All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
Aditya G wrote:Looking back, the Russians were the only ones to have evolved a perfect semi-carrier concept by way of the Aircraft Carrying Cruiser.
The aviation cruisers were largely considered by Soviet Union to be a failure due to there armament being worse than a cruiser and paltry amount of aircrafts they could carry. If wasn’t for collapse of Soviet Union the plan was to move to aircraft carriers.
With advent of armed drones it is possible now to create a hybrid platform that can launch drones from its larger flight deck and can carry weapons to perform other missions.
The "aircraft carrying cruiser" class was invented by Soviets because Montreux convention did not have aircraft carriers in the definition of capital ships that were allowed to transit the Bosphorous strait.
We don't have the same constraints.
An issue with using amphibious ships and cruisers as aircraft carriers is the logistical footprint. How much of the jet fuel can be carried ? How much of the missiles and other ammo for the jets that it can carry ?
You are also limited to using STOVL - essentially, F-35Bs in current age. And they come with significant range/payload penalty compared to the non-STOVLs.
Yes, America class can carry some 20 F-35Bs in a pinch, but what isn't obvious is - what does it give up to gain that ?
Range is relative to the need. The F-35B gets the USMC (as an example) better combat radius (850 or so km with a strike payload) than what they used to get with their longest ranged strike fighter (the F/A-18) and they also get better take off and bring back stores relative to their previous STOVL jet. So it is better at both missions/roles which were previously handled by two different aircraft. Same for the Royal navy migrating from the Harrier.
Your point about amphibs is valid and I've repeated the same umpteen times. These are single or perhaps two mission air-wings. If the USMC has 20 F-35B's on their LHA's then they are at best either in a CAS role or some sort of fleet defense or escort role. They can't support multiple missions all the time like a proper CVN and its associated air wing can. They lack the support, they lack the fuel, and they lack the magazine to be able to sustain that level of ops tempo. This is of course fine for an amphib force when the F-35B's are supporting those operations or even when they are providing the fleet some air defense when a CVN isn't around. It also works great in a dual ops scenario when this capability is combined with a CVN. But an AC replacement it is not.
Here's from my previous post on how the USS Americas differs from the Ford class CVN. The first couple of Americas are purely aviation focused so you aren't giving up on the other mission but subsequent vessels will have the amphibious ops focus so if you increase the air wing then you give up the capability to carry marines and their equipment.
brar_w wrote:
How in the world will you build and outfit a 30K ton "light CV" and get it to cost a good couple of hundred million $ less than a sub 10K ton Burke? Let's get real. Even in the best case scenario, you are looking at close to $5 Billion in TY$ for an "upgunned" LHA-6 derivitive. A lot of the cost lives in giving it a standard, fleet wide combat system, targeting and the ability to be survivable. Only way to shave a lot in price means sacrificing in these areas and watering down requirements. Just look at the weight the Italians had to add to the FREMM to meet USN survivability standards. Do you think they would have bothered (weight = cost) if they thought they could pass USN shock trials without any modifications to their parent FREMM design?
It costs a fraction of the cost of a CVN, but also has fraction of its capability.
What fraction? Consider this - LHA-6 has a 6,000 cubic feet magazine. CVN-78 has a 375,000 cubic feet magazine. That is more than 20 times larger magazine. It doesn't have an airwing that is 20 times larger so that means it can sustain ops longer, and you don't have to kit it for a particular misison. You can take the entire mission set with you (and they do). That is just one aspect. We can also talk about number of onboard sailors, airmen, and the endurance and the ability of the ship to defend itself and its survivability measures. All those things factor into the $$$ you spend. Ford costs what it costs (barring the higher upfront first in class ship costs which are due to pre-learning curve efficiencies and high technical/integration risk of new-tech ) because of these very requirements.
