Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 20 Dec 2016 23:49

Interview: Mazagon Dock Shipbuilders Chairman Rahul Shrawat

http://www.defensenews.com/articles/int ... ul-shravat

hnair · Post by **hnair** » 20 Dec 2016 23:53

ashishvikas, done

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 20 Dec 2016 23:56

This talk of Super Hornets is confusing to me. Which aircraft carrier are they going to fly off of? Neither the Vikramaditya nor the Vikrant will do. Why the Navy needs a 101 (45 + 57) aircraft fleet is another mystery.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 21 Dec 2016 00:07

The nuke powered INS Vishal with EMALS tech. The one to come in 2030 or somewhere around there. That is only 13 years away. In the world of Babudom, that is onleee 7 minutes.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 21 Dec 2016 00:08

nachiket wrote:This talk of Super Hornets is confusing to me. Which aircraft carrier are they going to fly off of? Neither the Vikramaditya nor the Vikrant will do. Why the Navy needs a 101 (45 + 57) aircraft fleet is another mystery.

Eventually Indian Navy has to command the Indian Ocean. Can let other powers police it as in colonial days.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 21 Dec 2016 00:10

ramana wrote: Eventually Indian Navy has to command the Indian Ocean. Can let other powers police it as in colonial days.

I understand that. But we will not have a carrier capable of launching Super Hornets before 2030 at the earliest. If the Navy wants to augment the fleet right now, it makes more sense to buy more Mig-29Ks. Even then 57 seems like overkill. Some of the money can be better used investing in more ASW helos, P-28s, subs etc.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 21 Dec 2016 00:12

Rakesh wrote:
tejas warrior wrote:Saurav Jha @twitter
16 HAL Dhruvs + 8 HAL Chetaks are on order anyway.
tejas warrior: change ur username please to a more human sounding one.

They are still making HAL Chetaks? I doubt so. I think Saurav Jha got it wrong.

tejas warrior wrote:F/A-18E/F Super Hornet push is palpable. I wonder if suddenly there will be talk of having a common aircraft for the Navy and Air force. Engine commonality with HAL Tejas variants will also be touted. And Boeing is already promising the moon for AMCA development support.
The MoD has a stark choice (and I think a decision has already been made);

Choice #1: Go in for the navalized Rafale. Commonality with the IAF.

Choice #2: Go in for the Super Hornet. This is what will likely happen. Transitioning from the GE engines (which the Super Hornet uses) to a Snecma engine (not tested on any Tejas variant) will only add to delays in Tejas induction. However, as Admiral Lanba stated recently, the Navy is looking beyond the Mk.1A variant of the Tejas. Whether that means Mk.2 or an entirely different aircraft is anyone's guess. For a naval fighter, twin engines are always better. A navalized AMCA can deliver on that and only Amreeka can help make that happen. I can't believe I am saying that, but yes.

Rakesh, its not a service level decision. Its a strategic decision. The idea is to have another combat airplane line. The F-16 line does not add to the value proposition. The F-18 twin engine fighter line adds value as the AMCA will use the same engine.

If US can have three airplane lines: Boeing, LM, Grumman India can have at least two : HAL and another. Its time to think of more than just IAF and IN inventory objectives.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 21 Dec 2016 00:14

nachiket wrote:
ramana wrote: Eventually Indian Navy has to command the Indian Ocean. Can let other powers police it as in colonial days.
I understand that. But we will not have a carrier capable of launching Super Hornets before 2030 at the earliest. If the Navy wants to augment the fleet right now, it makes more sense to buy more Mig-29Ks. Even then 57 seems like overkill. Some of the money can be better used investing in more ASW helos, P-28s, subs etc.

IN has their naval requirements planners and we don't know what is the objective. Also resource allocation is Cabinet decision.
IN also needs to get experience in operating those planes.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 21 Dec 2016 00:15

nachiket: That is where the disconnect lies. The fleet may be needed to be augmented now, but the Govt makes the call. And the govt believes they need to jump on the bandwagon of the Pivot to Asia. And the govt will wait for the train to come and that train will come. China needs to get humbled - the Indian Ocean is indeed India's Ocean.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 21 Dec 2016 00:16

ramana wrote:Rakesh, its not a service level decision. Its a strategic decision. The idea is to have another combat airplane line. The F-16 line does not add to the value proposition. The F-18 twin engine fighter line adds value as the AMCA will use the same engine.

