Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Bala Vignesh · Post by **Bala Vignesh** » 16 Sep 2017 21:06

Viv S wrote:A CATOBAR carrier (i.e. Vishal) is decades away. Its not realistic to expect it before 2030 (and quite likely 2035). Redundancy could be achieved by sanctioning a sister ship to it.

Sister ship to the Vishal or the Vikrant, Viv S Ji??

Well the Russians ensured that the ship would be compatible only their own product. I don't think 'stupid' is the right word to describe them. Its a more appropriate adjective for our own planners in the IN & DND who were managing the project (either that or some form of 'quid pro quo' was in play). Giving the lifts just another 3 metres of clearance could have been achieved with minimal impact on the structure are a whole. I can't think of any justification for the decision made. Can't blame this one on the MoD.

I personally take it as a mark of commitment towards the N-LCA program that the navy freezed the design to enable only either it or the MiG29K to operate from its first home built carrier. But I do agree with you that the planners should have left a little more margin on the lifts, just to be safe. Not saying that you are wrong, but just taking it in positive light.

The aircraft will still only be available for naval operations about 2/3rds of the time which is a heavy price given the ship's $4 bn price tag.

Could you elaborate on this please??

Cheaper to let the MRSVs double up as STOVL carriers IMO. You could get the full set of 4 LHDs for $4 bn, built at a pvt yard, and available for HADR ops, sea control as well as amphibious assault. Equip them with 2 x 20 F-35Bs and pair with the Viks (which can be equipped with a larger hptr complement).

Cheaper how?? The one time capex of buying 40 F-35B's along with its own maintenance and all the treaties and the limitations that Khan imposes on us vs the running cost of inventory management of a type in service already?? I am not defending any to be cheaper or any to be costlier, just wondering as to what was your deciding factor in terms of cost incurred.

Bala Vignesh · Post by **Bala Vignesh** » 16 Sep 2017 21:21

chola wrote: A second Vikrant follow-on that is able to handle anything up to Rafales, SHornets and even Su-33s (maybe HAL after years of building Flankers can build something other than MKI) would do much to correct the class.

Considering the worse case scenario that the 65K-Ton CATOBAR is simply unaffordable at $20B for decades to come, we might need to stay with a STOBAR carrier fleet. In that case, the Vikrant class needs to be fixed so it can provide us with a few more ships.

Agreed on this Chola avargale.. I personally hope we upsize it to be around 50-55KT and see if we can extend the prow a little bit longer to get a slightly longer take off run even in the short position. This would enable the NLCA Mk2 to also operate from the carrier.

AlphaSierra · Post by **AlphaSierra** » 17 Sep 2017 02:09

As an aside to the discussions on Vishal class EMALS, the electro-magnetic railgun could be worth asking for under a joint development or sale under Indo-US DTII.. This technology looks pretty close to getting operational on a warship...

https://youtu.be/QO_zXuOQy6A

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 17 Sep 2017 02:30

AlphaSierra wrote:As an aside to the discussions on Vishal class EMALS, the electro-magnetic railgun could be worth asking for under a joint development or sale under Indo-US DTII.. This technology looks pretty close to getting operational on a warship...

https://youtu.be/QO_zXuOQy6A

The USN has plans to become as electric a navy as possible. Making electricity from sea water is one area of serious research.

Does the IN have any plans on becoming an electric navy?

Besides, why can India not embark on such areas of interest? There are plenty of engineers in the nation.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 17 Sep 2017 03:05

Bala Vignesh wrote:Sister ship to the Vishal or the Vikrant, Viv S Ji??

Just Viv please. Sister ship to the Vishal of course. To take over when the Vishal is in refit.

I personally take it as a mark of commitment towards the N-LCA program that the navy freezed the design to enable only either it or the MiG29K to operate from its first home built carrier. But I do agree with you that the planners should have left a little more margin on the lifts, just to be safe. Not saying that you are wrong, but just taking it in positive light.

Oh come now. The N-Tejas as well as the MiG-29K are intended to have a service life of around 25 years, give or take. The typical carrier would be expected to remain in service for 40 years+. Leaving enough of a margin for compatibility with a wider range of aircraft ought to have been just plain common sense. Let's not present as virtue what was either stupidity or worse.

The aircraft will still only be available for naval operations about 2/3rds of the time which is a heavy price given the ship's $4 bn price tag.

Could you elaborate on this please??

A carrier would typically spend a 1/3rd of its life in maintenance & refit, during which time it's aviation component would be unavailable for naval operations, if it weren't compatible with the other carriers in the IN fleet.

Cheaper how?? The one time capex of buying 40 F-35B's along with its own maintenance and all the treaties and the limitations that Khan imposes on us vs the running cost of inventory management of a type in service already?? I am not defending any to be cheaper or any to be costlier, just wondering as to what was your deciding factor in terms of cost incurred.

I was comparing the cost of buying second Vikrant class ship to buying the larger of the LHDs on offer.

As far as the fighter complement is concerned, the F-35B properly outclasses the Rafale & Super Hornet in a STOBAR/STOVL role, both of which are likely to be out-of-production or close to it by the time the ship is ready for delivery. Given the timeframe, the F-35B will likely be the IN's preferred solution in any case, while still being available to operate from the LHDs (a redundancy that the other two don't offer).

