough to find and locate a Chinese SSN or a Kilo?

My humble point is that these cruisers can be part of the CBG and supplement the carriers with their awesome firepower and command & control equipment. But, they cannot really replace a carrier.

Thanks,
Sridhar

[Gurinder P]

^
the soviet fleet of the yesteryears went pro boomers and their surface fleets were essentially heavy surface combatants like cruisers with picket ships and a escort helo/VTOL carrier in that fleet. Hell, even that carrier was labelled a heavy aircraft carrying cruiser.

[ARay]

My humble point is that these cruisers can be part of the CBG and supplement the carriers with their awesome firepower and command & control equipment. But, they cannot really replace a carrier.

Agreed upto 80%. But CBGs are far to come by. May be 20 yrs from now to have 3 full grown CBGs. You can not leave open the mouth of eastern sea because that is an important business route. Why 20% disagreement---- CBG based systems are basically US-UK way of operating in sea. If you follow the wwII and then naval activities at the time of cold war the German-Russian think tank with wolfpacks, pocket battle ships, battle cruisers, missile cruisers---- were/are quite a formidable opponent to the CBGs. Unless you have a solid naval air arm (like USN) the true implementation of CBG is a far cry. The main question is how to bridge the gap of 20 yrs. of phase transformation for raising CBGs.

a. is it possible to replenish these cruisers with their armament at sea? what will happen to these cruisers after they have fired all their missles?
b. I also understand that even these cruisers will have their own support group, otherwise they will be a dead duck in the sea after they expend their armament. What will be their turn around time after they expend their missles?
c. What will these cruisers do if they are under saturated air attack?
d. What kind of AEW will these cruiser have?
e. These cruisers will also carry 2 to 3 ASW choppers? Will this be enough to find and locate a Chinese SSN or a Kilo?

Your questions are very well thought and focussed. Not that I will be able to answer them instantaneously. Anyway for couple of points:

e. The BGs raised with cruiser will have alleast 4 choppers with ASW by the side of ASWs by vessels themselves. As such they are adequate for thwarting discrete attacks. But if its a concentrated, phase by phase grop attack (e.g. Chinese Wolfpack) then land based air cover required. Presently to hover at the end of Burma coast line our Tus, Maritime Jaguars and land based 29ks are adequate to provide cover for BGs.

d saturated air attck is also a threat. But PLAN aor PLAF may not have the capability now other than using their Su variants. The satuarted air attack can be thwarted with strong anti aircraft armaments (SAMs, artillery etc.) The escorting ships may provide that. However the land based aircover once agin is pivotal. It has to be provided at the time of needs.

a. replinishing armaments: just look where I kept the two extremes of the BGs, one at Kolkata and other at Andaman. For the time being (non-aggresiive) petrol the ships may be replinished on land. But during action they have to be replinished in the midway either through supproting group or through mid land/island based temporary base.

Regarding AEW------ have to think.

[Singha]

an interesting link - IR suppression system for diesel engines.
http://drdo.gov.in/drdo/Naval%20Systems ... ionSys.htm

[Raja Bose]

a. replinishing armaments: just look where I kept the two extremes of the BGs, one at Kolkata and other at Andaman. For the time being (non-aggresiive) petrol the ships may be replinished on land. But during action they have to be replinished in the midway either through supproting group or through mid land/island based temporary base.

Regarding AEW------ have to think.

Sir, your posts have a lot of new information that I have not come across before. Do you by chance have a Ph.D. in Technology Strategy since some of the subject matter seems quite familiar?

Regards.

[KiranM]

Raja sir.. Reminds me of my childhood days when I would smote the Chinese hordes riding on my pet dragon.

[Rahul M]

isn't that cannibalism ?

[KiranM]

Na, it is dragon eating lizards. So just maintaining the food chain.

[parshuram]

just following news flash on NDTV that Indian navy dispatches INS Godavri to protect Cargo Ship MV Suez which is also under edcort from PN ship ...My My what are water boys upto

[nachiket]

^^Hehe. They should have sent a Delhi class Destroyer which would have been bigger than anything the pakis have. Would have been an excellent psyops opportunity to photograph the two ships together and cause massive echandee loss to the pukis.

[Avid]

e. These cruisers will also carry 2 to 3 ASW choppers? Will this be enough to find and locate a Chinese SSN or a Kilo?

