Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 17 Jan 2018 17:16

Maritime Patrol Aircraft are primarily tasked with Anti Submarine warfare, ISR and in the Anti-Surface role their main focus is providing command and control ad situational awareness. They are not long range bombers. Despite the fantasy, against a credible enemy MPAs are not going to go off on their own and attempt at taking down a carrier strike group 2000 km from base or go out and launch cruise missiles against defended targets. If the enemy has any sort of ability to defend itself, then you will have to provide fighter escorts and a much larger strike package mixed with a lot of unmanned aircraft that can cover huge swaths of sea at a much lower cost. In an era of networked weapons and advanced data-links you do not need the sensor and shooter to be the same platform.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 17 Jan 2018 17:33

Repeating final time.P-8I is a great modern ASW bird, but can't do low and slow tasks, torpedoes require glide kits.
Costs a lot too, 3-4 times as much as an IL-38.Extras are to make up numbers for an interim period only for the next decade, so that we can avoid another v.expensive purchase.We are acquiring only 4 more P-8Is but want 30 LRMP birds.The Mays can carry anything that a P-8 can.BMos tests were considered some time ago much before the air-launched version was recently tested on an MKI.Who knows, the IN may try again now that the BMos air-launched version is ready.The fact that the IL-38 was tested with an anti-ship ship missile underscores the point that the IN is leveraging its LRMP aircraft to multi- tasl also in the anti-ship role given their range and endurance and detection capability.C- 295s simply can't compete with either P-8 or IL-38s which are in a diff. class.

Imagine an IN LRMP fleet with approx 20- 24 P-8Is and IL-38s.Add to that around 4-8 Backfires.The PLAN will be extremely rash to try and operate inside the IOR also given the fact that we will have two med. CVs in service by 2020.This is why the Chinese are searching for as many base facilitiAs I've repeated earlier, we need to develop the capacity for striking hard in the ICS itself.

PS: The TU-142 Bear was capable of doing both.In original variant it regularly tests NATO/ UK defences and was bombing targets in Syria.I am advocating Backfires primarily for that role and multi-role LRMP aircraft for sanitising the IOR.If we obtain a naval/ air base in Vietnam just as the Chinese are doing at Djibouti and Gwadar, we will need such capable aircraft.They can carry more anti-ship ship missiles than any fighter and neither the F-16 nor F-18 nor Rafale can carry BMos too!

Just becos the P-8 I has such strike limitations does not mean that the IN should follow USN tactics when it has other options using other platforms.In '71 neither did we follow the Soviet's too in our use of OSA missile craft, We , as Adm.Gorshkov famously said, taught then "new tricks".Am I getting the feeling that other parties too are getting a trifle uneasy if India acquires such long- range supersonic strike capability and the ability to project it beyond the IOR too? Our western friends shouldn't worry too much.

John · Post by **John** » 17 Jan 2018 17:42

Costs a lot too, 3-4 times as much as an IL-38.Extras are to make up numbers for an interim period only for the next decade, so that we can avoid another v.expensive purchase

Where are you getting price figures from? It cost 30 million in 2005 to simply upgrade working il-38 if you factor in inflation that is well over 70 million now. Making moth balled il-38 Functional will cost more than that and at most you are lucky to get 10 years from that aging airframe compared to 30+ years with Boeing 737-800 airframe.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 17 Jan 2018 17:46

Imagine an IN LRMP fleet with approx 20- 24 P-8Is and IL-38s.Add to that around 4-8 Backfires.The PLAN will be extremely rash to try and operate inside the IOR.As I've repeated earlier, we need to develop the capacity for striking hard in the ICS itself.

PS: The TU-142 Bear was capable of doing both.In original variant it regularly tests NATO/ UK defences and was bombing targets in Syria.I am advocating Backfires primarily for that role and multi-role LRMP aircraft for sanitising the IOR.If we obtain a naval/ air base in Vietnam just as the Chinese are doing at Djibouti and Gwadar, we will need such capable aircraft.They can carry more anti-ship ship missiles than any fighter and neither the F-16 nor F-18 nor Rafale can carry BMos too!

Just becos the P-8 I has such strike limitations does not mean that the IN should follow USN tactics when it has other options using other platforms.In '71 neither did we follow the Soviet's too in our use of OSA missile craft, We , as Adm.Gorshkov famously said, taught then "new tricks".Am I getting the feeling that other parties too are getting a trifle uneasy if India acquires such long- range supersonic strike capability and the ability to project it beyond the IOR too?.

There is no strike limitation that comes with the P-8 as far as an MMA is concerned. Brahmos is a very large an heavy weapon and smaller more optimized variants are coming in the future that should significantly grow the number of platforms available with the IAF and IN that can carry it. As I have said in the past P-8 JPO member Australia is looking at longer ranged and more capable weapons on their P-8s.

In their MOU they included language of a JASSM integration and Norway appear to be doing the same with the JSM. The USN itself realizes that the Harpoon isn't the best for Littoral so they too will be working on a more autonomous and smarter missile for the P-8. It may be a LRASM Lite but something will come down the road and it will likely be exportable given the operator base.

