Indian Navy News & Discussion - 22 April 2015

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 28 Dec 2015 11:49

With 4 LPD's planned, the IN can no longer be called just a constabulary force. With the ability to deploy two carriers, we would not be in a position to sail into SCS but can then pretty much challenge any other force from the malacca to the Suez, apart from the USN. I for one will want to live to see this transition to an expeditionary force for the region become a reality.

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 28 Dec 2015 13:29

It is good that IN will acquire a new level of amphib capability thanks to the LPDs. However, I don't see large scale beach invasions too far away from home. Pakistan, Maldives and Andaman sea littorals can be dealt by LSTs and LCUs.

IN should immediately invest in a second Vikrant class CV, with a configuration and loadout tilted for land operations;

- Davits for LCVPs
- Air wing with more medium helos instead of fighter aircarft
- Housing for troops

Such a ship can effect small scale commando operations in places such as Somalia at a considerable distance (i.e. safer) from the shore. Alternatively, with a large fleet of ASW helos it can sanitize a large swath of the ocean for underwater threats. The figher air wing can be small or large depending on mission needs.

Perhaps we could cut down the LPD order to 2-3 if budget is an issue. The LPDs themselves should be at Huan Carlos sized, so that we may possibly operate V-22s and F-35s off it if these were ever acquired.

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 28 Dec 2015 13:52

Excellent post Maz. Some thoughts.

Project 17A is already underway with 7 on order. I think it should be Projects 28A and NGMV which should bring the requisite number to IN.

Krivaks: it makes sense for us to acquire the partially constructed vessels which are on hold due to Ukraine's embargo on Russia. I hope the noises from Modi's visit to Russia are around this concept as otherwise I don't see merit in buying into this class any further.

LCUs: Are L34 and L35 decommissioned?

Interceptors: 65 have been delivered by Solas Marine. Total order was for 80.

CVN: Even if IAC-3 is nuclear, the remaining ships remain fuel based and thus limited persistence. The use case for nuclear generation is only around the EMALS based launch system. I think we have forgotten the US sanctions which crippled our SHAR and Sea King fleet!

maz wrote:IN operates 136 commissioned ships and submarines + 1 SSBN in its pre-commissioning cycle as of 27 Dec2015. Note that there are 6 MCMVs and four old Mk 3 LCUs - L36-L39 that remain active. Not all 80 Solas Marine FICs have been delivered yet. Around 48 have arrived so FICs holdings are around 86 including 23 ISVS +15 Plascoa 1300 FICs. .....

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 28 Dec 2015 16:06

Some good news indeed,but the crew numbers for the Kalvari/Scorpene is far too high if accurate.Something is amiss here as other stats suggest that the crew is in the 30s.It is smaller than a Kilo class sub.There is much more automation on the larger Ru and German boats surprisingly.Swedisn boats have half the numbers of a Scorpene.

http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/unde ... 56654.html

Undersea warfare: Surfacing now, navy's biggest batch of submariners
INS Satavahana stands divided into three schools with submarine training, escape training and the school of advanced undersea warfare.
Jugal R Purohit
Visakhapatnam, December 27, 2015 | Posted by Bijaya Kumar Das |

Officers at INS Satavahana
It isn't a flash in the pan but a firm surge.

After years of stagnation and being plagued by accidents, India Navy's (IN) submarine arm seems set for an uptick. The most visible sign has emerged behind the tall gates guarding the premier submarine training establishment, the Visakhapatnam-based INS Satavahana. The navy is training what arguably is its biggest batch of submariners in recent years.

The school, which conducts the all-important basic course - an entry level, year-long course which every submariner has to undergo has seen the batch size nearly double. If the 84th batch, conducted in 2013 saw the participation of 26 officers and 129 sailors, the current one, 88th, is witnessing 45 officers and 176 sailors. In the interim batches, the intake grew to 33 for officers and 143 sailors, at the most. There are two batches in a year, since every batch spends six months on campus followed by an equal amount of time on board an operational submarine. Sailors are required to put in this bit while for officers, it takes six more months to achieve the dolphin badge - ultimate insignia for a submariner.

