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.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5999
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby brar_w » 06 Aug 2017 21:56

There may be little as far as alternatives for the current carrier. From what I understand the lifts on board would eliminate the Rafale short of a redesign to allow for folding wings. Having said that, even if they worked I'm not sure the rafale or the SH will get you a significant performance bump when it comes to payload and range diversity given that they'll still be STOBAR. So in the short to medium term as far as the first two carriers are concerned the best course of action would be to mitigate as many MiG-29K issues as possible and field the N-LCA.

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

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby chola » 06 Aug 2017 22:13

brar_w wrote:There may be little as far as alternatives for the current carrier. From what I understand the lifts on board would eliminate the Rafale short of a redesign to allow for folding wings. Having said that, even if they worked I'm not sure the rafale or the SH will get you a significant performance bump when it comes to payload and range diversity given that they'll still be STOBAR. So in the short to medium term as far as the first two carriers are concerned the best course of action would be to mitigate as many MiG-29K issues as possible and field the N-LCA.


I'm pretty sure IN know that the choices are limited but it seems they see something in the MiG-29K that is so obviously wrong that they decided to search publicly for a new carrier aircraft while 29K are all but brand new.

Unfortunate that the Navy also used the N-LCA as an excuse to launch the tender. But they did make it clear they didn't think the N-LCA would be ready in time.

Were the MiG-29K even half decent, the IN would have quietly put in a second order for the Vikrant and we would skip all this drama.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5856
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Indranil » 06 Aug 2017 22:28

The mig29ks will get fixed. Don't worry.

Katare
BRFite
Posts: 1889
Joined: 02 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Katare » 07 Aug 2017 02:57

Austin wrote:
chola wrote:

To be honest, I have never read anything critical from the USN/USAF on their counterparts in exercises. Not considered diplomatic?


Vishnu Som was there during MALABAR ex and he was the one who broke the story on Mig-29K performance during ex

Professionally USAF has even commended IAF Bison in one of the earliest cope india ex

We had some nasty comment on MKI and IAF pilots during one of Red Flag , Nasty enough that IAF had to officially respond to it.

Poor english editor to blame but I read it as indian navy was happy with Mig 29k performance and the US navy was delighted with the performance of F18s.

Why would US navy feel delighted by performance of IN's Mig29K if they do well against US pilots? It's more likely they would feel impressed, pissed, stunned but not delighted.

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5881
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby nachiket » 08 Aug 2017 00:20

Just a point to note. The performance of the platform in a short term deployment has no relevance to the reliability and serviceability problems being discussed earlier. When IAF MKI's were suffering from low serviceability, their performance during red flag exercises was excellent. That didn't mean the fleet as a whole was in good shape.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5074
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Viv S » 08 Aug 2017 02:01

chola wrote:Were the MiG-29K even half decent, the IN would have quietly put in a second order for the Vikrant and we would skip all this drama.

That may have been so, if there were a reliable channel for transparent price discovery. Having an open line of communication with Boeing & Saab lowers the potential for price gouging by UAC wrt to rectifying design/mfg defects on existing MiG-29Ks and forces them to place a competitive offer for a new contract.

Katare
BRFite
Posts: 1889
Joined: 02 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Katare » 08 Aug 2017 02:57

I seriously doubt Russian capabilities in 2017 to come up with new products that are significantly different or independent from Soviet legacy platforms. They have screwed up our IJT program because their designing skills are not even good enough to make a small contemporary aero engine from scratch.

The technical capabilities of a nation are simply a function of how much it invests in R&D, education and it's industrial base. Last 3 decades has eaten up most of the legacy advantages Russians enjoyed and the reality has started to bite-in now. They need to come off of their high horses and realize that they need partners financial, industrial and technical if they want to survive in 21st century as merely one of the world's major power. Even uncle Sam can't do it alone with $17 Trillion in GDP/year to back it up.

