Indian Naval News & Discussion - 12 Oct 2013

Vishnu · Post by **Vishnu** » 16 Aug 2014 13:20

Rahul M wrote:vishnu, do you think IN is hedging its bets due to doubts about barak-8 ? which would mean the load can be expanded(with more barak-8's) OR changed (to some other missile) in a mid-life refit ?

FWIW, sat images of P15B also show same configuration. the rationale for only 32 SAM shots in a full fledged destroyer seems perplexing.

Rahul ... its my personal belief ... that they are hedging their bets. 32 SAMS is a shocker. Particularly when the MF STAR has proven to be Extremely capable .. a point Navy officers were keen to make.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 16 Aug 2014 15:00

are there 8 or 16 brahmos tubes on the kolkata?

any close up photos of the kolkata decks let us hope media is allowed to publish tomorrow.

Vishnu · Post by **Vishnu** » 16 Aug 2014 15:11

Singha wrote:are there 8 or 16 brahmos tubes on the kolkata?

any close up photos of the kolkata decks let us hope media is allowed to publish tomorrow.

16 Brahmos. Media not allowed to film on the deck. Hence no photos from me.

sankum · Post by **sankum** » 16 Aug 2014 15:15

INS Kolkatta may receive latter 32 sam PDMS of maitri type and therefore barak 8 have been restricted to 32 sam to keep the cost down.

sankum · Post by **sankum** » 16 Aug 2014 15:30

When a ground hugging ashm is detected at 25km range flying few feet above sea level it does not make any sense to engage it using 70km range costly BARAK 8 and better is to destroy it using cheap 20km range IIR SR SAM.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 16 Aug 2014 15:39

the culprit here seem to be the ship design itself with a beam of 17.4m per the wiki. perhaps this creates stability problems with wide arrays off the centerline.

most other ships that size are 20m beam. even the FREMM which is 30% lighter has 20m beam. type 45 is 21m. horizon is 20.3m

the delhi design template probably does not scale up to such beams and unfortunately the P15B is also based on that.

I think architecturally the kashin design which delhi and kolkata class is based was meant for high speeds as there is relation between a ships length and slimness to that. it was not meant for capacious VL cells as there were none at the time. russia herself deployed her first vls only on the largest cruisers and only lately has come with the Shtil vls which the chinese promptly use on the type54 FFG

even the much smaller type54 FFG makes good use of its limited width and mounts a 32-cell unit.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-yKMJzz_UwoA/U ... gate_0.jpg

sankum · Post by **sankum** » 16 Aug 2014 15:59

KASHIN CLASS destroyer packs 44 pechora sam of 953 kg weight each and delhi class destoryer carry 48 nos shitil sam of 700kg weight each.

INS Kolkatta can easily carry 275kg Barak8 sam if 64 nos was desired and no of Barak 8 to 32 nos is not limited by any design limitation.

Ranjani Brow · Post by **Ranjani Brow** » 16 Aug 2014 20:33

Kolkata (7400t, 8000nm endurance): 32 x Barak-8, 16 x Brahmos, 2 x RBU-6000, 1 x Oto 76mm, 4 x Ak630, 2 x Heli and in future PDMS (32 x Barak-1 ?)
FREMM (6900t, 6000nm @15kn endurance): 16 x Aster-15/30, 16 x SCALP LACM, 4 x Otomat Anti Ship, 4 x MILAS Anti Sub, 2 x Oto 76mm, 2 x Oerlikon KBA, 2 x Heli.

Now tell me how the f*** is INS Kolkata under-armed ?

Ranjani Brow · Post by **Ranjani Brow** » 16 Aug 2014 20:44

maz wrote:FYI, the maximum number of VL cells in a DDG are in the Korean KDX-3 - which is about the same size as the P-15A - with no less than 128 cells! Plus, there's a RAM launcher and 16 Harpoon equivalents.
http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.ph ... tries-hhi-

So, I am sorry to say that the P-15A is rather underwhelming for its size. The 76mm main gun was a work around in place of the Ru origin 100mm gun -delivery of which was inordinately delayed and subsequently cancelled - or the preferred 127mm gun - a decision on which is yet to be announced. That said, the ship sure looks good in a menacing way. Good enough for pirates I suppose.

