Indian Navy News & Discussion - 03 July 2018

[Karthik S]

Or invested into our own rail gun program. Not sure if 1B is sound investment for 11 naval guns. May be baksheesh for something else.

[wig]

https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/natio ... 64190.html

some information of the Mk-45 naval gun

The US State Department has cleared the sale of naval guns worth $1 billion (Rs 7,100 crore) to India through foreign military sales route, the Defence Space Cooperation Agency said. A required certification by notifying the US Congress of this sale was delivered on November 19.
Sources said these guns will be installed on the upcoming Nilgiri class of frigates and Vishakhapatnam class destroyers. The guns can fire the newest variety of ammunition up to a distance of 36 km. This is greater than the 21.5-km range offered by the Russian AK-176 gun or the 20-km range of Italian Oto Malera 76 mm cannon.
The gun is unique in its specifications at 45.5 inch/62 calibre. The Navy has BrahMos for long-range targets and Mk-45 will be for closer targets. India will buy up to 13 guns and 3,500 pieces of ‘D349 Projectiles’.

[srin]

The Mk45 seems too slow for aerial targets as compared to Oto 76. So this isn't a multi purpose gun. This is a surface warfare gun.

Against a moving ship, I'm not sure about the accuracy over a long distance. An extended range modified ATGM with terminal guidance would work much better.
This type of gun makes sense against land targets, but does it make sense to get a destroyer so close to land ?

[Barath]

2 MIG- 35s!
I welcome the thought though of acquiring larger guns but would instead prefer the IN to acquire the 8" guns aboard the new Zumwalt class of DDGs which supposedly have an 80+nm range with the LRAP projectiles.That would be great for our future larger surface combatants giving main guns much greater reach.

That gun and its cancelled projectile are the cause of much heart burn in the US Navy. Why would you even think of it ? The gun is super expensive, heavy, required specially built magazine and ammo handling, and was not designed to fire other ammo.

The trend

A single 127mm gun is now the standard main armament for most frigate/destroyer-sized ships

I believe this order may be a replacement for this order as Oto Melara is part of blacklisted FinMeccanica/Leonardo

[Karthik S]

Gurus, are naval guns more difficult and different to design and build compared to normal artillery guns? Could kalyani or TATA have come up with naval guns?

[Nikhil T]

^From former CNS Arun Prakash on Twitter:

The first indigenous artillery gun (155 mm) has has just been produced by the pvt sector in 2019. A naval ‘gun-mount’ is far more complex compared to an (army) artillery gun. The only naval wpn OFB makes is a small 30 mm gun of Russian design. The MK 45 mount has a 125 mm gun.

We are going to need more than 13 of these guns in the long run. Now’s the time to negotiate licence-production (and export) rights for MK 45 gun mount in India. Otherwise it will be just another billion $ of our money poured into US coffers with no technology benefit.

Not sure his two statements are in sync with each other. On one hand we have made excellent progress in artillery guns in last few years with mass production already underway and on other hand he wants just license production of this expensive imported gun.

In any case, the current order suffices for all our Vizag and Nilgiri class ships that will take until at least 2025. That’s plenty of time for us to navalize an artillery gun.

[srin]

As per Wiki, BHEL Haridwar has been making (no idea if it is just assembly or more) Oto 76mm.

Our Talwars come with Russian 100mm gun. Is the Mk 45 a huge improvement over it ?

[John]

Gurus, are naval guns more difficult and different to design and build compared to normal artillery guns? Could kalyani or TATA have come up with naval guns?

There is complexity since it needs to be stabilized and vastly larger ammunition supply needs to be stored safely. But there is already the Oto SR 76mm guns which is more than adequate for surface combatants so no need to develop a new gun. There is probably bigger need for a newer CIWS gun to replace venerable license built Ak-630.
Yemen and Lebanon have show the vulnerability of naval vessels when operating close to land providing fire support.

[kit]

Or invested into our own rail gun program. Not sure if 1B is sound investment for 11 naval guns. May be baksheesh for something else.

