Indian Naval News & Discussion - 12 Oct 2013

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 23 Jan 2015 07:23

Obama in India: India keen to jointly develop Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System with US

NEW DELHI: India and the United States are likely to expedite during US President Barack Obama's visit discussions on joint production of electromagnetic system to smoothen takeoff and landing of fighter jets on board India's indigenously developed aircraft carrier.

Officials said India is keen to jointly develop Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS) with the US for the aircraft carrier that is under production in Kochi.

Frank Kendall, the US undersecretary of defence for acquisition, technology and logistics, who is arriving ahead of Obama, will discuss with his Indian counterparts the possibility of joint production of defence items including EMALS, officials said, adding there is a possibility that EMALS might be one of the items where chances of joint production are high.

India currently operates two aircraft carriers, one stationed along its eastern coast and the other along the western coast.

EMALS is a system under development by the US Navy using a linear motor drive instead of the conventional steam piston drive. Kendall, who is visiting India after the Russian defence minister came calling, is expected to give momentum to the Defence Trade and Technology Initiative (DTTI), which promotes collaboration in defence technology and enables co-production and co-development of critical defence system.

Besides EMALS, Kendall's discussions will focus on joint production of unmanned aerial vehicles and systems for the C-130 military transport aircraft built by Lockheed Martin Corp. Some projects could be announced after the summit meeting of Prime Minister Narendra Modi and President Obama, officials indicated. India has received five C-130Js built by Lockheed Martin and it has placed orders for six planes, parts of which will be delivered by 2017 and the jet planes will be delivered by 2017.

DTTI will be a critical aspect of the renewed defence pact that is expected to be signed during Obama's visit.

The India-US defence framework agreement, which expires this year, was signed in the US in 2005 by the then defence minister Pranab Mukherjee and his US counterpart Donald Rumsfeld in the George W Bush administration.

The new framework is likely to enhance the bilateral defence partnership by stepping up joint military exercises and through more in-depth intelligence-sharing, maritime security, among other issues.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 23 Jan 2015 08:48

I see a mix of naval Tejas and JSF as inevitable for ADS2.

the Mig29K has reached a evolutionary dead end and fate of its product line is iffy as no further new designs are on the map.

rafale-M will go the way of the land based rafale....too pricey, too underinvested, too late....

on the munitions side, US has opened a clear lead of 15 yrs over best-of-rest. on the radar, EW and next-gen engine side none are even remotely close. the race is over and settled. we need to pick the winner and hope for best.

KrishnaK · Post by **KrishnaK** » 23 Jan 2015 09:07

Singha wrote:I see a mix of naval Tejas and JSF as inevitable for ADS2.

the Mig29K has reached a evolutionary dead end and fate of its product line is iffy as no further new designs are on the map.

rafale-M will go the way of the land based rafale....too pricey, too underinvested, too late....

on the munitions side, US has opened a clear lead of 15 yrs over best-of-rest. on the radar, EW and next-gen engine side none are even remotely close. the race is over and settled. we need to pick the winner and hope for best.

Then there's no point not buying JSF for the air force too.

devesh · Post by **devesh** » 23 Jan 2015 09:21

http://defencyclopedia.com/2014/05/31/f ... an-gamble/

F-35: The Greatest American Gamble

There are several joint exercises between USAF and RAF which prove that the Typhoons managed to detect the F-22 by using IRST (Infrared Search and Track) and obtained a virtual kill. Now, the F-35 is admittedly less ‘stealth’ than the F-22. So imagine how it would hold up in combat against enemy fighters which are most likely to be flankers. Its only big edge over modern flankers is its low RCS (Radar Cross Section). The Russians are equipping their fighters with powerful AESA radars and IRST which can probably detect the F-35 from a hundred kilometers away. Yes, the F-35 too can detect the Flanker from a hundred kilometers away. So where is the advantage offered by its stealth now? It would have to fight the flanker in what would be a game of speed, maneuverability and range, all of which it lacks in. Its sensors might be high tech, but always the Russian technology is underestimated and American tech is assumed blindly to be superior. What I say is, both have equally high technology and can exploit each other’s weakness well enough. And the F-35, doesn’t give them the needed edge.

AF-centered. compared to Mig29's, the JSF might be an upgrade, but we would need to compare to what PLAN will be flying. the Flankers, right?

shaun · Post by **shaun** » 23 Jan 2015 10:05

don't get surprised if more "k"s are ordered !!

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 23 Jan 2015 10:14

the JSF might be a tad too small and short legged vs the kind of su30/pakfa long legs we need to deal with Cheen. it needs a 'network' to be effective and we cannot hope to invest so much countrywide...for the navy's limited strike groups we can somehow manage.

and the Tejas mk2 will sit where the JSF is in terms of size and weight.

