Indian Navy News & Discussion - 22 April 2015

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 08 Oct 2015 14:09

china seems to have been able to mix hot and cold launch on its new VLS system seen on 052D class.
some details here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_052D_destroyer

radar neat arrangement with everything in the 64 cells.

John · Post by **John** » 08 Oct 2015 14:52

Tsarkar,
Vl Shtil is cold launched as is naval Tor and Rif SAM. Russians use cold launch for vertical launch to keep costs low.

Cold launch is not safer if rocket booster does not fire after launch the missile will land right on the ship. Hot launch is generally considered to be safer option.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 08 Oct 2015 14:55

a brahmos going up and collapsing like this onto midships of a moving ship wont be pretty.

the Rus allegedly slightly inclined the tubes of their revolver launchers to make it fall overboard if it misfired

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoM5a6v6410

srin · Post by **srin** » 08 Oct 2015 16:17

That is a cold launch isn't it ? The main motor isn't ignited until it is out of the tube.

A hot-launch that tsarkar-ji is referring to is probably like this Barak-1:

It is already ignited inside the tube and therefore the exhaust needs to be vented. Btw, the thrust vectoring is pretty cool.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 08 Oct 2015 17:54

Sandeep U of IT has triggered off a debate about the composition of the IN's fleet.Intersting points made.

Why Indian Navy needs fewer INS Kochis It needs larger numbers of patrol vessels and light frigates, not expensive destroyers-By Sandeep Unnithan

SANDEEP UNNITHAN
@sandeepunnithan

The guided missile destroyer INS Kochi that joined the Indian Navy in Mumbai on September 30 is a fearsome combatant. This 7400-tonne warship bristles with supersonic cruise missiles, two multi-role helicopters, long range anti-aircraft missiles, guns and torpedoes. This is the reason every Admiral would want to have several such powerful floating arsenals in his fleet. The Indian Navy sees itself fielding a force of 150 warships by 2027. A bulk of these warships will be frigates and destroyers like the INS Kochi capable of neutralising enemy aircrafts, warships, submarines and attacking targets on land and escorting merchant vessels transiting near enemy waters. However, the last major naval conflict was over three decades ago, in the Falklands.

Peacetime mission for the Indian naval fleet includes overseas diplomatic flag-flying missions: in the past year, the Navy has sent its warships to 40 countries across the globe; has been patrolling the Indian coastline to prevent 26/11-type terror attacks, providing humanitarian assistance missions like the rescue of over 4,000 Indian nationals stranded in Yemen and, since 2008, the deployment of one warship in the Gulf of Aden to counter Somali pirates.

There are time and cost constraints in achieving a fleet size the Navy wants. Each Kolkata/Kochi class destroyer costs over Rs 4,000 crore to build. The Navy can afford only a limited number of such warships. Expensive combat platforms will always be subject to the vagaries of budget cuts. This year, the NDA downsized the IAF’s (Indian AirForce) ginormous $20 billion proposal to buy 126 twin-engined Rafale fighter jets, to a modest buy of just 36 aircrafts for $4 billion. There is another instructive lesson in the IAF’s Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft (MMRCA) tender that the Rafale won. The MMRCA project began in 1999 as a modest buy of 126 single-engined Mirage 2000 aircrafts.

The Navy currently has five Project 15 "city class" destroyers which it has been inducting rather slowly since 1997. Current plans call for adding ten more such expensive destroyers, costing upwards of $1 billion, by 2027 or at an ambitious rate of one warship a year.

It is unlikely the Mumbai-based public sector shipyard Mazagon Docks Ltd (MDL) can handle this rate of construction. The MDL takes upwards of five years to build a destroyer like the INS Kochi because of inadequate investment in modern ship construction technology. That’s not good news for the Navy which is struggling to replace its ageing warships.

There is a far more cost-effective option within the Navy: the Naval Offshore Patrol Vessel (NOPV) or the INS Saryu class of vessels, four of which are in service. These 2,300-tonne warships are armed with 76 mm main guns, two 30 mm cannons, a helicopter and carry marine commandos. Its economical diesel engines boast of an impressive range of 6,000 nautical miles. Compared to the city class destroyers, the NOPVs are dirt cheap. For the price of one Kochi destroyer, the Navy can buy nine NOPVs. It takes just 36 months to build one such vessel which can perform all the Navy’s peacetime constabulary and flag-showing roles. They can also be used for escort duties in wartime by adding modular plug and play weapon packages — containerised missiles and towed array sonars — which can dramatically increase their combat profile. NOPVs will allow the Navy to field dozens of such inexpensive warships in quantities which will give them a quality of their own.

