Indian Naval Discussion

[tsarkar]

Those casings could be brass. Precious metal not to be wasted. Besides if random people find them they will collect them and sell them. Brass can be sold for good money per Kg. But steel too is bought by scrap dealers. And I am guessing that they have to account for every round fired for practice - a simple security measure to check smuggling for money/terrorism

Correct, demand for service ammunition is very high in the hinterland, most sailors/soldiers come from rural background where land disputes are rampant, and high grade service ammunition is much in demand for firing from desi weapons. The Indian rural small arms business is as prolific & widespread as Darra Adam Khel, though DAK reverse engineers while Indian designs, though rustic, are original. Hence every round, except in combat areas, has to be accounted for.

Even policemen, after encounters with criminals, have to account for every round fired, for the same reason.

Also, sailors/soldiers pilfer explosives. One common use is fishing - the explosive stuns and kills fishes through concussion and they float to the surface intact. Chaps going home have to throw a coming home feast and this is one way of provisioning for the extended kutumb.

[negi]

If you go for firing practice say during a NCC camp every spent shell has to be accounted for (even if it's a .22 ammo); they say a lost shell is equivalent to a man down.

[negi]

Also, sailors/soldiers pilfer explosives. One common use is fishing - the explosive stuns and kills fishes through concussion and they float to the surface intact.

Ha ha that's how they fish in my place; the explosives are not that expensive though you can get them from folks in road construction business. I was told it costs around INR 80 for a stick and the cap.

[Cosmo_R]

Some decent posts re. the possible/fantasized Tu22 acquisition - my two cents:

CM

Instead of TU-160s, would it not make more sense to have SSGN salvos of Shouryas/K-15 whatever? They travel at Mach6 and the platforms are a lot stealthier than bombers. The Arihant class are supposed to have the ability to deliver either the SLBM or the K-15s.

We have problems getting tires for the SU30s and I'm not sure how reliable the supply chain is for a TU-160.

My 2 cents is that bombers like battleships (and Kirovs ) have seen their day. That seems to be the logic behind the Ohio class carrying 154 Tomahawks and with the USN even suggesting SLBMs in a conventional role.

Here's the USN fantasy:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technol ... ry/4203874

[John]

2) LRMPs and MKIs will serve our purpose and a cruise missile salvo will be good enough for S. China Sea bases. Big difference bet. this and the Backfire/Blackjack imho. Both these a/c can fly @ M2 if needed and cover a range that is 3 X that of the MKI. IOWs, they could literally act as standalone strikes which can take off at a moments notice. They won't require 10 days of planning and prep. For a barrage of cruise missiles, India will have to get close enough with current platforms - trying to get LRMPs, MKIs (in that number) etc 500km away from PLAN bases is a suicide job. And if the idea is to fire Nirbhays from 1000 km away or more, remember these take time to travel and can be taken out by things like TORs. What a flight of 5 Backfires can do is simply coast along until about 1000km from target undetected and then go low and fast, launch Brahmos types and get out, all very quickly with a decent chance of survivability. Remember these birds have a combat radius of close to 3500km+ - that is, they can do an unrefueled mission of that distance to and fro. And they can do it rather fast with a very heavy loadout. They'll have to muster up a fleet of 2 dozen MKIs refuelled twice to carry out a similar mission. Fat chance of being undetected too.

Cain any hypothetical against PRC will require the strike aircraft to fly at low altitude (flying high and fast is not optional with large amount S-300 batteries around most basses). Backfire would not offer much of an advantage over Su-30mki, in fact it is suicide mission with Backfire where as atleast MKI can ditch their payload and high tail out of there if they are intercepted by flankers.

Tu-160 would be useful but is highly unlikely Russia would sell any nor are there enough available for us to field a squadron of these.

As Cosmo mentioned Shaurya will be the go to platform to hit such a target and only missiles like 9m82+ can intercept it and would require large number of them to be fired to intercept one successfully.

[Cain Marko]

Instead of TU-160s, would it not make more sense to have SSGN salvos of Shouryas/K-15 whatever? They travel at Mach6 and the platforms are a lot stealthier than bombers. The Arihant class are supposed to have the ability to deliver either the SLBM or the K-15s.

We have problems getting tires for the SU30s and I'm not sure how reliable the supply chain is for a TU-160.

My 2 cents is that bombers like battleships (and Kirovs ) have seen their day. That seems to be the logic behind the Ohio class carrying 154 Tomahawks and with the USN even suggesting SLBMs in a conventional role.

Here's the USN fantasy:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technol ... ry/4203874

Frankly, i'd prefer the backfires over the blackjack. And I'd prefer these over the possibility of having SSGNs firing hypersonic CMs. Why? In the short term - the latter is a pipe dream. The K-15 iirc IS a BM isnt' it? , which means you are escalating the war considerably - opens up India to a salvo of SLBMs and then who is to guess whether these will be nuke tipped or not? Even worse, the K-15 is limited by range, no more than 700km as of now. Third, By the time this capability is developed and ready even purely as an SLBM with long range - 3000km, it might be a while, and this is almost purely a strategic/nuke triad type asset (an SSGN would be a more suitable choice imho). BUT, a purely hypersonic CM with extra long range is even further down in the pipeline. I'd wager at least about 2025-30 by the time these are reliably in the armed forces.

