Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

[Aditya_V]

Can we use Land launched anti ship Brahmos from say Jamnagar Naliya and Targets Ships in Karachi Port?

[deejay]

IIT KGP had a B. Tech in Naval Architecture.

Thanks, but wanted to know if similar courses exist for IAF and Army officers in their respective fields?

i.e. Crystal Blade Technology. Very crucial for modern engines. So courses in metallurgy.

I know IAF and IA officers who have been doing or have done courses at IITs, specially IITM. I do not know if they did in a dedicated course for IAF or IA.

I can also state that all Indian Institutes (Ts, Ms or others) have always welcomed Armed Forces Officers with open arms.

[VKumar]

Thanks, but wanted to know if similar courses exist for IAF and Army officers in their respective fields?

i.e. Crystal Blade Technology. Very crucial for modern engines. So courses in metallurgy.

I know IAF and IA officers who have been doing or have done courses at IITs, specially IITM. I do not know if they did in a dedicated course for IAF or IA.

I can also state that all Indian Institutes (Ts, Ms or others) have always welcomed Armed Forces Officers with open arms.

From time immemorial, M.Tech and PH.D courses are available for armed forces in IITs.

[Philip]

An interesting excursion into the Meditt and IOR by two corvettes of the Ru Baltic Fleet escorted by a tanker.The RuN is concentrating on building more smaller corvettes in its surface fleet as these smaller ships armed with Kalibir and other missiles,are packing a punch far beyond their weight.
The IN has also built a number of OPVs and corvettes in the past and is doing so today as well of roughly the same tonnage.But these vessels are lightly armed in comparison.Given the rapidly expanding area of the IN's maritime operations,possessing larger numbers of ocean-going corvettes would enhance its ability to undertake patrols and sanitise far flung areas of the IOR and beyond,as these corvettes have shown.The IN has on many occassions sent Khukri/Kora class corvettes,even smaller on voyages to the Far East.The absence of an ASW helo plus hangar and enhanced sensors and weaponry has limited their capability,esp. ASW .While the approx 16 inshore (shallow water) ASW corvettes are planned,these are around only 700t and not possible of use in blue water ops.The IN could think of building a new class of BMos/Klub/Kalibir/Nirbhay armed 2000t+ corvettes apart from the P-28s,around 3500t,which are actually frigate size and which are to be upgunned and would cost even more.

The detachment of two corvettes and a tanker left the port of Baltiysk on October 14, setting out on a long-distance voyage within the framework of the constant naval presence in the World Ocean.

The ships covered more than 20,000 nautical miles. Their crews performed dozens of combat training tasks, conducted drills on air and submarine defense, different ship exercises, the spokesman added.

The Project 20380 corvette is a close maritime zone warship. It is designed to fight surface ships and submarines and provide fire support during amphibious landing operations. It has a full displacement of about 2,200 tonnes, a speed of 27 knots and a cruising capacity of 4,000 miles.

The corvette’s main armament includes the Uran anti-ship and Redut air defense missile systems. It is also armed with the 100mm A-190 and 30mm AK-630 guns and 324mm Paket torpedo launchers. It also has a helipad and a hangar.

http://tass.com/defense/981111

Xcpt:https://russianmilitaryanalysis.wordpre ... ombatants/

The Russian Navy’s near-term vision is sacrificing displacement and endurance to build smaller warships with families of advanced defensive and offensive systems. They are a philosophical break from specialization to smaller, multipurpose designs stressing flexibility and long-range offensive firepower. Russian frigates and corvettes either already feature these weapons or are under construction with them integrated into the design. These ships combine highly capable antiship and land-attack missiles fired from vertical-launch cells that can house all Kalibr (NATO designation SS-N-27/30) missile variants or Oniks missiles (NATO designation SS-N-26 Strobile).

Thus, the smaller warships joining the Russian fleet can conduct strikes across Europe, or range hostile ships at great distances. Although their individual magazines may be limited, these ships are easily massed. A typical Russian corvette displacing roughly 1,000 tons is armed with 100-mm and 30-mm guns, eight vertical-launch cells, and advanced electronic warfare and sensor packages.

[Philip]

Back to the Kalvari commissioning.
http://www.newindianexpress.com/nation/ ... 27856.html

Delayed by five years, INS Kalvari just a 'toothless' tiger shark?
By Express News Service | Published: 15th December 2017 09:13 AM |

Last Updated: 15th December 2017 09:29 AM | A+A A- |

INS Kalvari, first made-in-India Scorpene class submarine commissioned into the Navy. (Photo | ANI)
The Prime Minister described the INS Kalvari (Tiger Shark) submarine that he commissioned and embarked at the naval dockyards in Bombay on Thursday morning before he went to cast his vote in Ahmedabad as a prime example of “make in India”.

As it floats in the water today the tiger shark – the predator fish after which the boat is named -- is really toothless. It is five years behind schedule. It has been made by the French in India.

PM Modi dedicates India’s first indigenous Scorpene-class submarine INS Kalvari to nation
The INS Kalvari takes its name not only from the fish but also from the first submarine to join the Indian fleet, a Foxtrot, that was commissioned in Russia 50 years ago on December 8, 1967.

In 50 years, India has not been able to develop submarines on its own when the Navy has identified the boats as a potent necessity not only because of the country’s rough neighbourhood but also for the physics of the Indian Ocean. The viscosity of tropical waters makes submarines difficult to detect.

In the tropical waters around India's coasts, former navy chief Admiral Vishnu Bhagwat (retired) once told this correspondent, the laws of physics favour the use of submarines. "The total internal reflection of sound when there are thermal layers between 32 degrees and 24 degrees makes it virtually impossible for a submarine to be detected if it is 30 to 50 metres under the surface in summers and 100 metres in winters," he explained.

The Kalvari – the first of six Scorpene-class submarines first contracted in 2004 – has been commissioned without being adequately armed. It does not till today have any of the heavyweight torpedoes, its most important weapon since the Modi government blacklisted the Italian conglomerate Finmeccanica for its association with Agusta Westland in a deal by the UPA to procure VVIP helicopters. The Black Shark torpedoes for which the Kalvari’s firing tubes are tailored are made by Systemi Subacquael, a Finmeccanica subsidiary.

Over the past two years, the government has explored the option of replacing the Black Shark with a German-made HWT. But it was found that the tubes would require substantial re-engineering. The government is now again in talks to procure 98 Black Sharks to arm the six Kalvari-class boats.

The commissioning-without-arming of war vessels is of a pattern. In August 2014, the government commissioned the INS Kolkata, a destroyer, in Bombay and the INS Kamorta, a submarine hunter-killer in Visakhapatnam. The INS Kolkata was commissioned without its Long Range Surface to Air Missiles (LR-SAMs) and the Kamorta, scandalisingly, was commissioned without its Active Towed Array Sonar (ATAS). It means the Kolkata was minus its primary land-attack weapon and the Kamorta was not – and still cannot – see adequately underwater. In the rear of the Kamorta is the ATAS’ empty housing.