KDX-3 is 50% bigger than INS Kolkata at 11000t when fully loaded. In general Korean warships are relatively 'over' armed for their size and endurance much less compared to Indian and European ships maybe because their area of operation is much smaller considering their adversaries NoKo, Japan and PRC.

negi · Post by **negi** » 16 Aug 2014 20:50

Well there are two ways to look at things , Dil mange more so from that angle yes 32 does not look that impressive on paper but frankly speaking when it comes to threat to a surface vessel it is common knowledge that biggest threat to a destroyer is from Submarines and not airborne or ground based platforms . As we speak TSP navy has much more formidable submarine arm as against it's surface fleet yes P3c orions armed with Harpoons too are a threat but from what I know about BEL HUMSA-NG and BEL Nagin they have their limitations they cannot detect a Kilo class sub when it goes silent even if it is within single digit km from a ship (I assume Agosta is as good as a Kilo). So if there is something to worry about Indian surface fleet it is the threat from submarines and not missiles/AC (Shtil-1 , Barak-1 and AK 630 combo have cleared tests in Bay of Bengal onboard Talwar and Shivalik class).

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 16 Aug 2014 20:51

FREMM was supposed to be the 'affordable'(JSF) multi purpose ffg vs the costlier horizon class aaw oriented ships curtailed in numbers.
the horizons had 8 exocets in tubes somewhere but 48 aster.

I suppose if P15A added 8 exocets in inclined tubes somewhere near the funnel, and deleted the brahmos....we could have 16+16 on foredeck and 16 in the back for a total of 48 exactly. 48-64 is the sweet spot for AAW if barak8 is used.....AAW means you fire off more SAMs as you need to protect the fleet against crossing targets (going for other ships) and not just those aimed at you only.

fighting surface action in the south china sea however means one needs a pair of 60,000t carriers with considerable air arm...thats clearly not on the agenda table here.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 16 Aug 2014 21:00

negi, the threat from pawki missiles is considerable, the harpoons, missile boats, 054's and even the subs you mention carry pop-up missiles. in addition they have added the CM400AKG for the bandaars. believe me, if the pakis find a vik CBG or even a group escorting amphibs, they would throw everything at it.

32 is about enough for self protection but for a defensive screen. as it is this looks like a gaping hole in our CBG.

Ranjani Brow · Post by **Ranjani Brow** » 16 Aug 2014 21:15

^ I have my doubts that CM400AKG can hit a Ship.

maz · Post by **maz** » 16 Aug 2014 21:21

I guess we should be happy that IN has its ship finally as it no longer makes sense to wait for LRSAM to go thru OPEVAL and so on. While this is not optimal, this sort of thing happens from time to time. Unfortunately!

DRDO's decision to use commercial air tpt for sending LRSAM sub assy's to Israel via Korea is perplexing. I imagine, that, in good time, LRSAM will be installed.The LRSAM (and LCA for instance) episodes goes to show is that weapons development is far more time consuming and difficult than initially anticipated. Note that Brahmos was building upon the Yakhont so its development was relatively quick. We know very little about what factors led to the delays with the LRSAM. Maybe they were technical. Or maybe a combination of technical and a failure to agree on cost and workload sharing.

One hopes that lessons are being absorbed going forward instead of being forgotten with respect to making allowances for delays when planning the simultaneous induction of new platform + new weapon systems.

In the meantime, the ship will be defended by Igla's and be escorted by other suitably armed ships when operating in high threat areas where the MFSTAR acts as the "eyes" for the group.

Also good to know that MDL hopes to deliver the third P-15A by next year. Thank you Vishnu. Although, as with every such announcement, expect delays beyond dates being mentioned now.

Hecky, appreciate your comments but surely even you can agree that 32 SAMs is on the low side. And thanks for poiiting out that the KDX-3 is so much bigger than the P15A. I was fixated on the length. I think fl displacement of the P15A maybe as much as 8000+ tons since the P-17 was described as 5600 tons then became 6700 tons fl. Can someone confirm this?

As many have noted, there's a lot of real estate on the Kolkatas to add launchers and other weapons as needed in due course.

