Indian Navy News & Discussion - 03 July 2018

dinesh_kimar · Post by **dinesh_kimar** » 25 Feb 2020 20:10

^ apparently we don't.

They do have berthing for ships, mosty smaller OPV types, and they're extending the runway so P8I can also be used, apart from the present Do-228.

I read somewhere that these submarines need a deep harbour, upto 70 m depth. Presently not available.

A floating dry dock can accommodate a submarine temperoarily , but will be visible in plain sight to all reconnaissance assets. It's mostly a refit/maintenance kind of thing.

Might be difficult to build for us Indians, as both Seabird and Project Varsha took about a decade plus to construct.

Giving the submarine to Myanmar solves all the infrastructure and logistics problems of the IN, in that portion of the Andaman Sea.

A nuke sub with long sea legs would be alternate solution here.

Prithwiraj · Post by **Prithwiraj** » 25 Feb 2020 20:49

Why cant we try out North Korean or Iranian Midget Submarine model -- nothing fancy but still a nuisance for the adversaries--- good for reconnaissance and fire couple of torpedos in shoot and scoot mode. Can be produced in bulk and probably will be easy on maintenance. I think this fascination of latest and greatest by all three arms of services are killing potential quick innovative solutions. If South American drug cartels can build their own midget subs -- we should definitely be able to do it.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 25 Feb 2020 22:09

That will not work. They just do not have the requisite equipment for monitoring naval traffic. Neither do they have the endurance.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 25 Feb 2020 23:18

We have 2 dry docks in the A&N quite capable of handling a major repair to a sub, but the onshore sub-repair facilities won't be there.Docking is no problem as a sub's draught is far less than a warship's.

Iranian midget subs are fine for the restricted waters of the Gulf,but not for blue water ops.If we lay a network of UW sensors and have a small fleet of UUVs with decent endurance, it would be a great move. The USN is starting unmanned ops with vessels like the Orca,etc. Russia has numerous types of UUVs,for varied specialist tasks, some are armed too. Midget subs supporting special forces is common among the principal naval powers.There are various designs too. In general however is that these midget/ mini subs are better suited to protect coastal areas,naval bases,key ports,etc.p

vishvak · Post by **vishvak** » 27 Feb 2020 03:31

Why cant we try out North Korean or Iranian Midget Submarine model -- nothing fancy but still a nuisance for the adversaries--- good for reconnaissance and fire couple of torpedos in shoot and scoot mode.

Sometimes I wonder why don't we buy few more Russian subs (Kilos) for exactly that.. keep the missile load much low, increase endurance and make their use in wartime well as addition boats.

kit · Post by **kit** » 27 Feb 2020 05:09

vishvak wrote:
Why cant we try out North Korean or Iranian Midget Submarine model -- nothing fancy but still a nuisance for the adversaries--- good for reconnaissance and fire couple of torpedos in shoot and scoot mode.
Sometimes I wonder why don't we buy few more Russian subs (Kilos) for exactly that.. keep the missile load much low, increase endurance and make their use in wartime well as addition boats.

i dont think carrying less missiles will increase endurance, defeats the purpose doesnt it., or if you are thinking less missiles for a bigger power plant/cell., then it is a whole new design !

Prithwiraj · Post by **Prithwiraj** » 27 Feb 2020 16:57

No I meant less endurance because it will be primarily a reco platform but having enough to create doubts on enemies mind. Highly specialized unmanned vehicles can also be considered. Just put more variables into the mix of equation and planning of Chinese Navy commanders. Whether it works in real scenarios or not is secondary but it will force them to think. The idea is to flood the mouth of Malacca Strait with these which can be maintained and controlled from A&N islands without much fuss.

kit · Post by **kit** » 27 Feb 2020 18:42

Prithwiraj wrote:No I meant less endurance because it will be primarily a reco platform but having enough to create doubts on enemies mind. Highly specialized unmanned vehicles can also be considered. Just put more variables into the mix of equation and planning of Chinese Navy commanders. Whether it works in real scenarios or not is secondary but it will force them to think. The idea is to flood the mouth of Malacca Strait with these which can be maintained and controlled from A&N islands without much fuss.

Guess you are talking about sub decoys , the tech is already available with nations like France and US., it is launched through torpedo tubes to simulate the acoustic signature of the targeted sub.Programmable.

