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.
Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5070
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Viv S » 21 Sep 2017 15:10

ShauryaT wrote:Viv S: Please go through the IN budget and please compute the costs for the EMALS and let us know under what scenario a $20+ billion carrier is affordable. The reported articles says $20 billion for the carrier only not including its aircrafts.

1. Cost of EMALS is just over $700 mil for the second Ford and will likely fall to around $600-650 mil once the production stabilizes (Brar can provide more info).
2. $20 bn for the ship alone is obviously nonsense. That's more than the R&D + procurement cost for the first 100 kton Ford (the succeeding vessels are cheaper).

The RN is acquiring two 70 kton carriers for £6.2 bn ($8.5 bn). In 2013, when the UK govt was planning a switch to a CATOBAR configuration (with EMALS), construction on the ship had already commenced (on fixed-price contracts) making a re-design at that stage unaffordable - the plan was dropped because the cost would go up by nearly 40% to ~£10 bn. That's still only $13.5 bn at the current exchange rate. For two carriers.

Rs 1.35 lakh crore figure is either wrong, or includes the aviation complement... or CSL intends to declare 50% profit on revenue.

Also, in terms of sea control there ARE alternatives to super-duper carriers. Alternatives by way of bases in Seychelles, Nha Trang and Mozambique with LRMP and Long range bombers, which can supplement 3 ADS and its flotilla with Tanker support, AEW and if need be long range fighters such as the Sukhoi from say Car Nicobar? India has the capacity to establish this sea control of the IOR on Indian terms, without mortgaging ourselves further financially or in geo-political terms. Establishing such bases will go a long way towards projection of power than any foreign designed toy can.

Seychelles is about 2000 km south of the Socotra and the Gulf of Aden, with Mozambique further south. And while they may accept the presence of a listening post & peacetime resupply base, we've got another thing coming if we believe we can run air missions out of Seychelles in wartime. They aren't stupid enough to directly participate in a military conflict against China. Nor is Vietnam, for that matter.

The EMALS would make the Vishal a toy-can to about the same extent as the GE F404 makes the Tejas a toy-plane, or the LM2500s make the Vikrant a toy-boat. The Navy already has P-8Is in service & MQ-9s and more P-8s on order, while the S-70 is the favourite for the helo tender. At this point, its absurd to draw the line at accepting design assistance and ordering a catapult system.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5070
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Viv S » 21 Sep 2017 15:10

Rakesh wrote:Viv_S: Demonitization has hit the economy pretty bad. I believe growth is now at 5.7% when it was around 7- 8% YOY in the past.

http://money.cnn.com/2017/08/31/news/ec ... index.html

If the current figure ($2.9 bn) averages 6.5% growth over the next 18 years (to 2035) - we're looking at a total capital procurement outlay of $103 bn over the period for the Navy. A pair of QE-sized EMALS-equipped ships would likely set up back by about $11-12 bn, if the project is planned & managed adequately well.

But to lay the keel for a nuclear powered, EMALS equipped Vishal Class aircraft carrier requires planning and resource allocation and it needs to happen now. Obviously that is not happening. At this rate, I do not expect to see the vessel qualified for carrier ops before 2040.

You'd need to invest about 3-4 years or so in R&D and planning stage, before construction can commence, will the keel being laid a couple of years after. Doesn't really require a great deal of capital, at this point.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5070
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Viv S » 21 Sep 2017 15:16

Philip wrote:Viv pl don't impute false propositions from my posts.I've never been against carriers or a strong carrier navy. Circumstances however make it simply ludicrous for the IN to operate a 65K t N-powered EMALS carrier at this moment in time without beggaring the rest of the navy and affecting budgets of the two other services too.

Given that a 65 kton N-powered EMALS will have a build cycle of about 15 years, for operation by the IN in the late 2030s - I fail to see how it beggars the IN 'at this moment in time'.

We can leverage the situ by adopting a multi-role design for the amphibs with an angled deck plus ski-jump if there is a will.I've shown from the post-WW2 Essex carrier mods that this isn't such a dificult task even before the CVs are built! If they simply come with a ski-jump then we have only one aircraft at the moment,subject to sanctions,etc.,which is the JSF and the US hasn't as yet offered it to us,hence the proposal that the amphibs have what I've said above. You may disagree on this but that's your privilege.

And I'd advise you go back at take close look at the size and position of the island on Essex and then examine the same for the Juan Carlos class. Its not a slight modification on a ponson - that deck is going to be sticking out half-way off the ship on an LHD.

This is what the Essex & Juan Carlos look like, at scale -

Image

If the F-35B is off-the-table for whatever reason you like - those LHDs will function purely as helicopter carriers and nothing more. There isn't enough room aft of the JC's island or enough clearance to the side of it, to put in an angled deck. Period.

Secondly,what if there aren't even funds for a second sister ship to the IAC-1? We will have no alternative but to redesign the amphibs,that is if the IN thinks imaginatively.

Very imaginatively. As in, imagine a new ship. Cause the existing one is available cheap because its a refined proven design with no R&D required. The Australians rejected a proposal to equip the Canberra class with fighters but still retained the ski-jump because the modification to merely make it a flat-deck freeing up an additional parking spot for a helo was too expensive.

Our greatest threat in the present and future is from Chinese and Paki subs and our sub fleet at the moment is barely 15% of their combined strength.We will be outnumbered and unable to sufficiently defend ourselves from this UW threat in a future crisis unless the sub fleet is augmented on a war footing. Neither do we have enough surface combatants ,though the number is much healthier than the subs,.and ASW escorts in the inventory to sanitise the key critical areas of the IOR from a concentrated PLAN ingress into the IOR,from where it will already be operating out of Gwadar,Karachi and Djibouti on a permanent basis.

The underlying assumption being that the most effective way to counter a sub-threat is with an equal increase in subs. Fact remains, subs while ideal for laying ambushes for surface ship at choke-points, outside ports, etc, have far less utility when it comes to scanning vast stretches of the ocean for enemy subs. As far as ASW is concerned, the priority for IN will be the NMRH program (its existing fleet reduced to just 10 Ka-28s and 15 odd Sea King Mk42Bs).

There's no need to elaborate upon multi-asset prosecution of subs,its well known ,however,if we do not leverage the land mass of India for operating LRMP,maritime bombers,which will have great range,endurance and strike capability,it will make the job of the PLAN achieving its objectives much easier. While Blackjacks are indeed superior to Backfires,they're far more expensive and Russian requirements will have to be first met with the new prod.There are a few doz. Backfires readily available for modernisation. Armed with stand-off LRCMs and super/hyper BMos,they could attack targets even in the ICS/Pacific waters when operating out of the A&N islands.

