Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 24 Dec 2016 01:30

how do you 'patrol' with high speed aircraft?

all they would do is a high speed flypast

also what about costs of maintenance of these rare usage birds?

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 24 Dec 2016 02:23

Surya wrote:how do you 'patrol' with high speed aircraft?

all they would do is a high speed flypast

also what about costs of maintenance of these rare usage birds?

High speed aircraft only when needed. They have played role of patrol and recon for ages. Maintenance is supposed to have been improved considerably via the m3m program.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 24 Dec 2016 03:30

their recon role - well the Georgians ended that - and they are nowhere bristling like Cheen

as for patrol - I know everyone describes it as maritime patrol

but patrol would imply spending time over an area

the backfires dont really do that like the Bears

The maintenance being better - take it with a ton of salt. Even that is relative to the old days and only for the Russis

For us it would be a nightmare
almost akin to the MI 26s

bhavani · Post by **bhavani** » 24 Dec 2016 03:30

My two cents - if we are going to buy TU-22M3 it would make sense to but at least 20-30 of them and then get a line for their maintenance. It makes no sense to get 4 of them like some precious jewels.

All we need these days are platforms with adequate capabilities. Fo example look at the Chinese h-6 bombers old ripoffs of soviet Tu-16. But they have been upgraded, they can carry a decent load and range is good.they probably would never attack US carriers from close but will launch missiles from a long range and then scoot.
if we are going to spend money on acquiring a new platform then it would make sense to add quite a decent number of them and then spend money on equipping them properly and also acquiring some at long-range missiles to equip them.

The backfire give its longer range and also high-speed is a very good platform for the launching anti-ship attacks and also launching Nuclear weapons from a long-range at any potential Chinese or Pakistani target.it would not make any sense to just get a few of them.

we have to think about all maintenance costs and also the cost of establishing a new line and also cost of spares

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 24 Dec 2016 03:48

Surya wrote:their recon role - well the Georgians ended that - and they are nowhere bristling like Cheen

as for patrol - I know everyone describes it as maritime patrol

but patrol would imply spending time over an area

the backfires dont really do that like the Bears

The maintenance being better - take it with a ton of salt. Even that is relative to the old days and only for the Russis

For us it would be a nightmare
almost akin to the MI 26s

Georgia vs backfire....old version. Not with post 2013 upgrades. F117 shot over Balkans didn't stop its use. Anyways I don't see this as an IAF asset, mainly maritime roles.

Patrol as compared to li 38...very doable. not compared to the great bear.

Maintenance agreements and adequate stockpile of usable can help. the vikad, the quintessential Russian hangar queen, seems to be doing fine....touch wood

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 24 Dec 2016 04:00

we have seen the much improved Mig 29 K - and how wonderful thats turning out to be
hell we have seen how much serviceablity we get out of our Su 30s and these are the ones where we have 100s and actually make them to some level here

and somehow we are going to get a handful of white elephants and maintain decent serviceabilty levels -not withstanding the costs.

even during their heyday they were just nice juicy supersonic targets (someone had posted a doc about strategies )

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 24 Dec 2016 04:17

surya well said. common sense points about serviceability should lead the discussion.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 24 Dec 2016 04:37

add to serviceability levels, costs. other requirements - larger hangers (we could always park expensive assets out in the open ) , strengthened runways - and good standoff missiles - more large refuellers

you see how quickly it becomes super duper expensive

so unless like Cheen you are thinking of using it to push out the barrier for seaborne attack and have the money and reengineering ability to make it local - it just does not make sense

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 24 Dec 2016 07:03

Cain Marko wrote:
Surya wrote:how do you 'patrol' with high speed aircraft?

all they would do is a high speed flypast

also what about costs of maintenance of these rare usage birds?
High speed aircraft only when needed. They have played role of patrol and recon for ages. Maintenance is supposed to have been improved considerably via the m3m program.

Technically this is illogical, but not impossible. Subsonic bombers have played patrol + recce roles, not supersonic ones. Supersonic bombers of the Tu 22 variety are a cold war legacy that is 1 generation above subsonic bombers and were meant to outrun interceptors of the day. With modern fighters, radars and missiles this is an outmoded concept - replaced by stealthy attack aircraft.

