Indian Naval Discussion

vishal · Post by **vishal** » 08 Jul 2009 18:47

shiv wrote:
ravi_ku wrote:Officially there is no such project as ATV
False. Ati Tasty Vanaspati (ATV) is a well known brand in India.

INS Dalda, first of the Dalda class of boats.

Willy · Post by **Willy** » 08 Jul 2009 18:58

Me thinks that the A&N Islands should be developed into a major base. Hell with whatever concerns the south east asian countries have. They should realise that a major base at the A&N will be a deterent to the Chinese. Read that the Southeast countries made a major noise when there were plans to turn the A&N into a seperate command and we gave in and just decided to have a joint command there. A major base at the A&N could just choke the Chinese inspite of their string of pearls strategy.

Atri · Post by **Atri** » 08 Jul 2009 19:16

Willy wrote:Me thinks that the A&N Islands should be developed into a major base. Hell with whatever concerns the south east asian countries have. They should realise that a major base at the A&N will be a deterent to the Chinese. Read that the Southeast countries made a major noise when there were plans to turn the A&N into a seperate command and we gave in and just decided to have a joint command there. A major base at the A&N could just choke the Chinese inspite of their string of pearls strategy.

There already is one big naval establishment in A&N....

sunilUpa · Post by **sunilUpa** » 08 Jul 2009 19:37

Singha wrote:I recall Ru had to negotiate for years to get some of the tu160 stuck in the ukraine when the ussr split. in total I think they only have <15 and each is considered a strategic asset suitable for launching very long range nuclear ALCMs onlee.

its not on the table at all.

instead we must nurse our hatred and use low cunning to get what we
need done. a bomber conversion of a EMB jet dropping say 4 nirbhay ALCM
out of the bomb bay would do nicely - a reasonably fast (800kmph, extra fuel tanks to boost combat radius to 2000km, good engines and avionics and no issues with exotic parts).

http://www.embraercommercialjets.com.br ... mb_195.asp

Singha JI,

There is lot of interesting titbits about acquisition of TU-160 in Bharat Karnad's latest book. According to him, the deal went down because IN wanted the MRO (set in India) to service Ru TU160s too to bring down the costs. Ru didn't agree and deal fell apart.

However according to Bharat Karnad, a new deal has been stuck b/w IAF and Ru to acquire Tu-22's.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 08 Jul 2009 20:45

22m you mean ? doubt IAF will ever go for the vanilla 22.
and IAF not IN ??

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 08 Jul 2009 20:50

the cancelled A319 MPA would have been a good starting point on a JV for a ALCM truck. the fuselage mods and bomb bay work would have got done already as the modified living area and mil grade avionics and ER fuel tanks. and Nirbhay and its successors would fit neatly into bays designed for torpedoes and sea mines without drastic surgery.

pity the rascals cancelled it.

even than $300 mil for basic engg work by Embraer+India+Israel followed by a $150 amortized unit for a run of 50 such bombers would enable us a serious air launched ground attack capability in IOR periphery. Not the B-52/B-1 mind you but pretty effective and serviceable - which is less than what can be said for b52/b1/tu22/tu160 which need lavish and long upkeep.

Katare · Post by **Katare** » 08 Jul 2009 20:51

It's good that they are keeping it a low visibility affair by keeping neta's away. Matured and self confident nations behave little differently than rogues like Iran/NoKO/Pak. Vijay Diwas was wrong choice to begun with as it would have been doing the very same “equal=equal” that we want to de-hyphenated so badly. 15th August would have been neutral but we know what happened to Arjun and PVN's ride in it in 1992.

If these events become mainstream media events than we'll see Sonia Gandhi inaugurating India's first SSBN named "Rajeev Gandhi Pandubbi-1"

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 08 Jul 2009 20:54

What purpose will Tu-160 serve for IAF or IN ? its a trans intercontinental bomber with long range conventional/nuclear cruise missile capability , these types of bomber are good only in USAF and RuAF inventory cold war legacy.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 08 Jul 2009 21:03

agreed, blackjack serves no purpose in India's case.