Maritime bombers are useless against subs. And it'll be a while before a PLAN battle group can deploy west of the Malacca. And if, and when it does the Backfires will need to get past the CBG's fighter screen (likely extending to 300 km) before it can get a bead on the carrier or its escorts, and it'll need to launch enough missiles to overload their integrated air defences (64 VLS silos on the 052D, 112 on the 055). Not an easy task at the best of times.

chola
BRFite
Posts: 1731
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby chola » 21 Sep 2017 15:55

We talk about the navy in regards to Cheen about matchups in times of war. If no war happened during all that war-drumming at Doka La, then the chances of it happening in our lifetime is pretty slim.

We need to look at the 99.97% of the time when there is no conflict and consequently that is when Cheen makes its moves.

They are building a massive navy to create persistence on vast expanses of sea not necessarily to wage war. This is done mainly by surface ships under the surveillance of aircraft flying from their homebases and from man-made islands. This is what happened in the SCS.

Ships are slow. Subs even slower. SSKs slowest. You need aircraft to patrol over wide areas. When a CBG goes into an area it maintains de facto jurisdiction over hundreds of miles with its aircraft. A sub? Unless it surfaces, it gives you nothing in terms of that persistence that changes facts on the surface like the SCS.

The PRC won't be building islands in the IOR. But it is acquiring bases and it can operate in parts of the Induan Ocean far from the Indian mainland. With carriers they literally bringing man-made islands into the IOR. If we do not have our own carriers in those seas then jurisdiction is ceded to them de facto.

TPFscopes
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 10
Joined: 21 Sep 2017 23:53

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby TPFscopes » 22 Sep 2017 00:30

Indian Navy Got its First boat of kalvari class sub that is INS KALVARI

Image

https://twitter.com/ANI/status/910890934329417729

KrishnaK
BRFite
Posts: 862
Joined: 29 Mar 2005 23:00

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby KrishnaK » 22 Sep 2017 00:47

Viv S wrote:
There's no need to elaborate upon multi-asset prosecution of subs,its well known ,however,if we do not leverage the land mass of India for operating LRMP,maritime bombers,which will have great range,endurance and strike capability,it will make the job of the PLAN achieving its objectives much easier. While Blackjacks are indeed superior to Backfires,they're far more expensive and Russian requirements will have to be first met with the new prod.There are a few doz. Backfires readily available for modernisation. Armed with stand-off LRCMs and super/hyper BMos,they could attack targets even in the ICS/Pacific waters when operating out of the A&N islands.

Maritime bombers are useless against subs. And it'll be a while before a PLAN battle group can deploy west of the Malacca. And if, and when it does the Backfires will need to get past the CBG's fighter screen (likely extending to 300 km) before it can get a bead on the carrier or its escorts, and it'll need to launch enough missiles to overload their integrated air defences (64 VLS silos on the 052D, 112 on the 055). Not an easy task at the best of times.
The bombers will need a fleet of MPAs to find and track the carrier fleet in the first place, which will get attacked. Even if it gets the co-ordinates out, in 60 minutes time from spotting a vessel that can travel at 50mph, it could be anywhere in an area of 7853.98mi². That number goes up to 31415.93mi² in 2 hours.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4109
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Rakesh » 22 Sep 2017 04:25

chola wrote:We talk about the navy in regards to Cheen about matchups in times of war. If no war happened during all that war-drumming at Doka La, then the chances of it happening in our lifetime is pretty slim.

We need to look at the 99.97% of the time when there is no conflict and consequently that is when Cheen makes its moves.

They are building a massive navy to create persistence on vast expanses of sea not necessarily to wage war. This is done mainly by surface ships under the surveillance of aircraft flying from their homebases and from man-made islands. This is what happened in the SCS.

Ships are slow. Subs even slower. SSKs slowest. You need aircraft to patrol over wide areas. When a CBG goes into an area it maintains de facto jurisdiction over hundreds of miles with its aircraft. A sub? Unless it surfaces, it gives you nothing in terms of that persistence that changes facts on the surface like the SCS.

The PRC won't be building islands in the IOR. But it is acquiring bases and it can operate in parts of the Induan Ocean far from the Indian mainland. With carriers they literally bringing man-made islands into the IOR. If we do not have our own carriers in those seas then jurisdiction is ceded to them de facto.

Chola, no one is arguing for not building aircraft carriers. No one is arguing for not having nuclear powered, EMALS equipped aircraft carriers either. But you cannot have effective carrier ops - nuclear powered or otherwise - without the support platforms accompanying it. So all your points - while valid - will remain onlee as theory until the Govt coughs up the cash to acquire those platforms. And you need a lot of them.

You spoke about when a CBG enters an area it maintains de facto jurisdiction over hundreds of miles with its aircraft. But we have no effective ASW helos, we just commissioned INS Kalvari without torpedoes, we have no SSN boats, some of our surface fleet is missing anti-air missiles, we have no airborne surveillance platforms, no dedicated land-based naval tankers despite our MiG-29Ks having in-flight refueling capability, the less said about the MiG-29K the better, etc, etc, etc. How are we going to maintain jurisdiction over hundreds of miles without this?

And when those support platforms arrive, then why stop at nuclear powered aircraft carriers? Go for dilithium crystal, warp-drive powered aircraft carriers I say!

vasu raya
BRFite
Posts: 1464
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby vasu raya » 22 Sep 2017 04:37

Congrats to the IN for inducting INS Kalvari, and hope they put an Official video

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4109
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Rakesh » 22 Sep 2017 04:38

vasu raya wrote:Congrats to the IN for inducting INS Kalvari, and hope they put an Official video

Here is one...

https://twitter.com/CNNnews18/status/910874816185434113

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4109
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Rakesh » 22 Sep 2017 04:52

Viv S wrote:
Rakesh wrote:Viv_S: Demonitization has hit the economy pretty bad. I believe growth is now at 5.7% when it was around 7- 8% YOY in the past.

http://money.cnn.com/2017/08/31/news/ec ... index.html

If the current figure ($2.9 bn) averages 6.5% growth over the next 18 years (to 2035) - we're looking at a total capital procurement outlay of $103 bn over the period for the Navy. A pair of QE-sized EMALS-equipped ships would likely set up back by about $11-12 bn, if the project is planned & managed adequately well.

