Indian Nuclear Submarines -3

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 30 Aug 2017 08:38

are these used sub to helicopter or sub to sub ? laser being very directional unlike RF how is a moving sub going to direct to a moving aircraft?

Thakur_B · Post by **Thakur_B** » 30 Aug 2017 09:21

sum wrote:From SJha:
Anyway, a good piece of news is that @DRDO_India's SSPL lab has managed to develop a blue laser based submarine communication system.

Guess what system is supposed to be compatible with blue laser communication system

http://www.militaryaerospace.com/articl ... tions.html

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 30 Aug 2017 11:58

Such commns. are the holy grail for sub warfare.The US has been pursuing such blue-green laser dev. with sats for the past 25 yrs.+ An SSBN need not send up a commns. buoy if such a system has been perfected,but in general,all N-subs in particular use such a system when operating even from v.deep depths.ELF systems also work but the message takes a long time to be recd. and processed. However,subs shouldn't depend upon any single system in the event of one breaking down for whatever reason.The laser penetration through heavy cloud cover There is a US patent for the same.

Secure two-way submarine communication system
US 5038406 A
ABSTRACT
An arrangement for secure two-way tactical laser communications between a submarine submerged in an ocean and an airborne platform. During an initital acquisition mode, the airborne transceiver sends a downlink pulse-modulated blue-green laser beam to the ocean surface and below using a predetermined IFF code to identify the transceiver to the submarine. In the preferred embodiment the transmit optics spread the beam out into an elongated elliptically-shaped pattern to maximize coverage of the search area. When the downlink beam energy is within range of the submarine, an optical receiver on the submarine detects the beam, filters out the background light with a very narrow-band filter, and converts the light pulses to equivalent electrical pulse. A signal processor in the submarine receiver decodes the electrical pulses and verifies the IFF code to prevent the submarine from responding to a laser beam from an unfriendly source. If the IFF is verified, the submarine laser transceiver transmits a pulse-modulated uplink beam response at the same wavelength, but timed so that the light pulses are time interleaved with the downlink pulses. The uplink beam power is carefully controlled to the minimum power level required by the airborne receiver to recover the uplink beam. As soon as the airborne receiver verifies the uplink IFF code, communications being over the laser link for the duration of time that the airborne platform receiver is within range of the uplink beam. In one embodiment of this invention, both receivers employ a Cesium filled atomic resonance filter (ARF) to separate the blue-green beam from any background light.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 30 Aug 2017 12:06

from the description sounds like a very tricky problem in physics and signal processing to work in all sea conditions. the sea is constantly shifting and moving.

Will · Post by **Will** » 01 Sep 2017 21:45

Has been 2 years now since the SSN project was sanctioned. There were reports at that time that help might be sought from the French or Uncle Sam. I guess it would be either Russia or the French who would help. Hasn't been any news of any progress on the SSN project since then though

.

Karthik S · Post by **Karthik S** » 01 Sep 2017 21:51

Arihant at 6000T is apt size for a SSN, am sure they'd have come up with the sub design by now.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 02 Sep 2017 00:01

Karthik S wrote:Arihant at 6000T is apt size for a SSN, am sure they'd have come up with the sub design by now.

Arihant was planned as an SSN until "converted" in the design phase as an SSBN post 1998 and due to its size in the class, known as a baby boomer. The holy grail IMO is the propulsion. We need about 150 MWt to propel an SSN of the Arihant tonnage to speeds of 30+ knots. Anything else we are in the creative zone and with our own unique doctrine and procedures to operate an SSN, if the IN buys into such limitations. IMO: The primary use of the SSN for us is in the hunter-killer role against sub surface and surface vessels and not land attack aka SSGN.

sum · Post by **sum** » 02 Sep 2017 08:26

Will wrote:Has been 2 years now since the SSN project was sanctioned. There were reports at that time that help might be sought from the French or Uncle Sam. I guess it would be either Russia or the French who would help. Hasn't been any news of any progress on the SSN project since then though .

