Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2419
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby tsarkar » 08 May 2018 12:15

Aditya G wrote:Should fit well on Delhi class


BrahMos canister is twice as large as Uran, so it wont fit on Delhi Class.

Curious about the high angle of incidence of the L&T Brahmos launcher compared to the Rajput ones also built by L&T.

The high incidence makes it impossible to retrofit Delhi class without coming in the way of RBU-6000 if fired at full depression (-15 degrees).

It will be too high for Veer class missile boats as well.

Wonder where and how L&T canister will be installed. The older Rajput inclined launcher is much appropriate for Veer, Kukhri, Rajput & Delhi classes.

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2419
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby tsarkar » 08 May 2018 12:39

Moved to China thread
Last edited by tsarkar on 08 May 2018 13:05, edited 1 time in total.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19316
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Philip » 08 May 2018 12:43

If the large blast panels are removed from the beams,one could accommodate a quad-pack on either beam which would not interfere with the MBUs. Alternatively,there is space amidships,between the forward stack and the second mast where the TTs are located.They could be relocated to the beams and the space vacated for two quad packs.The space vacated by the Urans could also be used for either Klubs or Nirbhay! Imagine the Delhi's carrying 8 BMos-ER as well as 16 Klub variants/Nirbhays! :rotfl:

Siberia is vast.Great space for lakhs of Indian immigrants to exploit the centuries of natural resources there!

Yes,no undue dhoti shivering,but the numbers of warships and subs that the Chins can field is not a joke.They can take sev. casualties and still keep fielding assets. Why Rand analysis of an air war between the US and China favours the Chins as the US aircraft,F-22s too,would run out of AAMs faster than the Chins.

Aditya G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3339
Joined: 19 Feb 2002 12:31
Contact:

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Aditya G » 08 May 2018 18:23

The quad launcher angle must have been carefully selected. Probably impacts range of the missile.

I think their plan would be to replace 8 urans with 4 brahmos. The launcher would be forward facing and canted outward.

If you observe INS mysore has large missile shields which were rumoured to take the blast from moskit missiles - basis of my theory.

I like philips idea of amidships but then where will the TTs go?

tsarkar wrote:
Aditya G wrote:Should fit well on Delhi class


BrahMos canister is twice as large as Uran, so it wont fit on Delhi Class.

Curious about the high angle of incidence of the L&T Brahmos launcher compared to the Rajput ones also built by L&T.

The high incidence makes it impossible to retrofit Delhi class without coming in the way of RBU-6000 if fired at full depression (-15 degrees).

It will be too high for Veer class missile boats as well.

Wonder where and how L&T canister will be installed. The older Rajput inclined launcher is much appropriate for Veer, Kukhri, Rajput & Delhi classes.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19316
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Philip » 08 May 2018 18:31

Twin TTs on either beam.Some mods. reqd. though. Our frigates used to have 2X3 LW TTs.At prev. Defectors, there used to be models of our Tarantulas with BMos modules.Perhaps the archives may have pics.

JTull
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2276
Joined: 18 Jul 2001 11:31

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby JTull » 08 May 2018 18:45

If there's some room then perhaps half of the quad-launcher can be below deck. You can then have 8 cells on each side to replace the Urans.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 49799
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby ramana » 08 May 2018 23:17

Is anybody following naval policy and US ship visits?

John
BRFite
Posts: 1736
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby John » 09 May 2018 04:23

Aditya G wrote:The quad launcher angle must have been carefully selected. Probably impacts range of the missile.

I think their plan would be to replace 8 urans with 4 brahmos. The launcher would be forward facing and canted outward.

If you observe INS mysore has large missile shields which were rumoured to take the blast from moskit missiles - basis of my theory.

I like philips idea of amidships but then where will the TTs go?

I believe Delhi was designed to carry 4 moskit missile not 8 like Sovremenny.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5199
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Rakesh » 09 May 2018 06:35

https://twitter.com/SJha1618/status/993733763610923008 ---> Alright, Admiral Sunil Lanba, CNS, Indian Navy, confirms that the goliath crane collapse at GRSE, Kolkata, during a local storm, is *not* a setback for the P-17A Frigate Construction Program. GRSE's part of the project remains on track.