Wrt GT engines for these ships, I think that if enough critical parts are stockpiled (and the IN has a lot of experience with these engines), then there should not be any major issues. Obviously, if would be preferable to use Kaveri MGT but I would guess the power outputs/reliability are nowhere near the Zoryas at this time

That said, I wonder if the Kaveri can deliver sufficient power/reliability to be used in a hybrid propulsion system?

Clearly, P-15B inductions ought to go a lot smoother but a 2 year gap between ship deliveries is something new. Wonder what the thinking behind this is?

Insights would be useful for informing further discussions.

Ranjani Brow · Post by **Ranjani Brow** » 16 Aug 2014 21:26

Navy, DRDO headed for a tug of war over Kaveri engine

But the GTRE and its supervising director general (aeronautics), Dr K Tamilmani have so far demurred from entertaining the Navy’s request, for it requires at least two major modifications of Kaveri. Reason: the Navy is seeking less than 10 of these engines, which does not provide the scale of production for which GTRE can divert human and other resources.

maz · Post by **maz** » 16 Aug 2014 21:31

hecky wrote:Navy, DRDO headed for a tug of war over Kaveri engine

But the GTRE and its supervising director general (aeronautics), Dr K Tamilmani have so far demurred from entertaining the Navy’s request, for it requires at least two major modifications of Kaveri. Reason: the Navy is seeking less than 10 of these engines, which does not provide the scale of production for which GTRE can divert human and other resources.

Yet another example of short-sightedness on the DRDO's part! for now, the IN wants 10 engines as part of a LRIP. In the future, probably 100 engines. Why chop off the hand that wants to feed you? While the IN remains faithful to its quest for indigenization (or tries very hard to stay the course), DRDO's reactions are often hard to fathom .

negi · Post by **negi** » 16 Aug 2014 21:43

Rahul M wrote:negi, the threat from pawki missiles is considerable, the harpoons, missile boats, 054's and even the subs you mention carry pop-up missiles. in addition they have added the CM400AKG for the bandaars. believe me, if the pakis find a vik CBG or even a group escorting amphibs, they would throw everything at it.

32 is about enough for self protection but for a defensive screen. as it is this looks like a gaping hole in our CBG.

CBG do we have that kind of thing officially ? We just have 1 carrier (Viraat spends 3-6 months in refit every year). My point is We are a sitting duck against subs it is well known that we cannot detect a Kilo during our exercises so if and when we have to face TSP the Agostas will be the biggest threat . As for saturation attack TSP does not have numbers to pull that against us , CHipanada yes TSP no all said and done everything is relative so while 32 is not satisfying to Jingo heart but then look at 155mm arty, Arjun or even MMRCA saga and you kind of are forced to welcome stuff like Kolkata class even if it comes with lesser number of SAMs kuch nahin lekin apna to hai .

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 16 Aug 2014 22:13

hey I am not 'not welcoming' IN's new warship, after all she is impressive and is even named after my hometown !
I also agree with your point about our ASW weakness.

but that doesn't mean we should ignore our AAW either. it's not as if ignoring AAW improves ASW. moreover, pak AShM's can be ignored only at our own peril. with 10+ missile firing platforms (4 F22P's, 2 FAC's & 4(?) missile boats, later two closely resembling our own OSA's in role) with about 80 missiles, not to mention the missile firing agosta 90B's and the incoming bandaars, the numbers come pretty close to saturation IMHO.

please remember that it's not going to be a book-perfect 'ek SAM ek missile' in wartime, multiple ships would fire at same missile, there would be misses and ships may even launch multiple shots against lone targets. 30-40 SAM's per escort is too close for comfort.

as for CBG, whether we have one officially or not (whether they call it CBG or some other alphabetical permutation) the carriers do operate with a group of escorts, usually 3-4 destroyers/frigates.

SanjayC · Post by **SanjayC** » 16 Aug 2014 22:17

PM talks tough, but new warship lacks teeth
Ajai Shukla | New Delhi

No country will dare to challenge India after the commissioning of INS Kolkata, declared Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Saturday, while commissioning what is touted as the navy's newest and most capable warship.

