Bharat Rakshak Forum Announcement

Hello Everyone,

A warm welcome back to the Bharat Rakshak Forum.

Important Notice: Due to a corruption in the BR forum database we regret to announce that data records relating to some of our registered users have been lost. We estimate approx. 500 user details are deleted.

To ease the process of recreating the user IDs we request members that have previously posted on the BR forums to recognise and identify their posts, once the posts are identified please contact the BRF moderator team by emailing BRF Mod Team with your post details.

The mod team will be able to update your username, email etc. so that the user history can be maintained.

Unfortunately for members that have never posted or have had all their posts deleted i.e. users that have 0 posts, we will be unable to recreate your account hence we request that you re-register again.

We apologise for any inconvenience caused and thank you for your understanding.

Regards,
Seetal

Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

The Military Issues & History Forum is a venue to discuss issues relating to the military aspects of the Indian Armed Forces, whether the past, present or future. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15716
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby NRao » 20 Apr 2017 09:11

Such a war will never be one on one - do not think any of India's previous wars were one on one. Fully expect both sides to have some help, in whatever format. Malacca is not only India's part of a plan to bottle up.

Karthik S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3521
Joined: 18 Sep 2009 12:12

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Karthik S » 20 Apr 2017 09:57

shiv wrote:As I see it. in wartime any base used by Chinese vessels within range of IAF/IN will be toasted. China's bet bet is to do an America- that is, to build up, in peacetime, naval bases that are out of easy reach of Indian aircraft or Indian aircraft carriers. If China acquires such a base it would have to be on our target list - either by naval bombardment of air attack via a carrier task force. Obviously China would try everything to sink that carrier - but hey that is what war is all about. We fight with war fighting assets - using our best assets to hit out while trying to minimize risk. I disagree with ideas that say "sending a carrier is risky. Don't send. Sending aircraft is risky. Don't send". Instead don't fight war at all. That could be the most risky course.


The Chinese would have figured out all this. And I am not getting an answer when I ask, will the Chinese will use their naval assets to target our coastal cities. Why would the surface fleet try to enter BoB. IMO, their main strategy in naval fight would be to safeguard their shipping lines, for which they'd use their SSNs or even SSKs. In any case, we need to invest in ASW platforms.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17016
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Philip » 20 Apr 2017 11:16

The US just sent Raptors to escort Russian TU-142/95 Bears in the Pacific,Bears that we've just retd.! This shows that LRMP aircraft like the Bears,Backfires,etc., have tremendous reach and value esp. when armed with stand-off ASMs. Bears can carry upto 12 torpedoes in the internal bay alone.

Therefore,in the Indian context of dominating the IOR,as I've emphasised umpteen times,the great Indian landmass jutting out into the IOR like a dagger is our most valuable "unsinkable" carrier. Lakshadweep and the A&N islands are smaller "unsinkable" carriers too. Land based naval air assets to carry out ASW and strike ops,from the mainland and islands,will obviate the need for a massive N-powered EMALS carrier which will gobble up the greater part of the IN's budget to deal with IOR dominance. Right now,we need as top priority,subs,ASW helos for our surface fleet and ASW corvettes.16 shallow water ones are on the anvil,but these plans must be exercised as of yesterday.

Now as to our dream of a 3 carrier navy.Great if funds permit.That calls for a huge rethink by our grand strategists. The USN has/plans to always have between 10-12 giant N-powered supercarriers with which they can dominate any ocean,anywhere on the planet and pursue expeditionary warfare anywhere without fear.A large fleet of attack N-subs,armed with dozens of LRCMs assists them in this. The only navy that can threaten the USN is the RuN,because of its N-sub fleet,assisted by a couple of doz. conventional subs,but Russia's primary objective is defence of the motherland.It has only the Kuz CV and a few N-powered heavily armed battlecruisers and a handful of DDGs which can conduct true blue water ops. Smaller newer corvettes have their uses as seen in the Syrian conflict,where RuN innovation in design is trying to make up for a shortfall in numbers of larger surface combatants. Our P-15 class would be very welcome in the RuN!

