Indian Navy News & Discussion - 03 July 2018

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 16 Mar 2020 04:19

A July '16 piece by RK Simha draws on the AWST quotes from Sweetman,etc reg. the Backfire.It was the most feared Sov. bomber and still is regarded as very potent armed with newer LR missiles.After the '71 war,when 300 Backfires were available,the IAF was offered a couple of sqds.,but ACM PC Lal rejected it.The IAF has since then remained as a tactical air force without any strat capability at all.Fighter jock mentality still prevails in the era of stand-off PGMs. A very myopic attitude.Ironically,last year,as realisation dawns about the threat to the IOR from the PLAN, an MKI was tested ( with refuelling) from Sulur conducting a mock strike against PLAN assets in the Malacca Straits carrying only one BMos ASM.Just one Backfire could with its 50K lb. payload could deliver the same as a sqd. of MKIs!

For the IN the capability is more acute. The bird can reach Darwin and back,attack PLAN assets in the ICS itself without refuelling. 4 were to have been leased some time ago ( no one is advocating a few sqds.!) but it appears that the carrier lobby ( with its far lesser- ranged aircraft like 29Ks,etc.) scuttled the deal as it would've proven its capability and questioned the need for several carriers,esp. a larger IAC-2 which the IN has been lusting for . The new TU-22M3M as I've quoted above is a ,but vastly improved maritime strike bomber than the original model. Several analysts including our own Karnad have favourably written about the Backfire's performance in Syria,etc.and the need for it in the Indian context. 8-12 Backfires would provide the IN with a huge long-range heavy ordnance capability,a supersonic aircraft capable of hitting the Chinese in their own backyard from Indian terra firma itself and with a range of stand- off PGMs too.

There is a debate going on in the US about air power, what it means in the current and future context,the arrival of UCAVs, relevance of manned aircraft,etc. and rhe shape and form of its future combat aircraft.The USN's X-47/ UCAS requirement,etc. were all pointing to increased UCAV numbers,but affected the interests of the manned fighter lobby.Manned fighters because of human crews, cannot match the endurance of unmanned aircraft.AI however cannot at the moment replace totally the performance of manned birds.Look at the accidents with unmanned vehicles for instance. A portion of the tasks of manned aircraft will be performed better by unmanned aircraft,but a huge replacement v.unlikely .UCAVs have also been operating in their own sphere- command and control, mostly in " uncontested airspace " too. One key aspect of the debate is the limitations of endurance of manned fighters,the human aspect.UCAVs can loiter
far longer than any manned fighter but have limiited payloads too.
This is why ( upgraded) Cold War war strat. bombers are still being regularly used ,increasingly by Russia in testing NATO/UK air defences. Ru Bears regularly operate off the Scottish coast. Large strat bombers like Bears ,Backfires and Blackjacks have the range and unmatched endurance to operate from Ru bases and conduct strikes in the ME.Wiki has enough details about the Backfire's successful Syrian strikes.The US still maintains its own large fleet of B-52s for the same purpose despite having the B-1 and B-2 available. Notably,the only aircraft the N.Vietnamese truly feared during the Vietnam war was the B-52 because of the massive ordnance carried which could destroy their underground tunnel networks.

The IN should similarly look at the huge advancements in aerospace tech. ,UCAV and AI developments and other points mentioned above before deciding upon the contours of a future large CV and the composition of its overall fleet air arm.

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 16 Mar 2020 09:15

True - however the navy is probably looking to fulfil a mission assigned by the GOI that may include power projection perhaps away from our shores. IAF hasn’t followed a path to increase the number of refuellers. With mere 6 refuellers you probably cannot project it’s capabilities far from the coasts.

But I see your point about Raafel M vs Rafales etc.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 16 Mar 2020 09:24

Philip wrote:Wiki has enough details about the Backfire's successful Syrian strikes.

And what would people make from that "Wiki"? How is that relevant to the IAF/IN perspective? What is the Syria like scenario the IAF/IN can be expected to get involved in for which it needs a handful of bombers which are no longer on offer (barring your global conspiracy to deny...spiel)?

The US still maintains its own large fleet of B-52s for the same purpose despite having the B-1 and B-2 available. .

The B-52 fleet for all practical purposes is younger than the B-1 fleet and the B-2 is a small fleet which serves a different role in the USAF as it is the sole penetrating bomber fleet for the USAF. B-1's will be retired, the B-52's will be upgraded and kept for a long long time. This because they have been procured and not because the USAF is looking to build some more. You keep what you have unless you have good reason not to.

Philip wrote:The IN should similarly look at the huge advancements in aerospace tech. ,UCAV and AI developments and other points mentioned above before deciding upon the contours of a future large CV and the composition of its overall fleet air arm.

