Indian Naval Discussion

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 31 Jul 2012 21:55

another thing I noticed. the 1st IAF C130J did not come with probe
http://livefist.blogspot.in/2011/02/pho ... afs-c.html

ONLY the 6th one atleast came with a probe from the factory
http://i.ytimg.com/vi/GhNjkBFRIf8/0.jpg

as per the six pack photos on tarmak where 1,2,3,4 are clearly seen, and 5th delivery photos from flightglobal, the 1,2,3,4,5 do not as yet have refueling probes.

so the 6th might be a special one kept for really long range role.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 31 Jul 2012 22:42

All of them have the refueling probe Singha sir.

They removed it for the ferry flight.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 31 Jul 2012 23:33

Singha wrote:Cy , the harsh reality is IAF has a net total of 6 Midas...and is struggling to fund a second purchase (A330). they definitely cannot spare a single one for IN. these 6 will likely be used to keep the 3 Phalcons and EMB145-AEW up for extended periods and support C130J.
as for IN there is not even any talk of refuelers.

so its not a immediate concern.

We have tons of A320s that have been retired from active Indian Airlines duty. All these still have life left and these end up doing cargo duty in some other airlines. I see tons of opportunities to zero life / refurb and use them for Refueling duties. All these can easily haul about 40,000 pounds of fuel + 24,210 L carried internally, which is enough fuel for atleast one strike package of 8 to 10 birds. Plus the cost would only be to refurbish these and training which should be fraction of acquiring new platforms. I think these can soilder on for another 10-15 years without trouble. 20-30 platforms like this goes a long way for us.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 01 Aug 2012 00:12

Singha wrote:it doesnt, but gives Boeings own KC-767 tanker a remote chance if IN buys tankers exclusively for the P8I fleet. all other IN + IAF refueling is hose and drogue incl large birds like the Phalcons and Bears/Mays.

I am sure IN would put in the probes, perhaps from some other vendor locally after delivery with OEM support.

Cybaru and Singha, the article says that Boeing added the UARRSI system "at no additional cost". Which means that it is in addition to the standard refueling probe (for probe and drogue systems) that the USN uses as well. The IN would have never accepted the aircraft if Boeing had changed the specs agreed upon.

The A330 MRTT is also equipped with the UARRSI.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 01 Aug 2012 05:15

Nachiket,

Well, I have been thinking about it. Either there is a probe style system that will be installed or we just made a case for A330 MRTT with both Drouge and boom style refueler. What about the C17's. What kind of system do they have ? Did they come with probes ?

SKrishna · Post by **SKrishna** » 01 Aug 2012 08:11

@livefist : So, @BoeingDefense to supply the P-8Is and C-17s to India only boom refuellable (no refuel requirement). Fait accompli for 767 tanker?

That settles it. IN has no refuel requirement for P8I and IAF don't need refueling for C-17 so they come with standard fitment of UARSSI and not refuel boom!

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 01 Aug 2012 08:19

I have been shouting from rooftops that lots of A310 or 737-900/800 types must be in mothballs due to airlines cutbacks worldwide and can be purchased on the cheap. people are there who do tanker conversions. we can get 20 such refuelers much cheaper than new A330MRTT. for destructive testing the p8A pgm purchased a southwest airlines 737 for $200K.

however this needs to be in sync with a policy of deep-basing wherein rows of a/c are not parked in frontline bases for enemy cruise missiles to devastate in a stealth attack.
this means ambala, thoise and hashimara type bases are definitely deprecated and gwalior and kalaikunda type bases are in....esp for wartime duty as hub and recovery bases as well as sources of long distance unpredictable attacks.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 01 Aug 2012 08:32

The cool thing about A310/7X7 types is they don't need be based from frontline airbases. They need fuel and runways for takeoffs. All regular civil airports will do for maintenance and regular operations.

merlin · Post by **merlin** » 01 Aug 2012 14:48

A&N Command will have more ships based there but looks like no principal surface combatants except amphibs. Otherwise patrol boats and stuff. There may be a case for subs, MPAs and missile corvettes to be permanently stationed there.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 01 Aug 2012 20:54

^^ They are building sub facilities.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 01 Aug 2012 21:41

where?

sum · Post by **sum** » 01 Aug 2012 22:10

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 01 Aug 2012 22:31

A&N is 1000km long. I had read somewhere of a fwd operational base of IN being created...perhaps in N ? but major sub base will continue to be in rambilly and vizag. fwd base might provide fresh food, weapons, fuel, minor servicing and perhaps fresh crews flown in using transport a/c on a JIT basis.