Our amphib needs are also required for defence /responsibilities of our island nations in the IOR with whom we have security agreements (Mauritius,etc.)
We're building 4 20K t amphibs. More preferable would've been 3 larger 35K t multi-purpose flat-tops like the Spanish Juan Carlos design,which is also the model for OZ's amphibs. Had we adopted this strategy,we would've had 3 med sized carriers,able to operate smaller naval strike aircraft,STOVL JSFs and variety of assault/attack/ASW helos,plus the regular amphib baggage of MBT/AVs,and marines.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 60187
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: Lupine but moderately dharmic

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Singha » 20 Apr 2017 11:55

^^ Bears are useful for the periodic peacetime needling role, like it flew 40 miles off CA coast in obama era. in wartime, they would need very long range hypersonic ASM in the anti-shipping role and are fine in the ALCM "postman" role.
this is not yet so relevant to india.
I would humbly suggest getting in on the new production of Tu160mk2 thats starting shortly and getting 12 brand new airframes will give us far better mileage. reasons being
- russia also is going to get new ones to add to the 16 it has
- brand new airframe, more fuel efficient engine, new cockpit
- surely rotary bay adapters for zircon, oniks and importantly a range of guided and unguided free fall or winged bombs for smaller wars like syria - a limitation that severely restricts their use to ALCMs now. we SAW what a lone B1 could go in Kobane.
- due to high Mach2 top speed and internal fuel, it has better survivability against any threat than Bear
- almost the same range as Bear
- useful in the tibetan theater also for the kind of anti-IADS role - swing role over land and sea
- while Ru was loathe to let anyone touch its crown jewel earlier, with PAKDA getting alone might be more willing and it amortizes their production line over higher units.


IN is going to ask again for carrier funds in 2 months it seems.

imo instead of 1 large carrier, we should look to spread the butter and get
1 more vikrant class, with rafale/F18 (move the Mig29k to land based work or donate to IAF) - Kochi can do this if boot is applied from behind.

2 more Hyuga class ASW lead ships - build both in japan, equip with some of the proven Seahawks which JMSDF also.uses and lead contender for our ASW heli tender. keep space & roro containers for fleet command staff role.

a far more utility mix for our use cases imo.

we are anyways getting 4 small LPDs.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17016
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Philip » 20 Apr 2017 12:33

More on the key issue of subs,the key priority for the IN.

You know,there is a certain code which our babus use when filling in their personal assessments of subordinates which their superiors understand.For ex. He is very "enthusiastic" at his work.Meaning,he is straining at the leash,rushing to do his own thing. "He can take courageous decisions"= " He is a dangerous officer,will not toe the line". "He is meticulous with his reports"= "Red tape expert!" So on and so forth.

In the report below,one word is mighty significant."Ambitious".In babu parlance in the Indian context,this means "impossible dream".
Therefore,what we can deduce from this is that the "strat. partnership" or "SP" model is as the report says "nowhere in sight" and unlikely to be sighted for many moons to come! THus the time has come for us to exercise the other "options" .What these options are is going to be a most intersting riddle to unravel and BRF armchair admirals are invited to duck their heads below water and search for answers! :rotfl:

http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/n ... 117359.ece
NATIONAL
Navy mulling other submarine options
Dinakar Peri APRIL 19, 2017 00:26 IST

Govt.’s ambitious policy yet to see light

With the Defence Ministry’s ambitious policy on Strategic Partnership (SP) model which intends to promote defence manufacturing nowhere in sight, the Navy has begun considering a range of alternative options to shore up its submarine levels.

The Navy’s plan to procure a new line of submarines under Project-75I hinges on the SP guidelines. SP model includes five-key areas to achieve domestic capability, which includes submarines and aircraft.

“We need those submarines badly because our force levels are being affected. In case the SP model doesn’t fall into place, for whatever reasons, we will have to look elsewhere,” Vice-Admiral D.M. Deshpande, Navy’s Controller of Warship Production and Acquisition, said on Tuesday. The policy, which is part of the Defence Procurement Procedure (DPP) 2016, would have detail guidelines on how major Indian private sector companies can tie up with global Original Equipment Manufacturers.

Repeated delays

The idea was mooted by former Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar about two years ago. However, it was repeatedly delayed after strong objections from various quarters to the proposed guidelines.

Now with the departure of Mr. Parrikar, and Arun Jaitley holding the additional charge, there are concerns in the Ministry and industry. “If the SP model happens, it will be good. If it does not happen, all options come to the fore” the Vice-Admiral said in response to questions at an event.


Here is an expanded report which says that apart from sub "options",the MCM deal with SoKo,LPDs ,57 carrier strike birds and moolah to kickstart the big CV will be sealed by the year end.But no word whatsoever about the naval helos at all!