Kersi
BRFite
Posts: 103
Joined: 31 May 2017 12:25

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Kersi » 09 May 2018 11:09

Philip wrote:Twin TTs on either beam.Some mods. reqd. though. Our frigates used to have 2X3 LW TTs.At prev. Defectors, there used to be models of our Tarantulas with BMos modules.Perhaps the archives may have pics.


Philip, please use English language without abbreviations. We cannot understand your SMS / Telex / Telegram language

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21542
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Austin » 09 May 2018 16:09

The inclined launcher are used in Rajput/Ranvijay class ships since long as they replaced Styx not sure why this is a big news , may be because L&T made it ?

John
BRFite
Posts: 1736
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby John » 09 May 2018 16:50

Austin wrote:The inclined launcher are used in Rajput/Ranvijay class ships since long as they replaced Styx not sure why this is a big news , may be because L&T made it ?

The ones in both vessels I believe are not production variant. So yes L&T manufacturing it is reason for the news but not new development by any means. I believe Navy has finally funded or approved of inclined launchers for its vessel looks like there was hesitancy to move forward and replace Styx and Uran due to $$. But looks like we are finally moving ahead with it. Perhaps Brahmos mini is another reason why we are going ahead with it.

Back when Brahmos was first unveiled in Defexpo, inclined launchers on vessels were widely displayed and Brahmos Corp did display models of Veer and Rajput class fitted with Brahmos.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21542
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Austin » 09 May 2018 16:55

Well if L&T is rejoicing over something Brahmos Corp or DRDO did 15 years back then good for them ! Inclined launcher were the first operational brahmos on any IN ships

Aditya G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3339
Joined: 19 Feb 2002 12:31
Contact:

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Aditya G » 09 May 2018 17:18

Austin wrote:Well if L&T is rejoicing over something Brahmos Corp or DRDO did 15 years back then good for them ! Inclined launcher were the first operational brahmos on any IN ships


The real story is that these launchers will equip ships. Which are those ships?

John
BRFite
Posts: 1736
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby John » 09 May 2018 20:09

Aditya G wrote:
Austin wrote:Well if L&T is rejoicing over something Brahmos Corp or DRDO did 15 years back then good for them ! Inclined launcher were the first operational brahmos on any IN ships


The real story is that these launchers will equip ships. Which are those ships?

This was two years ago. It lines up L&T starting work on inclined launchers. Looks like Delhi DDG will be first in line and talwar will likely get some updates it enable it to carry Brahmos in vls launchers.

http://www.defenseworld.net/news/16429/ ... vMGcBYpCaM

The Indian Defense Ministry’s Defense Acquisition Committee is likely to take up upgrading of Delhi-class destroyers and Talwar class frigates with indigenous Brahmos missile along with construction of six next-gen missile boats during its next meeting scheduled for Saturday.

Picklu
BRFite
Posts: 1644
Joined: 25 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Picklu » 10 May 2018 08:00

Believe the diff is twin vs quad inclined launcher.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21542
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Austin » 10 May 2018 08:58

Navalized Ka-226T Could Boost Indo-Russian Deal

https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news ... ssian-deal
The Ka-226T was not originally listed by the Navy as a competitor for the LUH, but Chief of Naval staff Admiral Sunil Lamba confirmed the change of mind.

India “would save much money due to our joint project on local assembly of the type,” Sergei Chemezov, head of Rostec, commented in January. He explained that the Navy would benefit from a common program for training of flight and ground crew
s.

Rupak
Webmaster BR
Posts: 317
Joined: 14 Jun 1999 11:31

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Rupak » 10 May 2018 09:20

With Russia under sanctions, where would the engines for the Ka226 come from?

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7762
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Pratyush » 10 May 2018 10:22

Shudders, ( blasphemy) could India supply engine's for ka226 to be matched to Russian transmission system.

PS why not cancel this deal and go whole hog with LUH.