But like I said, neither the Bear, P-8 or any similar large aircraft are going to be flying against a credible opponent without significant escorts for a whole host of missions. The IN is not going to be bombing non defended targets in Iraq or Syria as the US or Russia have done so those examples do not apply. China will have dedicated considerable resources, manpower and tactics to denying long range targeting of its vital infrastructure and carrier strike groups and overcoming those defenses means getting past any fighter CAPs and long range sensors nets. There will be plenty of shooters that can launch the non optimized Brahmos and you don't need a platform who's sole advantage is that it may be able to carry the large Brahmos. The MKI already does that. With the arrival of a more optimized Brahmos-M each one of those will be able to launch multiple weapons. The reason you are spending $200 Million + on the MPA/MMA is for the Anti-Submarine mission and for the ISR and SA capability in the anti-surface role. It is not a cruise missile launch platform and even with a fleet of say 16-20 aircraft there will likely be little time to spare for that when it comes to high intensity conflict.

chola · Post by **chola** » 17 Jan 2018 17:56

The lack of a homemade medium turboprop transport the size of an An-12 or An-32 or Il-38 really limits our MPA (and AEW and EW) options to importing and supporting expensive firangi gear. Those ACs are all half-century old technology which are well within range of HAL’s ability.

If we go ahead with 30 P8Is, as great as those are, would cost us $8B sent away to a phoren MIC. Money that should go into a local turboprop platform. Money that could go into the new carrier.

As I posted before in the chini mil thread, it is their cheap An-12 ripoff Y-8/Y-9 that worries me more than their stealth fighters:

The PRC is making Y-8Q MPA/ASW (and KJ-500 AEW) like chapatis. Cooking up endless varieties of force multipliers.

All because they have productionized a platform from the 1950s. Something that we could and should be able to do in short order today.

The IOR will not be at war unless we escalate things into war (worth thinking about.) Cheen never fights and haven’t fought in earnest for decades. They will try to saturate the IOR with ship, aircraft and infrastructure like they did in the SCS and create fait accompli. We cannot respond to that long term with imports because that would cripple us budgetwise. The homegrown MIC is crucial to this game, to this new paradigm of power.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 17 Jan 2018 18:08

MKI can but only 1 missile in current config.BMos-NG some time away and will not have the range of the ER version planned out to 800km.Backfires,22M3s are able to carry around 10 missiles.6 KH-15s on a Rotary launchers and 2 pairs of ASMs under each wing.They should be able to carry at least around 4+ BMos and other missiles given their 25,000 kg payload.A far more capable long range platform.

Yes the Chinese are copying the Soviet tactic of safety in numbers.Their legacy birds will be used mainly in the ICS and Pacific theatre as they have to deal primarily with the US and its powerful allies, Japan, SoKo and OZ.The US would love India to join the posse, but it will always be a "bridge too far " given our own interests.The Q is from where will the Chinese station these legacy birds to operate in the IOR ? Gwadar as of now is their only real possibility.Pak's Orions at Karachi a greater threat but have been factored in.

The A&N theatre should be leveraged by us to the max.Stationing any type of LRMP birds incl.Backfires based from the mainland , just as the USN stations its strat.B-52s and B-1/2s at DG.In 2016 3 B-2s were stationed there.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 17 Jan 2018 18:17

MKI can but only 1 missile in current config.BMos-NG some time away and will not have the range of the ER version planned out to 800km.

The current Airborne Brahmos solution is not optimized. A more optimized missile, built specifically for Air to Surface applications will enable multiple to be carried by medium to heavy class fighters. Future Hypersonic weapons will also be optimized particularly for internal carriage by aircraft like AMCA and FGFA. Even the USAF has internal bay compliant (F-35) requirements for one of its Hypersonic cruise missile programs which means 4 or more could be carried by a medium class single engine fighter aircraft. As I said because the current Bahmos is not optimized, this does not warrant a new platform but a more optimized weapon which is exactly what is being done, first with the Brahmos-M and later with the hypersonic Brahmos.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 17 Jan 2018 18:34

I doubt that the hyper BMos will fit into the AMCAs tiny bay! It will have to be considerably downsized.BMos ND, the smaller version on the cards but no info whether work has begun on it, will take at least 4-5 years to develop.Is the hyper version taking over as a priority? Perhaps in the light of Chinese developents.The emphasis right now appears to be accelerating production of existing variants with the ER version already tested to 450km, read at least 500km, with an 800km version in the works.So the max. range that one can expect from air-launched versions on fighters would be 300-450km max.