Aditya G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3206
Joined: 19 Feb 2002 12:31
Contact:

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Aditya G » 20 Apr 2017 13:34

In a confrontation between India and China, the Indian Navy is at an immense strategic advantage as we can fight the naval battle in IOR while PLAN has to steam out away from shore. We can deploy submarines in the choke points while the Navy hunts for their ssns in open sea.

China is countering this by establishing foreign bases so we cannot rest.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 60187
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: Lupine but moderately dharmic

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Singha » 20 Apr 2017 13:41

the naval helos could be because eu/usa vendors not able to satisfy the MII and offset guidelines

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 60187
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: Lupine but moderately dharmic

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Singha » 20 Apr 2017 13:46

india should ask indonesia and new guinea to lease us two of their 6000 islands and establish naval outposts there including ELINT and submarine fwd base.

1 near the sunda/lombok straits - small one
1 in the spice islands or new guinea

many great sheltered bays in this region
https://www.google.co.in/maps/@-1.90062 ... 6488,6.15z

in due course more and more of our fleet can be fwd deployed to this "yokosuka" while A&N islands become our pearl harbour. these units can patrol the ECS and SCS to secure our shipping routes to east asia.

mumbai should cease to be a naval base and so too kochi and vizag.

vinod
BRFite
Posts: 551
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby vinod » 20 Apr 2017 13:54

Its always best to take the fight to their home. So, we need to fight in their home but defend our home. When you fight in their home, it doesn't matter who wins or lose the battle, their home is destroyed in the process. So, defend IOR we must, but we should be capable of a fight in south china sea.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 60187
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: Lupine but moderately dharmic

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Singha » 20 Apr 2017 13:58

indeed...all i hear is fortress BoB/IOR talk, never how to set the SCS on fire end to end. as usual Yindu always think of defending homeland, not fighting on enemy backyard. the same mentality that said our defence starts at the khyber and bolan pass.

initially that means submarines and intel ships. and base in that belt preferably a bit far off like new guinea, makassar islands or east timor.

cheen seaboard ... even small armed UUVs could create a lot of havoc there.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19492
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Austin » 20 Apr 2017 14:11

As China races ahead, MoD dithers on India’s aircraft carrier

http://ajaishukla.blogspot.in/2017/04/a ... rs-on.html

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15626
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby chetak » 20 Apr 2017 14:14

Aditya G wrote:In a confrontation between India and China, the Indian Navy is at an immense strategic advantage as we can fight the naval battle in IOR while PLAN has to steam out away from shore. We can deploy submarines in the choke points while the Navy hunts for their ssns in open sea.

China is countering this by establishing foreign bases so we cannot rest.



India sits like a giant aircraft carrier, permanently moored in the Indian ocean with two coasts that give it an immense tactical as well as strategic advantage that china finds very hard to counter, no matter how many bases it has in "the string of pearls" strategy.

Almost all of the "pearls" are within the lethal strike range of India's shore based aircraft or it's missile arsenal.

Any attack/move on Indian interests will isolate PLAN units very far away from safe ports and put them at the mercy of our aircraft and ships which can blockade "pearls" as required or take out the han naval units.

What we need immediately are satellite killers to deter the hans from actually using their anti-satellite capabilities against us

Just like the hans, we also have in active stock, a bunch of satellites and launch vehicles ready to be launched immediately in case of emergencies, either natural or manmade, to be positioned precisely over areas of interest.

These are purpose built, mission-oriented, short life units which cost much less than normal units.

Lisa
BRFite
Posts: 773
Joined: 04 May 2008 11:25

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Lisa » 20 Apr 2017 14:24

The need of the day is reconnaissance. This saves time, material and manpower. If I am not mistaken, TATA and the Amnbanis own most of the global undersea cables. We need to piggyback on these for a SOSUS array that covers the whole IOR. I remain very surprised that this is not obviously happening. I hope that I am wrong and this is going on behind our backs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SOSUS

http://thediplomat.com/2016/11/us-navy- ... r-network/

Added Later,

Such an array piggybacked between Mumbai and lets say its next landing which is in UAE, would allow the detection and monitoring of ALL puki movements into the IO. Think of how many P8 flights such detection would save.

http://cablemap.info/

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2099
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby tsarkar » 20 Apr 2017 18:01

Answering the oft-asked question on how are ships and submarines named.

