International Naval News & Discussion

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 26 May 2015 18:36

Arrogance of the PRC simply amazing,now openly talking about a war with the US over the Indo-China Sea!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... a-Sea.html
US-China war 'inevitable' unless Washington drops demands over South China Sea
Warning from state-run China newspaper as Beijing reveals plans for development of disputed South China Sea islands

By Julian Ryall, Tokyo
26 May 2015

China has vowed to step up its presence in the South China Sea in a provocative new military white paper, amid warnings that a US-China war is "inevitable" unless Washington drops its objections to Beijing's activities.

Chinese dredging vessels in the waters around Mischief Reef

In the new policy document published on Tuesday, China outlined its plans to shift from a defensive military posture to placing emphasis on offensive capabilities.

Claiming that it faces a "grave and complex array of security threats", including challenges to its sovereignty over the South China Sea, the policy document released by the State Council says the military will step up its "open seas protection".

The on-going reclamation by China at Subi reef seen from Pagasa island

China's forces will no longer be limited to defence of the nation's territory but will project its military power further beyond its borders at sea and more assertively in the air in order to safeguard its maritime possessions, the white paper states.

While the air force will shift focus from "territorial air defence" to both offence and defence, the Chinese army will increase its global mobility and its artillery will improve its "medium and long-range precision strikes", it said.

In an editorial in The Global Times, a tabloid owned by the Chinese Communist Party through another newspaper, the paper described the construction of runways, harbour facilities and buildings on the disputed Spratly Islands as the nation's "most important bottom line".

The article – which appeared just days after a US aircraft ignored repeated warnings from the Chinese military to fly a reconnaissance mission over the islands – said Beijing does not want a conflict with the US, "but if it were to come, we have to accept it.

"If the United States' bottom line is that China has to halt its activities, then a US-China war is inevitable in the South China Sea", said the paper, which is often seen as a mouthpiece of the government in Beijing.

Xinhua News Agency also reported on Tuesday that work has begun on two lighthouses on reefs in the South China Sea that are claimed by Vietnam and the Philippines.

Speaking at a press conference in Beijing, Yang Yujun, a spokesman for the defence ministry, dismissed international criticism of China's policies in the South China Sea, claiming development work is the same as building roads and homes on mainland China and that it would benefit "the whole of international society".

"From the perspective of sovereignty, there is absolutely no difference", he said, adding that "some external countries are also busy meddling in South China Sea affairs".

Analysts say neither Washington nor Beijing appear to be in the mood to back down and that there is a serious risk of a minor incident in airspace around the islands escalating rapidly.

"I think the concern has to be that China misjudges the situation", said Robert Dujarric, director of the Institute of Contemporary Asian Studies at the Japan campus of Temple University.

"Neither party wants a war if it can be avoided, but there are red lines for both sides", he said. "I worry that if Beijing considers the US to be a declining power and assumes that Washington will back down if it shoots down a US observation aircraft".

And while Washington chose to "de-escalate" the crisis after a Chinese fighter collided with a US Navy intelligence-gathering aircraft off Hainan Island in April 2011, Prof. Dujarric says he would expect a different response if a similar incident were to occur in what Washington insists is international air space over the South China Sea.

Recent developments have provoked new concerns in the region, with Ma Ying-jeou, the president of Taiwan, calling for the different nations laying claim to the South China Sea to put their differences aside and carry out joint development of natural resources.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 26 May 2015 19:05

soryu will win under TINA factor. amirkhan has already given his blessings to re-export any US systems on the soryu.

virginia apart from being beyond Aus needs/capability would be like showing up for a schoolyard fight in a arjun tank. probably the finest sub in the world and being churned in volume now...sigh...I wish we had 6 arihant boats already....packed to the gunwales with nirbhay and hypersonic ASMs.

wig · Post by **wig** » 30 May 2015 14:34

Nimrod cuts 'have allowed Russian submarines to spy on Trident'

excerpts

Russian submarines are likely to have gathered valuable intelligence on Britain’s nuclear deterrent since the Government scrapped maritime patrol aircraft needed to track them, senior RAF figures warn.

Britain’s lack of submarine-hunting planes after the Nimrod fleet was axed has left Trident vulnerable to Russian spying which could “prejudice the security and effectiveness” of the deterrent, they argue.

In a letter to the Telegraph they also warn that unless new patrol aircraft are bought urgently, the Royal Navy’s new £6 billion aircraft carriers will be “put severely at risk”.

The letter from five retired senior officers with significant maritime aviation experience comes as the Government begins a new defence review
Many in the Armed Forces fear a repeat of 2010’s cuts. George Osborne, the Chancellor, has told Government departments he needs to find 5 per cent cuts across Whitehall. Defence sources said the MoD has been told to find around £1 billion in savings.

The scrapping of the troubled Nimrod jets after the last defence review is considered by many defence experts to have left a damaging gaps in Britain’s military power.

The letter signed by Air Mshl Sir John Harris, AVM George Chesworth, AVM David Emmerson, AVM Andrew Roberts and Air Cdre Andrew Neal says it is now “widely recognised” Britain urgently needs new maritime patrol aircraft.
With so few naval escorts available, this will be vital if future aircraft carriers are not to be put severely at risk,” they write.

“We know that Russian submarines are monitoring the area from which our nuclear missile submarines emerge from the Clyde. Without maritime patrol aircraft surveillance, opportunities for intelligence-gathering by such ‘intruders’ can only prejudice the security and effectiveness of our strategic deterrent.

“Indeed, it would be surprising if valuable intelligence had not already been acquired by the Russian Navy since the Nimrod force was grounded in March 2010.”

The Nimrod spy planes had been mainstays of the RAF's reconnaissance fleet since the late 1960s and had a central role in anti-submarine warfare. A new updated fleet, running nine years late and £800 million over budget, was scrapped just before they were due to enter service, as part of drastic defence cuts five years ago.

Britain has since then been forced to rely on its allies. When a suspected Russian submarine was spotted off the Scottish coast in November, four patrol aircraft from Canada, France and the US were scrambled to RAF Lossiemouth and spent weeks scouring the area.

In 2010, senior Navy officers said a specially upgraded Russian Akula class submarine had been caught trying to record the acoustic signature made by the Vanguard submarines that carry Trident nuclear missiles

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... ident.html

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 30 May 2015 18:01

Russian Jets Force US Navy Destroyer Away From Territorial Waters

"The ship's crew acted provocatively and aggressively, which caused alarm among operators of monitoring stations and Black Sea Fleet ships carrying out assignments in the Black Sea. Scrambled Su-24 attack jets demonstrated a readiness to forcibly suppress border violations and defend the country's interest," the source said.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 31 May 2015 17:17

What is the Russian system if known, that was used to "shut down" the DDG's anti-air systems as reported?
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015 ... ain-cancer

Russian military jets and US destroyer clash in Black Sea 'posing danger to stability'

“Scrambled Su-24 attack aircraft demonstrated a readiness to forcibly prevent border violations and defend the interests of the country,” the source was quoted as saying.