If US can have three airplane lines: Boeing, LM, Grumman India can have at least two : HAL and another. Its time to think of more than just IAF and IN inventory objectives.

Saar, I fully agree. See my post right above this one.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 21 Dec 2016 00:17

Agreed. GOI is taking the naval development seriously.

sankum · Post by **sankum** » 21 Dec 2016 03:10

IN if it wants 3 INS Vishal class carrier by 2040. Then the number of fighters it will require is 3×40+2×20=160 on 5 carriers with 50% spare. That is 240 nos which can very well be 45 mig29k + 57 suerhornet+150 Naval AMCA/FGFA.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 21 Dec 2016 03:32

nachiket wrote:This talk of Super Hornets is confusing to me. Which aircraft carrier are they going to fly off of? Neither the Vikramaditya nor the Vikrant will do. Why the Navy needs a 101 (45 + 57) aircraft fleet is another mystery.

One rumor is the war time capacity of these carriers is higher and also to account for war time attritions and maintenance. If you discount any addition of LCA into the fleet then the requirements makes sense. As for the SH, I think the Boeing claim is it can be modified quickly for ski jump launches. Another thing to think about is IN maybe thinking of deployments in the islands of the Indian Ocean as a contingency. If we have to own our lake then air control is a must. One more angle could be as a response to the development of additional carriers of PLAN. The focus on air power is probably to send the message, do not think about crossing the straits.

Nikhil T · Post by **Nikhil T** » 21 Dec 2016 03:43

nachiket wrote:
ramana wrote: Eventually Indian Navy has to command the Indian Ocean. Can let other powers police it as in colonial days.
I understand that. But we will not have a carrier capable of launching Super Hornets before 2030 at the earliest. If the Navy wants to augment the fleet right now, it makes more sense to buy more Mig-29Ks. Even then 57 seems like overkill. Some of the money can be better used investing in more ASW helos, P-28s, subs etc.

+1. I hope we don't invest in another completely new fighter aircraft type. Would it be easier to increase the MKI order and dedicate some to the Navy for policing the Indian Ocean? They can take off from coastal IN bases and with the Brahmos, can cover much of the nearby Indian Ocean.

sanjaykumar · Post by **sanjaykumar** » 21 Dec 2016 04:05

They will be. Range= MKI internal fuel + tanker refuel X 1 or 2+ >600km Brahmos range. Takes care of the Indian Ocean. The question may be of transit time.

Karthik S · Post by **Karthik S** » 21 Dec 2016 04:06

Why not Rafale? If twin engine fighter is requirement, Rafale makes most sense as IAF already has it, we can save many costs by realizing economies of scale.
I always dreamed of backfires in IN carrying brahmos in its rotary launchers. It will be the best combo if IN has big plans about IOR.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 21 Dec 2016 04:23

ShauryaT wrote:One rumor is the war time capacity of these carriers is higher and also to account for war time attritions and maintenance. If you discount any addition of LCA into the fleet then the requirements makes sense. As for the SH, I think the Boeing claim is it can be modified quickly for ski jump launches. Another thing to think about is IN maybe thinking of deployments in the islands of the Indian Ocean as a contingency. If we have to own our lake then air control is a must. One more angle could be as a response to the development of additional carriers of PLAN. The focus on air power is probably to send the message, do not think about crossing the straits.

SH, even if it can be modified and certified for ski-jump launches (which will take time) will still suffer from the same payload-range restrictions faced by the Mig-29Ks. Shore based deployments can also be taken care of by more Mig-29Ks or IAF Su-30's. Addition of a new type is a very capital intensive affair, as the price tag of IAF's 36 Rafales will tell you. Capital drawn from IN's very limited pool and needed to shore up deficiencies in ASW assets, the submarine force and even surface combatants (just look at the astonishing rate at which the Chinese are churning out Destroyers and Frigates). Whatever enhancement of capability that it can provide must be big enough to justify this.

More plausible reason I can think of is that the IN must be far more unhappy with the Mig-29's performance/reliability than is widely known making the acquisition of a new type essential.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 21 Dec 2016 04:32

ramana wrote: IN has their naval requirements planners and we don't know what is the objective. Also resource allocation is Cabinet decision.
IN also needs to get experience in operating those planes.