"INS Kolkata will send a message around the globe", he added.

In fact, the disquieting message from Saturday's hyperbole-filled ceremony at Mumbai is that India's prime minister and top security officials are backstopping tough talk with a warship that is not yet operationally ready.

The 6,800-tonne guided missile destroyer, INS Kolkata, has been commissioned by the prime minister without two key weapon systems - the Long Range Surface to Air Missile (LR-SAM) that shoots down incoming anti-ship missiles at ranges out to 70 kilometres, well before they strike the ship; and the Advanced Towed Array Sonar (ATAS), which detects enemy submarines trying to sneak into torpedo range.

Until these systems are fitted on INS Kolkata, the destroyer cannot provide security to the fleet. Instead, it will rely on accompanying warships for protection against anti-ship missiles and submarines.

Project 15A was originally sanctioned with a budget of Rs 3,500 crore for building three destroyers. That cost has more than tripled to Rs 11,662 crore. Meanwhile the delivery date has slipped by four years from the originally scheduled 2010.

"INS Kolkata is entirely built in India and it is a symbol of our self-reliance," said Prime Minister Modi at the commissioning.

In fact, while briefing the media on Aug 13, a senior naval officer had stated that only 60 per cent of the destroyer is currently built in India. This percentage will marginally rise for INS Kochi and Chennai, the successors to INS Kolkata, but is unlikely to cross 70 per cent.

Foreign components include the Russian steel from which the vessel is built, its four Ukrainian engines, Russian propellers and shafting, and significant components of the LR-SAM and other weapons systems.

More worrying than foreign systems in INS Kolkata are systems that should be there but are not. Crucial for battle-effectiveness are two multi-role helicopters, which must fly in often blustery, rainy conditions to look out for enemy submarines and aircraft. With the navy running out of its vintage Sea King helicopters, INS Kolkata has been equipped with single-engine Cheetahs that are utterly inadequate for the job. Meanwhile, the long-running procurement of a "naval multi-role helicopter" from the international market has dragged on for years.

The Indo-Israeli project to jointly develop the LR-SAM for both navies began in 2006 and was to be completed in 2012 for three Project 15A destroyers - INS Kolkata, INS Kochi and INS Chennai. Delay dogged the LR-SAM and, in 2014, with INS Kolkata four years late already, it was decided not to wait for the LR-SAM missile.

The LR-SAM's guidance radar - the Israeli MF-STAR - has been built into the ship, as have the "vertical launch units" that will carry 32 LR-SAMs. What remains is the missile itself, which the navy claims will be done within "a couple of months".

Business Standard learns, however, that the LR-SAM will not be available for at least 6-9 months, or even a year if glitches turn up in testing. The potential for hiccups is evident from the fact (Business Standard, August 11, "Indian missiles languish in South Korea due to Gaza conflict") that four LR-SAM rocket motors that were despatched to Israel for testing remain stranded in Seoul, since cargo delivery to Israel was suspended due to the Gaza conflict.

Meanwhile the failure to develop or import an ATAS, means that the Kolkata remains a sitting duck for enemy submarines that can hide behind the peculiar temperature gradients in the warm, shallow waters of the Arabian Sea. The Kolkata shares this vulnerability with every one of India's warships built since 1997.

Since the mid-1990s, the Defence R&D Organisation (DRDO) worked fruitlessly on building an indigenous ATAS called Nagan. In 2012 that was declared a failure and shut down, and work began on another ATAS called ALTIS.

Meanwhile, German company, Atlas Elektronic emerged as frontrunner in a global tender to supply cutting edge ATAS to the navy. Predictably, allegations of corruption were raised against Atlas and the import was put on hold. On Aug 5, the defence minister told parliament that the complaints were being examined. Once completed and with all systems functional, Project 15A destroyers will be - tonne for tonne - amongst the most heavily armed warships in their class anywhere. Its 32 LR-SAMs will provide unprecedented missile defence cover, which experts say could be the best in the world. Critics point out that current destroyers carry 64 missiles; yet, none of those missiles have capabilities that match the LR-SAM. In case an incoming missile evades the LR-SAM, it will be engaged by a 76 millimetre super-rapid gun mount (SRGM), and the AK-630 close in weapon system (CIWS).

