P-18/Next Generation Destroyer class (NGD)

[swapcv]

BTW, does anybody know the size of DRDO LR-MFR? And if its GaN or GaAs based? If its the former, it would be comparable to the AMDR (SPY-6). Hoping that its alteast 6 meter diameter. Even the Americans want that size on their destroyers, but they are making do with a 4 meter one (lesser RMAs) in their Flight III Arleigh Burkes. But their future destroyers will likely have a 6-meter diameter SPY-6 variant. A larger radar would allow us to have P-18 destroyers placed in Bay of Bengal for BMD roles as well. Would be great if we standardize on P-18 class like the Americans standardized on their Arleigh Burke class.

Prototypes might be GaAs based but I'd guess by now a GaN based version is already in the works. Also heard that it will also be installed as a shore based radar in a similar manner to AEGIS Ashore concept.

 

[johnj]

Standardizing like USN is not a good idea why? IN's budget will be much higher next decade. Its better to standardize now because most weapons and sensors on P-18 are going to be up to date and will be indigenous. We'll need to build a lot of boats in the 2030s and 2040s. We built 10 P-15 over 25 years. Will likely build many more P-18. Unless we need a drastic shift to railguns or tumblehome or DEW, makes sense to standardize. IN's DND now has the experience to design future-proof ships.
IN doesn't need BMD? Then what are AD-1 and AD-2 for? DRDO has compared them to Aster-30 Block1NT and SM-3 respectively. BMD for IN makes sense given the Pakis and Chinese are brandishing ballistic missiles as carrier killers (though they are doubtful). Also makes sense to guard us against Chinese SLBMs. as well as any other threat that might rear its head within next three-four decades.
Yeah, maybe DRDO does need more time for GaN.

what do you know about drdo lr mfr and its surface search capability ?
I really want to know about mfr, mfstar drdo type and IN IEP options.
Nuclear Ballistic missiles. please dont make comparison. endo exo terminal phase interceptors. why nuke sea ? no need. Only usa. india, russia and israel having such capabilities. Aster 30 have such capability then it is good for land base or protecting cbg,. In the case of usn they having mid course , terminal and anti sat capability and sm3 just a small part of it. Except antisat cap IN dont need such capability. PN use cruise missile and chinese ssn with same or cbg. no BM threat. Imp point- Indian ABM def for pak nuke. also barak8/er having limited ABM capability.
Standardize- you already knew about ddg 1000. USN want to replace burkes with zumwalt, now how many zum ? Still depend on semi stealth burkes and trying to improve its stealth. usn wanted new design for ccg and ddg, but stuck with old improved. Better buy a design for a small period and design better ones to keep up with new advanced ones. since 2 cbg, 7 p18 and 5 p18a and next gen 10 looks fine to me. imp point - IN defence fund share, 13% and not good considering vintage outdated iaf ia equipment wrt pla,plaaf, paf, pa, isi etc. Chinese design by block and their block a is different from block c and new design comes next.

 

[johnj]

Prototypes might be GaAs based but I'd guess by now a GaN based version is already in the works. Also heard that it will also be installed as a shore based radar in a similar manner to AEGIS Ashore concept.

give me details of lr mfr surface/sea search capability, aegis ashore is bmd like system and similar to thaad ?

 

[Bleh]

Standardizing like USN is not a good idea why?

Because standardization has it down side look at the Indian Sukhoi-30 fleet... that can be considered pretty standard. And what we have right now are old and upgraded chats that had been standardized back ine 2001.

It's better to do step by step, except India has not been doing that very well like we ordered only 3 Shivalik class, 4 Kamorta classwhen we could have done upto 10 & then moved on to the Future model based on it.

 

[Okabe Rintarou]

Prototypes might be GaAs based but I'd guess by now a GaN based version is already in the works. Also heard that it will also be installed as a shore based radar in a similar manner to AEGIS Ashore concept.