I'm just analyzing the decision and trying to find reasons for it saar. What else can we armchair jarnails do?

sanjaykumar · Post by **sanjaykumar** » 21 Dec 2016 04:51

There are several references to IN Tu-22M3M including publications from CLAWS. I would not dismiss them.

Karthik S · Post by **Karthik S** » 21 Dec 2016 04:58

Why keep it secret then?

John · Post by **John** » 21 Dec 2016 05:08

sanjaykumar wrote:There are several references to IN Tu-22M3M including publications from CLAWS. I would not dismiss them.

There is no proof whatsoever there are no 22m3. Even so it is cold war relic. Georgians were able to shoot down most advanced variant in its first sortie so it's capabilities are quite limited against fleets with Air defense capability.

Why would should IN be wasting $$ operating this when squadron of flankers with Brahmos could accomplish similar missions at far cheaper price tag.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 21 Dec 2016 05:13

nachiket wrote: SH, even if it can be modified and certified for ski-jump launches (which will take time) will still suffer from the same payload-range restrictions faced by the Mig-29Ks. Shore based deployments can also be taken care of by more Mig-29Ks or IAF Su-30's. Addition of a new type is a very capital intensive affair, as the price tag of IAF's 36 Rafales will tell you. Capital drawn from IN's very limited pool and needed to shore up deficiencies in ASW assets, the submarine force and even surface combatants (just look at the astonishing rate at which the Chinese are churning out Destroyers and Frigates). Whatever enhancement of capability that it can provide must be big enough to justify this.

More plausible reason I can think of is that the IN must be far more unhappy with the Mig-29's performance/reliability than is widely known making the acquisition of a new type essential.

From an economies of scale perspective the propose MII IAF project could also well be the SH, making the combined numbers for IAF and IN worthwhile. The engines for LCA and AMCA could be another point of synergy. Another is future compatibility with IAC2 with EMALS. So, economies of scale can be had on the SH making it worthwhile.

As to costs, as ramana said these are strategic decisions (as they should be) and in India, it would not be uncommon to spend in spurts, like in the 80's.

PS: I am not articulating my preferences, only expounding on the possible thinking. To be honest, this entire affair of becoming close strategic (military) partners with the US, I cannot square the hole, in how it fits with Indian sovereign objectives to come into being on our own.

Nick_S · Post by **Nick_S** » 21 Dec 2016 05:20

Nikhil T wrote:Would it be easier to increase the MKI order and dedicate some to the Navy for policing the Indian Ocean? They can take off from coastal IN bases and with the Brahmos, can cover much of the nearby Indian Ocean.

You mean patrol Indian Ocean with something like this?

(Image has been photoshopped)

Personally, I think we would be better off buying more P-8. MKI/Su-34/Tu-22M3 etc don't provide any sub-surface capabilities.

Karthik S · Post by **Karthik S** » 21 Dec 2016 05:24

John wrote:
sanjaykumar wrote:There are several references to IN Tu-22M3M including publications from CLAWS. I would not dismiss them.
There is no proof whatsoever there are no 22m3. Even so it is cold war and Georgians were able to shoot down most advanced variant in its first sortie. Why would should IN be wasting $$ operating this when squadron of flankers with Brahmos could accomplish similar missions at far cheaper price tag.

F 117 was shot down in 1999 by Pechora SAM. Did that stop US from going in for F 22 and F 35? What SAM threat to backfires do you see over IOR?

srin · Post by **srin** » 21 Dec 2016 06:49

nachiket wrote:This talk of Super Hornets is confusing to me. Which aircraft carrier are they going to fly off of? Neither the Vikramaditya nor the Vikrant will do. Why the Navy needs a 101 (45 + 57) aircraft fleet is another mystery.

Why can't the Shornets operate out of Vikky or Vikrant ?

Karthik S · Post by **Karthik S** » 21 Dec 2016 06:57

srin wrote:
nachiket wrote:This talk of Super Hornets is confusing to me. Which aircraft carrier are they going to fly off of? Neither the Vikramaditya nor the Vikrant will do. Why the Navy needs a 101 (45 + 57) aircraft fleet is another mystery.
Why can't the Shornets operate out of Vikky or Vikrant ?