Atalji talked to Putin about 5th gen aircraft, as early as in 2003, now it's 2017 and Russians are still not willing to give us a deal that we can't refuse. I just wonder what other options do they have? China would ask for a hell of a lot more than what India is asking. Rest of the nations in $1 trillion+ economy basket are all in the uncle's camp. They are brutally isolated in the west and economically bleeding with oil/energy prices caught in a multi year supply glut capped by the US fracking industry. Yet they can't stop pretending to be a superpower...

I can only look back at the good old days and be nostalgic! Putin's, like every other dictator in the past, is destroying Russia by slow strangulation.

deejay
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3616
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby deejay » 08 Aug 2017 10:56

http://helihub.com/2017/08/07/indian-navy-rejects-ka226-due-to-lack-of-blade-folding-capability/

7 Aug, 17, Source: HeliHub.com
The Indian Navy is currently looking to procure 110 light utility helicopters (LUH). They have already rejected the Russian Kamov Ka-226T helicopter because the blades cannot fold and will not be able to fit inside a ship’s hangar. The Ka-226T also cannot carry torpedoes, which is a “mandatory requirement,” reports Defence News.

The Navy is expressing interest in domestic companies such as Larsen & Toubro, Bharat Forge, Reliance, Mahindra Aerospace and Tata Advanced Systems. One of these companies will partner with an overseas company to complete the $5 billion contract. The overseas companies that are competing for the contract include Sikorsky, Airbus, and Bell.


HAL LUH????

alexis
BRFite
Posts: 447
Joined: 13 Oct 2004 22:14
Contact:

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby alexis » 08 Aug 2017 12:26

I seriously doubt Russian capabilities in 2017 to come up with new products that are significantly different or independent from Soviet legacy platforms. They have screwed up our IJT program because their designing skills are not even good enough to make a small contemporary aero engine from scratch.


I believe we need to get out of the Russia fetish as soon as possible. I believe Russia will be like Canada soon. Large, but irrelevant.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17812
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Philip » 08 Aug 2017 18:58

Said before,the 29K is an excellent bird ,but at the moment has some glitches that can and must be sorted out.MIG has the experience and capacity to do so ,the faster the better as it will impinge upon its perceived quality of the 29 and 35 too.

The only reason I can assume why our surface combatants do not have as many VLS modules is because of the high cost of the missiles embarked.BMos,B-8,etc.do not come cheap! They are far costlier than the earlier generation of Urans,Klub,B-1s,etc. Looking at the basic platforms though,one can clearly see that accommodating more is definitely possible.However,what implication it will have upon the extra load,power eqs.,is unknown. There are also newer BPDMS systems like Pantsir,lighter than Kashtan,which could be retrofitted,new MBU rounds,etc.,which could give our warships greater punch.It is however better to fit the warships with as many modulea as possible and "fill them up " when affordable. Universal silos/modules could also carry alternative missile armament such as the ASW Klub,etc.


Cosmo_R
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3343
Joined: 24 Apr 2010 01:24

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Cosmo_R » 08 Aug 2017 21:02

Singha wrote:..
This would permit us to buy a empty shell fgfa with engines only and install our own things down to computers and cockpits


Buy the empty shells w/o engines and stick F100-PW-229s, our avionics and Israeli stuff in them. Call it the MKI-35 :) We'll get more 'ToT' out of this than by spending billions funding the FGFA

sudeepj
BRFite
Posts: 1067
Joined: 27 Nov 2008 11:25

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby sudeepj » 08 Aug 2017 21:33

Can the Mig29Ks be transferred to IAF while IN goes for a better fighter such as the Rafale or F18?

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5881
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby nachiket » 09 Aug 2017 03:06

sudeepj wrote:Can the Mig29Ks be transferred to IAF while IN goes for a better fighter such as the Rafale or F18?

Which carrier would they fly off of?

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5856
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Indranil » 09 Aug 2017 03:35

Philip wrote:Said before,the 29K is an excellent bird ,but at the moment has some glitches that can and must be sorted out.MIG has the experience and capacity to do so ,the faster the better as it will impinge upon its perceived quality of the 29 and 35 too.