In addition, Project 15A destroyers carry 16 Brahmos supersonic cruise missiles that strike ships or land targets at ranges out to 295 kilometres. They engage enemy submarines at ranges out to 100 kilometres with heavy torpedoes fired from an indigenous twin-tube torpedo launcher (ITTL); or with rockets fired from an indigenous rocket launcher (IRL) built by Larsen & Toubro.

Project 15A will be followed by Project 15B, in which Mazagon Dock Ltd, Mumbai, will construct four more destroyers for Rs 29,325 crore. The first Project 15B destroyer is scheduled to be delivered in July 1918, with the three subsequent ships following at two-year intervals, i.e. July 2020, 2022, and 2024.

negi · Post by **negi** » 16 Aug 2014 22:20

Rahul tui jani I am getting old , I for one have reconciled to the fact that like all other things in our country things will take time to get perfect, as I said on weapons and platforms front Kolkata class is still formidable as against our bikhari self when it comes to Arty , MBT(yes we should have inducted a lot more Arjuns instead of T90s when we had a chance) or even a jet trainer .

Ranjani Brow · Post by **Ranjani Brow** » 16 Aug 2014 22:21

negi wrote:CBG do we have that kind of thing officially ? We just have 1 carrier (Viraat spends 3-6 months in refit every year). My point is We are a sitting duck against subs it is well known that we cannot detect a Kilo during our exercises so if and when we have to face TSP the Agostas will be the biggest threat .

That's why Navy is equipping Delhi, Talwar, Shivalik, Kamorta and Kolkata with ACTAS from ATLAS Elektronik while indigenous advanced light towed array sonar (ALTAS) will be ready in couple of years.

According to AE, the 70 mm ACTAS which it is also supplying to the Thai Navy, 'operates in the low-frequency range from about 2 kHz and permits observation of the sea space at ranges considerably above 60 kilometres, depending on the propagation conditions of the water.' Sixty kilometres is well outside the engagement envelope of most HWTs. ACTAS can operate in deep as well as shallow waters and obviously allows variable depth operations like any other ATAS. AE also touts the fact that ACTAS has an automatic torpedo warning system that works continuously in the background and automatically generates alerts.

http://ibnlive.in.com/blogs/sauravjha/2 ... ts-up.html

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 16 Aug 2014 22:31

nah, the time to be happy with compromise solutions is over, hopefully.

Sagar G · Post by **Sagar G** » 16 Aug 2014 23:46

maz wrote:Yet another example of short-sightedness on the DRDO's part! for now, the IN wants 10 engines as part of a LRIP. In the future, probably 100 engines. Why chop off the hand that wants to feed you? While the IN remains faithful to its quest for indigenization (or tries very hard to stay the course), DRDO's reactions are often hard to fathom .

Well guess what GTRE isn't a production agency but a designing one. We must wait and see what happens before forming opinion based on questionable articles. Further

DRDO to Set Up Rs 1,600 Crore Gas Turbine Project at NSP

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 17 Aug 2014 02:54

If she is later fitted with 2X32 BPDMS for anti-missile purposes,then the measly 32 LR B-8s might appear the minimum acceptable.One would've also wished for a heavier gun with ER muntions,better for gunfire support for amphib ops. One reason why the Kol is so underarmed may be the fact that there has been almost 100% escalation in costs.In fact almost every naval project has been running into massive cost escalations,time delays and the commissioning of warships without basic weaponry is a cheap shot by the builder,IN and MOD to fool the nation.

"Plus ca change,plus ca meme chose","the more things change,the more they remain the same",especially with our "indigenous" efforts.Kaveri has been another massive fraud upon the nation with not a single engine produced worthy of powering any weapon system.Goodbye to the marine version to power our warships.Goodbye to the Kaveri powered LCA,its original purpose-in fact one should say goodbye to the GTRE and wind it up,like the plan to wind up the planning commission and replace it with a new entity.Sack the lot of useless babus masquerading as boffins.What useful purpose does it serve the nation other than behave like a bloodsucking parasite,delivering nothing?