I do not think India needs to dole out baksheesh for anything, its hard-earned taxpayer's money that is better put to use elsewhere. I do hope this "billion-dollar gun buy" is cancelled at the earliest.

[chetak]

Gurus, are naval guns more difficult and different to design and build compared to normal artillery guns? Could kalyani or TATA have come up with naval guns?

There is complexity since it needs to be stabilized and vastly larger ammunition supply needs to be stored safely. But there is already the Oto SR 76mm guns which is more than adequate for surface combatants so no need to develop a new gun. There is probably bigger need for a newer CIWS gun to replace venerable license built Ak-630.
Yemen and Lebanon have show the vulnerability of naval vessels when operating close to land providing fire support.

It is not just the stabilizing system per se. Even the tanks' main guns are stabilized and that system handles more stringent parameters given the rough terrain and the speeds that the MBTs are designed to operate at.

Naval guns are not just the turrets one sees.

It's like an iceberg with the bulk of it being out of sight

What one doesn't get to see is hidden below deck and is essential to the system.

It's the ammo hoist, the feed system, the loading system, the extraction and handling of the empties, the hydraulics, the electrics and not mention the FCS and the multiple power systems feeding it all. The hoist itself can go down 3-4 decks.

The higher the rate of fire, the more complicated the system.

This is why some big shots are asking for license manufacture and that is a very valid viewpoint. Better than burning a billion now and some more billions later in maintenance, spares, repairs and what not given the long innings that most naval platforms are bound to play.

[chola]

Or invested into our own rail gun program. Not sure if 1B is sound investment for 11 naval guns. May be baksheesh for something else.

I do not think India needs to dole out baksheesh for anything, its hard-earned taxpayer's money that is better put to use elsewhere. I do hope this "billion-dollar gun buy" is cancelled at the earliest.

Yes, my first thought was "Holy Crap!"

I've never looked into naval guns. I always thought they were fairly cheap secondary armament. Had no idea.

But 11 guns for the price of a P-15B destroyer?

That kind of moolah should be invested in something inhouse since the technology of a gun, even a big one, should well be within our technology level.

But then again we couldn't master a proper assault rifle.

[Barath]

It's the ammo hoist, the feed system, the loading system, the extraction and handling of the empties, the hydraulics, the electrics and not mention the FCS and the multiple power systems feeding it all. The hoist itself can go down 3-4 decks.

The higher the rate of fire, the more complicated the system.

Very true. The Mark 45 is a 127 mm naval gun. It can easily fire 16-20 rounds per minute on automatic. Ref, schematics

By contrast the 105mm Abbott (6-8 rpm), 155 mm M777 lightweight howitzer (2rpm - 5pm max), 130 mm towed field gun(6 rpm,5-8), and 122 mm howitzer (5-6 rpm sutained,10-12max) are all in use in India on land.

The 76mm Otara in earlier ships including Shivalik has an even greater rate of fire.

These naval guns are designed for use against surface warships, anti-aircraft and shore bombardment, and will also have different kinds of shells/fuses for those purposes (leave aside long range/precision/guided shells for the moment)

The 76mm is popular, but the trend is towards the 127mm for the larger frigates and destroyers. This is accelerating because of the possibility of guided and extra range shells. Though the 127mm gun is less effective against fast moving aerial targets, it has more explosive effect and range advantage over the 76 mm. The 100mm is used mainly by Russia.. Talwar being an upgraded Krivak-III variant and being built by Russia uses the Russian gun. Shivalik (76 mm Otara) and subsequent Nilgiri (this purchase) won't.

It's plausible that the high price might hide some unnamed extended range or guided shells, which could easily go $100,000 per shell. In any case, this is just the export approval notification, the actual contract can be a subset of this and include negotiation on price/come down on price.

[Karthik S]

Man, this deal should be cancelled, go for additional chinooks or apache if this is quid pro quo for something else, we could have got 3 C 17s for dozen odd guns.

