Indian Navy News & Discussion - 22 April 2015

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 18 May 2016 11:53

it would be the chakri-narubet++ if that were the case.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 18 May 2016 11:56

We wont be getting ROI or Logistic Adv if we dont build 2-3 of INS Vikrant Class , Maintaining different version of Carrier with its own logistics and training would also be a big challenge.

Best option would be to build 2-3 Vikrant class , CSL would be able to deliver No-2 and 3 of Vikrant class at much faster rate after learning from the first and then post 2030 work on Nuclear Carrier and build 2-3 of same class.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 18 May 2016 12:52

The problem is not with the construction is it hull. It is the fitting out of the ship that takes time in Indian yard's. We are through the learning curve for an aircraft carrier. Having built the first one. The second one will be easier and less time taking than the first one.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 18 May 2016 13:00

Pratyush wrote:The problem is not with the construction is it hull. It is the fitting out of the ship that takes time in Indian yard's. We are through the learning curve for an aircraft carrier. Having built the first one. The second one will be easier and less time taking than the first one.

Agreed but any experience from the first class is always handy to even root out childhood disease which exist in the first of class and it takes its own time to root out , hence no one prefers to build just 1 ship of the class. We can also achieve gradual indiginisation of many things on follow on class plus amortization of cost etc. We need 3 Vikrant class ships they are quite decent of the role IN envisages

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 18 May 2016 18:37

Response to 6 posts, starting: http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 0#p2019630

Two points (on Vikrant and follow on carriers)

1) From wiki:

1989: "India announced a plan to replace its ageing British-built aircraft carriers, Vikrant and Viraat, with two new 28,000 ton Air Defence Ships (ADS) that would operate the BAE Sea Harrier aircraft". The first was to join in 1997, with work to commence in 1993. Since the ADS were to host the Harriers they were STOVL
1991: Economic crisis, so entire project is placed on indefinite hold
1999: St Anthony signs off on ADS, but now that the Harriers are busted, the STOVL converts into a STOBAR and the ADS grows in weight to 32,000 tons
2003: MiG-29Ks are selected and weight grows to 37,500 tons. India also opts for a 3 carrier fleet
2006: ADS now becomes IAC and weight grows to 40,000 tons
2009: Keel laid for Vikrant (@ 40,000 tons)
2013: Vikrant launched

2011: "The Initial design of the second carrier featured significant changes from Vikrant, including; increase in displacement to over 65,000 tons, a Steam-powered CATOBAR system to launch larger fighters, AEW (airborne early-warning) aircraft and mid-air refueling tankers."

Point being the decision to go to 65,000 tons was made between laying of the keel and launching the Vikrant. Why? I do not have a clue (yet), but the decision was made then. I am sure they (IN being IN) took into consideration all the points being made to support another Vikrant-class as 40,000 (Vishal is ALSO considered Vikrant class).

2)
2009: US offers and clears the E-2D Hawkeye for India (I think they had cleared the less capable E-2C in 2006/7)
2013: EMALS enters into the narrative
2015: Joint Working Group Carriers is formed
2016: US offers design, certification and ops help to IN

Based on that I happen to think that the Vishal's groth to 65,000 is not an accident.

IF TRUE, then the question is why. The answer to that - I think - is in China. The Chinese tin can navy suddenly grew major horns. Recent AWST convo with an USN Adm in PACOM, where he states: A) Most of those dudes laid off by the Chinese Army - landed in the Chinese Navy, so the Chinese Navy has grown by leaps and bounds and B ) China has started to take huge risks by taking shortcuts in certification procedures, THEREBY deploying ships much, much faster than anyone expected.

I Think - this has forced the IN's hand. And, to ensure that the IN can fend of China the IN needs USN help (it is the IN that sought help).

On 2/3 Vikrants vs. 1 Vishal, please refer to http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 0#p2012147 (Ashley and Arun Prakash), where Ashley states and Prakash agrees that 1 Vishal = 3 Vikrants in power, 1 Vikrant = 0.75 Vishal in cost and the preference is load as many planes on a carrier and pack them to their gills in ammo - for which one needs a CAT. Ashley claims that they (with Prakash) have done the math many a times.

BTW, for whatever reasons, that vid is worth the while.

So, yes, very good args WRT multiple Vikrants, but while Vikrant was being worked on, they - for some reasons - decided to up the ante. And, that I do not see being reversed.

sivab · Post by **sivab** » 18 May 2016 20:18

ANIVerified account
‏@ANI_news
Indian Navy’s Eastern Fleet sailed out on a 2½ month long operational deployment to South China & North West Pacific

ANI ‏@ANI_news 4h4 hours ago
Indigenously built guided missile stealth frigates,INS Satpura &Sahyadri,Shakti & Kirch participating in deployment

Blue water navy

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 18 May 2016 21:04

sivab wrote:
ANIVerified account
‏@ANI_news
Indian Navy’s Eastern Fleet sailed out on a 2½ month long operational deployment to South China & North West Pacific

There you go. More like an international player.

Excellent!