JSFs trump card will be the next gen AAMs & PGMs that are being worked on. small, fast, long range but precise.plus its radar which is 2 gens ahead of ROW efforts. in a fleet defence role @ 250km radius from the carrier where the threats are coming to it, it should be able to manage the flankers threats.

we would not ofcourse send our carriers into range of PLANAF/PLAAF land based units given the numbers they can put in the air. I am talking more of coral sea/midway type carrier vs carrier battles in the high seas with only BAMS, hawkeye and LRMP type assists available.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 23 Jan 2015 10:29

This new carrier should be a tech demo.

nikhil_p · Post by **nikhil_p** » 23 Jan 2015 10:31

The truth of the battlefield is that to defeat a system you dont need a better similar system - you need a better defence.
If your enemy has the worlds Best protected MBT's - equip yourself with a long range AT weapons with an effective warhead
If your enemy has stealth A/c - upgrade your sensors to detect them - and then fight them in situations which are more conducive to your aircraft. A Mig equipped with IRST and maybe an AESA upgrade, if it detects the F35 at say 80 kms, can theoretically bring it down with LRAAM's. In the WVR envelope, the Mig can prove superior to the JSF with a high off boresight IR missile and tighter turning radius with enough power reserve in a turning dogfight engagement.

Next gen AAM's is something of a differentiator - when they come online - but then Ruskies and Israel and close home the DRDO is also working on improving our missiles.

Suffice to say that the Mig29K+ LCA MK2 combo is enough to tackle our perceived threats at sea for the next 15-20 years.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 23 Jan 2015 11:27

NRao wrote:This new carrier should be a tech demo.

Carriers are never tech demo platforms. The tech that they are supposed to use is perfected on shore installations. Before, being installed on ocean going platforms.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 23 Jan 2015 12:17

Posting here because of EMALS:

Posting without comments.

During Obama Visit, Modi Government Ready to Try What UPA Couldn't

New Delhi: The Narendra Modi-led government is all set to go where the previous UPA government had feared to tread. India and the US may soon agree on allowing their warships and aircraft to access each other's bases, refuel and, in case of emergency, operate side by side.

For this, India has to sign what the US calls "Foundational Documents" or agreements required by its law for the transfer of sophisticated military technology and weapons to a country.

Sources tell NDTV that the government is no longer shy of exploring the pacts that the previous Congress-led government, especially then Defence Minister AK Antony, had refused to even consider, saying India's sovereignty would be compromised.

In a sign of change under the new government, these agreements were at the core of negotiations between India and the US for renewing a 10-year Defence Framework pact. The discussions ended on Wednesday, setting the stage for announcements to be made during President Barack Obama's visit.

Sources tell NDTV that the US handed over "Non Papers" - or informal discussion papers - asking India to consider the agreements. In response, New Delhi asked how these would benefit India. The pacts include the Communications Interoperability and Security Memorandum of Agreement, the Logistics Support Agreement and the Basic Exchange and Cooperation Agreement for geo-spatial cooperation.

Sources say New Delhi's apprehensions on these pacts are wearing thin.

"Signing the agreements will institutionalise what is already routine...Indian ships replenishing supplies in Gulf with US support or vice versa. There is hardly any request that is denied on either side," a senior Defence Ministry official told NDTV.

The official also said signing one of these agreements may at times lead to a situation where the US can listen in on communication between platforms, but also allow Indian surveillance aircraft and ships to hook on to US satellites, connect to American assets thousands of nautical miles away and gather real time information, which India cannot do today.

Sources say PM Modi has asked the Defence Ministry to explore "convergence" with the US on these issues while renewing the 2005 Defence framework pact, under which the US has supplied $10 billion worth of weapons to India.

Political opposition had forced the Congress-led government to skirt around the contentious agreements. There have been major changes since then; the US has shifted its focus from the Gulf to Asia, where it sees India as a "strategic partner." More importantly, Prime Minister Modi has enough numbers in Parliament and is not dependent on allies who may object

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 23 Jan 2015 17:16

A risky venture,one must proceed with extreme caution as if relations go sour at some point in the future,our assets may be compromised. A better bet would be to allow limited logistic access,which will also be allowed to "old friends" as well. One must keep in mind the importance of our defence relationship with Russia,which is the only country supplying us with aircraft carriers,nuclear subs,and assisting greatly in our SSBN development.Most of our major cutting edge tech at the moment is Russian.Sukhois,MIG-29Ks,BMos,T-90s and a host of weaponry,sensors,etc. The US would love to get its hands upon some of these assets and certainly the Russians would not want the US sniffing around their eqpt.

EMALS:This may be extremely expensive to install,costing a couple of billions per ship.We perhaps would be better off with another large STOBAR carrier. for IAC-2.However,no harm in taking a look at the system.

Int. titibit.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Military/2 ... ging[b]The hunt for Red October gets easier. How submarine warfare is changing.[/b]
Improving technology could make it easier to find submarines. That's a threat to the US fleet – but it's also an opportunity for the Pentagon, a new report says.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 23 Jan 2015 17:22

devesh wrote:http://defencyclopedia.com/2014/05/31/f ... an-gamble/

F-35: The Greatest American Gamble

AF-centered. compared to Mig29's, the JSF might be an upgrade, but we would need to compare to what PLAN will be flying. the Flankers, right?

nikhil_p wrote:If your enemy has stealth A/c - upgrade your sensors to detect them - and then fight them in situations which are more conducive to your aircraft. A Mig equipped with IRST and maybe an AESA upgrade, if it detects the F35 at say 80 kms, can theoretically bring it down with LRAAM's. In the WVR envelope, the Mig can prove superior to the JSF with a high off boresight IR missile and tighter turning radius with enough power reserve in a turning dogfight engagement.

