Indian Naval Discussion

keshavchandra · Post by **keshavchandra** » 21 Aug 2012 13:38

India’s 2nd Carrier Ins Vishal to be Flat-Top Configuration , Navy to Freeze Design

A commodore with the Naval Design Bureau says, “A decision has been taken to move away from conventional Stobar and short-takeoff-or-vertical-landing (Stovl) operations.”

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 21 Aug 2012 14:03

We do lack ELINT aircraft and perhaps if we acquire at some point dedicated bombers like Backfires/Blackjacks convert the remaining Bears into specialist aircraft.Their endurance is phenomenal.The US has for decades used specially equipped and disguised Orions for Elint purposes.With the P-8s being dedicated mainly to the ASW role,and s they can olny carry inferior Harpoons,the LR maritime strike role has to be done by other aircraft.For the moment we have the Bears available for the job.

* I agree, wait till we think we can afford "dedicated bombers' so that IN can then convert antiquated Bears into "specialist" (medical?) aircraft. Well played!! (BTW, the IN opted for the P-8 knowing all the options in front of them.)
* The P-8 was previously called the MMA - (repeat after me) Multimission Maritime Aircraft. It was designed specifically for: "long-range anti-submarine warfare, anti-surface warfare, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance aircraft". It comes with ELINT!!! IN has 8, will likely get another 4 (if not already done so) and there is talk of another 12 after that
* If the Bears are available for the job, are the P-8s unnecessary due to overlap or are they complementing each other in a some/lot of ways?
* IN has stated, very clearly, that the area of interest is the IOR, the most distant points being Australia and South Africa. There is currently and in the near future no need to venture into any other area. Distant future? Perhaps
* The Russians did what they thought best for themselves. So did the Americans. The IN is doing so now. Granted there is some more to be desired for the IN, but are they happy with what they are getting?
* Are there any countries willing to let IN assets refuel on land that we know of? Specially African nations? I would think nations like Singapore and Malaysia may/would allow such facilities

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 21 Aug 2012 14:25

Kartik,pl study the record of Indian yards and the time taken to buld warships of different classes.How about the decade+ it took to build the two Brahmaputras which arrived without any SAMs? Where there multiple changes by the IN for those two? While there have been changes in the latter Delhi/Kols,as have been with the talwars,there is no great change in the basic dsign and hull.It takes two hands to clap yes,but the numerous aticles written over the years by former and serving admirals about the problems that plague Indian yards speaks for itself.Look at the fiasco at Cochin and the IAC-1 whose induction will now take at least two+ years extra .Where have there been excessive xhanges to the basic dsign? It was taken out of the yard so that some other urgent work could be done and now has to go back in. MDLs lack of space to fit out warships is no big secret which is why it is trying to acquire extra land elsewhere.The modernisation of existing Indian PSU shipyards ihas been unduly delayed and new private shipayrds have stolen a march over the old ones in terms of infrastructure and capability.

Secondly,where is the flexibility in design? Modular designs of warships is decades old in foreign yards.They well know that during the long gestation in buyilding a series of a class of warship,new weapon sytems will become available and thus they plan for the same.
Even the various DMs have spoken out from time to time about faster shipbuilding to promote indigenisation and the IN has been by far the best service in achieveing results.

As for the anti-ship missiles.Harpoon and Exocet are passe .From past US studies,it takes at least 3 anti-ship missiles to sink one Kashin class DDG.Warships today have better anti-missile defences against subsonic missiles and it would take several salvoes of them to be able to sink larger capital ships.The kinetic force and speed of Brahmos will overwhelm most current shipboard defences.In fac the USN is in very healthy respect of the Klub with the terminal supersonic warhead .This is why the west are furiously developing supersonic missiles like Brahmos and defences against it.The French recently tested one of ther SAMs against a suersonic drone successfully for the First time,but it is going to take years before they can develop capable defences,by which time the hypersonic Brahmos will become available.

No one is denying the problems in supporting the Bears,but as long as they can be supported without too many hassles they are an invaluable asset.Once P-8Is start arriving,the major ASW/MRP role can be assigned to them with LR strike left to Brahmos armed Bears.
In fact having been designed as a bomber,the Bear can also carry the air launched version of our classified LR cruise missile when it is also available.