What the Backfires (not the blackjacks - there are too few anyways) can give India is a relatively immediate option, and not just for PLAN targets, landbased targets might also be tempting and doable with backfires and not subs? Still, having an Arihant type with the ability to launch even Nirbhays would be a great asset, hence the need to take a dekko at Roosi SSGN or Yasen types. IOWs, Backfires and SSGNs are mutually complimentary not exclusive.

CM

[jamwal]

Some decent posts re. the possible/fantasized Tu22 acquisition - my two cents:

1) Cost of maintenance, yes this won't be cheap but no more/less than the Bears the IN currently operates. For specialized roles, costs will always be extra, but I think they are worth paying. I say increase the freaking budget!!

2) LRMPs and MKIs will serve our purpose and a cruise missile salvo will be good enough for S. China Sea bases. Big difference bet. this and the Backfire/Blackjack imho. Both these a/c can fly @ M2 if needed and cover a range that is 3 X that of the MKI. IOWs, <snip>
JMT.

CM

Exactly. I' not aware of any particular reason that makes long range bombers any more difficult or expensive to maintain than a CBG or submarine or a number of lighter fighter planes with equivalent load capacity.
We are struggling to modify Su30 so that it can carry ONLY ONE Brahmos missile. I doubt if it'll carry longer legged Nirbhay if and when it's operational. A small fleet of Blackjacks armed with multiple long range cruise missiles or even Brahmos will be a very formidable weapon not only in IOR but China border. Small range of Brahmos makes it of limited utility on most of our border with China. You have to have it mounted on an aerial platform to utilise it properly in that area.
You'll need as many Su30s to carry as many Brahmos missiles in addition to escorts for any strike mission or patrols. A single Blackjack can replace all the CM carrying Su30s in any such scenario.

Well, I am just repeating what CM saar explained very well.


Added later: Why limit ourselves to Russians only? Isn't it possible to develop one of our own ?

[Cain Marko]

[ Cain any hypothetical against PRC will require the strike aircraft to fly at low altitude (flying high and fast is not optional with large amount S-300 batteries around most basses). Backfire would not offer much of an advantage over Su-30mki, in fact it is suicide mission with Backfire where as atleast MKI can ditch their payload and high tail out of there if they are intercepted by flankers.

Tu-160 would be useful but is highly unlikely Russia would sell any nor are there enough available for us to field a squadron of these.

As Cosmo mentioned Shaurya will be the go to platform to hit such a target and only missiles like 9m82+ can intercept it and would require large number of them to be fired to intercept one successfully.

Those Tu-22s can fly low and rather fast too. Not enough to evade SAMS of course but fast, low and far enough that detection would not be easy and beyond SAM reach. They can fly high till a certain point and then go low typical hi-lo type ingress. I don't expect the S300/HQ-9 radar coverage ranging past 200km for low flying birds, and that should be enough to launch a salvo of Brahmos types perhaps even some other CMs. And the corresponding missiles will not have ranges in excess of 150-200km either. It'll be touch and go, but if a large amount of supersonics are fired at those ranges, it'll be very hard to defend.

In terms of detection radius around a PLAN base - how far can we expect radar bubbles to extend? And in what directions? A greater threat might be fighters launched to intercept but thing is at what point can detection be expected? At the moment the IAF sees wisdom in reengining the Jags for even riskier roles, which btw, it performs rather well - including managing SAM sites in exercises such as Cope India and Malabar(?). S300 can be handled imho with backfires carrying much longer ranged and faster CMs.

CM

[Cosmo_R]

@CainMarko^^^:"rankly, i'd prefer the backfires over the blackjack. And I'd prefer these over the possibility of having SSGNs firing hypersonic CMs. Why? In the short term - the latter is a pipe dream. The K-15 iirc IS a BM isnt' it? , which means you are escalating the war considerably - opens up India to a salvo of SLBMs"

If you're sending the Backfires (nuclear capable) against a nuclear power and they fire conventional cruise missiles, you're just as likely to get an ICBM salvo in response because they don't know for sure what's on it and they are not likely to give you the benefit.

Against a non-nuclear power an Shourya strike would not elicit a ICBM response because they won't have any.

Your may be right about Shourya/K-15 being a BM but I was under the impression it is a hybrid--it flies a depressed or flat atmospheric trajectory. Perhaps Shiv or others would care to comment on what it is.

"......Shaurya missile is a land version of the under-water launched K-15 missile, Sagarika (missile)."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrated ... nt_Program

[Cain Marko]

^ There is a difference imvho in using a long ranged SLBM vs. a bomber. The backfire clearly has certain maritime apps as well - and was often considered a weapon against USN CBGs. Otoh, an SLBM almost certainly implies nukes - it has one very specific task (unlike the backfire) - to act as one part of a nuke triad.

The backfire otoh, is more multipurpose than an SLBM, not unlike the MKI (but more suited for certain apps), otherwise, no point using MKIs either since they too have a nuke role.

