Indian Navy Developments & Discussions

[ArjunMK1A]

Navy had their missteps. But it never stooped low like IAF which is facing an severe problem.

1. They could not able to induct an Minesweeper, we decommissioned last one in 2019 and there is no plan till now.

2. Could not able to build an UVLS till now.

3. Required an Subsonic CM like Nirbhay.

4. Did not have an Proper CIWS. Current one is more or less an Jugaad.

5. RBU 6000 is there hogging large space. Should invest in equivalent system

6. Our Submarine procurement is a sort of mess. Either go with Another batch of Scorpene and push the overall count to 20. P-75I is no starter.


But few of the problems have jugaad alternatives in work like CIWS, RBU 6000 but few of them were missing Minesweeper. Few of them were missing.

But IAF is on dire state due to fighter situation.

Meanwhile Army is hell bent on not inducting any indigenous system and cry muh emergency product.

 

[shade2]

Navy had their missteps. But it never stooped low like IAF which is facing an severe problem.

1. They could not able to induct an Minesweeper, we decommissioned last one in 2019 and there is no plan till now.

2. Could not able to build an UVLS till now.

3. Required an Subsonic CM like Nirbhay.

4. Did not have an Proper CIWS. Current one is more or less an Jugaad.

5. RBU 6000 is there hogging large space. Should invest in equivalent system

6. Our Submarine procurement is a sort of mess. Either go with Another batch of Scorpene and push the overall count to 20. P-75I is no starter.


But few of the problems have jugaad alternatives in work like CIWS, RBU 6000 but few of them were missing Minesweeper. Few of them were missing.

But IAF is on dire state due to fighter situation.

Meanwhile Army is hell bent on not inducting any indigenous system and cry muh emergency product.

AK-630 hai, it may be potato as compared to Goalkeepers and Phalanxes but it is not jugaad, it is a purpose built CIWS, they have to find another CIWS or improve on AK-630 by giving it it's own radar and tracking like Phalanx/Goalkeeper + also need to develop a RAM Launcher style missile ciws.

ULVS ka L hai for now but maybe they will push for developing atleast 2 such systems, one for AA missiles Barak-8, VL-SRSAM and one for large AShM or LACMs, i.e , Nirbhay, NASM-MR, SMART.

Acquisition wise their L's are

• Minesweeper like you have said, they are going for fancy new Minehunters now as per tender, where mine blasting is done by a set of fancy UUV/USV drones.
• Forgetting about LHDs since nothing has happened since 2021, No idea what is going on.
• P75I mess like you said but they are pushing for the German submarine now, thing is we don't know if it's a Type 214 derivative or fancy stealth sub Type 212CD which is built for German and Norewegian navies
• Not going full speed ahead with domestic diesel electric submarine

 

[Ayan Barat]

Navy had their missteps. But it never stooped low like IAF which is facing an severe problem.

1. They could not able to induct an Minesweeper, we decommissioned last one in 2019 and there is no plan till now.

2. Could not able to build an UVLS till now.

3. Required an Subsonic CM like Nirbhay.

4. Did not have an Proper CIWS. Current one is more or less an Jugaad.

5. RBU 6000 is there hogging large space. Should invest in equivalent system

6. Our Submarine procurement is a sort of mess. Either go with Another batch of Scorpene and push the overall count to 20. P-75I is no starter.


But few of the problems have jugaad alternatives in work like CIWS, RBU 6000 but few of them were missing Minesweeper. Few of them were missing.

But IAF is on dire state due to fighter situation.

Meanwhile Army is hell bent on not inducting any indigenous system and cry muh emergency product.

Both have comparable, if not equal level of problems. The only difference is the level of technical proficiency it takes to understanding the shortcomings.

• For IAF even a layman can understand the problems because everything's on the surface. Like we need X numbers of squadrons but have just Y. Still flying MiG-21s. There's no stealth jet, China has multiple.

• But for IN things get bit nuanced. One needs to have a good understanding of CIWS to understand the problem. Or know what's SWaP optimization is to realise VL-SRSAM is bulky for what it is. Should be up to date with developments to understand magazine depth.

• No comments on IA...