A Supersonic bomber in a patrol role would fly subsonic. Dedicated patrol aircraft have engines and wings designed for long range subsonic cruise. Supersonic bombers have engines and wings suited for supersonic attack role. Flying the on subsonic patrol would not be their most efficient flying profile and they would be no more effective than a dedicated subsonic aircraft.

The Tu 22 in particular carries that legacy of more mechanical parts required to actuate its swing wings and therefore more maintenance headaches and more points of failure.

That said - if a Tu 22 were armed with say 3 Brahmos - we could keep a small fleet of 4 of them simply to attack hostile carrier groups from 2000 plus km away. Carrier groups do not come in 2s and 3s and even ONE Tu 22 would be a threat that could cripple an entire carrier group by simply taking out the Queen Bee. But they would be virtually useless for routine patrol operations or showing the force over distant lands especially if those distant lands had modern radars and SAMs. I actually think 4 is a goodish number - just enough to keep 2 in flying condition and a third on standby, and 4th on maintenance

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 24 Dec 2016 07:31

Shiv

unfortunately even that does not work out

to get to a CBG group you need more than one - to get a few serviceable - you need a lot more and thus the numbers start getting out of hand

they will cost a packet just to be available (without even flying) and then every hour they gfly the expense goes up

CBGs are not easy to target -

https://www.usnwc.edu/getattachment/b2e ... egacy.aspx

now maybe better standoff missiles but the other variables dont change as much

some more reading from the past

http://tinyurl.com/j24guu2

sanjaykumar · Post by **sanjaykumar** » 24 Dec 2016 07:46

Good discussion, However India is on the cusp of becoming one of the major powers with potentially global interests. We need to think of requirements five decades hence.

The Indian Ocean is unique in having very little real estate in the Antarctic oceanic regions. Due south of KanyaKumari, at the same longitude as Delhi, lies Amsterdam Island.It is one of the few along with Prince Edward, Crozet, Kerguelen, Heard, and McDonald Islands that India needs to secure with Tu22M3 bases. There is potential for hydrocarbons and the ability to sanitise vast oceanic realms. It is a question of time before China attempts to claim some, and for Australia to stick its nose it.

bhavani · Post by **bhavani** » 24 Dec 2016 09:22

A container loaded with clubs or Brahms's would be better than Tu-22 if used in conjunction with a over the horizon targeting platform like a bear or P-8 in order to hunt CBG groups.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 24 Dec 2016 09:32

Surya wrote:we have seen the much improved Mig 29 K - and how wonderful thats turning out to be
hell we have seen how much serviceablity we get out of our Su 30s and these are the ones where we have 100s and actually make them to some level here

and somehow we are going to get a handful of white elephants and maintain decent serviceabilty levels -not withstanding the costs.

even during their heyday they were just nice juicy supersonic targets (someone had posted a doc about strategies )

They are relatively cheap to procure and getting twice the number of needed airframes to maintain a handful could still be useful considering the capability they bring to bear. IIRC, they were speaking of transfering the entire line to China for $ 1.5 billion not too long ago. It'll be pathetic to see Indian strategists do dhoti shiver if this comes to be true and a new Chinese variant prowls around the SCS and IOR. Hope it doesn't turn out to be another "looking a gift horse in the mouth" situation because of bean-counters.

Sometimes if you have big plans, some steps consummate with such thinking should be taken.

Btw, we have seen the Vikad too and the Akula, no complaints there yet. There were reports of even M2k serviceability rates falling off to the 50% levels, so? Stop Rafale buys?

All platforms have issues, which are eventually sorted out. MKI numbers are approaching acceptable levels.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 24 Dec 2016 09:46

Viv S wrote:They'll stay east of Malacca then, if they're not willing to take the risk of engagement. The Su-30s can relocate north and join the fight.

What if they come west from a circuitous route? MKIs will not be able to engage and they get a free pass.

Its still a near suicide mission. The flight will be get picked up on half a dozen civilian radars in the Malacca straits. The larger the taskforce, the more likely it is to get detected. And that info is bound to get through to PLA intelligence (X large bombers transiting east at H hrs). Even if it doesn't, the Backfires will still be flying blind in the SCS against a foe with massive resources available, on its home turf. They need to run across a single AWACS or into a single fighter CAP and the whole mission goes kaput.