Blue water navy

Well.......... Start. But a belated, but very welcome move.

sudeepj · Post by **sudeepj** » 18 May 2016 21:07

ShauryaT wrote:
Singha wrote: people can debate all day about gee whiz anti A2AD systems, long range fighters and UCAVs etc etc all sweet and good for WW3 whose P(event)=very tiny. rest of the time PLAN is ruling the roost there.
And so we should remember where the real threat to India comes from, it is not the PLAN, it is the PLA.

Sorry, this is 1962 thinking. Neither Army can mount a long war across the Himalayan ranges. As long as the IA, the numerically and equipment wise the weaker force, is smart and stays intact as a fighting force, doesnt waste soldiers and equipment fighting over some strategically and politically irrelevant scrap of mountain wasteland, no conflict in the Himalayas is going to be decisive. In fact, a minor border conflict worth a few divisions will be majorly detrimental to Chinese interests as it will finally force Indian hands into going for MT range weapons and facing the Chinese as strategic equals. It is my fond wish and hope that such a conflict comes to pass.

A naval battle on the other hand will be completely decisive by choking off energy imports, trade and international economic activity that keeps India/China humming as a going economy. It is on the seas where the question of Asian power will be decided.

sudeepj · Post by **sudeepj** » 18 May 2016 21:22

Singha wrote:totally agree with Philip. a lone supercarrier which eats our budget like a bakasur will be the laughing stock of the region, with US exercising tight control on its parts. we should get to a 10 trillion economy before investing so much in 'sea control' as opposed to a high quality submarine fleet. all this is to waste our funds away from the things that really matter - submarines, SLBMs, numerous patrol ships and land based A5.

Ever since the invention of air borne radar by the Brits that sunk the hopes of Hitler along with Doenitz's fleet in the Atlantic, have DE submarines ever been able to deny sea control to a power that was bent on having it?

A DE sub is an ambush predator or the one to fire the first shots in a war.. As soon as it attacks, all stealth is lost and if the enemy can bring to bear MPA or a corvette onto the sub, the sub is as good as lost.

A DE sub is therefore a uni-dimensional weapon with no range, no 'net-centricity', no offensive payload capability, no staying power and no capability to absorb punishment. Its not even the ruler of the dimension it plays in.. The offensive underwater bubble it can project is barely 20-40 miles around itself! its the long range MPA and a frigate with integrated helicopters that are the best tools to kill a sub.

There is a reason why DEs are in no major Navy and why there is lower emphasis on them even in the IN. Ambush - yes. Deterrence - yes. Stealthy first shot - yes. Commando transport - yes. Fighting a proper navy that is ready and warned for the attack.. No can do!

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 18 May 2016 21:31

^^^^^^

Planes allow for calibrated actions. Subs do not.

Subs have deterrence value, but if one calls the bluff then one better use them. Risk is too high.

sudeepj · Post by **sudeepj** » 18 May 2016 21:59

In fact, with the proliferation of Ballistic missiles, a DE sub is soon going to be extinct! Consider a (fictional) scenario where a sub attacks a ship. Ship immediately sends out its <lat, lon> over Sat comm. A long range Ballistic missile with a payload of 10s of Sonar Buoys is launched and deploys the Sonar Buoys in a pattern around the <lat, lon>. As soon as the sub is located with **active pings** (no escaping those!), a second missile is launched with a payload of a heavy-weight torpedo to sink it. Game over..

At least with carriers, one has to find the darn thing first and then has to fight through missile interceptors. A sub operating by itself will be a dead duck as soon as it fires its first shot!

member_23370 · Post by **member_23370** » 18 May 2016 22:16

Subs are not going extinct any time soon. Ballistic missile with sonobouys?? Why would the sub stick around? What if the other countries assume its a nuclear strike and not sonobuoys? That scenario is next to impossible.

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 18 May 2016 22:53

These are file photos. The second pic shows either a French or Singapore Navy stealth frigate.

sivab wrote:
ANIVerified account
‏@ANI_news
Indian Navy’s Eastern Fleet sailed out on a 2½ month long operational deployment to South China & North West Pacific

ANI ‏@ANI_news 4h4 hours ago
Indigenously built guided missile stealth frigates,INS Satpura &Sahyadri,Shakti & Kirch participating in deployment

Blue water navy

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 18 May 2016 23:04

sudeepj wrote:...
A DE sub is an ambush predator or the one to fire the first shots in a war.. As soon as it attacks, all stealth is lost and if the enemy can bring to bear MPA or a corvette onto the sub, the sub is as good as lost.

A DE sub is therefore a uni-dimensional weapon with no range, no 'net-centricity', no offensive payload capability, no staying power and no capability to absorb punishment. Its not even the ruler of the dimension it plays in.. The offensive underwater bubble it can project is barely 20-40 miles around itself! its the long range MPA and a frigate with integrated helicopters that are the best tools to kill a sub.

There is a reason why DEs are in no major Navy and why there is lower emphasis on them even in the IN. Ambush - yes. Deterrence - yes. Stealthy first shot - yes. Commando transport - yes. Fighting a proper navy that is ready and warned for the attack.. No can do!