The trouble is, the Navy is not buying enough NOPVs. It plans to field only nine vessels as opposed to over 20 pricey frigates and destroyers.

This is possibly because, as Robert Kaplan notes in his book Monsoon, the Indian Navy, like the Chinese Navy, is preparing to fight titanic doomsday sea battles which are increasingly unlikely to happen.
Good to see my piece has triggered off a debate. Mildly amused at how intense it seems to have become. A few observations:

1) Nowhere have I questioned the relevance of the Indian navy. That we need a strong, powerful navy is a given. I am only questioning the ‘high-low’ mix. Just as I question why the IAF wants so many expensive twin engined fighters and the army wants a mountain strike corps (more on that later). We need a smart navy not a Cold War navy.

2) Not enough ships: The crux of what my veteran friends are saying is that we have multiple tasks-- Military, diplomatic, constabulary, benign… We need big ships. I totally agree with him. But I’m not sure you need MRH/MFSTAR/Brahmos-armed P-15s for all of them. The planned fleets of P-15s/ P-17s, around 20+ seem adequate to eyeball China’s O52Cs, but the bulk of the tasks you mentioned don’t need destroyers/ ‘heavy’ frigates.

Time/ cost etc will dictate that they will never come to you in the numbers that you need. And given the wear and tear rates of such expensive platforms with their GTs and radars, electronics, I’m not sure if extended deployments of a limited number of platforms are desirable. An expanded Indian Coast Guard (doubling to 150 surface vessels as per 2012-17 plan) will hopefully let the navy shoulder less of the coastal security duties in the future. It is only the workhorse frigates which will give the navy the numbers it will need to have one naval warship deployed at any given point in what we regard as our area of influence—one in the Red Sea/GOA, one in the Malacca Straits, one in the Persian Gulf, one in the southern Indian Ocean.

Not enough sea commands Each year 60 captain-ranked officers vie for the command of 25 frontline warships. This is a serious imbalance and the solution that the navy seems to have hit upon is alarming. They have shrunk command tenures and rationed out billets. Earlier, a captain got at least two 18-month long sea tenures. Now, I believe, it is just one tenure. This is an alarming solution for a navy tasked with the multiple tasks that my learned veteran friend has pointed out. A sea captain is the rock on which a navy is built. Our captains need to get all the experience they can get. A cursory glance at the career trajectories of some of the navy’s brightest admirals reveal the pattern—command of a minor war vessel, command of a frigate and finally, command of an R class destroyer or the carrier Viraat. (This, I believe, ended when all the venerable Leanders were retired).

4) The solution: Frigates we can build in numbers at the rate of one every 18 months. A new class of say around 20 light frigates. A decade ago, I walked around the French navy’s superb Floreal class ‘light surveillance frigate.’ 2950-t full load, 10,000 nm, 93 m long and a crew of just 88 persons. One 100 mm main gun, 2 SM-39 Exocet missiles, MANPADs, multiple small caliber weapons, marine commandos embarked along with one Panther ASW helo.

We already have the design of the excellent NOPV, the Saryu class (2200-t, 2 months endurance, 3700 nm) which we can build on. One or more of the PSU shipyards need to set up greenfield projects or get into JVs with the struggling pvt sector shipyards who have capacity but lack competence. The NOPV can be upgunned and has the potential to be our first fully indigenous warship and exported to friendly countries of the littoral.

At the time of this writing, four Russian warships have carried out a cruise missile attacks on ISIS targets in Syria. Take a look at the range and platforms used: 1500 ton Gepard class light frigates that launched their ‘Klub’ LACM missiles in the Caspian Sea over 1500 km away from Syria. The missiles overflew Iran, Iraq and Syria before hitting their targets. This is possibly the longest range missile attack by a corvette-sized warship. (Most US attacks on Somalia-Afghanistan have been from Burke class DDGs and Tico class CGs. ) At the very least, this should revive the debate over whether smaller ships can pack a punch.

*(Actually,even smaller Buyan corvettes of 550t)!

5) Whither submarines? And finally, the real deficiencies. When push comes to shove, I’m not sure if the warship, even the Kolkata class, will be the weapon of choice to deliver swift decisive blows on the enemy in the case of an intense, short-duration battle.

