Indian Naval News & Discussion - 12 Oct 2013

[shravanp]

For a forward from my colleague about this.



If true, I had no IDEA what Ruskis had so powerful EW systems.

[brar_w]

For a forward from my colleague about this.



If true, I had no IDEA what Ruskis had so powerful EW systems.

We have discussed this multiple times..It started off from a forum post sometime back and then later got picked up by a few tabloids. The original report at the time even claimed that there were "on the spot" resignations from the sailors on board the Cook .

[Cosmo_R]

^^^ "Khibiny" Is that Russian for 'Djinn' ?

[VinodTK]

Where Is India's Carrier Fleet Going?

India is pushing hard on its carrier fleet, but does it have a good sense of where it’s going?

Reports have emerged that India’s second indigenously built carrier, expected to be the third carrier to enter service in the next two decades, may utilize nuclear propulsion. This is alongside a set of other innovations that the Vishal might adopt, including EMALS catapult technology (possibly developed in association with the United States). India has taken strides on nuclear propulsion recently, with the launch of INS Arihant, its first domestically constructed nuclear submarine.

Why would India need a nuclear powered aircraft carrier? Nuclear power doesn’t eliminate the need for local basing (even the all-nuclear task forces the USN assembled in the 1970s and 1980s required support vessels for repair and munitions), although it does reduce a task force’s overall requirements. Countries that build nuclear aircraft carriers (a group that currently includes only the United States and France) typically have either worldwide military responsibilities or worldwide military ambitions. By decreasing fueling requirements, nuclear power increases range and improves operational tempo.

But that’s only particularly useful if India expects to conduct high intensity carrier operations at some distance from its home waters. And as of the moment, it’s hard to envision missions in which nuclear power would prove decisive. The most plausible contingency might involve some kind of extended deployment in the Pacific, but it’s a struggle to figure out why the Indian Navy would seek to decisively engage the PLAN (or whomever else it might want to fight) in the Pacific, rather than astride China’s maritime supply lines in the Indian Ocean.

It also means that the maintenance, training, and operational requirements of India’s three carriers will diverge even more. India is effectively pursuing a naval aviation program that will struggle to share aircraft, pilots, and sailors. And until India’s second nuclear carrier comes on line (some sources suggest interest in an overall fleet of five flattops), INS Vishal will be the only of the three ships capable of conducting the missions that nuclear propulsion allows.

None of this is to say that the Indian Navy should eschew nuclear propulsion. But it should do so for good strategic and operational reasons. Even the United Kingdom, a country which does understand itself to have global military responsibilities, has decided against nuclear power for its carriers. If India is considering nuclear propulsion, it will need to think very hard about the kind of long-distance logistics that are necessary to support a CVN.

[NRao]

but it’s a struggle to figure out why the Indian Navy would seek to decisively engage the PLAN (or whomever else it might want to fight) in the Pacific, rather than astride China’s maritime supply lines in the Indian Ocean

India will get sucked into the dynamics, no choice IMHO.

IF she does get "sucked" (my term), it will never be alone. So, the argument "decisively engage" is in relation to other navies. Unlike the one within the IOR, where the IN needs to rule - alone.

On nuclear, I would think it would depend on the number of crafts the carrier hosts. The more she hosts, the more she will need support structure for an infrastructure the IN has never been used to: eg: planes that deliver replacement engines for the air crafts on the carrier, engine repair/testing facilities, etc. And, access to "facilities" in the Pacific region is a must.

Going all the way to the Pacific is big league.

IMHO, 2040ish India will have to be able to do all this. I expect IN (and IM(arines)) to be the predominant service in India by that time.

[shaun]

IN is just preparing for the future with nuclear powered carriers , with the expansion of Indian economy , India's public and private enterprises too will expand through out the world specially in the field of oil-gas exploration and mineral mining and those interest can be better protected when you have powerful flattops in the vicinity.

