Indian Naval News & Discussion - 12 Oct 2013

member_28108 · Post by **member_28108** » 07 Feb 2015 17:33

When they are testing things like Varunastra and planning for recovery don't they place some transmitter device to help recovery ?

RKumar · Post by **RKumar** » 07 Feb 2015 18:32

Shaun wrote:
RKumar wrote:India's Dhanush Undergoes 1st Night Test
I always wonder what is the purpose of this short legged missile . Are they perfecting ABM system , where shore based missile fired ,are targeted ???

Can't say for sure but to me it seems Navy is upto something. Dhanush is not the end goal but a steeping stone to something bigger. From the news, I can only guess that primary goals have been successfully accomplished. Next goal will be clear to us in coming 2-5 years based on priority/urgency.

I will not read too much into TNW weapon sentence as even Akash is NoClear capable.

It will be the last thing to depend upon for delivery or Navy wants to take bigggg risk by using it.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 07 Feb 2015 19:00

suppose we have 3 SSBNs for immediate future, but if 6 x K4 tubes were put into the helicopter hangar area of some OPVs would that not improve our deterrence until 3 more SSBNs come online...the OPVs can disappear into whole indian ocean...they have good range and endurance and cheen has no means to track their unrep cycles.

I have seen videos of Polaris SLBMs being tested from ships in the 1950s.

John · Post by **John** » 07 Feb 2015 19:07

It would be stretch for an opv to carry a K4 along with launcher.

The cut effectively shelves a navy effort to order three additional frigates of the Shivalik class (to be made at Mazagon Docks, Mumbai),

Taken from the other news article clipping in Mil Acq thread. Interesting Navy seems to be going for more Shivalik whiich is what i have been hoping for.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 07 Feb 2015 19:15

vs the talwar the Shivaliks have far more room for upgraded and more weapons later....its a ddg design masked as a ffg.

barak8 could be fitted in a MLU to improve our AAW...the big size and wide beam should make adding that tower feasible.

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 07 Feb 2015 20:38

I thought the plan was to go for 7 Shivalik follow-ons? Its unfortunate that they have not started building yet.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 07 Feb 2015 21:27

John wrote:It would be stretch for an opv to carry a K4 along with launcher.

The cut effectively shelves a navy effort to order three additional frigates of the Shivalik class (to be made at Mazagon Docks, Mumbai),
Taken from the other news article clipping in Mil Acq thread. Interesting Navy seems to be going for more Shivalik whiich is what i have been hoping for.

source ?

John · Post by **John** » 07 Feb 2015 21:49

http://www.telegraphindia.com/1150113/j ... NZFkYY8KK1

Singha wrote:vs the talwar the Shivaliks have far more room for upgraded and more weapons later....its a ddg design masked as a ffg.

barak8 could be fitted in a MLU to improve our AAW...the big size and wide beam should make adding that tower feasible.

Yeah I agree it Would require some redesign around mast area. Also it might be able to accommodate 32 Barak 8 vls cells in place of shtil.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 07 Feb 2015 21:53

some of the Tico CGs I believe were armed with different radar and shtil type sm2 launchers before going the aegis+vl way...the uss vincennes of the iranian airbus shooting fame was in that mode during the incident.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 07 Feb 2015 22:11

Who said that Dhanush was short legged? The range depends upon the warhead/weight. It has been an option for the IN/strat forces for some time now."Parking" a BM aboard our OPVs until our SSBNs get operational has been a clever move. Even in the future,should any crisis erupt,the OPVs could dramatically change their stance and show their "N-fangs".

Here's an interesting note on bubble skins for subs for better noise reduction.
http://news.yahoo.com/thin-bubble-coati ... 50085.html

Thin 'Bubble' Coatings Could Hide Submarines from Sonar
LiveScience.com
By Charles Q. Choi
February 5, 2015 8:57 AM
Thin Bubble Coatings Could Hide Submarines from Sonar
.
Bubble-filled rubbery coatings may one day help make submarines virtually undetectable to sonar, researchers say.
To avoid detection by sonar, military submarines are often covered with sound-absorbing tiles called anechoic coatings. These perforated rubber tiles are typically about 1 inch (2.5 centimeters) thick.