Its sort of like AEGIS Ashore but isn't exactly that. @Gessler says LRMFR is naval version of IAF's DRDO HPR. HPR is for replacing old IAF radars like THD-5000. HPR along with MPR Arudhra will be the eyes of the IACCS. AEGIS Ashore is more of a BMD system as I understand it. HPR is for Air Defence with limited BMD role, if any.

what do you know about drdo lr mfr and its surface search capability ?
I really want to know about mfr, mfstar drdo type and IN IEP options.
Nuclear Ballistic missiles. please dont make comparison. endo exo terminal phase interceptors. why nuke sea ? no need. Only usa. india, russia and israel having such capabilities. Aster 30 have such capability then it is good for land base or protecting cbg,. In the case of usn they having mid course , terminal and anti sat capability and sm3 just a small part of it. Except antisat cap IN dont need such capability. PN use cruise missile and chinese ssn with same or cbg. no BM threat. Imp point- Indian ABM def for pak nuke. also barak8/er having limited ABM capability.

Lets see. I still think P-18 will have BMD capability.

Standardize- you already knew about ddg 1000. USN want to replace burkes with zumwalt, now how many zum ? Still depend on semi stealth burkes and trying to improve its stealth. usn wanted new design for ccg and ddg, but stuck with old improved. Better buy a design for a small period and design better ones to keep up with new advanced ones. since 2 cbg, 7 p18 and 5 p18a and next gen 10 looks fine to me. imp point - IN defence fund share, 13% and not good considering vintage outdated iaf ia equipment wrt pla,plaaf, paf, pa, isi etc. Chinese design by block and their block a is different from block c and new design comes next.

Because standardization has it down side look at the Indian Sukhoi-30 fleet... that can be considered pretty standard. And what we have right now are old and upgraded chats that had been standardized back ine 2001.

It's better to do step by step, except India has not been doing that very well like we ordered only 3 Shivalik class, 4 Kamorta classwhen we could have done upto 10 & then moved on to the Future model based on it.

1) That makes sense in case of submarines, where we are behind in tech. In warships, we are pretty much there, P-18 is the final step (for now).
2) Ships are much more amenable to upgrades than fighters. Heck even Su-30MKI will be beasts after Super Sukhoi upgrade.
3) When I say standardize, I mean standardize the way US Navy did: There is a world of difference between Flight I, II, IIA, IIA TI, III of Arleigh Burke class. They went from PESA to GaN AESA in radars, for example. Standardize around SM family of missiles, but occasionally, newer capabilities will be used to upgrade old missiles and even new missiles incorporated (SM-6 for example).

 

[swapcv]

Wrt warships, we also have to now focus on a suitable replacement for the Delhi class DDG. With the oldest now 24 years old, in 10-15 years they'll be long in the tooth. A P-18B class might perhaps be suitable. Hopefully unlike how P-15 and P-15B are radically different, P-18 and P-18B will be like an incremental improvement in the same vein as how the USN improves their ship through flights of the same class or the British batch equivalent.

 

[johnj]

Its sort of like AEGIS Ashore but isn't exactly that. @Gessler says LRMFR is naval version of IAF's DRDO HPR. HPR is for replacing old IAF radars like THD-5000. HPR along with MPR Arudhra will be the eyes of the IACCS. AEGIS Ashore is more of a BMD system as I understand it. HPR is for Air Defence with limited BMD role, if any.


Lets see. I still think P-18 will have BMD capability.



1) That makes sense in case of submarines, where we are behind in tech. In warships, we are pretty much there, P-18 is the final step (for now).
2) Ships are much more amenable to upgrades than fighters. Heck even Su-30MKI will be beasts after Super Sukhoi upgrade.
3) When I say standardize, I mean standardize the way US Navy did: There is a world of difference between Flight I, II, IIA, IIA TI, III of Arleigh Burke class. They went from PESA to GaN AESA in radars, for example. Standardize around SM family of missiles, but occasionally, newer capabilities will be used to upgrade old missiles and even new missiles incorporated (SM-6 for example).