KrishG · Post by **KrishG** » 08 Jul 2009 21:36

Austin wrote:What purpose will Tu-160 serve for IAF or IN ? its a trans intercontinental bomber with long range conventional/nuclear cruise missile capability , these types of bomber are good only in USAF and RuAF inventory cold war legacy.

Strategic bombers are an important asset due to their large weaponloads in addition to their inter-continental ranges. For eg. a blackjack can carry 40,000 kg of ordnance, almost 5 times that of an F-16. Although I agree that they would be little use to IN, it would an important asset to the Airforce.

sunilUpa · Post by **sunilUpa** » 08 Jul 2009 21:47

Rahul M wrote:22m you mean ? doubt IAF will ever go for the vanilla 22.
and IAF not IN ??

I am not sure which version, I will check and post later (at work now). But it is IAF and the info was attributed to an unnamed Senior Officer of strategic command (or IAF? I will check later).

Other titbits - One of the future carriers will be Nuke propelled. ATV's will have 12 missiles, Brahmos is already configured to carry 20 kt new-clear warhead onlee. If permitted, I can post the scans of relevent pages.

Vinito · Post by **Vinito** » 09 Jul 2009 00:37

KrishG wrote:
Austin wrote:What purpose will Tu-160 serve for IAF or IN ? its a trans intercontinental bomber with long range conventional/nuclear cruise missile capability , these types of bomber are good only in USAF and RuAF inventory cold war legacy.
Strategic bombers are an important asset due to their large weaponloads in addition to their inter-continental ranges. For eg. a blackjack can carry 40,000 kg of ordnance, almost 5 times that of an F-16. Although I agree that they would be little use to IN, it would an important asset to the Airforce.

With regards to India acquiring the TU-22M3 Backfire bombers it would serve no real purpose as they were specifically designed to accomodate the AS-15 Kent ALCM & AS-16 Kickback SRAM's and the US under no circumstances allow these missiles to fall in Indian hands given the MTCR agreement. If India will opt to have it retrofitted to accomodate the "Brahmos" missiles it would require changes to the rotary launcher which will result in the Russians further inflating the prices of these aircrafts. Also as part of the START agreement the US had agreed to have the Russians operate the aircraft only if they had removed the IFR from all of these aircrafts as they had been classified as bombers capable of reaching American soil. The TU-22 now does not hold the edge compared to the B-1 or TU-160 hence buying them will be a big mistake given their electronics & limited capabilities. The Russians had plans to upgrade the aircraft to the TU-22M5 standard which unfortunately never took place.

Sandipan · Post by **Sandipan** » 09 Jul 2009 02:06

In my personal opinion we need a strategic bomber for IAF, Why because, First of all we are trying to convert certain MKIs into strategic bombers by making them capable to carry the Brahmos.

So, it is not that IAF is not thinking in those terms. If we acquire a true blue strategic bomber, need not be a Blackjack, but which can carry multiple cruise missile and can clear the hump of Himalaya it will be a great asset. Secondly, apart from Russia & USA, China too has hundreds of Bears which can carry Cruise missiles and they can be used against us to launch the first strike. So by acquiring these bombers we increase the range of missiles and can act as a counter to Chinese Cruise missile carriers.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 09 Jul 2009 02:21

KrishG wrote:
Austin wrote:What purpose will Tu-160 serve for IAF or IN ? its a trans intercontinental bomber with long range conventional/nuclear cruise missile capability , these types of bomber are good only in USAF and RuAF inventory cold war legacy.
Strategic bombers are an important asset due to their large weaponloads in addition to their inter-continental ranges. For eg. a blackjack can carry 40,000 kg of ordnance, almost 5 times that of an F-16. Although I agree that they would be little use to IN, it would an important asset to the Airforce.

krish, we do know the definition of strategic bombers !

the question is why would IAF want to have this white elephant (or white swan in this case) ?
--------

UPA sahab, you are more than welcome !

John · Post by **John** » 09 Jul 2009 03:22

sunilUpa wrote:
Rahul M wrote:22m you mean ? doubt IAF will ever go for the vanilla 22.
and IAF not IN ??
I am not sure which version, I will check and post later (at work now). But it is IAF and the info was attributed to an unnamed Senior Officer of strategic command (or IAF? I will check later).

