INS Vikramaditya: News and Discussion

Vayutuvan · Post by **Vayutuvan** » 08 Dec 2013 05:18

INS Vikramaditya Wiki entry says draught is 33 feet and it has 22 decks. Is draught the height from bottom to the main deck with the flat runway? If that, 22 decks seem to be too many. OTH, if the tower is included, then that is not a stretch. May be my questions are completely dumb - I have no idea re. nautical terms. So how does that work?

All I remember of my visit to INS Vikrant and INS Godavari circa 1982 in Mumbai Mazagaon docks during an IN open day was of being mightily impressed (especially liked the Godvarai's Officer's mess and lounge) with the vessels. That is about all the knowledge I have regarding these mighty vessels of power projection.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 08 Dec 2013 05:39

the distance between waterline and keel bottom.. the amount of water to navigate safely. btw, the massans says it as draft.. they have to eff brit terms anyway.

Vayutuvan · Post by **Vayutuvan** » 08 Dec 2013 06:56

SaiK, that clears my question. So what is the definition of a deck? I can see two - flat runway and the angled one. Are the stories of the tower considered part of the number of decks? Assuming 7' per deck (or is it even lower? IIRC, INS Godavari had a ceiling ht. of 6'), we are talking ~150' for the keel bottom to (tip of the tower?) or the top of the 14 degree angled runway.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 08 Dec 2013 07:01

googled and found out:

The INS Vikramaditya is 60 metres in height- that's about high as 20 storeys

I would expect it to include the island.

Code: Select all


Here are 10 facts about the ship that has cost India 14,000 crores or 2.3 billion dollars:

    Originally built as the Admiral Gorshkov in the Soviet Union, the aircraft carrier has been refurbished. It weighs 40,000 tonnes and will be the biggest and heaviest ship to be operated by the Indian Navy

    India agreed to buy it in 2004 for $ 974 million. The cost kept shooting up. Russia delayed the delivery by over 5 years.

    A fleet of warships have been sent to  Moscow to escort the INS Vikramaditya to Kochi. After it reaches India, it is meant to be equipped with Israeli Barak missiles.

    The INS Vikramaditya is 60 metres in height- that's about as high as 20 storeys.

    It can carry 24 MiG-29s fighter jets and 10 helicopters at a time, and can sail nearly 1300 kilometres a day.

    It can operate for  45 days without replenishment and will be manned by about 1,600  people.

    Just the crew is expected to use over one lakh eggs, 20,0000 litres of milk and over 16 tonnes of rice every month.

    Currently, India has just one aircraft carrier- the INS Viraat, which is reaching the end of its useful service.   

    The new carrier joins the navy at a time when the Indian Ocean region is becoming a highly- militarised zone.

    India is also building its first indigenous aircraft carrier, the INS Vikrant, in Kochi, which is expected to join the navy in 2018-19.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 08 Dec 2013 07:19

good question on the decks... in an a/c, a room could be a deck... the flight deck, jet hangar deck, yadi yada.. dunno, if two decks on the same level is on terms? wait for some gurus to reply.

onlee speaking from aam knawlidge

ps: the flight deck on regular passenger airplane in my understanding is just a cockpit.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 08 Dec 2013 08:14

Hendrix is a Pentagon analyst.I don't think the Pentagon want weaklings in their tribe! Moreover,not just Hendrix but many USN analysts and senior brass have started questioning the need for operating only large,very expensive and now vulnerable (to BMs) supercarriers when LR PGMs and UCAVs have begun entering naval warfare,ushering in a new era in maritime warfare. If one doesn't study history and see how the battleship disappeared,then one is bound to repeat the mistakes of the past and suffer.

Now the "light carrier" that USN advocates propose,is actually the multi-role amphib America class flat top of 45,000t. This is the approx. size of our IAC-1.These amphibs are conventionally powered.Their flexibility,when also using STOVL JSFs,allows them to be very cost-effective platforms.This size of carrier and upto 65,000t (which could be classified as "medium" in size) would serve the IN well.However,as said many a time in above posts,the crucial issue is not the propulsion (apart from the high capital costs of an N-reactor,etc.) ,but the launch system and aircraft aboard.Since the carrier will most likely enters service sometime in the next decade,around 2025,it should be equipped with the best naval aircraft available by then and if the naval version of the Pak-FA/FGFA,our JV with Russia, is developed by then,enough time,operating a stealth aircraft,a quantum jump above the MIG-29K and NLCAs,would give the carrier exceptional capability.The Q then arises as to how the aircraft is to be launched.Similar in size to the SU-33,it is most likely that the Russians will use STOBAR for their future carriers which will also operate the aircraft.It can also be launched by cats/EMALS.The other aircraft available apart from upgraded versions of the MIG-29,to 35 stds.,will be principally the naval Rafale,JSF and Sea Gripen.I would discount singe-engined aircraft for the larger carrier,principally for survivability issues,as they would have a far greater combat radius of operations when compared with amphib. ships ops,where STOVL aircraft operating from ski-jumps (as in the Spanish JC class) would be ideal.

Propulsion,launch system,aircraft all add to the costs of acquisition and operations.This is where the IN has to bite the bullet.For the next decade+, operating both the Vikram and IAC-1,when she arrives late in the decade,and the Viraat also steaming until 2017 or thereabouts,will be sufficient for meeting current and medium term threats.However,what should take top priority over IAC-2 is acquisition post haste of more nuclear powered subs.The ATV is being built in series.It would require very little converting/modifying the design into an SSGN,see how the Ohio SSBN was converted into an SSGN carrying under 150+ land attack missiles. Fitted with universal missile silos,launching of various types of missiles would be possible to suit the task.Extra Akulas are also required for the attack sub missions,where these subs can take on enemy subs including PLAN SSBNs.The increasing number of Chinese sub intrusions into the IOR,around our coastline,indicates its gameplan.A few years ago,a US carrier was caught unawares by a Chinese sub tailing it.China possesses a large number of Kilo 636s and have reverse-enginered the design as well for their own models.The Kilos are universally acknowledged to be amongst the quietest conventional subs available,easy to buy,operate and maintain.We cannot underestimate the enemy's capabilities and must build a balanced fleet to deal with all 3-D threats from the air,surface and sub-surface.The latest drone launch from a US sub shows the increasing capability of the sub,which in the future will be decisive in naval warfare.

Vayutuvan · Post by **Vayutuvan** » 08 Dec 2013 09:13

Philip wrote:... large,very expensive and now vulnerable (to BMs) supercarriers when LR PGMs and UCAVs have begun entering naval warfare,ushering in a new era in maritime warfare.

