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.
Vips
BRFite
Posts: 1720
Joined: 14 Apr 2017 18:23

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 03 July 2018

Postby Vips » 13 Jan 2019 07:08

2 high-speed interceptor boats inducted into Navy.

The Indian Navy on Friday inducted two Fast Interceptor Craft (FIC) into its fleet at Nagapattinam in an effort to beef up coastal security. The high-speed vessels, capable of operating in shallow waters, were acquired for Sagar Prahari Bal, a unit of the Navy created post-26/11 Mumbai terror attacks as part of the coastal security construct, said a defence press release here.

Over the years, the boats, which have established their efficacy in coastal security and force protection measures, the release said. Also, the boats can carry a variety of armament from heavy machine guns to grenade launchers with the upper deck canopies bullet-proof, it said. The vessels were inducted in the presence of naval detachment Nagapattinam officer-in-charge Lieutenant Commodore Harihar and naval officer-in-charge to flag officer commanding (Tamil Nadu and Puducherry) Commodore Vidyanshu Srivastava it added.

souravB
BRFite
Posts: 492
Joined: 07 Jun 2018 13:52

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 03 July 2018

Postby souravB » 14 Jan 2019 09:26

Gurus here, please pardon this mango momeen for asking and also kindly enough please educate me is why in our Naval aircraft competition we are not considering F-35Bs?
Here are the pros I can think of
  1. No modification required to make it take off and land in Vikki and Vikrant with full load
  2. We can also use them on the 4 on-procurement LHDs to effectively have 6 mini A/Cs by 2025. Huge boost to power projection capability.
  3. Get a view into 5th gen birds and use some of it's teachings and operational practices into AMCA.
  4. Huge boost to Navy's actual ISR, ELINT and EW capabilities from carriers which IN is lacking to be serious.
  5. Obsolation proof
the cons I can think of
  1. Lift has to be modified. But then it has to be modified for all the aircrafts at Vikki and Vikrant.
  2. Costly. With modifications rest of the aircrafts will also be same or higher.
  3. Less take-off load. Difference is less when considering the STOBAR restrictions.
  4. Might be late in delivery. No idea how soon will LM deliver considering there is a queue already.
After N-LCA comes into picture we can use the 35s as ELINT and EW aircrafts to guide and escort our LCAs. Also SEAD/DEAD missions. For the 3rd carrier, after 2030 we can field N-AMCA and LCA combo or F-35Cs.
The way I see it, IN can have a comfortable lead in IOR and arabian sea for atleast 20 years. Why nobody's thinking along this line?

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7483
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 03 July 2018

Postby brar_w » 14 Jan 2019 09:42

F-35B won't fit on the lifts and won't trap and I don't think the IN wants to convert the existing carriers to purely STOVL systems. F-35B's also has the worst payload and performance of the three variants and is only useful if you need them for LHA or STOVL carriers or for the role on land as the USMC used its AV-8s. The IN is looking to field a catapult system on its next carrier so that too rules the F-35B out.

souravB
BRFite
Posts: 492
Joined: 07 Jun 2018 13:52

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 03 July 2018

Postby souravB » 14 Jan 2019 10:24

brar_w wrote:F-35B won't fit on the lifts and won't trap and I don't think the IN wants to convert the existing carriers to purely STOVL systems. F-35B's also has the worst payload and performance of the three variants and is only useful if you need them for LHA or STOVL carriers or for the role on land as the USMC used its AV-8s. The IN is looking to field a catapult system on its next carrier so that too rules the F-35B out.

Brar ji, Yes but IN has a history of flying Harriers from it's A/C. Operating STOVL system wouldn't be a new concept for IN. RN uses F-35Bs on their STOBAR carrier QE. plus N-LCA will get some breathing space and can complement the fleet when it is ready.
F-35Bs have the worst payload out of three but It'll be miles better than what we are operating now and presumably mildly less capable or equal to F/A-18 or Rafale-M in STOBAR operations. Also no other aircraft other than LCA and MIG fit the lifts, so whatever we buy we may have to increase lift size or do something convoluted that will substantially increase unit cost and delivery time.
IAC-2 will have EMALS and it can use any aircraft it wants, but IN wants the MRCBF to replace MIGs.
I understand no good option exists. And just wanted views on whether the pro's trump or cons. and also have I missed anything.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19885
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 03 July 2018

Postby Philip » 14 Jan 2019 17:28

Reading between the lines oc the interview with the chief, when asked about the two existing CVs he includes the LCA along with the 29K.The extra 57 appear to be f or IAC-2, but it is premature as the GOI is still inconvinced about the same given the huge cost and time to build a 65K t CV .Therefore it is likely that should the NLCA arrive within a reasonable timeframe, it may be acquired to complement the VikA.