[kit]

It seems the IN is interested in the LRAPs for offshore bombardment once defences are neutralised and mark 45s seems to be [only ?] option., also "stealthy" ? maybe brar can provide some more details

[John]

It seems the IN is interested in the LRAPs for offshore bombardment once defences are neutralised and mark 45s seems to be [only ?] option., also "stealthy" ? maybe brar can provide some more details

IMO You can neutralize the defenses and operate the vessel 50+ km away from the shore but when you are close to the shore there is too many platforms that can threaten a ship. You cannot neutralize portable anti ship missiles, even land artillery, anti tank missiles and now we have short range drones as well.

As I said earlier Yemen and Lebanon are great example of that, IDF released a similar assessment that it far too risky to operate vessels for close fire support after the latter. Royal Navy arm chair generals where also critical of her attempt to procure mk45 for its vessels. This just seems like a way for navies to try to get piece of the pie

[Karthik S]

In indian context, which shore are we going to bombard?

[kit]

It seems the IN is interested in the LRAPs for offshore bombardment once defences are neutralised and mark 45s seems to be [only ?] option., also "stealthy" ? maybe brar can provide some more details

It would be interesting to know what niche capability with the Mark 45 the IN had requested for !!.. for all that money i am pretty sure a solution can be found inhouse by the time the new destroyers come online!

[John]

To add to it If we really need cheap land attack option why not work on quad packing ngram like missile in Brahmas VLS launchers (it is diameter should allow 4 of them to fit in single universal launcher) ?

[brar_w]

The Mk45 seems too slow for aerial targets as compared to Oto 76. So this isn't a multi purpose gun. This is a surface warfare gun.

Against a moving ship, I'm not sure about the accuracy over a long distance. An extended range modified ATGM with terminal guidance would work much better.
This type of gun makes sense against land targets, but does it make sense to get a destroyer so close to land ?

The US Navy fired 20 HVP's from MK-45's at RIMPAC-2018. Concurrently, it is also developing low and medium cost seekers for the HVP rounds for a complete end to end missile defeat system that is cost optimized for a set target (high performance active seeker for the higher end threats and command guided lower cost solutions for simpler threats). The package with the HVP is expected to weight around 50% of what a current 5-inch gun round weighs and subsequently triple its range when used in surface warfare applications while also opening up applications in the Cruise Missile Defense mission. For those types of applications, the 5-inch gun is more future proof though there are some interesting things also happening on smaller guns as well but no HVP like solution is aimed at them.

Additionally, land attack Precision guided projectiles, aimed at the MK45, already provide >80 km range from the gun. That too is not available on smaller guns. The US Navy put BAE-Leonardo's Vulcano on contract as well and that opens up very interesting options for that missions. These things are just getting started now but if you factor in the service life of a future combatant then it is quite possible that these would be more widespread by the time the ship becomes operational or during the course of its service. There are about a dozen MK45 operators and some 155 guns currently operational..that's a large installed based for solutions like the two mentioned to be developed and be made cost effective via EOS.






Also, the FMS notification only provides a US Government's estimate of the highest amount something may cost based on what it feels a particular customer who requested this system may actually finalize. They err conservative so that they do not have to go back to Congress with another notification. Actual contracts, terms of service, contractor and US Government agency involvement etc. are all negotiated later and the final agreement could be way off from what the FMS notificaiton states. I've previously provided examples where the actual signed contract for the same # of systems was half of what the FMS notification stated. Those are only for notifying the Congress and explaining the possible scope of the work. They are not representative of what the customer ultimately requests, or what is ultimately negotiated.

[tsarkar]

In indian context, which shore are we going to bombard?

Mk45 is a shore bombardment gun. It is not possible to cover every km of shoreline with defences and such undefended areas can be cheaply bombarded by guns.

In 1971 INS Brahmaputra and INS Beas bombarded Cox's Bazaar Airfield scoring a direct hit on the ATC Tower.