I wish we already had around 12 Soryu's to play with, armed with tube launched Klubs for a start and space kept for 8 pack VL nirbhay.
would feed my local tomcat half a kilo of kheer made of pure nandini milk if that happened in thanksgiving

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 02 Aug 2012 01:44

Boeing forsees India will require around 30 P-8I type MMR for both the IN and Coast Guard (although the Coast Guard's requirements are for a cheaper and less capable maritime surveillance aircraft)..

Aviation Week article

SEATTLE — Boeing expects India’s P-8I order to increase to as many as 30 units, citing the Indian navy and coast guard’s interest in multimission aircraft.

Under a $2 billion contract signed in 2009, Boeing will deliver eight of the long-range maritime reconnaissance and anti-submarine warfare aircraft to India starting in the first half of 2013, with an option for four more. India has been the first international customer for the P-8I, which is a variant of the U.S. Navy’s P-8A Poseidon.

“With 7,500 kilometers of coastline, and with three aircraft carriers, the Indian navy is going to have a tremendous need for . . . maritime and surveillance aircraft. . . .So we expect that once the navy starts using the P-8I the demand may go up to 30 or more,” says Carl Lang, Boeing’s P-8I program manager.
..

The Indian version has two unique components not on the P-8A—an aft radar and a magnetic anomaly detector fixed on the tail that can distinguish between an enemy submarine and a whale, Lang says.

The P-8I’s enhanced internal fuel tanks will allow it to fly 1,100 km (683.5 mi.) to a patrol area, remain on station for up to 6 hr., and then fly back to its base.

Two P-8s meant for India already have undergone test flights and weapon trials are expected shortly. Anti-ship Harpoon missiles, Mark 82 depth bombs and Mark 54 anti-submarine torpedoes will be mounted on the aircraft.

According to Boeing officials, Harpoon production already has begun and the weapons will be delivered in June/July 2013. Weapons trials are likely to begin in the second quarter of 2013.

The P-8Is will operate from INS Rajali, a naval base at Arakonam, near the southern city of Chennai.

Anurag · Post by **Anurag** » 02 Aug 2012 01:50

Mig-29 KUB landing trials on Vik!

[youtube]owhUT4MN2Hg&feature=relmfu[/youtube]

Prem Kumar · Post by **Prem Kumar** » 02 Aug 2012 03:40

Question on the choice of Harpoon for P8I. Looking at the specs, SLAM-ER seems like a better choice - twice the range, more advanced imaging/targeting and seems cheaper too!

Harpoon block 2: 24 missiles for $170 million --> $7 million a pop (inclusive of training, spares etc). A follow-on order of 21 missiles for $200 Million. That's 10 million each. Orders placed in 2008 & 2010

SLAM-ER sale to Turkey: 50 missiles with spares etc worked out to $162 million --> 3 million each. Order placed in 2006

Even budgeting for inflation, the Harpoon's price seems excessive

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 02 Aug 2012 03:41

Kartik wrote: Aviation Week article

The P-8I’s enhanced internal fuel tanks will allow it to fly 1,100 km (683.5 mi.) to a patrol area, remain on station for up to 6 hr., and then fly back to its base.

Thanks for highlighting that kartik. This aint gonna be no bear-F but seems decent. 1100 kms would be jamnagar - take off and patrol strait of hormuz of 5/6 hours and back. Medium level stuff. Gotta keep the Bears soildering to keep tracking collins class or harass the chinese on the east side and those bears will certianly keep Carlo Kopp employed

..

Here is another source from the net: 1200 nmi (2222 km) 4 hours on station

Couple of interesting links
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forum ... in/112747/

Okay - I found a US Navy document from 2003 on a cost reduction initiative. It focused on how to more effectively use sonobouys in shallow water.

In the proposal it says "with sonobouys costing between $250 and $5,000"

http://www.airwarriors.com/community/in ... ion.21870/

I flew in the Boeing MMA demonstrator a few years back before they got the contract. The tactical profile down low at 200' over the water and 60 degree aob was impressive....especially when he shuts an engine down, levels the wings an proceeds to climb out on a single engine 4000 fpm rate of climb.....better than a p-3 with all 4 turnin.

time on station will be comparable supposedly...even though burn rate is a bit higher... make up a lot of time in the transit which the crew appreciates very much.

