INS Vikrant: News and Discussion

[Cybaru]

I think you responded as I was editing my post.

[brar_w]

It has 7-8 hour loiter time and same or similar payload capacity for sensors and higher ceiling. So that's where the organic AEW is headed

There is absolutely ZERO indication that it is where organic AEW is headed. Again, let someone come up with a UAV, that carries the E-2D's sensor, has the CBARS range, radius and then we'll realize that the damn thing won't take off without a CAT anyways. Thats the entire reason to UP the launch weights. As the carriers stand off in high threat environments, they need long range AEW, long range Strike, and Long range refueling. All that adds design weight on to airframes that do these missions hence the requirements had shifted to launching larger, more heavier aircraft even back in the 80's and 90's when an advanced carrier was being contemplated to replace the NIMITZ.

same or similar payload capacity for sensors

Perhaps in some futuristic sci-fi scenario. No one is at the moment contemplating putting something even remotely (as in a fraction) as capable as the AN/APY-9 on the CBARS or any of its derivatives.

The current CBARS design would be heavily (to entirely) dictated by its need to offload fuel at range. ISR is a bonus, and strike is an afterthought. No one is going to put a extremely long range ESA or AESA on top of it and ask it to provide AEW..Heck you don't have the bandwidth to pipe that much information continuously and will end up breaking the nodes. Even manned AEW assets have bandwidth constraints, and they are flown by pilots. Perhaps Northrop Grumman near-perfect execution on the X-47 program has made Unmanned on a carrier look easy but integrating unmanned on a carrier is going to take a long time, more still when you start to offload more and more complex, and critical missions. It is one thing to ask a UCLASS to do a defensive orbit over an AOI for 12 hours at a time. Its an entirely another for it to go out along with a pair of F-35's, F-18E/F's and provide penetrating strike, or long range AEW tasks in support of the CAW. That is decades out..

Meanwhile, the Hawkeye is going to reign supreme at its task till the the entire 2020's, 2030's and perhaps even beyond. The current upgrade path for the Delta ends in 2028. Give two years of customary delay in fielding the last upgrade and you are looking at a major sensor-replacement cycle in the early 2030's. Meanwhile, on land, where replacing AEW with unmanned would for very obvious reasons is much simpler (but still extremely hard) than on a carrier, the future is still manned, still large, and still based on existing commercial aircraft - Both for the JSTARS, and the E-3's. Same is true for the IAF, European air-forces, Israeil, and even China. No one is putting ginormous AEW sensors on unmanned aircraft and piping data for analysis. Autonomy is barely there to support strike..let alone battle-manage a complex large force deployment.

And here E2D does ISR, AEW, AsuW and more in that limited three man crew tub?? How good can all of it be?

E-2D's ISR mission is secondary, and the anti-surface role is in support of some very specific missions for the air-wing. Its primary design goal, and requirement is heavily focused towards AEW. That it can do anti-surface is a result of the advances made in processing at the sensor level. The crews don't have a problem doing any of this since the secondary missions are not routine and also not exclusive to it. Also, one E-2D doesn't have to do all these missions. They can always increase the number of E-2D's on deployments since the carriers aren't packed these days. With the departure of the S-3 and till the arrival of the CBARS, this seems like a fairly reasonable trade-off.

limited three man crew tub?? How good can all of it be?

Technology, processing, fusion and integration. Same reason why they can shrink the JSTARS down to the G550 without loosing the capability or running into workload issues with reduced manning.



Also, fighter jets do much more grueling 10+ hour missions. Many Many such missions have been performed by the USAF and USN. Bomber pilots do very long missions routinely..8-10 hour missions with refueling won't really be a deal breaker for the E-2D. The Ford will carry 5-6 of these per deployments (5, aiming for 6) + more if required.

[Cybaru]

So you are saying that in case of US naval war with China, USN will send whatever number of carriers to the pacific region and the E2D AEW/AsuW/ISR platform on the ship will be enough to help it win a war against all the J10/11/12 and Y7/8/9/10/yada-yada types? And this would allow the USN to hold its own?

[brar_w]

So you are saying that in case of US naval war with China, USN will send whatever number of carriers to the pacific region and the E2D AEW/AsuW/ISR super hero platform on the ship will be enough to help it win a war against all the J10/11/12 and Y7/8/9/10/yada-yada types? And this would allow the USN to hold its own?

Thats getting into tactics and CONOPS and scenarios. The US will naturally fight an integrated battle just like everyone else however, for the carrier, and its defensive and offensive capability the E-2D is irreplaceable. The more the carrier has to stand off, because of China's offensive capability, the more valuable the E-2D's long range sensors, reach (compared to fighters) and ability to link up all the NAVY's assets comes into play. This extends to AEGIS ships which will be there conducting missions and that have EOR interceptors that can't do what they do (the reason for their higher capability) without something like the E-2D. It significantly enhances the offensive, and defensive capability of the carrier, and in fleet protection mode, it significantly enhances those assets survivability as well. There isn't even a SINGLE USAF assets that can extend the AEGIS reach to beyond Horizon...If it comes down to a naval scenario where there is a requirement for constant AEW orbits every time you put up a strike fighter, or need to support AEGIS ships in their missions than yes- The USN will heavily rely on the E-2D - HENCE their significant investment in developing it and buying a high number. There is no guarantee that the USAF could provide assistance given the density a carrier air-wing would require when performing its own ops and supporting the AEGIS ships.

Lets not shift the goal posts now since now you are getting into tactics. It has gone from Why EMALS and question x, y and z, to Triton replaces E-2D and is better because it stays up longer and flies higher..to CBARS being the future of carrier borne organic AEW. If you want to extend the integrated battle scenario, then why carry fighters at all since against china the USN won't fight without the USAF, so let the Carriers carry simply missiles and unmanned ISR assets and let the USAF provide land based fighters. Then why not land based ISR as well, since they can be larger, not constrained by carrier ops. So out go the carriers. We don't need ships since long range anti ship missiles can be put on lands, and we don't need ship based AEGIS when AEGIS ashore is ready. The Marines with their LHD's can go as well, since the fighters can operate from land and we can air drop troops if need be. The entire mission of the USN and USMC can be done away with and relegated to land based assets/capability

[Cybaru]

Well, I am not suggesting that a CBG be without AEW. Just that E2 based AEW may not be the answer for us. We need to look at what tactical use cases we have and figure out if we really need to make 100K boats just so that we can launch E2-Ds as that capability in a better form might be available from a land based asset. I don't think ka-31 is optimal either, but for gaining an extra 100/150 km reach, we give up a lot. We are now beholden to another country for many things from freedom to operate, strategy, spares, politics and lose the real ability to fight our own battles for our needs.