Sudeep, your negative appreciation of conventional submarines is - nonsense.

The DE submarine remains relevant for multiple reasons:

1 Quiet
2 Smaller size: well suited to shallow water ops (India Pakistan theatre)
3 Lower cost, not as complex compared to nuclear boat.

There are only 3 navies which are purely nuclear: USN, RN and French Navy. Their context requires it.

sudeepj · Post by **sudeepj** » 18 May 2016 23:08

Bheeshma wrote:Subs are not going extinct any time soon. Ballistic missile with sonobouys?? Why would the sub stick around?

Where can it go in the 20 minutes that the missile is going to take? Remember, 2-3 knots is the quiet speed and 20 knots is the dash speed.

Bheeshma wrote:What if the other countries assume its a nuclear strike and not sonobuoys? That scenario is next to impossible.

A nuclear strike into the open ocean?

The point of the story was to illustrate that anything the carrier is vulnerable to, the sub is even more so.

sudeepj · Post by **sudeepj** » 18 May 2016 23:17

Aditya G wrote:
sudeepj wrote:...
A DE sub is an ambush predator or the one to fire the first shots in a war.. As soon as it attacks, all stealth is lost and if the enemy can bring to bear MPA or a corvette onto the sub, the sub is as good as lost.

A DE sub is therefore a uni-dimensional weapon with no range, no 'net-centricity', no offensive payload capability, no staying power and no capability to absorb punishment. Its not even the ruler of the dimension it plays in.. The offensive underwater bubble it can project is barely 20-40 miles around itself! its the long range MPA and a frigate with integrated helicopters that are the best tools to kill a sub.

There is a reason why DEs are in no major Navy and why there is lower emphasis on them even in the IN. Ambush - yes. Deterrence - yes. Stealthy first shot - yes. Commando transport - yes. Fighting a proper navy that is ready and warned for the attack.. No can do!
Sudeep, your negative appreciation of conventional submarines is - nonsense.

The DE submarine remains relevant for multiple reasons:

1 Quiet
2 Smaller size: well suited to shallow water ops (India Pakistan theatre)
3 Lower cost, not as complex compared to nuclear boat.

There are only 3 navies which are purely nuclear: USN, RN and French Navy. Their context requires it.

It is you who is missing the entire context that that comment was made in, a suggestion to 'go for subs for sea denial rather than large carriers for sea control'. A sub has very limited uses which I pointed out.. In return you come up with some truisms without any analysis.

1 Quiet : The moment it strikes, it loses any stealth and it cant make a getaway because of limitations in range and speed. What good is a single shot weapon? Will a land attack cruise missile fired from a sub. make it a better than the same missile launched from a ship or a plane? Isnt the plane or the ship more survivable?

2 Smaller size: Its not as if you wont be able to venture into littoral waters without a sub. Ill humbly submit that a frigate with a four meter draught can go even further into littoral waters. Yes, a sub can convey commandos for small recon. operations, but that is the most it can do.

3 Lower cost, not as complex compared to nuclear boat: Which comes with a lesser capability, also have you checked the Scorpene price?

So what exactly is a DE sub good for? Its good for a first strike on an enemy whose fleet is still in the harbor. That. is. it.

maz · Post by **maz** » 19 May 2016 01:53

Viraat still operational as of May 17, 2016. See https://twitter.com/CaptDKS/status/732593393176449024

VRT sailed on May 17 as part of a group of WF ships that sailed during CNS Dhowan's farewell tour of the WNC. CNS embarked VKD for the sea phase.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 19 May 2016 03:07

NRao wrote:
sivab wrote:ANIVerified account
‏@ANI_news
Indian Navy’s Eastern Fleet sailed out on a 2½ month long operational deployment to South China & North West Pacific

There you go. More like an international player.

Excellent!

Blue water navy
Well.......... Start. But a belated, but very welcome move.

Yes, and do our own freedom of navigation tour in support of UNCLOS.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 19 May 2016 03:40

ShauryaT wrote:
NRao wrote:
There you go. More like an international player.

Excellent!

Well.......... Start. But a belated, but very welcome move.
Yes, and do our own freedom of navigation tour in support of UNCLOS.

IF you insist on shooting yourself in the foot, that is fine with me.

For myself, I call it in preparation of protecting national interests. Including anti-piracy in the Malacca Straits - all the way to Singapore.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 19 May 2016 04:37

NRao wrote: IF you insist on shooting yourself in the foot, that is fine with me.

For myself, I call it in preparation of protecting national interests. Including anti-piracy in the Malacca Straits - all the way to Singapore.

Ah, so the south or indo-china sea stops as Singapore, is it? Pray where is the north west pacific? Also, do tell me the correct response for the PLAN embarking a nuclear sub at our door and its monthly forays. Keep our tail between our legs is it, until Unkil comes to save us and the tune changes if it is a joint patrol with Unkil?