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 17 Aug 2014 03:09

sankum wrote:KASHIN CLASS destroyer packs 44 pechora sam of 953 kg weight each and delhi class destoryer carry 48 nos shitil sam of 700kg weight each.

INS Kolkatta can easily carry 275kg Barak8 sam if 64 nos was desired and no of Barak 8 to 32 nos is not limited by any design limitation.

This brings the weight of SAM weaponery weight for Kolkatta Class way...... way down compared to kashin and Delhi class.
Kashin = 44 x 953 kg = 41932 kg
Delhi = 48 x 700 kg = 33600 kg

Kolkatta = 32 x 275 kg = 8800 kg

then width is also less compared to ships Singha ji mentioned, that would make it very fast and save fuel too increase the range and lessening the running cost.
-----------------------------------------------

http://weapons.technology.youngester.co ... ogram.html

The Navy’s Barak-NG/ LR-SAM project aimed to give the missiles a much longer reach, with the intention of making it India’s primary naval SAM. The project was later renamed Barak 8. According to Defense News, the project features funding from American military aid dollars, as well as Indian cooperation and private/governmental funding in Israel. An Israeli source, on the other hand, has told DID that the USA has no claim on the Barak-8’s intellectual property. DID has been unable to verify he exact situation; but if the USA has no IP or significant American-made components in the Barak AMD system, it would have implications for both procurement funding sources and export policy.

The Barak 8 missile reportedly extends its range to 60-70 km/ up to 42 miles, thanks to a dual-pulse solid rocket motor whose second “pulse” fires as the missile approaches its target. This ensures that the missile isn’t just coasting in the final stages, giving it several chances at a fast, maneuvering target. The missile’s most important feature, however, may be its active seeker. Instead of forcing its ship or land-based radar to “paint”/illuminate its target at all times, the Barak 8 can be left alone once it is close to its target. This is an excellent approach for dealing with saturation attacks using older ship radars, which can track many targets but illuminate just a few. It’s also very useful for land-based systems, which will survive longer against enemy anti-radar missiles (ARMs) if they can turn themselves on and off to confuse enemy seekers, without worrying that they will lose all of their effectiveness.

That kind of performance vaults the Barak 8 past widespread options like the RIM-162 ESSM, or entires like VL-MICA on land. Though the Barak-8 may compete for orders that would otherwise go to those systems, a better comparison would be naval missiles like Raytheon’s SM-2 Block IIIA and MBDA’s Aster-15, or land-based options like the Patriot. The Barak 8’s active seeker would even give it a performance advantage over the SM-2, and corresponds more closely to the SM-6 currently in development. One wild card is the Barak’s potential use in a point defense role against ballistic missiles, a role that can be played by some of its more advanced competitors on land or sea. This capability is implied in the land-based system’s name, but has not been discussed publicly or validated in publicly announced tests.

The naval Barak-8 reportedly maintains its principle of using compact launchers and systems. Reports regarding its range vary from 70-120 km. Its ancillary capabilities will always depend on the radar and combat system aboard its ship.

The land-based Barak 8 Air and Missile Defense (AMD) system includes several components. The battle management, command, control, communication and intelligence center (BMC4I) is produced by the MBT Division of IAI’s Missiles, Systems, and Space Group; it offers both stand alone operation for a single fire unit, and joint task force coordination (JTC). RAFAEL supplies the Barak-8 interceptor missile, which remains vertically launched. IAI ELTA Systems Ltd. supplies the Land-Based Multi-Function Surveillance, Track & Guidance Radar (LB-MF-STAR), a rotating S-band digital Active Electronic Steering Array (AESA) Radar System that can deliver an accurate, high quality arena situation picture, and extract low radar cross section targets like stealthy cruise missiles, even in the toughest environmental conditions. The naval MF-STAR is expected to be part of Israel’s next-generation missile frigates.

In Israel, the Barak-8 is slated to equip its next-generation frigates, and may find its way to other roles. India expects to field the missiles on land and sea. Beyond those 2 countries, export prospects beckon for a missile that may offer a value-priced naval alternative to Raytheon’s Standard-2 and MBDA’s Aster-15.

