Indian Navy News & Discussion - 03 July 2018

The Military Issues & History Forum is a venue to discuss issues relating to the military aspects of the Indian Armed Forces, whether the past, present or future. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
sankum
BRFite
Posts: 850
Joined: 20 Dec 2004 21:45

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 03 July 2018

Postby sankum » 30 Jul 2020 10:07

If IN wants 36 F18 with options of 21 more for IAC 2 costing another $6b.
IN better buy 36 F35B to operate from planned 4 LHD which can be modefied to carry 12 F35B each. You will have the risk distributed over 3 ships which will be always available with 1 in dock undergoing maintainance.
The cost of 36 fightes alone will be $8b.

gpurewal
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 64
Joined: 20 Oct 2018 03:23

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 03 July 2018

Postby gpurewal » 30 Jul 2020 10:33

Karan M wrote:An aircraft carrier goes wherever it wants. The AC can be parked outside the A&N to lend its airpower or accompany an Indian flotilla towards the straits of Malacca. It is a potent tool. As to "hating the Ocean, rather be in the air", look up the battle of Midway or even Pearl Harbour. Both have salutary details around what happens to Navies which ignore the air.


You being up excellent points, as the Aircraft Carrier and its airwings brought a paradigm shift to naval warfare.

I believe long range AShM has to be considered as a potent threat as well now; especially against carriers. The question is, can a Carrier Strike Force handle an onslaught of missiles hurtling towards it?

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8860
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 03 July 2018

Postby brar_w » 30 Jul 2020 10:42

gpurewal wrote:can a Carrier Strike Force handle an onslaught of missiles hurtling towards it?


A carrier strike group is a moving target. It can move under the cover of deception, cyber, and while space is being contested. Heck, it can, with proper equipment challenge those domains itself. They could be one place today, and a completely different place tomorrow. In theory, when everything is working as planned, you can mount a credible onslaught of missiles at a floating target, possibly hundreds or thousands of km away. But in time of war this is easier said then done when everything is being contested and when the carrier itself has the ability to add hundreds of additional miles between it and those targeting it.

Runways, bunkers, fuel garrisons, hangars, and military personal shelters all have warheads with their names written on them. They are static targets that generally can't move all at once without significantly impacting sortie generation rate and sustained ops. Yet they are still used. In comparison, an AC, if properly equipped and effectively employed will be more survivable for the type of missions it is likely to be needed for in the first place (think of missions where air-power is beneficial and then add vast distances over ocean to the mix). Need to project power, escort surface combatants, preform sea control at range, and support other missions - The AC is really good at these and can dial up and dial down its qualitative capability to suite an evolving national security posture. It is the flexibility, and the ability to throw significant dilemmas your enemy's way, that you get with an AC.

There is a pretty good reason that China, with the DF-series "Carrier Killers" and a few hypersonic programs to boot, is still gunning towards a force of at least half a dozen aircraft carriers.

Same as to why Japan, South Korea, Italy, UK, Spain - all with flat or declining defense budgets want to maintain that capability. The AC has its place in naval warfare. As threats evolve, so does its air-wing.

gpurewal
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 64
Joined: 20 Oct 2018 03:23

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 03 July 2018

Postby gpurewal » 30 Jul 2020 10:55

Thanks you for the detailed explanation and I understand and agree with your points. They are valid, and I completely agree with the projection and capabilities that carriers bring to the fight.

When I wrote my question, I was thinking in a hypothetical sense of two opposing fleets meeting in the ocean (hundred of km apart of course). One of the fleets is a CBG, while the other fleet consists of FFGs and DDGs.

This scenario has not occurred before to my knowledge, so it was a hypothetical shot in the dark.

nishant.gupta
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 42
Joined: 01 Mar 2019 15:04

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 03 July 2018

Postby nishant.gupta » 30 Jul 2020 11:01

A study by Citi group few years back said that India with around $86 Trillion GDP will be the no.1 economy in 2050. https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/op ... 699821.cms)

Lets say this is an old study and lots of water has flown across all the rivers of the world since then. Lets also assume that we may not be that clear no.1 and might even be no.2.

If a two carrier navy in the next 30 years is all that we aspire to be (assuming the Vik is planning to call it a day), that goes a long way to show what we as a nation aspire to be in 2050.

If we continue to see ourselves as a nation which needs to protect only our immediate neighborhood even in 2050, we cannot really deserve to be called a no.1 economy at that time. China would possibly have a navy as large as the current USN + USMC by then if they continue to build the way they are.

gpurewal
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 64
Joined: 20 Oct 2018 03:23

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 03 July 2018

Postby gpurewal » 30 Jul 2020 11:15

nishant.gupta wrote:A study by Citi group few years back said that India with around $86 Trillion GDP will be the no.1 economy in 2050. https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/op ... 699821.cms)


If both China and India keep the %GDP expenditure the same towards the armed forces, then India will have a $1 Trillion USD lead over China. Those are some huge numbers.

I got the %GDP numbers from Wikipedia, where it stated that PRC allocates 1.3% and India allocates 2.4% in 2019.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8860
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 03 July 2018

Postby brar_w » 30 Jul 2020 11:32

gpurewal wrote:When I wrote my question, I was thinking in a hypothetical sense of two opposing fleets meeting in the ocean (hundred of km apart of course). One of the fleets is a CBG, while the other fleet consists of FFGs and DDGs.


The mismatch in the magazine capacity of those two opposing forces is going to be very significant. At the top end, an AC that is nuclear powered and doesn't extensively use steam has a magazine capacity approaching 400,000 cubic feet. At the smaller end (40-50 k ton class conventional) you are still looking at a magazine in the 20,000 cubic feet class. Within that range (20K to 400K) you can store a lot of firepower.

m_saini
BRFite
Posts: 200
Joined: 23 May 2020 20:25

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 03 July 2018

Postby m_saini » 30 Jul 2020 11:40

Isn't it widely accepted that China often lies in their white papers and what they actually spend is often more than what they disclose? Besides I wouldn't plan the AC construction based on a prediction about world GDP. Japanese were supposed to be the next superpower until the Plaza Accord happened.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20797
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 03 July 2018

Postby Philip » 30 Jul 2020 14:14

A 3rd. carrier comes with excess baggage.2 to 4 escorts,a fleet tanker plus at least one sub in tow, add the costs.The bare minimum $15B with out the aircraft and helos.40+,another $2B. For $17B at western prices we would get 30+AIP subs! Or around 3-4 nuclear subs and another 15+ AIP subs,surely a far better package than just one CBG with just 40 aircraft and helos. Using " unsinkable" India and the ANC islands,we could base LR strike aircraft like MKIs with BMos, future BMos-H and tankers for refuelling,which could do much of the biz in the IOR.If maritime strike supersonic bombers like Backfires are added to the inventory, the IN would be v.hard to defeat by any naval power.

I've said before,the 4 amphibs of around 30Kt planned should be rationalised to 3 of larger tonnage with a regular flight deck to operate twin-engined STOBAR aircraft.The 3rd. carrier ambitions already downplayed by the CDS must hold. First the subs,then supersonic LRMP strike aircraft,MCMs, more surface warships plus multirole corvettes of around 2000t, the 3/4 redesigned multirole amphibs as flat tops, and only after that a 3rd. CV. 2 med. CVs plus another 3/4 light/med. amphib carriers along with the aforementioned LRMP strike aircraft would be the way to go.

nishant.gupta
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 42
Joined: 01 Mar 2019 15:04

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 03 July 2018

Postby nishant.gupta » 30 Jul 2020 15:53

gpurewal wrote:
If both China and India keep the %GDP expenditure the same towards the armed forces, then India will have a $1 Trillion USD lead over China. Those are some huge numbers.

I got the %GDP numbers from Wikipedia, where it stated that PRC allocates 1.3% and India allocates 2.4% in 2019.


I would take any numbers published on PRC with a pinch of salt. You don't create a fleet of AC's along with all the other ships AND invest in all the "5th gen" aircraft, army gear etc while maintaining a huge force with 1.3% GDP even if your economy is a zillion dollars. And these are just the things visible.

nishant.gupta
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 42
Joined: 01 Mar 2019 15:04

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 03 July 2018

Postby nishant.gupta » 30 Jul 2020 15:55

My main issue with this entire discussion as well as the mindset of both the IN and MoD is the fact that we are considering ourselves to still be a regional power in 2050 when the entire world is discussing India as one of the largest economies if not the largest.

Even a white paper seems to be missing and all the discussion is around having a 3rd AC (something from way back in 1990's) against having more subs against the "unsinkable" A&N (which obviously cannot move unlike an AC and be deployed elsewhere either).

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4708
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 03 July 2018

Postby chola » 30 Jul 2020 16:09

nishant.gupta wrote:A study by Citi group few years back said that India with around $86 Trillion GDP will be the no.1 economy in 2050. https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/op ... 699821.cms)


Even if we hit a fourth of that projection in 15 years (30 years for 86B, 15 years for 43B; divide by 2 to be conservative for 21.5B) we should be able to afford multiple CSGs. The US has a $21B economy today and has 11 CVNs with 100K ton each.

We cannot afford a 65K ton carrier? Again with the lead time, you cannot base affordability only on your economy today. In 15 years, the price for Vishal will seem cheap.

Hell at one point we were seriously looking at over $25B for a 116 phoren fighters during MMRCA. Even the 36 Rafales we are getting now is close to the price of this carrier at $9.6B.

nishant.gupta wrote:My main issue with this entire discussion as well as the mindset of both the IN and MoD is the fact that we are considering ourselves to still be a regional power in 2050 when the entire world is discussing India as one of the largest economies if not the largest.


Regional? Without a CATOBAR and with VikA retiring, we'd be left with only the 40k ton Vikrant. In the IOR, we'll trail the US, UK and France too never mind Cheen. Each one of those will have bigger/nuke carriers criss-crossing the Indian Ocean on their way to and fro from the SCS and Western Pacific. We'll be seen as just another local "native" navy even in our region compared to the global powers f-ing around in our seas.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8860
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 03 July 2018

Postby brar_w » 30 Jul 2020 18:45

Philip wrote:A 3rd. carrier comes with excess baggage.2 to 4 escorts,a fleet tanker plus at least one sub in tow, add the costs.The bare minimum $15B with out the aircraft and helos.40+,another $2B. For $17B at western prices we would get 30+AIP subs! Or around 3-4 nuclear subs and another 15+ AIP subs,surely a far better package than just one CBG with just 40 aircraft and helos.


If it were just unit level economics then all the major navies in the world would be submarine dominant forces or have way more submarines then they currently have. Or at least have no Aircraft Carriers and use that money to just buy submarines by the boat ( pun intended) load. Yet, in the real world actual missions, roles and responsibilities, strategic needs, wartime and peacetime posture and conventional capability all play in the mix and a balanced force structure developed across the surface, and submarine force.

Using " unsinkable" India and the ANC islands


This "unsinkable" argument is quite absurd. There is the unsinkable world yet countries, the world over have navies, ships, submarines, Aircraft Carriers and the whole lot. No one needs to sink a country to take out its capability to project airpower hundreds if not thousands of km over water. You need to target major air-bases and other support facilities which are, for the most part, static targets that cannot move and that cannot be very easily hidden. Sure you can disperse during wartime and use roads as runways. But that comes with an impact on your ability to project power at scale far and wide (SGR and sustained ops). An AC is still a versatile tool when it comes to doing that. It will be always more efficient at delivering that type of air power because it can move closer to where it is needed. It is also more survivable because it can move and utilize that to its advantage in comparison to a fixed air base and military infrastructure that cannot do so because of the physical difficulty in shifting air operations at scale to remote and dispersed ops, and because the maritime mission puts constraint on how close to the intended area of operation you must be to physically be able to project power in a timely fashion.

I wonder why, given the size of the Chinese land mass, and the island building that is going on, the PLAN have embarked on a path to field the carrier force that it is on track of fielding. Maybe they are too dumb to realize that they are one of the largest countries in the world and are also building artificial islands from which to project fire-power from.

Or perhaps they realize that those artificial "disputed" man made islands and their fortified structures probably have JASSM-ER's with their names written on them and that they alone won't suffice across the mission sets that the need air power for.

The IN has decades of experience of utilizing an AC and being able to project airpower using it. It is going to have an excellent idea of what the flexibility the ability to bring air power into the equation across the naval missions entails and provides as far as a tactical advantage. There is financial arguments that can be made to justify a particular track of investment over the other. But that is a financial and not a tactical or strategic argument. Fact still remains, that nations around the world, from large superpowers to smaller nations with flat or shrinking budgets, realize the value of adding air power projection to naval forces via an Aircraft Carrier. New AC nations are coming online and the list is probably going to grow in the coming decades (add Japan and SoKo to the mix..perhaps Australia and Singapore at a later date as well). It is because these nations, and their navies realize how an AC can contribute to their strategic needs. It is most certainly not because they haven't been told that they have "unsinkable land masses", whatever that means.
Last edited by brar_w on 30 Jul 2020 20:02, edited 3 times in total.

nishant.gupta
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 42
Joined: 01 Mar 2019 15:04

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 03 July 2018

Postby nishant.gupta » 30 Jul 2020 18:54

chola wrote:Even if we hit a fourth of that projection in 15 years (30 years for 86B, 15 years for 43B; divide by 2 to be conservative for 21.5B) we should be able to afford multiple CSGs. The US has a $21B economy today and has 11 CVNs with 100K ton each.

We cannot afford a 65K ton carrier? Again with the lead time, you cannot base affordability only on your economy today. In 15 years, the price for Vishal will seem cheap.

Hell at one point we were seriously looking at over $25B for a 116 phoren fighters during MMRCA. Even the 36 Rafales we are getting now is close to the price of this carrier at $9.6B.

nishant.gupta wrote:My main issue with this entire discussion as well as the mindset of both the IN and MoD is the fact that we are considering ourselves to still be a regional power in 2050 when the entire world is discussing India as one of the largest economies if not the largest.


Regional? Without a CATOBAR and with VikA retiring, we'd be left with only the 40k ton Vikrant. In the IOR, we'll trail the US, UK and France too never mind Cheen. Each one of those will have bigger/nuke carriers criss-crossing the Indian Ocean on their way to and fro from the SCS and Western Pacific. We'll be seen as just another local "native" navy even in our region compared to the global powers f-ing around in our seas.


That is hitting the nail on its head sir. Leave alone BRF, I don't see any proposals even from the Indian Navy which discuss such cases. The way things are going, we will end up being the "No.1 Economy" in the world with stun guns and blunt knives to defend against spaceships and laser guns.

darshan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2238
Joined: 28 Jan 2008 04:16

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 03 July 2018

Postby darshan » 31 Jul 2020 00:21

CBI books 4 Navy officers for generating fake bills to defraud Western Naval Command
http://www.wionews.com/india-news/cbi-b ... and-316901
The CBI has booked four Navy officers and 14 others for allegedly generating fake bills of Rs 6.76 crore for supplying IT hardware to the Western Naval Command, officials said.

Captain Atul Kulkarni, Commanders Mandar Godbole and R P Sharma, and Petty Officer LOG (F&A) Kuldeep Singh Baghel allegedly prepared seven fraudulent bills of Rs 6.76 crore, they said Wednesday.

"All these accused naval officers abused their official position to defraud the naval authorities and rob the exchequer of public money which led to pecuniary gain to themselves," according to the CBI FIR.

The probe agency has also carried out searches in this connection, sources said.

The bills were allegedly raised between January and March in 2016 at the Western Naval Command in Mumbai for supplying information technology and networking related hardware.

"None of the items mentioned in the bills were supplied to HQ, WNC (Western Naval Command). No documents pertaining to preparation of the bills i.E. Approvals, financial sanction, purchase orders, receipt vouchers, etc. Are available at HQ," the CBI FIR said.

The agency has also booked four officials of the Controller of Defence Accounts, besides private companies Star Network, ACME Networks, Cyberspace Infovision and Moksh Infosys.

mody
BRFite
Posts: 705
Joined: 18 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Mumbai, India

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 03 July 2018

Postby mody » 31 Jul 2020 15:41

A CATOBAR carrier either with steam catapults or EMALS, will need nuclear propulsion, to really be effective. Older US carriers, did have steam catapults with conventional propulsion, but a carrier being built in today's age simply should not go that route.
Sanctioning another carrier now, makes sense, if the construction will be 10-12 years at the very least. Even a follow on to the Vikrant, maybe slightly larger design, will take about 10 years to enter service.
If the navy decides to go for CATOBAR and Nuclear propulsion, it will probably take anywhere from 15-20 years.
I think a STOBAR carrier as a follow on to the Vikrant, maybe slightly larger at 45-50K tons, should be approved, so that it can enter service by around 2030-2032. TEDBF program would also probably be ready by then, so that the Mig-29Ks can progressively be replaced and the new carrier would get TEDBF from day 1.
For the current situation, if the issues with the Mig-29K have been sorted out, we should just look to buy out the Russian Mig-29Ks from the Kuzetsnov's airwing. We can buy 16-20 aircrafts, which will give us enough aircrafts for 2 carrier operation.

srin
BRFite
Posts: 1985
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:13

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 03 July 2018

Postby srin » 31 Jul 2020 19:15

The ongoing INS Vishal saga is typical of what's wrong with our procurement system. And none of the actors - politicians, babus, armed forces, shipyards - come out smelling good.

The politicians promise the moon and say "budget is not a constraint" till the time they need to sign the cheque. And when the ruling party politicians grow a spine, the opposition smells corruption in every large deal.

The babus don't want to take a risk. If you remember one of the babus in MoD had adverse comment on the Rafale deal - he just covered his behind. It is accountable to raise questions and delay and block a critical procurement whereas they are not accountable for not letting it through. Ironic and absurd since the Defense Secretary is supposedly responsible for the defense of the country !

Armed forces ... I always thought Navy had sensible thinking, nurturing indigenous designs when the budgets were quite low. So it is inexplicable for the IN to want to go for CATOBAR, nuclear powered carrier. Not sure who set them to fail. While IN has a tendency to go for small number of vessels in each class, to restrict Vikrant class to just one and then to throw away the design in pursuit of something "better" that doesn't exist now is completely nuts.

Shipyards ... despite many shipyards being led by ex-Navy personnel, the PSU shipyards seem to be extremely lethargic to delivery timelines. The delays in INS Vikrant is criminal.

I'm now convinced that budgets are not a problem. Our problem is indecisiveness, indifference, brochuritis and feature greed, grass-greener-on-other-side-itis, perfect-instead-of-good-enough-itis and most important, need-finished-products-here-and-now'itis. Actually, higher budgets are a problem. When our economy was tanking in April/May, we started talking about blacklisting imports and so on. But when the budget tap was opened in post-Galwan, we did FTP and imported a whole bunch of products.

srin
BRFite
Posts: 1985
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:13

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 03 July 2018

Postby srin » 31 Jul 2020 19:26

Philip wrote:A 3rd. carrier comes with excess baggage.2 to 4 escorts,a fleet tanker plus at least one sub in tow, add the costs.The bare minimum $15B with out the aircraft and helos.40+,another $2B. For $17B at western prices we would get 30+AIP subs! Or around 3-4 nuclear subs and another 15+ AIP subs,surely a far better package than just one CBG with just 40 aircraft and helos.

Carriers undergo long refits. The need for a 3rd carrier arises in case the balloon goes up when the carrier is in the dock and undergoing refit. During Kargil, INS Viraat was in refit and out of action. With a 3rd carrier, you can still have one for each fleet.

Second, let us say that the carrier is available. Is there any rule which mandates that each CBG must have only a single carrier ?

That does leave out the issue of aircraft - by the time we will get a 3rd carrier, I'd like to think that TEDBF would have reached IOC atleast.

I'm not arguing against subs. I think we need to get more subs and also fear that our P75I is a MMRCA redux (meaning going nowhere). We need subs *now*. But we will also need another carrier by end of the decade.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9322
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 03 July 2018

Postby Rakesh » 31 Jul 2020 20:39

Srin, amazing posts. Both of them. Wish I could pin them.

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4708
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 03 July 2018

Postby chola » 02 Aug 2020 01:46

No IN ships affected but a crane collapsed at HSL. RIP to 11 souls including three from the IN.

https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/hyderabad/hindustan-shipyard-crane-collapse-live-updates-visakhapatnam-dead-injured-6534175/lite/


kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3970
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 03 July 2018

Postby kit » 02 Aug 2020 02:23

China made?

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4708
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 03 July 2018

Postby chola » 02 Aug 2020 04:38

kit wrote:China made?


Lol. My first thought. But unfortunately it was sold to HSL by Anupam Cranes of Mumbai. Maybe they imported it or parts of it.

Admin note: "Lol" for a report about deaths of 11 Indians due to a mishap in a naval dock is not ok for this forum. Off you go for a month
Last edited by hnair on 02 Aug 2020 11:46, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Poster banned for a month for being flippant about 11 deaths

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3970
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 03 July 2018

Postby kit » 02 Aug 2020 14:31

<POOF>

Admin Note - Dont derail thread with comments on admin actions again or action will be taken. Post such comments on Forum feedback thread, if you want to

VKumar
BRFite
Posts: 593
Joined: 15 Sep 1999 11:31
Location: Mumbai,India

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 03 July 2018

Postby VKumar » 02 Aug 2020 16:12

3 AC to field 2. 5 AC to dominate IOR. 7 AC to field 5.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9322
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 03 July 2018

Postby Rakesh » 04 Aug 2020 00:12

Russia should get involved in Indo-Pacific to safeguard its own interest, says Indian Envoy
https://stratnewsglobal.com/russia-shou ... ian-envoy/
18 July 2020

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9322
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 03 July 2018

Postby Rakesh » 04 Aug 2020 00:15

Why Indian Navalist Hopes of Using the 'Quad' to Pressure China in Ladakh Are Misplaced
https://thewire.in/diplomacy/why-indian ... -misplaced
28 July 2020

Sonugn
BRFite
Posts: 330
Joined: 13 Jul 2005 12:03
Location: DeceptyKon Workshop

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 03 July 2018

Postby Sonugn » 11 Aug 2020 16:49

https://defpost.com/indias-first-missile-tracking-ship-called-ocean-surveillance-ship-oss-commences-sea-trials/

Article dates March 21st, 2019.

India’s first missile tracking ship, called the Ocean Surveillance Ship (OSS), has commenced her sea trials, The Hindu reported.

The ship has successfully undergone its harbour trials before commencing the sea trials. The sea trials are conducted by a joint team of the Indian Navy and the National Technical Research Organisation (NTRO), India’s technical intelligence agency. During the sea trials, the ship’s specialised surveillance systems – three dome shaped antennas packed with sensors – will be extensively tested.

The construction of the vessel was monitored directly by the Indian Prime Minister’s Office (PMO)

The ship is reportedly fitted with a primary X band and a secondary S band active electronically scanned array (AESA) radars. It also has a long open deck for installing multiple missile tracking antennas. The ship is expected to be part of India’s Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) program, an elaborate missile shield being developed to deter enemy missile attacks.

OSS will also carry acoustic equipment, underwater listening devices and other extensive suites of navigation, communications, command and control (C3) equipment. But due to the high secrecy being maintained on the details of the vessel, the exact capabilities and systems on board is not known.

Once commissioned, the ship will be jointly operated by the Indian Navy and the NTRO. Only four other countries — the US, Russia, China and France — operate similar vessels.


Any further news on this?

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9322
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 03 July 2018

Postby Rakesh » 11 Aug 2020 18:46

https://twitter.com/livefist/status/129 ... 68098?s=20 ---> JUST IN: Indian MoD approves procurement of upgraded Super Rapid Gun Mount (SRGM) from @BHEL_India. The MoD says the upgraded SRGM sports enhanced capability to perform against fast manoeuvering targets with a higher maximum engagement range.

John
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2409
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 03 July 2018

Postby John » 12 Aug 2020 10:35

Rakesh wrote:https://twitter.com/livefist/status/1293165571480068098?s=20 ---> JUST IN: Indian MoD approves procurement of upgraded Super Rapid Gun Mount (SRGM) from @BHEL_India. The MoD says the upgraded SRGM sports enhanced capability to perform against fast manoeuvering targets with a higher maximum engagement range.

Sounds like they are being fitted with Strales system which will allow it to fire DART ammunition


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ArjunPandit, ashthor, ernest, gauravsharma, isubodh, Rsatchi and 60 guests