Image

One minor clarification - the constellation applies to OPVs, survey ships are named after exploratory terms. Kamorta and Kadmat are islands in A&N and Lakshwadweep.
Last edited by tsarkar on 20 Apr 2017 18:23, edited 2 times in total.

Karthik S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3521
Joined: 18 Sep 2009 12:12

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Karthik S » 20 Apr 2017 18:08

Have Paradip and Porbandar laid down yet, this tender indicates so, but no news if the construction has started, considering first two are already launched.

http://www.mazdock.com/writereaddata/te ... 000685.pdf

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 60187
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: Lupine but moderately dharmic

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Singha » 20 Apr 2017 18:34

we need 12 SSN and 24 SSK a lot more than even a carrier

a carrier without SSN protection is just a blind truck begging to be sunk. and sunk it will be .

first get SSNs in numbers then we can protect surface assets far out.

Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10471
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Gagan » 20 Apr 2017 19:26

All these maps miss the fact that China has a major staging base in the Spratley Islands.

Those bases are == A&N islands of India.
Hainan to Spratley Islands is 500 NM
Spratley to Singapore is 850 NM
Singapore to 10 degree Channel is 650-700 NM

In 5 years we will probably have a Chinese armada crossing the Sunda Strait with an aircraft carrier, a few destroyers, corvettes, N subs, and fleet support vessels deploying in the Indian ocean and refueling at Hambantota, Gawadar and Djibouti
5 years is when India's aircraft carrier will be inducted

Karthik S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3521
Joined: 18 Sep 2009 12:12

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Karthik S » 20 Apr 2017 19:37

Singha wrote:we need 12 SSN and 24 SSK a lot more than even a carrier

a carrier without SSN protection is just a blind truck begging to be sunk. and sunk it will be .

first get SSNs in numbers then we can protect surface assets far out.


We can reach SSK numbers with P75I. We desperately need SSNs.

Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10471
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Gagan » 20 Apr 2017 19:41

India needs a long range bomber squadron composed of like 4 Tu-160 and 8-10 Tu-22s, based in arkonnam and Shibpur or Car nicobar in A&N islands
Aircraft Carrier has to be a 65K-85K EMALS possibly N powered.
p75I has to be a home designed sub line with components sourced from all over as needed.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 60187
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: Lupine but moderately dharmic

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Singha » 20 Apr 2017 21:14

By now we needed 10 x p28 in water

But desi built

Somehow money is not a problem for imports but desi products cost are criticised

Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10471
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Gagan » 20 Apr 2017 23:43

Desi products have the CAG talwar hanging over their heads.
This causes the MoD to ensure triplicate and long CYA tendering process and implementation.

Aditya G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3206
Joined: 19 Feb 2002 12:31
Contact:

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Aditya G » 21 Apr 2017 02:54

Austin wrote:As China races ahead, MoD dithers on India’s aircraft carrier

http://ajaishukla.blogspot.in/2017/04/a ... rs-on.html


Ajai Shukla acknowledges the debate in naval circles on strategy:

This is the longstanding debate between sea denial (denying the enemy the use of the sea, primarily with submarines) and sea control (dominating the ocean with air and surface power, built around a carrier). Sea control requires massive spending on carrier battle groups, or CBGs – an aircraft carrier and the warships that accompany it. In contrast, sea denial is a defensive strategy that takes less money – the cost of a submarine-based force.

Powerful, modern navies --- like the US Navy, the Royal Navy, the French, Russian and now even the PLA(N) --- have all built their fleets around aircraft carriers, enabling the projection of power to large distances from home bases.

Although the Indian Navy doctrine talks about power projection, and the service has decisively opted for aircraft carriers, discussion continues over whether to build a large, nuclear-powered carrier, or a smaller one like IAC-1. Reflecting this, Deshpande says: “There are lots of discussions within the navy on what type of IAC-2 we want. From the tonnage to the propulsion --- we are debating on this. Once we are more or less clear within the navy [about] what exactly we want, we would take up the case with the ministry for various approvals.”

Sea control advocates in the navy are inclined towards a 65,000-tonne, nuclear powered carrier that embarks 55 combat aircraft; and a state-of-the-art EMALS catapult that can rapidly launch fighter aircraft as well as larger aircraft for electronic warfare and airborne early warning. The name being suggested for IAC-2 is INS Vishal.


