Indian Naval Discussion

[Nihat]

Are the Lakshwadeep Islands simmply too small for an airbase of ship docking facility of any sort and only large enough to be a listening post.

[nachiket]

Considering the fact that we are already low on squadron strength, how many aircraft can we realistically spare for the IOR?

[Philip]

A "string " of airfields in A&N is unrealistic.At the most we can have a few small airstrips that can operate only smaller tuboprop aircraft.In such an earthquake and tsunami prone zone,the repeat of the last tsunami when the Car Nic base was virtually destroyed presents large landing strips,especially at sea level with this problem.I have been advocating for aeons,and it apparently has been heard (!),the use of amphibians.The Beriev-200 displayed at a few air shows ago,is a superb anti-sub,MP sea plane,also equipped to fight fires with a huge water scoop,and can operate from the sea,lakes and land.The IN and IAF in "Fortress Andamans",should start thinking outside the box and instead of large costly airstrips,plan for seaplane tenders and support facilities at suitable ports and placeswhere such aircraft can operate from (calm waters) as well a the ability to establish base facilities ashore.The amphibians can also use the existing airstrips too.The advantage of using seaplanes is that in prosecuting subs,they can land on the ocean and deploy their dipping sonars.Nevertheless,the fact that the powers that be have seen th light-the acute danger that the A&N islands face from the dragon,and are doing something about it is a v.welcome sign.

One item of news,that SoKo plan to have 28 subs or thereabout,even more than India indicates how serious our sub shortage is.Just look at the size of SoKo and the seas that it has to defend and India's by comparison.It is hilarious if not so serious to see how cavalierly the state of the IN's sub fleet is being handled by the MOD.The Chinese will have around 60-70 subs,SoKo almost 30,while our sub number will decline to about a dozen!

[SivaVijay]

If the Army is going to place some MI and arty. then shouldn't IN place Amphibious assets for island hopping? We did train a Brigade (I may be wrong) for amphi ops some times back....didn't we? If so will they be put on station here....also like Mtn. Div will we see some thing on the line of RN marines in the future..?

[Brando]

,the use of amphibians.The Beriev-200 displayed at a few air shows ago,is a superb anti-sub,MP sea plane,also equipped to fight fires with a huge water scoop,and can operate from the sea,lakes and land.The IN and IAF in "Fortress Andamans",should start thinking outside the box and instead of large costly airstrips,plan for seaplane tenders and support facilities at suitable ports and placeswhere such aircraft can operate from (calm waters) as well a the ability to establish base facilities ashore.The amphibians can also use the existing airstrips too.The advantage of using seaplanes is that in prosecuting subs,they can land on the ocean and deploy their dipping sonars.Nevertheless,the fact that the powers that be have seen th light-the acute danger that the A&N islands face from the dragon,and are doing something about it is a v.welcome sign.

Flying boats present many significant disadvantages as well, these have precluded them wide-spread service in modern military operations despite their wide spread use before and during World War 2.
Flying boats fly slower, lower and use much more fuel than conventional aircraft that use hard surfaces. Using Flying boats for anti-sub operations leaves them very susceptible to modern Anti Aircraft defenses that most modern submarines now carry. Their range is also significantly limited compared to regular aeroplanes due to their increased drag profile and their subsequently high fuel consumption. Also, though flying boats seem to suggest that they can put down in water anywhere, they have the dangers of running aground and hull damage from operating in very shallow waters. Also, should natural disasters like Tsunamis etc take place, the probability that any docked flying boats are destroyed is very high compared to the probability of aeroplanes in their hangars inland. Flying boats can also carry much less cargo relative to their size than ordinary aeroplanes of similar size. The cost of operations on a flying boat are also significantly higher owing to the increased salt damage to the engines and increased maintenance of the fuselage/hull. Also, loading and unloading of a sea plane with machines or heavy equipment is difficult without a specialized mooring facilities while regular military cargo aeroplanes come with ramps and such. All these disadvantages have led modern militaries to move away from flying boats.

[Singha]

the biggest island in Laccadive is onlee around 8km long per spies.
the airport has a runway in middle of sea and can take ATR72 types.

