Indian Naval News & Discussion - 12 Oct 2013

[uddu]

I think you're confusing India's Coastal battery requirement with dealing with some terrorists from Bakistan Ship. To deal with that the Coast guard is more than adequate.
India's coastal defense battery requirement is not similar to most other nations. After independence we even did face a flotilla of Aircraft carrier group sailing towards India. We never forget our history. And Brahmos is to deal with such kind of threats and to deal with any enemy ships which comes 300 km close to India's coastline.
About expertise, keep in mind that you're talking to people from a nation that can launch Helina ATGM to Agni-V and even sending probes to Mars.
The only reason that we have not developed our own subsonic anti-ship missiles may be because the supersonic Brahmos was adequate to deal with any surface threats and the subsonic missiles from Russia was available for use in large numbers. As time goes on and when we start deploying Nirbhay, the naval variants will also make entry and there will be variants of it as well.

[shaun]

@leo ...apart from your rant ..
When anti ship cruise missiles are getting from supersonic to hypersonic , you are promoting a super duper sub sonic ASM ..!! Anti missiles system against supersonic missiles are being perfected and sub sonic missiles have no chance against those systems , in today's environment. From detection to destruction , the lesser the time better the results .

K-300P Bastion-P is based on yakhont a.k.a Brahmos

[shaun]

http://www.spsnavalforces.com/exclusive ... le-systems

The Indian Navy has announced interest in 15 mobile missile coastal battery (MMCB) systems for deployment at various locations along the country's coast to protect Naval bases and ships. According to the Navy, "The MMCB is intended to be deployed for defence of the coast line against attacks from the sea and it should consist of mobile launchers, mobile command post, integral mobile radar which provides range commensurate to the range of the missile and mobile replenishment vehicle to replenish/re-arm the mobile launchers with missiles."

The Navy is looking for a missile system with a minimum desired range of 150 km and a warhead weight of at least 150 kg. The MMCB will be required for the anti-ship and near land attack roles, and the Navy has specifically asked for commonalities with anti-ship missiles launched from ships. In addition, the Navy has sought details of missile construction, capabilities and specific features, including waypoint, re-attack capability, flight profile (eg flight altitude/speeds in various phases, details of sea-skimming capability etc), speed of missile (minimum required 0.8 Mach), terminal phase manoeuvre capability, RCS of missile, hit probability against various targets, inertial navigation system (INS), any GPS/ GLONASS or other receiver for positional and targeting accuracy.

[John]

All this is speculative talk, not worth a paisa. Actually the Brahmos weighs 3 tonnes and the air launched version is 2.55 tonnes, that'e even more pitiful.
Brahmos is not a brown water/littoral missile. The Brahmos-M will come like the LCA/Arjun, my grandkids will see it fly.
The Brahmos may be able to do a supersonic S-turn; that does not make it littoral.
The detection and tracking of Coastal Missile Batteries is less than 100km; the 300 km range of the Brahmos is an overkill. Also the lo-hi-lo path used by the Brahmos is not suitable for distance within 100km.
DRDO does not have the expertise or vision to develop the technology for MMCB's to defeat moving targets at max range. Note the key word here is MMCB.
The assumption that the Brahmos has the best or higher hit probability is a supposition without comparative analysis.

The NSM missile is less than 500 kg, a range of 180 km and developed for all naval scenarios. A 125 kg warhead is sufficient for most practical purposes especially for invasion scenarios, namely the mother-ships will not be as armoured or defendable as combat ships.

You are not making any sense under 120 km Brahmos flies a lo flight profile it doesn't need lo hi lo flight profile. This RFI is simply a way for navy to make process open, Brahmos more or less bagged the order. Brahmos m isnt developed by drdo what does it gave to do with LCA or Arjun, it will enter flight tests in 2017 and builds on some of improvements done on Air launched Brahmos.

Either way IN is trying to get funding for other higher priority procurements I doubt this will see daylight anytime soon.

[Singha]

it would be better to invest these funds in a ASBM project. thats some real utility. none would care to sail large warships so close to our shores and land based ASMs will be slow to relocate vs those on warships and aircraft.

the days of PN flotilla sailing to 10km of Porbandar to hammer the somnath temple is over. they would be tracked and sunk 100s of km out.