[Philip]

I've brought up this point before. The IN's carriers need to have some commonality for ease of operations.This can be done by having the same aircraft and helos,weapon systems for self defence,sensors,machinery etc,as far as poss. One does not know what commonality there is as far as the "innards" of the Vik-A and the IAC-1 are concerned. However,as far as aircraft/helos go,they will be the same. This could be later adopted by the IAC-2,operating same types/upgraded MIG-29Ks,or a new aircraft which could also be operated from the Vik-A and IAC-1, which are new which will serve us for 3 decades at least. If the IAC-2 is N-powered,then we must build a 4th sister carrier.This is going to be a huge outlay of funds for carriers,remembering that a carrier also requires escorts accompanying it.

Subs are for our geographical location a far more attractive option to have as the core of the IN's fleet. As said many a time,the Indian landmass jutting into the IOR like a dagger is a massive unsinkable carrier,from where land based long-legged strike and LRMPO aircraft can sanitise the approaches to the IOR.The size is so huge with so many chokepoints (only the A&N islands are where we can lay down UW sensors/SOSUS type systems),that we cannot monitor them all with UW sensors. However,if we possess a large fleet of subs,they could patrol these vital zones from which PLAN subs will attempt ingress and egress of IOR. Moreover,with a large sub fleet,including enough SSGNs,we could pro-actively patrol the waters of the Indo-China Sea with Vietnamese bases for support .

The USN requires carriers for force projection,but where will we project "force"? We are not globocop,or Deputy to Marshal O'Bomber. We have no expeditionary ambitions like the US to wage war on some "far foreign soil" .Our priority is fundamentally to prevent ingress into the IOR enemy naval forces from attacking Indian maritime assets carrying our trade and energy supplies,our naval forces ,ports ,harbours,and our vital industrial and population centres in the subcontinent. With the additional 4 planned amphibs,we would have sufficient platforms to come to the aid of our friends in the IOR like Mauritius,Sri Lanka,the Maldives and Seychelles primarily to prevent them from taken over by force and being used as bases of the enemy.Op Cactus a case in point. If the amphibs are conceived as being also capable of operating STOVL aircraft/heavy attack helos in the future,they could serve as ASW carriers in any crisis,increasing air cover for the fleet as well,apart from providing the landing forces with integral air support like USMC amhibs.

The volume of PLAN subs available to it and the recent rise in quality and capability,as US intel has revealed,gives it the capability to send in large numbers of subs which along with the PN's sub assets would make life very difficult for the IN in the IOR itself. The minimum number of subs that we require is around 36,24 conventional AIP subs,with emphasis upon littoral warfare,at least 6-8 SSGNs and 6 SSBNs,given that it takes 3 N-subs to always have one operational. The PLAN sub fleet will be divided into 3-4 groups,defending their territorial waters,the Indo-China Sea and one group for the IOR in a crisis to protect their energy supplies from the Gulf.

The ethnic crisis in Burma where Chinese rebels are taking on the Burmese army is a great opportunity for us to "seize the day",immediately bonding with the Burmese militarily,and prevent the Burmese ports from being used by the Chinese/PLAN.We could supply the Burmese navy with patrol craft,etc.,and their army and air force with eqpt. too. A swift diplomatic-cum-military effort is essential. Should this succeed,it will further complicate China's solution to the "Malacca dilemma",as it would scuttle the proposed Chinese pipeline and highway to the Bay of Bengal from S.China.

The IN possessing sufficient SSGNs which could operate in the Indo-China Sea and Pacific waters for patrols upto 90 days ,would considerably assist the IN in vital intel reg. the PLAN's fleet dispositions,trail PLAN SSBNs and monitor its naval and merchant fleet (energy supplies) capable of destroying the same outside the IOR itself. Our carriers would be extremely vulnerable to the massive number of land based PLAAF/PLAN aircraft ,apart from those planned for China's 4 new 65t carriers. The large build-up of the PLAN fleet is primarily meant to challenge the USN,prevent it from intervening if and when a "take away" of Taiwan is put into operation and protect its sub-based strat. deterrent,apart from protecting its "silk route" which will carry its energy supplies and trade.

