Dismiss Notice
Welcome to IDF- Indian Defence Forum , register for free to join this friendly community of defence enthusiastic from around the world. Make your opinion heard and appreciated.

Future of Indian Navy : A complete compilation

Discussion in 'Indian Navy' started by Gessler, Aug 31, 2014.

  1. Aqwoyk

    Aqwoyk Lieutenant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2016
    Messages:
    507
    Likes Received:
    486
    Country Flag:
    India
    I see what you did there :troll:
    But having our own SM-3/6 like SAM is necessary for us and AD series fits into that. Even Chinese are developing hq16
     
    Last edited: Dec 12, 2016
  2. Aqwoyk

    Aqwoyk Lieutenant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2016
    Messages:
    507
    Likes Received:
    486
    Country Flag:
    India
    Anyone here who thinks 250 km range of MF Star is low as the present 52c/d destroyers of Chinese employ dual band AESA with 400 km range and 55d must be employing a further enhanced range radar and us with measly 250 km one.
     
  3. Gessler

    Gessler Mod Staff Member MODERATOR

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2012
    Messages:
    9,220
    Likes Received:
    7,696
    Country Flag:
    India
    I believe 250km is the tracking range against fighter-sized targets. Maximum detection/search range is likely to be higher, might well be around 400km just like the SAMPSON (Type-45 Daring) which has similar dimensions & function.

    Besides, MFSTAR on Kolkata/Bengaluru-class DDGs has a high mast-placed array placement compared to the Type-052D/055 which have superstructure-based arrays like the Burke. High-placed radars have an advantage in that they can potentially detect sea-skimming targets at farther ranges. The T45 has such an advantage compared to the Burke.
     
    Abingdonboy, HariPrasad and Aqwoyk like this.
  4. Aqwoyk

    Aqwoyk Lieutenant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2016
    Messages:
    507
    Likes Received:
    486
    Country Flag:
    India
    May be you are right and our kolkata class destroyers are better designed when it comes to sensor placement. Even our ffGs are better designed.
     
  5. HariPrasad

    HariPrasad Lieutenant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2016
    Messages:
    595
    Likes Received:
    561
    Country Flag:
    India
    better do not believe chinese claim.
     
    Abingdonboy likes this.
  6. HariPrasad

    HariPrasad Lieutenant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2016
    Messages:
    595
    Likes Received:
    561
    Country Flag:
    India
    Very true.
     
  7. Aqwoyk

    Aqwoyk Lieutenant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2016
    Messages:
    507
    Likes Received:
    486
    Country Flag:
    India
    They are trying to achieve parity with US systems so we have to make our things equivalent to them.
     
  8. HariPrasad

    HariPrasad Lieutenant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2016
    Messages:
    595
    Likes Received:
    561
    Country Flag:
    India
    yes but with their Shitty R & D , they can hardly do that. We must focus more on R & D to make robust products like Brahmos, LRSAM etc.
     
    Abingdonboy likes this.
  9. Abingdonboy

    Abingdonboy Major Technical Analyst

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2016
    Messages:
    2,390
    Likes Received:
    11,192
    Country Flag:
    United Kingdom
    The recent comments from the IN seem to indicate a signifcant depature from the P-15/A/B class/generations. If they were intending to make a P-15C/continue employing the P-15 hull one would imagine they would talk about continuation and the strengths of the P-15 hull design but by talking about a new design/next generation they seem to hint at more.

    I could be wrong, this is just my reading of their comments.

    India needs to develop this in house or with a friendly nation, going for an off the shelf solution (US) will only curtail its strategic benefits.

    Bro, let's first see if the IN gets the SMART-L VSR in a "conventional" (standalone mast) for upcoming vessels (P-17A) before we think/talk about an intergrated mast solution incorporating it and the MF-STAR!

    I would just be happy to see a new AESA VSR beyond the LW-08 at this point (sadly the RAN-40L is going to be a one off for the IN on the IAC-1). I had been hoping the P-15B would look past the LW-08 and standardise with the IAC-1 sensor suite but the UPA/"Saint" truly f*cked up those hopes.

    Never believe the stated range of such systems, some sides will seek to underplay their capabilities, some will look to overstate them. Besides, detection range is not everything, having the means to effectively respond is the next part of the puzzle and here the BARAK-8 offers a formidable (perhaps class beating) capability, I'm not so sure the PLA(N) can boast of the same.
     
  10. GSLV Mk III

    GSLV Mk III Lieutenant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2016
    Messages:
    962
    Likes Received:
    1,382
    Country Flag:
    India
    tube launch means VLS, right ? How many Brahmos & Barak 8s will be fielded on this ?
     
  11. Averageamerican

    Averageamerican Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2010
    Messages:
    15,151
    Likes Received:
    2,305
    Country Flag:
    United States
    Naval Air: Better Replaces Cheaper

    March 27, 2017: Four years after receiving its first American made P-8I Poseidon maritime reconnaissance aircraft India is retiring the three remaining Russian made Tu-142 aircraft the P-8I replaces. In 2009, the year the first P-8Is were ordered, India had eight elderly and heavily used Tu-142s that needed extensive, expensive and time consuming rebuilding to remain in service. Many Indian politicians and bureaucrats wanted to continue with the Russian equipment. But the military experts on these matters insisted that the growing Chinese threat (with Western type ships that are replacing the old Russian designs) requires an effective response. That meant buying more expensive American aircraft.

