The Military Issues & History Forum is a venue to discuss issues relating to the military aspects of the Indian Armed Forces, whether the past, present or future. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
Leo.Davidson wrote:Can someone shed some light on how the wolf hunting works? You have two or more missiles racing divergently towards a target with dissimilar parameters in radio silence. And they will have only one midcourse update or information exchange with the mothership.
What technology do they use for the midcourse update? satellite! I doubt they are using line-of-sight RF with a surrogate aircraft/surface vessel. Now you're complicating the situation by having these missiles communicate with each other.
This is all BS. The Russians do not have electronic technology to build something like this. They may have hard-coded/programmed a bunch of Onyx to operate as described in the article, but in no way did they communicate or interact as stated. If this technology existed in the Russian domain, they would have been the world leaders in UAV and drone technology, especially like the Harpy.
Also this technology if true is not available on the Brahmos. The author quite precisely states that the Onyx has the said features, we know that the Brahmos guidance is Indian.
Even if only half of their assertions are true NRao, it's still some awesome stuff. But a lot of it is hype......if they just wouldn't hype it so much. The US is projecting some the same ideas for our missiles but not until 2030 or after. The russians have not been this good in the past in this regard.
Could not find anything on xix/19, will check again later.
I only provided a URL (because of a request), have no clue if the Russians have that capability.
Having said that, outside of identification, what exactly could be the major challenge to wait till 2030? 2030!!!!! Robot collaboration has been there for decades.
* U.S. 7th Fleet commander says his fleet gets the preponderance of the latest weapons
* Vice Admiral Robert L. Thomas says Asia region is now the most important strategically
* The carrier strike group has been conducting exercises with Japan amid tension with China
* Thomas concedes threat to security no longer about vast opposing armies and navies
USS George Washington, East China Sea (CNN) -- By his own admission, one of the U.S Navy's top commanders says his Pacific fleet "gets all the best stuff" when it comes to state-of-the-art weaponry -- an undeniable reflection of President Barack Obama's so-called pivot towards Asia.
The flagship of its 7th fleet, the Nimitz-class USS George Washington aircraft carrier boasts a formidable arsenal; from the latest FA-18 fighter jets, to anti-submarine helicopters and early-warning surveillance aircraft. Add to this the fleet's numerous missile destroyers, cruisers and submarines and the statement of intent is clear to see -- Washington is serious about its role in the region.
"It's a long-term effort for us here," Fleet commander Vice Admiral Robert L. Thomas, told CNN aboard the giant vessel amid the muffled roar of jet engines from the flight deck directly above. "From a policy perspective it's a shift in balance of not only our resources but our thinking across diplomatic, information, economic and military lines to the Pacific.
"But I would offer that the 7th Fleet never left -- we've been a strong presence here for the past 70 years. We're slowly shifting from a 50/50 mix in the United States Navy to a 40% Atlantic, 60% Pacific mix," he added, referring to the gradual swing away from traditional areas of operation in the West.
"From a military point of view -- my narrow swim lane of responsibility -- we measure our presence in two ways: capability and capacity. The capacity is coming -- more numbers over time -- but it's the capability that's leading the charge here.
"I get the preponderance of Virginia-class warships. I get the front-line submarine deployments out here. The carrier air wing that operates from the George Washington is the most advanced in the U.S. Navy -- and our task force commanders out here get the full support of the 'home office' in Washington."
In the past few days, these hugely expensive military "assets" have been deployed on a high-profile combat exercise with an armada of ships from the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force (JMSDF) off the island of Okinawa, playing out a series of scenarios including the defense of Japan and the response to a regional crisis -- timely given China's increasingly assertive behavior in the region.
At the same time, China's own military development has been emphasized by the first deployment of its own aircraft carrier -- The Liaoning.
While most analysts would point to it being decades behind its American counterparts technologically -- it's actually a refitted Soviet-era vessel purchased from the Ukraine in the 1990s -- its very existence is emblematic of Beijing's growing ambitions.