PS:Just for the record,the USN was unable to detect an Akula-2 which was snooping around its eastern coast a year ago for a couple of months,as well as that of a Soviet era Sierra-2 SSGN. The West's ASW capability deteriorated considerably after the end of the Cold War,why the PLAN has put so much of its money into undersea warfare,also remembering well the "Battle of the Atlantic",where had Adm.Doenitz had more support from his fuhrer,and the German codes not been broken,his U-boats would've won the war for Germany.

[Ajit.C]

Naval officers are also now having collar tabs? Check the below picture in the article. Looks more like IJN.
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NEWS/news ... wsid=21737

[negi]

^ They are introduced recently .

[shaun]

If one have to find a particular object which can move from one place to another in a dark place what option does one have
1. use torch or multiple torches to find that object , but it is time consuming and might not yield result as the object can change its position
2. Light up the whole area ,things now get easier to find the object even if it tries to hide itself.

The first option is akin to sending subs , ASW platforms to find a hostile submarine. The IOR being so vast , imagine the number of assets required to find a nuclear sub loitering with unlimited endurance. I am not expert , but here resident experts can calculate the assets both subs and ASW ship and aerial platforms required just to have 24/7 underwater surveillance of say east coast.

Lighting up the whole area is like having deep water ISR grid of sensors , hydrophones which can detect signature of hostile submarine and report it back to subs and other ASW platforms loitering for confirmation and neutralizing it.

I think increasing the number of ASW assets and subs is just one part of the solution as they alone can't guarantee the sanctity of IOR from hostile subs.

[Aditya G]

Seems we have introduced a new type of ISV into the Navy:



Of the 14 vessels inducted so far, 11 have been designed and constructed by M/s SHM Shipcare, Mumbai and 3by Abu Dhabi Ship Builder thus proving as an apt example of the “Make in India ‘ initiative proposed by the BJP government.

They seem to be larger than ones supplied for Sagar Prahari Bal.

Naval officers are also now having collar tabs? Check the below picture in the article. Looks more like IJN.
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NEWS/news ... wsid=21737

[shaun]

^^^^why are they not providing some protection to the gunner

[member_24684]

Better guns compared to the above ISV

INFAC T 80 Fast Attack Craft


© JerryE

[John]

Better guns compared to the above ISV

INFAC T 80 Fast Attack Craft


© JerryE

Super dvora where built under license so likely wouldhave cost a lot more. They also been seen mounted with machine gun instead of the Oerlikon.

[NRao]

AWST reporting that this pup is targeted for India:



IAI willing to install ELI-3360 mission system, hard-points and certify. Can be equipped with MAD, sonobouys, torpedoes and missiles.

[brar_w]

Its designed for a larger maritime market where the operator cannot afford the higher end capability. It also targets those looking to split the mission between the bigger and more capable aircraft and smaller aircraft. Boeing already competes in this market with the Challenger 605 based MSA which flew last year and which it claims is a Mini-P8 with many systems being similar (hence attractive to those looking at a high-low fleet). It comes with the same AESA as the P-8, although somewhere down the road I am sure it would be offered with the AN/ZPY-2 or the Triton's AESA sensor for commonality. It has been designed with an open ended architecture to rapidly and affordably accommodate customer specific equipment.

[Gagan]

Phuck we need like 2000 MBT Arjun 2s and 200 LCAs all deployed like 50 Kms from the borders, than this puppy

[kit]

3 + Gagan ! One needs to be focused on "ground" realities !!

[Philip]

http://news.usni.org/2015/02/23/indian- ... 234c8f82d4

Indian Navy Set to Accelerate Second Indigenous Carrier as U.K. Built Carrier is Set to Decommission Next Year

By: Sam LaGrone
February 23, 2015
fly in formation with two Indian Navy Sea Harriers, bottom, and two Indian Air Force Jaguars, right
Two US F/A-18E/F Navy Super Hornets fly in formation over Indian Navy aircraft carrier INS Viraat on Sept. 7, 2007. US Navy Photo

CORRECTION: In a previous version of this post, the planned name of India’s indigenous aircraft carrier-II (IAC-II) program was incorrect. It is Vishal, not Vishnal.

