It could be argued that a sustainable carrier force is a pretty good basis for a sufficient ASW capability. ASW helos and modern submarines (nuc and DE) are considered a must for ASW, India has both and more on order. Don't forget the P-8I order either.
Indian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter dragonfire
- Start date
Agreed, it's not an area India need to improve on in my opinion, it'll mature quite nicely once the carriers come in. Might be able to flog them a few MASC helos to replace their Sea Kings too (IIRC they're in the market).
If I were India, i'd slap BrahMos on absolutely everything I expected to be involved in a "shooting war".
Your points are valid.
Just to add on to the points brought up by ngatimozart. India views the Indian Ocean as its backyard. In other words, it aspires to be the dominant naval power in the Indian Ocean.
Given the strategic rivalry with Pakistan and PRC, India feels that it needs to continue to build up its military capabilities, including having a true blue water navy with 3 aircraft carriers or more. In the naval arena, it is way ahead of Pakistan, but is lagging behind PRC in quite a few areas. It is also a sore point to the Indian Navy that the PLAN is operating in the Gulf of Aden (and hence part of their backyard), whilst they are unable to operate in PRC's backyard (the South China Sea and East China Sea) to a comparable extent.
With regard to ASW, it is a matter of pride in the Indian Navy that they sank a Pakistan submarine in 1971:
News Article in Depth
Not a lot of navies can make such claims, although the Indian Navy do need to modernise and upgrade the current ASW capabilities. But than again, that's what their submarines are for too.
India has 4 main naval bases, 2 which are of continental importance due to geo-int issues and one which is outposted and strategically located because its at the junction of sea lanes of control
Carriers as principle capital ships also do double duty as outposted command posts, it makes perfect sense to have 3 carriers in a widely dispersed strategic environment to fulfill those roles - esp considering the Indian area of maritime responsibility.
If anything, I'd argue that if India was in a position to do so, that she should have 5 carriers, that would leave all bases under effective sea control options and one asset in sustainment
3 is already a compromise
Its got zero to do with chest thumping an ego, its makes tactical sense and strategic sense to have a min of 3 carriers to manage and influence her maritime and geo space.
Carriers require supporting assets to have full utility and effect, and they also need to be able to call on air support in the green and grey at short notice, the current indian force structure enables her to cover off and respond with air support to 3 dispersed carrier groups relatively easily. she has the force redundancy and placement to effect, influence and support multiple groups
what she lacks at this point in time is the relative ratio of air warfare and ASW assets to confidently field and persistently support disparate and dispersed carrier groups. (and maintain her other maritime obligos as CTF's are but one tool in the maritime tool set)
this is only a point in time issue
Last edited:
D'you happen to know if there is any particular reason as to why they're picking different configuration carriers?
IIRC the first is STOBAR, the second is CATOBAR and I have no idea what the third is.
Seems a bit perculiar to me, also does the IN plan on flying the Rafale on future CATOBAR carriers?
If it turns out they're all the same configuration, i'll look like a prize fool
It would appear that the Indians are convinced on the superiority of a CATOBAR ship otherwise why invest the resources to build one. If for some reason it doesn't work out for them, they can alway fall back to STOBAR, right?D'you happen to know if there is any particular reason as to why they're picking different configuration carriers?
IIRC the first is STOBAR, the second is CATOBAR and I have no idea what the third is.
Seems a bit perculiar to me, also does the IN plan on flying the Rafale on future CATOBAR carriers?
If it turns out they're all the same configuration, i'll look like a prize fool
Without appearing unnecessarily harsh, I think their current mixed mode is about poor planning rather than an evolving conops
the conops for STOL and CATOBAR are quite different, the launch rates, load up issues, fuel burn, basic form up issues are very different which means that they are running multiple conops for fundamentally the same mission set - ie reach out and strike.
it also impacts on how the fleet deploys, how they close up on the enemy of land based with its own air support etc...
I really don't see the current Indian navy force structure as planned in detail, its more about reacting to bad exchequer and mil planning fiascos that have never been allowed to develop properly and with approp considewration. thats a malaise that is common across a few services, not just IN
Agreed, it seems very hit'n'miss in that they've done a combination of purchasing a Russian example (Adm. Gorshkov) and then building several different configs themselves. It makes you wonder who is making the decisions.
The situation i've found, is that the IN has bought INS Vikramaditya (Gorshkov) in STOBAR, are building INS Vikrant in STOBAR + planning to build INS Vishal in CATOBAR, is this correct?
