Indian Navy News & Discussion - 03 July 2018

[brar_w]

Did I say VLS?
Decoys to fool air defense is not something new. The delivery platforms can be anything. My argument was that using TLAMs for anti ship roles does not make sense cause its slow. You countered that they will be used for saturation attacks. I countered that saying, it makes more sense to use missile decoys.

Air-Launched decoys require constant air-power presence and a guarantee that such support will be available anytime you have a naval vessel that needs to launch a missile. So yes, if you can guarantee that ability, all the time, then you can do away with lower-cost, higher-flexibility weapons and just rely on air-power to come in and provide the saturation.

Unfortunately, few if any navies, take that for granted. Hence why you see a broad portfolio of anti-ship weapons across the performance and cost spectrum. When you have to pack VLS cells you make trades based on performance, and the ability of your threat (measured in survivability and lethality of your weapon choices as they relate to your assessment of your enemies air defense capabilities) to overcome what you can put out both in terms of quality and quantity. When your ships leave their VLS footprint is nearly set in stone (at sea VLS replenishment, even if it comes back is still not a sustainable strategy at scale) and it means that within that portfolio they must be able to respond to the wide spectrum of roles and missions where they may be called upon to perform. Hence you see navies around the world maintain, and even modernize their subsonic AshM weapon portfolio while fielding or working on supersonic or even hypersonic AshM or dual-role weapons.

The Va TLAM is a great saturation weapon because at that range, and with the ability to attack both land and sea targets you get an extremely cost effective weapon that is flexible enough to meet multiple needs. A brand new Va would cost under $2 MM and a Block IV to Va conversion probably sub $300K (that's what the USN is doing instead of buying new weapons). The LRASM goes for $3.2 Million and the Mach 5+ SM-6 1B will likely be around $5 Million. So you can see the various combinations of cost, performance and the ability to saturation play out. I suspect, it would be the very same thing with the Brahmos and Nirbhay combination in the IN. The former will be the higher cost lower volume option while the latter will be the lower cost higher volume option. Both have their place and both present challenges to any naval force confronting them.

Coming to 'squeezing' 12 decoys. You do realize that radar footprint is a function of shape and not size right?

You claimed that a "1000 km anything can house a dozen decoys" so I assume you've cracked how to squeeze in a dozen decoys in the same space that a Block Va TLAM would take up. If so, I'd like to see your solution. I don't know where the "radar footprint" comes from.

How does a long ranged subsonic like nirbhay work for anti ship duties? Target tracking would be a pita.

USN is already on that path. All Tomahawks will have a moving target capability, with some hardware (active radar seeker) and software upgrades (datalinks?). The LRASM already can do that, so it isnt a massive technical challenge

LRASM and Block Va are different. The former uses passive RF, passive IIR and a combination of LOS and NLOS networking. The Block Va is more simpler AESA (RF-active) seeker upgrade to the TLAM with a passive targeting interim capability fielded while the seeker goes through its paces for mid 2020's IOC. For long range subsonic targeting you need excellent ISR so at those extreme ranges you will have to have it order to get those ranges. But since these are dual-role weapons (TLAM) all you are talking about is adding an additional seeker capability while retaining everything else so at best you have a long range attack option when you have good ISR, and at worst you have the same TLAM land attack capability that you need anyways. When you have limited real-estate on ships having weapons that can do more than one mission looks a very attractive proposition and are therefore desirable.

[george]

Did I say VLS?
Decoys to fool air defense is not something new. The delivery platforms can be anything. My argument was that using TLAMs for anti ship roles does not make sense cause its slow. You countered that they will be used for saturation attacks. I countered that saying, it makes more sense to use missile decoys.

Air-Launched decoys require constant air-power presence and a guarantee that such support will be available anytime you have a naval vessel that needs to launch a missile. So yes, if you can guarantee that ability, all the time, then you can do away with lower-cost, higher-flexibility weapons and just rely on air-power to come in and provide the saturation.