Monitoring the Malacca straits is a better idea , to draw the enemy in so you can attack at the time and place of choosing. The network is in place with nodes all around the IOR.

Manish_P · Post by **Manish_P** » 27 Feb 2020 19:55

I think he is talking about standard full-size submarines but with lesser offensive systems, which along-with the reduced crew, might lead to increased endurance (lesser weight of the systems, AIP, food rations lasting longer etc).

These might even act as decoys while more advanced (and fully equipped and manned with normal complement) submarines lie stealthy in ambush at other choke points on the route.

Secondly he seems to be refereeing to ultra long endurance UUVs like the US Orca (XLUUV)

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 28 Feb 2020 03:45

Reliance points to possible termination of OPV project

Indian naval shipbuilder Reliance Naval and Engineering Limited (RNEL) has confirmed that it has received notification from the Indian Ministry of Defence (MoD) to terminate its construction of offshore patrol vessels (OPVs) for the Indian Navy (IN).

The company said in a recent stock exchange filing that the MoD's "show cause notice" outlined a requirement to "terminate the contract related to five Naval OPVs". RNEL said it will take "all the necessary steps and actions to protect its rights including arbitrary invocation of bank guarantees".

RNEL also confirmed that the company is currently undergoing a "corporate insolvency resolution process" under an order in January passed by India's National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT).

Prithwiraj · Post by **Prithwiraj** » 28 Feb 2020 06:42

Just stop being a nuisance Anil Ambani... and get the hell out and retire peacefully. You screwed up big time... time to count your loses and stop being a cry baby

mody · Post by **mody** » 28 Feb 2020 13:45

https://www.janes.com/article/94571/ind ... completion

Which is this project? Technology Demonstration Vessel, with a Long Range Multi-Function Aesa Radar?

Prithwiraj · Post by **Prithwiraj** » 28 Feb 2020 16:23

mody wrote:https://www.janes.com/article/94571/ind ... completion

Which is this project? Technology Demonstration Vessel, with a Long Range Multi-Function Aesa Radar?

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 28 Feb 2020 20:47

L&T delivered another OPV yesterday,but no mention if it was for the CG or IN.
Mobile BMos , Nirbhay/ LRCM missiles hidden in the A&N islands would be a cheaper fix instead of Kilos.However,given the excellent qualities of the sub which Ru is still beuilding along with Ladas for the RuN and for export,2 expected for Burma, I can't understand why we could not have got another 3 for just under $1B, $ 300+ M a pop.. That's about the same cost of the extra 6 Apaches (930M)!

shaun · Post by **shaun** » 28 Feb 2020 20:54

mody wrote:https://www.janes.com/article/94571/ind ... completion

Which is this project? Technology Demonstration Vessel, with a Long Range Multi-Function Aesa Radar?

https://mark20x.blogspot.com/2018/07/te ... r-atv.html

Barath · Post by **Barath** » 28 Feb 2020 21:53

Philip wrote:L&T delivered another OPV yesterday,but no mention if it was for the CG or IN.
)!

Coast guard icgs opv varad

https://www.dtnext.in/News/TamilNadu/20 ... mmissioned.

Maybe india should just buy submarines/ ultra low freeboard boats from the drug lords, or those who captured them /s

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 28 Feb 2020 22:26

ManuJ wrote:Rakesh, I agree that there is a disconnect between IN and CDS / MOD. But is that IN's fault?

What is the IN hoping to achieve by waiting for the MoD to see the light of day on a 65,000 ton aircraft carrier?

It is the IN that is insisting that three aircraft carriers are an operational necessity. But the money has to be there, which the MoD refuses to release. Perhaps then the IN should rethink its approach and strategy on aircraft carriers?

ManuJ wrote:IN's carrier program has been running for over 50 years now. They were operating 2 carriers in the eighties! Having an operational 2-carrier force, one on each coast, is a logical progression of a well thought-out plan that's been decades in the making. As is increasing the size and capabilities of carriers over time. The truth is that 40K carriers are sub-optimal. A real carrier needs to support simultaneous take-offs and landings and it needs to have a susbtantial air wing. If the country didn't have the stomach for carriers, why did it allow IN to start down this path? It's better not to spend any money on carriers than to have sub-optimal carriers for show purposes.