Isn't that the key? :)

Ever since I have been following Indian Naval programs, I do not know of a single major naval program that has not been delayed. The ones that come to mind;

- Vikramaditya aircraft carrier
- Vikrant Class aircraft carrier
- Delhi Class destroyer
- Kolkata Class destroyer
- Shivalik Class frigate
- Brahmaputra Class frigate
- Kalvari Class submarine (Project 75)
- Project 75I submarine

Going by the above track record, I see no indication that this project will be planned or managed adequately well. The Babus at the MoD have already dumped it down the shitter, albeit temporarily. Not to mention this is an entirely new type of vessel. Our first surface vessel that will be nuclear powered and be equipped with brand new technology like EMALS.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5070
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Viv S » 22 Sep 2017 05:47

Rakesh wrote:Going by the above track record, I see no indication that this project will be planned or managed adequately well. The Babus at the MoD have already dumped it down the shitter, albeit temporarily. Not to mention this is an entirely new type of vessel. Our first surface vessel that will be nuclear powered and be equipped with brand new technology like EMALS.

Well if mismanaged, the project will come in over budget, say $13-14 bn (for two ships) albeit funded from a larger corpus, and behind schedule, probably around 2040. All the more reason to get started ASAP (lest it arrive in 2045).

P.S. The Vizag-class destroyers appear to be on-track.

vasu raya
BRFite
Posts: 1464
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby vasu raya » 22 Sep 2017 06:11



Thank you Rakeshji!

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15866
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby NRao » 22 Sep 2017 07:35

ShauryaT wrote:Viv S: Please go through the IN budget and please compute the costs for the EMALS and let us know under what scenario a $20+ billion carrier is affordable. The reported articles says $20 billion for the carrier only not including its aircrafts.

Also, in terms of sea control there ARE alternatives to super-duper carriers. Alternatives by way of bases in Seychelles, Nha Trang and Mozambique with LRMP and Long range bombers, which can supplement 3 ADS and its flotilla with Tanker support, AEW and if need be long range fighters such as the Sukhoi from say Car Nicobar? India has the capacity to establish this sea control of the IOR on Indian terms, without mortgaging ourselves further financially or in geo-political terms. Establishing such bases will go a long way towards projection of power than any foreign designed toy can.

Added: If I have to stretch slightly, maybe even Chabahar and an Australian base can be had.


India is not going it alone.



On "Carrier". Politicians decide which parts of the globe need IN assets. Alaska to around Africa is a political decision.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2807
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Cain Marko » 22 Sep 2017 08:47

Rakesh wrote:
Cain Marko wrote:If India could haggle and get the POW from the Royal Navy at friendship prices, it might be worth a dekko. Load it up with jsf. Get another 36 silver bullets for the IAF and end this fiasco of single engine fighter.
Cost would more or less be same... Around 15-20 billion is my guess.

Cain-ji, you are living with ji. You cannot escape it ;)

If India is looking at the POW, then we might as well acquire the QE as well. Nothing worse than buying individual carriers...logistical nightmare to maintain one Vikrant, one Vikramaditya, one Prince of Wales. That is why the best solution in the short term is build a second, but larger Vikrant. Make her STOBAR capable, wider lifts, Lightning Bs with Growlers and the whole support package. Lay the keel now and it will be qualified for carrier ops by 2029 or 2030. This gives the Indian naval design bureau time to figure out what they want on the Vishal and how much the govt is willing to spend. Build up capability incrementally. And since none of this is being pushed on us, as we are led to believe on BRF, we have the choice to defer on EMALS no? :)

Or the other option is buy both the QE and POW and say goodbye to Vishal or a follow on Vikrant. I would rather go with the former option, because it will be our design, built at home and can customize it with whatever we want.


Hmm, you do brinng out some good points Admiral saar. The ideal would indeed be another Vikrant class, somethig that makes far mmore sense. One advantage of the POW however, is that it could be added to the fleet in pretty quick time since it is supposed to be ready around 2020.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4998
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby ShauryaT » 22 Sep 2017 09:36

@Viv_S: When I requested you to go through the budget, did you actually go through the numbers? Do you know how much money is available in the budget for new capital programs? You cite future growth et al. Do you know over the last few years there has actually been a decline in the capital budgets of the military? For those wanting to know. The monies available to the IN for new programs is about 1800 crores. Now please do figure how it is to be spent and where? Rest is already committed.

Conclusion
There is not much change in the defence budget as compared to last year. With the current capital allocation it will be difficult to achieve a force level of 198 warships from the current fleet of 137 by 2027. Navy is on an even keel and way ahead of the Army and the Air Force. The successful conclusion of the 47 ships of all types including submarines, aircraft carrier and fast-attack vessels, which are under construction will add to Navy’s maritime power. Shortage of all types of helicopters is an area of concern, so is amphibian US-2 ShinMaywa which has been on the drawing board for a long time. Another area is the dwindling conventional submarine fleet. Considering the long gestation period of acquisition of submarines, there is a requirement to expedite these projects. However, in spite of these limitations, the Chief of Naval Staff Admiral Sunil Lanba has stated that the Indian Navy has over 40 ships, 4 submarines, and 12 aircraft deployed in waters near and far around the Indian peninsular and island territories.

http://www.spsnavalforces.com/story/?id=457

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19904
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Austin » 22 Sep 2017 09:40

Finally 1st scorpene gets in the IN after 5 year delay in the program

Indian Navy gets first Scorpene submarine Kalvari

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17802
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Philip » 22 Sep 2017 13:14

PL. ck the post in the Chin td. strat. forum,where the PRC has placed its navy as its highest priority above the air force and army in order to achieve its goal of global domination.It has just recd. another N-sub,speculation on what type,whether SSN or SSBN.The enormous number of Chinese subs it will have by 2020,between 80-100 is most alarming when the IN possesses just 14 conventional subs (none AIP),with let's say 2 SSBNs and one SSGN (Leased).
One Kilo has just been sent to Russia for a two-yr. upgrade/refit and all our KIlos and U-209s will have to be replaced by 2030.These 13 subs will be replaced with 6 Scorpenes and at the current rate of sub-building in India,another 6-8 conv. boats.No extra numbers at all,barring the SSBNs and SSGNs on lease from Russia.WE actually need a min. of 36 subs of all types,preferably 40-48 to be able to counter the Sino-Paki UW challenge,which will be three times the min. number I've proposed. This calls for yet another line apart from the P-75I required ,with the first 2-4 boats built abroad for speed of induction.One suggests acquiring the next best Ru conv. boat,either mod. AIP Amur/Ladas ,whose construction is continuing and touted as having far better stealth and sonar capabilities than Kilos.These subs are to have the fuel-reforming AIP system,similar to what the DRDO is trying to perfect. Or the new Kalina class of which little is known,which will only appear around 2020.12 of these subs should be acquired to replace all Kilos and another line of Western subs,a battle between the 3 European sub-builders from Germany,France and Sweden,to complement the 6 Scorpenes.Between 6-12 acquired .Eventual;y,we would have around 30+ conv. AIP subs,plus between 12-16 N-subs.That number would give us the capability to take the maritime battle into Chinese waters when the balloon goes up.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5070
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Viv S » 22 Sep 2017 13:46

