Indian Naval Discussion

[Austin]

An MPA should deploy weapons as stand off as possible. If it gets into the "danger zone", ie carrier bourne fighters and R-77 weapons, supersonic speed will not save it. Surely MiG29K/Su-33/J-15/F-18/Rafale are "more supersonic" than "Tu-22M supersonic". I am speaking from assessments carried out by all navies & airforces worldwide that supersonic speed isnt a savior. Also, like aircraft of its generation, Tu-22M can sustain supersonic speed for brief durations, otherwise engine TBO is drastically reduced.

First and foremost the Tu-22M3 is not an MPA its a semi-strategic bomber adopted for Naval Applications , much like we adopted the Jags IM for Naval Application although its still is a DPSA for IAF .

All MPA should deploy standoff weapons but no one till date has the standoff weapons of the class of Kh-22 and the Kh-32 , the Tu-22M3 is a swing wing supersonic bomber and if required it can sustain a supersonic run fuel permitting , none of the MPA can boast of a supersonic run or the standoff weapon of M3 , its a unique weapon in its class for anti-ship role but lacks true MPA capability like sub hunting and slow persistence.

So we are doing a wrong comparision here , you wont compare a Jaguar IM with a Do-228/IL-38 MPA hence we wont compare a Tu-22M3 with P-8 or any MPA.

[Pratyush]

^^^

Obviously you thought wrong...........

On a serious note, unless the Fleet starts thinking in terms of IAC 2,3 and beyond the discussion WRT, a nuke powered carrier is a little premature.

[koti]

An MPA should deploy weapons as stand off as possible. If it gets into the "danger zone", ie carrier bourne fighters and R-77 weapons, supersonic speed will not save it. Surely MiG29K/Su-33/J-15/F-18/Rafale are "more supersonic" than "Tu-22M supersonic". I am speaking from assessments carried out by all navies & airforces worldwide that supersonic speed isnt a savior. Also, like aircraft of its generation, Tu-22M can sustain supersonic speed for brief durations, otherwise engine TBO is drastically reduced.

If you have identified that the threat you are going to face can be dealt with by a fleet of 737s - you are welcome, of course.

The point is that Tu-22M, despite its capabilities, still isnt any less vulnerable than 737, hence the cheaper 737 or ATR-42/72 or Dash-8 or C-295 are used for MPA to allow persistent coverage. Otherwise the US would be building (rather converting) MPA versions of B-1B instead of retiring them

Firstly, am MPA is primarily used for surveillance and reconnaissance. It will have to be capable of having long endurance range and low operational costs. 737 perfectly fits the bill in all these three parameters.
Now, Maritime strike is a totally different ball game. The aircraft should be capable of operating in a highly volatile environment. It should have a good range, high speed and a good payload that will be needed for employing required payload. Tu22M perfectly fits this bill.

As Austin rightly said Tu22M is quite a bit a unique platform that can be of enormous use to fight an asymmetric battle(Naval).

The point is that Tu-22M, despite its capabilities, still isnt any less vulnerable than 737

On the contrary it is very much less vulnerable then 737 in almost all the threat scenarios.
I would like to know of any scenario where Tu22M will be as vulnerable as a 737 or a Tu-142.

[Pratyush]

A nice discussion on the 22m3. But the fact remains that neither the IN nor the IAF is interested in the platform. The IN is committed towards building a strong AC fleet.

The IAF while expressing an interest in extra regional operation has not looked at the 22m3. Another point is that the aircraft is old and any upgrades to it will be very expensive and time consuming if the RuAF also is not buying into the upgrades. The IAF may decide that they will go with a UCAV solution to meet the same needs in the future. If they ever close to move in direction of a regional bomber as represented by the 22m3.

PS: the Bomb drop from the An 32 over Pokhoran delivered a lessor payload then what one Su 30 MkI can deliver over the target area while having superior protection against the enemy and nothing matches the capability of tube artillery to deliver explosives cheaply and efficiently. (But the IA will never get modern 155 mm tube arty if the current situation persists )

PPS: What can the 22M3 do, that the future hypersonic missile proposed by the DRDO & the Brahmos cannot do better when it comes to the scenario being discussed by the members in this thread. When operating in conjunction with the MPA assets available with the IN today and in the near future. While keeping in view the defenses available to the enemy.

