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

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.
chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4076
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

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

Postby chola » 12 Dec 2019 11:15

Aditya G wrote: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.


The C-295 has many specialized variants including the chapati AEW, MPA, SIGINT and even gunship versions. The chapati especially is important.

Image

We all know how hard (and dangerous) it is to test and validate an aircraft to carry that all-aspect (and all-important) disk on its back.

Having a baseline aircraft like the C-295 is critical to getting these specialized force-multipliers like AEW in large numbers. They can be supplemented by the high end P-8s and A330 AWACS. But to mass produce like two dozen ASW and MPA machines, you need a cheaper platform you can leverage economy of scale with MII.

This is what Cheen does with their Y-9:
https://www.janes.com/article/93081/china-mass-producing-y-9-surveillance-aircraft

The baseline variant of the Y-9 is used as a tactical transport aircraft and can carry about 20 tons of cargo or about 100 paratroopers. Previous analysis by Jane's assessed that about one-third of Y-9 aircraft are built to this baseline configuration.

The Y-8/Y-9 airframe has also been used for the development of several variants of 'special mission aircraft', the Gao Xing/New High series, which includes airborne early warning and control (AEW&C), anti-submarine maritime patrol aircraft (MPA), electronic intelligence (ELINT), communications intelligence (COMINT), electronic countermeasures (ECM), and psychological operations (PSYOPS) versions.

Image


Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20448
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

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

Postby Philip » 14 Dec 2019 18:15

Important point.The Chin bird is a 4- engined one, similar in size, etc. to our IL-38s, P-3 Orions, etc. Greater range, endurance loiter time, and internal space for internal mission modules.The C-295 would have limited capability.How much better or less would it be than rhe EMB Netra platform? If the MTA , hinted at in a few reports is being reconsidered , being a jet ,would be a useful platform to consider.The C-295 is also a possible platform for ELINT variants. Looking at our inventory, we do not appear uo have enough dedicated ELINT/ EW aircraft given our vast airspace. The most we seem to have are EW pods carried by frontline aircraft.


Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20448
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

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

Postby Philip » 11 Feb 2020 23:01

Cy,Boeing has clipped the winglets of the P-8Is to allow it to operate at lower speeds.It is inferior in the " low and slow" prosecution of subs,requiring its ASW torpedoes to have a special wingkit added. Turboprops are more economical to operate too.
There are a few dozen new mothballed IL-38s available at bargain prices, but they need totally new interior eqpt.,upgrades,etc.as done with our 5 birds and Ru aircraft. 4500km range,endurance of 13 hrs. and a payload of 9000kg. These are great capabilities. If we really need numbers with the ever- expanding ASW challenge, a combination of both P-8Is and IL-38s are preferable.We could get 4+ IL-38s for the cost of just one P-8I,why the number of extra P-8s are being cut. There is little point in going in for a 3rd. MRP type when we have two proven types in service.More numbers of the same types will be cost- effective and increase operational availability.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20448
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

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

Postby Philip » 11 Feb 2020 23:17

AEW assets.The platform and range, endurance are key factors, given the huge expanse of the IOR.Our erstwhile Bears,still in use with the RuN, could fly to S.Africa and back without refuelling,as well as being the fastest non-jet LRMP birds. I would prefer the new IL-476 birds with new engines,overall performance,smaller crew etc. These birds are 1/4th the cost of an A-330 too. Any kind of AEW/ AWACS/ ELINT radars,sensors,etc. can be fitted to the platform,firang or desi. There will also be commonality of the type with upgraded IAF IL-76s and new platforms for AWACS,tankers if selected. Standardising on one type gives huge support, costs and operational capability across the IAF and IN.

If a smaller type is also required for shorter patrols,which could bf based in thd ANC,etc., then using the C-295 platform being acquired in decent number is the obvious choice.How capable they would be compared with our EMB Netras performance-wise won't be available in full detail in open forums.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8297
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby brar_w » 11 Feb 2020 23:41

Philip wrote:Cy,Boeing has clipped the winglets of the P-8Is to allow it to operate at lower speeds.It is inferior in the " low and slow" prosecution of subs,requiring its ASW torpedoes to have a special wingkit added. Turboprops are more economical to operate too.