PS:NR,you've touched upon a very important point.The US has a stream of bases in the maritime dimension in every ocean,using bases and facilities belonging to its allies and friendsIf you take the IOR and Asia-Pacific Deigo Garcis,Oz,Japan,Okinawa,Guam the Phillipines,Singapore,etc,are all available to its P-8s/P-3s.THerefore,these aircraft and ther range are adequate for the purpose.The IN however has very few such arrangements with other nations ifat all,ad should start seriously thinking about facilities in Vietnam,etc.

member_20453 · Post by **member_20453** » 21 Aug 2012 14:39

I think the 8 Bears which have been upgraded should be able to deploy the Brahmos, I think they can easily carry 6 of them. Thats 48 missiles ready to be deployed at short notice. I think we can also arm the IL-38 with 3 brahmos each, thats an additonal 15 missiles. We should have a fleet of around 36 P-8I, 8 used for defensive capabilities and 24 used for offsensive abilities. Mini-brahmos can perhaps go onboard the P-8I. Harpoon/ Slam-ER are also decent options. Nirbhay too is decent candidate for the P-8I. However mini Brahmos should be light enough for N-LCA, Mig-29K.

http://rusnavy.com/news/othernavies/ind ... T_ID=10007

For INS Vishal we will need either the E-2D or V-22 based AWACS. Still think V-22 would be an ideal candidate for the Navy, AF and Army, very versatile. A large fleet of these would certainly help in a lot of SF ops.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 21 Aug 2012 16:27

about the Bears out of 6, one would perhaps be lucky to have 2 ready to fly at any time. I know they can cart 8 of KH101 a much smaller turbofan missile, unless we see the full specs of the Brahmos-A we cannot be too optimistic. per wiki the KH101 is 1600kg while Brahmos-A will be 2500kg. do the math, I doubt it can carry more than 4 on the twin pylons where 8 kh101 were carried.

also I dont believe the IL38 external pylons are rated or used for such a heavy missile - Uran/Sea eagle is more like it. afaik its internal bays are used for LWT and sonobuoys not sized like a proper bomber for brahmos-A.

big ambitions need big sticks. and the only big stick I know that can properly carry a respectable number of Brahmos-A with range x speed is the B1/Tu160 types.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 21 Aug 2012 16:32

imo BR suffers from a terminal case of brahmos fetish. any problem brings out a pavlovian response of brahmos-it. a mouse scurries across the park and people want to unload 3 tubes worth of brahmos.

imo we should instead look to a smaller SLAM-ER sized missile that anything from Tejas upwards can carry 2-4 of across the IAF and IN fighter fleet . far more of a force multiplier and useful for mass salvo attacks from all directions. starting off with the popeye turbo which we purchased smaller nos of as "crystal maze" and adding our own seeker and warhead section, while tinkering with the propulsion to backport nirbhay on it would be one solution. second soln would be the nirbhay-A which imo is atleast 10 yrs away from FOC given we have no yet started testing the much higher priority strategic Nirbhay SLCM and GLCM version, ALCM brings up rear in the priority list.

we must constantly look to cut costs with technology and volume orders.

Brahmos can occupy its niche of fast attack on SAM IADS radar, DDG/CG capital ships and C3I nodes. given its expense and size its likely to remain niche. Brahmos2 will extend the reach but certainly not be smaller or cheaper, so the constraints on using it as a rice-roti soln will remain.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 21 Aug 2012 17:27

^^^

GD, you are logical in your approach. But no subsonic missile can match the s*x appeal of the Brahmos. You have to accept that

MN Kumar · Post by **MN Kumar** » 21 Aug 2012 19:10

I guess this is where the Mini Brahmos comes in. Remember they were planning to develop a smaller version that can be carried by Mig 29.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 21 Aug 2012 21:02

mini-brahmos would still follow the non stealthy airframe and high-alt for longish range probably.
at lo alt even the normal brahmos is limited to 120km officially. thats fine for 10% of high value and hard well defended targets.

subsonic, treetop level , low footprint, low power, low cost is also needed in volume to cheaply knock out a mass of targets 85% that fall into this bucket.

the rest 5% will be super value targets which only a hypersonic weapon like brahmos2 or Shourya-2 will be able to target...stuff like missile caves , carrier task groups with 4 AAW ships featuring uber SAMs of the SM6/Aster30 chi chi level, ISI HQ in Pindi .....

AbhiJ · Post by **AbhiJ** » 21 Aug 2012 21:18

Karunanidhi demands Indian Naval base against Sri Lanka

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 21 Aug 2012 22:34

IL-38s were found to be unsuitable ,there was a report some time ago.With the MTCR,there is little way in which we can obtain the KH-101/55 series with ranges beyond 300km.However,if we develop our own LR cruise missile within the next few years, we would be able to use them on the upgraded Bears if they can be made to last until 2020.