Talk about the mother of all scope creeps..

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 16 Mar 2020 09:33

IAF was never offered backfire. It was offered the blinder. IAF after evaluating the aircraft rejected the offer.

John · Post by **John** » 16 Mar 2020 09:49

Pratyush wrote:IAF was never offered backfire. It was offered the blinder. IAF after evaluating the aircraft rejected the offer.

Why do you guy bother replying to Philip, i replied to him saying Soviet Union didn't even have Tu-22m till 73 and didn't have 80 of them operational till late 70s. He still continues posting nonsense of us being offered Tu-22m.

Off topic I believe tu-22 came with lot of strings attached and I thought Soviets reneged on the deal. I didn’t know we rejected it?

Philip, please stop posting the BS you are better off protesting outside Russian embassy asking Putin to actually sell us Backfire rather than posting here. Russia once again only offered to lease 4 Tu-22m3 at around 1.3 billion in 04 and haven’t offered it since.

Manish_P · Post by **Manish_P** » 16 Mar 2020 10:08

How reliable is this guy - 'Rakesh Krishnan Simha'. Based in NZ, writing for a russian publication..

His article on the F16 downing post balakot was received with neutrality here IIRC

This is from 2016

Does India really need Russia’s ‘Backfire’ bomber?

The Indian Air Force has a variety of specialised fighters, ground attack jets and multirole aircraft in its fleet, but a strategic bomber has never figured in its war plans. According to the Russian wire service Interfax, that could change as India’s Ministry of Defence has reportedly sought to buy four Tupolev Tu-22M3 maritime strike bombers from Russia.

This isn’t the first time reports have surfaced that India is interested in acquiring this fearsome Cold Warrior – codenamed Backfire by NATO. According to the Federation of American scientists, “In December 1999 it was announced that India would lease four Tu-22M3 Backfire bombers, with the aircraft slated to arrive in India as early as June 2000.” They never did

However, the first time the Backfire was set to fly into the subcontinent was in mid-1971 when Russia offered it as a strategic bomber. However, Air Chief Marshal P.C. Lal rejected the offer.

Defence analyst Bharat Karnad said, the “reasons trotted out verged on the farcical”. Karnad explains: “As Wing Commander (later Air Marshal) C.V. Gole, member of the Air Marshal Shivdev Singh Mission to Moscow and test pilot, who flew the Tu-22(M) informed me, he was appalled by the fact that he had to be winched up into the cockpit, and that the plane would have to take off from as far east as Bareilly to reach cruising altitude over Pakistan!”

...

Since the IAF has at least 400 attack aircraft, including the Sukhoi Su-30MKI, MiG-29 and Mirage-2000, that have Pakistan sorted, deploying the Backfire against Pakistan would be a huge overkill. Using limited numbers against Chinese land targets would be suicidal as Beijing has a robust air defence network bolstered by the Russian S-300 anti-aircraft missile and its Chinese knockoffs. The Backfire’s only conceivable deployment in India is as a maritime strike bomber against People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) assets, especially in the backdrop of growing Chinese naval activity in the Indian Ocean.

If the media reports about India wanting a limited number of just four Backfires are true, then it would suggest they would be deployed in a maritime – rather than strategic – strike role. The bombers are equipped to receive data directly from spy satellites monitoring the oceans. India, which has a constellation of ocean survey and spy satellites, can access real time satellite intelligence and despatch the Backfires on ship hunting missions. The bombers can also be guided by scout aircraft.

...

Air forces are highly resistant to strategic bombing being done by the navy or army. The Tu-22M being a specialised maritime strike bomber, it could – in the IAF’s view – be the beginning of the navy’s strategic air arm. The air force clearly doesn’t want the Indian Navy poaching on its turf. In this backdrop, chances are the IAF will find another farcical excuse to scuttle Backfire talks.

...

The Russian bomber is certainly a game changer, but it doesn’t mean India should rush headlong into a deal. In terms of size, firepower and reach, it dwarfs everything in India’s air arm, but it should not be forgotten that the Tu-22M is a 40 year old design. It last rolled off the assembly lines in 1993 and the aircraft is well out of guarantee, so the delivery of spares might be an issue. Flight Global reports that in 1991 the Tu-22M mission-capable rate was just 30-40 per cent, although it was not really a representative year because that’s when the Soviet command economy had collapsed.

John · Post by **John** » 16 Mar 2020 10:13

However, the first time the Backfire was set to fly into the subcontinent was in mid-1971 when Russia offered it as a strategic bomber. However, Air Chief Marshal P.C. Lal rejected the offer.