Well the air launched already exists . A theoretical navalised rudhram is much cheaper and not to mention SU30 can carry 3 of these as opposed to 1 . Even if they don't score kills if they are approaching an air defense DDG it will be forced to protect itself as opposed to engaging the actual ASHMs following behind. This is just theory crafting on my end.

Unless and until a MiG-29K can take-off with Rudram-II from our carriers, there's no point in counting them in.

Theoretically it can carry two or even three Rudram-II but we can't say much before any kind of validating trials.

 

[Blood+]

• the accuracy, impact angle, bonkers damage by the KE alone, a semi-armour piercing warhead everythings we've seen in test footages are just incredible. But what we've not seen is how it performs against a three or four layered ADS.

True but we haven't seen how an AEGIS equivalent performs against a full salvo of say, more than 5 BrahMos equivalents either (at least not that I'm aware of). Plus, presence (or the lack there of) of airborne early warning of some sort will also play a key role in how everything plays out.

Anyway, here's something on a related note, from our beloved Ukraine -

Ukraine discloses for the first time real missile interception rates against the various kinds of Russian missiles​

From the article -

• "Onyx" Missile:
  • Launched: 211
  • Intercepted: 12 (5.7%)
  • High-speed missile posing significant risk to both civilian and military targets.

Now, I admit, this is not an apples to apples comparison and will not translate 100% to our naval scenario but it does point towards a certain direction.

And if the Ukrainians are to be believed, even when these missiles are flying within the effective interception zone of their Patriot systems, they would often have to empty the whole battery just to down 3 or 4 of these missiles.

• in 2000 BrahMos was a true silver bullet with even the USN having abysmal defences against it. But that's 25 years ago and things have improved since then.

No questions there.

-> USN has kept continuously tuning its ADS against supersonic AShMs using GQM-163s. Here's footage of one getting slammed by SM-2

View: https://youtu.be/9E7kWFEMN-c?feature=shared
(interesting side note is that two SM-2s were assigned for one threat in case the first one failed. It shows that no matter how deep your ADS magazine is, it's never enough)

Yeah but does the PLAN yet field anything even close to an SM-2 (or 3 or 6)?? I mean, the USN is not our enemy.... not at the moment anyway.

-> in May 2023 it was reported that INS Mormugao has successfully intercepted a sea skimming supersonic "target". I'm not aware of any supersonic target, so it can very well be an actual BrahMos that was used.
-> China fields multiple supersonic AShMs and one of its primary adversary, Taiwan also has Hsiung Feng III so it's safe to assume that they also have tuned their ADS.

These tests are highly curated affairs; so I for one would not put too much stock in them (ours included). All they show is that it is possible for the system to intercept one or two such missiles under those very narrow and specific set of circumstances.

• BrahMos has not evolved in 25 years; launch platforms have increased, more components have been indigenized but the base design is still same. We haven't done anything to say reduce RCS, add passive seeker, improve ECCMs, add penetration aids or decoys; nothing.

Hmmm... wasn't there that recent report about this new X band seeker with ~180 TRMs with improved ECCM capabilities and LPI modes for anti-ship missiles?? Or am I misremembering it??

So is BrahMos still possessing the same levels of lethality against a near peer adversary like China?
Or somehow a loadout of 16x BrahMos is giving us a false sense of security like those 74 fibreglass helmets?

Suffice to say, it has lost some of its edge over time, no two ways about it, but hopefully we will get back a good chunk of it with addition of new tech. But having said all that, it's still poses a formidable threat, especially if launched in numbers and mixed with other type of munitions.

Personally, I would swap out those RBUs (or at least one of them) for more BrahMos (and SAMs) in a heartbeat if it were up to me, but since it ain't, no point fretting over it.

 

[Blood+]

As for BrahMos's evolution, it'd like to differ with you Sir. RAM, maneuvers are things that I'll call minor improvements, not evolution.

While I agree with the rest of your comment, this is where I'd beg to differ. That violent maneuver the BrahMos makes at the extreme last leg of its flight is the ace up its sleeve as it is intended to throw off all the existing firing solutions that the ship's computer just plotted out and make them redo the whole task back from scratch and couple that with the speed and they won't have the time left for all that.