The bolded part is where lies the problem

It is not that the country allowed the IN to start down this path, rather it was the IN onlee. It is the IN that came up with the idea of a 65,000 ton aircraft carrier with EMALS. It was not the MoD. After formalizing the plan at Naval HQ and announcing it to the media, the IN went to the MoD and it got shot down. Should not the IN have first gone to the MoD first, before announcing it to the media? You cannot blame the MoD, when it was the IN that was living in la la land. And the super carrier idea came about with the Malabar exercises with the US Navy.

ManuJ wrote:Let's think about the future. Do we really want IN to be operating a 40K carrier in 2040-2070? Do we want IN to have a single carrier in 2040 (because as we all know, Gorshkov is not going to be around for very long), when China is encroaching into the Indian Ocean at a breath-taking speed and increasing its carrier capabilities by leaps and bounds? Do we want IN's carriers and air-wings to be sub-optimal and not be able to sustain operations at the demanded rate? Again, we have to think 20, 30, 40 years ahead when answering these questions, and consider what the capabilities of other navies in Indian Ocean would be at that time.

If we want IN to be a carrier force, there's no other option than to start on IAC-2 now. Otherwise let's stop pretending.

The IN wants three aircraft carriers. Out of the three carriers, two of them are in the 40 - 45 ton range. One is the Vikramaditya and the other is the Vikrant. So it is not a matter of the IN wanting to operate such a vessel in 2040, but rather it will be the reality. There is no way around that.

IAC-2 will not occur anytime in the near future. Either the money is released for such a vessel or the Navy drops the idea.

nam · Post by **nam** » 28 Feb 2020 23:17

If we want more carriers, we can do what the Chinese have done.

Be a 10-12 trillion economy, make efficient shipyyard and build a carrier in 3-4 years... like the Chinese.

The Chinese did not have a carrier until they turned 10 trillion..

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 29 Feb 2020 09:15

China wasn't waiting for a 10T economy, they were waiting for their carrier tech to mature (unlike us on an importgiri quest).

yensoy · Post by **yensoy** » 29 Feb 2020 09:24

You don't punch out ships like idlis after hitting 10T economy.

You hit 10T when you can punch out ships (and just about everything else) like idlis.

vishvak · Post by **vishvak** » 29 Feb 2020 09:56

kit wrote:
vishvak wrote: Sometimes I wonder why don't we buy few more Russian subs (Kilos) for exactly that.. keep the missile load much low, increase endurance and make their use in wartime well as addition boats.
i dont think carrying less missiles will increase endurance, defeats the purpose doesnt it., or if you are thinking less missiles for a bigger power plant/cell., then it is a whole new design !

That's a good idea but I was thinking of same subs ie kilos if available on good terms with nothing fancy but will help in war as extra or also for spares.

kit · Post by **kit** » 29 Feb 2020 19:00

shaun wrote:
mody wrote:https://www.janes.com/article/94571/ind ... completion

Which is this project? Technology Demonstration Vessel, with a Long Range Multi-Function Aesa Radar?

https://mark20x.blogspot.com/2018/07/te ... r-atv.html

Ballistic missile tracking ship , also demonstrator/incubator for new tracking tech , not just for missiles.

dinesh_kimar · Post by **dinesh_kimar** » 29 Feb 2020 20:54

^ The root cause seems to be lack of infrastructure to go with our strategy , and no continuity in state policy.

If submarines and deep water harbours are difficult to build, then we must patiently learn.

The most important element here is fielding of capable men, backed by good leadership.

Unfortunately, Karan M's recent post mentioned that capable men are not nurtured , but seen as a threat.

China took abt 25 years to field a capable ASW craft, an all fibre glass one.
They have now built abt 20, with half for exports.

Our ASW efforts are a conspiracy of the tendering process.

Our main strength lies in our ability to throw money and purchase weaponry from outside.

This is not that different from what many Maharajas did in our past.

And we all know what happened to them.

The powers that be must take determined steps to safeguard Andaman Islands , which have been attacked by Japanese, British and Indonesia in the past.

A Chinese take over must be avoided at all cost.