Yet, the Kalvari, the Kamorta and the Kolkata are accepted by the navy as they are because of the rate of depletion of the fleet is not matched by the rate of acquisition of newer assets. India suffered its biggest peacetime loss of a warfighting system in the navy when the submarine INS Sindhurakshak went down in the water after an explosion in the Bombay naval dockyard in August 2013. Its cracked and burnt-out hull is a stark reminder of the tragedy that killed 17 men on Independence Day eve.

The Navy's submarine arm, that was awarded the President’s Colours, at Vizag only last week currently as 13 diesel-electric or conventional boats. (There are two nuclear submarines, the INS Chakra, that is nuclear-powered and on lease from Russia and the INS Arihant that is said to be both nuclear-powered and nuclear-armed).

At any given time it has five or six patrolling. In the last 12 years, in the time that it took to build the Kalvari, China has added 40 submarines to its fleet. Those submarines now criss-cross waters close to India.

The building of the Kalvari has been tortuous. There were disagreements with the French makers, the Naval Group (earlier DCNS and Thales) even after the first contract was signed. Then an Australian newspaper claimed last August that it has got a cache of 22,400 pages of data on the Scorpene including its design and signatures, a charge that both the Indian Navy and the French denied.

Prime Minister Modi this morning said the INS Kalvari will add more strength to the Indian Navy. He said India is focused on its global, strategic and economic interests in the Indian Ocean. That is why the modern and multi-dimensional Indian Navy plays a leading role in promoting peace and stability in the region, he said.

Older report:
http://www.newindianexpress.com/nation/ ... 78096.html

Indian Navy is commissioning warships by the dozen but are they battle ready?
By Pradip R Sagar | Express News Service | Published: 19th October 2017 08:02 PM |

Last Updated: 19th October 2017 08:35 PM | A+A A- |

India’s second Scorpene-class submarine, Khanderi, at the Mazagon Docks in Mumbai on Thursday | PTI
NEW DELHI: Indian Navy may be on a warship commissioning spree, but they are actually ‘toothless’. Earlier this week, INS Kiltan-Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW) stealth corvettes joined the eastern naval command but without any offensive capability like the Active Towed Array Sonar (ACTAS) system, which is essential to detect enemy submarines.

Also, the Navy is yet to get six low-frequency ACTAS systems from German firm Atlas Elektronik - a contract which was signed in 2014. However, due to a new blacklisting policy, things are moving in the right direction, a naval official confirmed.

“ACTAS is still a distance away. We are hoping for Nagin, a similar system which is under development by the DRDO (Defence Research and Development Organization),” said an official. The launch of stealth corvettes is with the aim of giving a fillip to India's anti-submarine warfare capabilities, keeping in view China’s dominance in the Indian Ocean Region.

According to naval sources, Indian ships currently use bow mounted sonar or hull mounted sonar, which is less effective.

The towed array sonar, on the other hand, provides observation of the sea space at ranges considerably above 60 kilometres, depending on the propagation conditions of the water. This gives the sonar an operational range that by far exceeds that of radars and the weapons range of submarines, making it not only ideal for hunting submarines but also for the wide-area reconnaissance of surface combatants.

Incidentally, INS Kamorta, another anti-submarine warfare corvette, which was inducted into the Navy in August 2014, is still floating without its striking capability.

The story is similar to the Navy’s submarine fleet as well. Kalveri class (popularly known as Scorpene submarines) was commissioned without the essential weapon of a submarine vis torpedo. But, the Navy desperately requires these torpedoes to be mounted on its already delayed six Scorpene submarines, which are under construction by state-owned Mazagon Dock Shipbuilders Ltd in collaboration with French firm DCNS.

A naval official claim that without the heavyweight torpedoes, submarines are almost "toothless." The Navy is waiting for the next Kalveri class submarine—INS Khanderi to be inducted by next month.

It happened because Black Shark torpedoes, multi-purpose weapons designed to be launched from submarines (produced by a subsidiary of Finmeccanica called WASS (Whitehead Alenia Sistemi Subacquei)), was declared winner in 2014 after competitive bidding. But the contract could not be signed, as the Prime Minister Narendra Modi-led government put a ban on signing the contracts in the wake of the probe into the AgustaWestland VVIP helicopter scam.

Earlier this year, India had cancelled its contract to buy 98 Black Shark heavyweight torpedoes at an estimated cost of 200 million USD.

According to a navy official, the strength of the Indian Navy's submarines has dwindled from a total of 21 submarines in the 1980s to 13 conventional submarines plus one homemade Arihant-class nuclear submarine and one Russian Akula-class submarine operating on lease. While China, in comparison, has a strength of 65 subs, which "is a matter of concern,"

“What is the point of commissioning warships which are not ‘battle ready,’ questions a senior defence official.

PS:The IN has little alternative.It is far better to operate the ships without some of its weaponry,putting the vessels through their paces,getting the crews familiar with the vessels' characteristics,than simply letting it rust by the dockside. However,the timely decision-making regarding weaponry so that it arrives on schedule during the building phase is essential.In many cases,the dockyards have complained about the IN changing its mind regarding weapons and sensors during construction which adds to delays and extra costs.The knee-jerk reaction and panic in the UPA/Cong.HQ when the AW VVIP helo scam was exposed in Italy,saw the usually sphinxlike "Saint Anthony " leap from his seat and ban in indecent haste the entire Leonardo Group ,not just the helo division,wthout realising the consequences of what he had done...delayed the Scorpenes from getting their "stings"! The sooner the GOI rectifies the situ and expedites the acquisition of torpedoes on a war footing,the glaring lack of capability will exist on the IN's first Scorpenes and also impact upon our Arihant SSBNs which were supposed to use the same torpedoes.

[Philip]

Another report on the Kalvari commissioning and our UW status.Hint of another new sub programme P-76.
http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-new ... IBteL.html

INS Kalvari submarine commissioned but Indian Navy’s sub-sea power is below par
INS Kalvari was commissioned into Indian Navy’s fleet on Thursday after a delay of five years but the country needs to push harder to meet the target of building 24 submarines by the year 2030.
INDIA Updated: Dec 14, 2017 17:31 IST
Rahul Singh

Almost 18 years after the country cleared an ambitious submarine-building programme to scale up its undersea warfare capabilities, Prime Minister Narendra Modi commissioned India-built INS Kalvari into the navy in Mumbai on Thursday.

It is the first conventional submarine to join the naval fleet in 17 years.

INS Kalvari is the first of six the Scorpene submarines being built at Mazagon Dock Shipbuilders Limited (MDL) in Mumbai, under licence from French firm Naval Group, previously called DCNS. The submarine should have been inducted into the navy more than five years ago but problems relating to transfer of technology led to missed deadlines in the ~23,562-crore programme called Project-75.

The navy hopes to induct the remaining five diesel-electric attack boats by 2020.

Military affairs experts said the commissioning of INS Kalvari would be a significant milestone in the navy’s submarine-building programme but the country needs to push harder to meet the target of building 24 submarines by 2030.

The government set this target in 1999 to sharpen the navy’s underwater prowess.

The navy commissioned INS Sindhushastra in July 2000, but the Kilo-class submarine imported from Russia wasn’t part of the 1999 plan. INS Kalvari is the second submarine to roll out of MDL after the yard built INS Shankul, a German HDW Type 209 boat commissioned in May 1994.