Btw, what non nuke power would require a Shaurya type shot? India does not have that many enemies.

CM

[John]

[ Cain any hypothetical against PRC will require the strike aircraft to fly at low altitude (flying high and fast is not optional with large amount S-300 batteries around most basses). Backfire would not offer much of an advantage over Su-30mki, in fact it is suicide mission with Backfire where as atleast MKI can ditch their payload and high tail out of there if they are intercepted by flankers.

Tu-160 would be useful but is highly unlikely Russia would sell any nor are there enough available for us to field a squadron of these.

As Cosmo mentioned Shaurya will be the go to platform to hit such a target and only missiles like 9m82+ can intercept it and would require large number of them to be fired to intercept one successfully.

Those Tu-22s can fly low and rather fast too. Not enough to evade SAMS of course but fast, low and far enough that detection would not be easy and beyond SAM reach. They can fly high till a certain point and then go low typical hi-lo type ingress. I don't expect the S300/HQ-9 radar coverage ranging past 200km for low flying birds, and that should be enough to launch a salvo of Brahmos types perhaps even some other CMs. And the corresponding missiles will not have ranges in excess of 150-200km either. It'll be touch and go, but if a large amount of supersonics are fired at those ranges, it'll be very hard to defend.

In terms of detection radius around a PLAN base - how far can we expect radar bubbles to extend? And in what directions? A greater threat might be fighters launched to intercept but thing is at what point can detection be expected? At the moment the IAF sees wisdom in reengining the Jags for even riskier roles, which btw, it performs rather well - including managing SAM sites in exercises such as Cope India and Malabar(?). S300 can be handled imho with backfires carrying much longer ranged and faster CMs.

CM

Radars like Clamshell have ranges of 300 km but are limited by horizon but china does have limited AEW capability and have been working on early warning radar system using uavs and aerostat like radars.

Of course for long range stand off attacks against targets by the ocean it is not going to help them much. As for Shaurya it is similar to isklander and yes its launch can be mistaken for nuclear attack, heck even a cruise missile or bombing strike can be interpreted as such.

[Cosmo_R]

^ There is a difference imvho in using a long ranged SLBM vs. a bomber. The backfire clearly has certain maritime apps as well - and was often considered a weapon against USN CBGs. Otoh, an SLBM almost certainly implies nukes - it has one very specific task (unlike the backfire) - to act as one part of a nuke triad.

The backfire otoh, is more multipurpose than an SLBM, not unlike the MKI (but more suited for certain apps), otherwise, no point using MKIs either since they too have a nuke role.

Btw, what non nuke power would require a Shaurya type shot? India does not have that many enemies.

CM

"Btw, what non nuke power would require a Shaurya type shot? India does not have that many enemies."

That is exactly the point. We are facing PRC and TSP. We don't need a TU-22M3 for Pakistan and if we use it to launch a CM against PRC, they will respond with BMs.

So, who are the enemies that we need the TU-22m3s for? They are the airborne equivalent of Philip's beloved Kirovs.

BTW, even with the TU-22m3s, we're talking clockwork orange hydraulic gauges, vacuum tubes, and Commodore 64 era chips. The RCS has to be the size of an asteroid. The pilots will need to wear scarves and curse the Red Baron named Putin.

[Cain Marko]

Radars like Clamshell have ranges of 300 km but are limited by horizon but china does have limited AEW capability and have been working on early warning radar system using uavs and aerostat like radars.

Of course for long range stand off attacks against targets by the ocean it is not going to help them much. As for Shaurya it is similar to isklander and yes its launch can be mistaken for nuclear attack, heck even a cruise missile or bombing strike can be interpreted as such.

Problem with Iskander/Shaurya more than anything else is their limited range. True Hypersonic CMs are some ways off imho. What this translates into in the near term is that launch platforms (subs and ships) will take time to deploy and will have to be deployed too close to targets for comfort. At least the subs have a chance. And then, land targets deep become very difficult.

Cosmo,
Actually I have to admit that I am seeing counter strike options to Ahuja Sir's exceptional scenario where India gets bummed by innumerable Cheeni CMs. I really don't foresee a nuke exchange betw India/China - conventional outburst, for sure - sooner or later the people's party will decide that India needs to be taught a lesson. definitely. Otoh, while I don't see Pak as a candidate for Backfired mijjiles, PRC is definitely prime. Of course, Philip Garu might have bigger fish to fry, but I really, really don't see that as happening - if anything, the opposite direction is more likely.

The most likely scenario we are apt to see (imvh reading of tea leaves) is that things go v.awry for TSP (v.v.likely), so, with complicity from PRC they manage a massive JDAM style trial attack on India. The faceoff is escalated and soon mijjiles are lobbed. US aligns with India, PRC "morally" support TSP while ever maintaining that a peaceful resolution should be sought, and "materially" gets ready some JDAM type delivery to mainland, also gets Noko to position a few straight ones towards Japan. If things don't stop, expect some really bad juju world over. The joker in the deck is Roos. I think they'll ride the fence as long as they can, until the US sees some major damage - definitely will soothe Bear's ego after debacle of 90s. Thereafter, they'll probly side ahem, the "allies" - China is not their friend. As opposition, "axis" might form bet - TSP (whatever is left of it), PRC, Iran, Noko and possibly some other disgruntled entities. Expect major proliferation of TSP nukes, and possible miniaturization thx to all weather ally. It is not for nothing that it has the fastest growing arsenal in the world.