It seems that BRF is ahead of the curve yet again.For a v.long time we've been postulating that our proposed amphibs should also be equipped with naval strike aircraft, in the role of a light carrier when required.The Japanese are doing just that by acquiring F-35Bs for their 20K t amphibs in view of the massive Chin naval expansion.Now even US analysts want the same for their new LHAs, so that the principal assets of the fleet is not concentrated in a few capital ships which will be the principal targets of the opening salvoes with the enemy.The advent of stealthy UCAVs in the future is slso envisaged.Ru reports indicate that a future 6th- gen Ru bird will in all probability be unmanned.Our 3-4 30K t+ amphibs would fit the swing role perfectly.using the same ( modified) template of the IAC, the vessels could play the swing role with elan.

souravB
BRFite
Posts: 492
Joined: 07 Jun 2018 13:52

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 03 July 2018

Postby souravB » 14 Jan 2019 17:41

I am not sure if buying a 4th gen jet in 2030 would be such a good idea. F/A-18 line is going to stop in a few years and Rafale-M would too if no new order comes in soon.
and the front runner in LHD comp Juan Carlos from Navantia in its original design is equipped to carry Harriers. 12 of them in force projection role along with 12 ASW helis. So it is already ready for F35 on board(maybe a special coating required on the flight deck to counter the heat)

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19885
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 03 July 2018

Postby Philip » 14 Jan 2019 19:11

If we do plan for F-35Bs for the future, then the required heat resistant deck specs should be incorporated as of now.However, it limits us to just the JSF for the future, why I've said that using the IAC-1's deck template with larger lifts is a better long term option.Current US amphibs are around 45K t., around the same size.Alternatively build only 3 Navantia JC family amphibs and a second sister CV to IAC-1 ( larger lifts) which could arrive far faster than a new 65K CV, plus operate Rafale-Ms, say within 6-7 years if work begins apace from early 2020.The aircraft could be used from our island/ coastal naval air stations until the flat-top arrives.Ru, China also operate top line fighters from land for maritime ops.I've long been saying that the IN should take on a larger tole in maritime air ops and defence in the IOR, allowing the IAF to increase its combat aircraft availability on the Chin- Pak fronts.

souravB
BRFite
Posts: 492
Joined: 07 Jun 2018 13:52

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 03 July 2018

Postby souravB » 14 Jan 2019 20:32

Philip ji, IAC-2 is already decided a 65k ton EMALS equipped system. Building another CV after finishing amphib class will take too much time. It is much better to keep the number of amphibs.
Ru and China operate from land bc they don't have any other choice. Ru hasn't been operating its CV for long time and now it is gone. China cannot sustain continuous operation of its aircrafts on CV, the J-15 is
that bad. How many pictures of Russian or Chinese CBG have you seen lately? What they do have are long range bombers that can multi used as maritime patrol aircrafts.

souravB
BRFite
Posts: 492
Joined: 07 Jun 2018 13:52

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 03 July 2018

Postby souravB » 15 Jan 2019 05:54

I would request people to hear to the heroic from 22:10. Marvelous story.

Indian Naval Academy


brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7483
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 03 July 2018

Postby brar_w » 15 Jan 2019 06:38

Alternatively build only 3 Navantia JC family amphibs and a second sister CV to IAC-1 ( larger lifts) which could arrive far faster than a new 65K CV


You cannot compare an aircraft carrier to an amphibious assault ship that can double up to support a deployed footprint of fixed wing aircraft. It is not an apples to apples comparison when you actually get down into the weeds and begin looking at sortie generation, ordinance carriage and the ability to sustain combat for prolonged period of time and what that entails. It can be done with smaller deployments but when you get into the putting more and more fighters on the decks then you will run into logistical issues of having to resupply and fuel more often. You can take a basic amphibious ship design and convert into an air-wing only vessel like the USMC has done with its first two ships of the Americas class but it is still not going to be comparable in overall capability to a dedicated aircraft-carrier designed for high tempo ops. An IAC-2 with larger lifts will probably always be a better full up carrier than a JC or LHA which are designed to be multi-mission.

That said, the IN seems to have committed to a proper aircraft-carrier with the ability to launch medium to heavy fighters with full payloads and perform the carrier missions at much longer ranges. Even on the unmanned side if you limit yourself to fixed wing (non rotary wing) carrier operations then you are again reliant on USMC funded programs (MUX) because no one else is investing in that capability. Having assisted launch and arrested landing makes designing one from scratch or buying one from elsewhere in the 2030's more easier as it is quite likely that France will too have something in that area.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66607
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 03 July 2018

Postby Singha » 15 Jan 2019 11:32

we dont need half-cocked hybrids that cannot do either job well. since our numbers will be much lower than PLAN in a straight up fight, we have to be careful on quality front.

with that in mind, our LPDs should focus on asw with big n fast SH60 helis working in concert with P28 and LRMP.
and our carriers on fleet protection and anti ship strike.