It is good enough for some of the top ASW navies around the world even when provided a choice of a better "low and slow" alternative. No one is ever wedded to a way of doing business. They are wedded to a need to do X Y Z and as the P-8 has shown, over and over again it is the platform of choice when it comes to the mission set.

Good luck with those mothballed IL-38's.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8343
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

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

Postby Rakesh » 12 Feb 2020 02:47

Philip how do you expect anyone to take anything you post seriously, when you say things like the above?

How you can put the IL-38 and the P-8 in the same technological sphere, is astounding to me! :shock:

And while I am not condoning personal attacks against you, but when forum members accuse you of needlessly peddling Russian wares...don't you think they have a point?

The IN is so satisfied with the 8 examples in service now, that they have ordered another 4 more and 6 more are in the pipeline. If the budget permitted, even more would be ordered. Does this look like a service that is dis-pleased with the P-8's performance and capabilities?

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7984
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

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

Postby Indranil » 12 Feb 2020 02:58

We should upgrade the HS748 with PW127 or an AE2100, upgrade the cockpit and throw in an APU in its tail. That should be good enough for all our coast guard and MMPA needs. We don't need to wait for the C295W delas to finalize, production to pick up pace, yada, yada, yada...

Good as new airframes for $10-15 million a piece.

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2594
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

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

Postby Cybaru » 12 Feb 2020 03:09

How much life do they have?

Here is an adaptation

Image

krishna_krishna
BRFite
Posts: 815
Joined: 23 Oct 2006 04:14

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

Postby krishna_krishna » 12 Feb 2020 07:19

Indranil wrote:We should upgrade the HS748 with PW127 or an AE2100, upgrade the cockpit and throw in an APU in its tail. That should be good enough for all our coast guard and MMPA needs. We don't need to wait for the C295W delas to finalize, production to pick up pace, yada, yada, yada...

Good as new airframes for $10-15 million a piece.


C295 is the way to go and there is already MPa version out there, bottom line HAL union does not want competition from desi private company that is the real reason for the delay and they come up with such wiz ideas to dangle in front of MOD babus
Last edited by krishna_krishna on 12 Feb 2020 18:35, edited 1 time in total.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7984
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

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

Postby Indranil » 12 Feb 2020 07:30

Cybaru ji,
Over 75,000 hrs of airframe life per aircraft. And that is a conservative estimate.

Krishnaji,

Why does it have to be this or that. C295W will be part of the airlift, where the hs748 will not work because of lack of ramp.

May I request you to not post IDRW material here. The day they stop plagiarizing other people's work as their own, I would be happy to read their articles again.

yensoy
BRFite
Posts: 1532
Joined: 29 May 2002 11:31
Location: USA

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

Postby yensoy » 12 Feb 2020 17:51


krishna_krishna
BRFite
Posts: 815
Joined: 23 Oct 2006 04:14

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

Postby krishna_krishna » 12 Feb 2020 18:46

Indranil wrote:
Krishnaji,

Why does it have to be this or that. C295W will be part of the airlift, where the hs748 will not work because of lack of ramp.

May I request you to not post IDRW material here. The day they stop plagiarizing other people's work as their own, I would be happy to read their articles again.


No ji for me, I removed the link wasn’t aware that they are into plagiarism.

May be Ill try my point in different way, I agree it is not either or.The reason why I posted that link was to show that just changing engines and updating cockpit with digital navigation aids wont cut it requires much work (strengthening) on the fuselage to be effective as MPA.

C295 MPA version is already in service with Spanish and Mexican navies with much modern design.

If HAL can do this conversion with IN on board nothing like it since they have more than half life left on these birds. Why just MPA we need a bomber too.

But you are aware more than anyone else here that HAL would do anything to block C295 from coming and here is where if both programs are supported than only it will benefit country on longer run.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7984
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

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

Postby Indranil » 12 Feb 2020 19:47

That article just wrote some crap. Why would the HS748 require strengthening of the fuselage? It was designed for STOL performance from unprepared fields from day 1 of its design. That was how they differentiated themselves from other DC-3 replacement offerings. Infact there were airlines which regularly did so with the HS748. The HS748 and C295W both have almost the same kind of MTOW. Now, compare the size of the wings. The HS748 has almost 1.5 times the wing area as the 295W. You are telling me that the 295W has better STOL capabilities? The HS748 was designed with a Fail safe design policy meaning its 100,000 hour airline is conservative. Nobody throws away airframes with 70,000 -80,000 hours life left. Not even the US!!! If you take 5 hours per day, 300 flying days per year, that's still over 40 years of life left. And its an airliner, meaning its airframe is much more suited for AEW operations than that of a transport. An airliner has lesser drag.