Ducks....runs for cover! Adminullahs in backphyres is not good.

CM.

[Singha]

rather than heavily protected PLAN/PLANAF bases I was thinking more on lines of taking out major coastal power station and electricity distribution ...the impact on export economy of a months long disruption in power plus loss of face/H&D would be massive and obvious.

[tsarkar]

^^ IAF & IN were offered Tu-22 & M in the early 80's when seeking Canberra replacements and we declined. Reason being the age of a straight flight path bomber is over. There were significant Canberra losses in IAF & PAF to induct any further bombers. Libya procured Tu-22 same time we rejected and our fears were proved as their bird was shot down by a US/French Hawk battery in Chad shortly thereafter.

That is why B-1 is rarely operationally deployed and B-52 in areas of negligible air threats. B-2 is the most common operationally deployed bomber where threats exist.

MPA these days are goods carriers and they deploy their Harpoons/Urans/Brahmos way out of SAM range. No need buying a fuel guzzler for the same role. Tu-22 was useful saving the cost of missiles by being able to employ cheaper unguided munitions, but missiles have since become cheaper.

[Cain Marko]

TSarkar sir, Libyan Tu-22s of 80s vintage and 2012 IN/IAF Tu-22M3+ will be zameen-asmaan ka difference. In the 80s AFAIK no real standoff munitions existed on those old Libyan/Indian backfires - so yes, chucking bums over sam sites was decidedly hot for a massive bummer, but things have changed. The Tu-22M excels in something else more suited to today's work - fast ingress, release of large amounts of standoff LR weapons and quick bailout. No LRMP is going to do this - and no LRMP in IN acquisition plans has the ability to toss standoff munitions vs. even a nicely fortified 052 type or CBG with HQ9 (unless they at last managed to hang the Bmos on the Bear). Otherwise equipped with shorter ranged Harpoon types, the SAM bubble will mean the LRMP will be toast. To say nothing of landbased S300 variants which have similarly long ranged mijjiles with ranges in excess of 150km. Then there is always the danger of fighters - a slow subsonic bird has little chance to escape. Unless they can throw something like Scalp or Brahmos, LRMPs better stick to detection and perhaps picking off some stragglers here and there - not a truly offensive platform, least of all against CBGs. Plus their slow speeds makes them rather vulnerable.

I still feel that there is a distinct niche for Tu-22 types in India's service - (AF/IN), and this need will grow imho with the PLAN planning to induct a bunch of CBGs in the near future. JMTP wonlee.

CM

[arun]

Economic Times reports the Indian Navy has signed a contract with GRSE for 8 LCU’s:

Navy signs Rs.2,170 crore deal for 8 assault vessels

PIB discloses that the LCU will displace 800 Tons and be propelled by twin diesels:

Navy Orders Eight Amphibious Assault Vessels

[arun]

Fincantieri built Deepak Class replenishment tanker INS Shakti commissioned:

INS Shakti inducted into Indian Navy

[arun]

X Posted from the Indian Coast Guard Discussion thread.

GRSE to launch the second Kamorta Class Anti-Submarine Warfare Corvette (ASWC) in a months time.:

GRSE launches three ships

[Cosmo_R]

^^ IAF & IN were offered Tu-22 & M in the early 80's when seeking Canberra replacements and we declined. Reason being the age of a straight flight path bomber is over. There were significant Canberra losses in IAF & PAF to induct any further bombers. Libya procured Tu-22 same time we rejected and our fears were proved as their bird was shot down by a US/French Hawk battery in Chad shortly thereafter.

That is why B-1 is rarely operationally deployed and B-52 in areas of negligible air threats. B-2 is the most common operationally deployed bomber where threats exist.

MPA these days are goods carriers and they deploy their Harpoons/Urans/Brahmos way out of SAM range. No need buying a fuel guzzler for the same role. Tu-22 was useful saving the cost of missiles by being able to employ cheaper unguided munitions, but missiles have since become cheaper.

Its not just the Libyan TU-22 example. The Georgians shot down a Tu-22M

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/ ... el=defense

[Philip]

..which is why the TU-22s require upgrades.They are available in large numbers though.An alternative would be acquiring SU-34s ,but these would not have large weapons bays for stand-off LR missiles and would be able to carry only Brahmos as the largest missile type.

[ARay]

A story that everbody knows:
___________________________________________________________________________
Su30 MKI (souce: wikipedia)

Performance
Maximum speed: Mach 1.9 (2,120 km/h, 1,317 mph) at altitude; 1,350 km/h, 839 mph near ground level
Range: 3,000 km (1,620 nmi) at altitude; (1,270 km, 690 nmi near ground level; with no external fuel tanks)
Endurance: 3.75 hrs (up to 10 hrs with in-flight refueling)
Service ceiling: 17,300 m (56,800 ft)
Rate of climb: >300 m/s (>45,275 ft/min)
Wing loading: 401 kg/m² (82.3 lb/ft²)
Thrust/weight: 1.1
Armament
Guns: 1 × GSh-30-1 gun (30 mm caliber, 150 rounds)
12 hardpoints: 2 × wing-tip AAM launch rails, 6 × pylons under-wing, 2 × pylon under-engine nacelle, and 2 × pylons in tandem in the "arch" between the engines. It can be increased to 14 using multiple ejector racks. It can carry up to 8 tonnes of external stores.