The Indian Navy is accelerating the design and construction of its second domestic carrier as its oldest carrier leaves service next year, according to several local press reports.

The work to develop the carrier — thought to be called INS Vishal — has been given a top priority to shore up capability gaps in the service following the planned retirement of INS Viraat — the former U.K. Royal Navy carrier Hermes — some time next year, according to a Monday report in The Times of India.

“INS Viraat will be decommissioned after the International Fleet Review in Vizag in February 2016. It will not be cost-effective to go in for another major refit of INS Viraat, which was inducted from the U.K. in May 1987,” an official told the paper.

Vishal — the indigenous aircraft carrier-II (IAC-II) program — would take 10 to 12 years of construction and is seen as a hedge against China’s People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) own domestic carrier program.

The PLAN has started to patrol more in the Indian Ocean in the last several years, which has prompted concern in Indian leadership.

The current IAC-II study will consider the type of propulsion for Vishal as well as determine the type of aircraft the Indians will need to field on the new ship.

An artist's conception of INS Vikrant. Indian Navy Image
An artist’s conception of INS Vikrant. Indian Navy Image

So far, the Indians are reportedly leaning toward a nuclear powered carrier and have determined it will feature a catapult-assisted take-off but arrested recovery (CATOBAR) — in line with the current generation of U.S. Nimitz-class carriers (CVN-68).

India’s other carriers — the Soviet-built Vikramaditya and the domestically built Vikrant (IAC-I) — currently are built around a short-take off but arrested recovery (STOBAR) system which require a sloped “ski-jump” ramp to allow aircraft to take off.

A CATOBAR system would allow Vishal to not only launch heavier fighters than its current crop of Mikoyan MiG-29Ks but also heavier airborne surveillance aircraft.

The Indians have inquired about the inclusion of the General Atomics Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS) that will launch aircraft off the new U.S. Gerald R. Ford-class of nuclear carrier (CVN-78), according to a Monday report in Jane’s Defence Weekly.

In January, the U.S. and India agreed to “explore” sharing carrier technology and design and establish a working group under a larger bilateral agreement.

The help from the U.S. could do much to accelerate India’s carrier development program.

The conventionally powered 40,000-ton Vikrant is five years late, could be as much as $4 billion over budget and may not become operational until 2018.

A 65,000-ton nuclear powered CATOBAR Vishal would be an exceedingly more complicated shipbuilding program.

Under the accelerated timeline, Vishal could commission as early as 2033, according to Jane’s.

"Accelerated" timeline by 2033! 18 years from now.By then I wonder how many of us oldies will be "6 ft under" and miss out on the launch.
In another td.,I made a mistake quoting the LCA project dir.The MK-2 will fly perhaps in the "second half of 2018" and not 2017 as I posted.Apologies for the same. The NLCA MK-2 prototype will fly after that.There is simply little way in which the IAC-1 and Vik-A are going to have a substantial,meaningful number of NLCAs operational.NLCA production of the MK-2 definitive version which both the IAF and IN want,will perhaps enter production 2022+ By 2025 we may have just one NLCA sqd. operational.So for the next decade,we will have to increase the number of MIG-29Ks,perhaps UG versions,as only this type of medium-sized naval aircraft would be able to operate from the decks of the two STOBAR carriers. However,if NLCAs are used operating from our naval air stations on land,the NLCAs operating from our coastal/island bases ,esp those which have smaller runways could be very useful for point defence and sanitizing the air space upto 250/300km equipped with Harpoon/Harpoonski type anti-ship missiles. As said before,the IN should gradually take up greater responsibility of securing the defences of the island territories,leaving more aircaft available to the IAF to meet the greater challenges from the PLAAF and PAF.MK-2 NLCAs with refueling capability would be able to extend their combat radius substantially.