Risky missions have and will be attempted during war times - we are talking of war afterall Viv, there is no sanitized version available. Moreover, during peace times, backfires/mpaas can do patrols and familiarize themselves with the potential routes.

[Neither the Jag nor the MKI nor for that matter, the Backfire has ANY deep strike capability. They're all going to show up as bright beacons on the KJ-3000 radar scope. (Especially bright for the Backfire.) If theoretically, you could find a blind spot, and another, and another, to provide a ingress route, you could launch a Nirbhay along those coordinates or depending on the range of the target, an (upgraded) BrahMos, air or ground launched.

The Tu-22M has a massive RCS. While all conventional aircraft are susceptible to detection, for the Backfire that's of an order of magnitude larger. If there's a gap, its best exploited by a ground hugging LO cruise missile. If you want true deep strike capability where modern A2/AD assets are present, you need a stealth aircraft. Even the Rafale won't do.

Tu-22M RCS from any angle is unlikely to be order of magnitude (10X) higher than MKI. More importantly, we don't have any ground hugging LO cruise missile available that can do anything at very long ranges. ATM unfortunately we are struggling to get the 1000km Nirbhaya going. The Bmos is our best option, and its range is probably no more than 600km.

I'm not comparing the Backfires with MPAs. Neither MPAs nor Backfires will survive a straight encounter with the PLAN fighter screen. Nor can a P-8 realistically be expected to tag a CBG fleet (tag here meaning 'get a weapons grade bearing on'). Though unlike the Backfire, the P-8s are equipped with a high-end ESM system, and will be able to steer clear of the PLAN fighters and AEW&C aircraft (hopefully).

We are not talking of backfires straight from the 60s here. These are modernized post 2013 planes and have ESM systems and sensors commensurate with the changing tech. Can't see why India can't customize a fit to its liking - including passive sensors, MAWS, et al. The last I checked they were looking to stick a version of the Sea Dragon (Novella) in the Backfire, an Irbis/Bars variant is not out of the question either. The backfire has a good chance given that it can scoot away quickly from incoming fighters and detect the same up to ranges of 350km via this radar. Plus, it has very long range missiles that can fire from the very edge of the CBG screen @ 500+ km. Plus, they have the endurance to engage and disengage and play cat and mouse much better than any MKI. If the picture looks bleak, they can turn around and bail out very quickly - not some lumbering bomber here. And receding targets are never easy for fighter locks. Do note also that we are not talking of some uber CBG ala a USN CVGB - replete with hawkeyes etc. The PLAN carriers are a shadow of these - and have very minimal Early Warning coverage. I'd give the Backfires a very decent chance. They were designed by the Russians to overcome far more powerful foes.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 24 Dec 2016 09:49

you can have big plans - we dont have the big money and neither Cheens ability to reengineer, reverse engineer etc nor its ability to get a deal. and all the time we have lots more pressing needs.

Btw even the 4 which we were supposed to want - was a lease - so much for building in numbers

Yea the Vik was cheap too ...

Lets say we can get the line - then what? who is going to be the supply chain for it? and how many ?
we cannot get people to build for 20 LCAs and you are going to find them to build how many Backfires?

so like the Mi 26s (which always had terrible availability0 - it will be used once in a while to do a flypast - while real needs await

first lets get past our handful of AWACS and refuellers, decent long rang missiles for attack (without which the Backfire is worthless) and defense . more submarines (nukes and non nuke) etc before we commit to a few billion for white elephant

PS: Yes the Rafale is a waste IMO

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 24 Dec 2016 09:59

Regarding the acquisition of Bombers like the Tu-22, here are some more thoughts:

They can double as MPAAs, unorthodox perhaps but definitely doable. One can expect a very similar performance to the IL 38 that the IN operates only with the potential to be a very fast bomber with a payload 3X the size of the IL 38 including a number of supersonic missiles ala Brahmos, which the IL 38 is incapable of carrying.