I found a bit of interesting bit of old info, at first I thought that the IN may use Rafale or the Su-33 on Vishal (I know they wanted it earlier, but dropped it for the MiG29K due to having to be CATOBAR, i think) at least, only initially, but now i'm not so sure but as usual, all depends on the accuracy of the article
Russian Navy to get fifth generation carrier fighter after 2020 | Defense | RIA Novosti
If the status-quo has changed, I have no idea.
The Vakramaditya is definitely STOBAR, IAC-1 is also STOBAR. IAC-2 is currently hoped/planned to be CATOBAR. The VAK is definitely going to use the MIG-29K. IAC-1 and IAC-2 are undetermined at this time. There are rumors that the IN is getting ready to place an order for 45 more MIG-29K's for IAC-1 but that is unconfirmed to the best of my knowledge.
As far as IAC-2 goes, the IN recently issued an RFI for what amounts to a CATOBAR MRF. There have been ideas floated for a "Sea Typhoon" and "Sea Gripen" but I would have to think the Rafale would be the favorite for IAC-2. I don't see why India would pay to develop CATOBAR variants of the eurofighter and gripen when the rafale will be entering the IAF inventory already.
All this has to be considered very tentative though, IAC-1 is not progressing smoothly at all. They recently had to move it out of dry dock to make room for other construction because the gear boxes for IAC-1 are not ready and they are having some difficulty getting them designed and completed.
Twinblade
Member
The last thing Indian Navy needs is another naval fighter. In my opinion, funding a catobar version of Tejas would be far more economical in the long run for the navy than inducting any other type before AMCA. No matter how long Indian stretchable time for product development might be, a new carrier will take a good part of a decade to arrive.
I thought the navy had rejected the Tejas as unsuitable for their needs?
I don't really know much about the Naval Tejas but I assume it's a STOBAR aircraft (if not, please feel free to completely ignore me) and if so, then i'm not sure why you would want to do so. I'm under the impression that if the airframe is only currently offered in STOBAR (with no mention of CATOBAR) then I assume there'd need to be major strengthening work on the airframe needed to be done to allow it to cope with the forces it would experience with CATOBAR which adds 2 important things; weight + cost.
IIRC it was the same with Tiffy, that EADS said making it CATOBAR rather than STOBAR would be ludicrously expensive and would add some serious weight penalties so I imagine with Tejas (with the tag of "lightweight") this could be a pretty big problem.
dragonfire
New Member
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #554
The second IAC is still in the planning stages and the plans have not been submitted to the CCS (Cabinet Committee for Security) for approval. The Naval Design Directorate has not finalised its plans for the same. It is exploring the options to understand the benefits of CATOBAR so it has issued RFI to various defence contractors in this area, even EMALS was being considered.
IN has ordered 45 Mig-29 K for both the IAC-1 (INS Vikrant) and the INS Vikramaditya (Ex-Gorshkov). The former is supposed to carry about 29 and the latter 16. The other aircrafts for future consideration (read IAC 2) would be Naval Tejas and possibly the Rafale (nothing other than the finalization by IAF to support this view), however the Naval Tejas would be a poor choice in its current class to be considered for CATOBAR ops.
In my opinion IN has enough assets for 2 Carrier Groups currently, some of the members here have stated that IN doesnot have enough ASW assets am not too clear on that considering most new vessels and planned ships are of multi-role design and carry some amount of ASW weapons like anti-submarine rockets and torpedoes and carry Naval Helicopters capable of tracking and attacking sub-surface combatants.
All the current frigate classes & destroyer classes and the in-construction destroyer class (Kolkatta Class) and the planned Frigate class (Project 17 A) have this multi-role capability, is this not sufficient if not what additional capabilities are required.
@ Twain - the first test flight for the Naval Tejas has just been completed recently. The IN has invested its own money in the development of the aircraft so there is no question of the IN having 'rejected' the aircraft, this is not to say that it might not in the future basis needs vs. capability considerations, as of now however the navy has expressed its interest and confidence in the aircraft. The IN had however rejected the Naval Dhruv (helo) as it was not suitable for its needs.
A fifth Naval Base is being constructed near to the existing base in Vishakapatanam on the east coast, a budget of $350 Million has been allocated for the same.
IN has ordered 45 Mig-29 K for both the IAC-1 (INS Vikrant) and the INS Vikramaditya (Ex-Gorshkov). The former is supposed to carry about 29 and the latter 16. The other aircrafts for future consideration (read IAC 2) would be Naval Tejas and possibly the Rafale (nothing other than the finalization by IAF to support this view), however the Naval Tejas would be a poor choice in its current class to be considered for CATOBAR ops.
In my opinion IN has enough assets for 2 Carrier Groups currently, some of the members here have stated that IN doesnot have enough ASW assets am not too clear on that considering most new vessels and planned ships are of multi-role design and carry some amount of ASW weapons like anti-submarine rockets and torpedoes and carry Naval Helicopters capable of tracking and attacking sub-surface combatants.
All the current frigate classes & destroyer classes and the in-construction destroyer class (Kolkatta Class) and the planned Frigate class (Project 17 A) have this multi-role capability, is this not sufficient if not what additional capabilities are required.
@ Twain - the first test flight for the Naval Tejas has just been completed recently. The IN has invested its own money in the development of the aircraft so there is no question of the IN having 'rejected' the aircraft, this is not to say that it might not in the future basis needs vs. capability considerations, as of now however the navy has expressed its interest and confidence in the aircraft. The IN had however rejected the Naval Dhruv (helo) as it was not suitable for its needs.
A fifth Naval Base is being constructed near to the existing base in Vishakapatanam on the east coast, a budget of $350 Million has been allocated for the same.
Twinblade
Member
It has only stated that the current prototype is unsuitable for their needs, the third prototype, NP-3 (with GE-414 engine), would be closer to the specs given by the navy.
At best IAC-2 would be entering service in mid 2020's, right about the time when AMCA should be entering production (if both of them arrive on schedule). Should in case AMCA is delayed, and IAC-2 is indeed a CATOBAR, there would be only 3 options available at that time as an interim solution. F-35C, Rafale and Super Hornet (leased from USN). Since SH might not be available on lease at that time, procuring a squadron worth of either F-35C or Rafale would set back the exchequer by 2-4 billion maybe ? Compare that to the entire projected cost of naval Tejas program, roughly 37 billion rupees, or $750 million, which covers avionics for navy, airframe and flight characteristics modification, throw in another $150 million for the navy's order for prototypes and LSP's . Even if we double to program cost for modification to STOBAR and cost escalation, it might not be a bad interim solution considering that Indian Navy will already be operating 46 of them. Who knows they might even make a little bit of money peddling it as t-45 replacement.
Twinblade
Member
Anyhow, an update on the coastal surveillance project taken up after Mumbai attacks.
This coupled with a dozen P8 and MRMR MPA is going to make a very very formidable combination.
Meanwhile the Project 75 Scorpene production is picking up steam.:-
And the first P8I starts testing:-
defence eXpress: Coastal radar chain to get operationalise
This coupled with a dozen P8 and MRMR MPA is going to make a very very formidable combination.
Meanwhile the Project 75 Scorpene production is picking up steam.:-
http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=507
And the first P8I starts testing:-
http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=499
India
Not good news at all
Not good news at all
Interesting air group, but doesn't 10 ASW helos seem a bit over the top if they're planning on creating CBGs and so, should have plenty of ASW assets without hobbling (in my opinion) the capability of the carrier with that many helos? I mean I know they're dual-purpose with recce but still, bit OTT isn't it?
It's not really news. Every phase of the project has taken far longer than officially predicted. Each failure has been admitted only when it's impossible to hide. One of the early delays was caused by failing to make sure of the availability of the right grade of steel before starting construction. When that was sorted, suddenly it was full steam ahead, & everything would be perfect - until the next unforeseen but easily foreseeable hold-up.
Indian state-owned shipyards exist to employ people, with the building of ships being a secondary consideration - and it shows.
Indian state-owned shipyards exist to employ people, with the building of ships being a secondary consideration - and it shows.
Twinblade
Member
^^ Also, who would have guessed that upscaling the gear box from Shivalik class frigate by a vendor with not too much of an experience, for a ship 7 times its size would be a not so bright idea. Usually the development of a system involves development of subsystems in parallel, in India while developing the subsystems they also have to catch up in technology, which often drives a spanner in the project timeline for every hiccup that they encounter.
Indeed.
I'm afraid it's typical of Indian procurement of indigenous, or partly indigenous, weapons. Plenty of ambition, but failure to build the foundations before starting to put up the walls. And sadly, projects are often treated as self-contained, & capabilities painfully built up for them are lost when they end - see Marut & Ajeet.
Cart before horse syndrome. Politicians want something they can see, & aren't interested in the essential but largely invisible (until you want them & they aren't there) technological & industrial underpinnings that make the big projects possible.
I'm afraid it's typical of Indian procurement of indigenous, or partly indigenous, weapons. Plenty of ambition, but failure to build the foundations before starting to put up the walls. And sadly, projects are often treated as self-contained, & capabilities painfully built up for them are lost when they end - see Marut & Ajeet.
Cart before horse syndrome. Politicians want something they can see, & aren't interested in the essential but largely invisible (until you want them & they aren't there) technological & industrial underpinnings that make the big projects possible.