Transition to Triumph page 188

"In addition to the air strikes, we also decided to carry out a surface bombardment of Cox's Bazar to obviate even a marginal use of the airdrome there by any type of aircraft. The frigates BRAHMAPUTRA and BEAS were cleared for this attack and commenced the bombardment from 3.50 PM onwards. The airfield installations were the principal targets". The Air Traffic Control tower got a direct hit.

Way more successful than Pakistani attack on Dwarka in 1965. When you have too many successes, smaller successes, even if better than enemy's are forgotten.

[Karthik S]

Sir, you are far more knowledgeable than me, but in present day context, isn't it better to use missiles to target shores. Also any undefended areas means the target is not much worth to let a billion dollar destroyer with 300 lives on board go 35-40 km near the shore. Not to forget, the houthis managed to damage a KSA ship using rudimentary missile.

[Nikhil T]

In indian context, which shore are we going to bombard?

Would like to know this as well. 2019 isn’t 1971 and Pak is certainly not Syria.

[chetak]

In indian context, which shore are we going to bombard?

Would like to know this as well. 2019 isn’t 1971 and Pak is certainly not Syria.

per wiki

The latest 5-inch/62 caliber version consists of a longer barrel L62 Mark 36 gun fitted on the same Mark 45 mount.[1] The gun is designed for use against surface warships, anti-aircraft and shore bombardment to support amphibious operations.

we are looking to buy 13 MK-45 5 inch/62 caliber (MOD 4) naval guns and 3,500 D349 Projectile, 5"/54 MK-92 MOD 1 ammunition.

The MK-45 Gun System will provide the capability to conduct anti-surface warfare and anti-air defence missions.

India has one LPD, bought in 2007 from the US. Indian had bought Ex-USS Trenton from US and has renamed as INS Jalashwa. The 16,900-tonne warship, Jalashwa, alone can transport around 5,000 soldiers besides defence equipment.

Also, the Defence ministry has, in 2018, cleared a mega naval project worth over Rs 20,000 crore for four Landing Platform Docks (LPD) also known as amphibious assault ships.

when the IN has assets for amphibious operations and trains for such operations jointly with other services, why would it not invest in main guns that had the additional capability to support such operations using shore bombardment to soften the target.

Needlessly doubting the accuracy of a modern naval gun, when in WWII, the Bismarck took out the Hood with one salvo from the Bismarck, fired from about 9 mi (14 km), shells struck the Hood and it sank in less than three minutes, leaving behind just three survivors. This was using the tech available in the early 40s.

Fire control systems, naval guns and ammunition have all evolved considerably since then.

where are posters getting ideas like its too slow for an anti aircraft role and on what basis are such conclusions being drawn.

[John]

where are posters getting ideas like its too slow for an anti aircraft role and on what basis are such conclusions being drawn.

Anti aircraft range for large caliber gun using unguided projectiles is around 8km (against missile even smaller). With rate of fire of around 16-20 rounds you be lucky to get off even 2-3 rounds before a supersonic missile hits the ship. Where as Oto SR could get off over 8x the rounds which means much higher kill probability.

[chetak]

where are posters getting ideas like its too slow for an anti aircraft role and on what basis are such conclusions being drawn.

Anti aircraft range for large caliber gun using unguided projectiles is around 8km (against missile even smaller). With rate of fire of around 16-20 rounds you be lucky to get off even 2-3 rounds before a supersonic missile hits the ship. Where as Oto SR could get off over 8x the rounds which means much higher kill probability.

so the contention is that the seller is cheating us and the IN is allowing itself to be cheated.

could such a thing really happen in 2019. Would a customer springing a billion $s for a gun just buy sight unseen or would he justifiably be expected to do a whole series of checks and validations before he swipes the credit card.

or could the ammunition used for this role be a game changer in terms of the AA role for this larger caliber weapon.

rate of fire is just one of the parameters and not THE parameter affecting this role.