In a statement, the Pentagon’s spokeswoman Eileen Lainez confirmed the incident but said that the USS Ross had been “well within international waters at all times, performing routine operations”.

“The US Navy operates routinely in the Black Sea, in accordance with international law," Lainez said, adding that the ship’s deployment to the region had been publicly announced.

Read more: • The Ukraine village that has changed sides several times
• Russian fighter 'admits killing 15 Ukrainian prisoners of war'
• Russia: Conflict escalating as US paratroopers arrive in Ukraine
• Ukraine: A world of hybrid warfare and murky loyalties

Sputnik News, Russia’s state service for international news, quoted a military source as suggesting the US ship had turned away following the incident, and boasting: “It seems that the Americans did not forget the April 2014 incident when one Su-24 actually shut down all equipment on the new USS Donald Cook American destroyer with anti-missile system elements.”

The clash is the latest example of military encounters between Russia and Western militaries, as tensions continue over the Ukraine crisis.

Earlier in May, both Britain and Sweden said they had scrambled fighters to intercept Russian bombers near their territory. Last month, the US said it was filing a complaint to Russia over a its “sloppy” and unsafe interception of a US reconnaissance plane in international airspace over the Baltic Sea.

TSJones · Post by **TSJones** » 31 May 2015 17:36

Gee, I don't know. The US Navy never thought anybody would ever jam them or use EMP against them.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 31 May 2015 17:51

You mean the news about the DDG being jammed by an Su-24 and sailors offering mass resignation in shame..

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 31 May 2015 19:18

SSN 785 (12th Virginia Class Submarine, and second block III Virginia) trials B-Roll

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 31 May 2015 20:06

Russia too throws its hat into the Indo-China Sea "ring"!

Xcpts:
http://sputniknews.com/asia/20150530/1022753332.html

Russia to Take Part in South China Sea Naval Exercises
30.05.2015
Russia will take part in South China Sea counter-terrorism exercises as it becomes increasingly concerned with security and stability in the region.

Russia will conduct naval exercises in the South China Sea in 2016, together with its partners in the Asia Pacific Region, Russian Deputy Defense Minister Anatoly Antonov said at a defense summit in Singapore on Saturday.

Speaking at the Shangri-La Dialogue summit of defense ministers, Antonov said that Russia is increasingly concerned for its security, citing US missile shield deployments, terrorism and "color revolutions." Russia will also conduct its first-ever exercises together with Brunei in 2016.

"We are concerned by US policies in the region, especially since every day it becomes increasingly focused on a systemic containment of Russia and China," Antonov said.

US Ramping Up 'Containment'

Antonov also said that US policies in the region are increasingly aimed against China and Russia, and that US missile destroyers pose a threat to stability in the region.

"Despite our concerns about the US global missile defense architecture, they continue a policy of disrupting strategic stability, adding a regional segment of an anti-missile 'shield' in the Asia-Pacific," Antonov said.

IL 78 tanker aircraft, right, and Tu-160 'White Swan' supersonic heavy strategic bomber

Vietnam Military Blasts US for Interfering With Russian Refueling Flights
Antonov also cited Vietnam as a recent example of US pressure, where the country was forced to prohibit the maintenance of long-range Russian aircraft in Vietnamese airports.

"The objective is to reduce the possibility of using foreign airfields and ports by the Russian Navy and Air Force," he added.

Spread of Terrorism

Antonov said that terrorism is turning into a threatening force in several countries around the world and has become a threat t the Asia-Pacific Region alongside piracy, cyber-crime and drug trafficking.

"It is worrying that terrorists in several countries are turning into a real force and are aspiring to come to power in some states," Antonov said.

Political Concerns

Western-organized "color revolutions" could come to the Asia-Pacific region at any time under the guise of introducing "democratic" values, Antonov told the forum.

"An epidemic of 'color revolutions' swept up the Middle East and, like a hurricane, wiped out several states in the region. This disease went across several European countries, where events are freely controlled from the outside," Antonov said.

Antonov brought up the example of Ukraine as a case where the results of such a "color revolution" have impacted Russia's interests, as millions of Russians live in Ukraine.

Sovietsky Strait in the Pacific Ocean separates Russia and Japan

Russia to Sign Border Military Activity Deal With Japan, North Korea
"As a result of the unconstitutional coup, the country is plunged into a civil war, and the supporters of the 'war party' continue pushing the state to military adventures. At the same time there is a real humanitarian catastrophe. Over 6,000 people have already been killed," Antonov said.

Also at the summit, Russia expressed interest in developing closer cooperation with Israel, as well as developing pacts to ban military exercises near its borders with North Korea and Japan.

Read more: http://sputniknews.com/asia/20150530/10 ... z3bjKpDV51

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 01 Jun 2015 20:30

Buzz is that it would be F-35C facing the cut for any additional Super Hornet purchase, as i understood. Widely speculated that the upgrade of engine commences much earlier than 2020 and there was even infographic of such roadmap, if i'm not wrong.

The additional Super Hornet order has already been added to the FY16 budget but is struggling to go through the various stages of budget negotiations. Basically, some in the Congress would rather have more Growlers than a mix of more growlers and Rhinos. As far as the USN's F-35C purchase, they have already indicated that they plan on reducing the F-35C purchase over the next 5 finical budgets by 13-15 or so. They expect to make up that relatively small number in the 2021 to 2025 time period as the USN's F-35C's requirements are at the moment unchanged. Some of these have been added back by the Congress (I think 3 or 4) while more may be added (or not) at a future date. Each and every program is being cut because of sequester and interest being expressed for them to be put back in through " unfunded priorities" wish list (thats how more Growlers came in). Ultimately the BCA has to end in the next couple of years for all things to fall in place and more solid 5 year plans to be established. The Super Hornet is no substitute in the long run for the F-35C, more Rhinos are needed because the USN has had a severe reduction in its depot capacity because of Sequester and this means longer depot_times for the existing fleet as it goes through its regular overhauls, maintain etc. The USN at the moment consumes 31 fighter frames a year (basically 31 x 7000 hours worth of airframes) and must compensate for this in some way by buying new aircrafts or by reducing the down times of the fleet. The latter cannot be done because the depot capacity is dependent on the BCA and the cuts in manpower and capability. Therefore they are seeking the first option, i.e. to buy a few dozen more Rhinos and Growlers now, so that come 2025 they will have the force_availability at the desired levels.