Philip sir, precisely. The kind of CEP (or more precisely speaking the elliptical EP) that is achievable for conventional BMs coupled with tactical nucs and/or cheap $1 M cruise missiles or even UAVs that can probably be rigged up in a garage machine shop (in the near future) is going to make large expensive flotillas irrelevant. It is hard to argue that when push come to a shove somebody would hold back from hitting with whatever they have got up their sleeve.

By the way, I am not sure anybody knows what kind of tactical advances have been made and of what quality by various major and minor powers of the world. All that can be said is that strategic advances would be advertised with a lot of fan fare but tactical advances would be kept close to one's chest (or up one's sleeve).

vasu raya · Post by **vasu raya** » 09 Dec 2013 02:51

Vikramaditya has 2 runways, 195m and 95m in length, the Mig-29k has a take-off speed of about 61m/sec from the longer runway, if it has to take off from the shorter ramp of 95m, it needs no less than 2g acceleration. For the same take-off speed, a Hawkeye at 26 tons needs atleast 255kN additional thrust from the cat assuming it has a TWR of 1.

-------------------
maybe a gearing ratio of 0.66 (95/150) reduces the thrust req. to 170kN which 2 F414s can drive? 150m is for acceleration phase, 45m for deceleration of the Jetcat. Turbine tech improvements can always be substituted

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 09 Dec 2013 07:36

Carrier vulnerability.It's why I've advocated that all major warships above 8-10,000t,be flat tops which can operate aircraft,helos and be equipped with an array of flush deck missiles to meet 3-D threats.We nteed to spread the risk of our carriers being exclusively target din a conflict,remember how the Pakis sent the Ghazi to Vizag to sink the Vikrant? Once we have a dozen or so flat tops whcih can multi-task,we will have safety in numbers plus great flexibility of ops,as if STOVL aircraft are in the inventory,essential,they can play "hopscotch" on the high seas flitting from one flat top to another at will as operations demand so.

I've been watching the evolution of naval vessels for the last few decades.There have been three advances which is driving the shape of surface warships to reduce their vulnerability to detection and missile attack,reinforcing my thesis.The first was VLS missile launchers,providing flush deck profiles.Along with this came conformal sensors/radars ,which started the ball rolling with "stealth shaping" and the use of composites in the superstructure for stealth.No longer does one find the usual clutter topsides ,with radars,FC systems,EW sensors,etc. and commn. eqpt.aerials, all resembling a modern art melange of sculpture.Multi-hull catamarans and tri-marans are commonplace,giving greater stability and speed too.

The latest profiles of the USN's littoral combat ships (LCS) have thrown up startling deviations from the traditional profile of a surface combatant.In fact they have started to resemble the upper decks of subs! It was sometime in the '50s during the Kruschev era that the Soviets came up with a truly revolutionary missile craft.One that could submerge totally! With the advent of the rail gun,and one design has it tucked below decks,with deck covers opened only when it needs to fire,plus flush deck missile silos-just as one sees with missile silos on subs,the two profiles are converging.Way back in WW2 the Japanese had their aircraft carrier subs,one just found recently and we've just seen the launch of drones from a US sub.

I therefore predict that in the future,we may see smaller combatants with flush decks,so as to operate helos and UCAVs,and armed with an array of missiles in silos,be able in the face of missile attacks slip underwater like a sub,but with limited underwater endurance and by no stretch of the imagination replicate the full features of a sub.Imagine a small flotilla of such vessels,which have high speeds,and do not require any major anti-sub weaponry, submerge a few hundred km from the enemy's coastline ,get within missile range,emerge ,launch their missiles ,or use UAV/UCAVs for surveillance and targeting of enemy forces,and escape the same way.The true range of a BMos is about 500km given to be that of the Yakhont,from which it was derived.Larger frigate sized ships would submerge to defeat anti-ship missiles and air attack too.The latest subs today are being equipped with anti-air missiles to deal with ASW helos and hard-kill anti-torpedo devices are round the corner to defeat wake-homing "fish' that are not distracted by noise-makers. This also points out to the acceptance that subs will be the most survivable platforms in the future as surface warships will be tracked by a multitude of assets,sats,UAVs,aircraft and helos and high-powered land based radars. Real time intel and immediate prosecution of the enemy using super (and hypersonic missiles in the future) ,plus BMs too as anti-carrier weapons,is already with us.We are on the cusp of great changes in naval warfare which by 2020 will change tactics and strategy.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 09 Dec 2013 07:51

Nov 26, 2013 :: A New Washington Naval Conference for Asia?

Of course, territorial tensions and China’s naval buildup are far from the whole story; many other factors have to be taking into account in any consideration of military developments in Northeast and Southeast Asia. That shrouds the regional context in even great uncertainty and anxiety. No one country can keep pace with the PLAN expansion. A generalized movement toward the U.S. and – to a lesser extent – other regional powers such as Japan, India or Australia therefore appears to complement the many different and often competing modernization efforts underway in national contexts. And yet, although Washington’s so-called pivot, or rebalancing, has been noticed and welcomed by most regional actors, the U.S. is struggling to reconcile its ambitions and the needs of its Asia-Pacific strategy with budgetary constraints and domestic politics.

And, ......................

July, 2013 :: Strategic Triangle: A Japan-Australia-India Coalition at Sea?

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 09 Dec 2013 08:26

matrimc wrote:
Philip wrote:... large,very expensive and now vulnerable (to BMs) supercarriers when LR PGMs and UCAVs have begun entering naval warfare,ushering in a new era in maritime warfare.
Philip sir, precisely. The kind of CEP (or more precisely speaking the elliptical EP) that is achievable for conventional BMs coupled with tactical nucs and/or cheap $1 M cruise missiles or even UAVs that can probably be rigged up in a garage machine shop (in the near future) is going to make large expensive flotillas irrelevant. It is hard to argue that when push come to a shove somebody would hold back from hitting with whatever they have got up their sleeve.

By the way, I am not sure anybody knows what kind of tactical advances have been made and of what quality by various major and minor powers of the world. All that can be said is that strategic advances would be advertised with a lot of fan fare but tactical advances would be kept close to one's chest (or up one's sleeve).

Here is a well researched article. Provides both sides of the story (in December, 2013).

Dec, 2013 :: China’s Carrier Killer: Threat and Theatrics

The DF-21D missile is a legitimate
threat to carrier-based airpower,
but at times the concern has
bordered on hysteria.

Vayutuvan · Post by **Vayutuvan** » 09 Dec 2013 08:53

NRao, tech is ever changing and upwards mobile. That said, thanks for the link.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 09 Dec 2013 09:24

matrimc wrote:tech is ever changing and upwards mobile. That said, thanks for the link.

That statement is very, very true.