In a decade's time,one expects to see China operate at least 3-4 65,000t carriers,with at least one regularly making forays into the IOR and using Gwadar as a base.PLAN N-subs/conventional subs too will be using Gwadar regularly esp. if the Lankans stick to their latest commitment not to allow PLAN subs to dock at Colombo.

[Viv S]

In another td.,I made mistake quoting the LCA project dir.The MK-2 will fly perhaps in the "second half of 2018" and not 2017 as I posted.Apologies for the same. The NLCA MK-2 prototype will fly after that.There is simply little way in which the IAC-1 and Vik-A are going to have a substantial,meaningful number of NLCAs operational.

Any one who tells you that the INS Vikrant will be ready by 2018 doesn't know what he's talking about. In all likelihood N-Tejas will be available before the Vikrant is operational. We have 45 MiG-29Ks in three squadrons. With two assigned to the Vikramaditya, we have one free for the Vikrant to be supplemented with one squadron of Tejas Mk2 to allow both ships to embark a sizeable air component.

In a decade's time,one expects to see China operate at least 3-4 65,000t carriers,with at least one regularly making forays into the IOR and using Gwadar as a base.PLAN N-subs/conventional subs too will be using Gwadar regularly esp. if the Lankans stick to their latest commitment not to allow PLAN subs to dock at Colombo.

We have airbases all the way down the western coast including new ones coming up in Tamil Nadu plus bases available in the ANI, all of which can support BrahMos equipped Su-30MKIs as well as other strike aircraft.

Bottom line is we don't need any more MiG-29Ks, especially in light of the numerous instances of the RD-33MK 'packing up' in flight.

[Philip]

Pl. read the statements from the LCA Proj Dir in Aero-India show dailies.The first flight of the Mk-2 will perhaps only be in 2018,the latter half. You can take your fancy as to when the NLCA MK-2 will be in production.Extra MIG-29s will be needed esp. if we station them at the naval air stations apart from the carriers.INS Dega is forming one on the east as well.Time will bear me out.As for MIG-29 support,a dedicated MIG-29 support facility is being set up similar to that supporting the MKIs from next year as over 100 MIG-29Ugs.29Ks will require support for 2-3 decades.

[Viv S]

Pl. read the statements from the LCA Proj Dir in Aero-India show dailies.The first flight of the Mk-2 will perhaps only be in 2018,the latter half. You can take your fancy as to when the NLCA MK-2 will be in production.Extra MIG-29s will be needed esp. if we station them at the naval air stations apart from the carriers.INS Dega is forming one on the east as well.Time will bear me out.

Why is it important to you (from a naval perspective) that the first flight of the Mk2 be before 2018?

The INS Vikrant wouldn't be operational before 2022 which is roughly when the Mk2 will be entering service. Maybe for a year (or two at the most) the carrier will embark only one squadron of MiG-29Ks while the Tejas squadron is in training. So be it.

Why do we need to dedicate MiG-29Ks to coastal bases when the Su-30MKI is far better suited for maritime strike?

[Philip]

Read the earlier posts.The IN should start taking over a greater share of maritime air ops allowing the IAF to beef up its strength numerically and in capability against the Chinese and Pakis.The sqd. strength has dramatically decreased.We have barely 25 active sqds, say some reports,with the planned number of 42 nowhere on the horizon. The air opposition that the IN will face from the oceans is going to be of a less challenging one than that faced in the Himalyan,eastern and western fronts..The number of MKI sqds. dedicated to maritime duties could be reduced. MIG-29Ks,NLCAs and our assortment of LRMP aircraft could take up most of the duties for around a decade,until the PLAN carriers start their forays operating their naval version of the Flanker.The main task in the IOR is going to be meeting the sub threat from the PLAN and PN,rather than from their aircraft. Car Nic and Campbell Bay are two lcoations where Fulcrums could successfully operate from. Frankly speaking,an MKI sqd. is of more use in the north and west than in the south,where other aircraft could be quite effective. Where is the nearest challenge to an MKI coming from? The Malaysians?! We don't consider then as an "enemy",as they may be one of the nations to whom BMos is exported.India exports MKI components for their Flanker fleet.We also have no "beef" with the US these days!