I mean the time line would be identical for both. At the moment.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3103
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Cain Marko » 10 May 2018 11:16

Cybaru wrote:
Cain Marko wrote: Absolutely, but they'll need to increase the fulcrum fleet. In some ways, I feel India should just negotiate with the russkis to get the mig 35 production line transferred. Reengine the bird with Snecma kaveri or typhoon engines and change the radar with an Israeli kit. 200 units between the Navy and vayu sena.



By the time you sign the dotted line, qualify a new engine, radar, go from IOC to FOC another 10-12 years would have gone by. Do you still think it will be worth it if that is the timeline?


Well, the gripen ng is not so far from this state, probly worse. At least the fulcrum has a naval variant. Yes, the Rafale would be ideal for both iaf and Navy needs, but can you imagine the cost for 190 odd birds. Babus will probably faint with shock

What remains is the shornet, which is not a bad idea but it too so need upgraded engines to meet IAF and stobar needs.

The upside to getting a fulcrum line is that the roosies are in a tight spot. Negotiate and get the full setup with enough ipr to modify the bird as and how. I'll bet it will still be loads cheaper than the shornet, let alone Rafale.

I'm not even counting the phoon in this race, absolutely insane price and little future here.

Point is that it would be wise to combine iaf and Navy needs into a single deal. Would certainly give more negotiation power and better prices.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3103
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Cain Marko » 10 May 2018 11:19

Kashi wrote:
Cain Marko wrote: Absolutely, but they'll need to increase the fulcrum fleet. In some ways, I feel India should just negotiate with the russkis to get the mig 35 production line transferred. Reengine the bird with Snecma kaveri or typhoon engines and change the radar with an Israeli kit. 200 units between the Navy and vayu sena.


Two questions here

1. Are RD-33K and Kaveri-Snecma engines interchangeable i.e. they can be swapped around without needing to modify engine intakes and diameter of the engine slot?

2. Does Mig-35 even have a carrier/naval variant?


Both questions were dealt with nicely by Tsarkar sahab. The big issue will be reengining but they were in fact considering using a fulcrum to test the kaveri, so I'm assuming that this is not a deal breaker.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19316
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Philip » 10 May 2018 11:20

What sanctions? French engines are happily being used on Ru civvy jets and the KA-226.V.simple.Russia suppplies the helos to us and France suppliies the engines! 2 separate deals, we're not under sanctions just like UKR engines for the extra Talwars.

I can't see how P-17A construction won't be affected by the crane mishap.I feel the good CNS was allaying fears.

Curious to see the config of the naval KA-226.Have some Qs to ask.Weaponry- ASW? Dipping sonar capability and sonobuoys.Otherwise it will be fit only for communications' purposes.It should have some ASW capability which will increase the capability of our smaller platforms like OPVs etc.

JTull
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2276
Joined: 18 Jul 2001 11:31

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby JTull » 10 May 2018 15:01

Rupak wrote:With Russia under sanctions, where would the engines for the Ka226 come from?


Good excuse to setup the assembly in India.

John
BRFite
Posts: 1736
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby John » 10 May 2018 16:44

Picklu wrote:Believe the diff is twin vs quad inclined launcher.

The twin was used for testing purposes but final configuration was always supposed to be quad launchers , test platforms always vary the nanchuka that was testing Yakhont had a Sextuple launcher for example.

Khalsa
BRFite
Posts: 1226
Joined: 12 Nov 2000 12:31
Location: NZL

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Khalsa » 11 May 2018 03:07

A fan boy of the contribution that TATA has made.
This news made my day

http://ajaishukla.blogspot.co.nz/2018/0 ... ector.html

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19316
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Philip » 11 May 2018 05:17

It will be interesting to see the configuration of the new missile craft.8 BMos one presumes along with a BPDMS , perhaps a gun/missile mount like the navalised Pantsir.
The Talwars would have the VLS silos for Klub replaced with BMos but the Delhi's would need the inclined launchers.