That’s incorrect it is Tu-22 not Tu-22m, as West didn’t even know about Tu-22m till 1970 and Russia didn’t field them in large number till late 70s.

Russia offered 4 Tu-22m as part of lease only in 04 as part of Gorshkov deal for 2.3 billion. We refused that (You can say sanity won out) and Russia then offered Gorshkov for around 1 billion which we agreed to ( so they were asking for essentially 1.3 billion for Tu-22m lease). But don’t worry Russians came back to ask for more money for Gorshkov in 09 which is a story for another day.

Barath · Post by **Barath** » 16 Mar 2020 10:24

John wrote:
Pratyush wrote:IAF was never offered backfire. It was offered the blinder. IAF after evaluating the aircraft rejected the offer.
Why do you guy bother replying to Philip, i replied to him saying Soviet Union didn't even have Tu-22m till 73 and didn't have 80 of them operational till late 70s. He still continues posting nonsense of us being offered Tu-22m.

Off topic I believe tu-22 came with lot of strings attached and I thought Soviets reneged on the deal. I didn’t know we rejected it?

Philip, please stop posting the BS you are better off protesting outside Russian embassy asking Putin to actually sell us Backfire rather than posting here. Russia once again only offered to lease 4 Tu-22m3 at around 1.3 billion in 04 and haven’t offered it since.

https://web.archive.org/web/20150924163 ... 53329.html

It says there was lease to sign contract for 4 in 2001 (probably the same as in 2004?). Obviously nothing fructified. The standoff missiles,it was noted was a violation of MTCR back then.

I'm not sure if Phillip is looking to use these against US carriers ? Or against future chinese carriers near India.

As you noted the soviet doctrine was to have an asymmetrical response, to throw their T22s etc against the US carriers in a virtual kamikaze attempt to take them down in event of all out nuclear war (See Tokarev :https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/nwc-r ... 67/iss1/7/)

China has the H10 and standoff cruise missiles, but also has the DF-21 for asymmetrical response against nearby US carriers. Obtining recon, targeting and guidance to act in timely fashion is the larger problem.

India should consider other asymmetrical responses against Chinese carriers, than acquiring so few planes for such little marginal benefit. In any event, India already has the P8i, and if you wish to sacrifice a few maritime plane in a kamikaze attack against a carrier when equipped with long range stand-off missiles, that might be a more appropriate platform.

Manish_P · Post by **Manish_P** » 16 Mar 2020 11:02

John wrote: That’s incorrect it is Tu-22 not Tu-22m, as West didn’t even know about Tu-22m till 1970 and Russia didn’t field them in large number till late 70s.

Russia offered 4 Tu-22m as part of lease only in 04 as part of Gorshkov deal for 2.3 billion. We refused that (You can say sanity won out) and Russia then offered Gorshkov for around 1 billion which we agreed to ( so they were asking for essentially 1.3 billion for Tu-22m lease). But don’t worry Russians came back to ask for more money for Gorshkov in 09 which is a story for another day.

OK. Have read up on the Gorshkov on BRF in quite detail. Including theories like how part of the money was payment to get our Nuke sub tech. Don't want to divert the discussion there.

The Tu22M3 aircraft would make some sense now, for the IN against the PLAN surface fleet, if they were in production (not old airframes), modernized (engines, avionics, systems able to interface with the P8Is and our satellites), with no issues on spares etc. But even with that would just 4 or 8 be enough? Having a squadron with guaranteed uptime of 70-75% and above, would be hugely expensive and would starve the IN of funds for other critical systems like Submarines for instance.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 16 Mar 2020 11:57

John wrote: Why do you guy bother replying to Philip,

He is on my ignore list. But when others respond to him. I can see what they are responding to. So I can't really escape from his posts.

This was a blatant mis statement. So had no choice but to set the record straight.

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 16 Mar 2020 18:56

Philip thinks India only deserves discarded outdated things from 1st class nations like russia and uk. Many times if people suggest bit advanced and modern like Yasen SSN Or Tu-160 he says no its too advanced for Indians!

Manish_P · Post by **Manish_P** » 16 Mar 2020 19:16

<OT>Haven't seen a post from 'Austin' for a long time. He used to post about new/updated Russian systems in informative detail.</OT>

John · Post by **John** » 16 Mar 2020 20:07

Manish_P wrote:
The Tu22M3 aircraft would make some sense now, for the IN against the PLAN surface fleet, if they were in production (not old airframes), modernized (engines, avionics, systems able to interface with the P8Is and our satellites), with no issues on spares etc. But even with that would just 4 or 8 be enough? Having a squadron with guaranteed uptime of 70-75% and above, would be hugely expensive and would starve the IN of funds for other critical systems like Submarines for instance.