lacking the depth of assets to push fighting groups into the SCS, the task of conventional land attack is best kept for the SSNs armed with SLCM.

we cannot adopt a aggressive wartime posture in SCS/ECS without heavy carriers and 1000 cells of SAMs protecting each carrier with SSNs providing bottom cover. however we can mount peacetime patrols and such to "protect trade routes"

the elderly jalashwa seems to be MIA most of the time, might be used as a training ship only now. i have not seen it sail into any multi national exercise or do port visits to east asia.

souravB
BRFite
Posts: 492
Joined: 07 Jun 2018 13:52

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 03 July 2018

Postby souravB » 15 Jan 2019 19:44

Singha wrote:we dont need half-cocked hybrids that cannot do either job well. since our numbers will be much lower than PLAN in a straight up fight, we have to be careful on quality front.

with that in mind, our LPDs should focus on asw with big n fast SH60 helis working in concert with P28 and LRMP.
and our carriers on fleet protection and anti ship strike.

Singha sir, We are not buying LPDs, we are buying LHDs. The LHDs by their nature are swing role and predominantly force projectors. It can carry 20-25 helis when the mission calls for asw and carrier fleet protection during war times. During peace time it can substitute 10 of the helis with F-35s and it will be an excellent force projector in less contested parts of the water like Arabian Sea or South-West IOR.
Also we'll be getting 4 of those platforms and since we are not invading/landing troops in any country soon we may as well project force using 1-2 of those.

Bala Vignesh
BRFite
Posts: 1980
Joined: 30 Apr 2009 02:02
Location: Standing at the edge of the cliff
Contact:

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 03 July 2018

Postby Bala Vignesh » 15 Jan 2019 20:32

souravB wrote:Also we'll be getting 4 of those platforms and since we are not invading/landing troops in any country soon we may as well project force using 1-2 of those.


This is what I do not understand in the requirement for 4 LHD’s. They are expeditionary by nature and we have no expeditionary ambitions for the foreseeable future. So why order 4 of them? Are we looking to invade a country with just a brigade worth of troops?

souravB
BRFite
Posts: 492
Joined: 07 Jun 2018 13:52

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 03 July 2018

Postby souravB » 15 Jan 2019 20:56

Bala Vignesh wrote:
This is what I do not understand in the requirement for 4 LHD’s. They are expeditionary by nature and we have no expeditionary ambitions for the foreseeable future. So why order 4 of them? Are we looking to invade a country with just a brigade worth of troops?

LHDs are not only troop carriers. During peacetime they are force projectors, HADR missions, CVBG support as dedicated asw cum logistics and a d**k measurement contest shortcut.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66607
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 03 July 2018

Postby Singha » 15 Jan 2019 21:24

Jmsdf hyuga would be good template to copy

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3035
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 03 July 2018

Postby kit » 16 Jan 2019 00:23

Bala Vignesh wrote:
souravB wrote:Also we'll be getting 4 of those platforms and since we are not invading/landing troops in any country soon we may as well project force using 1-2 of those.


This is what I do not understand in the requirement for 4 LHD’s. They are expeditionary by nature and we have no expeditionary ambitions for the foreseeable future. So why order 4 of them? Are we looking to invade a country with just a brigade worth of troops?


dont be so sure

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19326
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 03 July 2018

Postby chetak » 16 Jan 2019 04:35

kit wrote:
Bala Vignesh wrote:
This is what I do not understand in the requirement for 4 LHD’s. They are expeditionary by nature and we have no expeditionary ambitions for the foreseeable future. So why order 4 of them? Are we looking to invade a country with just a brigade worth of troops?


dont be so sure


the defence of the Andaman islands requires expeditionary forces like equipment, training, mindset and resources.

the hans over running the Andaman islands during war is a real possibility and we must have a deterrence in place.

Of course, it will have other implications too, which are very unlikely to be overlooked by a lot of states.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66607
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 03 July 2018

Postby Singha » 16 Jan 2019 08:00

I want to send all their 7 LPD ships escorted by 2 carriers to attack and take over the Andamans

Will be the biggest turkey hunt ever

rkhanna
BRFite
Posts: 1146
Joined: 02 Jul 2006 02:35

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 03 July 2018

Postby rkhanna » 16 Jan 2019 11:58

souravB wrote:
Also we'll be getting 4 of those platforms and since we are not invading/landing troops in any country soon we may as well project force using 1-2 of those.


Actually a few years ago there was official talk of raising a "Marine Corp" type expeditionary unit equivalent by raising a new IBG - Currently the 304 Independent Brigade is staffed on a rotating basis.


"
The navy and army have sent a proposal to the government seeking permission to transport a 5,000-strong armed infantry and special forces troops, tanks and weapons - an independent brigade group (IBG) - on foreign shores for active operations. This capability has both been controversial and strategically provocative.