In the past decade, research has suggested that the same degree of stealth could be provided by much thinner coatings filled with vacant cavities. When hit by sound waves, empty spaces in an elastic material can oscillate in size, "so it will dissipate a lot of energy," said lead study author Valentin Leroy, a physicist at the Université Paris Diderot in France. [7 Technologies That Transformed Warfare]

However, figuring out how to optimize such materials for stealth applications previously involved time-consuming simulations. To simplify the problem, Leroy and his colleagues modeled the empty spaces in the elastic material as spherical bubbles, with each giving off a springy response to a sound wave that depended on its size and the elasticity of the surrounding material. This simplification helped them derive an equation that could optimize the material's sound absorption to a given sound frequency.

The researchers designed a "bubble meta-screen," a soft layer of silicone rubber that is only 230 microns thick, which is a little more than twice the average width of a human hair. The bubbles inside were cylinders measuring 13 microns high and 24 microns wide, and separated from each other by 50 microns.

In underwater experiments, the scientists bombarded a meta-screen placed on a slab of steel with ultrasonic frequencies of sound. They found that the meta-screen dissipated more than 91 percent of the incoming sound energy and reflected less than 3 percent of the sound energy. For comparison, the bare steel block reflected 88 percent of the sound energy.

"We have a simple analytical expression whose predictions are in a very good agreement with numerical simulations and reaabsorb more than 99 percent of the energy from sonar, cutting down reflected sound waves by more than l experiments," Leroy told Live Science. "I find it exciting and beautiful."

To make submarines invisible to the sound frequencies used in sonar, larger bubbles are needed. Still, the researchers predicted that a 0.16-inch-thick (4 millimeters) film with 0.08-inch (2 millimeters) bubbles could 10,000-fold, or about 100 times better than was previously assumed possible.

However, despite the possibilities, "making these samples will probably be tough," Leroy cautioned.

The scientists detailed their findings online Jan. 6 in the journal Physical Review B.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 07 Feb 2015 23:06

i saw a program on shipbuilding in taiwan. some lab models were shown of next gen container ships. layer of bubbles released close to the hull are claimed to cut drag by a good amt.

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 08 Feb 2015 00:13

The process to replace the missile corvettes has begun. "NEXT GENERATION MISSILE VESSELS"

For now it is an RFI issued by Navy to establish requirements:

http://www.irfc-nausena.nic.in/rfi/RFI_NGMV_02Feb15.pdf

(a) SSM Complex. The ship should carry a minimum of 08 SSMs.
(b) SAM System. The ship should be fitted with a Point Defence Missile System (PDMS) for
providing credible near 360-degree Anti Missile Defence (AMD) coverage to the ship. It should
be able to engage sea-skimming missiles, flying 3-5 m above sea level, upto a max speed of 3
Mach.
(c) MR Gun System. A Gun with stealth features having range not less than 15 km and
capability to carry out Surface to surface, Air to Air and Anti Missile Defence (AMD)
engagements should be fitted. It should have the facility to be remoted using Fire Control Radars
(FCR) as well as EO (Electro-Optical) sight.
(d) CIWS. The Close In Weapon System (CIWS) should be both radar and EO (Electro Optically)
guided to double up as Low Intensity Maritime Operation (LIMO) weapon. The placement of
CIWS should be such that it provides near 360-degree Anti Missile Defence (AMD) protection
without requirement of course alteration.
(e) Chaff. The ship should be fitted with suitable chaff system to provide credible passive ECM
capability against incoming missiles. It should be capable of firing chaff in all round direction in distraction, seduction and centroid modes.
(f) Small Arms. As per allowance.
(g) Low Intensity Maritime Operation Weapons. The ship should be fitted with following weapons
for Low Intensity Maritime Operation:-
(i) Two SRG with suitable system.
(ii) Acoustic Warning Device.
(iii)High power search lights with remote activation and Control

(a) Passive Detection System. An Infra Red Search and Track (IRST) system should be fitted
onboard. The system should be integrated with all gun mountings and should have the facility for
interfacing with Combat Management Sytem (CMS).
(b) Surveillance Radars. The ship should be fitted with one each Surface and Air surveillance
radar for early warning and Fire Control Radars (FCR) for target indication to all its weapons

...

The magazines, as listed below, are to be provided:-
(a) Surface to Surface Missile
(b) Point Defence Missile System (PDMS)
(c) Medium Range Gun
(d) Close in Weapon System (CIWS)
(e) Chaff
(f) Very Short Range Air Defence System (VSHORADs)
(g) Hand Grenade and Scare Charge Lockers
(h) RU lockers for Small arms

srai · Post by **srai** » 08 Feb 2015 04:52

^^^

6 units!