It is not some glitches, if you knew what was happening. Having dials crack are some of the smaller problems. I can't say what I know. But I will say this, they have to redo the plane structurally. It has to be able to absorb the shocks of carrier landings better without passing it to the rest of the airframe.

The plane otherwise aerodynamically and system wise is quite okay.

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 » 09 Aug 2017 04:50

Who will win the Sino-Indian naval war of 2020?
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns- ... story.html

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 » 09 Aug 2017 04:51

India to commission advanced attack submarine this Month
http://thediplomat.com/2017/08/india-to ... his-month/

The first out of six new diesel-electric submarines is expected to be delivered to the Indian Navy this August.

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 » 09 Aug 2017 04:52

Periscope: More Chinese intrusions likely, not a major war
http://www.deccanchronicle.com/opinion/ ... r-war.html

By Vice Admiral Arun Kumar Singh who retired as Commander-in-Chief of the Navy's Eastern Naval Command in 2007. A nuclear and missile specialist trained in the former Soviet Union, he was also DG Indian Coast Guard.

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 » 09 Aug 2017 04:53

Initiatives for Clean and Green Indian Navy
http://www.indrastra.com/2017/08/Initia ... -0011.html

By Rear Admiral Dr. S. Kulshrestha (Retd.), who holds expertise in quality assurance of naval armament and ammunition. He is an alumnus of the NDC and a Ph.D. from Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi. He superannuated from the post of Director-General, Naval Armament Inspection in 2011.

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 » 09 Aug 2017 04:55

Indian Navy to purchase hundreds of anti-ship missiles
https://sputniknews.com/military/201708 ... -missiles/

SajeevJino
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 40
Joined: 03 Sep 2016 22:14

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby SajeevJino » 09 Aug 2017 12:10

Rakesh wrote:Indian Navy to purchase hundreds of anti-ship missiles
https://sputniknews.com/military/201708 ... -missiles/


Another variety of AShM,

earlier once I heard the Navy looking for the Norwegian NSM for coastal batteries which were replaced by soviet made Rubezh ( no idea they were replaced by Brahmos or still we use the older one )

But this Sputnik said those will be mounted on ships, (maybe submarines )

The P 75I supposed to come with VLS maybe this RFI for that one

:-? :-?

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19911
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Austin » 10 Aug 2017 20:36

https://twitter.com/BabakTaghvaee/statu ... 1407330304

I finally received the official response of RAC MiG to false claims about structural problem of #India's MiG-29Ks
http://www.defensenews.com/land/2017/08 ... uggedized/

Image

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 » 10 Aug 2017 23:06

Well there ends that argument. Mikoyan has said it all :roll:

Bala Vignesh
BRFite
Posts: 1865
Joined: 30 Apr 2009 02:02
Location: Standing at the edge of the cliff
Contact:

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Bala Vignesh » 10 Aug 2017 23:15

Did RAC-MiG just question the competency of The Grey Eagle?? And aren't titles held till death albeit with rets added after the name??

ArjunPandit
BRFite
Posts: 650
Joined: 29 Mar 2017 06:37

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby ArjunPandit » 11 Aug 2017 01:28


ArjunPandit
BRFite
Posts: 650
Joined: 29 Mar 2017 06:37

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby ArjunPandit » 11 Aug 2017 01:30

interesting to read..."a possible replacement of aircraft involves ..and ship will not be operational.

sudeepj
BRFite
Posts: 1067
Joined: 27 Nov 2008 11:25

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby sudeepj » 11 Aug 2017 03:49

nachiket wrote:
sudeepj wrote:Can the Mig29Ks be transferred to IAF while IN goes for a better fighter such as the Rafale or F18?

Which carrier would they fly off of?


Clearly, the ones we have.. Vikad/Vikrant. F18 in particular, with folding wings, may fit on the lifts etc.

sum
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9677
Joined: 08 May 2007 17:04
Location: (IT-vity && DRDO) nagar

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby sum » 11 Aug 2017 04:27

Austin wrote:https://twitter.com/BabakTaghvaee/status/895595341407330304

I finally received the official response of RAC MiG to false

Ha ha :D :D

Am sure the PR dept of a company is paid to badmouth its product!