Question is what kind of BMD ? Barak 8/er already having BMD capability and same goes to aster 30 but none of comes closer to usn bmd.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
submarines, search for pakistan, chinese, korean and usn pgm, upto date upgradation and same class different block.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
beast, powerful,advanced, a lots of words and upgraded su30mki no match for f4 rafale plus yet to develop tech.
yes like f16 to f21 but better still not f35.
Imp point - for those up graded block, need MONEY.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
back to standardize, google for talwar, p15 etc and we are not 20pus trillion $ economy, its best we can do.
IN already struggling for funds and reduced its req and goi give more importance to iaf,ia. you point- super sukhoi - need 7 to 10 billion $ for making them beast. Try this way, most of warship lack someting, worst case major item, kalvari class - advanced torpedo/aip, kamorta class-atas and qrsrsam, saryu - no missiles.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Before you make further comparison, better compare usn/usmc with uk royal navy becz IN similar to Royal navy not even come close to usn/usmc in warfare/military doctrine.
IN interested in IEP becz RN also using it, rfp for qrsrsam considering camm. IN follows EU style navy not US. If you compare USN warship vs IN, sorry, there is nothing to compare. Now IN works with Italy for design boats, may be France and US in future.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Imp point- Right now only USN/Japanese Navy capable of knock out ballistic missile during mid course[USAF/EU/Russia/PLAN dont] means zero comparison vs USN BMD capability even S500 come close and now developing hypersonic interceptor.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think, like uk,france IN give importance to hypersonic anti ship and long range cruise missile, may be standard uvls for brahmos er/ brahmos 2/nirbhay naval and another standard vls for barak8/barak8er/vlsrsam and chance is dim for camm due to uk support for separatist group and pak group.
DRDO already developing irst, iir, irccm, irastra, qrsam etc, so IN can ask naval version of isrt/tv/ots and qrsrsam with out quad pack[ right now im considering astra and not irccm becz irccm take more time than irastra]. adding more huge vls increase weight to 3kt to 5kt, adding it to p15b eventually become p18, major question is IEP, LR RF sensor, crews size and stealth. May be drdo dedelop lr mf air/sea 3d search rf sensor in the place of lw08. 600km range.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEARCH OF LIMITATION OF SEA/GROUND RADAR FOR TRACKING LOW FLYING/ SEA SKIMMING STEALTH TARGET.

 

[johnj]

Wrt warships, we also have to now focus on a suitable replacement for the Delhi class DDG. With the oldest now 24 years old, in 10-15 years they'll be long in the tooth. A P-18B class might perhaps be suitable. Hopefully unlike how P-15 and P-15B are radically different, P-18 and P-18B will be like an incremental improvement in the same vein as how the USN improves their ship through flights of the same class or the British batch equivalent.

IN follows UK, by using improvements by batch and major modification by class. talwar - p17 // p15a-p15b-p17b//p18a-p18b-lite p18c[ffg] for major boats.

 

[Okabe Rintarou]