...

2.
Capabilities of NGMV
The main capabilities that NGMVs are envisaged to possess are Surface warfare capabilities, low RADAR, acoustic, magnetic and IR signature, high endurance and credible AMD/AA capability.

3.
Dimensions
Beam/ Length - Commensurate with the draught and displacement of the ship.

4.
Displacement
As per design

5.
Draught
< 5.0 m

6.
Hull Form
Single hull construction based on proven hull form or supported by adequate model testing for resistance, propulsion, manoeuvring and sea-keeping.

7.
Complement
The ship would have a complement of approx 11 officers, 02 U/T Officers and approx 80 sailors.

8.
Range &Speed
(a) The range of ship should be not less than 2800 nm at sustained economical speed and 1000 Nm at max speed.
(b) Max speed of the ship should not be less than 35 kn.
(c) The max-sustained speed should not be less than 25 kn.
(d) The ship should be capable of operating at low speed of ten knots for atleast 08 hrs continuously. Restriction in engine hours should not be an overbearing consideration, to enable flexibility in tasking

9.
Endurance
(a) The ship should be able to sustain at sea at economical speed for a minimum of 10 days without Operational Turn Around OTR (with 25 % reserve fuel remaining onboard).
(b) The ship should also have the ability to undertake astern fuelling from Tanker/ Capital

...

It seems NGMV will be much larger than the Veer class (500t) ... but smaller than Khukuri class (1400t). I would guess the displacement to be around 800-1000t.

member_23370 · Post by **member_23370** » 08 Feb 2015 11:13

Given the specs and complement of 93 odd I doubt it would be smaller that Khukris. The Koras do not have any PDMS and can't do 35 knots max speed.As per specs to carry 8 AShM and say atleast 8 PDMS with 2 CIWS the ship would at least need to be 1500-2000 tonne

kit · Post by **kit** » 08 Feb 2015 16:37

wont they qualify as frigates ?

John · Post by **John** » 08 Feb 2015 20:25

It is still smaller than Kamarota which is classified as Corvette. Interesting thing is the specs seem to mirror the Sa'ar 5 quite a lot.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 08 Feb 2015 20:31

8 SSMs but of what type? If they're Klub variants,no problem with even a 500t vessel,but if BMos,then one needs a larger corvette sized one. From the specs,these are primarily anti-ship vessels,with anti-missile defence against enemy anti-ship SSMs to replace our Tarantuls. There is no req. for ASW at all. Modern torpedoes will travel at higher speeds than the missile craft's top/burst speed and have long endurance too. Worth keeping it in mind. An MBU would provide both ASW and decoy (chaff) rounds.It would be worth exploring fitting a smaller MBU of size which one saw on smaller Soviet escort designs which could combine both roles. The forward armament could be the main gun,an MBU launcher ,missiles amidships on either beam,a BPDMS gun/missile combo system aft. similar to Russian systems ,where newer advanced Kashtan style systems are arriving,or a Barak anti-missile VLS module aft with 30mm gatlings on either beam aft as is already being provided in almost all our current surface combatants. The size could be similar to our pensioned off Nanuchka class corvettes or slightly larger/longer for better sea-keeping.They could carry 6 Moskit supersonic missiles,had an SA-N-4 SAM,plus gatlings and a 57mm main gun. I think that they were of approx. 750t. Russia still operates them,part of the Crimean "loot" and in its Black Sea fleet. At some earlier def-expos,models of Tarantuls/missile corvettes carrying upto 8 BMos missiles were displayed.

It would also be worth exploring multi-hull designs.We've commissione dour first multi-hull survey vessel and the IN should be bolder,building more experimental vessels with innovative hull and power plants. These craft will also have to have some stealth input and superstructure shaping The IN will require at least 24+ missile craft ,some stationed in the A&N islands as well,apart from forward bases in Gujarat,and on the western and eastern seaboards.