Air-to-air Missiles:

10 × R-77 (AA-12) active radar homing medium range AAM, 100 km
10 × Astra missile active radar homing medium range AAM, 120 km
6 × R-27ER (AA-10C) semi-active radar guided, long range AAM 130 km
6 × R-27ET (AA-10D) Infrared homing extended range version, long range AAM 120 km
2 × R-27R (AA-10A) semi-active radar guided, medium range AAM,80 km
2 × R-27T (AA-10B) infrared homing seeker, medium range AAM, 70 km
6 × R-73 (AA-11) short range AAM, 30 km
3 × Novator KS-172 AAM-L 400 km/Russian air-to-air missile designed as an "AWACS killer"
Air-to-surface Missiles:

3 × Kh-59ME TV guided standoff Missile, 115 km
3 × Kh-59MK active radar homing anti-ship missile, 285 km
4 × Kh-35 anti-ship missile, 130 km
1 × PJ-10 Brahmos supersonic cruise missile,300 km
1 × Nirbhay subsonic cruise missile,1000 km
6 × Kh-31P/A anti-radar missile, 70 km
6 × Kh-29T/L laser-guided missile, 30 km
4 × S-8 rocket pods (80 unguided rockets)
4 × S-13 rocket pods (20 unguided rockets)
Bombs:

8 × KAB-500L laser guided bombs
3 × KAB-1500L laser guided bombs
8 × FAB-500T dumb bombs
28 × OFAB-250-270 dumb bombs
32 × OFAB-100-120 dumb bombs
8 × RBK-500 cluster bombs

Tu22M(surce; wikipedia)

Performance
Maximum speed: Mach 1.88 (2,000 km/h, 1,240 mph)
Combat radius: 2,410 km (1,500 mi) with typical weapons load
Service ceiling: 13,300 m (43,600 ft)
Rate of climb: 15 m/s (91 ft/s)
Wing loading: 688 kg/m² (147 lb/ft²)
Thrust/weight: 0.40

Armament
Guns: 1 × 23 mm GSh-23 cannon in remotely controlled tail turret
Hardpoints: wing and fuselage pylons and internal weapons bay with a capacity of 24,000 kg (52,900 lb) of
From up to 3 × Raduga Kh-22 missiles in weapons bay and on wing pylons or
Six missiles on a MKU-6-1 rotary launcher in its bomb bay, plus four missiles on two underwing pylons for a total of ten missiles per aircraft.
Various freefall bombs - 69 × FAB-250 or 8 × FAB-1500 might be typical.
______________________________________________________________________________

Conclusion (I): Su30 is a multirole fighter with i) sharp rate of climb, ii) tested war platform at high/medium altitude (range~ 3000 km without additional fuel tanks at high altitude) & above all iii) a store house of missiles under certain configurations.

Inference (I): Can assume any role theoretically but as such not exclusively tested (upto my knowledge, I may be wrong!!) as a stategic bomber.

Conclusion (II): Tu22M is a dedicated strategic bomber with i) chunk of boms ( lion share is free fall, can assume the role for carpet bombing far from base), ii) a bomber exclusively designed for low altitude level role with a very large radius (PLAN plans for even mid-air refuelling) and iii) also carries/able to carry a moderate load of missiles.

Inference (II): Tu22M with a minimum aircover with Su30 on top is a potent checker for CBGs. Infact Valdimir Putin pressed hard and finalised the aggressive patrolling of such strategic bombers afrer a brief silence of a decade (break up of USSR).

Recent development: On 10 September 2008 two Russian Tu-160 landed in Venezuela as part of military maneuvers, announcing an unprecedented deployment to Russia's ally at a time of increasingly tense relations between Russia and the United States.So the importance of such a platform is not lost otherwise the so called cold war relics would not get modernised and routinely engaged. Source: wikipedia

The prospective presence of Tu22M in INS is not for any defensive posture of the Navy. Under tension these bombers can be flown through sea route or land rote to patrol/even bomb gateway of south china sea. Also to counter any prospective deploymen of PLAN CBG.

[Philip]

Very nice comparison AR,a small aside,the TU-22 M3s can penetrate the..."Indo-China Sea"!

Backfires operating from their land bases could join up with their Flanker cover based in the A&N islands and carry out strikes into the I-C Sea ,refuelled if need be over Indian A&N airspace,giving them very long legs.Add to this the range and endurance of the Bears,if also fitted with B'mos,Nirbhay,etc. and we could have a very potent maritime strike force to counter the PLAN.

[John]

..which is why the TU-22s require upgrades.They are available in large numbers though.An alternative would be acquiring SU-34s ,but these would not have large weapons bays for stand-off LR missiles and would be able to carry only Brahmos as the largest missile type.