“Project-75 has finally come to fruition and that’s great news. But we have a long way to go in terms of establishing undersea dominance,” said Sudarshan Shrikhande, a retired rear admiral.

According to him, modern submarines have high combat effectiveness compared to boats built in the ’60s and ’70s. “The navy would need several dozens of these boats in the coming decades and we need to move very fast.”

The Scorpene submarines are expected to become the mainstay of the Indian fleet, replacing the ageing Russian Kilo-class and German HDW vessels that are almost three decades old.

India operates a fleet of 14 conventional submarines, including INS Kalvari, nuclear-powered attack boat INS Chakra leased from Russia and INS Arihant, the homegrown submarine that can launch nuclear ballistic missiles.

The commissioning of INS Arihant last year completed India’s nuclear triad or the ability to launch strategic weapons from land, air and sea.

The second Arihant-class submarine, called INS Arighat, was reportedly launched in November and is likely to join the naval fleet in 2021. Navy officials are not authorised to speak about the secret programme to build nuclear ballistic missile submarines.

India plans to deploy four Arihant-class boats to reinforce India’s strategic deterrent force at sea. This endeavour does not come under the 1999 submarine-building plan.

India’s sub-sea power is way behind China’s. The neighbour’s underwater capability is far superior with more than 60 diesel-electric attack submarines and a mix of 10 nuclear attack submarines and nuclear ballistic missile submarines.

Read more
INS Kalvari: All you need to know about navy’s first Scorpene submarine

India starts process to build 6 nuclear-powered attack submarines
It will not be easy for India to match the Chinese underwater fleet in the near future, said retired Commodore C Uday Bhaskar, the director of Society for Policy Studies.
“We have to focus on using our underwater capabilities in a more innovative manner to meet the desired political objectives,” he said.

The navy has set the ball rolling for building another six advanced conventional submarines in the country under Project-75I as part of the overall scheme to deploy a robust underwater force.

Under the Rs 60,000-crore programme, the vessels will be built by an Indian yard in collaboration with a foreign defence contractor under the defence ministry’s strategic partnership model. It seeks to bring high-end military technology into the country for manufacturing cutting-edge military equipment.

But the project remains on the drawing board, despite the defence ministry granting “acceptance of necessity” for the submarines a decade ago.

“The submarine fleet is well below desired levels. And that’s because of poor policies at the highest levels of the government,” Bhaskar said.

The navy sent a request for information to half-a-dozen foreign manufacturers this July seeking details to build submarines in India. With acquisition of weapons governed by a detailed set of standards, inking a final contract could take several years.

“As far as Project-75I is concerned, little progress has been made in the past 10 years. That’s the sad tale of weapon acquisition in India,” said a retired navy chief, who did not wish to be identified.

Bigger than the Scorpene, the Project-75I submarines will be equipped with air-independent propulsion systems to increase their submerged endurance to nearly three weeks. Conventional submarines have to surface almost every second day to operate their air-breathing diesel engines, running the risk of detection.

The Project-75I boats will also have land attack missile capability.

At his annual Navy Day press conference on December 1, navy chief Admiral Sunil Lanba announced that India’s plan to build nuclear-powered attack submarines was taking shape. “The process has started,” he said, without disclosing details.

The government approved the plan to build six nuclear-powered submarines in 2015, tweaking the 30-year submarine-building programme approved by the Cabinet Committee on Security in 1999.

That plan laid the roadmap for inducting 12 conventional submarines by 2012 followed by an equal number before 2030.
“Our priority is to have a fleet of 18 new conventional submarines and six nuclear-powered boats,” a senior navy officer said.

While Project-75 and Project-75I are expected to churn out 12 diesel-electric boats, six more submarines are planned under the yet-to-be announced programme Project-76.
“The best practices of Project-75 and Project-75I will dictate the design of the newest boats under Project 76,” the officer said.

(This is the first of a five-part series on India’s military mettle.)

[chetak]

A carrier group can fairly easily be tracked by satellite and it cannot hide. Along with many other countries, we also have such capabilities.

Most non Indian men of war are anyway tracked by the IN in its area of interest.

The sub can be vectored to intercept the carrier if it is fortuitously placed in relation to the carrier

Do not claim to be an expert - I think not. It's not easy to detect naval ships and then track them at all.

Is it possible for a nation to track all the US aircraft carriers by satellite in real time

Its then very difficult for satellites to do the combined job of detecting, identifying and tracking a ship contact. The platform has to get the wide area detection of a target in an orbital path 90mins in duration, that is advancing over the surface of the globe itself and against a target set that’s moving 20knts or so in any direction it chooses. It then has to determine which of the many hundreds of blobs on the scope are likely to be the ship you are looking for. Then a follow up pass at higher resolution setting has to be made hoping that the target hasn’t moved out of your field of regard during the backside of the orbital path.

You can mitigate some of this by having multiple satellites in a constellation with second and third satellites a few minutes behind each other in the orbital path. That allows multiple contacts to be imaged, but, is still no guarantee that you’ll catch the correct contact in the first place.

Satellites are one platform for trying to follow ships at sea. They have some huge limitations though. Theoretically then if you had enough satellites on orbit…probably dozens of constellations (and in context the Soviet Union never had more than 3 US-A satellites on orbit at any one time I can recall) you could hold multiple tracks on US carriers. In reality though its wildly impractical.

But most importantly, when the shooting starts, it wouldn't be too hard to shoot those satellites down. If satellites could do persistent tracking, in real time, almost all warfare could be reduced to firing missiles. That hasn't happened yet.

Even if our satellites are shot down, we would still have inputs from the satellites of other friendly countries.

No other country would keep quiet if their satellites were to be shot down by the hans during an Indo chinese conflict that had nothing to do with those countries. In retaliation, they would simply take out all the remaining han satellites too.

Satellites are very routinely moved over "hot" zones by many countries during conflict or even when tense situations are building up.

Tracking of ships is a reality. We are not the only ones tracking ships. There are multiple sources for tracking including dedicated MR, subs and also commercial flights, merchant marine ships, and of course the ubiquitous "fishing trawlers", some real and some naqli, that routinely report ship contacts when they spot men of war. India like other countries uses all these sources too.

Many countries track ships in an active mode even during peacetime. One just cannot be careful enough. All want to know what the others are doing, especially in the areas of their interest.

Besides, many countries can immediately launch dedicated mil satellites in times of war and as required. This includes India as well.

BTW, many "commercial" satellites of various countries often carry undisclosed packages that will be of use to them when the yellow stuff hits the fan.

[Cain Marko]

[

What comes to my mind is the 80/20 rule. The amount of work remaining to make sensors work together or sensor fusion is a lot. Given that we don't own lots of source code, it really does become difficult. I am not even sure how we manage it, but we do. Given that we manage doesn't mean we should have to do it. Super MKI will see a lot more sensor integration than before, all that work will be left to us, individual components will be supplied and how we make sense of it is our headache. In a way it is good as we get experience, but had we bought F-15/F-18 instead of MKI, all this would be standard. We may still would have to integrate signals coming out of these platforms on the AFNET, but that goes without saying that is true for all platforms we buy.