No. A Ka-28 dedicated for ASW is only good for about 100km, with 200km max distance from the ship (if covering 1/4 quadrant of area around the ship). 100-150 km being more realistic because of the slower fly speed and need to loiter more.

You are better off dividing the 4 choppers in sets of 2, and deploying aboard two frigates/destroyers spaced ~300-400 km apart. Not only will the detection probabilities go up, but also it will significantly mess up the sub's strategy of making a kill of 1 ship and getting away with it.

Secondly, after detection comes the fun part. Consider a torpedo range and especially a high probability kill range. Space two destroyers with even half the torpedos each, vs. a single ship with all the torpedos and twice the heli. You will find that the sub's safe passage options reduce dramatically. It is the reason why ASW corvettes are popular for nearer to shore ASW defense. You will see a rough pyramid in number of fast attack patrol crafts with limited ASW, corvettes, frigates, heavy destroyers (moving from nearer shore to blue water). You need all kinds of vicious animals from the pack of wild dogs to the 800lb gorilla to ward off evil.

[Avid]

a. replinishing armaments: just look where I kept the two extremes of the BGs, one at Kolkata and other at Andaman. For the time being (non-aggresiive) petrol the ships may be replinished on land. But during action they have to be replinished in the midway either through supproting group or through mid land/island based temporary base.

And how are you going to protect the supply lines from the very subs you are trying to detect?

[NRao]

^^^

By preventing them from entering the region would be a good start, I would imagine.

Push comes to shove, India needs to get a few bases closer to that thing called China Sea, which of course does not belong to China.

[Avid]

Presently to hover at the end of Burma coast line our Tus, Maritime Jaguars and land based 29ks are adequate to provide cover for BGs.

Jags and land-based 29Ks will not be adequate to provide the cover at tip of Burma. Given their range, they can fly there and back, with little or no time for even a 100 km radius fly around the BG.

And pray tell me -- is this going to be continuous protection? How many 29Ks and Jags will be continually flying in and back from the BG. To provide adequate protection even 4 a/c at a time, you will be dedicating over 16 a/c at a time at different stages from readying, in-flight, currently protecting, and on way back. That is assuming the aircraft spend 1/4 of mission time loitering and providing protection. Now, please go ahead and compute for me how many a/c are you going to dedicate for round the clock protection of a single BG.

You might actually see the reason why CBG are useful because of their floating proximity to the surface assets that need protected even >500km from shore. Your aircraft do not need to be airborne all of the time.

[Avid]

^^^

By preventing them from entering the region would be a good start, I would imagine.

Push comes to shove, India needs to get a few bases closer to that thing called China Sea, which of course does not belong to China.

Precisely. It was a bit sarcastic. But to protect the supply lines, part of BG is generally detached and escorts the supply ships as they come closer to the BG itself. However, if we replace 2-4 destroyers with giant missile cruisers, there is not enough capacity in BG to detach for protection of supply ships in danger zones.

[bmallick]

Having a big ship with big missiles is great. Nice psyops. However lets take a step back and think.

Well Russians have Granit with 550km range, the Chinese have C-803/805 with 350-500 km range. We have Brahmos & Klub with 280 & 220 kms ranges respectively. Well on the face of it it seems the Slava & the chinese can kill us even before we have a chance to fire. However, whats missed in all this dhoti shivering is target detection. All these missiles are able to engage over the horizon targets, but they need something which would provide that information to them. Air asset is the only way possible. Now lets say we are with in range of our land based bases, well we can rely on them to provide us the info. But such a bubble can be only within 600-800 km range at best. Farther from that the ship needs sea based air asset. If we remove a carrier from the equation, well helicopters would be hard pressed to patrol 300 km away from mother ship, detect an enemy 200 km further away, so that the mother ship can kill it from a net distance of 500 km. Or I can have my helicopter 100 km away from me, detect the enemy 150 km further, so that I can fire my 280 km missile at it. This seems more plausible and doable. It also means that my poor helicopter, is well with in my Air Surveillance radar range of 250-350 km. So that if I detect something coming, I can ask my precious helicopter to scoot to me fast. The soviets tried to solve the problem by building Heavy Aircraft Carrying Cruisers (Kiev class). They were fine with fielding relatively small number of not so capable YAK-38 in small numbers and having much larger numbers of ASW Kamovs. Create a large ASW bubble with choppers. Let the YAK-38 provide the over horizon search & target location capability and then the Kiev & Slavas can fire their heavy missiles.