In the race to acquire as much firepower before a possible spat with China takes place, BMos will play a crucial factor in the mountains both land variant with its vertical dive, plus the air-launched MKI compatible variant of which 40 aircraft are being modified for.If the Super-Sukhoi deal goes through with 200 aircraft upgraded, and some of these deployed to the A& N theatre it would be of major help in the maritime theatres, partnering the LRMP aircraft,though Backfires are still v.necessary.The successful testing of Nirbhay adds another dimension but
like the US's Tomahawk intended mainly for ong range land attack.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 17 Jan 2018 18:48

the glide kit for torpedo thing is not a big issue. over their lifetime they will launch weapons only a few times and mostly it will be patrolling and dropping sonobuoys. our inventory of torpedoes HWT + LWT across the whole IN is a few 100 only, same for ASM, not in 1000s like AAMs.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 17 Jan 2018 18:56

if we want a large 4 engine turboprop MPA, over the 2 engines C295 or to complement the P8I, there are two options.

C130 and A400M

the A400M MPA is a paper tiger and unfunded at this point.

the C130 has a long history over the water with the USCG and even NOAA which flies them through hurricanes. they have tested all sorts of small missiles and drones from it. plus we use the type and will surely get more.

it also satisfies Philip sir's low n slow thing.

and being 4 engined and proven over long stretches of water, antarctica mcmurdo sound etc, its got all the qualifications on file.

https://www.lockheedmartin.com/content/ ... 0Media.pdf

soothing,,,

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 17 Jan 2018 19:07

I doubt that the hyper BMos will fit into the AMCAs tiny bay! It will have to be considerably downsized.BMos ND, the smaller version on the cards but no info whether work has begun on it, will take at least 4-5 years to develop.Is the hyper version taking over as a priority? Perhaps in the light of Chinese developents.The emphasis right now appears to be accelerating production of existing variants with the ER version already tested to 450km, read at least 500km, with an 800km version in the works.So the max. range that one can expect from air-launched versions on fighters would be 300-450km max.

The point was that you don't compensate for a non-optimized missile by seeking a completely new platform. You do so by seeking a more optimized weapon, whether it is a right-sized Brahmos that allows heavy and medium class fighters to carry multiple missiles, or future missiles that are internal bay compliant. This is the approach the MOD seems to be taking.

Secondly, long range bombers as glamorous as they may sound with USAF operating them in ME and Pacific, or Russia using them in Syria, require an integrated approach when deployed in a maritime context at range against an opponent that can fight back. This means long range Command and Control, Long Range fighter escorts, long range EA/EW support to complement and accompany these assets along with MPA support. Just throwing a few Backfires armed with ALCMs along with P-8's isn't going to cut it when fighting far away against an opponent that can launch telephone pole sized missiles back at you from land, sea and now even air. Hence a long range offensive strategy needs to be built if the end goal is to field long range strike/bombers in the maritime context. The USN and USAF can do this by throwing together a vast number of fighters deployed along with a mind boggling amount of tanker support, a fleet of more than 100 AWACS/AEW/GMTI supplemented by a large number of Global Hawk's and Triton's along with dedicated bombers.

As thing stands, the IN and the MOD seem to be right sizing their capability when it comes to thoroughly and more efficiently patrolling the vast amount of Ocean that they would need to do in both peacetime and wartime. MUM-T is a sound strategy and is also being used by others with similar problems and challenges. Once you have the "Sensor" portion established and up and running you can work on the "Shooter" aspect as well, knowing that with advanced networking, and indeed networked weapons the sensor and the shooter can be miles apart and in fact don't even need to be operating in the same domain. The approach of enhancing the defensive capability, particularly having a capable and high_availability Anti Submarine Warfare platform is imho the right way forward. Once you have that in place you can begin to develop more offensive capability which requires an integrated approach..just not bombers you see dropping bombs on ISIL targets in Syria. There is a lot that goes into that against a credible opponent.

if we want a large 4 engine turboprop MPA, over the 2 engines C295 or to complement the P8I, there are two options.

The IN seems to have a strategy in place. If and when a need is identified to supplement P-8's with anything manned, I'm sure local industry can built something around a proven, reliable and operational platform. The C295 sounds like a really good option considering it will be locally built.

and being 4 engined and proven over long stretches of water, antarctica mcmurdo sound etc, its got all the qualifications on file.

https://www.lockheedmartin.com/content/ ... 0Media.pdf

With all this capability and a glossy brochure, the SC-130J must be selling like hotcakes

>

chola · Post by **chola** » 17 Jan 2018 19:54

if we want a large 4 engine turboprop MPA, over the 2 engines C295 or to complement the P8I, there are two options.

C130 and A400M

Singha ji, oh what won’t I do if we can get a production patent to one of those!

And I mean full “Transfer of Technology” where we get to build as much and experiment as much with the platform as we want. (Not our usual single variant screwdrivergiri kind of ToT.)

But as you point out not too likely with the A400 due to funding (or maybe WE could fund for a stake in its IP?) And LM is not giving up blueprints of the C130, a system it is selling to this very day.

I’m actually thinking more modest in terms of the An-32. It’s two-engined but still very robust and versatile. We fly over 100 of them for decades now.

And Ukraine is both short of cash and is moving on to the An-132.