The P-8, in addition to being faster than the P-3 and thereby having quicker transit times, will also have an added fuel tank. The stock 737 doesn't carry as much fuel as the P-3 does, so they added a tank (in the wing box i believe). 737 900ER carries 7,837gl (which is way more than other 737's), P-3 carries 9,200gl.

The P-8 burn rate down low is higher than the P-3 and you're not about to loiter an engine in a 737. The need to get that low will be mitigated by enhanced sensor technology. The reason the P-3 gets that low is it increases the accuracy of buoy drops and torp drops.

BTW, ship based torps are the same as the ones used by P-3's. Only subs carry unique torps as no plane or ship could carry a Mk-48 (well, a ship could, but it wouldn't do them a lot of good).

The P-8 has some disadvantages to the P-3, but overall it’ll be a HUGE improvement in Navy MPA capes. The P-3 is a good, solid, plane. It has tracked a LOT of subs and done a lot of very interesting missions throughout it’s life. I enjoyed flying it and would happily do so again but the P-8 will be a much better plane.

Most importantly the P-8 will have a flush toilet and a microwave.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 02 Aug 2012 16:05

Singha wrote:where?

A&N

Kakarat · Post by **Kakarat** » 02 Aug 2012 21:15

Indian navy warships on goodwill visit to Israel to celebrate diplomatic ties

...
INS Mumbai, Trishul, Gomti and Aditya, from Indian navy's western fleet, anchored at the Haifa coast on Monday as part of their Mediterranean tour.
...

Kakarat · Post by **Kakarat** » 02 Aug 2012 21:27

Finish phase 1 of coastal radar net by Oct: Antony to Navy, CG

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 03 Aug 2012 06:55

Norway threatens to cancel its NH90 order due to massive delays in the delivery of the 7 remaining NH90s. This is something to keep in mind since the MRH competition for the IN has the NH90 facing off against the S-70B for the anti-submarine and anti-ship role with secondary SAR role, replacing Sea Kings.

link to FlightGlobal

This follows close on the heels of the Portugese stating their intent to cancel their NH90 order, due to financial difficulties. However, those were NH90s for their army.

link to FlightGlobal

mody · Post by **mody** » 03 Aug 2012 13:34

Can the air launched Brahmos be used with the P8I's? Also why opt for the Mk 54 light torpedoes, when we have our own TAL.
Opting for Air lauched Brahmos and TAL in place of Harpoon Block-II and Mk 54's would help save the cost and also increase the potency of the weapons, with the Brahmos over the Harpoon.

mody · Post by **mody** » 03 Aug 2012 15:26

On a similar note,

There was a recent news about selection of Torpedoes for the scorpene subs. The choice was given between German torpedoes and Italian ones. The torpedoes required are Heavy wire guided type along with maybe heavy wake homing as well.

I was wondering why the Indian Thakshak and the new Varunastra torpedoes can't be used for these subs?
Are very using any of our Indegenous torpedoes with our Kilo and Type 209 subs?
We are using the TAL and Thakshak torpedoes from surface vessels, but there is no report ever mentioning that Indian Torpedoes have been tested or deployed on subs.

Thanks

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 03 Aug 2012 19:21

mody wrote:On a similar note,

There was a recent news about selection of Torpedoes for the scorpene subs. The choice was given between German torpedoes and Italian ones. The torpedoes required are Heavy wire guided type along with maybe heavy wake homing as well.

I was wondering why the Indian Thakshak and the new Varunastra torpedoes can't be used for these subs?
Are very using any of our Indegenous torpedoes with our Kilo and Type 209 subs?
We are using the TAL and Thakshak torpedoes from surface vessels, but there is no report ever mentioning that Indian Torpedoes have been tested or deployed on subs.

Thanks

Even if the caliber is standardized at 533mm/21", Russian torpedo tubes and consequently torpedoes are longer than Western TT & torpedoes. So they cannot be used interchangeably. Varunastra and Takshak are "Russian sized" and cannot be accomodated in Western design submarines like Scorpenes. That is why Klub cannot be fitted into Scorpenes and we had to buy Sub-Exocets. Also, my understanding is Varunastra under development is a surface ship launched torpedo with a submarine version to follow.

Despite being smaller, western torpedoes perform better than russian torpedoes because of better sensors, micro-electronic and software technologies. Though the Russian Klub missile is much better than Sub Exocet.