Can that extra 100-150 kms be made up with a land based asset or some other method? Is this the only organic way to solve that problem?

[brar_w]

Just that E2 based AEW may not be the answer for us. We need to look at what tactical use cases we have and figure out if we really need to make 100K boats just so that we can launch E2-Ds as that capability in a better form might be available from a land based asset.

You don't need a 100K carrier to launch E-2's. The french do so from a 42K carrier, and the brits could have done so on the QE's had they gone in for Steam CAT's, or EMALS which the US DOD study deemed as doable even without the nuclear option (although with very tight margins).

The problem with Helo based AEW isn't ONLY the lack of sensor capability, but also the lack of reach and the ability to pivot along with the carrier air-wing as they switch from defensive to offensive.

Can that extra 100-150 kms be made up with a land based asset or some other method? Is this the only organic way to solve that problem?

If 100 km - 150km is the number to beat...than you can maybe try out some other approaches to get significantly better performance. The V-22 is a great platform to try something like that out since it has the payload capacity, higher ceiling, SwAP surplus, speed and range. But even it, will be grossly inferior to the E-2D.

http://s98.photobucket.com/user/SpazSin ... 2.gif.html

Relying on constant orbits, from land just puts a bigger target on those bases that these things operate from, and severely constraints the flexibility, and deployability of the carrier - things you buy the carrier for in the first place. If the threat was less severe you can get away but the current threat has long range bombers, long range cruise missiles, stealth fighters in development, AEGIS like ships, and will have a fleet of carriers of its own.

[Cybaru]

Nrao,

Everything is IN related. The discussion went to USN just because of E2 was a solution to a particular problem USN had solved and invested in. We looked at how USN might solve this problem moving forward and what were the options they have looked at for now. We didn't touch UK that has lockheed trying to put a new radar on merlin heli based platform. That is similar to what we have with KA-31s.

Since IN is starting from scratch in this field, how can we solve the problem and what are the possible solutions and what will the cost to implement. What advantages do we have? and what novel ideas can we initiate to solve our problems. Where will we fight wars? How will we support our CBGs when they go to war?

On your other points about carrier lasting several iterations: Agreed.

Whether China has cats or emals is immaterial in some sense or many senses. What matters is how will we deal with an opponent in the air that is headed towards either land based target or a CBG.

[Cybaru]

If 100 km - 150km is the number to beat...than you can maybe try out some other approaches to get significantly better performance. The V-22 is a great platform to try something like that out since it has the payload capacity, higher ceiling, SwAP surplus, speed and range. But even it, will be grossly inferior to the E-2D.

why is that? if it has higher ceiling and payload, why is it inferior to the E-2?

Would the same package that would come in E-2I(ndia) if fitted on that, how would it be inferior? It would be as inferior as it would would be on the E-2 no?

Relying on constant orbits, from land just puts a bigger target on those bases that these things operate from, and severely constraints the flexibility, and deployability of the carrier - things you buy the carrier for in the first place. If the threat was less severe you can get away but the current threat has long range bombers, long range cruise missiles, stealth fighters in development, AEGIS like ships, and will have a fleet of carriers of its own.

Maybe it's just me and my limited thinking, but I feel that as of today, IN isn't ready to head into YellowSea and hang around there trying to bully china with a carrier or two. Its primary operating region will be IOR to provide first reaction to a crisis as rest of ground assets get ready to deploy. I really doubt that adding E2 instead of Ka-31/crowsnest to any indian carrier will allow it to do so.

[brar_w]

why is that? if it has higher ceiling and payload, why is it inferior to the E-2?

Because an AEW version does not exist, it would still need a long runway to take off with a very limit of its payload, and there are SwAP considerations that have never been studied and the fact that the current AEW solutions for it are significantly inferior and somewhere between a HELO and an E-2D. The E-2 also has a higher ceiling.

Would the same package that would come in E-2I(ndia) if fitted on that, how would it be inferior? It would be as inferior as it would would be on the E-2 no?

The C2 version of the V-22 is a USMC dream and all it would have is a HELO like AEW sensor mounted. Something like a slightly larger crows net or AN/APG-81 dual antenna setup Northrop had proposed for the UK. Nothing even remotely comparable to the E-2D but given the LHD constraints, a better solution to helos.

[brar_w]

Maybe it's just me and my limited thinking, but I feel that as of today, IN isn't ready to head into YellowSea

Good then that these carriers aren't required NOW or there would have been a major capability deficit. A carrier that gets delivered 10-15 years from now, would naturally come with requirements that are heavily focused on the decades its supposed to be in service, rather than a few decades immediately preceding its deployment.

really doubt that adding E2 instead of Ka-31/crowsnest to any indian carrier will allow it to do so.

Just the E-2..probably won't be sufficient..What a CAT kitted carrier permits you is greater offensive and defensive capability from your fighters which is aided by the E-2D. That means Rafale, PAKFA, AMCA, or F-35 that can take off near their MTOW, with fuel tanks et al. E-2D's would obviously allow them to make full use of their capability by providing an available, long range AEW that can keep up with these fighters when it comes to range (as opposed to a HELO).

[JTull]

I just don't see E2 or other manned AEW platforms being relevant 15 years now. So these IN plans could become obsolete before IAC2 comes online.

[brar_w]

if it has higher ceiling and payload

Here's the E-2D Spec Sheet screen-grab from Jane's Navy International. It should be flying pretty much at the same altitude as other AEW.