For that reason alone I think IAF recognizes that the PAKFA in the current form has a lot of work remaining and most of it will be done by HAL-led-consortium. If we are successful with either SAFRAN or RR to create a 120-130KN engine for AMCA and if uttam is successful, we will probably be ahead of the game as the remaining bits would be same with AMCA. I do feel the Pakfa will end up becoming Stealthy Super-30 and both will end up getting exactly the same avionics and electronics. One will have lower RCS than other, that's about it. There aren't different grades of sensors available with ruskies to create a differentiation in products. IAF needs to insist that it is same/similar to ensure pilots are qualified on one version of platform to make going between squadrons easier.

So the true USP of buying russian hardware is like buying a unfinished kit and spending time finishing it as we see fit. Each persons kit and the performance differs due to the nature and effort put into the finishing process! Western manufacturers customize and ship you finished product. Each has its own reasons and pros/cons, but none of it are dictated by the goodness in their heart. That is what their industry is geared to provide.

A. There is little to suggest that s 90s vintage f teen had better sensor fusion than an mki. In fact there were complaints when the Rafale first enter service that pilots had to deal with information overload. The mki prevents this by simply using a wso.

B. more importantly, when India bought MKI, there was no way it could have bought anything Western. There was simply no money. One great thing about Russian products is the low cost. Nor were there eagles and vipers available to India then.

[Austin]

Su-35 have sensor fused data , So the Super MKI would have sensor fusion atleast equal to Su-35 if not better but who knows it may be better to.

MKI current Avionics Architecture is still based on what was frozen in 2000 and since there there is just small incremental upgrade in Mk1,Mk2 , Mk3 batch model but no major changes

[Cain Marko]

There is a reason the US won the cold war. They acknowledge the best of whatever the other guy has, and quickly incorporate it. The attitude of some Russian firms though - seems to merely regard India as a captive market & in their cozying up to PRC, Indian interests are often forgotten.

I think there is a little more to this than the media makes it out to be. Russian involvement in various strategic and other programs is not well known. And sjha notes that it is far more than what is normally seen in the media.

Well, our MKI is two decades into customization and we are having to fix the fact the Russians have no modern RWR + SPJ combo. And the Russian purchased systems are too heavy and wont work with other ones either. Their AAMs dont work either. So where are the cheaper costs.

This raises a lot of questions...
What about the khibiny and sap series? Also why not the el8222 since it was integrated with the bison? In terms of such costs, are they not additional to Western birds as well? Doesn't the integration of litening on a mirage or Jaguar cost anything or do these come plug n play straight out of the factory?

A plain old Su-30 or Su-27 will struggle against an equivalent Mirage 2000 V of the same era (Su-30 K vs Mirage 2000-5) because the latter has an integrated EW suite, a fully multirole RDY radar, proper ARH missiles & everything works. In the Su-27/30, the missiles were SARH, the EW suite was lackadaisical.

Fair enough but then that was the vanilla flanker. A fairer comparison might be with the m2k h/c. Or how would the mirage 2000-5 fare against an mki or su35?

Great performance in some areas but as complete platforms, the Russian ones are often delivered with missing pieces which the customer has to run around for. Its ok if you are an Israel with a complete avionics complex plus weapons, but for India, which wanted mature capabilities off the shelf, the Russian alternative often turns out no better than the so-called immature Indian one.

If we want customized, top notch performers what other choice is there other than Russian hardware as incomplete as it is? The Western birds are A. too expensive and only affordable for oil rich sheikhdoms... Reason why we have only 50 mirage or 36 Rafale, b. Can't be customized.... Wonder if Astra can be easily integrated on mirage or Rafale or f16? C. Come with the notorious twins, sanctions and sanctimony.

The only answer to all this is to grow our own MIC and integrated sets of capabilities - eg radar, EW, weaponry so we can retrofit those items into Russian or other platforms without having to shop around for solutions in a 100 places. Invest in ourselves.

I like Russian gear but am really fed up of the attitude of Russian companies treating Indian requirements as "chalta hain" and providing slip-shod service and support plus acting all high and mighty when it comes to even JVs such as PAK-FA (IAF not getting real access to the aircraft). They are forcing India to turn to alternative suppliers.[/b]

Agreed for the most part. I'm not so sure about the negative press on the pakfa deal though. There is a lot of negotiation going on and the media is hardly to be trusted.

[sanjaykumar]

Sanctions and sanctimony. Succulently succinct.

[chetak]

[

What comes to my mind is the 80/20 rule. The amount of work remaining to make sensors work together or sensor fusion is a lot. Given that we don't own lots of source code, it really does become difficult. I am not even sure how we manage it, but we do. Given that we manage doesn't mean we should have to do it. Super MKI will see a lot more sensor integration than before, all that work will be left to us, individual components will be supplied and how we make sense of it is our headache. In a way it is good as we get experience, but had we bought F-15/F-18 instead of MKI, all this would be standard. We may still would have to integrate signals coming out of these platforms on the AFNET, but that goes without saying that is true for all platforms we buy.

For that reason alone I think IAF recognizes that the PAKFA in the current form has a lot of work remaining and most of it will be done by HAL-led-consortium. If we are successful with either SAFRAN or RR to create a 120-130KN engine for AMCA and if uttam is successful, we will probably be ahead of the game as the remaining bits would be same with AMCA. I do feel the Pakfa will end up becoming Stealthy Super-30 and both will end up getting exactly the same avionics and electronics. One will have lower RCS than other, that's about it. There aren't different grades of sensors available with ruskies to create a differentiation in products. IAF needs to insist that it is same/similar to ensure pilots are qualified on one version of platform to make going between squadrons easier.

So the true USP of buying russian hardware is like buying a unfinished kit and spending time finishing it as we see fit. Each persons kit and the performance differs due to the nature and effort put into the finishing process! Western manufacturers customize and ship you finished product. Each has its own reasons and pros/cons, but none of it are dictated by the goodness in their heart. That is what their industry is geared to provide.

A. There is little to suggest that s 90s vintage f teen had better sensor fusion than an mki. In fact there were complaints when the Rafale first enter service that pilots had to deal with information overload. The mki prevents this by simply using a wso.

B. more importantly, when India bought MKI, there was no way it could have bought anything Western. There was simply no money. One great thing about Russian products is the low cost. Nor were there eagles and vipers available to India then.

The ruskis often sell you export versions of their weapon systems because of IP issues and also the fact that they fear that their really top notch stuff may be leaked to their enemies the US.

I recently read somewhere that some USN guys were going sailing for a few days on our vicky. The ruskis still rely very much on their subs and ships, both conventional and nuke and it may be one reason why the IN is/was not keen at all on using the kilos on exercises with the USN despite often repeated requests from the USN taken up at the highest levels of our govt.

our cozying up to the amrekis has immensely complicated our defense relationship with the ruskis. They still are our trusted friends and suppliers of choice for really lethal systems without strings attached.

We cannot involve the USN/USAF on our ruski ships and aircraft and also think that the ruskis are going to take it lying down. Joint exercises involving our ruski ships/aircraft with foreign forces are not appreciated by the ruskis.