[Austin]

PPS: What can the 22M3 do, that the future hypersonic missile proposed by the DRDO & the Brahmos cannot do better when it comes to the scenario being discussed by the members in this thread. When operating in conjunction with the MPA assets available with the IN today and in the near future. While keeping in view the defenses available to the enemy.

Just to keep the discussing academic , even if you have a hypersonic missile or supersonic a carrier platform can give you more flexibility in employing it , M3 can carry almost 24 T payload and has an unrefuelled radius of 2200 Km ( range 6500 km ) , being supersonic it can impart any missile a higher KE while launching.

She can reach the launch point faster than any MPA can and can egress out much faster than any MPA as good as any fighter out there , over all for a specific role like dealing with USN CBG the M3 offered much greater tactical and operational benefit than any Russian MPA did.

[Pratyush]

^^^

The advantages of the supersonic land based bomber are not very clear in the context of maritime strike. Due to the following reasons.

1.Using the bomber for a recon and patrol flight will not be the most efficient use of the resource. So it will have to be used in conjunction with an MPA.
2.The MPA will be looking at a particular point in the ocean for targets. Upon the identification of the target, a strike will have to be coordinated. The bomber flight/sq/wing is not likely to be in the base waiting for that particular tasking. It already may be on operation else where.
3.While the bomber becomes available, armed & fueled for the strike mission, the MPA could well be out of fuel and may have to return to base. (It can always be tanked, but it is unrealistic to assume tanking support for such mission on a routine basis.)
4.Considering the above scenario, a shore based ASM or a ship based ASM can easily strike the target in less time, then it will take for a bomber strike to be coordinated let for it to reach the target area and launch its missile.


When it comes long range maritime strike, I would prefer the combination of a BAMS type system with a long range Supersonic ASM (either ship based or shore based)

[Austin]

Possibilities are endless , its also possible your slow MPA are destroyed on ground or was just slow enough not to evade a Carrier fighter , Plus if you a painting a target using MPA the ships too knows some one is watching at you using its own ESM and will either try to hit back at you if it can or will try to jam your signals or atleast be alerted.

Country that operated M3 also had Ocean Survellence Radar , ELINT Satellites and Submarine as other form of survellence and not just MPA , Plus M3 carried its own radar ...........Ir will simply boil down to who you are dealing with and what kind of layered surveillance , platform and missile you can bring on the table to deal with surface threats.

For most countries MPA would suffice as they would never face a capable threat as USN CBG or if they do they cannot do much about it.

[Austin]

Navy ‘no’ to n-energy on aircraft carriers

The Indian Navy seems to be sceptical of using nuclear energy for its aricraft carriers, though it plans to commission the nuclear-powered submarine INS Arihant in December.

“Installing nuclear technology on a ship involves a huge design issue and high cost,” Admiral Nirmal Verma, the Chief of Naval Staff, told DC after inaugurating the India International Regatta here.

“We have restricted the use of nuclear technology to submarines, where it helps to create endurance under water,” he said.

Admiral Verma said the indigenously built warship INS Satpura was commissioned two months ago, while the refurbished Admiral Gorshkov, renamed INS Vikramaditya, would join the navy by December 2012.

“The three additional stealth frigates that are being built in Russia will reach us in the next 18 months,” he said.

On piracy off the coast of Somalia, Admiral Verma said the Indian Navy is part of the multinational naval task force set up to counter the threat.

“There is a tremendous exchange of information between all navies through a private computer network. About 15 countries, including France, Korea, Japan, Malaysia, Russia, China and India, are involved in this effort,” he said. Since 2008, an Indian ship has been permanently assigned to patrol the area.

“The Somalia coast comes within 200 to 300 miles of Lakshdweep. So we are carrying out massive search operations to keep the waters safe,” he said.

[Pratyush]

^^^

The N cariers statement is a bit premature IMO. Sitting in 2011 he is ruling out propulsion system for a ship that will enter service earliest by 2020-25.

[Pratyush]

WRT, the M3 discussion can keep going till the cows come home. The point today is that the IN/ IAF have not expressed any interest in the platform. This lack of interest is likely to endure in the future as well.