Great deterrence value, maritime patrol, and anti-shipping plus bomber duties - that's a lot of capability right there. Is it perfect? not by any means, but I think it provides a great leap forward in the near term allowing India to create real bomber capability in the future.

In the meanwhile, to put forth a contrarian view, I humbly present gurulog this as a strategic asset not unlike fielding a CBG but at a fraction of the cost. I mean one could similarly ask why even field these hyper expensive behemoths anyway?
To monitor the sea lanes? One could easily argue that a combination of MKI out of the South and A&N, P8s with harpoons, and surface assets could easily do this at a cheaper cost.
To create blockades vs. TSP? MKIs out of Gujrat, subs with Klubs, and surface combatants with missile capability could pretty much do the same.
To project power? Where? Certainly not in the SCS - where the survivability of a smallish carrier group would be very questionable against the might of the Chinese.
To bomb far away places? The strike load of stobar based fighters is limited at best - nothing truly shock and awe about this.

So wherein lies the benefit of the CBG for the IN? And why the devil are we procuring 3 of these at unGodly costs?

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 24 Dec 2016 10:02

Cain Marko wrote:

So wherein lies the benefit of the CBG for the IN? And why the devil are we procuring 3 of these at unGodly costs?

thats a good question and worth of debate although whether we will ever have 3 at a time in my lifetime is doubtful

All the 3 forces have continued to procure shiny expensive toys over more pressing needs within ever shrinking purchasing power capex budgets.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 24 Dec 2016 10:06

Surya wrote:you can have big plans - we dont have the big money and neither Cheens ability to reengineer, reverse engineer etc nor its ability to get a deal. and all the time we have lots more pressing needs.

Btw even the 4 which we were supposed to want - was a lease - so much for building in numbers

Yea the Vik was cheap too ...

Lets say we can get the line - then what? who is going to be the supply chain for it? and how many ?
we cannot get people to build for 20 LCAs and you are going to find them to build how many Backfires?

so like the Mi 26s (which always had terrible availability0 - it will be used once in a while to do a flypast - while real needs await

first lets get past our handful of AWACS and refuellers, decent long rang missiles for attack (without which the Backfire is worthless) and defense . more submarines (nukes and non nuke) etc before we commit to a few billion for white elephant

PS: Yes the Rafale is a waste IMO

So, you suggest we pretty much stop procurement and capability expansion so long as we don't get our LCAs and cruise missiles or micro-level issues worked out first? Point is, India does seem to have big plans and talks of all sorts of big things every now and again such as Asian Century and what not. Whatsmore - the economic progress seems to suggest we are on track and will soon need to think far afield from home. Time to make bigger plans in this area too IMVHO - nothing works if you don't carry a big stick?

In any case, fielding a dozen Tu-22s with a 50% availability should not break the bank and can hardly be considered big plan.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 24 Dec 2016 10:15

I have a nasty feeling that MP and Modi took a review of DRDO programs very early on and were not impressed. hence the shove to Chander. Not to mention the number of imported purchases over homegrown products (including S400 and AEW), and more recently, increasing attempts to get a private player vs. HAL/LCA.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 24 Dec 2016 10:16

Cain Marko wrote:
To monitor the sea lanes? One could easily argue that a combination of MKI out of the South and A&N, P8s with harpoons, and surface assets could easily do this at a cheaper cost.

One could argue but it would be a weak argument. Speaking of rhetorical arguments that involve costs we do not even need MKIs. We can arm the people and let the enemy land in India and do hand to hand fighting. But if we cut the useless rhetoric and look at facts - MKIs and patrol aircraft will not be able to enforce a sea blockade. I suspect you underestimate the size of the sea and overestimate the staying power of aircraft, It also appears that you have not yet read the pdf Surya posted.

Cain Marko wrote: To bomb far away places? The strike load of stobar based fighters is limited at best - nothing truly shock and awe about this.

You are saying that bombers are more "shock and awe" and therefore better. Even bombers flying 3000 km on a round trip would hardly amount "rolling thunder" or "highway of death" . This is rhetoric not facts or data.