Hmm once again it would much cheaper and better alternative to design a UAV for this role rather than try and upgrade this.

[koti]

UAV's are always a better option for reconnaissance and bomb truck roles.
But

However, given the current level of UAV technology maturity, the raising threat perception outweighs this idea.

We need long range and supersonic aircraft like Tu22M3 to put the enemy planers in check. The likes of Tu22 and Su-34 have no UAV equivalents given their range payload and speed combo.

Its not just the Libyan TU-22 example. The Georgians shot down a Tu-22M

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/ ... el=defense

It might be true, however we are not interested in using Tu22M for destroying Paki or Chinese Airbase. This can be a very potent and deadly platform against Chinese CBGs. Imagine an approaching CBG near the Indo-China sea, a dispatch of 4 tu22m's and an escort of few MKI's. Even if all the Tu22's are lost in this operation a single hit into the carrier will cripple the enemy morale with several aircraft lost and thousands of sailors dead. And since it will be a battle group if we can target more then the carrier itself. Hell with a carrier, even a destroyer based group is good enough to justify the Tu22M's in that role.

Added,
Chinese Sub surface fleet has very decent capability to inflict significant damage to IN fleet. This capability restricts the IN warships(and subs) to closer to surface positions and helps the enemy's major combatants to close in further compromising our posture. However if we do have a significant Tu22M at our disposal, any significant warship movement it their range is suicidal.

You can just imagine how much more potent IN looks if it has a capability to destroy a target at 2500 KM from Indian coast in around an hour. That any place on ocean till Australia.

[ARay]

Philip, I had gone through your earlier posts . Indeed its an indeppth study ranging from battle cruisers-->mini subs. Also I had a brief chat with my dear friends (of CBG support group!!! I presume ). The fact is any defensive/offensive network should be based on pragmatism. I elaborate a little more:

Some facts: 1. The first squadron of Tejs will be based in south
2. Vikramaditya with a full/ upto 70% gown CBG will come by 2015 (must be done)
3. Vikrant should be ready by 2015(extend one more year) and the aircraft in hand will be Mig 29K, Naval Tejas
4. Fasttrack acquisition of subs underway and we may see AIP Scorpene by 2015--16.

What my gut feeling is that the lone carrier Vikramaditya (within 2020 period) will be covering a medium zone in Indian Ocean, Bay of Bengal under coverage by land based aircrafts. Home grown LCA with a range of 900 km and limited Su30 Mk cover will be there. So by no means we can extend beyond Andaman. The two CBGs will take around 10 years from now on to grow in full strength.

The urgency is to snap Sino-Pak nexus building around India and the chickens neck is South china sea. All the coastal powers there are unhappy with China for their aggressiveness. Current situation is:
1. Chin is extending its influence but with two thorrns in the neck: Formosa and NK. In Formosa its engaged in shadow war and in NK its a mask war.
2. CHinese airforce has Su 27s at reserve but may/must not risk it out in face of USN umbrella (which is steadily waning)
3. The lone CBG of China is in development stage and most alarming is their stress on sub activities.

To encounter INS has to have
I. A solid air arm (comprising of Harrier, Naval Tejas, Mig 29 K, Jaguar maritime, Su 30 Maritime. INS may try out FA/18 option with Performance
Maximum speed: Mach 1.8 (1,190 mph, 1,915 km/h) at 40,000 ft (12,190 m)
Range: 1,089 nmi (1,250 miles, 2,000 km) with only two AIM-9s
Combat radius: 400 nmi (460 mi, 740 km) on air-air mission
Ferry range: 1,800 nmi (2,070 mi, 3,330 km)
Service ceiling: 50,000 ft (15,240 m)
Rate of climb: 50,000 ft/min (254 m/s)
Wing loading: 93 lb/ft² (454 kg/m²)
Thrust/weight: 0.96

A perfect medium altitude level fighter (40k ft.) with a good niche of engaging ground targets.

(infact I was surprised to see FA/18 in MMRCA while it is a perfect choice to complete a triad of INS air arm i.e. Maritime Su30 (Top cover ~ 60 k Ft), FA/18 (medium cover+attack ~ 40 k Ft) and lastly TU 23 M (low altitude strategic bomber).

You may very well ask my intention i.e. am I trying to convert INS--> IAF. The answer is No.
A handfull (5-->6 pcs of Tu22M), 60 odd numbers of FA/18 and maritime Su 30 good enough for another couple of decades. Infact I read reports of extending the numbers by another 60 in MMRCA. Why not the extension be done in favour of INS. Also advantageous will be addtion of FA/18 on future carriers of INS.

With this much air cover INS stands chance against possible intrusion of PLAN or even to take offesive maneavre over south china sea. Any Navy (take example of USN) if wants to make its presence felt always stress on air arm. Addition of 6 odd nos. of Tu22M and 60 odd FA/18 (hope naval LCA will come by then for carrier) stands as a check on chess board in Indian Ocean. I may be wrong too!! but just as a hunch I put my words.