Unfortunately, few if any navies, take that for granted. Hence why you see a broad portfolio of anti-ship weapons across the performance and cost spectrum. When you have to pack VLS cells you make trades based on performance, and the ability of your threat (measured in survivability and lethality of your weapon choices as they relate to your assessment of your enemies air defense capabilities) to overcome what you can put out both in terms of quality and quantity. When your ships leave their VLS footprint is nearly set in stone (at sea VLS replenishment, even if it comes back is still not a sustainable strategy at scale) and it means that within that portfolio they must be able to respond to the wide spectrum of roles and missions where they may be called upon to perform. Hence you see navies around the world maintain, and even modernize their subsonic AshM weapon portfolio while fielding or working on supersonic or even hypersonic AshM or dual-role weapons.

The Va TLAM is a great saturation weapon because at that range, and with the ability to attack both land and sea targets you get an extremely cost effective weapon that is flexible enough to meet multiple needs. A brand new Va would cost under $2 MM and a Block IV to Va conversion probably sub $300K (that's what the USN is doing instead of buying new weapons). The LRASM goes for $3.2 Million and the Mach 5+ SM-6 1B will likely be around $5 Million. So you can see the various combinations of cost, performance and the ability to saturation play out. I suspect, it would be the very same thing with the Brahmos and Nirbhay combination in the IN. The former will be the higher cost lower volume option while the latter will be the lower cost higher volume option.

Coming to 'squeezing' 12 decoys. You do realize that radar footprint is a function of shape and not size right?

You claimed that a "1000 km anything can house a dozen decoys" so I assume you've cracked how to squeeze in a dozen decoys in the same space that a Block Va TLAM would take up. If so, I'd like to see your solution. I don't know where the "radar footprint" comes from.

I quoted the word squeeze, not 12.

A decoy to fool a radar does not need to be the size of a warhead. You can mimic a warhead and be 1/10th the size. radar footprint or radar signature, whatever floats your boats.

The rest of your post is quite enlightening, especially since they make a case for most navies having awesome air defense. Hence my initial thought of subsonics getting taken out easily. Thank you for making my point. Good Day.

p.s. by warhead i mean the terminal segment of the ASHM. I know your love for nitpicking. Gonna scram google to see the ops doctrine of TLAMS for saturation attacks.

[brar_w]

I quoted the word squeeze, not 12.

A decoy to fool a radar does not need to be the size of a warhead. You can mimic a warhead and be 1/10th the size. radar footprint or radar signature, whatever floats your boats.

Whatever it is that you claim, please point to something where you can "squeeze" twelve decoys (of whatever shape or radar signature you desire) into the same real estate occupied by a land-attack weapon such as the TLAM or Nirbhay or a similarly sized weapon. Of course, get those twelve decoys to the same range.

The rest of your post is quite enlightening, especially since they make a case for most navies having awesome air defense. Hence my initial thought of subsonics getting taken out easily. Thank you for making my point. Good Day.

I didn't mention the air-defense aspect at all. What I did say was that nations balance their AshM capability with their assessment of their enemies air-defense abilities. So the fact that subsonic anti ship cruise missiles exist, and even newer types are being fielded or developed is a strong indication that many navies around the world think that they add value to their anti-ship or attack portfolio. The same will be the case when a anti-ship Nirbhay is fielded in a few years time.

[george]

I quoted the word squeeze, not 12.

A decoy to fool a radar does not need to be the size of a warhead. You can mimic a warhead and be 1/10th the size. radar footprint or radar signature, whatever floats your boats.

Whatever it is that you claim, please point to something where you can "squeeze" twelve decoys (of whatever shape or radar signature you desire) into the same real estate occupied by a land-attack weapon such as the TLAM or Nirbhay or a similarly sized weapon. Of course, get those twelve decoys to the same range.

Am I to work under the assumption that you are privy to every system the USN or any modern navy possesses? Or are you completely not getting the fact that a small decoy can mimic a large missile? Im sure you get it, you just seem to want to ignore it?

Also I did not claim anything, I just said, it would make way more sense to use decoys in one delivery system rather than using an extremely long range and extremely slow missile to do saturation attacks.