But one thing I agree. You put ONE Tu 22 armed with Brahmos on standby - any CBG is going to be wary of approaching within 2000 km

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 24 Dec 2016 10:23

Yes after we have at least 2 dozen AWACS, 50 refuellers,EW at every level in plenty, our airfields can operate in all weathers, have enough hardened shelters for aircraft and more, have multiple runways .., long range SAMs and whole host of other basic force multipliers. Cheen has all that and more.

we can continue on a few big sticks which we have made headway - eg. missiles etc

Lets not count our chickens before they hatch - we have seen before how it can get slowed down by a change of govt.

Lets first see 10 to 12 years of continuous double digit growth before we make proclamations of our economic might.
Maybe then the Russis will actually sell us something strategic - instead of a lease

anyway last post on this unless I can find some new links

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 24 Dec 2016 10:30

^indeed I have not read Surya's PDF. Can't find it even now after you mentioned it. Will look again.
So, according to you, a CBG is an absolute must to enforce a blockade? Regarding the size of the sea and blockades - truly speaking how much coverage will 2 sqd worth MiG-29s or hey, 10 Shars provide? Not the most high endurance fighters last I checked. For the price of one CV, India could easily a dozen long ranged, high endurance MPAs such as the P8 along with a sqd or two of MKI with all sorts of weapons. Just sayin

I'm not saying that bombers are more shock and awe than a carrier. What I am saying is that despite various arguments against a CBG including cost and their rather limited ability compared to say USN CVBGs etc..we still consider them rather valuable and useful.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 24 Dec 2016 10:33

Surya wrote:Yes after we have at least 2 dozen AWACS, 50 refuellers,EW at every level in plenty, our airfields can operate in all weathers, have enough hardened shelters for aircraft and more, have multiple runways .., long range SAMs and whole host of other basic force multipliers. Cheen has all that and more.

anyway last post on this unless I can find some new links

I think you need to explain exactly why you are saying this. I do not necessarily oppose it but I need to see justification of why all this must come first, or else I will simply take it as your opinion and be content leave it at that.

Chinas requirements are preparation towards those requirements need not necessarily be mirrored by us, and the bulk or your post speaks of Chinese preparations on their mainland with their aggressive policy facing Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Vietnam and the US. I am unable to see how that policy can be copy pasted to the Indian Ocean

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 24 Dec 2016 10:39

Cain Marko wrote:^indeed I have not read Surya's PDF. Can't find it even now after you mentioned it. Will look again.
So, according to you, a CBG is an absolute must to enforce a blockade? Regarding the size of the sea and blockades - truly speaking how much coverage will 2 sqd worth MiG-29s or hey, 10 Shars provide? Not the most high endurance fighters last I checked. For the price of one CV, India could easily a dozen long ranged, high endurance MPAs such as the P8 along with a sqd or two of MKI with all sorts of weapons. Just sayin

No I am not saying that a CBG is required. It is an extra arm of power projection. Whatever area of sea can be covered by land based aircraft can be extended by suitable placement of CBGs. That side, whatever area of open sea that can be covered by a non carrier group can be enlarged greatly by a carrier. Remember that nations do not want to lose carriers but wars will go on even if carriers are lost. But they add to the area over which power can be projected. They have to be used right.

Cain Marko wrote: I'm not saying that bombers are more shock and awe than a carrier. What I am saying is that despite various arguments against a CBG including cost and their rather limited ability compared to say USN CVBGs etc..we still consider them rather valuable and useful.

Cost is a shift of goalpost and should not be debated here. For all of the USs power it lost Vietnam and is losing in Afghanistan and Syria. Let us look at what guerilla warfare costs and emulate ISIS/Taliban is another cost dependent rhetorical argument

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 24 Dec 2016 10:44

AWACS the handful we have do not give us enough coverage not taking into account availability etc
Refuellers likewise too few - with almost all our aircraft now and future going to be AAR capable - need more

EW - too needs to be plenty not a handful to be shared and carefully mustered-
Bases - the bases are just getting their enhancement for lighting etc- but there is more that needs to be done- cannot go into specifics so leave it as my opinion
(all shiny aircraft are no use if the bases are inoperable for swaths of time)

long range SAMs - for obvious reasons-

and I am not only focussed on IOR - the money comes out from our overall needs - so other needs will get sacrificed whether facing IOR or North or wherever

If we want to keep it as Navy onlee then subs, minesweepers, helos , and long range SAMs and more space based assets are more pressing needs

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 24 Dec 2016 11:11

Fair enough, one cant deny the urgency of these acquisitions. Having said that I recall an IN tender for MPAs, any guess what my pitch would be?

