Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Will · Post by **Will** » 24 Jun 2017 19:26

India should tie up with the Israeli's to build an Avenger or better equivalent.

sudeepj · Post by **sudeepj** » 24 Jun 2017 20:19

Can the Guardian be flown on the LOC to provide day and night coverage of the entire LoC area to prevent infiltration etc.?

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 24 Jun 2017 20:50

sudeepj wrote:Can the Guardian be flown on the LOC to provide day and night coverage of the entire LoC area to prevent infiltration etc.?

The SeaVue XMC is predominantly a maritime sensor while General Atomic's own Lynx is better suited for land based applications. Having said that there is nothing stopping the IN from deploying these over land but it is not going to be a very survivable platform against SAM and fighter threats that can target at altitudes beyond 25-30K feet.

For the LOC surveillance mission, it may just be better to buy cheaper variants of the Predator family or Heron variants since all you really need is a long loiter time and an IR sensor upfront.

arshyam · Post by **arshyam** » 24 Jun 2017 22:03

Chennai: Next defence shipbuilding hub - Jonathan Ananda, TNIE

CHENNAI: L&T Shipbuilding has plans for its Kattupalli Shipyard, just 30 kilometres from Chennai. Most of these could well see the shipyard become a major naval production hub in the private sector. According to the company’s managing director and CEO, Vice Admiral (Retd) B Kannan, the company has already decided that the yard will be dedicated to defence contracts.

“The management has decided, for now, that we will concentrate exclusively on defence contracts for the Kattupalli Shipyard, both from the Indian Navy as well as from friendly navies in the surrounding region,” he said. The company’s plans, in tandem with the Indian Navy’s aims to privatise a lot of its shipbuilding contracts, is likely to see the yard have a continuous pipeline of projects.

Speaking at the launch of India’s first indigenous floating dock at the shipyard on Monday, the Navy’s Controller of Warship Production and Acquisition, Vice Admiral DM Deshpande, pointed out that while public sector shipyards had been building almost all of the Navy’s indigenous production, an increasingly bigger role for private shipyards is planned.

“We have a maritime perspective plan and it enumerates a list of vessels/systems where we would like private sector participation. We would like to start private Indian participation, through strategic partnerships, for less-weapons intensive systems first,” Deshpande admitted. However, even these conditions leave huge opportunities open for private players. “This can take a lot of pressure off defence PSUs.”

This year is set to be a very important one for the Kattupalli Shipyard, which possesses a unique shiplift system that only a handful can boast of having globally. “There are around four important Naval projects in the pipeline for this year — this is a big year for naval shipbuilding,” said Kannan. {Any idea what these 4 projects are? The ones mentioned below are for the CG}

L&T Shipbuilding is already busy with other defence contracts. The Indian Coast Guard has mandated the building of seven offshore patrol vessels (OPV) of which two will be launched in the second half of the year. It has also launched 32 of the 54 interceptor boats that the Coast Guard has ordered and is also working on orders from the Vietnamese Navy for coastal vessels.

The yard could also become a major refit destination, especially for vessels it builds. The yard has already done four refits during the 2016-17 financial year and expects to see substantial business from the refit/repair business too.

Key points

According to L&T Shipbuilding, the FDN-2 dock can repair/refit any of the Indian Navy’s vessels, except for aircraft carriers and tankers.

The dock has been designed and built entirely in-house. Except for some sections which the Navy had specified, everything else has been made and built by L&T. “Even submarines can be serviced in the FDN-2. The dock can manage either one large ship, or even two small ships, totalling up to 8,000 tonnes. Aircraft carriers and tankers are classes of vessels that are too big and require a dry dock,” Vice Admiral (Retd) B Kannan, MD & CEO, L&T Shipbuilding, pointed out.

As per tradition, the dock was officially launched by Anjali, wife of Navy’s Controller of Warship Production and Acquisition, Vice Admiral DM Deshpande, and will undergo several trials in the next few weeks before being delivered to the Indian Navy at Port Blair.

“We expect the project to be delivered within schedule this year,” said JD Patil, senior executive vice president, L&T. The level of indigenisation achieved is also a major plus for the Navy, Patil pointed out.

The picture accompanying the article:

The launch of the Floating Dock Navy - 2 (FDN-2) at L&T Kattupalli Shipyard near Chennai on Tuesday | Romani Agarwal

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 24 Jun 2017 23:19

jamwal wrote:Just 10000 hours ?