[brar_w]

Am I to work under the assumption that you are privy to every system the USN or any modern navy possesses?

So I take it that you won't be sharing details of a system that can launch to the same distance as the Block Va TLAM, unleash a dozen decoys that perfectly mimic AshM cruise missile RF-signatures and flight profiles (against a moving target no less) and occupy the same VLS real estate as the TLAM?

Also I did not claim anything, I just said, it would make way more sense to use decoys in one delivery system rather than using an extremely long range and extremely slow missile to do saturation attacks.

Clearly this is inconsistent with what the USN is doing (upgrading thousands of Block IV TLAM's to Block V) and what the IN is most definitely going to do when it fields the Nirbhay or its derivative in the future. But perhaps these two services aren't privy to every system that modern navies possess.

[george]

I didn't mention the air-defense aspect at all. What I did say was that nations balance their AshM capability with their assessment of their enemies air-defense abilities. So the fact that subsonic anti ship cruise missiles exist, and even newer types are being fielded or developed is a strong indication that many navies around the world think that they add value to their anti-ship or attack portfolio. The same will be the case when a anti-ship Nirbhay is fielded in a few years time.

Which is exactly what i stated initially that slow missiles may be used against moving targets with no air defense. Not against a modern destroyer. Go check my initial post. The exact words i used.

[george]

Am I to work under the assumption that you are privy to every system the USN or any modern navy possesses?

So I take it that you won't be sharing details of a system that can launch to the same distance as the Block Va TLAM, unleash a dozen decoys that perfectly mimic AshM cruise missile RF-signatures and flight profiles (against a moving target no less) and occupy the same VLS real estate as the TLAM?

Check your mail. I sent it. Its classified. Please dont share.

[brar_w]

Not against a modern destroyer. Go check my initial post. The exact words i used.

In naval warfare, you fight with what you have. If you have scores of weapons that can target an enemy combatant or complicate its ability to defend itself and others (because that's what these ships are going to be doing) then you will use them. If you can field seeker upgrades to your land attack weapons that get you medium-long range anti-ship capability then you've just dramatically increased the number of weapons in your magazine that can attack ships. And you'll use them in that capacity when you engage in combat irrespective what target has or doesn't have in terms of air-defenses. Its a pretty substantial leap in your ability to sink ships while still meeting other needs.

[george]

Not against a modern destroyer. Go check my initial post. The exact words i used.

In naval warfare, you fight with what you have. If you have scores of weapons that can target an enemy combatant or complicate its ability to defend itself and others (because that's what these ships are going to be doing) then you will use them. If you can field seeker upgrades to your land attack weapons that get you medium-long range anti-ship capability then you've just dramatically increased the number of weapons in your magazine that can attack ships. And you'll use them in that capacity when you engage in combat irrespective what target has or doesn't have in terms of air-defenses. Its a pretty substantial leap in your ability to sink ships while still meeting other needs.

Oh now you are gonna teach me naval warfare doctrine. ok thanks.

What part of slow missiles wont be great, the USN is going LRASM, does the above rant address?

[brar_w]

What part of slow missiles wont be great, the USN is going LRASM, does the above rant address?

The USN is going LRASM because it needed an AL-weapon that could house a USN+DARPA developed/funded passive RF seeker. The Tomahawk cannot be air-launched and most definitely not by a Super Hornet. The only other option would have been to use the Harpoon as a baseline but the Harpoon as it existed at the time (when the competition occurred) wouldn't have met the range requirements while Lockheed's proposal to use the JASSM-ER as a base meant that they exceeded it.

[george]

What part of slow missiles wont be great, the USN is going LRASM, does the above rant address?

The USN is going LRASM because it needed an AL-weapon that could house a USN+DARPA developed/funded passive RF seeker. The Tomahawk cannot be air-launched and most definitely not by a Super Hornet. The only other option would have been to use the Harpoon as a baseline but the Harpoon as it existed at the time (when the competition occurred) wouldn't have met the range requirements while Lockheed's proposal to use the JASSM-ER as a base meant that they exceeded it.

So the USN going for LRASM is because the TLAM does not make the cut?