I would say no news is good news atleast in Nsub dept

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 03 Sep 2017 00:45

Presently S3, S4 & S5 are in build stage with 8 tubes each.

Thereafter attack submarine build will start. It's presently in design phase with noise reduction features learnt from Scorpene project being applied.

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

tsarkar wrote:Presently S3, S4 & S5 are in build stage with 8 tubes each.

Thereafter attack submarine build will start. It's presently in design phase with noise reduction features learnt from Scorpene project being applied.

Thanks tsarkar. Coming from a veteran like you confirms the Sourav Jha report.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 03 Sep 2017 04:25

Singha wrote:from the description sounds like a very tricky problem in physics and signal processing to work in all sea conditions. the sea is constantly shifting and moving.

The French said no to SSN help.

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 03 Sep 2017 05:05

It seems IN percieved its importance early and started working on it since 80s :

http://www.indiadefence.com/subcomm.htm

WHAT'S HOT? –– ANALYSIS OF RECENT HAPPENINGS

SUBMARINE COMMUNICATIONS

An IDC Analysis with Inputs from Sayan Majumdar

New Delhi, 01 February 2004

In the futuristic scenario painted by Gen S Padmanabhan in his book reviewed by us last week he missed out on one very pertinent and potent future weapon for India in 2017 –– the use of submarines both conventional and nuclear powered, with the stated ‘second strike’ capability. It is quite likely that an Indian nuclear submarine will be in operation by then with sister submarines, as India’s second strike. The General discussed the ALH, Vajra a laser based weapon, advanced Akash AA systems and others in the book for the 2017 scenario but failed to include futuristic submarines and their communications. Several reports have suggested that the Indian Navy will have an operational nuclear powered submarine by about 2006. In such a scenario it is pertinent to shift focus to underwater VLF/ELF (Very Low Frequency/Extremely Low Frequency) and laser communications for effective coordination of the submarines with the National Command Authority.

The exact type of submarine the Navy may get remains to be seen but it could be a customized development of Russian Project 885 Yasen/Graney Class also referred to as Severodvinsk Class, which is a further derivative of the Project 971 Akula Class and features a significant cruise missile capability with eight vertical launch tubes aft of the sail. The hull is made of low magnetic steel, with spherical bow sonar and canted torpedo tubes. Another option could be a variant of Project 949A Antey Oscar II Class SSGN (Submarine, Nuclear powered, Cruise missile armed). Interestingly the dimensions of Oscar are greater than most variants of even ballistic missile armed submarines.

The Indian Navy had anticipated the importance of VLF (Very Low Frequency) underwater transmissions long ago. As part of an ambitious naval modernisation program, during the mid-1980s the Indian Navy had constructed a VLF (Very Low Frequency) broadcasting station in Tamil Nadu. Although not publicly declared, it was reported that the United States actively collaborated in the project, which was completed in September 1986.

The operational VLF facility can primarily be used by the Indian Navy to communicate with its SSKs (Submarine, Conventional powered hunter-killer). When nuclear submarines become operational, the VLF facility will permit Indian National Command Authority to issue launch orders to submerged subs at depths of several metres. VLF waves propagate almost a quarter of the globe away and are generally immune to atmospheric disturbances caused by nuclear detonations.

However on the negative side, their small bandwidth limits the rate of transmission of data, usually allowing only the operation of slow Teletype messages. Moreover the large terrestrial and static VLF facility would be vulnerable to enemy strikes and even if the VLF facility is shifted deep underground in “hardened” shelters, the communication antennae would be located above ground and will remain vulnerable. Thus an airborne VLF transmitter similar to the US Navy’s TACAMO (Take Charge And Move Out) should be seriously considered for procurement.

A powerful 200KW transmitter provides the VLF transmissions in TACAMO. The United States Navy utilizes an EC-130A/Q Hercules with a trailing wire antennae 10km long with a drogue parachute at the end. During transmission the aircraft flies in a continuous tight circle, which results in over 70 percent of the wire hanging straight down and acting as a relatively efficient vertical antennae.