Diverse security threats
Yet beyond the waters of the East China Sea, the threats to global stability in recent years have become far more complex and diverse and less likely to be played out on traditional battlegrounds where huge armies or navies face off against each other.
The threat has become more asymmetric and complex in nature, with unseen enemies striking in less predictable but equally damaging ways -- something Thomas concedes -- prompting inevitable questions about whether these huge fleets are a worthwhile investment and relevant in this new security landscape.
"The maritime domain in general has got more complex, with the undersea domain a huge part of that with more sophisticated submarines and the emergence of long-endurance, unmanned or remotely operated vehicles," he said.
"You see it just in oceanographic capabilities. Frankly the way countries globally are using technology in the undersea domain is going to make it a very interesting operational space. So the traditional 'hey I've got a submarine and I get to play here,' mindset I think is naïve. You're going to have to bring a lot more capability into that operating space to ensure you stay dominant -- economically as well as militarily.
"As to the asymmetric threats, the one thing that cannot be counted out is the ability of terrorists to use the maritime domain. It's not just in close, such as we saw when the USS Cole was attacked (in port in Yemen in 200), all of a sudden it's threats to commercial shipping and 'choke' points.
"Major commercial carriers such as Maersk all have immediate response actions already in place in case the Singapore Strait is cut off or they can't use a port due to a weapon of mass destruction."
He said this was a major "economic game changer" when you consider the cost of shutting down major waterways or ports due to terrorist threats. "So a lot more thinking has to be done" about how to counter these kind of challenges, he added.
The nature of the joint exercises with Japanese forces -- known as AnnualEx 2013 and involving more than 23 ships and 20,000 servicemen and women -- in part acknowledges this, he said, with the fleet deployed on a variety of "graduate level" missions, from anti-submarine warfare, to defending against hostile incursions against territory.
Awesome power
Standing on the flight deck of the USS George Washington, the noise of combat jets as they take off and land just meters away generates an incredible vibration that almost lifts you from your feet -- awesome power that is very difficult not to be impressed by whether you're a journalist or a foreign power.
But Thomas seems anything but a man on the verge of using this immense force in anger -- especially against any perceived Chinese threat.
U.S. 'advising' airlines to 'comply' over disputed zone
He said the China's People's Liberation Army Navy was becoming a highly professional organization and improving the way they operate and communicate -- and far from being one prone to making rash moves.
"I can tell just by our bridge-to-bridge communications that they're getting better at it. They've got a three-ship surface action group coming back from South America. They've been operating in the Gulf of Aden doing counter-piracy operations. And they're operating here in the Western Pacific all at the same time. Two years ago it was a big deal if they were able to conduct an exercise in the Philippines Sea for a week, now it's routine."
From carrier to 'lily pad'
Thomas was also keen to expand on the U.S. Navy's diversity of operations, most notably their recent humanitarian mission in the Philippines after Super Typhoon Haiyan had flattened much of the eastern parts of the country.
Within 48 hours, the carrier and nine other surface vessels had left Hong Kong and arrived in the Philippines Sea to begin carrying our relief operations.
Combat aircraft were deliberately flown off the carrier to make room for more helicopters able to deliver badly needed assistance to areas made inaccessible by the typhoon and the subsequent storm surge. Thomas said in many cases, the U.S. Seahawk helicopters were "first responders" able to relay back previously unknown information about local conditions and the extent of the disaster.
"We transitioned (the carrier) into a vertical lift lily pad for the delivery of food and water supplies," he said.
Critics may point to this being an example of Washington adopting a "soft power" approach politically in the region at a time when its influence is being challenged by China, though there was little doubting the pride expressed by many of the carrier's highly-trained and motivated crew in performing such a role in the Leyte Gulf.
But does serving as a deterrent or performing aid missions with hugely expensive weapons of war justify the vast cost of maintaining such an arsenal?
The use of unmanned drones in other theaters illustrates that massed armies with boots on the ground, tanks and artillery are not necessarily the most effective way of dealing with terrorism or insurgencies with a minimal cost in terms of deaths to combatants.
With military expansion seemingly inextricably linked to economic progress, and the exponential growth of armed forces fueled by territorial disputes in the Asia-Pacific region, the large-scale presence of this carrier strike group seems unlikely to change, though the scope of its missions will adapt to meet the increasing diversity of challenges -- both hard and soft.
The U.S. Navy has deployed two of its next-generation reconnaissance aircraft to Japan, a long-planned move that comes amid controversy over Chinese air defenses.
Designed to enhance the Navy's long-range maritime patrol capability, the P-8A Poseidon's specialty is submarine detection, the Navy said. The planes flew from Norfolk, Virginia, to Kadena Air Base in Okinawa, in recent days.
The P-8A Poseidon also is part of the Navy's effort to phase out the P-3C Orion. It is more technologically advanced than its predecessor and can fly higher with a crew of up to nine. It also can carry torpedoes, cruise missiles, bombs and mines.
While the Navy rebalances resources in the Pacific, the arrival of the aircraft comes at a time of heightened tension in the region with China's imposition of an air defense identification zone in the East China Sea.
The United States, Japan and South Korea have recently operated their own military flights through the zone to test the Chinese, and the new planes add additional monitoring ability in a busy region.
The Navy said the new deployment was not based on any specific threat.
"The P-8 is a true multi-mission platform, which will continue to provide us invaluable capabilities," said Rear Adm. Matt Carter, commander of patrol and reconnaissance, said in statement.
"The number of submarines in the world is increasing rapidly," Carter also said. "Other countries are either building or purchasing advanced, quiet, and extremely hard to find submarines and we need to be able to match that technology to be able to detect them."
New U.S. aircraft at Kadena coincided with Vice President Joe Biden's arrival in Japan to start a trip that includes stops in China and South Korea.
My understanding was that missile will lock on to the biggest target and attack it. This wolfpack system as mentioned in the article seems bunkum. How would the missile "wait" for another missile? how long would it wait? Also wouldn't this behaviour negate the strategy to overwhelm a carrier defense with a volley of missile by spreading the missiles over a larger number of targets?
No mention of wolf pack. Dang those Russians! They're so smart and we're so dumb. Aiways ahead of us in technology and everything.......what are we gonna do?
Brahmos remains the deadliest proven cruise missile out there, with some sheer ingenuity it is possible to line up multiple Brahmos missiles to strike at once, lets keep in mind, once in range missiles can be fired in split seconds and with short range waypoints for the first few missiles that allow for the subsequent missiles to catch up, we can more or less have a multiple missiles impacting a key target such a AC at split second intervals or roughly the same time. Most targets won't need multiple missiles, single shots should kill most targets instantly. PLANs and PNS principal fleet or frigates and destroyers can be sunk with single shots.
Want to be an Asian superpower? Then an aircraft carrier, it seems, is the minimum requirement for joining this elite club.
In China, a retro-fitted former Ukrainian carrier dating back to the Soviet era is the flagship of the country's hopes for a "blue water" navy -- a fleet that can operate on the high seas thousands of nautical miles from base. India has launched its first home built aircraft carrier as part of a plan to operate three carrier battle groups by 2020.
And Japan -- whose navy is officially classed as a self-defense force -- has controversially unveiled what it has classed as a flat-topped helicopter destroyer, but to China looks perilously akin to an aircraft carrier.
This latest piece of must-have military hardware might be expensive to build, logistically complex to operate and costly to defend -- and in the context of drone and submarine technology, some argue, increasingly obsolete - but the aircraft carrier is still regarded as one of the strongest projections of a nation's military power.
More image than action?
For Japan, it's a counter to the rising power of China and the threat from North Korea. For India, its carrier flexes its muscle in the direction of Pakistan while China wants to project power along its trade routes and regional interests.
Just 20 aircraft carriers are active throughout the world and the U.S. Navy operates 10 of them. For many military analysts, however, the value of a carrier lies in having one rather than ever using one.
Ashley Townshend, Joan Rydon Scholar in Government at Oxford University, says there is a disconnect between what an aircraft carrier projects and what it can actually do.
"Needing an aircraft carrier and wanting one are two different things," Townshend told CNN, adding that Asia -- despite recent headlines -- has had a long history of aircraft carrier operation.
"India has operated carriers before; China hasn't but China is a new foray into carrier naval warfare/carrier naval operations," he said. "Japan interestingly had the world's first aircraft carrier."
Costly carrier
As an indication of how much a carrier costs, Britain is plowing an estimated £5 billion (US$8 billion) into its new carrier Queen Elizabeth. It is so large that it is being constructed in sections at six shipyards around the United Kingdom before being slotted together at Rosyth in Fife, Scotland.
Perhaps fittingly for China's biggest naval gamble, its refurbished Ukrainian carrier was once touted to become a casino in Macau, a Special Administrative Region (SAR) of China and a gambling center.
"This is really its initial training platform," said Townshend. "It's unlikely that this carrier would be able to pack the sort of punch that would make it useful as a power projection carrier outside of limited and asymmetric incidents in Asia.
"You could conceivably ship it down into the South China Sea for the purposes of intimidating weaker South East Asian nations -- but that carries with it a lot of risks not least the proliferation of anti-carrier anti-sea control platforms in Asia."
Vulnerable
He said submarines, ship-launched and land-based ballistic missiles all make aircraft carriers vulnerable to attack in the context of modern conventional warfare.
"The sort of things, interestingly, that China has been building to keep the U.S. out of the Taiwan Strait are also being built by South East Asian nations to keep large scale Chinese naval platforms from being as powerful as they might be in the region."
Needing an aircraft carrier and wanting one are two different things
Ashley Townshend
While India, China and Japan may have deep pockets, the technology and military infrastructure necessary to operate what amounts to a floating military city for thousands of personnel still lags among these Asian superpowers.
Military analyst Michael Horowitz, associate professor of political science at the University of Pennsylvania, in his book The Diffusion of Military Power, says learning to operate an aircraft carrier is difficult and time-consuming
"Carrier warfare is one of the only major military innovations requiring high levels of both financial intensity and organizational capital to adopt," he said. "Operating a floating airfield and the ship itself, plus coordinating with support ships, is simply a much harder set of tasks than lining up the big guns of a battleship and firing."
Carrier losses
Aircraft carriers also have one of the highest attrition rates of any arm of the military. According to a study by Professor Robert Rubel of the U.S. Naval War College, between 1949 and 1988 the US Navy and Marine Corps lost 12,000 aircraft and 8,500 air crew.
Analysts say that with China training less than 100 pilots to operate fixed-wing aircraft from carriers, its capacity to absorb losses is low.
"It's difficult to train pilots up to land on what is effectively a moving airfield," Townshend said. "While China will learn from the successes and failures of every country that has gone before it, it does take a lot of time and China has less than 100 airmen who are being trained to fly their version of a carrier aircraft."
Meanwhile, as India and China size up each other in the carrier war, analysts say it has to be remembered that both carrier nations have ships that are a third the size of the U.S. Nimitz class ships.
"For the Chinese, a lot of it is tied up with a story about itself becoming a great power," Townshend said. "For China to be a great power it must be a great maritime power and to be a great power it must have carriers and blue water naval platforms."
TSJ , You can check the interview with its developer NPO-MASH and Chief Designer of Granit missile on how they hunt in wolf pack , missile communicate using MMW datalink ....though Granit is not the first to do it , the first in the series was P-500 Bazalt , granit was second though a lot sophisticated.
The Designer also says only 3 Brahmos are needed to cripple an Aircraft Carrier.
Austin wrote:TSJ , You can check the interview with its developer NPO-MASH and Chief Designer of Granit missile on how they hunt in wolf pack , missile communicate using MMW datalink ....though Granit is not the first to do it , the first in the series was P-500 Bazalt , granit was second though a lot sophisticated.
The Designer also says only 3 Brahmos are needed to cripple an Aircraft Carrier.
Septimus P. wrote:Brahmos remains the deadliest proven cruise missile out there, with some sheer ingenuity it is possible to line up multiple Brahmos missiles to strike at once, lets keep in mind, once in range missiles can be fired in split seconds and with short range waypoints for the first few missiles that allow for the subsequent missiles to catch up, we can more or less have a multiple missiles impacting a key target such a AC at split second intervals or roughly the same time. Most targets won't need multiple missiles, single shots should kill most targets instantly. PLANs and PNS principal fleet or frigates and destroyers can be sunk with single shots.
I guess I can say the same for a barrage of Onyx missiles against IN based CBG too .
I have dropped some questions regarding a similar scenario in the newbie thread.
TSJones wrote:You're going to have to find the carrier first, then you better hope you get the first shot in otherwise you are dead meat.
Really, there is no difference between that and a sub and a torpedo.
Shouldnt be a challenge with Oscar on the tail and Ocean Sat to pin the CBG in the large ocean.
Many instance of carrier being tracked including the most infamous of Kursk tracking US CBG. It may be difficult for turd world nation but not for some one who has multiple resources to track it.
Lot of difference bettween a torpedo that can do no more than 50 km and Granit that does more than 500 km
TSJones wrote:You're going to have to find the carrier first, then you better hope you get the first shot in otherwise you are dead meat.
Really, there is no difference between that and a sub and a torpedo.
Shouldnt be a challenge with Oscar on the tail and Ocean Sat to pin the CBG in the large ocean.
Many instance of carrier being tracked including the most infamous of Kursk tracking US CBG. It may be difficult for turd world nation but not for some one who has multiple resources to track it.
Lot of difference bettween a torpedo that can do no more than 50 km and Granit that does more than 500 km
Despite what you might think, it is rare if a submarine can slip through a carrier task force screen during war time.
Plus, as I've said before, a carrier sunk by satellite observation is a first hit thing. When that happens it becomes a satellite war until they are taken care of . No navy will tolerate being observed by enemy satellites after a first hit.
Plus, as I've said before, a carrier sunk by satellite observation is a first hit thing. When that happens it becomes a satellite war until they are taken care of . No navy will tolerate being observed by enemy satellites after a first hit.
Thats a cat n mouse game , there are lot of report of US CBG being shadowed by Russian Oscar in pretty close range i.e few Km staging torpedo attack....during war time the submarine will also change its tactics much like USN CBG would do.
And subs can get info not just from Ocean Sat but Patrol Aircraft and submarine own sonar there are multiple way to get target information ......The Oscar were made just to hunt USN CBG with 24 Granit each.
Taiwan's dilemna.I cannot understand why India has not offered assistance to Taiwan when China gives max support to Pak? After Germany sold the blueprints for the IN's U-209/1500 subs to S.Africa,India has every right to share the same with any nation. taiwan has a sophisticated defence industry and if Iran can build its own subs without any help,surely Taiwan could do too with help from friendly nations who are not afraid to show China the upturned finger. The US has for well over a decade played cat and mouse with Taiwan on supplying it with subs.It is unreliable.China can always turn on the screws on many issues to stall/slow down US assistance.
Talk of the Day -- Taiwan thinking of building its own submarines
2013/12/09 23:00:10
Taiwan is evaluating the feasibility of building submarines on its own with technical assistance from the United States, according to a local newspaper.
The U.S. government approved the sale of eight diesel-powered submarines to Taiwan in 2001, but no progress has been made on the project since then.
Frustrated by the country's inability to procure submarines, Taiwan's military has gradually changed its attitude from "waiting for U.S. approval" to considering building submarines on its own with U.S. technological support, the United Daily News (UDN) said in a special report Monday.
The shift became even more evident after Yen Ming became defense minister and Adm. Chen Yung-kang took over the helm of the Navy Command Headquarters, according to the paper.
The following are excerpts from the UDN special report on the submarine-related issues:
Both the military and local shipbuilding community are assessing the feasibility of building conventional diesel-powered submarines at home instead of procuring them from the U.S.
A shipbuilding industry association is scheduled to come up with a comprehensive assessment report by June 2014.
Sources familiar with the Navy's submarine procurement project cited several reasons why the potential deal with the United States has remained stalemated.
First, the U.S. asked Taiwan to pay a contract design fee of more than NT$10 billion (US$338.36 million) even before the type of submarine to be sold to Taiwan was determined.
Partisan wrangling over the issue at the time prompted Taiwan's Legislature to balk at making the upfront payment.
A more critical obstacle to progress lies in the U.S. Navy's reluctance to build diesel-electric submarines at a U.S. shipyard because it fears that Congress would ask it to buy the conventional submarines to save money if an American shipyard had the capability to build such a ship.
Acting on the instructions of Defense Minister Yen, the Navy sponsored a closed-door seminar at the Armed Forces Club in Taipei in late November to discuss the feasibility of building submarines in Taiwan.
Adm. Chen chaired the meeting, which was attended by representatives from government agencies as well as academia and the private sector.
All participants reportedly agreed to list "building submarines locally" as an option.
Military and shipbuilding industry executives admitted that Taiwan still cannot build torpedoes, sonar, propulsion systems, combat systems and submarine periscope lenses.
Taiwan also needs to upgrade its blueprint design technology, they said.
Against this backdrop, they said Taiwan should seek U.S. technology transfer in those fields if it wants to build submarines at home.
A model used in Taiwan's building of Ching-kuo indigenous defense fighters (IDFs) in the past could be applied to the submarine building project, they said. U.S.-based General Dynamics had helped with IDF design. (Dec. 9, 2013).
(By Sofia Wu)
From the above,one can see that India can certainly provide help in providing sonars,torpedos,etc.
The boats are designed to be amongst the stealthiest in the world and the image, created by the design team working on the new vessels, shows a submarine built with sweeping curves.
In the report to MPs, the Ministry of Defence announced it had agreed two contracts worth a total of £79 million to BAE Systems Maritime-Submarines for initial work on the new vessels, which are due to be in service by 2028.
The items include structural fittings, electrical equipment, castings and forgings which must be ordered now, Defence Secretary Philip Hammond said.
Mr Hammond said: "The Successor programme is supporting around 2,000 jobs and up to 850 British businesses could benefit from the supply chain as we exploit the most modern technologies, and employ a significant portion of the UK's engineers, project managers and technicians over the coming years."
Admiral Sir George Zambellas, First Sea Lord, said: "The Royal Navy has been operating continuous at-sea deterrent patrols for more than 40 years and the Successor submarines will allow us to do so with cutting-edge equipment well into the future."
Both contracts, one of £47 million and another of £32 million, will be filled by workers in Barrow-in-Furness, Cumbria.
The Ministry of Defence said the total number of MoD and industrial staff currently working on the Successor programme is around 2,000, with more than half working as engineers and designers.
More than 850 potential UK suppliers have so far been identified as benefiting from investment in the programme and as many as 6,000 people will be involved by the time that the construction reaches a peak.
Does Japan have a diplomatic relation with Taiwan , Does Japan recognises Taiwan ......no one will help Taiwan for the fear of retribution from China and even if Japan has problems with China they dont want to make the tumor go malignant
Cost blowout for Australian air warfare destroyers. The price for 3 is pegged at (Aus)$8b which is an extraordinary amount but I guess the price of labour, materials etc are not cheap in these parts.
Also no surprise to hear complaints being levelled at Navantia and the Spanish. As I mentioned recently in the Vicky thread, such contracts are extremely difficult to negotiate, implement and see through especially where multiple vendors, cross border suppliers etc.
Tiwari wrote:Cost blowout for Australian air warfare destroyers. The price for 3 is pegged at (Aus)$8b which is an extraordinary amount but I guess the price of labour, materials etc are not cheap in these parts.
Also no surprise to hear complaints being levelled at Navantia and the Spanish. As I mentioned recently in the Vicky thread, such contracts are extremely difficult to negotiate, implement and see through especially where multiple vendors, cross border suppliers etc.
but cheap and can be procured and used in quantity. can launch swarm attacks on isolated indian FFG/OPV units staging out of cluttered coastal conditions in iranian revolutionary guard navy style. and once launched, those ASMs are a threat, whether from this small ship or a bigger one.
this kind of problem is best dealt by aircraft fielding ASMs or better some cheaper Brimstone type 20km weapon that we can launch a salvo of and forget about it. one cannot risk billion$ ships going down due to 2-3 ASM hits from one of this swarm. all they need is a couple of hits (just like roving terrorists) while we need to defend every ball.
Are they acquiring them in numbers for proper swarms though? BD is a relatively weak challenge. Barak-8 per details rupak provided/or hinted at, rather - can double as both a close in and long range SAM. With 64 odd VLS tubes, and multi target ability, that should be able to handle even a good number of incoming bogies.
PN and PLAN are the big issues
IMHO, biggest challenge is PN sub arm - which can be addressed by more ASuW choppers (WIP) and more investment in sonars (underway per reports). Second, is air arm with long range AShMs - we finally have Vikramaditya with MiG-29K, but lack of Barak-8 and declining stocks of Barak-1 remain an issue. Barak-1 is being topped up (finally) per reports.
PLAN - P8Is are good for long range detection of subs and ships both, but again we need more ASuW assets and perhaps some desi version of SOSUS to act as a tripwire
Perhaps get a few Global Hawks from massa for long range persistent surveillance and back up with Herons/Rustom 2s.
For shooting, Brahmos is good enough, we'll have decent number of platforms with that.
Again, Barak-8 is essential for some proper AD cover.
I wish we really ramp up induction and remove all the 70's, early 80's era stuff from our fleet. Their reliability, persistence and even ability to sustain any damage is all under question. Which means shipyard reforms.
We should just stay out of reach of land launched missiles etc and depend on our own aircraft launched systems to do the trick. Sortie MiG-29Ks as necessary for high value strikes and surge in a few ships from time to time to launch their Brahmos/Klubs but park the main fleet far away from the shore...in open water, these boats/light ships will be easy to tackle.
How will the Azmat/Durjoy type vessels find our billion $ ship in the first place ? Shouldn't our billion$ frigate/destroyer be able to outrange as far as detection goes AND take them out before they become a threat or be in a position to launch missiles ?
KrishnaK wrote:How will the Azmat/Durjoy type vessels find our billion $ ship in the first place ? Shouldn't our billion$ frigate/destroyer be able to outrange as far as detection goes AND take them out before they become a threat or be in a position to launch missiles ?
Kolkata DDG vs Durjoy is one scenario. But another could be Durjoy attacking a BSF Floating BOP or our latest WJFACs. The latter will be seriously outgunned if this fight were to happen.
First of all, it is important to understand that corvettes, OPVs and minor warships continue to play a role in all navies. In '71 our corvettes had to be towed to Karachi due to lack of range, yet Navy Day is celebrated because of the their historic attack. In last 25 years Seaward Defence Boats have been used extensively in Palk Straits and Anti-Piracy Operations. Recently Japan, ROC and PRC sent their coast guard vessels to assert authority in the western pacific.
So the threat should not be dismissed and a strategy should be in place to counter other Navies' vessels. At the same time we need to appreciate their role in our security. Their expected role will define the armament levels, complexity and size. I found the Durjoy interesting due to its multi-role fit. Compare it to the Saryu class OPV (2300 Ton), Car Nicobar class FAC (325 Tons) or Azmat class FACM (same weight maybe even same hull) for example.
. 