Many of our organizations leak like badly rusted sieves. A lot of folks looking to move to civvy street carry away IP without a second thought. The red fort has often entertained many such guests for varying and lengthy periods of time.

many systems that are fitted on foreign aircraft are "GFE, govt furnished equipment" meaning GoI furnished DRDO/HAL/BEL LRUs and black boxes.

The ruskis want to sell complete aircraft/ships with their systems but we want our equipment for purposes of commonality or cost. It is often a hobson's choice and you are effed either way when you buy their systems or install your own.

[Rakesh]

An amazing article by Saurav Jha on the Project 75 program. A must read!

https://twitter.com/sjha1618/status/941340022334038016 —> I take a closer look at the materials used in INS Kalvari's construction, its propulsive set up and sensors. Also, what its commissioning means for indigenous submarine construction in India.

INS Kalvari’s Commissioning Marks The Revival Of Diesel-Electric Submarine Construction In India
http://www.delhidefencereview.com/2017/ ... -in-india/

[KrishnaK]

Even if our satellites are shot down, we would still have inputs from the satellites of other friendly countries.

No other country would keep quiet if their satellites were to be shot down by the hans during an Indo chinese conflict that had nothing to do with those countries. In retaliation, they would simply take out all the remaining han satellites too.

Satellites are very routinely moved over "hot" zones by many countries during conflict or even when tense situations are building up.

Tracking of ships is a reality. We are not the only ones tracking ships. There are multiple sources for tracking including dedicated MR, subs and also commercial flights, merchant marine ships, and of course the ubiquitous "fishing trawlers", some real and some naqli, that routinely report ship contacts when they spot men of war. India like other countries uses all these sources too.

Many countries track ships in an active mode even during peacetime. One just cannot be careful enough. All want to know what the others are doing, especially in the areas of their interest.

Besides, many countries can immediately launch dedicated mil satellites in times of war and as required. This includes India as well.

BTW, many "commercial" satellites of various countries often carry undisclosed packages that will be of use to them when the yellow stuff hits the fan.

1. I'm not claiming that carriers cannot be detected at all - i'm sure they are all the time.
2. Detecting is not the same as tracking persistently enough to guide a follow on strike of some sort.

During the Global War on Terror, using unmanned aerial vehicles for persistent surveillance dramatically changed the way the U.S. military pursued fleeting targets. However, their sensors provided very narrow fields of view, referred to by warfighters as looking at the battlefield through a "soda straw," allowing insurgents to disappear from view and not giving information on what was happening in surrounding areas. So in 2009, the U.S. Air Force began development of a wide-area surveillance system to enable the MQ-9 Reaper long-endurance UAV to survey an entire small city from 25,000 ft (7,600 m). Requiring fewer systems to recon a large area frees up more available assets to be able to perform other missions and enables operations to be more limited where a light "footprint" is desired.

from Gorgon Stare

The issue is persistent tracking. Any sensor that picks up a target moving at 50mph would have to send that data to be analyzed. If that part took an hour (not unreasonable in my opinion) the target could have moved anywhere in an area of 7853.98 sq miles. For a satellite with an orbit of 90 minutes the target could have moved anywhere in an area of 17671.46 sq miles.

I'm not sure any fleet of satellites can do that currently. I don't think your argument about friendly countries, replacement sats etc does not hold given how hard this seems to be. I'd like to see some data that shows this specific problem has been solved.

3. US/EU, China and India are all investing in carriers besides numerous other surface platforms. If tracking surface platforms persistently all the time was viable, all naval warfare could be reduced to striking anything that sails above the surface. Multiple different countries with entirely different societies and associated MICs do not seem to think that's possible all the time. Ultimately this is no different from large formations of men and machines moving on land. All such formations depend on mobility and unpredictability to achieve surprise. Note that some formation in Parakram was detected AFTER it had moved into a threatening position. Satellites have not changed that.

[Rakesh]

Interesting...see both tweets below.

https://twitter.com/SandeepUnnithan/sta ... 2643214337 --> Commodore Rajesh Sarrin (R) commissioning CO of INS Sindhushastra with Captain Srikrishna Mehendale, CO of INS Kalvari today.

https://twitter.com/sandeepunnithan/sta ... 6458592256 --> 17 yrs! Commodore Rajesh Sarrin, CO of last conventional submarine INS Sindhushastra inducted in 2000, with Commander Srikrishna Mehendale, CO of INS Kalvari.

[Rakesh]

The best shot I have seen so far of INS Kalvari. This photo was taken during her sea trials.

[Rakesh]

https://twitter.com/SJha1618/status/941610340881534976 --> As far as any putative Project 76 is concerned, the Navy's Submarine Design Group now has people well versed in French SSK design philosophy and has institutional memory of German SSK design practice. However an indigenous design that will be produced is perhaps 7-10 years away.

https://twitter.com/SJha1618/status/941610712018796544 --> Right now, the agenda seems to be to get Project 75I off the ground via the Strategic Partnership route with much higher indigenous content levels and use the project to build greater domestic capability.

https://twitter.com/SJha1618/status/941611209391874048 --> It seems that around 10 units of any SSK class need to be ordered for Indian industry to be interested enough to push up indigenous content levels significantly. Won't be surprised if Project 75I becomes larger in scope and/or some more Kalvari Class are ordered.

https://twitter.com/SJha1618/status/941611611038425088 --> As it is a fleet of 18 SSKs (i,e diesel-electric submarines) seems to be a figure that people can be comfortable with in operational terms.

[Rakesh]

Video: PM Narendra Modi to dedicate naval submarine INS Kalvari to Nation tomorrow, represents a significant success for the "Make in India" initiative --> https://twitter.com/DDNewsLive/status/9 ... 7179909120

[Rakesh]

Vikramaditya Carrier Battle Group (please refer to fourth picture from right) -->
http://www.harpia-publishing.com/galler ... index.html

[Cybaru]

[

What comes to my mind is the 80/20 rule. The amount of work remaining to make sensors work together or sensor fusion is a lot. Given that we don't own lots of source code, it really does become difficult. I am not even sure how we manage it, but we do. Given that we manage doesn't mean we should have to do it. Super MKI will see a lot more sensor integration than before, all that work will be left to us, individual components will be supplied and how we make sense of it is our headache. In a way it is good as we get experience, but had we bought F-15/F-18 instead of MKI, all this would be standard. We may still would have to integrate signals coming out of these platforms on the AFNET, but that goes without saying that is true for all platforms we buy.

For that reason alone I think IAF recognizes that the PAKFA in the current form has a lot of work remaining and most of it will be done by HAL-led-consortium. If we are successful with either SAFRAN or RR to create a 120-130KN engine for AMCA and if uttam is successful, we will probably be ahead of the game as the remaining bits would be same with AMCA. I do feel the Pakfa will end up becoming Stealthy Super-30 and both will end up getting exactly the same avionics and electronics. One will have lower RCS than other, that's about it. There aren't different grades of sensors available with ruskies to create a differentiation in products. IAF needs to insist that it is same/similar to ensure pilots are qualified on one version of platform to make going between squadrons easier.

