Indian Navy News & Discussion - 22 April 2015

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 17 Jul 2015 20:50

not being blessed with huge domestic supplies of uranium or lot of cash, it would be unwise to have vishal as n-powered. carriers are so expensive last thing we want is a long gestation period for new reactor plant and high shore infra cost. the GE LM2500 drivetrain will be proven in next few yrs on the QE2 pair of ships....of similar size and speed.

domestic uranium should be used only for n-subs and n-weapons.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 17 Jul 2015 21:21

Gyan wrote:Why Can't we ask Chota Bhai to manufacture P-17s or P-15 series rather than putting lick of paint on imported Russian Maal

Philip wrote:Orders already given to MDL and GRSE. Ni imports of Russian mal now.

So what? Is there a rule that says two shipyards can't manufacture same ships in parallel? Besides, no shipyard is currently building P-17s. There are no further orders. That in itself is a travesty. We have a very good indigenous frigate design available and we built only 3 of them.

Everybody is concerned about Chinese subs. Well, the Shivalik carries 2 Sea Kings/S-70's (in future). The Krivak's carry 1 Ka-28. It's a no-brainer.

srin · Post by **srin** » 17 Jul 2015 21:40

nachiket wrote:
Gyan wrote:Why Can't we ask Chota Bhai to manufacture P-17s or P-15 series rather than putting lick of paint on imported Russian Maal

Philip wrote:Orders already given to MDL and GRSE. Ni imports of Russian mal now.
So what? Is there a rule that says two shipyards can't manufacture same ships in parallel? Besides, no shipyard is currently building P-17s. There are no further orders. That in itself is a travesty. We have a very good indigenous frigate design available and we built only 3 of them.

Everybody is concerned about Chinese subs. Well, the Shivalik carries 2 Sea Kings/S-70's (in future). The Krivak's carry 1 Ka-28. It's a no-brainer.

The P17As are being constructed at MDL and GRSE.

Karthik S · Post by **Karthik S** » 17 Jul 2015 21:45

IIRC constructed is set to start in 2017 with first ship to be inducted in 2023.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 17 Jul 2015 22:09

srin wrote: The P17As are being constructed at MDL and GRSE.

P17A's. Not P-17s. Construction is to begin 2 years from now. There is no reason why Pipavav can't build P-17s side by side. Construction of P-17's will be faster since P-17A's are a new design and several issues will have to be worked out prior to and during construction.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 18 Jul 2015 01:26

Life cycle cost of operating a nuclear carrier. Makes for interesting read.
http://fas.org/man/gao/nsiad98001/c3.htm

Kinda interesting prespective:

Others, however, balanced their desire for the benefits derived from
nuclear propulsion against nuclear propulsion's increased costs. In
January 1960, Admiral Arleigh Burke, Chief of Naval Operations,
submitted a report on the attack aircraft carrier as part of his
testimony during congressional hearings before the House Committee on
Appropriations.\7 According to that report,

"[Nuclear power] does not provide a dramatic new mode of
operation for the carrier as it does for the submarine. It does
provide a greatly increased endurance before refueling, and the
capability for long periods of steaming at high speeds.
However, because of the aircraft fuel requirement, the tight
logistic bonds of hydrocarbon fuels for the carrier are not
severed by the use of nuclear propulsion."

"For this reason, the military tactics for aircraft carriers are
not altered nearly so drastically by nuclear power as are those
for submarines . . .
There are no misgivings about the existence of military
advantages in a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier. These have
been stated before, and are still true. In light of
increasingly accurate knowledge of the additional cost, however,
these military advantages simply do not compare well with the
military potential in other needed areas which can be purchased
for this money."

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 18 Jul 2015 01:41

the advantages might have increased though with the newer more fuel efficient a/c.