Stealth was a response to rising sensor ranges i.e. radar. The latest generation of AESAs can track conventional fighter aircraft in excess of 200 km. Against a VLO target that shrinks to under 50 km. Don't expect IRSTs to exceed that range in head-on aspect either even in ideal weather conditions. And shrink that further if IFF is necessary.

Suffice to say that the Mig29K+ LCA MK2 combo is enough to tackle our perceived threats at sea for the next 15-20 years.

- The J-15B entering service next year, is likely to be better than both. And by 2025, a naval variant of the J-31 will probably be entering service.

- In the event of two front war, the IN might be tasked with enforcing a naval blockade of Gwadar & Karachi without IAF support. It'll then be forced to check PAF attacks with a minimal qualitative edge. And if China expands its military presence in Pakistan, the PAF might well be reinforced by the PLAAF/PLAN.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 23 Jan 2015 18:10

Philip wrote:Most of our major cutting edge tech at the moment is Russian.Sukhois,MIG-29Ks,BMos,T-90s and a host of weaponry,sensors,etc. The US would love to get its hands upon some of these assets and certainly the Russians would not want the US sniffing around their eqpt.

The BrahMos... maybe. None of the rest are close to being 'cutting edge tech'.

EMALS:This may be extremely expensive to install,costing a couple of billions per ship.We perhaps would be better off with another large STOBAR carrier. for IAC-2.However,no harm in taking a look at the system.

Just as importantly it'll hamper commonality with the two existing carriers. The IAC-2 air component will not be able to operate off either of the other two carriers when the IAC-2 is in refit or other otherwise unavailable.

At the same time the CATOBAR configuration will allow us to operate E-2Ds off it. Alternatively, we can look into a V-22 based AEW&C solution (heliborne systems are likely to be underpowered).

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 23 Jan 2015 18:39

devesh wrote:http://defencyclopedia.com/2014/05/31/f ... an-gamble/

F-35: The Greatest American Gamble

There are several joint exercises between USAF and RAF which prove that the Typhoons managed to detect the F-22 by using IRST (Infrared Search and Track) and obtained a virtual kill. Now, the F-35 is admittedly less ‘stealth’ than the F-22. So imagine how it would hold up in combat against enemy fighters which are most likely to be flankers. Its only big edge over modern flankers is its low RCS (Radar Cross Section). The Russians are equipping their fighters with powerful AESA radars and IRST which can probably detect the F-35 from a hundred kilometers away. Yes, the F-35 too can detect the Flanker from a hundred kilometers away. So where is the advantage offered by its stealth now? It would have to fight the flanker in what would be a game of speed, maneuverability and range, all of which it lacks in. Its sensors might be high tech, but always the Russian technology is underestimated and American tech is assumed blindly to be superior. What I say is, both have equally high technology and can exploit each other’s weakness well enough. And the F-35, doesn’t give them the needed edge.

AF-centered. compared to Mig29's, the JSF might be an upgrade, but we would need to compare to what PLAN will be flying. the Flankers, right?

The blog is a desperate attempt to only refer to topics in the PRO V CON scenario and the blogger makes absolutely no effort to present his/her credentials so that we can figure out whether he is speaking from any level of technical competence or experience. However, I am yet to hear of a F-22 v Typhoon scenario that had full BVR combat and just not BFM and that in the BVR combat, a BVR kill was achieved on the F-22 using the IRST which is a front FOV sensor, and since the Raptor or any other fighter has multile SA tools it can avoid the sweet spots of that sensor. No one is going to start using the IRST at 50 Nm ranges where an F-22 can launch its Aim-120C7 at mach 1.72. The US aggressors have been flying around for a few years using the IRST, and the US has had experience with IRST's yet has continued, and will continue to advance stealth into their designs and for good reasons. All those following them in the next-generation combat systems are doing so as well.

the JSF might be a tad too small and short legged vs the kind of su30/pakfa long legs we need to deal with Cheen.

On internal fuel the JSF Charlie has a near 700 nm combat radius(of which it carries 19000+ pounds) compared to the 390 nm radius of the Super Hornet on internal fuel (lightly armed), and the three US services are spending top dollar to develop Next generation engines with the aim to pushing this to upwards of 25-30%. In fact General Electric was given a 300 million contract just a few days ago to advance this very process. I wouldn't be surprised if a late 2020's, or early 2030's version of the F-35C gets you upwards of 800 nm combat radius. The only Navy around the world that could potentially require more is the USN that really needs a 1200 nm radius fighter that is limited by perhaps only pilot fatigue (which it should ask for as a Super Hornet replacement). Even the USAF's F-35A would be their best "legged" fighter purely on internal fuel on most missions, even out ranging a clean F-15E on certain missions.