It has been learnt that after years of consultations, the army and navy have finally started seeing eye to eye on the modalities required to incrementally build up the capability to deliver a full brigade- strength contingent of troops - including two special forces units - with arms, ammunition, vehicles and weapons outside the Indian mainland."


I believe today the plan is on the backburner due to budgetary reasons.

https://www.indiatoday.in/india/north/s ... 2010-06-09

"A conference on “Joint Amphibious Warfare” was held at HQ Southern Command, Pune on 19 and 20 Jan 2009. The conference was co-hosted by HQ Integrated Defence Staff (HQ IDS), HQ Southern Command and the Centre for Land Warfare Studies (CLAWS), New Delhi. The keynote address was delivered by the Chief of Army Staff, Gen Deepak Kapoor, PVSM, AVSM, SM, VSM on 19 Jan 2009. The COAS was also the Chief Guest for the conference. The conference covered strategic issues on the first day and operational issues on the second day. Salient aspects discussed during the conference are given in succeeding paragraphs."

http://www.claws.in/event-detail.php?eID=218

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19885
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 03 July 2018

Postby Philip » 16 Jan 2019 15:54

Yep.The budget needs to be drastically revised upwards if we are going to meet the challenges of the future and stave off the planned attacks by the Chins in consort with the Pakis.

We need a dedicated MC of at leasr 1 div. supported with another two divs. of regular troops from SC.Remember our IPKF ops and the huge number of troops and supporting cast from the IAF and IN? We have to plan for the worst contingency in SL because of the Chin plancto settle tens of thousands of " workers" in they island.They're even building housing in Jaffna!

Apart from these reqs., we need to station a suitable number of crack forces in the ANC who are equipped to either stave off any attempt of an attack by China or use the ANC as a launch pad for spl. ops.

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3572
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 03 July 2018

Postby chola » 16 Jan 2019 17:34

souravB wrote:
brar_w wrote:F-35B won't fit on the lifts and won't trap and I don't think the IN wants to convert the existing carriers to purely STOVL systems. F-35B's also has the worst payload and performance of the three variants and is only useful if you need them for LHA or STOVL carriers or for the role on land as the USMC used its AV-8s. The IN is looking to field a catapult system on its next carrier so that too rules the F-35B out.

Brar ji, Yes but IN has a history of flying Harriers from it's A/C. Operating STOVL system wouldn't be a new concept for IN. RN uses F-35Bs on their STOBAR carrier QE. plus N-LCA will get some breathing space and can complement the fleet when it is ready.
F-35Bs have the worst payload out of three but It'll be miles better than what we are operating now and presumably mildly less capable or equal to F/A-18 or Rafale-M in STOBAR operations. Also no other aircraft other than LCA and MIG fit the lifts, so whatever we buy we may have to increase lift size or do something convoluted that will substantially increase unit cost and delivery time.
IAC-2 will have EMALS and it can use any aircraft it wants, but IN wants the MRCBF to replace MIGs.
I understand no good option exists. And just wanted views on whether the pro's trump or cons. and also have I missed anything.


Sourav, even if we enlarged the lifts of the Vikrant and VikA (probably impossible because of lifts in middke of ship and flightdeck) the F-35B can’t do arrested recovery. So it can’t operate in true STOBAR fashion. It can take off on the ramp for heavier load but needs to land vertically which means it cannot come back with the same load. And that would mean dumping unused ordnance and fuel after missions just to land safely.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7483
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 03 July 2018

Postby brar_w » 16 Jan 2019 18:38

Modifications beyond that aren't easy or cheap either. F-35B's bring back weight in VL or SRVL is actually fairly good but the C2 and data handling modifications are also significant as some of the British media has pointed out with the QE class. I just see no way the existing carriers will be modified to support the F-35B or a future carrier being a STOVL type. It will be a conventionally powered large carrier with a Cat.

souravB
BRFite
Posts: 492
Joined: 07 Jun 2018 13:52

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 03 July 2018

Postby souravB » 16 Jan 2019 18:57

chola wrote:
Sourav, even if we enlarged the lifts of the Vikrant and VikA (probably impossible because of lifts in middke of ship and flightdeck) the F-35B can’t do arrested recovery. So it can’t operate in true STOBAR fashion. It can take off on the ramp for heavier load but needs to land vertically which means it cannot come back with the same load. And that would mean dumping unused ordnance and fuel after missions just to land safely.