Bade · Post by **Bade** » 18 Jul 2015 01:54

That is what I had mentioned a few months back in the Vikrant thread. You still have to source non-nuclear fuel for both fleet support as well as a/c on board. For us the SCS is not that far away in any case. How far are we going to operate the carrier from ? For the US it was a different ball game as they were usually far from their shores, albeit closer to their fuel sources in the gulf where action was mostly.

Most important are the fighters to be selected on the carrier. No clear plan yet for that, with lots of choices some paper choices too. The time is to build another 40k+ tonne carrier now alongside the IAC-1. A far better deal. Vishal can be in the study and design phase for the next decade then to go into production in 2025 or later.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 18 Jul 2015 05:39

No matter what the cost of a nuke is high. However it does allow for a much larger boat, which means a much larger air wing, far better localized support and with EMALS perhaps a lighter boat.

There are advantages but the question is are they worth it : cost wise, politically, etc. Absolutely no use if it were used only to putter in I OR or be scared of Chinese demarches(sp?), etc. These things are meant to project power, dadagiri.

Bade · Post by **Bade** » 18 Jul 2015 06:14

To show dadagiri, does one not need a real big one ? Vishal is not big enough in that case, more so for a nuclear powered carrier. The french one is small despite being nuclear powered...not worth it. Go Big or go home. Vishal class should be true to its name...for that we can wait, IMO.

Even a couple of Vikrant class let loose in the SCS will carry enough air-power to show strength. Park a couple of these at A&N . We may not even have to enter SCS to send a message.

geeth · Post by **geeth** » 18 Jul 2015 06:25

How about a new thread on Marine Propulsion modes, and challenges ahead for Indian Navy?

Karthik S · Post by **Karthik S** » 18 Jul 2015 06:29

^ Second Bade on that. If the nuke Vishal will affect Destroyers and more importantly SSN production in terms of money, we better order 1 more Vikrant now.

Kakkaji · Post by **Kakkaji** » 18 Jul 2015 07:17

What is this obsession with sending aircraft carriers to the South China Sea? Some say even the American aircraft carriers are sitting ducks for land-based cruise missiles that China can launch.

The IN needs to dominate the Bay of Bengal and the Arabian Sea, and for that you don't need large and expensive nuclear-powered carriers. Larger number of ships and submarines are better for India IMHO.

Bade · Post by **Bade** » 18 Jul 2015 07:27

Yes, we need a Viraat replacement first to sit down before we go Big. Wait till we become a $20 trillion economy for such dreams. We need to sort out our aircraft fiasco and bulk up our underwater strength before thinking any bigger. Let's just aim for a 3 carrier force, learn from it and then move on to bigger things. Meanwhile, work out the technologies. Ideally I would like the AMCA flying and accepted before even thinking of a true Vishal class carrier.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 18 Jul 2015 07:52

it could be really futuristic and challenging to think about miniaturizing AHWR (Th and Pu).. but BARC's final stage calls for U233 + Th in order to utilize 1/3rd world Th resources in desh. It is a big effort, and the effort bearing fruits will send tremors more than the nuke powered gaints on SCS surface. Dunno if this is even technically feasible.

EMALS, I am like crossed fingers.. you never know about unkill

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 18 Jul 2015 08:20

@Bade,

It is not SCS. Indo-Pacific. Actually global. 2030+ is going to be very diff sir. Indians in power would those who are in their 30-40 right now, well of, with no hang ups of 62. You need to drop all the baggage you carry.

If a Chinese vessel goes to the Atlantic, then you need to he there if need be.

If you can do it with a 40k boat more power to you.

Bade · Post by **Bade** » 18 Jul 2015 08:28

Nrao, I am with you on thinking big. But thinking or dreaming alone will not get us there. We need to walk the talk. Look at the LCA thread. It gives me shivers. Where are the aircrafts going to come from to fill these big boats at the costs being mentioned in the Rafale thread, even if we hit double digits in GDP figures in trillions in a decade...or is it 15 yrs as was in the news today. My conservative outlook comes out of these concerns. We should demo first the tech involved before all the talk of chasing the Chinese ships around the Arctic, no ?

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 18 Jul 2015 12:23

when china gets the liaoning operational or builds more, you can be sure it will make very symbolic port visits at karachi and the gulf. PN will hold major exercises with it.
one can ask what is the need for that ?

carriers are a display of hard power . all the access the USN gives the CVNS for making films both non-fiction and fiction is to gain soft power benefits also. right now everyone in the world has been told from childhood the CVNS are invincible and have no equal...conditioning.

secondly , how do you think Cheen will protect its subs of the future prowling in IOR in event of a conflict from our ASW/LRMP assets...sending in a carrier group into IOR will be it.

when they crap in our backyard, do you just want to ignore or clean it up , or send our dog to crap in their backyard as well?

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 18 Jul 2015 17:15

@Bade,

There is much to talk about - especially with the techs that are going (relatively?) wild.

There are two types of costs: the first is the one you mention - the cost of building out (and it is LOT more than you mention - a carrier group is a monster investment). But, there is a cost associated with *not* building out. Not sending patrols in winter (or something like that) lead to a Kargil - and we do not even talk of the "cost" of Kargil. So, at that high level, all I am saying is that the cost of *not* building out a larger carrier system (or even incrementally building out) will be a *lot* more than building out right now.

Look at it another way. A Vishal will see a 4th Gen and then a 5th Gen plane (leave aside what a "gen" *really* means) and perhaps even a "6th Gen" plane. BUT, if she is designed for 50 planes, that is pretty much a done deal. The planes themselves will need to be technically multiples of themselves to pack more planes on the Vishal in 2050. And, that is possible. But you will never be able to add more planes of the same gen to the Vishal. "Cost".

There are essentially two incremental build out: build more Vikrants and then a few Vishals or build multiple Vishals with smaller air wings and then build out the air wings. I prefer the latter. I understand the prior, but I just do not see it playing well on the high seas. I am of the opinion (arm chair guy granted) that India will need the bigger boats. She is making a case for 6 N-subs, so why baby steps in a carrier? Unless India is politically skittish - that is a valid reason ("we do not want to raise concerns in China", CBM, talk).

So, there is cost for doing something and there is a cost for not doing it too.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 18 Jul 2015 17:23

bade, I was also dreaming but our ramana breaper might disqualify me on the basis of "unobatanium requirements".

my dream: these giant ships carrying 50 nLCAs/nAMCAs is nuke feasible and can dock with desi subs from underneath..

do-able: yes
feasible: perhaps no /OT

Bade · Post by **Bade** » 18 Jul 2015 17:23

Singha, What are the Chinese doing ? They are building 3 of a class at a time. That is certainly a reasonable approach isn't it ? They are walking the talk...whereas we are setting new goals for the 15 yr timeline...by the time Vishal comes as envisioned today, China would have built 3-5 carriers giving them the flexibility to deploy them all in IOR as well as Pacific to defend their large front yard.

We should be doing the same to give us more options, if we are game. When the Vishal goes into build phase, we should be setting sight on 2 more of the same to be built in the following decades at least, if not concurrently like the Chinese are doing unless of course the economy can support that.

Bade · Post by **Bade** » 18 Jul 2015 17:35

Saik, without the nLCAs and AMCAs there will be no carrier force > 3. Look unlike the Chinese we need to look for two pronged attacks to defend ourselves. When and if the Chinese engage us directly no one will come to our help, and we may have to engage Pak too at the same time. Same would be the case if we engage Pak, as China will surely send their subs and carrier force to IOR in the future. The Chinese do not have such issues when they decide to engage us. We need the numbers and flexibility to cover two bays and perhaps the SCS, not to mention the IOR south of the equator..now that we see Seychelles and African coast as our areas of interest.