Spec, radius is only one part of the story. Effective range and ability to go strike at targets or go and conduct ISR for example depends upon your flight path and how you confront an A2AD threat, whether out at sea or on land. Compared to an F-18E/F the F-35C effectively has a 2x (or more) combat radius because of its RCS and its ability to fly optimum flight paths to targets rather than having to re-route due to threats and or have reserve gas for avoiding pop up threats.

Although I am not advocating the C for the IN without knowing the other characteristics of the future planned carrier (pure aircraft capability does not make a good carrier force) but it is likely to be the longest "legged" naval fighter for years to come.

A Mig equipped with IRST and maybe an AESA upgrade, if it detects the F35 at say 80 kms, can theoretically bring it down with LRAAM's

The problem is that all modern 5th generation systems are equipped with the best EA, EW systems that are designed around picking up the faintest of emissions. Viv has a Rafale v F22 article that he has posted that drives home the point. If your hypothetical Mig-29K is going to use its emitting sensor at max power in order to pick up a VLO fighter at its max range, then it is going to be vulnerable to EW systems that at the moment outrange even AESA radars by a factor of 2 X if not more (things like ALR94, Barracuda, Spectra etc). An F-22 developed in the 90's and fielded a decade ago, has been claimed to possess the ability launch an Aim-120 by using information form the EW suite alone based on emissions from other fighters. Furthermore, the SA provided at the moment allows a modern VLO fighters the ability to pick up and the VLO aspect provides it the flexibility to put itself in a position where it isn't as vulnerable but at the same time is in a strong position offensively. If it can judge emissions, qualitatively assess them, build up the SA picture and using it get out of the best FOV of the non-VLO opponent so as to put it at a disadvantage, it can get closer thereby launch its missiles at a higher PK. While the Mig-29K may get an AESA radar sometime in the future, stealthy F-22 have been fighting against AESA equipped F-15C's, F-18E/F's for almost a decade now and the result of 5th to 4th combat exercises has been talked about, and in BVR it is a massacre.

Another point to keep in mind its hat LPI/LPD data links and RF sensors work best (some say only work) on VLO aircraft. The reason for this is that, modern aircraft come with very advanced integrated avionics and sensor fusion. The JSF alone has 3-4 times more software (which translates to integration) than the other 5th generation F-22. The SA they form is from a combination of LPI radar, EW suite, EODAS and EOTS. So if a legacy non stealthy fighter, with its large radar (or not

), weapons hanging form the wings does play around with LPI modes, its effect is not as significant because the detection is happening on multiple levels (pure sensor detection, signal detection, Infra red detection and hand-off information using MADL). While an VLO aircraft absolutely requires strong LPI/LPD modes. Even though the F-35 has a HUGE AESA radar (1600+ T/R modules) that is unique in that its back end is actually a full fledged mission computer (a departure from traditional fighter radars) that is upgraded every 4-5 years it would almost never work with that much power in the air to air mode. The large number of T/R modules is there for mission flexibility so that it can conduct the EA/EW, detection, cyber and a2g missions in an effective manner. Most of the time the radar would be operating at the bare minimum required for extreme EMCON using LPI/LPD modes. So brute sensor performance, is not the way to go because the basic radar equation is against you on that given that a fighter is still limited by the amount of power it can feed its front sensor.

Up close you have the Aim-9x and HMD all fed through by the EOTS and EODAS and a very good low speed high AOA performance. Good luck having any sort of confidence against that at the strategic level. Anyone who wishes to up close would be trading losses at this point and in the future - A bad position to be in.

John · Post by **John** » 23 Jan 2015 19:12

Viv S wrote:- The J-15B entering service next year, is likely to be better than both. And by 2025, a naval variant of the J-31 will probably be entering service.

Even with improved thrust J-15B is still hampered operating from Ski-jump you essentially have larger airframe carrying about same payload and range of 29K. Flanker themselves are notoriously maintenance heavy as we are finding out with MKI, which might be fine operating from land but from the Sea? Su-33 abysmal track record with Russian navy in terms of flight hours and accidents is testament to that. It would interesting to see how J-15B works out for the Chinese. As for J-31 can't comment on that.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 23 Jan 2015 19:15

John is absolutely right, If the IN can keep its Mig-29's upgraded over time the J-15B is not likely a significant threat precisely because of the limitations of the carrier. Having said that, the sign that the Chinese have gone the J-15B route and are looking at (as per some rumors/reports whatever) to put a stealth jet on their carrier sometime in the future - seems to suggest to me that they themselves would eventually move over to Catapults as well.

One advantage of the EMALS and the biggest is the ability to operate E-2D's. With their unique UHF AESA's, they would be very important assets for an early warning and Situational Awareness on attacking stealth aircraft, either UAV's, fighters/bombers or even stealth cruise missiles (the main reason the USN went the UHF radar route - which ultimately increased the complexity of developing the sensor)

AW&ST October 27,2014 (page 44)

Introduction of the new Hawkeye provides a much improved UHF radar antenna that is designed to detect smaller, faster targets than that used by its predecessor, the E-2C. UHF radar frequencies are useful for finding targets that are hard to see in other bands, such as cruise missiles and aircraft with low radar cross sections. These are the types of threats to carrier strike groups that worry Navy officials.