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 24 Dec 2016 11:16

shiv wrote:No I am not saying that a CBG is required. It is an extra arm of power projection. Whatever area of sea can be covered by land based aircraft can be extended by suitable placement of CBGs. That side, whatever area of open sea that can be covered by a non carrier group can be enlarged greatly by a carrier. Remember that nations do not want to lose carriers but wars will go on even if carriers are lost. But they add to the area over which power can be projected. They have to be used right.

Absolutely, and bombers could do exactly that (project power) over certain areas - they too have to be used right. I see a place for CBGs in the Indian context, but I also happen to see a place for bombers. And currently, there is little better choice available than the Tu-22M3M to fill that void.

Cost is a shift of goalpost and should not be debated here. For all of the USs power it lost Vietnam and is losing in Afghanistan and Syria. Let us look at what guerilla warfare costs and emulate ISIS/Taliban is another cost dependent rhetorical argument

Cost might be a goalpost shift, but it has been brought out numerous times in the context of the backfire so why not in the context of a carrier?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 24 Dec 2016 21:56

Was doodling distances on Googe Earth and it seems to me that there is very little of practical value that a 2500 km radius Tu 22 can do which cannot be achieved by a 1500 km radius MKI. Just my inference that whether you draw 2500 km (Tu 22) long lines or 1500 km long (MKI) lines they both either end in mid-ocean, in mid China or both sets of lines can reach Persian gulf entrance or Malacca straits from either mainland India or from Andamans.

Utility wise I am unable to see the difference. Unfortunately I need to find a tool that draws 2500/1500 km radius circles on a world map centered at various places like South India, North East India, Gujarat and Andamans to illustrate what I mean. My phree Googal earth does not do that

Karthik S · Post by **Karthik S** » 24 Dec 2016 22:12

Shiv, along with range, we need to consider the number of missiles that the two carry. We need 6 MKIs to supplement a pair of backfires in terms of tonnage carried. We can rather use those 6 MKIs for CAP missions for backfires.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 24 Dec 2016 22:17

Karthik S wrote:We can rather use those 6 MKIs for CAP missions for backfires.

CAP over the ocean?

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 24 Dec 2016 22:25

Shiv ji: Why not just cross over to the Gulf of Thailand from car Nicobar. Frankly, do not expect these assets to do a run of the mill bombing run to the Chinese mainland. When the payload is nuclear are we going to worry about crossing 100 KM of Thai territory at supersonic speeds? The only other realistic scenario to cross into SCS for a bombing campaign is to deter a CBG from crossing over.

Su-30 as an asset can possibly do these ranges with refueling and possibly with an ability to take more risk, however part of the bomber rationale is psychological.

Karthik S · Post by **Karthik S** » 24 Dec 2016 22:27

To protect backfires from carrier borne fighters.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 24 Dec 2016 22:28

ShauryaT wrote:Shiv ji: Why not just cross over to the Gulf of Thailand from car Nicobar. Frankly, do not expect these assets to do a run of the mill bombing run to the Chinese mainland. When the payload is nuclear are we going to worry about crossing 100 KM of Thai territory at supersonic speeds? The only other realistic scenario to cross into SCS for a bombing campaign is to deter a CBG from crossing over.

Su-30 as an asset can possibly do these ranges with refueling and possibly with an ability to take more risk, however part of the bomber rationale is psychological.

That is why I want a map to draw circles.

The overland crossing over Thailand/Myanmar is between 40-100 km that's all. But overflying Thailand to attack China puts Thailand at risk, just like Sri Lanka would get hit by India if they hosted the Chinese

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 24 Dec 2016 22:36

Karthik S wrote:To protect backfires from carrier borne fighters.

Then the maximum range that the Backfires can do is the same as the maximum range of the MKIs. Any range beyond that they get no cover. So what is the use of that extra range?