Aditya G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3339
Joined: 19 Feb 2002 12:31
Contact:

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Aditya G » 11 May 2018 17:02

Philip wrote:It will be interesting to see the configuration of the new missile craft.8 BMos one presumes along with a BPDMS , perhaps a gun/missile mount like the navalised Pantsir.
The Talwars would have the VLS silos for Klub replaced with BMos but the Delhi's would need the inclined launchers.


I would go for the project-28 hull. Replace RBU with Brahmons VLS and install Maitri missiles as it's compatible with Revathi.

darshhan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2278
Joined: 12 Dec 2008 11:52

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby darshhan » 11 May 2018 17:39

Cain Marko wrote:
Cybaru wrote:

By the time you sign the dotted line, qualify a new engine, radar, go from IOC to FOC another 10-12 years would have gone by. Do you still think it will be worth it if that is the timeline?


Well, the gripen ng is not so far from this state, probly worse. At least the fulcrum has a naval variant. Yes, the Rafale would be ideal for both iaf and Navy needs, but can you imagine the cost for 190 odd birds. Babus will probably faint with shock

What remains is the shornet, which is not a bad idea but it too so need upgraded engines to meet IAF and stobar needs.

The upside to getting a fulcrum line is that the roosies are in a tight spot. Negotiate and get the full setup with enough ipr to modify the bird as and how. I'll bet it will still be loads cheaper than the shornet, let alone Rafale.

I'm not even counting the phoon in this race, absolutely insane price and little future here.

Point is that it would be wise to combine iaf and Navy needs into a single deal. Would certainly give more negotiation power and better prices.


Ok. But what about not so reliable fulcrum engine? How do we deal with this issue?

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6657
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Indranil » 11 May 2018 20:40

ACtually, the reliability of the RD-33 is considerably improved. The engine is not the problem.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16969
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby chetak » 11 May 2018 21:17

Let the australians' figure out what the issues are that is pissing India off.

One can't run with the hare and hunt with the hound. Cast off the chinese shackles first.

Its certainly not a sop to china and that's for sure.

Sop to China or signal to Australia?



Sop to China or signal to Australia?

Delhi’s refusal to let Canberra participate in the upcoming Malabar naval exercise will hurt the Quad.

Arzan Tarapore | May 11, 2018

Delhi’s refusal to let Canberra participate in the upcoming Malabar naval exercise will hurt the Quad Australia’s hopes for Malabar had been raised since the resuscitation of the India-US-Japan-Australia “Quad” last November, but were then dashed by New Delhi.

In late April, almost lost in the hoopla surrounding the Modi-Xi summit, India decided that it would not allow Australia to participate in the upcoming Malabar naval exercise. The Malabar exercise is held annually, bringing together the navies of India, the US, and Japan. This year, as in the past, Australia had sought to participate, at least as an observer. Australia’s hopes for Malabar had been raised since the resuscitation of the India-US-Japan-Australia “Quad” last November, but were then dashed by New Delhi.

New Delhi, it seems, remains sceptical of Australia’s commitment as a strategic partner. It was, after all, Australia that backed out of the Quad’s first incarnation in 2007. But it’s now high time that India updated its thinking about Australia.

A lot has changed since 2007. In the years since, China began a much more aggressive campaign of coercion to assert dominance in its near seas, including with island-building in the South China Sea. And, with the West reeling from the global financial crisis, it launched its Belt and Road Initiative to expand its economic and strategic influence across Asia, including through some predatory practices. With this more aggressive China, the region now faces new structural realities.

In response, Australia recalibrated its defence policies. In successive policy statements — Defence White Papers in 2009, 2013, and 2016 — Australian governments from both major parties named China as the primary strategic challenge, drawing Beijing’s ire each time. They have committed to a costly acquisitions programme — which includes submarines, fighter aircraft, and air warfare destroyers — that stretches decades into the future. They spoke out against Chinese provocations when few others did, including against China’s 2013 declaration of an Air Defence Identification Zone, and in support of the 2016 arbitration ruling in favour of the Philippines. The Australian military continues to conduct air and sea patrols of the South China Sea, which is frequently met with robust Chinese responses. And it has deepened its US alliance, with the basing of Marines in Darwin. These are not the actions of a hedging state.

