Indian Navy News & Discussion - 22 April 2015

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 12 Jun 2015 08:30

we have to make a clear choice given each carrier is expected to serve 50 yrs. rafale or JSF?

imo JSF offers the better upgrade path as USN/USMC will buy in 100s and operate for decades... future LH ships could also get a few vstol jsf for organic protection against LRMP and sneak attacks.

the USN version should be able to ski jump given its huge motor..albeit with some payload penalty.

the Mig29K could be relegated to shore based strike/air defence and training roles. its a evolutionary dead end. the IN could take over a particular sector like andamans and gujrat from the IAF using its Mig29K fleet.

geeth · Post by **geeth** » 12 Jun 2015 13:35

There is no point spending billions on a carrier if the tip of the spear aircraft you plan to fly off it are the unreliably engined MiG-29K

Is there any truth about the bolded part? If so, can you show it? 'Cause I searched google but cant find any. If you are just quoting from heresay, then better don't do it.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 12 Jun 2015 13:39

Geeth saar, in one of my prior posts, I had the data - engines dont work well, hydraulics are an issue, and radar needs further upgrades as well.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 12 Jun 2015 14:22

Singha wrote:we have to make a clear choice given each carrier is expected to serve 50 yrs. rafale or JSF?

imo JSF offers the better upgrade path as USN/USMC will buy in 100s and operate for decades... future LH ships could also get a few vstol jsf for organic protection against LRMP and sneak attacks.

the USN version should be able to ski jump given its huge motor..albeit with some payload penalty.

the Mig29K could be relegated to shore based strike/air defence and training roles. its a evolutionary dead end. the IN could take over a particular sector like andamans and gujrat from the IAF using its Mig29K fleet.

It is items like http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 0#p1854859, that should influence Indian role and thus the carrier.

I just do not see any value, whatsoever, in the Vikram.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 12 Jun 2015 16:09

It would be uneconomical imo to operate an expensive 5th generation fighter off of a ski ramp (Unless its STOVL of course)..I mean it could be made to work but do you really want to operate a 100+ Million dollar fighter with a payload restriction?

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 12 Jun 2015 17:09

would be interesting if there is any data on how much % penalty a fighter suffers from ctol vs ski jump.
with rafale & 29K we have only ski jump option
with JSF the ski jump should offer maybe better range and payload vs VSTOL takeoff?

$100 mil is not the issue. every damn thing costs 100 mil nowadays and billion is the new million. given the small nos in question around 50 anything can be used if it functions well.

JSF is going to get way more upgrades and gold plating than rafale-M with its user base being a grand total of 1 carrier in the world.
the ctol JSF would eventually replace all the f-18 so that means around 700-1000.

might as well bite the bullet than spend another $1 billion and 10 years fixing and tuning the 29K

only downer would be lack of E2 , but workarounds like navy buying some EMB145 and basing them in coastal bases and andamans would be used to extend some coverage upto 1000km out albeit not as organic or 24x7. 3 KA31 could be given a place.

kind of sad if $5 billion spread across 2 carriers lacks the teeth due to a weak air wing.

my airwing would be :
3 x KA31
15 x JSF
15 x naval tejas(on vikrant)
3 x utility helo for plane guard and csar
the 6 Talwars can relieved of ka31 duty and carry the new ASW helis.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 12 Jun 2015 17:22

would be interesting if there is any data on how much % penalty a fighter suffers from ctol vs ski jump

That requires modeling and would be done by the operator and the OEM. For the F-35, there is data out on the F-35B since non-ski load/TO was a requirement in the KPP and the British carrier with the ski ramp can have the aircraft take off with a full load of fuel, internal weapons and then some.

with rafale & 29K we have only ski jump option
with JSF the ski jump should offer maybe better range and payload vs VSTOL takeoff?

Thats a tough call and of course it would be something you would have to model.

SF is going to get way more upgrades and gold plating than rafale-M with its user base being a grand total of 1 carrier in the world.
the ctol JSF would eventually replace all the f-18 so that means around 700-1000.