I was big fan of Tu-22m3 back in 00s but the costs and meager amount russia is offering made it into terrible deal. As i stated earlier doesn't make sense to buy cold war relics and waste our $$$, as China is moving further ahead towards stealth and unmanned strike platforms.

As for the deal Russia only offered 4 of them i am guessing it is because only 30 of 62 whatever that is left is truly operational and so giving up anymore would have hurt them as much as they want to make $$$. On that thought they already crashed 3 of them in past 1.5 years shows how hard it is to maintain and operate them and these don't do too many sorties either.

Barath wrote:India should consider other asymmetrical responses against Chinese carriers, than acquiring so few planes for such little marginal benefit. In any event, India already has the P8i, and if you wish to sacrifice a few maritime plane in a kamikaze attack against a carrier when equipped with long range stand-off missiles, that might be a more appropriate platform.

I would say we need to accelerate our AshM programs we have various programs (Brahmos-M, Nirbhay-Ashm?, NASM) and allow all our platforms (LCA, Rafale, P-8I, Su-30mki) to carry next gen AshM to counter PLAN not just continuing purchasing handful of western AshM at ridiculous prices (Harpoon, Exocet).

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 16 Mar 2020 20:48

John, before you display your limited info. boundary,please keep yourself updated with events. For the umpteenth time,around 40+ legacy Backfires are being upgraded,all to be completed within the next few years out of a current fleet of at least 100 ( USN estimates in the USNI 2019 article details given below).There are more in mothballed condition,the Russians don't advertise figures for obvious reasons.Around 400 were built.The TU-22M3M with Blackjack engines ,glass cockpit and an approx. 50K lb weaponsload is the new variant's capability with a 600km increase in range. Backfires have been extensively used in Syria delivering various types of ordnance flying out from bases in Russia. They made a huge difference against eliminating ISIS centres and targets. The new stand-off supersonic missiles mentioned earlier make them even more deadly than before,not just for land attack but especially in the maritime sphere.
In IN service, A small fleet of Backfires would devastate any PLAN CBG in the ICS ( S.China Sea) itself.

P-8s are dedicated ASW LRMP aircraft,subsonic and cannot carry any ASM larger than Harpoon ( no BMos possible) ,which is decades long in the tooth. Backfires are for maritime strike and will carry a variety of supersonic missiles including BMos.

Now I repeat for everyone here ,especially John, details from the USNI 2019 issue 145.Titled, "Renewed Backfire Bomber threat to the US".by Dr.Mark Schntider.

Some details:
Mk-32-02 engines.
4,350nm range.
KH-101 and KH-555 missiles.
KH-32 620nm range, Mach 5.0 speed,virtually unstoppable.
The Kinzhal missile will also be carried in the future ( on the MIG-31) with an estimates range of 1,360nm.
Some of these missiles have dual purpose roles,meaning that they can carry both nuclear and non-nuclear warheads.

So gentlemen,if some of you think that you know better than the US Navy,please carry on! I only post authenticated info.,as always,acknowledging errors if any.
I maintain that Backfires in IN service would be a tremendous asset,affordable too especially if leased.

By the way,due to funds shortage holding up the infra for a new IN base/ berth for our carriers,the IN is to base for a period of 8 years our CVs,esp. IAC-1 at L&Ts Katupalli yard for an annual sum of 40+ cr. That being so,fat chance of a 3rd. carrier! Time to look at Backfires again. Incidentally,in a TV discussion,a former V.Adm.,former head of Eastern Naval Command spoke about rhat I've been harping about for decades,India's ( unsinkable) peninsula landmass jutting right into the centre of the IOR,the second largest peninsula in the world. As in some above posts by members,the Backfire deal was scuttled by anti- IN elements,not wanting the IN to possess strat. bombers even in the maritimd role.Is there a conspiracy to deny India a strat. bomber which would make a huge difference to our dominartion of the IOR and bryond,plus give us a genuine strat. air capability aircraft? As said before,our MKIs need refuelling to get yo thf Malacca Straits and can carry only 1 BMos missile . If the USN considers Backfires a renewed threat to it today, with " unstoppable" missiles, imagine what it could do to the PLAN!

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 16 Mar 2020 21:42

Philip wrote: For the umpteenth time,around 40+ legacy Backfires are being upgraded,all to be completed within the next few years out of a current fleet of at least 100 ( USN estimates in the USNI 2019 article details given below).