In 2017, responding to Chinese aggression became a domestic issue. Revelations that Beijing had been covertly interfering in political processes was a wake-up call that elicited a sharp popular rebuke, and tough new legislation — again, despite China’s complaints. Just as the Doklam stand-off convinced many Indians that China may not be a friendly power, the political interference revelations hardened Australian popular opinion against China.

This is not to suggest that Australia will treat China as an inveterate enemy. There are still good reasons for cooperation on some issues, ranging from trade to North Korea. Indeed, India also sees merit in judicious accommodation of China — for example, with the highly publicised government directive for officials to not attend Dalai Lama-associated commemorations.

Was the denial of Australian participation in Malabar another Indian accommodation of China? The timing of the rejection — in the same week as the long-awaited Modi-Xi summit — suggests that Modi may have been signaling a pre-emptive sweetener for his China “reset”. China’s strategic policy is to prevent regional states coordinating against it — so India slow-rolling such an alignment suits Beijing’s interests perfectly. And while the Indian military routinely exercises bilaterally with the US, Japan, and Australia — suggesting that military relations with each are useful — it stopped short of joining them all in a high-profile grouping which would upset China. Even if New Delhi did not intend this as a concession to China, that may be the perception that gains traction around the region. And, of course, perceptions have real effects.

Regardless of Modi’s motivations, the denial of Australian participation in Malabar will harm the Quad. Malabar and the Quad are not the same thing, and Malabar is not a decisive litmus test for the Quad. The Quad, in these early days, is an empty platform which its members could use to build cooperation. Their military cooperation could eventually include combined training, humanitarian assistance and disaster relief, and other security operations. If the Quad is to engage in any of those military activities, then Australian participation in Malabar 2018 — even if it was billed as a non-permanent observer — would have been an easy, low-cost first step.

At a minimum, the denial is a missed opportunity to build momentum for the Quad. Worse, it may undermine the Quad’s credibility and reinforce widespread scepticism that it will ever amount to anything. New Delhi’s opposition to Australia even observing this naval exercise — a very low bar — in effect amounts to opposition to the Quad conducting any military activities, at least for now. Whether Modi intended this as a sop to China, or a snub to Australia, the effects of this denial reach further. Until India updates its views on Australia, it will further delay the efforts of like-minded powers to build a bulwark against Chinese coercion across the region.


The writer is a non-resident fellow at the National Bureau of Asian Research in Washington DC

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21542
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Austin » 11 May 2018 21:56

Good move by Modi Gov , Let Australia patrol its own continent , These guys and their navy are good for nothing folks just good enough for port visit and flag display. The Aussie government and Chinese Chicom are hand in glove.

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2534
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby kit » 12 May 2018 00:04

chetak wrote:Let the australians' figure out what the issues are that is pissing India off.

One can't run with the hare and hunt with the hound. Cast off the chinese shackles first.

Its certainly not a sop to china and that's for sure.

Sop to China or signal to Australia?



Sop to China or signal to Australia?

Delhi’s refusal to let Canberra participate in the upcoming Malabar naval exercise will hurt the Quad.

Arzan Tarapore | May 11, 2018

Delhi’s refusal to let Canberra participate in the upcoming Malabar naval exercise will hurt the Quad Australia’s hopes for Malabar had been raised since the resuscitation of the India-US-Japan-Australia “Quad” last November, but were then dashed by New Delhi.

In late April, almost lost in the hoopla surrounding the Modi-Xi summit, India decided that it would not allow Australia to participate in the upcoming Malabar naval exercise. The Malabar exercise is held annually, bringing together the navies of India, the US, and Japan. This year, as in the past, Australia had sought to participate, at least as an observer. Australia’s hopes for Malabar had been raised since the resuscitation of the India-US-Japan-Australia “Quad” last November, but were then dashed by New Delhi.

New Delhi, it seems, remains sceptical of Australia’s commitment as a strategic partner. It was, after all, Australia that backed out of the Quad’s first incarnation in 2007. But it’s now high time that India updated its thinking about Australia.