Other way round. The Tu-142 fleet has clocked some 30,000 hrs from 1988-89 upto its retirement March 2017.

The P-8I fleet has done 10,000 hrs so far; INAS 312 inducted in 2015.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 25 Jun 2017 02:58

The logistical contract under which Boeing supports the US Navy's fleet is designed to support the maximum utilization rate of 1020 hours per aircraft/year (two different basing models for the USN that require operational utilization rates of 35 and 85 hours per aircraft per month) so that gives a good indication of what they can comfortably support for an export customer by simply extending the work that the have already performed in building their network and supply chain. Boeing can probably extend this significantly without much stress given their background in supporting commercial aircraft. This is a platform designed around very high dispatch reliability on the commercial side, and the logistics data comes from there as well. The mission systems on board are largely mature as well so high readiness isn't all that surprising.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 25 Jun 2017 13:04

You have to also understand the context of the two aircraft,even if the figs given are right.Before we acquired Bears and IL-38s,we operated only Super-Connies.Until recent years,we've had no threat from China and after dismembering Pak,the Western theatre was our prime focus. Bears were also acquired during the Cold War,when the US was antagonistic towards us and we needed these ultra-long range birds to keep watch on USN/NATO assets transiting/operating in the IOR region. The regular visits by Chinese warships and subs into the IOR,establishing the naval base at Gwadar which will have an airfield and sub facilities too,has increased the number of patrols,etc. of our LRMPs,why more P-8Is are required. In addition,we also need some medium sized ASW/MRP aircraft and more Dorniers to sanitise our EEZ/coastline and assist the P-8Is esp. for the "low and slow" operations/patrols.

negi · Post by **negi** » 25 Jun 2017 13:27

Viv S wrote:
jamwal wrote:Just 10000 hours ?
Other way round. The Tu-142 fleet has clocked some 30,000 hrs from 1988-89 upto its retirement March 2017.

The P-8I fleet has done 10,000 hrs so far; INAS 312 inducted in 2015.

Apples and Oranges . P-8I is based on a commercial liner it does that really well i..e take off , fly and land with stuff on board. Tu-142 was built during the cold war for long range bombing the 142M was naval version for anti submarine ops . We never had the logistics and spares to operate it. Besides Boeing makes neat couple of hundred million every year as part of a separate support and maintenance contract which they run and it is them who maintain the P-8I there is no pride we should have talking about hours as we are dependent completely on US/RU for their upkeep the number of hours they log are truly a function of how much money we want to pour into the contract.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 25 Jun 2017 15:06

negi wrote:Besides Boeing makes neat couple of hundred million every year as part of a separate support and maintenance contract which they run and it is them who maintain the P-8I there is no pride we should have talking about hours as we are dependent completely on US/RU for their upkeep the number of hours they log are truly a function of how much money we want to pour into the contract.

Where did you get that figure from?

AFAIK the recent contract signed by the MoD was valued at $100 million for 3 years which works out to be $30 mil annually (approx. the same as for an IAF Mirage 2000 squadron). That's $3.75 mil/unit/yr. Assuming each aircraft is flying 500 hours annually that works out to be $7,500 per hour in support costs. (Plus ~$2,000 per hour in fuel costs.)

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 25 Jun 2017 16:05

You have to also understand the context of the two aircraft,even if the figs given are right.

These figures were provided to the media by the Indian Navy. That they don't look good to you don't make them inaccurate unless you can show them to be so.

Besides Boeing makes neat couple of hundred million every year as part of a separate support and maintenance contract which they run and it is them who maintain the P-8I there is no pride we should have talking about hours as we are dependent completely on US/RU for their upkeep the number of hours they log are truly a function of how much money we want to pour into the contract.

Yes, if you fly a fleet a decent bit you will require replenishing of consumables just like you would if you maintained a commercial fleet. The point is that the platform, its systems, or its supply chain are not barriers to maintaining high readiness, reliability and flex the ops tempo on the fleet as desired because both of the reliability of the platform chosen but also because the OEM has the experience of supporting a fairly high amount of fleet flight hours through its logistical agreements.