John · Post by **John** » 08 Feb 2015 20:38

Phillip

Klub and Brahmos are both heavy missiles if vessel can't carry Brahmos it is highly unlikely it can carry 3M-54E either. But russians have displayed various models showing missile boats equipped with 8 Brahmos missiles in inclined launchers even 500 ton Nanchuka variant.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... KS2009.jpg

member_23370 · Post by **member_23370** » 08 Feb 2015 22:54

I really hope we are talking about bigger boats. Something like Gepard class with 2 KMGT for propulsion would be great.

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 09 Feb 2015 00:05

The performance specifications are modestly increased over Prabal/Pralay of the previous decade. These are Veer class replacements.

Prabal carries 16 Uran, the new corvette could carry 8 inclined Brahmos.

OTO SRGM & BEL Shikari are already there. EON-51 could be the additional IRST.

It already has 2 AK-630. A combination of 8 Barak-1 or SRSAM and 1 AK-630 should be sufficient.

Where increase is requested is range, without compromising the existing 35-40 knots speed of Veer class.

My view is a slightly enlarged Veer class with more deck space for inclined BrahMos and a more fuel efficient GT like LM2500 should do the trick.

There was a Veer class powered by GE LM2500 design proposal in NDB.

Tonnage should increase to 800 tonnes, however, wont exceed 1000 tonnes. GRSE's composite superstructure could help reduce topweight.

A lighter Revati radar or EL-2038 should do both surface & air search.

Added later - A good rfp, and ships can be easily built by local PSU/private shipyards. Only technical glitch I see is the policy that more Barak 1 wont be inducted because of dependence on shipboard Fire Control Radars (EL2221). And SRSAM is nowhere on the horizon.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 09 Feb 2015 01:02

We need some cheap 300 km class missiles. Brahmos is too expensive. Perhaps some solid fuelled quasi ballistic type missiles with terminal guidance.

John · Post by **John** » 09 Feb 2015 02:45

tsarkar wrote:T

Added later - A good rfp, and ships can be easily built by local PSU/private shipyards. Only technical glitch I see is the policy that more Barak 1 wont be inducted because of dependence on shipboard Fire Control Radars (EL2221). And SRSAM is nowhere on the horizon.

Good writeup I think the big obstacle with RFI is the sustained speed of 25 knots and max speed of 35 knots coupled that with range i don't that is achievable. Without using a lot of composites especially with monohull.

Karan M wrote:We need some cheap 300 km class missiles. Brahmos is too expensive. Perhaps some solid fuelled quasi ballistic type missiles with terminal guidance.

Barak-8 does have secondary anti shipping capabilities. For quasi ballistic missile with seeker and 200 kg warhead you are talking something about twice the size of Prahaar price wise it won't be cheap. But will also be a lot easier to shoot than a sea skimming missile. IMO i think Shaurya is designed to have secondary AsuW capabilities which should address that need as for cheap Ashm with > 200 km best bet is turbofan missile like Nirbhay.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 09 Feb 2015 02:53

Who in our neighbourhood will be able to shoot down any quasiballistic missile? At any rate it will be cheaper than a Brahmos whose entire engine for the most part is imported as is, its seeker. From the missile perspective, I am thinking strikes on land targets with these sort of missiles not strikes on ships. Heck, we should probably get an OPV type ship with long range which can be escorted by more capable ships but which is just a cavernous missile deployment platform and has minimal crew and maximal automation. Pack 100+ missiles (inexpensive) set to salvo on Karachi.

John · Post by **John** » 09 Feb 2015 05:40

Karan M wrote:Who in our neighbourhood will be able to shoot down any quasiballistic missile?

Only newer Chinese DDGs if you believe the PR or other Aegis based system can shoot it down during cruising stage but CIWS systems might have limited success against them on terminal phase on approach to target. One of reasons Brahmos has lo flight profile and performs various manuveurs to reduce that intercept probability.

Karan M wrote:At any rate it will be cheaper than a Brahmos whose entire engine for the most part is imported as is, its seeker. From the missile perspective, I am thinking strikes on land targets with these sort of missiles not strikes on ships.

Brahmos-M should be cheaper than current variant i think that is game changer. That said Brahmos missile is still lot cheaper the price that was paid for Harpoon or Exocet. So it feels like the seeker and onboard computer factor into much of overall cost since around the same time US sold 65 tomahawk to UK for less than price it sold the 24 or so Harpoon to India and Turkey.