Without CATOBAR and with lower T/W, SHornet carry lesser fuel/munitions than Mig 29.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 21 Dec 2016 07:07

If IN really wants some strategic teeth in double quick time, there is hardly a better and faster option than the Tu-22M3 adequately MKIized. The newer uprgraded variants (M3M?) seem like very useful machines - newer radar (novella from the IL 38 Sea Dragon Suite) and weapons, easier maintenance, iirc. They have immense range and payload (no MKI comes close) and could easily carry 3 X Brahmos. More investments into MPAs along with a sqd of these will be of great deterrent value for PLAN surface assets. .

ManuJ · Post by **ManuJ** » 21 Dec 2016 07:19

If, and it's still an if, Vishal with EM catapult does come through, 2035 will be an optimistic commissioning date.
The fighters flying off that platform will have to provide service from approx. 2035 - 2075.
In that era, 5th gen fighters and UCAVs would be the norm, not 4th gen fighters like the Super Hornets who are currently at the peak of their deployment cycle.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 21 Dec 2016 08:47

Cain Marko wrote:If IN really wants some strategic teeth in double quick time, there is hardly a better and faster option than the Tu-22M3 adequately MKIized. The newer uprgraded variants (M3M?) seem like very useful machines - newer radar (novella from the IL 38 Sea Dragon Suite) and weapons, easier maintenance, iirc. They have immense range and payload (no MKI comes close) and could easily carry 3 X Brahmos. More investments into MPAs along with a sqd of these will be of great deterrent value for PLAN surface assets. .

Unfortunately the best analogy is a stud farm. You get the best stud and mate him with the best mare and hope for the best. You will get something good if it all works out

It's not about how capable the aircraft is - it is about maintenance, uptime and spares.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 21 Dec 2016 08:49

Nick_S wrote:

(Image has been photoshopped)

Sorry to digress. The image has not been photoshopped. The plane is landing - with nosewheel yet to touchdown, tailchute is coming out and the photographer in the foreground shows a motion blur as the camera person has panned while taking the photo. Exhaust shows hot gas distortion

Rammpal · Post by **Rammpal** » 21 Dec 2016 09:01

shiv wrote:
It's not about how capable the aircraft is - it is about maintenance, uptime and spares.

Stud farm analogy, and No mention of the acThor him/herself ?

Pilot ?!

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 21 Dec 2016 09:19

Shiv: that picture is photoshopped with an IAF roundel and a serial number. I think that is what Nick is referring to when he says it is photoshopped.

Karthik S · Post by **Karthik S** » 21 Dec 2016 09:20

Deleted.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 21 Dec 2016 09:34

Rakesh wrote:Shiv: that picture is photoshopped with an IAF roundel and a serial number. I think that is what Nick is referring to when he says it is photoshopped.

LOL I missed that. My bad.

Never looked at the markings

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 21 Dec 2016 09:55

shiv wrote:Unfortunately the best analogy is a stud farm. You get the best stud and mate him with the best mare and hope for the best. You will get something good if it all works outIt's not about how capable the aircraft is - it is about maintenance, uptime and spares.

Could be. but then even a Chinese ghoda (J20) causes dhoti shiver, no? And Indian forces are experts at maintaining high maintenance studs - IL 76, TU-95, MiG-29, 21, 27, 23, Su-30.....all studs or mares in their own right. They say even french wares (or mares) in IAF livery sometimes act rather studly (50% of the times or something like that).

John · Post by **John** » 21 Dec 2016 10:03

Karthik S wrote:
John wrote: There is no proof whatsoever there are no 22m3. Even so it is cold war and Georgians were able to shoot down most advanced variant in its first sortie. Why would should IN be wasting $$ operating this when squadron of flankers with Brahmos could accomplish similar missions at far cheaper price tag.
F 117 was shot down in 1999 by Pechora SAM. Did that stop US from going in for F 22 and F 35? What SAM threat to backfires do you see over IOR?

Not sure what F 117 has to do with F 22 or F 35 since they share nothing in common and Nighthawk itself was shot down due to pure luck and incompetent planning. And unlike Tu-22mr it performed multiple sorties before it was downed where as latter was shot down immediately and was supposed to be fitted with most sophisticated countermeasure and sensor suite. And unlike Pechora SAM which was heavily modernized the Tu-22mr was shot down by SA-8 which is quite obsolete.