[brar_w]

I wonder why?

It is not rocket science. The US Navy wanted an Air Launched capability for its carrier air wing. The Tomahawk isn't an air-launched weapon (and not on the Rhino). The JASSM-ER is an air-launched weapon.

[george]

I wonder why?

It is not rocket science. The US Navy wanted an Air Launched capability for its carrier air wing. The Tomahawk isn't an air-launched weapon (and not on the Rhino). The JASSM-ER is an air-launched weapon.

Yes nothing to do with the TLAM being ineffective in future anti ship role

[george]

I wonder why?

It is not rocket science. The US Navy wanted an Air Launched capability for its carrier air wing. The Tomahawk isn't an air-launched weapon (and not on the Rhino). The JASSM-ER is an air-launched weapon.

btw, it is rocket science

[brar_w]

It is not rocket science. The US Navy wanted an Air Launched capability for its carrier air wing. The Tomahawk isn't an air-launched weapon (and not on the Rhino). The JASSM-ER is an air-launched weapon.

Yes nothing to do with the TLAM being ineffective in future anti ship role

This is getting quite absurd. The US Navy and DARPA competed and picked an Air Launched anti ship weapon that met or exceeded its range requirement and could house a seeker that they had developed. That became the LRASM. What does that have to do with the the portfolio of anti-ship capability fielded by its surface combatants? It's not even the same class of weapons. Even the LRASM is a part of an air-launched portfolio of anti-ship capable weapons. Some fielded, others in development and yet others in early S&T. All that bring value at different cost and performance specs. Its a portfolio approach because one size fits all doesn't work in all cases.

As previously mentioned, adding a maritime strike seeker capability to your land attack weapons greatly increases their utility and provides you a very large magazine to chose from when you actually need to use this capability. With a larger magazine you now have other options on how to employ this capability. The ability to saturate a target comes in play. This fact isn't going to be lost on naval operators the world over. This is why you'll continue to see this capability coming to subsonic weapons. The USN is moving ahead with the plan to upgrade thousands of Block IV TLAM's to Block V. A few batches of new builds might come in as well. The IN will most definitely field a maritime strike variant of the Nirbhay when it becomes available. It just makes a ton of sense. You can field 2-3 times the magazine size with dual-role weapons so its a no brainer.

[george]

Yes nothing to do with the TLAM being ineffective in future anti ship role

This is getting quite absurd. The US Navy and DARPA competed and picked an Air Launched anti ship weapon that met or exceeded its range requirement and could house a seeker that they had developed. That became the LRASM. What does that have to do with the the portfolio of anti-ship capability fielded by its surface combatants? It's not even the same class of weapons. Even the LRASM is a part of an air-launched portfolio of anti-ship capable weapons. Some fielded, others in development and yet others in early S&T. All that bring value at different cost and performance specs. Its a portfolio approach because one size fits all doesn't work in all cases.

Absolutely nothing.

My initial response to the authors post simply stated the inadequacy of TLAM as effective against modern warships and why supersonics are important. The LRASM fills a void, they even considered a supersonic version, however the air launch capability was deemed adequate.

[george]

Yes nothing to do with the TLAM being ineffective in future anti ship role

This is getting quite absurd. The US Navy and DARPA competed and picked an Air Launched anti ship weapon that met or exceeded its range requirement and could house a seeker that they had developed. That became the LRASM. What does that have to do with the the portfolio of anti-ship capability fielded by its surface combatants? It's not even the same class of weapons. Even the LRASM is a part of an air-launched portfolio of anti-ship capable weapons. Some fielded, others in development and yet others in early S&T. All that bring value at different cost and performance specs. Its a portfolio approach because one size fits all doesn't work in all cases.

As previously mentioned, adding a maritime strike seeker capability to your land attack weapons greatly increases their utility and provides you a very large magazine to chose from when you actually need to use this capability. With a larger magazine you now have other options on how to employ this capability. The ability to saturate a target comes in play. This fact isn't going to be lost on naval operators the world over. This is why you'll continue to see this capability coming to subsonic weapons. The USN is moving ahead with the plan to upgrade thousands of Block IV TLAM's to Block V. A few batches of new builds might come in as well. The IN will most definitely field a maritime strike variant of the Nirbhay when it becomes available. It just makes a ton of sense. You can field 2-3 times the magazine size with dual-role weapons so its a no brainer.