Put an equivalent engine on the HS748 and you will see it will not be too far behind the C295W. It will not look cool, but it will get a lot of jobs done like mini AEWs, MMA requirements etc. People employ MMA and AEW versions on the Saab 340 which is smaller aircraft than the HS748. HS748 is closer in size to the SAAB 2000, which is very widely used for this purpose.

Zynda
BRFite
Posts: 1736
Joined: 07 Jan 2006 00:37
Location: J4

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

Postby Zynda » 12 Feb 2020 20:48

I think you meant Safe Life policy...this design thought was quite popular in the 50s especially in the Britain. Actually you bring up a point I had not considered.

If it was designed using a Safe Life, then for continued air worthiness (if its exhausted life is closer to the prescribed limits), it probably have to tested for life extension.

It is possible to do the above at a org like NAL...like they did extensive fatigue tests on MiG-21 (for which Russia charged an arm & leg and ultimately decided to obtain life extension @ NAL) and provided an additional life extension of either 1,000 or 3,000 hours IIRC.

But it may be too much work...but your point stands that if HS-748 was designed for 100,000 hour life, then it is quite possible that it has a lot of residual capability left in its air frame & with some good maintenance & over haul, its life can be extended significantly.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20448
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

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

Postby Philip » 12 Feb 2020 21:04

Rakesh,plz read the post carefully.The P-8 can't perform low and slow prosecution of subs unlike turboprops. Low and slow has its better results than a bird flying at higher alts. Secondly larer numbers of long endurance aircraft are needed. The IL-38s come at a fraction of the cost of a P-8,please compare the huge cost difference.Next, why go in for yet another turboprop ASW aircraft when " more of the same" will suffice.It's complementary not an equivalent. Now the IN and CG require MRP aircraft.That's where the C- 285 could find a niche.We can't afford the 20+ P-8s,so in making up numbers the upgraded IL-38s around 5 to 7 can be picked up for the price of onf or two P-8s.Samd reason why we want conv. subs because we can't afford all nuclear ones.Even Russia can't and is building a dozen new conv. subs.Only the US can afford large numbers of P-8s replacing its old P-3s.

John
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2285
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

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

Postby John » 12 Feb 2020 21:49

Philip wrote:Rakesh,plz read the post carefully.The P-8 can't perform low and slow prosecution of subs unlike turboprops. Low and slow has its better results than a bird flying at higher alts. Secondly larer numbers of long endurance aircraft are needed. The IL-38s come at a fraction of the cost of a P-8,please compare the huge cost difference.Next, why go in for yet another turboprop ASW aircraft when " more of the same" will suffice.It's complementary not an equivalent. Now the IN and CG require MRP aircraft.That's where the C- 285 could find a niche.We can't afford the 20+ P-8s,so in making up numbers the upgraded IL-38s around 5 to 7 can be picked up for the price of onf or two P-8s.Samd reason why we want conv. subs because we can't afford all nuclear ones.Even Russia can't and is building a dozen new conv. subs.Only the US can afford large numbers of P-8s replacing its old P-3s.

Where are you getting the il-38 is cheap it cost 40 mil in 2001 just to upgrade them (that’s around 80+ million now adjusted for inflation).

Even then the radar is sub par and it took russia close to two decades to upgrade just 5. So you want to drop around 100 mill each for 3 decade old airframe (assuming they give away free) and wait 1 decade for Russia to upgrade them? Please stop derailing the thread with fantasy procurement and focus on what is being procured.
Last edited by John on 12 Feb 2020 22:28, edited 1 time in total.

yensoy
BRFite
Posts: 1532
Joined: 29 May 2002 11:31
Location: USA

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

Postby yensoy » 12 Feb 2020 21:56

We already have 8 P8Is and soon will get 4 more. I don't think cost is a big deal here. It's the radar which is the expensive part, and what you pay is what you get basically when it comes to technology. The platform itself is a venerable 737NG which Boeing will be very happy to produce and sell given all its challenges with the MAX. The P8Is have long legs and can stay airborne for 6 hours at least, probably much longer, basically do a sweep from ARK to Indonesia and back, and not taking the direct route. Turboprops may be ok for coastal defence. But the right comparison would be between an Il-38 and the venerable P-3.