[Philip]

Many of the problems associated with amphibians,regarding "wear and tear" have been largely resolved with new materials and tech.Many countries like Japan have been operating amphibians for decades alongside regular MRP aircraft like Orions.The latest global designs also include a Do-228 derivitaive with a float attached to the lower fuselage.In island nations like the Maldives,the use of amphibians is standard practice.What is suggested is not "replacing" regular LRMP aircraft with amphibians,buit using amphibians along with them,were such larger aircraft cannot operate from because of small airstrips,etc. and smaller aircraft like the Dorniers have range and payload limitations.The PLN is wisely buying 12 Russian Berievs to supplement their land based aircraft.One must remember that the PRC have major disputes over the Spratly islands and have stationed their troops on small outcrops.The use of amphibs in servicing these outposts will be particularly useful.

Here is one report on Japanese use of amphibs.
http://www.airspacemag.com/military-avi ... ibian.html

Another on the Dornier SeaStar.
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/20 ... arket.html

Beriev-42.The use of amphibs especially for rescue was highlighted when the Russian sub tragedy K-278 (Komsomolets) took place,where dropped liferafts were blown away by strong winds and the crew perished.An excerpt on itscapabilities:

Amphibian aircraft A-42PE can produce search and detection of those suffering calamity in the open sea with the aid of onboard technical equipment, rendering aid by that suffering calamity with the use of the expendable rescue facilities, special rescuing which suffer calamity at sea by landing aircraft on the water, selection of victims onboard the aircraft, rendering with it of first aid and evacuation to the coast, the urgent delivery of people and small loads to the vessels and the sea units.

As a patrol aircraft the A-42PE is capable to ensure conducting air and electronic reconnaissance with the detection, the identification and the tracking of surface, underwater and coast targets, the determination of their coordinates and elements of motion, the transmission of information to coast control centers and other aircraft and ships. It can strike with onboard weapon submarines, and also others surface and coast targets, place minefield barriers and air facilities of hydroacoustic opposition. A-42PE possesses the unique possibility to conduct antisubmarine search from the position of the surface of the water in the assigned region, including with the use of the lowered hydroacoustic module.

The A-42PE patrol search and rescue amphibian in export version is developed for patrolling in sea and coastal zones. The aircraft is equipped with two Ivchenko Progress D-27A turboprofan engines, 14000 h.p. takeoff power each in place of NPO Saturn D-30K jets, and one PD-33AC booster engine, with power 5200 kg. The aircraft is equipped with "Sea Dragon" search-and-sighting system, ARIA-B integrated and flight and navigation system, and airborne communication system.

[Kanson]

India to setup new airbases in Andaman Island

I recall a discussion here few days back on Andaman and possible take over by Chinese. It seems GoI was alerted by our discussion and taking remedying steps.

[suraj p]

India to setup new airbases in Andaman Island

I recall a discussion here few days back on Andaman and possible take over by Chinese. It seems GoI was alerted by our discussion and taking remedying steps.

Is BR forums visited by Babus and strategy makers in Delhi? do you think anTony also visits BR forums?

[Kanson]

Saints have no place in BR, you know well. Ofcourse Babus may try to kill time.

[Rahul M]

Is BR forums visited by Babus and strategy makers in Delhi? do you think anTony also visits BR forums?

well some do at any rate. but whether they come here to get feedback or to laugh at us I don't know.

[krishnan]

"Some event talk about carrying out land-based missile attacks against an aircraft carrier. We must weigh this against the difficulties of targeting a mobile target out at sea," he said, noting that carriers can move 600 nautical miles a day, which translates into one million square nautical miles of ocean area, which an adversary has to search.

Verma said this was a Herculean task for even the best of navies, satellite and aerial surveillance.

"Should an adversary manage to evade a plethora of air, surface and sub-surface escorts and be capable of hitting a carrier, sinking it or putting a carrier out of action is by no means easy," he said.

He said the sheer size, build philosophy and damage control features provided an aircraft carrier an amazing capacity to absorb damage.

On the huge cost involved in acquiring an aircraft carrier, Verma said the long range of capability a carrier provided a nation with during times of peace and war more than justified the costs.

http://news.rediff.com/report/2010/feb/ ... rships.htm

[rakall]

"Some event talk about carrying out land-based missile attacks against an aircraft carrier. We must weigh this against the difficulties of targeting a mobile target out at sea," he said, noting that carriers can move 600 nautical miles a day, which translates into one million square nautical miles of ocean area, which an adversary has to search.

Verma said this was a Herculean task for even the best of navies, satellite and aerial surveillance.

"Should an adversary manage to evade a plethora of air, surface and sub-surface escorts and be capable of hitting a carrier, sinking it or putting a carrier out of action is by no means easy," he said.