Other titbits - One of the future carriers will be Nuke propelled. ATV's will have 12 missiles, Brahmos is already configured to carry 20 kt new-clear warhead onlee. If permitted, I can post the scans of relevent pages.

When did you read it? There was reports from Russian of IN not IAF getting Tu-22m3 part of gorshkov deal but i do not think IN really had much intrested in them . i do not know why IAF would want Tu-22.

sunilUpa · Post by **sunilUpa** » 09 Jul 2009 05:20

John wrote:

When did you read it? There was reports from Russian of IN not IAF getting Tu-22m3 part of gorshkov deal but i do not think IN really had much intrested in them . i do not know why IAF would want Tu-22.

Ok I screwed up, I interchanged TU-22 with TU 160. IAF wants to acquire TU-160 as per Bharat Karnad in his latest book India's Nuclear Policy. Here is the scan of the relevant page.

The reference 192 for the IAF reads - Personal communication from a former chief of staff of a Service, unattributable January 15, 2008.

Why IAF wants it? Well IN wanted it first, IA has it's Missiles, IN has it's Nuke subs so what does IAF has? Su-30, Jaguar, Mirage are not in same league.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 09 Jul 2009 06:08

naird wrote: Thanks Rahul ..

Even if we assume that missile will be fired in the general direction of a target , how would the pilot know which direction to fire the missile in , in other words since this time radar will be switched off and target being BVR, pilot will not know the target location or cordinates.

the answer was in this part :

Rahul M wrote:however, on-board missile seekers do not have the range for the whole envelope of a BVR missile, i.e a BVR missile can have a range of 50-90 km but its seeker has a range of only about 20 odd km.
therefore, the mother aircraft feeds in target information to the missile before launching it(previously this information could only come from the aircraft's radar, nowadays this info can be passed on by other radar platforms active in the area by datalink. I would hazard a guess that this is what the article is talking about) and the missile is guided by its on-board inertial navigational system to the approximate location of the target.

Also, as you rightly pointed out this type of scenario will be applicable only in case of stationary target or maybe a seaborne target.

ummm, I didn't say that actually. I said range will be limited if mid-course guidance is not used.
AFAIK, I'm not too sure about this, derby doesn't have (and doesn't necessarily need) mid course guidance as its range is limited. even in case of seaborne target, mid-course corrections are needed for long ranged missiles.

When fighter plane comes into picture then missile would need constant guidance.

only for long ranges.

Secondly a pretty naive question , does all our missiles have capability to receive datalink information ? Is that like a standard feature in missiles ? If missiles do have that capability then what would be the challenge of providing a constant guidance from a data linked aircraft to a missile ?

for long range missiles, yes. R-77 which is our primary BVR shot has mid-course guidance.
astra will have it too.

andy B · Post by **andy B** » 09 Jul 2009 06:10

Sandipan wrote:In my personal opinion we need a strategic bomber for IAF, Why because, First of all we are trying to convert certain MKIs into strategic bombers by making them capable to carry the Brahmos.

So, it is not that IAF is not thinking in those terms. If we acquire a true blue strategic bomber, need not be a Blackjack, but which can carry multiple cruise missile and can clear the hump of Himalaya it will be a great asset. Secondly, apart from Russia & USA, China too has hundreds of Bears which can carry Cruise missiles and they can be used against us to launch the first strike. So by acquiring these bombers we increase the range of missiles and can act as a counter to Chinese Cruise missile carriers.

Chipandas dont have any Bears they have rebadged Tu-16 Badgers which are older than the Tu-22s and they have now rengined them for a new dedicated ALCM carrier!

Tu160 will be an overkill for the Yindoos one can only imagine the cost of maintaining these beasts

The 22's would be ideal for the IN to prowl the IOR region and would be a very big intimidating factor given that the Chipandas are planning to have carriers very soon. However it all depends on the IN obviously and the doctrine that they want to run in the IOR.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 09 Jul 2009 06:21

Cain Marko wrote:Rahul,

The scenario you describe seems to be somewhere near the ball park. The rafale (based on arthuro's posts on AFM) can in fact do MCU sans the radar and launch the mica IIR entirely passive @ BVR ranges. Nasty piece of work really, the enemy a/c won't have a clue. In case of the Shar in the IN, it will mean going v.close to seeker range before firing the shot/s. my guess. How far is that useful, esp. with a slowpoke like the Shar?