Navy school
The school conducts the all-important basic course.

In the submarine arm - a voluntary one - this enhancement is being seen as a direct fallout of the perceived brighter prospects. Some also view this as a resurgence, an affirmation of sorts in the mitigating procedures put in place following the deadly accidents - explosion and sinking of INS Sindhurakshak in Mumbai in August 2013 killing 18 on board and fire on board INS Sindhuratna which took the lives of two officers on board in February 2014.

"Forty-five officers!" exclaimed retired submariner Commodore AJ Singh, "is a big number indeed". In his understanding the navy has to train more given the number of bigger submarines lined up for induction. "There has never been a dearth but with this number the navy has created the institutional depth. There perhaps was a perception issue but it is history now," Singh said.

Unlike other branches of the navy where specialisation is the key, submariners hold specialisation at par with generalisation. "The first test I had to pass was the one in which I was to all about a submarine's structure. The passing percentage is 85," said an officer.

The navy's submarine arm, facing a massive crunch in the early 60s, is a well rewarded one. Allowances are at par with the other apex level arms - aviation and special forces. "And why not? Risks aside, ours is the only military service where on duty no one wears a uniform, not even a rank and for a reason," quipped an officer.

In fields a fleet on fourteen operational submarines which includes nine Russian-EKMs or Sindhughosh class, four German HDW Shishumar class and the nuclear-powered boat, INS Chakra, an Akula class submarine loaned from Russia. In the final leg of her sea trials is the Arihant, an indigenous nuclear-powered boat supposed to fire nuclear-tipped missiles.

Inside view of a submarine. The average age of the Indian submarine is a worrying 25 years.

The average age of the Indian submarine is a worrying 25 years. The submarine acquisition has floundered on account of the delay. However, if things go as planned, INS Kalvari, French-designed, conventional submarine which was to join the fleet in 2012 will do so in September 2016 with the remaining five coming at the interval of nine months each. On the anvil are at least two more boats of the Arihant-class, six conventional diesel electric submarines, six nuclear powered submarines and an additional Russian submarine on lease, the negotiations for which are continuing.

About INS Satavahana

It stands divided into three schools with submarine training, escape training and the school of advanced undersea warfare. While the first two are self explanatory, the third stands as an additional ground for those are to man nuclear-propelled submarines. "Camaraderie is our hallmark and here sailors and officers train and earn their dolphins together. Anyone who volunteers is allowed a look-in period of a month in which he can walk away if he desires with no penalties imposed," said an officer.

Currently, the Satavahana is hosting its second batch of Vietnamese naval personnel, comprising 19 officers and 42 sailors. Like IN, the Vietnam People's Navy has contracted Russia for six, diesel electric Varshavyanka submarines, also known as advanced 'Kilo' class ships an older version of which IN has. In the past, personnel from Bhutan, Myanmar, Nepal, Sri Lanka and South Africa have been allowed in.

Crew strength

Sindhughosh class: 53...2500-3000t
Shishumar class: 40..... 1650t
INS CHAKRA: 100 approx. 12,000t
Arihant class: 100 approx. 8000t
Kalvari class: 72(?)approx. 2000t

srai · Post by **srai** » 28 Dec 2015 16:16

^^^

Obviously, the crew numbers reported by the above article is incorrect. It seems they have more than doubled the crew in their estimates. Check out below (Naval Technology.com) which states crew of 31.

SSK Scorpene Class Attack Submarine, France

...
Crew facilities

The ship can hold a total company of 31 men with a standard watch team of nine. The control room and the living quarters are mounted on an elastically supported and acoustically isolated floating platform. All living and operational areas are air-conditioned. The submarine also has space for six additional fold-down bunks for special operations crew.

The vessel is equipped with all the necessary systems to provide vital supplies, water, provisions, regeneration of the atmosphere, to ensure the survival of all the crew for seven days.

The ship is equipped with full rescue and safety systems.

A connection point for a diving bell or deep submergence rescue vehicle (DSRV) allows collective rescue operations.

...

