Indian Naval Discussion

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 06 Jul 2013 10:22

Club Missile at IMDS 2013

http://youtu.be/Mhz52LGeGD4?t=57s

krishnan · Post by **krishnan** » 06 Jul 2013 10:54

Singha wrote:like rajiv gandhi foundation in safdarjung, nai dilli.

or money spent on rajiv gandhi memorial , sriperumbuthur, not many even visit it

vasu raya · Post by **vasu raya** » 06 Jul 2013 11:46

titash wrote:“We do not rule out the IAC-2 catapult or the F-35 naval version in the future…it will be years before we decide,” Verma said.

From the geopolitics.in article they claim that f-35 with its DAS can detect ballistic missile launches at 1800km, and cue unmanned vehicles close to the launch area for boost phase intercept, that scenario seems useful if we operate out of SCS and the Chinese SSBNs don't venture out of SCS.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 06 Jul 2013 12:22

Bitter pill for India as Dr Dragon sails in

srin · Post by **srin** » 06 Jul 2013 14:08

titash wrote:Srin,
To quote Admiral Nirmal Verma,

“We do not rule out the IAC-2 catapult or the F-35 naval version in the future…it will be years before we decide,” Verma said. “Some people are jumping to conclusions on the design. The training, maintenance and aircraft commonality issues we will face with the catapult design are entirely different. We have other priorities…We have to examine what would be a reasonable time-frame for introduction,” he added

Looks like the IN has decided that 2 carriers are all it needs in the next 5-6 years time-frame. As Singha added, the other spending priorities are to modernize MDL/GRSE for P-15B/P-17A production, and to beef up the nuclear & conventional submarine force.

Also, a single carrier will consume up to 2000 trained personnel, and manpower inductions/training also take a lot of time...

Thanks,

The point about trained personnel is well-taken, so there may be constraints in how much we can expand.

That said, if we are looking for two carriers before 2020 and IAC-2 is different from IAC-1, then the three carriers that India operates in 2025 would be all different - Gorshkov, IAC-1 and IAC-2. All different, and logistically crazy to maintain.

The Gorshkov deal makes sense only if looked at as a stop-gap solution (to ensure we don't become carrier-less navy) till Vikrant class becomes available. So we should have been starting one carrier every 5-6 years.

IN as a whole seems to prefer very few ships in a class (typically 3). Compound that with lot of time taken to decide and design a new class, and also in general to build a new ship, consequently the entire pipeline gets stalled. P-75I is still in pre-RFP stage, I don't know the state of P-17A, Kolkatas are still not commissioned, etc.

More shipyards (with Pipavav etc coming online) and better ones (increasing the size, modular construction etc) would definitely help.

But till then either go for more and frequent ships in a class, or speed up decision-making. Having neither is a concern.

tushar_m · Post by **tushar_m** » 06 Jul 2013 16:42

IAC 1 to be launched in august must be complete a bit , here are some old pic of IAC

if anyone have new pic of IAC 1 please post

will be happy to see a mig29 on it , even if for show on launching

krishnan · Post by **krishnan** » 06 Jul 2013 16:55

http://www.indiandefence.com/forums/ind ... er-16.html

posted 6 days back, with pics of vick

arijitkm · Post by **arijitkm** » 07 Jul 2013 11:44

India’s First Indigenous Aircraft Carrier Near Completion

India, looking to boost its naval presence in the Indian Ocean, is one step closer to putting its first indigenous aircraft carrier (IAC) into the water—as soon as August.

The first sea trials are likely to follow 10 months later, ......

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 08 Jul 2013 05:02

titash wrote:
Karan M wrote: Excellent find. This is refers to the fact that LRDE probably has a new project for the ADS in particular, to develop an AESA MFR. If you see the other DRDO Tech Focus Radar PDF & then the Defense News article, its clear that the Revathi project has succeeded and is now being ordered by the Navy. Hardware apart, they have clearly developed a lot of the dedicated naval modes, the IN expects of radars of this class. Hence it makes sense to proceed with a program for a Naval radar, since they have already moved onto AESA for both Ground & Airborne applications and prototypes are already in testing.
BTW Shri VK Saraswat had mentioned that "almost all naval radars will be indigenous" - I had taken that to be either a typo or a mistake (he might have been referring to the other IA/IAF programs), but looks like we are making headway in the Naval space as well, hitherto our weakest link. IAF & IA have already started transitioning to local radars for many requirements, but in the Naval space, we were almost completely dependent on imports (with the Revathi being the one exception).
Won't there be issues with a Desi Multifunction Radar controlling Israeli made Barak-2/8 missiles? They need to talk to each other and I always thought that bit was proprietary? Just like SPY-1 & Standard or SAMPSON & Aster...