Apologies if my post got you hot under the collar. It was not my intention to do so. I stand by my opinion that sub sonic system, especially launched from a 1000 km away do not make for good ASHM, neither did it make sense to me how saturation attacks with TLAM works when you can instead achieve the same result with decoys.

[brar_w]

The LRASM fills a void

Correct. And more specifically, with that program the void was for a medium-long range air-launched passive anti-ship weapon that could leverage the unique passive RF system and NLOS/LOS networking that DARPA and the USN had developed. The MST-TLAM didn't even exist at that time. In fact, the move to upgrade thousands of block IV TLAM's to Block V came about after LRASM became a program of record. Even if it existed, it wouldn't have been in contention for this because it isn't an viable Rhino launched weapon.

Apologies if it got you hot under the collar.

Just trying to stay serious especially when you are pointing to an AL weapon and somehow claiming that it exists because a surface launched weapon that came in after the AL weapon was in development/procurement was somehow evidence of the lack of utility of the surface launched weapon. My point isn't to measure or quantify the efficacy of a subsonic anti-ship weapon at medium to long ranges against something that flies faster. The point rather is to attempt to understand why navies around the world would embark on that path and why upgrading your long range land attack weapons to strike ships may seem attractive to navies around the world. And not just against small boats or targets that lack air-defenses.

I won't be scratching my head trying to understand why the IN may be interested in fielding a 1,000 km anti-ship (plus land attack) variant of the Nirbhay in a few years time when that program matures. These have their place and can introduce a lot of challenges to the PLAN on account of the fact that users can now have highly flexible magazines and can efficiently and cost effectively increase their anti-ship inventories while still having ships with weapons that can meet a larger mission set.

[george]

The LRASM fills a void

Correct. And more specifically, with that program the void was for a medium-long range air-launched passive anti-ship weapon that could leverage the unique passive RF system and NLOS/LOS networking that DARPA and the USN had developed. The MST-TLAM didn't even exist at that time. In fact, the move to upgrade thousands of block IV TLAM's to Block V came about after LRASM became a program of record. Even if it existed, it wouldn't have been in contention for this because it isn't an viable Rhino launched weapon.

Apologies if it got you hot under the collar.

Just trying to stay serious especially when you are pointing to an AL weapon and somehow claiming that it exists because a surface launched weapon that came in after the AL weapon was in development/procurement was somehow evidence of the lack of utility of the surface launched weapon. My point isn't to measure or quantify the efficacy of a subsonic anti-ship weapon at medium to long ranges against something that flies faster. The point rather is to attempt to understand why navies around the world would embark on that path and why upgrading your long range land attack weapons to strike ships may seem attractive to navies around the world. And not just against small boats or targets that lack air-defenses. I won't be scratching my head trying to understand why the IN may be interested in fielding a 1,000 km anti-ship (plus land attack) variant of the Nirbhay in a few years time when that program matures. These have their place and can introduce a lot of challenges to the PLAN on account of the fact that users can now have highly flexible magazines and can efficiently and cost effectively increase their anti-ship inventories while still having ships with weapons that can meet a larger mission set.

My first post on the topic says exactly that! I dont understand the argument here.

Subsonic surface launched missiles have a role against poor air defense (supply ships, merchant vessals if need be), not against modern destroyers (saying that the third or fourth time).

If the Nirbhay is fielded, ok good. But we are also developing a Long Ranged Supersonic as well as a Long Ranged hypersonic AshM, and those will be the sharp end of the spear.

[brar_w]

not against modern destroyers (saying that the third or fourth time).

Yes they do. They offer utility against all target types. While we can debate probability of kills and PK of the entire PLAN fire-control loop all day but the point is that the advantages that these weapons bring is that they are available in greater numbers, are cheaper, and if you can field them as variants that still retain the land attack capability of things like the TLAM or Nirbhay, they allow you significantly higher magazines without trading one mission for the other. All advantages that many navies will gladly take. It is a very good combination of capabilities (multi-role and affordability) to have in one weapon.

If the Nirbhay is fielded, ok good. But we are also developing a Long Ranged Supersonic as well as a Long Ranged hypersonic AshM, and those will be the sharp end of the spear.

Everyone is taking the portfolio approach that I referenced earlier. But the demarcation isn't that, the lower end of the portfolio is for the simpler targets while the higher end is for larger targets. The subsonic, multi-role Nirbhay can offer immense utility as a 1000 km anti ship weapon. Against all target types. Its utility comes from the fact that you can load up a large magazine on a frigate or destroyer and thus provide the enemy with the challenge of having to shoot down a lot many more targets. This is real cost imposition during peacetime (which impacts what the PLAN puts into its own VLS cells) and in wartime a fairly substantial challenge. From a cost perspective, the Block V TLAM is likely to cost around $1.8-2 Million. A Block IV TLAM to Va upgrade is expected to cost $250K. A LRASM costs $3 Million (owing mostly to its seeker which is being manufactured in LRIP for the entire duration of the program) while the Mach 5+ SM-6 1B is likely to cost $5 Million. You can see how one can build up a portfolio of quality and quantity and make the job of the PLAN harder. The IN with the Brahmos+BrahmosNG+ASBM+Nirbhay will offer the same.

[Rakesh]

brar, he cannot respond anymore. He has been banned for derailing another thread.

[brar_w]

brar, he cannot respond anymore. He has been banned for derailing another thread.

Thanks. The idea of a anti-ship weapon classes that begin imposing costs on the enemy is an important one that is often misunderstood or overlooked. China executed this with the DF-21 and the series of ASBM's very well. Even though many naval experts and academics question the efficacy of a very long range ASBM targeting complex and how these "carrier killers" will perform in a contested (where ISR and space is contested) the actual operators aren't waiting to find out. Just have a look at how the USN transformed its destroyers into BMD arsenal ships of sorts with ever increasing in power phased array radars to multi-layer BMD capability. Often at the expense of ASW and AshM I might add and against the wishes of its own senior leadership (they've wanted to offload the BMD mission for years so it is something that they've been forced to do). This was the cost-imposition that China was able to gin up over the last couple of decades. Having multi-role weapons across the various cost and performance spectrum does exactly this. If you have VLS cells that have a large mix of dual or even multi-role weapons then this creates its own cost imposition which will force decisions on the PLAN and influence how they architect their own offense - defense mix.

In that context, something like a 1000+ km tomahawk/Nirbhay that is relatively affordable, flies low and is networked, and can be both produced in large quantity (because it is cheap) and be fielded in large quantity (because a $1.5 Million cruise missile opens up land targets that a $3 Million+ weapon may not be used against and thus offers more utility in that role) has a place and imposes great costs on your opponent. Knowing that a quarter to half of the VLS cells in your enemies DDG's may be packed with weapons capable of disabling a ship is not something to be taken lightly. So it isn't always about the individual weapon's ability to singularly penetrate a defended DDG or FFG. It is about what a potential missile on missile conflict looks like as part of a larger naval battle. And how you win that salvo fight.

[Philip]

Aeons ago an Ru naval expert advised selling us refurbished Oscar/ Sierra class SSGNs packed to the gills with LRCMs. We had the moolah then but not the vision.Today an upgraded Oscar carries 72 P-800 Onix/ BMos anti-ship missiles,plus has two sizes of TTs,allowing for more missiles fired from the tubes.

What we should plan for is a new SSGN design taking input from the Arihant class as both the RuN and the USN are using former SSBNs to be cruise missile UW arsenal ship equivs.,esp. for large scale land attacks using both LR subsonic and supersonic,hyper too in the near future- at least with the RuN. It makes more sense to put a large amount of land attack weaponry/missilery aboard an N-sub than a conv. AIP boat ,where larger missiles with greater range,etc.could be accommodated within, than in a much smaller conv. boat which would be more useful in littoral warfare esp. in anti-sub/surface missions,where the AIP boat would arguably be stealthier than N-boats from exercises in the recent past.