CM.

CM if that was the case the article won't have talked about datalink at all.

from what I gathered, other SHARs will operate their radar -->pass on target coordinates via datalink to the firer SHAR which will feed that coordinate info to the derby and fire it --> derby will fly the initial phase (~25-30 km) with inertial navigation only --> it turns on on-board seeker and homes on to target for the last 20 odd kms.

aditp · Post by **aditp** » 09 Jul 2009 08:44

India to pay around $2.2 billion for Gorshkov's refit to end wrangling

The protracted bitter wrangling over huge cost escalation in aircraft carrier Admiral Gorshkov, which caused a distinct chill in the
expansive Indo-Russian defence ties, is virtually over now.

After three Indian delegations visited Russia one after the other last month, the two sides came together in New Delhi on Tuesday-Wednesday for the `firm and final' price negotiations to break the festering deadlock.

"We are confident the total cost for Gorshkov's refit will be pegged somewhere around $2.2 billion,'' said a top Indian official.

India has already managed to `reduce' the $600 million figure being asked by Russia for the 44,570-tonne Gorshkov's year-long sea trials in the Barents Sea slated for 2011-2012.

While most of the trials will still be held in Russia, apart from training of Indian pilots for MiG-29K take-offs and landings from Russian carrier Admiral Kuznetsov, some will now be conducted in Indian waters to cut costs.

Defence minister A K Antony, on his part, told Parliament on Wednesday that "acceptance trials'' for delivery of Gorshkov, rechristened INS Vikramaditya, to India are `expected to be completed' in December 2012.

India, of course, is banking upon Gorshkov for its long-standing aim to have two operational `carrier battle-groups' by 2015 or so, with the other carrier, a 40,000-tonne indigenous warship, being built at Cochin Shipyard.

Incidentally, during a recent visit to Sevmash Shipyard in north Russia where Gorshkov is berthed, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said the delay in the carrier's upgradation was `the sole irritant' in Indo-Russian relations.

As first reported by TOI, the new contract for repair and re-equipping of Gorshkov -- for which India has already paid $602 million till now -- will be one of the first big defence procurements to be cleared by UPA-2 towards end-July or early-August.

That will finally bring closure to Gorshkov's controversy-ridden saga, which began in the mid-1990s with Russia offering the second-hand, partly-burnt carrier as "a free gift''. The condition was that India would pay for its refit as well as the MiG-29K fighters to operate from its deck.

The $1.5-billion contract was finally inked in January 2004, with the carrier refit costing $974 million and the rest for 16 MiG-29Ks. Under it, Gorshkov was to be delivered by August 2008.

But then came the shocker. Russia in mid-2007 demanded another $1.2 billion for Gorshkov's refit in addition to the initial $974 million, apart from pushing back its delivery to December 2012, holding that work on it had been "grossly under-estimated'' earlier.

Though after much heart-burn, India eventually agreed, more was to follow. Russia last year said it now wanted $2 billion more for refit, taking the total cost to around $2.9 billion. India, of course, wants the figure down to the $2.2-billion mark.

Prem Kumar · Post by **Prem Kumar** » 09 Jul 2009 10:01

Rahul M wrote:
krish, we do know the definition of strategic bombers !

the question is why would IAF want to have this white elephant (or white swan in this case) ?

Rahul M - some reasons why it makes sense to have strategic bombers:

a) Sheer payload capacity like Krish mentioned. Precision attacks are great but they cant replace quantum of firepower. In a future conflict with say the Chipandas, we want to be able to destroy their infrastructure, industry, terrorize city dwellers etc. Not a pleasant thing to talk about - but that kind of serious deterrent is needed

b) Nuke payload: the MKIs will carry nukes but once again quantum wins. We should be able to lay waste to several cities in 1 pass.

c) Since we dont have LACMs, it may be early to comment on this. But a bomb truck seems definitely more suitable for unloading a dozen LACMs than a fighter

It is a white elephant no doubt. Buts isnt that the price for deterrence? Plus we dont need hundreds of them. A dozen or so will suffice.

I feel that some of our doctrinal approaches derive from the concept of "minimal" credible deterrence, as opposed to MAD. If you look at things from an MAD perspective, the need for a strategic bomber will be clear. Personally I prefer MAD to MCD for India, especially considering Chipanda's bravado about how their civilization will survive even after a nuke war.

Ok i have gone seriously OT here.

Nihat · Post by **Nihat** » 09 Jul 2009 10:10

IT seem a fair deal for Gorky , IF and thats a big If Russia can keep it's words on the contract.

$2.2 billion is roughly half the cost of a similar sized carrier built from scratch - add the mig's and weaponry to it .

p_saggu · Post by **p_saggu** » 09 Jul 2009 11:00

India has already managed to `reduce' the $600 million figure being asked by Russia for the 44,570-tonne Gorshkov's year-long sea trials in the Barents Sea slated for 2011-2012.

This sounds like there will be only one akula after all.

r_subramanian · Post by **r_subramanian** » 09 Jul 2009 11:15

On ATV launch - from Pakistani press

India to launch first nuclear submarine: officials

India is expected to launch a locally built nuclear-powered submarine later this month, making it one of only a handful of countries with the technology to produce such a vessel. Manmohan Singh, India’s prime minister, is scheduled to visit the Visakhapatnam naval base in Andhra Pradesh on July 26 to inspect the submarine before it is launched from its dry dock for sea trials, senior government officials said
...

http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news- ... -officials

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 09 Jul 2009 13:27

On long range Strat bomber with IAF/IN --> What about the need to bottle up PLAN by bombing (cruise missiles etc) its bases in South China Sea?

A few of these strat monsters hitting on a sub base where the Chipanda think they are safe will do wonders to their already limited ability to strike us from sea?

Jamal K. Malik · Post by **Jamal K. Malik** » 09 Jul 2009 13:45

India's N-sub sea trials likely in a month

SivaVijay · Post by **SivaVijay** » 09 Jul 2009 14:33

One of the future carriers will be Nuke propelled. ATV's will have 12 missiles, Brahmos is already configured to carry 20 kt new-clear warhead onlee

- We are planning 3 carriers including Gorky which implies the next carrier after the current being built at Cochin will be nuclear...
-If we are planning 5 ATV each with 12 missiles which are MIRVed(assuming 3 as UK) and that these missiles will not be transferred between subs(ie the one coming in for maintenance and other leaving for patrol) then are we looking at 180 active warheads(ready to go boom)

This is for navy alone....

plus the Brahmos news...

can anyone please clarify...

Drevin · Post by **Drevin** » 09 Jul 2009 17:39

Siva can you plz point me to the link/article that mentions the possible indian nuke carrier

thanks in advance.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 09 Jul 2009 17:56

Our TU-142 Bear ASW/LRMP aircraft were originally long range strategic bombers and are the fastetst turobo-props anywhere with immense range.They are still used by Russia in significant numbers.The IN can theoretically use them for delivering a nuclear tipped missile or bombs too.

What would be better for the IAF though is the bomber version of the Flanker,the Su-34."All types or tactical and strategic ordnance can be utilized with emphasis being placed on long range standoff weapons ",says one source.It would be far easier to induct the SU-34 into the IAF than any other bomber type,especially as advanced versions of the Flanker are to be developed and built for another decade+ parallel with the Pak-FA 5th-gen fighter according to latest Russian reports.These versions of the Flanker will have 3-d TVC ,more powerful engines,AESA radars,better stealth and the latest weapon systems.In addition,many of the technology being developed for the 5th-gen fighter will be used in these advanced versions of the Flanker.The IN should also in its own interests consider building larger carriers of 50-60,000t in the future,perhaps after the first or second IAC being built at Cochin,which could operate the naval Flankers,as well as any naval version of the 5th-gen fighter.These would be far superior to the very capable MIG-29Ks being acquired from Russia for the smaller IAC design and the Gorshkov,both of which are too small to operate naval Flankers.

jaladipc · Post by **jaladipc** » 09 Jul 2009 18:03

SivaVijay wrote:
One of the future carriers will be Nuke propelled. ATV's will have 12 missiles, Brahmos is already configured to carry 20 kt new-clear warhead onlee
- We are planning 3 carriers including Gorky which implies the next carrier after the current being built at Cochin will be nuclear...
-If we are planning 5 ATV each with 12 missiles which are MIRVed(assuming 3 as UK) and that these missiles will not be transferred between subs(ie the one coming in for maintenance and other leaving for patrol) then are we looking at 180 active warheads(ready to go boom)
This is for navy alone.... plus the Brahmos news...

can anyone please clarify...