The BMos missiles aboard our warships and future BMos-M missiles,of which a 29K can carry 3,would be able to deal with any surface threats that manage to ingress into the IOR. The PLAN as of now use their large number of land-based naval aircraft (to complement the planned carrier complement in the future) against their "enemies".

[Viv S]

Read the earlier posts.The IN should start taking over a greater share of maritime air ops allowing the IAF to beef up its strength numerically and in capability against the Chinese and Pakis.The sqd. strength has dramatically decreased.We have barely 25 active sqds, say some reports,with the planned number of 42 nowhere on the horizon. The air opposition that the IN will face from the oceans is going to be of a less challenging one than that faced in the Himalyan,eastern and western fronts..The number of MKI sqds. dedicated to maritime duties could be reduced.

These aircraft aren't funded by the services but by the taxpayer. To be more precise, the same taxpayer. So funding new aircraft for the Navy doesn't not free up the IAF for other roles, it deprives the IAF of aircraft that should have been operated by it in the first place.

It makes sense to employ the Navy's MiG-29K to support the IAF when the threat at sea is minimal. It does not make sense to buy more MiG-29Ks for the Navy when the IAF's squadron strength is plummeting. And it is utterly absurd to offer the IAF's falling squadron strength as justification for buying more naval fighters.

MIG-29Ks,NLCAs and our assortment of LRMP aircraft could take up most of the duties for around a decade,until the PLAN carriers start their forays operating their naval version of the Flanker.The main task in the IOR is going to be meeting the sub threat from the PLAN and PN,rather than from their aircraft. Car Nic and Campbell Bay are two lcoations where Fulcrums could successfully operate from. Frankly speaking,an MKI sqd. is of more use in the north and west than in the south,where other aircraft could be quite effective. Where is the nearest challenge to an MKI coming from? The Malaysians?! We don't consider then as an "enemy",as they may be one of the nations to whom BMos is exported.India exports MKI components for their Flanker fleet.We also have no "beef" with the US these days!

There is no air base in the world where a MiG-29K would become more effective than a Su-30MKI.

The BMos missiles aboard our warships and future BMos-M missiles,of which a 29K can carry 3,would be able to deal with any surface threats that manage to ingress into the IOR. The PLAN as of now use their large number of land-based naval aircraft (to complement the planned carrier complement in the future) against their "enemies".

The Su-30MKI can carry more than the MiG-29K and carry it further. Period.

[jamwal]

Which version of Brahmos can be carried by Mig29K, that too 3 ?

[John]

Air launched Brahmos cannot be carried on Mig-29k and even Su-30 need to be modified for that purpose. Brahmos-M is different story but lets wait till the missile gets off the drawing board before the endless speculation.

[Viv S]

Which version of Brahmos can be carried by Mig29K, that too 3 ?

BrahMos-M. But two rather than three; the centre-line hardpoint is not stressed for heavy carriage AFAIK.

[Gagan]

I suppose that the Brahmos M will have the same range as the Brahmos.
Maybe a smaller warhead?

[Rahul M]

what we need is a sqn of MKI's at A&N under ANC.