The in-service declaration for the E-2D with VAW-125 came almost 50 years after the first E-2A entered service in 1964.

Northrop Grumman is the prime contractor and Lockheed Martin builds the AN/APY-9 sensor, which is mounted conspicuously in the 24-ft. round radome on the top of the aircraft. “The most demanding requirement was to be able to detect small targets in an overland environment,” says Lee Lilly, senior business development manager for the radar system segment at Lockheed Martin. The legacy APS-145 was designed primarily for the maritime environment.

John · Post by **John** » 23 Jan 2015 19:30

Yes if they beat us to Catas all bets are off even Mig-29k operating from Catapults can sustain better sortie rate and payload/range than operating from Ski Jump.

Vikrant even though it is less tonnage than Vikram or Liaoning it is not hampered by the outdated steam turbines which is prone to issues. Both have already sprung problems and they haven't even been in service for more than couple years. So IAC is big step up.

Will · Post by **Will** » 23 Jan 2015 19:45

Indian Private shipyards are crying for orders and we are negotiating with Russia for three more frigates. Some things never change.

JTull · Post by **JTull** » 23 Jan 2015 20:18

If Cats come then Lightening (F-35) will strike! IAC-2 with potential 65,000 tons could be a candidate. Unlikely to rework IAC-1 with most of it already ready.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 23 Jan 2015 20:25

4 X 40,000t amphibs are to be built in Indian yards (this is a huge programme),6+ P-17As,4 P-15Bs,and another large batch of P-28s,plus 12-16 shallow water ASW corvettes,and scores of patrol craft,NOPVs,etc.,etc. Minesweepers are also a priority.many of these porgrammes are way behind schedule and way over cost too.The Talwars have been built swiftly and economically. The Ru Navy too has found the design very attractive and are building several of their version of it.The fasttest proven way to augment numbers is to buy another batch at affordable prices. Only MDL and GRSE,filled with orders, can build frigate sized warships as of now. The other yards have only built smaller and less complex warships. CSL is building the Vikrant ,behind schedule and will in the future also build the IAC-2 of larger size.Pvt yards with infrastructure capable are Pipapav and L&T,but as of now they've not built anything. To build just 3 more FFGs would be uneconomical in a pvt. yard .They need larger numbers.More Talwars would be best built and acquired from Ru

If IAC-2 is N-powered,EMALS could be seen as an option.The launch system is v.important as it adds hugely to the cost.The RN couldn't afford cats for their 2 new 65,000t QE-2 carriers. However,it would be best from the overall perspective to have our 3 new carriers,Vik-A,IAC-1 and 2 to use the same launch system,making training and interoperability easier for IN aviators. Once EMALS is perfected,it could be used for the next batch of carriers.With the growing use of UAVs/UCAVs now entering carrier aviation,such airraft will also be smaller and lighter than current manned fighters which may impact launch systems used.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 23 Jan 2015 20:51

@Phillip, the entire point of having UAV's and UCAV's on a carrier is to unshackle the vehicles from the general 9-10 hour human endurance limit for these sorts of missions. The entire point is to give the UCAV the ability to go out, and conduct the super long endurance and heavy strike missions allowing the carrier to ultimately be placed further back and as such make it much more survivable. Even though the current UAV lot in the uCLASSS may be a 1200nm ISR asset with light strike, the day is not far when Bob Work's version of the UCLASS becomes a reality (perhaps by the mid to end 2020's) which envisions a vehicle similar in size to the F-14 and able to conduct penetrating 2000 nm out into defended targets. The USN may be a leader in this system, but rest assured the rest of the Navies around the world would follow be it the Chinese, the french, the British and the Russians. By limiting yourself to a ski jump you are A) DQ'ing all potential CAT launched UAV applications, and

Putting restrictions on your UAV/UCAV concepts. The British would find it very tough because they have to now align their UAV/UCAV programs with the USMC (VARIOUS type vehicles) rather than piggy back on USN's development in that field.

Even the prototype X-47B has a MTOW that is around 85% of that of the F/A-18C, and it is nothing but a first step towards a UCAV. It won't take 20 years to go from a 44K MTOW unmanned vehicle on a carrier to a 70K MTOW unmanned vehicle on a carrier. The challenges (I'll leave out org/cultural challenges for the moment) with unmanned aviation on a carrier have to do with Autonomy, WS employment and data-links, none of which are problematic when you upsize the concept. 6th generation fighter OEM's are talking about "optionally manned" aircraft, and that is precisely there for the long-endurance missions where pilot fatigue is the limiting factor. Expect the 2030's to put a huge strain on the max take off weight from tactical aircraft, and this is the primary driver of EMALS.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 23 Jan 2015 20:57

Some details of the Advanced Lightweight Torpedo from NSTL based on a tender for "110KW Integrated Motor Propulsor (IMP) Assembled in Cowl & 120 KW Controller assembled in Shell with accessories".