Yea your idea sounds lot like Arsenal ship concept there was pros and cons for it.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 09 Feb 2015 07:50

imho Shourya is a better bet than Nirbhay for anti shipping role because ships have considerable hard defences and cover from AEW assets capable of detecting small moving missiles against sea clutter.

the Shourya flying at mach6 and 120,000ft (40km) is untargetable by any SAM in the world because even the biggest missiles in S-x00 family claim a ceiling of 100,000ft and that I would imagine is directly overhead 12-o-clock not the slant range ceiling..it will come down in a circular curve more the slant. secondly I am not sure they can tackle mach6 targets effectively being designed for cruise missiles and aircraft mostly and being big, unable to manouver like a AAM.

Shourya should slow down to mach3, do a steep dive toward the sea in terminal 150km phase and start manouvering like brahmos. that we we get a "1500 km range brahmos" with a very fast and untargetable transit to target area , followed by a sea skimming phase like brahmos

in concert some Shourya's can launch zenith attacks in ballistic trajectory by no descending until nearly over the target.

and Agni1 should also modified with a 500kg marv type thing to release the marv and launch a Mach12 kind of terminal attack as the flaming marv reenters the lower atmosphere, slows down to mach12 and goes after the ships. few powered decoys should also be released to use up ABM rounds.

a 500kg warhead in a plunging attack will shred the guts of any DDG and a couple of them will mission kill a carrier by exploding in the hanger deck and starting huge fires...

we should get these sticks ready well before cheen builds its carriers rather than emergency mode work later. make it known loud and clear we will rip the heart out of any hostile fleet and burn them if they venture within 2000km of our shores.

shaun · Post by **shaun** » 09 Feb 2015 08:36

If they want keep the signature low and fast but with big punch against ships with a decent anti missile system ( the catch is it should be able to defend itself from supersonic sea skimming missiles which is not possible with Barak 1 in its present form unless they improve it by some of the technologies of Barak 2 ) they need a true UVL which can fire Brahmos , Nirbhay and Barak class of Missiles .

About Anti ship missiles , Brahmos and Klub class missiles are the only options as they are optimized for this role.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 09 Feb 2015 08:43

@ Singha, What sort of testing setup is required to actually judge the cost-effectiveness and capability and trade-off for an Anti Shipping Ballistic Missile capability? Any idea? We know for the DF-21 for example there is absolutely no conclusive proof if it having been tested in any sort of complex scenario that is required to develop effective tactics. Killing a ship or a series of ships floating in the big blue ocean from 1000's of KM's away, requires a lot of things to go right especially if the Navy at the other end is capable of hiding and pulling plenty of tricks in the EM, cyber and space domains to stop that. The best defense against such (the most effective from a cost perspective anyhow) isn't to stop the missile, but to kill any link in the complex chain required to get the missile to around the ship. This the IN should be developing giving China's capability and fondness of a ballistic missile solution for a carrier or a DDG. If these things ever become a significant threat the IN has to develop the capability to destroy a lot of space assets relatively fast, to deny the sort of ISR coverage that is required to pick a target in a vast ocean.

shaun · Post by **shaun** » 09 Feb 2015 09:33

Got this from here http://www.larsentoubro.com/lntcorporat ... 090813.pdf

negi · Post by **negi** » 09 Feb 2015 09:49

^ That is most probably a Ohio class SSBN.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 09 Feb 2015 09:50

Take a dekko at the new home built Vietnamese "Molniya" missile corvettes,built with Russian help. They are just 500+t and are equiv. to our Tarantul class but carry more punch. Though they do not have any particular stealth features,they carry 16 anti-ship missiles in 4 quad packs,two on either beam amidships.made longer to accommodate a BPDMS SAM system and as I mentioned,a dual MBU/chaff rocket launcher,with extra decoy launchers aft,a suitable dsign for around 1000+T could be made poss.

An excellent video-clip ,3-D simulation of the vessel here covering its features,but in Russian.IN Tarantulas could also be upgraded to carry 16 SSMs.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u8KxPG9D8yI

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 09 Feb 2015 10:29

Singha wrote:imho Shourya is a better bet than Nirbhay for anti shipping role because ships have considerable hard defences and cover from AEW assets capable of detecting small moving missiles against sea clutter.

the Shourya flying at mach6 and 120,000ft (40km) is untargetable by any SAM in the world because even the biggest missiles in S-x00 family claim a ceiling of 100,000ft and that I would imagine is directly overhead 12-o-clock not the slant range ceiling..it will come down in a circular curve more the slant. secondly I am not sure they can tackle mach6 targets effectively being designed for cruise missiles and aircraft mostly and being big, unable to manouver like a AAM.