The first world war was about battleships, the second, about aircraft carriers. The post-Cold War will be fought by submarines. Which explains the global rush for submarines, especially in Asia. The most lethal sword in the Indian navy’s arsenal today is the INS Chakra. Submerges at Vladivostok, surfaces at Vizag. An invisible, relentless deep-ocean hunter. An SSN gives a country the confidence to say what a Chinese think tank said earlier this year: that they needed just ten nuclear powered attack submarines to paralyse India’s oceanic trade. Can we do the same to them?

Where are our indigenous SSNs? Did we, in our pursuit of a surface navy, completely ignore our submarine arm? The MoD cleared the SSN project this year, nearly five years after the navy initiated the case. Will the first boat roll out in a decade? I hope so.

best wishes
Sandeep Unnithan

PS:An interesting observation.In recent times,Russia has been building more frigate and corvette class surface combatants,more affordable,but packing as Russian warships always do,terrific punch.One Shivalik carries just 8 SSMs,while a Tarantula/Kora class missile craft/corvette can carry upto 16.In the A&N islands context,we should station there on a permanent basis a couple of sqds. of missile armed corvettes,fast patrol craft,lLCs,and a couple of frigates,with sub refuelling and logistic facilities -maybe with a sub tender as well (Midget subs anyone?).This should provide us with a good capability,along with IAF/IN naval aircraft, to ward off any intrusion into the IOR from the Indo-China Sea and protect the islands.

uddu · Post by **uddu** » 08 Oct 2015 18:47

The above situation fits the current peaceful atmosphere that we see today in the Indian Ocean region. This can change tremendously any moment. We not only need a smart navy but also a well balanced navy with adequate number of cruisers, destroyers, frigates, subs, patrol vessels and all of them armed with good number of weapons and sensors. A large number of ships are going to be decommissioned including the five Rajput class destroyers. So the addition of 3 Kolkata + 4 Vizag class will mean that we add just two destroyers in the next 10 years. The build up is a very slow process. In the next 30 years that's by 2045/50 years we will need 30 destroyers will be just adequate numbers to deal with an aggression. We will be a Developed nation and must have a credible Navy to deal with all types of threats. The U.S already have around 75 destroyers and the PLAN around 25 destroyers.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 08 Oct 2015 18:54

on the right track!!!

http://www.thehansindia.com/posts/index ... avy-179754
btw, what is that ship on the pic? I almost thought of having a submarine sail and hatch attached to the bottom in the center on docking... adding to stealth, long stay, and better lifestyle of sub-surface afsars. every sub can have a docking ship like this to relax often, and a 5 minute time to scoot, undock, float and fight ops.

arun · Post by **arun** » 08 Oct 2015 21:07

^^^ Makar Class Hydrographic Survey Catamaran built by Alcock Ashdown.

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 08 Oct 2015 23:32

Excellent piece there by Sandeep Unnithan.

However, I am not so sure about what 'plug and play' weapons are as I have never seen one. At max, a NOPV may field a ASW helicopter.

4) The solution: Frigates we can build in numbers at the rate of one every 18 months. A new class of say around 20 light frigates. A decade ago, I walked around the French navy’s superb Floreal class ‘light surveillance frigate.’ 2950-t full load, 10,000 nm, 93 m long and a crew of just 88 persons. One 100 mm main gun, 2 SM-39 Exocet missiles, MANPADs, multiple small caliber weapons, marine commandos embarked along with one Panther ASW helo.

We already have a modern light frigate: It is stealthy, has a high percentage of indigenous components, and packs a good ASW punch. All we need to do is build it in numbers:

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 09 Oct 2015 02:31

Philip,
Of the BRF old timers you have an insight into naval power. So can you lead a discussion on the naval doctrine of Indian navy from a threats and capabilities point of view? Once we get that we can see what adjustment needs to be done.
Please consider the area East of Cape of Good Hope to South China Sea as the domain.

srai · Post by **srai** » 09 Oct 2015 05:04

Aditya G wrote:Excellent piece there by Sandeep Unnithan.

However, I am not so sure about what 'plug and play' weapons are as I have never seen one. At max, a NOPV may field a ASW helicopter.

4) The solution: Frigates we can build in numbers at the rate of one every 18 months. A new class of say around 20 light frigates. A decade ago, I walked around the French navy’s superb Floreal class ‘light surveillance frigate.’ 2950-t full load, 10,000 nm, 93 m long and a crew of just 88 persons. One 100 mm main gun, 2 SM-39 Exocet missiles, MANPADs, multiple small caliber weapons, marine commandos embarked along with one Panther ASW helo.
We already have a modern light frigate: It is stealthy, has a high percentage of indigenous components, and packs a good ASW punch. All we need to do is build it in numbers:

Any news on follow-on P-28A? The original plan was to acquire a total of 8-12 P-28 class ships.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 09 Oct 2015 05:33

ramana wrote:Philip,
Of the BRF old timers you have an insight into naval power. So can you lead a discussion on the naval doctrine of Indian navy from a threats and capabilities point of view? Once we get that we can see what adjustment needs to be done.
Please consider the area East of Cape of Good Hope to South China Sea as the domain.