Nrao, thanks for the detailed explanation why you favor the Vishal route pronto. It has its merits. I would also go that way if the naval variants of our local planes were there and flying already today and orders placed in large numbers. Questions are being asked even of the Naval Mig-29 we operate in many threads. I cannot stand uncertainty

even just as an arm-chair nobody myself, just a mango-man view of things.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 18 Jul 2015 18:01

we seem to be preparing to fight 1971 naval war when the threat matrix has changed drastically to under the sea.
- short on subs
- short on towed sonars on most ships
- no sosus grid
- creaky Mays and Bears trying to make up for lack of poseidons in numbers
- no MRMP
- sea kings on last legs and no sign of the 70 unit ASW helis we desperately need
- domestic HWT not yet ready despite years of trials
- MCM plans just about getting underway after a wasted decade under congis
- no DSRVs despite 15 yrs of talks!
- no Izumo/Hyuga ASW carriers as lead ships to protect sea lanes
- woeful production rate and high cost of the vital P28 class
- IN has no awacs to extend the fleet bubble

^ thats a $100 billion capex right there.

rajrang · Post by **rajrang** » 18 Jul 2015 18:03

Some thoughts:

Let the army, navy and air force get one (or two) major weapon systems which will give them the ability to handle the two adversaries. A good example in my (subjective) view would be the Su30 MKI. If there is one single Indian weapon system that has prevented Pakistan from thinking of war with India over the last 10 to 15 years, then, arguably that would be the Su30 MKI. Each of the new weapon systems, should by itself have a similar effect over the next 20 or so years, which would be preventing adversaries to even consider war.

1. I would argue that this would be Vishal for the navy together with the planned nuclear powered submarines. Let us assume $ 20 billion bill for a Vishal nuclear powered carrier to be built in India with US technology together with escorts.
2. For the air force it would be a new aircraft. Think of another $ 20 billion.
3. For the army that would be the mountain strike corps (that was sadly downsized by a Defense Minister who is brilliant but unfortunately far from that when it comes to the big picture in my opinion) with regard to China. For the Western border I would propose that would be a couple thousand self propelled 155 mm guns. Let us assume another $ 20 billion.

All three above (together with close relationships with the US and other democracies) would give India peace and security for 20 years during which India could raise its real GDP, ADJUSTED FOR INFLATION, perhaps five-fold (assuming average ~ 7-8% real growth per year). This would also mean quadrupling its per capita incomes, adjusted for inflation within 20 years for 1.3 billion people! This would approximately translate into every Indian family having an income of 4 times of today after ADJUSTING FOR INFLATION, within 20 years! Such a growth rate is certainly feasible and not at all a stretch of the imagination. After centuries of subjugation, Indians would be approaching good material quality of life. So, the stakes are very, very high for the economic well being of Indians. The next 20 years is crucial. Importantly, that also coincides with a China filled with the hubris of a misbehaving teenager.

If the above costs are spread out over 10+ years, then, each of the above would translate into 0.1% of today's GDP and 0.02% of the GDP 20 years from today, with a mean of let us say about 0.05%. Given India's current low rate of defense expenditure (roughly 2% of today's GDP), the costs involved are absolutely reasonable. Therefore, India can easily afford the above three suggestions.

Consider this fictitious scenario. If Pakistan was located in Mexico and China was located in Canada, then the US response would have been 100 times the above mentioned projects of India. In comparison, India's response is extremely anemic even if the above 3 major projects are pursued with vigor. (This cannot be completely explained away because the US has far more resources than India.)

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 18 Jul 2015 18:07

^^ good thoughts and I agree. we cannot print $500b of notes to fill all the gaps. we have to pick some brahmastra type weapons as the flag bearers and devote the $50b we have and hope for the best....since we do not proactively seek war that might be enough. IN overtly seeking the best US tech and consultancy in itself is sending a message long before steel cutting commences...we are trying to scare people off for now using these messages until we have the real shtick.