My personal view is to build more, smaller (and hence cheaper) carriers. Vikrant class is perfect IMO, and we should simply build more on STOBAR concept. In time, acquire VSTOL JSFs in case MiG-29K and LCA is not working out. Complement this with land based AEW and maritime strike aircraft. Let our carriers be multi-role with amphib as well as ASW concepts.

Aditya G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3206
Joined: 19 Feb 2002 12:31
Contact:

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Aditya G » 21 Apr 2017 03:19

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/what-i ... 1794182843

What It Would Really Take To Sink A Modern Aircraft Carrier

Robert Farley
Today 10:45amFiled to: AIRCRAFT CARRIERS


.....

No aircraft carrier has ever been hit by a modern torpedo of any sort, so we lack good evidence on how resilient a 90,000-ton ship might be to this kind of attack. The Navy tested a variety of underwater attack mechanisms against the retired Kitty Hawk-class carrier USS America in 2005, but the exact nature of the tests, and their results, remains confidential.

In World War II, submarines sank a total of eight fleet carriers from Japan, the United States, and the United Kingdom, beginning with HMS Courageous in 1939. And during the Cold War, the Navy identified Soviet nuclear submarines as a critical problem for carrier battle groups. As evidence from exercises indicates, submarines continue to pose a threat to aircraft carriers. To kill a carrier, a submarine needs to avoid escorts and patrol aircraft by either remaining stationary and waiting for a carrier to happen along, or by approaching a carrier quietly. In the open sea the latter is a difficult task, as carriers move at roughly the same speed as modern subs.

Navies closely guard the effective ranges of standard homing torpedoes, but most sources agree on 35 to 40 miles at maximum. Modern torpedoes explode underneath a ship in order to break its back and cause extensive, fatal flooding. The Russian Navy has developed extremely fast “supercavitating” torpedoes, but details on their operational status and practical effectiveness remains thin.

Counter-measures

The main solution to the submarine problem is to prevent submarines from moving into attack positions. Historically, this has involved multiple ways to detect and destroy enemy submarines, including carrier-borne anti-submarine aircraft, helicopters launched from escorts, land-based aircraft, and escorts themselves (including both surface ships and submarines).

During the Cold War, the Navy had enough confidence in its ability to find and kill Soviet subs that it could envision using carriers in major offensive operations against Soviet territory in the Arctic and in the Pacific.

The Navy’s anti-submarine warfare (ASW) capability has decayed since the Cold War with the retirement of the S-3 Viking patrol aircraft and the Oliver Hazard Perry class frigates, but then Russia has fewer subs than it did during the Soviet period, and China’s long-range nuclear submarines are considered relatively loud and easy to track. Quieter diesels lack the legs to remain on station in the areas that aircraft carriers will operate, and the speed to keep up with the battle groups.

Submarines are not as easy to link into a system of command and control as aircraft and surface ships, either, and hence tend to react more slowly to intelligence. Nevertheless, a sufficient number of carefully deployed submarines can pose a significant threat to any carrier group. If all else fails, most submarines and surface ships carry a variety of counter-measures designed to confuse homing torpedoes. These include noisemakers and decoys intended to distract the torpedo; the Russians and Chinese have wake-homing torpedoes designed to defeat these defenses.

....

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17016
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Philip » 21 Apr 2017 12:05

The key factor is communicating with the sub and transferring all available data on the enemy's location/course from one's own ISR assets.Sub commns. is the holy grail of naval warfare.VLF,ELF,sats using blue-green lasers,etc. are some current systems.Subs send up their commns. buoy at fixed times to receive messages,well shown in sev. Hollywood sub movies . Nuclear subs have the speed to intercept an enemy task force/CBG,but conventional AIP subs are much slower. However,modern torpedoes have great range (50km+ for the MK-48/Seahake,etc.) and endurance,making repeated attacks until they strike target.Torpedo speeds have also increased. While acoustic decoys are common,hard kill options may also be needed given the emergence of "smart" fish making repeated attacks. Just one wake-homing torpedo damaging a carrier's b*m and screws could render it immobile and a sitting duck for further attacks. The USN using a vintage conventional Swedish sub ,found that the sub "sank" its carriers quite often. The difficulty will be when the task force is transiting narrow straits,channels,well-known choke-points. Thermal clines,sediment ,etc. hamper sonar detection and small subs waiting in ambush have the advantage.