Now, if we add a carrier to this equation, suddenly we can detect the enemy 500 km away and fire my baddass big missile. So now my Big missile cruiser can fire really long range missiles. But wait a min, if I have a carrier why I need this big missile cruiser for carrying big missiles. I can simply send a Aircraft towards the target, which can fire a much smaller missile of 100 km range and kill the enemy.

So as we see, just having a big ship with big missiles would not do the trick, unless you have air asset providing the over horizon target search.

[ARay]

Nice to read all the comments. Very well thought indeed.

Better to check the probability of replinishing--- At the intial phase when the BGs will opearate just at the mouth of Bay of Bengal, Kolkata/Orissa coast and Andaman are the land based relinishing points. However within Bay of Bengal or extremities of Anadaman sea the sea based replinishing may be started on trial basis. My suggestion is converting a tanker for this task and escort it with a very small group ---one destroyer, two corvettes. The main BGs (composition: one cruiser, one destroyer,two frigates & one corvette) can not be decomposed to escort of supply ship because the BG is already small. The use of destroyers have to be done judiciously as their nos. are small.

The most crucial part is air cover. I wrote of Tu bombers, maritime jaguar and 29ks thinking only navy's air arm. True that at tip of Burma they can just cover a BG from their land base.
But let it begin as trial basis. At the very intial stage if we immediately think of continuous cover, then its difficult. However PLAN or PLAF can not push much air threat (concentrated, saturated) at this moment. Many of their assets are engaged in Formosa (Taiwan) shadow conflict. Except risking their Su 27s--- which I think they will not at the very meoment. Why not seek a maritime role of Su30 MKI just as a makeshift plan for air cover of the BGs. Sounds odd but just as makeshift, only for the period we get true CBG.

The sub threat is more vicious and very real. Under the backdrop of lack of continuous air cover ut looms large over the BG. Against the subs the BG has 5 helicops(ASW), a ever manuevering corvette(with enough ASW, like WWII convoy escorts from Skapa Flo to Murmansk), one rear guard destroyer and two light frigates (ASW). The helis can be divided into 2 group with 2 shifts. One in reserve or emergency----ensures coverage ~< 200 kms. This is good for dicrete attacks i.e. couple of subs intentionally spooking/ shadowing/trying to blast any of the surface assets. Currently (for another 3-4 yrs. or so) PLAN will not be able to raise couple of sub groups exclusively for china sea--->Bay of bengal---> Arabian sea endeavour. The Formosa problem is stucking up a chunk of their navy. However with more production of Song/Tuan class subs the scenario may tilt probably ~ 2020 or add another couple of yrs.

Within this gap India has to find some allies where ports and associated airfield can be used. Two such Allies may be Singapore (with whom INS had an exercise) and Vietnam (fought with China and more than helping for India). Malyasia, Burma are gone cases---can not rely. Thailand is non comittal-- though reports are there that PLAN wanted to sell them subs. While Vietnam will be more than helping in opening up at south china sea, this will spread INS (in its current form) too thin, without air cover. India must find a sea base, air base within end of Andaman sea to gulf of Thailand zone. Though the history of finding a base by India is not too rosy (lost cases of Tazik bases at Farkhot, Milan (!!!)). But its a need of hour and with a very important task of providing air survellience.

Within this period 2012--->2020 the cruise based BGs with limited/discrete/discontinuous air cover will act as a necessary prelude to ensure the larger sea interest and spreading a message---- we are ready . End of 2020, hopefully one CBG will be fully operational and other half ready, and if we are too optimistic the much needed sea/air base beon lease. This will further ensure another leap towards True BLUE Water Navy.

A small task left behind---- dealing with paki backaches (Agosta, AIP capable). & 71 type missile boat attack will be difficult now. Weatern Naval Command must be having some deep ASW countermeasures. In a nutshell the Sino-Pak axis has to be snapped, if possible at the very beginning point----- mouth of Bay of Bengal

[sgopal]

Good points ARay. Don't you think that we will limit IN as a brown water navy and we will not grow it as a blue water navy in this trial. What will happen when the Chinese do not come till Bay of Bengal and use their SSBN to lob both conventional / nuclear missles at us. Will we have the ability to retaliate from Bay of Bengal to hit deep inside China. As you have mentioned before, 4 ASW choppers along with shore based MPAs is not enough for a sub or multiple subs attacking your BG. How many sorties can these choppers do before they catch the Sub. Now, you want a tanker / supply ship to be part of the BG. That is a good point. But, you should also know that now the BG will move at its slowest speed. Always remember, the fleet moves at the speed of its slowest ship. Also, now the BG has another target of interest to protect, the fleet tanker, a juicy target for subs.