The smaller ASM Brahmos being explored is a worthwhile exercise,as smaller aircraft can carry it.The "Baby Brahmos" could also be used on a variety of smaller missile craft and corvettes which are too small to carry the current version.It has great potential,especially for export.

John · Post by **John** » 21 Aug 2012 23:02

Singha wrote:about the Bears out of 6, one would perhaps be lucky to have 2 ready to fly at any time. I know they can cart 8 of KH101 a much smaller turbofan missile, unless we see the full specs of the Brahmos-A we cannot be too optimistic. per wiki the KH101 is 1600kg while Brahmos-A will be 2500kg. do the math, I doubt it can carry more than 4 on the twin pylons where 8 kh101 were carried.

As of now only Su-30mki will integrated are to be with Brahmos no word on Bears being fitted with Brahmos, Russia has no interest in it and i doubt IN will spend $$$ testing and upgrading exsisting Bears to carry Brahmos.

hnair · Post by **hnair** » 22 Aug 2012 02:14

For most surface combatants, even the SAMs provides a secondary capability against surface targets.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 22 Aug 2012 04:38

Philip wrote:Kartik,pl study the record of Indian yards and the time taken to buld warships of different classes.How about the decade+ it took to build the two Brahmaputras which arrived without any SAMs? Where there multiple changes by the IN for those two? While there have been changes in the latter Delhi/Kols,as have been with the talwars,there is no great change in the basic dsign and hull.It takes two hands to clap yes,but the numerous aticles written over the years by former and serving admirals about the problems that plague Indian yards speaks for itself.Look at the fiasco at Cochin and the IAC-1 whose induction will now take at least two+ years extra .Where have there been excessive xhanges to the basic dsign? It was taken out of the yard so that some other urgent work could be done and now has to go back in. MDLs lack of space to fit out warships is no big secret which is why it is trying to acquire extra land elsewhere.The modernisation of existing Indian PSU shipyards ihas been unduly delayed and new private shipayrds have stolen a march over the old ones in terms of infrastructure and capability.

You specifically mentioned the P-15A class and said that it was all MDLs fault while its clear that the blame can be shared by the IN as well. the IAC-1 delays are not just the fault of the shipyard but those of the private industries that couldn't fabricate gear boxes that they were given orders for, consequently causing delays while other German sources were tasked with producing them. While our shipyards are inefficient and slow, there are many examples of the services being late with their specifications, as well as changes being sought mid-way through design and fabrication.

Secondly,where is the flexibility in design? Modular designs of warships is decades old in foreign yards.They well know that during the long gestation in buyilding a series of a class of warship,new weapon sytems will become available and thus they plan for the same.
Even the various DMs have spoken out from time to time about faster shipbuilding to promote indigenisation and the IN has been by far the best service in achieveing results.

Work on that has been started at MDL and GRSE. I don't know if you were aware of that or not. This article should help. P-17A frigates will be the first to be built using modular construction. AFAIK, even the IAC-1 is built using modular construction techniques.

Business Standard- Modular construction at MDL

As for the anti-ship missiles.Harpoon and Exocet are passe .From past US studies,it takes at least 3 anti-ship missiles to sink one Kashin class DDG.Warships today have better anti-missile defences against subsonic missiles and it would take several salvoes of them to be able to sink larger capital ships.The kinetic force and speed of Brahmos will overwhelm most current shipboard defences.In fac the USN is in very healthy respect of the Klub with the terminal supersonic warhead .This is why the west are furiously developing supersonic missiles like Brahmos and defences against it.The French recently tested one of ther SAMs against a suersonic drone successfully for the First time,but it is going to take years before they can develop capable defences,by which time the hypersonic Brahmos will become available.

No one is denying the problems in supporting the Bears,but as long as they can be supported without too many hassles they are an invaluable asset.Once P-8Is start arriving,the major ASW/MRP role can be assigned to them with LR strike left to Brahmos armed Bears.
In fact having been designed as a bomber,the Bear can also carry the air launched version of our classified LR cruise missile when it is also available.

I don't agree with what you've said about the Harpoon/Exocet. If one was to believe you, then apart from the Brahmos and Yakhont, all the rest of the world's AShMs are obsolete and defending against them is an easy matter. As things stand, the biggest threat to our own ships are Harpoon equipped P-3s and PAF Mirage-5PA3s armed with the Exocet. Ever heard our own IN dismissing that threat as being light or that it can be easily tackled by on-ship defenses?