Question is what kind of BMD ? Barak 8/er already having BMD capability and same goes to aster 30 but none of comes closer to usn bmd.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
submarines, search for pakistan, chinese, korean and usn pgm, upto date upgradation and same class different block.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
beast, powerful,advanced, a lots of words and upgraded su30mki no match for f4 rafale plus yet to develop tech.
yes like f16 to f21 but better still not f35.
Imp point - for those up graded block, need MONEY.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
back to standardize, google for talwar, p15 etc and we are not 20pus trillion $ economy, its best we can do.
IN already struggling for funds and reduced its req and goi give more importance to iaf,ia. you point- super sukhoi - need 7 to 10 billion $ for making them beast. Try this way, most of warship lack someting, worst case major item, kalvari class - advanced torpedo/aip, kamorta class-atas and qrsrsam, saryu - no missiles.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Before you make further comparison, better compare usn/usmc with uk royal navy becz IN similar to Royal navy not even come close to usn/usmc in warfare/military doctrine.
IN interested in IEP becz RN also using it, rfp for qrsrsam considering camm. IN follows EU style navy not US. If you compare USN warship vs IN, sorry, there is nothing to compare. Now IN works with Italy for design boats, may be France and US in future.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Imp point- Right now only USN/Japanese Navy capable of knock out ballistic missile during mid course[USAF/EU/Russia/PLAN dont] means zero comparison vs USN BMD capability even S500 come close and now developing hypersonic interceptor.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think, like uk,france IN give importance to hypersonic anti ship and long range cruise missile, may be standard uvls for brahmos er/ brahmos 2/nirbhay naval and another standard vls for barak8/barak8er/vlsrsam and chance is dim for camm due to uk support for separatist group and pak group.
DRDO already developing irst, iir, irccm, irastra, qrsam etc, so IN can ask naval version of isrt/tv/ots and qrsrsam with out quad pack[ right now im considering astra and not irccm becz irccm take more time than irastra]. adding more huge vls increase weight to 3kt to 5kt, adding it to p15b eventually become p18, major question is IEP, LR RF sensor, crews size and stealth. May be drdo dedelop lr mf air/sea 3d search rf sensor in the place of lw08. 600km range.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEARCH OF LIMITATION OF SEA/GROUND RADAR FOR TRACKING LOW FLYING/ SEA SKIMMING STEALTH TARGET.

What type of BMD you ask? A two-tier one with first tier being AD-2 (equivalent to SM-3) to shoot down missiles in thermosphere and second tier being AD-1 (equivalent of Aster 30 Block1NT) to shoot down any enemy missiles that still manage to enter the stratosphere.
American and Japanese navies can only intercept IRBMs in mid-course. For mid-course interception of ICBM, you need something like American GBI or Indian PDV MkII. For hypersonic missile interception, you need more agility in your interceptor and more importantly: tracking sensors that look down, mounted on satellites/pseudo-satellites/aerostats/planes. Even Americans are yet to field a full fledged capability in that regard, but they are the ones closest to it. Maybe we need a dedicated thread to discuss that topic. Anyways, getting back on topic, Indian Navy will field a BMD capability very similar to the USN and superior to Royal Navy through its P-18 class. When you say: "sorry IN has ships like Europeans, not Americans", you are talking about the present. I am talking about the future.
Its laughable to suggest that LR-MFR should succeed/replace LW-08. Maybe come back when you can differentiate between an L-band surveillance radar and an S-band tracking radar.
Sorry bro, I don't have the heart to sort out all the right and wrong lines in your reply, we can have discussion about submarines and aircraft on relevant threads.

 

[johnj]

What type of BMD you ask? A two-tier one with first tier being AD-2 (equivalent to D) to shoot down missiles in thermosphere and second tier being AD-1 (equivalent of Aster 30 Block1NT) to shoot down any enemy missiles that still manage to enter the stratosphere.
American and Japanese navies can only intercept IRBMs in mid-course. For mid-course interception of ICBM, you need something like American GBI or Indian PDV MkII. For hypersonic missile interception, you need more agility in your interceptor and more importantly: tracking sensors that look down, mounted on satellites/pseudo-satellites/aerostats/planes. Even Americans are yet to field a full fledged capability in that regard, but they are the ones closest to it. Maybe we need a dedicated thread to discuss that topic. Anyways, getting back on topic, Indian Navy will field a BMD capability very similar to the USN and superior to Royal Navy through its P-18 class. When you say: "sorry IN has ships like Europeans, not Americans", you are talking about the present. I am talking about the future.
Its laughable to suggest that LR-MFR should succeed/replace LW-08. Maybe come back when you can differentiate between an L-band surveillance radar and an S-band tracking radar.
Sorry bro, I don't have the heart to sort out all the right and wrong lines in your reply, we can have discussion about submarines and aircraft on relevant threads.