A US CVN is a tool that essentially puts the equivalent of a "Small Air Force" at any point of the globe as long as there is water it can sail through. It carries multi-role fighters, its own electronic warfare and electronic attack, its own air-air refuellers, its own AEW platforms, and even its own ASW (which was a fixed winged ASW capability at peak cold-war) and SAR capability. It can escort destroyers and frigates and basically create very large air-defense zones around them. It can project power and from different vectors as the nuclear propulsion means that it can move around hundreds of miles within hours. These L-class derived carriers, or similar concept ships elsewhere, are great if you have a limited scope and mission set and have a tight budget. They won't in any way perform the complete gamut of mission-set tasked to a CVN and even if you were to have 3-4 of them operate together they still won't be able to do that efficiently. They have their place and do things they do well. But there will always be certain threats, and certain missions that they will just not be able to accomplish. These are there limitations and if one is ok with them then they are great. At the end it isn't about a $5 Billion ship vs a $10 billion ship. It is almost always about, what purpose does that vessel solve in your national security capability. If that $5 billion dollar ship needs additional multi billion dollar ships, shore based support and massive coordination of assets to deliver similar effects then the cost of all those have to be factored in.
John wrote:
IMO this is false he is misinterpreting a news article which was referring to P-15 as heavy destroyer not new destroyer class.
Against a diesel submarine that is idle or even moving slowly on batteries you cannot use torpedos due to very low noise signature. You have to depth charges on their last known ping. Also RBU can also be used on incoming torpedos as last ditch defense if decoys have failed.
I believe cost also plays a part in reason ships arent carrying 64 or 96 barak 8, each module costs around 100 mill. The P-17a cost around 1 bill much lower than cost of Type 26 FFG or Hunter class FFG.
Not entirely correct, an acoustic homing torpedo can do active pings to detect an enemy or even home into the active pings from the mother ship. What you are saying only applies to a wake homing torpedo. But most wire-guided torpedos can be steered based on the active pings from the mother sub. RBUs are no longer functionally effective against a sub unless you caught the enemy napping and they came within its short range. They are only for hard kill for incoming torpedos and drones.
If you indeed need to do depth charges, then you will rather use a helicopter or an anti-submarine helicopter to take the depth charges to the best possible location and launch them.
Due to the poor sonar conditions of the Baltic Sea mortars, rocket and missile launchers still retain a place next to torpedoes. The former Soviet Navy (and by extension, the Russian Navy) is the largest user of anti-submarine mortars. Keeping with the Soviet idea that weapons should be simple, cheap and reliable, several versions of rocket-propelled anti-submarine mortars were developed.
It took years for Adm.Gorshkov to persuade the Sov. politburo to build flat- tops,that too hybrids, given the scorn of them by the land-lubber generals.I think it was Marshal Malenkov who described the carrier as the " fifth hind leg of a dog"!
Given this attitude, Gorshkov dramatically started fixing rocket artillery ( missiles) aboard warships with the mission to destroy carriers in assymetric warfare fashion.
If you remember well, Kashin class DDGs originally had their Styx missiles facing aft. After targeting the CV, they would turn tail and let loose their missiles. Larger cruiser classes carried a variety of SSMs. We benefited from Gorshkov immensely in '71 with the carefully planned assisted acquisition of Osa FAC(M)s,Petya FFLs, Foxtrot subs,Polnocnys,Natyas,etc.
It was famously reported that he danced a jig after our successful missile- boat attacks on Karachi. He later on ,on a visit to India told ( first person account) a few sr. members of the IN that " your boys have taught us a superb lesson!"
Later on came the Rajputs-mod. Kashins and Talwars-mod. Krivaks,Tarantuls, Kilos and various types of missiles.
Giant Oscar class SSGNs carrying 20 anti- carrier SSMs arrived ,some N-tipped, which were planned to be built one for every US carrier, the ultimate undersea anti-CV weapon .They were assisted by hundreds of TU-22M and TU-142 LR maritime strike aircraft.The supersonic Backfires with their supersonic ASMs were considered by the US, which still does, as one of the most potent anti- CV threats. Finally the Sovs. listened to Gorshkov and started building CVs.The Kuznetsov arrived and a few more were being built like the Varyag,but then the USSR collapsed and the current RuN under Putin has struggled to keep the crown jewels of the former Sov. navy like Oscars,Kirovs,the Kuz,etc. afloat and active.
After the Georgia spat the need for larger more capable amphibs was felt. The Mistral amphib. buy from France was sunk by the US hence a plethora of new designs, jack-of-all vessels has appeared that will be more affordable to build and operate and take part in lesser conflicts like the UKR crisis,Syria,etc., not a war against a superpower like the US or semi-superpower like China.
A major power like India with no major expeditionary agenda barring mil-support for smaller littoral IOR nations, without the budget to operate more than 2 med.CVs, requiring a strong UW fleet to counter China, could leverage its amphib.flat-top requirementt suitably so that it increases the no. of air- capable vessels to deal with different level of crises. Even in the USN there is a feeling that more flat- tops are needed ,large super-carriers too dxpensivf uo acquire anc operate and ard looking at their amphibs. and evolving CVL designs.
https://twitter.com/IndianDefenceRA/sta ... 6?s=20DRDO has developed an Advanced Chaff Technology to safeguard the naval ships against enemy missile attack. The three variants - namely Short Range Chaff Rocket, Medium Range Chaff Rocket and Long Range Chaff Rocket -met Indian Navy’s qualitative requirements.
Nikhil_Naya wrote:From what my chaiwallah told my paanwalla, There are three concurrent projects.
3 Attack boats with AIP (P75I+), 3 AIP Boats with Missile Plug + ATV3
IAC3 will be a Jalashwa/ Trieste with a ski-jump
Lavrov asked GOI to cancel Reaper drone deal with US. He claimed that the drones will get access to Russian built data links used by IN and therefore start stealing data.
Any gurus please comment if this is possible and whether this can be managed.
Is this accurate? We have integrated P-8Is, and other US milware for some years now without any Ru protest.I am sure that the Reaper drone acquisition can bf done while protecting our other tech. of Ru origin.
shyamd wrote:Lavrov asked GOI to cancel Reaper drone deal with US. He claimed that the drones will get access to Russian built data links used by IN and therefore start stealing data.
Does the Russians have anything better then the Reaper to offer to India? If not then tell Lavrov to shut up and go to the pakis/chinese.
shyamd wrote:Lavrov asked GOI to cancel Reaper drone deal with US. He claimed that the drones will get access to Russian built data links used by IN and therefore start stealing data.
Any gurus please comment if this is possible and whether this can be managed.
Misinformation. We use INs own proprietary data link made by BEL called LINK-II.
shyamd wrote:Lavrov asked GOI to cancel Reaper drone deal with US. He claimed that the drones will get access to Russian built data links used by IN and therefore start stealing data.
Any gurus please comment if this is possible and whether this can be managed.
Misinformation. We use INs own proprietary data link made by BEL called LINK-II.
The navy’s new plan, inspired by a similar cabinet authorisation for 42 squadrons of the Indian Air Force, will seek approvals for six nuclear-powered attack submarines and 18 diesel attack submarines, a South Block official said.
The navy’s new plan, inspired by a similar cabinet authorisation for 42 squadrons of the Indian Air Force, will seek approvals for six nuclear-powered attack submarines and 18 diesel attack submarines, a South Block official said.
-Ankit
Isn't 18+6 already the sanctioned strength of Attack submarines...???
In 1999, the year when the Kargil War was fought, the then BJP-led NDA government cleared a 30-year plan to ensure by 2030 a fleet of 24 conventional diesel-electric submarines for the Indian Navy. The ambitious plan involved creating two separate assembly lines to build a set of six submarines each, under Projects 75 and 75(I), which were to be sourced from two different countries. This project of building 12 submarines with foreign collaborators was to be followed by India building 12 indigenously designed submarines, thus taking the total to 24.
