Indian Navy Developments & Discussions

[Maveli]

Well Russia improved their chances by offering Project 636.3 subs since the Amur 1650 had no chance to begin with.
Amur 1650 is an export version of Lada class which itself faced several problems and design revisions before finally being accepted by the Russian Navy.
No one knows how many problems and design deficiencies the Amur 1650 might encounter.

The Project 636.3 is a proven design, its extremely quiet, cheap to build( $300 million apiece) and packs long range Kalibr cruise missiles.
Before the AIP can be integrated onto the Scorpenes, the Navy wants DRDO to prove the system effectiveness, this can only happen on a sub loaned by the Navy, which most likely will one of the 8 Project 877 Kilo class SSK of the Indian Navy.
If the test is successful and Russia agrees on integrating DRDO built AIP with their P 636.3 subs, we might have a winner on our hands.
Instead of 6 P75I subs, almost 12 such Project 636.3 subs can be built for the same price.

Yeah lets buy more subs originally designed 40+ years ago. We can call them Sindhughosh Mk1A.

 

[FactsPlease]

Anyone care to comment on below link? Several former admirals put some annoying (well, at least to me) remarks. I had verified several positions of them (they did serve, though those remarks can NOT be audited).

India’s Navy, private shipyards flounder as government gives preference to state-owned firms

Quote: "“Despite Indian industry also being on the forefront of most of these technologies, state-owned shipyards have not been able to adopt these disruptive and gamechanging processes of digitalization,” he said."

-- Back to 2020, I'm still echoing my support to outsource navy supply ships to Turkey. Wonder I was wrong...

Indian Navy Developments & Discussions

Problem with more scorpenes is the leak.

defenceforumindia.com

 

[JBH22]

Yeah lets buy more subs originally designed 40+ years ago. We can call them Sindhughosh Mk1A.

If it is a proven design why reinvent the whole wheel. We developed capacity at local shipyard to manufacture only 6 scorpenes, then on account of latest tech we say stop let shipyard remain idle.
Building more with incremental changes in each batches would have made sense. But then it is India why try to make sense out of it

 

[hit&run]

An example of why having as many VLS-cells as possible on a ship is best, instead of overconfidence in a weapon system doctrine of having a handful of VLS of Indian Navy.

The above simulation is of course, in no way represents the real capabilities of any of the platforms, but shows how numerical superiority is equally important than that of technological superiority.

Who doesn't want to watch the whole video, description -

Spoiler: Description

Indian anti-ship group comprising of 16 X Su-30MKI armed with BrahMos, and other supporting elements including Rafale, Mig-29, and Mirage-2000.
The Chinese carrier strike group comprises Liaoning with J-16s, and Type-52C destroyers armed with HQ-16 SAMs.
All 16x BrahMos missiles are launched at the Chinese carrier group, however, they were easily overwhelmed by absolute rain of HQ-16s that wiped out 15 out of 16 BrahMos. Only one BrahMos successfully hit a ship.

Numerical superiority doesn't always work. Japanese had it in the Pacific in backdrop of technological parity.

Most of these simulation fail to add domino effect once either core of the CBG or suporting grid is hit.

Above simulations depict Chess game like sparing where whole chess board and all its peices remains in the game till every piece is not taken out. The queen and king here is obviously ‘hard to take out’ core.

In real combat you dispense tip of your spear in a concentrated attack to hit either the periphery or the core then spread out the theatre and open more frontiers to harass the remaining group.

Unlike US ACC the Chinese carriers are not stand alone comprehensive war winning platforms. In all the likelihood Chinese will never bring them out that far. Even when they are used as main battle ships they will be dependent on support ships to conduct air operations or launching attacks on our ports or ground targets.

 

[THESIS THORON]

Numerical superiority doesn't always work. Japanese had it in the Pacific in backdrop of technological parity.

Most of these simulation fail to add domino effect once either core of the CBG or suporting grid is hit.

Above simulations depict Chess game like sparing where whole chess board and all its peices remains in the game till every piece is not taken out. The queen and king here is obviously ‘hard to take out’ core.

In real combat you dispense tip of your spear in a concentrated attack to hit either the periphery or the core then spread out the theatre and open more frontiers to harass the remaining group.

Unlike US ACC the Chinese carriers are not stand alone comprehensive war winning platforms. In all the likelihood Chinese will never bring them out that far. Even when they are used as main battle ships they will be dependent on support ships to conduct air operations or launching attacks on our ports or ground targets.

but we should have increased the number of brahmos in new p15b and p17a

 

[Lonewolf]

but we should have increased the number of brahmos in new p15b and p17a

Instead of number of brahmos , we should go for more number of ad missile , and some subsonic anti ship missile in 700-800 km range with stealth design

 

[Aniruddha Mulay]

Yeah lets buy more subs originally designed 40+ years ago. We can call them Sindhughosh Mk1A.

Did you even read what I wrote before giving such a retarded take.
Also the Project 636.3 Kilo class subs are not 40 year old, the first one for the Russian Navy was laid down in 2010

 

[THESIS THORON]

Did you even read what I wrote before giving such a retarded take.
Also the Project 636.3 Kilo class subs are not 40 year old, the first one for the Russian Navy was laid down in 2010

Kilo II

does it have vls??

 

[Aniruddha Mulay]

Kilo II

does it have vls??

No, but they can launch 2500km range Kalibr cruise missiles from its torpedo tubes.

 

[Vamsi]

Instead of number of brahmos , we should go for more number of ad missile , and some subsonic anti ship missile in 700-800 km range with stealth design

Just 32 VL-SRSAM will be . 32 VL-SRSAM + 32 Barak-8 is a deadly combination.

 

[ezsasa]

An example of why having as many VLS-cells as possible on a ship is best, instead of overconfidence in a weapon system doctrine of having a handful of VLS of Indian Navy.

The above simulation is of course, in no way represents the real capabilities of any of the platforms, but shows how numerical superiority is equally important than that of technological superiority.

Who doesn't want to watch the whole video, description -

Spoiler: Description

Indian anti-ship group comprising of 16 X Su-30MKI armed with BrahMos, and other supporting elements including Rafale, Mig-29, and Mirage-2000.
The Chinese carrier strike group comprises Liaoning with J-16s, and Type-52C destroyers armed with HQ-16 SAMs.
All 16x BrahMos missiles are launched at the Chinese carrier group, however, they were easily overwhelmed by absolute rain of HQ-16s that wiped out 15 out of 16 BrahMos. Only one BrahMos successfully hit a ship.

without getting into technicalities, the parameters of this particular simulation is designed in such a way that it was setup for failure. might as well wait for simulations designed by our own folks.

 

[Marliii]

without getting into technicalities, the parameters of this particular simulation is designed in such a way that it was setup for failure. might as well wait for simulations designed by our own folks.

The rafales didn't have meteors i believe in this video?

 

[mist_consecutive]

Care to explain what VL-SRSAM is for?

You are missing the point. VL-SRSAM/Barack-1/Barack-8 is there for air defense, but the number of pointy stuff you carry directly affects your operational capability in hostile territory.

Let's say, our ships are blockading the Malacca strait from Chinese warships. They will be faced with an absolute barrage of anti-ship missiles from Chinese ships and strategic bombers. If we assume 2x Barak-8/VL-SRSAM per Chinese anti-ship missile (which is 50% accuracy, pretty high-bar for sea-skimming CMs), a ship will only be able to take on 16x missiles.

Considering the Chinese can easily put more ships than us in Malacca strait, and their destroyers got 64x VLS, it means per Chinese destroyer can keep > 3 Indian ships engaged.

Numerical superiority doesn't always work. Japanese had it in the Pacific in backdrop of technological parity.

Most of these simulation fail to add domino effect once either core of the CBG or suporting grid is hit.

Above simulations depict Chess game like sparing where whole chess board and all its peices remains in the game till every piece is not taken out. The queen and king here is obviously ‘hard to take out’ core.

In real combat you dispense tip of your spear in a concentrated attack to hit either the periphery or the core then spread out the theatre and open more frontiers to harass the remaining group.

Unlike US ACC the Chinese carriers are not stand alone comprehensive war winning platforms. In all the likelihood Chinese will never bring them out that far. Even when they are used as main battle ships they will be dependent on support ships to conduct air operations or launching attacks on our ports or ground targets.

American almost lost 2 of its carieers while fighting Japanese CBGs in high seas (battle of Midway). They were having equal numerical parity with Americans. What actually paved way was good tactics or lack of (by fleet commanders) and of course insane American industrial power to repair their damaged carriers after getting hit.

The amount of ammunition you carry, either be it tank, fighter jet, ship or even infantry, is a direct factor in contributing to its effectiveness. It is not a sole factor of course, as the platform can be taken out even before it can use its weapons.

 

[Aniruddha Mulay]

but we should have increased the number of brahmos in new p15b and p17a

16 Brahmos are more than enough for anti-shipping role.
Instead, the Navy should look to add another 8 VLS systems for land attack cruise missiles since that is where our fleet is lacking.
Also, these ships will be backed up by 32 Barak 8 + 32 VL-SRSAM for AD role once VL-SRSAM is inducted.

 

[mist_consecutive]

without getting into technicalities, the parameters of this particular simulation is designed in such a way that it was setup for failure. might as well wait for simulations designed by our own folks.

Not disagreeing completely. BrahMos is not modeled to undertake any evasive maneuver, the HQ-16s are modeled to be too effective, among other things.

However, as I mentioned, leaving the perfectness of simulation, what I was pointing to was, how numerical superiority is critical and the Indian Navy should focus on it to double its lethality.

The rafales didn't have meteors i believe in this video?

No, they did not. But it does not matter as all BrahMos were launched perfectly.

 

[ezsasa]

Not disagreeing completely. BrahMos is not modeled to undertake any evasive maneuver, the HQ-16s are modeled to be too effective, among other things.

However, as I mentioned, leaving the perfectness of simulation, what I was pointing to was, how numerical superiority is critical and the Indian Navy should focus on it to double its lethality.



No, they did not. But it does not matter as all BrahMos were launched perfectly.

the kids who have created these mods have done a good job, so far so good.
At least Indian kit designed by Indians now has representation in DCS. I hope they are being rewarded properly for their investment.

 

[hit&run]

The rafales didn't have meteors i believe in this video?

Numerical superiority is canceled by the number and size of targets they must destroy. We will simply let them empty their munitions before sinking each one of them. These simulations are very limited and fixed when fighting a war or a battle on seas are far more dynamic yet slow and logistically impossible for a decisive win. The key word here is technological parity.

You are missing the point. VL-SRSAM/Barack-1/Barack-8 is there for air defense, but the number of pointy stuff you carry directly affects your operational capability in hostile territory.

Let's say, our ships are blockading the Malacca strait from Chinese warships. They will be faced with an absolute barrage of anti-ship missiles from Chinese ships and strategic bombers. If we assume 2x Barak-8/VL-SRSAM per Chinese anti-ship missile (which is 50% accuracy, pretty high-bar for sea-skimming CMs), a ship will only be able to take on 16x missiles.

Considering the Chinese can easily put more ships than us in Malacca strait, and their destroyers got 64x VLS, it means per Chinese destroyer can keep > 3 Indian ships engaged.



American almost lost 2 of its carieers while fighting Japanese CBGs in high seas (battle of Midway). They were having equal numerical parity with Americans. What actually paved way was good tactics or lack of (by fleet commanders) and of course insane American industrial power to repair their damaged carriers after getting hit.

The amount of ammunition you carry, either be it tank, fighter jet, ship or even infantry, is a direct factor in contributing to its effectiveness. It is not a sole factor of course, as the platform can be taken out even before it can use its weapons.

Not too sure if that simulation is being justified by spinning the facts this way.

Till 6 months of Pearl Harbour attack American grew no balls to take on Japan.

Few insignificant Doolittle raids on Tokyo which actually became precursor to desperate battle of midway which Japanese planned and forced USA to act (due to code-breaking) there was nothing that suggests Americans were confident with their numbers. Furthermore the day was saved by bombers who were able to have few clean hits that changed the shape of battle in few hours.

The resources Japanese dispensed were endless compare to what USA had advanced in anticipation.

 

[johnj]

An example of why having as many VLS-cells as possible on a ship is best, instead of overconfidence in a weapon system doctrine of having a handful of VLS of Indian Navy.

The above simulation is of course, in no way represents the real capabilities of any of the platforms, but shows how numerical superiority is equally important than that of technological superiority.

Who doesn't want to watch the whole video, description -

Spoiler: Description

Indian anti-ship group comprising of 16 X Su-30MKI armed with BrahMos, and other supporting elements including Rafale, Mig-29, and Mirage-2000.
The Chinese carrier strike group comprises Liaoning with J-16s, and Type-52C destroyers armed with HQ-16 SAMs.
All 16x BrahMos missiles are launched at the Chinese carrier group, however, they were easily overwhelmed by absolute rain of HQ-16s that wiped out 15 out of 16 BrahMos. Only one BrahMos successfully hit a ship.

Ship with a huge vls don't give any advantage against cbg, becz cbg track and destroy enemy ship 800/1000 km away also cbg having air defence ships. Ssn / ssk aip is the best chance.
Also iaf not consider sending rafale , mig 29 or mirage for now or near future, jut some 18 or more mki, and plaan cbg intercept mki 250km away with ease.
Agni ashm is the best choice.

 

[johnj]

You are missing the point. VL-SRSAM/Barack-1/Barack-8 is there for air defense, but the number of pointy stuff you carry directly affects your operational capability in hostile territory.

Let's say, our ships are blockading the Malacca strait from Chinese warships. They will be faced with an absolute barrage of anti-ship missiles from Chinese ships and strategic bombers. If we assume 2x Barak-8/VL-SRSAM per Chinese anti-ship missile (which is 50% accuracy, pretty high-bar for sea-skimming CMs), a ship will only be able to take on 16x missiles.

Considering the Chinese can easily put more ships than us in Malacca strait, and their destroyers got 64x VLS, it means per Chinese destroyer can keep > 3 Indian ships engaged.



American almost lost 2 of its carieers while fighting Japanese CBGs in high seas (battle of Midway). They were having equal numerical parity with Americans. What actually paved way was good tactics or lack of (by fleet commanders) and of course insane American industrial power to repair their damaged carriers after getting hit.

The amount of ammunition you carry, either be it tank, fighter jet, ship or even infantry, is a direct factor in contributing to its effectiveness. It is not a sole factor of course, as the platform can be taken out even before it can use its weapons.

can't compare close fight vs long fight and stupidity vs brilliance.
Now cbg see further and can strike 1000km away, carry multiple layer of AD.
Best way to counter CBG, submarine and multiple type of ash missile.
Also plan dont/never consider sending ski jump carriers, but super carrier, lhd [4 carrier min] with 15/20 other vessel. Best way to counter- Long range Ash missile, ssk aip and ssn[ Russian testing/building counter cbg]. IN having plan to acquire ssn. ssk aip, can lease more ssn, and can acquire lrasm, 800km brahmos , sub with brahmos, now question is about drdo- hypersonic missile, Agni ashbm ? Also chinese still need to master cbg/large group operations. Still time is there.

 

[THESIS THORON]

Nasms mr and lr

how many numbers in each destroyer ??