Presently the E-6 Mercury is the airborne platform of the United States TACAMO Communications System. It provides survivable communication links between the United States NCA (National Command Authority) and Strategic Forces. Long range, air refuelable E-6 is a derivative of the commercial Boeing 707 aircraft equipped with four CFM-56-2A-2 high bypass ratio fan/jet engines with thrust reversers. The weapon system is EMP (Electro Magnetic Pulse) hardened. Mission range is over 6000 nautical miles. E-6B fulfils both TACAMO and ABNCP (Airborne National Command Post) missions.

The E-6 ABNCP modification program was established to upgrade TACAMO operational capabilities by incorporating a subset of USSTRATCOMM (United States Strategic Command) EC-135 ABNCP equipment into the E-6 aircraft. The modified aircraft have the designation changed from E-6A to E-6B. The E-6B modified an E-6A by adding battle staff positions and other specialised equipment. The E-6B is a dual-mission aircraft capable of fulfilling either the E-6A mission or the airborne strategic command post mission and is equipped with an ALCS (Airborne Launch Control System). The ALCS is capable of launching United States ICBMs (Inter Continental Ballistic Missiles). The E-6B is capable of performing both the TACAMO and ABNCP missions.

This modification enables USSTRATCOM to perform current and projected TACAMO and ABNCP operational tasking and the E-6B provides survivable C3 (Command, Control and Communications) force management communications for the NCA via multiple frequency band communications. TACAMO role is fulfilled in Russian Navy by a variant of Tupolev-142 Bear-J.

Attention has now shifted to laser based underwater communications. There is an optical window in the blue-green part of the laser spectrum, which enables transmission to penetrate the ocean at substantial distance. Power requirements are considerable and the system at least presently cannot be installed in artificial satellites. Thus as a tactical improvisation the laser is made to be ground based, preferably mobile, in perfect conjunction with a space based mirror with adaptive optics being used to produce a cohesive beam. Significantly, data transfer rate will be 300 times greater than ELF (Extremely Low Frequency) system although the “rerouted” laser may not penetrate the same depth.

The effective combination of nuclear submarines and underwater VLF/ELF (Very Low Frequency/Extremely Low Frequency) and laser communications will make our sea based nuclear deterrent optimally effective. The challenge lies in front of our national leadership and defence scientists to “secure” the proper system either indigenously or import it from established powers.

Singha wrote:from the description sounds like a very tricky problem in physics and signal processing to work in all sea conditions. the sea is constantly shifting and moving.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 03 Sep 2017 10:37

http://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Hyd ... 517424.ece

being the hindu I would trust them on technical matters.

- we have a operational VLF facility in south TN
- a ELF facility is coming up in another site - ELF has even less bit rate but deeper water penetration
- US has decommed its ELF a decade ago which clearly means they have laser comms from satellite operational, while making noise of initial experiments by cheen

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 03 Sep 2017 11:50

INS Kattabomman has one of the tallest structures on earth.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_t ... y_category

Karthik S · Post by **Karthik S** » 03 Sep 2017 17:37

arshyam · Post by **arshyam** » 03 Sep 2017 18:03

We also have an operational ELF facility at INS Kattabomman, this new one must be a backup (?). It opened in 2014 per this Diplomat article link though, and The Hindu article itself alludes to it. This thread's previous avatar had this discussion with a Janes report from 2013 which mentioned the facility was under construction them (viewtopic.php?p=1697782#p1697782).

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 03 Sep 2017 18:07

Thanks Karthik

- Confirms what I had posted - Arihant has a high proportion of imported kit (read Russian) whereas follow on Aridhaman etc will be much more indigenous

- Interesting info about S-5. Finally we will break out of the standard yindoo Light-medium fixation & build a decently sized SSBN, 12000 Ton is not as high as 18T class Ohio class. But at least it will have more Ballistic Missile tubes and probably CM tubes as well.