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 28 Dec 2015 17:07

is the internal usable living area/eqpt volume of the U209 and Kilo about the same?

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 28 Dec 2015 21:25

Max: To your excellent post, my overall impressions is even if the raw numbers by themselves do not see a significant growth, there would be a radical difference in fire power, range, mobility, power projection, defensive assets (Indian SOSUS anyone?) and C4ISR for the naval force of 2027. At some stage getting more numbers is not meaningful, if there is no corresponding doctrine to use these assets to further Indian interests.

maz · Post by **maz** » 29 Dec 2015 00:14

LCU 33 and 35 were decommissioned in 2015 although they were out of service for about a year for the so called "de-equipping" phase.
http://www.andamansheekha.com/2015/04/3 ... missioned/
L32 and L34 were decommissioned in 2011
http://sainiksamachar.nic.in/englisharc ... -11/h4.htm

Same for the Godavari - she was out of service for about a year although she looked remarkably complete on 23Dec 2015. It would be nice to have veterans write stories on the G Force ships. They were a turning point in India warship design.

I still maintain that larger numbers of rationalized platforms - with modular hull and combat systems - are needed so they can be configured for varying tasks. One needs to look at STANFLEX, MEKO, SIGMA for inspiration. Mercifully, the IN is on track to try and rationalize its weapon and sensor suites instead of going by a 'class of ship' approach - each with a largely bespoke combat system thus leading to a logistic/maint/engg nightmare. I wonder if a study has been made on the incidences of 'rapid ageing syndrome' in the Logistics stream?

Speaking of modular outfitting, GRSE is making some progress on partially outfitted hull blocks on their WJFAC program. But, these are not fully equipped modules requiring a 'mate, weld and connect' approach. One would think that using the FAC program to learn this fully outfitted modular ship building process would be the way to go yet foreign consultants are hired to teach the IN/ shipyards what to do. This type of engineering is challenging but very doable The tools are all there. It is model building with a set of well defined interfaces that need to be maintained throughout the build process. Yes, it would call for very strict quality and process control at the hull block interfaces . Clearly, this level of workmanship is something that is still lacking...and requires considerable effort and a reset of the 'chalta hai' mindset. I am not sure the foreign consultants can imbibe that attitude to the yardworkers. Or can they? That said, any progress achieved on this front would be a welcome development.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 29 Dec 2015 11:21

Only the L&T yard near Chennai and the Pip yard in Guj can leapfrog into mod constr. form start.Both I think have some firang ties-ups.DCNS with Pip and now the Ru deals.But they would need substantial orders for the same. MDL modernisation may be complicated given their huge order book.

Akshay Kapoor · Post by **Akshay Kapoor** » 29 Dec 2015 15:36

Completely agree maZ, we don't need more carriers much less a nuclear powered on. The Indian Navy's most glorious hour was Op Trident when it launched into pure offence. Today the best offensive weapons are SSNs and aircraft. We have two huge static carriers - the Indian Peninsula and A&N. We can stage aircraft from there.

We also need helicopters - we have less than 20 operational anti sub choppers for a current surface fleet of about 27. Forget any choppers for the carriers, we don't even have enough for the the frigates, deatroyers and P28s. Towed array sonars, minesweepers - all of these are a priority.

The carrier and LPD are just ego boosters.

Another huge problem is lack of command experience at sea and very short command tenures. Training, command , logistics and aggression win wars.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 29 Dec 2015 21:51

Akshay Kapoor wrote: The carrier and LPD are just ego boosters.

Thankfully, the navy does not think of them as just "ego" boosters but as power projection assets. Is the Indian game to be forever locked under the "security" domain and never dwell in the power projection bucket? Or is it your serious contention that "operationally" we do not need a carrier wing for both fleet protection and offensive ops anywhere in the littoral regions of the IOR? Operationally, I just do not see how will a land based wing provide such support in most cases, where the needs can be in radius ranges of 1000-2000 miles 24/7. Unless, you restrict operations to the bay and the west coast of the sub continent only! Or do you contend our intent to be a "net security provider" to the IOR.

I agree that acquiring a CVN at this stage is not required for the following reasons 1. It is not essential to our security or power projection needs 2. Our indigenous capability to produce such propulsion is not there yet (even if I have unconfirmed reports that such a project is planned). 3. Its cost prohibitive

So am firmly putting a when and not if as the right time for a CVN. However, 3 carriers are a must, with two in hand at times of need.

Prasad · Post by **Prasad** » 29 Dec 2015 22:09

Andamans to Jakarta is just above 2000 kms. If the chinese decide not to be idiots and avoid the malacca straits and sail around through Timor Sea, what aircraft can handle a 2000km round trip and still be fighting fit? Does the IN doctrine call for fighting without airplanes given that the chinese have started flight operations on the Liaoning and building more carriers, not to mention their furious warship building pace.

arijitkm · Post by **arijitkm** » 29 Dec 2015 22:26

Navy to carry out Barak-8 test tonight. PTI

The Indian Navy will tonight carry out the maiden test of the long-range Barak-8 surface-to-air missile from INS Kolkata.

Navy spokesperson Captain DK Sharma said the test would take place after 12 AM.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 29 Dec 2015 22:48

Akshay Kapoor wrote:Completely agree maZ, we don't need more carriers much less a nuclear powered on. The Indian Navy's most glorious hour was Op Trident when it launched into pure offence. Today the best offensive weapons are SSNs and aircraft. We have two huge static carriers - the Indian Peninsula and A&N. We can stage aircraft from there.

We also need helicopters - we have less than 20 operational anti sub choppers for a current surface fleet of about 27. Forget any choppers for the carriers, we don't even have enough for the the frigates, deatroyers and P28s. Towed array sonars, minesweepers - all of these are a priority.

The carrier and LPD are just ego boosters.

Another huge problem is lack of command experience at sea and very short command tenures. Training, command , logistics and aggression win wars.

Looks like you are living in he past Sir. Which by itself is OK, nothing wrong with that.

However, IF India becomes an economic power (as people claim), there is just no way she can put on blinkers and keep to her backyard. (And, this $40 a barrel is going to have a +ve impact on Indian Def I bet. Buckle up.)

Just check out the relationships she has already developed - Japan alone is enough. Those LPDs and carriers are mere extensions of the "Indian Peninsula and A&N". Nothing more. IF the IAF could get a few bases without any political or other hindrances it could be better. Maybe.

Do expect the IN to be part of a group (if it comes to that) - and not deploy in those areas all be herself.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 29 Dec 2015 23:18

Akshay Kapoor wrote:Completely agree maZ, we don't need more carriers much less a nuclear powered on. The Indian Navy's most glorious hour was Op Trident when it launched into pure offence. Today the best offensive weapons are SSNs and aircraft. We have two huge static carriers - the Indian Peninsula and A&N. We can stage aircraft from there.

We also need helicopters - we have less than 20 operational anti sub choppers for a current surface fleet of about 27. Forget any choppers for the carriers, we don't even have enough for the the frigates, deatroyers and P28s. Towed array sonars, minesweepers - all of these are a priority.

The carrier and LPD are just ego boosters.

Another huge problem is lack of command experience at sea and very short command tenures. Training, command , logistics and aggression win wars.

+100. Fix gaps not acquire showboats.

sohamn · Post by **sohamn** » 29 Dec 2015 23:53

News Flash *** INS Kolkata successfully launches Barak 8 SAM ***

vishvak · Post by **vishvak** » 30 Dec 2015 00:43

However, IF India becomes an economic power ..

Coincidentally, no one told USA to put conditions to conduct RnD even though USA is already a blue water navy for decades. No one told the Chinese that USA has stopped conducting RnD on naval warfare, and so on and so forth.
On a lighter note, Norway has simply made a law to send expeditions to foreign countries every 5 years. It is official, nothing complicated there.

srai · Post by **srai** » 30 Dec 2015 03:55

Akshay Kapoor wrote:Completely agree maZ, we don't need more carriers much less a nuclear powered on. The Indian Navy's most glorious hour was Op Trident when it launched into pure offence. Today the best offensive weapons are SSNs and aircraft. We have two huge static carriers - the Indian Peninsula and A&N. We can stage aircraft from there.

We also need helicopters - we have less than 20 operational anti sub choppers for a current surface fleet of about 27. Forget any choppers for the carriers, we don't even have enough for the the frigates, deatroyers and P28s. Towed array sonars, minesweepers - all of these are a priority.

The carrier and LPD are just ego boosters.

Another huge problem is lack of command experience at sea and very short command tenures. Training, command , logistics and aggression win wars.

While you make good points about priorities like ASW assets, capital ships like LDP and Carriers need to be planned and ordered at regular intervals since they take close to a decade to build (plus add design time). Plus, this allows design/build skills to be retained and upgraded. Minimum of one new carrier per decade should be the norm if an eventual fleet of 4 or 5 carriers are desired.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 30 Dec 2015 04:52

I am no expert on the gaps within the IN.

However, the fact that 1) the India-US bilateral has now become a India-US-Japan trilateral - permanently, 2) India has increased her interaction with Australia and 3) the JWGACTC and ALRE are evidence of non-IOR thinking. IF India had even provided an inkling that she did not want to be a player and needed to do something else that is more urgent, none of these things would happen. These nations would not waste time on India.

Which is why I have said that Indians need to drop heir "IOR" centric mentality.

nirav · Post by **nirav** » 30 Dec 2015 05:02

Karan M wrote:
Akshay Kapoor wrote:Completely agree maZ, we don't need more carriers much less a nuclear powered on. The Indian Navy's most glorious hour was Op Trident when it launched into pure offence. Today the best offensive weapons are SSNs and aircraft. We have two huge static carriers - the Indian Peninsula and A&N. We can stage aircraft from there.

We also need helicopters - we have less than 20 operational anti sub choppers for a current surface fleet of about 27. Forget any choppers for the carriers, we don't even have enough for the the frigates, deatroyers and P28s. Towed array sonars, minesweepers - all of these are a priority.

The carrier and LPD are just ego boosters.

Another huge problem is lack of command experience at sea and very short command tenures. Training, command , logistics and aggression win wars.
+100. Fix gaps not acquire showboats.

This almost sounds like- India should spend money on its poor and not go to mars.

The carriers offer organic air cover to the task force and offensive capabilities at larger distances which land based a/c won't be able to meet in a timely fashion.

Also with the Chinese intent of feilding upto 5 carriers INs battle groups will have formidable air opposition.if we have to rely on land based aircraft, then INs area of operation with land based air cover would be restricted to bay of Bengal,Arabian sea.

Naval aviation operations is one of the toughest things to master. IN has a long history and multiple decades worth of proficiency.

While there are gaps in INs force structure, they have to be met by adequate allocations by the govt. Not at the cost of the carriers.

The carriers are the biggest boats of India's "gun boat" diplomacy. To call them "show boats" is sacrilege.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 30 Dec 2015 05:05

NRao wrote:I am no expert on the gaps within the IN.

However, the fact that 1) the India-US bilateral has now become a India-US-Japan trilateral - permanently, 2) India has increased her interaction with Australia and 3) the JWGACTC and ALRE are evidence of non-IOR thinking. IF India had even provided an inkling that she did not want to be a player and needed to do something else that is more urgent, none of these things would happen. These nations would not waste time on India.

Which is why I have said that Indians need to drop heir "IOR" centric mentality.

What's wrong with a IOR-centric mentality even if we have collaborations with Australia, USA and Japan?

IOR is fairly big and we still have many holes in our ability to provide surveillance, or reach a point of interest within reasonable time. In my opinion, we should plug those gaps first. We should be expeditionary to punish anybody who trespasses our waters with devastating effect. And if we can do that, and if Australia, Japan, US can do that, we should be good.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 30 Dec 2015 05:17

nirav wrote: This almost sounds like- India should spend money on its poor and not go to mars.

The carriers offer organic air cover to the task force and offensive capabilities at larger distances which land based a/c won't be able to meet in a timely fashion.