There is a maintenance cost created by the lack of commonality yes (or maybe not - let the IAF's SE & FGFA acquisitions drag on for another couple of yrs and see...) but that needs to be weighed against the value of the assets protected by the naval fighters and the value of its mission in wartime.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 17 Sep 2017 03:39

AlphaSierra wrote:As an aside to the discussions on Vishal class EMALS, the electro-magnetic railgun could be worth asking for under a joint development or sale under Indo-US DTII.. This technology looks pretty close to getting operational on a warship...

https://youtu.be/QO_zXuOQy6A

Can you kindly edit your username to a more human sounding one? If you are unable to do it, one of the moderators will do it for you.

EMALS is still under discussion and Vishal is no where in sight. Let the IN figure out what its priorities are (before we get into discussions on electro-magnetic railguns);

- More submarines (SSN, SSBN and SSK) for sea denial and nuclear deterrent

OR

- 65,000 ton (may be more) behemoth for power projection.

The question is who are you going to project this power against? It has no use against Pakistan. Why do you need a cannon, when a fly swatter will do? And as for China, they will be bringing the battle to the Indian Ocean. Having an effective sub fleet consisting of Indian designed SSNs and Soryu Class SSKs will render Chinese aircraft carrier operations redundant.

Better to have pocket carriers (LHDs) with F-35Bs, like Viv_S is suggesting. Way more cost effective and provides just the right punch that India needs. This EMALS, F-16 or Gripen E for air force, F-18 Rhino (barring the Growler) or Rafale for Navy, super carrier for the Navy is a waste of money. Why do you need a McDonald's Angus burger with supersized fries and an extra large Pepsi...when vada-pav and pav-bhaji is far more satisfying and equally effective, for way cheaper?

The enemy cannot fight what they cannot see. I love the Growler and the F-35B for that reason. Render them blind and it will be a field day. And yes brar saar, I know...no Growler is coming. But still I can wish

Station the Growler at naval land air stations, as they have longer legs than the F-35B. No Growler ops capable off an LHD, as far as I know. Do an in-flight refuelling of the Growler with buddy F-18s or Su-30MKIs and you have some serious reach in the IOR.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 17 Sep 2017 04:43

So then why is the Navy putting out an RFI for twin engined birds if the vikrant can only operate fulcrums?

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 17 Sep 2017 05:00

Because the Assistant Controller Warship Production and Acquisition, Rear Admiral Surendra Ahuja and others in the Navy, want a 65,000 ton aircraft carrier with all the bells and whistles (EMALS being one of them). Dreams are nice to have, but the MoD controls the purse strings.

I would love to see the IN have one of these carriers, but they have to serve a purpose. so I ask again, where exactly does India need to do power projection? And for what purpose? What is the end goal?

Or are these projects - EMALS, F-16, F-18, etc - being undertaken on behalf of the United States for India to be a shield (some will use other choice words) against China? Is India not capable of determining on her own, on how to handle her threats?

May be we are unable onlee.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 17 Sep 2017 07:40

No point in having a khadi gram udyog navy. Go full fledged with whatever it takes to build a world beater in the next 30 years. Our national Interest demands it.

Trade protection is one requirement.
The need to influence distant shores.
Maritime diplomacy.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 17 Sep 2017 08:07

How does one define "full fledged" Pratyush? Barring our sub fleet, even now we are a world beater navy. With the exception of the US Navy in quality and the Chinese Navy in quantity, there is not many other navies out there that can inflict damage to the IN that would render her inoperable. And I am not saying that as an Armchair Admiral. I obviously cannot say much on a forum, but one would be surprised the capability the IN has. I have seen it in person (the vanilla version) and I will say even the vanilla is impressive. And I do not use that term lightly.

Trade protection, influencing distant shores and maritime diplomacy is all being done right now and quite effectively by the IN. What does a 65,000 ton EMALS equipped, nuke powered carrier actually bring that can dramatically change that equation?

A super carrier with that level of capability (F-18 Rhino or Rafale M, AEW aircraft, etc) requires the Navy to be taking a fight far away from our shores. Where in the IN doctrine is such a capability required? Where does one forsee such a capability for the future?

What the IN should be focusing on is LHD type carriers (or a bigger Vikrant or just wider lifts would be fine) to support marine expeditionary units. To quote wiki chacha, "...an expeditionary quick reaction force, deployed and ready for immediate response to any crisis, whether it be natural disaster or combat missions."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_expeditionary_unit

A super carrier costs ridiculous amounts of money. And for a nation that has conniption fits over even "discussions" about increasing defence spending in relation to GDP, how are we expected to afford this beast? And what other capabilities or platforms will suffer as a result of spending on this white elephant? I am sure it will be our local projects onlee.

samirdiw · Post by **samirdiw** » 17 Sep 2017 08:54

For the uninformed Is there a single realistic mission during a war that we can undertake with an aircraft carrier where
i) A successful mission accomplishment overrides the possible loss of the carrier AND
ii) cannot be done through an alternate way using less expensive resources?