[brar_w]

The 5-inch MK45 is a future proof option for both long range land attack, and for the Cruise Missile Defense roles. CMD is probably a more pressing need than Anti Aircraft given the potential number of targets etc so that is the focus of the HVP and other efforts. Both are promising areas that are rapidly being developed and explored. Both are looking at minimal to NO changes to the gun and its associated systems. And these things aren't just happening in the lab but demonstrations to that end are happening out at sea or at a weapons range. A 90km ranged projectile with a SAL or IIR seeker can have surface attack applications as well especially at a rate of fire of 20 rounds per minute. The MK45 is a good choice for a gun that is going to be in service for decades into the future as things like the Excalibur N5, Vulcano rounds and the Hyper-Velocity Projectile are already available or will be in the short term and will only get better via iteration. All these in addition to currently used rounds open up new missions as well extend the current missions to both longer distances ( 2x and 3x) with more accuracy (GPS, IIR and SAL guidance for the land attack projectiles and active or command guidance for HVP).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TY6g-SfbMVM

[chetak]

The 5-inch MK45 is a future proof option for both long range land attack, and for the Cruise Missile Defense roles. CMD is probably a more pressing need than Anti Aircraft given the potential number of targets etc so that is the focus of the HVP and other efforts. Both are promising areas that are rapidly being developed and explored. Both are looking at minimal to NO changes to the gun and its associated systems. And these things aren't just happening in the lab but demonstrations to that end are happening out at sea or at a weapons range. A 90km ranged projectile with a SAL or IIR seeker can have surface attack applications as well especially at a rate of fire of 20 rounds per minute. The MK45 is a good choice for a gun that is going to be in service for decades into the future.

India has a big wish list.

The US will not offer systems that will become the cause of ugly controversies and generate bad publicity for both the seller and the customer.

If the US actually offers any system to India, rest assured that a lot of background work has already gone in and a tacit approval has already been obtained by the seller.

Public rejection of any offer neither serves the interest of the seller nor the buyer.

We have a yawning gap in our main gun requirements and many platforms already launched have the main gun missing pending the finalization of a suitable system.

private companies may make unsolicited offers like in the case of the unwanted F-16 which was/is opportunistically being pushed by the manufacturer who keeps trying to sweeten the pot with every iteration of his unviable offer.

[brar_w]

The MK45 FMS notification just went to the Congress so the GOTUS has approved it. The Vulcano is not a US controlled weapon but one developed by BAE systems and Leonardo with internal or non US funding. The Excalibur is already operational with the Indian Army. The Hyper-Velocity projectile designed for the 5 inch gun application is being designed with exportability in mind. My post was in reference to the future proof nature of the weapon as many munitions are being developed for its use by the US and elsewhere as well. These add to the existing missions or open up new missions. More will be developed in the future as the gun has a large installed base which incentivises investment from various OEM's around the world.

[chetak]

The MK45 FMS notification just went to the Congress so the GOTUS has approved it. The Vulcano is not a US controlled weapon but one developed by BAE systems and Leonardo with internal or non US funding. The Excalibur is already operational with the Indian Army. The Hyper-Velocity projectile designed for the 5 inch gun application is being designed with exportability in mind. My post was in reference to the future proof nature of the weapon as many munitions are being developed for its use by the US and elsewhere as well. These add to the existing missions or open up new missions. More will be developed in the future as the gun has a large installed base which incentives investment from various OEM's around the world.

your point of the longevity and continuing versatility due to its large installed base and OEM support is well taken.

If a weapon system, though designed in a non US country, using US made parts and made in the US, by a foreign owned company, ITAR will kick in.

[brar_w]

Where did the point of ITAR come from? We are talking about a gun that just got cleared for export to India, a munition that India just acquired, and another munition that is not controlled by US regulations (it is European). HVP is bound by US regulations but it is designed for export and various statements about its 5" compatible variant being made available to the MK45 installed base in the future have been made. Once it is developed and fileded by the USN it will be opened up for other users of the system. It isn't too far fetched to assume that flexibility and growth possibilities of the MK45's capability was one of the points that appealed to the IN. That is all what I was trying to say and that had nothing to do with stuff being cleared, ITAR etc. etc. etc.