Phillip Saar is right in many cases, 3-4 kilos are a cheap and quick interim solution.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 29 Feb 2020 22:18

The IN leadership some time ago was v.pragmatic having v.little money to spend, but they chose wisely and kept cost-effectiveness as a key factor. Enlightened def. mins too helped the IN acquire systems in large number,whatever the type of warship or sub. We seem to have had a clearer vision ofthe IN's role and responsibilities then than now. Lusting after a 3rd. large CV to keep up with who-flung-dung and imitate Uncle Sam's armada ,apparently oblivious of the cost,while allowing the entire fleet of minesweepers to go to the wreckers without ANY replacement is shocking. Chiefs today ,one may be mistaken, do not forcefully press their point with the top leadership. Chiefs like Manekshaw,Pereira,etc. did differ with their PMs like IG on occasion but never suffered for speaking their mind. Babudom has stealthily neutered the voice of the military .The CDS appointment ,stalled for so long is the first huge breakthrough in decades.The CDS and the 3 chiefs,having made the breakthrough of the lines of babudom,must now pour through the opening made and seize huge "territory", which will give them dominance in mil. affairs.

As far as the IN is concerned,the leadership must get realistic,aim to increase capability and numbers keeping costs as reasonable as possible. I made the point about hhe 6 Apaches.A whole fleet of MCMs could be got for that amount too! Surely someone in the MOD is advising truthfully the DM on the various options available for limited funds for acquisitions.

kit · Post by **kit** » 02 Mar 2020 02:30

kit wrote:
pushkar.bhat wrote:
Lets just say that we have both assets and friends. PLA Navy is wise to stay in the South China Sea.
There are no "friends" in geopolitics. Push comes to shove everyone will try save their ass.

India needs power projection capabilities if its desire is to control IOR. There are no two ways about this. Land-based assets will be the first targets in a full-blown war.

https://theprint.in/defence/indian-navy ... ns/368930/

The Indian Navy is firm on its plans to have a third aircraft carrier despite Chief of Defence Staff (CDS) Gen Bipin Rawat’s scepticism, and will approach the government for permission to initiate formal design consultancy, ThePrint has learnt.

“The third aircraft carrier is an operational necessity,” a source in the Navy said. “It is not that an aircraft carrier can be bought off the shelf. Even if all permissions are given today, it will take 15 years for the carrier to be inducted.”

Asked if the Navy had budgeted for both submarines and the third carrier, a source said, “The submarines, both nuclear and conventional, are important. The third carrier is a project for the future but work has to begin now. The work that needs to be completed first is the design element. Budget is catered for.”

Navy chief Admiral Karambir Singh had said in December last year that the force’s long-term capability planning envisaged the induction of three aircraft carriers so that two are available for deployment in the Indian Ocean Region, where China has been making inroads, at all times.

A project study initiated during the tenure of former defence minister Manohar Parrikar decided that the third carrier would be a 65,000 CATOBAR (Catapult Assisted Take Off but Arrested Recovery) system with electric propulsion.
‘Shore-based air ops not enough’

Navy sources said shore-based air operations, as preferred by the CDS, were still limited by range, and this is where the aircraft carriers came into play.

They added that External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar had defined the Indian Ocean Region (IOR) as including countries fringing the entire Indian Ocean, from the Strait of Hormuz to Reunion island, from East Africa to Australia, and from Lombok Strait to Malacca Strait.

This vast oceanic expanse, they said, was well beyond the capability of strike aircraft operating from the Indian mainland, which would barely cover even 20 per cent of this area and thus leave vast swathes of IOR unchallenged.

In addition, fighter jets operating in the sea would need a significant amount of time to manoeuvre, especially if challenged by enemy fighters. This limits their range too, they said.

The sources highlighted that shore-based strike aircraft from any service, be it the Navy or the Air Force, would be in a defending position at best within 1,000 km of the coast.

Exactly what i was arguing .. Go Navy !

kit · Post by **kit** » 02 Mar 2020 02:51

Also Navys IAC 3 would be a 65 K ton conventionally powered carrier , and likely with EMALS, the 4 would be an upgraded version with nuclear power.

Lisa · Post by **Lisa** » 02 Mar 2020 03:52

IMHO, Needs need to allow for expected economic expansion and enhanced security needs that have a window of at least 10-15 years, ie how large will our economy be in 10 years time and how large a budget will we be able to accordingly support by then.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 02 Mar 2020 07:57

kit wrote:[
The sources highlighted that shore-based strike aircraft from any service, be it the Navy or the Air Force, would be in a defending position at best within 1,000 km of the coast.