What I'm say is what IN admirals already said, you can say what ever you want or like, but Indian navy always remain Indian Navy, you cant change that. Only place i'm not sure is DRDO part.
IN already rejected US Aegis offer.
Now you want agni4 missile in p18, great.
IN can easily modify barak8 lr to a30nt.
Now face the reality, DRDO need more than 1 decade for phase 2 and first it comes for ground use.
For you information, p18 construction starts in this decade not in 2040...... means IN already started.
Laughable, yes but IN really need that and band doesn't matter, L/S/X no problem but need AESA tech.
In the case of ELM, still need more info and right now LR MFR is for DRDO purpose and huge not comparable to ELM, better use DRDO thread. ''Sorry bro, I don't have the heart to sort out all the right and wrong lines in your reply, we can have discussion about submarines and aircraft on relevant threads."' no need, its not going to prove any thing.
Im 85% accurate in IN topic. 70% in IAF, 50% in DRDO becz I follow warfighters, defence top officials and Politics.

 

[THESIS THORON]

What I'm say is what IN admirals already said, you can say what ever you want or like, but Indian navy always remain Indian Navy, you cant change that. Only place i'm not sure is DRDO part.
IN already rejected US Aegis offer.
Now you want agni4 missile in p18, great.
IN can easily modify barak8 lr to a30nt.
Now face the reality, DRDO need more than 1 decade for phase 2 and first it comes for ground use.
For you information, p18 construction starts in this decade not in 2040...... means IN already started.
Laughable, yes but IN really need that and band doesn't matter, L/S/X no problem but need AESA tech.
In the case of ELM, still need more info and right now LR MFR is for DRDO purpose and huge not comparable to ELM, better use DRDO thread. ''Sorry bro, I don't have the heart to sort out all the right and wrong lines in your reply, we can have discussion about submarines and aircraft on relevant threads."' no need, its not going to prove any thing.
Im 85% accurate in IN topic. 70% in IAF, 50% in DRDO becz I follow warfighters, defence top officials and Politics.

brah,
1. isnt lrmfr mature ?? (with gaas tech )

2. if there is no abm then why make 13000 ton ship ?? make 10000t ship

3. imo p 18 will start around 2024 and completion will take 10 yrs, till then most of tech will be developed

4. imo in should work this project as they did with kalvari class subs. (aip thing will be installed afterwards)
in same way abm will be installed later

 

[johnj]

brah,
1. isnt lrmfr mature ?? (with gaas tech )

2. if there is no abm then why make 13000 ton ship ?? make 10000t ship

3. imo p 18 will start around 2024 and completion will take 10 yrs, till then most of tech will be developed

4. imo in should work this project as they did with kalvari class subs. (aip thing will be installed afterwards)
in same way abm will be installed later

1. yes but too big and qrsrsam status unknown, irst/tv unknown with out those using it for BMD is not a good idea considering PN anti ship missile and AIP subs. but can use a scale down version on top with out BMD. DRDO already having sea and air search capability,and thanks to your posts[DRDO]. Lots of unknown.
2.land attack/ brahmos missile and IN possess threats from non BM mostly. barak 8/er having limited ABM capability. Both PN and PLAN use non BM against IN. and now IN a lots of SSM.
3. just assume by 2028, still DRDO need to demonstrate full hardware capacity somehow to finish the design of boat to start building. and still I dont have enough info. and IN already rejected US offer for ffg. Maybe IN use MFSTAR as base and use DRDO MFSTAR once available. But why LR air search for aboard when DRDO can easily develop one ? Since i dont know its answer, i keeping elm alive for now.
4. when kalvari started there is no aip, and DRDO aip not related to kalvari. you already knew kalvari is a old pgm and took more than a decade and yet no aip. but kalvari class is upgradable with aip, funny thing a gen old is capable of aip. who said only surface boats only capable of major upgradion and submarine cant.
I like you post in engg/sci DRDO category. so why LR air search for aboard when DRDO can easily develop one ? why navy choose top for radar not like below deck ? why only 250km for indian MFSTAR ? and details about lr mfr ? - help me out.
In the case of IN, its primary threats comes from submarine, torpedo and. AShM. and BM not a concern unless chinese starts deploying BM in ior countries. 8 ssn for aus works in favor to counter plan ssbn.
in converted air defence ship pgm into iac1, considering past and near future BMD not a top priority. once drdo phase2 mature then ok with bmd, p18b. US offered aegis to IN and israel arrow3 is ship capable and IN didnr shown any interest. Better consider real threats like PN super anti ship missile, naval cruise missile etc and super/hyper sonic AShM from chinese in future. another question- does PN having mach4 puls terminal AShM ? Im following your posts.