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 17 Sep 2017 09:38

Sir ji, it needs to be able to do what ever that is required if it in order to project and preserve Indian interested anywhere in the world 30 years from now.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 17 Sep 2017 12:56

Common sense dictate they build a Sister ship of Vikrant class and have a fleet of 3 CBG before designing something bigger and better , If they design just 1 ship of Vikrant and move to bigger class then the chidhood disease with new design would remain building a similar class takes care of it and adds to logistics commonality and can be build at shorter time compared to first of class.

IF we have 3 new CBG then we will have 2 Operational available or can be brought into at shortest time , Each for Western and Eastern Fleet. During kargil in 1999 and 26/11 Virrat was in operational refit in dry dock .....No use of having a CBG if its not available at time of crisis.

Order a small fleet of Naval Rafale say 18 of them and 8 each can be deployed on Vikrant and sister ship along with Mig-29K .Good Enough for AD roles , the rest or around 60 % of ship composition will be ASW/SAR/AEW Chopper , New Virkant and Rafale cost wont exceed max $6 billion

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 17 Sep 2017 13:01

The 4 multi-role amphibs,if we can afford all 4,would be excellent assets in support of the two carriers we now have. The big Q is how much moolah do we have for the navy's carrier ambitions.I would suggest stopping the amphib no. to 3 and building a sistership of the IAC-1,a little larger,with larger lifts too (if a new type is reqd.).We could operate 29Ks (rectified ) improved variants upto MIG-35 std.,from the 3 med. sized carriers.The money saved for the 4th amphib could be used to acquire JSFs for the first 3.As a worst case,if there's no money for even a sister ship of IAC-1,there will still be money saved for the JSFs,where 40+ could be acquired for the 3 amphibs,12/ship plus extras for trg. war reserves,etc. In case an Ru Yak-141 STOVL successor arrives,it could also be evaluated.To balance the equation,extra LRMP aircraft operating from air bases on "INS India",the A&N islands,,like Backfires,with huge reach and carrying stand-off weapons like hyper-BMos in the future,could blast anything on the sea and also hit land targets from safe distances .

Such a roadmap for the fleet air arm, would allow the IN to swiftly ramp up sub acquisition/production,which will be our greatest threat from both Pak and China.In any future spat with Pak, or a Sino-Pak JV,the task of the IN would be to establish a cordon sanitaire of the Paki coast,no allowing anything to enter or exit its ports/naval bases,both above and below water.With Pak alone acquiring 8 Yuan AIP subs,plus whatever subs the PLAN stations at Gwadar,we would require at least 12 subs in the west alone to deal with the Paki/ Sino sub threat in the Arabian Sea. Another 12 conventional AIP subs would be reqd. for the east coast/A&N theatre,with the SSNs and SSGNs taking the battle to the PLAN even beyond the IOR,into the ICS,etc.

There's an article in the media today,saying that the DRDO AIP system WILL be fitted to the Scorpenes.The Q is when? Has it been perfected? From other reports,the DRDO wants some assistance from Russia in this matter for a fuel-recovery AIP system.Here are some reports:
However,installing them during refits would be expensive .If the system has been perfected for fitting onto a Scorpene,why not build an extra one or two,with the AIP module right from the start? I feel that the DRDO is making this announcement,well knowing that time is on its side in that our future subs (P-75I)will take sev. years to arrive after being selected and the deal sealed,within which time it can perfect the desi system and as the song goes,..."wiiiith a little help, form my friends.." (Ru)! Having got its AIP system into the door early,it would prevent any proven firang system that the IN may prefer,like either the German fuel-cell system,leader of the pack,which would also mean a buy of a German sub.

http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp ... 701741.ece

Scorpene submarines to get Indian AIP modules
Dinakar Peri NEW DELHI, SEPTEMBER 17, 2017 00:00 IST

The system will be installed by the Original Equipment Manufacturer, Naval Group.
DRDO’s development of the indigenous system has been delayed

Even as the Navy gets ready to induct its first conventional submarine in almost two decades, sources have confirmed that a decision has been reached on an expensive and time consuming process to install Air Independent Propulsion (AIP) modules on the six new Scorpene submarines to be inducted over the next few years.

However, it is contingent on the indigenous AIP module being fully ready by then.

“All six Scorpenes will get an Indian AIP. It will be installed by the Original Equipment Manufacturer, Naval Group,” a Navy source confirmed.

An AIP module is under development by the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO). It was supposed to have been installed on the last two submarines before they rolled out of the production line. However, the module did not materialise due to delays in development.

As reported by The Hindu earlier, Naval Group, formerly the DCNS — a defence company based in France — proposed this option after attempts to install the domestic system on the last two submarines failed.

AIP modules give stealth and extended endurance to diesel-electric submarines by allowing them to stay submerged longer.

However, it would be a costly process as the hull of the submarine has to be opened up to integrate the AIP module and then sealed before being put through the entire range of tests and trials to validate its performance.
The first Scorpene submarine Kulvari has completed all trials and is ready for induction either by this month-end or early next month. It would go for a normal refit after six years, in 2023.