Viv S wrote:
AFAIK the recent contract signed by the MoD was valued at $100 million for 3 years which works out to be $30 mil annually (approx. the same as for an IAF Mirage 2000 squadron). That's $3.75 mil/unit/yr. Assuming each aircraft is flying 500 hours annually that works out to be $7,500 per hour in support costs. (Plus ~$2,000 per hour in fuel costs.)

That would be a fairly accurate assessment. The maintenance and support costs the USN pays for its P-8As, is roughly $8400 per hour (this does not include operational consumables such as fuel etc). Using that as a baseline we get roughly 4.2 Million / aircraft / year for 500 hours of utilization. For a fleet of 8 that comes out to be roughly $34 Million. That is pretty close to the 3 year $100 Million PBL being reported in the media to support the Neptune fleet.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 26 Jun 2017 15:25

The two aircraft were acquired decades apart when operational requirements,patrols were far fewer. So belittling the aircraft which served without a single incident over decades and praise from the IN is unworthy of the aircraft and the flight crews who operated them. During this time we also operated 5 IL-38s,two lost in a tragic collision over Goa were replaced,modernised and still in use today. The combination of IL-38s and TU-142 Bears served us very well and IL-38s are still with us for the "low and slow" tasks.

Understand the history of the last 3 decades.There was no PLAN maritime threat whatsoever.Our entire maritime strategy was based at deterring Pak and extraneous naval forces (US/NATO) in case of any Cold War spat. DG was perceived as the greatest external threat to us. Secondly,the number of naval assets ranged against was ,subs in particular,was infinitely less. Even by Cold War stds. sub activity in the IOR was limited.Pak possessed just 4+ operational subs ,Daphnes,only later did their Agosta-90Bs arrived. therefore the number of our LRMP patrols were far fewer than what we have today.Asian navies particularly those of China have increased their strength significantly.

The scenario today is different.Chinese subs are increasing their ops in the IOR,Gwadar is being developed as base for their subs,both N and AIP subs,and the number of subs belonging to other navies has dramatically multiplied.BDesh is buying two old PLAN subs,Thailand for the first time too, SPore and Indonesia have been operating subs for some time,Malaysia Scorpenes even before us, and Vietnam has just gotten 6 new Kilos. Oz has huge sub ambitions too.Leaving aside the Far eastern sub fleets like those of Japan,SoKo and NoKo. Then comes the increasing Iranian subs,though most of them are meant for Gulf warfare. LRMP aircraft will also be tasked to deal with surface combatants,PLAN CBGs also entering the IOR threatening India.
Our P-8Is will have to carry significant numbers of Harpoon ASMs as they cannot carry BMos.Perhaps the IN may look once again at equipping the IL-38s with BMos/BMos-L.

The Indian maritime security responsibility today is also far greater than before.WE have defence agreements with Mauritius,Seychelles,etc. China is setting up a naval base at Djibouti ,aprt from Gwadar and is trying to leverage naval base facilities in Sri Lanka,Burma and BDesh.and the Maldives.
Just 8 P-8Is will be insufficient for the IN.WE need at least 4 more,plus more Il-38s,inexpensive to acquire with dozens of new ones mothballed in Russia. Amphiobians are also required,but the US-2 is far too expensive and carries no weaponry/ASW capability. A better bet would be acquiring 6-8 Berievs with ASW capability. Med. sized MRP aircraft could be sued by the CG with the larger ones for the IN.Extra Dorniers are being acquired but C-295 maritme variants could be bought/assembled asap to cut down time.It would also give Tata's initial experience in the programme.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 26 Jun 2017 15:40

The P-8 is not a primary maritime strike platform and it won't carry 'significant' harpoon payload (whatever the # may be to qualify for significant) in most applications. Employing a harpoon from a P-8 will be a matter of last resort when no other strike asset is available to complete the kill chain in the desired time-frame.

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 27 Jun 2017 02:46

brar_w wrote:The P-8 is not a primary maritime strike platform and it won't carry 'significant' harpoon payload (whatever the # may be to qualify for significant) in most applications. Employing a harpoon from a P-8 will be a matter of last resort when no other strike asset is available to complete the kill chain in the desired time-frame.

Why is it a last resort platform?

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 27 Jun 2017 03:35

Aditya G wrote:
Why is it a last resort platform?