He said the sheer size, build philosophy and damage control features provided an aircraft carrier an amazing capacity to absorb damage.

On the huge cost involved in acquiring an aircraft carrier, Verma said the long range of capability a carrier provided a nation with during times of peace and war more than justified the costs.

http://news.rediff.com/report/2010/feb/ ... rships.htm

A salvo of sub-launched Brahmos (from about 200km out) executing S-curve in the vertical plane during terminal approach might be able to put atleast the carrier air group out of business (by severely damaging the runway and/or the ATC) -- which dramatically reduces the effectiveness of a carrier. what would work for Brahmos as against other LACM's is the sheer speed which not only reduces the response time, but also detection & interception.

For this attck to be effective, however the approximate location of the carrier should be passed on from UAV or MPA to the submarine shortwhile before the launch...

There are a few "ifs", but the carrier is a high value target and one need not engage in symmetric/logical warfare to ba a carrier... a renegade kamikaze style attack (even suicidal) can be attempted (brings to mind climax of DownPeriscope).

[Brando]

"Some event talk about carrying out land-based missile attacks against an aircraft carrier. We must weigh this against the difficulties of targeting a mobile target out at sea," he said, noting that carriers can move 600 nautical miles a day, which translates into one million square nautical miles of ocean area, which an adversary has to search.

Verma said this was a Herculean task for even the best of navies, satellite and aerial surveillance.

"Should an adversary manage to evade a plethora of air, surface and sub-surface escorts and be capable of hitting a carrier, sinking it or putting a carrier out of action is by no means easy," he said.

He said the sheer size, build philosophy and damage control features provided an aircraft carrier an amazing capacity to absorb damage.

On the huge cost involved in acquiring an aircraft carrier, Verma said the long range of capability a carrier provided a nation with during times of peace and war more than justified the costs.

http://news.rediff.com/report/2010/feb/ ... rships.htm

The problem with the arguments above is that the present generation of the Vikrant aircraft carriers are too slow at below 30 knots. For a carrier to be effective in the 21st century, they should be able to quickly be deployed at great range. If you are building carriers that move at less than 30 knots finding it with today's advanced aerial, satellite and UAV capabilities is not really that difficult for a large navy like the PLAN or the USN.

[tsarkar]

Rakall,
The Russians have had supersonic missiles for ages, the US has a supersonic target called Coyote for ages, the Russians have sold them Kh-31 to be used as targets, so Aegis+Standard can take out Brahmos types.

http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-163.html

So can Elta 2248 & Barak-8 combo, that is specifically for the Chinese Type 956 armed with Moskit and Type 636 armed with Klub.

The raison d’être of Aegis and 2248 is salvos across the hemisphere. The 70 km ranged Barak 8 is primarily an anti-missile missile.
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/de ... d=blogDest

A carrier group represents a lot of capabilities. Remember the US ship shooting the satellite down? Or Thales SmartL tracking LEO satellites? Cant onboard fighters take out UAVs? What chance does a lumbering predator or global hawk or Ka-31 stand against a MiG-29 or Tejas or Barak-8? Pak f-16 shot an Indian searcher-2 in 2002 while Russian MiG-29 shot down a Georgian Hermes 450. Earlier, an Iraqi MiG-25 shot down a Predator in the first manned vs unmanned. Israeli F-16 have shot down Hezbollah drones. There were reports of Indian Iglas being used to shoot down pakistani drones.

Brando,
Could you compare the speeds of UK CVF, French Charles de Gaulle, Italian Cavour with the Indian IAC and then revisit your comments? What difference would 5 extra knots make to a supersonic missile?

[Samay]

from wiki

China acquired SS-N-22 launchers and missiles (specifically, the for-export 3M-80E Moskit variant) with its 1999–2000 purchase of two Sovremenny destroyers from Russia. According to Russia, the Chinese funded the development of the SS-N-22 version for the People's Liberation Army Navy (PLAN), which has the designation 3M-80MBE, and this version differs from earlier versions mainly in the increased range (now beyond 220 km; 240 km has been quoted), and that these new missiles will be first installed on-board the second pair of Sovremenny class destroyers. A total of 500 SS-N-22 AShM had been ordered by China for the four Sovremenny class destroyers it ordered from Russia, and with the exception of the first 20, the rest 480 are of the 3M-80MBE variant. China has stockpiled an average of 15 SS-N-22 missiles for each individual launcher of the Sovremenny class destroyers (each destroyer having a total of 8 launchers in two quadruple configurations). It is speculated that the PLAN intends to use it against the carrier battle groups deployed by United States Navy in case of a confrontation with Taiwan. All versions of the SS-N-22 have a cruise altitude of 15 feet above sea level.