Just for academic purposes,a streamlined S-5 design with 12 VLS silos for our fledgling K-6 ICBM could carry at least 36 land attack 750 km range K-15s, Nirbhay LRCMs or BMos variants. With another 24 torpedoes/ missiles in the tubes,one could have upto 42 missiles and 18 torpedoes, a total of 60, a very decent loadout,equiv. to numerically weaponry aboard 3 current conv. boats,but larger and more lethal missiles to "boot",pun intended!

[Mollick.R]

Indian Navy's fifth Scorpene class submarine Vagir launched
PTI | Nov 12, 2020, 11:44 IST

MUMBAI: Indian Navy's fifth Scorpene class submarine Vagir, having superior stealth features like the advanced acoustic absorption technique, was launched on Thursday at the Mazagon Dock in south Mumbai.

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/ind ... 185652.cms

[Mollick.R]

From Twitter

PIB in Maharashtra Flag of India@PIBMumbai· 52m
Mazgaon Dock Ltd's 5th Scorpene class #submarine of Project 75 - '#Vagir' has been launched by Smt. Vijaya S. Naik, in presence of MoS-Defence @shripadynaik through VC today

With this, India further cements itself as a Submarine Building Nation
#AatmaNirbharBharat @makeinindia

https://twitter.com/PIBMumbai/status/13 ... 4013696001

Pics from Twitter........

[Ankit Desai]

When the first ‘Visakhapatnam’ class DDG overshadows the 5th Scorpene sub vagir launched at MDL today.

Courtesy @SandeepUnnithan





-Ankit

[Manish_P]

The Sub guys won't mind. They love to live the shadowy life of the depths.. As they like to say "There are two types of ships: submarines, and targets"

Lovely photo. May the tribe increase.

[John]

Looks like it has oto 76mm gun and not the Mark 45. Still missing the Air Search radar.

[Rakesh]

What an absolutely beautiful picture. WOW!

Thank you Ankit. Great shot!

[Picklu]

After the initial hiccup, MDL is churning out subs in regular interval without any major delay. Hope this becomes another manufacturing success story like HAL Dhruv and we continue in the similar fashion for a few dozen more.

[putnanja]

After the initial hiccup, MDL is churning out subs in regular interval without any major delay. Hope this becomes another manufacturing success story like HAL Dhruv and we continue in the similar fashion for a few dozen more.

True that, I wish we had placed a follow-on order for at least another 3 submarines till the project-75 takes off fully. If only they had ordered another three 3-4 years back, we could have got them over next few years.

[Rakesh]

Drag & Drop the picture below to see in full size...

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EmrFEgHVcAA ... name=large ---> The Indian Navy's Visakhapatnam Class destroyers. Designed by Navy's Directorate of Naval Design Division (DND). P-15Bs incorporates a flush deck and has a better acoustic and IR signature.



https://twitter.com/Amitraaz/status/132 ... 84864?s=20 ---> Shakti is an Integrated Radar EW System with ESM and integrated Radar Finger Printing System (RFPS) covering B to K frequency band and Electronic Counter Measure (ECM) System covering H to K frequency band.



https://twitter.com/Amitraaz/status/132 ... 31936?s=20 ---> The DRDO-IAI developed LRSAM has a range of up to 100 km. The maximum speed is up to Mach 4.5 and the minimum range of 500 meters, allows it to be used as both a short-range and medium-range air defense missile.





https://twitter.com/Amitraaz/status/132 ... 69216?s=20 ---> P-15Bs also incorporates the Rail-less Helicopter traverse system just like the Kamorta Class corvettes. The system operates in conjunction with a deck-lock grid to provide safe helicopter operations from initial recovery through on-deck handling evolutions.