A lot has changed since 2007. In the years since, China began a much more aggressive campaign of coercion to assert dominance in its near seas, including with island-building in the South China Sea. And, with the West reeling from the global financial crisis, it launched its Belt and Road Initiative to expand its economic and strategic influence across Asia, including through some predatory practices. With this more aggressive China, the region now faces new structural realities.

In response, Australia recalibrated its defence policies. In successive policy statements — Defence White Papers in 2009, 2013, and 2016 — Australian governments from both major parties named China as the primary strategic challenge, drawing Beijing’s ire each time. They have committed to a costly acquisitions programme — which includes submarines, fighter aircraft, and air warfare destroyers — that stretches decades into the future. They spoke out against Chinese provocations when few others did, including against China’s 2013 declaration of an Air Defence Identification Zone, and in support of the 2016 arbitration ruling in favour of the Philippines. The Australian military continues to conduct air and sea patrols of the South China Sea, which is frequently met with robust Chinese responses. And it has deepened its US alliance, with the basing of Marines in Darwin. These are not the actions of a hedging state.

In 2017, responding to Chinese aggression became a domestic issue. Revelations that Beijing had been covertly interfering in political processes was a wake-up call that elicited a sharp popular rebuke, and tough new legislation — again, despite China’s complaints. Just as the Doklam stand-off convinced many Indians that China may not be a friendly power, the political interference revelations hardened Australian popular opinion against China.

This is not to suggest that Australia will treat China as an inveterate enemy. There are still good reasons for cooperation on some issues, ranging from trade to North Korea. Indeed, India also sees merit in judicious accommodation of China — for example, with the highly publicised government directive for officials to not attend Dalai Lama-associated commemorations.

Was the denial of Australian participation in Malabar another Indian accommodation of China? The timing of the rejection — in the same week as the long-awaited Modi-Xi summit — suggests that Modi may have been signaling a pre-emptive sweetener for his China “reset”. China’s strategic policy is to prevent regional states coordinating against it — so India slow-rolling such an alignment suits Beijing’s interests perfectly. And while the Indian military routinely exercises bilaterally with the US, Japan, and Australia — suggesting that military relations with each are useful — it stopped short of joining them all in a high-profile grouping which would upset China. Even if New Delhi did not intend this as a concession to China, that may be the perception that gains traction around the region. And, of course, perceptions have real effects.

Regardless of Modi’s motivations, the denial of Australian participation in Malabar will harm the Quad. Malabar and the Quad are not the same thing, and Malabar is not a decisive litmus test for the Quad. The Quad, in these early days, is an empty platform which its members could use to build cooperation. Their military cooperation could eventually include combined training, humanitarian assistance and disaster relief, and other security operations. If the Quad is to engage in any of those military activities, then Australian participation in Malabar 2018 — even if it was billed as a non-permanent observer — would have been an easy, low-cost first step.

At a minimum, the denial is a missed opportunity to build momentum for the Quad. Worse, it may undermine the Quad’s credibility and reinforce widespread scepticism that it will ever amount to anything. New Delhi’s opposition to Australia even observing this naval exercise — a very low bar — in effect amounts to opposition to the Quad conducting any military activities, at least for now. Whether Modi intended this as a sop to China, or a snub to Australia, the effects of this denial reach further. Until India updates its views on Australia, it will further delay the efforts of like-minded powers to build a bulwark against Chinese coercion across the region.


The writer is a non-resident fellow at the National Bureau of Asian Research in Washington DC


That's the reason given ., but actual reason is much deeper .. Australia has been directly involved in activities that are NOT in Indian interests and continues to do so .. intelligence surveillance covert ops all come to mind

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16969
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby chetak » 12 May 2018 00:53

kit wrote:
chetak wrote:Let the australians' figure out what the issues are that is pissing India off.

One can't run with the hare and hunt with the hound. Cast off the chinese shackles first.

Its certainly not a sop to china and that's for sure.

Sop to China or signal to Australia?




That's the reason given ., but actual reason is much deeper .. Australia has been directly involved in activities that are NOT in Indian interests and continues to do so .. intelligence surveillance covert ops all come to mind


This has actually been going on for decades.