- 4 Arihant/S-3/S4 class + S-5

- Akula will only be replaced by the new one, as the older one goes to get refuelled. So it won't really be 2-Akulas at one time

- SSNs are 6K class. This is in line with LA class which are 6K class weight as well. 6-7 years for the class to emerge.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 03 Sep 2017 19:05

The Arihant platform,without the missile plug could serve as the basis for our attack boats. In fact,the Arihant itself appears to have been originally designed as an attack boat which was converted into a hybrid SSGN/SSBN boat (to prove the concept) as time went by and the Sino-Pak strat. threat increased forcing us to change tack and build the SSBNs first. The Russians have successfully used old Sov. era hulls of unfinished subs lying in their yards,in building new ones as the hulls were of similarproven dia. and specs.,which also have a lifetime of 50+ yrs. So even if the design hasn't been totally refined,as N-sub designs and tech are dramatically improving by the year,with new sonars,sensors,commn. systems,weaponry,UUVs,etc.,the final "package" of what the innards are has to be quickly finalised even as prelim work on the hulls can start. The first aspect to be finalised will be a totally new reactor with a v.long life,at least 20 yrs. before refuelling is needed,preferably never.The hull will be shaped for a much faster speed,at least between 30-35kts. I would say that given our dependence upon substantial Russian design assistance,which will continue for the SSN series,the subs will be double hulled. There would have to be considerable commonality in components,etc.,with the Arihant/Aridhaman class ,simply because it makes support,spares,maintenance,costs much easier,esp. training submariners in operating eqpt.,better if similar eqpt. was found on all boats.

Our experience operating an Akula will have given us a good idea of an attack boat's characteristics,even though she's an SSGN. The second boat will come with better features,probably also feature a few silos for tactical missiles like BMos,etc.It is more likely that we'll go in for the classic torpedo room forward,unlike later US and Russian subs,which have spherical bow mounted sonars,with the torpedo room amidships. It would be a major achievement for us if the subs were as such.Weaponry,the latest versions of torpedoes for anti-sub,surface targets.Double hulls more likely as they offer sev. advantages over single hulls.However,if no French assistance is forthcoming,an SSN based upon the Scorpene/Barracuda is unlikely. If you compare the Chakra with Ru Akulas,there is a lot of missing sensors/decoys which gives them an edge in tracking N-subs.Hopefully the second boat will feature most of them.

The SSN should have at least a combination of a min. of 30+ weapons including rocket (Shkval) torpedoes,LRCMs (Nirbhay),BMos-NG (smaller size,fired from tubes) and long endurance,high speed loitering torpedoes which can make repeated attacks if successfully decoyed,requiring a hard kill option only to counter them.Our boats should also have both passive and active anti-torpedo systems. UUVs which can be launched and recovered from the sub which can make sorties into enemy waters scouting harbour defences,etc.,is essential. the USN has even developed UCAVs which can be launched/recovered from subs. The reported smaller Ru SSNs being developed could offer some insight.The IN had earlier wanted the Yasen class,but this is larger even than an Akula and v.expensive and complex to build and operate.Why the RuN has decided to build after the 8 planned,new classes of dedicated smaller subs for specific tasks.Cheaper,more numerous and faster to build and acquire.

Despite the probability of the Chakra returning to get refuelled,if offered,we should acquire it outright at depreciated costs,as possessing at least two Akula SSGNs will give us the qualitative edge over any PLAN N-sub.If the 6 SSNs are merely going to protect our SSBNs,which is a give-away if you can locate it,knowing that the SSBN will be nearby,then the IN will have nothing to pursue and destroy Chinese subs and SSBNs in the Indo-China Sea/Pacific waters.Our SSBNs should be able to survive on their own "running silent and running deep",hiding in the vastness of the IOR (and Pacific too!) ,with ICBMs capable of taking out any Chinko target at anytime,operating from anywhere in the waters of the India-Pacific oceans.