There is only one answer to someone shooting at you, you shoot back. I think we will be in this perpetual disagreement mode, since our basic approaches differ. So, let us agree to disagree and move on. You can have the last word.

member_23370 · Post by **member_23370** » 19 May 2016 05:09

Exercise MALABAR, INDRA and SINDEX being combined into one long deployment?

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 19 May 2016 05:15

Some details here.
India Sends Stealth Warships to South China Sea

“In a demonstration of its operational reach and commitment to India’s ‘Act East’ policy, the Indian Navy’s Eastern Fleet, under the command of Rear Admiral SV Bhokare, Flag Officer Commanding Eastern Fleet, sailed out today,” the press release states.

The small naval force that left the Indian shores today consists of the 6,200-ton Shivalik-class guided-missile stealth frigates Satpura and Sahyadr armed, among other things, with supersonic anti-ship and land-attack cruise missiles; the 27,550-ton Deepak-class fleet tanker Shakti, one of the largest surface warships in the Indian Navy; and the 1,350-ton Kora-class guided missile corvette Kirch, armed with sub- and super-sonic anti-air and anti-ship missiles.

The dispatch of the fleet has the dual purpose of strengthening military diplomatic ties and enhancing inter-operability with other navies. The Indian warships are slated to make port calls at Cam Rahn Bay in Vietnam, Subic Bay in the Philippines, Sasebo in Japan, Busan in South Korea, Vladivostok in Russia, and Port Klang in Malaysia.

“The visits to each port will last four days and are aimed at strengthening bilateral ties and enhancing inter-operability between the navies. During the stay in harbor, various activities such as official calls and professional interaction between naval personnel of both the nations have been planned,” the defense ministry notes.

The fleet will also conduct passing exercises (PASSEX) with other navies to practice cooperation and “showing the flag” in a region “of vital strategic importance to India,” according to the defense ministry. The fleet’s operational deployment will culminate in its participation in Exercise Malabar, a naval exercise held with the U.S. Navy and Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force (JMSDF), to take place off Okinawa in Japan in the second half of June.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 19 May 2016 05:34

- deleted -

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 19 May 2016 05:45

- deleted -

member_23370 · Post by **member_23370** » 19 May 2016 05:47

This talks about INDRA, MALABAR and RIMPAC
https://twitter.com/CaptDKS/status/732412548172132353

The diplomat article is a joke.

The ships of the Indian Navy’s Eastern Fleet, the largest out of a total of three fleets, are distributed among bases on the Indian east coast including Kolkata, Paradip, and Chennai, as well as on the Andaman and Nicobar Islands. The total strength of the fleet is around 60 vessels. The Eastern Naval Command is headquartered at Visakhapatnam in the Indian state of Andhra Pradesh

Which is our third fleet? The Southern command or the ANC flotilla? I always thout the WNC was the sword arm and larger
than ENC.

BTW there are three capital ships on deployment in the persian gulf too..

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 19 May 2016 05:53

Singha wrote:totally agree with Philip. a lone supercarrier which eats our budget like a bakasur will be the laughing stock of the region, with US exercising tight control on its parts. we should get to a 10 trillion economy before investing so much in 'sea control' as opposed to a high quality submarine fleet. all this is to waste our funds away from the things that really matter - submarines, SLBMs, numerous patrol ships and land based A5.

The same logic also applies to the FGFA/PAK/FA. The IAF is very afraid (as it should be) that its budget gets eaten up by science projects at the expense of numbers.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 19 May 2016 06:14

sudeepj wrote:
Sorry, this is 1962 thinking. Neither Army can mount a long war across the Himalayan ranges. As long as the IA, the numerically and equipment wise the weaker force, is smart and stays intact as a fighting force, doesnt waste soldiers and equipment fighting over some strategically and politically irrelevant scrap of mountain wasteland, no conflict in the Himalayas is going to be decisive. In fact, a minor border conflict worth a few divisions will be majorly detrimental to Chinese interests as it will finally force Indian hands into going for MT range weapons and facing the Chinese as strategic equals. It is my fond wish and hope that such a conflict comes to pass.

A naval battle on the other hand will be completely decisive by choking off energy imports, trade and international economic activity that keeps India/China humming as a going economy. It is on the seas where the question of Asian power will be decided.

OK, I will wait to learn about the great NEW strategy of how sea based economic strangulation would work against a power knocking on our bald head. I will also wait to hear about how India plans to use MT weapons to save us from a conventional "minor" conflict. What is that called, TNW redux at MT levels? Anyways OT here.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 19 May 2016 07:46

India definitely needs both ssks and ssns. You can't prosecute war effectively in far away places with ssks, but they would be of great value in defensive ops closer to home, esp. In choke points near A and N.

So, dump raffle and order 6 extra scorpenes plus 6 kilos. Mod the arihant for ssn roles with heavy complement of cruise missiles.

I don't understand what a single super duper carrier is going to do in scs for india, esp. When the Chinese decide to saturate the area with ads and mpa types along with a boat load of offensive assets. Ssgns are the best hope along with kolkatas with nirbhay types. And if you needed air escort for these, vikrant types should be enough. Perhaps a larger variant.