We don't have the moolah for more than 3 lines of subs,that too hard going.SSBN,SSN and a conv. line,P-75I after the Scorpenes.
Why another Akula will be leased with a hope of extending the Chakra's lease for another decade. The 8 Kilos being upgraded will last out another decade when their replacements can start arriving. The offer of more upgraded Kilos at low cost to beef up the depleting numbers must be seriously considered.
Frankly,the IN needs at least 24 conv./ AIP boats in addition to the N-subs requirement to counter the PLAN's massive build up especially its subs. In WW2,Churchill said that more than the Battle of Britain it was the Battle of the Atlantic against German U-boats that he was most worried about,as it took 100 aircraft and warships on an average to hunt down just one sub! Not too long ago it took us 24 days to hunt down a single Paki Agosta that was sent far west to escape any IN naval attack against the PN. In the Falklands war,the Argie San Luis U-boat escaped despite almost the entire RN fleet which included 5 SSNs, looking for it.It made a few unsuccessful attacks against RN carriers thanks to faulty torpedoes.
NEW DELHI: In an unusual move, the US Navy has declared it conducted “freedom of navigation patrols” in the Indian Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) near Lakshadweep this week, without deliberately seeking New Delhi’s prior consent.
The US Navy regularly conducts such patrols in the contentious South China Sea to challenge China’s aggressive territorial claims over its neighbours. But a provocative declaration of similar patrols in India’s EEZ, at a time the US is seeking India’s cooperation in strengthening “alliances and partnerships” to foster “credible deterrence” against China in the Indo-Pacific, has raised eyebrows here. There has been no official reaction from India till now.
The US Navy’s 7th Fleet said in an official statement that its Arleigh Burke-class guided missile destroyer USS John Paul Jones “asserted navigational rights and freedoms” around 130 nautical miles west of the Lakshadweep Islands, “without requesting India’s prior consent” on April 7. This, it added, was “consistent with international law”.
“India requires prior consent for military exercises or maneuvers in its EEZ or continental shelf, a claim inconsistent with international law. This freedom of navigation operation (FONOP) upheld the rights, freedoms, and lawful uses of the sea recognized in international law by challenging India’s excessive maritime claims,” said the US Navy’s statement.
Clearly shows that unkil is friendly only till mutual interest aligns. There is no change in how deep state of US really feels about India. Seems like a soft warning of sorts to rememind us our place while there is continuous peaceful rise under watchful eyes of big brother amreeka
shyamd wrote:Do the older russian built platforms and equipment use the indigenous Data links?
There are no other datalinks in service AFAIK. This is the only fleetwide datalink used across ships, aircraft, shore. Apart from that radio comms. Even P-8Is and Ka-31s are on LINK-II.
VickyAvinash wrote:Clearly shows that unkil is friendly only till mutual interest aligns. There is no change in how deep state of US really feels about India. Seems like a soft warning of sorts to rememind us our place while there is continuous peaceful rise under watchful eyes of big brother amreeka
Well, that's the way it should be. My comment was geared to the "strategeric partnership" koolaid a lot of folks used to be selling and consuming, even on BRF. Such incidents serve to keep us grounded.
I am sure the USN had done this in the past, but this time they chose to go public. Wonder why, what's changed? They'll surely know that GoI will be compelled to respond now, so what are they gaining by this?
arshyam wrote:I am sure the USN had done this in the past, but this time they chose to go public. Wonder why, what's changed? They'll surely know that GoI will be compelled to respond now, so what are they gaining by this?
First it was John Kerry says all Indians must be like Disha Ravi now this, looks like the Admin wants some cheap thrills trying to humiliate the current party at the center, lets grin and bear it but put this in the data bank.
This excercise is a needless provocation. Even the Indian law that the Yanks are calling inconsistent with the freedom of navigation. It only refers to the military operations and excercises.
The passage of international merchant marine and innocent passage of foreign military vessels is not spoken off in any way shape or form.