ShauryaT wrote:@Viv_S: When I requested you to go through the budget, did you actually go through the numbers? Do you know how much money is available in the budget for new capital programs? You cite future growth et al. Do you know over the last few years there has actually been a decline in the capital budgets of the military? For those wanting to know. The monies available to the IN for new programs is about 1800 crores. Now please do figure how it is to be spent and where? Rest is already committed.

I went through the figures in February. Capital budgets have stagnated over the last few years for the same reason that investment in the pvt sector has stagnated - a phase of over-commitment followed by a sharp slowdown in economic growth. The economy as well as the defence budget will emerge from the morass.

But we're not talking about rations & salaries here. We're discussing a project that will span a time-period of at least 15 years, with the bulk of the funding required 5 years hence. There's more than enough money in the budget to fund the preliminary design phase of the project.

chola
BRFite
Posts: 1731
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby chola » 22 Sep 2017 14:28

Rakesh wrote:
chola wrote:We talk about the navy in regards to Cheen about matchups in times of war. If no war happened during all that war-drumming at Doka La, then the chances of it happening in our lifetime is pretty slim.

We need to look at the 99.97% of the time when there is no conflict and consequently that is when Cheen makes its moves.

They are building a massive navy to create persistence on vast expanses of sea not necessarily to wage war. This is done mainly by surface ships under the surveillance of aircraft flying from their homebases and from man-made islands. This is what happened in the SCS.

Ships are slow. Subs even slower. SSKs slowest. You need aircraft to patrol over wide areas. When a CBG goes into an area it maintains de facto jurisdiction over hundreds of miles with its aircraft. A sub? Unless it surfaces, it gives you nothing in terms of that persistence that changes facts on the surface like the SCS.

The PRC won't be building islands in the IOR. But it is acquiring bases and it can operate in parts of the Induan Ocean far from the Indian mainland. With carriers they literally bringing man-made islands into the IOR. If we do not have our own carriers in those seas then jurisdiction is ceded to them de facto.

Chola, no one is arguing for not building aircraft carriers. No one is arguing for not having nuclear powered, EMALS equipped aircraft carriers either. But you cannot have effective carrier ops - nuclear powered or otherwise - without the support platforms accompanying it. So all your points - while valid - will remain onlee as theory until the Govt coughs up the cash to acquire those platforms. And you need a lot of them.

You spoke about when a CBG enters an area it maintains de facto jurisdiction over hundreds of miles with its aircraft. But we have no effective ASW helos, we just commissioned INS Kalvari without torpedoes, we have no SSN boats, some of our surface fleet is missing anti-air missiles, we have no airborne surveillance platforms, no dedicated land-based naval tankers despite our MiG-29Ks having in-flight refueling capability, the less said about the MiG-29K the better, etc, etc, etc. How are we going to maintain jurisdiction over hundreds of miles without this?

And when those support platforms arrive, then why stop at nuclear powered aircraft carriers? Go for dilithium crystal, warp-drive powered aircraft carriers I say!


Well argued.

I'm not cheerleading the 65K-ton carrier anymore. Not at that budget crippling $20B price tag anyways. Just explaining why during peace time the carrier will exert inordinate influence over large areas of the sea.

And why the chinis are going for a large carrier fleet -- at least six in coming years according to most literature -- in spite of the expense. Especially intriguing since their well documented and well publicized A2/AD battle strategy focuses on attacking the vulnerabilities of carrier not using it. Their actual war plans center around their land-based aircraft and massive submarine fleet of 70 (and growing.)

They are building carriers because of their outsized influence during times of peace not war. We need to understand that and counter it. A war time strategy of backfire or subs makes little sense in peace time since they can't patrol or create persistent presence.

A solution might be long range patrol craft like the US-2 and scores of cheaper Coast Guard cutters that can create persistent presence in areas where patrols detect phoren activity.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17802
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Philip » 22 Sep 2017 14:46

Clarifications:
Maritime strike/Backfires,etc. are reqd. not for sub prosecuting but PLAN CBGs,surface task forces,etc. which may attempt to enter the IOR or which may already be there before a spat commences.The Chinese will move its sub forces and surface groups well before the balloon goes up and use their base facilities in other countries to support these assets and naval ops. The eenemy will already be in the IOR in signifcant strength prior to commencement of hostilities.

Secondly,In addition to launching stand-off ASMs like BMos variants,Nirbhay against Chinese naval; bases,ports,land targets.If the PLAN throws into the IOR 20-30 subs (plus Paki subs),floods it like the Nazis d did in the Atlantic,plus basing them from Djibouti,Gwadar,Karachi.Htota ,even perhaps to Burma and BDesh (operates China subs),plus making port calls at Malaysian ports,will we be able to deal with these numbers using only aircraft and surface ships alone? Aircraft have limitations to time on station,we have dozens of naval bases,ports,etc. on our coast to defend apart from monitoring the SLOCs. Two CVs,one for each coast,with a third in refit/maintenance,should be able to sanitise the Arabian Sea and Bay of Bengal from enemy surface groups,plus the advantage of "INS India" for our maritime patrol/strike aircraft,but will still find it v. difficult to prosecute large numbers of enemy subs. More LRMP ASW capable aircraft like P-8Is and amphibs with ASW capabilities reqd. Our CG OPVs should have some ASW capability in the future to augment numbers available for the task. Our sub inventory MUST be hugely increased.At least 25-30% will be in our harbours/dockyards for replenishment/repair/refit. We are told that barely half=-a-doz. subs are actually fighting fit at the moment.in 2-3 years time China will have 80-100 subs! With the gobbling up of the Spratlys and establishing mil bases on them,it makes it easier for PLAN assets incl. their own aircraft LRMP/bombers to operate from them,intercepting our merchant vessels that are also transiting the Malacca Straits to Spore,ASEAN nations and the Far East. Even the Vladivostok route for Indo-Russian merchant traffic will be at risk.