 

[Ayan Barat]

True but we haven't seen how an AEGIS equivalent performs against a full salvo of 16 equivalents either (at least not that I'm aware of). Plus, presence (or the lack there of) of airborne early warning of some sort will also play a key role in how everything plays out.

Chinese already have a carrier borne AWACS...so definitely not an Aegis level layered system but they'll definitely reach there before us.

We don't know how Aegis would perform against a salvo attack but one thing we know for sure is that just two Aegis can field atleast 100 high-quality SAMs. And if ESSM are counted then 400 medium-quality SAM. This is something that's also becoming more and more evident with Chinese fleets.

A full salvo of 16x BrahMos from one of our premier destroyer Vs the ADS of one of their premier destroyers
Now you'll start to see the problem I'm trying to highlight

Now, I admit, this is not an apples to apples comparison and will not translate 100% to our naval scenario but it does point towards a certain direction.

And if the Ukrainians are to be believed, even when these missiles are flying within the effective interception zone of their Patriot systems, they would often have to empty the whole battery just to down 3 or 4 of these missiles.

My personal method of calculating firepower is multiplying the number of available systems with a coefficient of effectiveness; it's a random 0-1 number I've come up with. Like T-72s would be say 0.5, T-90s would be 0.75 and next gen tanks would be 1...so now 100 T-72s are equal to 50 Panthers.

In Ukraine's case they have some real Gucci weapons like PACs and IRIS-T with effectiveness of maybe 0.8 but the available numbers are so low that the overall firepower drops significantly. Ukraine Vs Russia can give us some basic ideas of how things are going to get (like UAVs and stuff) but it's not a reliable data source for large scale calculations.

But yeah, one things we can definitely learn from Ukraine is that end of the day it doesn't matter how advanced your weapon is but rather how quickly you can replace it. So it's always, always better to have indigenous production line of atleast ammunitions so that you don't have to beg a foreign nation's parliament to pass your procurement request everytime you deplete your stockpile.

Yeah but does the PLAN yet field anything even close to an SM-2 (or 3 or 6)??

Maybe HQ-19
Or just wait for next the Zhuhai Airshow

Hmmm... wasn't there that recent report about this new X band seeker with ~180 TRMs with improved ECCM capabilities and LPI modes for anti-ship missiles??

Again, it's an improvement.
Your radar has indeed gotten better but end of the day it's still shining a bright flashlight at a mast full of multiple sensors. Compare that with a BrahMos with IIR seeker that will try not to trigger detection sensors for as long as possible.

 

[Ayan Barat]

While I agree with the rest of your comment, this is where I'd beg to differ. That violent maneuver the BrahMos makes at the extreme last leg of its flight is the ace up its sleeve as it is intended to throw off all the existing firing solutions that the ship's computer just plotted out and make them redo the whole task back from scratch and couple that with the speed and they won't have the time left for all that.

Even I'm a big fan of endgame maneuvers like the S of BrahMos or how one missile climbs up and leads others in a Russian AShMs salvo. In my previous post on CIWS effectiveness I've mentioned how you can program an AShM to go round the flanks and come back from the stern.

But exactly how effective are those against a modern AESA equipped, multi-layered ship?

The "throw off firing solutions" you mentioned will indeed happen...but with the guns. Missiles are fire-n-forget, moreover it would be an head-on engagement with a 50g capable, TVC equipped interceptor instead of a tail chase by say manned fighters whom one can easily "shake off" using unpredictable maneuvers.

 

[Blood+]

Chinese already have a carrier borne AWACS...so definitely not an Aegis level layered system but they'll definitely reach there before us.

True. How much I wish we could get a similar system but on a V22 like platform.

We don't know how Aegis would perform against a salvo attack but one thing we know for sure is that just two Aegis can field atleast 100 high-quality SAMs. And if ESSM are counted then 400 medium-quality SAM. This is something that's also becoming more and more evident with Chinese fleets.