The mission focus and survivability. You can most certainly make it a more dominant maritime strike platform if you invest accordingly. JASSM (interface will open up LRASM) and JSM integration will help, as will the Harpoon ER which will give it the much needed survivability through stand off offensive capability. A 60 nautical mile Harpoon capability will be challenged by a well defended target such as something that is traveling with a carrier group.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 27 Jun 2017 08:12

brar_w wrote:
Aditya G wrote:
Why is it a last resort platform?
The mission focus and survivability. You can most certainly make it a more dominant maritime strike platform if you invest accordingly. JASSM (interface will open up LRASM) and JSM integration will help, as will the Harpoon ER which will give it the much needed survivability through stand off offensive capability. A 60 nautical mile Harpoon capability will be challenged by a well defended target such as something that is traveling with a carrier group.

Didn't the Indian Navy P8 come with the harpoon ER?

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 27 Jun 2017 13:01

With numbers of our sub fleet at its lowest,The IN must take a hard look at increasing the number of its Kilos as an interim measure.These are the most cost-effective subs available.The sub's design is so good that Russia is building 6 more for its Pacific Fleet with the first two to be laid down shortly.Vietnam acquired 6 at v.low cost,built within 5 years too.Their cost is also around half of that of a Scorpene,and carry far deadlier Klub/Kalibir missiles seen in action in Syria. This is not to derail the P-75I programme,but to augment it in the fastest and most eco. way possible.In a few years time,even the upgraded first batch of Kilos will need replacement.The 636.3 vastly upgraded variant could fill the gap. There were earlier reports that the R co. (Pip)had obtained rights to repair,support,build Kilos from Rubin the OEM.

Russia to lay down 2 diesel-electric submarines for Pacific Fleet in July
Military & Defense June 26
http://tass.com/defense/953382

As an aside,the RN's QE-2 carrier is finally about to head out to sea for her trials.A critique of the acquisition.
https://www.rt.com/uk/394081-hms-queen-elizabeth-trial/

the carrier project has been battered by waves of criticism, with one senior military figure anonymously telling the Guardian in 2015 that the program was a toxic “combination of naval vanity and pork-barrel politics.”

The source said that by developing carriers the UK was “moving in the direction absolutely contrary to strategic developments of our time,” seeing how current wars are fought with drones and special forces.

There are also concerns over whether there will be enough American-made F-35 fighters to equip both ships, as a parallel project to purchase the US jets has seen years of delays.

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 27 Jun 2017 13:36

Aditya G wrote:Why is it a last resort platform?

Certain platforms like P-8 are valued for their sensor suite and fusion - MAD, Sonobuoys, ELINT, EO, Primary Radar, Secondary Radar to give an integrated big picture. Such platforms are typically not exposed to knife fights / gun fights.

Philip wrote:The two aircraft were acquired decades apart when operational requirements,patrols were far fewer.

Not correct. The operational requirements were always there. Better platforms were just not available to us nor we could afford them. The fact that we're paying a premium for better platforms shows the higher mission focus.

As an aside, earlier, Engineering Officers of INAS 312 had to slog hours while Pilots had relatively less hours to fly. So Engineering Officer's families were unhappy while pilot families were happy. Now, Engineering Officers get stuff done in a jiffy and consequently Pilots have to fly more. So the happiness quotient of families is reversed.

Operationally 2 P-8s can do the job of 5 Il-38s in terms of coverage and persistence.

chola · Post by **chola** » 27 Jun 2017 14:03

Lol. Filipov making excuse for russian maal. How unexpected.

Let's see 10,000 hours in two years -- hmmm, that means in four years time, they would have done more patrolling than the Tupolevs over 30 years!

If you increased workload by 500 percent with the arrival of the P8 then it is obvious the need was always there. What was missing was the ability. Now, the IN has that ability.

chola · Post by **chola** » 27 Jun 2017 14:27

The Visakhapatnam class will soon have a new comparison buddy in forums.

The chini section of PDF is predicting the imminent launch of launch of the Type 55 in the coming days. (They have pictures.)

At 12K tons and 100 plus VLS with four being built in parallel, we figure to come off worse in the inevitable flame wars between latest DDGs.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 27 Jun 2017 15:12

Cain Marko wrote:
brar_w wrote: =
Didn't the Indian Navy P8 come with the harpoon ER?

The Indian Harpoon's are Block II iirc. Harpoon ER is currently not operational even with the USN. It will have roughly 2x the range to match that of the JSM. Boeing has just begun flying it off of the Super Hornet and I think they had their first live shot last month (or will shortly).