    The Indian decision to switch to U.S. maritime recon aircraft was rather recent. In 2007 India received another Russian built Tu-142. Beginning in 1988 India received the first three of these aircraft and kept getting more until it had eight in service. The Tu-142, which was introduced in the 1970s, is the maritime patrol version of the Tu-95 heavy bomber. The Tu-95 aircraft itself entered service in 1956 and is expected to remain in service, along with some Tu-142s variant, until the 2030s. Over 500 Tu-95s were built and it is the largest and fastest turboprop aircraft in service. Russia still maintains a force of 60 Tu-95s mainly because it cannot afford a replacement. India could afford something better but the Tu-95/142 can still get the job done.

    The 188 ton Tu-95 has a 50 meter (167 foot) wingspan and a flight crew consisting of a pilot, copilot, engineer and radioman, and an unrefueled range of 15,000 kilometers. Max speed is 925 kilometers an hour, while cruising speed is 440 kilometers an hour. Originally designed as a nuclear bomber, the Tu-142 version still can carry up to ten tons of weapons (torpedoes, mines, depth charges, anti-ship missiles, sonobuoys) and a lot more sensors (naval search radar, electronic monitoring gear). There are two 23mm autocannon mounted in the rear of the aircraft. The mission crew of a Tu-142 usually consists of eight personnel, who operate the radars and other electronic equipment. Patrol flights for the Tu-142 can last twelve hours or more, especially when in-flight refueling is used. Maximum altitude is over 14,000 meters (45,000 feet), although the aircraft flies much lower when searching for submarines. India requires aircraft like these for patrolling the vast India ocean waters that surround the subcontinent. India wanted to upgrade the electronics on its Tu-142s, but has been put off by the high price, and low performance, of what the Russians offered.

    The first eight P-8Is were ordered in 2009 and four more (for $250 million each) in 2015. In mid-2013 the first one to arrive spent months being flown around to various naval air bases that it expected to operate from. This included the naval air base in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, where P-8Is are being used to monitor the three main Chinese trade routes through the Indian Ocean. By late 2014 six P-8Is have been delivered and eighth one arrived in late 2015. The Indian crews and senior commanders were very pleased with the performance of the P-8I, which mainly serves as a maritime patrol aircraft. Training has shown that Indian subs (similar models to what China has) can be detected and tracked by the P-8I. So far the Chinese have not provided enough of their own in the Indian Ocean for the P-8Is to go after but the Indians expect that to change soon.

    In 2010 Indian naval planners calculated that they needed at least 24 P-8I aircraft. But so far have only been able to convince the government to buy a dozen. The admirals expect the performance of the P-8I to convince the government to pay for another twelve. In 2011 the navy was allowed to investigate the merits of buying another four P-8Is, largely in response to growing Chinese naval activity in the Indian Ocean. India ordered a custom version of the American P-8 and the first eight cost about $220 million each. The growing expense of maintaining their existing Russian Tu-142M reconnaissance aircraft, and the need for a more capable recon aircraft, led to that initial order. The first P-8I arrived ahead of schedule. Since 2005 India has bought $10 billion worth of American P-8I, C-130J and C-17 military aircraft and find it is a long-term bargain compared to the cheaper Russian equivalents.

    What has made the Indian admirals so enthusiastic about an aircraft that first flew in 2009 and is remarkably similar in terms of the equipment and techniques to the half century old P-3s it replaces? Mainly it is the long and successful track record of these aircraft. Arguably the most successful maritime patrol aircraft ever, the P-3 experience, and some of the same gear were merged with the equally admired Boeing 737 air transport to create the P-8, and that aircraft has exceeded expectations.

    India required aircraft like these for patrolling the vast India ocean waters that surround the subcontinent. India wanted to upgrade the electronics on its Tu-142s but has been put off by the high price, and low performance, of what the Russians offered. There was also some question of whether the Russians could meet their schedule and cost assurances. Then the P-8 was noted and the U.S. was willing to provide a customized (to Indian needs) version at a price the Indians could justify. Other navies in the region that used the P-3 were enthusiastic about the P-8 as a worthy successor to the reliable and effective P-3. The U.S. and Indian navies both receives the P-8 at about the same time even though the P-8Is are slightly different than the P-8A.

    The P-8 is based on the widely used Boeing 737 airliner. Although the Boeing 737 based P-8A is a two engine jet, compared to the four engine turboprop P-3, it is a more capable plane. The P-8A has 23 percent more floor space than the P-3 and is larger (38 meter/118 foot wingspan, versus 32.25 meter/100 foot) and heavier (83 tons versus 61). Most other characteristics are the same. Both can stay in the air about 10 hours per sortie. Speed is different. Cruise speed for the 737 is 910 kilometers an hour, versus 590 for the P-3. This makes it possible for the P-8A to get to a patrol area faster, which is a major advantage when chasing down subs first spotted by distant sonar arrays or satellites. However, the P-3 can carry more weapons (9 tons versus 5.6). This is less of a factor as the weapons (torpedoes, missiles, mines, sonobouys) are lighter and more effective today and that trend continues. Both carry the same size crew of 10-11 pilots and equipment operators. Both aircraft carry search radar and various other sensors.

    The 737 has, like the P-3, been equipped with hard points on the wings for torpedoes or missiles. The B-737 is a more modern design and has been used successfully since the 1960s by commercial aviation. Navy aviators are confident that it will be as reliable as the P-3. The P-3 was based on the Electra civilian airliner that first flew in 1954, although only 170 were built, plus 600 P-3s. About 40 Electras are still in service. The Boeing 737 first flew in 1965, and over 5,000 have been built. The P-8A will be the first 737 designed with a bomb bay and four wing racks for weapons. The P-8 costs about $275 million each.
     

Share This Page