Also, if you can expand on the insight on Naval Fire support (or the lack thereof) and its "need" or the suggestion that it is not needed, especially in light of 1965, 1971, Op. Pawan, Op. Lal Dora, Op. Cactus and maybe even things like Op. Raahat (if they turn sour). You can also include the general geography as ramana indicates above and the "likely" need for Naval fire support in the AOR. E.g: one can speculate, if the US ops in Mogadishu could have benefitted from NFS. Please do include costs of deploying such NFS, maybe not 16 inch but at least say six 155 mm's.

I have a hypothesis on the need for such fire support in a variety of scenarios but will have to do work to collect the data to prove or disprove the hypothesis and its relevant costs. But, given your knowledge, you may have this information readily with you. So, if you care to include a critical view of the Naval doctrine, as it relates to fire support and other matters, that will be very helpful.

My overall impression, just like the IAF we have a long way to go for joint operations, as it relates to aspects that a marine force would need by way of forced entry and fire support for coastal ops.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 09 Oct 2015 11:07

Buyan M class. Less than 1000 tons but packs long range cruiser class punch.

http://militaryrussia.ru/blog/topic-395.html

Paul · Post by **Paul** » 09 Oct 2015 12:17

Saurav Jha ‏@SJha1618 · 32m32 minutes ago
All this 'plug and play' modest sized ship talk is merely a precursor to a pitch for selling littoral combat ship designs to India.

Referring to Unnithan's article. I agree with Jha, reminds me of Gen Chaudhary's arguments pushing for light tanks in the runup to '65

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 09 Oct 2015 12:31

the P28 can probably be stretched by 5 meters without need for major new hydrodynamic study while keeping its general layout.
this will open space for a Buyan style system of 8-12 cell VLS behind the funnel for mix of brahmos/nirbhay as mission fits.
relocate the big satcom white dome on top of the heli hanger to above the wheelhouse...use the freed up space either for good 76mm oto gun or 2xAK630 whichever is considered reasonable.

it will be weak in air defence but perhaps one of the RBU can be deleted and a 8-cell barak1 unit dropped in.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 09 Oct 2015 12:34

the saryu likewise has plenty of room to weapons in the manner I described. inclined tubes of uran can be put pointing up to the sides behind the main gun. this is done in many many western ships incl those with TSPN.
the area occupied midships by the life boats can be reconfigured and stretched to accomodate heavy VL system.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 09 Oct 2015 16:59

Dear Ramanna,tx. I will try and gather thoughts together.Must consult some starred veterans though!
However,I want views on the foll: topic that has come to mind after the Russian naval strikes.

IN-Beyond Brahmos.

The title is becos the latest RuN missile strikes from the Caspian Sea from small corvettes have shown a stunning reach of 1500km. The IN's most potent missile today is the BMos,with an MTCR limitation of 300km.This fig. though is given with a little wink as no one takes it seriously,well knowing that it could easily be increased significantly.But it does have a limitation,being a JV with Russia who is bound to intl. rules.Even BMos-M and hyper BMos will come under the same MTCR regime.Therefore the IN has to change its missile strat. for the future and acquire new teeth. The reach of the IN's "arm" has to be greatly enhanced with new missiles with considerably greater range and lethality. How do we achieve this? That's the Q.

Sev. decades ago the IAF tried to sink the IN's carrier aspirations saying that land based aircraft could do the maritime job just as well.It lost.In an era of NCW and immediate real-time response expected,the fleet has to be out at sea "in harm's way",taking the first shot at the enemy. Thus the reach of the IN's capability increases commensurate with the location,speed of the CV and its aircraft aboard and to a lesser extent the range of the missiles aboard surface combatants. We will possess just 3 CVs in the future,which during a crisis will be in great demand.How many will be in refit/maintenance we will not know,as at Kargil,perhaps timed for the purpose,the Viraat was unavailable.