You also ignore the weight differences of the 2 types, how the Harpoon weighs in at 690 kgs, whereas the Brahmos is around 3 times heavier at 2500 kgs. That itself makes it a difficult missile to equip all aerial platforms with-otherwise the Jaguars would've been equipped with them too instead of Harpoons. While it has obvious speed advantages and consequently is more dangerous, that doesn't discount the fact that the sub-sonic wave skimming AShM is a dangerous threat and when launched in salvos can overwhelm a ship's defenses.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 22 Aug 2012 11:31

Kartik,you've made some very valid points,however,why then are the hulls of the follow on Delhis/Kol's reported as "rusting" and awaiting their systems and sensors,a few years late? It betrays a lack of proper planning and project management.As for the modular construction,why did the P-17s also arrive late (taking more than 10 years to build!)? As you'vre pointed out,it is only in the follow on ships that such a design (modular) approach is being taken..What is hapening is that as modern warships are getting more sophisticated by the year,with stealth features,integrated masts/sensors,etc. becoming the norm,our tech base/shipyards and domestic suppliers have not been able to keep up with developments,hence the search for foreign expertise for building additional P-17As.Hopefully,with private Indian shipyards getting more orders,we will be able to build almost all our requirements at home in the future,though foreign assistance will be inevitable as long as sensors and weapon systems and powerplants are sourced from abroad.

Back to Harpoon and Exocet.True these are the anti-ship missiles ranged aganst us in warships and subs that were built a generation ago.Of course they pose a serious threat which we've supposedly taken care of by fittng Barak aboard as many warships as possible.However,these subsonic missiles have to be fired in large salvoes and require larger warships to carry larger numbers,plus more than a single hit to disable a modern warship.The Chinese have taken their equivalents to greater ranges,but use Moskit Russian supersnic missiles aboard their Sov. DDGs.The IN has done well to have been able to equip our older warships with the large 16 pack Urans from DDGs to missile craft.For the future,warships and subs which will serve us in their lifetime for the next 30 years,no one is contemplating using these subsonic anti-ship missiles at all! Even Klub is being progressively replaced by Brahmos on our follow on frigates and DDGs currently under construction.The only subsonic missile that will be inducted will be our version of a LR cruise missile.Even here,there is an opportunity to try and see whether the terminal supersonic warhead which is used on Klub variants can similarly be fitted to our LR cruise missile for anti-ship variants.It will not be needed for land attack variants.This will considerably add to its anti-ship capability.

As for exotic new tech,the advent of the rail-gun aboard USN warships expected in the next decade,will be another "itch" for naval designers to deal with.

PS:Back to the issue of using Bears after P-8s are inducted.My approach is simple.We are not a rich nation that can afford to simply dump an old system just because a new one is inducted.If you take the history of the experience of the services,they've had to extend the life of supposedly obsolete weapon systems,warships and subs far beyond their notional lifespan.The Viraat still soldiers on,,50 years in service after countless refits,the MIG-21s were turned into "Bisons" that proved their mettle in the Indo-US air exercises,`130mm field guns have been upgraded to 155mm (http://articles.janes.com/articles/Jane ... India.html) ,Kashin class DDGs belonging to the '60s design table have been gvien a new lethal lifespan extension with the fitting of Brahmos....one can go on with other examples.Even the Isrelis have used old Centurion tanks long after they were discarded by many nations.

MY phlosophy is that every old system HAS some value and if it has useful ife in it (airframes and engines in the case of Bears),exploit it.I've even suggested that for the large number of MIGs and other aircraft being pensioned off,we could convert them into "kamikaze" weapons,or UAV/UCAVs! Why,an Indo-Israeli effort is on to develop a shipboard UCAV helo using old Chetaks.IF one views our old weaponry thus,we can see that they still are assets which can be put to good use,economic factor notwithstanding.

Prem Kumar · Post by **Prem Kumar** » 22 Aug 2012 23:50

Singha wrote:imo BR suffers from a terminal case of brahmos fetish.

+1. Similar to the Rambha+Phalcon combo fetish for all airforce matters

Singha wrote:imo we should instead look to a smaller SLAM-ER sized missile that anything from Tejas upwards can carry 2-4 of across the IAF and IN fighter fleet . far more of a force multiplier and useful for mass salvo attacks from all directions. starting off with the popeye turbo which we purchased smaller nos of as "crystal maze" and adding our own seeker and warhead section, while tinkering with the propulsion to backport nirbhay on it would be one solution.

One reason why we are lagging in this area is the propulsion. GTRE or HAL or whoever must focus on getting dal-roti stuff like small thrust turbofans for PGMs and UAVs. Easier to accomplish than a 120KN AMCA engine.

Hopefully, once Nirbhay is off the blocks, it will inspire a family of sub-sonic PGMs

I really wish we had purchased SLAM-ERs instead of Harpoons for our P8Is.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 23 Aug 2012 07:29

we can still do. number of harpoons contracted were small and can still be altered I suppose.

there is a type26 CG video on youtube. the helicopter deck is large, but one big central hanger for a Merlin . on left side there is empty space, one right side a small low hanger for a fixed wing RPV which is shown launched off a inclined rail on left side. I suppose they will recover it by flying into a net. shows 8 ASMs midships in inclined tubes and a VL array fwd. wiki claims 32 sea ceptor SAM and 16 perseus strike missiles.

kit · Post by **kit** » 23 Aug 2012 08:51

Prem Kumar wrote:
Singha wrote:imo BR suffers from a terminal case of brahmos fetish.
+1. Similar to the Rambha+Phalcon combo fetish for all airforce matters

Singha wrote:imo we should instead look to a smaller SLAM-ER sized missile that anything from Tejas upwards can carry 2-4 of across the IAF and IN fighter fleet . far more of a force multiplier and useful for mass salvo attacks from all directions. starting off with the popeye turbo which we purchased smaller nos of as "crystal maze" and adding our own seeker and warhead section, while tinkering with the propulsion to backport nirbhay on it would be one solution.
One reason why we are lagging in this area is the propulsion. GTRE or HAL or whoever must focus on getting dal-roti stuff like small thrust turbofans for PGMs and UAVs. Easier to accomplish than a 120KN AMCA engine.

Hopefully, once Nirbhay is off the blocks, it will inspire a family of sub-sonic PGMs

I really wish we had purchased SLAM-ERs instead of Harpoons for our P8Is.

I think supersonic guided missiles are likely to become more affordable and accurate than subsonic ones.

Katare · Post by **Katare** » 23 Aug 2012 09:06

There is nothing magical about supersonic missiles, world over navies made choice to go with the subsonic missiles over supersonic ones several decades back. The advantages of range, weight, cost, stealth and manuvering out weighs advantages of speed in most cases. Brahmos is a special missile for niche/speciality roles and we shouldn't forget that it's advantages come with huge bagage too.

Mihir · Post by **Mihir** » 23 Aug 2012 09:45

Agree with Katare, Singha, et al. The BrahMos is no doubt a heavy hitter, but it represents only *one* of many solutions to minimise the risk of interception by ship-board missile defences. The BrahMos reduces the reaction time of ship-board air defences by crossing their intercept zone as quickly as possible. The Harpoon/Exocet fly very low and avoid detection until the last possible moment. I remember reading somewhere that the Harpoon can detect and track CIWS radars and then avoid incoming fire. Its guidance computer is apparently programmed to predict how a CIWS guides rounds to a target, and can change the flight path of the missile accordingly. A supersonic missile cannot do this.

Each approach has its advantages and disadvantages. The BrahMos, for example, can indeed catch an adversary by surprise with its speed and smash a mid-size ship to pieces with its heavy warhead and massive kinetic energy. But the speed comes at an expense. It is a big, heavy missile, which means you can carry only a few. The heavy Kolkata-class destroyer can carry only 16, while a single P-8I can carry as many as 11 Harpoons. The MKI, already a heavy fighter, had to be structurally modified to allow it to carry one BrahMos; the F-18 can carry up to four Harpoons. The BrahMos has to fly higher than a Harpoon on account of its speed, meaning it can be detected from farther out than a subsonic missile. It probably has a massive thermal signature as well, making it easy for IR sensors to detect and track it. On the other hand, it cannot use IR guidance because of the heat generated while flying at mach 3. And then there is the limited manoeuverability as well.

To say that A is better B is incorrect. Each represents a perfectly valid solution to the problem of penetrating shipborne missile defence systems. That is why the BrahMos is but one component of the navy's offensive arsenal, along with the Klub, the Kh-35, and others.

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 23 Aug 2012 12:31

Talking about fleet defence, anyone has any ideas how good is the Nose mounted Apy-10's air to air mode on the p-8I, can these detect any sea skimmers

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 23 Aug 2012 13:43

the ancestor APS137 on P3 orions could presumably track theirs and friendly harpoons launched on targets for strike tracking and assessment. so I would imagine these can easily do it.

you really need a high power side looking or AWACS type radar though for 360' coverage not the limited azimuth of this relatively small radar (fighter size).

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 23 Aug 2012 14:04

I understand that, nose mounted and 240 degree coverage, funny how come US has not opted for AESA for P-8A.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 23 Aug 2012 14:14

thats maybe because air search is not what they want to focus on...they would have hawkeyes and E3 to catch airborne stuff. they want sea search in various modes and periscope detection at long range using ISAR etc. but I read somewhere that feature would be deleted in sw for our APS10 sets!!

wiki
ISAR is utilized in maritime surveillance for the classification of ships and other objects. In these applications the motion of the object due to wave action often plays a greater role than object rotation. For instance a feature which extends far over the surface of a ship such as a mast will provide a high sinusoidal response which is clearly identifiable in a two dimensional image. Images sometimes produce an uncanny similarity to a visual profile with the interesting effect that as the object rocks towards or away from the receiver the alternating doppler returns cause the profile to cycle between upright and inverted. ISAR for maritime surveillance was pioneered by Texas Instruments in collaboration with the Naval Research Laboratory and became an important capability of the P-3 Orion and the S-3B Viking US Navy aircraft.

kit · Post by **kit** » 23 Aug 2012 15:47

The P8 Poseidon had been developed with the american requirements in mind.It fits into their extensive surveillance network of satellites and sensors.It is a different game for India.What do you think should a ideal surveillance naval platform for India should be., apart from range ?

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 23 Aug 2012 18:01

we need more AWACS - over the sea, owned by IN.
being the sea, long ranges...has to be a big bird of the A330 stripe.
that implies refuelers...big ones
the capex and opex quickly scales up into a lot.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 23 Aug 2012 23:24

Mihir wrote:Agree with Katare, Singha, et al. The BrahMos is no doubt a heavy hitter, but it represents only *one* of many solutions to minimise the risk of interception by ship-board missile defences. The BrahMos reduces the reaction time of ship-board air defences' by crossing their intercept zone as quickly as possible. The Harpoon/Exocet fly very low and avoiding detection until the last possible moment. I remember reading somewhere that the Harpoon can detect and track CIWS radars themselves and then avoid incoming fire. It's guidance computer is apparently programmed to predict how a CIWS guides rounds to a target, and can change the flight path of the missile accordingly. A supersonic missile cannot do this.

Each approach has its advantages and disadvantages. The BrahMos, for example, can indeed catch an adversary by surprise with its speed and smash a mid-size ship to pieces with its heavy warhead and massive kinetic energy. But the speed comes at an expense. It is a big, heavy missile, which means you can carry only a few. The heavy Kolkata-class destroyer can carry only 16, while a single P-8I can carry as many as 11 Harpoons. The MKI, already a heavy fighter, had to be structurally modified to allow it to carry one BrahMos; the F-18 can carry up to four Harpoons. The BrahMos has to fly higher than a Harpoon on account of its speed, meaning it can be detected from farther out than a subsonic missile. It probably has a massive thermal signature as well, making it easy for IR sensors to detect and track it. On the other hand, it cannot use IR guidance because of the heat generated while flying at mach 3. And then there is the limited manoeuverability as well.

To say that A is better B is incorrect. Each represents a perfectly valid solution to the problem of penetrating shipborne missile defence systems. That is why the BrahMos is but one component of the navy's offensive arsenal, along with the Klub, the Kh-35, and others.

Exactly Mihir. Couldnt' have said it better myself.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 23 Aug 2012 23:34

Singha wrote:we need more AWACS - over the sea, owned by IN.
being the sea, long ranges...has to be a big bird of the A330 stripe.
that implies refuelers...big ones
the capex and opex quickly scales up into a lot.

There is no A330 based AWACS around as of now. The cost of modifying and testing the airframe will be immense, and we will have to bear it if we want something like that. The IL-76 based Phalcon wasn't a problem because the A-50 had already been flying with the chapati on top for ages.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 24 Aug 2012 03:29

IIRC Israel had suggested India use an Airbus. It was India that was firm about the Russian plane (then because the IAF already had experience with that air craft). Given a choice Israel should opt for the Airbus - even today.

Meanwhile:

June, 2011 :: IAI, Airbus team up on AWACS lite

IAA and Airbus Military signed a memorandum of understanding on the C295 Tuesday at the Paris Air Show at Le Bourget airport, where a prototype of the planned Airborne Early Warning and Control aircraft, built at Airbus Military's factory in Seville, was on display.

IAI and Airbus said the new plane's systems would include a fourth-generation active electronically scanned array radar with integrated Identification Friend and Foe system made by Elta Systems of Ashdod, an IAI subsidiary and Israel's leading radar manufacturer.

The Elint C295 is designed to provide high quality 360-degree surveillance and to create real-time integrated air and maritime intelligence that is shared with allied forces via network-centric data links.

A C295 fitted with a rotating radar dome mounted on the rear fuselage has been undergoing flight tests at an Airbus facility in Spain since June 8.

IAI's chief executive, Itzhak Nissim, called the plane a "strategic force multiplier."

Elta President Nissim Hadas told Globes the deal with Airbus Military constitutes a strategic agreement.

"Global demand for AEW planes like this is expected to grow in the coming years, due to terrorism threats and the need to tighten border controls, as well as for airborne control, he commented.

"Many countries around the world sense the need for such systems, and we're offering a relevant package for this market.

"I have no doubt that this agreement with a subsidiary of a giant like Airbus will enable us to break into new markets worldwide."

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 24 Aug 2012 08:59

Maritime warfare has come a long way since the 12nm cannon ball shot that determined the maritime boundary of a maritime state.During the past century,the primary task of the IN was defending its shores and coastline from enemy task forces.Whether it was the RN during the WW2 having to deal with incidents like the Japanese bombardment of Madras during WW2,the Emden attack during the previous war,or the IN 's embarrasment when Pakistani warships which bombarded the Kutch coastline in '65.Repelling the advancing USN's nuclear carrier task force led by the Enterprise during the '71 war was fortunately avoided by the brilliant capture of E-Pak at lightning speed by the Indian Army.In this war,there was also for the first time a blockade of Karachi by the IN,along with two successful missile attacks against it by units of the IN's western fleet.

In this century energy security has become the primary issue that worries our planners.The range of anti-ship and land attack missiles have so vastly improved that shore bombardments of the past are most unlikely when enemy warships and subs can launch their missiles at least 300km from our shores.Our naval assets now have to be able to patrol the farthest reaches of the IOR to sanitise it,escort tanker convoys in case of a Gulf conflict involving Iran,and monitor PLAN activity in the Indo-China Sea prior to their warships and subs ingressing into the IOR through the Malacca (and other) Straits.Similarly,apart from a chain of coastal radars ,EW sensors,shore-based assets have to be complemented by a range of other assets right from dedicated maritime sats,ELINT/SIGINT aircraft able to pick up the slightest electronic transmission,identify and catalogue it and obtain individual signatures of warships ,subs and their sensors,to be passed on in real time to the nearest and most opportune "shooters" -land,sea,air and sub-surface and possibly in the future from space with the advent of the reusable hypersonic missile.Therefore a holistic approach is required where through NCW every asset is tasked to pick up the smallest contact,signal or transmisssion ,share the intel for identification/classification and prosecution of the same.

It is going to be no easy task.As some have posted,this requires a number of dedicated aircraft for the task apart from the P-8s and Bears whose primary task is ASW/LR strike and their area of ops will encompass evn some of the Asia-Paciific region.The arrival of the Emb. mini AWACS is a great step in the right direction,but we also require aircraft larger than the Emb. and smaller than our Phalcons which will have greater range and loiter ability.Perhaps a variant of the under development MTA would suffice,as it i a larger aircraft with more internal space for consoles and eqpt. and being a JV would be easy to support after induction.A dozen mini-AWACS based upon the MTA platform would also be economical since we intend to acquire at least 40+ of the same.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 24 Aug 2012 10:27

^^^

You are a man after my own heart. Also add an unmanned Maritime Surveillance system with ASW capability to compliment the manned component.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 25 Aug 2012 08:51

Thank you Prat,I forgot to mention the UAV aspect.Indeed the advent of the long-endurance UAV,which can loiter for days or even weeks as some are planning,will make the task of airborne surveillance far easier.Aerostats and "blimps" will also help.The Lockheed (?) blimp which was displayed at the last Aero-India has huge prospects.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 26 Aug 2012 12:40

with the ASBM threat, it will become necessary in 10 yrs for all AAW ships to extend their bubble over the fleet to the edge of space and mount ATBM weapons . the US is already far ahead with the SM3 experiment and the modified Aegis-BMD radars plus networking with space and airborne assets.

I feel we ought to relook at the P15B design if its supposed to be just a carryover from P15A kolkata class and upsize her given our long build times .... broader in beam and length to atleast be Type45 size and mounted a deep specialized silo area in foredeck to take 24xShourya sized missiles for high level intercepts, and another 64 AAD sized cells for low level intercepts. these will ofcourse be interchangeable with the Barak8 and its follow on 120km version which will certainly be needed.
maybe the rear mast 3D air search radar will need to morph into a BMD radar, while modified MFSTAR in foremast will get handoff and guide out the missiles and track things.

Japan has already decided to repurpose all her 4 Kongo class for BMD and is building a new class of AAW ships to fill in the hole left behind.

if the Cheen gets a good handle on ASBM you can be sure the Pakis will be given some, just to create further trouble for us. and these things with 2000km range can fired and networked from all over the place , simply not possible to keep tables on such mobile assets and take them down 100% even if total air superiority is attained like in ODS, iraq was firing off scuds at night well into the war, even with american planes roaming over every crack in the woodwork. our assets in BoB could face ballistic attacks sourced out of yunnan province and southern china esp if in port for space sensors to get a fix on.

throw in some stealthy inclined box launchers blended into the superstructure amidships for mix of brahmos2 and harpoon type missiles.

the helicopter hanger may be limited to 1 12-t helo give its non-ASW role and the space saved on the sides (broad beam ship) used to stuff in some barak1 boxes and a couple of badass Kashtan-M twin cannon setups.

a clear message needs to be sent out and this is going to be it.

vic · Post by **vic** » 26 Aug 2012 13:06

If Airbus can put a Chappati on top of C295, then putting one on top of Airbus 32x series should not be difficult. DRDO should take out a tender for Chappati equipped aircraft which cab be EMB-195, Boeing 737, Airbus 320 etc

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 26 Aug 2012 13:18

the version that would of interest to us is probably the A319 which is smaller than A320/A321 but carries same fuel. the corporate jet version A319CJ has a higher ceiling and more fuel. somewhere between the A319 and A319CJ is the sweet spot we want in terms of carrying around 25 mission operators (2 sets of crew), 1 extra set of pilots, 2 regular pilots and maybe 2 more people as mission commanders, with business class sets, galley and toilets in section just behind the cockpit, maybe a few overhead bunks as well in the back.......plan should be for 16-20 hr refueled missions in a crisis...which need two sets of crew and pilots for sure.

A319CJ
The A319 is the corporate jet version of the A319. It incorporates removable extra fuel tanks which are installed in the cargo compartment, and an increased service ceiling of 41,000 feet (12,000 m). [115] Range with 8 passengers' payload and the standard four auxiliary fuel tanks is 6,000 nautical miles (11,100 km)

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 27 Aug 2012 02:10

Singha,you are spot on.We need an ABM/AAD DDGH or even a larger cruiser class vessel,that is large enough-at least 12,000t to accommodate LR/ABM missiles as well as LR SSMs and cruise missiles.The last 3 Delhi/Kols could serve as an interim solution with ABM missiles.

John · Post by **John** » 27 Aug 2012 03:36

I am not ABM expert but based on our earlier discussion if i recall correctly a ship based ABM would be very little use to us due to geographic location and the potential threat, unless we have a threat originating from the gulf region.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 27 Aug 2012 03:55

John wrote:I am not ABM expert but based on our earlier discussion if i recall correctly a ship based ABM would be very little use to us due to geographic location and the potential threat, unless we have a threat originating from the gulf region.

Following the same thought process, I am not too sure what are the chances of a sun launch from the South, etc, but I think that is far more credible directional threat than the Gulf. A thought for consideration.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 27 Aug 2012 04:05

Given India's strategic requirements, I would see ABM needs are pretty much needed from any type of launch platforms. It could be large ships, submarines, land based silos, rail and road mobile canisters, mountain top installations, and perhaps even delivered from air [we had seen a tube demo of this].

VinodTK · Post by **VinodTK** » 27 Aug 2012 06:28

Navy’s critical requirement for Israeli Barak missiles stalled due to CBI case

NEW DELHI: The defence ministry has virtually shot down a renewed bid by the Navy to get additional supplies of missiles to arm the Israeli Barak-I anti-missile defence (AMD) systems fitted on 14 frontline warships, including solitary aircraft carrier INS Viraat and three new Shivalik-class stealth frigates.

While the MoD led by defence minister AK Antony accepted the "critical operational urgency'' for acquiring the 262 Barak-I missiles at a cost of over $140 million, it indicated last week that its hands were tied due to the pending CBI investigation into the infamous Barak kickbacks case, sources said.
:
:
: