Indian Naval Discussion

John · Post by **John** » 01 Aug 2010 06:02

johnny_m wrote:We should really consider the AEGIS 2 ships each to protect the 2 CBGs. I doubt the BARAK versions current and NG will do as good a job as these.

Aegis is combat system the potency of platform will depend on the vessel its fitted on and what version of SPY radar is used. Also SPY-1+SPG-62 while potent at dealing with long range threats, it does fall short when it comes to dealing with saturation missile attacks (can only engage targets that are illuminated by FCR).

johnny_m · Post by **johnny_m** » 01 Aug 2010 09:49

maz,

To tell that in certain terms one must have the BARAK 2 in service.

For one Aegis defends against a wider array of threats including Ballistic missiles (using the SM-3), we have to consider the U.S papers on China's advance in this field (Anti-Ship Ballistic missiles). It will compliment the BARAK 2 equipped vessels quite well.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 01 Aug 2010 10:21

Well its does not matter if Aegis is inferior/superior to Barak-NG/MF-Star since the former was designed to meet USN requirement and latter IN/ Naval requirement.

There is no point in investing in Naval ABM system since our geography is such that most of our BM threat would be over the land from West and North.

What we need is a system that can defeat saturation missile attack against low flying low rcs subsonic and supersonic missile , aircraft at longest possible range out at sea against clutter and intense jamming environment.

The AESA MF-STAR and Barak-NG should excel in that department and use of AESA should make the system future proof. With MF-STAR and Barak-NG the IN has invested in most futuristic threat that it is likely to face.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 01 Aug 2010 12:08

The Kashins should be able to "sailor" on until 2020,as long as their hulls are fit.The upgrades with Brahmos make them the most potent destroyers in the IN's inventory right now even though their anti-air armament is rather old in the tooth.Even this can be upgraded with with either VLS Shtil or Barak.So too can the "G" class,whose anti-sub capabilities can undergo much improvement,especially as the Sino-Pak sub threat becomes more acute.Ideally,the IN needs around 12 DDGHs and 24 FFGHs,apart from around 16-24 smaller escorts like the P-28s,etc.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 01 Aug 2010 12:24

> all rounder ships have thier own advantage in a navy with a limited no. Of surface ships.

true but nobody is going to cut us any slack when launching mass attacks that a bunch of all-rounders cannot handle vs having a RD/VVS/SRT at the crease

if the chinese df21 ASM rumour is true, we need to look at mounting even a few AAD missiles in special cell array to guard our carriers, or maybe the
carriers themselves can have a few VL cells along the port side (starboard side has island and deck edge elevators) to unleash these big weapons. another
potential location is just fwd or aft of the island (where viraat has the barak1 cells)

we have much fewer DDG/CG ships, much fewer carriers so we need to think different than Unkil - what works for Unkil isnt always suitable for us.

johnny_m · Post by **johnny_m** » 01 Aug 2010 15:05

Austin I hope you read up on China's advancements in Anti Ship Ballistic Missiles. The development is aimed at American CBGs but could be used against Indian Carriers as well in future at times of conflict.

The AEGIS will offer protection to U.S CBGs, its imperative that we also have a similar system either an off the shelf purchase or something we develop.

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/03 ... er-killer/

NG cannot deal with this kind of threats.

Yagnasri · Post by **Yagnasri** » 01 Aug 2010 16:03

Are we going for modular construction for these new ships. I hear our Kochin ship yard doing that for ADS already. Otherwise same old time over runs.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 01 Aug 2010 16:36

johnny_m wrote:Austin I hope you read up on China's advancements in Anti Ship Ballistic Missiles. The development is aimed at American CBGs but could be used against Indian Carriers as well in future at times of conflict.

The AEGIS will offer protection to U.S CBGs, its imperative that we also have a similar system either an off the shelf purchase or something we develop.

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/03 ... er-killer/

NG cannot deal with this kind of threats.

I have read those and these ASBM will be effective if IN plans to challenge PLAN over the straits where network of sensors/uav/sats can provide accurate information on moving aircraft carrier ard ASBM can be used as a short time to target missile assuming the targets can be effectively tracked.

That is a problem USN will encounter if it tries to challenge China with its CBG along the Taiwan straits in any future conflicts.

The positive feature of ASBM is its short time to reach the target ( Mach 8 to 10 ) and its small RV assuming they use a two stage missile.

The negative feature is since it spends most of the time in air it can be effectively tracked not withstanding its small size a good FCS like Aegis and much better a AESA MF-STAR can effectively track it during its flight in the open sea.

As long as MF-STAR can compute the intercept point for a very fast target and has the algorithm to optimise the interception point for Barak-NG should not have a problem intercepting ASBM, infact Ratheyon has already proposed a navalised PAC-3 for ASBM.

A supersonic low-low skimming missile that travels at ~ Mach 1.5 - 2 can keep changing direction or trajectory which is difficult to track through out its entire flight like Brahmos is a far bigger threat to a CBG then ASBM.

BTW a ASBM is nothing but a BGRV with appropriate RF sensors that can discriminate a CBG from high altitude and them zoom on it at high speed that is what Shourya is , if required Shourya can be converted to ASBM with the necessary software modification

mandrake · Post by **mandrake** » 01 Aug 2010 16:47

In Barak BG The dual pulse Rocket propulsion is from DRDO.
btw, I'm awestruck by the capabilities of SM3 the more i read about it, that one has some huge potential and is as modern and lethal of a game changer as a Raptor. The US surely knows where to get things really right.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 01 Aug 2010 17:21

we have nowhere near the US network of airborne and space based sensors to detect chinese land based DF21 and ASM units. or stealth bombers armed with
stealthy ALCM/J-series to attack them deep inshore.

we had better make plans to get the AAD onto our P15B atleast - 8-16 cells deep enough for AAD installation....else be left nanga when the PRC quietly escalates
the threat matrix. what if they supply this weapon to the pakis - they have already supplied the base weapon as the shaheen.

a strike by 50 flankers will overwhelm a lone indian carrier with mig29k/tejas. a USN 3-carrier CVBG with E2 and around 180 F18E/F should be able to get early warning and enough planes in the air to beat it back.

we need to take care of our musharaff because our shields are weaker than sher khans.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 01 Aug 2010 17:43

Indeed a navalised AAD is a better option to deal with ASBM at high altitude then Barak-NG , hopefully a navalised AAD is at works

johnny_m · Post by **johnny_m** » 01 Aug 2010 18:06

We do not have to develop every tech in house, its time consuming. There is nothing wrong with buying some unique tech off the shelf. P8I and AEGIS fit in that category.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 01 Aug 2010 20:13

Aegis no longer unique and possibly its trailing edge in ability to beat back salvo attacks vs APAR/EMPAR/SAMPSON. that is why khan chacha is moving on to SPY3/SM6 combo to re-establish itself at the leading edge.

P8 with USN kit will no doubt be a gold std in sub hunting , remains to be seen user feedback on P8I from IN - should be much better than Bear/May suite one hopes

jaladipc · Post by **jaladipc** » 01 Aug 2010 20:45

Aegis is two types:-
1)Combat management
2)Weapon system

Combat management is one similar to the CAIO (Computer Aided Action Information Organization) developed by DRDO and IN.
AWS aka Aegis weapon system includes: AN/SPY-1 Radar, MK 99 Fire Control System, WCS, the Command and Decision Suite, and SM-2 Standard Missile systems+Phalanx (CIWS) and MK 41 VLS.

Now we should ask ourself if we want to buy that Combat management system which is similar to the one developed inhome by our folks for Shivalik class and subsequent ones.

If its AWS,are we sure that US is willing to throw its top of line without watering down the versions?

Small bricks can make up a huge fort.
We got a decent CAIO,EO.
Time of the day is to integrate/develope a good multi-barrel AA gun for CIWS using the radars developed for Trishul SAM.DRDO is already integrating its PDV and AAD1 on ships for its second phase of interception testing,which means they had a perfect plan for a naval Sword fish or something similar?Obviously yes.Long time back then DRDO was talking on Phase-II ABM they pointed out Naval versions as well,without which a complete ABM protection for India and its union territories is not possible. If Panwallahs news are considered as credible as they are supossed to be,P-15B will get a huge baggage of AAW of which ABM is on top priority in view of Chinese ASBM which is also considered a threat to IN todays and future carriers.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 02 Aug 2010 20:37

Things are going on smoothly on the P-8 program with P-8A Poseidon 'T3' entering the Flight Test Program

Boeing P-8A Poseidon aircraft T3 completed its first flight test in Seattle on July 29, formally entering the U.S, Navy/Boeing flight test program. During the 2.8 hour flight, Boeing pilot Chris Dobb and U.S. Navy pilot Lt. Wayne Lewis performed airborne systems checks including autopilot flight modes and auxiliary power unit and engine shutdowns and starts.

T3 is the P-8A program’s mission system and weapon certification aircraft. In the coming weeks it will join aircraft T1 and T2 at Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Md., where it will complete additional ground and flight tests.

"At Pax River, the team will use some of the ground test data gathered in Seattle for in-flight separation and delivery accuracy tests that will occur later this year," said Chris Ahsmann, Boeing P-8A chief engineer.

T3 is one of six flight-test aircraft that are being assembled and tested as part of a System Development and Demonstration contract Boeing received in 2004.

The Navy plans to purchase 117 P-8A anti-submarine warfare, anti-surface warfare, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance aircraft to replace its P-3 fleet

link

Tanaji · Post by **Tanaji** » 02 Aug 2010 22:55

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/07/14 ... sub_order/

So many inaccuracies, and the Brits are jealous: do read up the comments

venkat_r · Post by **venkat_r** » 03 Aug 2010 00:41

P-15Bs are great to protect our CBG along with a Frigate and a sub performing the ASW, it will be lethal and intimidate anything that is within 500 to 1000 KM range.

Would not worry too much at this point about 50 Flankers as that is a extreme scenario. For anyone to think that one entire sqardron would not be enough to attack or defend when this moves along, what to talk about other sea assets and merchant ships. Only SherKhan will be better off in the IOC area.

Thomas Kolarek · Post by **Thomas Kolarek** » 03 Aug 2010 03:10

US, Brits every one will cry foul as India is going in right direction (after long time) by ordering 6 diesel submarines. The so called developed countries are afraid that they are losing control of the world trade in submarines, along with the market itself, to Third World submarine producers by giving this ToT. We can very well ignore them.
My take is we should field at least 20-30 diesel submarines coast to coast.
Think of the advantage it provides:
~ No one will dare mess with India.
~ Aircraft carriers will be fully protected.
~ We will be able to patrol better than current situation allows.

Craig Alpert · Post by **Craig Alpert** » 03 Aug 2010 05:10

Self-Delete

SNaik · Post by **SNaik** » 03 Aug 2010 11:16

Project 677 bridge

http://i56.photobucket.com/albums/g191/ ... bridge.jpg

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 03 Aug 2010 12:40

Tanaji wrote:http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/07/14 ... sub_order/

So many inaccuracies, and the Brits are jealous: do read up the comments

The intent is to show that Indian Navy is not a friendly navy.
Also that Indian navy does not have a nuclear sub which is also not true.

They are setting up to make Indian Sub for target practice

nrshah · Post by **nrshah** » 03 Aug 2010 18:49

So many inaccuracies, and the Brits are jealous: do read up the comments

And they have reasons for being so... for India is the same country which they were ruling till before 60 years... A country which was exploited by them like anything...The same country when starts rising and British Prime minister says we need India more than India needs UK... It is a matter of being jealous....

To me (as Indian), i would take it as compliment.........I am sure we all will

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 03 Aug 2010 23:25

Top LCA-Navy Team In Russia For Talks

A high-level naval delegation from the Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA) – the government makers of India’s much-anticipated Light Combat Aircraft (LCA-Navy) – is currently in Russia for contract negotiations and issues related to the program’s shore-based test facility (SBTF).
...
...
“Building the SBTF in Goa is a huge technological challenge for ADA and the Indian Navy, and Russian help is critical. It will have to be an exact ship-on-the-shore facility based on India’s Indigenous Aircraft Carrier being built at Cochin Shipyard,” the official said. “The measurements are the same as IAC and it must have all equipment to simulate an aircraft carrier with ski-jump and arrested recovery. Hence, the current project review being undertaken with the Russians is crucial in many ways.”
...
...

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 04 Aug 2010 08:44

Indian Navy Harrier Upgrade "Imprudent", Partiality Shown To Israeli Firms: Indian Audit Watchdog

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 04 Aug 2010 11:25

Disnmal show by the IN's leadership of the day.The CAG has some very valid points to make.If the missile has achieved only approx. 50% of its dsired BVR range,it is simply unacceptable.The manufacturer should suffer stiff penalties as a result.The leadership of the time would've now happily retired and the Israelis laughing all the way to the bank!
What is surprising is that the British upgrade costs,if memory serves me right, were discarded as being too expensive.Here,bot HAL and the Israelis should suffer the consequences.

If we can go after the Chor-Wealth Games rascals,then we should also go after those responsible for this fiasco too!

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 04 Aug 2010 11:31

Austin wrote:Indian Navy Harrier Upgrade "Imprudent", Partiality Shown To Israeli Firms: Indian Audit Watchdog

I agree with this view point.

This upgrade was wholly uncalled for.

The money could have been better spent.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 04 Aug 2010 11:36

chetak wrote:
Austin wrote:Indian Navy Harrier Upgrade "Imprudent", Partiality Shown To Israeli Firms: Indian Audit Watchdog
I agree with this view point.

This upgrade was wholly uncalled for.

The money could have been better spent.

hmmm.....so the stories about Derby firing during testing phase that I'd heard were true.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 04 Aug 2010 14:30

What story rohitvats ?

If i remember this right the max range of derby BVR is similar to max range of R-73M which is a WVR so its not a true BVR in the sense we see , the idea to use Derby in Israel AF was the NEZ of Python-4/5 matched well will Derby , so a simulaneous fire of Derby/Python with a nice overlapping NEZ would increase the Pk in ECM conditions.

Rupak · Post by **Rupak** » 04 Aug 2010 14:39

Before condemning the Navy for imprudence please stop to think what could have motivated this upgrade. (Hint: Keep an eye to the future)

biswas · Post by **biswas** » 04 Aug 2010 14:57

Rupak wrote:Before condemning the Navy for imprudence please stop to think what could have motivated this upgrade. (Hint: Keep an eye to the future)

Not getting it sir.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 04 Aug 2010 16:08

Even if what CAG says is true , with half the range and with python/derby BVR/WVR missile , Elta 2032 radar and contemporary EW/ESM suite , the SHAR update is far capable platform compared to the older SHAR which could no nothing better then a WVR with a 2nd Gen Magic 2 missile.

It should do a lot good to CBG long range AD till the 29K comes in by 2012 and still should remain effective till 2015.

Rupak · Post by **Rupak** » 04 Aug 2010 19:18

Austin, you are of course correct in what you say.

Biswas, look at the LUSH avionics and weapons suite and compare to LCA.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 04 Aug 2010 19:27

IMO LCA Navy is going to feature the mijjiles.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 04 Aug 2010 19:54

if we had gone for blue vixen radar of RN sea harrier, there was no radar guided non american bvr missile available. RN uses amraam. with el2032 the only option was derby.

Carl_T · Post by **Carl_T** » 04 Aug 2010 22:30

Should India have a Marine Corps? From the closed thread -

What would a Marine Corps offer that Naval infantry cannot? It seems the USMC is a mini army/navy/airforce in its own right, seems a little redundant. JMT

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 04 Aug 2010 22:39

Austin wrote:What story rohitvats ?

If i remember this right the max range of derby BVR is similar to max range of R-73M which is a WVR so its not a true BVR in the sense we see , the idea to use Derby in Israel AF was the NEZ of Python-4/5 matched well will Derby , so a simulaneous fire of Derby/Python with a nice overlapping NEZ would increase the Pk in ECM conditions.

Not related to this range issue but something to do with problems in testing phase....but then, let the sleeping dogs lie.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 04 Aug 2010 22:44

Carl_T wrote:Should India have a Marine Corps? From the closed thread -

What would a Marine Corps offer that Naval infantry cannot? It seems the USMC is a mini army/navy/airforce in its own right, seems a little redundant. JMT

Which begs the question, why should there be infantry under Naval Command? The most obvious route is Infantry trained for amphibious role....but IMO, it is easier said than done.

While Marine Corps in case of USA does have case of overlapping duties (a mini Army+AF+Navy, as you rightly said), I think it is the best approach to undertake such a complex task as done by Marines. Remember, their original mandate was expeditionary warfare and beach landings. Something, which requires phenomenal inter-services joint manship.

BTW, we also have a single Infantry Brigade tasked for Amphibious Operations.

negi · Post by **negi** » 04 Aug 2010 22:52

For Viraat to be of any worth SHARs had to be upgraded and thanks to the program management of babooze even GOD himself won't know as to when would our next carrier will be ready, so from a bean counter's perspective this upgrade might look like a waste of money but then when has CAG expressed satisfaction at any of our procurement deals (they did not spare the MKI) ? Or more importantly even if the latter brings out genuine issues which need to be addressed do the twaddlers in the MoD give a fck ?

Avik · Post by **Avik** » 04 Aug 2010 22:56

BTW, we also have a single Infantry Brigade tasked for Amphibious Operations

Rohit : Do we have 1 or 2 amphib bdes? One in S-India and the other one in A&N. Or am I missing something?

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 04 Aug 2010 23:02

Avik wrote:
BTW, we also have a single Infantry Brigade tasked for Amphibious Operations
Rohit : Do we have 1 or 2 amphib bdes? One in S-India and the other one in A&N. Or am I missing something?

Aha!!!...The moment I mentioned the Infantry Brigade, I was expecting a question from you...my fellow Orbat junkie

The one in Trivandrum is dedicated Amphibious Brigade..trained and converted as such. The one in A&N is guess what? A Mountain Brigade.....108(I) Mountain Brigade. While they are capable of island hopping, to call them Amphibious Brigade in true sense will be a mistake.