From the very first reference in the article you erroneously (or perhaps deliberately) claim to have been written by the "USN" :-

"A total of 30 operational Tu-22M3 aircraft are expected to be modernized to the level of the Tu-22M3M in the immediate future" - Viktor Bondarev Head of the Federation Council Defense Committee LINK

Philip wrote:Backfires have been extensively used in Syria delivering various types of ordnance flying out from bases in Russia. They made a huge difference against eliminating ISIS centres and targets

When is the IAF/IN expected to be involved in bombing terrorists thousands of miles from India in a completely benign environment?

Philip wrote:In IN service, A small fleet of Backfires would devastate any PLAN CBG in the ICS ( S.China Sea) itself.

Most will be weary of the claim that a small number of old bombers would devastate anything of this nature. There are easy ways for a carrier force to plan and counter such a small force.

Philip wrote:P-8s are dedicated ASW LRMP aircraft,subsonic and cannot carry any ASM larger than Harpoon ( no BMos possible) ,which is decades long in the tooth.

Both the JSM, and the LRASM are up for integration on the P-8.

Philip wrote:So gentlemen,if some of you think that you know better than the US Navy,

The article has nothing to do with the US Navy, like 99% of Proceedings' articles. It is an opinion post written by a retired policy wonk in his private capacity. One would think you would know at least that level of basic information about what you are citing especially when you double down.

Philip wrote: If the USN considers Backfires a renewed threat to it today, with " unstoppable" missiles, imagine what it could do to the PLAN!

No missile is "unstoppable" just as no ship is "unsinkable", or no aircraft is "undetectable". A Medium to Intermediate range aeroballistic missile is the type of threat the US Navy is already very well prepared to counter and has been preparing to confront in vast quantities to protect its CSG. In fact this is exactly the threat AEGIS has been preparing to deal with for the last 10 years. AEGIS has defeated Medium and Intermediate ranged, Air Launched - Ballistic Missiles, in tests, on a number of occasions including both its Mid-Course and Sea Based terminal mission sets.

Here's a link/reference that can actually be claimed to have been "written" by the USN -

https://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=108086

Add to this the fact that the SM-6 has been designed to defeat up to 3000 km ranged highly maneuvering Ballistic Missiles (The Kinzhal is well short of that) and in fact an upgraded SM-6 will even be tested against a 1st generation boost-glide threat in 2023/2024 and that will be much more sophisticated than any missile of this type the Russian's currently or plan to carry against the relevant.

John · Post by **John** » 16 Mar 2020 22:00

Philip wrote:John, before you display your limited info. boundary,please keep yourself updated with events. For the umpteenth time,around 40+ legacy Backfires are being upgraded,all to be completed within the next few years out of a current fleet of at least 100 ( USN estimates in the USNI 2019 article details given below).There are more in mothballed condition,the Russians don't advertise figures for obvious reasons.Around 400 were built.

I know Brar covered most of the items but you just making up shit unlike you I have sources. Russia intends to update 30 out of 62 Tu-22m (see link below) and as per another source (not confirmed) Russia will be lucky to update even dozen given state of economy.

https://thediplomat.com/2018/08/russia- ... ge-bomber/

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 17 Mar 2020 00:20

Philipji, you definitely have a point... The bombers would be useful in a variety of scenarios. Great stick to have. Can't agree enough. Cheap. Fast, great range. And easily capable of carrying 3-4 brahmos.

Question is... Are they available? If not, perhaps India can make a case for new built blackjacks?

John · Post by **John** » 17 Mar 2020 00:27

Cain Marko wrote:Philipji, you definitely have a point... The bombers would be useful in a variety of scenarios. Great stick to have. Can't agree enough. Cheap. Fast, great range. And easily capable of carrying 3-4 brahmos.

Question is... Are they available? If not, perhaps India can make a case for new built blackjacks?

They are not available they were only offered for lease and after that it was no longer offered. Considering russians have been very good at crashing these lately only couple years before entire fleet is gone.

This is one pointless discussions in BRF for past 5 years, since Tu-22m is not being offered and Indian navy has no interest in it but Philip keeps bringing up about how great they are and how we can buy 100s of them and arm it with gazillion Brahmos. If we are engaging in fantasy just as well talk about us buying Death Stars and star destroyers..

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 17 Mar 2020 00:33

Mod-Note: This has gone on long enough. NO more discussion about Backfires for IN here unless the IN itself expresses explicit interest in it. Warnings/bans will follow if this rule is violated.

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 17 Mar 2020 00:57

Why does it have to be Tu-22M or Tu-160 or nothing?

PN acquired second hand civil ATRs, and then upgraded them separately to military standard:

There is a lot we can do if we are willing to work with lower cost, lower capability systems. Not everything has to nbe gold plated.

John · Post by **John** » 17 Mar 2020 07:47

Aditya G wrote:Why does it have to be Tu-22M or Tu-160 or nothing?