The F-35C is the least mature of the F-35 models and has the most amount of testing yet to be performed. The USN doesn't declare IOC with the Charlie till 2018 or 2019 or so and its going to take them a few years after that to fully absorb the F-35 into the CVN. The interest for the F-35C in the Navy can be gauged by the fact that they were the first of all F-35 customers (including USAF and USMC) to issue Follow On Development contracts for future enhancements, with the Pratt and Whitney engine enhancements being sought for the CV version of the engine. Meanwhile the F-18E/F and the Growler are current priorities because they roll off the line and go straight into combat coded squadrons. Thats what the USN loves but this will stop since no one expects the Rhino or the Growler to be in production beyond 2020. The same cycle will repeat itself when the F/A-XX fighter is developed when LRIP, under development jets roll out the production line and the USN prefers at that time to procure the tried and tested, fully absorbed F-35C. Its something that happens every generation.

TSJones · Post by **TSJones** » 02 Jun 2015 11:11

video of those Russians scaring the US NAVY sailors on the Ross to death!

http://cne-cna-c6f.dodlive.mil/video-of ... -aircraft/

it's just so not nice of those Russian planes of death and destruction scaring our sailors like that!

I would resign my enlistment too if I had to face those evil mig-24 planes.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 02 Jun 2015 12:47

Brar,what is the current thinking about a post-JSF manned aircraft for the USN? Is it going to go it alone with a specialised aircraft after the compromises that have been made to develop 3 variants for 3 services,or continue with another jack-of-all trades?

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 02 Jun 2015 13:26

The sea should be called the "Indo-China Sea" as the main landmass contiguous is called Indo-China

US preparing to face down China in the South China Sea - while locals expect 'bonanza of riches' from return of American sailors
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 90332.html

Ashton Carter, the US Defence Secretary, in Vietnam Ashton Carter, the US Defence Secretary, in Vietnam

The US and other nations say that China aims to build airstrips and station aircraft on the islands, vastly increasing Beijing’s military reach.

Mr Carter had told the same gathering that “the pace and scope of land reclamation in the South China Sea” sharply raised “the risk of miscalculation or conflict” between China and others who also claim the same islands, reefs and atolls. China, he said, had to bring its project to “an immediate and lasting halt”. He did not say it, but those others include the US, whose planes have been challenged by Chinese aircraft when flying in contested airspace.

Although open warfare does not seem imminent, the prospect of the US returning in force to Subic Bay, once America’s largest overseas naval base, has increased tensions. The Shiloh, one of the most advanced US cruisers, armed with guided missiles and cannon, is expected to ply the South China Sea after taking on fuel and supplies. Other vessels, including at least one destroyer, are likely to join it in a mini-flotilla, posing an immediate challenge as China builds airstrips and other facilities on 2,000 acres of land reclaimed in the past 18 months.

READ MORE: • Conflict is brewing in the South China Sea
• Beijing warns US 'we will fight back' as war of words escalates
• China building fake islands in South China Sea, says US

In Subic Bay, people wonder if the arrival of the Shiloh portends a greater US presence. Hopes are high among local people, to whom US sailors typically provide a bonanza of riches despite the anti-US objections of politicians. “Business is not too good,” said a shopkeeper who sold electronic gear to the US military. “We need them.”

The Americans, though, not only have to live down memories of a raucous past but more recent episodes in which US servicemen have been accused of rape and murder. A US Marine is now on trial for allegedly asphyxiating a transgender Filipina.

Last weekend, US service personnel were permitted to visit the town for the first time since that case, a media sensation, went to trial in March. The US embassy urged the crew to “experience Filipino culture” in keeping with “strong historic, community and military connections”. Crew members passed banners boasting that Olongapo was home to “the world’s most beautiful women”. Their manner, at least before sunset, was polite.

READ MORE: • • Japanese mlitary jets scrambled at level not seen since Cold War
• China and Japan work towards resolving centuries-old enmity

Their arrival delighted Olongapo’s mayor Rolen Paulino, who said their absence had made his town and country poorer. Some locals were more guarded. “They are good and bad,” said a policeman. “We are happy to have them, but sometimes they get drunk. Then we have trouble.”

The arrangement under which the Shiloh is docked is controversial, with left-wingers seeing it as a first step to renewing the bases agreement. But protests have receded as President Benigno Aquino III has hit out at Chinese encroachment. Former naval offices near the dock are in disrepair, but there is talk of rebuilding them as a possible successor to the base. US officials talked only of strengthening “people-to-people ties through community outreach”. But as China flexes its muscles, the enclave once famed among US sailors, Marines and soldiers on leave from Vietnam as a wild base town may be about to regain its key strategic importance.

Disputed territory: who claims what

* Beijing says its right to the area goes back centuries to when the Paracel and Spratly island chains were regarded as integral parts of the Chinese nation.

* Vietnam says China never claimed sovereignty before the 1940s. It says it has actively ruled the islands since the 17th century.

* The Philippines invokes its proximity to the Spratly Islands in its claim.

* Malaysia and Brunei lay claim to land in the South China Sea. Brunei claims some of the disputed Spratly Islands, as does Malaysia

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 02 Jun 2015 18:29

Philip wrote:Brar,what is the current thinking about a post-JSF manned aircraft for the USN? Is it going to go it alone with a specialised aircraft after the compromises that have been made to develop 3 variants for 3 services,or continue with another jack-of-all trades?

The JSF was conducive to collaboration since the two main strike aircraft in the family (F-16 and F/A-18) performed the exact same mission for the USAF and USN respectively and were in fact both born out of similar requirements (YF16 and YF17). It was born from two separate studies that showed that A) The Marines and the USAF could develop a common jet (CALF study), and the second study that showed with better stealth and payload the USN would be onboard as well (JAST).

Going forward, the requirements start to differ. The USAF has F-15C squadrons that begin to retire off in the early to mid 2030's and continue to retire off till 2040 (F-15E). In the mid to late 2030's the F-22A's would still need either SLEP's. The USAF would be looking to replace their primary Air Dominance, secondary attack platform preferably in the early to mid 2030's.

The USN needs to replace the Super Hornets. Mission profile is Strike, Electronic Warfare, Aerial Tanker, and Air to Air. It would be tough to align requirements into a common airframe as was the case with the JAST-JSF.

The USN's procurement, and acquisition process for a new program is a complete mess, while the USAF has been better at developing requirements and sticking to them as development proceeds. What the USN wants as far as requirements are concerned depends upon what the get in the UCLASS program. At the moment, the USN has UCLASS's mission as a semi-stealthy predator type of vehicle that can take on the ISR duties and provide 24 x 7 ISR to the carrier (even during down times). They have morphed into these requirements since earlier they wanted a stealthy strike UCAV and spent more than 2 decades developing and testing various concepts (UCAS, J-UCAS, UCAS-D, UCAS-N ; X-45's, X47's, X-45C's and X-47B's). The problem is funding, the USN is pragmatic and knows that a bulk of their investments in the next 10-20 years will go towards the Ohio Class Replacement submarine, EMALS, EMRG, Laser weapons, Zumwalt and planning for the future AB replacement. The Congress however wants them to go in for a mini B-2 bomber like UCAV with Stealth and flexible payload. The USN did not want to do the X-47 air to air refuel because that would have encouraged the Congress to call for something that has say a 8-10 hour endurance but refuel capability as opposed to a 20 or 30 hour endurance (endurance determines vehicle size, shape and performance in the payload domain). The Congress has strong armed the USN and added a whopping $700 Million to UCLASS development in 2016 as opposed to the less than 100 Million the USN requested for it.