Also with the Chinese intent of feilding upto 5 carriers INs battle groups will have formidable air opposition.if we have to rely on land based aircraft, then INs area of operation with land based air cover would be restricted to bay of Bengal,Arabian sea.

Naval aviation operations is one of the toughest things to master. IN has a long history and multiple decades worth of proficiency.

While there are gaps in INs force structure, they have to be met by adequate allocations by the govt. Not at the cost of the carriers.

The carriers are the biggest boats of India's "gun boat" diplomacy. To call them "show boats" is sacrilege.

Thats a fairly pointless comparison.

The IN currently today has glaring gaps in ASuW and other areas including serviceability of its assets.

It should spend what money it has on making sure what its current capability, is, is always available and also well rounded.

Parking money in huge expeditionary assets above and beyond what it has, is all well, if it has access to unlimited funds. Right now, even in its own sphere of operations, it does not have enough ASuW assets (eg enough choppers on capital ships), or submarines (choke point blockade) and many other assets.

First fix those rather than chasing after gold plated acquisitions which will be more vulnerable without the supporting assets to back them.

We have much the same problem across all 3 services. What they have often doesn't work because existing serviceability has not been funded. Instead they go chasing after new big ticket programs.

nirav · Post by **nirav** » 30 Dec 2015 05:18

indranilroy wrote:
NRao wrote:I am no expert on the gaps within the IN.

However, the fact that 1) the India-US bilateral has now become a India-US-Japan trilateral - permanently, 2) India has increased her interaction with Australia and 3) the JWGACTC and ALRE are evidence of non-IOR thinking. IF India had even provided an inkling that she did not want to be a player and needed to do something else that is more urgent, none of these things would happen. These nations would not waste time on India.

Which is why I have said that Indians need to drop heir "IOR" centric mentality.
What's wrong with a IOR-centric mentality even if we have collaborations with Australia, USA and Japan?

IOR is fairly big and we still have many holes in our ability to provide surveillance, or reach a point of interest within reasonable time. In my opinion, we should plug those gaps first. We should be expeditionary to punish anybody who trespasses our waters with devastating effect. And if we can do that, and if Australia, Japan, US can do that, we should be good.

An expeditionary outlook for the navy allows us to take the fight to the enemy's waters if need be. Without which we end up letting hostile navy come to out waters/shores and then fight them.

While our expeditionary abilities planned for now are modest, we still have to make a start somewhere.

Else the reactionary mindset of fighting in our waters will never allow us to have a true blue water navy.

If we have to punish only tresspassers of our waters, we won't even need the destroyers. Coastal Styx + brahmos are good enough to rain hell on hostile forces.

@Karan M : you have rightly listed out the gaps.
Id like to add that the chopper issue is a procurement issue.not a monetary issue. Even serviceability. Its not as is these issues would have gotten fixed had vikramaditya not been bought.

Infact had it not been bought, we would have a significant gap in carrier ops with the Vikrant not operational yet, nor the NLCA.

IN is going for an all round growth trajectory rather than focusing on just 1 aspect of capacity priority.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 30 Dec 2015 05:22

What's wrong with a IOR-centric mentality even if we have collaborations with Australia, USA and Japan?

It is inadequate by Indian thinking itself, it sells India short. "Act East" by itself goes beyond IOR.

And, those countries are not concerned - as much - about IOR. They ALL have "East" in the centric thinking. That is where the intersection happens to be.

BTW, the west IOR is already taken.

In my opinion, we should plug those gaps first. We should be expeditionary to punish anybody who trespasses our waters with devastating effect. And if we can do that, and if Australia, Japan, US can do that, we should be good.

Not on the same page, so please let it slide.