Here is our opportunity to buy the An-32 design outright (along with the production line — last An-32 was built in 2015 onlee I believe.)

This can serve as our jack-of-all-trades platform and allow us to test, experiment and mass-produce MPA/ASW/AEW/EW variants of our own. It just takes a little bit of foresight.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 17 Jan 2018 21:31

yes I am sure a more suitable more fuel efficient engine can be fitted on AN32 chassis. the current one is very powerful for hot n high cargo ops which is not needed in a MPA role. long ago I had proposed a AN32-G model fitted with FLIR , gun pods and a wicked side looking 30mm / 105mm - to search and take down naxal , kashmir and NE terror camps.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 17 Jan 2018 22:22

We're taking about LRMP birds( long range) not the Medium category.Medium sized MRPs may suffice in the Meditt., etc. but won't do for the IOR.They don't have the range and endurance and cannot also carry BMos. or the diversified payload that these heavier aircraft can.Remember that the Bear can fly to S.Africa and back unrefuelled , carrying a huge payload too.

Secondly what is the max range of any naval SAM? 100km+ ? Far less than an LR stand-off missile like BMos.Thirdly, the element of surprise is with the attacker.A supersonic Backfire can launch a BMos 300-400 km out from its target .Plus, operating out of the A&N theatre, MKIs could provide adequate air cover with refuelling another option.If we have a base in the ASEAN/ICS region, even better.The US with its large numbers of carriers and extensive air cover isn't the enemy.The Chinese also will have Pacific duties too.How many carriers they will be able to deploy against the IN is debatable.

C-130s and A-400s are very expensive at around $150M a pop. Neither are there any maritime variants of the types at all.Imagine the development costs of trying to do so even for much smaller and lesser capable AN-32s! Now, Russia has 54 IL-38s out of which 30, yes 30 are being upgraded by 2025 to serve upto 2040 at least.The commander of the Russian Naval Aviation, Gen.Igor Kozhin, praised both the IL-38 and TU-142 aircraft and their manufacturer for their robustness and minimal incident history.The IL-38 can carry 20000kg of weapons and has a range of 9500km .I ckd some reports on upgrades and operating/upkeep costs.IL-38 and P-3 Orion costs are very similar.$15M an upgrade.Both Bears and Mays will be doing frontline duty for the Russian armed forces for upto 2040 armed with newer stand-off weaponry.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 17 Jan 2018 22:22

Singha wrote:if we want a large 4 engine turboprop MPA, over the 2 engines C295 or to complement the P8I, there are two options.

C130 and A400M

AN 70 as well.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 17 Jan 2018 22:28

Just said no MP variants of these two types(C-130/A-400) at all.Developing them is a specialised effort takes time. Boeing made history by building P-8s on the same line as 737s.Usually, a separate specialised line for mil variants has to be created.There are I think MP variants of the C-295 but they can't replace an LRMP and its performance and capabilities at all. Western/ US allies are switching to P-8Is but in smaller number than P-3s due to its cost.

The UK in one of the most asinine acts ever , early retired their entire fleet of Nimrods not too long ago, excellent subhunters and actually dismembered the aircraft like butchers at the airfields, instead of mothballing them for any contingency! It happened.They suddenly discovered Russian Bear and IL-38 aircraft testing their defences and their subs too having a field day in the seas off the British isles.With no ASW aircraft at all, they pleaded with the French and US to help them.Now with the arrival of I think 2 P-8s, but without MAD booms (BAe supposed to provide them), the situ has marginally improved.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 17 Jan 2018 22:56

econdly what is the max range of any naval SAM? 100km+ ? Far less than an LR stand-off missile like BMos.Thirdly, the element of surprise is with the attacker.A supersonic Backfire can launch a BMos 300-400 km out from its target .Plus, operating out of the A&N theatre, MKIs could provide adequate air cover with refuelling another option.If we have a base in the ASEAN/ICS region, even better.The US with its large numbers of carriers and extensive air cover isn't the enemy.The Chinese also will have Pacific duties too.How many carriers they will be able to deploy against the IN is debatable.

Many problems with that. There are many target sets that one would need in an offensive scenario. A lone ship with a 100 km ranged SAM isn't really of much concern. Even a P-8I can very easily launch a multi vectored attack on one from outside of its air-defense bubble. More if you actually dedicate resources to it. A multi-ship convoy will and can come with a carrier escort which means ship defenses have been extended and long range CAPs will be one of the mission sets for the Chinese carriers. They can likely utilize land based assets as well depending upon which region we are talking about. They just began working on their third carrier, how long before they have 5? It is clear that they are looking at a 5-7 carrier fleet relatively quickly (relatively speaking).