The F/A-18's (A;s, B's, Cs and Ds) would be replaced by the CV variant of the JSF, so its the USN and USMC acquiring them. At the moment the plan is to do a 60:40 or thereabouts split between the Super hornet and the F-35C (in favor of the SH) but the Rhino is a 7000 hour airframe, that will most likely last the USN 10,000-11,000 hours through SLEPS allowing them to delay FA-XX induction. What this would mean is that the USN would only have one aircraft available of the production line to recap their aging fleet in the late 2020's and early 2030's, so expect them to go in for the lower-cost-lower-risk option then and acquire more F-35C's just as they are preferring to add to their Rhino and Growler orders now because its available NOW (as opposed to the F35 that is essentially available to them in FOC form around 2020) and cheap compared to the alternative (more F-35's).

Upgradability doesn't matter though since each and every component that is likely to be upgraded like the radar, electro optical sensors, engines, EW protection etc are common designs that share performance enhancements. The 5% sfc. reduction being developed by the US Navy is retrofittable (engine tech.) back into the USAF and USMC variants as well. The only thing that cannot be retrofitted without upgrades is a higher thrust engine on the STOVL, where the thrust limiting feature is the 3-bearing swivel nozzle that would require an upgrade if higher thrust variants are to be developed.

I still feel if no CAT's, better to use the STOVL jet as it provides you the ability on land as well in case you need it. The stealth aircraft is carrying a huge fuel load, and is heavier because of internal bays so compared to a Rhino stripped down with basic weapons and some fuel the F-35C will always carry that extra weight in stealth, internal bays etc when being launched from a non CAT based system. Its not like you can strip away the bays to reduce weight.

I still think that instead of buying a 5th generation fighter with its added cost, the wiser investment may be to to invest that money in steam CAT's or EMALS, and buy the Rhino or Rafale and skip the JSF altogether. Operate the E-2D etc as organic AEW will always be preferred. IF you can do both, nothing like but if given a choice I'd go for the CAT's as the ship will serve longer than the air wing. Depends upon what sort of threat there is and what sort of carrier escort the Chinese fleet will be getting in the 2030's. In my opinion the chinese will look to have a large carrier (maybe even nimitz class) preferably with CAT's as soon as possible and they will look to get their 5th generation fighter onboard that carrier. How quickly they achieve that remains to be seen, but they do have a very large budget and the Russians are surely going to help out.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 12 Jun 2015 17:42

Once BMos- has been fully developed and in service,the strike capability of the 29Ks will be further enhanced.Imagine a 29K operating a min.500 km from an IN carrier (the 29Ks come with buddy-buddy refuelling too and can refuel other aircraft ) with a 300km detection range of a DDG/FFG, can kill an enemy warship 800-100km away. Right now the full range of Russian anti-ship ASMs are carried.The IN should examine why the RN opted for the STOVL JSF,not cats,as there are v.good economic and operational reasons for the same. The RN could've opted for cats/EMALS whatever,being US allies.We are not the USN with oodles of $$$ to spend on a fleet of 100,000t+ supercarriers.

Wik.

Weapons and defensive capabilities
A MiG-29K and its armaments at MAKS Airshow.The folded wings maximise the limited space available on an aircraft carrier.
MiG-29K has a GSh-30-1 30 mm cannon in the port wing root. It has provisions for laser-guided and electro-optical bombs, as well as air-to-surface missiles like Kh-25ML/25MP, Kh-29T, Kh-31G/31A, Kh-35U, and rockets. Kh-31P passive radar seeker missiles are used as anti-radiation missiles. Kh-35, Kh-31A antiship missiles are for anti-ship roles; for aerial combat air-to-air missile like RVV-AE, R-27ER/ET and R-73E are fitted. The aircraft is also adaptable to various foreign weapons.[34]

The MiG-29K has a combination of low-observable technology, advanced electronic-warfare capabilities, reduced ballistic vulnerability, and standoff weapons to enhance the fighter's survivability.[27] According to Mikoyan, extensive use of radar-absorbent materials reduce the MiG-29K's radar signature 4–5 times over the basic MiG-29.[27] The RD-33MK turbofan engine was also engineered to reduce infrared signature and improve aircraft camouflage.[32][33]

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 12 Jun 2015 17:50

I was referring to how to best use the vikramaditya and vikrant, not the vishal which will surely have CATS

these two will never have CATS. so whatever works best off the ski jump to project power should be used.

the lighter brahmos-A can no doubt be fired from rafale or jsf also if the mig29k can take it.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 12 Jun 2015 17:54

The Brits had to decide based purely on cost. They will of course pay that cost back when they need custom made UAV's, and UCAVs since no large Navy has a STOVL UCAV requirement apart from perhaps the USMC but then they don't get access to large development funds on their own.