There are positives and negatives about an AC or a missile cruiser. I just read an interview of the Russian Admiral in one of the other forums where he mentions that the AC is the one which they want ASAP, apart from the Bulava missile. Nothing can match the amount of flexibility and power of an Aircraft Carrier. Of course, it cannot move alone. Similarly, even a cruiser cannot move alone, albeit with a smaller flotilla of support ships.

[UBanerjee]

The only reason the Soviets went wild with missile ships is as a semi-asymmetric response to the overwhelming American advantage in naval air power which they had no real hope of matching.

For all other purposes what is the point of having large missile cruisers? For things like ASW, corvette/destroyer and carrier air wing are superior. For things like land attack, a carrier air wing will always be more flexible and pack more long-term punch. A carrier's escorts will have sufficient missile capability to support it.

Currently the US operates 4 converted Ohio class missile subs which fulfill the sort of role that a missile cruiser would, but with the enormous advantage of being a submarine.

In any case the future of naval warfare is the submarine and anti-submarine efforts. The carrier exists to do the one thing subs can't do, which is sustained non-nuclear power-projection.

[ARay]

Limiting your navy as Brown Water while you want to become an economic superpower is somewhat at odds. If you want to secure you welth you have to be strong---- at least old man tales are like that.

Secondly, no plan is perfect 100% proof. Every plan has its own endurance and it depends on as many good/bad factors. Say for examples, probability of nuke subs of PLAN lobbying missile at us. Well as per land forces concerned India through its missile programme someway secured deterrence. Though there are loop holes, still its deterrence. What I feel it will not be a nuke thrown (if at all thrown the job will be assigned to pakis); it will be small, local but intense naval skirmishes. Concerning ASW, Air cover BGs with cruiser (as I outlined) are vulnerable no doubt, but under the present context PLAN lacks that capacity. As we are tugged at Kashmir, so are they at Formosa/N Korea. The Sino-Pak nexus is just on rolling with discrete presence of chinse assts in Indian Ocean (may be at the pretext of Anti-Piracy); so better to put a counter measure with whatever best option (time is always the factor) we have. Carriers are carriers, no doubt on that but to raise them you have to ensure ample time, ample resource, ample------. Its definitely required but what to do to bridge the time gap? Leave your seas open? The ans. is NO, whatever may be the outcome. Raising two small BGs centered on Missile Cruiser is a viable option.

Replinishment: Moving a tanker with a small flotilla (one destroyer, two corvettes) does not mean including it actively in the BG. Rather its wise to make a separate sub command (say Far East Command) under the Andaman command and keep the two BGs and the Replinishment flotilla (common to both BGs initially) under its supervision. I think INS has no such replinishing job done almost regularly at such a distance. It gives the just Beginning.

Risk of submarine remains always. But corvettes are good at fighting it out. Also P17A in the replinishing group will be another deterrant. I know its not full proof, but thats what is life. Nothing is for sure.

[Pratyush]

The posts being made in favor of the missile cruiser are quite good. But, IMO, nothing beats the versatility and the Multi role capability of a mid sized to large flat top.

A fleet with a large number of flat tops ( 4 to 6 ) with guided missile destroyers such as the P 15B and follow on classes along with support assets, will be an ideal fleet for the Indian needs. Also, any future fleet must control the airspace around and the underwater areas around it. The best way it can be done is by having a fleet that is well balanced with both Aircraft carriers and the Nuke boats.

The missile ships can exist in the umbrella provided by the Carrier and the subs.

[ARay]

The only reason the Soviets went wild with missile ships is as a semi-asymmetric response to the overwhelming American advantage in naval air power which they had no real hope of matching.

The answer is partially yes and no both. After WWII US occupied/leased most of the warm water ports here and there and had a chunk of carriers built to fight Japs. Whereas Russia, mostly enagaged in bitter land warfare, have mostly frozen ports on winter, only banked on few warm openings snatched from Imperail Japan. To launch a carrier and support a CBG and cover an effective radius requires a all season open replinishment facilities in the midways, clear sky and a sea devoid of underwater threat (largely subs). Soviets almost simulatneously rolled out their own jet craft Migs, do not think they are that scared or incapable of rasing CBGs. The cold war was largely centered (at the initial stage) in Europe (east). So Russian navy had limited role to play, except their constant presence in ARctic. Whereas US concentrated its assets almost everywhere. The build up of Missile Cruisers, giant subs were natural selection for USSR. But their strategy was quite effective throughout.