The Revathi looks like a success...at least 4 on the P-28, and 20-30 more for all replacement corvettes/missile boats.

Page 40 here
http://www.geopolitics.in/may2013.aspx

For what India has access to on the LRSAM.

John · Post by **John** » 08 Jul 2013 05:16

Karan,

Revathi is medium planar array radar i can't see it being used as main tracking radar for our larger ships that will have Barak-8. I can see it being used mainly for our smaller surface combatants.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 08 Jul 2013 05:37

Agreed, but we were discussing something a bit different...basically, the LRDE page refers to a Multi Function phased array radar for Naval use (apart from the Revathi), the discussion was about if we are making a new naval AESA and if we do get this new radar, can we integrate it with the Barak-8? The interview above suggests that we do have a lot of access to the Barak-8, presumably to the level that if we were to make our own radar, we could use it with this missile as we would know its interface and other essential items.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 09 Jul 2013 01:10

arijitkm wrote:India’s First Indigenous Aircraft Carrier Near Completion

India, looking to boost its naval presence in the Indian Ocean, is one step closer to putting its first indigenous aircraft carrier (IAC) into the water—as soon as August.

The first sea trials are likely to follow 10 months later, ......

Cut-n-paste website !!!!!!!!

Here is the original article IN FULL:

India’s First Indigenous Aircraft Carrier Near Completion

John · Post by **John** » 09 Jul 2013 07:56

Karan M wrote:Agreed, but we were discussing something a bit different...basically, the LRDE page refers to a Multi Function phased array radar for Naval use (apart from the Revathi), the discussion was about if we are making a new naval AESA and if we do get this new radar, can we integrate it with the Barak-8? The interview above suggests that we do have a lot of access to the Barak-8, presumably to the level that if we were to make our own radar, we could use it with this missile as we would know its interface and other essential items.

Should have read the posts completely my mistake, yea we already integrated Barak with Shikari so i don't think IAI is too critical on integration of its weapons system with other radars.

tushar_m · Post by **tushar_m** » 09 Jul 2013 11:06

posed on pak fa thread also,

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 09 Jul 2013 12:35

Reportedly two design of 11356/Talwar class frigate were displayed at IMDS recently for next batch of 3-4 Ship deal that may be signed.

One with new Redut VLS SAM with 32 Units
http://i34.servimg.com/u/f34/18/28/77/60/img_1110.jpg

Another one is Shtil-1 with VLS SAM with 36 Unit
http://i34.servimg.com/u/f34/18/28/77/60/img_1111.jpg

SNaik · Post by **SNaik** » 09 Jul 2013 13:43

Austin, it's 24 Shtil and 8 Brahmos on first and 36 Shtil or Redut plus 8 Brahmos on the second. Redut doesn't need Orekh illuminators which are prominent on both models, which muddles it up.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 09 Jul 2013 13:47

Given the excellent performance of this cost-effective design and speed with which they've been constructed,I would even advocate another 6 acquired which would give Indian shipyards enough space and time to construct the larger P-15s,P-17s and their follow on variants and larger amphib vessels,etc.We also need a new missile corvette class to add to and eventually replace out Tarantulas armed with Brahmos and/or Nirbhay.Our A&N command could do with a number of such corvettes which could even unertake patrols in the Indo-China Sea as our Khukris have been in the past on many visits to Far East nations.

mody · Post by **mody** » 09 Jul 2013 15:10

Brahmos might be too big and too heavy for Corvette class of vessels. Maybe VLS Club missiles would do the trick.
4-6 nos. of follow-on class to the Kora should be planned.
Perhaps the P28 design itself can be tweaked, retaining the same hull, to get a new Missile Corvette.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 09 Jul 2013 15:18

SNaik wrote:Austin, it's 24 Shtil and 8 Brahmos on first and 36 Shtil or Redut plus 8 Brahmos on the second. Redut doesn't need Orekh illuminators which are prominent on both models, which muddles it up.

Since Redut has ARH homing , it can be guided by Orekh for mid course guidance is what I see for Shtil ofcourse you need Orekh for entire engagement.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 09 Jul 2013 16:17

India may take another n-sub on lease

India has expressed interest in leasing another nuclear attack submarine from Russia to supplement the Akula class hunter-killer that was inducted last year and the two sides are now ready to start negotiations on the project, the head of the top Russian design bureau for nuclear submarines has said.