Chola sir, yes the elevator enlargement will be a huge problem. But it will be a problem for SH or Raf too. Infact I would argue without folding, the wingspan of F-35Bs are shorter than both of them even SH having it's wings folded.
For the vertical landing part, yes coming back with same load is a problem for vertical landing but there is Rolling vertical landing. Recently there was a news that RAF has done one such kind of landing. It significantly increases the landing load capacity. Maybe Brar sir can elucidate more on this since I'm pretty green in this stuff. Also F-35Bs are rated for vertical landing with full internal storage. Jettison of fuel might be needed for immediate landing after TO but that is outside the normal operating parameters.
As I said before there is no best choice here and US WILL package it's fighter with the EMALS. So if we have to buy something why not something whose line is not going to close in a few years down the line.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7483
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 03 July 2018

Postby brar_w » 17 Jan 2019 00:04

souravB wrote: Infact I would argue without folding, the wingspan of F-35Bs are shorter than both of them even SH having it's wings folded.


F-35B wingspan is 10.7 meters. F/A-18E/F folded wingspan is around 9.9 meters.

souravB wrote:For the vertical landing part, yes coming back with same load is a problem for vertical landing but there is Rolling vertical landing. Recently there was.. that RAF has done one such kind of landing. It significantly increases the landing load capacity.


F-35B's bring back is fairly good for both VL and SRVL but it is not going to be anywhere near what you can get using the hook and since payloads grow over time it is a margin that the F-35B won't be able to overcome in any significant way. The F-35B makes sense for a STOVL carrier or a USMC like force which has to support the V-22 (range/speed) with defensive and offensive fires from its flattops and later go ashore to provide CAS. If you baseline to a current MiG-29 then the performance may be OK but I think the point with future carriers is going to be to get better range/payload than that which means assisted launch and recovery.

souravB wrote:As I said before there is no best choice here and US WILL package it's fighter with the EMALS. So if we have to buy something why not something whose line is not going to close in a few years down the line.


The F-35B cannot launch using EMALS only the F-35C can (from the family) and it has better range, better payload and can actually carry larger ordinance like the 2000lb bombs, long range anti-radiation and anti ship missiles internally.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19885
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 03 July 2018

Postby Philip » 17 Jan 2019 03:11

Recollect the chief's interview.He spoke of MIGs and the NLCA too.We do not need to emulate the USN which has a global expeditionary agenda, particularly as we can't afford to sink all our moolah into one large CV , its air complement plus the accompanying orchestra of escorts.Leveraging its amphibs as smaller light carriers is being advocated in the US right now to spread resources and capability.Japan is now putting JSFs on their 20K t helicopter carriers.Our amphibs will be 30K t if the Navantia option is chosen.

We have two options.One,redesign the the amphibs with an angled flight deck and ski-jump so we could operate STOVL aircraft or even the NLCA.A few years ago SAAB had given an option for the Sea Gripen operating on the Viraat.Option two is to build only 2 to 3 amphibs with a ski- jump and a sister ship to IAC-1 with larger lifts to increase our aircraft options.This is far easier to achieve and far more affordable than a 65K t CV .Having built IAC-1 taking a dozen years, one can expect a sister ship with contnuous funding in around 6 years time, say 2025 at the earliest.

Also remember that beefing up the defences of the ANC and deploying extra forces for both defensive and offensive ops would reduce the requirement for large expeditionary assets. The UK in the Falklands conflict used STUFT ( ships taken up from trade), meaning merchant navy assets, to sort out its logistic transportation needs .We need a few Ro- Ro vessels plying our coastline, plus ferries which can do the biz. when required.The 3rd. new airstrip being built is good .news and the planned extension of runways will allow front-line aircraft of the IAF and IN to operate from all 3 bases.Lengthened enough to operate LRMP like Backfire/ upgraded Bears if need be apart from P-8Is and IL-38SDs.

Let's remember that our main priority is dominating and sanitising the IOR.3 med. CVs ( VikA and the 2 Vikrant class) plus the two unsinkable CVs, INS India and INS ANC is ample for the task of defending both the mainland, islands and our outreach responsibilities as far off as Mauritius, etc. Beyond the IOR in the ICS and Pacific, a large fleet of subs both nuclear and AIP would be very difficult for the Chinese to counter.The PN will have around 12 once their 8 Yuans arrive.We need around 4 SSGNs , 6 SSNs and 18 to 24 conv./ AIP boats apart from the 6 or so SSBNs dedicated to the strat. command.One 65K t CV with around 45+ aircraft and helos ( not counting the cost of the escort orchestra) would cost as much as 6 SSNs ($1.5B) or 18 to 20 AIP boats $(500M)!

Germany in WW2 almost won the Battle of the Atlantic in WW2 with its U- boat wolf packs, despite its codes being broken and its sub locations pin- pointed for allied aircraft and subs to prosecute.If we also possess mini-subs and UUVs at the chokepoints intothe IOR.
Last edited by Philip on 17 Jan 2019 03:17, edited 1 time in total.

souravB
BRFite
Posts: 492
Joined: 07 Jun 2018 13:52

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 03 July 2018

Postby souravB » 17 Jan 2019 03:17

brar_w wrote:F-35B wingspan is 10.7 meters. F/A-18E/F folded wingspan is around 9.9 meters.