[Philip]

No one is advocating less aircraft for the IAF and hiving off its assets to the IN.The IAF right now is in acute crisis with a shortage of aircraft. It needs more across the board and reach the planned 40+ sqds..What is being suggested that the bulk of its finest assets are strategically located where they could deal with the Chinese and Pakis where the opposing threats are greatest.As of now there is little threat from the air of 4++Chinese aircraft in the IOR.The Liaoning is being used mainly to train their first carrier pilots and is being operated v. close to the Chinese coastline for obvious reasons,it lacks suitable carrier strike aircraft.It will be 5 years from now before we see regular PLAN carrier task forces operating in the IOR. For example,the Jaguar maritime strike aircraft based in Gujarat could be replaced by more capable MKIs ,esp. now that the BMos MKIs are and the Jags sent to the A&N islands instead.The number of MII sqds. earmarked for maritime duties could be reduced until such time when needed. The IN's fleet air arm should also be expanded.,both 29Ks and NLCAs.

A yr old report,quoting Dr.P and a 2015 report.
http://www.defenseworld.net/news/10413/ ... PR9psv9ljo

IAF To Get 40 SU-30MKI Fighters Equipped With BrahMos Missiles
Source : Our Bureau ~ Dated : Friday, April 18, 2014

The Indian Air Force will get 40 SU-30MKI strike fighters armed with a smaller version of BrahMos missiles, according to India TV.

BrahMos Aerospace officials said so at the international arms exhibition DSA-2014 in Kuala Lumpur yesterday.

The company’s President Sivathanu Pillai is working to reduce the weight of the missile so that it could be integrated with different platforms, including the fifth-generation fighter India is creating together with Russia.

Pillai noted that the commissioning of the Vikramaditya aircraft carrier complete with deck-based MiG-29K/KUB jet fighters required accelerated work to arm them with a smaller version of the BrahMos missile so that the aircraft could take off from the carrier with two missiles under their wings.

While the fifth-generation jet fighter and MiG-29K/KUB aircraft can be armed with two BrahMos-M missiles, the Su-30MKI strike fighters can carry three such missiles. The latter aircraft will be modernized to take and fire the missiles, according to the report. The Indian Air Force has already made the relevant decision.

The report cited that the first ship-based version of the BrahMos missile could be fired in the fourth quarter of this year from a SU-30MKI jet fighter.

The missile will be 6 metres long and have a diameter of 0.5 metres. It will be able to travel at a speed 3.5 times the sound velocity and carry a charge of 200 to 300 kg over a maximum distance of up to 290 km.

The BrahMos missiles that have been tested up to date are two-stage cruise missiles 10 meters long and 0.7 metres in diameter.

Russian defense minister visits BrahMos missile production site in India

ITAR-TASS
Originally published at
http://itar-tass.com/en/russia/772522
Posted on January 21, 2015 by editor

The Russian minister was shown a self-propelled launcher with three BrahMos missiles mounted on it and the control system using satellite data for engaging targets, and computing the flight path

NEW DELHI, January 21. /TASS/. Russia’s Defense Minister Sergey Shoigu during an official visit to India on Wednesday visited the Russian-Indian joint defense enterprise BrahMos Aerospace Limited where he saw a presentation of the plant’s rocket equipment.

The Russian minister saw, in particular, a self-propelled launcher with three BrahMos missiles mounted on it and the control system using satellite data for engaging targets, and computing the flight path. The plant personnel also presented to Shoigu the sea-based and air-based BrahMos missile systems. The Sukhoi Su-30MKI fighters of the Indian Air Force will be equipped with the air-based BrahMos missile version.

Flight tests of the BrahMos air-based missile are planned in India this March. The Russian defense minister took a particular interest in the project of new-generation BrahMos missile that is implemented at the JV. This missile will be smaller in size and weight than the existing samples, which “will make it possible to mount it on different platforms, including the fifth-generation fighter, the MiG-29K deck-based fighter and Su-30MKI fighter (each warplane will carry 5 such missiles), as well as torpedo launchers of Indian submarines.

[Ankit Desai]

what we need is a sqn of MKI's at A&N under ANC.

I think ANC already has it. If not 2 sq than one. I remember watching one of the show on NDTV where a spouse of fighter from sq mentioning it. I also remember after tsunami, news about MKI based on A&N came out in media.

IAF begins its great Sukhoi shift with new airbases has mentioned of it and IAF hopes to take off in 6 Mths has more info on it.