So the true USP of buying russian hardware is like buying a unfinished kit and spending time finishing it as we see fit. Each persons kit and the performance differs due to the nature and effort put into the finishing process! Western manufacturers customize and ship you finished product. Each has its own reasons and pros/cons, but none of it are dictated by the goodness in their heart. That is what their industry is geared to provide.

A. There is little to suggest that s 90s vintage f teen had better sensor fusion than an mki. In fact there were complaints when the Rafale first enter service that pilots had to deal with information overload. The mki prevents this by simply using a wso.

B. more importantly, when India bought MKI, there was no way it could have bought anything Western. There was simply no money. One great thing about Russian products is the low cost. Nor were there eagles and vipers available to India then.

Regarding point A. That is true of every single seat platform vs a dual seat platform that allows for a wizzo.

In point B, you seem to be conceding that buying western would have given us that capability! I don't talk of money, I am just talking about finished product that is offered based on the capability of the supplier. Western producers are more software capable and produce highly fused product vs their russian competitors. The amount of fusion demanded by the respective forces is also vastly different. The Americans forces tend to demand such high fusion for their own needs. whereas the launch customers for russian products tend to be foreign customers each of whom have different operational need.

[Rakesh]

https://twitter.com/SJha1618/status/941610712018796544 --> Right now, the agenda seems to be to get Project 75I off the ground via the Strategic Partnership route with much higher indigenous content levels and use the project to build greater domestic capability.

https://twitter.com/sjha1618/status/939588536726052865 --> The only thing that can really make the Indian Ocean, 'India's Ocean' is a 10-12 unit strong fleet of contemporary nuclear attack submarines i.e SSNs.

- No more SSKs OF ANY OTHER TYPE beyond the Scorpenes.
- Incorporate DRDO's AIP plug during their refits (already in the works).
- Order another three more Scorpenes and be done with this SSK tamasha.
- Award the torpedo contract to France's Naval Group for the F-21 torpedo to arm the Scorpenes.

- Convert the Project 75I program to Project 75N.
- Project 75N should consist of six SSNs with a follow on (improved) batch of six more SSNs. Call them Sindhugosh Class.
- Continue with refinement of HEU reactor, with end goal being a reactor that does not need refuelling for the life of the boat.
- Integrate Varunastra torpedo as her main armanent, with the other being a VLS cell of 24 - 36 BrahMos-ER with range of 600+ km.
- Send these SSNs to engage the Dragon in the South China Sea. Create chokepoints in the Malacca Straits with these SSNs, while promoting Friendship of the Seas. They will think twice before sending any CBG into battle in the IOR (Indian Ocean Region).
- Let the Dragon know the power of the Bengal Tiger.

[Cybaru]

Those are good points Rakesh. Perhaps we can just bring the Barracuda product to India, replace their LEU with our reactor and produce it in Mazagoan after the 3 more scorpenes are done. The scorpene line and partnerships can be leveraged to make this happen.

IMO make 9 Barracuda-AIP boats and 9 Barracuda-N boats. The 18 boat requirement is met to get the partners in India excited.

[Rakesh]

CY, but what about this French boast to the Aussies that they will never sell the Shortfin Barracuda to India?

[Cybaru]

Paajee whoo cares, they can sell us the longfin .. Its different.. Barracuda Maggi..

[Vips]

Scorpene submarines lack torpedoes, Navy initiates secret procurement.

The defence ministry has issued a secret Request for Information (RFI) to global torpedo firms, for supplying over 100 heavyweight torpedoes for the Indian Navy’s Scorpene submarines, the first of which — INS Kalvari — was commissioned on Thursday.

Prospective vendors are unwilling to speak, since they have signed a non-disclosure agreement. However, three sources in the defence ministry and industry have verified this development.

While the torpedo RFI was issued in August, and replies received in November from at least three global “original equipment manufacturers” (OEMs), a long wait lies ahead before the new torpedoes become available to arm the Kalvari and five more submarines that will follow it into service. The defence ministry’s Defence Procurement Procedure of 2016 allows 114 weeks (two years and three months) for concluding a contract — in practice, an over-ambitious target. After the contract, manufacturing and delivery would take another 2-3 years.

Until then, the navy’s six Kalvari-class boats (as the navy refers to submarines) will share 64 obsolescent SUT torpedoes with and four HDW Shishumar-class vessels. This is woefully inadequate if the submarine fleet has to fight a war.

Further, there are question marks over the efficacy of the SUT torpedo, even though German OEM, Atlas Elektronik, was contracted in July 2013 to upgrade 64 SUT torpedoes and extend their service life by 15 years.

Business Standard learns the navy’s new torpedo RFI went out to 5-6 torpedo OEMs but will boil down to a contest between French OEM Naval Group, which is offering its F-21 torpedo, and German firm Atlas Elektronik with its Seahake Mod 4. It is understood that Russian and Japanese OEMs, and Swedish company Saab were also sent RFIs. However, the Japanese did not respond; the Russian torpedo does not meet the Indian Navy’s specifications; nor does Saab’s, which is driven by a combustion engine while the navy wants an electrically-driven torpedo.

The heavyweight torpedo is a submarine’s weapon of choice for sinking warships and submarines, which it typically engages from 50-100 kilometres away. Fired from a torpedo tube, it is driven through the water by a motor powered by electric batteries. It is guided towards the target by signals conveyed through a wire that unspools behind it. Approaching the target, the torpedo switches to “active guidance” using the on-board sonar. When it slams into a target, an explosive charge detonates, creating an underwater hole that often causes catastrophic flooding, sinking the target vessel.

Besides torpedoes, submarines also carry anti-ship missiles (ASMs) such as the Kalvari’s SM39 Exocet missile. ASMs are fired through the same tubes as torpedoes, and they emerge from the water and fly, skimming the sea, towards their target. But ASMs can be intercepted, and they are less lethal since they strike above the waterline.

The navy’s torpedo deficit has arisen due to the blacklisting of Italian conglomerate Finmeccanica, after allegations emerged in 2012 of bribery in the sale of twelve AW-101 helicopters to India by a Finmeccanica subsidiary, AgustaWestland. The defence ministry, on August 26, 2014, banned all new contracts with Finmeccanica group companies, including WASS, which had been chosen to supply 98 Black Shark torpedoes to India for the Scorpene fleet.

Global torpedo manufacturers believe India could be their largest customer. Although the current procurement is for only 100-plus torpedoes, industry experts say the navy actually requires 400-600 torpedoes. These are needed to arm six Scorpenes currently being rolled out, six Project 75-I submarines that are on the anvil, and a planned fleet of up to ten nuclear submarines.

With the cost of a heavyweight torpedo hovering around $2-3 million apiece, that represents a business opportunity of $800 million to $1.8 billion — a mouth-watering prospect for torpedo makers.

If the cost of the torpedoes the navy is currently buying tops Rs 2,000 crore ($311 million), the OEM will incur a 30 per cent offset liability. This would involve ploughing back 30 per cent of the contract value into Indian defence production. Since each torpedo costs an estimated $2-3 million, a 100-plus-torpedo order would be on the offset threshold.

Industry sources say buying torpedoes piecemeal — initially for the Kalvari-class, then for Project 75-I, and separately for the nuclear boats — would disadvantage India. Instead, a single order that combines India’s torpedo requirements would result in cheaper prices through economies of scale; and also create a compelling industrial logic for transferring torpedo production to India.

[Singha]

No more SSKs OF ANY OTHER TYPE beyond the Scorpenes.

we do not remotely have the money for a huge fleet of N-subs. we will always have SSKs for the next few decades , including new classes beyond Scorpene.

[Singha]

Paajee whoo cares, they can sell us the longfin .. Its different.. Barracuda Maggi..

and why are we again salivating and begging for high priced total product imports, what does the I in P75I stand for ?

subsystems are one thing , but its better the sub be indian designed and integrated as with the Tejas...so that we retain total control over its upgrade cycle, subsystems, repair and design details/signatures. anything less is like UK importing Trident D5 missiles whose programming and upkeep is handled by USN sailors in faslane, praud home of the vanguard class SSBNs and "independent bartania deterrence"

atleast the frenchies make and own their M41 and M51 missiles under command of Paris.

[chetak]

Even if our satellites are shot down, we would still have inputs from the satellites of other friendly countries.

No other country would keep quiet if their satellites were to be shot down by the hans during an Indo chinese conflict that had nothing to do with those countries. In retaliation, they would simply take out all the remaining han satellites too.

Satellites are very routinely moved over "hot" zones by many countries during conflict or even when tense situations are building up.

Tracking of ships is a reality. We are not the only ones tracking ships. There are multiple sources for tracking including dedicated MR, subs and also commercial flights, merchant marine ships, and of course the ubiquitous "fishing trawlers", some real and some naqli, that routinely report ship contacts when they spot men of war. India like other countries uses all these sources too.

Many countries track ships in an active mode even during peacetime. One just cannot be careful enough. All want to know what the others are doing, especially in the areas of their interest.

Besides, many countries can immediately launch dedicated mil satellites in times of war and as required. This includes India as well.

BTW, many "commercial" satellites of various countries often carry undisclosed packages that will be of use to them when the yellow stuff hits the fan.

1. I'm not claiming that carriers cannot be detected at all - i'm sure they are all the time.
2. Detecting is not the same as tracking persistently enough to guide a follow on strike of some sort.

During the Global War on Terror, using unmanned aerial vehicles for persistent surveillance dramatically changed the way the U.S. military pursued fleeting targets. However, their sensors provided very narrow fields of view, referred to by warfighters as looking at the battlefield through a "soda straw," allowing insurgents to disappear from view and not giving information on what was happening in surrounding areas. So in 2009, the U.S. Air Force began development of a wide-area surveillance system to enable the MQ-9 Reaper long-endurance UAV to survey an entire small city from 25,000 ft (7,600 m). Requiring fewer systems to recon a large area frees up more available assets to be able to perform other missions and enables operations to be more limited where a light "footprint" is desired.

from Gorgon Stare

The issue is persistent tracking. Any sensor that picks up a target moving at 50mph would have to send that data to be analyzed. If that part took an hour (not unreasonable in my opinion) the target could have moved anywhere in an area of 7853.98 sq miles. For a satellite with an orbit of 90 minutes the target could have moved anywhere in an area of 17671.46 sq miles.

I'm not sure any fleet of satellites can do that currently. I don't think your argument about friendly countries, replacement sats etc does not hold given how hard this seems to be. I'd like to see some data that shows this specific problem has been solved.

3. US/EU, China and India are all investing in carriers besides numerous other surface platforms. If tracking surface platforms persistently all the time was viable, all naval warfare could be reduced to striking anything that sails above the surface. Multiple different countries with entirely different societies and associated MICs do not seem to think that's possible all the time. Ultimately this is no different from large formations of men and machines moving on land. All such formations depend on mobility and unpredictability to achieve surprise. Note that some formation in Parakram was detected AFTER it had moved into a threatening position. Satellites have not changed that.

please specify what "one hour analysis" would need be done on a real time radar pickup or real time satellite imagery that is transmitted OTH to a targeting vessel via data link??

[Rakesh]

we do not remotely have the money for a huge fleet of N-subs. we will always have SSKs for the next few decades , including new classes beyond Scorpene.

Saar, standardize on one SSK - Scorpene. It is more expensive to maintain two foreign SSK types than one. For the next while, we have three types to maintain (Type 209, Type 877EKM and Scorpene). Get more of the same type (Scorpene), but not another SSK type.

The navy is already planning for six SSNs. But obviously, they will not stop at just six n-boats. I am talking about long term.

[Karthik S]

Saar, standardize on one SSK - Scorpene. It is more expensive to maintain two foreign SSK types than one. For the next while, we have three types to maintain (Type 209, Type 877EKM and Scorpene). Get more of the same type (Scorpene), but not another SSK type.

The navy is already planning for six SSNs. But obviously, they will not stop at just six n-boats. I am talking about long term.

Saw reports that the Scorpene leak is really damaging. Seems like every phoren maal has its own baggage attached. I am all for addition of many Kilo class, we can build them in numbers too in India.

[Aditya_V]

No more SSKs OF ANY OTHER TYPE beyond the Scorpenes.

we do not remotely have the money for a huge fleet of N-subs. we will always have SSKs for the next few decades , including new classes beyond Scorpene.

+1
Plus given the depth of Arabian Sea shelf near the coasts, We will need a Diesel Electric fleet for the next 30-40 years atleast

[KrishnaK]

1. I'm not claiming that carriers cannot be detected at all - i'm sure they are all the time.
2. Detecting is not the same as tracking persistently enough to guide a follow on strike of some sort.

from Gorgon Stare

The issue is persistent tracking. Any sensor that picks up a target moving at 50mph would have to send that data to be analyzed. If that part took an hour (not unreasonable in my opinion) the target could have moved anywhere in an area of 7853.98 sq miles. For a satellite with an orbit of 90 minutes the target could have moved anywhere in an area of 17671.46 sq miles.

I'm not sure any fleet of satellites can do that currently. I don't think your argument about friendly countries, replacement sats etc does not hold given how hard this seems to be. I'd like to see some data that shows this specific problem has been solved.

3. US/EU, China and India are all investing in carriers besides numerous other surface platforms. If tracking surface platforms persistently all the time was viable, all naval warfare could be reduced to striking anything that sails above the surface. Multiple different countries with entirely different societies and associated MICs do not seem to think that's possible all the time. Ultimately this is no different from large formations of men and machines moving on land. All such formations depend on mobility and unpredictability to achieve surprise. Note that some formation in Parakram was detected AFTER it had moved into a threatening position. Satellites have not changed that.

please specify what "one hour analysis" would need be done on a real time radar pickup or real time satellite imagery that is transmitted OTH to a targeting vessel via data link??

Have analysts look at images of vast swathes to figure out which are targets of interest ? The Indian ocean is 27.24 million mi² (google) let's assume only 100k sq miles. After something looks interesting then look at higher resolution ? Or assume the actual target has been identified and passed on to the targeting vessel - it's 500 miles away. A subsonic cruise missile takes an hour to get there.

Real time radar pickup (I guess that means MPA) picks up a target of interest, transmits info, gets shot down. By the time reinforcements are scrambled, it'll could be hours. I'm totally ignorant and this is all guess work on my part - but I don't see any evidence at all this tracking business is easily done.

[chola]

we do not remotely have the money for a huge fleet of N-subs. we will always have SSKs for the next few decades , including new classes beyond Scorpene.

+1
Plus given the depth of Arabian Sea shelf near the coasts, We will need a Diesel Electric fleet for the next 30-40 years atleast

Part of the problem is our firangi SSKs would cost as much as our domestic SSNs! Close to a billion each.

SSKs are for small powers that must defend itself along its own coasts. I do not see ANY nation (unless the USA becomes hostile) that will patrol in our green water. No, if we want our submarines to fight, we need to send them into blue waters.

We are far better served by a nuclear heavy sub fleet with a domestic industry that has demonstrated an ability to build nukes. If we had an indigenous SSK, fine, build a few. But having to import an expensive SSK feels ass-backwards to me when it will be inferior in everything to our SSNs.

[Rakesh]

chetak & KrishnaK: when replying to each other, please reply on the last post. Kindly do not quote entire posts and just respond with one or two paras. Thank You.

[Rakesh]

Saw reports that the Scorpene leak is really damaging. Seems like every phoren maal has its own baggage attached. I am all for addition of many Kilo class, we can build them in numbers too in India.

From a veteran Indian Navy submariner - Vice Admiral A K Singh (Retd);

Scorpene Leak: Safety of Indian Crew Depends on Radiated Noise Frequencies Remaining Secret
https://thewire.in/61297/frances-dcns-b ... data-leak/

In initial comments, Vice-Admiral A.K. Singh (retired), a former submariner, told The Wire on Wednesday that the documents were “no doubt being closely studied in Islamabad and Beijing … I am going through them slowly but I reckon this has saved the Chinese and Pakistanis 20-30 years of espionage.” Singh later modified his assessment and said the damage may not be as great as he had initially feared “as long as the frequency of the submarine’s radiated noise” – which The Australian redacted – remains a secret. If the frequency were to leak, that would be disastrous for the crew as that would enable an enemy to use different sonar buoys to locate and identify the submarine, which otherwise has a noise level that is below the noise of the sea, he said.

Most of the data leaked is all design related, especially pertaining to sensors and combat management, and India will not be in a position to change those parameters in response to the leak without embarking on design changes that will cost of hundreds of millions of dollars, said Singh. But “at least 90% of the information on the Scorpene’s combat suite, weapons data etc is already more or less available to armed forces around the world,” he said. “What we don’t want to compromise at any cost is the frequencies of the radiated noise. Here, a major mitigating factor is that the frequencies have been blanked out,” he added.

[chetak]

please specify what "one hour analysis" would need be done on a real time radar pickup or real time satellite imagery that is transmitted OTH to a targeting vessel via data link??

Have analysts look at images of vast swathes to figure out which are targets of interest ? The Indian ocean is 27.24 million mi² (google) let's assume only 100k sq miles. After something looks interesting then look at higher resolution ? Or assume the actual target has been identified and passed on to the targeting vessel - it's 500 miles away. A subsonic cruise missile takes an hour to get there.

Real time radar pickup (I guess that means MPA) picks up a target of interest, transmits info, gets shot down. By the time reinforcements are scrambled, it'll could be hours. I'm totally ignorant and this is all guess work on my part - but I don't see any evidence at all this tracking business is easily done.

Please read up and come back. Guesswork doesn't make up for discussions.

[Rakesh]

Aditya_V: Do not get me wrong. I am not saying any more SSKs at all. What I am saying is do not induct another SSK type. Get an improved Scorpene, but have commanality on one SSK. Ease of logistics, maintenance, etc. From there, as already planned, let Project 76 be an indigeneous SSK effort. And you are correct. You do need SSKs in the shallow depths of the Arabian Sea (near the coastline).

But we need to focus on SSNs with VLS BrahMos-ER cells. The six planned SSNs (confirmed by CNS on Navy Day) is a good start and a follow on six will likely come (my educated guess). That is all I am saying. You look at the geography (see below) and the IN can choke very effectively the sea lanes for Chinese CBGs to enter the Indian Ocean. But you need SSNs for that. Unlimited endurance on permanent patrol, limited only by food and fresh water.

And when Chinese CBGs dock in Sri Lanka's Hambantota port - which they will, since they have a 99 year lease - during free navigation of the seas, our SSNs should be close by. See picture below the first one. Let them be aware that they are being tracked and will get hit bad if they try anything.

Ironic though, they want free navigation of the seas (wherever they travel) but the South China Sea belongs to them

[Rakesh]

Chetak: There are people - having seen the brutal effectiveness of American CBGs - think it can be so easily replicated by India. Just one data point to put into question this entire discussion.

You know how much the newest American carrier - the USS Gerald Ford - costs? Almost $13 Billion....for ONE vessel! And R&D cost another almost $5 Billion. We are not even talking about the battle group that protects the vessel, which runs to yet even more billions. Congress is whining about Rafale deal, imagine this.

No wonder the MoD balked at the Navy's idea for a nuclear powered aircraft carrier, earlier this year. And I am glad they scaled it down to a conventional carrier. The cost of a CBG is not cheap. Better off investing that money in various platforms, including cheaper carriers.

[kit]

What's technology based fighters?

the ones that are easily serviced and maintained using technology .. better uptimes and sustained/improved capability through replaceable units .. like the mirages and ..LCA !

[kit]

Saw reports that the Scorpene leak is really damaging. Seems like every phoren maal has its own baggage attached. I am all for addition of many Kilo class, we can build them in numbers too in India.

From a veteran Indian Navy submariner - Vice Admiral A K Singh (Retd);

Scorpene Leak: Safety of Indian Crew Depends on Radiated Noise Frequencies Remaining Secret
https://thewire.in/61297/frances-dcns-b ... data-leak/

In initial comments, Vice-Admiral A.K. Singh (retired), a former submariner, told The Wire on Wednesday that the documents were “no doubt being closely studied in Islamabad and Beijing … I am going through them slowly but I reckon this has saved the Chinese and Pakistanis 20-30 years of espionage.” Singh later modified his assessment and said the damage may not be as great as he had initially feared “as long as the frequency of the submarine’s radiated noise” – which The Australian redacted – remains a secret. If the frequency were to leak, that would be disastrous for the crew as that would enable an enemy to use different sonar buoys to locate and identify the submarine, which otherwise has a noise level that is below the noise of the sea, he said.

Most of the data leaked is all design related, especially pertaining to sensors and combat management, and India will not be in a position to change those parameters in response to the leak without embarking on design changes that will cost of hundreds of millions of dollars, said Singh. But “at least 90% of the information on the Scorpene’s combat suite, weapons data etc is already more or less available to armed forces around the world,” he said. “What we don’t want to compromise at any cost is the frequencies of the radiated noise. Here, a major mitigating factor is that the frequencies have been blanked out,” he added.

You would know the radiated noise "fingerprint" of a submarine only after its built and goes under !!! ..otherwise its guess work looking at blue prints .. precisely for that reason navies devote immense resources on sub hunters .i suspect the finger prints would vary after each refit / upgrade