 

[Okabe Rintarou]

What I'm say is what IN admirals already said, you can say what ever you want or like, but Indian navy always remain Indian Navy, you cant change that. Only place i'm not sure is DRDO part.
IN already rejected US Aegis offer.
Now you want agni4 missile in p18, great.
IN can easily modify barak8 lr to a30nt.
Now face the reality, DRDO need more than 1 decade for phase 2 and first it comes for ground use.
For you information, p18 construction starts in this decade not in 2040...... means IN already started.
Laughable, yes but IN really need that and band doesn't matter, L/S/X no problem but need AESA tech.
In the case of ELM, still need more info and right now LR MFR is for DRDO purpose and huge not comparable to ELM, better use DRDO thread. ''Sorry bro, I don't have the heart to sort out all the right and wrong lines in your reply, we can have discussion about submarines and aircraft on relevant threads."' no need, its not going to prove any thing.
Im 85% accurate in IN topic. 70% in IAF, 50% in DRDO becz I follow warfighters, defence top officials and Politics.

Utter drivel.
1.) US Aegis is obviously not interesting to IN because its an American system, comes with strings attached. Why not develop own Aegis?
2.) I never said "put Agni IV on P-18". Are you off your rocker?
3.) SM-3 entered service couple decades after Arleigh Burke class entered service. Similarly AD-1 and AD-2 can easily enter service in early 2030s once the required testing phase is satisfactorily complete. P-18 construction timeline doesn't depend on AD-1 or AD-2.
4.) I am asking you again, please educate yourself about radar bands and roles of search radars vis-a-vis tracking radars before you engage me with nonsense like "bands don't matter".
5.) My last on the "IN never said it needed BMD" topic: IN never said otherwise either. IN has never been offered such a capability by any Indian entity. BMD won't be the main role of P-18, but it would be prudent to have it as an option. There'll be 100+ VLS on the P-18, having a few earmarked for BMD gives the commander more flexibility. The main loadout will still be SAMs and AShM. LACM/BMD/ASW missiles might be carried based on mission requirements.

 

[johnj]

Utter drivel.
1.) US Aegis is obviously not interesting to IN because its an American system, comes with strings attached. Why not develop own Aegis?
2.) I never said "put Agni IV on P-18". Are you off your rocker?
3.) SM-3 entered service couple decades after Arleigh Burke class entered service. Similarly AD-1 and AD-2 can easily enter service in early 2030s once the required testing phase is satisfactorily complete. P-18 construction timeline doesn't depend on AD-1 or AD-2.
4.) I am asking you again, please educate yourself about radar bands and roles of search radars vis-a-vis tracking radars before you engage me with nonsense like "bands don't matter".
5.) My last on the "IN never said it needed BMD" topic: IN never said otherwise either. IN has never been offered such a capability by any Indian entity. BMD won't be the main role of P-18, but it would be prudent to have it as an option. There'll be 100+ VLS on the P-18, having a few earmarked for BMD gives the commander more flexibility. The main loadout will still be SAMs and AShM. LACM/BMD/ASW missiles might be carried based on mission requirements.

1. no desi aegis yet. and in buying p8i, romeo and cant use against usa interest seriously ? what kind of restriction usa going to put on a defence equipment ? ffg having usa main gun, engine etc, make your statement correct.
2. do you know anything about pdv2.
3.IN dont care.
4.band dont matter if it can meet IN requirements,
5. if IN wants they say they want dont keep quit. still no desi aegis offer, so my theory right. first p18 or p18a, but you talking about p18b, their ia a big difference. Im talking what IN said or following and you making assumptions.
6. i already told you, you basically no idea about IN. IN never waste funds but you having good idea about usn and plan.