The conventional vs nuclear sub is an entirely different sort of difference. For one, nobody will sell you a nuclear sub. The cost difference is staggering. Armaments are different, mission is different.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8297
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby brar_w » 12 Feb 2020 22:06

Speed and Range often need to be looked at together. A longer ranged, slower aircraft will take time to get from point A to point B or likewise switch into different missions quickly. Similarly, a fleet is designed around a specific range target and not a fantasy. That specific range requirement is then looked at in terms of Time On Station and time to target/orbit. Then you factor in the number of average, and surge sorties you would need on average across the various types of scenarios you may encounter in peacetime or wartime. Once you factor all that in you then derive what you need in terms of capacity.

Change some/all of the variables listed above and you can drastically alter force requirements. A good example is the Blackhawk/Apache/Kiowa replacement programs in the US. The need for faster (250 kts or above) aircraft isn't being sought just because it looks fancy. It is needed because the range at which these aircraft will need to operate has nearly doubled and if you have a certain number of Sorties per day you need to generate (to support ground forces), but now your aircraft are traveling twice as far per sortie..you are forced to decide between either buying and supporting 2X your current fleet or seeking an aircraft that can fly twice as fast and return so that it can be turned around.

Keep in mind that there are smart people who perform highly sophisticated analysis and come up with requirements for what is needed, and how much is needed. They do not start off with just picking a fantasy and then backing into that and making it work. A good complement to the P-8 fleet will either be an unmanned aircraft or a smaller but mission configurable (instead of multi-mission) cheaper manned platform. Most P-8 users are going to follow one or both of those paths.
Last edited by brar_w on 12 Feb 2020 22:28, edited 1 time in total.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7984
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

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

Postby Indranil » 12 Feb 2020 22:21

Zynda wrote:I think you meant Safe Life policy...this design thought was quite popular in the 50s especially in the Britain. Actually you bring up a point I had not considered.

If it was designed using a Safe Life, then for continued air worthiness (if its exhausted life is closer to the prescribed limits), it probably have to tested for life extension.

It is possible to do the above at a org like NAL...like they did extensive fatigue tests on MiG-21 (for which Russia charged an arm & leg and ultimately decided to obtain life extension @ NAL) and provided an additional life extension of either 1,000 or 3,000 hours IIRC.

But it may be too much work...but your point stands that if HS-748 was designed for 100,000 hour life, then it is quite possible that it has a lot of residual capability left in its air frame & with some good maintenance & over haul, its life can be extended significantly.

No sir. I meant fail-safe.

Zynda
BRFite
Posts: 1736
Joined: 07 Jan 2006 00:37
Location: J4

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

Postby Zynda » 12 Feb 2020 22:46

^^You are correct. HS-748 was one of the initial aircrafts to incorporate fail-safe. My bad...

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2594
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

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

Postby Cybaru » 13 Feb 2020 06:46

Philipski ji,

I have heard from P8 pilots that they cover sometimes 2-5 sectors in one sortie vs they would only do just one when in P3. Plus there are lots of articles and reports that list the amount of effort required to fly p3 was enormous. It was active flying and handing over/rotating pilot every 15 mins.

P8 has made their life simpler and they are not going back and really happy to move forward.

Time in air is meaningless if takes you double the time reaching your sector

+100 on brar's post above! Hit several nails on head.

I think we will end up with another 4-8 in our fleet, so a total of 22-26 P8s which is pretty formidable. It almost doubles our capacity and will quadruple the area we can maintain watch over from our previous setup. The uptime alone gives us that increase not taking into account better sensors and more coverage. Almost like having 50-60 Il-38s in my opinion.