In my earlier posts I mentioned about two distinct naval war school of thoughts------
(1) Carrier centric (UK-US),
(2) Sub,Pocket battle ship, Cruise centric (Russo-German).

INS may follow a hybrid root.

[ARay]

But, IMO, nothing beats the versatility and the Multi role capability of a mid sized to large flat top.

Agreed, but what is the grassroot condition with INS to counter Sino-PAk nexus?

[UBanerjee]

In my earlier posts I mentioned about two distinct naval war school of thoughts------
(1) Carrier centric (UK-US),
(2) Sub,Pocket battle ship, Cruise centric (Russo-German).

INS may follow a hybrid root.

Why such a division? The US relied heavily on subs in the Pacific War vs. Japan, in fact their subs were far more effective than the German wolf-packs in the Atlantic because the Imp. Japanese Navy heavily neglected defensive doctrines including ASW.

And the Germans (in both wars) relied on pocket battleships and cruisers because they were conducting commerce raiding due to very limited means. Ultimately this wasn't much more than a distraction.

The Russian school of naval thought was dedicated to countering the US fleet. Russia is ultimately a continental power, not a maritime power, and so they tailored their navy to their particular circumstances. (In fact, so is Germany.) What is India facing that calls for something similar? Its the strategic environment the IN will operate in that determines its structure, not just picking the "Russian" vs "US" school of thought.

[bmallick]

Vis-a-Vis roping in Vietnam and Singapore Navies as allies to counter PLAN, I want to add the following.

In case of Vietnam, even though they have a dispute with China and they are currently showing aggressive maneuvers to assert their position in the dispute, it might be a bit difficult for them to jump into they fray of Indo-china conflict. If China it self is not dragging Vietnam into the conflict, then Vietnamese Navy maybe reluctant to interfere on behalf of IN, as such an act would mean war against China and Vietnam would also have to then face PLA on their northern frontier. This may act as a deterrent for Vietnam.

Singapore is a better case for an ally, as its lands are more than 1800 kms away from China and with IN moving into south china sea and working with Singaporean Navy, along with using Singapore airbases, should mean that unless we loose the battle in south china sea, Singapore would not be threatened.

[ARay]

Why such a division? The US relied heavily on subs in the Pacific War vs. Japan, in fact their subs were far more effective than the German wolf-packs in the Atlantic because the Imp. Japanese Navy heavily neglected defensive doctrines including ASW.

And the Germans (in both wars) relied on pocket battleships and cruisers because they were conducting commerce raiding due to very limited means. Ultimately this wasn't much more than a distraction.

The Russian school of naval thought was dedicated to countering the US fleet. Russia is ultimately a continental power, not a maritime power, and so they tailored their navy to their particular circumstances. (In fact, so is Germany.) What is India facing that calls for something similar? Its the strategic environment the IN will operate in that determines its structure, not just picking the "Russian" vs "US" school of thought.


Pls. see the WWII events. Naval warfare is one face of the manifestation of establishing supremacy in the maritime commerce. The wolfpacks were a completely new addtion in WWII and taken everybody by surprise. After Pearl Harbour US was more like a shadow before Japs. UK also nowhere beyond Prince of Wells sinking. The methodology of pumping subs against Japs started beginning/mid of 43 when the complete US war machine was on wake. However the Pivots of US navy was always carriers.

The division in school of thoughts are absolute necessary. Not because they are like sacred stones but becuse they show the specific ways of evolution. India is a classic example of both working as continental & maritime power. Hence the call made for hybrid school of thoughts.

In case of Vietnam, even though they have a dispute with China and they are currently showing aggressive maneuvers to assert their position in the dispute, it might be a bit difficult for them to jump into they fray of Indo-china conflict.

Difiicult to gaze who is better Singapore or Vietnam. As far I know under the shadow of US there was an agreement among Indo, Jap, Singapore--- and other littoral powers around south china sea. The requirement is a base on lease at (i) near gulf of Thailand and (ii( south china sea---- you may view it as the necessary footholds for INS.

In my earlier posts I purposefully wrote eyelands in place of island. Those footholds will truely be the eyelands of INS.