Payload really doesn't matter since you aren't transporting troops or cargo since the E-2D can take off with its max possible fuel from the Nimitz. The E-2D's performance specification includes the penalty for that big radar on top. The V-22's spec sheet does not include a penalty for a radar down below.

For the Range bit (E-2 is ahead as well) the E-2 will get IFR very soon.

I just don't see E2 or other manned AEW platforms being relevant 15 years now. So these IN plans could become obsolete before IAC2 comes online.

What is going to make them irrelevant? Why is the entire world now replacing their AEW aircraft with manned AEW's (Including the USAF, USN, IAF, IDF, RAAF, NATO/RAF, etc etc)? Offensive frontline battle management using an AWACS will go away from the high end battlefield (or be relegated to more stand-off distances dictating sensor demand and choices) but what the E-2 does is a lot different from that, and covers mission sets that aren't going away anytime soon. In fact, the more the threat advances (stealthier cruise missiles, stealthier fighters, faster and more lethal anti ship weapons, hypersonics, and ballistic missiles) the more the E-2D becomes relevant given its capabilities in support of the defense of the carrier and the fleet it supports. If for some reason the Carrier borne AEW becomes irrelevant, so does the carrier..Its a big part of what allows it (along with the other ships it supports) to be survivable.

In an event these threats keep on proliferating at the level they are now, and China stays on the trajectory, this capability will be totally irreparable and things like " SM6 is my wingman" would become the - cost of doing business - as opposed to a luxury.

[NRao]

Maybe it's just me and my limited thinking, but I feel that as of today, IN isn't ready to head into YellowSea and hang around there trying to bully china with a carrier or two.

CY,

A number of items, but will post just two:

1) No one has answered why the IN wants to increase the number of ships to 200. If the idea is to putter around the IOR, India has no need for that many naval ships for the IOR

2) What are your thoughts on Chinese troops already in PoK? And, what about TWO complete naval bases along India's western coast? And a dedicated Fleet for the IOR? Do you not see any of them as threats?

As an extension, why even raise a strike corp along the Chinese border? I do not see India entering China.

Too shortsightedness.

[NRao]

I don't think ka-31 is optimal either, but for gaining an extra 100/150 km reach, we give up a lot. We are now beholden to another country for many things from freedom to operate, strategy, spares, politics and lose the real ability to fight our own battles for our needs.

The choice is between conceding to China or taking help from the US.

I do not know why there is still so much concern about the US. As far as the IOR/CSC is concerned, the US needs India more than India needs the US. And, going forward that tilt will only go further in India's favor.

BTW, "IOR"? The Prez of Maldives visited India and India could not even read his rights. SL is creating some zone and has invited Indian businesses to flood the "zone". When China converts that "zone" to a military one, guess who is going to prevent India from asking SL to close the place. Pakis will be armed to their teeth. BD too will slide out of Indian sphere of influence - not that there is much there. Nepal, Myanmar.

China has stepped into A'sthan too. And has replaced Russia in CAR.

It is estimated that India will import $250 Billion worth of weapons/systems in the next 10 years. In Kargil Israel sold stuff at inflated prices, but because they sold under those dire circumstances they were called " friends". I am betting that under the circumstances that bill will be around $1 Trillion. Threat levels can only get worse.

Up to India. Let China be the king and obey them or buck up and get help from nations that are willing to provide that assistance.

Time to analyze is over. Time to make decisions - whichever way - and act.

Building a robust MIC needs to be the parallel goal.

[Cybaru]

I don't think ka-31 is optimal either, but for gaining an extra 100/150 km reach, we give up a lot. We are now beholden to another country for many things from freedom to operate, strategy, spares, politics and lose the real ability to fight our own battles for our needs.

The choice is between conceding to China or taking help from the US.

I do not know why there is still so much concern about the US. As far as the IOR/CSC is concerned, the US needs India more than India needs the US. And, going forward that tilt will only go further in India's favor.

BTW, "IOR"? The Prez of Maldives visited India and India could not even read his rights. SL is creating some zone and has invited Indian businesses to flood the "zone". When China converts that "zone" to a military one, guess who is going to prevent India from asking SL to close the place. Pakis will be armed to their teeth. BD too will slide out of Indian sphere of influence - not that there is much there. Nepal, Myanmar.

China has stepped into A'sthan too. And has replaced Russia in CAR.

It is estimated that India will import $250 Billion worth of weapons/systems in the next 10 years. In Kargil Israel sold stuff at inflated prices, but because they sold under those dire circumstances they were called " friends". I am betting that under the circumstances that bill will be around $1 Trillion. Threat levels can only get worse.

Up to India. Let China be the king and obey them or buck up and get help from nations that are willing to provide that assistance.

Time to analyze is over. Time to make decisions - whichever way - and act.

Building a robust MIC needs to be the parallel goal.

And by adding E2D to the carrier will it solve all the above problems?

[NRao]

Here you go, a very timely article. And from THE source. Talk of soft power.

India’s focus should be peace with China, not US military ties linked to sea row

Like I said, up to India. Join the Chinese or join others in that same region. The others in that region are expecting India to lead, just the way China is leading in the IOR.

But India is falling into the Chinese drama. The US pivot was much after Indian Look East policy.

The military partnership that India has embarked upon with the US has special focus on South China Sea. Their ‘dangerous handshake’ has sent a powerful message to China with which India has a long-standing border dispute. The move not only violates India’s non-aligned policy but also may face stiff resistance from parties. Since coming to power in May 2014, Prime Minister Narendra Modi has made many foreign policy blunders. As the leading South Asian nation, India has the responsibility to provide leadership to its immediate neighbors by settling the border dispute quickly and building peace and friendship with China.

"Non-aligned"? Lol.

It is called "National Interest". India can remain non-aligned, but insist others align with her. How is that for an idea?

Authored by a Kadayam Subramanian, in aTimes!!!!

[NRao]

The choice is between conceding to China or taking help from the US.

I do not know why there is still so much concern about the US. As far as the IOR/CSC is concerned, the US needs India more than India needs the US. And, going forward that tilt will only go further in India's favor.