Will the barak2/8 be able to hold a barrage of moskits from PLAN destroyers ?? I guess they would be reproducing many more for other ships as well .

[Kanson]

Good one to read.

http://livefist.blogspot.com/2010/02/ex ... er-on.html

Cmde AK Khetan, Principle Director at the Department of Naval Design, has been closely associated with the Indiangenous Aircraft Carrier programme and was the project director during the crucial phase of design finalisation, equipment ordering and the contract signing with Cochin Shipyards for its construction. The following is the paper he presented earlier today at the National Maritime Foundation seminar on Aircraft Carriers in the 21st Century:

....

2.1 Economical, Industrial and regulatory constraints combined with mission requirements define the aircraft carrier size, type, number and aircraft mix to be operated from it. Cost, as for many projects, remains to be a major driver.

2.2 Aircraft Carrier is not intended to operate alone, along with the aircraft carrier comes a number of aircraft and helicopters, different types of warships ranging from cruiser to frigate, submarines and a varieties of support vessels. The combination of which depends on the mission of a Carrier Strike Group (CSG). The cost of acquisition therefore is much more than that of an aircraft carrier alone. This demand gets further increased if cost of running, support, upkeep and maintenance facilities for the aircraft carrier and aircraft are included.

2.3 It is because of the above, that even while recognizing the strategic necessity of aircraft carrier for its usefulness and forward basing, there exists strong debate in favourof shrinking its number and size world over to contain spending. The reasoning has also been supported by technological advancements in avionics, extended ranges of operation by the aircraft view in flight fuelling and better intelligence gathering.

2.4 If recent publications are to be believed, even Pentagon is considering a proposal to decrease the number of aircraft carriers from today’s 11 to 8 or 9 in order to save on much more than USD 47 billion over 30 years considering savings from the non-procurement of associated supply ships, carrier air wings and operation cost etc.

2.5 UK Govt. in spite of contemplating to replace their old small carriers since a decade by medium sized two in number 60,000-65,000 tonne aircraft carriers under CVF programme, have finally decided to go ahead with only one Queen Elizabeth to be in service in 2016. The second proposed carrier is expected to be converted to an amphibious commando ship with helicopters on board in lieu of JSF aircraft.

2.6 The French Govt. inspite of contemplating to have an additional medium sized carrier and accordingly participating in CVF programmehave finally pulled out considering enormous cost of acquisition. Other nations such as Russia, Brazil, Italy and Spain have no known plans to add to their aircraft carrier numbers.

....

3.4 STOVL (Short Takeoff and Vertical Landing) concept was found with the invent of Navy Sea Harrier FRS MK51. This concept though very cost affective for small carriers, has severe limitation of aircraft AUW and range.

4.1.1 The aviation aspects that dominate flight deck configuration are aircraft type and number, sortie generation rate and formation requirements. This would decide launch, recovery, supporting equipment, parking, number and size of aircraft lifts and thus to an extent the sizing of the carrier. The related parameters influencing the sizing of the flight deck, the ship and its cost are as follows: -

Number and lengths of catapults in case of CTOL carrier. Length and width of takeoff runway and extent of ski jump in case of STOBAR carrier. The area occupied by ski jump cannot be utilized for parking and the raise of ski jump vis-à-vis flight deck level would require higher clearance for the aircraft while bolteringthus higher angle for the angled deck.

Length and width of recovery area depending on the aircraft and arrestor wire systems (3 or 4 wire).

Parking area including refueling/ servicing and rearming areas.

Primary operation aspects (Sortie generation rate/ simultaneous launch and recovery/ maintenance of combat air patrol/ multi role operations – CAP/ ASW Helos/ AEW). Number of sorties, formation type and aircraft operating range would decide quantity of aviation fuel to be carried and thus tankage and size of the ship.

Aircraft lift’s number, size and capacity.

Requirement to recover the aircraft on flight deck in case of arrester hook failure would entail providing crash barrier, therefore, increasing the length of the runway and flight deck. In larger carriers, the length of the landing runway invariably is adequate for accommodating the crash barrier. However, for smaller carriers this would imply increase in length, and thus added costs. A thorough cost and safety benefit analysis is a must while finalising such requirements as this can be met by alternative means such as recovering the aircraft on land, if required by refuelling in air.