[kit]

Vietnam and Singapore will be in that order useful in countering chinese influence, singapore very less so because of its ethnic chinese population. The IAF and IN would find it very useful if they conduct regular exercises with their vietnamese counterparts IN Vietnam.They can get used to their logistic facilities and ports.A detachment of IAF and IN in Vietnam can cause a little headache to the chinese in event of a hostility.I would say let Vietnam be to India what Pakistan is to China.Build a couple of peaceful nuclear reactors for Vietnam as a measure of Indian goodwill.
The South China sea increasingly looks like a potential flash point with a belligerent China bearing down on its smaller feisty neighbours.

[ARay]

A detachment of IAF and IN in Vietnam can cause a little headache to the chinese in event of a hostility.I would say let Vietnam be to India what Pakistan is to China.Build a couple of peaceful nuclear reactors for Vietnam as a measure of Indian goodwill.

Sounds like a well laid strategy. And yes, i.e. what is required. But drawing parallel between Vietnam and Pak is not wise, Vietnam has its fame because of it glorious struggle for independence---- first against the French and then US. Not like Pak, a global exporter of terrorism. However Vietnam had a bitter past with China (mid 70) and I hope they dislike chinese hegemony in south china sea. Hence will be in favour of housing or providing logistics to small cruiser BG of INS and may allow a half of squadron 29ks at the Naval airport.

[bmallick]

But would that logistics favour be at the cost of their own borders being attack. I have a question, if we have a base in Vietnam and China attacks that base, would that be considered an attack of Vietnam itself? If so, would Vietnam be ready to face such an attack. I truly respect their independence spirit and but it might be a really difficult choice for Vietnam. Maybe apart from securing basing rights, we would need to put in money, equipment & people to bolster their armed forces as a whole, so that they may have the confidence when they are supporting us.

Also, such an act should also be reciprocated by India. In case of Vietnam getting into a fight with China, would we be sending IN and actively provide protection to Vietnam? Would we be ready to open up a land front in such a case?

[ARay]

But would that logistics favour be at the cost of their own borders being attack. I have a question, if we have a base in Vietnam and China attacks that base, would that be considered an attack of Vietnam itself? If so, would Vietnam be ready to face such an attack. I truly respect their independence spirit and but it might be a really difficult choice for Vietnam. Maybe apart from securing basing rights, we would need to put in money, equipment & people to bolster their armed forces as a whole, so that they may have the confidence when they are supporting us.

Also, such an act should also be reciprocated by India. In case of Vietnam getting into a fight with China, would we be sending IN and actively provide protection to Vietnam? Would we be ready to open up a land front in such a case?

Very good question. However the degree of military association between two countries are governed by certain rules---upholding the sovereignty of either. But US and USSR type base lease not possible for India. At best what India could do is to seek an opportunity for signing a more than strategic alliance with either Singapore or Vietnam. On that event China, if even attacks Vietnam, will do so in a reciprocative way--- may open another front at India border with the help of Pak. This strategic allaince is very complex in nature and needs to be addressed in the military doctrine of the parent country, Comparatively Singapore is a better bet, and US may support Indian inititive of leasing a base there. More information about setting up such bases ----rules and outcomes---- are covered under strategic discussion. Enough material available on net.

[JTull]

ARay,

The quote button is there for a reason!

[UBanerjee]

I would say let Vietnam be to India what Pakistan is to China.Build a couple of peaceful nuclear reactors for Vietnam as a measure of Indian goodwill.

Vietnam will not be a Pak. Vietnam has thousands of years of rivalry with China but it is still a normal nation that acts rationally. Pak is an artificially created nation that acts like a rabid dog vis a vis India because its entire reason for existence is deranged. Thus Vietnam will tread cautiously around China and not jump into conflicts, in a way that is totally different from how Pak operates.

That said I am all for warmer ties with Vietnam including nuclear cooperation if need be.

[ticky]

@ARay - for your reading pleasure
1. One DDG cost - upwards of $600 mil. (P15B class estimate)
2. Two FFGs - $500-600 mil (P17 and follow on P17A)
3. One ASW corvette - ~$200 mill (P28, maybe on the higher side)
4. One fleet oiler/replenishment ship - Cost ???
5. And finally one rust bucket incomplete slava to be acquired, completely rebuilt/refurbed and armed - Cost somewhere north of $1 billion I expect with no idea as to when it would be ready. The alternative being advocated- design & build a new cruiser ourself spending a whopping amount on R&D for a warship of which only 2 will be built.