 

[Okabe Rintarou]

1. no desi aegis yet. and in buying p8i, romeo and cant use against usa interest seriously ? what kind of restriction usa going to put on a defence equipment ? ffg having usa main gun, engine etc, make your statement correct.
2. do you know anything about pdv2.
3.IN dont care.
4.band dont matter if it can meet IN requirements,
5. if IN wants they say they want dont keep quit. still no desi aegis offer, so my theory right. first p18 or p18a, but you talking about p18b, their ia a big difference. Im talking what IN said or following and you making assumptions.
6. i already told you, you basically no idea about IN. IN never waste funds but you having good idea about usn and plan.

1.) Right. And while we are at it, might as well buy SuperHornets because Murican gods have offered it. What was that? IN still not ordering SuperHornets? Well that just means IN doesn't want carrier based fighters. What is TEDBF? Nonsense! DRDO is doing TEDBF on its own, IN never gave a requirement. If IN wanted carrier based fighters it would have simply bought SuperHornets. Why not? IN already uses Murican SRGM, Gas Turbine, Romeo, P-8I, so ofcourse it wouldn't think about making anything indigenously and simply buy Murican because the Murican gods offered it.
2.) Ofcourse I know nothing about PDV2. Only you, the great Yogi who has been studying defence matters since 1999 know of the PDV2. I've never even heard about any 128X128 Focal Plannar Arrays that we've only recently developed in India after some stupid event called Mission Shakti in 2019.
3.) AD-1 and AD-2 development timelines don't affect P-18 construction timelines, so you are right, IN doesn't care.
4.) You are right sir, band don't matter if it meets IN requirement. So lets use a pencil beam to look for targets and hope they are slow enough that we manage to find them in time.
5.) You are right sir, if IN wanted BMD, they would have told you first and foremost, just like they told you there will be P-18A and P-18B variants.
6.) Yes sir, I have no idea about IN. I am just talking out of my a$$ when I say that the nuclear boats that follow P-75A and the SSKs of P-76 class will have Electric Drives and will thus likely be quieter than 95Db.


You could just as easily have written: "STFU, cause you know nothing" and this post would have meant the same. This has turned into a pointless discussion. I've made my point, not replying to your bull$hit anymore.

 

[swapcv]

1. no desi aegis yet. and in buying p8i, romeo and cant use against usa interest seriously ? what kind of restriction usa going to put on a defence equipment ? ffg having usa main gun, engine etc, make your statement correct.
2. do you know anything about pdv2.
3.IN dont care.
4.band dont matter if it can meet IN requirements,
5. if IN wants they say they want dont keep quit. still no desi aegis offer, so my theory right. first p18 or p18a, but you talking about p18b, their ia a big difference. Im talking what IN said or following and you making assumptions.
6. i already told you, you basically no idea about IN. IN never waste funds but you having good idea about usn and plan.

How About Nope x6

 

[johnj]

How About Nope x6

works for you but not for IN. I never write against IN.

 

[swapcv]

works for you but not for IN. I never write against IN.

That already reeks of bias you know. One has to be objective in this field, biased opinions and borderline arrogance only set up the stage for a disaster to follow. Case in point, American underestimation of their adversaries capabilities in conflicts from recent past.