Exactly what i was arguing .. Go Navy !

Ahem...Where are those damned backfires that I ordered years ago?

vishvak · Post by **vishvak** » 02 Mar 2020 10:12

Forgot to mention giving propah impetuous to engine research and development now that a lotta planes, LCA and subsequent iteration s, will have amriki engines.

This is not that different from what many Maharajas did in our past.

And we all know what happened to them.

Don't forget case of Padmanabha temple discovery when about a few years ago (or may be a decade or so) the list of offerings to the deity was to be published but it seems that 'list of valuable' jewellery is yet to come out.

John · Post by **John** » 03 Mar 2020 23:37

Milan the multi nation exercise has been postponed due to Coronavirus.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 05 Mar 2020 12:31

Does worthy For.Min.Jaisankar know that our erstwhile TU-142 Bears could fly to S.Africa and return without refuelling? Do they know that Backfires,Bears and Blackjacks carried out precision strikes in Syria flying in from Russia and that the USAF still operates a huge CW fleet of B-52s?

By the time a carrier heads out of port after at least 12 to 24 hours notice on a strike mission, a single TU-22M3M upgraded Backfires re- engined with the TU-160 Blackjacks new engines, could within a couple of hours take off from a land base and within 6 to 8 hours reach out to a range of 1850km ,deliver a salvo of a cocktail of land attack and anti-ship 12+ KH-111/555, BMos,LRCMs, out to at least 500 to 800km,and if LRCMs,1500km to 2500km away!
By the time the mission was completed and the aircraft returned uo base,the carrier would still be in port engaged in preparations for a speedy exit!

WW2 saw the end of the era of the battleship.The Japanese sank the Prince of Wales and Repulse in an abso shocker off Malaya,a fore- runner to the attack on Pearl Harbour that consigned the battleship to history.It was the era of carriers, that continued their supremacy into the Cold War. The Soviets who did not possess any derisively spoke of them.Marshal Malenkov ( if I remember correctly) ridiculed carriers as the " fifth hind leg of a dog'! Soviet strategic rocket forces was their priority and Adm. of the Fleet Sergei Gorshkov,arguable the greatest naval chief of the 20th. century,with Adm. Hyman Rickover,father of the USN's nuclear sub fleet, brilliantlyy put rockets/missiles aboard Sov. warships and subs to kill carriers. There were a dozen Oscar class SSGNs built,one for each US carrier,armed with 20 long rangd supersonic missiles,each tasked to take out one CV.

From the sinking of the Eilat, the '71 raid on Karachi,Israeli missile boat duels with Egyptians and Syrians, missiles aboard warships have proliferated.With the advent of Kalibir LRCMs aboard 1000t corvettes, land targets at extreme ranges have become the flavour of the day.Hypersonic missiles are due v.shortly with the Ru Tsirkon to make its debut this year. With CVs getting more vilnerable to current anti-ship CMs and fven Chin BMs, a radical change in warship designis required. Semi-submersible surface combatants have been proposed ( Kruschev had his submersible missile craft aeons ago) and my advocating making as many large surfacre combatants to have a flat top/ flight deck also allowihg a variety of aircratt and helos to operate,plus
concealed missiles in flush deck mode .

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 06 Mar 2020 07:01

By the time a carrier heads out of port after at least 12 to 24 hours notice on a strike mission, a single TU-22M3M upgraded Backfires re- engined with the TU-160 Blackjacks new engines, could within a couple of hours take off from a land base and within 6 to 8 hours reach out to a range of 1850km ,deliver a salvo of a cocktail of land attack and anti-ship 12+ KH-111/555, BMos,LRCMs, out to at least 500 to 800km,and if LRCMs,1500km to 2500km away!
By the time the mission was completed and the aircraft returned uo base,the carrier would still be in port engaged in preparations for a speedy exit!

Can't agree enough here. The backfires will serve the need exceptionally well until a third carrier comes along or a large number of advanced drones are developed. The M4M btw may have a version of the irbis radar since this has been tested iirc. Can you imagine where the Navy can reach with a radius of 4000km with a single ifr And long ranged CMs like brahmos and nirbhay. Even the Aussies might start to wail.
Note also that these will do a great job of shock and awe after ADs have been adequately degraded.