As mentioned, you aren't going to be sending out an aircraft that can fly to "South Africa and back" on a lone, "Go kill a ship mission". Long range Maritime/Littoral offensive operations at scale (such as what one may have to do in a war) requires an integrated approach which means dedicating assets across the sea based mission set (submarine warfare, surface attack, ISR, Surveillance and aiding your own Naval Offensive operations) and putting together an offensive strike package which solves each element of your kill chain i.e. - finds and fixes your threat, ensures integrity of your communication nodes (EW), surveillance both in the maritime and airborne domain for offensive/defensive and BDA purposes, make sure your strike package is protected (long range fighter escorts with dedicated support) and finally some sort of Command and Control to bring it all together. The physical aircraft portion of this is just one element in a long kill chain and the chain only grows longer the more distance you put between you and the target. It isn't simply a matter of just strapping on a couple of Brahmos missiles on an aircraft that can fly to SA and back, you need to be able to deal with whatever the opponent can throw at you as unless China or any other similarly capable adversary is stupid he won't sail into a contested environment without having adequate means to fight.

Similarly, as I said networked weapons, and links that bring together sensors and shooters allow for multi domain operations. A Brahmos need not come from a MPA or a Bear that accompanies the P-8I, it can very easily come from a ship, or submarine, or Su-30 MKI...Those USAF B-1Bs that are capable of carrying 2 dozen LRASMS are able to do this anti-surface mission because there is an entire USN strike complex in support aided by proper defensive capability enabled by figthers, AEW and ISR assets that regionally deployed. Take away those support elements and those B-1s will be taking BLIND shots in the littorals without any significant chance of success. Long range anti-surface targeting is complicated as is, when you add huge distance from which you have to carry it out you have a pretty long kill chain and support needs that you need to invest in.

The P-8Is are primarily Anti Submarine Warfare and ISR assets with some Anti Surface capability which will likely improve in the future. But you have to factor in that a large portion of these resources will be used to sanitize vasts amount of ocean of enemy submarines..Integrated operations using P-8Is, INS Vikramaditya and perhaps other land based assets will allow the IN to leverage some of these multi-domain capabilities to project offensive power and to further enhance defensive and sea control roles. If the IN invests in the PS variant of the MiG-29, perhaps this can be improved further.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 18 Jan 2018 00:54

Philip,

One of these new platforms especially the ones designed on commercial platform will probably have 80-90% uptime, giving us 4-5 time more sorties than the old platforms. That really expands operational tempo for Indian Navy far more than adding new aircraft.

Plus even the US/Allies is moving away from it for good reason. "The P-3C that is honestly trying to break, catch on fire, or generally kill you during any given flight..." https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/confe ... 1598415741

These are too old birds, there are 20-30 lives at risk every time these old birds fly. It's best to add another 12-20 P8 for ASW work and 24-48 MQ4C/sea dragons for ASuW work and not get into this low/mid/long range optimization cycle.

The coast guard MPA really has a different mandate and they should use something like the C295 for their needs.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 18 Jan 2018 03:21

brar_w wrote:The IN seems to have a strategy in place. If and when a need is identified to supplement P-8's with anything manned, I'm sure local industry can built something around a proven, reliable and operational platform. The C295 sounds like a really good option considering it will be locally built.

With all this capability and a glossy brochure, the SC-130J must be selling like hotcakes >

Given that there’s a grand total of 12 C-295 MPAs in service today across three operators (Chile, Oman, Portugal), I don’t see the SC-130J’s sales record really being a factor, should the IN decide to pursue a turboprop MPA in the near term.

Sure the C-295 will be locally built. Some day. A locally assembled unit isn’t entering service before 2030 however.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 18 Jan 2018 10:39

I've said, before many times, these are not 20 yr old platforms but are new from Sov.war reserves.Ru is upgrading 30 out of 54 available with the latest ASW/strike capability sensors, avionics and weaponry..Upgrades will be over in 2025.Adding a few to bolster the IL-38s strength/ operational capability would be advantageous and very cost-effective given that so many are being inducted and will be operational to at least 2040.Spares and support no problem.They have a 320km detection range for surface ships and can simultaneoulsy deal with over 30 contacts.The comparison with old Orions isn't a true one.Even our 5 upgraded IL-38s will last us to at least the 2025-2030 period.We need to take advantage when the type is in production/upgrade.Not miss the boat stupidly when C-17 production was on and can now buy only the " white tail".

C-295s when built in India will first have to replace our gallant AVROs still being used and more transports will be urgently required as the MSC takes shape in the Himalayas using our smaller mountain airstrips.Expect any MP variant to arrive by 2030 or so.

PS:
Major fire aboard an oil tanker near Khandla(?), CG attempting to put it out , crew rescued

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 18 Jan 2018 12:09

INSV Tarini off South America shot by Chilean MPA. Photo Credit Chilean Navy
https://flic.kr/p/23z5jsB

Chilean MPA shot by INSV Tarini. Photo Credit Indian Navy
https://flic.kr/p/22cEEGk

PS - shot by camera and not MANPADS or AShM

We're friendly navies.