The DRDO has assured that the system will be fully ready by then for integration, the source added.
The second submarine Khanderi has begun trials, and is likely to be inducted early next year.
Dinakar Peri

http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/s ... 104639.ece

Last two Scorpene submarines from Mazgaon Docks to join Navy without AIP system
Dinakar Peri NEW DELHI, JUNE 19, 2017 21:07 IST

Contrary to expectations, the last two Scorpene submarines will roll out of the manufacturing line without the Air Independent Propulsion (AIP) system meant to extend the reach of the conventional diesel-electric submarines.

“We have studied their solution (AIP system of the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO)… They need more measures to make it a safe plug… For the fifth and sixth submarines it is too late,” managing director of DCNS Bernard G. Buisson said in a conversation with The Hindu.

The AIP module is not part of the original Scorpene contract but the Navy has been keen on having them fitted on the last two of the six Scorpene submarines being manufactured by Mazgaon Docks Limited (MDL) in Mumbai.

The AIP module is being developed by the DRDO and was supposed to be installed before the submarines roll out. However, a delay in development seems to scuttle the plan. The module enables conventional submarines to stay underwater for a longer duration greatly increasing the submarines stealth characteristics.

Installation during refit

Mr. Buisson said the only option now of installing the AIP system is during the refit of the submarine, which is six years after induction. It is followed by a major refit six years after that. However, it is still not clear if the Navy wants to go ahead with the plan as it would mean opening up the hulls of the submarines.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 17 Sep 2017 13:11

Better not to put an unproven DRDO AIP module in Operational Submarine like Scorpene , Safety in Submarine is of the highest level and any unproven system increases risk for the platform and the people manning them and you dont want you best submarine out of combat because you have an untested AIP on it

Let them test and fine tune it for it longer on any test platform for few year before deploying on Scorpene class , May be pull out one old Kilo or U-209 and proof test on it for few years.

We should have opted for MESMA AIP Module for all our Scorpene class which are proven and reliable AIP may not be the best but it would have increased Scorpene under water endurance by 15-20 days.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 17 Sep 2017 13:39

samirdiw wrote:..... during a war ......

Fought where?

Austin wrote:Common sense dictate they build a Sister ship of Vikrant class ......

That was the original plan. Somewhere around 2007 IIRC that plan changed. I have not found a reason for this change, but can only assume that they found the decision to build a smaller boat was deemed to be the wrong one. The decision to design a larger boat - I think - was to correct that.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 17 Sep 2017 14:18

around UPA2 is when the EMALS/65t vishal thing was sold by US marketing team probably.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 17 Sep 2017 14:42

Please use google's feature to set the time (dates) for the search. Hawkeye, EMALS, Carrier and engine groups (via DTTI), C-17, C-130, attack helos, P-8I, 777 light whatever, etc - were all India initiated. In fact, in the initial stages there was much resistance within the SD. Then came an era where PACOM "supported" IN (NOT India). Today we have a more robust support - as heard in Trump's Afghan speech - where even CENTCOM has come around (I believe this to be Doval's game/doing).

All this (closer ties) was initiated by PM Rao in 1993, which led to Rumsfeld talking about closer military relations (2002+), followed by DTTI (2014?)!!!!!!!!

Who in the US would have even dreamt of selling anything to the Indian services in 1990s or early 2000? That is reflected in the decision made by Carter in Dec 2015, when he convinced SD to let the engine tech go for India.

As I have often stated, if there was no DTTI, then no engine group and therefore no F-16. They are all related. Delete the engine for the AMCA, no need to buy the F-16.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 17 Sep 2017 15:03

From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vikrant-c ... ft_carrier

1989: Air Defence Ship (ADS): 28,000 tons
1999: ADS: 32,000 tons
2003: Carrier: 37,500 tons
2006: ADS -> Indigenous Aircraft Carrier (IAC): 40,000 tons
2014: IAC II: 65,000 tons

chola · Post by **chola** » 17 Sep 2017 15:32

NRao wrote:From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vikrant-c ... ft_carrier

1989: Air Defence Ship (ADS): 28,000 tons
1999: ADS: 32,000 tons
2003: Carrier: 37,500 tons
2006: ADS -> Indigenous Aircraft Carrier (IAC): 40,000 tons
2014: IAC II: 65,000 tons

Part of this could be the advance of our shipbuilding capabilities. Perhaps the IN always envisioned a 65K ton carrier even in 1989 but knew that it can't be built just yet so they spec'ed out something smaller as proposals for those time periods.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 17 Sep 2017 15:45

I doubt that thinking.

I think it had more to do with the road-map that the In published around 2010ish (I had posted it in this thread - too lazy to search for it).

In that the IN was tasked to cover from Alaska all the way around Africa, including the Mediterranean Sea. Much of the Northern Pacific, all of IOR and a sliver of the Atlantic (a band around Africa).

Part of this picture is the fact that the SCS is extremely important to India: It carries 55% of Indian trade.

So, to think "IOR only" is very short sighted. And, I think the 40 -> 65 came because of this realization - that the IN needs a longer reach.