[chetak]

Where did the point of ITAR come from? We are talking about a gun that just got cleared for export to India, a munition that India just acquired, and another munition that is not controlled by US regulations (it is European). HVP is bound by US regulations but it is designed for export and various statements about its 5" compatible variant being made available to the MK45 installed base in the future have been made. Once it is developed and fileded by the USN it will be opened up for other users of the system. It isn't too far fetched to assume that flexibility and growth possibilities of the MK45's capability was one of the points that appealed to the IN. That is all what I was trying to say and that had nothing to do with stuff being cleared, ITAR etc. etc. etc.

You mentioned the vulcano. That's why I spoke of the ITAR

For the MK45, all ITAR related issued would have been clarified in advance of the congressional approval.

One is, however, a little wary of the number of vital systems that we are inducting that can become a subject of US sanctions. Given that all US presidents have not/will not look upon India with the same benign smile, and policies are tied to presidents as also to vengeful senators and the whims and fancies of their senate.

[brar_w]

Vulcano is an Italian munition family from Leonardo. As it currently stands it does not have any US technology in it though it could be possible that a future variant operated by the US includes US produced technology or seeker. It is also not made in the US, though if the US Navy buys it then it will probably be made there with US specific mods. The 127 MM vulcano round is Italian with a BAE-Leonardo collaboration in terms of company funding to develop it specifically for the MK45 gun system with BAE leading MK45 specific integration and marketing to the MK45 user group.

Again, if your objection is that this gun should not be purchased because it is US made then yes that is valid. However as is crystal clear from my posts above, all I was doing was demonstrating why the IN would be interested in this gun system from a current and planned capabilities perspective. As far as other munitions mentioned - the Excalibur is already operational with the Indian Army the N5 is essentially it adapted for 5" guns.

[John]

Brar HVP looks good on paper but I will believe it when I see it not the first time when new projectile promises to revolutionize the world only to be axed or fail to live up to potential. I am a skeptic I will believe when it reaches production and is offered for export which is probably another decade away.

[brar_w]

Brar HVP looks good on paper but I will believe it when I see it not the first time when new projectile promises to revolutionize the world only to be axed or fail to live up to potential. I am a skeptic I will believe when it reaches production and is offered for export which is probably another decade away.

Fair enough. I guess that could be said of anything new so nothing special about saying it for HVP. But of course it is just not something on paper. It is being actively trialed, and developed/refined through iteration. Range testing has happens since years with the EMRG, and even Ballistic Missile Defense trials have occurred on land. They've just taken the 5" compliant round out to sea about a year ago but had enough confidence to fire nearly 2 dozen of them over a period of about 2 days during a major exercise. Concurrent to that, tenders for seekers and other peripheral technology (batteries etc) just went out and it remains a funded engineering program. What happens if it does not live up to the promise? Well as far as the IN is concerned..nothing as it is not being asked to pony up the R&D dollars for it. It along with the Excalibur, Vulcano etc has been developed and is being developed on someone else's dime which is a good thing to have when you have a system that is present at scale within some of the most well funded Navies in the world.

My point was simply that as far as future proofing these things are being readied for this weapon already without export customer funding. Vulcano and Excalibur N5 are already ready with future variants being worked upon (MMW seeker equipped Excalibur and IIR equipped Vulcano for example) Some of these capabilities (like for example the HVP on the MK45) are going to be exclusive to the MK45 for now (besides the Railgun) and not available to smaller weapons. All three of these cover the entire gamut of guided, unguided, long and extended range fires against both static land targets, moving targets at sea and even incoming missiles. This without any funding from export customers required to complete X Y Z and conduct trials like it is for some other foreign systems for examples.