A full salvo of 16x BrahMos from one of our premier destroyer Vs the ADS of one of their premier destroyers
Now you'll start to see the problem I'm trying to highlight

Yes, but will they be able to throw all those high-end SAMs in time?? Let's just assume for a moment that they don't have an AWACS at hand, how far out you think they are gonna detect those incoming BrahMos missiles, flying 10 meters above sea-level (I know, they go even lower but let's just go with the conservative figure)?? 15 kilometers?? 20?? 22?? Definitely not more than that as both the USN and PLAN ships lack an L band secondary air search radar, not to mention their main radars sitting rather low within the superstructures, which puts a further hard limit on their over-the-horizon performance.

Now, how long it will take those incoming BrahMos rounds to close that distance??

Now, on the other hand, if an AWACS is involved, then the whole scenario gets turned on its head.

My personal method of calculating firepower is multiplying the number of available systems with a coefficient of effectiveness; it's a random 0-1 number I've come up with. Like T-72s would be say 0.5, T-90s would be 0.75 and next gen tanks would be 1...so now 100 T-72s are equal to 50 Panthers.

Makes sense, yeah.

In Ukraine's case they have some real Gucci weapons like PACs and IRIS-T with effectiveness of maybe 0.8 but the available numbers are so low that the overall firepower drops significantly. Ukraine Vs Russia can give us some basic ideas of how things are going to get (like UAVs and stuff) but it's not a reliable data source for large scale calculations.

Yeah but that's not the point I was trying to raise. The point I was trying to make was that, even for a relatively high-end system like the Patriot, it just takes too many interceptors to reliably shoot down even a comparatively low number of these high-speed missiles.

I remember reading a report from an Ukrainian air-defense official that often times, it'd take them to empty almost the entire Patriot battery just to intercept two or three Oniks/ Kh-22 type missiles and that too, when those were flying straight overhead. Throw some lateral distance into the mix and the ratio gets fucked up even more.

But yeah, one things we can definitely learn from Ukraine is that end of the day it doesn't matter how advanced your weapon is but rather how quickly you can replace it. So it's always, always better to have indigenous production line of atleast ammunitions so that you don't have to beg a foreign nation's parliament to pass your procurement request everytime you deplete your stockpile.

^ Abso-bloody-lutely this.

Maybe HQ-19
Or just wait for next the Zhuhai Airshow

Touché.

Again, it's an improvement.
Your radar has indeed gotten better but end of the day it's still shining a bright flashlight at a mast full of multiple sensors. Compare that with a BrahMos with IIR seeker that will try not to trigger detection sensors for as long as possible.

Can't really argue with that one as I have often advocated for the same (or an anti-radiation type seeker).

 

[shiphone]

Yeah but does the PLAN yet field anything even close to an SM-2 (or 3 or 6)?? I mean, the USN is not our enemy.... not at the moment anyway.

SM-2 and SM-6 are supposed to be the same category, but the SM-3 is for the missile defence...

the corresponding product in PLAN is HHQ-9 serial and HQ-26

----------
the HQ-19 which debuted last Nov is a land based Anti-Missile system ,so basicly it is similar to THAAD-er



the land version of HQ-9C system has two kinds of missiles with 100+kms and 200+kms ranges

 

[Blood+]

Even I'm a big fan of endgame maneuvers like the S of BrahMos or how one missile climbs up and leads others in a Russian AShMs salvo. In my previous post on CIWS effectiveness I've mentioned how you can program an AShM to go round the flanks and come back from the stern.

But exactly how effective are those against a modern AESA equipped, multi-layered ship?

AESA or not, everything will hinge on the availability of some form of early warning, be it from another ship that is travelling ahead or an airborne platform. Without that, you simply won't have enough time.

The "throw off firing solutions" you mentioned will indeed happen...but with the guns. Missiles are fire-n-forget, moreover it would be an head-on engagement with a 50g capable, TVC equipped interceptor instead of a tail chase by say manned fighters whom one can easily "shake off" using unpredictable maneuvers.

True but only if you can detect and intercept them at over-the-horizon distances, where the cruise missiles will be flying pretty much in a straight line (relying on their low altitude to hide from radars) and where those long range fire-n-forget SAMs truly shine. In short, you'll have to intercept the cruise missiles BEFORE they have a chance to perform that last minute electric boogaloo.

But if you fail for whatever reasons, you are more or less done for - those maneuvers WILL throw off your calculations and you'll have to do the whole thing all over again. Maybe you'll be lucky enough to fire off a few of your interceptors but if the salvo is big enough, your fate will be sealed.