P-8 developmental partners are already thinking of adding more offensive capability. Norway is exploring adding the JSM to the suite, and Australia in its MOU with the JPO has language that will integrate JASSM (which by default will allow LRASM which uses the same interface) as an appropriate block upgrade.

But the most important future weapon capability still remains the HAAWC-

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... on-435653/

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 27 Jun 2017 17:14

Chola,or are we backscratching Boeing by flying more hours so that they can rake in support costs?

You know,civvy aircraft don't make moolah for their owners if they're on the ground. I'm sure that if the Bears had a similar moolah/hr. contract you would've seen them flying back and forth to S.Africa without refuelling sev. days of the week!

Seriously,We're told that the Chinese sub intrusions into the IOR have started increasing in number only over the last few years.One problem that we have is the lack of subs available to track them,apart from LRMP aircraft. in previous decades,from the '80s onwards,we had 3 types of subs in the inventory available to track enemy subs.4 Foxtrots,4 U-209s and 10 Kilos. 18 subs gave us a v.good capability vis-avis Pak,just 4+ and the odd Chinese sub which was rare.There were far more western subs operating in the IOR than Chinese,which were not considered hostile.WE had agood number of LRMP aircraft too.8 Bears and 5 IL-38s.Assuming that just 50% of these were available at any time,a low figure,they were quite adequate to deal with the then threats.

Currently,the situ is critical.The Foxtrots are long gone,of the Kilos,the SR was destroyed in the explosion at Bombay,and some of the 9 are in refit,so that they can last out until 2025+.The U-boats too in any other major navy would've been replaced by now.When HDW was cleared some years ago of scandal,we should've immediately placed orders for another batch of 4 more,of newer type,increased to 8 to replace the U-209s.Therefore,we don't have enough subs to track intruding subs in the IOR,apart from dealing with the PN's v.capable Agosta-90B AIP subs. Some sources have said that only around 7 subs are seaworthy.Fortunately,the first Scorpenes are just arriving,but without torpedoes!

The IN plans to increase the no. of P-8Is-which they should asap,plus acquire some more IL-38s,Amphibs, as I've mentioned in earlier posts. With the retirement of the Bears,LR maritime strike capability has disappeared.P-8Is can carry only subsonic Harpoon.Bears could carry supersonic ASMs with N-warheads since their original role was that of a strat. bomber,a role they're still performing today,testing UK/NATO's defences regularly and carrying out strikes in Syria. With the advent of Chinese carriers,this capability should be revived asap.

Karthik S · Post by **Karthik S** » 27 Jun 2017 17:17

chola wrote:The Visakhapatnam class will soon have a new comparison buddy in forums.

The chini section of PDF is predicting the imminent launch of launch of the Type 55 in the coming days. (They have pictures.)

At 12K tons and 100 plus VLS with four being built in parallel, we figure to come off worse in the inevitable flame wars between latest DDGs.

Recall seeing SJha's tweet that we are designing next gen destroyers/cruisers. Let's wish atleast now they'll not design a ship that's under-armed for its size.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 27 Jun 2017 17:41

One Ru naval analysts some years ago wanted Ru to give us Kirov class battlecruisers and Oscar class SSGNs to deal with China! Unfortunately Pres. Putin has restored and renovated these superb warships and subs,the Kirovs for the RuN which will feature Russia's first hypersonic anti-ship missile ,expected next year.

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-bu ... nter-15909

Russia’s 3M22 Zircon hypersonic cruise missile is expected to enter into production in 2018. The new weapon—which is capable of speeds of around Mach 5.0-Mach 6.0—is currently in testing.

“State tests of Zircon are scheduled for completion in 2017 in accordance with the contract, and the missile’s serial production is planned to be launched next year,” a Russian defense industry source told the Moscow-based TASS news agency on April 19.

The hypersonic missile—which is a component of the 3K22 Zircon system—will be incorporated into the nuclear-powered Project 11442 Orlan-class battlecruiser (NATO: Kirov-class) Pyotr Veliky when it completes its overhaul in late 2022. Sister ship Admiral Nakhimov—which is currently being modernized—will likely be the first Russian warship equipped with the new missile when it returns to service in 2018.