It's not like IN is going to carry out bombing runs with rhino types ala usn in Persian gulf. Right now that space is so saturated that even the usn with multiple super carriers and bases is starting to sweat.

Long range attacks are the best chance, where are my danged backfires

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 19 May 2016 12:17

I agree with NR's point about the Vishal being 65K t becos of China. The posted report below explains to a great extent the PLAN's "hegemonistic" policy for the future.Its atoll grabbing activities in the Indo-China Sea have alarmed the ASEAN littoral nations as well as those Far eastern nations ,US allies like Japan,SoKo,and Oz too,why that country is going in for French AIP "super-subs".

65K t is also the ideal size from RN carrier studies for a carrier be low super-carrier size. However,due to costs,the RN adopted a ski-jump launch system for its JSF-B aircraft,saving a huge amt of money,as cats,etc. require excess powerplants. This is where the N-plant factor crops up for the IAC-2. Perhaps the IN should look again at another ski-jump design for a 65Kt carrier with a non-nuclear powerplant. This would save money. The larger carrier could operate naval versions of the FGFA,etc.,even the JSF-B as the RN is doing.

China's new "Undersea Great Wall".

New Naval Hegemon? What is Behind China's 'Undersea Great Wall' Project
© Sputnik/ Vitaliy Ankov
2
0:25 17.05.2016
China is to build a cutting-edge 'undersea Great Wall,' Professor Lyle J. Goldstein writes, describing how Beijing may deprive Washington of its naval superiority in the Asia Pacific region.

Up to now the Pentagon has been enjoying "a very considerable undersea advantage over Beijing" in the Asia Pacific region; however, all good things usually come to an end, Professor Lyle J. Goldstein warns in his article for the National Interest.

"This column has occasionally drawn attention to caveats in the assumption of U.S. undersea superiority, including China's robust mine-warfare posture, its broad front effort to improve its antisubmarine capabilities, as well as possible attempts to experiment with alternative submarine doctrines. That is not to even mention the fact that the US Navy fleet of nuclear attack submarines is now declining to a perilous low of just forty-one boats by 2029 — a 'valley' in US naval capabilities that is widely noted in Chinese military sources," Goldstein, an Associate Professor in the China Maritime Studies Institute (CMSI) at the US Naval War College in Newport, underscores.

South China Sea: US, China Have More Shared Interests Than One Can Imagine
What specifically attracted Goldstein's attention is a 2015 Chinese-language article about the country's new "undersea Great Wall."

The Chinese article highlighted the necessity to develop a new "undersea monitoring system" to ensure China's national maritime security.

Goldstein admits that the article "does not rely on the military rationale alone": the Chinese article explained that such a system would provide "advanced warning of natural disasters, such as typhoons, earthquakes and tsunamis."

Furthermore, the article also argued that "all the other major maritime powers are involved in similar research projects, including Canada, the United States, Japan and the European Union."

However, the US scholar calls attention to the statement saying that besides its civilian purpose, such a system will "at the same time have military goals too."

According to Goldstein, China began implementing the first elements of its undersea observation system as long ago as 2010.

The scholar claims that it is "emphatically stated" in the Chinese reports that the country's undersea observation system "cannot be restricted to its coastal waters, but rather may be appropriate to deploy into all ocean areas touching Chinese national interests."

Given this, Professor Goldstein jumps to the conclusion that "Beijing is not simply willing to yield to American undersea dominance."

"The recent RAND 'Scorecard' report on the evolving military balance in the western Pacific does actually attempt to model certain aspects of a hypothetical undersea-warfare battle," he emphasizes.

Indeed, the aforementioned RAND report envisages a hypothetical "Taiwan scenario" in which Beijing invades Taiwan.

"A more assertive China moves to isolate Taiwan further on the world stage, inadvertently pushing Taipei toward de jure independence. When diplomatic pressure fails to dissuade Taipei from changing course, Chinese leaders decide to occupy the island by force. In the lead-up to war, Taiwan appeals for US assistance, and, given the ambiguous circumstances of conflict, Washington decides to use military force to protect the island," the report reads.

US Navy amphibious assault vehicles with Philippine and US troops on board maneuver in the waters during a combined exercise in the South China Sea.

© AP Photo/ Bullit Marquez

South China Sea Dispute: How Russia Could Help China Win in The Hague
However, what is left beyond the scope of the report is why exactly China might launch a sudden strike against its neighbor. Needless to say, the hypothetical scenario bears no relation to reality.

The groundless assumption is hardly surprising in the context of another RAND report that claimed that Russia poses a "threat" to the Baltic states. Much in the same vein RAND analysts suggested that Moscow may suddenly attack its Baltic neighbors. Still there is not the slightest evidence that Russia is harboring such a plan.

And still, according to Goldstein, the RAND scenario is half the story: "The undersea observation system discussed above presents yet another challenge to US undersea superiority that did not figure into the RAND estimate of losses."