Question is are we looking pure maritime strike platform (Tu-22m) or multi mission maritime platform. Former we have no need at the moment and for latter we do have some gap between P-8i and Dornier but to be honest we should be using drones to address that gap not another MPA.

Barath · Post by **Barath** » 17 Mar 2020 08:42

A cruise missile is a single use drone ..

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 17 Mar 2020 23:37

Subsonic anti-ship missiles today have to strike a target with at
least 3 to 4 hits to cripple or sink a DDG.Years ago USN intel concluded that it would take a min. of 3 missiles to sink a Kashin/ Rajput class DDG. However,we are today on the age of BMos/ Yakhont,M.3+ supersonic missiles which cannot be carried by current western LRMP aircraft. As in earlier posts shown,there are even deadlier missiles than BMos available like the KH-32,etc.Some have M 5.0 speeds,ranges on 1350+ nm.,etc.Kalibir, the LR version of Klub has a range of 1500/2000km,,but a new variant will increase it to beyond 4000km! .Aircraft like P-8Is are dedicated ASW birds with only previous century ,subsonic Harpoon or Exocets available.,which today's improved air defences can deal with. As said above,even these require multiple hits.These aircraft also have limited payloads.Maritime ATRs, C-295s,etc. can deal with smaller vessels only with smaller anti-ship missiles.

Backfires,Bears,Blackjacks were designed as dedicated strat. bombers which could also carry large conventional payloads. Their speed,range,endurance and payload make them the most potent maritime strike platforms available. As I said before, even our MKIs with inflight refuelling can carry only one BMos with a missile range of 500km upto 800km in the future perhaps. At least half a sqd. of MKIs would be needed to attack a PLAN CBG for launching just 8 BMos, which just one of the supersonic birds mentioned could deliver the same if not more. Hence their continued relevance and current upgrades which will see them in service for another 20+ years.
We do not know much about the progress of our stealth UCAV, but it is not a large B-2 class strat. bomber.Its payload will also be modest .

WW2 and most conflicts subsequently showed that air power at sea proved decisive in the maritime sphere.Pearl Harbour,Midway, made the carrier top sea dog. In the Battle of the Atlantic,British code-breaking allowed the Allies to send anti-sub aircraft and ships to locations of German U-boats, which turned the tide in favour of the Allies. The change that has taken place today,ever since Adm.Gorshkov placed massive missiles aboard Sov. warships and subs ,whose successors to those early missiles , allows battles to take place from far greater ranges and with more devastating payloads. This has made the carrier far more vulnerable to the missiles of the 21st. century,questioning the survivability of the carrier ,not just from LR maritime strike bombers, but also from the latest gen. of v.deep diving subs immune to almost all anti-sub weaponry, armed with dozens of missiles and torpedoes.

India is lucky in that almost anything from the Sov./ Ru inventory is available,at prices better than western ( if available, options). The manner in which TU-142 BEARs are loitering for 4 hrs. monitoring a USN N-sub exercise off the Alaskan coast reinforces our need for a similar platform to sanitise the IOR and beyond. LR HALE UCAVs might have the range and endurance,but not thf firepower.

kit · Post by **kit** » 17 Mar 2020 23:49

Philip wrote:Subsonic anti-ship missiles today have to strike a target with at
least 3 to 4 hits to cripple or sink a DDG.Years ago USN intel concluded that it would take a min. of 3 missiles to sink a Kashin/ Rajput class DDG. However,we are today on the age of BMos/ Yakhont,M.3+ supersonic missiles which cannot be carried by current western LRMP aircraft. As in earlier posts shown,there are even deadlier missiles than BMos available like the KH-32,etc.Some have M 5.0 speeds,ranges on 1350+ nm.,etc.Kalibir, the LR version of Klub has a range of 1500/2000km,,but a new variant will increase it to beyond 4000km! .Aircraft like P-8Is are dedicated ASW birds with only previous century ,subsonic Harpoon or Exocets available.,which today's improved air defences can deal with. As said above,even these require multiple hots.These aircraft also have limited payloads.Maritime ATRs, C-295s,etc. can deal with smaller vessels only with smaller anti-ship missiles.

Backfires,Bears,Blackjacks were designed as dedicated strat. bombers which could also carry large conventional payloads. Their speed,range,endurance and payload make them the most potent maritimd strike platforms available. As I said before, evenvour MKIs with inflight refuelling can carry only one BMos with a missile range of 500km upto 800km in the future perhaps. At least half a sqd. of MKIs would be needed to attack a PLAN CBG which just one of the supersonic birds mentioned could deliver,hence their continued relevance and current upgrades.
We do not know much about the progress of our stealth UCAV, but it is not a large B-2 class strat. bomber.Its payload will also be modest .

