Indian Naval Discussion

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 05 Jul 2009 22:00

vina wrote:
raw power of the reactor and top noisy speed (will be classified for sure)
- top quiet speed (will be classified for sure)
Around 50MWe +- 5MWe (150MWt), 26 knots and 6 knots respectively from what I estimate.

Even the OK-650B powering the Akula has a Thermal rating of 190 MW(t) and around 35 MW(e).

I dont think Naval reactors with 150 MWt can give you 50MWe +-5e

p_saggu · Post by **p_saggu** » 05 Jul 2009 23:29

Willy wrote:Are the ATV-2 and 3 going to be different and bigger designs?

The india today article on the ATV did mention that ATV-2 was a bigger vessel. ATV-1 was affectionately called 'baby boomer' because of its smaller size.

SNaik · Post by **SNaik** » 05 Jul 2009 23:35

Medvedev near Vikramaditya (or vice versa):
http://foto.ng.ru/galleries/894?photo=9564#cntr

vina · Post by **vina** » 06 Jul 2009 05:34

how did you 6knots without knowing the nature of power plant, props and drive technology?

688I is alleged to have a 15-20 knot range for quiet speed, which gives it a superb hunter-killer ability. accounting for sdre << tfta, shouldnt our puppy run quiet around 12 knots?

Nah.. I would take 15 to 20 knot "quiet" with huge dollops of salt. Wont work. 1) You are effectively blinded by your own noise, 2) Even if you have ultra quiet machinery that could possibly noiselessly at those speeds, there will be hydrodynamic noise.

Power plant --> Single reactor PWR (anything else like liquid metal etc, ultra risky and dhoti clad Yindoos are naturally risk averse . Much of the work from "open source" would be that German ship that was converted to nuke and used for research. Dhotiwallahs would have used that for basic comparable's data)

Props --> Single screw . Single reactor --> Single screw. I would be extremely surprised if they drove two screws out of one turbine via gearing. Does't stand to reason, you gain nothing much, increase weight and complexity . Two reactors --> 2 screws . I suspect highly skewed props with high area ratio , targeted more at cavitation performance and noise than towards efficiency (my guess) . FIXED PITCH (my strong guess , Yindoos ultra conservative onree saar)

Drive --> Conventional steam turbine driving a relatively slow large prop (my guess around 350 (silent) to 1200 rpm max(full sprint)) via reduction gearing . I strongly suspect that the dhoti-wallahs would have done "jugaad" on their Leander class naval steam turbine building experience and scaled that proven design. That is the lowest risk approach rather than ab initio machinery work. Take existing machinery, scale it and put in a lot of work on noise suppression and silencing. Can anyone pull up the Leander and follow on indigenous frigates and their steam machinery sizes ?. Cunning Yindoo banias are too skin flint chislin misers to spend R&D money on grounds up design for such things (unlike Russies), unless absolutely necessary and nothing else will work. Even a halfway scaling opportunity would result in "jugaad" being odds on favorite

Even the OK-650B powering the Akula has a Thermal rating of 190 MW(t) and around 35 MW(e).

Yes. Sorry, the 150Mw t sounds fine. It should be around 30MW(e)+- 2MWe . My typo there. I assumed max 20% conversion efficiency and around 5% to 7% variation from there. Top speed will be well south of 30knots , with around 26 knots or so my best estimate.

I dont think Naval reactors with 150 MWt can give you 50MWe +-5e

Yup. Wont work even in size no bar land reactors. 50MW was a calc error. Divided by 3, instead of 5.

dipak · Post by **dipak** » 06 Jul 2009 10:24

Kakarat wrote:From LiveFist
The ATV is likely to be launched on July 26 (Vijay Diwas). There was a meeting today to decide the launch date.

http://twitter.com/livefist/statuses/2453162205

Excellent news! I was guessing the date somewhere during July and it didn't disappoint me -

This is perhaps the greatest news to cheer about for us jingos.

Over to Vijay Diwas ...

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 06 Jul 2009 10:35

vina wrote: Yes. Sorry, the 150Mw t sounds fine. It should be around 30MW(e)+- 2MWe . My typo there. I assumed max 20% conversion efficiency and around 5% to 7% variation from there. Top speed will be well south of 30knots , with around 26 knots or so my best estimate.

Assuming ~ 20 % conversion efficiency of Naval Reactors and a +/- 5% , for OK-650B for a Thermal rating of 190 MW (t) the generated electricity will be ~ 35 - 40 MW(e)

But that is assuming these reactors would be working at maximum thermal effeciency of ~ 190 MW(t) , but 80 % is the best average efficiency these reactors based on similar figures for land based reactors , they will be working on i.e. ~ 160 - 165 MW(t) would the actual practical electricity generated will be ~ 30 - 30 MW(e) ?

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 06 Jul 2009 10:45

vina wrote:Nah.. I would take 15 to 20 knot "quiet" with huge dollops of salt. Wont work. 1) You are effectively blinded by your own noise, 2) Even if you have ultra quiet machinery that could possibly noiselessly at those speeds, there will be hydrodynamic noise.

From open source information , the Improved LA has a "quiet" speed of ~ 10 -12 knots , the Seawolf raised the bar and doubled it to ~ 25+ knots for silent speed , the Virginia has maintained the Seawolf performance for silent speed.

With modern Digital signal processing , one can eliminate those extra noise be it hydrodynamic or machinery and keep those sonar/sensors working and avoid a washout at those speeds.

krishnan · Post by **krishnan** » 06 Jul 2009 11:18

http://livefist.blogspot.com/2009/07/hi ... inent.html

Wanted to post this a few days ago, but it slipped by. Vice Admiral (Retd) DSP Varma, DGATVP (Director General - Advanced Technology Vessel Project) will oversee the long-awaited, yet historic launch of India's first nuclear submarine later this month, or early August. India Today Associate Editor Sandeep Unnithan reports that one of the dates being considered for the launch is July 26, Vijay Diwas. Another possible date is August 15. Unnithan also reports that two more hulls are ready for fabrication by Larsen & Toubro, which will ultimately become ATV-2 and 3. The launch is, of course, merely the beginning of what could be a protracted trial process, that will involve a few years of harbour and sea trials before the submarine can be commissioned into Indian Naval service. But this is still very exciting

vina · Post by **vina** » 06 Jul 2009 11:58

Assuming ~ 20 % conversion efficiency of Naval Reactors and a +/- 5% , for OK-650B for a Thermal rating of 190 MW (t) the generated electricity will be ~ 35 - 40 MW(e)

But that is assuming these reactors would be working at maximum thermal effeciency of ~ 190 MW(t) , but 80 % is the best average efficiency these reactors based on similar figures for land based reactors , they will be working on i.e. ~ 160 - 165 MW(t) would the actual practical electricity generated will be ~ 30 - 30 MW(e) ?

There are two things at work here. One is conversion of nuke to thermal. Now when you say 190 MW/150MW whatever, it means the thermal output power of the reactor is that (on a continuous rated basis). So what efficiency the nuke to heat conversion happens and if it is less than land based (probably yes, dunno) is not really relevant. For our purposes, 150 MW is 150!

The other part is conversion of HEAT to mechanical. That is what I am talking about here @ 20% for Naval. For the best land based stuff, for Nuke, you probably will hit 30% or so, with median range being around 23 to 25% I would think. For naval, since there is a weight and packaging penalty , you will trade efficiency for that (and remember, you cant superheat steam with a PWR , and most definitely in a sub) , so 20% seems reasonable I would think . That is where that number is coming from

From open source information , the Improved LA has a "quiet" speed of ~ 10 -12 knots , the Seawolf raised the bar and doubled it to ~ 25+ knots for silent speed , the Virginia has maintained the Seawolf performance for silent speed.

With modern Digital signal processing , one can eliminate those extra noise be it hydrodynamic or machinery and keep those sonar/sensors working and avoid a washout at those speeds.

Well, it is a "definition" problem of what silent speed means. If you mean being able to listen using your sonar and hydrophones above your self generated noise, yeah sure. But to be able to run silent without the other guy hearing you , NO!. At such speeds like 25+ etc, no way you will have laminar flow all around the sub, there will be turbulent flow, mixing of layers, props going at higher rpms, etc etc. No way you can suppress radiated noise.

A sub is not a cheetah that runs down it's prey. It lurks, is stealthy and ambushes !.

narayana · Post by **narayana** » 06 Jul 2009 12:35

how much is the Budget allocation for armed forces for 2009-10?i dont see any reference to it yet in any news site,if anyone has info please share.