What no one expected was the rather quick maturity of the Chinese Navy. Which has *already* forced IN to partner with the USN to keep a tab on the Chinese subs in the IOR - this was confirmed by the commander of PACOM in ND. *Point being IN cannot do it alone* - at least in the future. One can also see the military toes with Japan kicking some dust. Fully expect Singapore to slide into the picture.

So, *I think*

1) a need for a longer reach has been identified (in fact by the UPA II gov)(pre Modi days) - diff story if there are enough funds to execute the plan.

2) And, IN needs help, which it is *already* getting in one very important area - BUT, I just do NOT see India becoming a pawn of any nation, that thinking is too retarded IMHO. India is no longer the country from 1990s.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 17 Sep 2017 18:34

Singha wrote:around UPA2 is when the EMALS/65t vishal thing was sold by US marketing team probably.

Exactly. Happened during the series of Malabar exercises in which Indian admirals got tour of American super carriers and fell in love with the capability. And with America's Pivot to Asia theme, it worked out to fulfill Indian Naval aspirations.

The irony is we will spend precious resources on white elephants but have no clear goal on future submarine acquisitons, ASW helictopers (of which Lockheed Martin's S-70B is among the best out there) and other similar vital platforms. This would be hillarious if the situation was not so tragic - build a 65,000 ton aircraft carrier and have F-18 Rhinos on board, possibly E-2D AEWs, but have no ASW platforms available. No hunter killer subs to partner along with other anti-submarine platforms to protect her from enemy boats.

I am glad the Modi govt is realizing this - by having the MoD block funds for unrealistic white elephants such as nuke-powered aircraft carriers. Block this stupid acquisition plan. It is truly retarded indeed

If this were the UPA govt, we would probably be going full steam ahead with these ill advised and ad hoc acquistions. Kudos to the Modi govt for taking a stand and looking at this issue whollistically. Shano Varuna!

Defence ministry blocks Navy’s ‘unrealistic’ five-year acquisition plan
https://theprint.in/2017/09/13/defence- ... tion-plan/

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 17 Sep 2017 18:44

a backfire crashed perhaps during landing during ongoing Zapad exercise in belarus
https://www.facebook.com/28933420779512 ... 958810140/

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 17 Sep 2017 18:44

^^^ Also, the whole Vishal thing was to make India spend on being a 'complementary' naval power and take the pressure off the pakis by starving the IAF/IA

shaun · Post by **shaun** » 17 Sep 2017 18:52

Singha wrote:a backfire crashed perhaps during landing during ongoing Zapad exercise in belarus
https://www.facebook.com/28933420779512 ... 958810140/

It seem they have painted black the markings on the tail section .

Rishi_Tri · Post by **Rishi_Tri** » 17 Sep 2017 20:31

NRao wrote:Please use google's feature to set the time (dates) for the search. Hawkeye, EMALS, Carrier and engine groups (via DTTI), C-17, C-130, attack helos, P-8I, 777 light whatever, etc - were all India initiated. In fact, in the initial stages there was much resistance within the SD. Then came an era where PACOM "supported" IN (NOT India). Today we have a more robust support - as heard in Trump's Afghan speech - where even CENTCOM has come around (I believe this to be Doval's game/doing).

All this (closer ties) was initiated by PM Rao in 1993, which led to Rumsfeld talking about closer military relations (2002+), followed by DTTI (2014?)!!!!!!!!

Who in the US would have even dreamt of selling anything to the Indian services in 1990s or early 2000? That is reflected in the decision made by Carter in Dec 2015, when he convinced SD to let the engine tech go for India.

As I have often stated, if there was no DTTI, then no engine group and therefore no F-16. They are all related. Delete the engine for the AMCA, no need to buy the F-16.

Know it is out of topic for this thread. No judgement, only comment.

Uncle Sam is totally driven by own considerations. Soviets invaded Afghanistan, Uncle propped Afghan Militia, Pak to counter Big Bear and lot of that support flowed into Kashmir. We cried ourselves hoarse on Terrorism, nothing happened. 9/11 happened and involvement of Pak operators, more attacks, fluid situation in Afghanistan, ties with China, suddenly India becomes a convenient prop. Enjoy it till it lasts, cause a new turn and all this bonhomie shall disappear. Rao, Carter, Trump aside; it is the bureaucracy in Washington, Pentagon which decides the course.

Rishi_Tri · Post by **Rishi_Tri** » 17 Sep 2017 20:49

Austin wrote:Better not to put an unproven DRDO AIP module in Operational Submarine like Scorpene , Safety in Submarine is of the highest level and any unproven system increases risk for the platform and the people manning them and you dont want you best submarine out of combat because you have an untested AIP on it

Let them test and fine tune it for it longer on any test platform for few year before deploying on Scorpene class , May be pull out one old Kilo or U-209 and proof test on it for few years.

We should have opted for MESMA AIP Module for all our Scorpene class which are proven and reliable AIP may not be the best but it would have increased Scorpene under water endurance by 15-20 days.

No system is proven till the time one uses it in 'real' conditions, not simulated conditions. Even after being proven, accidents shall happen. Just look at the vaunted Uncle Sam's accidents - three destroyers in accidents, ospreys / black hawks / c130s crashing in last one year (training accidents). And lets not even talk about the Big Bear.