John · Post by **John** » 06 Mar 2020 07:26

Cain Marko wrote:
By the time a carrier heads out of port after at least 12 to 24 hours notice on a strike mission, a single TU-22M3M upgraded Backfires re- engined with the TU-160 Blackjacks new engines, could within a couple of hours take off from a land base and within 6 to 8 hours reach out to a range of 1850km ,deliver a salvo of a cocktail of land attack and anti-ship 12+ KH-111/555, BMos,LRCMs, out to at least 500 to 800km,and if LRCMs,1500km to 2500km away!
By the time the mission was completed and the aircraft returned uo base,the carrier would still be in port engaged in preparations for a speedy exit!
Can't agree enough here. The backfires will serve the need exceptionally well until a third carrier comes along or a large number of advanced drones are developed. The M4M btw may have a version of the irbis radar since this has been tested iirc. Can you imagine where the Navy can reach with a radius of 4000km with a single ifr And long ranged CMs like brahmos and nirbhay. Even the Aussies might start to wail.
Note also that these will do a great job of shock and awe after ADs have been adequately degraded.

Russia has 30 Tu-22M that are upgrade worthy unless Russia sells all 30 of them we will be lucky to even have 15 operational at one time (considering how they been crashing left and right).

And m3m can carry only 4 Kh-47m2 missile which is about same length as Brahmos. So assuming we get 12 of them and we spent whatever money navy has we be lucky to field 6 of them in any given strike missions. 6 of them carrying 4 Brahmos is not enough to saturate any Chinese DDG (if you believe Chinese Aegis DDG hype), Plus Without Su-30mki escort they will got shot down quite easily by Chinese flankers ( their sensors even after upgrade are still quite lacking). If you are doing that you just as well send 2 squadrons of Su-30s armed with Brahmos.

We are entering an era of stealth and unmanned strike vehicles throwing billions at Soviet era tech is great way to further fall behind China. There is good reason why China turned down offer from Russia to purchase Tu-22m as well.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 06 Mar 2020 08:02

John wrote:
Cain Marko wrote: Can't agree enough here. The backfires will serve the need exceptionally well until a third carrier comes along or a large number of advanced drones are developed. The M4M btw may have a version of the irbis radar since this has been tested iirc. Can you imagine where the Navy can reach with a radius of 4000km with a single ifr And long ranged CMs like brahmos and nirbhay. Even the Aussies might start to wail.
Note also that these will do a great job of shock and awe after ADs have been adequately degraded.
Russia has 30 Tu-22M that are upgrade worthy unless Russia sells all 30 of them we will be lucky to even have 15 operational at one time (considering how they been crashing left and right).

And m3m can carry only 4 Kh-47m2 missile which is about same length as Brahmos. So assuming we get 12 of them and we spent whatever money navy has we be lucky to field 6 of them in any given strike missions. 6 of them carrying 4 Brahmos is not enough to saturate any Chinese DDG (if you believe Chinese Aegis DDG hype), Plus Without Su-30mki escort they will got shot down quite easily by Chinese flankers ( their sensors even after upgrade are still quite lacking). If you are doing that you just as well send 2 squadrons of Su-30s armed with Brahmos.

We are entering an era of stealth and unmanned strike vehicles throwing billions at Soviet era tech is great way to further fall behind China. There is good reason why China turned down offer from Russia to purchase Tu-22m as well.

Even a force of 15 will be super useful. As for saturation attacks, a single backfire could be tricked out in a variety of ways...
3-4 brahmos + bombs
2 brahmos + 6 nirbhay + bombs
3-4 brahmos + 2-4 nirbhay
3 Brahmos + kh 31 or kh35 + bombs
Don't see why saturation strikes are not possible with that kind of loadout if you have multiple birds in the air. And forget Chinese DDG, I doubt if even their CVs could handle that. As far as Flankers are concerned, how exactly are they going to locate the birds when they'll be firing missiles from 600km away? Possibly even 1000km+? So far as I know their AEW is still the ka31, competent as it, I doubt it'll be able to see low flying backfires 500-1000km away. And even if it does, the backfires could launch and scoot well before any Flankers could be vectored in.

As far as MKIs are concerned, the range is nowhere even remotely close. And how can you plan to keep a 1.5sqds ready for such action at any given time? And if their ddgs are so good then it seems like our poor frigates are totally underpowered, no?