Now plain jealousy is a pretty big component of their mandate towards India.

The convicts simply cannot wrap their heads around a rising India but they can abjectly kowtow to a china.

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2419
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby tsarkar » 12 May 2018 02:07

Firepower onboard INS Sumedha. Oto 76/62 forward. Two NSV machine guns on the bridge with gun shield of one more.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dc198RbUQAAxlgK.jpg

In the rear AK-630 and gun shield of one more NSV
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dc19-o6VAAAzklq.jpg

An MMG in the rear gun shield
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Db2KGV5WAAElrnw.jpg

A whopping total of 8 HMG/MMG, two AK-630, one OTO 76/62 along with other systems like Carl Gustaf & LMGs will enable it take out a whole Somali pirate harbour. INS Sumedha is presently on joint patrol off Maldives. Can single handedly establish law and order in the archipelago if required.

In the meantime, INS Sahyadri, INS Kamorta and INS Shakti are patrolling Straits of Malacca in the event the PLAN try to interfere at Maldives.

This is how Naval Diplomacy works.

INS Sahyadri firing supersonic Klub S missile with a range of 220 km
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Db2XtGYW0AA9Mu8.jpg

NSV manufactured for T-72 and T-90 tanks but adapted for naval use. Similarly 2A42 for BMP-2 is also adapted for naval use.

The many ways of controlling weapons.

On Type 17 - Barak 1, OTO 76/62 and AK-630 are controlled using Elta 2221 STGR
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Db2XnfXWsAATrBt.jpg

On Type 28 - OTO 76/62 and AK-630 are controlled using BEL Shikari / Contraves Oerlikon TMX
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dcg3hbeXcAAqket.jpg

On Deepak class AK-630 are controlled using BEL/Elbit Compass EO
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dcg3gCTXkAAEUrb.jpg

The same systems can be used for land based AA, viz, AK-630, 2A42, L70, ZSU-23-4 & ZU-23-2 guns coupled with Flycatcher/Atulya and/or Compass EO with no need of imports.

Compass EO is the same CCD Day Camera, FLIR, LRF and LD as Litening Pods on Su-30, Tejas, Mirage 2000 & Jaguar. Compass is used on IN Ships, Rudra, LCH and new NAMICA (two sights). The two sights on NAMICA can be replicated on Arjun.

srin
BRFite
Posts: 1545
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:13

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby srin » 12 May 2018 11:15

Cain Marko wrote:
Cybaru wrote:

By the time you sign the dotted line, qualify a new engine, radar, go from IOC to FOC another 10-12 years would have gone by. Do you still think it will be worth it if that is the timeline?


Well, the gripen ng is not so far from this state, probly worse. At least the fulcrum has a naval variant. Yes, the Rafale would be ideal for both iaf and Navy needs, but can you imagine the cost for 190 odd birds. Babus will probably faint with shock

What remains is the shornet, which is not a bad idea but it too so need upgraded engines to meet IAF and stobar needs.

The upside to getting a fulcrum line is that the roosies are in a tight spot. Negotiate and get the full setup with enough ipr to modify the bird as and how. I'll bet it will still be loads cheaper than the shornet, let alone Rafale.

I'm not even counting the phoon in this race, absolutely insane price and little future here.

Point is that it would be wise to combine iaf and Navy needs into a single deal. Would certainly give more negotiation power and better prices.


That's probably the best idea that I've read in a while on how we can overcome our fighter shortage.

Worry is again the spares situation - we should make the fulcrum ours, so spares can be made here, the engines, radar and IRST is made here, etc.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16969
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby chetak » 12 May 2018 11:29

srin wrote:
Cain Marko wrote:
Well, the gripen ng is not so far from this state, probly worse. At least the fulcrum has a naval variant. Yes, the Rafale would be ideal for both iaf and Navy needs, but can you imagine the cost for 190 odd birds. Babus will probably faint with shock

What remains is the shornet, which is not a bad idea but it too so need upgraded engines to meet IAF and stobar needs.

The upside to getting a fulcrum line is that the roosies are in a tight spot. Negotiate and get the full setup with enough ipr to modify the bird as and how. I'll bet it will still be loads cheaper than the shornet, let alone Rafale.

I'm not even counting the phoon in this race, absolutely insane price and little future here.

Point is that it would be wise to combine iaf and Navy needs into a single deal. Would certainly give more negotiation power and better prices.


That's probably the best idea that I've read in a while on how we can overcome our fighter shortage.

Worry is again the spares situation - we should make the fulcrum ours, so spares can be made here, the engines, radar and IRST is made here, etc.


The IAF and the IN MiG 29s share mostly a common name and probably very little else.

Even their engines do not share very much in common, if at all.

The needs are quite different and hence the designs also evolve accordingly.

just saying onlee.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19316
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Philip » 12 May 2018 11:35

The offer was made recently for establishing a MIG-35 line here. Acquiring a few more 29/35 sqds would be the most cost-effective way with secure support facilities locally.Cheaper than a full TOT deal.40 aircraft should be available for not more than $1.5B going by the Egyptian deal prices.Contrast that with anywhere between $7-8B for another 36 Rafales!

PS: Just ckd.The Egyptian deal was for 50 MIG-35s for just $2B.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3103
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Cain Marko » 12 May 2018 12:24

chetak wrote:
srin wrote:
That's probably the best idea that I've read in a while on how we can overcome our fighter shortage.

Worry is again the spares situation - we should make the fulcrum ours, so spares can be made here, the engines, radar and IRST is made here, etc.


The IAF and the IN MiG 29s share mostly a common name and probably very little else.

Even their engines do not share very much in common, if at all.

The needs are quite different and hence the designs also evolve accordingly.

just saying onlee.

Yes and no Saar. Iaf fulcrum upgrade is different from Navy fulcrums in that it is an older airframe (less composites, internal fuel capacity, wing area etc.) and has less powerful engines.

But there is lots of commonality in sensors weapon systems and I'm sure in some airframe components as well.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19316
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Philip » 12 May 2018 13:50

Cross ckd . a couple of Defence News reports.21 old 29s offered around $25M, as well as 35 prod., but no mention of a naval 35 variant.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16969
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby chetak » 12 May 2018 14:49

Cain Marko wrote:
chetak wrote:
The IAF and the IN MiG 29s share mostly a common name and probably very little else.

Even their engines do not share very much in common, if at all.

The needs are quite different and hence the designs also evolve accordingly.

just saying onlee.

Yes and no Saar. Iaf fulcrum upgrade is different from Navy fulcrums in that it is an older airframe (less composites, internal fuel capacity, wing area etc.) and has less powerful engines.

But there is lots of commonality in sensors weapon systems and I'm sure in some airframe components as well.


One is a carrier qualified, navalised, fly by wire aircraft with a modular engine and the other is not, whatever else it may well be.

To clear the interchange and fitment of parts between the two MiGs, mandatorily requires big hairy brown testimonials, this alas, is a commodity that is in very short supply with our certifying agencies.

per wiki.

The rest, depending on your inclination, interest and leisure you may like to explore on your own.

A navalised aircraft typically differs from its land-based equivalent by:

The airframe, engine and avionics are marinised against salt water corrosion.
It is designed to be used on a flight deck. For a fixed wing aircraft this typically means catapult attachment points, a tailhook and strengthened undercarriage. Naval helicopters usually have wheels rather than skids and may have mechanisms to attach to the deck.
It is designed to occupy minimum hangar space – for example the wings, tail-boom or rotors may fold.
There is enhanced protection against water ingress (including that from hosing down with fresh water to get rid of salt water).
Equipment such as sensors and weapons are optimised for naval roles.
The avionics is compatible with the complex electronic equipment of a warship, and that there is no electromagnetic interference between the two.
There is provision for ditching at sea.
Helicopters may have provision for receiving fuel through the cabin while hovering adjacent to a ship.
For safety reasons, the aviation fuel provided by ships may be different (e.g. AVCAT) from that provided by airfields and tanker aircraft.[1]
Last edited by chetak on 12 May 2018 14:57, edited 1 time in total.


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests