Indian Naval Discussion

Locked
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Post by Singha »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta ... leet_ships

looking at the huge inventory spread across japan, korea and guam it seems unlikely that BD will be home for a major AAW SAG, submarine or aviation task force as these facilities would make more sense in east asia.

what they could trying for is
- a fuel, food and R&R righs aggrement for fleet ships to call in a replenish
- perhaps a USMC presence with a couple of MEU type ships under the guise of natural disaster training, anti-terrorism, anti-piracy, interoperability and usual apple pie stuff.
for sure there will be ELINT assets on such ships coming and going.

the US by throwing money, business ops , honeytraps using blondes on foreign trips , swiss account details and green cards will quickly be able to co-opt BD political and business elite into whatever 'cause' is the cause of the hour. china can hardly compete as a attractive place to send the kids to or make money from. US has all the levers and their hands around swiss bank account gonads.

submarines would already be sneaking around under BOB to spy on our naval exercises, comms and missile tests nothing new there.

imo we seeing the endgame in the chinese intrusion into BD and Myanmar, both are being capped, roll backed and eliminated by Khan. but the big problem is Khan seems to have no intention to leave now :D
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Post by Austin »

IOR and BOB is our zone of special interest and any foreign power in there be it US or China or other is a serious dent in our security and geo-strategic interest.

Having US or other power establish base in BOB would be akin to inviting a thief to stay in our house to take care of a rowdy neighbor , the thief will kill us first and then the rowdy neighbour. ..... which is to say it will kill our own geostrategic and security interest in this region before it does of China.

Its a pity if being a $2 trillion economy we cant engage our own neighbour and cannot create a confidence in them to depend on us for any help ...something seriously wrong in our foreign and economic policy.
member_19648
BRFite
Posts: 265
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:13

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Post by member_19648 »

Austin wrote: Its a pity if being a $2 trillion economy we cant engage our own neighbour and cannot create a confidence in them to depend on us for any help ...something seriously wrong in our foreign and economic policy.
No it is a matter of only interests, India has engaged or tried to engage all her neighbors including Bangladesh as far as it permits with her soft power image, but they decided to move into the lap of China to counter Indian influence fuelled by distrust. Now they are ready to move to USA's lap ditching China, same can be said about Burma which the US is trying a lot to influence now, once considered a Pariah. Now, the problem is India's soft power image, surely she will raise the issue but the policy of non interference in each other's internal affairs might be the blocker!!! Having said that, Bangladesh was/is a really valuable asset and it continues to divide India into 2 halves, it would of been good if the soft power image was given up in favor of securing strategic interests.
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36424
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Post by SaiK »

just happened to see this old link.,but dam good made.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZyRVuCKiCDE

2 part video.. it must have been linked here some 6 months back
Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5128
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Post by Manish_Sharma »

Sometime back it was discussed on BR that how during 1971 war, porkis had removed fuel from many ships, as it saves the ship from sinking inspite of being hit by missiles if there is no fuel in the tanks.

Can't we instead of retiring Viraat, place it near the "Bombay High" removing engines and fuel. Put on ak 630s, Akashs, Baraks, AADs for anti air and few helicopters, RBU 6000, torpedoes for ASW operations.

Since the removal of engines+fuel will make Viraat will make it quite lighter, it can even be towed by other ships from time to time. This will not only safeguard the Bombay High but also Mumbai Port and City, and the ship won't sink inspite of taking few hits.
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21538
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Post by Philip »

Nice idea,but the cost of refitting an old warship with a suspect hull is far less cost-effective than designing and bulding a new air defence cruiser which has a considerable weaponload of SAMs of various types,plus some LR SSMs and ASW helos.The vulnerability of carriers in today's world has led some analysts to advoate a return to the "arsenal ship" concept,where a battlecruiser sized surface ship ,stealthily shaped and equipped with hundreds of missiles in VL silos ,would complement both the strike force of a carrier task force,but also fleet air defence and BMD defence as well.
Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5128
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Post by Manish_Sharma »

^^Philip how much tonnage this cruiser would be?
Kersi D
BRFite
Posts: 1444
Joined: 20 Sep 2000 11:31

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Post by Kersi D »

Manish_Sharma wrote:^^Philip how much tonnage this cruiser would be?
My guess is 12,000 to 15,000 T. I think it will be expensive for IN
John
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3447
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Post by John »

Concept of arsenal ship has passed after events of 9-11 simply because it costs too much to arm a vessel with that many missiles' (what are you going to do when it gets taken out in USS cole type incident?) and it is simply a lot easier, cheaper and quicker to deliver that much payload from a air launched platforms.
Cosmo_R
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3407
Joined: 24 Apr 2010 01:24

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Post by Cosmo_R »

John wrote:Concept of arsenal ship has passed after events of 9-11 simply because it costs too much to arm a vessel with that many missiles' (what are you going to do when it gets taken out in USS cole type incident?) and it is simply a lot easier, cheaper and quicker to deliver that much payload from a air launched platforms.
The nearest thing to an AS in the USN is the converted Ohio class SSBN=>SSGNs which carry up to 154 Tomahawk missiles. More stealth and greater payload.
Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21233
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Post by Prem »

http://www.voanews.com/content/panetta- ... 46345.html
Panetta: US to Put More Warships in Asia
U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta says the United States will shift the bulk of its warships to the Asia-Pacific region in the coming years as part of a new military rebalancing to guarantee a strong and continued U.S. presence in the region. U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said Saturday the United States will move 60 percent of its naval fleet to the Asia-Pacific by 2020. Currently, its fleet of 285 cruisers, destroyers, littoral combat ships and submarines is evenly divided between the Atlantic and Pacific theaters.
Panetta laid out the plan in a speech Saturday to regional allies at the 11th International Institute of Strategic Studies (IISS) Asia Security Summit: The Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore."Our approach to achieving the long-term goal in the Asia-Pacific is to stay firmly committed to a basic set of shared principles, principles that promote international rules and order to advance peace and security in the region," said Panetta.The country's scaled back defense budget will shrink Pentagon spending by $487 billion over the next decade, but Panetta said the United States will use its resources to enhance the technology of its weapons systems and replace old ships with new, more advanced ones.
No China challenge
He said the U.S. was also committed to building a healthy, stable and reliable military-to-military relationship with China.Beijing has balked at a larger U.S. presence in the rapidly developing region, but Panetta sought to dispel perceptions that the rebalancing is a way of challenging China's increasing power.
"I reject that view entirely. Our effort to renew and intensify our involvement in Asia is fully compatible, fully compatible with the development and growth of China," said Panetta.]
China has been seen as flexing its military muscle in the region in recent years, by among other things, stirring up territorial disputes over the resource-rich South China Sea. Although the Philippines, Vietnam and several other countries stake claims to the area, China claims it as its own.Panetta said China was a key to developing a peaceful, prosperous and secure Asia-Pacific by "respecting" the maritime rules that have governed the region for decades. Among other topics, Panetta underlined a key treaty alliance with South Korea, emphasizing that the U.S. military presence there would not be reduced despite a drop in the overall size of its ground forces in the coming years.On military-to-military ties, the U.S. defense secretary said the United States would enhance its cooperation with Thailand, which hosts an annual military exercise called Cobra Gold. Last year, the U.S. Pacific Command conducted 172 military exercises with more than 20 different countries and plans to increase the number and size of these events in the Asia-Pacific.China respects the presence and interests in the Asia-Pacific and hopes it will play a positive role in this region. We also hope the U.S. will respect China's interests and concerns in this region," said Liu.
The U.S. defense secretary will now go on to Vietnam and India. On the latter stop, he is expected to discuss ways to deepen the defense partnership with New Delhi.
PratikDas
BRFite
Posts: 1927
Joined: 06 Feb 2009 07:46
Contact:

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Post by PratikDas »

This, of course, is the same hero who made himself famous with:

Hindustan Times: US slips, calls India a ‘threat’
Panetta put his foot in the mouth as he departed from prepared text during a speech at a shipyard in Connecticut, where he said, "we face the threats from rising powers -China, India, others - that we have to always be aware of and try to make sure that we always have sufficient force protection out there in the Pacific to make sure they know we're never going anywhere."
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21538
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Post by Philip »

The arsenal ship envisaged by US analysts would be complementary to a carriers air power.Its size would be around 20000t I imagine.Perhaps smaller than the Kirov class .Given the limitations (combat radius and payload) of naval strike fighters operating from the carrier,arsenal ships packed with long range missiles add to the fleet's firepower.It is more expensive putting such a weaponload into a sub.The Ohio's were a lucky conversion.Perhaps more SSBNs being pensioned off in the future can be similarly converted .New strategic "flying wing" stealth bomber designs are also being contemplated ,so that a variety of delivery platforms are available,not putting all eggs in one basket.

The IN's best option is to lease/buy a couple of Oscar (Kursk) class SSGNs,with their 20 large missile silos,each of which can hold at least 3 K-15s.
Cosmo_R
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3407
Joined: 24 Apr 2010 01:24

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Post by Cosmo_R »

@Philip ^^^. Once India has mastered and operationalized the K-15 based SSGN, there is nothing to stop us from using it as a bigger and bigger platform for the AS concept. Instead of cutting the hull like the Ohios, we can simply have silos that accommodate canisters (A4SLx16 or K-15 x 64 whatever).

This will be much cheaper and avoid any future Vik problems of underestimating conversion costs, underfunded shipyards that divert fund to building infrastructure and create delays.

The SSGN is at the heart of the US' AirSea Doctrine. Four of those big boys routinely turn up in Guam.
Cosmo_R
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3407
Joined: 24 Apr 2010 01:24

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Post by Cosmo_R »

PratikDas wrote:This, of course, is the same hero who made himself famous with:

Hindustan Times: US slips, calls India a ‘threat’
Panetta put his foot in the mouth as he departed from prepared text during a speech at a shipyard in Connecticut, where he said, "we face the threats from rising powers -China, India, others - that we have to always be aware of and try to make sure that we always have sufficient force protection out there in the Pacific to make sure they know we're never going anywhere."
The man puts in too many hours flying. I would not read anything into it. He misspoke not unlike Obama who called Nazi concentration camps in Poland "Polish Death Camps".

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/20 ... secretary/
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36424
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Post by SaiK »

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3AMB7ZFF3Q
@3:40, that is one of the shortest take off I have seen.
PratikDas
BRFite
Posts: 1927
Joined: 06 Feb 2009 07:46
Contact:

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Post by PratikDas »

Cosmo_R wrote:
PratikDas wrote:This, of course, is the same hero who made himself famous with:

Hindustan Times: US slips, calls India a ‘threat’
The man puts in too many hours flying. I would not read anything into it. He misspoke not unlike Obama who called Nazi concentration camps in Poland "Polish Death Camps".

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/20 ... secretary/
Your example is not analogous at all. The latter is a grammatical error while the former requires intent.

When denouncing Iran's nuclear program, I have never heard a single developed country denounce Iran and Israel's nuclear program in the same sentence. That is a proper analogy and I've never seen anyone misspeak like that.

Just so we're absolutely clear, after the November 2011 'misspeak' there was a second 'misspeak' in January 2012:

IBN Live: US Defence Secretary counts India as a challenge yet again
Washington: For the second time in less than two months, US Defence Secretary Leon Panetta has said that the country is facing challenges from rising powers in Asia - China in particular and also includes India in 21st century.
He must fly a LOT. :roll:

How many times does the Defense Secretary of a superpower need to misspeak before India gets a hint?
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36424
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Post by SaiK »

I think he will fail to cross sword with a pawn.. and India will continue to focus on getting at least one of her pawn become a queen. Panetta's move is now documented, and well known. He can be ignored, as silly.
PratikDas
BRFite
Posts: 1927
Joined: 06 Feb 2009 07:46
Contact:

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Post by PratikDas »

Yes, I am glad the message leaked.
Ajit.C
BRFite
Posts: 160
Joined: 10 Sep 2008 13:15
Location: Middle East
Contact:

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Post by Ajit.C »

Todays Times of India
Navy creates new post to harness space-based capabilities
NEW DELHI: The Navy has created a new post of assistant chief of naval staff (communications, space and network-centric operations) with an eye on the future in which space-based military capabilities will play a critical role in all conflicts.

Rear Admiral Kishan K Pandey has taken over as the first ACNS (CSNCO) at Navy HQs here. The move also comes ahead of the planned launch of India's first military satellite, a naval communications and surveillance satellite, this year.

"Communications technology in tandem with space-based capabilities play a pivotal and transformational role in modern warfare. Recognising the critical need to harness these technological capabilities, the Indian Navy has been taking rapid steps to seamlessly integrate all combat platforms and terrestrial nodes through state-of-the art communications and space systems towards network-centric operations," said an officer.

"In addition to making platforms and infrastructure for network centricity, the Navy has also made organisational changes to create and efficiently manage the transition to seamless network-centric capabilities. The creation of the new post is a step in the process to migrate from a 'Platform Centric Navy' to a ' Network Enabled Navy'," he added.

For nearly five years, Rear Admiral Pandey, a communications and electronic warfare specialist, has been spearheading various prestigious projects at the Directorate of Naval Signals related with building the critical network-centric capabilities.
John
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3447
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Post by John »

Philip wrote:The arsenal ship envisaged by US analysts would be complementary to a carriers air power.Its size would be around 20000t I imagine.Perhaps smaller than the Kirov class .Given the limitations (combat radius and payload) of naval strike fighters operating from the carrier,arsenal ships packed with long range missiles add to the fleet's firepower.It is more expensive putting such a weaponload into a sub.The Ohio's were a lucky conversion.Perhaps more SSBNs being pensioned off in the future can be similarly converted .New strategic "flying wing" stealth bomber designs are also being contemplated ,so that a variety of delivery platforms are available,not putting all eggs in one basket.

The IN's best option is to lease/buy a couple of Oscar (Kursk) class SSGNs,with their 20 large missile silos,each of which can hold at least 3 K-15s.
There is a reason many in USN and RN resisted arming SSNs or converting SSBN for cruise missiles', it is waste of resources it is much cheaper still to use B-52 for this and plus they give away their location when they fire these missiles. Against any threat that has competent ASuW capability this strategy would be off very little use (what will this modified super Oscar do if P-3 Orion happens to be flying around while it is firing these missiles) , unless the subs where to operate under IAF cover.
pralay
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 524
Joined: 24 May 2009 23:07
Contact:

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Post by pralay »

Lets put the events in better order so that it makes more sense :D

1. For the second time in less than two months, US Defence Secretary Leon Panetta has said that the country is facing challenges from rising powers in Asia - China in particular and also includes India in 21st century.
2. Panetta: US to Put More Warships in Asia
3. US Eyes Bangladesh for basing USN 7th Fleet

I don't think its a "misspeak'', rather they are showing their true colors/intent :D
Afterall he is not a junior level/irresponsible person.
Cosmo_R
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3407
Joined: 24 Apr 2010 01:24

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Post by Cosmo_R »

@PratikDas^^^: "How many times does the Defense Secretary of a superpower need to misspeak before India gets a hint?"

I give up, how many?
PratikDas
BRFite
Posts: 1927
Joined: 06 Feb 2009 07:46
Contact:

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Post by PratikDas »

Once is one too many. You're welcome.
PratikDas
BRFite
Posts: 1927
Joined: 06 Feb 2009 07:46
Contact:

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Post by PratikDas »

Sameer_shelavale, the choice of Darwin in Australia, for positioning upto 3000 troops, the availability of Diego Garcia and finally Bangladesh would provide a triangulation of points for regular US naval traffic.
Last edited by PratikDas on 04 Jun 2012 02:39, edited 1 time in total.
svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Post by svinayak »

PratikDas wrote:Sameer_shelvale, the choice of Darwin in Australia, for positioning upto 3000 troops, the availability of Diego Garcia and finally Bangladesh would provide a triangulation of points for regular US naval traffic.
Add Qatar for the 4th fleet to this combination and they have matrix on the Indo China ocean region.
Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5393
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Post by Cain Marko »

Philip wrote:Nice idea,but the cost of refitting an old warship with a suspect hull is far less cost-effective than designing and bulding a new air defence cruiser which has a considerable weaponload of SAMs of various types,plus some LR SSMs and ASW helos.The vulnerability of carriers in today's world has led some analysts to advoate a return to the "arsenal ship" concept,where a battlecruiser sized surface ship ,stealthily shaped and equipped with hundreds of missiles in VL silos ,would complement both the strike force of a carrier task force,but also fleet air defence and BMD defence as well.
I agree with this - it is time India starts thinking BIG. About 3 Cruisers @ 15000 tons equipped with 96 Barak ER/AAD/PAD + 16 K15/Nirbhay + Brahmos/Klub, plus a squad of long ranged Bombers (Tu-22 will do). Need the ability to take the fight into the enemy's backyard. SSGNs and SSNs as well.

3 X CVF
3 X CG
8 X Destroyers
16 X Frigates
30 X Corvettes

I see this as the core surface combatant group for the IN circa 2030. I believe this is bound to happen as India's role in the world grows. The missile cruisers will come after the rest are consolidated and indigeneous ship building skill are well established. A typical CBG will consist of 1 Carrier + 1 Cruiser + 2 Destroyers + 1 Frigate + Support + SSN.

The submarine fleet will increasingly focus on more SSNs and SSBNs (at least a dozen combined) and about 12-15 SSKs. Large numbers of MPAs are a must as well.
Roperia
BRFite
Posts: 778
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Post by Roperia »

Cross post from Indian Space Program Discussion. Navy to get its own dedicated comm sat this month.
Roperia wrote:It seems the GSLV is ready! :)

First satellite for armed forces to be ready in a month | TOI
NEW DELHI: The armed forces are finally set to get their first-ever dedicated military satellite, a naval surveillance and communications one, as part of their long-standing quest to effectively harness the final frontier of space.

The geo-stationary naval satellite has "already been shipped out'' for its launch that will take place "within a month or so", government sources said.

A not-too-subtle indicator of the space event in the offing was also the creation of a new post of assistant chief of naval staff (communications, space and network-centric operations) at the Navy head-quarters over the weekend.

Though tight-lipped about the "over-the-sea" satellite's launch, the Navy on Sunday said Rear Admiral Kishan K Pandey, a communications and electronic warfare specialist, had taken over as the new ACNS (CSNCO) in keeping with its endeavour to transform from a "platform-centric Navy'' to a "network-enabled Navy''.

The satellite, with an over 1,000 nautical mile footprint over the Indian Ocean Region (IOR) stretching from Africa's east coast right till Malacca Strait, will enable the Navy to network all its warships, submarines and aircraft with operational centres ashore through high-speed data-links.

There is an urgent need to keep real-time tabs over the rapidly-militarizing IOR, where China is increasingly expanding its strategic footprint, as well as on troop movements, missile silos, military installations and airbases across land borders.

The long-delayed naval satellite is to be followed by ones for the Army and IAF for "over-the-land use''. In absence of dedicated satellites, the armed forces have so far depended on "dual-use'' Indian satellites as well as lease of transponders on foreign ones for their navigation, communication, surveillance and reconnaissance purposes.

There are around 300 dedicated or dual-use military satellites orbiting around the earth at present, with the US operating over 50% of them, followed by Russia and China.

China, in particular, is pursuing an extensive military-space programme that even extends to advanced ASAT (anti-satellite) capabilities with "direct-ascent" missiles, hit-to-kill "kinetic" and directed-energy laser weapons.

DRDO, on its part, contends it can quickly fashion ASAT weapons, if required, by marrying the propulsion system of the over 5,000-km Agni-V missile tested recently with the "kill vehicle" of the almost-ready two-tier BMD ( ballistic missile system) system it has developed.

But India is still some distance away from effective ASAT capabilities. The government is also not yet willing to establish a tri-Service Aerospace Command on the lines of the Strategic Forces Command which handles nuclear weapons.

The naval satellite is a step in the right direction. The Navy has already tested the "ship-end'' of the new space era dawning through the massive Tropex (theatre-level readiness and operational exercise) held in January-February. The network-centric operations were tried with both the Eastern and Western Fleets, backed by fighters, spy drones and helicopters, out at sea.
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Post by Singha »

in my opinion having 3 ships with 64 barak8 >> 2 ships with 96 barak8 in many respects like radar coverage, availability, redundancy.
its unlikely we will make uber large sam stuffed ships like KDX3.

if we play cards right any cagefights will have atleast one of our carriers in action and DDGs mainly used to lay SAM traps along threat axis rather than play goalkeeper which every ship armed with ak630 and barak1 will do.

but no compromises on EW, networking, AEW link, rotating 2 faced aesa radar and ability to guide N missiles in parallel in the air
koti
BRFite
Posts: 1118
Joined: 09 Jul 2009 22:06
Location: Hyderabad, India

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Post by koti »

shiv wrote:If the links are secure multiple UAVs and networked ship and ground based control should work well but this is OT for this thread. No country other than the US has the resources for this kind of ship based AWACS and non of the ship based ones come anywhere near close to land based AEW&C

I find that a lot of our discussions end up in trying to mimic the US (usually because the US is claimed to set the standard) rather than coming up with solutions that we can create based on our own innovation and resources. Problem is, as I see it, if we are not fighting the US then we need not seek US level capability. If we are fighting the US or nations whom the US might support, then we should be looking at how we can degrade US style capability. Not mimic it.
I concur saab.
But, AEW capability for a A/C is a very potent addition. It not only aids the carrier alone but can also enhance the situational awareness of other surface assets.
If UAV or V-22 based AEW is not feasible, maybe a green pine type LR-EW systems may be of use for the CBGs.

That said can anyone comment on the capabilities of P-8I as an AEW platform.
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Post by Singha »

P-8I has a self-defence air search mode and thats it. it can certainly not track 100s of targets with high detail let alone guide anyone.

I wonder if a aerostat radar can be towed on a cable by something like OPV attached to the fleet? when pulled down it would occupy the helicopter landing deck. but its ceiling will low, definitely a lot less than KA31. with power being supplied from the ship, it might be say 500m high and generate much better coverage against ASMs though.
koti
BRFite
Posts: 1118
Joined: 09 Jul 2009 22:06
Location: Hyderabad, India

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Post by koti »

>>when pulled down it would occupy the helicopter landing deck. but its ceiling will low, definitely a lot less than KA31

But with nearly no fuel cost and a far higher uptime compared to the Kamov or any Heli based approach.
Picklu
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2128
Joined: 25 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Post by Picklu »

^^Will give away the location of the mother ship .. a strict no no
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Post by shiv »

At least some of these discussions should, IMO go into a thread that I started very long ago - planning for future wars.

If you have to fight a nation that has aircraft carriers with AWACS cover and you had no carriers and no AWACS cover what would you do, assuming that you were reasonably well equipped with land based aircraft that could go 300 km out to sea carrying potent anti-ship missiles with 150 km range. Assume you are Pakistan and you have Orions.
koti
BRFite
Posts: 1118
Joined: 09 Jul 2009 22:06
Location: Hyderabad, India

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Post by koti »

Picklu wrote:^^Will give away the location of the mother ship .. a strict no no
A Carrier with its size and components can be tracked hundreads of KM afar; by Surface radars, AEW, or even Sats.
A higher radar increases the approaching sea skimming missiles at a farther distance then normal Ship based radars.

The only worry I see is the Aircraft may get entangled if not careful....
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Post by shiv »

I think that the carrier will be kept a safe 500 km away because there is no guarantee that the other nation will not send a suicide mission to cripple the carrier. Even if the carrier is sending out an AWACS, that AWACS will be at some risk if it approaches as close as 100 km from the coast. A massed aircraft attack/suicide mission against an aircraft carrier is still possible even if the other nation has no aircraft carrier and no AWACS. Apart from the danger of any lurking subs.

In effect the range of the carrier's own aircraft will be reduced by 1000 km because they have to fly in and fly out 500 km to reach the coast of the nation.

If you want to fight a sea battle in mid ocean with carriers on both sides there are just 2-3 possible adversary nation combinations in the entire world. It should be easy to figure out which nation's carrier would be a greater risk.
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Post by Singha »

well this radar ship can sail a safe distance away from the carrier like 10km to one side. the benefits of having a good radar up 24x7 on a line 1000m high might be useful. I have some doubt though whether it can be pulled along at 30knots without the air resistance of the balloon snapping the cable off in bad weather. but chances are in bad weather hostile air strikes might not occur.

while the obese belly of this fatcat does not fill one with confidence, the text is reassuring and soothing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tethered_A ... dar_System
Operators launch the aerostat from a large circular launch pad containing a mooring fixed or mobile system. The mooring systems contain a large winch with 25,000 feet (7,600 m) of tether cable. Operational availability is generally limited only by the weather (60 percent standard) and routine maintenance downtime. The aerostats are stable in winds below 65 knots (120 km/h). Aerostat and equipment availability averages more than 98 percent system-wide.
For security and safety reasons, air space around Air Force aerostat sites is restricted for a radius of at least two to three statute miles and an altitude up to 15,000 feet (4,600 m).
AbhiJ
BRFite
Posts: 494
Joined: 29 Sep 2010 17:33
Contact:

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Post by AbhiJ »

Any Plans for a Navalized AAD/PAD for 15P-B and How does it compare to AEGIS in Terms of Range, Capability for UAV, Aircraft and Cruise Missiles?
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Post by Singha »

AAD will need a new 2nd stage interceptor based on some AAM like Astra to be really effective in LRSAM role. the Aster30 uses a modified Mica iirc and SM6 uses a modded Amraam to release a lethal kill vehicle at long range that can run against fighters and cruise missiles.
so until the Astra mk1 enters service we cannot expect much activity there.

the PAD is a fatkat that does not look suitable for ship use unless we build 12,000t arsenal ships with big sized silos. given our threat axis, the need for ship based TBMD is kind of limited. we can do the same thing from land and A&N islands.
Locked