So in a nutshell, if the UCLASS turns out to be a stealthy, long range, bomber that combines the best of the RQ-180, PAEA and the LRSB systems then the USN can perhaps look towards a version of the USAF fighter. Otherwise, they have to develop systems in a joint effort and develop two separate fighters. The requirements this time around are poles apart unlike the JSF program.

Having said that, the F-35 will stay the cornerstone of Naval Aviation for the USN throughout the 2020's and 2030's and even beyond. The USN was the first to jump into a Follow on Development program. They were the first to look at the F-35 and see how they could add capability in the 2020's and beyond. The Pratt and Whitney engine enhancements are solely funded by the USN. The CNO has repeatedly said that the F-35C is the future of USN's aviation and this is increasingly true if one looks at their history. They have been unable to develop anything credible on their own over the last few decades. With the sheer number of platforms they have (NUMBER), the strength of the carrier air wing, and the networks behind it (NIFC-CA) they are not going to be challenged in that domain. Therefore, expect the F-35C to be improved over time and the FA-XX to be developed at a slow pace. I wouldnt be surprised if the F-18E/F replacement is split between F-35C+ Adv. and a new FA-XX fighter. The 2030 and 2040 Navy is looking for cutting edge weapons in Lasers, and EMRG's etc, fighters though cool are not going to get a huge development funding from them. The F-35C allows them to modernize through the program that is largely subsidized by the USAF's huge order block, hence saving the USN from a huge bill for development. The USN takes a different route to fighter development (especially since the post-cold war) since the admirals run the navy and their main concern is to advance Naval systems on ships. The USN has already introduced the Aim-120D to the Pacific, the Next. Generation Jammer will add capability that would have been tough to even come up with last decade. The AARGM-ER is adding very credible weapon for ARM, in the 150-200 nm Ramjet powered high speed weapon. The SDB II adds to their strike fleet etc, and finally the LRASM-A along with the Tomahawk for anti-ship missile allows them to close choke points at a time of war from stand off ranges with a much smaller footprint. The fighter development has to be looked at through that lens and the overall capability that the USN will possess in 2025-2030 given the advances in weapons, data links, networks, unmanned-manned teaming and technologies being developed as part of the third offset.

Both the USAF and USN are working on two separate X-Plane programs (actually DARPA is working on the program but for USAF and USN) for future air to air fighter needs. Expect those to be launched in 2016 with flights a couple of years later. What path they take will be partially dependent upon the test results from those X plane programs.

http://breakingdefense.com/2015/01/kend ... -for-2016/

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 03 Jun 2015 07:29

the bland reality is that China is taking over all the reefs it claims in the SCS, enlarging some of them, building CG stations and airbases.

none of the other claimants have been able or willing to retaliate by doing the same on other reefs.

so in a few years there will be a ring of chinese neo-islands and a necklace of SOSUS and ASW patrol bases around the SCS will ensure anything entering or leaving is under strict surveillance and their SSBNs from Sanya can move in and out from deep water in peace.

other than noises, nobody has been able to do a thing about it.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 03 Jun 2015 08:38

There is little those nations can do. One can see the size of the Philippines and Vietnam and compare them to the Chinese. What China is successfully doing however is isolating itself on this issue and bringing the affected nations closer to the US, Japan, and the rest of the Pacific players that have some sort of territorial dispute with China. As far as the Military advantages go, the South China sea has that mix, that china can exploit, however as I mentioned so can its adversaries. The current A2AD strategy is actually a very smart one in concept (bad in the execution proposed) in that you do not need to think "traditionally" when it comes to having the ability to close chokepoints as in placing A2AD anti shipping missiles on land (that no nation in the Pacific will agree to regardless). Think ELO aircraft with 600-800 nm Missiles, or 500 nm Hypersonic missiles and you have an affective A2AD strategy of your own. That is what the PACOM will most likely do and there are quite open programs to get that capability in additional to the logical classified programs. The undersea domain is almost entirely CLASSIFIED (investments) and its the corner stone of the third offset. Both he current USN CNO, and the one replacing him are submariners so that gives some idea

. Its a cat and mouse game and that will continue as China rises as a military power. The one thing they have to demonstrate is that they can effectively form alliances, and deepen partnerships. So far they haven't been able to do that with any major power outside of Russia. India, Japan, South Korea and Australia along with the US are going to be large players in the Indo-Pacific, and China has to form positive alliances with some if not most of these nations if it wants to have a positive control over the region. Doing what it is doing at the moment actually brings these nations closer to each other and away from China so in the long run its counter productive.

Just my 2 cents..

TSJones · Post by **TSJones** » 03 Jun 2015 10:00

It's not the US's job to enforce or repulse anybody's territorial imperative over the south China Sea. All we can do is join various alliances and insist on freedom of the sea and air there of. And that is what we are doing.

The Philippines alliance has seen much improvement from what it was 30 years ago when they were demanding $billions in order for the US to use Subic Bay. We have since moved to Singapore and the Philippines have now changed their tune seeing the advantage to having the US as a partner.

The move to Singapore has been very beneficial to the US despite the recent corruption charges over the provisioning of US Navy ships. It's nice to be wanted.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 04 Jun 2015 18:46

Russian surface fleet expansion hit by the UKR war.Even India has "lost" 4-5 AN-32s sent to the UKR for upgrades! No one knows where they are.

This should not stop Russian N-sub construction,in fact the funds for the surface fleet could be used here better for the next three years until their own engines start appearing. In the long run,Russia would benefit from having its own marine GT engines instead of being dependent upon another state. The IL-476s are also now being built completely in Russia. We are also at risk with UKR engines for our follow on Delhi-15A/B DDGs.Had the Kaveri marine engine been developed during the last decade ,there was a lot of talk abut it after the engine bombed for the LCA,but silence remains.

Ukraine Crisis Torpedoes Russia's Naval Expansion
By Matthew Bodner
Jun. 03 2015

Moscow's breakup with Ukraine has forced the Russian navy to suspend construction of a variety of next-generation warships, throwing the future of Russia's naval rearmament campaign into question.

A major part of Russia's communist-era military shipbuilding industry is located in Ukraine, a former Soviet republic, but Moscow's support for Ukrainian separatists over the past 18 months has prompted Kiev to curb defense industry trade between the two countries.

Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin said Tuesday the disruptions would paralyze Russia's navy construction program: "Due to the termination of supply [of gas turbines from Ukraine], we cannot complete the construction of surface vessels for the navy," he was quoted by news agency TASS as saying.