IN subs (in the future) armed with the heavier BMos anti-ship missiles could prove almost impossible to defeat.Klub too has its terminal homing supersonic warhead,v.difficult to counter,but is much smaller.It may need a full salvo to seriously damage a large CV . We urgently need large numbers.The fastest and most cost-effective way is to acquire a few more N-subs on lease from Ru and again lease/buy the latest Kilos/Amurs to increase numbers. The IN is examining whether 3 more upgraded AIP Scorpenes will be worth the price,talks going on with DCNS.One Scorpene would be twice as expensive as an Ru equivalent.German U-boats and Scorpenes have another serious limitation.They can fire only sub-sonic Exocets or Harpoons,not even Klub. What is equally important is building up our sub manufacturing base involving pvt. entities like L&T,best suited for the same. China has just completed a massive covered N-sub facility ,the world's largest,where four subs can be constructed simultaneously!

http://www.popsci.com/china-nuclear-submarine-facility
China is building the world's largest nuclear submarine facility
It can build four subs at a time.
By Jeffrey Lin and P.W. Singer April 19, 2017

Aditya G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3206
Joined: 19 Feb 2002 12:31
Contact:

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Aditya G » 21 Apr 2017 13:02

Philip wrote:The difficulty will be when the task force is transiting narrow straits,channels,well-known choke-points. Thermal clines,sediment ,etc. hamper sonar detection and small subs waiting in ambush have the advantage.

.......


In our context, IN will deploy SSK in Malacca to block PLAN in the choke points.

Our own carriers need not transits any choke points and thus strategic advantage to us.

carrier nay sayers keep painting a gloomy picture of how submarines will destroy carriers with attendant loss of lives and money. However, a strong surface Navy can influence events on land before shots are fired. The carrier is the most visible component on the surface and is a fighting ship, not a HVT to be protected from enemy

chola
BRFite
Posts: 1481
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby chola » 21 Apr 2017 15:46

Again, if our aspirations are that of a global power (and they are) then a CATOBAR carrier is a must. Anything else, STOBAR or LHD, renders us in the same midling tier as a dozen other nations like Italy or Thailand.

Understood, the FFGs and corvettes provide better bang for buck but we have a history of naval aviation and we have already invested decades in it.

Yes, in order for us to go with the 65K ton CVN with EMALS we'll need to trade off other items of need.

But what are the real risks of a naval war? We can annihilate the PN many times over with what we have now. Cheen cannot do more than piracy patrols and great-white-fleet flag-showing in the IOR without weakening its strategic core in its near seas. It cannot hope to survive against the IN and the US 7th, 5th and 6th fleets in the Indian Ocean.

So do we let all this handwringing and dhoti shivering over PLAN ships passing through the IOR make us give up the CATOBAR because we need to plan here and now for a war that has a very low probability of happening? And which if it did would end up in our favor even with what we have now?

Do not mortgage the goddam future with phantom fears. We are not surrounded by first-rate military powers but we act stupidly like we were. These phantom fears of shitty militaries like the TSP (who already lost handily against us three times) and Cheen (too chickenshit to fight a shooting war in 40 years) have made us pour our resources into phoren makers while starving our own because we need the "best" on the market here and now.

Build the CATOBAR. We have time. I don't fear the firepower of any PLAN CBG during an unlikely war. I do fear the far more likely peace time port calls of a PLAN CVN when we do not have one.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17016
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Philip » 21 Apr 2017 17:20

Israel is taking its cue from BRF what?
Wants 3 more Dolphin sybs asap."A new design would take years of study"...IN are you listening?

Let's not bite off more thanxwe can chew."Global power"to do what? Storm Hainan?Let's not kid ourselves.China is outclassing us in every dept. in naval construction be it carriers,N-subs,subs and surface warships.In addition it has cloned naval Flankers too.Our clear weakness right now is subs.One large 65 K N -powered EMALS CV will ss I have shown,cost us more than $10B.For just one flat top we would instead get 20 -30 conventional subs,or s combo of 12 conventional AIP subs and 4 SSNs.The carrier will again require a host of
supporting vessels costing another $ 8 to $10B!