[Pratyush]

Gents, just because a coastal battery radar will have a range of 100 Kms. and the Brahmos has a range of 290. Dosent mean that the Brahmos cannot be used as a coastal missile system.

For longer range engagements it can use off board sensors, from the maritime rece platforms or other sensors. For smaller rage engagements, it can handle them by itself.

Higher numbers of missile will result in lower unit cost for the system.

So what is the problem??

[Singha]

[Philip]

One cannot fathom the IN's obsession for acquiring almost every type of anti-ship missile in existence.We still use Russian Styx variants on the missile boats/corvettes,Urans ("Harpoonskis") which have roughly the same range.performance as US Harpoons,300KM range Klub variants with Mach 3 terminal homing warheads,sub-sonic Exocets for the Scorpenes when far deadlier Klubs are aboard our Kilos, and BMos,the most deadly of them all. Not too long ago we also had Sea eagles aboard our Jaguars. Urans and Klubs appear to be std. anti-ship missiles aboard our frigates,with BMos now being fitted aboard the latest warships.

I would plump without hesitation for BMos,or at the very least the smaller Klub,which still has a sensible 300km range,that could engage the enemy at longer ranges without enemy warships being able to launch their missiles at our coastal sites with their inferior missiles. BMos would also significantly cut down the time taken to reach the target and large salvoes would not be needed given its kinetic speed and great difficulty in countering it.

A cost-effective sensible alternative is also available,removing the older missiles (Urans) aboard our warships ,like those on the Delhis and replace them with the deadlier BMos which we are producing in large qty at home. This way all our surface combatants using the older sub-sonic Urans,etc., could be upgraded with either Klub or BMos.,hugely improving their firepower.

What is the need for a new coastal missile battery using a new missile type when we ourselves are exploring the export of BMos? We will become an international laughing stock if we import another type and it would also raise Qs about the effectiveness of BMos,which we reject for our own requirements but want to export it to others! the 150km range requirement may be because that could be the range of our coastal radars,but in the era of NCW,with an assortment of warships,aircraft,ground based radars,UAVs and Sats all providing ISR,we should plump for the best especially as we have co-developed it which others envy and are trying to emulate.

PS:If we limit the range to just 150km,then all the enemy need to do is to acquire 200km+ land attack/anti-ship missiles!

[shaun]

Philip saab, 150 is the bare minimum spec. desired. Only question of mine, can brahmos be data linked with P8i, bears and mays.

[Aditya G]

We already operate land based brahmos. His different is it going to be in coastal defence role?

[Karan M]

The detection and tracking of Coastal Missile Batteries is less than 100km; the 300 km range of the Brahmos is an overkill. Also the lo-hi-lo path used by the Brahmos is not suitable for distance within 100km.
DRDO does not have the expertise or vision to develop the technology for MMCB's to defeat moving targets at max range. Note the key word here is MMCB.

LOL isn't this the same dude who was ranting about the LCA's paint technology or something because he didnt like the color of the radome.

Pray tell what technology does the MMCB need to defeat moving targets at max range when a) the Brahmos battery (coastal complex) can take sensor feeds for long range acquisition and b) the missile has a very short flight time thanks to high speed (which means targets wouldnt have moved far) plus seeker for acquiring target at max range.

[Karan M]

Gents, just because a coastal battery radar will have a range of 100 Kms. and the Brahmos has a range of 290. Dosent mean that the Brahmos cannot be used as a coastal missile system.

For longer range engagements it can use off board sensors, from the maritime rece platforms or other sensors. For smaller rage engagements, it can handle them by itself.

Higher numbers of missile will result in lower unit cost for the system.

So what is the problem??

eggjactly

[member_28305]

We already operate land based brahmos. His different is it going to be in coastal defence role?

May be there is a difference in seeker/targetting/software.

land based brahmos (existing) is designed for surgical strikes inside enemy territory.