[Austin]

Hmm coming from a Navy Chief with all planning under his belt for decades , he will know what he is talking.

the reason why countries have not opted for N propulsion is because its very expensive and complex business.

[merlin]

Hmm coming from a Navy Chief with all planning under his belt for decades , he will know what he is talking.

the reason why countries have not opted for N propulsion is because its very expensive and complex business.

And of course the escorts will be non-nuclear.

[pragnya]

was just checking out on TU 22M3 reports -

an old (2001) report speaks of 4 being leased.

India to lease 4 strategic bombers from Russia

this following link says 4 ordered

India and Russia have several major joint military programmes such as the following: BrahMos cruise missile programme; INS Vikramaditya aircraft carrier programme; 5th generation fighter jet programme; Sukhoi Su-30MKI programme (230+ to be built by Hindustan Aeronautics); Ilyushin/HAL Tactical Transport Aircraft; Additionally, India has purchased/leased several military hardware from Russia: T-90S Bhishma programme (1000+ to be built in India); Akula-II nuclear submarine (2 to be leased with an option to buy them when the lease expires); Tu-22M3 bombers (4 ordered); US$900 million upgrade of MiG-29; Mil Mi-17 (80 ordered); Ilyushin Il-76 Candid (6 ordered to fit Israeli Phalcon radar).

http://www.itar-tass.com/eng/level2.htm ... &PageNum=0

unfortunately the link does not work but it says 4 TU 22M3 ordered. this was posted here on 03-20-2010

a 2007 report says -

Still, we know that one of the largest contracts in 2006 stipulated the delivery to India of three Tu-22M3 Backfire aircrafts, two anti-submarine Il-38SD May planes, and 13 modules for licensed assembly of Su-30MKI Flanker multirole fighters.

http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20070306/61654697.html

however this says -

A number of Tu-22Ms were used for test and trials, sometimes being redesignated "TU-22M3LL". No Tu-22Ms were sold on the export market, though apparently it hasn't been for lack of trying. Some sources suggest that four were leased to India, however.

what is the real status?? are they in service in the IN??

TIA.

[Vashishtha]

http://www.domain-b.com/defence/sea/ind ... ussia.html

I am betting this is not going to happen..

[aniket]

Who knows that it may actually happen.Maybe the Russians have finally got their act together.

[Pratyush]

^^^

If the M3 was in service with the Indian navy, we would have seen some photos of them in till now and BRF would not be having the M3 discussion:P

[Pratyush]

http://www.domain-b.com/defence/sea/ind ... ussia.html

I am betting this is not going to happen..

I am keeping my fingers crossed against another 6 months delay in handing the boat over.

[ramana]

Hmm coming from a Navy Chief with all planning under his belt for decades , he will know what he is talking.

the reason why countries have not opted for N propulsion is because its very expensive and complex business.

And no plan to rule the waves from afar without bases. Also saves the fuel for the deterrent which is more important for quite forseeable future four five decades from now. And if in a SCS confrontation it has its own dynamics.

[Ravi Karumanchiri]

Rakshaks,

It seems to me that perhaps no other country in the world has such a complex and dynamic security and defence requirement, as does India. For India, it does not make sense to bring new military capabilities online as per a perfectly predictable and prominently public schedule. Doing so would invite pre-emption. Rakshaks should accept that there are advantages in maintaining a level of uncertainty, as it complicates the pending attack plans of a would-be enemy. We should also accept that we do not know everything that is going on.

In fact, all of us Rakshaks – participating in a public forum on the internet – should expect to be among the last to know. Granted, it is interesting to speculate, guesstimate, reverse-analyze and such; and perhaps get a slight clue about what might happen in the future, before others come to know it; or what has potentially happened in the past, but which has been hidden from view. This is probably why many of us (like me) are here.

However, I must say it is rather undignified to; 1) constantly talk-down one’s own military and defence and security establishment, 2) continually bad-mouth partners (like Russia) who are struggling themselves, or; 3) to assume everyone involved in decision making is an idiot.

To the contrary: An idiot believes everything he is told, and he assumes he knows everything there is to know.

Smart Rakshaks should expect that a part of what is made public is theatrical, and that there is much that is hidden, unknown and secret. Opening one's mouth, or unleashing a typed-tirade on the basis of public information, is a sure-fire way to get it wrong, particularly in matters concerning defense, security, intelligence, or indeed, anything strategic in nature.