Their motive was always to field 2 carriers, and doing whatever it takes to acquire them. Having purchased one extremely capable MINI_Ford class carrier would have not served their best interests, so they ditched the idea of EMALS in favor of a lower acquisition cost that would enable them to more comfortably allow the acquisition of two carriers. Now for them the capability choice was easy, they would always operate alongside the French and the US Navy so they can call on a ton of help if required. They don't have the Chinese next door and won't be confronting their build up in their region. Those choices and the fact that their overall investments are shrinking made the choice much easier. With the money saved they could buy the second carrier, upgrade their typhoon, finally purchase the meteor missile in quantity, buy an MPA etc etc etc. It opens up fund availability for them. Even the broader NATO coalition would prefer 2 70% solutions to a one 100% solutions since 2 QE carriers ensures constant availability of at least one carrier. This is important in cases where the USN cannot commit a carrier to a theater for extended periods of times due to other commitments.

Apart from that, those with the access to cash such as the Chinese for example will look to go large, and use CAT's. The only impediment for them is to get the technology to work and they will surely be pouring in billions of $$ to get to that state. Its up to the 'intelligence' assessment of the Chinese Navy to figure out how quickly they can get to that state and rest assured if they figure out how to develop a carrier that is even 80% of the capability of the Nimitz they'll produce it in quantity unlike the French or the Brits.

these two will never have CATS. so whatever works best off the ski jump to project power should be used

Surely the STOVL option would be better for that. I don't expect the F-35C to have much advantage while operating from a ski ramp compared to the F-35B although it the Charlie does have a larger weapons bay for the larger Anti ship missiles, but then weapons development is an ongoing process and no doubt weapons will be developed for the Beach version as well. Also the larger stand off missiles don't require you to get close to the target so you can either leave them for the non-stealthy fleet, or use the F-35B's from stand off distances by hanging these weapons externally.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 12 Jun 2015 17:58

politically and funds wise perhaps india can use Mig29k for 10 yrs until 2025, by which time vishal will be ready if all goes really well and then shift enmasse to JSF versions on all three ... common ctol version of jsf would be best.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 12 Jun 2015 18:00

also all our new weapon progs need to take into account estimated size of internal bay on AMCA and JSF rather than a 7 yr dev cycle only to be fit for external carriage. this means greater challenges but no way out if we have to face LO platforms from nimitz sized chinese carriers by 2030...and there will not be 1 but atleast 6 in the pipeline.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 12 Jun 2015 18:13

The key fact is that the UK.Fr,US do not have all that many bases in the hotpots of the oceans where they can base their carriers/repair them.In Asia they rely upon Spore,Japan,SoKo,apart from Okinawa,Guam,Pearl,etc. DG is the key IOR facility.The Phillipines will yet again host USN forces. The IN however,have the mass of the Indian subcontinent stabbing into the IOR at its heart. The A&N and Lakshadweep islands also provide "unsinkable" carriers from where land based long-legged LRMP aircraft,strike aircraft,amphibs,etc. can operate sanitizing the entire IOR. Remember the crucial role that Malta played in WW2,intercepting and destroying German merchant ships supplying Rommel in N.Africa.

But what happens beneath the waves in the IOR esp. at the chokepoints,is crucial to India's maritime security. The combined strength of the Sino-Pak sub fleet is almost 100 subs.We could be dealing with at least 2-3 doz. enemy subs in a crisis,operating just off our ciatline and key naval bases and ports. The threat from mine warfare has been completely ignored. The IN requires at least 24+ mine warfare vessels and other unmanned mine detection/destruction UUVs.The IN needs at least 24 conventional AIP subs,plus 12 N-subs to both counter any enemy ingress and Paki activity.Plus operating in the Indo-China Sea with our SSGNs/SSNs in a forward posture to destroy any perceived threat from the PLAN,planning to enter into the IOR apart from trailing PLAN SSBNs.

For the next decade,the thrust of the IN should be on the sub fleet along with building at least one more Vikrant class CV,affordable and which will ensure great commonality with the other two carriers esp. the air wing.

The trends during the next 5 years will give direction to the course the IN must take reg. the future large CV and the kind of aircraft/launching system required,esp. if UCAVs start their carrier ops and the classified Indian UCAV matures into a naval variant too.