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 03 Aug 2012 19:25

mody wrote:Can the air launched Brahmos be used with the P8I's? Also why opt for the Mk 54 light torpedoes, when we have our own TAL.
Opting for Air lauched Brahmos and TAL in place of Harpoon Block-II and Mk 54's would help save the cost and also increase the potency of the weapons, with the Brahmos over the Harpoon.

The current wing pylons cannot take a 2.5 ton AL Brahmos. Whether fuselage pylons can be added needs to be examined.

TAL can replace Mk 54 after flight qualification, weapons computer software will need to be modified, if that contractual provision exists.

John · Post by **John** » 03 Aug 2012 19:28

IIRC the only airborne platform that will carry Brahmos will be Su-30 mki (after mod.) and even that will be limited to just 1 missile.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 03 Aug 2012 19:34

the P8I have two tandem fuselage pylons. but again too small for the brahmos.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWBYvb71CTk

Katare · Post by **Katare** » 03 Aug 2012 20:54

I feel an air launch Brahmos may only be of limited use due to the weight?

It's great anti ship missile and has evolved into an even greater surface to surface missile. I have hard time seeing a major role for it in A2A role unless they bring the weight down to 1 to 1.5 ton range. It can't have a great future unless MKIs can carry more than one Brahmos and atleast some of the other aircraft of IAF/IN can also carry 1 missile on center pylon with room for AAMs for self protection. If it can be made to fit into P8I it might have better future. Anyhow orders from IN and IA are so huge that it'll take years to fill them before they would have any finacial need to look at air launch version.

member_23370 · Post by **member_23370** » 03 Aug 2012 20:59

Its better to focus on KS-172 or K-100 than air launched Brahmos. It was supposed to weigh 750 kg and have a range greater than 300 km.

mody · Post by **mody** » 04 Aug 2012 13:10

tsarkar wrote:
mody wrote:On a similar note,

There was a recent news about selection of Torpedoes for the scorpene subs. The choice was given between German torpedoes and Italian ones. The torpedoes required are Heavy wire guided type along with maybe heavy wake homing as well.

I was wondering why the Indian Thakshak and the new Varunastra torpedoes can't be used for these subs?
Are very using any of our Indegenous torpedoes with our Kilo and Type 209 subs?
We are using the TAL and Thakshak torpedoes from surface vessels, but there is no report ever mentioning that Indian Torpedoes have been tested or deployed on subs.

Thanks
Even if the caliber is standardized at 533mm/21", Russian torpedo tubes and consequently torpedoes are longer than Western TT & torpedoes. So they cannot be used interchangeably. Varunastra and Takshak are "Russian sized" and cannot be accomodated in Western design submarines like Scorpenes. That is why Klub cannot be fitted into Scorpenes and we had to buy Sub-Exocets. Also, my understanding is Varunastra under development is a surface ship launched torpedo with a submarine version to follow.

Despite being smaller, western torpedoes perform better than russian torpedoes because of better sensors, micro-electronic and software technologies. Though the Russian Klub missile is much better than Sub Exocet.

Well the Exocet might been shoved down our throat as part of the deal and we might not have had the option to dictate the use of Klub with our scorpenes. That is a shame, as the cost that we have paid for the Exocet is also quite high, though I don't know what we pay for the Klub's. Also it adds one more AShm to our inventory, which is always a problem.

In the case of Thakshak and Varunashtra, its certainly shows a lack of foresight on our part. This would mean that the Thakshak and Varunastra can be used with Kilo class subs only, which will be retired within the next 10-12 years and moreover for all our future subs, we shall have design the torpedo tubes as per Russian standard only, if we want to use the Varunastra as standard HWT. Perhaps a middle solution, which would have allowed the torpedoes to be launched from either tube sizes would have been more suitable.

TAL in place of Mk 54 should definitely be taken up.

Also agree that if the Air launched brahmos is restricted to Su-30MKI only and that also only 1 single missile, then the air launched version does not have a great future. Which would be a shame , as air lauched brahmos would be a terrific weapon to have.