WW2 and most conflicts subsequently showed that air power at sea proved decisive in the maritime sphere.Pearl Harbour,Midway, made the carrier top sea dog. In the Battle of the Atlantic,British code-breaking allowed the Allies to send anti-sub aircraft and ships to locations of German U-boats, which turned the tide in favour of the Allies. The change that has taken place today,ever since Adm.Gorshkov placed massive missiles aboard Sov. warships and subs ,whose successors to those early missiles , allows battles to take place from far greater ranges. This has made the carrier far more vulnerable to the missiles of the 21st. century,questioning the survivability of the carrier ,not just from LR maritime strike bombers, but also from the latest gen. of v.deep diving subs immune to almost all anti-sub weaponry, armed with dozens of weaponry.

An aircraft carrier doesnt exist "alone" , you talk about an AC group !!.. there is very potent element of air defence here ranging uptill outer space for certain AC fleets !! , there is no other system comparable to an AC group to bring offensive firepower to outflank an enemy defense. Aircraft carriers ARE still valid for the foreseeable future despite the development of all sorts of futuristic missiles ( including hypersonic ) , sensor development has progressed to match and counter such developments.

SSBNs even cruise missile carrying ones can play a niche role in the early stages of war , but sustained operations are limited esp in Indian context.

Lisa · Post by **Lisa** » 18 Mar 2020 00:07

Philip wrote:Subsonic anti-ship missiles today have to strike a target with at least 3 to 4 hits to cripple or sink a DDG.Years ago USN intel concluded that it would take a min. of 3 missiles to sink a Kashin/ Rajput class DDG.

Really,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Sheff ... 0)#Sinking

Sunk with a single subsonic missile whose warhead did not detonate!

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 18 Mar 2020 00:22

Kit,the 1350 nm range of M 5.0 missiles of the KH series make them ( if you've read the USN article) " unstoppable" and out of range of fleet air defences,both missiles and aircraft. In addition,these aircraft mentioned also carry the Kinzhal,speed Mach 10, operational range 3000km on the TU-22M3M,which can carry 4 of them. We are trying to develop a LR AAM version of BMos say some sources,but it will take time to deliver.

HMS Sheffield was a small DDG,with a limited air defence system,Sea Dart if I remember right. The fuel in the unexploded missile caused a huge fire which engulfed the vessel. Exocet may have been fine at the time of the Falklands war, 3 decades ago!
Since then anti-missile air defences are far more capable, and are layered,with SAMs,BPDMS,gatlings, etc.,plus advanced EW systems and decoys.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 18 Mar 2020 01:05

Philip wrote:Kit,the 1350 nm range of M 5.0 missiles of the KH series make them ( if you've read the USN article)...

Please stop peddling that article as if it belongs to the "USN". This is at least the second time you have misrepresented it. Facts should matter as this forum is a place where most folks like to have an elevated technical discussion as opposed to a run of the mill social media where accuracy can be thrown out of the window in the interest of trolling and trying to get your message across.

And no, as described those missiles are not unstoppable.

Lisa wrote:Really,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Sheff ... 0)#Sinking

Sunk with a single subsonic missile whose warhead did not detonate!

You don't need to sink a ship to take it out of action, pretty much for the duration of the conflict. The object is to take out its warfighting capability and that will go away the moment the sophisticated sensors and weapons system take a hit. Once you've made that inroad you can decide on what to do with it as it will be in no position to fight. If you decide to do nothing and the ship limps back...it will be out of action for at least 2-3 years. In the best case scenario! The USN had two dry-dock's available and enough transportation to take the damaged destroyers (following at sea collisions) as fast as possible..yet those heavily reinforced DDG-51's were still out of action for 2.5 years or more.

How many masts, sensors and combat systems can survive a direct hit with 1 or two of these?

And still continue to defend themselves? What about the crew that has to fight the fight after a couple of these hit? And fight the fire and try to try to defend further? There is a reason why lethality is quite a bit lower in terms of priority in an AshM compared to survivability. The biggest challenge is to score a hit..Once you do that you are in good standing regardless of whether you have a 200 kg warhead, or a 500 kg warhead, are traveling at Mach .9 or Mach 3. On survivability, there are number of ways to acheive that based on the capability of the opponent's combat system and defensive capability. Active and passive seekers are viable, as are supersonic and VLO subsonic weapons. All these have a role in the modern battlefield..What is the MOST CRITICAL element is your ability to fire-control and close kill chains and your ISR capability and how resilient and survivable that is. Any large modern sea battle will go into space so the survivability of your space capability, and other air and terrestrial ISR capability is going to be paramount. If you can't see it, can't track it, nad can't do it despite the deception being exercised by your opponent..there is little that a weapon can do.