The 4 Chinese DDGs are meant to escort the 4+ PLAN carriers,providing them with strong air defence. The IN will have 10 DDGs of P-15++ class,but the first batches of Delhi class DDGs will have to be upgraded with B-8s or Shtil VLS. We too had some interesting future warship concepts,tri-marans,etc. These were posted some time ago on BRF.Worth reposting them please,whoever did it before.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 27 Jun 2017 17:53

Chola,or are we backscratching Boeing by flying more hours so that they can rake in support costs?

Good argument. You should use it more often. Higher availability resulting in the ability to generate more sorties serves only one purpose and that is too allow an OEM to rake in more money with no significant operational benefits. Some of the Russian systems have a distinct advantage here since they offer lower availability.

I'm sure that if the Bears had a similar moolah/hr. contract you would've seen them flying back and forth to S.Africa without refuelling sev. days of the week!

What prevented their OEM for offering it? Perhaps they were sympathetic to the MOD and its budget and guaranteed a low availability?

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 27 Jun 2017 18:30

Times were v.different.3+ decades ago. Money was scarce in India's coffers and as explained ad nauseum there weren't that many enemy subs to track,esp PLAN ones rarely if ever seen until the last 5 years.It was a G-2-G deal.Brits refused us Nimrods. Creative accounting came in when western wares were made available.Ck the Rafale deal,simply scandalous.In fact the M2K upgrade is far worse than the C-17 price.40+ aircraft upgrades at $2.5B,when compared with just under $1B for 60+ MIG-29s,which every time got the better of the M2K in IAF mano-a-mano exercises.
We could've bought 80 brand new MIG-29s for the cost of the M2K upgrade,why we're searching the dustbins of air forces for old legacy 29s.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 27 Jun 2017 19:17

So, it seems the guardian deal didn't go through and India is still pushing for the armed variant. Supposedly will continue to shop in Israel. Do the Israelis have anything comparable? A quick wiki reading shows endurance of up to 52 hours in ideal conditions.....

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 27 Jun 2017 19:23

brar_w wrote:The Indian Harpoon's are Block II iirc. Harpoon ER is currently not operational even with the USN. It will have roughly 2x the range to match that of the JSM. Boeing has just begun flying it off of the Super Hornet and I think they had their first live shot last month (or will shortly).

P-8 developmental partners are already thinking of adding more offensive capability. Norway is exploring adding the JSM to the suite, and Australia in its MOU with the JPO has language that will integrate JASSM (which by default will allow LRASM which uses the same interface) as an appropriate block upgrade.

But the most important future weapon capability still remains the HAAWC-

Thanks much

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 27 Jun 2017 19:28

Cain Marko wrote:So, it seems the guardian deal didn't go through and India is still pushing for the armed variant. Supposedly will continue to shop in Israel. Do the Israelis have anything comparable? A quick wiki reading shows endurance of up to 52 hours in ideal conditions.....

A potential Sea Guardian sale was recently approved by GOTUS ahead of the meeting between the two heads of states. It is mentioned in the statement issued by the WH after the two met. Once the aircraft clear the approval process, the potential customer and the OEM concerned can enter more detailed discussions regarding specifications, customization and delivery schedule. It is also at this time that a potential customer has to decide whether to pursue the deal further and if so which contracting mechanism to begin negotiations under i.e. an FMS or a DCS. These can take anywhere from a few months to upwards of a year to fully materialize. Next step would be a congressional notification .

Reflecting the partnership, the United States has offered for India’s consideration the sale of Sea Guardian Unmanned Aerial Systems, which would enhance India’s capabilities and promote shared security interests.

chola · Post by **chola** » 28 Jun 2017 09:21

brar_w wrote:
Chola,or are we backscratching Boeing by flying more hours so that they can rake in support costs?
Good argument. You should use it more often. Higher availability resulting in the ability to generate more sorties serves only one purpose and that is too allow an OEM to rake in more money with no significant operational benefits. Some of the Russian systems have a distinct advantage here since they offer lower availability.

I'm sure that if the Bears had a similar moolah/hr. contract you would've seen them flying back and forth to S.Africa without refuelling sev. days of the week!
What prevented their OEM for offering it? Perhaps they were sympathetic to the MOD and its budget and guaranteed a low availability?