Thanks in advance

krishnan · Post by **krishnan** » 06 Jul 2009 12:39

Budget allocation up by 34%

In Budget 2009, the defence services have been allocated Rs 1,41,703 crore (Rs 1,417.03 billion) for 2009-10, a 34 per cent hike from 2008-09 budgetary allocation of Rs 1,05,600 crore (Rs 1,056 billion).

Source : rediff

Shankar · Post by **Shankar** » 06 Jul 2009 12:43

The other part is conversion of HEAT to mechanical. That is what I am talking about here @ 20% for Naval. For the best land based stuff, for Nuke, you probably will hit 30% or so, with median range being around 23 to 25% I would think. For naval, since there is a weight and packaging penalty , you will trade efficiency for that (and remember, you cant superheat steam with a PWR , and most definitely in a sub) , so 20% seems reasonable I would think . That is where that number is coming from

The overall energy efficiency will depend primarily on the pressure of the water in the heat extraction circuit .Higher the pressure higher is temperature to which it can be heated and consequently more is the energy you can extract from the core every pass . At normal operating pressure of 170 bar may be the calculations you show is right but what if the presurised water reactor is operating at 210 bar -the the whole scenario changes significantly

so if we assume 190 +MW for our ATV and close to 30% nett conversion to mechanical we reach a figure close to 60 mw mechanical energy available which will be able to push the ATV at close to 40 knots submerged

Akula 2 can move at 40 + knots if required only they rarely do

My guesses on ATV

REACTOR OUTPUT - 200 mw
fuel type - 35% enriched uranium
type -pressurised water with 210 + bar operating pressure
top speed - 40 knots
top speed quite - 16-18 knots
dispalcement - 8000 + ton submerged
refuelling cycle -every 3-4 years
no of screws - one
no of reactor - 1
no of torpedo tube - 6

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 06 Jul 2009 13:53

vina wrote:Well, it is a "definition" problem of what silent speed means. If you mean being able to listen using your sonar and hydrophones above your self generated noise, yeah sure. But to be able to run silent without the other guy hearing you , NO!. At such speeds like 25+ etc, no way you will have laminar flow all around the sub, there will be turbulent flow, mixing of layers, props going at higher rpms, etc etc. No way you can suppress radiated noise.

Well a silent speed is defined as the ability to run at speed where your sensors and sonars do not washout and yet the noise generated ( broad and narrow band ) is low enough to keep you stealthy and prevent your detection by enemy sonars.

The Seawolf exactly has been designed to perform with those paramater at ~ 25 knots , there are billions of dollar spent in developing such technology , its much like a B-2 at sea.

The designers has overcome all those problem that you have mentioned, thats where the multi year and multibillion $$ has gone into their R&D, Industry and yards.

A sub is not a cheetah that runs down it's prey. It lurks, is stealthy and ambushes !

That is just one part of the game and perhaps limited to conventional submarine , if you are in openseas , or want to patrol and cover a large area or hunt down under the artic , higher silent speed is of great tactical importance and advantage , along with sonars and sensors to compliment , gives you the first look , first kill advantage.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 06 Jul 2009 14:06

Good to hear that the ATV's launch is around the corner.Regarding our sub inventory,if we intend to keep our numbers healthy we must acquire/build another class right now,as the Scorpenes programme is delayed.What should've happened there as I've said before,was to have acquired the first two from France and our team of sub builders,who lost the art of building them thanks to the Rao regime,monitored their progress while setting up the infratsructure simultaneously.This way,we would've had the first two in service by now,instead of expecting the first by 2012+! The Russians build their subs very quickly and the Amur/Lada class is available for export with a Brahmos option.These subs are reportedly quieter,cheaper and easier to operate and maintain than the earlier Kilos.The sub comes in several options.

The fact is that the IN needs several classes of subs for its expanding ops.Nuclear SSGNS,like the Akula for trans-ocean ops,where the subs can conduct ops and patrols in any ocean,giving the IN immense forward capability.Remember how the RN was able to win back the Falklands because of the sinking of the Gen.Belgrano by a nuclear attack sub,The Argentinian Navy remained in port afterwards.We also need nuclear powered SSBNs for our strategic deterrent and an SSBN is the most survivable leg of the nuclear triad.This leaves us with the required number of conventional subs,including AIP subs for operating in the IOR mainly and sanitising the Pak coastline.Sub-launched Brahmos subs ,like the Amur option,will only be possible with Russian designs and possibly the Russo-Italian sub on offer to the IN.Having already acquirted through the Scorpene deal French technology,which has still to be experienced by the IN,the immediate second line would best be of Russian subs,as virtually 75% of the IN's sub fleet is of Russian origin.This leaves us with the four U-209s,which should be upgraded as much as possible with the latest German tech,perhaps even with an AIP plug inserted.Since neither the Scorpene or the U-209 will be able to launch Brahmos missiles,only missiles of lesser capability like Exocet or Harpoon class missiles (perhaps Klub if Russia permits on a non-Russian sub),it is clear in which direction line -2 should be.Moreover,the IN needs a total of about 36,not 24 subs of around 8/12 nuclear subs and 24 conventional subs,at least half with AIP,to counter the challenges aahead from both China and Pak,not to mention the growing sub inventories in IOR and other Far Eastern navies.Two parallel lines of conventional subs can be created along with the nuclear subs being built/asembled at Vizag.It would be ideal to have 1-2 conventional subs built every year with a nuclear boat arriving every two years.Our 10 Kilos and 2 antique Foxtrots are reportedly at only half operational capability .When the first line (SCorpenes) is complete,a more advanced conventional design can then be built.

Drevin · Post by **Drevin** » 06 Jul 2009 14:25

Why has ukraine refused to give gorshkov internal diagrams to sevmash

Is this because of shipyard/business rivalry or is there something else going on

Kailash · Post by **Kailash** » 06 Jul 2009 15:09

Can a leased nuke sub be used in an actual war?

What is the extent of support (in terms of weapons, spares, fuel) would Russia be able to offer us in times of war?

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 06 Jul 2009 18:03

Wasn't the Ghazi also "leased" to Pak?

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 06 Jul 2009 18:13

Drevin wrote:Why has ukraine refused to give gorshkov internal diagrams to sevmash Is this because of shipyard/business rivalry or is there something else going on

business rivalry and the fact that kiev and moscow have fallen off politically in recent years.
all sov carriers were made in nikolayev shipyard of ukraine, so kiev had a useful pressure point to needle moscow and they used it fully.

p_saggu · Post by **p_saggu** » 06 Jul 2009 19:03

The chinese must have also helped by whispering sweet nothings into the ukranians ears.

negi · Post by **negi** » 06 Jul 2009 20:30

Modern naval subs which currently use the screws/propellers (latest one's have switched to pump jet propulsor) both Ohio class as well as the Akula employ a highly skewed fixed pitch 7 blade propeller (afaik even Typhoon has similar props albit shrouded for arctic ops).

As per open info on www contemporary subs employing 'propellers' have a silent cruising speed of 10-15 knots , the Seawolf and likes are able to cruise faster while keeping the HD drag to minimum due to the pump jet propulsor.

suryag · Post by **suryag** » 06 Jul 2009 21:52

dipak wrote:
Kakarat wrote:From LiveFist
The ATV is likely to be launched on July 26 (Vijay Diwas). There was a meeting today to decide the launch date.

http://twitter.com/livefist/statuses/2453162205
Excellent news! I was guessing the date somewhere during July and it didn't disappoint me -
This is perhaps the greatest news to cheer about for us jingos.

Over to Vijay Diwas ...

Err the gents who promised x kilos of sweets when the ATV of x tonnes of displacement is launched, are they still active on the forum ?

SNaik · Post by **SNaik** » 07 Jul 2009 01:13

Rahul M wrote:
Drevin wrote:Why has ukraine refused to give gorshkov internal diagrams to sevmash Is this because of shipyard/business rivalry or is there something else going on
business rivalry and the fact that kiev and moscow have fallen off politically in recent years.
all sov carriers were made in nikolayev shipyard of ukraine, so kiev had a useful pressure point to needle moscow and they used it fully.

1) Severnoye PKB which designed all Soviet carrier cruisers is located in SPB, Russia. They have their set of blueprints which is not as detailed and up-to-date as builder's set, but still;
2) Russia operates Kuznecov which is constantly maintained and repaired by SRZ-35 facility, meaning they have a good set of blueprints of Kuz, which is a close relative to Gorshkov. They may even have their set of Gorshkov blueprints left when it was under attempted repairs in 1989 (not sure of that).
3) One can refuse to give, but one can consider to sell.

All in all - sheer incompetence and overconfidence by Sevmash.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 07 Jul 2009 01:47

suryag wrote:Err the gents who promised x kilos of sweets when the ATV of x tonnes of displacement is launched, are they still active on the forum ?

It was sweets for the Akula 2, not the ATV.

Apparently an RFI to various mithaiwallahs has been issued by a certain webmaster, followed by the RFP. However GSQR has changed (new brochure from Russia) and amended RFP have to be issued. I understand that sampling trials have yet to be carried out. Then there is the matter of GHQ CBI type investigation and blacklisting of certain mihtaiwallahs. All very complicated. I fear we will we awaiting our sweets for some time.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 07 Jul 2009 10:24

I have a fleet of S-3 vikings out looking for SSN Koshy in kerala littoral waters.

p_saggu · Post by **p_saggu** » 07 Jul 2009 11:18

Naming criteria for Indian Navy Nuke Subs: What's the logic?

1. Sagarika
2. Chakra
3. Chitra.

Where is the naming similarity, the common string? Like the Sindhughosh class have, the Giri class, the Delhi, Talwars etc.

sum · Post by **sum** » 07 Jul 2009 11:30

Naming criteria for Indian Navy Nuke Subs: What's the logic?

1. Sagarika
2. Chakra
3. Chitra.

Have these names been decided by the IN

p_saggu · Post by **p_saggu** » 07 Jul 2009 11:41

Nothing is official yet. This is all grapevine stuff. I don't know if we've officially acknowledged the existence of an ATV project yet!
But I thought that the nuclear submarines being in a unique class of their own, will follow a nomenclature of their own. Unless the IN wants to have seperate nomenclatures for the SSBNs and the Attack subs.

Tanaji · Post by **Tanaji** » 07 Jul 2009 14:48

Rakesh should at least get a custom cake made in the shape of an Akula, cut it up, and send it to the members.

vsudhir · Post by **vsudhir** » 07 Jul 2009 16:17

Nothing is official yet. This is all grapevine stuff. I don't know if we've officially acknowledged the existence of an ATV project yet!

Not true. See Sandeep Unnithan's exclusive piece in India Today devoted solely to the ATV that generated lots of discussion here. I'd call it semi-official announcement onlee.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 07 Jul 2009 17:45

Rakesh had better order 10+ tons of mithai as promised fast,as the reports appear to be quite accurate-deliberate leaks.Failure to do so might get him "torpedoed" from one of the Chakra's/Akula's tubes!

nikhil_p · Post by **nikhil_p** » 07 Jul 2009 20:11

Any update on the Scorpenes?

Kakarat · Post by **Kakarat** » 07 Jul 2009 20:41

EXCLUSIVE: Navy to network-target test Derby AAM - LiveFist

As part of the Limited Upgrade Sea Harrier (LUSH), the Indian Navy will shortly conduct its second live firing test of the Israeli Derby beyond visual range air-to-air missile (BVRAAM), a weapon system that has been integrated to the last of the Navy's Sea Harriers as part of the upgrade programme. While the first live firing of the Derby active-radar seeker missile was conducted using the aircraft's primary sensor, the next test will be from one of the Navy's upgraded Sea Harriers with its radar switched off. Guidance will be provided from another platform, either on the ground or in the air.

According to Navy sources, the LUSH programme has made the Sea Harriers fully new aircraft. The heart of the upgrade is of course the replacement of the venerable old Ferranti Blue Fox monopulse airborne intercept radar with the time-tested EL/M-2032 multimode advanced pulse doppler radar. The new radar, in the words of one of the pilots, has put the aircraft in "a different league". While sea clutter proved to be the bane of look-down missions with the Blue Fox radar (the sweep would be swamped), the Elta sensor has none of those issues.

Of the nine Sea Harriers involved in the LUSH programme, seven have been upgraded and delivered back to the Navy, while two are currently being upgraded by HAL. The INS Viraat, currently undergoing a mini-refit in Kochi, will be back in service by September-October, and will have the LUSH Harriers on board.

naird · Post by **naird** » 07 Jul 2009 20:59

Kakarat wrote:EXCLUSIVE: Navy to network-target test Derby AAM - LiveFist

While the first live firing of the Derby active-radar seeker missile was conducted using the aircraft's primary sensor, the next test will be from one of the Navy's upgraded Sea Harriers with its radar switched off. Guidance will be provided from another platform, either on the ground or in the air.

Hows that possible ?? Always thought that the aircraft radar should be on to guide the mijhiles .....!!!! Can someone shed light on this ?

Also can phalcon guide missiles then ? Example :- Su 30 radar is switched off and plane is guided by phalcon , su 30 fires missiles and then phalcon takes over the guidance system. Is this possible ? I thought the answer is NO ....

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 07 Jul 2009 21:20

Not a big deal , the aircraft formation maintains radar silence and just one track and scans , hands over the target to the other aircraft who then fires the missile , give a tactical advantage and some element of surprise.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 07 Jul 2009 21:26

Actually it seems like a pretty BIG deal. IIRC only the Gripen did that with v.robust datalinking, and it poses a pretty nasty problem for enemy a/c. I am not sure how it would work, managing a totally passive shot like that. How does the MCU work? Is it given by the a/c using the radar and painting enemy a/c or by the one that releases the missile. THe datalink/NW capability has to be stellar. JMT, gurus can elaborate.

CM.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 07 Jul 2009 21:36

well if its a basic data linking thing which was perfected in 90's and perhaps earlier then its not a big thing , but this is the netcentric warfare which goes just beyond data link then its a big deal.

I would like to think is what they are doing is the basic data link stuff . where one aircraft illuminates the target , and the data are passed to other aircraft and they they assign the target to each and fire at it .

Ok remember this capability was first perfected in Mig-31

p_saggu · Post by **p_saggu** » 07 Jul 2009 21:39

This is amazing stuff! This could mean a single large radar like the phalcon, if suitably programed could guide several dozen missiles - launched from fighters, ground units, manpads - to their targets.

I say invest in several such huge radar-guidance nodes, spend money on bomb trucks (Literally Bomb trucks) (hell even a Tata truck with 200 Km SAMs and SSMs could do)

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 07 Jul 2009 21:43

Emm i dont think this capability is with respect to AWACS doing the fire control task for AAM or guiding the missile , this is something like one of the aircraft radar in the formation doing the task while other maintains RF silence , with AESA equipped aircraft it just makes it better.

rakall · Post by **rakall** » 07 Jul 2009 21:49

Cain Marko wrote:Actually it seems like a pretty BIG deal. IIRC only the Gripen did that with v.robust datalinking, and it poses a pretty nasty problem for enemy a/c. I am not sure how it would work, managing a totally passive shot like that. How does the MCU work? Is it given by the a/c using the radar and painting enemy a/c or by the one that releases the missile. THe datalink/NW capability has to be stellar. JMT, gurus can elaborate.

CM.

The a/c firing the missile approaches the target in radar silence, in general direction of the target.. the painting a/c is far behind the firing a/c and it paints the target; gets location of target and relays co-ords via datalink to the firing a/c.. The firing a/c then fires the missile towards the target location... and Derby's active seeker will takeover..

the target will pick the location of the painitng a/c, but the shot will come as a surprise from closer range..

Already posted in AI09 notes, as per Cmdr.Balaji & Capt.Moulankar -- SHAR's have datalinks.. so one SHAR can give target location data to another SHAR.

rakall · Post by **rakall** » 07 Jul 2009 21:52

Austin wrote:well if its a basic data linking thing which was perfected in 90's and perhaps earlier then its not a big thing , but this is the netcentric warfare which goes just beyond data link then its a big deal.

I would like to think is what they are doing is the basic data link stuff . where one aircraft illuminates the target , and the data are passed to other aircraft and they they assign the target to each and fire at it .

Ok remember this capability was first perfected in Mig-31

Yes.. this is what they are likely to do in this test..

But.. the datalink is not basic.. SHAR's have a proper ODL -- which can transmit complete "realtime radar picture" from one a/c to the other which is in RF-silence..

A single SHAR can illuminate a target or target-ship formation and relay the complete radar picture to a bunch of SHAR's which can pick their own target in the target-ship formation and take multiple shots.. Even a MKI can illuminate the targets and relay it to any ODL equipped fighter a/c... the ODL will become a standard feature across all IAF fighter a/c - I think, HAL Hyderabad is working on this... but basically all the modules will come from Yehudi land..