Indian Navy's ASW & AEW Assets: News & Discussion

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 29 Nov 2019 01:56

Exact number missing but live fist report calling out 6 vs 10 from before.

https://sputniknews.com/world/201911281 ... -presence/

The Indian defence ministry has approved the purchase of more long-range anti-submarine warfare P8-I aircraft for its navy which is facing strong competition from China in the Indian Ocean.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 29 Nov 2019 11:07

Only 6? 10 was what was wanted, but I guess current fiscal situ demands fewer.Along with the 5 upgraded IL-38s, it will give us 20+.There are several mothballed new IL-38s tha are available at low cost I think.A few more would help for reserves, etc.These aircraft can serve until 2030.

We should also plan right now ASW variants of the C-295s from the OEM which could arrive within a few years time.Having more numbers of ASW LRMP/ MRP aircraft would help immensely.

Vips · Post by **Vips** » 29 Nov 2019 21:22

No more IL-38s. The limited budget should not be a reason to buy vintage junk.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 29 Nov 2019 22:14

Cybaru wrote:Exact number missing but live fist report calling out 6 vs 10 from before.

https://sputniknews.com/world/201911281 ... -presence/

The Indian defence ministry has approved the purchase of more long-range anti-submarine warfare P8-I aircraft for its navy which is facing strong competition from China in the Indian Ocean.

Interesting. The P-8 production will probably continue through till 2025 so an additional top up order is probably possible.

John · Post by **John** » 29 Nov 2019 22:30

Philip wrote:Only 6? 10 was what was wanted, but I guess current fiscal situ demands fewer.Along with the 5 upgraded IL-38s, it will give us 20+.There are several mothballed new IL-38s tha are available at low cost I think.A few more would help for reserves, etc.These aircraft can serve until 2030.

We should also plan right now ASW variants of the C-295s from the OEM which could arrive within a few years time.Having more numbers of ASW LRMP/ MRP aircraft would help immensely.

I wish we can bot all my response to Philip so every time he brings up il-38 or Tu-22m3 a brbot will automatically reply to him.

And who is gonna pay for it it costs us 205 million in 2007 to upgrade Il-38. Even if the Russians are willing to throw them in for free we are talking about over 100 million each (adj for inflation) for vintage frame and radar suit that failed to meet navy's expectations.

But I do agree with your 2nd part but it doesn't make sense to throw money at il-38 as short term solution till C-295 come around when they shouldn't take more than couple years to be inducted once and if they are approved.

ldev · Post by **ldev** » 29 Nov 2019 22:36

The P-8s which will work in conjunction with the Sea Guardian UAVs, when they are in service, will result in a quantum increase in the surveillance capability of the Indian Navy. Plus signing COMCOSA means that there will be real time data sharing with the USN to track Chinese naval activity in the Indian Ocean region.

vishvak · Post by **vishvak** » 30 Nov 2019 02:41

Vips wrote:No more IL-38s. The limited budget should not be a reason to buy vintage junk.

So how does USA has info for Chinese subs? Guess not limited budget intel ships. Just trying to know a few things.

Vips · Post by **Vips** » 30 Nov 2019 11:04

There are already Eight P8's flying and they would have gathered the required intel.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 30 Nov 2019 14:20

I do think that some number of UAVs, C295Ws and more satellites will come online.

- C295W will probably take over 200-400 KM range areas with about 6-4 hours on station. If they add 10-14 C925Ws that will provide IN to task these P8s for longer range deployments only. Basing 4-6 out of Andamans will help keeping a lot of things in check for both ASW and ASuW.

- UAVs will provide long term ASuW oversight on areas of HOT interest especially if India does manage to snag USAF tritons - retooled like BAMS that are retiring or even the sea guardian drones. Hopefully they add 10-20 of these and if some can be based out of Lakshadweep/Seychelles/Mauritius/Madagascar it will provide almost real time coverage for anti-piracy efforts.

- Sats will provide cheap revisit of the whole Indian ocean especially if the plan with tech/cost sharing with french is put into place for 8-10 sats. https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/ne ... 828365.cms A sat & launch costs us one time cost of 50-200 million with 5-7 year life. PSLV costs are 20-30 million plus whatever the sat costs.