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 60470
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: Lupine but moderately dharmic

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Singha » 11 Aug 2017 07:57

with the advent of the DDG51 design in mid 80s, the americans made a decision to go in for high-beam ships (wider) as it was felt better sea keeping , shorter and nimble, and more roomy. the spruance class beam to length ratio was 1:10 but the burkes are 1:7.5 ... gradually the euros, japanese have also followed that trend. the spruance class is 10m longer than the burkes.

we are the only ones still persisting with a low superstructure and narrow beam design under the mantra of "Sea Keeping" - the Tall atago class ships and the Ticos/Burkes which look top heavy routinely operate in hostile north atlantic and north pacific waters. surely after millions of hours in the field we can accept those designs also work and stop dhoti shivering about monsoon storms ?


https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/73 ... arrier.jpg

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/or ... cb9641.jpg

eg compared to P15B , the Type45 is 10 meters shorter but 4 mts wider and 1000t heavier with a very tall radar mast.
the akizuki class AAW ships is 1500t lighter than P15B , same length and 1 meter wider - indicates a lot of growth potential unused for now.
the atago aegis ships are same weight and length but 4 m wider.

this crucial 4m is what gives in room to pack the 64 cell VLS arrays without a overly big ship.

(a) we need a UVLS capable of taking a mix of subsonic ASM, SAM (LR and SR quad packed), ASW missiles, NirBhay and a subsection of that be 9m deep capable of brahmos. rest can be usual 6 m deep.

(b) wider ships with perhaps a slight reduction in top speed.

that concludes my scheduled Friday rant on nautical matters...one of my pet peeves

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5074
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Viv S » 11 Aug 2017 09:05

My question is - why do we need the BrahMos of a surface ship? What's the thought process here?

1. Its only really useful against a hostile naval vessel. Any target on land can be hit by a missile launched from a land-based TEL.
2. Radar horizon for a Kolkata class destroyer will be ~20 km. For a tall enemy vessel, say.. 30 km. That's within range of the Vulcano main gun.
3. Closing in to put the enemy ship in your cross-hairs puts your ship in the enemy cross-hair.
4. OTH targeting requires air support. Helos rely on EO sensors and are likely to be out-ranged (and engaged) by the radar on the enemy vessels.

Which just leaves carrier-based naval fighters. Now if you're going to use a fighter as the IN's primary ISTAR platform, which not use it as the primary delivery platform as well?

The argument seems to be that unlike the carrier-centric USN, IN doctrine may require destroyers to operate detached from the main fleet and therefore needs to be adequately armed. What's the point of that armament when your sensor range barely exceeds visual range. Its like arming yourself with a superb sniper rifle while omitting its scope.


I hope at the very least that the IN is looking at adopting a common VLS module for the Brahmos-M & MR-SAM to allow carrier escorts the option of embarking with a larger SAM load.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2811
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Cain Marko » 11 Aug 2017 09:14

Viv S wrote:My question is - why do we need the BrahMos of a surface ship? What's the thought process here?.


As a very long range, short time to target LACM? At 600km supersonic range, it brings a lot to the table..

Karthik S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3767
Joined: 18 Sep 2009 12:12

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Karthik S » 11 Aug 2017 09:16

Singha wrote:with the advent of the DDG51 design in mid 80s, the americans made a decision to go in for high-beam ships (wider) as it was felt better sea keeping , shorter and nimble, and more roomy. the spruance class beam to length ratio was 1:10 but the burkes are 1:7.5 ... gradually the euros, japanese have also followed that trend. the spruance class is 10m longer than the burkes.

we are the only ones still persisting with a low superstructure and narrow beam design under the mantra of "Sea Keeping" - the Tall atago class ships and the Ticos/Burkes which look top heavy routinely operate in hostile north atlantic and north pacific waters. surely after millions of hours in the field we can accept those designs also work and stop dhoti shivering about monsoon storms ?