Russia's shipbuilding industry is working to substitute 186 types of components and equipment, "in particular gas turbine engines," Rogozin said. But until this process is completed, no new surface ship construction projects will be launched and current programs are suspended, he said, news agency RIA Novosti reported.

See factbox: Russian Warships Delayed by Ukraine Crisis

A Dream Deferred

The supply rupture throws a wrench into Russia's huge naval expansion drive, part of a 20 trillion ruble ($370 billion), decade-long rearmament program set to wrap up in 2020. Though specific budget breakdowns under the program are not publicly known, the navy was expecting up to 100 new ships over the duration of the program.

According to Rogozin, who oversees Russia's defense industry, the process of import substitution should be completed by 2018 — meaning that shipbuilding plans will be frozen for at least three years.

Ukraine's decision to cut Russia off from its defense exports threatens Russia's phased approach to rebuilding its navy, which mainly consists of aging Soviet-era vessels that are fast approaching their retirement dates.

The first step of the shipbuilding program, the construction of two new classes of nuclear submarines, is already well under way and there is no indication that the conflict with Ukraine has slowed their construction.

Step two, which is coinciding with the submarine construction, focuses on smaller corvettes and frigates that rely on engines built in Ukraine.

By freezing construction of these ships while Russia develops alternate components, the navy will have to wait longer to begin phase three: the construction of new destroyers and cruisers.

Dead in the Water

Plans to build sizable fleets of Russia's three newest classes of surface vessels are now dead in the water. Eight ships will have to wait at least three years before construction can be completed, and construction of at least a dozen more will not begin until supply issues are fixed, according to news reports.

Only one of Russia's newest, largest and most capable types of warships, the Admiral Gorshkov-class frigate, has entered service with the navy. A second Admiral Gorshkov is in the water but without an engine, while two more have already been laid down.

The Defense Ministry has ordered eight of the ships and hinted that it will place at least a dozen additional orders to buy Admiral Gorshkov-class vessels for each of its four major fleets.

Likewise, only one of the slightly smaller Admiral Grigorovich-class frigates has entered service. The remaining five of the six ships designed and ordered specifically for Russia's Black Sea Fleet are now stuck in various stages of completion.

Ukraine is not the only nation throwing a wrench in Russia's near-term naval expansion plans. An EU arms embargo, imposed over Russian actions in Ukraine, has deprived shipbuilders of electronic components needed to build a class of advanced corvettes known as the Gremyashchy class.

Two of these corvettes are being completed using less capable Russian analogues, but a representative of the shipyard building them said two weeks ago the difficulty of sourcing replacement parts has led to the cancellation of plans to build eight more Gremyashchy corvettes.

Impact on Navy

Work has already begun on a Russian turbine. In early May, Valery Ryzhov, chief designer of the Kolomensky engine plant, told industry news site FlotProm.ru that the company was working with Russian aircraft engine company Saturn to design a new turbine for Russian naval vessels.

But Rogozin's estimate that the project will take at least two to three years to complete means Russia's naval strength will be hampered. The majority of Russia's fleet is made of aging Soviet-era surface ships, which are increasingly less seaworthy.

The delays in construction of the first wave of replacements will hurt Russia's capacity to deploy a new coastal defense force — one of its prime directives.

In the long term, the delays will damage Russia's ability to field an oceangoing navy. The plan had been to complete the new frigates and corvettes before moving on to new destroyers and cruisers — the largest combat ships in service with modern navies — in the late 2020s.

http://www.themoscowtimes.com/business/ ... 23012.html

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 04 Jun 2015 18:59

The move to Singapore has been very beneficial to the US despite the recent corruption charges over the provisioning of US Navy ships. It's nice to be wanted.

Its how you manage relationships that count and how you use that strategy and diplomacy to guide military spending and budgets. The Singapore case is a fairly good example, they would not have allowed heavy ships to be stationed there as that would have upset their balance with China, so you send the LCS lots, that are not as dangerous as your AB's or Zumwalts and instead of basing them at Singapore (may have been rejected) you rotate them from Singapore with crews flying in from CONUS and relieving existing crews. In that way, you get what you and don't upset a future Singapore-China relationship as much as you would have had you asked for very large ships to be positioned there. Diplomacy, forming nation to nation alliances and relationships is what ultimately ensures a nation a high status in a region. This is what China has to learn and where India has a huge advantage. India is seen in the region as a stable democracy that acts rationally and has a track record of very good relationships with its trading partners in the Indo-Pacific. China on the other hand has a dispute with each and every nation in the region, big or small.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 05 Jun 2015 12:13

Even Russia is planning naval warships stop-overs in Spore from next year as thre Indo-Chinma Sea spat hots up. The Vietnamese are really showing that they have b*lls in this report.Incidentally,the Chinese are now making claims/planning for visits to the Artic!

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/j ... ea-islands
Vietnam launches 'sovereignty' cruise to South China Sea islands

Purported Chinese dredging vessels in waters in the disputed Spratlys, over which Vietnam, the Philippines, Brunei and Malaysia each compete for jurisdiction. Photograph: Reuters
Reuters

Friday 5 June 2015

Vietnam is offering scores of patriotic citizens the holiday of a lifetime with a cruise to some of Asia’s most hotly contested islands, in a move likely to stoke its simmering dispute with Beijing over South China Sea sovereignty.

In a special US$800 promotion offer, 180 Vietnamese will get to see parts of the disputed Spratly archipelago later this month and take part in night fishing, visit a lighthouse and enjoy local seafood.

High-rollers will have VIP hotel rooms and can fly in on their private helicopters, according to the Ho Chi Minh City government’s website.

The elaborately worded offer is for a six-day cruise that will visit two reefs and two islands in the Spratlys, or Truong Sa in Vietnamese, which the country has occupied for some time despite rival claims.

China behaving like Nazi Germany in South China Sea, says Benigno Aquino

It makes little attempt to disguise its political flavour, and comes as Vietnam pursues a bolder agenda in pushing its claims in the face of China’s own growing assertiveness.

“Travelling to Truong Sa ... means the big trip of your life, reviving national pride and citizens’ awareness of the sacred maritime sovereignty of the country,” the promotion said.

“Tourists will no longer feel Truong Sa as far away, the blue Truong Sa ocean will be deep in people’s hearts.“

Vietnam, the Philippines, Brunei and Malaysia each compete for jurisdiction of the Spratlys with China, which claims nine-tenths of the South China Sea, a vital global shipping lane with potentially vast energy reserves.

The cruise mirrors those offered by China on ships like its “Coconut Princess“, and illustrates a growing civilian presence in the South China Sea as countries vie to cement their competing claims.

China has been criticised for extensive reclamation work and moves to turn submerged rocks into man-made structures. The United States last week said Beijing had placed mobile artillery systems in contested territory.