RKumar · Post by **RKumar** » 12 Jun 2015 19:28

I do agree with Philip we are seriously lacking with mine warfare vessels (may not be 24 but anything 12+ is good)

Sino-Pak 100 subs are too far fetched as most of Chinese conventional sub can't operate in IOR. That leaves Chinese nuclear powered + Pakistan's conventional sub. At any given time they can not have more then 10 subs (joined). Keeping in mind during crisis and war, rules change if any one providing refueling or berths to enemy. It will be quite difficult for Chinese to sustain the petrol without putting a lot of pressure on its men and subs.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 12 Jun 2015 19:39

Chinese nuclear powered + Pakistan's

I find it very, very funny that people club China + Pakistan ................... and expect India to fight them alone.

FULLY expect UK + France to join in within IOR and others (guess) in the Indo-Pacific. (Hint: What did Modi sign on his recent trip to France?)

Finally, minesweepers, etc are all fine, but India absolutely needs to close the door on Chinese presence in the IOR. No need to go too far: BD. That $2 billion that Modi offered will be eclipsed this Sept. So, to close this door, India cannot do it alone.

Not much time left.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 12 Jun 2015 19:40

Upa I think scuttled a mcm deal with soko. Another cbm to tsp

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 12 Jun 2015 19:42

3 x KA31
15 x JSF
15 x naval tejas(on vikrant)
3 x utility helo for plane guard and csar
the 6 Talwars can relieved of ka31 duty and carry the new ASW helis

Is that not what the Vikram and Vikrant plan of carrying?

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 12 Jun 2015 20:27

geeth wrote:
There is no point spending billions on a carrier if the tip of the spear aircraft you plan to fly off it are the unreliably engined MiG-29K
Is there any truth about the bolded part? If so, can you show it? 'Cause I searched google but cant find any. If you are just quoting from heresay, then better don't do it.

He was perhaps referring to this article:

INS Vikramaditya’s operation crippled

This most recent, post Dabolim, article states:

Nearly 30 of the RD-33MK engines powering the twin-engine MiG-29K aircraft attached to the ‘Black Panther’ squadron have packed up ever since aviation activities got under way from the deck of the refurbished Soviet-era carrier that was inducted into the Indian Navy in Russia in November, 2013.

I myself did not read it properly. It is clear that the 30 engines are associated with the "Black Panther" sqd AND the Vikram.

The Vikram has FOD issues. Interesting.

And, here is another very, very interesting quote (that I totally missed):

“The Naval fighter carries out high-speed landing by hooking on to any of the arrester wires stretched across the flight deck. In case it fails to hook, it should take off all over again. If an engine fails during flight, the fighter is forced to do a single-engine landing. But its power to take off just in case the arrester wires are missed is suspect. Therefore, the carrier doesn’t operate too far away from the shores,” a source said.

1) Engines do fail. Normal I guess, BUT
2) During flight
3) (And, 30 of them?)

So much for Dabolim and un-kept runways.

member_24684 · Post by **member_24684** » 12 Jun 2015 21:30

.

What's the use of Naval Tejas on future carriers, even Mig 29 K is not a good player,

Why we are wasting money for Naval Tejas,

srin · Post by **srin** » 12 Jun 2015 22:40

I think you're all missing the point.

When we ordered the Mig-29Ks, we got Gorshkov for free (ignore the VAT and delivery charges of a few billion). What a fantastic deal.

That's why we need to order more Mig-29Ks. Who knows what we'll get for free to go with it.

Picklu · Post by **Picklu** » 12 Jun 2015 23:00

NRaoji, you are making a basic mistake. You see there is no FUD in Dabolim and none on Vikrant.

The engines themselves are FUD (and about that much useful).

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 12 Jun 2015 23:19

srin wrote:I think you're all missing the point.

When we ordered the Mig-29Ks, we got Gorshkov for free (ignore the VAT and delivery charges of a few billion). What a fantastic deal.

That's why we need to order more Mig-29Ks. Who knows what we'll get for free to go with it.

Yeah! who knows? Maybe the Pyotr Velikiy

arshyam · Post by **arshyam** » 12 Jun 2015 23:23

SajeevJino wrote:.

What's the use of Naval Tejas on future carriers, even Mig 29 K is not a good player,

Why we are wasting money for Naval Tejas,

Kindly do elaborate on why you think the naval LCA is a 'waste of money', and what should the Navy focus on instead.

member_22733 · Post by **member_22733** » 12 Jun 2015 23:32

NRao wrote:
Chinese nuclear powered + Pakistan's
I find it very, very funny that people club China + Pakistan ................... and expect India to fight them alone.