Air Lauched brahmos on the P-8I's should be taken up for development. Maybe it wasn't done earlier as the Russians might have been concerned about sharing details about the brahmos with the Americans. Once we have the planes, we might carry out the modifications to enable using the brahmos with the P8I.

chiru · Post by **chiru** » 04 Aug 2012 19:39

P-8I with dummy harpoons

http://aviationintel.com/2012/08/03/exc ... -harpoons/

sum · Post by **sum** » 04 Aug 2012 19:42

^^ So TSP gets these free for fighting Al-Q navy and we pay top $$ for procuring the same thing.... Have to hand it to Amrika for playing it out so well

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 04 Aug 2012 22:03

It would be nice to have brahmos and ks172s on P8I.

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 04 Aug 2012 22:34

Sea Eagle for Jaguar
Uran for IL-38
Brahmos for Su-30
Klub for FFGs
Brahmos for DDGs
Harpoon for P-8I
Exocet for Scorpene

WTF?

titash · Post by **titash** » 04 Aug 2012 23:11

@ Aditya G,

You hit the nail right on the head. Until you make the complete solution in-house, i.e. a desi AShM + desi radar/FCS + desi warship, you will always have a 'proprietary' solution forced down your throat with every platform. The beauty of the US solution lies in the flexibility/interoperability of the SeaHawk/Harpoon/Standard and subsequent savings realized in maintenance, training etc

And inspite of this inescapable fact, DDM still whines about the LCA et. al.

Regards,

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 05 Aug 2012 00:19

Aditya G wrote:Sea Eagle for Jaguar
Uran for IL-38
Brahmos for Su-30
Klub for FFGs
Brahmos for DDGs
Harpoon for P-8I
Exocet for Scorpene
WTF?

Ummm, the diversity is actually good. If we standardized on Brahmos, it makes it simpler for the enemy since they'll have to develop countermeasures for one specific seeker & computer.

The six missile classes you listed makes the enemy wonder in the brief window they have - is it INS Kuthar launching Termit or INS Teg launching Brahmos or INS Delhi launching Uran or INS Shivalik launching Klub. Or is the Su-30 launching optically guided Kh-59 or anti radiation Kh-31 or Brahmos - rather than take countermeasures.

A Sharma · Post by **A Sharma** » 05 Aug 2012 00:23

Aditya G wrote:Sea Eagle for Jaguar
Uran for IL-38
Brahmos for Su-30
Klub for FFGs
Brahmos for DDGs
Harpoon for P-8I
Exocet for Scorpene

WTF?

I thought we replaced Sea Eagles with harpoons for jaguars?

bhavani · Post by **bhavani** » 05 Aug 2012 07:23

I think we will be replacing club with Brahmos. i never got the point of Exocet, we could have acquired Harpoon sub launched for scorpene's. we could have gone with Uran's in air launched and other roles. I think IN was not fully satisfied with Uran, even though Uran is comparable with harpoon, we still went for Harpoon in air launched version. Uran's air launched version was never developed.

The basic problem with Brahmos family is that it is too big and heavy for lot of platforms and even Club is too big in air launched version or is not fully evolved. We went for heavier and faster missiles and they are not compatible with a lot of platforms. So we had to go initially for Uran and then for Harpoon.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 05 Aug 2012 07:31

even the pakis were forced to use exocet SM39 with their agosta subs.
they use harpoon and C80x on surface warships. their P3C use harpoon.

we need a domestic harpoon size missile , sized for western torp tubes if are ever to standardize on a "small" ASM across subs, ships and aircraft eventually. imo it should be GLONASS (for strike on land based targets) and radar (for ASM). IIR seems to be vulnerable to weather conditions...will it work in midst of a monsoon rainstorm or haze conditions here? a good role model would be SLAM_ER or MM40 to copy feature sets from. cap the weigh at 800kg so that even Tejas can carry 2. rafale/MKI would carry 4.

brahmos is not going to be in a TT version, so the Klubs on Kilo class will remain until the last one is retired perhaps around 2030.

Urans will likely all be replaced with harpoon and SLAM-ER (if we want it).

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 05 Aug 2012 07:34

tsarkar wrote:Ummm, the diversity is actually good. If we standardized on Brahmos, it makes it simpler for the enemy since they'll have to develop countermeasures for one specific seeker & computer.

The six missile classes you listed makes the enemy wonder in the brief window they have - is it INS Kuthar launching Termit or INS Teg launching Brahmos or INS Delhi launching Uran or INS Shivalik launching Klub. Or is the Su-30 launching optically guided Kh-59 or anti radiation Kh-31 or Brahmos - rather than take countermeasures.

Tsarkar ji you were being missed on page 64 of this thread. It was about armament and capabilities of P28. Would be great if you have a look and comment.