As I posted in the other thread, this excercise is a manifestation of moral and diplomatic support to Indian opposition to this government.
The government must not react. But it must remember and pay back with interest to the Khan at a time and place of our choosing.
This is huge and if not responded by India, rest assured that more such things will line up in near future.
As 1st response PM should line up all MEA authorities advocating alignment with US and heat their tashrif.
Get out of the Quad and sent stern message that India is capable to face its adversaries.
This also mean that US is now more confident of making inroads into IN and IN is rather dependent on US. And they were advocating 3rd carrier with US support.
Do not react, it will be stupid, just put in the memory Bank, reality is we are way too weak to start reacting to this right now. It the US which is loose its standing.
hemant_sai wrote:This is huge and if not responded by India, rest assured that more such things will line up in near future.
As 1st response PM should line up all MEA authorities advocating alignment with US and heat their tashrif.
Get out of the Quad and sent stern message that India is capable to face its adversaries.
This also mean that US is now more confident of making inroads into IN and IN is rather dependent on US. And they were advocating 3rd carrier with US support.
All this is so ridiculous !!
No, that would be stupid. React with something commensurate without shooting ourselves in the foot. The quad is a useful talking shop that needles China, why unnecessarily play into their hands?
Aditya_V saar, I agree about keeping it in the memory bank, but the public declaration from USN leaves us with no choice - silence is not going to help. We have to react in some way now, and extract our price down the road like you suggest.
NEWS | April 7, 2021
7th Fleet conducts Freedom of Navigation Operation
By U.S. 7th Fleet Public Affairs
Arabian Sea, –
On April 7, 2021 (local time) USS John Paul Jones (DDG 53) asserted navigational rights and freedoms approximately 130 nautical miles west of the Lakshadweep Islands, inside India’s exclusive economic zone, without requesting India’s prior consent, consistent with international law. India requires prior consent for military exercises or maneuvers in its exclusive economic zone or continental shelf, a claim inconsistent with international law. This freedom of navigation operation (“FONOP”) upheld the rights, freedoms, and lawful uses of the sea recognized in international law by challenging India’s excessive maritime claims.
U.S. Forces operate in the Indo-Pacific region on a daily basis. All operations are designed in accordance with international law and demonstrate that the United States will fly, sail and operate wherever international law allows.
We conduct routine and regular Freedom of Navigation Operations (FONOPs), as we have done in the past and will continue to in the future. FONOPs are not about one country, nor are they about making political statements.
if ever the phrase "the ugly american" was right, it was made just for times such as this
I think that India requires prior "intimation" of a man of war transitting the EEZ and not "permission"
this is the biden administration's way of showing up Modi.
what they have achieved by antagonizing an alleged "NATO ally" like India is not only debatable but also questionable.
this is the ameriki deep state that was waiting to get back at Modi.
in the end, the amerikis have proven themselves to be just a bunch of untrustworthy and uncouth rednecks who have no consideration for others, especially other sovereign countries
They got raped by the hans for decades and so with India, the morons have swung to the other extreme: humiliate and belittle.
we should definitely go ahead with the S-400 purchase from Putin and the ameriki sanctions be damned.
we have lived through them before and the Forces have not forgotten.
There is irony here. While India ratified UN Law of the Seas in 1995, the US has failed to do it so far. For the 7th Fleet to carry out FoN missions in Indian EEZ in violation of our domestic law is bad enough. But publicising it?
USN please switch on IFF! https://c7f.navy.mil/Media/News/Display ... operation/
1) "Buzz" the ship via our aircraft. P8I would be sweet, but SU-30 MKI with Brahmos in the underbelly clearly visible would send a message too
2) Have our destroyers do a Freedom of Navigation near U.S territory. Or at the least, near Diego Garcia
Immediately downsize the flying XBox aka MQ-9 deal. Rearrange the zero in the deal size (30) from after 3 to before it .i.e buy only 03. Shri Lavrov will also be happy.