That apart - remember that MKIs or Backfires will be using their Brahmos from 300 km away - so the carrier borne aircraft have to be present at least 300 km away to make sure the Brahmos does not get the ship. The area of sea they have to cover is 280,000 sq km and the attack can come from anywhere. The attackers will stay under the radar till the last possible minutes before popping up to launch a missile. The biggest problem for the attacking aircraft is to know where the carrier is exactly. In fact that is a bigger problem. Attacks will likely come from 2-3 different areas - and even low flying Jaguars may be sent to draw away defences as a lone Brahmos carrying aircraft hits the CBG. Provided we know where the carrier is. Knowing that might not be easy. Even so - getting any of the support ships will always be an advantage and a big loss of defensive strength of the carrier group

Gyan · Post by **Gyan** » 24 Dec 2016 22:43

Firing cruise missiles from A&N islands into Chinese Eastern Coast does make lot of sense.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 24 Dec 2016 22:55

shiv wrote: But overflying Thailand to attack China puts Thailand at risk, just like Sri Lanka would get hit by India if they hosted the Chinese

if "hosted" yes, but let us say if a carrier launched fighter is going to over fly Lankan territory to attack India, do we really expect the Lankans to stop them? A sudden unannounced transient not often repeating violation of territory is very different from hosting. What can the Thai do? All it means is the Chinese would do the same and that is a risk I believe the Chinese would take. In fact, a stationing of say 2-3 PLAN CBG to harass our A&N assets and hit our NE and Eastern assets from the Gulf of Thailand is a plausible scenario. They all entail violation of Myanmar/Thai air space. Expect the same over Myanmar over land also. The truth of the matter is small nations have little choice expect to acquiesce to the wishes of a large power. The only thing that restrains a large power is its will or capabilities. We asking Lanka not to think about hosting PLAN in effect means the IN is responsible for its security too or we have no business asking.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 24 Dec 2016 23:25

Cain Marko wrote:What if they come west from a circuitous route? MKIs will not be able to engage and they get a free pass.

Same situation as pre-positioning it at Gwadar or elsewhere in the IOR. Also, in this case, you could dispatch SSKs to the Java and Timor seas and follow through with a CBG blocking force at the Sunda strait.

If they still choose to avoid action, the IN operations to 'police' commercial shipping transited east across the Malaccas will continue unhindered.

Risky missions have and will be attempted during war times - we are talking of war afterall Viv, there is no sanitized version available. Moreover, during peace times, backfires/mpaas can do patrols and familiarize themselves with the potential routes.

CM, there's risky and there's foolhardy. The US could afford to green-light the Doolittle raid because writing off 16 B-25s and risking the crews was worth the morale boost. Keep in mind, over the course of the war, NAA produced nearly 10,000 B-25s.

That is a luxury not available to us. Investing in an effort to make a Tu-22 kamikaze strike possible, is effectively depriving more mundane but critical avenues of that funding.

Tu-22M RCS from any angle is unlikely to be order of magnitude (10X) higher than MKI. More importantly, we don't have any ground hugging LO cruise missile available that can do anything at very long ranges. ATM unfortunately we are struggling to get the 1000km Nirbhaya going. The Bmos is our best option, and its range is probably no more than 600km.

Given its boxy shape I wouldn't be at all surprised if it does have a 10x RCS. But even if not, still.. 5x? 6x? The Su-30MKI still remains a more survivable aircraft in the same profile.

You want to discount the Nirbhay, okay. But keep in the mind, if the program fall through, they'll just get a replacement. Most likely the JASSM-ER with new fighter type. In addition, the Rafale will be equipped with the SCALP (560 km) and the Su-30 with the Brahmos (~600 km).

To that figure, you add whatever additional range is imparted by the penetrating platform. How much is that? 200 km? That'll get you to Lhasa. 300 km? That'll get you to Kunming. 500 km? That'll get you to Chengdu. You could probably land and take a tour of a J-20 assembly line.

Realistically speaking, whatever platform you use, it'll only be able to make a short ingress before a threat of detection spikes. And given its RCS that's probably shorter for the Tu-22 than it is for the Su-30 or Rafale. All three can make it a couple of hundred km lo-lo with a heavy payload, as can the F-16V & Gripen E.