Therefore,it is imperative that we have on a permanent basis our own subs,both AIP and N-subs patrolling the Indo-China Sea both as forward strike forces against the PLAN but also protecting to some extent our won merchant fleet from sub/surface attack. In this our relations with Vietnam must be further expanded,so that we can operate our subs,ships and aircraft out of Viet ports just as the Chinese are doing so with Paki ports.Indo-Viet nuclear cooperation must also be advanced...you get my meaning.

PS:Even USN exercises using legacy Swedish subs,Indian Kilos,etc. have been v.difficult to detect,with USN carriers "sunk" regularly.LIke the picture posted by a member,of a surface vessel in the crosshairs of a periscope,the sub has a distinct advantage over any surface combatant and with greater R&D,subs are becoming even more difficult to detect,both AIP/conv. and N-subs.

PPS:Essex island noted.Pl. ck the pics of the modified Essex carriers given in the link/earlier post.These were done "after" the war and there was little difficulty adding an angled deck,etc. to them.If I recollect well,almost 20 such carriers were modified.
My suggestion is that since we've not even selected a design for the amphibs and that they're to be of size of at least 30-35,000t,,funds scarce and if a sister ship of the Vik-A is also unaffordable,then let them have an angled deck + ski-jump so that our naval aircraft options are extended to the NLCA.Sea Gripen and STOVL fighters. The only STOVL fighter available today is the JSF which the US may not even sell to us! Russia's Yak-!$!successor is "a bird in the bush".The two SE alternatives ,NLCA and Sea Gripen could even operate from the decks of the two exg. carriers,another plus point. Two of these multi-role amphibs assisting one carrier on each seaboard should be able to allow the IN in achieving dominance on both seaboards.

The extra capability is required from 2020+ onwards,too early for any of the amphibs to arrive,which means augmenting our land-based strike aircraft with extra P-8Is and Backfirss.Blackjacks-if available,since we've retd. all our TU-142 Bears which could've handled the LR strike role with aplomb using a variety of LRCMs.

chola
BRFite
Posts: 1731
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby chola » 22 Sep 2017 15:07

^^^ Filipov, most of our trade routes going through the Malacca Strait is to China itself!!! Check India's top trade partners. Without China/Hong Kong, there would not be many ships of our flag going through the Strait.

Splitting up a much smaller navy to protect insignificant assets at distance and in range of chini land-based assets is suicidal. You want to concentrate your forces locally where you have the advantages of numbers and geography.

Again, if our military strategy is solely based on winning wars then we will lose the peace which the navy operates under 99.97% of the time. Cheen is not Pakistan of the martial races. Their expansion paradigm is different and more insidious as well as effective. Their takeover of the SCS is a military backed territorial grab without a shot fired. An endless stream of warships and aircraft flooding an area until de facto jurisdiction become theirs.

Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3870
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Manish_Sharma » 22 Sep 2017 16:00

First everyone builds up huge submarine force, be it Russia, China or usa. Then if budget is left they go for carriers.

We didn't go for 126 rafale mfrg here but bought piddly 36 Rafales due to lack of money.

Now to sink precious money in 57 AFF (any foreign fighters) + huge carrier (a juicy target for subs)

If these 57 are bought for iaf then at least they will have more availability+life as they won't be crash landing on ship deck, they will not rot away faster in sea salty air, there airframe won't get damaged due to catapulted.

Our prime ministers in future will be continously under pressure by usa to send this carrier to do their dirty work.
Any PM refusing maybe target from bloodthirsty west. Rajiv Gandhi opposed usa getting fuel during gulf war and was assassinated by cia through Christian terrorists of ltte.

Our wars will be fought over Himalaya, Punjab, Rajasthan and Gujarat. Any Chinese Carrier attacking will be killed by Arihant, Shucka B, Kalvari, p15s & Vikrant.
Cheaper to have 90 Brahmos armed Su 35s in South with 2 tankers attacking Chinese carriers.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17802
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Philip » 22 Sep 2017 17:58

Naval forces will have to deploy where the threat is.When numbers are against us the enemy will attack/decoy on sev. fronts.

PS:200+ MKIs are to be upgraded to SS std.All these will carry the smaller BMos-l/NG whatever it is called.3 for each SS MKI and two,at least one on a 29K. Possible that it may be mated to Raffys in future as well. However,the MKIs would be better used on the northern and western fronts.In the IOR/A&N theatre,29Ks and LRMP/strike birds should do the biz. A two BMos armed 29K with tanker support will be a v.formidable platform.If we also have a sqd. of Backfires or better,it adds to the ability to launch supersonic attacks at great distances ,into the ICS itself.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4998
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby ShauryaT » 22 Sep 2017 18:46

On the budgets, it is my understanding that although the SSBN program is not part of the IN budget the SSN program will be. What it means is the planned 6 SSN, approved by DAC will be funded from this IN capital budget. I think with the way it is going, we may see the first of these only in late 2020's and all 6 only by late into 2030's at least? Instead of a 2nd line of conventional subs, maybe better to open a 2nd line of SSN/SSGN Yassen subs for Indian use and drive synergies and learnings into the Indian program. We need a dozen SSN's to prowl the IOR as a first line of defense. Forget going to Alaska, we need to secure our lake first.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15866
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby NRao » 22 Sep 2017 19:13

IOR has always been the focus. Alaska+ was an add-on, under the assumption that the IOR would be secure. With around 55% of Indian trade in the Indo-Pacific, India had planned to do exactly what China is claiming to do now in the IOR - protect her trade routes.

All that changed with China arriving at the scene much, much faster than anyone expected. Which is why India - already - is not going it alone. There have been at least three major events since Trump has come to office that shows this trend (not going it alone). There are others who recognize that India needs to dominate the IOR. Indian dominance of the IOR benefits many others, not just India. (Recall Singapore had verbally complained under the MMS gov about Indian/IN role.)

The point is that in the 80s there was a game plan laid by the GoI/IN. Per that plan they - for whatever reason, I can only assume what those are - they went from a 28K ADS to a 65K carrier. My assumption was/is that the reason is because India decided they needed assets flung across greater distances - to protect - if there is such a need. Note that India does have more financial investments in South America than Africa, but have not required IN to reach South America. From what I can see, the reach of the IN is an overlap of economic and military areas with the Chinese (THE threat). Secondly - IMHO - the IN, thus far, has preferred sea control (meaning of which has changed over the past decade or so) over sea denial.