[tsarkar]

^^ Most naval anti ship and land attack weapons - Harpoon/SLAM/Kh-31/Kh-59/BrahMos etc have minimum range of 130 km. That outranges 70 km LRSAM like Barak-8, leave aside Soviet SAMs on Chinese ships.

So which of Boeing 737 or Tu-22 is a cheaper platform to acquire and operate whose sole job is to lob missiles outside SAM range?

Cheaper also means more platforms can be acquired and operated for the same amount.

As we discussed in the LCA thread sometime back, speed does not matter since nothing can outrun missiles. That is why B-2 flies subsonic.

And that is why we need aircraft carriers. To target missile launch platforms outside SAM envelope.

Tu22M(surce; wikipedia)Rate of climb: 15 m/s (91 ft/s)

Boeing 737 climb rate is 20 m/s and it turns tighter as well. Its a moot point discussing manoeuverability of trucks, but 737 scores above Tu22M on all parameters.

All Tu22M does is fly in a straight line and is as vulnerable as Boeing 737, if not more.

[Philip]

False alarm! Typhoons NOT being scrapped,none available.Sob,sob!
http://www.globalsecuritynewswire.org/g ... 3_3807.php

The reasons are because a newer missile is needed to replace the odler R-39 missiles which were built in the Ukraine.Russia has scrapped these misssiles.A Russian def. min spokesman said that the subs would probably be convereted into SSGNs like USN Ohio class subs,carrying huge quantities of cruise missiles (poss. even hypersonic B'mos!).

AR,instead of buying F-18SHs we, could buy instead more mIG-29Ks or even upgraded versions with AESA radars and TVC,upto MIG-35 std.We are already buying around 48+ meant for the Gorky/Vik and IAC-1.The small number of Sea Harriers could also be augmented by ex-RN early retd. Harriers -sev. sqds. available v.stupidly pensioned off by the British govt.,24-36 at least,also for the several flat-top amphibious ships of at least 20,000t+ for which proposals have supposedly been invited for.These can be used to support amphib ops.THey will last for another 10-15 yrs. at least.

The problem with land-based aircraft is that when needed urgently by a task force say under attack by the enemy,it takes an awful long time to get to the scene of action unlike integral fleet air defence using carriers.It is why I've always been advocating the use of STOVL aircraft for future amphibious flat-tops.BVR equipped Harriers would do a great job defending the task force,allowing heavier twin-engined MIG-29Ks for strike.Land-based LRMP aircraft however have the range and loiter time to assist any task force in IOR ops.The IN would however dearly love to operate a vessel like the Kirov class N-battlecruiser,with its huge arsenal of various missiles-LR SAMs and LR land attack missiles too,plus a heavy gun with ER munitions upto 80-100km range.Tsarkar is ight about carrier aircraft too,but unless we operate heavier carriers,preferably N-powered and of 65-80,000t,larger aircratf than the MIG-29K cannot be accomodated and smaller naval LCAs will have severly limited capability.I would still plump for a naval version of the FGFA to be developed,either a cat-launched aircraft or even using the STOBAR .

[Austin]

Tu-22M was never designed to carry the MTCR limited slow missile , it carried the older Kh-22 or the newer Kh-32 missile , the idea was to stay outside the CBG Air Cover bubble which was designated at 500 km and fire the very high supersonic missile from high altitude and get out with supersonic speed.

Unlike the 737 or Tu-142 the Tu-22M3 is not a subsonic aircraft but a VG supersonic one that can get out of the danger zone as quickly as possible.
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Backfire.html

One can guess it why it is so dangerous with the new Kh-32 missile from the book Russian Strategic Aviation by Yefim Gordon

The principal weapon of modernised Tu-22M3 will be the Kh-32 supersonic air-to-surface missile developed by NPO Raduga as an upgrade of the familiar Kh-22. It features an improved rocket motor and a new seeker head.

The old Kh-22 anti-shipping missile was severely handicapped by its shortrange - a few hundered kilometers, that is, within visual range for a high flying aircraft. Over-the-horizon attackes were all but impossible: the Kh-22's seeker head could not find the target. In a real-life attack scenario against a carrier task force, the Tu-22M3 would have to break through fightercover , inevitably suffering loss.

Raguda new Kh-32 is the solution. While Kh-22 climbs to 22000m and acclerates to about 3600 km/h on the way to target, the Kh-32 at first soars up almost to the outer space an altitude of some 44 km/27.3 miles then "looks beyond the horizon", detecting the target at 600 km or even 1000 km range. The warhead/seeker of the new missile is much smarter - it can classify the targets and select the priority target an aircraft carrier or cruiser.

Also the Kh-32 closes on the target at much higher speed, which makes it impossible to intercept. In Russia that this missile and the Tu-22M3 modernisation to carry it are considered a serious military detterent and an effective weapon against the most powerful carrier task force. Test of the Kh-32 were successfuly conpleted back in late 1990 in so doing the long range aviation worked in close co-operation with the Navy,which willing supplied decommisioned warships as target.

[SNaik]

^^

Tu22M(surce; wikipedia)Rate of climb: 15 m/s (91 ft/s)

Boeing 737 climb rate is 20 m/s and it turns tighter as well. Its a moot point discussing manoeuverability of trucks, but 737 scores above Tu22M on all parameters.