BTW, "IOR"? The Prez of Maldives visited India and India could not even read his rights. SL is creating some zone and has invited Indian businesses to flood the "zone". When China converts that "zone" to a military one, guess who is going to prevent India from asking SL to close the place. Pakis will be armed to their teeth. BD too will slide out of Indian sphere of influence - not that there is much there. Nepal, Myanmar.

China has stepped into A'sthan too. And has replaced Russia in CAR.

It is estimated that India will import $250 Billion worth of weapons/systems in the next 10 years. In Kargil Israel sold stuff at inflated prices, but because they sold under those dire circumstances they were called " friends". I am betting that under the circumstances that bill will be around $1 Trillion. Threat levels can only get worse.

Up to India. Let China be the king and obey them or buck up and get help from nations that are willing to provide that assistance.

Time to analyze is over. Time to make decisions - whichever way - and act.

Building a robust MIC needs to be the parallel goal.

And by adding E2D to the carrier will it solve all the above problems?

AND leading the nations that have conflicts with China, YES. Obviously it involves a LOT more than a E-2D, but that is a diff matter.

Nothing different than what China is doing in the IOR.

By NOT doing it, India will dig a much bigger hole for herself. Subservient to China for decades to come. Nations around India are already treating India like crap.

Do NOT ever think "peace" with China means that India will have a standing in the IOR. Forget it. India will be driven into the ground and become a consumer of Chinese products. Instead of spending billions in the West India will send her billions (if she reaches there) to China.

[NRao]

Seriously.

China is not too far from posting Chinese in the very areas where Pakis placed her people in Kargil.

That day WILL come.

Does anyone doubt that (outside chest beaters).







IF India keeps harping upon her "non-aligned" crap. It is so easy to pigeon hole India - anything India says or does, all China has to say is "you are aligned" and India has to now back track. Just as that author above is saying.

As I have said too much paralytic, ancient analysis, which introduces fear because Indians are so concerned about an (non-aligned) image.

It does not exist folks. An economic power has to align. It is only with alignment you make progress. You want to sustain this growth rate - align. India cannot do this alone - not even possible. 18 million join the work force every year. India needs markets.

[uddu]

In a sense, we are aligned with all the countries in the world. Where there is oppurtunity and areas where one can cooperate surely we are aligned. Even in some areas we are aligned with the Chinese.

[Cain Marko]

This entire idea that without cats, adequate aew cannot be done needs to be rethought imho esp. In light of present and future unmanned platforms with high bandwidth data links and aesa powered 360 deg radar coverage.

Can't see why the Hawkeye is being considered as the only option going forward.

I guess a list of alternatives is a good starting point? Lets eliminate those types that are similar to the E-2, and go straight to unmanned platforms. Lets list those in the pipeline or currently existing that can sub for the E-2 with its 350 mile surveillance sensor, Space for a ton of waveforms and enough data to pipe-out that requires not 1 but 2 dedicated SATCOM antennas (with a crew no less).

Well, I'd first start by questioning the idea of a super carrier. Second, why not stick to stobar? If we want to do massive a2g missions, invest in a fleet of bombers with the cbg tasked mainly for air defence and escort with secondary ground attack missions.

Keeping this in mind, we can look at suitable aew platforms...The osprey is one option, increasing the endurance of the kamov might be another. Sdb was working on an aew type uav as well...zond I think. How about outfitting the flanker with a better rear facing radar. Two one meter aesa antennae back and front. None of these might be perfect, but might get the job done for getting better SA.

Point is...just because it works for the US, doesn't mean it is the best solution for india as well.

[Vivek K]

Rao sahib, agree with your view. You are correct. There will come a day when Pakistan will be a complete Chinese puppet and China will be at India's border in Nepal, Bhutan, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Sri Lanka.

And what are we doing in return - weakening the MIC in favor of continued dependence be it in aircraft (Rafale over LCA, Pilatus over HTT-40) tanks (T-90 dabba over Arjun Mk1 and 2), and so on. In addition, the setup remains viciously anti manufacturing with Industries struggling or shutting down. Criminals run taxation and other offices killing innovation, financial institutions have no idea how to work with industry. Compare that with the Chinese who have re-capitalized banks but not disturbed their industry.

India is at the cross-roads. Instead of showing a focused determination to become an "actual" power, Indians remain wedded to their corrupt ways and the nation remains a "virtual" power! Though India has sent missions to the Moon and Mars, Indians still consider themselves as being inferior to the West and Russia as exemplified by Russian and Western doormats on BRF.

India's future remains bleak!

[brar_w]

If we want to do massive a2g missions, invest in a fleet of bombers with the cbg tasked mainly for air defence and escort with secondary ground attack missions.

Sea control, anti-surface warfare, and long range air-air can be all legitimate mission sets aside from long range strike, where a carrier provides flexibility and survivability when your land forces come under attack (not to mention that the IAF does not have bombers atm and they are unlikely to magically appear in the medium term). Can a naval flanker launch off of the IAC-1 with a centerline Brahmos, a few air-air missiles and enough fuel to do a long range sortie?

Well, I'd first start by questioning the idea of a super carrier. Second, why not stick to stobar? If we want to do massive a2g missions, invest in a fleet of bombers with the cbg tasked mainly for air defence and escort with secondary ground attack missions.

That you need a super 100k carrier to operate the E-2D or to fully utilize your fighter jet inventory is a fairly persistent myth. I am afraid that none of the solutions you have highlighted would yield in a significantly better AEW capacity. The V-22 solution will be slightly better than crowsnet because the platform goes higher and is faster, with more persistence but still significantly inferior to the E-2. The E-2 has longer reach, more persistence, a many times larger sensor, and is fully netted for the AEW mission. Even the most upscale V-22 solution won't be able to match that since the USN has created a dedicated cutting edge AEW for the 2030's in the E-2D (and the incremental improvement plan) and neither the USMC nor the RN would be able to match that (or even come close, honestly) leveraging the V-22 platform.