Two point on "funds":
1) They have had a game plan for a large boat (ADS/carrier) since the 80s. Such boats come with all associated assets - subs, whatever accompanies a "carrier". Thus I would think they had a great idea of teh cost of deploying such a boat. It should not be a surprise. Granted with time, the techs change, inflation, etc, these points *would* drive the cost up. No two ways about that. But, certainly the flip side is also true - that they have a good idea on the costs - all of them
2) I can see data points where India will divert civilian funds to the IN. Expect other nations to "invest" in India to build Indian infrastructure, etc.

I think the ongoing discussions are dealing with such topics. Which is why I am very bullish on the IN. Let us see.

Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3870
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Manish_Sharma » 22 Sep 2017 20:08

It's a conspiracy by usa to keep us weak by putting scarce resources and budget in one single platform.

Please everyone notice that both usa and france have refused to help Bharatvarsh in developing SSN. As these poisonous usa-uk-france know that submarine force will make Bharat strong.

Now a 65k ton single platform standing in dock for repairs etc. Will take 1 or 2 years easily. For bigger upgrade or mid-life upgrade easily 4 -5 years. At that time if war or crisis breaks out. Major chunk of spent budget will be sitting out during that period.

For 20 billion dollars we can built many more subs-missile cruisers and fighter squadrons for high availability.

Remember in 2006 mmrca deal was called 6 billion deal for ToT +mfrg. In 2015 we bought 36 Rafales mfrg in France for 8 billion dollars.

This 65k white elephant+airwing will go easily 25 to 30 billion dollars.

That too for to many moving parts. Engine of carrier conks out, emals under repairs. Weather too brutal for jets to take off or Land sorry we can't fight now.

Instead put that money in multiple platforms. Give 18 billion to Russia for building 6 Yasen ssgn here. Buy fighters instead for airforce.

Build Samudragupt class .Missile cruisers like Russian Leader Class.
Last edited by Manish_Sharma on 22 Sep 2017 20:49, edited 2 times in total.

Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3870
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Manish_Sharma » 22 Sep 2017 20:20

USA isn't ready to give reactor for Vishal carrier.

Not ready to give help in SSN. What kind of strategic partnership is this? Please everyone think. They are getting what they want cunningly without giving anything in return.

Ulanbatori ji had posted about the speech of GE executive that how mfrg ge engine in Bharat and still they are preventing ToT cunningly.

Joined at hip ??? Baaaah strategic partnership? My foot!

Vivek K
BRFite
Posts: 1787
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Vivek K » 22 Sep 2017 22:14

Manish,

Why would a foreign partner give you critical tech? If they part with vital tech, what will we give them in return? Why is the relationship with roos so skewed? Do we think that the roosians are fools? If they give us Akula or Akula tech, is that just because they want the honor of our friendship? Every such ask comes with strings attached so we need to think before asking (or begging as per one's perspective). If the US has refused, then it could also be that the price being negotiated was too high (and not in dollar terms). Look at the UK - the poodle. Can you say that they have an independent foreign policy?

When you can put a reactor on a sub (Arihant and Aridhaman) why can you not put a reactor on a large ship? I would think that the safeguards for submarine use would be far more stringent and therefore with some effort, you could house a nooklear reactor complex on the Vishal. And you're not constrained for space on an aircraft carrier like you are in a sub. The problem India faces is, its purchases and deals with roos. What was the price paid is not known - did it include a commitment to not put the same reactor on an a/c carrier? If India remains free to put a nook reactar on the Vishal then it should do so with its own tech. Of course we have the "how bad Indian products are and how quickly we should import" lobby (IPL = Imported Products Lobby) that obstructs local products and development.

Then there is reverse engineering and today with laser scanners and 3D printing it is easier than before to attempt to reverse engineer. However the descendants of Chanakya today poohpooh any such attempt - we are too pure onlee, Reversing is for the chinese. While India has produced the Arihant class by itself (probably working on S-4 now) and has gained experience of working on the scorpenes for the last 6-7 years, why isn't there an Indian D-E sub proposed? HSL took apart a kilo and put it back together. So there is an inherent ability that is not being utilized or being encouraged. HSL plus L&T could deliver a hull with all subsystems and the power pack could be produced by some of the larger houses. Where there is a will there is an Indian way like ISRO has demonstrated.

Corrupt India remains a less than lethal force. We see professional consultants that have direct financial interests in sale of foreign products to India shamelessly use every shortage to exploit sale of foreign junk. I bet you could go through the Tank arsenal and find hundreds of derelict, cannibalized T-72s that count as active, frontline MBTs while the Arjun inspite of its accomplishments has not received a single order after the first 50 or so.

The only thing that has changed is - after Indira Gandhi, we have another PM that has b$lls. So maybe things will change!

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4109
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Rakesh » 23 Sep 2017 02:00

Manish-ji: that bit about First everyone builds up huge submarine force, be it Russia, China or USA. Then if budget is left they go for carriers. That is not true with the United States. The CBG is the key to their military might and their diplomacy. Their entire naval doctrine revolves around carriers. They are the masters of CBGs and they have the investment to back it up. The Russians focused (during the Cold War) more on surface and sub-surface vessels (minus carriers) designed to destroy those CBGs. They now have a grand total of one aircraft carrier - the Kuznetsov. America has nine CBGs and the first of their next generation carriers has just joined - the USS Gerald Ford.

The Chinese just clone the best from everyone. They have no ingenuity of their own.

So the key lesson to learn from this is definitely do not mimic the Chinese. They are still learning how aircraft carriers fit into their naval doctrine. It is not as simple as building a carrier (and the battle group that goes with it) and then go sail out into the ocean. Not that simple.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4109
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Rakesh » 23 Sep 2017 02:18

chola wrote:I'm not cheerleading the 65K-ton carrier anymore. Not at that budget crippling $20B price tag anyways. Just explaining why during peace time the carrier will exert inordinate influence over large areas of the sea.

And why the chinis are going for a large carrier fleet -- at least six in coming years according to most literature -- in spite of the expense. Especially intriguing since their well documented and well publicized A2/AD battle strategy focuses on attacking the vulnerabilities of carrier not using it. Their actual war plans center around their land-based aircraft and massive submarine fleet of 70 (and growing.)

They are building carriers because of their outsized influence during times of peace not war. We need to understand that and counter it. A war time strategy of backfire or subs makes little sense in peace time since they can't patrol or create persistent presence.

A solution might be long range patrol craft like the US-2 and scores of cheaper Coast Guard cutters that can create persistent presence in areas where patrols detect phoren activity.