The marginal utility afforded by the Tu-22 in this scenario is negligible.

We are not talking of backfires straight from the 60s here. These are modernized post 2013 planes and have ESM systems and sensors commensurate with the changing tech. Can't see why India can't customize a fit to its liking - including passive sensors, MAWS, et al. The last I checked they were looking to stick a version of the Sea Dragon (Novella) in the Backfire, an Irbis/Bars variant is not out of the question either. The backfire has a good chance given that it can scoot away quickly from incoming fighters and detect the same up to ranges of 350km via this radar.

With all the expensive customisation in the world, the Tu-22 will still have the RCS of a barn-door and be picked up by the PLAN's aircraft well before it can track the PLAN fleet, enabling the fighter screen to run a fast intercept. And not being a fighter, any encounter with the PLANAF fighters will still end only one way.

Plus, it has very long range missiles that can fire from the very edge of the CBG screen @ 500+ km. Plus, they have the endurance to engage and disengage and play cat and mouse much better than any MKI. If the picture looks bleak, they can turn around and bail out very quickly - not some lumbering bomber here.

The Su-30MKI isn't going to play cat-and-mouse. It'll be tasked with engaging the enemy fighters, either taking them down, or punching a gap in the fighter screen for anti-shipping platforms to exploit.

And receding targets are never easy for fighter locks. Do note also that we are not talking of some uber CBG ala a USN CVGB - replete with hawkeyes etc. The PLAN carriers are a shadow of these - and have very minimal Early Warning coverage. I'd give the Backfires a very decent chance. They were designed by the Russians to overcome far more powerful foes.

If we're talking today or the very near future, the PLAN has no expedition-capable carriers. No carrier threat, no need for Backfires.

In the slightly more distant future, the PLAN will deploy with AEW units as well as fighters equipped with AESA and high end ESMs. Possibly also naval J-31s by 2030. The Type 002 carrier is being constructed in a CATOBAR configuration; it'll throw up a fighter screen much further along with fixed wing AEW aircraft.

The Tu-22's radar emissions are equally liable to land it in hot water. And it isn't enough just to launch from range and bug out. The fighter screen exists not just to intercept hostile fighter/bombers but also to shoot down incoming cruise missiles (which are ultimately just expendable drones with a lethal payload). Enough of those missiles need to survive to overload the CBG's layered air defences.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 24 Dec 2016 23:45

ShauryaT wrote:Shiv ji: Why not just cross over to the Gulf of Thailand from car Nicobar. Frankly, do not expect these assets to do a run of the mill bombing run to the Chinese mainland.

That bombing run will find itself rudely interrupted by RTAF F-16s & Gripens that'll intercept them over Thai airspace and force them down where the aircraft will be impounded. And even if we catch them napping, the same thing will happen over Vietnam, or on the return leg of the mission.

And unlike an overflight of Sri Lanka, we're not going to able to explain it away with the polite fiction of a 'navigational error'. It'll cause a massive diplomatic crisis with the ASEAN and deservedly so.

Its quite straightforward from their perspective. You turn a blind eye to a IAF strike mission against China today and the next day you'll have a PLAAF strike flight in the other direction, daring you to protest. Next thing you know, the two militaries are fighting in your airspace and your sovereignty's become a joke.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 25 Dec 2016 00:03

^Sure, Thailand has a choice to make. What I know of Thailand, I know what its preferences are. BTW: we are talking 4-5 mins of flight time and interception will be a joke. If Thailand has the gumption to challenge India in this manner, I agree we have no business challenging China.

GShankar · Post by **GShankar** » 25 Dec 2016 00:19

For any military option (overflying, hosting, parking, visiting, etc.) to be viable we need a strategic relationship with the partner to either welcome our move or to turn a blind eye.

AFAIK, we don't have any. But we could develop it certainly with Vietnam if not also the siam. It is on us to do this. Act east should begin with vigor and sustained before fly over east imo.

A bigger strategy in this direction is about num naadu (our desh) considering the option of having munnas. If we don't, then these so called smaller partners will be sucked away and will screw us at the worst time for us.