Being bold about indigenous systems with manageable risks should be the way forward.

sudeepj · Post by **sudeepj** » 17 Sep 2017 21:13

The US alliance system has been remarkably stable over the post WW II period. Japan, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand, Turkey, South Africa, even with Pakistan. Had Pakistan not done its usual perfidy, ties with Pakistan would not have gone down. When we call the US a fickle ally, I feel we are repeating the propaganda originating from our neighbors. Interests of a nation change based on international realities, and the realities have changed. If in these new realities, the interests of India and the US are common, why should we hesitate in cooperating?

The arguments about how carriers are 'expensive', we only need to dominate the Indian ocean, why do we need carriers etc. are short sighted land lubber arguments. Just as we have air-land battles on terra-firma, we have air, surface, sub-surface battles in the ocean.

On ground, we dont make the arguments of 'we have tanks, why do we need aircraft?', or 'we have aircraft, why do we need tank armies?' because we understand that all the components of air and land power work cooperatively to create a hard see-shoot bubble in which the enemy is destroyed. In the same way, a CBG integrates surface, sub-surface and air assets to create an integrated war machine, that can destroy any enemy fleet it faces. Given that our main strategic competitor is building aircraft carrriers at a rapid clip, why should we rely only on building a force structure that is heavy in one-dimension (surface or subsurface) and lacking in others (air)?

India will have power projections needs along the coast of Africa and along the coast of Eastern Indian ocean states. We are not going to invade any state, but protect smaller states from bullying by larger states, so as to protect our own interests by keeping these smaller states non-allied with larger enemy powers. If pivotal states like Phillipines, Vietnam, Indonesia fall under the Chinese sphere of influence, it will be a very negative impact on our security. Similarly, if western Africa falls under Chinese influence.. We will see Chinese bases all along these coasts. If all we can send in response to a Chinese CBG deployed off the coast of Africa is INS Sukanya, we may not be able to protect our interests on these coasts. In that case, we might as well call the Indian ocean the Chinese ocean and be done with it.

Lets get out of the Kilebandi mentality.. 'Fortress India', 'Aircraft Carrier India'.. We wont be able to influence what happens in Phillipines out of fortress India. We wont be able to influence what happens in Djibouti out of INS India. We can potentially be reduced to a land power, such as fat Kim-Jong Un and be left shaking our missiles in response to any threats. Un-invadable, for the moment, but totally isolated.

Rishi_Tri · Post by **Rishi_Tri** » 17 Sep 2017 21:38

Rakesh wrote:
Singha wrote:around UPA2 is when the EMALS/65t vishal thing was sold by US marketing team probably.
Exactly. Happened during the series of Malabar exercises in which Indian admirals got tour of American super carriers and fell in love with the capability. And with America's Pivot to Asia theme, it worked out to fulfill Indian Naval aspirations.

The irony is we will spend precious resources on white elephants but have no clear goal on future submarine acquisitons, ASW helictopers (of which Lockheed Martin's S-70B is among the best out there) and other similar vital platforms. This would be hillarious if the situation was not so tragic - build a 65,000 ton aircraft carrier and have F-18 Rhinos on board, possibly E-2D AEWs, but have no ASW platforms available. No hunter killer subs to partner along with other anti-submarine platforms to protect her from enemy boats.

I am glad the Modi govt is realizing - by having the MoD block funds for unrealistic white elephants such as nuke-powered aircraft carriers. Block this stupid acquisition plan. It is truly retarded indeed

Defence ministry blocks Navy’s ‘unrealistic’ five-year acquisition plan
https://theprint.in/2017/09/13/defence- ... tion-plan/

Motivated article and numbers intended to throw people off balance-

1. "India presently spends 12.2 per cent of its annual budget on the defence forces.." India's defence budget for 2017-2018 is in range of 1.6% of GDP, lowest in last five - six decades (http://www.idsa.in/system/files/issuebr ... 030217.pdf) or 2.5% (https://www.sipri.org/databases/milex). Pick and choose but consensus is, defence budget has come down significantly. "12.2% of budget .." meant to confuse.

2. "The project is estimated to cost a whopping Rs 1.35 lakh crore at the approval stage". 1.35 lakh crore is $21 BN. Gerald Ford Super Carrier shall cost around $10 BN, not including RD. $21 for one INS Vishal?

Given that this was authored by 'MANU PUBBY', (Pubby); I am inclined to wash it down my throat with Apple Cider on Friday evening.

But given what all has been happening in Navy (e.g., around deliberate sabotage attempts related to LCA) not surprised this article has come out. There is enough money with this government (lakhs of crores saved on all kinds of subsidies, more tax accruals from GST, and not to talk abt demonetization). Talk of strained resources, expensive is red herring talk.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 17 Sep 2017 22:06

Austin wrote:Common sense dictate they build a Sister ship of Vikrant class and have a fleet of 3 CBG before designing something bigger and better , If they design just 1 ship of Vikrant and move to bigger class then the chidhood disease with new design would remain building a similar class takes care of it and adds to logistics commonality and can be build at shorter time compared to first of class.
.
.
Order a small fleet of Naval Rafale say 18 of them and 8 each can be deployed on Vikrant and sister ship along with Mig-29K .Good Enough for AD roles , the rest or around 60 % of ship composition will be ASW/SAR/AEW Chopper , New Virkant and Rafale cost wont exceed max $6 billion

Therein lies the problem. The Rafale cannot be accommodated on the current Vikrant without developing a variant with folding wings (and if it was doable at a reasonable cost - that's what would have been equipping the 40kt CdG today).