https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/73 ... arrier.jpg

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/or ... cb9641.jpg

eg compared to P15B , the Type45 is 10 meters shorter but 4 mts wider and 1000t heavier with a very tall radar mast.
the akizuki class AAW ships is 1500t lighter than P15B , same length and 1 meter wider - indicates a lot of growth potential unused for now.
the atago aegis ships are same weight and length but 4 m wider.

this crucial 4m is what gives in room to pack the 64 cell VLS arrays without a overly big ship.

(a) we need a UVLS capable of taking a mix of subsonic ASM, SAM (LR and SR quad packed), ASW missiles, NirBhay and a subsection of that be 9m deep capable of brahmos. rest can be usual 6 m deep.

(b) wider ships with perhaps a slight reduction in top speed.

that concludes my scheduled Friday rant on nautical matters...one of my pet peeves


Apparently the newer destroyers based on what and how SJha has mentioned will be bigger than P-15A/Bs, so should be comparable to the bigger destroyers.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5074
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Viv S » 11 Aug 2017 09:22

Cain Marko wrote:As a very long range, short time to target LACM? At 600km supersonic range, it brings a lot to the table..

All of Pakistan is already in range of ground (i.e. TEL) launched Brahmos missiles. Very mobile and easily camouflaged. To need to sail a warship into range of coastal PAF bases.

Karthik S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3767
Joined: 18 Sep 2009 12:12

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Karthik S » 11 Aug 2017 09:31

Viv S wrote:
Cain Marko wrote:As a very long range, short time to target LACM? At 600km supersonic range, it brings a lot to the table..

All of Pakistan is already in range of ground (i.e. TEL) launched Brahmos missiles. Very mobile and easily camouflaged. To need to sail a warship into range of coastal PAF bases.


What will do when you have couple of Type 052Ds coming at you?

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2811
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Cain Marko » 11 Aug 2017 09:41

Viv S wrote:
Cain Marko wrote:As a very long range, short time to target LACM? At 600km supersonic range, it brings a lot to the table..

All of Pakistan is already in range of ground (i.e. TEL) launched Brahmos missiles. Very mobile and easily camouflaged. To need to sail a warship into range of coastal PAF bases.

But why restrict the navy to tsp alone. A long range lacm could be in a variety of scenarios from SCS to African coast.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5074
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Viv S » 11 Aug 2017 09:59

Cain Marko wrote:But why restrict the navy to tsp alone. A long range lacm could be in a variety of scenarios from SCS to African coast.

A naval vessel entering the SCS without air cover is, to put it mildly, find the going hard. A submarine could sneak in launch an LACM barrage and have a better chance of getting out alive.

More importantly, these aren't scenarios worth stripping away half or more of the ship's potential SAM load. Tackling PAF/PLAAF fighter from the coast or PLANAF carrier fighters ought to be the logical priority for the navy.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5074
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Viv S » 11 Aug 2017 10:00

Karthik S wrote:What will do when you have couple of Type 052Ds coming at you?

How will you know you have a couple of Type 052Ds coming at you?

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2811
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Cain Marko » 11 Aug 2017 10:20

Viv S wrote:
Cain Marko wrote:But why restrict the navy to tsp alone. A long range lacm could be in a variety of scenarios from SCS to African coast.

A naval vessel entering the SCS without air cover is, to put it mildly, find the going hard. A submarine could sneak in launch an LACM barrage and have a better chance of getting out alive.

More importantly, these aren't scenarios worth stripping away half or more of the ship's potential SAM load. Tackling PAF/PLAAF fighter from the coast or PLANAF carrier fighters ought to be the logical priority for the navy.


Wrt to scs, as part of a cbg, some air cover can be expected. Plus, it allows India to prosecute missions in other regions as well. Say for example, destroying a terrorist factory in sudan or some other far way region.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 60470
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: Lupine but moderately dharmic

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Singha » 11 Aug 2017 14:19

>>Which just leaves carrier-based naval fighters

er the OTH cues and even mid course updates for LR ASM have always been provided by LRMP a/c.
this is the trend for decades now.