India has 2 different programs that could use the new longer-range Barak missile. India’s Navy has decided as a matter of policy that it will only mount medium-long range surface-to-air missile systems on future warships, as opposed to depending on short range systems that might protect a ship, but don’t offer the same layered defense or fleet defense opportunities. This is an early sign of its transition to a more of a “blue water” navy that can reach into high-threat areas, and a logical complement to India’s establishment of a serious carrier force beginning with INS Vikramaditya (ex Admiral Gorshkov). Hence the 2006 Barak-NG naval agreement, which gives India an upgraded version of a familiar system, extends India’s technological capabilities, fosters economic ties and integration at sub-component levels, and helps the Israelis build a new system that meets some of their own emerging requirements. The new system would reportedly have a range of 50-60 km.

Prem Kumar · Post by **Prem Kumar** » 17 Aug 2014 09:36

Something I never understood in the Barak-8 saga. Instead of buying the missile outright, we artificially create a "joint venture" which leads to delays and SAM-nude ships. To my knowledge, none of the seeker knowhow is going to be transferred to India.

vic · Post by **vic** » 17 Aug 2014 10:27

Barak-8 is an import disguised as fake JV. But beside this point, the VSHORAD & SHORAD systems are slolwy loosing their relevance because they give no major cost benefit compared to MR-SAMs. As regards number of missiles, even with 32 Barak-8s and AK-630s we can take out around 15-20 AshMs which is adequate for the role being played by a single ship in "Indian context" which may be not be same as Tom Clancy novel.

Sumeet · Post by **Sumeet** » 17 Aug 2014 11:36

Watch: India's Biggest Naval Destroyer - Are We a Serious Maritime Power ?

Nice discussion hosted by Vishnu Som.

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 17 Aug 2014 12:50

^^^ I saw some of the discussion live yesterday. Occasionally I felt a lot of the discussion was a BRF copy paste and no I am not talking about Vishnu's points.

One aspect that was not mentioned (may be because it is naive) is the importance of having an indigenous asset afloat at a time when China is making its presence felt in the IOR.

The systems which the ship now lacks will come online with some delay, but delaying the commissioning for those made little sense.

I think, the IN is definitely a thrust area in strategic force projections and as the PM said we are not arming ourselves against any particular adversary but to take on any threat in time. No more the 'third' Service but an important force projector.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 17 Aug 2014 19:00

The peculiar aspect of the B-8 "JV" is that the missile is first being inducted/has been inducted aboard Israeli warships while we have to wait for a few more months/years depending upon who is being truthful! There is a shroud of mystery about the B-8 JV ,with scant details about the programme unlike the far more complex and varied Brahmos JV,where there is so much info about the missile,testing,etc.,where we are co-developing variants not seen before or in Russian service. As said above it appears to be merely an import ,a "fake JV".These allegations have been aimed at the DRDO for long,passing off imports as indigenous projects.In fact one allegation mentioned to me was that we developed a particular component,but passed it on to the firangs to be exported to us,as we officially had "failed" in our attempts to develop the item!

The huge delays in induction of warships and subs in the IN despite no dearth of orders is preventing the IN and the nation from "showing the flag" in greater intensity and capability outside the IOR.esp. in the Indo-China Sea. The shipbuilding yards must get their act together,and more orders placed in pvt. yards to ensure that deliveries are on time and within budget. Otherwise we will have to import when necessary to maintain the IN's combat readiness and capability.

Picklu · Post by **Picklu** » 17 Aug 2014 21:12

We need to understand that Building -- Testing -- Commissioning is like a supply chain and blocking one phase will block the whole as we do not have the luxury of multiplication of supply chain like advanced nations. So it is always glass half full even when they soldier on with shoulder fired SAMs as their only air defence.

Also knowing that this is IN we are talking about and NaMo + JetLi in helm, I fully expect to see Astra based SRSAMS to be deployed and retrofitted in the real estate left for future growth. No point wasting a 70 km SAM on a sea skimmer.

I mean come on, we keep on harping that services do not go mk1-mk2-3-4 way but when the services induct something with obvious scope left for future growth, we do not like that either.