A Rafale-M ordered by the IN would ONLY be able to operate from the follow-on Vikrant-class ship. And while its a fairly effective aircraft right now, by 2025 - when the ship enters service - the J-20 & J-31s would have proliferated along with long range surface & air-based radar systems.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 18 Sep 2017 03:06

^^^Station the Growler at naval land air stations, as they have longer legs than the F-35B.

Interesting point. If range is a factor, why not put Growler capabilities on P-8 I or a more specialized version of 737s?

Longer legs, loiter time, MRO compatibility with P8-I

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 18 Sep 2017 03:09

Rakesh wrote:Station the Growler at naval land air stations, as they have longer legs than the F-35B.

Not unless you strip out the Growler and use it as a DEAD platform (just RWR and AARGM). The Growler with its payload should have an inferior (or at best comparable) Mission radius + Loiter combination compared to the F-35B. All those pods, AARGMs and EFTs result in a lot of drag. The Super Growler with the CFTs and more fuel efficient engines might be better off but then the NGJ has a higher weight and drag component so that will offset some of the gains.

If range is a factor, why not put Growler capabilities on P-8 I or a more specialized version of 737s?

Because stand-off EA is not the only mission the Growler is required to perform. It also has a DEAD component, and an escort EW/EA component which means it has to be able to keep up with the strike fighters.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 18 Sep 2017 03:24

Cosmo_R wrote:Interesting point. If range is a factor, why not put Growler capabilities on P-8 I or a more specialized version of 737s?

Longer legs, loiter time, MRO compatibility with P8-I

For a tactical role (i.e. escort jamming), the ideal platform is the Su-30MKI. Its has great persistence, a second seat for the EWO, enough grunt to power the jammers and a design has been adequately localized such that HAL can do the conversion in-house with a set of EL/L-8251s. Should offer capabilities comparable to the Growler (at least until the NGJ replaces the latter's ALQ-99s).

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 18 Sep 2017 03:29

The EL/L-8251 escort jamming pods do not (to the best of my knowledge) offer low frequency disruption abilities unlike the ALQ-99s which can be configured in 64-150 MHz, 150-270 MHz, 500MHz to 1 GHz sub bands for that specific role to support full spectrum EA.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 18 Sep 2017 03:39

Rishi_Tri wrote:Know it is out of topic for this thread. No judgement, only comment.

Uncle Sam is totally driven by own considerations. Soviets invaded Afghanistan, Uncle propped Afghan Militia, Pak to counter Big Bear and lot of that support flowed into Kashmir. We cried ourselves hoarse on Terrorism, nothing happened. 9/11 happened and involvement of Pak operators, more attacks, fluid situation in Afghanistan, ties with China, suddenly India becomes a convenient prop. Enjoy it till it lasts, cause a new turn and all this bonhomie shall disappear. Rao, Carter, Trump aside; it is the bureaucracy in Washington, Pentagon which decides the course.

All nations are driven by the their own considerations. The Russians were also strictly neutral until the late 60s when their relations with the PRC broke down. Then we were all Hindi-Russi-bhai-bhai till '91, when their relations with China normalized and we became a client again.

India's relations with the US are driven primarily by the China factor, and if the PRC threat were to disappear the bonhomie may indeed disappear. But China isn't going anywhere - and consequently India-US relations are only likely to strengthen over the long-term. And that's neither good, nor bad, it just is.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 18 Sep 2017 03:43

brar_w wrote:The EL/L-8251 escort jamming pods do not (to the best of my knowledge) offer low frequency disruption abilities unlike the ALQ-99s which can be configured in 64-150 MHz, 150-270 MHz, 500MHz to 1 GHz sub bands for that specific role to support full spectrum EA.

Hmm.. close enough. The UHF/VHF band is mostly populated by comm systems. Insofar as its primary SEAD function is concerned, L-8251 shouldn't have any trouble keeping up. Though I imagine Elta could deliver a variant offering a wider band configuration, if necessary.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 18 Sep 2017 03:49

Yeah but still limited compared to the Growler since a lot of the escort missions are dual-tasked to not only go after threat emitters but also disrupt data-link, command and control and communication nodes. Obviously low frequency jamming is not confined just to these target sets.

Challenges would obviously be integration related since even after a decade plus not all of those have been settled even on the Growler where the effort was to create a specialized aircraft. There is a lot of integration work involved in making a multi dimensional (escort+stand-off) SEAD/DEAD platform..from making sure the internal radar and comms work and are not degraded by jamming to making sure the aircraft can still process emitter returns during jamming. It would be better to look at Russian systems on the Sukhoi for the sake of easy of integration. Taking disparate systems and making all work seamlessly seems like a major headache given this particular mission/task, on a platform that has to be sensitive enough to receive returns and geolocate even the most agile emitters (modern SS radars) while having the accuracy to precision jam only the specific ones of interest.