 

[johnj]

1.) Right. And while we are at it, might as well buy SuperHornets because Murican gods have offered it. What was that? IN still not ordering SuperHornets? Well that just means IN doesn't want carrier based fighters. What is TEDBF? Nonsense! DRDO is doing TEDBF on its own, IN never gave a requirement. If IN wanted carrier based fighters it would have simply bought SuperHornets. Why not? IN already uses Murican SRGM, Gas Turbine, Romeo, P-8I, so ofcourse it wouldn't think about making anything indigenously and simply buy Murican because the Murican gods offered it.
2.) Ofcourse I know nothing about PDV2. Only you, the great Yogi who has been studying defence matters since 1999 know of the PDV2. I've never even heard about any 128X128 Focal Plannar Arrays that we've only recently developed in India after some stupid event called Mission Shakti in 2019.
3.) AD-1 and AD-2 development timelines don't affect P-18 construction timelines, so you are right, IN doesn't care.
4.) You are right sir, band don't matter if it meets IN requirement. So lets use a pencil beam to look for targets and hope they are slow enough that we manage to find them in time.
5.) You are right sir, if IN wanted BMD, they would have told you first and foremost, just like they told you there will be P-18A and P-18B variants.
6.) Yes sir, I have no idea about IN. I am just talking out of my a$$ when I say that the nuclear boats that follow P-75A and the SSKs of P-76 class will have Electric Drives and will thus likely be quieter than 95Db.


You could just as easily have written: "STFU, cause you know nothing" and this post would have meant the same. This has turned into a pointless discussion. I've made my point, not replying to your bull$hit anymore.

Seriously what are you talking about ? if IN want ABM, IN consider USA offer, and IN already brought more than 10b $ equipment from US. IN interested in SH and working with USA to find out suitability of SH in IN carrier. ADA developed lca naval and Navy rejected it due to single engine and IN always support indian product and supporting ada tedbf. I brought P18a/b to support your standardize theory and your ABM theory and lr mfr in place of L band to support ABM capability similar to aster 30. DRDO already developed those capability. both agni4 and prithvi big missile, but aad is not. DRDO can use uvls for aad. Means if required IN can upgrade to p15b with ABM. I cant support your aegis BMD, but partial aegis or THAAD, arrow3 like on IN boats, but not so useful, since brack 8er having limited ABM capability and chinese and pak dont use ballistic missile to attack IN boats present and near future.
IN already shown interested in IEP, DEW. IN having no problem with USA technology in IAC2 and IN shown interested in EMLS and E2D for IAC2.
Comparing usn boat with IN boat dont help me or prove you right, why do you prove your theory by bring LR MFR, DB RF sensor like AMDR or type 346.
No country in the world having aegis like capability, its one of the kind, USA can track ICBM using space based sensors, give info to ground stations, aegis boats,aew aircraft etc track it, find it path and give info to most suitable aegis boat near to missile path and with high interception chance to knock it down.

 

[johnj]

That already reeks of bias you know. One has to be objective in this field, biased opinions and borderline opinions only set up the stage for a disaster to follow. Case in point, American underestimation of their adversaries capabilities in conflicts from recent past.

Seriously, IN scorpene class lacks advanced torpedo and aip like pn ones. kamorta lacks qrsam, atas, reduced fundes, reduced nos. of p8i, lhd and funds for ssn unknown. ABM capability is least important.
In my logic p18 need 16 qrsam 32 barak6 16 barak 8er, 48 uvls plus atas, torpedo, decoy depth charge etc- now stands 112 vls considering plan cbg or normal battle group. 48 uvls for 16 brahmos er, 8 for brahmos 2, 16 naval lrcm 8 for smart or another 8lrcm. No DRDO BMD becz no idea about mf star or lr rf sensor replacement, little info about lr mfr.
in simple first give me some info about rf sensors and small interceptor for mid course.
Bottom line- once available, navy consider upgrade if funds available like scorpene class aip. for your info. pak or china use cruse or non ballistic missile with sub/super/hyper sonic speed and i didnt see any one saying DRDO developing phase1 into naval systems.[3000km BMD looks great]
Blindly following USN boats is not good by the way why IN need mid course interceptors [no offence] from your point, plz dont write USN do it so IN also do the same - OBJECTIVE ? '' Case in point, American underestimation of their adversaries capabilities in conflicts from recent past.'' you are right and this is the main point Im saying. and usa having a lots of aegis boats.