Chola, I agree with you on the value of a carrier during peace time and during war time, a well proportioned CBG can influence the outcome of a conflict. You are preaching to the choir. And yes, the Chinese are building a large number of carriers. You want a good (joke onlee) dhoti shiver? Read this...

High-speed production: Chinese navy built 83 ships in just eight years
https://theprint.in/2017/09/20/chinese- ... s-8-years/

But before the dhoti shivering starts, please make note of the following points and see if this (the first point) will pass muster at our shipyards...

China’s shipyards do not have the word “holiday’ in their dictionary. There are no Sundays or special festival days observed in any of the shipyards. There are no death anniversaries of politicians, leaders or martyrs observed as holidays. All shipyards work on three shifts of eight hours in a day. The workforce is regularly circulated. There are no unions calling for shut downs.

The design bureaus work in similar fashion. The difference is that, they produce designs which surpass the most modern ships of the US navy in size, volume, armament, quantity and quality (which China is yet to prove in an actual combat).

Can we replicate this? May be, but the facts do not lie. Look at our budgets. It is piss poor. We have no strategy or outlook. Everything is ad-hoc and knee jerk reaction. To use your own statement....but I am gonna flip it.....we have not understood and we have no counter.

You hit the nail on the head though on long range patrol aircraft. A cheaper, yet fairly effective solution to counter China's rapid construction of naval vessels. Patrol large swaths of an ocean and you can relay locations of key targets to a submarine or your own aircraft carrier. That is why I am arguing for more Boeing P-8Is. The US-2 is a welcome addition as well.

P.S. I love the name Filipov. good one :)

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2807
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Cain Marko » 23 Sep 2017 02:19

NRao wrote:2) I can see data points where India will divert civilian funds to the IN. Expect other nations to "invest" in India to build Indian infrastructure, etc.

I think the ongoing discussions are dealing with such topics. Which is why I am very bullish on the IN. Let us see.


Interesting. You think the Japanese building bullet trains for 0.1% interest over 50 years has something to do with this?

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4109
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Rakesh » 23 Sep 2017 02:49

Manish_Sharma wrote:What kind of strategic partnership is this? Please everyone think. They are getting what they want cunningly without giving anything in return.

Ulanbatori ji had posted about the speech of GE executive that how mfrg ge engine in Bharat and still they are preventing ToT cunningly.

Joined at hip ??? Baaaah strategic partnership? My foot!

Saar, just a quick point on this. Our future (and America's as well) is intertwined with each other. We have to be joined at the hip. There is no way around it. The geopolitical scenario dictates it. Our future is also interlinked with countries like Israel, France, etc. Gone are the days when countries did everything alone. Budgets are getting smaller and it makes sense to collaborate resources and manpower.

And as Vivek said, you will not get anything of value....like proprietary technology. Even if the US Govt wants to do it - which will never happen - the companies that own (General Electric, Raytheon, General Atomics, etc) this IP will not part with it. You cannot force them to hand over something. Not going to happen. But that is not the issue here.

We are reminded that this is not the India of 1990. But that is way off the mark. India is very much present in 2017 :) Our threats are very real, but those threats affect America as well. Islamic Radicalism from Pakistan and Belligerence from China affects both India and the United States (and the rest of the world). But it is felt more acutely at home because of our geographical borders we share with both countries.

But you cannot have a strategic partnership with one partner dictating to another partner on the terms of the partnership. It has to be mutually agreeable to both. So we have been given parochial lectures that if SE (and other high value projects) does not go the US way, they will pout and stop DTTI, cancel Malabar exercises and do whatever else. But then the flip scenario is also provided....as in India asked for it, America did not force it. So if we reject SE (or another high value project) is there really a need to throw a tantrum? You can't have it both ways.

But there is another more key factor to consider. In the name of partnership, should India stop her own national projects? Why is F-16 valid but yet Tejas Mk 2 not? Why is Vishal valid (with EMALS and nuclear power), but yet Vikrant is not? Why is Rafale obsolete by 2036, but F-16 will still be the king in 2056? In the name of partnership, should India acquiesce to the American world view? Why is it okay for America to hunt down terrorists in other countries, but yet we cannot do the same (until recently)? Do we not bleed the same blood as you?

So perhaps when Secretary Mattis visits India, he should given a friendly reminder...that yes, we BOTH see the value of a partnership. We have BOTH agreed on India being a strategic defence partner to the United States. However, we will protect our national interests because it is sacrosanct and non-negotiable. You are entitled to your IP and can preserve it. But if we are a 'true' strategic defence partner, please be aware that we are entitled to pick and choose what we feel is necessary for our security and our national interests. But that should not, in any way, diminish the value that we place on our partnership. Because our partnership has a lot more worth than 100 F-16s.

P.S. The timing could not be more perfect for India. Politically speaking, President Trump needs a victory really bad. The Obamacare Repeal is likely to fail, yet again. Senator John McCain of Arizona has already decided on NO. Senator Susan Collins of Maine is leaning towards NO. Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky is also leaning NO. This repeal fails and it will be a huge embarrassment for the President. He needs a victory and India can give him one when Secretary Mattis comes. We should make the following requests be known;

- License production (keep the IP, we do not want it) of the GE F414 engine. Pay whatever it costs, but screwdrivergiri that engine like no tomorrow. Everything from Rhino/Growler, Tejas, Gripen (if the IAF has its way), AMCA and whatever else that may come.

- Let Snecma be the back up and let them get a Kaveri engine with a M88 core flying, as they have promised to do. Promises are easy to make, but hard to keep. But if they can, it will be fantastic.

- Provide letter of intent to purchase additional P-8Is for the Navy, and get KC-767s for the Air Force/Navy and S-70 helicopters for the Navy.

Let the Secretary return home with a bag full of deals. The President is a business man at heart and if he can show that he made America Great Yet Again, then he will be happy. Play the game, but play smart. Keep India's interests at heart.

Tejas Banao, Desh Bachao - Saurav Jha

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 48083
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby ramana » 23 Sep 2017 03:00

So how many ships are there in the PLAN?

I think they are on a speed race to out build the USN.
83 combat ships a years is like WWII levels for combat ships in US.

Rakesh since your the Admiral after the mithai caper, think of where does IN want to dominate and how?

I think they should dominate from East coast of Africa to Malacca strait and have cooperative engagement with Australia in Southern Indian Ocean and with Japan in Sea of Japan.