Is the scholar's alarmist stance justified? According to Erika Solem and Karen Montague of the Potomac Foundation, China's military force is far from posing a real threat to the US.

Moreover, there is no evidence that Beijing seeks global hegemony: China is concerned about its national security. The cornerstone of the country's foreign policy is the so-called "defensive realism."

"China and the US and are not disputing parties to each other. Therefore, the two countries should avoid the trap of security dilemma and misunderstandings by engaging in dialogues and clarifying each other's intentions. China and the US need and should be able to work towards cooperation," Fu Ying, Chairperson of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the National People's Congress of China, and Wu Shicun, President of the National Institute of the South China Sea, wrote in their recent article for The National Interest.

Read more: http://sputniknews.com/politics/2016051 ... z495M3q7Dc

sivab · Post by **sivab** » 19 May 2016 16:47

Aditya G wrote:These are file photos. The second pic shows either a French or Singapore Navy stealth frigate.

??? Those are official photos from MoD. Click the link below.

https://twitter.com/SpokespersonMoD/sta ... 2323346433

DPRVerified account
‏@SpokespersonMoD
Images of Eastern Fleet which has left for South China Sea and North West Pacific

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 19 May 2016 19:00

Stopgap method by the In to keep the sub fleet numbers from critically low levels. Since some upgrades are being done in India,it also keeps our shipyards busy and saves money.It appears to be a wise policy and ensures that our yards acquire the requisite sub repair/upgrade and building skills for the future.

http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/i ... ?css=print

Published: May 19, 2016
Six old submarines to get a facelift

Special Correspondent
A file photo of submarine Sindhukesari at the Naval base in Kochi.

To maintain its depleting sub-surface levels, the Navy has begun the process of upgrading six of its oldest submarines. The first of them is en route Russia for major refit and life certification (MRLC), which will extend its operational life by 10 years.

INS Sindhukesari, a Kilo-class submarine commissioned in 1989, left India in early May and is scheduled to reach the Zvezdochka yard at Severodvinsk in Russia in two months, Navy sources said on Wednesday.

“These submarines have completed over 25 years of service. It was decided to upgrade them in view of the delay in the induction of new submarines. The main aspect of the MRLC is that it will be certified by the original equipment manufacturer (OEM),” a senior Navy officer said.

In August 2014, the Defence Acquisition Council had accorded approval for sending six submarines for the MRLC — four Russian Kilo class and two German HDW class. The process is expected to cost over Rs. 1,000 crore each. Two Kilo class submarines are to be sent to Russia, while two more would be upgraded in India by the Hindustan Shipyard Limited in Vizag. Both the HDW submarines are to be upgraded in India, one each by Mazagaon Dock Limited (MDL) and the Naval Dockyard, Mumbai.

“The upgradation plan might be revised based on the induction of Scorpene submarines as their schedules are being accelerated,” the official said.

The government had approved an ambitious “30-year submarine construction plan” in 1999 for building 24 conventional submarines under two different production lines. But not a single submarine has been inducted till date and the first Scorpene submarine under Project-75, after repeated delays, has just begun sea trials and is expected to join the force in October this year.

Incidentally, the Scorpenes will roll out without their major weapon, heavy weight torpedoes, which are caught up in allegations of corruption in other defence deals.

sudeepj · Post by **sudeepj** » 19 May 2016 22:44

ShauryaT wrote:
sudeepj wrote:
Sorry, this is 1962 thinking. Neither Army can mount a long war across the Himalayan ranges. As long as the IA, the numerically and equipment wise the weaker force, is smart and stays intact as a fighting force, doesnt waste soldiers and equipment fighting over some strategically and politically irrelevant scrap of mountain wasteland, no conflict in the Himalayas is going to be decisive. In fact, a minor border conflict worth a few divisions will be majorly detrimental to Chinese interests as it will finally force Indian hands into going for MT range weapons and facing the Chinese as strategic equals. It is my fond wish and hope that such a conflict comes to pass.

A naval battle on the other hand will be completely decisive by choking off energy imports, trade and international economic activity that keeps India/China humming as a going economy. It is on the seas where the question of Asian power will be decided.
OK, I will wait to learn about the great NEW strategy of how sea based economic strangulation would work against a power knocking on our bald head. I will also wait to hear about how India plans to use MT weapons to save us from a conventional "minor" conflict. What is that called, TNW redux at MT levels? Anyways OT here.

Your sarcasm only means that you have a strong opinion, but no real argument. You seriously need to read up on conflicts past.. The nature of conventional conflict hasnt really changed.. Objectives continue to be disruption of political and economic cohesion and destruction of military capability. Neither will be settled in a border war on the mountains, unless one party is stupid enough to get its military capability destroyed there. Not only will the conflict not be settled there, there is scope for significant escalation as modern states do not want to countenance defeat.

What theater remains then, other than the open ocean? Also, 'world powers' / 'great powers' as opposed to mere continental powers for the past three hundred years have been naval powers. If both India and China desire to play a role equal to their economies and their hard/soft power, it follows that expansion must be in the naval domain.