However, two points of interest:

1) What use is that change and mobility if it has not been tested? From what I can deduce this Chinese "carrier-killer" has not been tested. So, where exactly did "CEP", etc come from (for this missile)? (Just wondering.)

2) IF it has not been tested, then it further dents researchers like Hendricks. I had called his research "incomplete", this seems to prove it

Let them test the missiles - end-to-end, then we can talk.

Of course this still does not mean that carriers are the preferred assets. Perhaps India needs none - the IN says they need three. But, I am nto going to be scared of a missile that does not exist.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 09 Dec 2013 14:15

Aircraft Carrier INS Vikramaditya weathers storm in the Barents Sea

Boilers worked perfectly.

TSJones · Post by **TSJones** » 09 Dec 2013 15:06

NRao wrote:
matrimc wrote:tech is ever changing and upwards mobile. That said, thanks for the link.
That statement is very, very true.

However, two points of interest:

1) What use is that change and mobility if it has not been tested? From what I can deduce this Chinese "carrier-killer" has not been tested. So, where exactly did "CEP", etc come from (for this missile)? (Just wondering.)

2) IF it has not been tested, then it further dents researchers like Hendricks. I had called his research "incomplete", this seems to prove it

Let them test the missiles - end-to-end, then we can talk.

Of course this still does not mean that carriers are the preferred assets. Perhaps India needs none - the IN says they need three. But, I am nto going to be scared of a missile that does not exist.

From the web site:

Welsh said, is to disrupt the enemy’s kill chain.
“AirSea Battle defeats threats to access by, fi rst, disrupting
an adversary’s command, control, communications, computers,
intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (C4ISR) systems;
second, destroying adversary weapons launchers (including aircraft,
ships, and missile sites); and fi nally, defeating the weapons
an adversary launches,” they wrote.
They further noted that to succeed in attacking US forces,
an enemy “must complete a sequence of actions, commonly
referred to as a ‘kill chain.’ ” The enemy’s surveillance systems
must locate US forces, its communications networks must relay
targeting information to weapons launchers, weapons must be
launched, and then they must home in on US forces.
“Each of these steps is vulnerable to interdiction or disruption,
and because each step must work, our forces can focus on
the weakest links in the chain, not each and every one,” the two
service Chiefs pointed out.
A Sept. 30, 2011, press report quoted then-Lt. Gen. Herbert
J. Carlisle, who was the Air Force deputy chief of staff for operations,
plans, and requirements, as saying the Air Force has
“taken [China’s] kill chains apart to the nth degree.” Carlisle is
now commander of Pacifi c Air Forces.
Welsh and Greenert said they would not need to use “strikes
against installations deep inland,” an apparent

Here's the problem with this response by the experts: they are not thinking Black swan. Or Pearl Harbor.
In my humble opinion we are going to take a first strike. It probably won't be us hitting first. After that it is game over for the Chinese.
But we must be able to handle a first strike against us.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 09 Dec 2013 16:03

^^ But we must be able to handle a first strike against us.

relax, chill..because you can. start to worry when cheen has 50 SSNs capable of hunting your SSBNs across the world. or a disruptive tech like a space based weapon that can locate and target submerged subs.

JTull · Post by **JTull** » 09 Dec 2013 16:50

China will never target or even threaten without having something to back it. Also, if a proxy is available or there's another way to demonstrate a capability they'll use it first.

On DF-21, US shouldn't and it hasn't ignored the threat as a hyperbole. That's the prudent way.

India should be very concerned because PLA could easily use it on one of our carrier battle groups to show it to rest of the world. Japanese flat tops are equally susceptible but for the crucial alliance Japan has with US which will draw them into a war immediately. Similar argument is good for Australia as well. We need to be careful that we're not the sacrificial lambs.

Secondly, a manoeuvring warhead tech is not readily available and could find its way to pak. That could make our BMD work redundant.

This requires careful consideration, something we shouldn't laugh away. If you'll only believe the threat after it has been "tested" then you'd be too late, given where the threat is originating from.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 09 Dec 2013 18:12

I fully agree. We always end up being the bakra. While usn can sit behind layers of tech superiority, we are exposed and nanga.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 09 Dec 2013 21:37

Much to say, but will say a few things.

There are (proper) discussions and then there are "other".

The post about untested missile needs to be read in the context of not building aircraft carriers - just want to make sure about that. Not being scared is related to building AC and not the missile (see below).

On a slightly different note, Hendricks' article was written in an unofficial capacity - his own view, nothing to do with the Pentagon (or the USN - although the USN did respond due to the waves it created)

So, Pakis get the technology from China? Let them. More the merrier. As long as china is *willing to pay* for it that is just fine.

Also, why stop only at aircraft carriers. A DF missile is a threat to anything and everything - moving and not moving. So why build anything - destroyers, frigates, subs?

There are two other reasons. Which Mr. Hendricks has either conveniently preferred not to publish or is not aware of.

On US and layers - nothing there that India cannot do.

IN wants three CBG (for whatever reason). Still suggest that at least the last one be made much bigger and be manned.

I just do not see any change in the basic game: hide-n-seek. The one who is found first - no matter what technologies are fielded - all things being equal, is toast.

John · Post by **John** » 09 Dec 2013 22:38

JTull wrote:On DF-21, US shouldn't and it hasn't ignored the threat as a hyperbole. That's the prudent way.

India should be very concerned because PLA could easily use it on one of our carrier battle groups to show it to rest of the world. Japanese flat tops are equally susceptible but for the crucial alliance Japan has with US which will draw them into a war immediately. Similar argument is good for Australia as well. We need to be careful that we're not the sacrificial lambs.

Threat is overblown besides DF-21 launch could easily be misinterpreted as first strike triggering retaliatory attack (see how close NATO came when SS-21s were launched in chechnya). Also it is easier to intercept BM aimed a specific moving target than a city even PAC-1 that weren't modified for BMD scored a near perfect record in GW-1 (but the scud disintegrated hitting targets on the ground but carrier or ship it is different story). Don't forget it is speculated/hinted that Shaurya will also serve a very similar purpose unlike Former it would be much harder to detect..

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 10 Dec 2013 04:04

For the record, I believe from IE, Dec 6, 2013:

________________

Anurag · Post by **Anurag** » 10 Dec 2013 04:26

http://www.defencenews.in/defence-news- ... ew&id=2582
Also had an artist tendentious of the proposed INS Vishal.. Not sure if it's official..

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 10 Dec 2013 04:59

Supposedly it is:

But, see what is on the elevator in the middle. : )

~~One~~ two cats.

Four cables?