Despite close party-to-party ties with Communist neighbour China and nearly $60 billion of annual trade, analysts say Vietnam has taken a harder line since a fresh territorial row erupted last year and wants to boost diplomatic and military alliances.

Its media ran news last month of the opening of a new school on the Spratlys, and Vietnamese troops stationed there joined counterparts from the Philippines in a soccer match.

The cruise is a trial run ahead of Vietnam’s tentative plans to put the Spratlys on its tourism map, including scheduled passenger flights, possibly this year.

The description reads like a brochure for a Caribbean holiday.

“See 300 species of coral creating wonderful reefs in sparkling colours, in ravishing, fantastic beauty,” it says. “Watch the sunrise over the ocean, and say goodbye to the sunset in the evening amid the immense sky and sea.”

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 05 Jun 2015 12:51

the bland reality is that China is taking over all the reefs it claims in the SCS, enlarging some of them, building CG stations and airbases.

Dunno.

China I think is the last country to "taking over all the reefs". Check the article above for details about 'Nam.

This is also reflected in the recent meeting held in Singapore, where the US requested all nations to back down.

Also one reason why India cannot justify a base in 'Nam.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 05 Jun 2015 18:55

Why not? If China can lease Gwadar from Pak,why not India lease Cam Ranh Bay? Remember,"what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander." If China hands over nukes,BMs,WMDs to India's mortal enemy,India can and must do the same.Remeber Mao,"my enemy's enemy is my friend".
Plus to quote the great helmsman again,"power comes out of the barrel of a gun".

Screw Uncle Sam! He is only interested in his own selfish interests. He is in a state of decline,in global retreat (read the various posts in the Geo-strat tds),not wanting to step in and crack heads together or face a really strong enemy. He can't even deal with ISIS! The veitnamaes eare boldy conducting "sovereignty cruises" in the disputed waters. It is for us to show that we also have b*lls and seize every opportunity to establish mil/logistic bases anywhere around the world. China is even lusting after the Arctic Sea,with talks with Finland!

Meanwhile,OZ's sub ambitions and the indecent manner in which the current dispensation is rooting for Japanese subs(remember that Japan is ruled by its invisible men,arch fixers and puppet masters),is a hot issue at home.The entire deal appears to have been fixed in advance to favour a buy of Japanese subs. To those intimate with how Japan operates,this is truly a deal where the "stealth" factor in below the surface,invisible to the observer above! Who knows,it may one day end up as being OZ's equiv. to Bofors/HDW!

http://www.jpost.com/Breaking-News/Aust ... nts-404997
Australian senator slams Japan over submarine capability comments

Jerusalem Post
By REUTERS
06/04/2015

Australian senator slams Japan over submarine capability comments.
An influential Australian senator on Thursday hit out at Japanese defence officials over comments that Australia was incapable of building a version of a high-tech Japanese-designed submarine at home.

Germany's ThyssenKrupp and France's state-controlled naval contractor DCNS separately are competing with a Japanese government-led bid for Australia's A$50 billion ($38.84 billion) next generation submarine project.

http://www.news.com.au/national/breakin ... 7384573808
Govt names expert panel for sub project
June 05, 2015

A FOUR-MEMBER panel of experts will oversee the federal government's controversial competitive evaluation process to select Australia's future submarine.

HEADING the panel is Professor Don Winter, a former secretary of the US Navy and co-author of the report on the troubled air warfare destroyer program.
Other panel members are former Federal Court judge Julie Anne Dodds-Streeton, infrastructure specialist Ron Finlay and Jim McDowell, a member of the panel that conducted the recent defence first principles review.
Defence Minister Kevin Andrews said the advisers shared extensive experience in complex military acquisition programs, legal and probity matters.
"The Expert Advisory Panel will assure the Government that the competitive evaluation process remains sound, is conducted in accordance with probity and accountability principles, and that participants have been treated fairly and equitably," he said in a statement.

Three contenders have been short-listed to participate in the competitive evaluation process: Japan with its Soryu-class submarine, German firm TKMS with its Type 216 and French firm DCNS, which is offering a conventionally powered version of its Barracuda nuclear boat.
A decision is expected by the end of the year.

Only TKMS has so far publicly committed to building the new subs in Australia.
Labor said the appointment of the advisory panel was too little, too late and no amount of oversight or expert advice could save this fundamentally flawed process.

"Unfortunately for South Australia, the evidence is overwhelming that the fix for a Japanese submarine is in," he said in a statement.
South Australia's defence industry is starting to think so as well.

SA Defence Teaming Centre chief Chris Burns, spokesman for the Australian Made Defence campaign, said visiting Japanese government and industry representatives were given special treatment when they visited South Australia and Western Australia last week.
Delegations from France, Germany and Japan have visited Australia to examine shipyards and to discuss the submarines project.
But only the Japanese group was hosted by numerous senior Australian defence officials throughout their travels, he said.
"We have already learned that Japan was given information about Australia's submarine requirements ahead of both France and Germany," he said in a statement.
"Once again, it would appear that the federal government has already decided Japan will be selected for the future submarines project, despite their experts having ruled out a local build."[/quote]

PS:Japan is so sure of winning the deal,as it is also being covertly pushed into OZ's lap by the US,that it has given India the cold shoulder when we offered it to participate in the P-75I tender. That snub might affect it in the US-2 amphib requirement.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 05 Jun 2015 20:36

Philip saar,

Please go easy on using bold fonts. Half your above posts is in bold. What purpose does the bold fonts serve?

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 05 Jun 2015 21:01

{As a FYI: I tend not to read rambling, disjointed, badly formatted or posts with deliberately misspelled words}

Why not? If China can lease Gwadar from Pak,why not India lease Cam Ranh Bay? Remember,"what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander."

#Expert. ??????

My main problem with getting a base in 'Nam is Indo-'Nam relations are not even comparable to the Sino-Paki relations. While Pakis will allow China to do pretty much anything China pleases with India, 'Nam will NEVER allow India the same level of freedom. Not even possible. So, just there itself there is a limitation on the lease. Take PoK as an example, what HAS India done so far (outside of what Modi stated on his recent visit to China).

Which was my arg in the Indian naval thread on "carrier".

There needs to be a bite behind that bark. Now that China has rejected Indian protests (claiming their involvement is commercial), let us see what India does - bite.

Secondly, China has gamed the situation very well. As far as Indo-Sino is concerned India sees itself in an ever shrinking circle (thus the need for partnerships with other nations).

Finally, take care of the 'hood. Prevent china from building in the IOR - I am talking of rollback.

This "lease Cam Ranh Bay" is just noise.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 05 Jun 2015 21:40

Does Vietnam have ANY islands that is/are close to China and that India can completely take over? IF at all that is a better option. One where Vietnam owns the island, but India has freedom to do as India pleases.