- Sats like cube sats can provide good intra day revisit rate and they can be launched in one launch itself from PSLV. Adding 40 of those 50 KG sats that have a 3-4 year life is plenty good for what we need. We can replenish them anytime we want. It is in our wheel house. We can solve this problem in 6 months. 3-4 PSLV launches of 120-160 such sats can provide every 2-3 hour refresh of areas of interest.

- Even then topping up with another 6-8 odd P8I if the economy improves, will deeply add to a very robust ASW capability - None other than the 20 MH-60R (yet to be ordered) and naval ships can do ASW.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 01 Dec 2019 03:21

Cybaru wrote:
- UAVs will provide long term ASuW oversight on areas of HOT interest especially if India does manage to snag USAF tritons - retooled like BAMS that are retiring or even the sea guardian drones. Hopefully they add 10-20 of these and if some can be based out of Lakshadweep/Seychelles/Mauritius/Madagascar it will provide almost real time coverage for anti-piracy efforts.

USAF does not operate Tritons. Those are older block Global Hawks. If it were very easy to convert them into Tritons the USN would have already scooped them up. The Triton is based on the Global Hawk but internally it is a completely different aircraft. It is quite possible that the modifications would end up costing nearly as much as a new aircraft once one factors in the residual airframe life.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 08 Dec 2019 20:57

The problem is that the C-295s do not have the range, endurance, payload and capability of the much larger IL-38s, equiv to P-3 Orions.They cannot be replacements for them.I emphasised IF we can get a few more at cost-effective prices as we are with the 21 MIG-29s, they could keep the fleet flying for another decade plus .
For low and slow missions they are better than the P-8s.

Russia has over 50 IL-38s and is upgrading 30 of them to be completed by 2025.That leaves 20 available and we would need around just 5+, They've been found to be excellent at their job. I daresay after a few decades of operating them and TU-142 Bears the IN can work out what ASW eqpt. it requires in any upgrade.
If there is a revival - as mentioned in some sources of an MTA in the future, then that platform could be a possible replacement.The C- 295s would be better MP birds then the Dorniers and could equip the CG in particular.

Some reports say that the IN upgrades have given a 40 yr. life extrnsion and the cost of all 5 upgrades was $150M. $30M per aircraft. Compare that with a unit cost of between $250 - $ 300 M for a P-8 I and you will understand my point of view. We could get 8 -10 IL-38s for the price of one P-8I. Useful when numbers are required to sanitise the vast expanse of the IOR and beyond. No criticism of the P-8 I though.A pity we can afford only 6 when 10 were asked for.Hence the poor man's alternative complementing the P-8s.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 08 Dec 2019 21:50

The P-8 I, along with the C-295 and Long Range / Long Loiter UAV's is what the IN sees as part of its future as far as this maritime mission is concerned. I think it is quite clear that they IN does not see procuring any additional IL-38's as part of the equation. Since the IN operates the type and knows all its ins and outs and can analyze additional aircraft and overall capability growth they are in the best position to determine which investments provide it the most effective solution given the threat. With the three crafts mentioned earlier, it appears the IN has made a decision.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 10 Dec 2019 03:55

Let's wait and watch. The C295 will be inadequate and you may see another type inducted if IL-38s are kept at 5.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 10 Dec 2019 04:00

There is no need for another type! What use case is missing?

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 10 Dec 2019 04:04

Cybaru wrote:There is no need for another type! What use case is missing?

The use case of operating more Russian aircraft.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 10 Dec 2019 04:26

^^

We really need to focus on 10-15 revisits a day with a constellation of sats! They are much cheaper and provide round the clock coverage that no UAV can provide. Il-38 is pretty useless according to the Indian navy as stated in the p8I Rajya Sabha segment. IN was underwhelmed by it.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 10 Dec 2019 05:00