Lol. This is why I love reading Philip's stuff. Highly imaginative answers!

sanjaykumar · Post by **sanjaykumar** » 28 Jun 2017 09:42

One could say gives a fillip to Russian goods.

chola · Post by **chola** » 28 Jun 2017 09:56

Karthik S wrote:
chola wrote:The Visakhapatnam class will soon have a new comparison buddy in forums.

The chini section of PDF is predicting the imminent launch of launch of the Type 55 in the coming days. (They have pictures.)

At 12K tons and 100 plus VLS with four being built in parallel, we figure to come off worse in the inevitable flame wars between latest DDGs.
Recall seeing SJha's tweet that we are designing next gen destroyers/cruisers. Let's wish atleast now they'll not design a ship that's under-armed for its size.

I hope the MOD or IN public relations department or whomever is in charge of propaganda could do these serial PR revealings of our upcoming systems as well as the ChiComs.

Since I've been following the chini war machine in earnest, I notice things occur in a pattern again and again that inevitably ends with a payoff to reward the watchers.

Things always begin with a few tantalizing pictures of what could be coming. In both the Type 001A carrier and the Type 055 DDG, they were pictures of landbased training platforms. Then came rumors of what they might be. Which led to endless discussions and hypothesizing with tons of photoshopped fanboyisms. Then hints from satellites and fleeting pictures taken from grown level. Soon you start getting more and more photos as you watch the thing get put together. Until it looks complete and you are anticipating a launch any day. And finally the thing launch and you get an explosion of photos from official sources.

These scripted revealings pull in a large international community of chini mil watchers. At PDF, the chini forum chief and head cheerleader is a German. Another resident expert runs well respected blog in French. Lots of Americans, of course, including an ex-USAF who pours some needed cold water when the Hans become too full of themselves.

I would love to see us reveal, say, the P15B followon in a similar fashion. Not that I want us to run things like a communist dictatorship with f--ing propaganda agency but having a "China Watchers" international community does give the PRC prestige and perception as a power that should be "watched." It would be nice to have "India Watchers" just saying.

chola · Post by **chola** » 28 Jun 2017 10:02

And of course, they launched their big assed destroyer/cruiser this morning as their "rumors" predicted.

sum · Post by **sum** » 28 Jun 2017 11:11

Chola,or are we backscratching Boeing by flying more hours so that they can rake in support costs?
You know,civvy aircraft don't make moolah for their owners if they're on the ground. I'm sure that if the Bears had a similar moolah/hr. contract you would've seen them flying back and forth to S.Africa without refuelling sev. days of the week!

Has to be the most extraordinary comment i have read in a while( unless it was some sort of sarcasm which i missed)
Doubt even the Russkies could have come up with this one!

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 28 Jun 2017 16:26

sum wrote:
Chola,or are we backscratching Boeing by flying more hours so that they can rake in support costs?
You know,civvy aircraft don't make moolah for their owners if they're on the ground. I'm sure that if the Bears had a similar moolah/hr. contract you would've seen them flying back and forth to S.Africa without refuelling sev. days of the week!
Has to be the most extraordinary comment i have read in a while( unless it was some sort of sarcasm which i missed)
Doubt even the Russkies could have come up with this one!

NPBL (Non Performance Based Logistics) is the answer to all your woes. Why maintain high availability, and dispatch reliability when all that does is create profits for OEMs?

Who knew that what BR has been treating as a problem for which the MOD is finding a sollution has been a virtue all along

arshyam · Post by **arshyam** » 28 Jun 2017 20:27

Why is there a pic of a Cheeni warship on the (Indian) Navy page?

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 29 Jun 2017 01:12

sum wrote:
Chola,or are we backscratching Boeing by flying more hours so that they can rake in support costs?
You know,civvy aircraft don't make moolah for their owners if they're on the ground. I'm sure that if the Bears had a similar moolah/hr. contract you would've seen them flying back and forth to S.Africa without refuelling sev. days of the week!
Has to be the most extraordinary comment i have read in a while( unless it was some sort of sarcasm which i missed)
Doubt even the Russkies could have come up with this one!

He's basically accusing the Indian Navy of corruption to explain the low usage rates of the Tu-142 compared to the P-8I. Why? Because it was Russian of course. And the Russians must be defended at all costs. What do you expect from a guy who blamed the IN for the Russian price gouging and endless delays on the Gorshkov?