Even then I bet China will make Vietnam (and India) FAR more uncomfortable, than India making Pakistan (and China) uncomfortable.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 05 Jun 2015 21:50

One of the key strategies behind China's Anti Access / Area Denial efforts is to make sure its strategic adversaries do not get favorable "housing" for their military or dual use components in its immediate area. They will have leverage and will look to exploit it if nations like Vietnam step out of line and go on and allow such activities. Most of the A2AD reporting is focused on building credible denial through military hardware and IADS etc but one CANNOT ignore the political and economic activities. Interestingly the leading areas of change in the Pacific Pivot/rebalance/*whatever it is being called now, is the Political and Economic rebalance tot he Pacific, which the military component trails.

RAND did a very basic analysis on how the growth of China's Navy in the Pacific and SCS can be managed. One of the main drivers was positioning long range Anti ship and anti air weapons on land bases with allies etc. That strategy is of course basically flawed because as I have said in the past China is in the process of imposing costs on any such activities by its neighbors in the pacific. So don't expect Singapore to allow "rotations" of any more threatening ships than the LCS, don't expect the Japanese or the Koreans to allow 500-1000 nm Anti Ship Weapons for being deployed on their lands and definitely don't accept Vietnam to open up strategic opportunities for the Indian Military to exploit in the SCS. Talks can be had but no one really expects aggressive posturing to be "allowed" by the Chinese without imposing very very heavy costs (economic, political and perhaps military). The core of the A2AD strategy for china is to impose a cost on counter A2AD and this starts with restricting the low_hanging_fruit from being exploited. Hence the USAF and USN is developing as a part of their Defense Innovation and Third offset strategy a completely independent way of achieving counter A2AD (surprises of your own..Carter said it quite openly at SLD) that most likely has a space element as well .

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 07 Jun 2015 19:07

Boeing Plans P-8 Ramp-up As Upgrades Stay On Track

Boeing is stepping up monthly production of the P-8 Poseidon maritime patrol aircraft amid mounting signs of additional international sales and solid funding for planned U.S. Navy procurement.

The rate increase, which will see production grow to 1.5 per month by early 2016, is designed to provide delivery capacity above and beyond the numbers already committed to under Boeing’s current U.S. and Indian Navy contracts. “The whole idea is to make sure we create a little headroom for the international market as we build the Navy units out,” says Jimmy Dodd, vice president and general manager of mobility, surveillance and engagement at Boeing Military Aircraft.

Near-term sales prospects include additional aircraft for India, which has four P-8s on option, and Australia, which has already committed to eight aircraft. However, Boeing is also courting the U.K., which according to British press reports, is studying acquiring up to 12 P-8s as part of efforts to rebuild its anti-submarine warfare (ASW) capabilities following the abrupt withdrawal of the Nimrod MR2 maritime patrol force in 2010. The same year the U.K. also axed the planned Nimrod MRA4 replacement program, leaving a capability gap that Russian surface vessels and submarines have exposed during recent incursions into British waters.

“The U.K. will be under FMS (foreign military sale),” says Dodd who adds that any negotiations will be led by the Navy. “Everything was stalled out waiting on the [U.K.] election, and now that it’s over we are hoping activity will increase and there will be a commitment.” Although discussions with the U.K. Defense Ministry are believed to be centered on an initial contract for six firm aircraft plus six options, Dodd adds that Boeing’s involvement has so far been minimal.

“We’ve never actually given [the U.S. Navy] a proposal [for the U.K.]. The Navy knows what they are paying, and they know what it costs to support. They also understand the differences in configurations, so they haven’t been asking us for a lot of detailed price and cost data at this point,” he says. “I’m sure that will come. Usually it is triggered to us when there is a letter of request [LOR] for price and availability. When there is an LOR on those jets, then they come to us and ask for offerability on cost and schedule,” adds Dodd.

Under the standard FMS procedure, the U.K. must submit an LOR for either price and availability or a letter of offer and acceptance. The U.S. government then has 120 days to respond, and if congressional review is required, an extra 15-50 days may be needed. “I know various things have been kicked about. Obviously, if it is an increase in quantity over and above what we already had then it is to do with the time line. How much is long lead, how much time line? The Navy already know us and we share line positions so they have that data,” says Dodd. “We will engage directly [with the U.K Defense Ministry] at some point. It just hasn’t happened yet, and it will happen.”

Boeing delivered the 25th production P-8A to the U.S. Navy on June 2, and is set for two further deliveries, to India and the U.S., in coming weeks. “All aircraft deliveries have either been on or ahead of schedule,”[/b] says Dodd. Up until the end of May, Boeing had completed six flight-test and two ground-test aircraft for the Navy in addition to 24 production P-8As and six P-8Is for India. The company expects to deliver the eighth and, for now, final aircraft to India by the end of the year. “India is looking at options for four more, so we expect they will exercise those options by year-end. It looks like they’d take delivery of those in the 2018-19 time frame,” he adds.

Boeing is now under contract to the U.S. Navy for 53 aircraft, or just under half the 117 stated in the program of record. Eight P-8As were delivered to the Navy in 2014, “and we are ramping up while in the midst of negotiating a Lot 6 production contract,” says Dodd. The 25th aircraft delivered on June 2 was the first of 13 aircraft to be produced under low rate initial production Lot 4. The first aircraft to be produced under the initial full rate production (FRP) contract, or Lot 5, will be delivered to the Navy in 2016, says Boeing. Beyond this, delivery of the first P-8 for the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) is set for 2017. The initial Australian aircraft will be one of four ordered as part of the U.S. Navy’s second FRP contract (Lot 6) announced in August 2014. The award covered 12 aircraft, eight of which will go to the Navy.

“Should Australia decide to purchase options or additional aircraft, then we will need to figure out what lots they want to have them in,” says Dodd. Although the current plan calls for the RAAF aircraft to enter service in early 2017, Dodd adds “they could have it earlier if they want it. We will sign the official contact with the Navy in the next couple of months.”

Boeing has completed ground testing a P-8A with a modified fuel system to enable air refueling from a flying boom. “We are in the process of qualifying and testing for air-to-air refueling for a planned initial operating capability in 2017,” says Dodd. Ground tests included loading the aircraft with varying amounts of fuel and positioning it at different pitch angles to simulate different stages of refueling. Flight tests are expected to begin at Naval Air Warfare Center Patuxent River Maryland in 2016. At a maximum takeoff weight of 189,000 lb., 73,000 lb. is fuel, which gives the P-8A maximum endurance of 12 hr. This will be extended to 22 hr. with inflight refueling, with the limiting factors being crew rest time and engine oil change time restrictions.