The IL-38s have been tasked to carry BMos ( from earlier reports) which the P-8Is cannot ( only inferior Harpoons) , esp. after the Bears were retired.
The fastest way to prosecute an enemy task force or vessel is by long-legged aircraft equipped with supersonic ( hyper in future) missiles.The C-295 is too small. LRMP birds have far greater range and endurance than much smaller MP aircraft.See how Bears and Backfires flew thousands of miles and conducted missile strikes in Syria. In the last major IAF air exercise, MKIs from Sulur conducted mock strikes hitting dummy targets in the Malacca Straits.But even these excellent birds carry limited payloads and do not possess the range and endurance of LRMPs.
UAVs would be limited to surveillance .They can't carry out attacks and even current UCAVs carry limited smaller payloads better suited to prosecuting terror modules and individuals , a task where they've been very successful. China possesses large numbers of bombers which could be used to devastating effect in any maritime spat.We possess zero. We're now trying to configure transports to carry drone swarms in recent reports.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 10 Dec 2019 05:57

Bhramos - mini is on the way. I can't find what the external hard points are rated at, but C295W should be able to carry Mk46 torps and a reasonable Anti Ship missile. Perhaps it can also carry Mini Bhramos.

John · Post by **John** » 10 Dec 2019 06:05

The IL-38s have been tasked to carry BMos ( from earlier reports) which the P-8Is cannot ( only inferior Harpoons) , esp. after the Bears were retired.

Once again Il-38 cannot carry Brahmos the only official source was image which was later confirmed to be just PR (it also showed Su-24? and Mig-29 carrying them)only platform currently certified to carry it is Su-30mki with structural modifications. Il-38 cannot even carry air launch Klub missiles so Brahmos-M is out of question as well.

Navy gave up mounting Brahmos on il-38 long time ago likely because it was just marketing plot and Russia wanted us to throw money to fund all the modifications.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 10 Dec 2019 08:50

BMos- NG is on the anvil which will be carried by several platforms but not the P-8.

John · Post by **John** » 10 Dec 2019 10:54

Brahmos NG/M has not been test fired let’s not get ahead of ourselves. The main priority would be its integration with Su-30mki, Mig-29k and LCA Mk2.

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 10 Dec 2019 11:36

Il-38 will be retired once 4 + 6 P-8I are delivered at the turn of the decade

Secondly carrying a heavy missile puts stress on the airframe. Its better to add a booster to BrahMos than waste precious TTL hours lugging the weight.

John · Post by **John** » 10 Dec 2019 19:59

Yeap let’s not forget only recently did Russia finally completed changes for il-38 to fire Kh-35 missile more than a decade after the contract was signed. Hopefully once Ashw variant of NGARM is ready we can ditch Kh-35 and Harpoon.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 10 Dec 2019 21:07

Philip wrote:The IL-38s have been tasked to carry BMos ( from earlier reports) which the P-8Is cannot ( only inferior Harpoons) ,

Can you post pictures of the IL-38's carrying the Brahmos? Or schematics of the intended carriage? You are unlikely to pack multiple Brahmos missiles on the aircraft. The M variant of the missile hasn't even test flown yet and you are looking at a 12-15 year horizon through development, operational testing and integration on the primary platforms (and building up stock). At the end of the day one must logically think through what the intended purpose of an MPA fleet is during high intensity combat operations at range or closer to the shores. The primary responsibility of the crafts, the crews and the networks that link them is to go out and hunt submarines. That is the hardest mission and that is also, incidentally, that chews most of the fleet and training times, and requires the most number of orbits during actual conflict.

Residual capability allows the aircraft to double down and act as a broad area MPA, providing situational awareness and even extending sensor reach. A very minor mission set is that of physically hunting ships and killing them. Once you've located a target you need sensors over it so that you can extend your kill chain. Who launches the physical missile is immaterial at this point as the hard part is finding, fixing, and tracking the target despite countermeasures and deception. The notion that an MPA is some sort of strategic long range bomber that can carry multiple Anti-Ship or surface attack weapons and destroy entire fleets out in the middile of nowhere, thousands of miles from home shores is a fantasy that goes completely against the grain of what most of the crew time is resourced for - hunting submarines and providing electronic and situational awareness over vast oceans.

Philip wrote:BMos- NG is on the anvil which will be carried by several platforms but not the P-8.