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 03 Sep 2017 21:30

Interesting Livefist posts a report after we post about the program over here.

There are two points Sandeep has not got right -

1. India does not subscribe to Soviet/Russian escort submarine concept because of issues with station keeping and IFF in combat situation. Indian ballistic missile submarines would operate in areas sanitized by MPA/Land based IAF fighters (Su-30s in Sulur/Thanjavur)/Carrier Aircraft/Type 28 corvettes. Torpedoes aren't intelligent enough to differentiate between two propellers making the same noise at same speed and a torpedo fired at the enemy may hit own sister sub.

2. The ballistic missile submarine is still in a concept phase - and will be built after the six attack submarines are built to a greater standard of noise reduction than Arihant class.

An additional point -

3. Planners prefer ballistic missile submarines as a primary strike system even in a conventional conflict being able to deliver effects at more longer range than large aircraft carrier and carrier based aircraft. This is also the reason we wont build a US style supercarrier. Submarines with high missile loadout can do it cheaper than aircraft carriers.

The aircraft carrier is made obsolete by cheaper and better and longer ranged missiles.

yensoy · Post by **yensoy** » 03 Sep 2017 22:47

^^^^ I think there are all sorts of non-proliferation laws which prevent Russia from selling Akulas to us.

We will need a couple of SSBNs constantly on the prowl, most likely in the Pacific region, for credible nuclear deterrence against China, and probably one in IOR against Pakistan.

Aircraft carriers have a different purpose for the US, which is force projection in distant regions against weak states/non-state actors. For deterrence purpose carriers are not as useful, in fact they are sitting ducks for a reasonably competent enemy navy. The corollary is that Chinese carriers will also be used to shock and awe errant despots who no longer tow the Chinese line. They won't be used against us.

KrishnaK · Post by **KrishnaK** » 04 Sep 2017 02:23

IDSA - Aircraft Carriers and India’s Naval Doctrine
All this talk of carriers becoming obsolete is absurd. Letting loose ballistic missiles from submarines for conventional strike is even more so.

In many cases, as compared to an airfield, a carrier is less vulnerable to the enemy’s pre-emptive strike due to its mobility.

That's for Phillips' usual INS India line.

IDSA - Aircraft Carriers: An Indian Introspection

The emerging geo-politico-strategic imperatives over the next couple of decades will leave India with no option but to maintain a sustained presence in different parts of the Indian Ocean to safeguard critical interests. It will be impossible to conceive and execute such tasks at great distances from the land without the help of tactical air power at sea. In India's case, aircraft carriers are the best bet for the job.

kit · Post by **kit** » 04 Sep 2017 04:38

KrishnaK wrote:IDSA - Aircraft Carriers and India’s Naval Doctrine
All this talk of carriers becoming obsolete is absurd. Letting loose ballistic missiles from submarines for conventional strike is even more so.

In many cases, as compared to an airfield, a carrier is less vulnerable to the enemy’s pre-emptive strike due to its mobility.
That's for Phillips' usual INS India line.

IDSA - Aircraft Carriers: An Indian Introspection
The emerging geo-politico-strategic imperatives over the next couple of decades will leave India with no option but to maintain a sustained presence in different parts of the Indian Ocean to safeguard critical interests. It will be impossible to conceive and execute such tasks at great distances from the land without the help of tactical air power at sea. In India's case, aircraft carriers are the best bet for the job.

The carriers are potent symbols of air power and landing ships at the same time .. one fully equipped group is enough to sanitise an entire ocean . A must for a *blue water navy* . For the Indian Navy, they are here to stay.