John · Post by **John** » 18 Mar 2020 11:22

Philip wrote:Backfires,Bears,Blackjacks were designed as dedicated strat. bombers which could also carry large conventional payloads. Their speed,range,endurance and payload make them the most potent maritime strike platforms available.

See comment above no more discussion on Backfire...

VinodTK · Post by **VinodTK** » 18 Mar 2020 23:15

Special Report - Life on an Indian Submarine

basant · Post by **basant** » 24 Mar 2020 09:00

Update on Turkish Ship order from Jane's

India signs USD2.1 billion deal with TAIS for fleet support ships
India's state-owned Hindustan Shipyard Limited (HSL) and TAIS, a consortium of five Turkish shipbuilders, have signed an INR160 billion (USD2.1 billion) deal to jointly design and build five 45,000-tonne fleet support vessels for the Indian Navy (IN).

A Ministry of Defence (MoD) spokesperson told Jane's on 23 March that the deal had been signed in February after being put on hold for months over tensions between New Delhi and Ankara. No further details were provided by the MoD.

Other sources, however, told Jane's that the deal was signed after receiving approval from the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) and the MoD's Vigilance Department, both of which were initially opposed to finalising the deal.

sum · Post by **sum** » 24 Mar 2020 11:24

Not sure which wall one has to go and bang head against to help understand the logic of this move

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 24 Mar 2020 14:25

Stupid to make a deal with Sultan's Turkey given their hostility towards Indians, I hope we don't get royally shafted for this deal.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 24 Mar 2020 18:46

So the Russians have offered used Kilo boats to make up the shortfall.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 24 Mar 2020 18:47

In case the picture above does not load, please visit this link....

Indian Navy will consider subs by the Kilo
https://www.dailyo.in/politics/indian-n ... 32600.html
23 March 2020

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 24 Mar 2020 19:11

https://twitter.com/VinodDX9/status/124 ... 22337?s=20 ----> Indian Navy operates;

1) 4 HDW 209, Type 1500 subs (Shishumar Class) [4 out of planned 6]
2) Kilo Subs (Shindhughosh Class) [8 out of acquired 10]
3) Scorpene (Kalvari Class)

https://twitter.com/VinodDX9/status/124 ... 55233?s=20 ---> In Shishumar Class, INS Shishumar and INS Shankush to go through MRLC program which will extend their life by over 10 years. While INS Shankul and INS Shalki to be retrofitted with new weapon systems and modernization.

[ Thyssenkrupp Marine Systems and MDL win service contract for overhaul of Indian Navy submarine
https://www.thyssenkrupp-india.com/en/p ... arine.html ]

https://twitter.com/VinodDX9/status/124 ... 98080?s=20 ---> In Sindhughosh Class, three subs are yet to be upgraded i.e they will see LEP soon (that is where 3+3 arrangement is offered). The Sindhurakshak sank in 2013 and the retrofitted Sindhuvir to be transferred/already transferred to Myanmar (Burma).

basant · Post by **basant** » 24 Mar 2020 20:21

Aditya_V wrote:Stupid to make a deal with Sultan's Turkey given their hostility towards Indians, I hope we don't get royally shafted for this deal.

It appears from Economic Times article that the factors leading to the decision could be HSL's insistence and legal and financial implications of cancelling the bid.

John · Post by **John** » 25 Mar 2020 02:33

Rakesh wrote:In case the picture above does not load, please visit this link....

Indian Navy will consider subs by the Kilo
https://www.dailyo.in/politics/indian-n ... 32600.html
23 March 2020

Why buy old Russian Kilo rather than buying some new Kilo submarines? They crank these out pretty fast.

krishna_krishna · Post by **krishna_krishna** » 25 Mar 2020 06:33

Rakesh wrote:https://twitter.com/VinodDX9/status/124 ... 22337?s=20 ----> Indian Navy operates;

This could just be a proposal from Russia, but I have a feeling that P-75I will go to Germany. With Russians taken care via this kilo deal in addition to SSN deal. Frenchies should be made to pay for disclosures of scorpenes.

fanne · Post by **fanne** » 25 Mar 2020 08:13

John wrote:
Rakesh wrote:In case the picture above does not load, please visit this link....

Indian Navy will consider subs by the Kilo
https://www.dailyo.in/politics/indian-n ... 32600.html
23 March 2020
Why buy old Russian Kilo rather than buying some new Kilo submarines? They crank these out pretty fast.

cost?

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 25 Mar 2020 08:35

Old or new, inexpensive or pricy...Philip Sir is going to be very happy