FULLY expect UK + France to join in within IOR and others (guess) in the Indo-Pacific. (Hint: What did Modi sign on his recent trip to France?)

Finally, minesweepers, etc are all fine, but India absolutely needs to close the door on Chinese presence in the IOR. No need to go too far: BD. That $2 billion that Modi offered will be eclipsed this Sept. So, to close this door, India cannot do it alone.

Not much time left.

If I was the west and playing "India vs China", I would make sure India has just enough capability to destroy China in a phyrric victory. i.e. no more capacity/inventory left after that for doing anything else. Only after that point will UK/France/West will even think of getting into it. Since the attrition on both Indian and Chinese side would magnify their leverage by a orders of magnitude.

We have to assume we will have to go it alone against them. Russia maybe the only friend, but how much can they do for us at that juncture is unknown.

srin · Post by **srin** » 13 Jun 2015 00:12

The engines of the Mig-29K are highly advanced due to their visual IFF-cum-formation-navaid broadcast trail. Whenever the afterburner is lit, the engines automatically alert the wingman by emitting an visual IFF signal made of partially oxidized hydrocarbon aerosol. You can see a clear demonstration of this feature just after it takes off from the skijump. Like the one below (skip to 1:37):

The ignorant and less classy folks call this "smoke", but that's obviously wrong, for the Mig-29K brochure clearly says it has a smokeless combustor and so this is a clear warning feature to the wingman to not lock on to the aircraft and better to focus attention on the aircraft which aren't emitting this IFF signal. Pretty cunning tactical aid, only found on the Migs.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 13 Jun 2015 01:21

Data point.

China’s influence is growing so fast that two of the world’s biggest militaries are teaming up to block it

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 13 Jun 2015 01:47

LokeshC wrote:...
If I was the west and playing "India vs China", I would make sure India has just enough capability to destroy China in a phyrric victory. i.e. no more capacity/inventory left after that for doing anything else. Only after that point will UK/France/West will even think of getting into it. Since the attrition on both Indian and Chinese side would magnify their leverage by a orders of magnitude.

...

Any major war between India and China will quickly escalate into a nuclear exchange. India has red lines just as the pakis do. The Indian nuclear posture is "no first strike against non-nuclear powers". India will be destroyed but China itself will be a crippled, non-functional state. This scenario sets up the nuclear calculus for the PRC: if we are going to be devastated and you (US/Europe) think you're gonna pick us off, we are going to take you down with us etc. The Russians won't escape either.

This calculus along with a desire to contain China before it gets too big and picks off smaller neighbors will result in a convergence of interests between India, Japan, US and France/UK to beef up conventional capabilities—their own and those of their putative 'allies'.

The Chinese are an expansionist power: armed with dubious 15th century maps, they are proclaiming 'all your *.* are belong to us'. This is going to hit a brick wall shortly.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 13 Jun 2015 07:08

brar_w wrote:I still think that instead of buying a 5th generation fighter with its added cost, the wiser investment may be to to invest that money in steam CAT's or EMALS, and buy the Rhino or Rafale and skip the JSF altogether.

The technical risk involved with a catapult system may well lead to delays and cost escalation as opposed to building on the Vikrant design. And there's still the option of the VTOL Osprey for refueling, COD and AEW&C functions. With the F-35B's future looking brighter than ever, there's a substantial market for V-22 derivatives.

In any case, fact is even if we were to go for a CATOBAR solution, the best option for the fighter complement is still the F-35C rather than the Rafale M (the Super Hornet will be long out of production by then). With Chinese inducting Aegis-type destroyers in numbers and formulating plans for a naval variant of the J-31, the F-35 is quite simply a safer option at a comparable (or lower) cost.

member_24684 · Post by **member_24684** » 13 Jun 2015 07:48

arshyam wrote:
SajeevJino wrote:.

What's the use of Naval Tejas on future carriers, even Mig 29 K is not a good player,

Why we are wasting money for Naval Tejas,
Kindly do elaborate on why you think the naval LCA is a 'waste of money', and what should the Navy focus on instead.

even those MiG 29 K jumping from STOBAR carrier lacks of payload and Ranges, Instead of that we can go for carrier with Assisted launch with Rafale M and F 35C. future goes with Rafale M or F 35 C, MiG 29K is enough for those two STOBAR carriers,

so why do we need to put money on the Naval Tejas,

may I Know the advantages of Naval Tejas..!!

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 13 Jun 2015 08:01

apart from QE2 carriers and USMC amphib fleet, the LHD/LPD ships of spain, italy, soko and japan will also shift to JSF-B from harriers or nothing at present.

in future I also forsee singapore and australia and canada getting a couple of LHD ships each.

so overall production run should be in low-100s.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 13 Jun 2015 08:09

The Marines are going to require 300+ F-35B's, and there will be plenty of other operators as you mentioned. Singapore is primarily interested in the F-35B but they won't move until the mid 2020's because they want to finish their F-16 modernization program. Turkey displayed its LHD (Carlos based) design this year at IDEF and showed F-35B's parked on it. They plan on completing the ship before the end of the decade.

http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.ph ... -2015.html

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 13 Jun 2015 08:30

australia and canada certainly have the money and need for LHDs to participate in multi national ops as sea control ships...much more useful for their role than carriers. one such mistral or juan carlos type can anchor a task force engaged on say anti piracy off somalia.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 13 Jun 2015 12:05

may I Know the advantages of Naval Tejas..!!

1) the two carriers will have around 15 MiG-29Ks and still have space for another 15 aircrafts - so 15 LCAs have a play there
2) perhaps more importantly, the knowledge gained from a design pov is immeasurable. Gold. IMHO, the LCA , with every wart it has, is irreplaceable

srin · Post by **srin** » 13 Jun 2015 12:24

Carriers need a lot of helos. For SAR, ASW, AEW and utility transport. Suddenly, you feel there isn't much space anymore

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 13 Jun 2015 12:31

Both the vikram and vikrant are designed for 30 fixed and 6 rotary, IIRC

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 13 Jun 2015 14:47

Engine problems due to grit from runway at Dab,Goa,subsequent report,posted long ago. Why are there no problems with the aircraft operating out off Dega?

Anyone who thinks that Britain,France and the US will rush to rescue us in any spat with China is living in a fool's paradise.The US and UK are in full retreat globally. The US could not even bring itself to bomb Syria even once,is unable to stop ISIS,and the US/NATO have been booted out of Iraq and Afghanistan too. Even Russia today,after the collapse of the USSR,will not intervene militarily on the side of India,though it may sympathise with us and provide emergency mil. and diplomatic aid. It may use its good iffices to try and stop the spat asap,as it has influence with both nations,but we are NOT NATO members or US military allies,as much as some want us to become servile neo-colonial lackeys again!

The Sino-Pak combine will number approx. 100 subs by 2020.Sending into the IOR 1-2 doz. Chinese subs to coordinate attacks with the doz. or so Paki subs,is realirty.Don't also forget the Chinese sub base coming up at Gwadar! China will have its naval base at the entrance o the Gulf from where it can interdict Indian tanker shipping ,apart from threatening all our ports and naval bases. tackling the sub threat is going to be a nightmare for us in the future,threatening our CBGs. The only way in which we can minimize the threat is dramatically increasing the number and capability of the IN's sub fleet ,establish a forward naval/sub base/logistic facilities in Vietnam,from where even our conventional diesel/AIP subs can operate from,and threaten the dragon in his own lair at Hainan and in the Indo-China Sea theatre.This will require both acquisition of subs from abroad as well as an accelerated sub-building programme at home. With the cost of a Scorpene more than half that of an Akula-2 lease,it would be far more preferable to acquire more SSGN Akula-2/3s as we establish a parallel SSN line along with SSBN construction.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 13 Jun 2015 16:09

Beijing's first-ever deployment of a submarine to Pakistan signals a new cat-and-mouse game in the Indian Ocean

China tests new waters

Karthik S · Post by **Karthik S** » 13 Jun 2015 19:10

chinese have no shortage of enemies in the neighborhood, can't we offer Vietnam etc few frigates or other equipment so that the chinese will know they can't just keep arming the pakis.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 13 Jun 2015 19:25

do not think of TSP as a separate entity. think of our chinese border from rann of kutch to myanmar and plan for it.

Bade · Post by **Bade** » 13 Jun 2015 20:11

What's the news from HSL on the subs...have not heard any recent big splashes. Is the third one in Arihant class built already ?

Were there any takers in Japan of India's offer to collaborate on sub building. This program should be on steroids along with the MSC. SDRE Supercarrier Vishal can wait before these things are sorted and money allocated to build more subs on a war footing.