I esp liked the idea of 2000 155mm guns with stock of 50 days of high usage ammo. plus some 2000 pinaka launchers. ought to be enough to pound anything that moves. some 250 desi BEL WLRs also. good thing is we produce both locally. so ramping up production rate to frightening levels is totally a PMO level decision. masses of artillery networked with each other is the scariest thing on mother earth...once that 45kg round leaves the barrel no ECM or decoys are going to make it deviate. and its too costly and infeasible to devote SAMS to try and shoot down 100s of inbound arty rounds.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 18 Jul 2015 18:09

Singha wrote:we seem to be preparing to fight 1971 naval war when the threat matrix has changed drastically to under the sea.
- short on subs
- short on towed sonars on most ships
- no sosus grid
- creaky Mays and Bears trying to make up for lack of poseidons in numbers
- no MRMP
- sea kings on last legs and no sign of the 70 unit ASW helis we desperately need
- domestic HWT not yet ready despite years of trials
- MCM plans just about getting underway after a wasted decade under congis
- no DSRVs despite 15 yrs of talks!
- no Izumo/Hyuga ASW carriers as lead ships to protect sea lanes
- woeful production rate and high cost of the vital P28 class
- IN has no awacs to extend the fleet bubble

^ thats a $100 billion capex right there.

anthony, NAC and the halfbreed dynasty is responsible for this. Looks like a well planned strategy

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 18 Jul 2015 18:37

Singha wrote:when china gets the liaoning operational or builds more, you can be sure it will make very symbolic port visits at karachi and the gulf. PN will hold major exercises with it.
one can ask what is the need for that ?

carriers are a display of hard power . all the access the USN gives the CVNS for making films both non-fiction and fiction is to gain soft power benefits also. right now everyone in the world has been told from childhood the CVNS are invincible and have no equal...conditioning.

secondly , how do you think Cheen will protect its subs of the future prowling in IOR in event of a conflict from our ASW/LRMP assets...sending in a carrier group into IOR will be it.

when they crap in our backyard, do you just want to ignore or clean it up , or send our dog to crap in their backyard as well?

Sending ships on "friendship" visits/exercises is one thing, but actual combat deployment is completely different story altogether. What would be the taskforce size and composition required to operate in hostile waters infested with 50-60 subs, an equal or more number of missile boats, dozens of frigates and destroyers, a large land based fighter/bomber fleet just a few minutes/an hour's call away, long range land based ballistic and cruise missiles and with anti satellite weapons etc deployed?

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 18 Jul 2015 18:42

What are the Chinese doing ?

Actually it is worse. While they build, they also actively degrade their enemies. Something India absolutely must do. And that is not a negative or something to feel guilty about.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 18 Jul 2015 19:38

abhik wrote:
Singha wrote:when china gets the liaoning operational or builds more, you can be sure it will make very symbolic port visits at karachi and the gulf. PN will hold major exercises with it.
one can ask what is the need for that ?

carriers are a display of hard power . all the access the USN gives the CVNS for making films both non-fiction and fiction is to gain soft power benefits also. right now everyone in the world has been told from childhood the CVNS are invincible and have no equal...conditioning.

secondly , how do you think Cheen will protect its subs of the future prowling in IOR in event of a conflict from our ASW/LRMP assets...sending in a carrier group into IOR will be it.

when they crap in our backyard, do you just want to ignore or clean it up , or send our dog to crap in their backyard as well?
Sending ships on "friendship" visits/exercises is one thing, but actual combat deployment is completely different story altogether. What would be the taskforce size and composition required to operate in hostile waters infested with 50-60 subs, an equal or more number of missile boats, dozens of frigates and destroyers, a large land based fighter/bomber fleet just a few minutes/an hour's call away, long range land based ballistic and cruise missiles and with anti satellite weapons etc deployed?

see its not just a carrier and its lone close escort aaw ship and 1 ssn on SPG detail. we need not go in and shell hainan porbandar style...just keep them busy in their backyard by using the high speed and long range of carrier aviation to launch raids , in concert with submarines and other surface units.