IN will rely on the P8/Bears to locate long range targets using passive ESM or active surface search radar and then fire , even prowling submarine and Predator/Heron UAV could provide target data. the high speed of brahmos means the terminal 50km range seeker will likely still detect the moving ships when it arrives into the area. for slow missiles like LRSAM and the reborn Thawk ASM, they will rely on 3rd party updates more. they are nuisance weapons meant to be launched in large nos to force the Cheen DDGs to 'waste' VLS mags on defensive missiles as Brar_w explained. the real thappad will be given by SSNs packing HWTs and new hypersonic missiles that khan chacha is developing.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 60470
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: Lupine but moderately dharmic

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Singha » 11 Aug 2017 14:27

just a a small example of way things are shaping. 1600km thawk being again purposed as a ASM
with right c3i and seeker, nirbhay too will become it in due course.

https://news.usni.org/2015/05/26/essay- ... e-paradigm


The Tomahawk Block IV missile is the latest variant in a steady progression of capability; incorporating mission planning, navigation and guidance, and command and control upgrades designed to improve weapon responsiveness and target flexibility. Launching from ranges out to 1,000 miles and armed with a 1,000-pound warhead, the Block IV is the Navy’s “kick down the door” weapon, attacking well defended high-value land targets.

Modernization of several key missile components is necessary in order to leverage Tomahawk’s inherent features, and effectively engage ships at sea. Extended range provides the shooter an operational sanctuary, but also requires over the horizon support through secure and effective communication links. The fact that combatants can move at up to 30 knots drives the need for onboard sensors to effectively “close the deal” against the intended target.

The complex operational environment that is the maritime battle space requires the ability to distinguish between warships and non-combatants, and effectively operate in the midst of sophisticated countermeasures. Thus the need for enhancements in system communication and data links, the addition of an advanced electronics system, and the incorporation of a terminal guidance seeker.

Block IV’s current capability as a “net enabled weapon” features a two-way satellite data link that allows the controller to switch targets during flight to pre-programmed alternate targets or redirect to a new objective. Data link modernization could be achieved through drop in replacement of the current communication links, or using other compatible locations on the missile (the size of the weapon provides ample real estate). High TRL (a level of DOD recognized level of technical maturity) spread spectrum waveforms are available to provide improved anti-jam and low probability of intercept performance.

Other communication modernization features offer the ability to support simultaneous over the horizon and local network communications for weapon control. Those improvements will also enable Block IV MOD to take advantage of significant intelligence surveillance reconnaissance and targeting (ISR&T) investment the Navy has made in platforms (i.e., the MQ-4B Triton and P-8A Poseidon), sensors and communication links.

By leveraging improvements in processing power and advanced sensor technologies, there are alternative and fairly mature terminal guidance seeker solutions available for incorporation in the weapon. Whether imaging infrared, or active millimeter wave radar, they all offer a degree of demonstrated capability against moving targets at sea. All-weather capability, automatic target recognition, simultaneously prosecution of multiple targets, and future growth potential are other features that could be incorporated into the terminal guidance capability, depending on cost and timeline requirements.

An advanced electronics system passively detecting an adversary’s electromagnetic radiations can be a critical enabler for hitting the intended objective. It can provide a correlating source of information for target identification. That may range from the initial detection of a hostile surface action group (SAG) to additional ship type information. In addition, the advanced electronics system may provide supporting target information via electromagnetic emissions in the midst of an adversary’s active countermeasures.

In January of this year, the Navy successfully demonstrated the capability of the Block IV missile striking a moving maritime target. Although achieved in the context of a controlled event, it highlighted the “current capabilities of Tomahawk as a netted weapon . . .” and provides a glimpse of what “could be” with Block IV MOD in the ASuW mission.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: atamjeetsingh, Vivek K and 38 guests