The assertion that we are missing capability/functionality IMO is false.

hnair
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3820
Joined: 03 May 2006 01:31
Location: Trivandrum

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

Postby hnair » 13 Feb 2020 11:54

Philip wrote:The P-8 can't perform low and slow prosecution of subs unlike turboprops. Low and slow has its better results than a bird flying at higher alts. Secondly larer numbers of long endurance aircraft are needed. The IL-38s come at a fraction of the cost of a P-8,please compare the huge cost difference.


Philip, this slow&long turbo-prop endurance is another one of those things that have been discussed in the Balakot strike as well as post-Balakot operations. In that case, AEW(pak eriye) vs AEWC (Netra). If you are fighting a war over a vast area like India and its surroundings, you need to reach the theatre of action fast and quick, unlike pakis*. For regular patrols and surveillance, you can use fuel-sipping but slow turboprop to keep the OPEX low. The paki turboprops had longer endurance and acted more like picket surveillance than a truly offensive and fast mode like the Netra did during the Balakote strikes. Indian defensive play was all GCI managed, based on the awards to the lady, despite Netra being around. To summarize, the low and slow for normal times, but high and fast for increased temparature situation.

Regarding the "low and slow prosecution of subs"? If a sub is streaming underwater at a quiet 5 knots, can IL38 also keep pace, without stalling? What if sub stops, will the IL38 hover and lower a dunking sonar? Doesn't it too uses single-use sono-buoys dropped at a high speed? So what is its big slow-speed advantage vis-a-vis P8I other than fuel usage? The P8I apparently uses a GPS guided para-drop method for both buoys and torpedos, from its usual operating heights (30k feet). Seem more accurate and a lot safer than the old and slow method to me, if the sub or a sub-tender trawler has even a basic MANPAD.

That C-295 will make a great defensive MPA or a picket AEW for border surveillance, but no way can it replace the Netra or P8I's wartime advantages of speed. We need a ton of Netras and P8Is like yestereday and maybe some C-295 (although drones could be a lot more easier on budget)

Also Post-USSR, all the Russian kit's brochure prices have been low, but operating them is where the spike has been. Just because the Tu-Bear went all the way till SAfrica and back, does not mean they regularly do it - most of the time they seem to be basking in the Goan sun. P8I on the other hand has been cited as doing magnitude more mission hours due to excellent uptime. For example, if we consider the Su30MKI's past uptime, it was 60%. So an airforce that direly needs 10 squadrons of these craft on air will need to spend money for 4 more squadrons to bridge that gap. But what about 40% of duds in that 4 squadrons? Another 2 more to bridge the gap of the 4 squadrons, and another 1..... and so on :D IN's IL38 has never been cited by Navy as a high-uptime aircraft, compared to P8I.

From ASW perspective, a large aircraft carrier never made sense, but a robust ASW capability consisting of MRSAM defended island-based bubbles, a large fleet of P8Is , sat-networked MALE drones, SOSUS and a small fleet of fast SSNs (that can chase down a carrier group) would make sense for an armed recon role during peace or war. Maybe four amphibous assault ships that can swing to an ASW (lots of helicopters) or sea-control (AShm + A2A loaded aircraft) role after the assault is over, to deny reinforcements to be floated into an IOR island territory. Basically three more Vikrants :D
____________
* Cheen with its identical vast theatres, still produces turboprop AEW for reasons other than logic, so is not a good role model for many things - their experiments with Y8 to keep open an ancient assembly line is something that would make even our OFB unions cringe. If we still churned out Avros like they do with Y8s, our guys too would also be forced to mount everything on it. But their Comac has a different and worrying production line though, need careful scrutiny.

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2594
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

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

Postby Cybaru » 13 Feb 2020 13:27

https://www.angleofattack.com/aviatorcast-episode-73-jeffrey-graham-naval-aviator-p3-orion-p8-poseidon-aviation-safety-officer/

Chris: Yes, always military terms. I love it.
Jeff: Some of the evident things that we can do in the P8, we can fly higher. We can go farther. The legs are a little bit longer though the endurance time is about the same What they have given us is the ability to refuel in air which is [Inaudible][01:08:11] and so it’s obviously going to extend our availability on station, not indefinitely obviously but a fair amount.
My understanding and I don’t have this on any good authority, so don’t take it as gospel obviously but I believe this thing will stay airborne for 24 hours before we start to break down the oil.

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2594
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

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

Postby Cybaru » 14 Feb 2020 01:53

Great article - has been posted here by many... posting the last para for Philip - applies to il-38s as well.

https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/confessions-of-a-pilot-behind-the-us-navys-airborne-sub-1598415741

Overall, I've found the P-8A allows crew-members to focus more on tactical employment and getting every ounce of performance out of the jet's sensors and weapons. While the Orion is a very safe airplane statistically, it was designed in another age with different design philosophies. It's very hands-on and user intensive especially for pilots and flight engineers. Because of the fact that the P-3C is honestly trying to break, catch on fire, or generally kill you during any given flight, we have to devote a great deal of energy simply to operating it safely. This isn't a hit on the P-3C, any airplane of that generation is like that, and the fact that some of these birds are over 40 years old is a testament to the engineers who designed them and our maintainers who keep them flying. Because reliability is baked into the P-8, we can focus more on tactical effectiveness. The result is higher situational awareness (SA) and much better mission performance in the new jet.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8297
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby brar_w » 14 Feb 2020 02:04

This is also helpful (also posted before)

https://youtu.be/wnh_UDu9hiU?t=160

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2594
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

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

Postby Cybaru » 14 Feb 2020 03:40

brar_w wrote:This is also helpful (also posted before)

https://youtu.be/wnh_UDu9hiU?t=160


Shaking for 8 hours and a better head! Important upgrades!!

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8297
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby brar_w » 14 Feb 2020 04:27

I wonder if the IN would be interested in any of these capabilities down the road, once it has fielded a desired number of aircraft. The USN has requested that their P-8 program be closed as they have built up the originally planned fleet of 117 aircraft so it will be a program sustained by export from here on in.. (The Congress is unlikely to allow them to terminate it this early however given that there are a few reserve squadrons that have not yet upgraded to the P-8)


Boeing sees P-8’s new capabilities expanding international market


Boeing believes possible upgrades to its P-8 maritime patrol aircraft, including the integration of new anti-ship cruise missiles, bombs, sea mines and decoys, among other payloads, could help it increase international sales potential.

The US Naval Air Systems Command solicited potential contractors on 28 January to integrate a variety of weapons on the aircraft via a request for information notice posted online.“The capability opportunities for the P-8 are quite endless,” says Tim Flood, senior manager for international sales of commercial derivative aircraft, at the Singapore air show. “So by adding the capabilities, whether it be weapons or new sensors, that opens up that aperture for greater demand.”

The P-8 is based on the commercial 737-800, but its airframe has been ruggedised. That means it wouldn’t take much modification for the aircraft to carry new weapons, especially on its wing pylons, says Flood.

“There’s no real modification required,” he says. “It’s more of an airworthiness certification process.”

Flood declines to say what nations are potential customers in Asia. Boeing is awaiting finalisation of a contract with New Zealand for four examples of the P-8 and another contract with South Korea for six examples.


Here are the planned upgrades - https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/3 ... and-decoys

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2594
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

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

Postby Cybaru » 14 Feb 2020 10:06

I would prefer this be the AEW platform if they can certify it.. Will remove all sorts of future headaches for us. Order of 10 won't cross around 1.3-1.5 billion for the platform and then we can add whatever we need to it. All they need to do is certify a larger cross beam type that we have or a rotating chapati. Probably cost 300-400 million for such a certification.

They will probably deliver all 10 platforms in one year.

JTull
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2709
Joined: 18 Jul 2001 11:31

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

Postby JTull » 14 Feb 2020 19:50

brar_w wrote:This is also helpful (also posted before)

https://youtu.be/wnh_UDu9hiU?t=160


I really like the question whether they are betting better at tracking submarines, their primary mission. It is not about like for like transfer of capabilities of a newer generation aircraft like cruise speed/altitude, etc. He could have, very easily, talked about better sensors, more time on station, better reliability of platform, better comfort and safety, higher operational availability (etc) but instead he talked about the training. All else are obvious (and need not be said) because of a generation difference between the two platforms.

The end of Cold War reduced the challenges and as a result, the skill levels. now in a multi-polar world we've the advantage of more adversaries resulting in more learning opportunities from each deployment. It helps hone our training curriculum too. That too acts as a deterrent to those who matter.

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3698
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

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

Postby kit » 14 Feb 2020 20:26

What sensor does the Poseidon use instead of the MADs in Neptune ?

fanne
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3270
Joined: 11 Feb 1999 12:31

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

Postby fanne » 14 Feb 2020 20:49

while our HS748 may do many of the duties of C295, who will upgrade it's structure to support a dome or to support any sensors for ASW or refueller etc.
It is one thing to change the avionics (and engine with OEM support), entirely different to change plane structure. We failed once in HS748 AEW when it crashed, as the dome collapsed on the plane. Do we have expertise to make structural modification?

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8297
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby brar_w » 14 Feb 2020 21:07

kit wrote:What sensor does the Poseidon use instead of the MADs in Neptune ?

They are introducing High altitude capability (this is also mentioned in the video I posted earlier) via a program to develop High Altitude ASW and that also has an accompanying High Altitude Anti-Submarine Warfare Weapon (launching torpedos from 30,000 ft which will be operational this year). The former is in the form of an unmanned aerial system that has MAD capability and can be dispensed from higher altitudes..Baseline P-8's had classified capability that was claimed to offer ASW advantages at low or high altitude but the plan was always to move to high altitude ASW capability because it allowed more crew comfort, better situational awareness and maintained LOS links with other sensors and crafts in the area that may or may not have SATCOM uplink/downlink capability..

BAE Systems to develop MAD ASW drone to help Navy P-8A find submarines from high altitudes


Boeing Showcases New Sub-Hunting Torpedo

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20448
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

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

Postby Philip » 15 Feb 2020 00:31

The Diplomat reported last year that the 10 extra planned P-8Is for the IN were to cost $3B. That's a massive $300M a pop! Upgraded IL-38s cost just $30M not $40M. You can work out the math yourself! There are 54 IL-38s with the RuN.Of these 34 are being upgraded in a programme that will run until 2025.I am only advocating a small buy of 5 to 7 of them which will cost less than $250,000, not even the cost of 1 P-8I! Russia gave us 2 a few years back gratis when 2 of ours collided in a flypast at Goa. Of the 20 balance aircraft, we could get the number mentioned for a song by comparison.These aircraft would complement the P-8Is we operate also remembering because of high cost we are reducing the number to 6 or 4. 5 to 7 upgraded IL-38s will augment the fleet and will require replacement of the older ones only by 2030.The aircraft have a reported range of 9500km as well, needed in sanitising the IOR.Together with the P-8Is,we would have a decent number of LRMP/ ASW aircraft with a large payload to prosecute both enemy subs as well as surface ships with a radar in excess of 300km detection range. Our LRMP aircraft should be able to fly to the chokepoints in the Malacca Straits,Indonesia,etc., plus spend considerable time on station.

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2594
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

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

Postby Cybaru » 15 Feb 2020 00:44

If the Uptime is around 20-30% then you really buying 5 to keep 1 in air. Best to have it on a commercial platform that is known for 90% uptime. plus slower ingress/egress to station and older sensors means the area scanned is limited. Now to get the same area scanned - you have to add another 5 to get what you get from one p8.

If the uptimes are higher - adjust the number

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8297
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby brar_w » 15 Feb 2020 02:12

Just posting this again even though this exchange is only a half a page up otherwise we risk going in circles..

John wrote:
Philip wrote:Rakesh,plz read the post carefully.The P-8 can't perform low and slow prosecution of subs unlike turboprops. Low and slow has its better results than a bird flying at higher alts. Secondly larer numbers of long endurance aircraft are needed. The IL-38s come at a fraction of the cost of a P-8,please compare the huge cost difference.Next, why go in for yet another turboprop ASW aircraft when " more of the same" will suffice.It's complementary not an equivalent. Now the IN and CG require MRP aircraft.That's where the C- 285 could find a niche.We can't afford the 20+ P-8s,so in making up numbers the upgraded IL-38s around 5 to 7 can be picked up for the price of onf or two P-8s.Samd reason why we want conv. subs because we can't afford all nuclear ones.Even Russia can't and is building a dozen new conv. subs.Only the US can afford large numbers of P-8s replacing its old P-3s.

Where are you getting the il-38 is cheap it cost 40 mil in 2001 just to upgrade them (that’s around 80+ million now adjusted for inflation).

Even then the radar is sub par and it took russia close to two decades to upgrade just 5. So you want to drop around 100 mill each for 3 decade old airframe (assuming they give away free) and wait 1 decade for Russia to upgrade them? Please stop derailing the thread with fantasy procurement and focus on what is being procured.

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3698
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

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

Postby kit » 15 Feb 2020 02:38

brar_w wrote:They are introducing High altitude capability (this is also mentioned in the video I posted earlier) via a program to develop High Altitude ASW and that also has an accompanying High Altitude Anti-Submarine Warfare Weapon (launching torpedos from 30,000 ft which will be operational this year). The former is in the form of an unmanned aerial system that has MAD capability and can be dispensed from higher altitudes..Baseline P-8's had classified capability that was claimed to offer ASW advantages at low or high altitude but the plan was always to move to high altitude ASW capability because it allowed more crew comfort, better situational awareness and maintained LOS links with other sensors and crafts in the area that may or may not have SATCOM uplink/downlink capability..

BAE Systems to develop MAD ASW drone to help Navy P-8A find submarines from high altitudes


Boeing Showcases New Sub-Hunting Torpedo



As far as I know, the MAD capability you had mentioned for the Poseidons are not there in the vanilla Neptune but only as an add on, so does this classified capability restricted in its export variants ., in which case i think the HAAS would probably be restricted as well for the Neptunes.

It is indeed interesting how quite a few on american weaponry in Indian service have "watered down" capability requiring it to look elsewhere for addon capabilities., the platform and the other sensors are great anyway and peerless. Also wonder any of the alphabet treaty signatures have made any difference to actual capability addition to the Indian equipment.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8297
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby brar_w » 15 Feb 2020 02:45

The US Navy opted to forgo the MAD on the P-8 as early Science and Technology experiments and demonstrations gave them enough confidence that the High Altitude AWS was going to be better when it finally came online around the 2020 time-frame. The P-8 (US) has certain classified capabilities that got ported over from the P-3 and others that are unique to it. Collectively, these were deemed to be sufficient until the HAASW capability was brought into the fleet via UAS and high altitude ASWW. The P-8 at baseline was required to be a "better and more reliable P-3". However, the end goal was to completely change the way the ASW and MPA mission was handled and make it much more of a cooperative and networked mission where the P-8 acts as the quarterback with other manned, unmanned (Triton) and P-8 deployed unmanned aircraft supporting the mission.

kit wrote:
It is indeed interesting how quite a few on american weaponry in Indian service have "watered down" capability requiring it to look elsewhere for addon capabilities., the platform and the other sensors are great anyway and peerless. Also wonder any of the alphabet treaty signatures have made any difference to actual capability addition to the Indian equipment.


In case of the Neptune, the MAD was added because the P-8 base configuration of the USN did not have it. As I said, this was added for the IN while the USN deferred this capability till such time that its HAASW package was ready. There are always going to be capabilities on ISR/ASW aircraft that tie it into the US NTM that are never going to be even advertised (let alone exported) regardless who the customer is. That said, yes you are right the treaties would, in theory, make it much easier to port upgrades and future capabilities over to the Indian P-8's which was always going to be different from how most others got it since the IN decided to buy them as a user and not join the program as a formal partner like some of the others.

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3698
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

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

Postby kit » 15 Feb 2020 03:55

Yes, correct so when we say the Poseidon in context to the IN, it's capabilities are not exactly similar to a Poseidon in USN service. The import being that it's always better to have an in-house capabilities for India and by extension the IN for something that is very significant in the Indian context. The sub arm has always been the navys Achilles heel and it does not seem right that all of the antisub warfare duties go to the Neptune.an indigenous solution is very much desirable

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8297
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby brar_w » 15 Feb 2020 03:59

Yes, of course. As I mentioned there are areas where the P-8 is going to require complementary capability. This could be in the form of smaller missionized aircraft, an unmanned aircraft or both. Those are both capabilities the MOD and IN should invest in and ASW is a good place to start.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Kakarat, Majestic-12 [Bot] and 60 guests