Boss.......not all subs look alike

the mother of all subs is awaiting on the design table.the design table was emptied by transferring the vishwakarma documents to a public-private development agency.

mahamaya said there will be 2 SSBN on active patrol all the time.while more than twice the number of SSN`s go for active security of CBG`s and pacific patrols along with IOR.

Clear math here is 3 declared CBG`s and another might be in consideration depending on pacific impulse. Means as many SSN`s on regular security purpose.And few others for hunting purpose onleee.

Willy · Post by **Willy** » 09 Jul 2009 20:13

Headlines today running a news snippet on the Indian Nuclear submarine right now quoting a classified govt document. Bold text at the bottom of the screen says that the nuclear submarine will carry ICBM's.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 09 Jul 2009 20:52

FT :: India set to launch nuclear submarine

Manmohan Singh, India's prime minister, is to visit the Visakhapatnam naval base in Andhra Pradesh on July 26 to inspect the submarine before it is launched for sea trials, senior government officials told the Financial Times.

The country lags behind China's naval might in the region. C. Uday Bhaskar, director of the Delhi-based National Maritime Foundation, said Beijing had a fleet of eight nuclear submarines, some with ballistic missile capability. The Chinese navy has three times the number of combat vessels (about 630) as India and five times the personnel.

arunsrinivasan · Post by **arunsrinivasan** » 09 Jul 2009 21:25

Willy wrote:Headlines today running a news snippet on the Indian Nuclear submarine right now quoting a classified govt document. Bold text at the bottom of the screen says that the nuclear submarine will carry ICBM's.

DDM at work

SivaVijay · Post by **SivaVijay** » 09 Jul 2009 21:47

Drevin wrote:Siva can you plz point me to the link/article that mentions the possible indian nuke carrier thanks in advance.

Drevin, please refer sunilUpa's prev posts(I just quoted him), according to that post India is to have a nuclear powered carrier.....

krishna_krishna · Post by **krishna_krishna** » 09 Jul 2009 22:19

First glimpse of the little mermaid.I will do bhangra all night :

http://livefist.blogspot.com/2009/07/pr ... rface.html

naird · Post by **naird** » 09 Jul 2009 23:06

Its a PPT and nothing else....relax ....waiting for the real stuff to come in ....am just curious ...what a 8k ton nuke submarine can have !!!

In betn have to say, Shiv Arroor is doing a great job .......gone are the days when he used to be a real pain....

suryag · Post by **suryag** » 09 Jul 2009 23:22

^^^ SA still has some bile left for the missile development program. Watch the end of this video
[url=http://indiatoday.intoday.in/index.php? ... type=video]India's N-sub to be launched soon[url]

I had this question for the gurus here. We have now designed the n-sub, which means we have managed to have the steel needed for construction, hull design, propulsion systems, and offense-defensive features integrated. Given all these how difficult is it to churn out a diesel cousin of the ATV and replace the foxtrot/hdw class subs in IN's arsenal.

Nihat · Post by **Nihat** » 09 Jul 2009 23:45

Why bother with diesel subs anymore or is there a distinct advantage which diesel electric propulsion subs hold over nuke subs.

rajsunder · Post by **rajsunder** » 10 Jul 2009 00:36

Nihat wrote:Why bother with diesel subs anymore or is there a distinct advantage which diesel electric propulsion subs hold over nuke subs.

diesel electrical ones are silent killers, far silent than any nuke one could ever be.

BTW Russian kilos are nicknamed black holes for their silence.

negi · Post by **negi** » 10 Jul 2009 00:40

diesel electrical ones are silent killers, far silent than any nuke one could ever be.
That is False.