At best you'll see one of the Crowsnet like solutions mounted on the undercarriage. A 360 surveilance radar on a fighter, now that is stretching a bit I guess given that the E-2D's sensor performance, the band, and particularly the design emphasis on low level, hard to detect threats but I guess one can fit anything in if one is hell bound to make an argument. Can the flanker take off with a full fuel load and a modest weapons load from the current IN carriers? Try to find that out. In the AEW role the E-2D's set up an orbit and surveil 350 miles of airspace in the 360 degrees up to 6 hours or so at a time (more with IFR that will be active very very soon)...In the defensive role they have SM6's as their wingmen and guide it under the Naval Integrated Fire Control–Counter Air doctrine and capability...

Their surveillance task extends much beyond the AN/APY-9 (with its LO to VLO detection characteristics given its the only airborne UHF Air-Air and Air-Surface ESA radar in the world) and into EW domain with the passive apertures built into the aircraft (and processing techniques that the Growler is borrowing). You won't be able to, and cant do even a fraction of that using a fighter unfortunately.


What the CAT's allow is to have an extremely capable air-wing and to fully utilize the assets you have given range/payload scenarios that significantly enhances both offensive and defensive operations. If you don't want that then that is fine, but to twist as if someone is suggesting a Nimitz or a larger super carrier is really a poor argument (because thats not true). France operates CAT's, and fully utilizes the rafale, while at the same time operating the E-2. They don't operate a 100K carrier. They have optimized their carrier wing to their likely capacity and tempo demands.

There is no reason why you can't develop a highly capable carrier between 45,000 and 60,000 tonnes utilizing CAT's (Steam or EMALS) that fully utilizes the full complement of air wing - Rafale, Flanker, PAKFA, AMCA, LCA or F-35, opens up room for the E-2D or something similar (because we all know the E-2D that IOC'd last year is going to be obsolete in 10 years and there are tons of better solutions available ) while at the same time providing the 'GROWTH' to add things like unmanned, more larger fighters during higher intensity operations and other yet to be designed assets over the multi-decade life of the carrier. This is a carrier that goes into service 10-15 years from now, and lasts at least 4 decades after that so you are looking at carrier ops well into the 2060's - thats an awfully long time to be hamstrung on your naval strike fighters and not having any significant organic AEW capability and having to strap on a rear-facing radar on your fighter just to call it AEW (not sure if you can still call it that but I'll play along).

Another myth that has come up in the past, and may come up here shortly is that on cost. The video posted earlier deals with that but let me just add that even a large carrier need not cost that of the first Ford. The First FORD carries with it a ton of development funds, de-risking, designing, and putting new stuff on a carrier. Its a technology demonstrator, prototype, operational carrier, etc all rolled into one. The US built their last Nimitz ( CVN -77, launched 2006 ) for around $6 Billion with the US ship building costs.

So adding capability to fully utilize the air-wing, putting conventionally STEAM cat's won't automatically cost as much as the FORD which is expensive for the reasons mentioned earlier. India won't have to spend $6 billion to build a more capable IAC-2 if it goes the route of 45-60K tonnes capacity, conventional power with conventional CAT's. The cost of the air-wing would be higher but air-wings last for decades so you build u capability over time. Such a ship would allow you to do that and practically opens up all the strike fighters int he world that have a naval variant (or can build one).

Sdb was working on an aew type uav as well...zond I think.

Ah..Yes the ZOND, a HALE UAV that comes in the Jpg variety. Guess what the Russian Navy plans for its 100K carrier, future AEW requirements (Hint: The Navy isn't going to ask the RuAF to unleash the ZOND)? The E-2C to E-2D transition took about well above a decade with first flight to IOC alone taking 8 years, not to mention that it would be about the middle of the next decade when the USN gets all the capabilities it has planned for the E-2D. It takes time to develop something that is a radical incremental improvement (the radar has leapfrogged a generation on the D) on an existing system..It would take even longer for something that started from scratch.


On a lighter note, could we consider this? Getting it may be a bit hard, also the capability would be mostly ISR (but he some here were suggesting the Triton replaces the E-2) but hey it'll get from a land base to right above the carrier by the time the ship captain finishes his coffee. I guess its a legitimate project to invest in if we are trying to embark on a multi-billion dollar development project to develop something that no one else uses in order to save a few hundred million on putting CAT's on a carrier and fully leveraging the air component of the ship.

And by adding E2D to the carrier will it solve all the above problems?

And thats the problem with the discussion right there. Because someone suggests that the E-2 offers a set of capabilities that significantly enhances carrier based offensive and defensive ops, you automatically assume that he is suggesting that the E-2 will solve all of the IN's problems when the argument all along as been in support of CAT's which are essential enablers of all round better capability be it in terms of the quality, capacity, and lethality of your fighters, or how you fight the offensive or defensive battle utilizing your carrier through dedicated AEW such as the E-2D.

For the sake of the argument, and to avoid repeating the same things over and over again, lets dispel the following myths :

- None (that I am aware of) are suggesting that the E-2 alone will destroy the Chinese threat
- None (that I am aware of) are claiming that the IN should invest in a 100K carrier
- The V-22 does not fly higher than the E-2
- The BAMS UAV does not compete with the E-2D's main mission set
- The CBARS UAV does not compete with the E-2D's main mission set
- You do not need nuclear power to use steam CAT's
- You may not even need Nuclear power to use EMALS
- The CAT or NO CAT decision does not really add major capacity changes to the carrier as France operates a 42K tonne nuclear powered Steam CAT equipped carrier. The Vishal will probably be larger than the CdG so the design need not necessarily grow to accommodate CAT's.

[Karan M]

E-2 has a UHF radar. Its critical vs LO/VLO threats.

[brar_w]

^ Exactly, and to think that a flanker forward radar mounted on the back will get you the same surveillance features. The amount of headaches, challenges and complexity related to the AN/APY-9 and getting the Space time adaptive processing (STAP) just right so that it could accomplish the low-altitude , low RCS targets, and also transition to the littorals was extremely cumbersome and really consumed the best collective resources of lockheed martin and northrop grumman. No one will ever invest that sort of money, time or resources on putting something even remotely as capable on a V-22 which will in the best case scenario get a roll on roll off, Helo like solution (if anything at all). The marines are always cash strapped and don't ever embark on such system builds..so it aint gonna happen with the V-22.

The E-2D (counter to what has been wrongly claimed by some here) is the primary force multiplier for the largest carrier operating Navy and is critical to the way it plans on defending its ships in the future. Below is its developmental path and investments are currently planned all the way till the highest Delta capability is fielded around 2028 after which they'll most likely look at an E-2E or a new platform that is more capable (with EMALS they can probably look for a heavier if not a slight larger platform). Lastly, contrary to obsolescence claims for manned carrier borne AEW, the USN with the introduction of the E-2D last year, is upping the number of hawkeyes deployed on a carrier from 4 to 5 with current studies ongoing that look into upping this number to 6. It simply is an even more critical element in carrier ops than the E-2C given how significantly more powerful the threat is (cruise missiles, high speed supersonic to hypersonic missiles, long range strike fighters, VLO targets etc etc).

[NRao]

Very heartening to see some movement in the right direction. Away from analysis paralysis.

Two observations:
1) use of "blueing" and
2) the use of "national interest" (in place of the archaic "non-aligned").

India as a Net Security-Provider in the Indian Ocean and Beyond

Exerpt:

With the Indian economy continuing to register arguably the highest rate of growth amongst the major economies of the world and the rise of India as a major reckonable power in her own right, come commensurate levels of international responsibility. As the country’s erstwhile National Security Adviser and ex-Foreign Secretary, Mr. Shiv Shankar Menon, had put it, “sooner rather than later India will have to make real political and military contributions to stability and security in this region that is so critical to our economy and security. What has inhibited us since the Seventies have been limited capabilities and the fact that other States were providers of security in the area. Now that both those limiting factors are changing, our approach and behaviour should change in defence of our interests.”[1]

India is actively pursuing and promoting the ‘blueing’ of her burgeoning ocean economy, with her trade to GDP Ratio (Openness Index) recording a decadal average of 40%. The Prime Minister’s firm declaration of national intent for India to be a net security-provider in the Indian Ocean and beyond, means the various connotations of maritime security (defined as freedom from threats emanating ‘in’, ‘from’, or ‘through’ the medium of the sea[2]) can no longer be denied centrality in any serious consideration of India’s national security.

Bhai Log, you just *cannot* have the third largest economy in the world and putter around IOR. Just not possible. The entire world is your playground for your economy. And, where your economy goes, so does you security apparatus for it. Just the way it is.

We will not meddle unless meddled upon.

[TSJones]

a US a/c group cannot run silent and still maintain an active defense w/o the E-2......... period......... end of story.

[brar_w]

Just to add to a bit of the information on the AN/APY-9 from Stephen Mraz who is probably the best open source (former E-2C guy) on the matter outside of the PEO, OEM and the USN

The E-2Ds will be equipped with Lockheed Martin's new AN/APY-9 radar. It should let crews detect targets out to about 350 miles and more than double the search volume of the E2-C. The new UHF radar features a solid-state trnsmitter, digital receivers, and upgraded algorithms for detection and tracking. These will let the radar track smaller objects than the one it replaces, according to Northrop Grumman.

The new radar should also pick out targets along shorelines and over land where it can be difficult for radar to distinguish legitimate targets amid radar returns bouncing off the ground, the moving sea, and especially waves hitting the shore. This fits in well with the Navy's emphasis on littoral or near-land warfare, a switch from the blue-water operations common during the Cold War.

The plane will also get a new multichannel ESA (electronically scanned array) antenna for its rotodome, the saucer mounted above the fuselage and the Hawkeye's most identifiable feature. The rotodome and antenna will spin at 4, 5, or 6 rpm. The new antenna can also be electronically steered while the dome and antenna are stationary to scan a particular area of interest. There's also a hybrid mode in which the antenna is electronically steered while it is spinning. This increases system flexibility, according to Northrop Grumman.

The antenna is actually 18 individual antenna elements, each with its own receiver. This lets the radar system use space-time adaptive processing. This technique takes signals from all the antennas to calculate and use a pattern of antenna elements that minimize ground returns and interference. And all of this is done on a pulse-by-pulse basis. In other words, every time the radar transmits a pulse, the system reconfigures which antenna elements to use so that it pick up returns but eliminates as much clutter and interference as possible.

The IFF system (identification friend or foe), or secondary radar, will be upgraded so that its range still matches the radar.

Radio, like radar, is often limited to line-of-sight transmission. And just as the E2-D's altitude gives it great radar coverage, it also puts the plane in radio contact with practically the entire surface fleet and its aircraft. So the plane often relays communications, issues instruction, and maintains data links. Engineers, therefore, improved the plane's communication suite to take advantage of that. It now consists of six ARC 210 radios that transmit voice or data, in the clear or encrypted, at 30 to 400 MHz. These six radios also handle Link 11 and 16, two radio-based networks that exchange data on radar and IFF tracks. The E-2D will also carry at least two satellite communication radios and a secure HF radio.

Much of this is in preparation to use the Hawkeye in a pivotal role in net-centric warfare, a tactic that emphasizes situational awareness and maximum data sharing. And data can be target info, photos, video, voice messages, anything that gives the task force a military edge. The new Hawkeye is also slated to work more closely with the Navy's missile/sensor-defense network rather than control fighter aircraft to defend the carrier and task force.

Inside, the three flight officers in the back will get 21-in. full-color displays that let them see in excess of 500 ground and air tracks. They will also talk to each other over a digital, fiber-LAN intercom. To spread the workload, the cockpit will be equipped with three 17-in. displays that can show a variety of flight and engine data, including everything the flight officers in the back can see. This will let the copilot, a rarity among carrier-based planes, handle some mission tasks.

http://machinedesign.com/defense/fleets-new-eyes

http://www.northropgrumman.com/Capabili ... ooklet.pdf

Yup, piece of cake. Just strap it on a Triton and let AI manage the battle

[ShauryaT]

3. The $10 billion figure is not correct, the IAC 1 only cost us around $3 billion, given that cost does not scale linearly with displacement, a 60,000 tonne vessel could cost... Your guess is as good as mine, but likely not $10 billion.

The basic Ford class costs about $12-$14 billion without its air assets. The new design in R&D with EMALS cost them $5 Billion. Basic wiki lookup gives you this information. So, I will let you figure out the right answer here for an EMALS equipped, Nuclear propulsion equipped, new design, with American 5G crafts and weapons done for first time with India's level of technology and its costs and risks. I thought, I was being very generous with the $10 billion figure.

Do you want the definitive Indian carrier class (Vikad and even the Vikrant are stop gap, imHo) to be handicapped?

The definitive Indian carrier class? So, what's our plan, how many carriers do we plan to have and operate?

Without an organic AEW, a carrier is simply a defensive platform, an Air Defense Ship.

[/quote]Depends, on where you are, what other assets can be had? What role we seek to play? and against whom? Air Defense is a legitimate role against a superior attacking force. When and if China has more than 5-6 carriers, able to deploy itself in far off oceans and the ability to send, say three carriers on such a deployment to the IOR against India, then we go into an exclusive air defense mode with our carriers. Till then have fun.

Anyways, do not think you are answering my question, which is please do tell me our plans to be in such situations outside the IOR, that needs organic large AEW, ASW and refuelers that serves Indian interests.

We do not plan to be the rent boy of the US to go patrolling in the SCS or join a coalition to fight a war off the libyan coast, are we? Maybe in 50 years, we shall have the ambition to be a security provider to Columbia, maybe?

The IAC's have one primary purpose. To be able to dominate the IOR air space in all circumstances. Rest is all secondary. How much do you want to spend on these secondary causes and Why? More importantly what strategic compromises you want to make to acquire these distant war fighting capabilities today?

I think we have time and space on our side to invest and innovate and provide incremental capabilities to our designs for IAC 2, 3, 4. e.g: I do think, there is a chance to provide nuclear propulsion to the IAC 2, using an uprated design of the Arihant X2 to power a 65,000 ton AC.

Also, never forget who's interests Ashley Tellis is propagating for all his well meaning proposals. I have read the original paper based on which this video interaction is based on. I have met him a few times and interacted many times. For all his well meaning and rational approach, he is at the end of the day representing US interests. Someone who has interests Indian in mind will easily spot this even in the the video, where he deftly skips the questions on propulsion, costs and need. Also, the good admiral is wrong on one thing, where he asked the US to be "altruistic" in their approach ---- NO SUCH THING. If anything even a penny NOT paid for in full, we will pay for in strategic power many times over.

[KrishnaK]

And by adding E2D to the carrier will it solve all the above problems?

It solves one particular problem. It also signals a change of direction. One which acknowledges we're going to have to accept long term help to manage China at various levels. Incidentally India has historically maintained technologically superior forces to China to offset their superior numbers. That balance has been lost. In the air we have some options. At sea there's only the US.

[brar_w]

What the US pays for the FIC of the Ford is quite irrelevant to the IAC-2 design trades and AOA. The Ford class Business case essentially comes from a manpower and LCC reduction over the outgoing Nimitz class and and the incremental cost of obtaining higher capability in many of the ship's supporting systems in the future. For the USN it was an analysis as to how much more manpower would cost over the next many many decades, how much more the Steam CAT's and the arresting gear have to be modified to support growing carrier needs of the future etc etc etc. The Ford will eventually take over the Nimitz that is no longer in production and therefore bet the only AC in the use till the next one is developed - Hence design decisions made then had cost implications that have extremely long term impact.

For the IN, its about the transition and incremental improvement in carrier operations. From Sea Harriers to the Mig-29K, and LCA-N, and to a much larger IAC-2 (planned in the 60K+ ton). If one wants to go beyond the wiki US cost estimates on needs to look at the cost of the last two NIMITZ class 100K ton carriers. It averages to just a bit more than $6 Billion per and that is a good reference point to start. Of course, the US industrial ship building cost is higher, given the manpower cost so you'll have to adjust. A competing design built in India will probably be as much as 20% cheaper . Then you need to factor in that the IN isn't looking for such a large leap in size so a 62-65K ton AC would obviously cost less. That's the trade space the IN has available to it i.e. scale up the IAC-1 or make it an overall improved product with CATOBAR and an improved air-wing. You obviously don't have to rush the air wing and can develop it as the IN acquires more experience with the new carrier, LCA-N, AMCA, even Mig-29K's can use the higher launch weights..and of course it opens up the Rafale-M, Flanker, PAKFA and the F-35 and E-2's. Within the CATOBAR (EMALS and AAG) there are various costs of course that may or may not work for the IN given its manpower, and LCC estimates. That's for the IN to figure out through its AOA. However, to simply take the FIC Ford class cost and use it to deem multiple versions of the IAC-2 CATOBAR as unsustainable isn't very wise as there can be multiple capability paths chosen at various price/cost points.

[Karan M]

Brar, the one thing the US has is whose equivalent is nowhere around is the E-2. It works. We should get it.

[ShauryaT]

If one wants to go beyond the wiki US cost estimates on needs to look at the cost of the last two NIMITZ class 100K ton carriers. It averages to just a bit more than $6 Billion per and that is a good reference point to start. Of course, the US industrial ship building cost is higher, given the manpower cost so you'll have to adjust. A competing design built in India will probably be as much as 20% cheaper . Then you need to factor in that the IN isn't looking for such a large leap in size so a 62-65K ton AC would obviously cost less. That's the trade space the IN has available to it i.e. scale up the IAC-1 or make it an overall improved product with CATOBAR and an improved air-wing.

Somehow this first time nuclear propelled (who's design is unknown), 65K ton carrier (who's design is unknown), EMALS licensed, able to carry all types of new crafts built in India for the first time, will somehow cost less than the 10th repeat built carrier of a US design (when scaled based on tonnage and labor costs)? OK. If you say so. BTW: What is the cost of the EMALS to India, do we know?

[brar_w]

^ That was not what I said. What I said was that the IN AOA would involve multiple capability sets at multiple price points, as opposed to an up or down vote on CATOBAR or not. These include -

- 60K ton AC without CATOBAR
- 60K ton class AC with conventional power, Steam CAT
- 60K ton class AC with conventional power, and EMALS/AAG
- 60K ton class AC with nuclear power, steam CAT
- 60K ton class AC with nuclear power, EMALS/AAG

etc

Similar trades would obviously be looked at on the air-wing side with the exception that air-wings can be tinkered around over the entire life of the design, while radical carrier design changes are expensive and rare (even the last Nimitz class carrier won't ever get EMALS).

No where did I advocate that the 100K ton class, FORD be produced in India and that it would come to be cheaper than what the US paid for FIC. What I did say was that what the US pays for the 100K Nimitz in 2006, and for the 100K Ford in 2014, is and always will be more than what the IN would pay for an indigenously designed 60K ton class AC that utilizes either the Nimitz Steam CAT's, or the Ford's EMALS and AAG. The Ford would probably get into the single digit Billions over the course of its life (CVN-79 shaves 12% from the CVN-78 cost), but that has very little relevance to the Indian Navy's Analysis of Alternatives. For the US the trades were made because they could justify a higher procurement cost and reap financial and capability benefits over the design life (lower manpower, higher capability) - that may or may not hold true with the IN.

An analysis of alternatives and design trade space is standard process used to derive to a particular final design that you eventually build. With the current DTTI led discussion on a possible transfer of equipment and/or technology, the IN will no doubt be armed with the quanity and quality of data to perform an analysis of the various choices available to it . The video below talks about some of these choices made by the USN, the Ford wasn't the highest capability, or highest cost design choice but they chose one that they could afford to replace the Nimitz with.

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

[NRao]

Risks.

Doing something for the first time is a risk.

Not doing it is also a risk.

The ski-jump is a risk too.

To mitigate all these risks, the US has stepped forward and offered to help. IF it is true that France may provide a nuclear propulsion unit, then that risk is reduced too.

[Cybaru]

Would you all still recommend E2-D if IN did not intend them to fly from AirCraft Carrier? Assuming they were land based.

[Karan M]

^^ I most certainly would!

[brar_w]

Would you all still recommend E2-D if IN did not intend them to fly from AirCraft Carrier? Assuming they were land based.

That would depend on what roles the IN wishes to use them for and how the IN wishes to integrate its Naval vessels, Interceptors (Barak--8 and Barak-8ER) with it. Choosing it as a carrier AEW, obviously opens up these things since it performs the entire gamut of missions it is capable off, but from land you run into limitations that may make this particular platform adoption redundant. You would probably need much faster AEW if you wanted to provide continuous wartime orbits over multiple AOI's in support of your naval operations (and need a ton of them, protected since the enemy gets a vote). Much like EMALS, only the IN can answer that question since it has the data (to perform a cost v capability analysis). Again, what the E-2 does, for the carrier, its air-wing, and the ships the air-wing supports, protects and enhances capability of, is so much more when you put it right there with them than if you fly it from 100's of km's. I believe Lockheed at one point offered to put the E-2 sensor on a C-130..I would rather go for that if I had to go for this platform and use it from land. The Japanese are going to use them (E-2D's) from land (for now anyways )

Also note that the Land-Based configuration of the E-2D adds 3,084 kg of fuel, upping the TOS by 1.5 hours.

[NRao]

Land based airborne early warning for planes flying from ships?

Ships will have to remain within range of the AEW.

And venturing into SCS, etc would be forbidden.

BTW, the E-2 was the first asset offered to the IN as a land based asset.

[Cybaru]

Would you all still recommend E2-D if IN did not intend them to fly from AirCraft Carrier? Assuming they were land based.

The Japanese are going to use them (E-2D's) from land (for now anyways )

Japan is a little bit smaller when compared to India and their region of influence has different purposes or had different purpose when they bought these assets. But great point on a larger platform. A C-130 or a bigger platform would make more sense rather than the range constricted E-2.

The offer of E-2D to IN was for land based operations. I think for IN going with a much much larger platform is even more paramount than IAF. I think doing 14-15 hour ops from shore to station and back will be the requirement. Something like a Poseidon or a 767 platform would be ideal for IN. EMB-145 or C295W would be my second choices to keep fleet common between upcoming MPA that IN might order if the C295W ever gets clearance and orders.

I think the radar and subsystems are transferable to other platforms. UHF radar is possible on other platforms too.

[brar_w]

Transferring the sensor and major sub-systems to a new platform (including the C130J) is still going to cost a decent amount and take a decent time since you are essentially looking at a complete envelope recert. and EM testing. The added benefit may or may not be worth the added cost and again until someone actually has a need, and is offered such a version we would never know. At the moment the international land based configuration comes with extra fuel, up to 8.5 hours of endurance (7 hr TOS according to the designers) and possible addition of IFR once the USN certifies it (Japanese aircraft won't have IFR).

Speaking to IHS Jane's at the IQPC Airborne ISR and C2 Battle Management conference in London, James Mulhall, director of global business development for E-2 programmes, said the export variant, which is an internally funded development, would be built with the addition of 3,084 kg of fuel in the foldable outer wing panel sections of the aircraft to extend its mission endurance to approximately eight and a half hours, with seven hours on-station time.

Mulhall said this configuration would become the "international export baseline" and provides an option for land-based operators who do not require a aerial refuelling (AR) capability to achieve this mission endurance (the AN/APY-9 radar must be turned off during the AR evolution). Development of an AR capability for the E-2D is progressing under an Engineering Manufacturing Development contract awarded in September 2013 with the first AR-capable E-2D prototype AA-1 being modified for testing after having been transferred from Air Test and Evaluation Squadron 20 (VX-20).

Subsystem testing is under way and fuel transfer tests have already been completed. Flight testing is scheduled to commence in the fourth quarter of 2016 and the first flight test involving fuel transfer is anticipated in the first quarter of 2017.

AR modifications, including the fixed probe and plumbing running back to the centre wing tank, as well as wiring and lighting for formation flying and flight control computer software changes to assist the pilot in engaging the basket, and long-endurance crew seats are expected to be incorporated into the 46th and subsequent aircraft for the US Navy, coming from the production line and retrofitted into previously delivered aircraft.

Initial operational capability, which is defined as one squadron equipped with the AR capability prior to deployment, is scheduled for 2020.