As for Tu-22m3 as already mentioned just not worth it considering the costs and the small numbers IN can field (even if a squadron is procured will be lucky if we can keep even 6 of them operational at a time). It simply will not be game changer against large amount of air defense destroyer china is fielding.

In other hand mix of squadron of Flankers armed with AAM missiles flying high and providing target designation and intercepting any carrier based AC. While rest of flankers armed with Ashm fly in below radar horizon is far better way to deal with maritime threat at much cheaper cost. There is reason why even Chinese have not bit the bullet when it comes to procuring Tu-22m3 in spite of Russia's best attempt.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 21 Dec 2016 10:21

^The TU-22 you are talking about is hardly the latest version - M3M std- the upgrade just began in 2012 and is just about finished.

I would contend that they would be rather well served to have mix of Su-30mkis and backfires than load up large number MKIs with single shot Brahmos. Let the MKI do the A2A thing, and provide top cover - it is designed for this, and let the backfire do its bit in carrying 3-6 brahmos each. Plus the Brahmos can be fired from really long distances - upto 600km (and released from hi altitude, could be even more) keeping the bird even further out of range of a fighter bubble.

You would need 18 Bmos laden MKI to carry out such a mission PLUS more for top cover and IFR if the distance is a 1500-2000km away. 5-6 Backfires and a few MKI would do much better.

And if lo-lo flight was so passe, IAF would not be investing so heavily in Jags - the backfire can do this too only at much longer ranges and higher payloads.

Keeping a handful of silver bullets is not so hard and quite worth it. Anyways, this keeps going round and round - and whether the IN actually operates the Tu-22 is one of the long standing mysteries like the S-300s in the Indian arsenal.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 21 Dec 2016 10:37

Austin wrote:Interview: Mazagon Dock Shipbuilders Chairman Rahul Shrawat

http://www.defensenews.com/articles/int ... ul-shravat

What is current level of indigenization in Scorpene submarines?

Although indigenization is not a contractual requirement, it is being pursued vigorously by the Indian navy and MDL. Submarines being a very complex platform with no industrial-support base for its equipment in India, the scope for indigenization is limited. The material package accounts for bulk of the cost of production. It is estimated that 30 percent indigenization will be achieved by the sixth submarine.

Is your shipyard equipped to build AIP (Air Independent Propulsion) enabled submarines?

An AIP system is being developed by Naval Materials Research Laboratory, based on fuel-cell technology. Collaborator on the P-75, DCNS, is working with NMRL on marinization and integration of the Indigenous AIP system on Scorpene submarines. NMRL has placed an order for a “Definition Phase” with DCNS in August 2015. MDL has indicated the wish to be “Lead Integrator” for the NMRL AIP to Indian Navy.

Hitesh · Post by **Hitesh** » 21 Dec 2016 15:06

I would invest more in more P8-I and the continual upgradation paths for the P8-I and upgrade the weapon suites and more naval helicopters. Right now, I do not think that IN should go for more fighters until they settle on the kind of carrier they want - ski jump based or catapult based. If it is ski-jumped, I'd rather go for F-35Bs like Britain did instead of more Mig-29ks or Rafales or Superhornets. If it is catapulted, I would go for Rafales because we would be saving on the lifecycle costs when we go for commonality of spare parts and maintenance. Do not make the mistake of linking the engine development with the type of plane.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 21 Dec 2016 15:51

Cain Marko wrote:
shiv wrote:Unfortunately the best analogy is a stud farm. You get the best stud and mate him with the best mare and hope for the best. You will get something good if it all works outIt's not about how capable the aircraft is - it is about maintenance, uptime and spares.
Could be. but then even a Chinese ghoda (J20) causes dhoti shiver, no? And Indian forces are experts at maintaining high maintenance studs - IL 76, TU-95, MiG-29, 21, 27, 23, Su-30.....all studs or mares in their own right. They say even french wares (or mares) in IAF livery sometimes act rather studly (50% of the times or something like that).

The other thing I like to ask is this.

Suppose we get a long range bomber. What flight path will it follow to hit targets of significance in China?

The US and Russia had the Arctic route to hit each other - and did not have to fly 1000s of km over hostile territory

China will find its long range bombers of great use in showing its power over littoral areas.