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17016
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Philip » 21 Apr 2017 17:41

Morover,the carrier can be in only one placae at a time whereas the 12 subs could be in sev.maritime regions armed with BMos-L ,etc.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17016
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Philip » 21 Apr 2017 17:55

Morover,the carrier can be in only one placae at a time whereas the 12 subs could be in sev.maritime regions armed with BMos-L ,etc.The most survivable weapon system is the sub,why N-powers put their faith in SSBNs most of all.The sheer number of both N and conventional/AIP subs that Chna and Pak will field post 2020 leaves us with little choice but to place subs at the top of our listn

Karthik S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3521
Joined: 18 Sep 2009 12:12

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Karthik S » 21 Apr 2017 18:09

chola wrote:Again, if our aspirations are that of a global power (and they are) then a CATOBAR carrier is a must. Anything else, STOBAR or LHD, renders us in the same midling tier as a dozen other nations like Italy or Thailand.

Understood, the FFGs and corvettes provide better bang for buck but we have a history of naval aviation and we have already invested decades in it.

Yes, in order for us to go with the 65K ton CVN with EMALS we'll need to trade off other items of need.

But what are the real risks of a naval war? We can annihilate the PN many times over with what we have now. Cheen cannot do more than piracy patrols and great-white-fleet flag-showing in the IOR without weakening its strategic core in its near seas. It cannot hope to survive against the IN and the US 7th, 5th and 6th fleets in the Indian Ocean.

So do we let all this handwringing and dhoti shivering over PLAN ships passing through the IOR make us give up the CATOBAR because we need to plan here and now for a war that has a very low probability of happening? And which if it did would end up in our favor even with what we have now?

Do not mortgage the goddam future with phantom fears. We are not surrounded by first-rate military powers but we act stupidly like we were. These phantom fears of shitty militaries like the TSP (who already lost handily against us three times) and Cheen (too chickenshit to fight a shooting war in 40 years) have made us pour our resources into phoren makers while starving our own because we need the "best" on the market here and now.

Build the CATOBAR. We have time. I don't fear the firepower of any PLAN CBG during an unlikely war. I do fear the far more likely peace time port calls of a PLAN CVN when we do not have one.


Chola sir, if we don't need carriers against pak, and if we can handle the chinese with what we have already, why spend on a carrier then? Just to have bragging rights? Soviets were a global power without a CVN? Is France now more a global power than Russia or China (at the moment) because these two countries don't have a CVN but France has CDG?
Which other country would we be need carriers against ?

Sometime back I watched a documentary on Kursk sub disaster. The narrator mentioned, at its peak, the USSR had about 180 subs IIRC. But they never had a CVN.

Cosmo_R
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3298
Joined: 24 Apr 2010 01:24

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Cosmo_R » 21 Apr 2017 18:49

^^^"Chola sir, if we don't need carriers against pak, and if we can handle the chinese with what we have already, why spend on a carrier then? Just to have bragging rights? "

Power projection. This is more than bragging rights. It is a large set of teeth that says 'don't mess with us'. As the USN likes to say "90,000 tons of diplomacy". This usually prevents incidents. SSGNs are more potent but they can't be seen.

The subtext is " "These teeth are smiling, but can quickly be re-purposed".

Karthik S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3521
Joined: 18 Sep 2009 12:12

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Karthik S » 21 Apr 2017 18:57

^^^ to whom you are going to say 'don't mess with us' after flashing CVN, Pak or China? We don't need CVN for both. Or you think having a CVN will stop pakis from exporting terror or china from messing with us the way they are now? In which other scenario will it come handy if 'don't mess with us' theory doesn't work?

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2684
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Cain Marko » 21 Apr 2017 19:48

Philip wrote:Israel is taking its cue from BRF what?
Wants 3 more Dolphin sybs asap."A new design would take years of study"...IN are you listening?

Let's not bite off more thanxwe can chew."Global power"to do what? Storm Hainan?Let's not kid ourselves.China is outclassing us in every dept. in naval construction be it carriers,N-subs,subs and surface warships.In addition it has cloned naval Flankers too.Our clear weakness right now is subs.One large 65 K N -powered EMALS CV will ss I have shown,cost us more than $10B.For just one flat top we would instead get 20 -30 conventional subs,or s combo of 12 conventional AIP subs and 4 SSNs.The carrier will again require a host of
supporting vessels costing another $ 8 to $10B!