I fully expect to see P15A and B are going F-16 way with loads and loads of future improvements coming in and they keep being relevant for more than half a century from their induction date. That is the also a sure-shot way of increasing your numbers in the transition phase where you increase your production capacity.

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 17 Aug 2014 22:19

^^Also regarding ASW having 1 chetak is not good, hope they quickly make an FMS deal for NH 90 of 100+ helicopters made in Bharat with maybe first 10 bought off the shelf, then P15s can go out to hunt some agostas:

Full composite body, automatic folding rotors and folding tails. Nice video!

John · Post by **John** » 18 Aug 2014 01:53

Dhananjay wrote:
KASHIN CLASS destroyer packs 44 pechora sam of 953 kg weight each and delhi class destoryer carry 48 nos shitil sam of 700kg weight each.

INS Kolkatta can easily carry 275kg Barak8 sam if 64 nos was desired and no of Barak 8 to 32 nos is not limited by any design limitation.

This brings the weight of SAM weaponery weight for Kolkatta Class way...... way down compared to kashin and Delhi class.

The problem is 16 Brahmos weights much more than a 32 cell Mk 41 system armed with TLAM/SM-2s/quad Packed ESSM or nearly 4 times as much as Delhi's 16 Uran armament. If you reduce the Brahmos payload by 8 and take away RBU-6000 you can easily fit another twin 16 cell Barak-8 module.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 18 Aug 2014 02:03

Prem Kumar wrote:Something I never understood in the Barak-8 saga. Instead of buying the missile outright, we artificially create a "joint venture" which leads to delays and SAM-nude ships. To my knowledge, none of the seeker knowhow is going to be transferred to India.

The seekers and even the radars are to be built in India. Lets see if that happens*. The critical thing we are learning and contributing to this program are the rocket motors. These are dual pulse motors which can be leveraged for several other programs. Other contributions are actuators and the CMS (Combat Mgmt system) for the entire Barak/MRSAM system for the AF being developed by DRDO and Tata.

*We do tend to get gypped from time to time with regularity on TOT deals and then accept the status quo. My faith in TOT from such programs is hence limited as versus what we are doing on our own for PAD/AAD/Brahmos-Nirbhay/Nag seeker programs.

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 18 Aug 2014 05:15

^ Are these dual pulse motors for B8 going to be mfrd here?

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 18 Aug 2014 05:36

The NH-90 should suit the In fine,but isn't it also indirectly affected by the FM/AW scandal? I think there was a warning to the govt. that blanket bans on all assoc. cos. would seriously impair the on-going projects of the services esp. IN,which has a whole range of products from the conglomerate. A quick-fix is long overdue.

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 18 Aug 2014 08:12

^ Oh I thought it was from Airbus, didn't augsta wasteland were involved.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 18 Aug 2014 09:46

NH industries is a SPV established for that specific helicopter only and AWG has a share of it. airbus helicopters ownes the entire "Eurocopter EC and AS" product family civil and military...all the stuff we know like fennec or cougar or tigre comes from them.

NHIndustries is a French SAS company, based in Aix-en-Provence. It is wholly owned by Airbus Helicopters, AgustaWestland and Fokker Aerostructures and provides the focal point for these companies for the NH90 programme. Established in 1992, NHI has managed the design, development and entry to service of the NH90 for both NAHEMA (NATO Helicopter Management Agency) and export customers. NHIndustries is certified to EN 9100, ISO 9001 and AQAP 2110, for prime Contractorship and Management of International Aeronautical Programmes.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 18 Aug 2014 09:47

so even if AWG has a ban now(not sure?) I am sure some legal loophole can be found to clear the NH90 since airbus is likely the prime owner of NH industries and contributes most to the workshare.

we need new fleet of heavy ASW helis far more than wasting billions of a set of apache right now. chinooks I concede will be useful to retire the Mi26 few units and move around heavy loads of ammo, food and construction gear.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 18 Aug 2014 10:05

The numbers for Naval ASW Helo looks big enough for us to develop one on our own instead of importing from Europe or US.

HAL can develop a Medium Helicopter with JV partner Europe/US/Russia and then navalise it should be done by end of decade , meanwhile adapt ALH for Naval use.

This way we can also replace Mi-8 with our own produce next decade.