Phillip - Il-18 and family including Il-38 is declared unsafe to fly by ICAO, DGCA, European Aviation Safety Agency & FAA. Which is why you will never find an Il-38 at CSIA Mumbai, Chennai or elsewhere. We've seen Tu-142 and P-8I at these airports. It was a good aircraft but obsolete and will be replaced by new order of 4 P-8I. And Il-38 running costs are horrendous. I

The pressure to lower Seat Miles cost makes and will further make Boeing 737 operational cost lower.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 18 Jan 2018 12:40

Well,the Russians are flying it (so are we!) and will have 30-40 in the air until 2040! If the bird was unsafe,why was it used to test -launch an ASM not too long ago? Yes,it will be unsafe for the enemy!

The pendelum is swinging to buying US milware at high prices when the country is facing an eco slowdown.This is no critique of the P-8I though,but we simply can't afford all 30 LRMP aircraft of that type.My suggestion is a sensible cost-effective one until 2030 when the IL-38s can start retiring and be replaced by another type. I'm wondering where the moolah for all the various acquisitions is going to come from.There was a hilarious report by two ex-ambassadors (Ind/US) which advocated that we should jump into bed together,and buy mainly US mil. eqpt. and scrap the "lowest tender" policy of the MOD hampering US milware from being sold as competitors' products are cheaper and since sophisticated US eqpt. came at higher prices! Anyway,I've made my point and given stats,data. It's upto the end user/MOD to choose with care .

Coming back to another matter,the issue of data leak of the Indian Scorpenes,here's an OZ senator,Rex Patrick, on the issue,who was an ex-submariner too.Those advocating building extra Scorpenes would be well advised to look again at the fact that the performance data of our Scorpenes was leaked .The Scorpene project has been delayed by sev. years and is way off course budgetwise,that too for non-AIP subs!

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-01-17/s ... ys/9334240

Future Submarine program facing multi-billion-dollar blowout, Senator Rex Patrick says
Exclusive by defence reporter Andrew Greene
Updated Wed at 12:09pm

Media player: "Space" to play, "M" to mute, "left" and "right" to seek.
VIDEO: Rex Patrick says Australia's Future Submarine program is 'already going off the rails' (ABC News)
RELATED STORY: Submarine program hit by fraud allegations RELATED STORY: Million-dollar architects helping build Australia's future submarinesRELATED STORY: France to build Australia's next submarine fleet
MAP: Australia
The cost of Australia's Future Submarine program is likely to blow out by billions of dollars because it is already missing key deadlines, a former defence contractor turned senator has warned.

Key points:
Senator Rex Patrick says a professional project manager should be hired to oversee the program
He says there could be a cost blowout of between $1 and $2 billion based on current evidence
The Defence Department says the work will be "within approved funding"
In December, Defence confirmed two planning documents due to be released last year had yet to be finalised, but the department insisted there had been "no delays to key milestones" and no "cost or schedule impacts" to the $50 billion project.

Senator Rex Patrick, who once also served as a Royal Australian Navy submariner, has not been convinced and said some military insiders were privately conceding the submarine program was "starting to go a little bit off the rails".

"Given that the project is running across three to four decades and is a $50 billion program, these sorts of delays, they cascade through — it could be a $1 to $2 billion blowout on the evidence that we have at the moment," Senator Patrick said.

Admiral running sub program has 'never run a minor project'
The South Australian politician, who took Nick Xenophon's seat in the Upper House last year, also suggested a professional project manager should replace the senior naval officer currently running the program.

"Rear Admiral [Gregory] Sammut is a highly respected and highly capable naval officer, however he's never run a major project, he's never run a minor project," Senator Patrick said.

"There are a number of highly qualified, highly experienced project managers in the mining industry, in the chemicals industry, in the IT industry that can be brought in to offer assistance for this extremely important program."

Australia's submarine requirements explained

With the winning bidder for Australia's next fleet of submarines announced, attention turns to how DCNS will meet Australia's high endurance requirements.
In a statement, the Defence Department strongly rejected Senator Patrick's warnings of cost blowouts and delays to the program being run with French company Naval Group.

"Requests for proposals have been issued to key equipment suppliers, and the procurement process is progressing to support subsequent design activities," the department said.

"The supporting work required to achieve key milestones continues to be managed ensuring those milestones are met on schedule."

The department added that "all work continues to be conducted within approved funding" including "the development of the Australian Industry Capability Strategy, which will be done by Naval Group".

We asked your thoughts on the cost of Australia's Future Submarine program in the comments.
Senator wanted German shipbuilder
Senior military sources have privately questioned the Senator's motivation for attacking the program, pointing out the South Australian had in the past argued German shipbuilder TKMS should have been awarded the lucrative contract.

Senator Patrick has rejected suggestions he was compromised by his past views or his decision to release leaked documents connected to Naval Group's Scorpene submarine contract with India.

"I have no issue with Naval Group being the selected submarine provider, they are a highly capable submarine design and build company," he said.

"However the program that they've been asked to execute, the program that's been selected by the Prime Minister, is a highly risky program, it's a new design of submarine."

Naval Group has declined to comment on Senator Patrick's comments.

chola · Post by **chola** » 18 Jan 2018 12:49

^^^ My gawd, Filipov! The Scorpene info might be leaked but Russkie subs’ info might be sold outright!