Tentatively christened INS Chakra III, the new submarine will be a variant of the Akula class of stealthy nuclear-powered submarines that are capable of spending months under water but is likely to be equipped with more lethal weaponry, including a vertically launched Brahmos missile system.

Vladimir Dorofeev, head of the Malachite Design Bureau, which is the main centre for nuclear attack submarines in Russia, has said that the negotiations that India and Russia did during the 2012 lease of the Chakra would help in a smooth process for the acquisition of the new submarine. He also told The Indian Express that India has expressed an interest in acquiring the submarine and both the Russian design bureau and the shipyard that will construct it are ready for negotiations.

The submarine is likely to be reconstructed round the hull of the Iribis, a Russian Akula class submarine that was never completed as funds ran dry after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Dorofeev said that the new submarine could also benefit from the design efforts that Russia had put in its latest class of Yasen nuclear-powered attack submarines.

"The fourth generation of Yasen class submarine has been tested successfully, including the firing of a cruise missile from the submerged vessel. We can use that experience for the second Indian submarine. The launch was done using a new vertical launch system that can be used for the next submarine," Dorofeev said.

The universal launch system that has been tested can launch several types of missiles from a submerged vessel and can carry 4-5 missiles per salvo. However, the design bureau head refused to go into details of the project, saying that technical requirements for the next submarine would be discussed after the India comes up with a set of technical requirements.

"If a political decision is taken then we as an industry should have no difficulty in delivering what is agreed to," he said, expressing confidence that the matter would be discussed in future talks between Russian President Vladimir Putin and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.

He, however, refused to comment on Russian assistance for the indigenous INS Arihant class of submarines that India is constructing in Vizag, saying that joint cooperation or technology sharing would depend on political negotiations between the two nations.

bmallick · Post by **bmallick** » 09 Jul 2013 16:47

mody wrote:Brahmos might be too big and too heavy for Corvette class of vessels. Maybe VLS Club missiles would do the trick.
4-6 nos. of follow-on class to the Kora should be planned.
Perhaps the P28 design itself can be tweaked, retaining the same hull, to get a new Missile Corvette.

Just food for thought:
The Soviet Navy's Nanuchka class vessels (670 tons fully loaded) were armed with 6 SS-N-9 SSM ( P-120 Malakhit ) missiles. Each missile was 2,953 kg in weight, 8.84 m long and 76.2 in diameter.

Brahmos: 3,000 Kg weight, 8.4 m long and 0.6 m diameter. Pretty much similar to the Malakhit.

So, yes it is feasible to put 4-6 Brahmos on corvette sized vessels.

The Kora class is around 1500 tons. So, it might be a good idea to go for a corvette of 1400-2000 tons and put in 6 Brahmos in inclined launchers in it. Also throw in small UAV's which can be serviced within small hangers in these vessels, which can provide over the horizon scan and targeting solution. Also 8-16 Barak-1's & 2 Ak-630 for self defense.

SNaik · Post by **SNaik** » 09 Jul 2013 18:38

Austin wrote:
SNaik wrote:Austin, it's 24 Shtil and 8 Brahmos on first and 36 Shtil or Redut plus 8 Brahmos on the second. Redut doesn't need Orekh illuminators which are prominent on both models, which muddles it up.
Since Redut has ARH homing , it can be guided by Orekh for mid course guidance is what I see for Shtil ofcourse you need Orekh for entire engagement.

To have Orekh just for midcourse guidance seems redundant, Redut can get the midcourse update from Pozitiv radar (target acquisition radar for CIWS).

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 09 Jul 2013 19:48

SNaik wrote:To have Orekh just for midcourse guidance seems redundant, Redut can get the midcourse update from Pozitiv radar (target acquisition radar for CIWS).

I was wondering if Fregat can do that
http://www.concern-agat.com/products/de ... regat-m2em

John · Post by **John** » 09 Jul 2013 19:49

Fregat not Positiv provides mid course guidance, it already does that for Shtil-1.

SNaik · Post by **SNaik** » 09 Jul 2013 21:00

John wrote:Fregat not Positiv provides mid course guidance, it already does that for Shtil-1.

They both can, the point is that Positiv has much better resolution, therefore is preferable to update a missile with ARH. In case of Shtil accuracy doesn't matter that much, as the missile will have terminal guidance by an illuminator.