[Karan M]

Sibyt, the first variants of Brahmos are the Anti Ship ones. Land Based Brahmos for IA came much later. The only thing lacking is an integral radar and if that's such a big deal & required at short notice, we can always license one from Russia proven to work in the naval surveillance role. (LRDE has a coastal surv. program but a land based naval surv/fc radar is not mentioned).

[Karan M]

Guys, this is real interesting. Guess which radar Kongsberg has been using to proof the Missile complex

http://www.kongsberg.com/~/media/KDS/Fi ... 02013.ashx

None other the TRS-15M.. its a variant of the same TRS-1x family which was codeveloped by LRDE and PIT (Poland). Our systems went onto be the Rohini, Revathi etc after we even improved some of the base h/w (antenna/receiving system, sw, processing) - they developed their own land based variant for naval surveillance (range of 50km).

Point is we can manage something similar (Revathi is in Naval service) and higher ranged than the TRS above IIRC.

[kit]

http://www.spsnavalforces.com/exclusive ... le-systems

The Indian Navy has announced interest in 15 mobile missile coastal battery (MMCB) systems for deployment at various locations along the country's coast to protect Naval bases and ships. According to the Navy, "The MMCB is intended to be deployed for defence of the coast line against attacks from the sea and it should consist of mobile launchers, mobile command post, integral mobile radar which provides range commensurate to the range of the missile and mobile replenishment vehicle to replenish/re-arm the mobile launchers with missiles."

The Navy is looking for a missile system with a minimum desired range of 150 km and a warhead weight of at least 150 kg. The MMCB will be required for the anti-ship and near land attack roles, and the Navy has specifically asked for commonalities with anti-ship missiles launched from ships. In addition, the Navy has sought details of missile construction, capabilities and specific features, including waypoint, re-attack capability, flight profile (eg flight altitude/speeds in various phases, details of sea-skimming capability etc), speed of missile (minimum required 0.8 Mach), terminal phase manoeuvre capability, RCS of missile, hit probability against various targets, inertial navigation system (INS), any GPS/ GLONASS or other receiver for positional and targeting accuracy.

Just curious ..would the coastal mobile missile coastal battery have any capability against supersonic missiles ..in all probability by the time the system comes on line it may have to deal with supersonic and hypersonic missiles ?

[Singha]

I guess its time to cobble together a local 150km ASM and standardize. we have all the pieces needed for it. prices are escalating and so is our needs, time to plug that gap as well. unlike stuff like brahmos, the small ASM should not be too complex but LRASM type features can be tried out...

[Karan M]

singha, correct!

[bmallick]

Philip saab, 150 is the bare minimum spec. desired. Only question of mine, can Brahmos be data linked with P8i, bears and mays.

Shaun, over the horizon targeting for Brahmos is needed even if it is launched from ships. Even a ships radar cannot see surface target 300km away, because of the curvatures of earth. Which means over the horizon targeting for Brahmos is already solved.

The only reason I can speculate on, for Brahmos not being used for the Coastal Battery, is that the range of the missile is actually, much much more than what is advertised maybe around 500km or more. The navy expects in a coastal scenario to use Land based Aircraft's, ( IN or IAF fighters) to hit target that far away. However, because of limited air support in the open ocean, we need a really long range missile to hit targets at huge distances.

Also a development of a small 400-500kg missile with ranges of 100-200 km is a huge need for us. We need multiple versions of this family. Air-Launched AShM both from fighters, helicopters and small ships and Land Attack version to arm almost all out aircrafts. Maybe with the maturity of the Nirbhay platform, we can see a more spinoffs.

Added Later----

In our case, since except for the Andaman sea, every where else, out from our coastal line it is open sea, hence no clutter from the littorals. Some might say that there might be a large number of civilian vessels near our coast, which would cause issues in targeting, but I would say that would be the case even when our naval ships are attacking enemy ports / ships in its littoral environment. So probably we have already solved that issue.

[Karan M]

for nirbhay, the two remaining hurdles are series production of a local engine and seeker. both will happen as IIRC prototypes are already in tests, but production ready units are still a couple of years away.

[Aditya G]

... The navy expects in a coastal scenario to use Land based Aircraft's, ( IN or IAF fighters) to hit target that far away. However, because of limited air support in the open ocean, we need a really long range missile to hit targets at huge distances.

Also a development of a small 400-500kg missile with ranges of 100-200 km is a huge need for us. ....

bmallick, I find one basic flaw in your argument. Its your assumption that threat is located at a perpendicular distance from the coast.

The long range missile can be used to attack targets farther away from missile battery but closer to the shore.

This means that you need fewer missile installations to protect the coast. Which in turn *may* just mean that the a Brahmos solution is cheaper than Uran or any other comparable system.

Compare the defensive bubble. A brahmos installation at INS Abhimanyu can protect Surat as well:

http://www.mapdevelopers.com/draw-circl ... C0.4%5D%5D

http://www.mapdevelopers.com/draw-circl ... C0.4%5D%5D

And to top that the Mach 3 speed ensures good time on target.

Viz-a-viz targetting, IMHO the issue persists for a 150 K range missile as well. Rather with 300 K range you need fewer sensor platforms/

[Aditya G]

"Brahmos in coastal defence" Official brochure from unmentionable brochure blog

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-GX616Y7jpKI/U ... ysterm.jpg

[John]

Shaun, over the horizon targeting for Brahmos is needed even if it is launched from ships. Even a ships radar cannot see surface target 300km away, because of the curvatures of earth. Which means over the horizon targeting for Brahmos is already solved.

Not going to go to much but Brahmos doesn't require over the horizon targeting it can be fired in general vicinity of target.

As i said earlier this is just an RFI in order to make the selection process open and considering Navy is struggling to get funding for higher priority procurements: Medium Helos, additional frigates etc no chance this procurement of coastal batteries will get approved any time before 2020.

[uddu]

With 300km range of Brahmos, we have to deploy them at 14 different locations to cover the whole of India. There will be huge gaps left if we go for shorter range missiles and the numbers required will be above 25+. So it's even economical to go with Brahmos.
Link

[shaun]

Shaun, over the horizon targeting for Brahmos is needed even if it is launched from ships. Even a ships radar cannot see surface target 300km away, because of the curvatures of earth. Which means over the horizon targeting for Brahmos is already solved.

I think Brahmos don't require any OTH targeting solution , Its launched towards the general direction of the target , it uses Sat Nav and INS for navigation and course correction and when some 50Km (?) from the target uses it onboard active seeker and algorithms to identify targets. Brahmos don't have any data link capability ( correct me )

[Prem Kumar]

I guess its time to cobble together a local 150km ASM and standardize. we have all the pieces needed for it. prices are escalating and so is our needs, time to plug that gap as well. unlike stuff like brahmos, the small ASM should not be too complex but LRASM type features can be tried out...

The specs (high subsonic, smaller range) looks Harpoon-esque to me, unless DRDO can do juggad & rapidly put together a Nirbhay-M subsonic, sea skimming missile with seeker. Interestingly, the phrase "waypoint & re-attack" is mentioned. To my knowledge, Brahmos doesn't have either but Nirbhay does

[Mihir]

I think Brahmos don't require any OTH targeting solution , Its launched towards the general direction of the target , it uses Sat Nav and INS for navigation and course correction and when some 50Km (?) from the target uses it onboard active seeker and algorithms to identify targets. Brahmos don't have any data link capability ( correct me )

You would still need to identify the target. Firing blindly would be an option of the last resort, employed only if targeting platforms were eliminated by the enemy.

[shaun]

I did not not get into that detail, ofcourse a radar need to first identify the target or a MPA can pass on the target information to the ship. I want to say once the position of target get identified , the same is being fed to Brahmos and it flies to the target , but for target identification and homing , it have a seeker having dual mode active and passive anti-radiation homing capability. All in all its a fully autonomous fire and forget missile.

[Singha]

the brahmos/klub radar has range of 50km max against large targets, much less against FACs probably.

the kind of small agile AESA radars coming inline into next gen american missiles like the amraam successor and LRASM are probably the way forward to deal with complex environments, better resistance to jamming etc.....