Many P-8 operators are integrating new weapons for multiple reasons. Norway joined as a partner and has a seat on the table at the JPO. They are integrating the JSM on the aircraft once it is fully developed and integrated on its primary intended platforms (F-35 and F-16). Australia will likely co-fund this integration effort. Likewise, the USN has launched pre-program activity to integrate its own premier Anti Ship weapon (LRASM) on the P-8 once the primary integration with the Super Hornet is complete (which it is now). There is nothing stopping the IN from requesting the MOD that, a decade from now, the MOD sign up as a JPO partner and fund integration of Indian weapons on the platform just as others are doing already.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 10 Dec 2019 21:39

BMos- NG will be operational in the next decade.Statements by the head of yhe JV indicate faster progress and induction than a decade Being a JV with Russia it is quite unlikely that the Russians will allow it ( being developed by both OEMs) on a US platform.Why our Scorpenes do not carry the superior Klub but Exocet. It will definitely be carried by the MIG-29Ks, LCAs and other IAF aircraft especially MKIs. The hypersonic variant also being developed will take longer , yet again part of the JV, but with Tsirkon expected in Ru service within 2 years time, and hints in some quarters that there may be some commonalities, it may be tested within 5 years. To imagine the IN not fielding it on an Ru platform that can carry and will be in service for at least 10 to 20 years, is grossly underestimating the IN's intentions.

The same policy will hold good for the P-75I sub contest.Russia
will not provide its JV missile programmes on its western rival
subs.Why we need two lines of conventional subs in the future not just to meet the huge numbers of Chinese subs plus those it is building for Pak. As of now both the Ru and DRDO AIP systems are in question and a recent report said that this class would have a foreign AIP system.With the wizards of Oz getting promised superior French sub tech than anything given to India- how the French won the contest, German U-boats which we've operated for decades v.well should be the front runner. The Scorpene data was leaked so I would be surprised if the IN selected a French sub again unless political considerations intervene.I would prefer a G-2-G deal with Germany to shorten induction time and a larger number ordered, at least 2 built in Germany and 6+ at home. The subs could carry the Nirbhay LRCM,

The Akula being modified for us, the C-3, should be augmented with at least one more and the first in service retained and upgraded in time.We need 3 to 4 upgraded Akulas required to counter Chinese SSNs.This is because we will take at least 15 years to build our planned 6 SSNs. The USN plans 34 new Block-V Virginia SSNs which when the first enter service with their 80ft. section for multiple uses,will take sub design to another level altogether. Our SSNs are unlikely to be as large as the late model Arihant SSBN boats why the larger Akula SSGNs with their larger payload are needed.
UW ASW warfare for the IN will have to be holistic.Networked UW sensors at key locations and approaches to all major ports and bases.UUVs of long endurance, with some in the future armed with LW torpedoes. Both AIP and N-subs. Integrating UW assets with sat and airborne assets is going to be a huge task.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 10 Dec 2019 21:52

Philip wrote:BMos- NG will be operational in the next decade.Statements by the head of yhe JV indicate faster progress and induction than a decade Being a JV with Russia it is quite unlikely that the Russians will allow it ( being developed by both OEMs) on a US platform...

Can you point me to a statement from any official that claims the Brahmos NG will be operational on the IL-38 within the next decade? Also, waiting for pictures of the IL-38's carrying the Brahmos since they have "been tasked" with carrying the weapon. If the Brahmos-NG is going to be highly indigenous with key components being locally designed, and sourced..why will Russia have a veto authority over which platforms it is integrated on? Has Russia even committed to buying the said weapon?

John · Post by **John** » 10 Dec 2019 22:08

FYI Russia was not satisfied with il-38 with Uran and choose not to go forward with them for il-38n and currently they are not carrying any AShM.

https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news ... ssian-navy

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 10 Dec 2019 23:07

The article states:
Indian Il-38SDs can fire the Kh-35, whereas the Russian navy decided not to equip its aircraft with anti-ship missiles.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 10 Dec 2019 23:36

Please study developments accurately.Out of 50+ IL-38s 30 are being extensively upgraded for the RuN which has found it an excellent ASW platform.They will all be upgraded by 2025. The P-8 Is are excellent ASW LMRP birds but each costs between $ 250M to $300M per unit.Contrast that with just $ 30M to $50M max.for an IL-38 and you will see how cost effective a fed extra IL-38s to boost the number in service will be.Moreover, even the new KH-59 ASM recently launched from the weapons bay of an SU-57 with a range of over 200+ km will be carried by Ru aircraft. BMos- NG will definitely be carried by our ILs once inducted.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 10 Dec 2019 23:37

A good watch!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G4IUR32AlK8

Commodore Anil Jai Singh (retd)

3 mins 50 secs:
"Tu-142 / Il-38 were well past their expiry date. They were not as big a deterrent as they should have been."