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 10 Dec 2013 07:10

thats not Vishal, its a france PA2 carrier rendering
http://media.defenceindustrydaily.com/i ... -06_lg.jpg

it is obviously the best template for vishal to start from. this QE2 pic gives you a better idea of width of the ship. one more cat converging to the endpoint of the waist cat can be added.

http://www.jeffhead.com/worldwideaircra ... -cat03.jpg

note the big size of the elevators...in true khan "top gun" style, two fully armed fighters can be brought up or taken down in one go.

vikramaditya elevator take one airframe only. http://img687.imageshack.us/img687/8483/viki3w.jpg

probably the fwd cat on the CDG is longer and permits higher takeoff speed...I always see their E2 parked near the island, so maybe only the fwd cats are used for the E2. not sure of nimitz class. here too the fwd cat looks longer

vasu raya · Post by **vasu raya** » 10 Dec 2013 07:51

For INS Vikrant that is supposedly running on gas turbines where are the air intakes based?

Eric Leiderman · Post by **Eric Leiderman** » 10 Dec 2013 08:04

the Air intakes could be one deck below the main Deck (these also supply fresh air to machinery spaces for personnel and hence )you do not want aircraft exhaust ducted into these spaces.

vasu raya · Post by **vasu raya** » 10 Dec 2013 08:17

Hmmm so they have a whole HVAC going on, these marine gas turbines need a lot of air and we don't see any obvious openings towards the front of the A/C nor huge supply fans to let the airflow along the length of the ship. And then how is the turbine(s) exhaust handled?

those gas turbines are more powerful than a civil airliner jet engine in terms of power

Eric Leiderman · Post by **Eric Leiderman** » 10 Dec 2013 09:27

There will be slats on the side of the vessel, the intake fans and their ducting will be located behind these slats, They will be as close as possible to the turbines/diesels. They will not be at the forward end of the vessel.
The exhaust will be from a funnel, Exh ducting will run through the island to the top of the ship.
In the main mahinery spaces there will be no real HVAC system only filters in the suction of the huge supply fans.
The HVAC system will be for the control rooms and electronics.
In a nuke, chem and bio war atmosphere what happens? I have no idea. Possibly the machinery space gets contanimated due to the sheer volume of air that would need to be purified.
However the control rooms etc would be on re-circulated air.

http://media.defenceindustrydaily.com/i ... -06_lg.jpg

In the Link above the funnels seem to be slanted rectangles on the 1st island.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 10 Dec 2013 10:40

Perhaps doubters will take China's BM carrier killer missile seriously.There is enough evidence that they pose a real threat to US carriers,and as China's surveillance capability and targeting in real time improves,so will the threat.But of course the doubters,despite a battery of experts (like Adm.Willard,Dr.Erickson,Gregson-Asst.Def.Sec.Asia-Pacific,Fisher,Stokes,Barnes,Hodge ,Page,Spiegel,Hookway,Hayashi,Polmar,Cronin,just to name a few) and their opinions on the matter, can afford to ignore the Chinese BM threat since they operate no navies!

Adm. Willard expressly was deeply concerned 3 years ago,but then perhaps some of our armchair admirals on BR know better! Secondly,the carrier is a huge multi-billion dollar floating magnet for any enemy,as it represents his offensive strike capability at sea.Its size also makes it more vulnerable than stealth destroyers and frigates and accompanied by other naval escorts is easier to detect.Peurile statements as to why we need warships at all isn't worth debating.For any weapon system there are always countermeasures,in any dimension.By the same yardstick,why operate air forces when SAMs are available? Simply juvenile.

Now this is as far back as 2010.There are later reports too.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... c-missile/

By Bill Gertz
The Washington Times
Monday, December 27, 2010

China's military is deploying a new anti-ship ballistic missile that can sink U.S. aircraft carriers, a weapon that specialists say gives Beijing new power-projection capabilities that will affect U.S. support for its Pacific allies.

Adm. Robert F. Willard, commander of the U.S. Pacific Command, disclosed to a Japanese newspaper on Sunday that the new anti-ship ballistic missile (ASBM) is now in the early stages of deployment after having undergone extensive testing.

“An analogy using a Western term would be ‘initial operational capability (IOC),’ whereby I think China would perceive that it has an operational capability now, but they continue to develop it,” Adm. Willard told the Asahi Shimbun. “I would gauge it as about the equivalent of a U.S. system that has achieved IOC.”

The four-star admiral, who has been an outspoken skeptic of China’s claims that its large-scale military buildup is peaceful, said the U.S. deployment assessment is based on China’s press reports and continued testing.

The new weapon, the “D” version of China’s DF-21 medium-range missile, involves firing the mobile missile into space, returning it into the atmosphere and then maneuvering it to its target

Military officials consider using ballistic missiles against ships at sea to be a difficult task that requires a variety of air, sea and space sensors, navigation systems and precision guidance technology - capabilities not typical of other Chinese missiles.

Asked about the integrated system, Adm. Willard said that “to have something that would be regarded as in its early operational stage would require that system be able to accomplish its flight pattern as designed, by and large.”

The admiral said that while the U.S. thinks “that the component parts of the anti-ship ballistic missile have been developed and tested,” China’s testing has not gone as far as a live-fire test attack on an actual ship.

“We have not seen an over-water test of the entire system,” he said.

Adm. Willard said he did not view the new missile as a greater threat to U.S. and allied forces than China’s submarine forces, which also have been expanded greatly in the past decade.

“Anti-access/area denial, which is a term that was relatively recently coined, is attempting to represent an entire range of capabilities that China has developed and that other countries have developed,” he said.

“It´s not exclusively China that has what is now being referred to as A2/AD capability. But in China´s case, it´s a combination of integrated air-defense systems; advanced naval systems, such as the submarine; advanced ballistic-missile systems, such as the anti-ship ballistic missile, as well as power-projection systems into the region,” he said.

The new weapons can threaten “archipelagos” in Asia, such as Japan and Philippines, as well as Vietnam and other states that “are falling within the envelope of this, of an A2/AD capability of China,” Adm. Willard said.

“That should be concerning - and we know is concerning - to those countries,” he said.

Adm. Willard said the new weapons are “an expanded capability that ranges beyond the first island chain and overlaps countries in the region.”

“For that reason, it is concerning to Southeast Asia, [and] it remains concerning to the United States.”

Andrew S. Erickson, a professor at the U.S. Naval War College, said the admiral’s comments on the missile deployment confirm earlier reports that the Chinese are moving ahead with the DF-21D missile.

”China must have conducted a rigorous program of tests, most likely including flight tests, to demonstrate that the DF-21D [missile] is mature enough for initial production, deployment and employment,” Mr. Erickson said in an e-mail.

Mr. Erickson estimates that at least one unit of China’s Second Artillery Corps, as its missile forces are called, must be equipped with the road-mobile system.