Nick_S · Post by **Nick_S** » 30 Dec 2015 11:00

Captain DK Sharma ‏@CaptDKS 33m33 minutes ago
#IN Indian Navy today achieved a significant milestone in enhancing its Anti Air Warfare capability. Successfully conducts trials of LRSAM

Captain DK Sharma ‏@CaptDKS 29m29 minutes ago
#IN Firings conducted on the Western seaboard by INS Kolkata, Aerial targets intercepted at extended ranges. Jt effort IN, DRDO & IAI Israel

DPR ‏@SpokespersonMoD 52m52 minutes ago
Successfully test fires long range surface to air missiles from INS Kolkata. Aerial targets destroyed at extended ranges. (2/4)

thammu · Post by **thammu** » 30 Dec 2015 11:12

Indian Navy successfully test fires Barak-8 http://www.thehansindia.com/posts/index ... k-8-196601

The Indian Navy successfully test fires long-range surface-to-air missile, the long-range Barak-8 surface-to-air missile from onboard INS Kolkata on Wednesday.

The Barak-8 missile is being developed in joint collaboration by India and Israel. While two tests had been successfully conducted onboard Israeli ships, this is the first time that the test has been held onboard an Indian one.

The Barak-8 has been designed to defend against a variety of short-to-long-range airborne threats, including fixed-wing aircraft, helicopters, drones and projectiles.

It incorporates a state-of-the-art phased array multi- mission radar, two-way data link, and a flexible command and control system that enables it to simultaneously engage multiple targets day and night and in all-weather conditions.

The missile system is being jointly developed by IAI, DRDO, Israel's Administration for the Development of Weapons and Technological Infrastructure, Elta Systems, Rafael and other companies.

Nick_S · Post by **Nick_S** » 30 Dec 2015 11:47

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 30 Dec 2015 14:09

CAG Report

DPSY SY: http://www.saiindia.gov.in/english/home ... chap_5.pdf

Indian Navy : http://www.saiindia.gov.in/english/home ... chap_3.pdf

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 30 Dec 2015 14:12

imo for expeditionary ops we should start with and invest in n-submarines not LPDs which are a total waste in the IOR rim as we can just lease a few ships for emergency evac and have no need or plan to keep USMC type MEUs floating at sea.

n-submarines can impose a cost in the east asian seas and permit some pinpricky strikes on land targets with conventional slcm.

they are also a much better insurance policy on the khan turning tough than LPDs.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 30 Dec 2015 14:57

Great news about B-8! Kudos to all involved.BMos,B-8,let's hope for more such JV successes in the future.

There is a more than a subtle diff. between "expeditionary warfare" and full "blue water" ops. The former implies amphib. assault capability "invading" other maritime nations accompanied by large-scale maritime strike from carrier aircraft. It is why the USN requires a doz. N-supercarriers,each carrying 100+ aircraft and helos,plus an equal number of large amphibs of 40-50,000t,with their own close support provided by almost 200 USMC VSTOL Harriers. Our amphib ops would include protecting our allies in the IOR like Mauritius,Seychelles, Sri Lnaka and the Maldives should they be threatened by external forces or internal attempts at regime change. One must also remember that it is not just the striking forces that matter in Exped. warfare,but the huge train of logistic supplies,carrying men,material,fuel,etc. Remember the old adage about "an army marching on its stomach".The same applies to any marine force. Therefore,even for IOR Exped ambitions,we must have the requisite auxiliaries to support the fleet and like the RN adopt a policy of "STUFT". "Ships taken up from Trade". This was done during the Falklands War where many merchantmen were press-ganged into wartime duty like the QE-2 as a troop carrier and the ill-fated Ro-Ro vessel,Atlantic Conveyor which was hit by Argie aircraft and sank later while under tow.

India has no global expeditionary warfare role like that of the US. Our ambitions are more modest,Keeping the IOR safe and external forces form interfering in its affairs is our primary concern,which include that of the defence of our island and mainland territories. Secondary is a pro-active posture outside the IOR,blue water ops to challenge and defeat enemy maritime assets at sea or ashore should they threaten our maritime interests,interfere with our merchant shipping,trade,etc.. As pointed out by Singha, just one RN N-sub sent the entire Argie surface fleet scampering home after the Gen.Belrgano was sunk. The Argie U-boats almost won the war when they attempts to sink the RN carriers and actually carried out strikes say some sources.However faulty torpedoes/torpedo settings put paid to their plans. The forward presence of a few IN N-subs also supported by a few conventional AIP subs ,would vastly complicate the plans of the enemy. Similarly would his subs do the same if they gain egress into the IOR,why we need a strong ASW surface ,LRMP and sub-surface capability. Ultra-long endurance UUVs ,which can stay on patrol for over a month would be very useful in sanitizing the chokepoints. So would a large inventory of conventional AIP attack/HUK subs.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 30 Dec 2015 16:24

we first need enough subs to deny the area to any adversary and then spend on LPD which need total protection from sub and air threats to be effective.