Note that if these are slightly modded, they could possibly carry 6 brahmos each on dual adapters, afterall they are capable of lugging 3 x Kh22s. Each weighing 6 tons. And are shared to carry 4 kinzhal missiles, which weigh 2x brahmos. just about how much a shivalik can carry.

Btw why are you limiting them to attacks against PLAN alone? it's not like they can't do land attack and project force in the entire IOR M, from Hormuz, past Malacca.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 06 Mar 2020 09:28

The reason for f35 +backfire is simple enough:
1.Use f35 to start the show and allow rest of the airforce to then totally sanitize and impose nfz.
2.Use backfire to project power in large swathes of IOR plus do shakinaw after. Perhaps launch bmos on Sxx installations em enmasse as well.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 06 Mar 2020 10:27

Prithwiraj wrote:Hmmm do we have submarine berthing facilities in Andaman? That will be perfect for quick refuel and restocking.

https://twitter.com/detresfa_/status/12 ... 78209?s=20 ----> Rare satellite images (2019) show an Indian Navy submarine stationed at the Andaman & Nicobar Islands, India. This visual echos India's ability & commitment to act east along with its resolve to further strengthen the Indo Pacific.

Manish_P · Post by **Manish_P** » 06 Mar 2020 19:15

kit · Post by **kit** » 06 Mar 2020 19:32

That quite aptly sums up it. The Soryus would have made better sense.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 06 Mar 2020 22:40

Back to Backfires.In 2012, Russia had around 150 Backfires in service plus another "90" mothballed! The latest 22M3M variant with Blackjack engines,etc. can carry 52,900 lbs. of ordnance in underwing,fuselage and internal weapons bays. You can work out the cocktail of missiles it can carry from that. The tragedy is that we were offered adter the '71 war around 70+ Backfires for a song,but our fighter-jock IAF chief declined the offer. So after the Canberras were pensioned off,we had nothing until the MKI came along giving some semblance of LR strike,but with limited capabilities ( 1 BMos only as of now). The IN has to change tack mindsetwise. The excruciating time it will take for a new CV to be built in India ,plus the range of anti-ship weaponry available a decade from now, may make the conventional CV look like a dinosaur ( literally waiting) waiting for the comet strike.

The Japanese are planning a revolutionary anti-ship ( read Chin CV) super/hyper gliide missile.It will fly at hyper-speeds at atmospheric heights,then given target data from various sources/ sensors, will hit the target in a vertical dive at 90 deg..Virtually unstoppable.
Submersibles and semi-submersible warships will be the most survivable of platforms in that future scenario. Why Russia is contemplating bringing backvinto service two remaining Typhoon class SSBNs,but this time in a revised role as a cruisd missile UW carrier. Over 200 LRCMs of divrerse types will be carried ,far more than the Ohio conversion in the USN ,which can carry 120.

John · Post by **John** » 06 Mar 2020 22:48

Philip wrote:Back to Backfires.In 2012, Russia had around 150 Backfires in service plus another "90" mothballed! The latest 22M3M variant with Blackjack engines,etc. can carry 52,900 lbs. of ordnance in underwing,fuselage and internal weapons bays. You can work out the cocktail of missiles it can carry from that. The tragedy is that we were offered adter the '71 war around 70+ Backfires for a song,but our fighter-jock IAF chief declined the offer. So after the Canberras were pensioned off,we had nothing until the MKI came along giving some semblance of LR strike,but with limited capabilities ( 1 BMos only as of now). The IN has to change tack mindsetwise. The excruciating time it will take for a new CV to be built in India ,plus the range of anti-ship weaponry available a decade from now, may make the conventional CV look like a dinosaur ( literally waiting) waiting for the comet strike.

Please stop spewing nonsense and slamming our IAF chiefs with your made up stories. Backfire did even enter production till 72 and Russia didn't even build 70 of them till late 70s but they already offered them to India after 71 war

. And for hundredth time Tu-22M were never offered to India till late 90s and even then originally it was lease offer then it became acquisition offer for couple of them but was rejected due to large amount of $$ Russia asked for and also missile treaty. Either way at the pace at which Russians are crashing the Tu-22M one good thing is in couple years they will run out of them so you will stop posting about it