Shourya should slow down to mach3, do a steep dive toward the sea in terminal 150km phase and start manouvering like brahmos. that we we get a "1500 km range brahmos" with a very fast and untargetable transit to target area , followed by a sea skimming phase like brahmos

in concert some Shourya's can launch zenith attacks in ballistic trajectory by no descending until nearly over the target.

and Agni1 should also modified with a 500kg marv type thing to release the marv and launch a Mach12 kind of terminal attack as the flaming marv reenters the lower atmosphere, slows down to mach12 and goes after the ships. few powered decoys should also be released to use up ABM rounds.

a 500kg warhead in a plunging attack will shred the guts of any DDG and a couple of them will mission kill a carrier by exploding in the hanger deck and starting huge fires...

we should get these sticks ready well before cheen builds its carriers rather than emergency mode work later. make it known loud and clear we will rip the heart out of any hostile fleet and burn them if they venture within 2000km of our shores.

Yes, the idea of Shaurya as an AshM has been on the mind for some time. Nirbhay will never work - simply too slow. Ship will be gone far away by the time Nirbhay gets anywhere close unless we have some other means of midcourse guidance for it - which means continuous tracking of target via some dedicated asset(s). Not cheap. Shaurya otoh, should be able to cover distance in a v.short time and if it can have some sort of seeker (which won't get fried during re-entry), should be able to get the target.

Wonlee problem that I see is that Shaurya is a MASSIVE mijjile - weighs more than twice a brahmos ~ 7 tons. The platform will have to be beeg to accomodate this beast. Time for the IN to move into the major league - we need a big ass cruiser - 10 tons++, even some modded Slavas might work initially - they used to carry the rather huge P-500 iirc along with S-300 class AAD setup. A slava modded to carry 16 UVLS with 8 shaurya + 8 Brahmos + 12 Nirbhay and 64 Barak is this jingo's fantasy. Shaurya can be used from long range as LACM to break the door down and also secondary Anti ship role. Nirbhay = saturation attack following Shaurya, and B'mos for anti ship and some LACM duties. Only thing missing is my photon torpedos.

3 of this type and we will see a lot brown waters across the blue oceans.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 09 Feb 2015 10:43

brar_w wrote:@ Singha, What sort of testing setup is required to actually judge the cost-effectiveness and capability and trade-off for an Anti Shipping Ballistic Missile capability? Any idea? We know for the DF-21 for example there is absolutely no conclusive proof if it having been tested in any sort of complex scenario that is required to develop effective tactics. Killing a ship or a series of ships floating in the big blue ocean from 1000's of KM's away, requires a lot of things to go right especially if the Navy at the other end is capable of hiding and pulling plenty of tricks in the EM, cyber and space domains to stop that. The best defense against such (the most effective from a cost perspective anyhow) isn't to stop the missile, but to kill any link in the complex chain required to get the missile to around the ship. This the IN should be developing giving China's capability and fondness of a ballistic missile solution for a carrier or a DDG. If these things ever become a significant threat the IN has to develop the capability to destroy a lot of space assets relatively fast, to deny the sort of ISR coverage that is required to pick a target in a vast ocean.

One reason the DF-21 or Shaurya type that makes it worthwhile is that you don't have such a long or complex chain once the target is sighted by virtue of the missile's immense speed - it will cover 1000km in 10 minutes or so making it sufficiently flexible to manage with onboard seeker. The BIG problem is finding the CBG in the first place. It is a bit easier for the IN - because the routes to the IOR (at least the easiest ones) go through the hyper crowded Malacca straits or thereabouts; there is very little PLAN CBG can do in its direct approach to IOR - risk of being sighted is higher. If it takes the long circuituous route - it is another story and the war might be over by the time it gets anywhere to do damage to Indian assets. The USN otoh, is another beast altogether - far too many carriers with far too many fighters, and the approach routes to Chinese coastline are endless - too much open sea.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 09 Feb 2015 11:23

I would not advocate Shourya being on ships. let it be deployed on land in the peninsula and in the andaman islands. thats a fair enough coverage around india.