4.1.2 An optimisation and rationalisation of above aspects has a significant bearing on the carrier sizing and cost. Therefore, many of the features though desirable need to be rationalised for operational requirements vis-a-vis cost effectiveness.

4.2 Choice of Sustained Top Speed, Endurance and Flexibility in Choice of the Propulsion Plant.

A fundamental driver in the choice of propulsion plant is a requirement for sustained top speed. Choice of very high sustained top speed in the name of aircraft operations, would restrict the choice of type of propulsion in medium and large carriers. The speed of the vessel has a direct bearing on the powering requirements and increment of every additional ‘knot’ increases powering requirements exponentially. Using thumb rule analysis, for a 65,000t carrier, the powering requirements can be brought down from 145 MW to 85 MW, i.e. by 40%, for a sustained top speed reduction from 30 to 25 knots.[Demonstrates the relevance of 65,000t carrier for the IN?] Reduced power would lead to reduced size and weight of propulsion plant, shafting, associated auxiliaries, uptakes and intakes. Thereby alternative options for choice of propulsion system based on economy and size of the ship.

Similarly, endurance requirement of ship and specific fuel consumption rate of engine would directly influence fuel tankage requirements, thereby size and cost.

In case of CATOBAR carrier, in addition to sustained top speed, requirement of steam also becomes a governing factor for choice of propulsion plant. The steam propulsion plant therefore becomes preferred choice. The choice between conventional and Nuclear plants for generating this steam, is primarily strategic associated with industrial base and regulatory position.

The choice of nuclear reactors as prime movers has many consequences on the design of the carrier: -

Nuclear plants are bulky with associated secondary machinery and shielding and therefore extremely difficult to accommodate.

It has less impact than fossil-fuelled prime movers on the hangar and flight deck configuration, with no need for large intakes and uptakes. However, the relatively infrequent reactor core refuelling demands can still compromise the carrier layout above the reactor plant.

Nuclear powered carriers though have no requirement for propulsion fuel tanks but this does not diminish the dependency of the carrier for afloat support to maintain the bunkerage of aviation fuel and the replenishment of stores for the large complement of people and aircraft.

In case of STOBAR carriers, other propulsion options are feasible due to no requirement of steam. Indian programme IAC with GT propulsion, Vikramaditya and Russian Kuznetsovwith steam propulsion are carriers falling in this category.

Therefore, rationalisation of top speed can have a significant impact on the choice of propulsion system commensurate to the requirement of aircraft operation, design (simpler layouts and simpler propulsion trains) and therefore, major impact on the ship acquisition and sustaining costs. Rationalisation of endurance would permit designer to have reduced fuel tankageand ship size.

.....

4.12 Series Production and Construction Technology. Series production / ordering of more than one carrier at a time would greatly offset the costs of design, detailed engineering and development etc. This would also encourage shipyard to adopt integrated construction technology and optimum production methodology for various ship components, systems and economy of material consumption to ensure economy of cost and yard effort. Additionally, the experience/ expertise gained on the first ship can be implemented on follow on ships to make them better and more cost effective. This would also make equipment/systems production and procurement more cost effective. It is emphasised here that ship construction involves large pool of human resource, highly skilled and unskilled. Series production results isfamiliarity, understanding of drawings and work by this groups and therefore saving on time in execution.
[Talk about Series production envisage more than one AC?]

[John]

So can Elta 2248 & Barak-8 combo, that is specifically for the Chinese Type 956 armed with Moskit and Type 636 armed with Klub.

The raison d’être of Aegis and 2248 is salvos across the hemisphere. The 70 km ranged Barak 8 is primarily an anti-missile missile.

Its range against missile will be limited to radar horizon unless of course it is networked and can use AEW like Ka-31s for target designation.

[tsarkar]

That certainly is the intent and capability of an AESA radar, that can track multiple targets and guide multiple missiles in the air. Every destroyer will have 48-64 Barak-8 against multiple salvo of 8 Moskits launched by each Project 956.

John, you are right, yet an AESA radar with dedicated beams dwelling on target missile should help cut down reaction times.