Though I imagine Elta could deliver a variant offering a wider band configuration, if necessary.

This isn't as easy as it sounds. Incorporating LBT within the SwAP footprint is not something that can be easily done without serious investment in time and money. Its not like Elta is selling the existing systems like hot cakes.. Pursuing even smaller niche capabilities will require some serious investment. There is a reason why there are such few full spectrum tactical electronic attack platforms out there.

KrishnaK · Post by **KrishnaK** » 18 Sep 2017 04:03

Rakesh wrote:And as for China, they will be bringing the battle to the Indian Ocean. Having an effective sub fleet consisting of Indian designed SSNs and Soryu Class SSKs will render Chinese aircraft carrier operations redundant.

The idea that subs can render carrier operations redundant is far from definite. From what I understand, the way subs track carriers is by picking them up at chokepoints. Once CBGs make their way into vast ocean expanses, need MPAs to find, track and fix them. Difficult.

BIG MISSILES AND BIG DECKS: THE VIABILITY OF AIRCRAFT CARRIERS IN AN A2/AD WORLD

The HAYSTACK operational concepts of the 1950s focused on the use of dispersed operations and emissions control (EMCON) conditions in order to restore American carrier strike groups’ freedom of maneuver against the Soviets A2/AD capabilities.

Haystack’s central concept was to “thwart and delay” the detection of the aircraft carriers.45 To do so, it recommended that the strike group should “disperse widely and intermingle with commercial shipping in order to eliminate the unmistakable appearance on airborne radar scopes of the standard close, circular (‘bulls-eye’) formation.”46 As the Haystack experiments progressed, the results demonstrated the importance of combining disciplined EMCON conditions with dispersed operations in order to prevent Soviet electronic countermeasure (ECM) aircraft from detecting and homing in on U.S. radars or navigational aids. By dispersing the carrier strike groups and masking or limiting its electronic signatures, the Haystack experiments increased the strike groups’ time to detection, and subsequently its survival time, from less than two hours to at least eight hours, significantly restoring some of the strike groups’ ability to fulfill its power projection role.

...

In light of the Soviet defensive strategy, the United States combined its lessons from the Haystack experiments and its experience in World War II. The goal was to maneuver the carrier strike groups within range of its targets, undetected, while using air patrols and picket ships to again “shoot the archers” (Soviet bombers) before they could deploy their missiles.

Survivability of a CBG in combat

Station the Growler at naval land air stations, as they have longer legs than the F-35B. No Growler ops capable off an LHD, as far as I know. Do an in-flight refuelling of the Growler with buddy F-18s or Su-30MKIs and you have some serious reach in the IOR.

The advantage of a carrier is an air force base that can move ~55mph. Naval land air stations stay put and will come under attack.

All this angus beef burger, wada pav comparisons are facile.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 18 Sep 2017 04:26

brar_w wrote:Yeah but still limited compared to the Growler since a lot of the escort missions are dual-tasked to not only go after threat emitters but also disrupt data-link, command and control and communication nodes. Obviously low frequency jamming is not confined just to these target sets.

Challenges would obviously be integration related since even after a decade plus not all of those have been settled even on the Growler where the effort was to create a specialized aircraft. There is a lot of integration work involved in making a multi dimensional (escort+stand-off) SEAD/DEAD platform..from making sure the internal radar and comms work and are not degraded by jamming to making sure the aircraft can still process emitter returns during jamming. It would be better to look at Russian systems on the Sukhoi for the sake of easy of integration. Taking disparate systems and making all work seamlessly seems like a major headache given this particular mission/task, on a platform that has to be sensitive enough to receive returns and geolocate even the most agile emitters (modern SS radars) while having the accuracy to precision jam only the specific ones.

Like I said, its close enough. Priority #1 for the SEAD aircraft will be to prevent the FCRs on ground and in the air from tracking the strikers its escorting. Also, given the environment and seriousness with which the Israelis approach the problem - I imagine the pod's capabilities might well deviate from the brochure.

And there will indeed be a fair amount of integration work.. but its an important job. Ordinarily, the Russian SAP-14/518 pods would have been the obvious solution but there is a very real difference in pedigree here. The IAF has hundreds of Israeli ECM pods in service, on both Western & Russian platforms, including the Su-30MKI. For good reason. The project will need investment and may cause headaches in the beginning, but given our threat environment, a reliable EW aircraft (both in terms of capability & availability) is a necessity.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 18 Sep 2017 04:33

The Russian pods would have been a better option unless of course one attributes mythical capabilities to the Israeli pods that they themselves do not claim. There is a good reason there are no one size fits all solutions to tactical wideband Electronic Attack, the aircraft and mission systems to an extent need to be designed around one another. If it were easy everyone would be buying them for their needs Regardless, I would be closely following this to see what configurations and size, weight and power the Su-30s eventually choose in terms of a pod and how it is integrated with the current mission systems fielded. Throw enough money at it and budget enough time and you could probably make it work but it sure does sound like the much heavier lift compared to the existing Russian options which are designed around the flanker family and are designed to operate alongside known flanker family mission systems.