As mentioned ad nauseum,the unsinkable CV that we possess is "INS India",our great landmass. Here and on our island territories is where in the future,much longer-legged mobile missile systems/batteries must be stationed. My vision is this.That from our bastions in the IOR,Indian landmass,island territories,etc.,we should possess the capability of launching anti-ship/land attack missiles anywhere into the Indo-China Sea (ICS).The battle must be won far from our shores. ISR,targeting to come from our assets operating out of Vietnam,sats,and subs permanently stationed in the ICS. What type of missile we need is for the missile experts to determine. Nirbhay,mobile Shaurya,Agnis,whatever.Ideally,like the Kalibir just displayed ,they should be multi-use,fired from both warships and coastal batteries. One simple poss. is floating-submersible missile barges,that could remain undetected by sats/air surveillance ,which surface when required to fire their missiles. Mobile land batteries that are in concealed hideouts another. We may need more than just one type,as smaller diameter missiles would be required for sub and surface launch.

Secondly,as is the situ with the IAF,needing 45 sqds. the IN also needs far more platforms. A few years ago,a well-known maritime mag predicted the growing interest and requirement for advanced corvettes which would take over the dogwork from the frigate thanks to miniaturisation,newer LR weaponry and costs. Looking at the IN's inventory and future building plans,there is a growing gap for smaller multi-role corvettes.larger warships cannot be in sev. places at the same time.We face multiple threats and will face more once the PLAN starts operating out of Paki ports/bases.The P-28 corvette is really the size of a Leander FF and quite expensive. We should develop an innovative std. hull for diff. warship types,as the Soviets did with the Tarantula/Pauk classes. A class of 12-16 corvettes of around 1500t+ would enhance the IN's capabilities at the cost of a few FFGs/DDGs. These would be more available when the balloon goes up.

Next,we require a few larger flat-topped warships ,perhaps our future amphibs,from where aviation assets could operate from.The amphibs should be multi-role as with the Spanish Juan Carlos vessels,
where the large helos (and if poss STOVL aircraft) could attack subs and surface vessels when reqd.This would support the CVs and spare them being used in less challenging ops,plus for ASW warfare given the large number of PLAN and PN subs numbering 90-100 by 2020+.

The IN's sub inventory needs to be greatly enhanced both in number and type.More N-subs are needed,esp. SSN/SSGNs,which must pack a large arsenal of LR cruise missiles. The RuN is modernising about 10 Soviet era N-subs ,Akulas,Oscars,etc.,(hulls have 30-40 years of life),bringing them upto to the latest Yasen/Borei std. We are already modernizing our veteran Kilos and U-Boats,those that can be ,to keep numbers happy,but there appear to be flaws in our conv. sub procurement as Scorpenes come with short range Exocets ,a poor package for their high cost. The sub-launched BMos has been ready a long time ago,tested too,but no platform is available! Given the low cost and speed with which they are being churned out,a BMos Kilo ,perhaps with the DRDO's AIP system too is an intriguing prospect,as these are v.quiet and inexpensive subs. We could get 2 for the price of a Scorp.The supposedly more advanced and cheaper Amur design is readily available.Both could be "made in India".

Lastly,increased LRMP aircraft armed with LR cruise missiles.The Backfire acquisition should be dusted off.The TU-142 Bears upgraded and converted into strat. bombers,their original role,but for maritime ops. Their operating costs are high,hence the new role,as their reach and speed is phenomenal.EXtra P-8s for the ASW/LRMP role.A dozen or so amphibs,but not the ultra-expensive US-2s. They also come with no armament! There is no need to build just a doz.+ in India,we need to buy a few for the CG.

A postnote: The CG.The CG is being rapidly expanded with numerous platforms.These should be designed in such a manner that in a crisis they could be armed with more lethal weaponry and ready to support the IN in not just defensive but offensive ops.

Just some thoughts. One welcomes criticism/ more ideas.

Karthik S · Post by **Karthik S** » 09 Oct 2015 17:06

Philip wrote: My vision is this.That from our bastions in the IOR,Indian landmass,island territories,etc.,we should possess the capability of launching anti-ship/land attack missiles anywhere into the Indo-China Sea (ICS).The battle must be won far from our shores.