All Tu22M does is fly in a straight line and is as vulnerable as Boeing 737, if not more.

Guys, never ever rely on Vikipedia BS. Tu-160 has thrust-to-weight ratio 0.36 and climb rate 70 m/s. How can you seriously consider that Tu-22M3 which has a TTW of 0.45 will have climb rate five times less????? Combat G-load for Tu-22M3 is 3, max - 5. How does that can be compared to 737? Never mind, that Tu-22M3 is designed for low-altitude high-subsonic and high-altitude supersonic dashes (up to M2) while carrying semi-submerged X-22 or X-32. How does that compares to 737?

If you have identified that the threat you are going to face can be dealt with by a fleet of 737s - you are welcome, of course.

[koti]

All Tu22M does is fly in a straight line and is as vulnerable as Boeing 737, if not more.

Wrong sir.

Which aircraft do you think is more vulnerable on a deep strike mission, A-10 or MKI?

[arun]

Nerpa to be delivered to India around Mid-November:

Russia to lease troubled nuclear sub to India in November

[John]

Unlike the 737 or Tu-142 the Tu-22M3 is not a subsonic aircraft but a VG supersonic one that can get out of the danger zone as quickly as possible.

Off topic but fyi USN EW cannot be understated and would have rendered those missiles inept (hence russia even had them armed with WMD). As Israelis missile boats proved during 6 day war when they were able to soft kill close to two dozen styx missiles fired at them.

t might be true, however we are not interested in using Tu22M for destroying Paki or Chinese Airbase. This can be a very potent and deadly platform against Chinese CBGs. Imagine an approaching CBG near the Indo-China sea, a dispatch of 4 tu22m's and an escort of few MKI's. Even if all the Tu22's are lost in this operation a single hit into the carrier will cripple the enemy morale with several aircraft lost and thousands of sailors dead. And since it will be a battle group if we can target more then the carrier itself. Hell with a carrier, even a destroyer based group is good enough to justify the Tu22M's in that role.

Why do we need a Tu-22m3 for this? Even a pair of Su-30MKI armed with anti radiation missiles can cripple Varyag.

[Austin]

Off topic but fyi USN EW cannot be understated and would have rendered those missiles inept (hence russia even had them armed with WMD). As Israelis missile boats proved during 6 day war when they were able to soft kill close to two dozen styx missiles fired at them.

Nothing can be over stated or understated there is nothing like Unjammable Radar or Missile in this world as long as you know to deceive it and radars and missile too have their tricks in their sleeve. Its a cat and mouse game its difficult to know who will win till the final day arrives.

[koti]

Self delete

[koti]

Why do we need a Tu-22m3 for this? Even a pair of Su-30MKI armed with anti radiation missiles can cripple Varyag.

For that matter even a pair of Jaguars armed with Sea Eagle missiles can be good enough to cripple the Varyag. But the point always was that the MKI are better at it then the jaguars were and the Tu-22M will be better at that then the MKIs. The range allows them to have a vast escape zone after their mission and enable them to have two or three runs if they survive that long.
The speed will discourage most of the fighters in its pursuit.
The payload when added to the above two merits can do wonders.

Off topic but fyi USN EW cannot be understated and would have rendered those missiles inept (hence russia even had them armed with WMD). As Israelis missile boats proved during 6 day war when they were able to soft kill close to two dozen styx missiles fired at them.

USN and PLAN have vast capability differences. Irrespective of modern EW, missiles like Brahmos are much feared world around.
Imagine the western response if any of the Brahmos/Klub varieties will be marketed to Iran or NK.

[Pratyush]

^^^

hmm, mid november means less then 45 days is I count correctly. I just hope that no last minute hurdles and paint jobs don't stop the induction of the boat.

[tsarkar]

Unlike the 737 or Tu-142 the Tu-22M3 is not a subsonic aircraft but a VG supersonic one that can get out of the danger zone as quickly as possible.

An MPA should deploy weapons as stand off as possible. If it gets into the "danger zone", ie carrier bourne fighters and R-77 weapons, supersonic speed will not save it. Surely MiG29K/Su-33/J-15/F-18/Rafale are "more supersonic" than "Tu-22M supersonic". I am speaking from assessments carried out by all navies & airforces worldwide that supersonic speed isnt a savior. Also, like aircraft of its generation, Tu-22M can sustain supersonic speed for brief durations, otherwise engine TBO is drastically reduced.

If you have identified that the threat you are going to face can be dealt with by a fleet of 737s - you are welcome, of course.

The point is that Tu-22M, despite its capabilities, still isnt any less vulnerable than 737, hence the cheaper 737 or ATR-42/72 or Dash-8 or C-295 are used for MPA to allow persistent coverage. Otherwise the US would be building (rather converting) MPA versions of B-1B instead of retiring them

[venku_Raj]

Re-heat testing of Mig-29k fighter jet causes panic near INS Hansa

link

[SaiK]

..and I thought nuke sub is more difficult and expensive for navy than using it power a surface A/C ship.