khan certainly is not losing any sleep over the list you gave...they are putting in place plans and platforms as brar_w sometimes talks of and so should we. again their plans do not involve going in too close, but enough to cause a lot of problems on land.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 18 Jul 2015 19:42

brahmastra alone does not make you control geo-political game that we need to spearhead and tame the evil enemies around us. of course the petal shower thermo-maals which is supposed to be secret even for the lords (courtesy: anil khakodkar) is no way a fear to our enemies because it is already dubunked and declared dud by western folks. so, without a 200kt thermo maal, we are left with these force-major project strategy onlee. besides that point, we do have the Indian ocean being threatened by chippanda and pakis on equal terms much more vigor and projected to go negative down the years... the feelers are that bad, even unkill sam fears of the same to get pally with India on emals tech. perhaps, they might tie that to buying some gov-gov exchange of either super hornets or JSF. i am pretty sure that will be forced on us based on how things move.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 18 Jul 2015 19:51

the gripen, rafale and eurofighter will serve in europe until say 2040 but by then will be totally outclassed by stealth platforms.

the JSF will probably serve longer until 2060 and see 10X more updates and sales than the european trio.

other than some wishy washy proposals and photos
- Europe has no manned 5th gen fighter even in proposal stage
- they have no funds and no real plans to replace their manned planes with UCAVs post 2040

some of the small fry are going to buy JSF

UK, France, Italy, Spain, Germany are faced with the above problem....none have remotely the funds needed to develop and produce a JSF std manned 5th gen platform.....

Bade · Post by **Bade** » 18 Jul 2015 20:04

India will be left with no choice other than the US for any kind of partnership. JSF is in our destiny, due to Chinese interests in the IOR. Vishal with EMALS guarantees a JSF purchase, perhaps the main reason why Lockheed was even mentioned in the media reports this week. Not a bad thing, geo-strategically anyway.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 18 Jul 2015 20:13

India should seek deep modification rights on JSF
- comms
- sigint/netcentricity
- radars
- stores

JSF's optics are far out!
their IRST also beats the OLS 50

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 18 Jul 2015 20:57

we need co-ordinated weapons and platforms like these to keep the big dragon in check

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

nice CG

this is within our reach within 10 yrs if we pull pants up and fund it properly

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 18 Jul 2015 21:00

If India is to embrace the Khan, it has to so with gusto and guarantees. With gusto: 10+bil investment in JSFs and possibly a refurbished kitty hawk or George Washington delivery by 2020ish, the dollars here will be mainly for JSF. Very big shtick very quick time. Guarantee part includes looking the other way as India deals adequate thappads to TSP. Also order second Vikrant class around same.timeframe plus ssgns and arihants. All in all, $25 billion spread 10+ years..very affordable.
Will give IN enough time.and space to work on Vishal, which can be then brought to true big stick std., currently seems like a QE class ship, half baked attempt at super carrier. Bade saab is right, go big or go home for the kind of power projection folks are dreaming of.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 18 Jul 2015 21:11

"JSF" ain't coming. India is too loose a canon for the time being. I suspect it is for the same reason that whatever India asked for the engine was declined.

Carrier design and EMALS is pretty much it. Also note that was offered. India IIRC asked for a cat - steam.

India needs to put more collateral on the table. Dunno if that is possible. Very little chance I would think.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 18 Jul 2015 21:14