if at all its to be on ships, we should think outside the box. take a 12,000t small container ship, soup up its engines to be able to sustain 30knots from the usual 22knots , increase its fuel tankage for diesel, install a couple of ciws and good anti torpedo decoys and put in some 16 shourya tubes flush with deck if we want a seaward launch platform that can be embedded as a arsenal ship.

other important part of more LRMP a.c and radar satellites to identify and track naval formations. I believe the chinese already have have trios of sats in close parallel tracks to function as some kind of "hunters" ... they have already 15 sats in 5 trios up in the air, probably giving 24x7 coverage over the west pacific , its a matter of time before they launch more with orbital footprints above the IOR and multiple trios in each orbital plane for 24x7 coverage

http://spaceflightnow.com/2014/12/11/tr ... -by-china/

China’s official Xinhua news agency described the Yaogan 25 payload as a single satellite, which state media reported was released into the planned orbit by the Long March 4C rocket.

Tracking data from the U.S. Air Force’s Space Surveillance Network recorded multiple satellites from Wednesday’s launch in an orbit nearly 1,100 kilometers, or about 680 miles, above Earth at an inclination of 63.4 degrees.

The use of the Long March 4C rocket, the Jiuquan launch site, and the detection of multiple spacecraft in orbit follows a pattern established on four previous launches in March 2010, November 2012, September 2013, and August 2014.

After each of the earlier launches, three satellites flew together in orbit in a triplet formation. Satellites operated by the U.S. National Reconnaissance Office flying in similar orbits are believed to monitor worldwide naval activity.

Western observers of Chinese space activity say the Yaogan name is a cover for China’s military spy satellites.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 09 Feb 2015 11:58

Years ago JNI had a similar feature on using merchant ships for Bm. I posted details of it. The use of containers to hide missiles is an old one but v.difficult to detect.One requires v.capable intel to detect the same,esp. now when terrorists can try and hijack a container ship ,as well as warships,if you remember the attempt not too long ago the incident in Karachi made by ungodly elements of the same to use in an attack against India.

If we build larger surface combatants,say 10-12000t heavy cruisers like the Slava class,we could use the Shourya ,BMos plus Nirbhay as well in large volume of VLS silos. The Soviet era Kirov class of N-powered battle cruisers come to mind,but that size is v.expensive and at this moment simply beyond us. To escort as well as being able to operate on their own steam,I suggest that the IN plan to build 3 desi heavy cruisers of at least 12,000t,to support our 3 planned carriers.These combatants should carry LR SAMs,a variety of other missiles,guns,etc. for anti-missile defence,with a large number of varied SSMs and a comprehensive ASW package including multi-role helos and hard kill anti-sub/torpedo weaponry. The advent of rail guns,lasers,EMP weapons too will have to be factored in in determining the size and power requirements for such a large combatant. For our smaller corvettes,etc.,BMos and BMos-M would be adequate if at least 8 and upto 16 missiles are possible.

PS:As an aside to Brar's post and the need for first knocking out an enemy's (PRC) sats which would give real-time targeting for its anti-carrier BMs,,there was a mention in some mag or on BR about of our anti-sat planned capability .

srin · Post by **srin** » 09 Feb 2015 12:01

Interesting that in a single page, discussing the requirements of a 1000t corvette with 8 short-range SSMs, we shifted to a 11t cruiser with Shaurya missiles

If the idea is to have small task forces operating outside of carrier battle groups and striking land targets (like Op Trident), or as aircover to independent ASW operation, then having a balanced SSM and SAM mix like the specs call for would be adequate. Of course, nice if we could shoehorn a 100 klub/prahaar like missiles, but seems unlikely for anything other than a destroyer size at the very least.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 09 Feb 2015 12:58

Just for the record,above posts,and to keep our future plans/designs in thought,a titbit from janes' of the PLAN's new DDGs.

Chinese TV details missile plans for Type 055 destroyer
Significance China's new destroyer is likely to have 128 vertical-launch missile cells The armament is expected to include the YJ-100 long-range anti-ship cruise missile A military analyst, Li Li, has told Chinese state television that the new People's Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) Type 055

http://www.janes.com/article/48512/chin ... s-opv-deal
China's planned P-18 missile corvette model on display here. Rapidly expanding its ties with S.American nations,something that we have not done at all despite excellent ties with Brazil,Argentina,Venezuela,Ecuador,etc.

The P18 corvette displaces 1,800 tonnes, is 95 m long, 12 m wide, and is powered by two German-designed MTU 20V 4000M diesel engines to achieve a speed of 25 kt. It can be armed with a 76 mm main gun, two 30 mm cannons, up to eight anti-ship missiles, two triple torpedo launchers, and can carry one medium-sized helicopter.

Naval Power reported that Argentina has requested a larger flight deck to handle its 10-tonne Sea King helicopters and a towed sonar to increase its anti-submarine capability.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 09 Feb 2015 18:48

Cain Marko wrote:
brar_w wrote:@ Singha, What sort of testing setup is required to actually judge the cost-effectiveness and capability and trade-off for an Anti Shipping Ballistic Missile capability? Any idea? We know for the DF-21 for example there is absolutely no conclusive proof if it having been tested in any sort of complex scenario that is required to develop effective tactics. Killing a ship or a series of ships floating in the big blue ocean from 1000's of KM's away, requires a lot of things to go right especially if the Navy at the other end is capable of hiding and pulling plenty of tricks in the EM, cyber and space domains to stop that. The best defense against such (the most effective from a cost perspective anyhow) isn't to stop the missile, but to kill any link in the complex chain required to get the missile to around the ship. This the IN should be developing giving China's capability and fondness of a ballistic missile solution for a carrier or a DDG. If these things ever become a significant threat the IN has to develop the capability to destroy a lot of space assets relatively fast, to deny the sort of ISR coverage that is required to pick a target in a vast ocean.
One reason the DF-21 or Shaurya type that makes it worthwhile is that you don't have such a long or complex chain once the target is sighted by virtue of the missile's immense speed - it will cover 1000km in 10 minutes or so making it sufficiently flexible to manage with onboard seeker. The BIG problem is finding the CBG in the first place. It is a bit easier for the IN - because the routes to the IOR (at least the easiest ones) go through the hyper crowded Malacca straits or thereabouts; there is very little PLAN CBG can do in its direct approach to IOR - risk of being sighted is higher. If it takes the long circuituous route - it is another story and the war might be over by the time it gets anywhere to do damage to Indian assets. The USN otoh, is another beast altogether - far too many carriers with far too many fighters, and the approach routes to Chinese coastline are endless - too much open sea.

The flight time is not the issue. The problems are many some of which are -

- Detecting a floating vessel in a large ocean
- Overcoming the EM and other countermeasures that vessel or vessels deploy to deny ISR assets of the ability to place a track
- Communicating the location or a potential location without alerting the vessel so that it deploys its countermeasures or tries to hide some more
- Arranging a kill with a ballistic missile on a target that isn't fixed, and is smart in terms of exercising extreme EMCON, and/or other countermeasures.
- Overcoming the space ISR disruption that the enemy may have planned both soft and hard.
- Finally overcoming any terminal defense capability that may exist against ballistic targets

Not an easy task to do. In fact, for all its hype, there is absolutely no proof whatsoever that the DF21 has ever been tested in any realistic scenario by pulling through all the resources that would require to "go right" for such an interception/targeting to be successful.

Not saying it can't be done, but just that its much hyped for something that has never been tested. Even basic missiles like S-300, Patriot or even higher end BMD missiles are tested routinely. Same applies to anti surface or anti ship cruise missiles. Even the simpler engagements often don't go as planned.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 09 Feb 2015 18:57

with the trios of hunter sats in orbit, there is no easy way to deny tracking data. space based sensors will only get better and more. Triton type uavs will only get better. SOSUS arrays will be put in. even floating tsunami type buoys would be able to gather useful data like silent rats and sea mines.

we are struggling to find money to build P17A, so any arsenal ship is out of question. it has to be land based launchers or atleast rig up some cheap container ships for this as I explained.

negi · Post by **negi** » 09 Feb 2015 19:01

DF-21 type of missiles will be able to inflict some damage on a ship only if they employ a big fragmentation warhead which explodes at some height above the target or a small tactical nuke , look CEP of a modern ballistic missile when engaging a target on land is at least a meter or two , now unless the missile has terminal guidance and moving surfaces to actually steer towards the target how can a ballistic missile actually hit a moving ship unless latter does not change it's course and former is using some elementary predictive technique to meet the ship on it's course.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 09 Feb 2015 19:14

it is assumed there is a radar seeker in the terminal stage. even the 70s era Pershing missile had it.