*Added later: You need to explain what you mean by 'bald head'..

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 20 May 2016 00:08

sivab wrote:
Aditya G wrote:These are file photos. The second pic shows either a French or Singapore Navy stealth frigate.
??? Those are official photos from MoD. Click the link below.

https://twitter.com/SpokespersonMoD/sta ... 2323346433

DPRVerified account
‏@SpokespersonMoD
Images of Eastern Fleet which has left for South China Sea and North West Pacific

It is a case of error made by the Spokesperson:

- The tanker in the picture is INS Jyoti - and not Shakti or Deepak.
- The first, second and seventh ships in the formation are not Indian Navy ships.

It may be from IFR 2016.

member_23370 · Post by **member_23370** » 20 May 2016 00:13

That's from Sindex. Its a RSN LaFayette class.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 20 May 2016 01:59

ShauryaT and SudeepJ

Can you please discuss without raising your blood pressures.

Kersi D · Post by **Kersi D** » 20 May 2016 09:49

Philip wrote:Stopgap method by the In to keep the sub fleet numbers from critically low levels. Since some upgrades are being done in India,it also keeps our shipyards busy and saves money.It appears to be a wise policy and ensures that our yards acquire the requisite sub repair/upgrade and building skills for the future.

http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/i ... ?css=print
Published: May 19, 2016
Six old submarines to get a facelift

Special Correspondent
A file photo of submarine Sindhukesari at the Naval base in Kochi.

To maintain its depleting sub-surface levels, the Navy has begun the process of upgrading six of its oldest submarines. The first of them is en route Russia for major refit and life certification (MRLC), which will extend its operational life by 10 years.

INS Sindhukesari, a Kilo-class submarine commissioned in 1989, left India in early May and is scheduled to reach the Zvezdochka yard at Severodvinsk in Russia in two months, Navy sources said on Wednesday.

For those who may not bee aware as they have joined recently

We had a "BR Meet" on INS Sindhukesri, way back in August 2000. First on INS Delhi and then the sub

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 20 May 2016 10:22

Good of you to remember Kersi.It was during the Independence Day hols. Was it really 16 years ago?

Latest media reports that due to the AW/Finnmecannica scam,the MOD/IN are looking towards German Sea Hake torpedoes for the Scorpenes,but that the usual rigmarole to acquire it will take around 5 years! What a sick joke.The GOI should take immediate measures to equip the sub,Kalvari, with torpedoes,ideally what we use on the U-boats. Otherwise as someone sarcastically remarked,the sub will be an "underwater transport vessel".Some talk of inducting the desi fish Varunastra too,but on which subs?

vonkabra · Post by **vonkabra** » 20 May 2016 10:34

sudeepj wrote: A naval battle on the other hand will be completely decisive by choking off energy imports, trade and international economic activity that keeps India/China humming as a going economy. It is on the seas where the question of Asian power will be decided.

I've heard this popular theory before, and it seems to hark back to the U-Boat campaigns of WW1/2, choking the enemies sea lines/ trade etc. Unfortunately it won't work in the India-China context:
1. Given intensity of modern wars (and our own history as well), the next China war will probably not last more than a few weeks or a month before both sides are spent. Hardly time enough to choke the other party's trade and commerce. Inconvenience, yes. Choke, no.
2. The war will be started by China (obviously), so they will be able to plan to route their critical supplies via the Pacific route well in advance - unless the idea is that the Indian Navy submarines will start prowling in the Pacific. Shipping through the Indian Ocean will also continue using neutral shipping. Can anyone see Indian submarines sinking an American freighter carrying raw material to China?
3. And how are submarines supposed to identify the merchant ship's nationality - after surfacing, send a dinghy across? And betray their position to the other side? Also do remember we're talking about a dozen or so submarines in the huge mass of the Indian Ocean, not hundreds of U-Boats waging unrestricted submarine warfare in the much narrower Atlantic.

Will be happy to hear other views on this.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 20 May 2016 10:47

For more news about the RN's two new QE carriers of 67K t each. Ck the link for the cut-away drgs.
However,Britain's enemies will be working out methods of how to sink these carriers!
The QE carriers are of size and capability perhaps closest to that which the IN want for the Vishal and should take a hard look at. This programme almost completed has cost the Brit taxpayer around $10B+ If begun today,it would cost us at least $6+ B per carrier,perhaps even a few $B more if JSF type aircraft are used and even more if cats/EMALS and an N-plant are incorporated into the design .

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05 ... wic/[quote] Britain's vast new aircraft carriers will make enemies 'think twice' about starting wars.
The Royal Navy's HMS Queen Elizabeth aircraft carrier at Babcock shipyard in Rosyth
By Ben Farmer, Defence Correspondent
20 May 2016 • 6:17am

Longer than the Houses of Parliament and able to launch up to 108 air strike sorties per day, Britain’s new aircraft carriers will make potential enemies “think twice” about starting future wars, their senior naval officer has said.

The new Queen Elizabeth Class carriers will be become Britain’s most potent conventional weapon and change the way the Royal Navy does business, Capt Simon Petitt said.