The PLAN has Kilos too. You think the chinis don’t have data to the latest Rus sub Natasha is trying to hawk to them?

Think man!

ks_sachin · Post by **ks_sachin** » 18 Jan 2018 15:56

chola wrote:^^^ My gawd, Filipov! The Scorpene info might be leaked but Russkie subs’ info might be sold outright!

The PLAN has Kilos too. You think the chinis don’t have data to the latest Rus sub Natasha is trying to hawk to them?

Think man!

Blinkers!!!

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 18 Jan 2018 17:37

Indian Kilos differ from Chin Kilos.Performance isn't the same.That's been a well known fact plus there is supposedly some desi eqpt. aboard too installed during refits.Heard of USHUS, our Desi sonar? The Russians have always given us superior systems including our Flankers.The OZ leaks were specific to data of Indian Scorpenes, which is the key factor.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 18 Jan 2018 19:09

the plan 636 kilos are more machinery advanced model than our 877EKM ones.

People's Republic of China: 2 Original Kilo (Project 877), 10 Improved Kilo (Project 636).
India: 10 Original Kilo (Project 877), 1 sustained major casualty;

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/row/rus/877.htm
"The Project 636 design is a generally improved development of the Project 877EKM Kilo class that represents an interim design between the standard 'Kilo' and the new Lada project. The Project 636 is actively promoted for the world market by the Rosvoorouzhenie state-owned company. This submarine has improved range, firepower, acoustic characteristics and reliability. Visually distinguished by a step on the aft casing, the length of the hull is extended by two frame spacings (2 x 600 mm). The additional length permitted increasing the power of diesel-generators and mounting them on improved shock-absorbing support, and reducing twofold the main propulsion shaft speed. Owing to these improvements, the submarine speed and sea endurance were increased, while the noise level was radically decreased. The low noise level of the submarine has been achieved with the selection of quiet machinery, vibration and noise isolation and a special anti-acoustic rubber coating applied on the outer hull surface."

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 18 Jan 2018 21:23

WRT MPAAs, why not buy some 737-800 and fit them with drdo developed suite and sensor kit. Sort of a poor man's P8. IIRC, they did a great job on the dorniers, perhaps this can be extended to the 737 frame?

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 19 Jan 2018 13:45

Our Kilos have been upgraded,last few to be done too, and are no longer EKM class. They will be superior to the Chin 636s,export std.,not Ru std.It's why the PLAN has had to clone them adding capabilities to their clones to improve performance. Our Kilos showed how silent they are when they git the better of an LA class SSN in an exercise not too long ago.Kilos also come v.cheap and built at record speed of just 2 yrs.,why the RuN is building another 6 for its Pacific Fleet.Simultaneously,new Amurs are also being built for the RuN.The Russians appear to be placing max. priority towards enhancing their sub fleet,both nuclear and conventional/AIP.

The enormous cost of modifying an old civil airliner 737 or another civilian airliner like an A-320 for example,both with limited service life when its maritime counterpart (737/P-8) is already in service! Might as well buy new P-8Is.I think the IN can stretch its funds to eventually buying a total of 16 P-8Is. All 30 to be P-8Is will beggar the bank.The balance can be made up as suggested of far cheaper and available IL-38s,8-10 in total,and the remainder 4-8 Backfires.These are all dedicated LRMP/maritime strike aircraft.Imagine adding a bomb bay to civil airliners not designed for such ,which will also require much strengthening of wings,fuselage,etc. where hard points for weaponry hav to be carried.We are also not the OEM so obtaining drawings,etc. will be a long-drawn out exercise.

chola · Post by **chola** » 19 Jan 2018 18:15

Time to make a decision on the third carrier, please!

We had always been the greatest naval aviation power in Asia. But we are threatening to allow the legacy of the first Vikrant, the Viraat fall by the wayside because of the MoD refusal to accept and begin the next carrier.

The PLAN has a clear plan on carriers. We could be seeing up to six chicommie carriers (the last four CATOBARs) by 2030.

With our 15 years and counting on the Vikrant, the MoD and IN need to make a decision soon for the third carrier to come in the early 2030s. Otherwise, it will be nearer to 2040 and who knows how many PLAN cvns then.
http://www.wearethemighty.com/news/comm ... rd-carrier

the first Type 002 carrier, which so far is being called CV-18, was started last year in Shanghai.
...
CV-18, at 85,000 tons, is reportedly able to hold up to 85 aircraft. This puts it close to the aircraft capacity of the Nimitz-class nuclear-powered supercarriers that currently form the main striking power of the United States Navy. The Chinese Communists plan to build a second Type 002 carrier.
...
The Chinese also are planning to build two nuclear-powered aircraft carriers, known as the Type 003. These vessels would potentially be able to match the Gerald R. Ford-class nuclear-powered aircraft carriers and would displace 110,000 tons. The first Type 003 is slated to enter service by 2028.