Will · Post by **Will** » 04 Sep 2017 12:49

Hope that the S5 is a proper SSBN with 16 missile cells rather than itsity bitsy 8-12. The S4* that's mentioned will probably be a stretched version with 12 cells.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 04 Sep 2017 13:08

No one is denying the carrier its capability or role.Pl read my posts in total and context.A large Cv for the IN at the moment is unaffordable.The greater priority is subs,where we have just 13+ ancient subs.A large carrier equipped with the air wing,etc. will cost upwards of at least $10B alone,without the cost of escorts,etc.For that price we can build all 6 SSNs at around $1.5B a boat. $10B would also give us around 20 diesel/AIP boats since a new Kilo costs around just $300M (Vietnam).A mix of 4 SSNs and 8-12 conv. AIP boats could also be had for the same price.
This would be a terrific boost to the IN's sub capability in the most rapid manner possible.

I suggested that the 4 multi-role amphibs (30/35K t) be designed/deckwise and lifts/hangars.to also operate JSF type F-35Bs,or even NLCAs should they materialise. These "pocket carriers" will augment our air capability on the high seas.What we can afford right now is a stretched sister ship to the IAC-1 ,around 50-55K t,equipped with the same perfected 29Ks or if larger lifts are installed,another type of naval aircraft.This would be a cost-effective solution. But even this carrier must come after we first augment the sub fleet which is in dire straits.Time and again,subs in US/NATO
exercises have sunk carriers.China possessing almost 100 subs by 2020 is a massive threat.The PLAN subs are now on regular IOR patrols and we musn't forget the 8 that Pak will also acquire form China,AIP Yuans in addition to its AIP Agostas.

The reqd. number of SSBNs must be built before the SSNs,as with the huge crisis over NoKo's ICBM capability,nations across Asia are scurrying for comfort and protection from any "umbrella". The unpredictability of the NoKo Young Un means that we need to add it t the list of potential nations inimical to India.Our SSBNs too in the future have to be equipped with genuine ICBMs of at least 8000KM range,preferably beyond 10k+

Leased upgraded Akula SSGNs would be v.powerful assets until our desi SSNs are built.We should increase this number to 4,so thta there is always 1 SSGN on patrol; in the Indo-China Sea (assisted by 2 shorter endurance conv. boats which can refuel in Viet ports) to forestall any attempt by the PLAN to "breakout" into the IOR.

PS: Russia is to resume dev. of a STOVL naval fighter based upon the incomplete Yak-!4! programme.There's av.good clip of it at farnborough here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WybwlN_UCVI
The Yak prog. ,design/tech,was supposedly used by the US in developing the JSF.
Wiki:

Cooperation with Lockheed[edit]
Following the announcement by the CIS on September 1991 that it could no longer fund development of the Yak-41M, Yakovlev entered into discussions with several foreign partners who could help fund the program. Lockheed Corporation, which was in the process of developing the X-35 for the US Joint Strike Fighter program, stepped forward, and with their assistance 48-2 was displayed at the Farnborough Airshow in September 1992. Yakovlev announced that they had reached an agreement with Lockheed for funds of $385 to $400 million for three new prototypes and an additional static test aircraft to test improvements in design and avionics. Planned modifications for the proposed Yak-41M included an increase in STOL weight to 21,500 kg (47,400 lb). One of the prototypes would have been a dual-control trainer. Though no longer flyable, both 48-2 and 48-3 were exhibited at the 1993 Moscow airshow. The partnership began in late 1991, though it was not publicly revealed by Yakovlev until 6 September 1992, and was not revealed by Lockheed until June 1994.[9]

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 04 Sep 2017 13:28

subs have a low size and capability threshold to be useful assets - even a 1500t SSK with AIP is a potent threat
carriers have a high threshold to be useful vs powerful enemies and need a own ecosystem around it.
thats why subs with stealth and ability to operate alone are platform of choice for deterrence and sea denial.