The two vast 67,000 tonne vessels, which have cost £6.2bn for the pair, are the largest warships ever built in Britain.

The first of the ships to be ready, HMS Queen Elizabeth, is due to start sea trials next year and is expected to be ready for its first deployment in 2021. Its sister ship, the Prince of Wales, is being built alongside at Rosyth on the Firth of Forth and is expected to be ready around 18 months later.

The vast ships, which are being built by an army of 10,000 workers, have a four acre flight deck and are taller than the Niagara Falls.

Queen Elizabeth aircraft carrier
The two vast 67,000 tonne vessels are the largest warships ever built in Britain

Each vessel will have more than 3,000 compartments and as well as a crew of nearly 700, will also be able to accommodate another 900 air crew and Marines.

Capt Petitt, senior naval officer for the two vessels, said they would become the UK’s “most potent strategic weapon bar the continuous at sea deterrent.”

“It is about stopping wars rather than starting them. If someone does want to start a war I think they might think twice if they see one of these ships coming over the horizon.

“If someone does want to start a war I think they might think twice if they see one of these ships coming over the horizon”
Capt Simon Petitt
“We have never seen these ships before. It will change the way the Navy does its business.”

He said he could “certainly see” the vessels used in campaigns against Islamic State in Iraq and Levant (Isil) and expected them to be sent to the Gulf on deployment when ready.

The two warships will become the centrepiece of the Royal Navy, alongside the nuclear deterrent, when they enter service, at the start of 50 year careers, carrying F35B stealth jump jets.

Capt Petitt, senior naval officer for the two ships, said they would add “enormous punch to the capability the Royal Navy has got”.

But he predicted they would also increase British influence overseas.
Employees board HMS Queen Elizabeth Credit: Bloomberg

He said: “I think [Putin] will be looking very carefully at these. Carriers have huge weight of news. It’s no surprise that when Obama announces military stuff, he does it on the deck of an aircraft carrier. They are definitely the modern equivalent of a battleship.

A new generation of aircraft carriers was first considered in the late 1990s, but the two ships have been hit by escalating costs and delays. When the programme was finally given the green light in 2007, the two ships were expected in 2016 and 2018 at a cost of £3.65bn. The programme is now expected to cost the taxpayer £6.2bn.

The vast vessels will hold a crew of 679 sailors, along with space for up to another 900 air crew and Marines.

Naval commanders struggling with low manning levels and a shortage of engineers have previously warned they will struggle to man the fleet when the new carriers arrive. Capt Petitt admitted manning for key engineer posts was “very taught”.

“We have never seen these ships before. It will change the way the Navy does its business”
Capt Simon Petitt

They are designed to hold up to 36 F35B stealth fighters and four Merlin helicopters, but could also hold Chinooks and Apache gunships. The ships are also expected to play host to United States Marines F35 jets during joint training and missions.

Britain has been without aircraft carriers since the last of the Invincible Class ships were scrapped after cost cutting in the 2010 defence review. Capt Petitt said the Navy “couldn’t wait” to see the return of carriers, which would offer “military options and political choice”.

He said: “If you imagine the Gulf War and the American carriers put aircraft deep into to Iraq to bomb Hussain's bunkers and strategic targets we can do that.

"If you imagine Sierra Leone where we dropped Royal Marines onto the beaches we can do that. If you can imagine Libya where we had apache dealing with the more tactical targets near the beach we can do that as well. So it's all about flexibility all about lots of different missions, that's what the carrier offers.”
[/quote]

During WW2,Germany lost the " Battle of the Atlantic" for two principal reasons.First,the Brits had broken the German code and knew exactly where German subs were operating.Using this info they sent their warships,subs and aircraft to sink the U-boats.Secondly,Hitler gave enough importance to the U-boat campaign of Gr.Adm.Doenitz. Sinking Allied convoys taking war materiel to Murmansk and Russia was a primary concern.

Identifying merchant vessels,etc. today is an easier task thanks to sat commns.etc.If the In have a series of dedicated sats meant for the IOR,it will greatly aid the IN in monitoring all kinds of shipping. Since there are also key chokepoints too for ingress and egress of the IOR,subs can quietly loiter at these points and wait for their prey to arrive.

Kersi D · Post by **Kersi D** » 20 May 2016 15:00

Philip wrote:Good of you to remember Kersi.It was during the Independence Day hols. Was it really 16 years ago?

Latest media reports that due to the AW/Finnmecannica scam,the MOD/IN are looking towards German Sea Hake torpedoes for the Scorpenes,but that the usual rigmarole to acquire it will take around 5 years! What a sick joke.The GOI should take immediate measures to equip the sub,Kalvari, with torpedoes,ideally what we use on the U-boats. Otherwise as someone sarcastically remarked,the sub will be an "underwater transport vessel".Some talk of inducting the desi fish Varunastra too,but on which subs?

It was a Sunday. It was just a few days before the tragic Kursk accident.

I think you, Kapil and myself are the only residue of that meeting