Akshay Kapoor · Post by **Akshay Kapoor** » 19 Jan 2018 18:22

There are far more important priorities than a third carrier. Mine Sweepers, subs, ASW choppers , another naval base on the eastern seaboard and finishing INS Kadamba. INS India and INS Andamans should be our third carrier.

I am willing to bet the carrier will not be approved and rightly so.

Akshay Kapoor · Post by **Akshay Kapoor** » 19 Jan 2018 18:27

In fact a carrier is our last priority taking army and IAF needs into account as well. There are absolutely critical square needs that must be met first.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 19 Jan 2018 18:56

Time to make a decision on the third carrier, please!

We had always been the greatest naval aviation power in Asia. But we are threatening to allow the legacy of the first Vikrant, the Viraat fall by the wayside because of the MoD refusal to accept and begin the next carrier.

That's all well and good and most will understand the need. But at $25 Billion, without a significant increase in defense spending this looks rather unlikely and will continue to be moved to the right until such time that there is money added to the budget.

chola · Post by **chola** » 19 Jan 2018 19:09

^^^ I believe the $25B includes the 57 twin engine AC the Navy wanted irregardless. So the actual price is $13B minus the $12B cited during the 57 RFI.

We saved around $20B earmarked for phoreners by cuttng back on MMRCA. The carrier would ensure a good chunk of that is spent in house.

Not saying there are no higher priority needs but with access to American bleeding edge tech like EMALS/AAG and because of the lead time for carriers, MoD could and should make an exception here.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 19 Jan 2018 19:13

We saved around $20B earmarked for phoreners by cuttng back on MMRCA. The carrier would ensure a good chunk of that is spent in house.

And how do we know that this $20 Billion hasn't been allocated to other priorities already or was never there in the first place?

Not saying we there are no higher priority needs but with access to American bleeding edge tech like EMALS/AAG and because of the lead time for carriers, MoD could and should make an exception here.

All this is unsustainable without a significant increase in National Defense spending. Higher end capability such as a super carrier along with high performance air wing, escorts et al also has a higher Operational cost. You need budget increases for not only the procurement phase but the sustianment phase where 70% of the Life Cycle Cost resides.

VKumar · Post by **VKumar** » 19 Jan 2018 19:19

We must set up a program to induct at least one aircraft carrier every 4 years, even if it is 45k tonnes or 60k tonnes. We need at least 6 for IO.

chola · Post by **chola** » 19 Jan 2018 19:26

@Brar sir. What are the chances we had re-allocated that money when the 36 Rafales deal was just signed end of 2016? Desi bureaucracy not that speedy as we all know.

Okay, I grant you that it might never had been there since the 126 order was kaput maybe because someone found out there was no money.

Still $13B for an AC carrier arriving in 2030s when our economy and budget will be far larger is not impossibly expensive especially when you consider the access to technology involved.

Yes, budget will need to go up for opex as well but I am NOT asking for a carrier per carrier race with the with the PLAN. I’m asking for single 65Kton modern carrier that the IN wants and that will keep our carrier ops relevant into the future. Two russian-influenced STOBARs in 2030s with MiG-29s will leave us as an anachronism.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 19 Jan 2018 19:55

brar_w wrote:
We saved around $20B earmarked for phoreners by cuttng back on MMRCA. The carrier would ensure a good chunk of that is spent in house.
And how do we know that this $20 Billion hasn't been allocated to other priorities already or was never there in the first place?

Hey! We saved money we didn't have by not buying stuff we couldn't afford so now we can buy stuff which we want because we didn't spend that money, so that means the money is there. See?

Simple.

chola · Post by **chola** » 19 Jan 2018 21:00

^^^ We are paying $8.6B to France for 36 Rafales but not $13B for a carrier we will build in country that will also put us at the very pinnacle of naval aviation.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 19 Jan 2018 21:13

A carrier is a long term investment and by itself is not a leap ahead capability. It requires a capable air-wing and obviously support. $25 Billion is the cost that is claimed to get all this. This, needless to say, comes with a lot of risk. So add padding for cost and schedule ovreruns on account of carriers being quite hard to master even with outside inflow of technology like EMALS/Steam Cat's. China has a strategic carrier program and is investing a lot of money to build up its capability. India too would require a similar effort but you have to increase defense spending like China has done over the last decade plus which has led them to this place. Without significant increase in defense spending a large sum such as what is required would end up chewing a lot of the more emergent critical needs. Yes, long term having a few large carriers and a more capable naval aviation wing will strengthen IN's position regionally and outside but this needs to be driven by a strategy that is backed by financial support that increases spending rather than re purposes money by taking away from other critical needs.

Akshay Kapoor · Post by **Akshay Kapoor** » 19 Jan 2018 21:19

Brar 100 pct correct. When you don’t have minesweepers and ASW Helis and subs and a 1.6 pct GDP defence budget it is silly to think of additional carriers.

We need atleast 3.5 pct of GDP defence budget first. Let’s talk about carriers later.