“While doubtless an area of continuous challenge and improvement, the DF-21D´s command, control, communications, computers, information, surveillance, and reconnaissance infrastructure must be sufficient to support attempts at basic carrier strike group targeting,” he said.

Mr. Erickson said, based on Chinese missile-deployment patterns, that the new missile system likely will be fielded in “waves” at different units to meet deterrence objectives.

Military specialists have said the DF-21D deployment is a potent new threat because it will force U.S. aircraft carrier strike groups to operate farther from hot spots in the western Pacific.

Currently, U.S. military strategy calls for the Pentagon to send several strike groups to waters near Taiwan in the event China follows through on threats to use force to retake the island. The lone U.S. aircraft carrier strike group based permanently in the region is the USS George Washington, whose home port is inYokosuka, Japan. A second carrier is planned for Hawaii or Guam.

Carrier forces also provide air power in the event of a new war in Korea and are used to assure freedom of navigation, a growing problem as the result of recent Chinese military assertiveness in the South China Sea, East China Sea and Yellow Sea.

Adm. Willard did not discuss what U.S. countermeasures the Navy has taken against the new anti-ship missile. U.S. naval task forces include ships equipped with the Aegis system designed to shoot down ballistic missiles.

Wallace “Chip” Gregson, assistant defense secretary for Asian and Pacific security affairs, said in a speech earlier this month that China’s new anti-access and area-denial weapons, including the DF-21D, “threaten our primary means of projecting power: our bases, our sea and air assets, and the networks that support them.”

He warned that China's military buildup could “upend the regional security balance.”

Richard Fisher, a China military-affairs specialist, said the new ASBM is only one part of a series of new Chinese weapons that threaten the region.

“When we add the ASBM to the PLA’s [People’s Liberation Army’s] growing anti-satellite capabilities, growing numbers of submarines, and quite soon, its fifth-generation fighter, we are seeing the erection of a new Chinese wall in the western Pacific, for which the Obama administration has offered almost nothing in defensive response,” Mr. Fisher said.

“Clearly, China’s communist leadership is not impressed by the administration’s ending of F-22 production, its retirement of the Navy’s nuclear cruise missile, START Treaty reductions in U.S. missile warheads, and its refusal to consider U.S. space warfare capabilities. Such weakness is the surest way to invite military adventurism from China,” he added.

Mr. Fisher said the Pentagon should mount a crash program to develop high-technology energy weapons, like rail guns and lasers in response to the new ASBMs.

Mark Stokes, a retired Air Force officer who has written extensively on the new missile, said the new deployment is a concern.

”China’s ability to place at risk U.S. and other nations’ maritime surface assets operating in the western Pacific and South China Sea is growing and closer to becoming a reality than many may think,” Mr. Stokes said.

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... z2n2ob9RKI
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

Here's an excerpt from a very lengthy series on US missile defence :

U.S. Navy Missile Defense: The Evolving Chinese Ballistic Missile Threat
U.S. Navy missile defense, yesterday, today, and tomorrow, Part 9
By George Galdorisi - March 7, 2013

he international media has extensively covered China’s emerging ballistic missile threat. Almost two years ago, The Economist noted, “The Pentagon has described China’s programme as ‘the most active land-based ballistic- and cruise-missile programme in the world.’ Missiles are good value. Compared with a fully equipped aircraft-carrier, which might cost $15 billion-$20 billion, a missile costs about $1 million … And American strategists are closely watching an experimental anti-ship ballistic missile with a manoeuvrable warhead, which could make it hard for American fleets to approach the Chinese shore.”

China’s Ballistic Missiles and the Maritime Arena

China has a vast arsenal of short-, medium-, long-range, and intercontinental ballistic missiles, and as the United States seeks ways to deal with this threat, much of the focus of is on the maritime arena, and specifically on how China might use these missiles to support its A2/AD strategy focused on the United States. And given the U.S. military’s recent embrace of the Air-Sea Battle Concept (more on that in a future post) as a way to deal with this A2/AD threat, China is developing ballistic missiles specifically to deal with U.S. Navy carrier strike groups that could threaten China.
A Chinese DF-21A transporter erector vehicle at the "Our troops towards the sky" exhibition at the Beijing Military Museum. Photo by Max Smith via Wikimedia.

A Chinese DF-21A transporter erector vehicle at the “Our troops towards the sky” exhibition at the Beijing Military Museum. Unlike the DF-21A, the DF-21D is thought to carry a conventional warhead rather than nuclear. Photo by Max Smith via Wikimedia.

One ballistic missile, the widely discussed, DF-21D, “carrier killer,” is a convenient metaphor for understanding why China is developing ballistic missiles at such an aggressive pace and what the United States is focusing on to counter this threat. This missile is discussed with increasing-frequency in the international and defense media, and there are a growing number of experts in this field who have enriched this dialogue.

Perhaps one of the most prominent experts on the capabilities of the DF-21D – and where it fits into China’s A2/AD capabilities – is Dr. Andrew Erickson of the U.S. Naval War College. Widely-published and interviewed on the subject (see, for example, Andrew Erickson and David Yang, “On the Verge of a Game Changer,” U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings, May 2009, and Andrew Erickson and David Yang, “Using the Land to Control the Sea: Chinese Analysts Consider the Antiship Ballistic Missile,” Naval War College Review, Autumn 2009, and “China’s Ripples of Capability,” an interview with Andrew Erickson (AOL Defense), accessed at: http://defense.aol.com/media/editor-david-axe-small.gif on Aug. 30, 2011, for some of his views on the DF-21D).

But Erickson is just one of a growing body of experts pointing out the compelling nature of this threat. As Marshall Hoyler notes in his article, “China’s ‘Antiaccess’ Ballistic Missile and U.S. Active Defense,” in the autumn 2010 Naval War College Review, “China seeks the capacity to find U.S. aircraft carriers roughly a thousand miles from the mainland and to attack them with homing ASBMs (anti-ship ballistic missiles). The most prominent aspect of this threat is China’s development of the world’s first anti-ship ‘carrier killer’ ballistic missile, the DF-21D.” Noted national security expert Patrick Cronin, director of the Asia-Pacific Security Program at the Center for a New American Security, has opined in Cooperation from Strength: The United States, China, and the South China Sea, “The missile can be fired from protected land-based bastions far away, travels at high speed, and provides mid-course correction and a maneuverable reentry vehicle with great precision and lethality … The DF-21D is the ultimate carrier-killer missile.” And China is demonstrating increasing commitment to this missile, with Keith Bradsher of The New York Times reporting in August 2012 in an article, “China is Said to be Bolstering Missile Capabilities,” “Western forecasts vary on how many of the Dongfeng-41 [DF-21D] missiles China will produce, with 20 to 32 mobile launching systems planned. The mobile launchers make it harder to find and destroy a missile before it is launched. If each missile has 10 nuclear warheads that could result in a few hundred to several hundred nuclear weapons.”
Twenty-six ships from the U.S. Navy and the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force are underway together after the conclusion of exercise Keen Sword 2013, Nov. 16, 2012. Keen Sword 2013 is a biannual exercise held in order to enable the U.S. and Japan to train in coordination procedures and heighten interoperability needed to effectively defend or respond to a crisis in Japan and the Asia-Pacific region. U.S. Navy photo by Chief Mass Communication Specialist Jennifer A. Villalovos

Twenty-six ships from the U.S. Navy and the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force under way together after the conclusion of exercise Keen Sword 2013, Nov. 16, 2012. Keen Sword 2013 is a biannual exercise held in order to enable the U.S. and Japan to train in coordination procedures and heighten interoperability needed to effectively defend or respond to a crisis in Japan and the Asia-Pacific region. U.S. Navy photo by Chief Mass Communication Specialist Jennifer A. Villalovos

Indeed it’s interesting to note that this year the world’s most widely read newspaper, The Wall Street Journal, ran an article largely focused on the DF-21D. As Julian Barnes, Nathan Hodge, and Jeremy Page point out in their article, “China Takes Aim at U.S. Naval Might,” “China’s state media has said its new missile, called the DF-21D, was built to strike a moving ship up to about 1,700 miles away. U.S. defense analysts say the missile is designed to come in at an angle too high for U.S. defenses against sea-skimming cruise missiles and too low for defenses against other ballistic missiles.” And more recently, this summer in their article, also in The Wall Street Journal, “U.S. Missile Shield Plan Seen Stoking China Fears,” Brian Spegele, James Hookway, and Yuka Hayashi note how simply the deployment of an early warning U.S. X-band radar to Japan (a long-term U.S. ally) has dramatically increased tensions between the China and the United States. As pointed out in their article, as well as elsewhere in the international media, China views developments such as this as a direct counter to their ballistic missile capabilities.

A couple of other reports to chew upon.

Aviation Week & Space Technology;10/14/2013, Vol. 175 Issue 36, p52
Ship-Killers
AUTHOR(S)
Butler, Amy; DiMascio, Jen
PUB. DATE
October 2013

Anti-Ship Ballistic Missile Alters Region's Military Geography
AUTHOR(S)
Erickson, Andrew S.
PUB. DATE
March 2013
SOURCE
China Brief;3/ 4/2013, Vol. 13 Issue 5, p3

The dabate:

Carrier Debate Rages in Face Of New Threats
September 2012
By Eric Beidel

The Navy’s next aircraft carrier will cost more than $12 billion.

But potential adversaries are developing weapons to destroy such a vessel for a lot less.

Therein lies the heart of a debate that continues to swirl around the Navy’s fleet of 11 carriers, its strategy in deploying them and the effort to build the next one.

“Why is it that we’re investing so much money and time and effort in a single enormous ship when the technology to exploit its vulnerabilities is much cheaper and more adaptable?” said Chris Preble, vice president for defense and foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute. That is the question that begs an answer, he said.

The super carrier has been a symbol of U.S. power around the globe for decades, but increasing costs and other factors have critics questioning the need for so many of the giant warships. Meanwhile, proponents insist there is no substitute for a carrier that can deliver dozens of aircraft and thousands of personnel anywhere in the world.

“If you take an aircraft carrier away, what else can do that mission? There aren’t so many alternatives right now,” said Eric Wertheim, naval analyst and author. “You can argue certain strengths and weaknesses of aircraft carriers, but there still isn’t anything that can take its place.”

At a Surface Navy Association conference in January, Naval consultant Norman Polmar argued that the military had many assets to perform the missions associated with a carrier. Operations such as long-range strike, air defense, anti-submarine warfare and tactical reconnaissance could be handled by methods involving satellites, drones, U-2s and offensive cyber-operations.

“Go back and look at the capabilities or reasons we used carriers 20 and 30 years ago and then look today,” Polmar said. “You’re going to reprogram a satellite — it’s cheaper, easier, faster.You’re going to send [an unmanned aerial vehicle], you’re going to dispatch a U-2 or you’re going to try to do it with cyber.”

The Navy has more than 50 submarines and more than 80 surface combatants that can launch Tomahawk missiles.

“I’m putting my money on surface combatants, not on aircraft carriers” when it comes to strike, air defense, ballistic missile defense and anti-submarine warfare, Polmar said.

The carrier’s survivability has always been tied to its ability to move. In the past, adversaries lacked the technology to track a carrier for purposes of pre-staging an attack. Today, though, there is continuous tracking by satellites and long-endurance drones, leaving the carrier with no place to hide, he said.

While Preble believes 11 is too many, he doesn’t necessarily buy into the idea that the heyday of the super carrier is over. Large numbers of relatively low-cost anti-ship missiles and quiet submarines can cause serious problems for an aircraft carrier task force, but these threats are not insurmountable, Preble said.

“There are some people who believe that subs are such a game-changing technology and the advantage so disproportionately in the subs’ favor that a carrier is a sitting duck. I don’t believe that,” Preble said. “They’re big and they’re targets, but we have other big targets. Yes, we’re investing a lot of resources and money and time and people in a really, really big vessel. And so we invest a lot in protecting that vessel. This is not a new phenomena. We did the same thing with battleships.”

For decades, critics have argued that the burden of protecting a carrier outstrips the offensive air power provided by them. But that isn’t necessarily so, Wertheim said. The F-14 fighter jets of the 1970s and 1980s have given way to F/A-18 Hornets and other weapons in today’s carrier battle group that are both offensive and defensive, he said. The next generation of jets will be even stealthier and able to get past anti-access threats.

Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the United States has been able to project power overseas with relative ease. But this golden era may be coming to an end, according to a 2011 report from the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments that details some of the challenges carriers would have operating in the Western Pacific and Persian Gulf.

Both China and Iran have learned their lessons and adopted strategies to keep the United States’ from striking targets on land using carrier-based aircraft. China has invested in weapons like the Dong Feng 21D anti-ship ballistic missile to keep U.S. carriers and their aircraft at a distance. Using the same philosophy, Iran has acquired large numbers of small fast-attack craft, anti-ship missiles, mines, subs and drones.

In the face of these threats, the Air Force and Navy are coming up with ideas to get around them. These concepts for what they call air-sea battle will require new long-range systems such as penetrating bombers and carrier-based unmanned aircraft, senior fellow Mark Gunzinger wrote in the CSBA report “Outside-In: Operating from Range to Defeat Iran’s Anti-Access and Area-Denial Threats.”

Officials hope that an Unmanned Carrier-Launched Airborne Surveillance and Strike (UCLASS) aircraft will increase the reach of carrier air wings and their ability to operate persistently in areas where threats abound.

The Navy currently is putting two Northrop Grumman-built drones through demonstration tests at its air station in Patuxent River, Md. Officials are working out the technical details of how to get autonomous aircraft to take off from, land on and move about aircraft carriers. They are experimenting with launch systems, arresting gear and even a controller that can be worn on the arm and used to move the drone around after it has landed. The goal is to have a stealthy strike drone operating from a carrier in the 2018-2020 timeframe, said Rear Adm. Mathias Winter, program executive officer for unmanned systems and strike weapons.

In addition to the drone research, investments in the F/A-18, F-22 and F-35 will lead to a more survivable fighter force when airborne, though it will still be dependent on close-in bases or aircraft carriers, Gunzinger wrote.

He laid out in his report the importance of establishing early pockets of air superiority should the United States find itself conducting a campaign against Iran. It would be difficult to do this and for fighter jets to cover large portions of the battle space in the Persian Gulf if U.S. carriers can’t sail within a few hundred miles of Iran.

“You can’t do anything without air superiority. You can’t fight without air superiority,” Wertheim said.

While it may be difficult to sink a carrier, Iran has the anti-access tools to force U.S. forces into focusing more on defense than strike operations, Gunzinger wrote. The United States may have to set up staging locations on the periphery of the Middle East in the Horn of Africa, Indian Ocean, Southern and Eastern Europe or even the Black Sea region. A Navy carrier with UCLASS aircraft on board could operate from the Arabian Sea to strike targets. Virginia-class attack subs and Ohio-class guided-missile subs could complement these carrier strikes against fixed targets, Gunzinger suggested.

Critics have noted the escalating costs of the new Ford-class carrier, expected to be delivered in 2015. Some have predicted the total bill could come to as much as $18 billion. The Navy could buy six or seven Burke-class destroyers with that money, Preble said.

“It’s a question of trade-offs,” he said. ”Is the striking power you get from an aircraft carrier worth seven Burkes? I’m not sure.”

It certainly is, Wertheim said.

“When an aircraft carrier sails in an area, they know that’s 4.5 acres of sovereign U.S. territory,” he said. “Wherever we go with an aircraft carrier, we have the ability to completely dominate that region if we have to.”

Critics have suggested that carriers could be replaced by cruisers and destroyers standing off-port ready to launch missiles, but Wertheim said those configurations are more difficult to fuel and re-arm. They also can’t “patrol in a box” should troops need support, he explained.
“Fighter jets can patrol overhead and they can say, ‘If something goes wrong in this quadrant, if Marines on the ground need help, we’ll be right there,’” he said. “A Tomahawk cruise missile can’t do that so much.”

In addition to improved aircraft, technology aboard carriers only will improve with time. Jamming systems, decoys and new sensors will be added to the mix and will mitigate vulnerabilities, Wertheim said.

“What’s on them now is not necessarily going to be what’s on them in 50 years,” he said.
While Preble worries about the cost of the new carrier and the switch to a revolutionary electromagnetic catapult design that has never been tried, he said the issue ultimately is one of foreign policy. Instances in which conventional power projection is needed in a distant theater are rare, but having 11 large-deck carriers (and more than 20 other amphibious assault ships and flat-tops that also carry aircraft) has made it easier for the United States to engage in operations it might otherwise not, he said.

“If we didn’t have to send an airstrip to distant waters 8,000 miles away, who would be doing that instead of the U.S. Navy?” he said. “The answer is countries in the region, launching conventional aircraft on land strips in their own territory.”

The United States has to develop a sustainable strategy in conjunction with its carriers by sending them to specific places, but not everywhere, Preble said.

“Geographic proximity matters,” he said. “We’re going to have to make some hard choices about where we’re going to maintain a permanent forward presence.”

The decisions are made harder given the ongoing debate between true believers of carrier aviation and critics such as Polmar who say that the 100,000-ton ships are ghosts of their former selves. The carrier may have been the cornerstone of U.S. naval power for more than 70 years, “but the situation now has changed,” he said. “And I believe it has changed permanently and very dramatically.”

Skeptics such as Polmar will continue to question the heavy investments being made to maintain an 11-carrier fleet, and proponents have a responsibility to answer them, Preble said.

“I’m on the fence,” he said. “I’m willing to be convinced by either side.”

By Eric Beidel

*If one studies the issue,the inescapable fact is that putting all one's eggs into the carrier basket is asking for trouble in an era of rapid change.As many of the eminent analysts have said, a balanced fleet which consists of various assets,is required to meet the new challenges posed by BMs and the plethora of new advanced cruise missiles which have increased the vulnerability of large carriers.The IN would do well to study the threat from Chinese anti-carrier BMs if it intends sending them into "harm's way",in the Indo-China Sea.AT least the USN has Aegis and SM-3s,but even with these systems and weaponry,cannot give a definitive answer whether they will counter the Chinese BMs and the call for a new missile and counter-measures systems gathers apace.

Can Aegis Stop China’s Carrier Killer Missiles?

A Lockheed official today gave a predictably cryptic answer to questions regarding the the ability of the defense giant’s Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense system to protect against China’s DF-21D carrier killer missiles.

“We’re constantly looking at the evolution of our Aegis BMD capability to keep pace with threats,” said Lisa Callahan Lockheed’s vice president in charge of the Aegis program during a Jan. 5 phone call with reporters. “While I can’t talk specifically about the capabilities we have against specific threats…we are definitely working to evolve our system to keep pace with the threats as they evolve.”

Callahan refused to comment when pressed on whether the current Aegis BMD system can protect against the DF-21D.

Read more: http://defensetech.org/2011/01/05/can-a ... z2n31TlVJg
Defense.org

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 10 Dec 2013 10:54

PS:In continuation of the above.

Please read Erickson's "using the Land to control the Sea" paper seriously.It is why I call the Indian land mass "India's unsinkable aircraft carrier",from where we can dominate the IOR and approaches to it using a combination of LRMP and tactical strike bombers equipped with super and in the future hyper,missiles like BMos,etc.Long-legged LRMP like Bears similarly equipped can operate for hours in the Indo-China Sea too and if base facilities are available in Vietnam pose an even greater threat and forward presence than sending in a carrier task force.If we develop the Agni series similarly,developing an anti-carrier BM with terminal homing MIRVs,we would be able to strike at Chinese naval assets in the Indo-China Sea as well.

That's why a balanced fleet is required for any navy that has ambitions of playing a global role.As said for two decades now,as surface fleets become more vulnerable to attack,the domination of the seas will depend more upon the numbers and capability of ones undersea assets in the form of subs that carry large arsenals of land attack and anti-ship missiles.Plus, UCAVs are fast becoming future force multipliers in naval warfare.

PPS:In the Indian context,the development of the classified unmanned stealth bomber by HALwhich has set up a UAV cell and asked for foreign collaboration too in the project,is very welcome. The AURA,which is reported to be 2t in weight,15m in length and 30m in wingspan, with an endurance of 50 hrs and able to carry 2 PGMs,powered by a scaled down Kaveri engine.However,the reported payload capability of just 500kg is inadequate for it to be able to carry anti-ship missiles.The IN should get involved in the programme to develop a naval UCAV that can be launched from our current and future carriers that would be able to carry lighter ,lesser ranged anti-ship missiles.The AURA,with a 50hr. endurance could provide exceptional C4ISR when operated from our A&N and Lakshadweep bases.

alexis · Post by **alexis** » 10 Dec 2013 12:23

^^^
We dont have SSBNs yet!!! So, we can chill when we have 8-10 SSBNs like Bear.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 10 Dec 2013 13:14

Incoming!!!!!!!!

Yawn.

Missiles, all to be precise, are dangerous. That does not prevent others from going about doing what they need to do. There are plenty of counter quotes. Both waste bandwidths to some extent. Will post a couple when I get onto my laptop.

Btw, India too has such missiles. Agni I had the capability to glide and a great CEP. Dhanush should be similar I would imagine.

Bottom line: this chinese missile has never been tested against a moving target. As far as we can tell. I would be scared of it nonetheless, however, it will not prevent me from deploying new ACs. I think the risk can be covered.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 10 Dec 2013 13:24

/thats not Vishal, its a france PA2 carrier rendering

Oh well. Internet for me! Should have done my DD.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 10 Dec 2013 20:47

In response to hendricks' article:

The Navy remains unswayed. “As any reader of Proceedings could readily attest, the Navy encourages our officers to think, write and debate issues of import to national security,” says Rear Admiral John Kirby, the Navy’s chief of information. “Captain Hendrix clearly has done that in this expression of his personal views. The Navy remains committed to its carrier fleet, to the warfighting edge provided by naval aviation, and to improving both as we move forward.”

First and foremost note that the article he wrote had nothing to do with the USN/Pentagon (as was implied). Yes, he is a commander in the USN, and he will remain so until he retires - like anyone else - nothing special about him.

Breaking China’s DF-21D missile kill chain: US expert

And then from a pair of General/Admiral, this article from May, 2013:

Breaking the Kill Chain, How to keep America in the game when our enemies are trying to shut us out.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 10 Dec 2013 21:00

This, on an *Indian* missile:

December 10, 2013 :: Longest Range Ballistic Missile All Set for Undersea Launch

India is finally gearing up for the maiden test firing of its submarine launch of longest range and nuclear capable ballistic missile code-named K-4 from an underwater platform off the Vizag coast by end of next month. The missile flies in hypersonic speed and is the world’s best weapon in this class.

Though it has been designed to cover a distance of 3,500 kms, sources told The Express that this time the test would be conducted for a range of about 1,500 km.

At 3,500 Kms, it exceeds the range of the DF-21D. At 5,000 Kms, it doubles the range!!!

Then:

Making the K-4 even more survivable is its ability to manoeuvre, following a twisting path to the target which makes it very difficult to shoot it down

And, here is the kicker:

A defence scientist associated with the missile said some of its sub-systems had already been tested successfully earlier and the missile with full configuration was ready for its first launch. “We are leaving no stone unturned to make the mission successful. We want to achieve close to zero circular error probability (CEP) accuracy,” he said.

So, at 3,500-5,000 Kms no stationary asset is safe.

This is more of a CM than a BM - more difficult to intercept than the DF-21D.

Brahmos is a capable missile against moving sea targets, so if need be the sensor package should be available - at least in the basic form.

And, China is planning on fielding TWO new aircraft carriers!!! Which Paki asset is safe in which harbor?

So, what exactly is the problem with China deploying the DF-21D?

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 10 Dec 2013 21:29

Noob pooch: Can our dhanush equipped ships be modified to fire BMD prithvi? Is it a realistic start towards ship based abm defense?

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 10 Dec 2013 22:02

er, but with 1 or 2 dhanush thats not a realistic payload. the SM3 or whatever its called employs the huge capacity of the Mk41 VLS. the Sylver A70 can also provide it if the euros fund the aster30-tbmd proposal.

I am afraid the prithvi is a bit too cumbersome for a mass fired weapon.

Nitesh · Post by **Nitesh** » 10 Dec 2013 22:38

Singha saar, I think Aditya meant AAD/PAD combo.

John · Post by **John** » 11 Dec 2013 05:05

Singha wrote:the Sylver A70 can also provide it if the euros fund the aster30-tbmd proposal.

Even so Aster 30 has not been approved for export and Barak-8 should have similar TMD capabilities. What is interesting would be if UVLS for Brahmos are modified to carry twin pack AAD missiles (one of the reasons i was hoping Prahaar would be canisterized).

vasu raya · Post by **vasu raya** » 11 Dec 2013 08:01

Eric Leiderman wrote:There will be slats on the side of the vessel, the intake fans and their ducting will be located behind these slats, They will be as close as possible to the turbines/diesels. They will not be at the forward end of the vessel.
The exhaust will be from a funnel, Exh ducting will run through the island to the top of the ship.
In the main mahinery spaces there will be no real HVAC system only filters in the suction of the huge supply fans.
The HVAC system will be for the control rooms and electronics.
In a nuke, chem and bio war atmosphere what happens? I have no idea. Possibly the machinery space gets contanimated due to the sheer volume of air that would need to be purified.
However the control rooms etc would be on re-circulated air.

http://media.defenceindustrydaily.com/i ... -06_lg.jpg

In the Link above the funnels seem to be slanted rectangles on the 1st island.

the image link is not complete, needs [url] tags on both ends.

The conclusion is running gas turbines within the confines of a A/C is OK, the LM2500 turbine itself is derived from CF6 a civilian jet engine with a thrust rating of 275kN, not sure how much commonality they have. At such high thrust ratings one could introduce gear ratios so that the peak velocity of the jet engine(s) driving the catapult is way lower than the takeoff velocity of the catapulted aircraft. In addition to a Hawkeye even handling a 'Su-30/33' class aircraft is a possibility. Once the door is opened for commercial jet engines, there are a lot of options. Just need to ensure that the jet engine can be shipped in a C-2 Greyhound, and then the funds for EMALS can be used for Hawkeyes.

for NBC protection, the sheer size of the ships means reducing the oxygen dependency and nuke propulsion might be an answer.

the future ships being 'submersible' also need that