Just my two paise.

[pragnya]

Ravi K,

i really don't know if your post is directed at my post reg TU-22M3. i posted it because there was an ongoing discussion about the same.

while i do understand your concern and accept it in toto, please do note there is nothing exceptional or 'curious' about my post - as everything is open source as the links speak themselves.

however if mods feel otherway they may delete my post.

i am sorry if i have completely mistook your post.

regards.

[Ravi Karumanchiri]

pragnya,

My post just above was not directed at any one specific Rakshak or any specific post here on BRF.

I would argue, it has a much wider applicability.

[pragnya]

pragnya,

My post just above was not directed at any one specific Rakshak or any specific post here on BRF.

I would argue, it has a much wider applicability.

thanks and understood. will keep in mind.

cheers.

[krishnan]

Latea vandhalum latesta varum

I dont mind it coming late, hope it comes with all glitches sorted out and with latest stuff.

[Craig Alpert]

Navy Field Evaluates Upgraded Choppers

[Craig Alpert]

India Framing Doctrine on Maritime Security: Menon

[ARay]

Once again Philip you have put your deep analysis in it. However I have a little different opinion than yours on FA18 Hornets and will narrate it. But beforehand we may talk on Tu22M3 again.

INS, as its present status shows, acquired/acquiring almost a squadron of P8I Poseidons (derivative of 737. A superb aircraft indeed but for roles like ELINT, anti sub/anti surface fleet activities with a moderate package of arms ranging from torpedoes to missiles within a range of 2000kms. This is nice but the aircraft clearly shows its status as a part of defensive network. On the other hand Tupolevs have a history of development during cold war and even in 2000 period to have an upperhand over USN CBGs and a prompt answer to the cold war foe by rapidly deploying it across the sea. The Tu 22M3 is more like a long range bomber which can carry out carpet bombing far from home (2500 kms) and a super specialist aircraft for its low altitude role. Afterall a strategic bomber is a strategic bomber and very difficult to find its counterpart. Also on the otherhand it is difficult to maintain the fleet but one has to pay a price for gaining supremacy.

About Hornets, they are currently in use/routinely used during recent campaigns by the USN. A very nice platform with a decently balanced missiles/bombs package and excellent avionics. The striking point is that the aircrafts as developed by McDonnell-Douglas (starting from Tomcats to earlier aircrafts) all have a Russian answer. But FA 18 is an out of thread offshoot. PLAN too some extent is in touch with Russian technology, but this is not enough to find an answer to FA 18 immediately. In a nutshell FA 18 is a lost thread to its Russian adversaries vis avis to PLAN . Mig 29K is a quite impressive aircraft indeed but the airplatform is old and Mig 29 series has its close relation with F16 series (evolved as an answer). Infact the history says:

MiG-29K was not ordered into production and only two prototypes were originally built as the Russian Navy preferred the Su-27K in early 1990s. The Mikoyan Design Bureau did not stop its work on the MiG-29K aircraft despite the lack of financing since 1992. The programme got a boost in the late 1990s to meet an Indian requirement for a ship-borne fighter following the purchase of a former Soviet aircraft carrier. It was first received by the Indian Navy in 2009. Source: wikipedia

In summary we need an aircraft for INS which is modern, well tested and foe adversaries its difficult to find a match.Mig 29K is a trusted workhorse but in a sense its not futuristic for INS in terms of its newliness. FA 18 may be a better option here.

[Nick_S]

ARay, you should probably read up more on the FA 18. Its design is just as old as the Mig 29.

The FA 18 E/F were modified (enlarged) designs of the original FA 18. The modifications have resulted in compromises including quite a draggy pylon arrangement.

In terms of pure airframe design, I would put Mig 29 well ahead of the FA 18, its only the electronics of the FA 18 which are superior.

[ARay]

ARay, you should probably read up more on the FA 18. Its design is just as old at the Mig 29.

The FA 18 E/F were modified (enlarged) designs of the original FA 18. The modifications have resulted in compromises including quite a draggy pylon arrangement.

In terms of pure airframe design, I would put Mig 29 well ahead of the FA 18, its only the electronics of the FA 18 which are superior.

I know that FA18 and Mig 29 are contemporaries almost. However future warfare is dependent on electronics warfare. Mig series as by character has strong engine and with fly high (the tradition continues from 50's Korean war). But superior electronics package of of hornets:

Avionics Hornet

Hughes APG-73 radar
ROVER (Remotely Operated Video Enhanced Receiver) antenna for use by US Navy's F/A-18C strike fighter squadrons
Inertial navigation system
GPS
Two mission computers
HUD cockpit dislay
Very High Frequency omni-directional landing system
Multiple-functioning Cathode ray tube display

Avionics Mig 29 K

Zhuk -ME radar
Infrared search and track system
SPO-15 Beryoza RWR (radar warning receiver)

puts the aircraft as a more futuristic than Mig 29K. Once again I really like Mig series but unfortunate is that Mig has not produced an airframe of 21, 29 class after mid 80's. I would very much like to hear few more details about Mig 35.

[Boreas]

^^ there is one more factor -

Whatever is listed for mig-29, we will get every single thing of that plus we an add and modify stuff we find is available elsewhere and is better then the stuff present in oem version.

In f18, we will be getting "some" of the listed stuff, and out of that "some" that we will be getting - "some" stuffs will further be reduced to perform below there best. Plus there will be severe restrictions on what could be added and modified in it, and in any case won't be as per our free will.

[ARay]

^^ there is one more factor -

Whatever is listed for mig-29, we will get every single thing of that plus we an add and modify stuff we find is available elsewhere and is better then the stuff present in oem version.

In f18, we will be getting "some" of the listed stuff, and out of that "some" that we will be getting - "some" stuffs will further be reduced to perform below there best. Plus there will be severe restrictions on what could be added and modified in it, and in any case won't be as per our free will.

Hey, I know what you mean last summer!!!
Yeah, true that Americans will not provide the source code of software, the GPS will be a degraded version etc. But still FA18 will be more in terms of avionics. Infact throughout post independence period the air arm of INS, IAF remained more or less Franco-Russian by origin. Russia is strategic friend and France is more than buyer-seller. But with time situation changes. A hard bargain can be put on US for FA 18. This may be useful at the time of deep inflation in their country. However its only a guss!!!

[Philip]

I can understand if we were looking at augmenting IAF numbers with anothet type,even if it were possible,but here with the IN,when it has already ordered 48+ MIG-29Ks for the two new carriers (Gorky/Vik and Vikrant-2),where is the need? The third carrier,the Viraat which one hopes will soldier on until 2010,uses Harriers and the need of the Viraat is urgent augmentaing of Harriers,sev. qds. of early retd. RN Harriers are readily available which can also be used aboard our planned amphibious vessels ,flat-tops of 20,000t+.The USMC has hundreds of McDonnel-Douglas built Harriers and will keep on using them for over a decade ,until the STOVL version of the JSF arrives,which is only by the end of the decade.

The need for the IN to acquire F-18SHs is zero.Instead,the need for dedicated LR maritime strike/ASW aircraft like P-8Is,Bear upgrades with Brahmos (IL-38s seem to have some problem against its ability to carry the missile) and even supersonic TU-22M3s,which as many have pointed out will enable us to speedily attack targets in the Indo-China Sea,even before they try to penetrate the screens at the choke-points.being designed as a nuclear weapon capable bomber,upgraded TU-22M3 can also serve as another option for deploying part of our S-deterrent,making it even more confusing for the enemy to know where and how we mean to deploy and deliver our N-deterrent.

[Nick_S]

ARay, Mig-29K's radar - Zhuk-ME is probably at least as good as if not superior to the APG 73.

The FA 18 radar which is superior by far is the APG 79 - an AESA set. Only the Super Hornet - FA 18 E/F models have this set.

The FA 18 A/B/C/D models are all fairly old and out of production.

[tsarkar]

Possibilities are endless

Why is the US retiring B-1B instead of using them for maritime patrol, if 60's and 70's era swing wing bombers are wonderful for taking on surface fleets. Surely it would be a good counter for the rapidly growing Chinese surface fleet. Yet USAF retires supersonic B-1B and builds B737 whose tasks include countering the Chinese Navy.

For most countries MPA would suffice as they would never face a capable threat as USN CBG or if they do they cannot do much about it.

Yet the B737 will take on the Chinese carriers as well.

M3...has an unrefuelled radius of 2200 Km (range 6500 km ), being supersonic it can impart any missile a higher KE while launching.

The biggest mistake in specification based analysis is that an incorrect assumption that it flies all 6500 km supersonic. It achieves maximum range by flying subsonic. It does a supersonic dash only while attacking and flies most of the time subsonic, hence it is as vulnerable as the B737. If M3 flew supersonic all the way, its range would be less than Jaguar IM and it would be making one flight in 3 months, with the rest 89 days in overhaul. The reason it has a swing-wing is to enable it fly subsonic in the same speed range as B737. If it was designed to fly supersonic all the way, then it would have fully swept wing like Concorde and Tu-144 instead of variable geometry wings.

Please refer to the earlier discussion in the LCA threat on why F22 or LCA do not exceed Mach 2 by deliberate design.

On the contrary it is very much less vulnerable then 737 in almost all the threat scenarios.

How? Please explain/substantiate. I have explained the vulnerabilities, and the only two occasions Tu22M3 was used in combat - Chad in 80's and Georgia recently, it has been shot down. Because it flies straight being a dumber target than target drones, cant manoeuver, and its Mach 2 is slower than Mach 4 SAM/AAM.

MPAs have the same vulnerabilities, but are cheaper, hence more can be procured, and the higher volume enables larger number of sensors offering even better stand-off targeting capabilities than narrow-body bombers. Hence it can stay more afar vis-a-vis Tu22M

Neither IAF nor IN rightly not showed any interest in the Tu22 for the last 30 years and neither have the Chinese for the matter, because its an evolutionary dead end like the Dodo. Even Russia flies more Tu-142 sorties vis-a-vis Tu-22M.

FWIW, even Concorde and Tu-144 were evolutionary dead ends The appeal of Mach 2 died with their scrapping.

[Cosmo_R]

@tsarkar ^^^ couldn't agree more. Some of us here on BRF suffer from the 'junk to collector car' syndrome. Anything and almost everything in the FSU junkyard is seen as having hidden value that would give us a cheap edge over the 'enemy' because we had figured out what no one else had. And with a little 'jugaad', we could fashion it into a Tata Nano 'world beater'.

Not gonna happen.

This is what got us into the 'free' Vik' carrier now slated to come some six years after it was supposed to at a cost 3-4X what was advertised.

The most successful US bomber is the B-52, The last version was the 'H' in 1961 (to be retired finally in 2040 some 79 years after induction in 1961) and some of these carry the HAVE NAP (AGM -142). In contrast, the B1 and B2 have been white elephants--used against nations that could not have defended against B-17s

Also note that the mach 2 B-58 'Hustler' lasted just 10 years (1961-70).

The P8I with range, endurance and standoff ASMs is much deadlier than a supersonic dash thingie.

Mules with long range ASMs have the edge.

JMT

[koti]

The P8I with range, endurance and standoff ASMs is much deadlier than a supersonic dash thingie.

Mules with long range ASMs have the edge.

JMT

Which standoff ASHM are you talking about?

Why is the US retiring B-1B instead of using them for maritime patrol, if 60's and 70's era swing wing bombers are wonderful for taking on surface fleets. Surely it would be a good counter for the rapidly growing Chinese surface fleet. Yet USAF retires supersonic B-1B and builds B737 whose tasks include countering the Chinese Navy.

The USN has enough surface and sub surface fleet to take care of PLAN any day. They don't have to have an asymmetric advantage.
Apart from that, the USAF intends to use B1b till 2040. It is only the budgetary cuts that are forcing it to go for an early retirement or reserves. Even so, the B1b is likely to be in service till next gen bomber comes up. I would also like to bring to your notice that US govt made few special bills to repair few old airframes and put them back into service as late as 2005.
Now, USN's 737(P8) are never going to do anything to counter the PLAN. they are dead meat of they approach any of the modern destroyers or any of the carriers it might field. Even submarine launched SAM's call be more then enough to bring them down. The only role the 737 is going to do is maritime patrol(and a decent ASW). Nothing more. Oh yes, they might carry a couple of Harpoons everywhere but no bells there.

The biggest mistake in specification based analysis is that an incorrect assumption that it flies all 6500 km supersonic. It achieves maximum range by flying subsonic. It does a supersonic dash only while attacking and flies most of the time subsonic, hence it is as vulnerable as the B737. If M3 flew supersonic all the way, its range would be less than Jaguar IM and it would be making one flight in 3 months, with the rest 89 days in overhaul. The reason it has a swing-wing is to enable it fly subsonic in the same speed range as B737. If it was designed to fly supersonic all the way, then it would have fully swept wing like Concorde and Tu-144 instead of variable geometry wings.

The faster an aircraft flies, the more fuel it spends. Period.
Read your statement once again my friend, it also implies all the current gen supersonic aircraft(everything minus F22) can do a supersonic dash only while attacking and flies most of the time subsonic, hence it is as vulnerable as the B737.

One more important thing where you guys are mixing up is the difference between maritime patrol and maritime strike.
Tu22M will not be a Maritime Patrol AC.(Not because it cant patrol)
Jaguar are for maritime strike, IL-38 are for maritime patrol. We should never compare Jaguars capability with that of Il-38.
Similarly, P8I is for maritime patrol, Tu22M is going to be for maritime strike.

P8I does a better job then IL-38, Tu22M can do far better job then Jaguar.

I hope this clears the confusion you gentlemen have.

[ARay]

The Zhuk family is a X Band Pulse Doppler radar. The story of Zhuk series export as follows:
_____________________________________________________________________________
Zhuk-M (Export Designation Zhuk-ME)
The N010M Zhuk-M is an advanced variant of the original N010 Zhuk radar introducing advanced air to surface functions like mapping and terrain following. The radar forms part of the MiG-29SMT upgrade, the Zhuk-ME finding success on export MiG-29 aircraft to countries like India. The radar features improved signal processing and has a detection range of up to 120 km vs a 5 m2 RCS target for the export variant, and up to 10 targets tracked and up to 4 attacked at once in air to air mode.[5] The tracking range is 0.83 - 0.85 of the detection range. In air to surface mode the radar can detect a tank from up to 25 km away and a bridge from 120 km away, a naval destroyer could be detected up to 300 km away and up to two surface targets can be tracked at once. The radar has a weight of 220 kg and a scanning area of +/- 85 degrees in azimuth and +56/-40 degrees in elevation. The antenna is an electronically scanned slotted planar array and has a diameter of 624 mm.[5]

Zhuk-MS (Export Designation Zhuk-MSE)
Zhuk-M radar developed for the Su-27 and its derivatives, the export Zhuk-MSE is suggested as being exported to China for use in PLAAF Su-30MKK aircraft. The antenna is an electronically scanned slotted planar array and has a diameter of 960 mm with a peak output of 6 kW. The Zhuk-MSE offers detection performance up to 190 km vs a 5 m2 RCS target with up to 10 targets tracked and up to 4 attacked at once in air to air mode. In air to surface mode the radar offers a modest 5 km detection range improvement over the Zhuk-M vs tanks. The radar has a weight of 255 kg and a scanning area of +/- 85 degrees in azimuth and +56/-40 degrees in elevation.[5]

Source:wikipedia & openly available cross references.
_______________________________________________________________________________

If we talk of countering PLAN better to look at the comparison between Zhuk ME & Zhuk MS.
Capabilities are almost same as it appears. To add a greater punch is not is wise to think of
Zhuk series AESA radars (currently fitted with Mig 35).
Americans offered F/A-18IN which included Raytheon's APG-79 AESA radar in MMRCA. So no question of APG 73 or older Hornet aircraft (A, B, C...) arises. However it is presumed (correctly so from our past experience) that we will be provided with degraded form of avionics.

Whereas I strongly agree with Russian equipments where the user has access to anything --> everything.

Is there any remote possibility of replacing Zhuk ME with Zhuk AESA in Mig 29K aircraft? I would love to hear on that.

[shyamd]

I said this after Arihant was launchedd (or supposedly launched):
Link

Well, the chiefs of project(senior mgt of project) were in the islands 1 week after launch, Raaa providing intelligence to support subradar/sonar. Makes you wonder what they were doing there, so soon after launch.

I can only get snippets and that was the most I was able to get.

BTW I have a feeling the west is involved in India getting the ATV as well. I am pretty sure they had a small part to play in certain areas.

RaaaaW is running the security angle jus like in Shakti.
The people involved in ATV are some of the smartest minds in Yindustan. IIT, MIT degrees, PhD's and all that... Salary is as good as ITvity pay.

Director Sagarika(K) working very close with ATVwallahs(obviously) and confirmation that it will carry nooks.

These chaps (5 officials) are in the brittanic island with white passports being driven around in chauffered cars courtesy HCI.

India-UK joint naval exercise from tomorrow

Last Updated: Friday, October 07, 2011, 20:16
Views 94 Comments 0
Tags: Naval exercise, India, UK
India-UK joint naval exercise from tomorrow New Delhi: India and the United Kingdom will embark on their annual joint naval exercise 'Konkan' off the coast of Goa starting on Saturday keeping the focus on submarine operations including nuclear underwater vessels.

India will field its Shishumar Class INS Shankush HDW submarine and the British will have one of their Trafalgar Class nuclear submarines on show during the week-long exercise, Navy officials said today.

Though India has held a number of joint exercises with other countries where nuclear submarines were involved this would be the first time when the focus would be on operation of submarines, they said.

The exercise will help the Navy to hone its skills in operating nuclear submarines as it is expected to get the Nerpa K 152 nuclear submarine on lease from Russia and is also planning to induct the indigenous INS Arihant submarine in the near future.

During the exercise, the Indian crew will also get to visit on board the British nuclear submarine.

The British vessel will be supported by 'RFA Diligence', a dedicated nuclear submarine support vessel.

INS Betwa-- a Beas Class missile frigate and the IL-38 SD maritime surveillance aircraft would also take part in the exercise from the Indian side.

The British had deployed one of their Trafalgar Class submarines during the Libyan crisis recently.

[Cosmo_R]

"I hope this clears the confusion you gentlemen have." ^^

No confusion here. The P-8i is a MMA and not just an MPA and it will carry Harpoon Block II AGM-84 ASMs. Both the Harpoon and the Raduga available on any TU-22M3 would be subject to MTCR. The long range SLAM-ER will be fitted to the P-8A Poseidon

http://defense-update.com/products/s/slam-er.htm

Guesses on the SLAM-ER range include up to 575 NM. The IN would have to put its own long range ASM or to lighten the hearts of the Brahmos cheerleaders, the Brahmos-ER

IOW, rather than buying a 1969 TU-22M, the P-8I would appear to be a much better platform and available now versus a VIK type refit circa 2020.

Another way to look at it is to ask why the IN never went in for it when it was offered but leaped t the P-8I

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-22M

Wiki says IN leased 4 but that's rumor.

JMT

[maitya]

The Zhuk family is a X Band Pulse Doppler radar. The story of Zhuk series export as follows:
...
...
Is there any remote possibility of replacing Zhuk ME with Zhuk AESA in Mig 29K aircraft? I would love to hear on that.

ARay, why is this AESA fetish - IN seems to be happy with a non-AESA set, so that's what it will be.
The need is to see the capability achieved by the whole platform and not by a singular subsystem like the radar (of course, this no way means the the Hornet that was offered is anyway superior or inferior to the 29Ks) and the mechnical PD unit meets the IN requirement. Plus ofcourse, there are other factors like the electrical and cooling requirement, the weight of the set etc of a AESA radar that needs to be considered before talking about replacing the current unit.

Do note, however, that a PESA version was on offer during the negotiation but IN refused and went for the mechanical PD unit (and that too, when the PESA version was mature enough, thanks to it's predecessor, the Bars).

Betw, since you've bought out this topic, pls try and find out if there's some aspect a mechanical PD unit can be "better" than an electronic-scanning one.
Hint:Quoting from your own post - scanning area of +/- 85 degrees in azimuth and +56/-40 degrees in elevation.

[negi]

ARay if you would look at the timeline of IN's Mig-29K acquisition you would realise Zhuk AE was nowhere in the scene. Phazotron only made the first major public release regarding the Zhuk AE during the AI 2007 in conjunction with the Mig-35's bid for the MRCA contract (you should be able to google for the PDF). Regarding your question about replacing the ME by AE; well why would one do that unless ME is deemed obsolete by the IN ? No one replaces a recently procurred million dollar equipment just because a new version has come out in the market.