[Rakesh]

Nos 7 & 8 in the list below the picture of the first P-15B destroyer...

https://twitter.com/strategic_front/sta ... 44768?s=20 ---> Recent picture of the first P-15B Vizag Class destroyer in MDL's Yard 704 shows the ship with no secondary radar. Older pictures show the ship with BEL RAWL-02 radar. MDL ordered the RAWL & 76mm OTO Melara for Yard 704. The other ships of the class may get the BAE Mk45 mod 4 gun & LANZA radar.

[nam]

Someone needs to ask IN to explain the delays with these kit. Sounds like P15B has been sitting there for past couple of years, waiting for the sensors and weapons to arrive.

No IADS... wonder what is the story behind it.

[Rakesh]

For folks on BRF who get "fantasies" about a 65,000 ton, EMALS equipped, nuclear powered aircraft carrier with a complement of 36+ F-18 Super Hornets, to influence events from Alaska to the South China Sea, here is a sobering reality.

Hit by budget crunch, Indian Navy now plans to buy 2 Landing Platform Docks instead of 4
https://theprint.in/defence/hit-by-budg ... -4/546361/
18 Nov 2020

Navy is working on a fresh request for proposal with new specs, two months after the defence ministry cancelled the 2013 RFP to buy 4 Landing Platform Docks.

[Philip]

The IN as said countless times should leverage the new specs and design so that these 2 LHPDs can moonlight as light CVs,precisely what Japan and SoKo are doing with smaller vessels.Their flight decks however must resemble the Vikrant-2s,
so that exg. carrier aircraft plus NLCAs can operate from.

Back to the Vizag.There is enough space amidships between both stacks for 2X4 inclined launchers plus the TT, for the new SMART missile.Given its speed and range,these could easily be used in an anti-ship role too if need be.

[Lisa]

There's No Reason for India to Lose Sleep Over the Scorpene Leak
https://thewire.in/security/does-the-sc ... eak-matter
By Rear Admiral Raja Menon (Retd), 05 Sept 2016

Submarine detection is one aspect. But knowing a sub's design intimately allows the adversary to get a good insight into its design features and limitations which will help right-guess the operational capabilities and constraints, armament and launch envelopes etc. For instance, knowing the optimal depth for launching torpedos or missiles from silos and their kill envelope, weapons range etc will be vital info for counter measures n'est-ce pas? Idem for onboard systems, battery life, sonar capabilities, turn around/maintenance procedures & down time etc etc. And one could go on and on. All of which can be put to use for a whole bunch of enemy evasion and action including finding critical/weak links and sabotaging them on land.

For those who argue leaking of such info is harmless, the question is "won't Indian Navy be thrilled to get similar info on it's enemies subs?"

Any defence leak is damaging. Not sure what purpose the respected Admiral's whitewashing serves.

Sir you may be wrong. I have discussed this matter with a friend of mine who is the know as his is in the industry. He concurs with the Admiral completely.

[kit]

The idea of a anti-ship weapon....

I presume what works for the panda works for the elephant as well !. Long range anti sub rockets and anti shop missiles operating out of adamans and lashadweep isle bases can take care of whatever the Chinese deploy right from their South China seas

[brar_w]

I presume what works for the panda works for the elephant as well !. Long range anti sub rockets and anti shop missiles operating out of adamans and lashadweep isle bases can take care of whatever the Chinese deploy right from their South China seas

Yes if a similar capability is fielded then the Chinese won't be able to disregard anti-ship missile capabilities that extend thousands of km's. That will impose some cost on them and will force them to back of from offensive capability and carry more defensive weapons in their magazines. While we don't know how survivable China's space and ISR complex, and networks (or ASBM seekers against electronic countermeasures) are and how much time they've invested in developing a credible doctrine, you can't really disregard Medium and Intermediate range Anti-Ship capability that extends well past 3,000 km. I mean just look at the US Navy budget and how many SM-3's and SM-6's they are buying each year and their cost (you tally all the cost up and you are looking at an annual spend that sits between the cost to buy an FFG and a DDG).

[Rakesh]

Killers Version 2.0: Carrying Forward The Illustrious Legacy
https://thedailyguardian.com/killers-ve ... us-legacy/
15 May 2020

By Commodore Srikant B Kesnur