1. Maximum depth: 710 mtrs
2. Powered by 110 kW IMP motor
3. Source of power electric.
4. Should be able to work for a minimum of half an hour in full rated output! That is a lot of range!
5. Diameter: 324 mm
6. Number of operative cycles (at least 10).
7. Efficiency: 92-93%

member_20067 · Post by **member_20067** » 23 Jan 2015 23:46

is INS Kochi out on sea trials?... Wiki says so -- but there has not been any media release of the same I am guessing...

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 24 Jan 2015 15:58

Yes,endurance is the key factor and attractiveness of UCAVs/UAVs.The other factor in favour of cats.EMALS is the lack of a long endurance AEW system.,where larger aircraft can be launched and operated from a carrier.How effective a future AEW platform based upon a UAV will be in comparison with a Hawkeye type ,carries a big Q mark. Whether there have been serious options/studies of using Ospreys for the same purpose which could operate from ski-jump carriers is not known. It could be explored. For smaller navies like the IN,the RN,etc.,we will have to make do with AEW helos if ski-jump carriers are preferred. Whether the IN can also afford the cost of acquiring and operating larger carriers,65,000t+ in the future is another moot point. We don't have the global expeditionary warfare role that the US armed forces.USN and USMC have and don't even possess a fledgling Marine Corps. EMALS for just one carrier might be a cost too far.One would rather wait and see how it succeeds in the USN before seriously considering it for IAC-2. However,to keep one's options open,IAC-2 would best be served with using N-propulsion.This would provide the requisite power for cats/EMALS,etc.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 24 Jan 2015 20:28

How effective a future AEW platform based upon a UAV will be in comparison with a Hawkeye type ,carries a big Q mark.

? from what perspective? Tactical deployments? The PACAF is already deploying manned-unmanned assets for ISR (has been for some years) and even the USN has seen years of data from the Global Hawk that works alongside other ISR tools. Furthermore, manned-unmanned ISR teaming has taken place at an earth shattering pace in both Afghanistan and Iraq. The concept of how to deploy an unmanned, persistent ISR asset is extremely well understood and is the lowest risk portion of the UCLASS (Hence why the USN favors this approach in the current fiscal environment, as opposed to being a leading service in figuring out how to deploy and use a stealthy, long range strike unmanned asset from a carrier) The Triton is a direct result and is basically a block 40 global hawk with all the shortcomings removed, and next generation sensors adapted for maritime and littoral operations. The UCLASS would be a tool that extends the reach of the E-2D that acts as a quarterback of the fleet. The concept of operations they envision is an extremely low-risk one with the vehicle having moderate stealth, and an active-passive sensor suite that provides SIGNIT, RF and IR data back to the NIFC-CA set-up. Since the E-2D is the "integrator" it would use the UCLASS (just like it would the F-18E/F, and F-35C's) to extend its Situational Awareness in the defensive mission, and provide 24x7 orbits over areas of interest in an offensive mission.

Whether there have been serious options/studies of using Ospreys for the same purpose which could operate from ski-jump carriers is not known.

There have been internal concepts presented for this purpose but there is no support from the end-user that is primarily the USMC. The USN has just signed on to the V-22 for COD but they are likely to use it only for such a purpose since the E-2D has a bigger payload and has a cutting edge sensor in operation. The only way I see this ever coming to light is if the USMC actually develops a need for such an air vehicle or if others using Ski's such as the RN find a requirement for such an aircraft. I believe the RN decision to stick to the nostalgia of a jump jet rather than spend more upfront to get a proper EMALS equipped carrier biting them in the back end once they finally realize the cost of a future AEW asset as well as the cost of developing unique UCAV's to extend the carriers offensive punch in the 2030+ time-period.

The V-22 does not need to the ski jump to take off.

Osprey’s Next Jobs: Tanker or AWACS?

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 24 Jan 2015 22:28

Yesterday it was Hawkeyes, today EMALS, tomorrow H2 + Co2 to make gas. Convergence.

EMALS does not make any sense for a small boat. So, if the idea is to putter around the IOC pond, then a cat is good or a ski jump could suffice.

EMALS has to mean sailing all the way Vladivostok without the IN being told that she is in the China Sea.

BTW, IN has been offered full support to (re?)design a boat.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 24 Jan 2015 23:12

brar_w,

RN will probably continue with heli borne assets for now to give it an AEW edge. Those have limitations, but they are not as severe as we think. The largest two are that it cannot carry a very large sensor and the uptime is limited. These can be quite easily fixed by moving all the human assets back on the ship and doing all post processing there and by increasing the number of AEW assets on the ship. 3 more helicopters cost way less than redoing a conventional boat with EMALS. The issue comes when you are in emcon and cannot use large datalink back to mother ship and you still need your AEW assets up there emitting or collecting. As we move to laser based communications in the future, this will become less of an issue.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 25 Jan 2015 00:09

Cybaru wrote:brar_w,

RN will probably continue with heli borne assets for now to give it an AEW edge. Those have limitations, but they are not as severe as we think. The largest two are that it cannot carry a very large sensor and the uptime is limited. These can be quite easily fixed by moving all the human assets back on the ship and doing all post processing there and by increasing the number of AEW assets on the ship. 3 more helicopters cost way less than redoing a conventional boat with EMALS. The issue comes when you are in emcon and cannot use large datalink back to mother ship and you still need your AEW assets up there emitting or collecting. As we move to laser based communications in the future, this will become less of an issue.

Lets move this here:

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=4752&p=1784792#p1784792

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 25 Jan 2015 04:50

indranilroy wrote:Some details of the Advanced Lightweight Torpedo from NSTL based on a tender for "110KW Integrated Motor Propulsor (IMP) Assembled in Cowl & 120 KW Controller assembled in Shell with accessories".

1. Maximum depth: 710 mtrs
2. Powered by 110 kW IMP motor
3. Source of power electric.
4. Should be able to work for a minimum of half an hour in full rated output! That is a lot of range!
5. Diameter: 324 mm
6. Number of operative cycles (at least 10).
7. Efficiency: 92-93%

Nice. Really appreciate the Navy how they make a Mk1 happen and then have DRDO move to Mk2 with minimum fuss and maximum support. The above is a follow on to the LWT which cleared trials and the Navy ordered some 20 odd (perhaps more later) to get production going. And now this is the next version.

In some cases, when the Mk1 is behind NSQR or revised NSQR, they get the DRDO cracking on Mk2 without public acrimony. The IA & IAF could learn from this approach. The SV-2000 radar didn't have ISAR and SAR modes & post development LRDE figured out a new design was necessary. Navy got them to work on XV-2004. The towed array sonar Nagan was in the works for a decade with Naval officers deputed; it just didn't work out. A new architecture ALTAS is now headed for trials. When the sonar was delayed, DRDO also agreed for imports (of course the UPA MOD sat on the files, another issue altogether) but Navy also cleared ALTAS for development.

The Navys guys have their eyes firmly on the long term ball & manage to get a lot of short term successes in the process as well.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 25 Jan 2015 08:26

the antenna aperture & power of a KA31 and Merlin based soln will be far less than a hawkeye.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 25 Jan 2015 09:37

Singha wrote:the antenna aperture & power of a KA31 and Merlin based soln will be far less than a hawkeye.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=4752&p=1784955#p1784955

Thakur_B · Post by **Thakur_B** » 25 Jan 2015 09:50

Karan M wrote:
indranilroy wrote:Some details of the Advanced Lightweight Torpedo from NSTL based on a tender for "110KW Integrated Motor Propulsor (IMP) Assembled in Cowl & 120 KW Controller assembled in Shell with accessories".

1. Maximum depth: 710 mtrs
2. Powered by 110 kW IMP motor
3. Source of power electric.
4. Should be able to work for a minimum of half an hour in full rated output! That is a lot of range!
5. Diameter: 324 mm
6. Number of operative cycles (at least 10).
7. Efficiency: 92-93%
Nice. Really appreciate the Navy how they make a Mk1 happen and then have DRDO move to Mk2 with minimum fuss and maximum support. The above is a follow on to the LWT which cleared trials and the Navy ordered some 20 odd (perhaps more later) to get production going. And now this is the next version.

The AET/TAL/Shyena had a long and laboured journey towards operational clearance with 14 years from experimental prototype to production clearance. Same thing with Varunastra/Takshak with their timelines now overlapping longer ranged Shakti thermal torpedo project. The torpedo programs are not the best performing programs of the DRDO.

Now TAL is being superseded by ALWT project, with a GPS/INS guided glider kit to go along with it for high altitude launch like Boeing HAAWC.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 25 Jan 2015 11:28

Pride of place awaits Bengaluru autorickshaw driver's daughter

An autorickshaw driver’s daughter from Bengaluru will on Monday have the rare honour of saluting President Pranab Mukherjee, the supreme commander of the armed forces, on Rajpath during the Republic Day parade.

Sub-Lieutenant Hema S, daughter of G Sudhakar Babu (60) and Komala J (58), a typist at Karnataka Milk Federation, will be part of the Navy’s first-ever all-woman marching contingent.

Hema remembers her father eagerly listening to the Republic Day parade commentary on the radio. But come January 26, Babu and Komala will be glued to the television set to witness their daughter marching along with 143 other women officers to the tune of “Kadam Kadam Badhaye Ja”–the marching tune of Subhash Chandra Bose’s Indian National Army.

Hema’s journey, however, was not easy. Though she was good at academics, scoring more than 90 per cent in her board exams, funding her engineering course proved to be a daunting task.

While her parents could arrange half the tuition fees, Hema worked in “McDonalds” and “Reliance Fresh” and also sold sketches to earn that extra bit. The struggle paid off. She graduated in 2013 and landed a job with IT major Tata Consultancy Services.

Within months, she cleared the Short Service Commission entrance examinations and joined the Navy. The training began in June and she received her stripes in November.

“My father wanted me to take up a government job and thought of getting me married. One of my friends is a Navy pilot, who encouraged me to join the service,” Hema told Deccan Herald.

The practice drill in Delhi at 3 am was a freezing experience, but the contingent under the leadership of Lt Cdr Priya Jeykumar took it in their stride and practised hard, chin up. “It will be a proud day for all of us,” said Hema.

Though Komala and Babu have seen harsh days in the past, their modest home at Marenahalli is now frequented by friends and family members ever since Hema made it to the marching contingent.

“Seeing me on Rajpath will be the happiest moment for my parents who could not make it to Delhi,” she said.

After passing out from the Naval Academy in Ezhimala, Hema joined the INS Valsura in Jamnagar, where she received training in electrical, electronic and weapon technologies.

Subsequently, she joined the logistics training establishment at the INS Humla, Mumbai, for further training as observer in maritime surveillance aircraft.

For the first time, the Army, Air Force and Navy will be fielding an all-woman marching contingent at the parade.

Shreeman · Post by **Shreeman** » 25 Jan 2015 13:13

cheesy, annoying at times, but thoroughly enjoyable none the less. Posted before?

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 25 Jan 2015 20:39

Boom.

A few more nuggets have come out of the shadow, a couple of things I had posted earlier:

U.S.-India Joint Statement साँझा प्रयास - सबका विकास” – “Shared Effort; Progress for All”

Continuing bilateral engagement on the Defence Technology and Trade Initiative (DTTI), including the 22 January 2015 agreement in principle to pursue co-production and co-development of four pathfinder projects, form a working group to explore aircraft carrier technology sharing and design, and explore possible cooperation on development of jet engine technology.

Goes way beyond EMALS, Hawkeyes and other individual systems.

Long way to go, but more to come.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 25 Jan 2015 22:53

Thakur_B wrote:<SNIP> The torpedo programs are not the best performing programs of the DRDO.<SNIP>

Just for reference, is there any way of ascertaining percentage of DRDO's effort (whatever be the metrics) that goes towards Navy related projects? Thanks.

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 25 Jan 2015 23:01

A new Navy unit has been raised:

http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/o ... 812771.ece

The Navy on Thursday commissioned three Immediate Support Vessels (ISVs), capable of patrolling the coastal stations at high speeds.

The vessels were part of a project representing the ‘Make in India’ concept promoted by the Centre, the Navy said.

The ISVs, commissioned in Mumbai by Vice-Admiral Anil Chopra, Flag Officer Commanding-in-Chief, Western Naval Command, have been funded by the ONGC. They will be operated by the naval crew, a defence spokesperson said.

They are primarily meant for the security of the offshore development areas (ODA). “The induction and deployment of these ships will augment the ongoing efforts to bolster coastal security, especially with respect to offshore oil installations,” the spokesperson said.

The ISVs are fitted with Heavy Machine Guns and state-of-the art radar and navigation equipment. They can patrol the coastal stations at speeds in excess of 40 knots. These vessels have been designed and constructed by M/s SHM Shipcare, Mumbai. They make the 82nd ISV Squadron. On January 30 last, seven ISVs were commissioned and four more are expected to join the squadron soon.

81st ISV Squadron @ Mumbai. Commissioned 30th Jan 2014
82nd ISV Squadron @ Mumbai. Commissioned 22nd Jan 2015
83rd ISV Squadron @ Vizag. Commissioned 4th Jan 2014

Together with the Sagar Prahari Bal, these units comprise the specialized units raised for coastal security. These and the immense expansion of the ICG and coastal police represent manpower and material force accretions on the ground. I wont be surprised if CISF, Customs and others have also increased their force levels.

Name Pennant No Date of Commission
T-11 T 11 30 Jan 2014
T-12 T 12 30 Jan 2014
T-13 T 13 30 Jan 2014
T-14 T 14 30 Jan 2014
T-15 T 15 30 Jan 2014
T-16 T 16 30 Jan 2014
T-17 T 17 30 Jan 2014
T-35 T 35 04 Jun 2014
T-36 T 36 04 Jun 2014
T-37 T 37 04 Jun 2014
T-44 T 44 22 Jan 2015
T-45 T 45 22 Jan 2015
T-46 T 46 22 Jan 2015

Will · Post by **Will** » 26 Jan 2015 01:13

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 013610.cms

US help with INS Vishal?

ManuJ · Post by **ManuJ** » 26 Jan 2015 01:14

Shreeman wrote:cheesy, annoying at times, but thoroughly enjoyable none the less. Posted before?

Thanks for sharing. Some never before seen shots of INS Kolkata (including firing the Brahmos), INA Ezhimala and INS Kadamba.

nash · Post by **nash** » 26 Jan 2015 10:30

NRao wrote:Boom.

Continuing bilateral engagement on the Defence Technology and Trade Initiative (DTTI), including the 22 January 2015 agreement in principle to pursue co-production and co-development of four pathfinder projects, form a working group to explore aircraft carrier technology sharing and design, and explore possible cooperation on development of jet engine technology.
Goes way beyond EMALS, Hawkeyes and other individual systems.

Long way to go, but more to come.

we may also add nuclear propulsion in carrier