It is will be only 'Hollywood' for India

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 18 Jul 2015 21:42

Pipavav must learn to walk before it can run.The 3-4 Talwars will be a challenge for it. MDL and GRSE have far more experience in building sophisticated stealth frigates/corvettes than Pip.Moreover,as pointed out earlier,the final design/specs for the 17As,to be more advanced than the 17s hasn't been finalised. Both yards are flush with existing orders and are gearing themselves up for the larger 17As,much more expensive that Talwars.The P-17s had a 250+% increase in costs remember. Imagine sharing 7 FFGs between 3 yards.It doesn't make any eco sense whatsoever. The IN has its maritime perspective plan worked out,number and type/tonnage of warships required and is working according to plan .The deal is over,fait accompli.There's no use now ruminating about a 17A instead which took us (17s) 12 years to build! The IN has a need for more surface combatants because of its expanded role in the IOR and defence of the coast on two fronts. In the future it will have to deal with larger numbers of both Pak and Chinese subs operating in the Bay of Bengal and Arabian Sea,apart from sniffing at our southern underbelly off the Lankan coastline. the two CV task forces will also require their escorts for the CBG.

The NLCA will have limited naval strike capability,single-engined,reduced range,when compared with 29Ks,SHs,etc.,it would be a good point defence aircraft for the fleet.29Ks will carry BMos-M unlike the NLCA. Its compact size however makes it also suitable for the 4 multi-role amphibs planned,if designed like the Spanish Juan Carlos class .Just for the record, SAAB offered a Sea Gripen option for the Viraat. Good point made about the Chinese building several CVs of the same type.makes much operating sense If we order another Vikrant,the 3 CVs we will possess of approx. 45K t will be sufficient for us to dominate the IOR ,2 CVs always ready ,one on each seaboard while one is in the dockyard. Imagine prosecuting Pak's naval assets and bases from the sea with 2 CVs! The larger Vishal class could start construction in 5 years time after Vikrant no 2 is finished.By then we could've sorted out all design/specs,including type of aircraft,launch system,sensors,weaponry,ect.

The US has some revolutionary weapon systems on the cusp of commissioning.Rail guns,lasers and UCAVs.It is going to maintain its naval superiority for another 25 years at least when these weapons come into service. EMALS tech/offer should be seriously looked at for the future N-powered CV,after Vikrant no. 2 is built.There will be no dearth of naval carrier aircraft to fly from its decks,both from east and west. By 2030,15 yrs from now,both the JSF and naval FGFA would've sorted out their dev. issues and be in production,available,along with the hoped for the naval AMCA at some future point in time.

The long list of naval needs as Singha/Chetak have posted should be a constant reminder not to put all our eggs into one basket. I think that the IN is on the right track as as far as its future acquisition plans are concerned.Right now until 2020,Pak will be the main threat.From 2020 onwards,the Sino-Pak JV will begin to function with greater intensity. In countering China,we must not forget the "V" card that we nhold,Vietnam,where our defence/naval cooperation is expanding rapidly. Just as the RN has its flotillas for the Gulf ,etc.,so should we establish a permanent flotilla in the Indo-China Sea. Boosting the Vietnamese navy's capability with Indian built patrol craft.corvettes,etc.,along with missiles like BMos,etc.,will balance the equation of Gwadar being a Sino-Paki naval/sub base.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 18 Jul 2015 21:45

Can't understand the new talwar class purchase, see a greater need for Asuw assets...the kamortas are huge for corvettes and could be easily modded for some anti surface work lightly loaded as they are. cheaper and newer designs..plus totally make in India.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 18 Jul 2015 22:04

The Talwars will come with a v.good all round package.BMos,improved SAMs,Shtil or even B-8,and except for having just one ASW/AEW helo,has the same weaponry as the P-17s/17As. At around 25% lower cost/size. It means more platforms (9) to be shared by the western and eastern fleets by 2020.The first P-17A will only arrive post 2020. The design being a v.successful one,being built both for India and Russia,could even be exported in the future to friendly nations like Vietnam,etc.,just like the Kilos. The P-28s seem to be under-armed and some reports have it that the next batch will have more weaponry. The reports say that the first 3 Delhis and Talwars will be upgraded,most probably with BMos and improved SAMs,B-8s/Shtils. This should give a boost to the anti-ship capability of these warships,the first of their class.The Urans/Klubs could hen be refitted to other smaller vessels like the NOPVs,missile craft and possible future P-28s.