I saw an Israeli Air Force video where a commander talked of similar strategy wherein Israel has kept all the air battles outside Israeli airspace.

srai · Post by **srai** » 09 Oct 2015 17:11

Digging up my old post from 5 years ago ...

srai wrote:According to the award winning IN Vision 2020 document written by one of the officers, it was hinting along the lines of balancing the surface fleet with the airborne fleet with the submarine fleet. These were to be a hi-lo mix of 12 platforms each. [Note: It was a long time ago I read the document ... so some of these could be mixed with my own extrapolation ]

24 - Fleet Support Ships (12 x 6,000t + 12 x 3,000t)

24 - Multimission Maritime Aircraft (12 long-ranged + 12 medium-ranged)

24 - Submarines (12 SSK + 12 SSN)

Looking at the current/future orders, in 2025/30 IN looks to have the following fleet (roughly):

26+ - Major Multi-role Surface Combatants (3 P-15, 3 P-15A, 4 P-15B, 3 Krivak III, 3 Krivak IIIA, 3 P-17, 7 P-17A)

24+ - Multimission Maritime Aircraft (8+4 P-8I, 12 Medium MMA)

~24 - Submarines (6 P-75, 6 P-75A, 12 indigenous SSN based on P-75/75A experience)
To some degree, IN seems to have been guided by that 2020 vision document. However, due to delays, it will be past 2020 when IN will have achieved it vision of a very balanced fleet: surface, air, underwater.

srin · Post by **srin** » 09 Oct 2015 17:14

If you are looking for mobile missile launch truck over the sea, it may be cheaper to invest in maritime bombers with lots of launchers.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 09 Oct 2015 18:30

That is the "Filter coffee"! The birds have to be armed and get into the air first.This will take a min. time for heavy LR bombers. The "Instant" version is/are those aboard warships,subs and missile batteries.
Who launches first has the best chance of defeating the other. Why as Sandeep has correctly pointed out,WW! was about the Battleship.WW2 about the Carrier and the future will be the Sub. We have already seen the sub in action in Libya,where dozens of Tomahawks were launched from a USN N-sub in the most stunning display of sub/naval attack this century. The foll. article emphasises the new in naval warfare.revolution taking place

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... globe.html

Russia’s New Mega-Missile Stuns the Globe
Putin’s latest weapons were mostly unknown to the outside world—until they began slamming into Syria.

On Oct. 7, Russian warships in the Caspian Sea fired 26 high-tech cruise missiles at rebel targets in Syria—a staggering 1,000 miles away.

The missiles in question, which the Pentagon calls SS-N-30s, were mostly unknown to the outside world before the Oct. 7 raid. Even close watchers of the Russian military were surprised to see them. The missile attack was also highly visible. In many ways, it was an announcement to the world, and America in particular, that the once-dilapidated Russian navy is back in action—and that Putin’s missileers are now among the planet’s most advanced.

Planning for the missile attack began on Oct. 5, six days after Moscow’s warplanes conducted their first bombing runs on rebel holdouts in western Syria. Russia is intervening in Syria ostensibly to help the Damascus regime defeat the so-called Islamic State widely known as ISIS, but the Russian attacks seem to be hitting ISIS’s enemies more than the terror army itself. What’s more, critics point out, Syria provides Moscow strategic access to the Mediterranean Sea.

“Russian reconnaissance had discovered a number of important objects of militants, which were to be destroyed immediately,” the Russian Defense Ministry explained in a statement. Drones, surveillance satellites, radio interception, and human spies on the ground helped planners select the targets, the ministry added.

“The strikes engaged plants producing ammunition and explosives, command centers, storages of munitions, armament, and [oil], as well as a training camp of terrorists on the territory of Raqqa, Idlib, and Aleppo,” according to the ministry. Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu said the missiles struck all 11 planned targets.

The Russian military celebrated the raid with a press release and an official video, and Shoigu went on national TV to praise the operation. Kurdish militiamen shot video they claimed depicted the missiles flying over northern Iraq. And the U.S. military apparently closely tracked the rocket-powered, guided munitions—and later claimed that several malfunctioned and crashed in Iran.

The media coverage was at least as important as the destruction of the alleged rebel facilities, U.S. defense officials told The Daily Beast on Wednesday. “This is Russia demonstrating on a global stage that it has a lot of reach,” one official explained.

Eric Wertheim, an independent U.S. naval analyst and author of the definitive Combat Fleets of the World, a reference guide to warships and their weapons, agrees, saying of the missile volley: “I think it was a demonstration to the world.”

Wertheim and other foreign analysts were familiar with an earlier version of the SS-N-30 called the SS-N-27, but the latter is an anti-ship missile and the analysts assumed it could only fly 150 miles or so—a fraction of the roughly thousand miles the rockets traveled during the recent raid.

The SS-N-30 obviously boasts a much greater range than its predecessors and can also strike targets on dry land. That makes it broadly similar to the American Tomahawk missile, which the U.S. military traditionally fires in large numbers from ships and submarines in order to wipe out enemy air defenses before conducting aerial bombing campaigns. The U.S. Navy fired Tomahawks to hit the most heavily defended ISIS targets at the beginning of the American-led air war over Syria in September 2014.