Have to agree except I doubt a 65 ton cvn with 60 odd Cato bar fighters will cost so little as $10B. you would need to double that figure. Instead another vikrant class with more fulcrums would cost around 6 billion allowing the remaining dollars to go to defensive assets like mpaas and Asw corvettes as well as some offensive ones like subs and bombers. All in all, a much more versatile force.

chola
BRFite
Posts: 1481
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby chola » 21 Apr 2017 21:14

Phillip ji, Karthik saar, your points are valid and logical. But I do think that logic is predicated in a large part on dhoti-shivering fear of kinetic war with Cheen.

I think we are a nuclear power and so are they. We are not going to "storm Hainan" without being nuked. The same for them if they tried on Andaman and Nicobar. Great powers have not gone to war with each other since WW2 for a reason.

Without war, and a navy is at peace 99.99% of the time, all your logic still results in a force showing the flag as its main job. Subs, as powerful as they are in actually warfare, cannot do this. Carrier aviation and the carrier is the pinnacle of the great-white-fleet.

And the CATOBAR is the penultimate of carrier aviation. We are already neck deep in this endeavor. I would not advocate for it were we not a naval aviation power to begin with.

Again, as I said to Singha-ji before, I am logical on most thing but for carriers. It feels right that we as a global power should have a CATOBAR, especially if the other aspiring global power is going to get one and sail it in our front pond during peace time.

Yes, the USSR didn't have a CVN but it also had 40000 nukes and a landmass that spread from Europe to East Asia.

France? Without their ability to project power through the de Gaulle, they might never be in the same discussion as Russia or China.

We don't have 40K nukes and we will not bankrupt the country like USSR with 180 SSNs. We are not going to outbuild the chinis in subs, corvettes or minesweepers so why not build a CATOBAR?

Bragging rights? Yes. Power projection? Yes.

But mainly, it serves as a symbol of our stature. A king doesn't necessarily need a crown but it is imperative he has one in front of the peons.

The only way for the PLAN to "win" in the IOR is to steam a 80K-ton CATOBAR into our ocean during peace time and all we have is a 40K-ton STOBAR in response. This would immediately put them on par with the USN on our ocean in the eyes of all the sundry little nations around the rimland. It would relegate us to the second tier. In our ocean.

chola
BRFite
Posts: 1481
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby chola » 21 Apr 2017 21:37

And I know, even though illogical by the standards of the majority of us in this thread, that the braintrust at the top of the IN feels this way because they go every so many months after each rejection, hat in hand, to the ministry to make this vision happen.

Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3828
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Manish_Sharma » 21 Apr 2017 22:05

Amrika would love to have us waste billions on one gigantic platform. Instead of 12 SSNs and 24 SSK.

we didn't have money for 126 Rafales for airforce.

These 55 a/c and carrier attacked by salty sea air will be high maintenance and low availability.

Instead have 90 Su 35s on airbase ready to fly out and swat cheeni platforms would be better option.

Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3828
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Manish_Sharma » 21 Apr 2017 22:09

US has 10 carriers and 56 subs

Russians loaded with subs but no carriers.

:rotfl:

Bharat with gigantic carrier and no submarines would be soooooooo powerfull

abhik
BRFite
Posts: 1981
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby abhik » 21 Apr 2017 23:24

BTW exactly where and against whom do people think we will be projecting power with a half american ship and french/american/russian aircraft?

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 60187
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: Lupine but moderately dharmic

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Singha » 21 Apr 2017 23:47

Maldives

chola
BRFite
Posts: 1481
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby chola » 22 Apr 2017 00:55

Manish_Sharma wrote:US has 10 carriers and 56 subs

Russians loaded with subs but no carriers.

:rotfl:

Bharat with gigantic carrier and no submarines would be soooooooo powerfull


Will we be "soooooooo powerfull" struggling to build a dozen SSNs that the Maldives can't see? And yes, unless we actually go to war with Cheen that CATOBAR will be worth more in status and geo-political power when parked off the Maldives than the SSNs.

And not just a "half American ship", a half-Amreeki ship with EMALS and AAG, you cynics. Something that even the other carrier operators couldn't get their hands on.

We are already in neck-deep in naval aviation why turn aside now that we are within reach of the very top of it?

The problem is that many of us here and also at the MoD have not move to the point where we see ourselves as a global power. But Adm. Lanba, Deshpande and the top brass at the IN, always our most forward looking service, do have this vision.

Hopefully the babus at the ministry release the money for Vishal as they envision.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Rakesh and 30 guests