John · Post by **John** » 09 Jul 2013 22:53

I see your point but i think higher placement of Fregat should give it superior tracking capability against low flying targets. Also i wonder if postiv might get replaced with Revathi (will be refitted here along with barak) in any future batches of Talwar.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 10 Jul 2013 10:58

P-8A Poseidon successfully fires a live Harpoon AShM during a test

link to FG article

SNaik · Post by **SNaik** » 10 Jul 2013 18:17

John wrote:I see your point but i think higher placement of Fregat should give it superior tracking capability against low flying targets. Also i wonder if postiv might get replaced with Revathi (will be refitted here along with barak) in any future batches of Talwar.

Higher placement of Fregat just expands it's radar horizon which is nullified by the fact that Fregat M2M is not that great when working in surface clutter, Pozitiv is a radar which is much better suited against low targets, which is exactly the reason why it's used in command module of Russian CIWS. I suppose there are no unsurmountable obstacles in changin it to Revathi, if India prefers.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 10 Jul 2013 18:41

the japani akizuki class takes the no-obstruction high mounted radar backed by a swarm of ESSM for medium range defence against sea skimmers to a extreme end.
the 4 radar panels are mounted high up at the corners of the ship.
https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/imag ... MwdJR0SQCw

32*4=128 ESSM.

titash · Post by **titash** » 10 Jul 2013 22:09

Gents,

I found this (slightly older - 2007) article on the Talwar class frigates...but it contains some more information that commonly available on the web. Please see pages 20-25 of the attached link:
http://navyleague.org.au/wp-content/upl ... n-2007.pdf

The authors state that Captain Harish Bisht (CO INS TABAR), Captain Sudarshan Shikhande IN (Indian Defence Attaché,Canberra), Lt Hanumani Gupta IN, (Gunnery Officer INS TABAR) assisted in this article...lends a bit more credence!

The paragraphs I found particularly interesting were:

Shtil is a local area SAM (Surface to Air Missile), having a range of some 30 kilometres at Mach 3 and being guided to the target by semi-active radar homing with a mid-course data link to a commandable auto-pilot. This enables the ship to engage multiple targets with the one fire control illuminator using the 3D air search radar for cueing information to the auto-pilot until the final few seconds when the target is illuminated for terminal interception. Much like the Aegis/SPY-1 – SM-2 configuration in the USN’s air warfare ships. 24 missiles are carried in the magazine located below the single arm launcher mount.

One area in which the Talwar and her sisters are particularly capable in is the provision of multiple fire control channels for the SAM system. Most Western frigates have one or two SAM channels, with many destroyers having two-three. The Talwar class mounts four separate fire control radars (NATO: FRONT DOME). Each uses a C-band phased array reflector. Each FRONT DOME can track two targets simultaneously if they are reasonably close together.

It does indicate that our Shtil equipped ships are closely comparable to the USN's 'New Threat Upgrade' program ships, if not the AEGIS. And that they can deal with multiple threats (i.e. more than the 4x targets illuminated by 4x FRONT DOME radars) simultaneously. Even if it can't deal with saturation threats as well as AEGIS, I guess this explains why the IN was still ok with Shtil on the Shivalik class.

Thanks,

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 10 Jul 2013 22:42

Since it has 4 Orekh and each can track 2 targets each , it would mean for 360 * the ship can launch 8 Shtil-1 at 8 targets or 8 Shtil at 4 targets with 2 missile per target assumimg all the targets are within the FOV of Orekh as its SARH.

titash · Post by **titash** » 10 Jul 2013 23:37

Austin wrote:Since it has 4 Orekh and each can track 2 targets each , it would mean for 360 * the ship can launch 8 Shtil-1 at 8 targets or 8 Shtil at 4 targets with 2 missile per target assumimg all the targets are within the FOV of Orekh as its SARH.

I took it to mean that a single Orekh can handle multiple parallel interceptions via time-sharing. Check out the below link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Threat_Upgrade

I think this means the 4x Orekh are to guarante 360 deg. sky coverage, and not 4x parallel interceptions.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 10 Jul 2013 23:54

I think the 2 Orekh on Starboard covers the 180 * half and the other 2 on port covers the other 180 * giving it a full 360 * coverage , considering your article says Orekh is only used in the final moment to illuminate the target Shtil being SARH , most of the guidance part/MCG is handled by Top Plate MFCR.

titash · Post by **titash** » 11 Jul 2013 00:12

Austin wrote:I think the 2 Orekh on Starboard covers the 180 * half and the other 2 on port covers the other 180 * giving it a full 360 * coverage , considering your article says Orekh is only used in the final moment to illuminate the target Shtil being SARH , most of the guidance part/MCG is handled by Top Plate MFCR.

Austin-ji,
I believe we're trying to say the same thing!