Very few countries posses Tomahawks or similar munitions—and only the United States and Great Britain have ever successfully used them in combat. Now Russia has joined that exclusive club of global military powers. And that should worry the Pentagon, Wertheim said: “It should be a wakeup call that we don’t have a monopoly on the capability.”

What’s particularly striking is that Moscow has been able to build this long-range naval strike capability with much smaller vessels than anyone thought possible. In the U.S. Navy, large destroyers, cruisers, and submarines carry Tomahawk cruise missiles—and those vessels are typically at least 500 feet long and displace as many as 9,000 tons of water.

Russia has joined an exclusive club of global military powers. And that should worry the Pentagon.

The four brand-new warships that launched the SS-N-30s were much, much smaller—ranging in length from 200 to 330 feet and displacing no more than 1,500 tons of water. “Small ships, big firepower,” Wertheim commented.

That matters because, after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, Russia’s shipbuilding industry suffered a long period of deep decline that the Kremlin has lately struggled to reverse. That has had a profound effect on the Russian navy. “There are relatively few new warships in service at present and the ones that have been commissioned in recent years are all relatively small,” Dmitry Gorenburg, from Harvard University’s Davis Center for Russian and Eurasian Studies, wrote in a recent analysis.

But the October barrage proves that even the small warships that Russia is building can strike hard and far—something that, once upon a time, only the United States and its closest allies could do. Moscow’s missile raid helps re-establish Russia as a global military power. “They’re very serious about this,” Wertheim said.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 09 Oct 2015 20:26

ideally all our SLCM would be on subs but we just do not have enough subs.

so maybe it makes sense to disperse them in smaller nos among dozens of ships down to patrol boat level to complicate the enemies task. Russia could build 30 of these buyan class and arm them with 6 nuclear tipped kalibrs for a floating arsenal at sea ... even keep a few in lake baikal and the aral sea

the big ships can continue to focus on SAM and ASM to go after other big ships.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 09 Oct 2015 20:39

Philip, the 1500km range and time of flight for Kaliber points to turbo fan propulsion. 3m accuracy shows precision terminal guidance.
By launching from Caspian Sea they have made an inland sea a global base.

tsarkar, Maybe VLS for everything is not good How about standard VLS for just strike missiles for IN.

kit · Post by **kit** » 09 Oct 2015 20:58

Taking the war far from India into the enemy's heart land makes sense for India ., both the IAF and IN should be predominantly force projecting., dont see how smaller vessels can have long sea legs though .. a frigate class would do a better job keeping the lower end of force projection while destroyers and cruisers can mop up higher end work

John · Post by **John** » 09 Oct 2015 21:53

ramana wrote:Philip, the 1500km range and time of flight for Kaliber points to turbo fan propulsion. 3m accuracy shows precision terminal guidance.
By launching from Caspian Sea they have made an inland sea a global base.

tsarkar, Maybe VLS for everything is not good How about standard VLS for just strike missiles for IN.

This off topic but reports are that US intel was surprised by the missile strikes even though they new the location of vessels from technological standpoint. Which indicates the missiles' had newer tech that wasn't publicized.

As for VLS, as i mentioned earlier L&T brahmos VLS are universal VLS which opens possibility of them carrying other missiles such as AAD, Brahmos-M, Nirbhay etc.

arun · Post by **arun** » 10 Oct 2015 09:54

Our Ministry of Defence has put out a press release stating piracy High Risk Area (HRA) with effect from 01 December 15 will be shifted back to 65E from 78E. In a separate article, Hindu (Clicky) reports that the current HRA comes as close as 35 nautical miles to our coastline.

MoD informs that “with the revision of the HRA, some of India’s maritime security concerns viz floating armouries and proliferation of private security are likely to be addressed. In addition, Indian ship-owners are likely to benefit significantly on account of savings on insurance and associated operating costs.” :

Revision of Piracy High Risk Area (HRA)

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 10 Oct 2015 10:13

John wrote:This off topic but reports are that US intel was surprised by the missile strikes even though they new the location of vessels from technological standpoint. Which indicates the missiles' had newer tech that wasn't publicized.

I imagine everybody was surprised.. to see the cruise missile strikes arriving two weeks after the the Russian air force was already comfortably ensconced inside Syria.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 10 Oct 2015 12:23

Well, Russkis have always been good at chess - ghoda idhar or vaar udhar!

geeth · Post by **geeth** » 10 Oct 2015 12:49

It is all well to talk of long range Russian CM strike...but, why Russia had to first put it onboard a ship in a VLS tube and fire.? Instead they could have fired it from a ground battery from the shores of Caspian sea. Much more cheaper.