-Ankit

[kit]

One feels there is much more bang for the buck in capital acquisitions in the budget ..esp w r t navy ..foreign exchange outgo being kept to a minimum

[Viv S]

No one is advocating less aircraft for the IAF and hiving off its assets to the IN.The IAF right now is in acute crisis with a shortage of aircraft. It needs more across the board and reach the planned 40+ sqds.

Your advocacy for more MiG-29Ks for shore based roles amounts to the same thing. The Navy has more than adequate fighter aircraft for the immediate future. 1 carrier. 45 MiG-29Ks. By the time the Vikrant arrives, so will the Mk2 based N-Tejas.

Any further MiG-29K purchases will have the direct result of reducing the funds available for other requirements including new aircraft for the IAF.

(The basing plans of the aircraft are not the subject of the debate nor relevant to the issue since the MKIs can operate out of every shore facility that the MiG does including the A&N Islands.)

[Cybaru]

EMB 145 has longer endurance than the e2d, more console space, better interiors, better upgrades possiblity and perhaps even cheaper. An older version EMB-145 SA was slated to have 8 hour coverage over amazon in aew config.

[Philip]

The strength of the IN's Fleet Air Arm will only increase with time. All the signs are there that the IN is to take a far greater responsibility of monitoring the IOR and assisting its littoral nations in developing their own navies.See the news item reg. the export of smaller warships to IOR nations. One unfortunate characteristic of our shipbuilding is the massive cost escalations incurred.As the report says,much of this is due to the chopping and changing during construction. The non-finalization of weaponry/sensors may be a major factor.We've had warships like the Kolkatta commissioned without its principal LR SAM.
However,one would have liked a more detailed breakup of where the cost escalation has taken place.The basic hull and machinery or the costs of radars,sonars,sensors,weaponry,and helos,etc. Since much of the weaponry and sensors are standard on other warships as well,there should not be any major escalation on this point.

Naval projects suffer cost escalation, delay in commissioning: Govt
Last Updated: Tuesday, March 3, 2015
http://zeenews.india.com/news/india/nav ... 55753.html

New Delhi: There have been steep cost escalation and repeated delays in construction and commissioning of naval vessels in the country, Rajya Sabha was told on Tuesday.

There have been occasions when naval vessel construction projects of Indian Navy have had time and cost escalation, said Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar in a written reply in the House.

Major reasons for the cost escalation include delay in availability of warship grade steel, delay in design finalisation, delay in receipt of critical equipment/ technology, infrastructural constraints of the shipyards and delay in development of indigenous equipment.

Cost escalation in some major naval vessel construction projects include the P15A project which was estimated at Rs 3,580 crore as original cost but its revised cost was Rs 11,662 crore.

Similarly the P28 project's original cost was Rs 3051.27 crore and it has been revised to Rs 7,852.39 crore. The initial cost of the Project P17 was Rs 2,250 crore which was later revised to Rs 8,101 crore.

How we are going to fight for export orders and keep escalation costs down is another moot point.We are taking part in the tender for two frigates for the Phillipines.

[Aditya_V]

Philip_> there are things like learning curves and domestic capacity, as we build more we will keep getting more efficient. No that we have done the hard part it will be much easier to build the follow ons including the Philipines order if it fructifies.

[member_23370]

Philippines ust decided to buy outdated italian frigates. I don't think they can afford anymore.

[pankajs]

Most of the issues are in the past especially with out dependence on Imports. Take the case of warship grade steel that was imported from Russia. Seems we are over that hump with Indian grades replacing imports.

There is also this drive to get the latest in tech., etc for each ship even after standardization of design. Cost control and cost reduction work mainly when a big run is done based on a frozen design instead of going for incremental change with every ship.

The above shouldn't be an issue with a frozen design especially wrt exports.

[arijitkm]

Something is rotten in the Indian Navy

[member_23370]

Should that garbage article from openthemagazine be given space here?