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 30 Dec 2015 17:32

Prasad wrote:Andamans to Jakarta is just above 2000 kms. If the chinese decide not to be idiots and avoid the malacca straits and sail around through Timor Sea, what aircraft can handle a 2000km round trip and still be fighting fit? Does the IN doctrine call for fighting without airplanes given that the chinese have started flight operations on the Liaoning and building more carriers, not to mention their furious warship building pace.

Suppose the PLAN does sail around by a circuitous route, and manage to surprise us. By rough estimate this distance looks to be 9,000 to 10,000 Kms - one way to A&N islands. Thats a tall order in itself but for a moment lets assume they make it and even manage to surprise us.

This is the type of situation which suits air power, due to its inherent mobility and speed. A carrier based wing will take time to maneuver into position to address this threat, while P-8Is based in Campbell Bay or even Chennai can attack this formation immediately.

P-8I, IL-38SD, Tu-142 are all existing aircraft in our inventory for this situation. Even if we have a fleet of 3 CVNs, you still need them to ferret out and attack sub surface threats.

A-50EI, IL-78MKI, Su-30MKI, Jaguar-IM are air force assets which are also suitable to attack anything that floats in the bay of bengal and arabian sea. This is already a formidable threat, which will be enhanced with A-330 based refuelers and AWACS.

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 30 Dec 2015 17:52

IN rightly wants to build up a range and variety of capabilities. These capabilities give commanders options when the balloon goes up.

Even the present IN fleet has an all round capability set with fairly modern platforms and weapons, backed up by superb human resource. As such, the only capability gap today is SSBNs.

However, there is a severe capacity gap in some areas, particularly in under water warfare domain comprised of Submarines, ASW and Mine Countermeasures. These are being addressed, but slowly.

Viz-a-viz China, what out of area capability do we expect from Navy? I think if we can maintain a persistent patrol by warships, protecting oil installations, and monitoring PLAN movements and blocking them if necessary will be a great achievement. Lets not dream about landing troops on Chinese soil! We may perhaps need to attack the small artificial islands - hopefully a a couple of dozen 127 mm rounds coupled with brahmos/klub rounds will be good.

hnair · Post by **hnair** » 30 Dec 2015 18:29

wait, is there an aft VLS for Kolkota class? Where did that Barak8 popup from?

member_28526 · Post by **member_28526** » 30 Dec 2015 18:54

Yes. Definitely looks like a launch from the rear. Looking forward to the official navy press release.

tushar_m · Post by **tushar_m** » 30 Dec 2015 20:17

Nick_S wrote:

Actually there are two VLS units in the back as seen in this pic.

Does that mean (8x4)32 in front & (8x2) 16 in the back ????

48 does sound cool

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 30 Dec 2015 20:21

hnair wrote:

wait, is there an aft VLS for Kolkota class? Where did that Barak8 popup from?

Ha Ha and you BRF experts thought you knew everything

srin · Post by **srin** » 30 Dec 2015 20:36

There always was: two 8-cell VLS in front and two 8-cell VLS in back.

See http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/thu ... arship.jpg

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 30 Dec 2015 20:41

so it looks like 16 brahmos occupies the big block in front...the space usually kept for SAMs with the barak8 behind that. i would have much preferred the reverse with 8 brahmos and some 32 barak8 in that vacated space.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 30 Dec 2015 21:23

Hnair sahab, you have been caught napping. The arrangement is pretty straight forward.

In the front:
2 X 8 VL SAM (Barak 8 )
2 X 8 UVLM (Brahmos missile)

At the back
2 X 8 VL SAM (Barak 8 )