AND here we are, ARay's cruiser based battlegroup is ready after having spent close to over $3 billion.
The DDG & FFG primary AShW weapon - Brahmos. Let's assume the same for the CG. So we have about say 64 warshots (Assuming CG-32, DDG-16, FFG- 8 each). Range -290 Kms on hi-hi-hi profile or about 120/130 km in a sea skimming mode.

Problem with launching in the max range profile-
1. The earth is round
2. Shipborne radar are limited to LOS and point 1. limits LOS
3. Hence no targeting information at that range to launch

Solution: Use aerial assets to provide targeting info.
Further problem: The fleet has diddly squat
How to solve this.
1. Get land based a/c for recon & tracking of enemy. (not very efficient the further the fleet moves away from home and 24x7 coverage is suspect)
2. Get an Aircraft carrier, oh yes an AIRCRAFT CARRIER, (provides 24x7 coverage, adds to ASW punch, provides friendly CAP to interdict enemy air strike)
Optimal Solution: Point 2.
Epiphany- The airwing can launch airstrike with guided & unguided munitions much, much, much furrrtherrr both at land & sea targets than the missiles on the CG can ever hope to.
Question in hindsight : Why the hell we did need the CG in the first place if the AC is much better, much more flexible.

NOTE:
1. INS Vikramaditya to be delivered in 2012
2. INS Vikrant to be delivered in 2014/15
3. The mythical cruiser to be delivered ????

[pragnya]

was going thro' the wiki page on INS NILGIRI class frigares. saw this in the "comments" section -

Code: Select all

INS Nilgiri	F33	23 June 1972	1996	Sunk on 24 April 1997, by a Sea Eagle AShM fired from a Sea Harrier Frs Mk.51 of the Indian Navy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nilgiri_cl ... gate#Ships

why post decommissioning it was sunk by a SEA EAGLE AShM by the IN?? any reasons/story behind it??

[ARay]

1. INS Vikramaditya to be delivered in 2012
2. INS Vikrant to be delivered in 2014/15
3. The mythical cruiser to be delivered ????

VIKRAmaditya to be delivered 2009,10,11, now 12----lets see. If delivered will not be released immediately in open sea, far from home, risky because a big, valuable asset (may be the only one for next five years).

VIKRANT to be delivered--- 2015, fine. Yet to fix which other aircraft will join 29k, Naval Rafael/Typhhonor F18(!!!!). Let us see how quickly this second CBG becomes operational

3. Mythical cuiser of ARay's BG: oh, no prospect. With a 2.5 billion cost you reach sofar, so good and pave the way for far east command, but in vain because poor SLAVA is there.

Anyway, proposals are proposals. And the era of doing research with bamboo sticks are gone. So India, a country with good foreign currency reserve, aspiring blue water navy need to pay heed beyond text book mugged knowledge.

Question is not 2.5 billion, question is implementation, usefulness and protection of interest.
I am really keen to see how quickly CBGs come i.e. am I to see it before 2020 other than a half grown CBG around Vikramaditya (cost overruns, time overruns are not new issues)

[Rahul M]

okay I have had officially enough of this uninformed debate, since there seems to be not an iota of willingness to learn but a lot of chair admiral capacity building and fleet deployments.
please take this discussion to the newbie thread or face the consequences. this applies to everybody.

p.s. and learn to use the quote function.

[ticky]

was going thro' the wiki page on INS NILGIRI class frigares. saw this in the "comments" section -

Code: Select all

INS Nilgiri	F33	23 June 1972	1996	Sunk on 24 April 1997, by a Sea Eagle AShM fired from a Sea Harrier Frs Mk.51 of the Indian Navy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nilgiri_cl ... gate#Ships

why post decommissioning it was sunk by a SEA EAGLE AShM by the IN?? any reasons/story behind it??

Live target practice. Navies round the world routinely do this with decommisioned ships

[tsarkar]

why post decommissioning it was sunk by a SEA EAGLE AShM by the IN?? any reasons/story behind it??

Target practice! How often does one get a full sized target ship to fire upon? Udaygiri was similarly sunk in 2008 using Klub.

[pragnya]

ticky, tsarkar sir, thanks.

i asked because post decommissioning most ships go for scraps.

[SaiK]

what is the status of ADS?