Thanks Brar Sir for the correction, I had that wrong.
And the point that you raised about serious upgrade to the CV hardware to fully utilize F-35s is a great point. This was my objective of posting this so we get to know these things.
F-35B's bring back is fairly good for both VL and SRVL but it is not going to be anywhere near what you can get using the hook and since payloads grow over time it is a margin that the F-35B won't be able to overcome in any significant way. The F-35B makes sense for a STOVL carrier or a USMC like force which has to support the V-22 (range/speed) with defensive and offensive fires from its flattops and later go ashore to provide CAS. If you baseline to a current MiG-29 then the performance may be OK but I think the point with future carriers is going to be to get better range/payload than that which means assisted launch and recovery.

Yes the payload for landing is going to be less than arrested recovery. But for SH and Raf both being CATOBAR types, changing into standard TO will shave off a considerable chunk from the normal TO load of both the aircrafts. How much is shaved off we'll have to see. It might come down to a matter of trade offs.
Regarding the point of upgradations, isn't F-35 being the newest of the lot is going to be supported better than the others with newer engines and better hardware. Otherwise we have 50% chance of buying SH which is on the verge of getting phased out and I have reservations if Block-III is going to be adopted by US.
The F-35B cannot launch using EMALS only the F-35C can (from the family) and it has better range, better payload and can actually carry larger ordinance like the 2000lb bombs, long range anti-radiation and anti ship missiles internally.

Yes. The EMALS part of my comment was for IAC-2 which is going to be a CATOBAR type but that is atleast 10 years down the line. By that time we hopefully might have to make a choice between N-AMCA and F-35C. I was actually attributing since US has agreed to sell us EMALS, they will try to take on their pound of flesh in the current MRCBF contest and sell us F/A-18E/F.
The point I am trying to make is we can buy SH or Raf to replace Mig29s and operate them with caveats on existing CVs Whereas buying F-35Bs will make our amphibs that we will buy into potent platforms along with operating from our existing CVs with some other caveats.
which caveats may be question of lesser of the two evils.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19885
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 03 July 2018

Postby Philip » 17 Jan 2019 03:21

In the future, the IN would be better off operating an additional STOVL fighter, manned or unmanned from either east or west if it can be acquired at reasonable cost and without intrusive strings attached.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7483
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 03 July 2018

Postby brar_w » 17 Jan 2019 03:34

souravB wrote:Yes the payload for landing is going to be less than arrested recovery. But for SH and Raf both being CATOBAR types, changing into standard TO will shave off a considerable chunk from the normal TO load of both the aircrafts. How much is shaved off we'll have to see. It might come down to a matter of trade offs.


No one knows and I don't think we will know of an overall comparison because I believe Lockheed is not in this RFI. Furthermore the RFI was looking into mission sets like buddy refueling which the F-35B is not designed to do (nor is the F-35C) since the US Navy uses the F/A-18E/F as a recovery tanker and is moving to the MQ-25 for the mission tanker role. This would entail some design work to develop and qualify a buddy tanking system for the F-35 and then a flight test campaign to clear it with various receiver types. Not something that can't be done but still.. With the RFI the Navy was also asking OEM's to answer whether their aircraft could be launched EM or steam powered launch systems and whether it could land with the hook. All in, from what has been reported on the RFI it does not seem that the IN is considering a STOVL aircraft. It wants both backwards and forward compatibility.

souravB wrote:Regarding the point of upgradations, isn't F-35 being the newest of the lot is going to be supported better than the others with newer engines and better hardware. Otherwise we have 50% chance of buying SH which is on the verge of getting phased out and I have reservations if Block-III is going to be adopted by US.


My point wasn't about upgrading the aircraft, that will happen at a very high pace because of the large US budget and the overall global installed base. My reference was to the ability to increase bring back weight via upgrades over time. That isn't going to happen in any significant degree. Unless you change the size of the carrier your bring back weight will largely remain the same.

souravB wrote:Yes. The EMALS part of my comment was for IAC-2 which is going to be a CATOBAR type but that is atleast 10 years down the line. By that time we hopefully might have to make a choice between N-AMCA and F-35C. I was actually attributing since US has agreed to sell us EMALS, they will try to take on their pound of flesh in the current MRCBF contest and sell us F/A-18E/F.
The point I am trying to make is we can buy SH or Raf to replace Mig29s and operate them with caveats on existing CVs Whereas buying F-35Bs will make our amphibs that we will buy into potent platforms along with operating from our existing CVs with some other caveats.
which caveats may be question of lesser of the two evils.