Yagnasri · Post by **Yagnasri** » 10 Oct 2015 12:53

The many be looking to show some good vedio game like thing.Just like khan used to do.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 10 Oct 2015 13:16

Heh, some roosi have returned to motherland after getting American mba

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 10 Oct 2015 14:57

Coauch FICs:

I like the two MG mounts

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 10 Oct 2015 15:13

geeth wrote:It is all well to talk of long range Russian CM strike...but, why Russia had to first put it onboard a ship in a VLS tube and fire.? Instead they could have fired it from a ground battery from the shores of Caspian sea. Much more cheaper.

INF Treaty

kit · Post by **kit** » 10 Oct 2015 15:48

also because ISIS doesnt have a navy (yet!) that can respond to naval strikes .. i suspect all the high value targets would be "softened" by naval strikes before the air force goes in to finish off the rest ..neat idea .. no casualties

srai · Post by **srai** » 11 Oct 2015 01:54

arun wrote:Our Ministry of Defence has put out a press release stating piracy High Risk Area (HRA) with effect from 01 December 15 will be shifted back to 65E from 78E. In a separate article, Hindu (Clicky) reports that the current HRA comes as close as 35 nautical miles to our coastline.

MoD informs that “with the revision of the HRA, some of India’s maritime security concerns viz floating armouries and proliferation of private security are likely to be addressed. In addition, Indian ship-owners are likely to benefit significantly on account of savings on insurance and associated operating costs.” :

Revision of Piracy High Risk Area (HRA)

The IN needs a lot more cheap NOPV platforms for maritime security than just 9 on current orders. IOR is India's backyard.

member_23370 · Post by **member_23370** » 11 Oct 2015 02:53

16 for IN and 24 for ICGS would be required if we need to monitor everything from Horn of africa to malacca strait.

Nick_S · Post by **Nick_S** » 11 Oct 2015 15:52

INS Kochi

http://s611.photobucket.com/user/Vishnu ... t=3&page=1

* There is a lot of effort placed on sound and heat suppression. There is extensive use of rafting wherever possible ... As the pics I have posted here would indicate, even the automatic dosa maker (a technological marvel, no doubt) comes on rubberised mounts.

*My sources tell me the delay in fitting the Barak 8 missiles on the Kolkata and the Kochi (they are being tested on ships off Israel presently) has more to do with the enhanced ranges they are getting and less to do with any stumbling blocks they have encountered. I am told, they may be hitting 100 kms with the missile. This has been reported on livefist as well. This is a significant capability boost.

* Crew habitability - much much better than before ... see the pictures ... no hot bunking on this liner. There are also fewer cramped spaces onboard ... its a large ship in all respects. The Ops Centre of the ship extends across the breadth of the ship.

* The Automatic Power Management System onboard provides power at 380 volts/50 hertz across 3 phases for weapon systems and I think the airconditioning systems. Single phase 220 V current is provided for non-critical systems.

* There are 4 R.O plants onboard more than enough for the ship's company.

* The AC plants onboard provide 200 tonnes of cooling - weapon systems are stored at 20 degrees centigrade.

* The generators onboard provide more than 5600 KW of power.

Pics & info from Vishnu Som.
http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthre ... ost2264047

John · Post by **John** » 12 Oct 2015 05:37

It confirms my suspicion Barak 8 is likely to be between Aster 30 and SM 2 MR in terms of performance and size. I found whole thought of it carrying 32 more barak 8 for reload to be ridiculous. Glad that rumor got put to rest.

srai · Post by **srai** » 12 Oct 2015 05:51

John wrote:It confirms my suspicion Barak 8 is likely to be between Aster 30 and SM 2 MR in terms of performance and size. I found whole thought of it carrying 32 more barak 8 for reload to be ridiculous. Glad that rumor got put to rest.

You need cranes in order to reload at sea plus a way to transfer heavy missile in canister from replenishment ship to the combat ship. Not impossible but bit impractical.

Here are some examples of how it could be done:

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 12 Oct 2015 06:08

Vertical Launch System UNREP is something that has been hotly debated with the AEGIS system in the US, with many academicians at the naval war college and the Naval academy trying to get it promoted and funded for a modern DDG 51. Its quite complicated but of course it can be tried although the practicality may still be largely questionable.

https://www.navalengineers.org/SiteColl ... llerMO.pdf