I wonder what the subtle differences are between the Delhi/Talwar/Shivalik class area air defence capabilities? This is what I can speculate:

: Delhi = Half-Plate & SA-N-7 & older IPN-10 CAIO

: Talwar = Top-Plate & SA-N-12 & newer Trebovaniye-M CAIO

: Shivalik = Top Plate & SA-N-12 & latest CMS-17 CAIO (allegedly with cooperative engagement capabilities)

Does this mean the Delhi class is limited in it's ability to do multiple parallel engagements, as compared to Talwar/Shivalik?

John · Post by **John** » 11 Jul 2013 00:12

Shtil only requires terminal illumination but from what i read it doesn't think it has time share capability. Most FCR can track 2 tragets close together for example Shikari or STGR. IMO as with NTU even if it has that capability, it would mean very little since Orekh range is limited and couple that with limitations' of single arm launcher are bigger bottlenecks than # of FCR.

titash · Post by **titash** » 11 Jul 2013 01:11

John wrote:Shtil only requires terminal illumination but from what i read it doesn't think it has time share capability. Most FCR can track 2 tragets close together for example Shikari or STGR. IMO as with NTU even if it has that capability, it would mean very little since Orekh range is limited and couple that with limitations' of single arm launcher are bigger bottlenecks than # of FCR.

John,

Not trying to challenge you, but for my understanding, is there any specific reason to believe that the time-share aspect is incorrect?

- If Shtil requires only terminal illumination by Orekh & its autopilot can be cue'd off the Top Plate, then it makes sense to time-share and have multiple missiles in the sky at the same time
- If time-share is not available, then the Orekh must continuously illuminate a single target for a single missile. If this is the case, why bother with an auto-pilot/inertial system at all?

I totally agree with the fact that the 30+ km range for Shtil is grossly inadequate, and a single arm launcher can pose a significant bottleneck to having multiple missiles in the sky at the same time.

However, I feel that there will be Shtil upgrades available to the IN in future...VLS + time-sharing + active radar homing, just like the USN has demonstrated with the SM-6 ERAM...after all the technology exists in the form of the R-77/AA-12 adder

John · Post by **John** » 11 Jul 2013 01:32

titash wrote:
John wrote:Shtil only requires terminal illumination but from what i read it doesn't think it has time share capability. Most FCR can track 2 tragets close together for example Shikari or STGR. IMO as with NTU even if it has that capability, it would mean very little since Orekh range is limited and couple that with limitations' of single arm launcher are bigger bottlenecks than # of FCR.
John,

Not trying to challenge you, but for my understanding, is there any specific reason to believe that the time-share aspect is incorrect?

- If Shtil requires only terminal illumination by Orekh & its autopilot can be cue'd off the Top Plate, then it makes sense to time-share and have multiple missiles in the sky at the same time
- If time-share is not available, then the Orekh must continuously illuminate a single target for a single missile. If this is the case, why bother with an auto-pilot/inertial system at all?

I totally agree with the fact that the 30+ km range for Shtil is grossly inadequate, and a single arm launcher can pose a significant bottleneck to having multiple missiles in the sky at the same time.
However, I feel that there will be Shtil upgrades available to the IN in future...VLS + time-sharing + active radar homing, just like the USN has demonstrated with the SM-6 ERAM...after all the technology exists in the form of the R-77/AA-12 adder

No problem. Time Sharing is not tied to terminal illumination, the FCR radar could still be assigned to the target and provide illumination only at the terminal phase of the missile which is how i believe the Buk system works. You have to keep in mind it is based on land based system, Shtil might have that capability but haven't read anything that says it does.

Russia already is planning Redut which is VLS system that uses active guided missiles it was discussed above. Time sharing/illuminator is not required for active guided missiles' if that is what you were asking?

titash · Post by **titash** » 11 Jul 2013 02:12

John,

I see what you're saying...if the system was adapted from a land based version, then it wasn't necessarily meant to take on a saturation threat in a naval environment (unlike Standard SM-2)

Is the Redut an advanced derivative of Shtil that brings in VLS + Active Homing? Coupled with a multi function radar, that will of course solve the problem of multiple parallel interceptions.

Thanks,

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 11 Jul 2013 06:52

imo the more apple:apple comparison is not with the SM2 + 4-6 director radars on the burke/tico ships but with the ESSM. using some method called "interrupted continuous wave illumination" ICW they are able to control multiple in-flight ESSM. range 50km max and mach4.

and they are able to pack in lot of ESSM due to quad packing in the VLS....

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 11 Jul 2013 08:19

May be SNaik can throw some light on Shtil-1.

Model of Vikramaditya at IMDS 13

https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-b-8Z ... G_4818.JPG