Boeing is also “just about to start” the next major phase of the P-8A multi-phased Increment upgrade program, which will be common to the Navy and RAAF. Although the initial operational Navy aircraft were configured with a standard Increment 1 equipment suite based on an improved version of the P-3 ASW system, a revised acoustic processor was subsequently introduced which provides the basis for later upgrades. This includes the follow-on introduction of the multistatic active coherent (MAC) anti-submarine search system, which is due to be brought into the fleet in two blocks, or engineering change proposals (ECPs). The first, ECP1, introduces the MAC shallow-water acoustic search capability, while ECP2, covering the second phase of MAC, will provide deep-water capability.

The company has passed the critical design review milestone for Increment 2, currently set for introduction with the start of full-rate production deliveries in 2016. In addition to improvements to the aircraft interface with the TACMobile system that currently supports the P-3 Orion fleet, Increment 2 also includes a High-Altitude ASW Sensor and the High-Altitude ASW Weapon Capability (Haawc). This is a modified Mark 54 torpedo fitted with a GPS-guided wing and tail kit, which will enable the weapon to be launched from altitudes up to 30,000 ft. “The P-8 wants to fly higher and faster, so this gives you standoff capability and then enables you to fly the torpedo to the target,” says Dodd.

A third upgrade phase is scheduled for IOC in 2020 and, along with a net-ready systems architecture for more flexible software-based enhancements and net-enabled anti-surface warfare weapons and targeting, may introduce the capability to deploy and control unmanned aerial vehicles.

In addition, Increment 3 is also expected to include the introduction of the electronically scanned Advanced Aerial Sensor (AAS), a high-resolution surveillance radar.

http://aviationweek.com/defense/boeing- ... stay-track

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 07 Jun 2015 22:43

EMALS dead load testing underway on the Ford, aircraft launches to begin soon as well

Picklu · Post by **Picklu** » 11 Jun 2015 21:49

If the Arjun --> armata is any indication (& before that adopting mig29k and su30mki in RuN & RuAF), the next russian aircraft carrier would resemble IAC actually rather than the other way round (when they have money off course).

John · Post by **John** » 11 Jun 2015 21:54

Moving that discussion here russian navy choose Mig-29k 2 decades ago but were pressured to go with Su-27k, regardless of IN's decision they would have bought 29k since Su-27 will have be replaced soon.

Any Russian carrier is more likely to be similar the supposed Chinese carrier as per all rumors there is lot of joint "development" going on between both countries.

As for Russian carrier if you seriously believe Russians will build a carrier any time soon especially in current fiscal state: falling Rubel and cheap gasoline. i have bridge to sell you...

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 11 Jun 2015 22:38

John,

The two decade old MiG-29K is not the same as the one that was offered to the IN (which India funded). Totally different machines.

Besides the current news is that the RuN, which has been using the Su-33 (NOT Su-27K), is going to go with the MiG-29K because of acquisition costs (Su-33 is too expensive to manufacture - per news).

But, if the RuN had preferred the 29K then, then they should be happy with the current 29K. But what is bugging is the numbers they may order. Not sure what is the matter, but the MiG-29K does not seem to be a mature product for them. ??????

Added later:

The MiG-29K that the IN has - per a commander from the IN in a youtube vid - is derived form the MiG-29B that the IAF has.

John · Post by **John** » 11 Jun 2015 23:48

NRao wrote:John,

The two decade old MiG-29K is not the same as the one that was offered to the IN (which India funded). Totally different machines.

Besides the current news is that the RuN, which has been using the Su-33 (NOT Su-27K), is going to go with the MiG-29K because of acquisition costs (Su-33 is too expensive to manufacture - per news).

But, if the RuN had preferred the 29K then, then they should be happy with the current 29K. But what is bugging is the numbers they may order. Not sure what is the matter, but the MiG-29K does not seem to be a mature product for them. ??????

Added later:

The MiG-29K that the IN has - per a commander from the IN in a youtube vid - is derived form the MiG-29B that the IAF has.

Yes Mig-29k is different from original one that partake in trials in 80s it better be considering the vast number improvement that have been done on Mig-29 in decade that followed. To put it correctly it is Mig-29M with features and lessons learned from the original Mig-29k program.

Su-33 is the Su-27K that was original designation before the fancy rebadging by Sukhoi. I always consider it Su-27K it is silly to call it Su-33 IMO, i believe there was some cold war politics involved.

The truth is Russian navy doesn't have the money to order large number of Mig-29K and they shouldn't in my opinion. Every year we have heard about "next gen" russian DDG and various models that is shown off, DDG program is still stuck in limbo due to $$ while Sovernmenny and Udaloy number continue to dwindle. And their Gorshkov Frigate program has run into delays mainly due to funding as well. All those should be much high priority than procuring more Mig-29k.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 12 Jun 2015 03:04

Yes Mig-29k is different from original one that partake in trials in 80s it better be considering the vast number improvement that have been done on Mig-29 in decade that followed.

Point being, India funded the new 29K. So, there would be no new 29K for the RuN to select, if India had not funded it. Irrespective of what transpired 2 decades ago.

To put it correctly it is Mig-29M with features and lessons learned from the original Mig-29k program.

Well, you may be right. But, I was quoting the IN person providing the walk around (it is there on youtube). Not a big deal. But he clerly stated two things: that the 29K was derived from the IF 29B and that the 29K was the most advanced plane in India (because it was digital).

John · Post by **John** » 12 Jun 2015 06:27

NRao wrote: Point being, India funded the new 29K. So, there would be no new 29K for the RuN to select, if India had not funded it. Irrespective of what transpired 2 decades ago.

Actually most of Mig-29k development was funded by Mikoyan from its own pocket money, on hopes of order from India and perhaps even Russia. 2004 procurement money mainly went for further testing abroad Gorshkov and further integration. You can make a case Mig-29k might not exist without this additional procurement $$ but then again after merger with Sukhoi in 06. They were more flushed with cash to pursue further development of Mig-29 thanks ironically to mki/mkk. UAC has made it clear they want to keep promoting Mig-29 as we seen with recent order from Egypt.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 12 Jun 2015 06:38

2004 procurement money mainly went for further testing abroad Gorshkov and further integration.

Not what the CNS stated. Besides I do not think without Indian funds that there would be a good 29K.

But let it slide

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 12 Jun 2015 14:05

http://www.afr.com/content/afr/news/wor ... hh6gs.html

australia trying to prove its loyalty to send a/c on patrol of SCS...there is also talk of B1 bombers rotating through darwin as B52s do at guam

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 14 Jun 2015 16:19

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ki86x1WKPmE
observe the STO with tail and TVC butt getting controls in sync.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 14 Jun 2015 20:25

That is one gorgeous ship! She is a beauty! --> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FREMM_mul ... se_frigate

DCNS delivers multi-mission frigate Provence, the third FREMM for the French Navy

srai · Post by **srai** » 15 Jun 2015 08:51

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 15 Jun 2015 11:27

a rather weakly armed ship for its size - one heli, 16 x mrsam, only exocets, low cost heracles radar....

a DDG51 it is not. thats a ship that can go into serious threat zones and start beating up people.