I don't think that re-configuring the Vik and IAC-1 is going to happen anytime soon. There was an article a few pages back that quoted Admiral Lanba as saying that IAC-2 will have a Cat so a new aircraft type will likely be for the new carrier and the IN is likely trying to understand what is possible as far as backwards compatibility is concerned.

souravB
BRFite
Posts: 492
Joined: 07 Jun 2018 13:52

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 03 July 2018

Postby souravB » 17 Jan 2019 09:08

Thank you Brar sir for the elaborate answer.
So AFAIU we have already shot ourselves in the foot with the RFI requirements and if this process go through then IN has to soldier on with Mig29s on VikA and IAC-1 for atleast the next 20 years and IAC-2 will start fielding 4th gen jets on 2030s.
Only saving grace is N-LCA will get it's moment to shine in those smaller carriers and N-AMCA might be pushed for quicker induction as 5th gen jet. I could live with that if things go smoothly which it seldom does.
Will wait for AI2019 for news on the status of AMCA.

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2710
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 03 July 2018

Postby tsarkar » 17 Jan 2019 12:46

The elevator size isnt a valid excuse. Aircraft carriers operate multiple generations of aircraft over their 30-50 year lifespan and as newer & bigger aircraft come, elevators are modified. Its neither technically challenging nor commercially expensive to rebuild elevators.

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2710
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 03 July 2018

Postby tsarkar » 17 Jan 2019 12:46

Any version F-35 never was or is on offer to India despite media speculation

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17952
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 03 July 2018

Postby Karan M » 17 Jan 2019 16:20

I am not sure of that tsarkar. Certain information was provided. Its all about how we play our cards and the question is whether we have to offer a quid-pro-quo (buy obsolete platforms as a lead-in + what we offer in terms of ring-fencing + access). I suspect the IAF is very wary of any limitations put on its freedom of movement, operations.

darshhan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2435
Joined: 12 Dec 2008 11:52

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 03 July 2018

Postby darshhan » 17 Jan 2019 16:42

chetak wrote:
kit wrote:
dont be so sure


the defence of the Andaman islands requires expeditionary forces like equipment, training, mindset and resources.

the hans over running the Andaman islands during war is a real possibility and we must have a deterrence in place.

Of course, it will have other implications too, which are very unlikely to be overlooked by a lot of states.


Chetak ji, If chinese are even actually able to capture one or two andaman islands, they will be committing suicide. There are 100's of islands in andaman and nicobar islands and currently even US doesnt have the expeditionary resources to capture the whole island chain. Simply speaking this is not a trivial task. And if they indeed capture a couple of islands, the position of their soldiers will be like that of Pakis in Kargil, which means they are going to die.

The last time nations had resources and expendable manpower to capture such islands was in world war 2.

Having said that, the ideal response to such an act of seizing islands, would be not to prioritize recapture of those islands, but to capture Lhasha and Urumqi instead. That is what we should be focusing on.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19326
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 03 July 2018

Postby chetak » 17 Jan 2019 18:11

darshhan wrote:
chetak wrote:
the defence of the Andaman islands requires expeditionary forces like equipment, training, mindset and resources.

the hans over running the Andaman islands during war is a real possibility and we must have a deterrence in place.

Of course, it will have other implications too, which are very unlikely to be overlooked by a lot of states.


Chetak ji, If chinese are even actually able to capture one or two andaman islands, they will be committing suicide. There are 100's of islands in andaman and nicobar islands and currently even US doesnt have the expeditionary resources to capture the whole island chain. Simply speaking this is not a trivial task. And if they indeed capture a couple of islands, the position of their soldiers will be like that of Pakis in Kargil, which means they are going to die.

The last time nations had resources and expendable manpower to capture such islands was in world war 2.

Having said that, the ideal response to such an act of seizing islands, would be not to prioritize recapture of those islands, but to capture Lhasha and Urumqi instead. That is what we should be focusing on.


sirji,

deterrence is one aspect of the overall defence strategy.

It is like a sheathed sword.

It may not be of much use if the other guy decides to bring a gun to the sword fight but at least he knows that he is being watched.

I entirely agree with what you said.

Doesn't the IA always do the unexpected??

souravB
BRFite
Posts: 492
Joined: 07 Jun 2018 13:52

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 03 July 2018

Postby souravB » 17 Jan 2019 19:33

tsarkar wrote:Any version F-35 never was or is on offer to India despite media speculation

Tsarkar sir, F35 was presented to IAF and IN by LM way back in if I recall correctly 2013. Also the INDO-PACOM CO said F35 was cleared for sale in a congressional hearing.
The quid pro quo part remains as Karan sir pointed out. It might be difficult for IAF right now but IN might get over the hump with some more Romeo orders along with the EMALS.
at the end of the day, it depends on how IN sees the future combat over sea and money.
My point is to find out if it is a viable option for IN right now to operate from VikA and IAC-1.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7483
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 03 July 2018