[Mihir]

Singha saar, the now-cancelled LRASM used an active radar seeker for search and initial target acqusition, ESM sensors to avoid enemy defences, and finally the IIR seeker from the JASSM to identify and hit specific ships. Amazing piece of kit.

[Singha]

>> the now-cancelled LRASM

I do not think its cancelled. its in testing to enter service both on ships and in the B1 bomber which is being reused as as naval support platform these days in the pacific. brar_w saheb would be really displeased if it were cancelled! it is being rushed into service as priority since the cheen has now enough resources to swat down the harpoon ASM and its shooter due to short range.

this is press release from 2 days ago.
http://www.darpa.mil/NewsEvents/Release ... 02/09.aspx

[Mihir]

My bad, cancelled ins't exactly the correct term. The USN procured a hundred or so as a stop-gap measure against improved naval defences. The competition for the next anti-ship missile to replace the Harpoon is being thrown open again, though.

[brar_w]

The LRASM was never cancelled. The missile is currently in testing. I have written in detail about it in the International Naval Forum. It was an urgent needs weapon and will end its production in 2018 (unless extended) after the USN and the USAF get between 100 and 200 urgent needs missiles delivered to them for the F-18E/F Super Hornet and the B-1 families (By default all tactical air platforms would eventually be able to use it thanks to UAI). It was born as a program out of DARPA's contract to develop a future seeker and threat libraries and associated algos for processing complex anti-ship missions in crowded sea lanes from long ranges where discrimination and the ability to operate in GPS denied environments was an objective. That program was spun into an urgent needs weapons based on better buying initiatives. The reason they can only buy a few hundred of these missiles is because of the nature of the contracting. Since Lockheed competed for the DARPA contracted and got an extension into urgent needs program they would formally have to hold a competition if they want a larger procurement run. The USN is however concentrating on the ship based solution next and that program of record is being funded currently. The competition at this stage is between Lockheed Martin (VLS launched LRASM), Raytheon (different variants of the Tomahawk including one that is supersonic), and the Kongsberg and Raytheon JSM (VLS launched version with a booster). Boeing has not yet shown its cards but in the past has offered clean sheet missile designs.

http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.ph ... ew&id=1953
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/content/d ... asm-pc.pdf

In July of 2014 year Lockheed Martin received a 200 Million dollar contract for the Accelerated Acquisition program

The competition for the next anti-ship missile to replace the Harpoon is being thrown open again, though.

That competition was always planned even while the LRASM R&D was taking place. Urgent needs weapons can only be cleared for outright production and acquisition under strict conditions. The Offensive surface weapon contracts call for a ship launched capability while the LRASM-A was an acquisition or an air-launched capability. Lockheed Martin smartly, spent its own funds to make the missile compatible with the booster and to demonstrate its ability to be launched from a VLS thereby negating some of the advantage that Raytheon had. Raytheon meanwhile has done seeker work on its now, as well as tunnel testing of a more survivable (supersonic) version of the Thawk. They have also formed a partnership with Kongsberg to develop a VLS launched JSM version that Kongsberg showcased last year. Needless to say, the LRASM has a very strong chance to win the larger contract although it may be decided to upgrade existing Tomohawk's in addition to procuring the LRASM because it just makes sense. One is a 300-350 nm weapon (LRASM) and the other is around a 1000nm weapon that can be sub launched.

The real enabler of all this is UAI, especially for the Air Sea Battle Concept (if it is ok to still call it that) since it opens up options. You can strap on a LRASM or an JSM to any UAI enabled platform which by 2022 or so would include the entire USAF and USN tactical fleet in addition to the B-1 and B-52. This could potentially allow you to develop rapid capability and integrate it at near zero cost (just separation testing) whereas earlier that was an impediment to brand-new programs.

[shaun]

With miniaturization of seekers , Tri seeker technology with passive homing will be the norm in the coming days. Brahmos may be having KTRV-Detal K313 radar altimeter , does it also helps it in achieving TERCOM at least for the Block 3 variants ??

Block 3 can also differentiate among multiple possible targets , how is it achieved ??

[Cain Marko]

I woUlf love to see an extended version prahaar here. 1500kg, 300km. Very short time to target, ballistic trajectory will do fine. No need to spend brahmos type cash and definitely no need for kongsberg. fast, cheap, andpowerful.

Btw would bmos is a decent choice in terms of capability. Definitely better than any subsonic which would need continuous target tracking, bmos is fast enough not to.

[Singha]

once the local cruise missile engine issue is IOCed, we will see range of engine variants for multiple weapons.

a boxy vlo shaped submunition dispenser of the jassm type would permit a lot of deep strike options against SAM covered targets.

[Philip]

Ck the report for full details .The way of the future,already here,which the IN should give serious thought to for its future weapon systems.

US Admiral: Lasers are going to be a big part of naval warfare
Rod Mcguirk, Associated Press
Feb. 10, 2015,
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/us-admir ... z3RVUMKCuP

[prabhug]

what is the probability of the min-brahmos developed used in coastal security ??

[Philip]

Some sad news,that the Viraat is going to be retired in 2016.The reason given that there are not enough Sea harriers operational. We missed the bus when the UK for budgetary reasons retd. early 70+ Harriers all snapped up by the USMC. Even a dozen had they been acquired could've kept the carrier going for another few years. The RN also had some Sea Harriers which were also retd. some time ago apart from the GR Harriers. Spares ,etc. could be available for cannibalisation.Maintenance is also mentioned,but until the 4 new amphibs which will arrive only by 2020 at the earliest,the Viraat could've been kept on in service as a helicopter carrier/amphib vessel,which was its role during the Falklands War. IAC-1,the new Vikrant is not yet commissioned,and the Viraat could've been kept on until the Vikrant was commissioned. One hopes that the IN at least keeps the carrier in "mothballs" until IAC-1,arrives.

The UK may be interested in preserving he carrier as a museum,as it won the Falklands War for it.One hopes that at least the GOI retains the carrier as a military museum after the Vikrant was sadly sent to the breakers.

http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/i ... 884261.ece

INS Viraat to be decommissioned in 2016

INS Viraat, India's second aircraft carrier commissioned in 1987, is slated to have a grand farewell next year.

The aircraft carrier has served for 56 years

The Navy is learnt to have taken the call to retire the decrepit warhorse INS Viraat, the aircraft carrier that has had a service life of 56 years as on date — first as HMS Hermes in the Royal British Navy and in its present avatar since 1987.

Viraat — which saw action in the Falklands War and remained for well over a decade the sole aircraft carrier in the Indian Ocean region following the decommissioning of the first Indian carrier INS Vikrant in 1997 — is slated to have a grand farewell at the International Fleet Review at Visakhapatnam in February 2016.

It is in the process of obtaining Defence Ministry’s clearance to the retirement plan.

Mounting maintenance costs and rapid depletion of its integral fleet of Sea Harrier jump jets are said to have catalysed the decision to decommission Viraat. The Navy shelled out Rs. 70 crore for the last routine refit of the carrier.

The carrier was to have been dry-docked at the shipyard for the next round of periodic refit in December last year, but it was called off in view of the retirement proposal. Viraat is now expected to have its decommissioning refit sometime in the middle of 2015, say sources.

The retirement call was forced, in part, by the dwindling fleet of Sea Harrier fighters operating from the deck of Viraat. While the limited upgrade Sea Harrier (LUSH) programme bestowed the fighters with modern avionics and beyond visual range (BVR) strike capability, the ageing airframe has been a concern. Not more than seven Sea Harriers are available at the moment — some of them cannibalised (used as ‘Christmas Tree’ for spares) to keep the relatively agile ones airworthy.

“Thanks to the Navy’s stringent maintenance regimen, we have been able to operate Viraat without major glitches until now. But the Harrier fleet has dwindled so much that within the Navy, Viraat is often referred to as a ‘One Harrier carrier’. No point flogging it any further,” an official said.

India’s first carrier Vikrant, which was turned into a maritime museum post-retirement in 1997, has now been broken up after its upkeep became ostensibly unviable.

[arshyam]

Please, let's preserve at least this ship as a museum!