[Philip]

In the above paper on carrier design,the author has reaffirmed the UK finding that carriers less than 60,000t are inadequate and less efficient for carrier ops,sortie rate,turn around time for launch,enough aircraft for CAP,strike,ASW,etc.,etc.The problem of conventional carrier dsign for medium naval powers like India,is that we simply cannot afford large US style supercarriers.The US has around 12 carrier task forces centered around their nuclear powered carriers,which for the better part of their lives,require no reactor refuelling.Our carriers should be at least 50,000+t and able to carry 40+ aircraft and ASW/AEW helos.Steam cats are costly (elec cats yet to arrive),require large power and occupy space which makes them suitable for the supercarrier class.For the medium sized carriers it is the kind of aircraft aboard that will make a difference.We need to have both conventional STOBAR strike aircraft as well as STOVL aircraft of the Sea Harrier/JSF class,as these aircraft can be deployed very quickly ,make landing exceptionally easy and safe and can return with their payload too.The IN should look at developing a STOVL version of the 5th-gen fighter or even make it part of the MCA programme,as if we plan to have between 3-6 carriers for the future-as China intend to build at least five 60,000+t flat tops,we will need at least 100+ STOVL aircraft .One interesting finding about the ski-jump is that it gives the carrier better sea-leeping qualities at the bows where in bad weather/heavy seas, sea water does not flood the forward deck.

[Yagnasri]

China going for 5 flat tops of 60k plus ? This is the first time I am hearing sir, surely this kind of expansion will create lot of fears around in Asia and every where. We may have to go for massive build up for ourself.

[arun]

Scorpene submarines recently supplied to Malaysia have developed problems.

First a defect in the “Forward Sea Water Cooling System” and then a snag in the “high pressure air blowing system inside the submarine's ballast tank”.:

Further delay in RMN submarine tropical trials

Negotiations over cost between government and Boustead DCNS continues

MARHALIM ABAS

Thursday, February 11th, 2010 12:09:00

KUALA LUMPUR: KD Tunku Abdul Rahman tropical water trials has been delayed again until next week after another defect was discovered on Jan 17.

Royal Malaysian Navy chief Tan Sri Abdul Aziz Jaafar when confirming this afternoon told reporters that the engineeers from Bousted DCNS Naval Corp Sdn Bhd had traced the defect to the high pressure air blowing system inside the submarine's ballast tank. The ballast tanks which can be filled with water or air are used to control when a submarine surface or submerge.

He said the defect was found during routine checks and the defective part had been replaced and work was underway to certify that every thing was working well.

"We will conduct the tropical water trials on Feb 18 where the submarine will be diving. Our submariners are also anxious to go back underwater," he told reporters after attending a ceremony to present the credentials for the National Service Training Council at the Defence Ministry yesterday.

Abdul Aziz said although the problem was not common it was not a major fault.

“It’s a teething problem, not major but we still needed to be careful.” he added.

He said the first defect was detected in the submarine’s Forward Sea Water Cooling System, on Dec 17 …………………………

Malay Mail

[Philip]

NR,the Varyag has been resurrected to be a PLAN training carrier,but will actually have some operational capability.Here is a critical view of China's carrier ambitions,begun by renowned Adm. Liu Huaqing,who was a student of that all-time great Soviet legend,Adm.Sergei Gorshkov himself.Under Liu,who had several important naval and party positions,China's carrier ambitions were channeled into a focussed programme of which the contours are becoming visible only now.The manner in which the Varyag was acquired through deception,shows that when understanding China,one most often only sees the tip of the iceberg.Here is a very (though dated) insightful paper on the subject from the US Naval War College Review.A must read.

The paper however was written before the PLAN resurrected the Varyag,now renamed the "Shi Lang",after a Ming general who conquered Taiwan! Pics of PLAN carrier designs have been seen at various def. exhibitions in recent times.The PLANs biggest hurdle is a carrier strike aircraft.It lusts after the SU-33,but the Russians aren't too happy with PRC reverse engineering Russian military hardware without their permission.The Varyag as of Dec.2009 had a new radar mast installed and the vessel is belived to become operational in the near future,first for training and then for regular carrier ops.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m ... 113755343/

Since the Second World War, aircraft carriers as the symbols of a
country's important deterrent power have been accorded more
attention. For some historical reasons, China has not yet built
aircraft carriers. But the Academy must look forward and train
experts needed for the carriers. As the building process is long we
simply cannot afford to dig wells after becoming thirsty. (4)

[D Roy]

There's more to brahmos than speed.

its has maneuverability which is superior to missiles like the sandbox and also has stealth characteristics.