just beating up TSP does not make a case for a 65000 Vishal as TSP is permanently attached at hip to us, in easy reach of land based assets.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 04 Sep 2017 14:31

one of the things ppl forget in the CVN show is that US has always been a major submarine power in parallel with being a carrier power.
its Gato and Balao class subs were the largest and longest ranged in ww2 and one of first to put crew comfort in priority incl air conditioning & ice cream machines. its submarine arm primarily destroyed the japanese merchant navy while BB/CV hogged the limelight in duels with IJN surface fleet. no merchant fleet meant the outlying islands could not be held one by one. american subs slipped into the inland sea of japan from the north tsushima strait using the worlds first sub sonar set (developed in univ of san diego) , created mayhem for weeks and then escaped south for the loss of 1 sub.
http://www.subsowespac.org/books/hellcats.shtml

even today US has more n-subs than rest of world combined and the lead in numbers and tech is increasing not narrowing. for anti ship role they continue to rely on subs as the prime strike weapon. they set and retain the benchmark.

if funds a concern, its far better to be a major submarine power than a moderate carrier power. this is exactly the decision that russia also took in the cold war.

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 04 Sep 2017 16:34

Singha wrote:subs have a low size and capability threshold to be useful assets - even a 1500t SSK with AIP is a potent threat
carriers have a high threshold to be useful vs powerful enemies and need a own ecosystem around it.
thats why subs with stealth and ability to operate alone are platform of choice for deterrence and sea denial.

just beating up TSP does not make a case for a 65000 Vishal as TSP is permanently attached at hip to us, in easy reach of land based assets.

GD ji, it boils down to what type of Navy you want. A sea control navy will win us wars, or prevent them from happening without firing a shot.

Only carrier aviation can achieve sea control in IOR. Countries like Iran can make do with midget subs as all they need to do is block Strait of Hormuz.

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 04 Sep 2017 18:44

It's a black hole, which gobbles up resources.

If air force buys 45 fighters that means they are better use of money. Because they've higher availability and less wear&tear which happens to carrier based jets, due to their rough landing and take-off plus sea salt air taking its toll on fighters.

For usa it's ok because usa is a coward bully which likes to go beat up TT tiny powerless nations. They won't use it against powerful Russia ever. As usa carriers will be sitting duck to Russian wolfpack missiles.

Missile cruiser and subs are the way to go.

----------------------------
Why did INS Vikrant not take part in bombing Karachi port during 71' War? Wasn't it hiding in east coast from fear of porki submarines?

Is Vikramaditya going to be on porki coast unleashing mig 29 k against them or moving around our east coast, maintaining radio silence. While agostas roam freely hunting?

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 04 Sep 2017 19:15

Singha wrote:...
if funds a concern, its far better to be a major submarine power than a moderate carrier power. this is exactly the decision that russia also took in the cold war.

Yup. And it all depends on what you want. A carrier based strike force or an Air Defense Ship to provide cover for the fleet. Frankly, the ADS concept is passe against an equal/superior power (PRC). I have a hard time understanding how 20-30 fighters are going to protect against swarms of ASMs. The target ships have to defend against this themselves in a layered fashion. Enemy fighters are not going to 'buzz' and 'strafe'. They are going to launch standoff weapons. Not to mention hyper-sonic UAVs etc.

OTOH, a SSGN with commonality to a SSBN can influence both land and sea battles without stealth coatings. Lethality and survivability at efficient cost.

Are really planning to invade/attack a 3rd world country after intimidating them with the Vishaal? We don't need it against the pakis and it is not enough against the Chinese. We can specialize, letting the pRC spend against the US, Japan, OZ et al across the spectrum. We focus on SSKs, SSNs, SSGNs and the SSBNs augmented by the P-8Is, sats and a decent mix of surface ships including the JC type LHDs. I think that is why MP laughed off the Vishaal.

JMT and they continue to evolve as I read posts.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 04 Sep 2017 19:55

>> A sea control navy will win us wars, or prevent them from happening without firing a shot.

the threshold to doing that vs China is to be the USN. it is very high threshold. 1 or even 3 vishal class is no match for china in SCS region.
against TSP there are 10 other ways of beating them up that involves no carriers.

>> Only carrier aviation can achieve sea control in IOR.

pls define 'control' - outside our 16km waters anyone can sail anywhere. in the 200km EEZ they cannot fish or mine but can sail as they want.

there is nothing between indonesia to madagascar to control! just endless sea....if you want to deny chinese fleet right of passage its better to hunt them down using SSNs and land based bombers and LRMPs. in peacetime, whether we have carriers or not they can sail freely in international waters and there is nothing we can do about it...just as china cannot do anything about american carriers in taiwan straits or SCS. when the shooting starts sub can do the job far cheaper. subs can also shadow them in peacetime in concert with survey ship ELINT trawlers

the vikrant was hiding in some bay in north andamans for fear of the ghazi. only after ghazi was sunk it came out to play role vs BD

in WW2 at the first sight of japanese fleet the british fleet ran as fast as they could to maldives and left SL and indian coast to fend for itself, which the IJN raided and then left maybe scared off by british subs certainly NOT their battleships. the HMS Repulse and Prince of Wales were set upon by 88 bombers and smacked to the bottom.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 04 Sep 2017 20:05

model it this way - why does a DDG need 32-128 very expensive mix of SR MR and LR SAMs and huge radars ?
Ans : to defend it self and the fleet around it .
it is neither influencing anything on land or able to lash out with anymore than a pathetic pack 8-16 harpoons or more credibly 8-16 brahmos!!

now compare to a platform like Yasen which will cost as much as a large DDG.
it needs no real huge defensive armament or big radars!!
stealth and speed its its defence.
whatever is has it totally oriented to offense - a massive salvo of 32-40 kalibr/yakhont and around 30 more weapons in torpedo room.
that is 3X the offensive weapons of a DDG

it is also inherently more suited to peacetime surveillance and stalking of enemy ships and coastlines

Karthik S · Post by **Karthik S** » 04 Sep 2017 20:17

That weighs as much as S-5. I think our SSNs will be just that: SSN. I'll be happy if it carries 40 odd HWT and BrahMos missiles. It may or may not have VLS for BrahMos, initial LA class, the missiles were fired through Torpedo tubes. By the time our SSNs come, we can do necessary modifications to BrahMos diameter to fit in torpedo tubes if done that way.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 04 Sep 2017 20:23

UVLS are like dual-camera smartphones - everyone packs them. brahmos is too thick for TT. nirbhay has been designed with 21" diameter though.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 04 Sep 2017 21:30

I do support a few hyuga class 20000t fast helicopter carriers though for asw sea control role mounting a strong fleet of asw helis like jmsdf does to support land based asw efforts

We can get 3 for price of 1 vishal without emals nukular power and jsf airwing and 1/3 the tonnage

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 04 Sep 2017 21:35

https://m.imgur.com/tyXOkge

Karthik S · Post by **Karthik S** » 04 Sep 2017 22:01

BTW how many S-5? I don't think we'll stop at 1.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 04 Sep 2017 22:17

Atleast 3 or 4 like vanguard or troimphant class

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 04 Sep 2017 22:47

Karthik S wrote:That weighs as much as S-5. I think our SSNs will be just that: SSN. I'll be happy if it carries 40 odd HWT and BrahMos missiles. It may or may not have VLS for BrahMos, initial LA class, the missiles were fired through Torpedo tubes. By the time our SSNs come, we can do necessary modifications to BrahMos diameter to fit in torpedo tubes if done that way.

Yasen may be double hulled? Weight impact?

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 04 Sep 2017 22:50

Singha wrote:Atleast 3 or 4 like vanguard or troimphant class

If S5 is convertible (S4/K15/Nirbhay), we can amortize cost over larger run that includes SSGNs and keep PRC guessing over 'recessed deterrence.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 04 Sep 2017 22:55

Singha wrote:I do support a few hyuga class 20000t fast helicopter carriers though for asw sea control role mounting a strong fleet of asw helis like jmsdf does to support land based asw efforts

We can get 3 for price of 1 vishal without emals nukular power and jsf airwing and 1/3 the tonnage

Go the whole hog. Use the new Vikrant hulls to build Wasp class LHDs—our version of JC stick 20 F35Bs and we get both and 2 for the price of 1