It is not very hard to look at the gun, look at who uses it..the installed base, and then have a look at what all is happening to make it better (vis a vis projectiles that increase range by 2-3X and add missions) and not understand why the IN may find it appealing for future vessels that will be in service for decades to come. Claiming that this should not be pursued based on sanctions, ITAR or it being a US system is one thing but to claim that it has no mission..cannot be used against missile or aerial targets and requires the vessel to get within 20-30 km of shoreline to attack land targets is just biased and uninformed about what it is capable of in the short term, and what lies ahead for it in the medium term a timeline the IN is likely to be most interested in.

[chetak]

Vulcano is an Italian munition family from Leonardo. As it currently stands it does not have any US technology in it though it could be possible that a future variant operated by the US includes US produced technology or seeker. It is also not made in the US, though if the US Navy buys it then it will probably be made there with US specific mods. The 127 MM vulcano round is Italian with a BAE-Leonardo collaboration in terms of company funding to develop it specifically for the MK45 gun system with BAE leading MK45 specific integration and marketing to the MK45 user group.

Again, if your objection is that this gun should not be purchased because it is US made then yes that is valid. However as is crystal clear from my posts above, all I was doing was demonstrating why the IN would be interested in this gun system from a current and planned capabilities perspective. As far as other munitions mentioned - the Excalibur is already operational with the Indian Army the N5 is essentially it adapted for 5" guns.

The gun is a good one with potential to last long and wean the IN away from the russki camp.

It is just that the gradual piling up of many Indian eggs in the US basket is worrying.

It's also helping with the balance of payments issue and making trump look good

[Vips]

Exercise MILAN 2020: 41 Navies to come for the biggest ever exercise in India Ocean Region.

The largest gathering of navies from across the globe will be coming to India for the next edition of Naval Exercise MILAN 2020 which will be off the coast in Vishakhapatnam.

The first edition of the MILAN Exercises was in 1995 when just four countries from the neighbourhood including – Indonesia, Singapore, Sri Lanka, and Thailand participated and the focus was on promoting deeper cooperation in areas like maritime security and humanitarian assistance and disaster relief (HADR). The exercise did not take place in 2016; India was hosting the International Fleet Review. And has over the years expanded from just four littoral navies to now 41 navies coming for Exercise MILAN 2020.

[kit]

Exercise MILAN 2020: 41 Navies to come for the biggest ever exercise in India Ocean Region.

The largest gathering of navies from across the globe will be coming to India for the next edition of Naval Exercise MILAN 2020 which will be off the coast in Vishakhapatnam.

The first edition of the MILAN Exercises was in 1995 when just four countries from the neighbourhood including – Indonesia, Singapore, Sri Lanka, and Thailand participated and the focus was on promoting deeper cooperation in areas like maritime security and humanitarian assistance and disaster relief (HADR). The exercise did not take place in 2016; India was hosting the International Fleet Review. And has over the years expanded from just four littoral navies to now 41 navies coming for Exercise MILAN 2020.

An interesting exercise, Russia, US, UK, Australia all together !!

[Philip]

Dragon not seen in the sea what?

[Aditya_V]

Looks like the additional P-8 order has been reduced from 10 to 6. and the 2 more Phalcons have been nipped instead the 2 A330 are being planned as Netra next gen,

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/ind ... 282109.cms

[chola]

Looks like the additional P-8 order has been reduced from 10 to 6. and the 2 more Phalcons have been nipped instead the 2 A330 are being planned as Netra next gen,

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/ind ... 282109.cms

The price for the final two Phalcons is astronomical up to $1B a piece from some of the reports. Maybe DDM but whatever the actual price, it was way too expensive especially compared to the first three. Now you couple that the lack of air time from the February engagement and it makes sense to go in another direction.

Remember, Phalcon was originally designed for Cheen by Israel. The chinis had no platform available beyond the IL-76 so they made do with a transport aircraft that was ill-suited for the task of carrying a big radar on its back. With the A330 we can leverage a proper Western airliner aircraft that is far more efficient in the task like the 707 for the E-3 or the 737 for the Wedgetail.

I wouldn't be surprised that the A330 AWACS would have air and availability times many multiples of the Phalcon just like the P-8Is (based on the 737) are many many times more efficient than our old Russkie MPAs.