How to do it let there be discussion/

Prithwiraj
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 58
Joined: 21 Dec 2016 18:48

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Prithwiraj » 23 Sep 2017 03:31

Is this not repeat of another Soviet Union? In order to outspend US - they eventually ran out of gas and the economy collapsed. Even though the case is a little different with China is probably holding second biggest foreign exchange reserve after US

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4109
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Rakesh » 23 Sep 2017 04:45

ramana wrote:Rakesh since your the Admiral after the mithai caper...

kya Ramana-ji....aap bhi bolne laga...Admiral :)

I learnt my lesson in over promising and under delivering :oops: :lol:

ramana wrote:think of where does IN want to dominate and how?

I think they should dominate from East coast of Africa to Malacca strait and have cooperative engagement with Australia in Southern Indian Ocean and with Japan in Sea of Japan.

How to do it let there be discussion.

Ok. I looked up the Indian Maritime Doctrine on the official Indian Navy website.

2009 Martime Doctrine is there --> https://www.indiannavy.nic.in/sites/def ... 2Feb16.pdf

2015 Martime Doctrine is there --> or say the website says, but the link below takes you to the above document :)
https://www.indiannavy.nic.in/content/i ... 15-version

Then there is a 2016 Document (again from the official Indian Navy website) which is titled, Ensuring Secure Seas: Indian Maritime Security Strategy --> https://www.indiannavy.nic.in/sites/def ... 5Jan16.pdf

Getting info from the official source is important because this is after all a maritime doctrine, not some fanboy's wet dream.

So I searched for the terms Africa, Alaska and IOR in the 2009 and 2016 documents. The word 'Africa' pops up enough times in both and when you read in detail, Africa is a key zone for the Indian Navy. The word IOR pops up a ridiculous amount of times - basically VERY important for the Navy. Alaska does not feature anywhere, not even as a footnote in either document. I rest my case :)

The zone of influence that you have mentioned in your post ties in the 2009 and 2016 document. As always, you are spot on.

Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3870
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Manish_Sharma » 23 Sep 2017 07:28

Vivek K wrote:Manish,

Why would a foreign partner give you critical tech? If they part with vital tech, what will we give ....


Vivek I know that I m just challenging those know it alls that bring dtti and GE engine tech transfer by employing 700 Engineer s in Bangalore.

It was peddled for fuel and food exchange treaty, it's peddled for SE f16, and every other deal.

Despite my utter dislike for Sir Philip, I have a certain gratefulness towards Russians without their help Arihant will still be under construction.

Remember Saurav Jha tweet about DRDO scientist saying "at least Russians lift the skirt from time to time but never these guys (meaning US, france etc.)

You will see all usa worshippers supporting Vishal with emals minus usa reactor with f18 or f35.
Last edited by Manish_Sharma on 23 Sep 2017 08:15, edited 1 time in total.

Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3870
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Manish_Sharma » 23 Sep 2017 07:46

Rakesh wrote:Manish-ji: that bit about First everyone builds up huge submarine force, be it Russia, China or USA. Then if budget is left they go for carriers. That is not true with the United States.


Rakesh Saar usa has Jazeera of 56 nuclear submarines:

from wiki :

Ohio class (18 in commission) – 14 ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs), 4 guided missile submarines (SSGNs)
Virginia class (11 in commission, 5 under construction, 2 on order) – fast attack submarines
Seawolf class (3 in commission) – attack submarines
Los Angeles class (34 in commission, 2 in reserve) – attack submarines


For usa it's OK to have 9 carriers as their enemies are far, STILL THEIR AIRFORCE HAS 1840 FIGHTERS AND 162 BOMBERS.

While our starving IAFis given piddly 36 Rafales for lack of money. Iaf has maybe 400 fighters today.

Our situation is reverse of usa , our enemies are next door. We need to nourish our airforce first.
Last edited by Manish_Sharma on 23 Sep 2017 08:17, edited 1 time in total.

Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3870
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Manish_Sharma » 23 Sep 2017 08:06

Rakesh wrote:
We are reminded that this is not the India of 1990. But that is way off the mark. India is very much present in 2017 :)
.....
Tejas Banao, Desh Bachao - Saurav Jha


Amazing Post thanks I m going to copy it in my archives.

Karthik S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3762
Joined: 18 Sep 2009 12:12

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Karthik S » 23 Sep 2017 13:48

Image

Guys is this true?

chola
BRFite
Posts: 1731
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby chola » 23 Sep 2017 15:17

Rakesh wrote

Chola, I agree with you on the value of a carrier during peace time and during war time, a well proportioned CBG can influence the outcome of a conflict. You are preaching to the choir. And yes, the Chinese are building a large number of carriers. You want a good (joke onlee) dhoti shiver? Read this...

High-speed production: Chinese navy built 83 ships in just eight years
‪https://theprint.in/2017/09/20/chinese- ... s-8-years/‬


Yes, I posted about this months ago and began asking what the chini strategy was. It looks like it is a volume game based on their industrial advantage to establish presence in open or contested areas through numbers. Not necessarily on their ability to fight.

In fact, the US Navy said the PLAN can’t possibly train enough sailors properly to staff those ships.

http://www.defensenews.com/articles/int ... rd%20Brief


In 2016 the Chinese Navy commissioned a 4,000-ton frigate in late February and sent it on a 7-month deployment six weeks later. It often takes a year or more for the US Navy to deploy a new destroyer. What are the Chinese doing that the US Navy does not? What does the US Navy do that the Chinese don’t?

Two gray ships riding on the sea go by. They’ve got a bunch of flags flying and a bunch of sailors up on deck. One of them couldn’t fight their way out of a wet paper bag and the other one will rock anything that it comes up against.

Could we commission a guided-missile destroyer and steam it out of the harbor and take it on a world cruise? Yeah, I could. But in that situation I would not be taking care of what I refer to as the center of the universe. I want those men and women on that ship to be 100 percent confident in the ship and confident in the execution of any mission leadership may give them.

So what are the Chinese thinking? I don’t know anything about it. I would tell you that I find it kind of interesting they feel they have to do that. To what end? I don’t know.




I think the "to what end?" that Adm. Rowden is hinting at is a navy attempting to change facts at sea simply by weight of numbers.

As long as there is peace, the industrial complex spitting out equipment in Cheen will be hard to match even for the US. But as Rowden asks, can it fight out of a paper bag? We won’t know until we make them fight. But a proper business analysis will tell you that it can’t.

But if you don't make them fight they will still encroach and establish jurisdiction at sea with lots of improperly crewed ships and aircraft. That is their numbers game at peace.

And that is the reason I was so disappointed we didn’t take the Doka La opportunity to go to war this particular opponent.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Cain Marko, Google [Bot] and 42 guests