Its vulnerability probably comes from the IR signature which is typically higher for a supersonic system.

[Sagar G]

Its vulnerability probably comes from the IR signature which is typically higher for a supersonic system.

At present is there any weapon system which can counter a supersonic missile ???

[D Roy]

AEGIS obviously can. but handling a salvo brahmos attack will be a different proposition.

[Sagar G]

And when Brahmos or any other missile in IN inventory goes hypersonic then what ???

[Philip]

One will only know when the next high-tech naval war takes place.No ship is invulnerable to missile attack.Even an Israeli missile corvette,Barak equipped took a Hiz missile hit in the last Lebanon spat.In a large task force though,the most vulnerable and most important vessels will be the AORs,supply ships/tankers,etc.These ships are supposed to be defended by the larger escorts and have limited anti-air defences.Their larger radar signature will make them easy meat for missile attack in salvoes.These vessels should have a variety of hard and soft kill anti-missile weaponry.Remember the loss of the Atlantic Conveyor in the Falklands campaign.

[ankit-s]

Its vulnerability probably comes from the IR signature which is typically higher for a supersonic system.

At present is there any weapon system which can counter a supersonic missile ???

They are hard to detect and defend against, if multiple missile barrages were fired at a carrier a few are bound to get through thier defenses. A combination of different types of anti-missile missiles, phalanx type weaponary, good situational awareness and development of maturing directed high energy and laser weapons will be thier defenses in the near future. Of course, taking out the missiles in the initial launch phase or on the ground will also be part of the defensive strategy to protect naval assets. Electronic jamming will also be a big part of confusing enemy missiles.

A good example is Russian Kashtan CIWS. It combines 2 x 30mm gatling guns with 4 ready to fire missiles (24 in reload magazine). At the moment it is probaby the most versitile and powerful system. It can engage up to 6 missiles travelling at Mach 3 with 96% kill probability.

During 1971 crisis (thanx to) Nixon, India had a kamikaze action in mind in worst case scenario to take the USS Enterprise down, but now the tables have been turned and India has a luxury to brag about Brahmos, if not brandish it.

[ankit-s]

Remember the loss of the Atlantic Conveyor in the Falklands campaign.

Atlantic was a cargo (container) vessel, but Britain also lost HMS Sheffield to the deadly exocest, launched from super etendard clutches. For a moment it looked like a Anglo-Franco war cause both the (missile n fighter) were French that sank British destroyer.

[kulhari]

During 1971 crisis (thanx to) Nixon, India had a kamikaze action in mind in worst case scenario to take the USS Enterprise down, but now the tables have been turned and India has a luxury to brag about Brahmos, if not brandish it.

This is something I had earlier heard from some retired person. But the person kept the details extremely vague. I do not know anything more about it except that a secret runway in some forest of WB was prepared for such an operation.

I am eagerly waiting for Brahmos-2 .

[Samay]

During 1971 crisis (thanx to) Nixon, India had a kamikaze action in mind in worst case scenario to take the USS Enterprise down, but now the tables have been turned and India has a luxury to brag about Brahmos, if not brandish it.

This is something I had earlier heard from some retired person. But the person kept the details extremely vague. I do not know anything more about it except that a secret runway in some forest of WB was prepared for such an operation.

I am eagerly waiting for Brahmos-2 .

If khans could hold the original kamikazis ,they could hold our kamikazi as well, better we didnt applied it,it could have escalated into a full scale war with khans like post- pearl harbour like situation,
In war-hysteria many wrong actions could be taken ,like what japs did in pearl harbour,.. .

[Aditya_V]

Yes, it could have drawn India into the war. It would have been lose-lose. We would have scores in Indian civilians dead in Aerial bombing. Khan's cost in an aldready Vietnam tired nation in men and economy also would have been huge.

[chetak]

Yes, it could have drawn India into the war. It would have been lose-lose. We would have scores in Indian civilians dead in Aerial bombing. Khan's cost in an aldready Vietnam tired nation in men and economy also would have been huge.

I don't think that nixon mama had the balls to take on IG at that stage. It was a bluff that worked partially.

India had the support of the Soviets and both the chicoms and the amrekis did not have the stomach to draw the Soviets into an un winnable war.

World opinion would also have favored the Indians since the details of the paki genocide had already emerged world wide.

IG had a really big pair and she was never timid in her approach to any situation, tricky dick included.