Postby brar_w » 17 Jan 2019 19:45

tsarkar wrote:Any version F-35 never was or is on offer to India despite media speculation


I believe this is correct. There may have been demonstrations or presentations but a formal offer has never been made which entails many things in addition to the usual government to government offer. Things such as providing perspective friendly countries to whom the aircraft has been offered access to the JPO part of the Simulation and Analysis Facility (simAF) at Wright Patterson AFB so that they can perform a virtual assessment and analysis of the capability against various threat types before proceeding ahead. As of now 100% of F-35 sales or partnerships have happened at the Government to Government level and there is no Direct Commercial Sale on the horizon and one is unlikely in the near future as well.

souravB wrote: Also the INDO-PACOM CO said F35 was cleared for sale in a congressional hearing.


The JSF had received a near blanket approval to sell to friendly nations therefore it does not need to go through the case by case approval process that some other technologies (like EMALS) have to go through. This was done at the programs inception because it involved international involvement at the R&D, production and sales level from its very inception.

tsarkar wrote:The elevator size isnt a valid excuse. Aircraft carriers operate multiple generations of aircraft over their 30-50 year lifespan and as newer & bigger aircraft come, elevators are modified. Its neither technically challenging nor commercially expensive to rebuild elevators.


Completely overhauling the elevators on the INS Vikramaditya (to make them larger) is going to involve some serious work. Not saying that this cannot be done, but it will entail some major design work and will take the vessel offline for a considerable period of time. I somehow doubt that this will be done. I haven't looked at the elevators on the IAC-1 but there is no reason that the design cannot be refined over time and follow on ships be produced with larger elevators.

While it is true that Aircraft Carriers are expected to to serve for 50 years or more, and go through multiple iterations of Air Wings over that time usually that is a result of flexibility that is baked in the inherent design to easily adopt to changing and unforeseen needs over their lifetime. One of the ways this is done is leaving margin to grow and one way is to have larger elevators to allow for different aircraft to come aboard. Not doing so involved extensive re-design and yard work and may in fact end up costing just as much or more when compared to the cost of re-designing certain aspects of fighter aircraft to adjust to the constraint.

Image

Image
Last edited by brar_w on 18 Jan 2019 02:05, edited 1 time in total.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66607
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 03 July 2018

Postby Singha » 17 Jan 2019 23:23

fascinating reading about the evolution of usn carrier tactics in WW2. worth a good read.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_Carrier_Task_Force

Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21045
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 03 July 2018

Postby Prem » 18 Jan 2019 02:54

Raisina 2019 | In Conversation | Harsh V Pant and Admiral Sunil Lanba


chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3572
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 03 July 2018

Postby chola » 18 Jan 2019 17:03

brar_w wrote:
tsarkar wrote:The elevator size isnt a valid excuse. Aircraft carriers operate multiple generations of aircraft over their 30-50 year lifespan and as newer & bigger aircraft come, elevators are modified. Its neither technically challenging nor commercially expensive to rebuild elevators.


Completely overhauling the elevators on the INS Vikramaditya (to make them larger) is going to involve some serious work. Not saying that this cannot be done, but it will entail some major design work and will take the vessel offline for a considerable period of time. I somehow doubt that this will be done. I haven't looked at the elevators on the IAC-1 but there is no reason that the design cannot be refined over time and follow on ships be produced with larger elevators.

While it is true that Aircraft Carriers are expected to to serve for 50 years or more, and go through multiple iterations of Air Wings over that time usually that is a result of flexibility that is baked in the inherent design to easily adopt to changing and unforeseen needs over their lifetime. One of the ways this is done is leaving margin to grow and one way is to have larger elevators to allow for different aircraft to come aboard. Not doing so involved extensive re-design and yard work and may in fact end up costing just as much or more when compared to the cost of re-designing certain aspects of fighter aircraft to adjust to the constraint.


A cursory glance at the diagram and picture makes me think it would be a very hard project indeed. But that is from a layman’s eye.

That said, the keel of the Vikramaditya (nee Baku/Gorshkov) was laid down in 1978 so the hull has been around for close to 40 years already. The IN will not spend treasure and resource on modifying it.

The Vikrant with a modern design where the lifts are on the edges should be easier to upgrade I think. But the ship is not even done fitting out so it is irritating that those lifts were not oversized to begin with. And once operations start then we probably need to wait two decades or more for the midlife upgrade to see a change in the lifts.

John
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2035
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 03 July 2018

Postby John » 18 Jan 2019 18:40

^ I believe there was plan to fit Barak-8 + Mf-Star which would be equally complex and more expensive. If that is still planned as part of extensive refit may be in mid next decade not sure why cannot lump in elevator modification as part of that.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ArjunPandit, gaurav.p, Shakthi, suryag and 38 guests