11 mins 30 secs
"Tu-142 has range, but it is showing it's age"

12 mins 00 secs
mention of "Indian ocean region fusion center"

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 10 Dec 2019 23:52

Philip wrote:Please study developments accurately.Out of 50+ IL-38s 30 are being extensively upgraded for the RuN which has found it an excellent ASW platform.They will all be upgraded by 2025. The P-8 Is are excellent ASW LMRP birds but each costs between $ 250M to $300M per unit.Contrast that with just $ 30M to $50M max.for an IL-38 and you will see how cost effective a fed extra IL-38s to boost the number in service will be.Moreover, even the new KH-59 ASM recently launched from the weapons bay of an SU-57 with a range of over 200+ km will be carried by Ru aircraft. BMos- NG will definitely be carried by our ILs once inducted.

They are too old! Plus there are integration issues and limitations on non-russian tech on it.

Best to add more p8 beyond the 18 and new 10-20 C295W as MRMP. Task the littoral areas (Palk strait/bay of Bengal/Arabian sea/Andaman region SLOC) for C295W and push all long-range deployments for P8I. Add more drones/sats for better coverage.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 11 Dec 2019 00:00

https://armadainternational.com/2017/06 ... edibility/

From the above
Hourly operating costs for:
P-8A ~$4200
C295W ~$1050.

..Airbus claiming an endurance of over eleven hours and a maximum range of 3040nm (5,630km). The company has installed six under-wing hard points on the C-é95 Persuader which make it a multi-mission aircraft capable of not only maritime patrol, but also ASW and anti-surface warfare (ASuW). The hard points can support torpedoes, air-to-surface missiles, mines and depth charges.

John · Post by **John** » 11 Dec 2019 01:40

Karan M wrote:The article states:
Indian Il-38SDs can fire the Kh-35, whereas the Russian navy decided not to equip its aircraft with anti-ship missiles.

Yes that’s what I said Russian navy was not happy with il-38 and uran and choose not to equip it.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 11 Dec 2019 03:54

Ah, I see. I read your comment to mean the IN IL-38s don't have Kh-35 either.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 11 Dec 2019 04:44

Airbus' own site gives the range of the C-295 as only 2000nm and " upto 11 hrs." endurance,6000kg payload.
An IL-38 has a range of over 4000nm ( double), 13 hrs. endurance and a payload of 9000kg.
2 years ago an IL-38 successfully carried out a test of an anti-ship missile hitting the target during a Tropex exercise.Missile unspecified.Il-38s have also carried out tests of dropping small logistic containers for resupply of ships at sea.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 11 Dec 2019 04:57

Airbus' own site gives the range of the C-295 as only 2000nm and " upto 11 hrs." endurance,6000kg payload.
An IL-38 has a range of over 4000nm ( double), 13 hrs. endurance and a payload of 9000kg. While the missile was not mentioned in the report, from the pic. in one report it is the upgraded KH-35/ Uran variant with a range of 3000km.

chola · Post by **chola** » 11 Dec 2019 10:30

Wrong thread. oops

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 11 Dec 2019 14:05

Philip, the combined lrmp work of tu142&il38 has been taken over p8I! What role does il38 play? Given low uptimes isn’t it better to put mrmp on a newer platform? It may have less range, but we will control the sensor suite and upgrade paths! Plus they will work for us for another 30/40 years. Mrmp will be tasked for 200-400 km range with 4-6 hour on station time. Anything outside that will be purview of p8I.

It also has newer electronics, less staff (-3) requirements and decent payload and on station time.

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 11 Dec 2019 14:35

C-295 and P-8 were contenders for the UK program. Eventually UK settled in for the P-8.

In our context, the C-295 is a long term replacement choice for Do-228. There is a number of squadrons operating the type across IAF, IN and ICG - if they can go for a deep Make In India I would say it makes total sense.

Vips · Post by **Vips** » 11 Dec 2019 22:18

Between the Indian Navy and Coast Guard we have requirement for LRMP (P8) and MRMP (C295). Everyone will get a piece of the pie.