[Kersi D]

Yes, it could have drawn India into the war. It would have been lose-lose.

India was already at war! You mean drawing the khans into the war? If not for the little skunk Kissinger, .

Two skunks. Mr Nixon and Mr. Kissinger.

I understand that the Soviets pressurised us to end the war once Bandladesh was over run by IA.

It was probably the worse phase of US India relations

K

[ankit-s]

Yes, it could have drawn India into the war. It would have been lose-lose. We would have scores in Indian civilians dead in Aerial bombing. Khan's cost in an aldready Vietnam tired nation in men and economy also would have been huge.

I don't think that nixon mama had the balls to take on IG at that stage. It was a bluff that worked partially.

India had the support of the Soviets and both the chicoms and the amrekis did not have the stomach to draw the Soviets into an un winnable war.

World opinion would also have favored the Indians since the details of the paki genocide had already emerged world wide.

IG had a really big pair and she was never timid in her approach to any situation, tricky dick included.

According to declassified documents, Nixon Kiss-inger combo conversation and other perusable material, there was no military actionable plan to take India head on. It was just an act of dadagiri vs gandhigiri (India) because Indian security agreement with erstwhile USSR was standing tall along with Indian resolve spearheaded by madam Indira Gandhi - a true patriot (without a foreign passport) unlike Sonia........

[Samay]

chetak ji, Soviet union was the only reason why usa backed off , other wise war monger khans could have opened a new front,kissinger( like bush) doesnt looses anything , shrapnels do not touch his balls ,.

involvement of soviets in later stages of Indo-us war would have destroyed usa's economy and strategic positions forever, but that would have killed scores of Indian civilians ,(with their balls intact) after us bombings ,.

while at later stages of such war usa would surely have been kicked from two sides(India,nam) ,and then at the middle by soviet union .

nobody would have gained anything except soviet union whose investments in India and nam would have paid off ,.

To prevent such situation in future ,we need at least 4-5 ,60K+ton aircraft carriers and a dozen nuke subs in a decade or so . because there is no soviet union ,but there still is diego-garcia,hainan,...!!

[ankit-s]

chetak ji, Soviet union was the only reason why usa backed off , other wise war monger khans could have opened a new front,kissinger( like bush) doesnt looses anything , shrapnels do not touch his balls ,.

involvement of soviets in later stages of Indo-us war would have destroyed usa's economy and strategic positions forever, but that would have killed scores of Indian civilians ,(with their balls intact) after us bombings ,.

while at later stages of such war usa would surely have been kicked from two sides(India,nam) ,and then at the middle by soviet union .

nobody would have gained anything except soviet union whose investments in India and nam would have paid off ,.

To prevent such situation in future ,we need at least 4-5 ,60K+ton aircraft carriers and a dozen nuke subs in a decade or so . because there is no soviet union !!

Ooops the dialogue is digressing from Brahmos to brahma n brahmins (India)

Narayan narayan!

[Samay]

According to declassified documents, Nixon Kiss-inger combo conversation and other perusable material, there was no military actionable plan to take India head on. It was just an act of dadagiri vs gandhigiri (India) because Indian security agreement with erstwhile USSR was standing tall along with Indian resolve spearheaded by madam Indira Gandhi - a true patriot (without a foreign passport) unlike Sonia........

I dont want to comment on IG and her balls thats a matter of research extracting truth out of myths made during war on both sides ,,
but I dont believe in the 'declassified' documents of usa .

[SandeepS]

During 1971 crisis (thanx to) Nixon, India had a kamikaze action in mind in worst case scenario to take the USS Enterprise down, but now the tables have been turned and India has a luxury to brag about Brahmos, if not brandish it.

This is something I had earlier heard from some retired person. But the person kept the details extremely vague. I do not know anything more about it except that a secret runway in some forest of WB was prepared for such an operation.

I am eagerly waiting for Brahmos-2 .

Even I heard about this alleged preparation for kamikaze attack on US Navy Task Force 74 in Bay of Bengal from an ex-Para Arty officer who was posted in East Pak sector during 71 conflict. I think he mentioned that Hunters pilots were earmarked for this daredevil operation and that there was quite a debate whether it is in-line with the ethos of our forces.

I had ignored it at that times as an old fauji's langar-gup after few tots of XXX rum but it seems this rumour might indeed have some feet. I wish I had persevered and asked him more details, as it seemed at the very least a neat bit of psych-op against direct intervention by US TF74.