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 29 Jun 2017 04:00

Philiposki sluzhit, chtoby ugodit' mame rossii. Kak yeshche vy mozhete ob"yasnit' eto povedeniye?

JTull · Post by **JTull** » 29 Jun 2017 17:50

Navy warship (INS Betwa) undocked after (another!) 'minor' incident

MUMBAI: The Indian Navy's guided missile frigate INS Betwa, which had tipped over while being undocked at the Naval Dockyard in Mumbai in December last year, has been undocked smoothly, officials said today.

INS Betwa has been undocked smoothly and is currently alongside for her refit work, according to the Navy.

The undocking, undertaken on June 27, was preceded by a minor incident, involving the ship's listing by around 8 degrees, during dry dock, an official spokesperson said.

"INS Betwa was planned for undocking on June 22, 2017 as part of her ongoing refit. Prior to undocking, all preparations to ensure stability of the ship during undocking had been undertaken and she was provided adequate margin of stability," the spokesperson said.

"During flooding of the dry dock, a list of up to 7-8 degrees was observed, which was promptly corrected. However, the ship could not be undocked due to a leakage in the dock-gate of the dry dock and subsequent unfavourable tide," he said.

"The undocking was, thereafter, undertaken on June 27 when the tide was suitable," the spokesperson said.

The accident involving the 4,000 tonne, 126-metre frontline warship on December 5 last year had claimed the lives of two personnel and left 15 injured.

An assessment of the damage to the ship showed that the mast had hit the ground on the left. It was suspected that the dock block mechanism had malfunctioned during undocking in the cruiser graving dock of the dockyard. The ship was undergoing a refit.

The salvage operation was carried out by specialist firm Resolve Marine Group, which was selected through a tendering process. The operation cost about Rs 20 crore.

The INS Betwa is a frigate of the Brahmaputra class, built by Garden Reach Ship Builders of Kolkata and commissioned into service in July 2004.

Named after the river Betwa, the frigate was indigenously designed and built with the capability to operate at extended ranges, with speeds up to 30 knots.

It is one of the Western Naval Command's key warships, and is armed with Uran anti-ship missiles, Barak 1 surface-to-air missiles and torpedoes.

The ship had run aground in January 2014 and had collided with an unidentified object, which caused a crack in its sonar system. It has also suffered salt water ingress into sensitive equipment.

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 29 Jun 2017 18:06

Philip wrote:Chola,or are we backscratching Boeing by flying more hours so that they can rake in support costs?

Philip, the Russians never had the kind of support structure that French or US offer. Here is a Pakistani example with Mirage-III

http://kaiser-aeronaut.blogspot.in/2012 ... ltius.html

My first experience at going bisonic was a non-starter, though a personal best of Mach 1.6 was achieved easily. I just could not figure out why the aerodynamically perfect Mirage was not racing any faster, till I got in touch with the Dassault’s resident technical representative, Mr Cerveau. Cerveau, who knew his job well, had a little laugh at my brute force approach and, with a nationalistic slant to his explanation, told me how the French do it. “You climb at the optimum speed to the tropopause[4], the altitude of which varies with ambient surface temperature; you will have to calculate it accordingly. Then, accelerate to Mach 1.6 while maintaining altitude. After reaching this speed, put the aircraft in a very shallow dive till you reach Mach 1.8. Next, gently raise the nose a few degrees above the horizon and maintain it there. You will see the Mach-meter registering a steady rise while still in a climb. On a cold day, you will hit Mach 2 or even beyond, before you reach the aircraft ceiling of 50,000 ft above mean sea level (AMSL). This technique is not given in the Pilot’s Flight Manual,” he whispered, “but our test pilots do it routinely.” “As the engine is not very powerful, we have to exploit the unique properties of the atmosphere.” Heaving his shoulders and pouting his lips, Cerveau let out a noisy sputter which I understood to mean, ‘voila’! “Merci,” I gratefully responded with French etiquette.

Atleast Kaiser Tufail is honest instead of being jingoistic.

JTull · Post by **JTull** » 29 Jun 2017 18:21

Philip wrote:Chola,or are we backscratching Boeing by flying more hours so that they can rake in support costs?

This is like your comment in the artillery thread about need to buy guns but there not being any logic in expending 'pricey' shells. Perhaps that's why you love Russkie hangar queens so much as they're really cheap to buy and (since they can't be used much) really cheap to operate!