Needless to say, it's the same for IN and as things stand for now, the PLAN is in a far better position to handle such an attack than the IN, thanks to their AWACS systems.

 

[Blood+]

SM-2 and SM-6 are supposed to be the same category, but the SM-3 is for the missile defence...

the corresponding product in PLAN is HHQ-9 serial and HQ-26

----------
the HQ-19 which debuted last Nov is a land based Anti-Missile system ,so basicly it is similar to THAAD-er

View attachment 20448

Yes, I know that, but are they (the HHQ-9 I mean) really comparable to the likes of SM-2/6?? I don't think that to be the case, at least when I compare their respective specs.

 

[vampyrbladez]

Navy had their missteps. But it never stooped low like IAF which is facing an severe problem.

1. They could not able to induct an Minesweeper, we decommissioned last one in 2019 and there is no plan till now.

2. Could not able to build an UVLS till now.

3. Required an Subsonic CM like Nirbhay.

4. Did not have an Proper CIWS. Current one is more or less an Jugaad.

5. RBU 6000 is there hogging large space. Should invest in equivalent system

6. Our Submarine procurement is a sort of mess. Either go with Another batch of Scorpene and push the overall count to 20. P-75I is no starter.


But few of the problems have jugaad alternatives in work like CIWS, RBU 6000 but few of them were missing Minesweeper. Few of them were missing.

But IAF is on dire state due to fighter situation.

Meanwhile Army is hell bent on not inducting any indigenous system and cry muh emergency product.

The Navy knows that it can't fund all priorities so it triages the most important ones and then develops technology blocks that can be used interchangeably.

Like if have tech for Barak 8, you have tech for LRAshM and Kusha, MF-STAR for AESA X Band radar, etc.

1. The Navy has been looking into distributed anti-mine platforms such as USVs and clip ons for FACs near harbors.

While not a perfect replacement, I'm sure the upcoming ASW-SWC (16 units) can function as a sort of minesweeper for the Navy.

Desperate Navy opts for anti-mine clip-ons | India News - Times of India

India News: NEW DELHI: Continuing delay to even kick off the long-pending Rs 32,000 crore project to construct 12 advanced minesweepers with foreign collaboration.

timesofindia.indiatimes.com

2. The Navy has developed a SLS (in cooperation with DRDO) but needs a huge platform to use it. I'm thinking P 18 class NGDs.

3. I agree but the LR-LACM is a more of a lower priority for the Navy now. It is at best a replacement for the KH 35 missiles.

4. AK 630 is outdated but the Navy probably takes the savings and invests it elsewhere. The Navy is now using 76mm updated SRGM on it's Nilgiri Class so it is following the Italian model of using 76mm guns for CIWS.

5. Agree with this. Perhaps in future designs RBU 6000 is replaced with BDL license manufactured Torbuster launchers and we get more VLS.

6. Navy is going in for 3 more Scorpene Class submarines in the very near future. Medium term P 75I. Long term SSN and maybe P 76.

The Army is lucky because PSU/Private Industry solved their No. 1 problem which is artillery. Now they are swimming in options and ATAGS and more K9 are coming in. Long term MGS and TGS (maybe). Either way there are many manufacturers here.

Tanks are a flux because the very concept of tanks is in flux since a $20 FPV can do this to a $24 million M1A2 Abrams tank :

I expect the DATRAN 1500 engine to fill in for MTU for all the engines of the Arjun MK1 A and the MLU for the T 90M in the next few years.

All services are going in aggressively for loitering munitions/ FPV/ drones since they are cheap and from what we can see in Ukraine, they are the future of all warfare.

Infantry equipment-wise frontline infantry will look like Eastern European NATO nations and rear echelons like extras from the Border movie.

As for the IAF, they brought this upon themselves with their obsession with MMRCA/MRFA and it will take until the early 2030s for them to un-fuck their situation assuming no war, no governmental instability, economic crisis, apocalypse, etc.

 

[RocketMan]

Navy had their missteps. But it never stooped low like IAF which is facing an severe problem.

1. They could not able to induct an Minesweeper, we decommissioned last one in 2019 and there is no plan till now.

2. Could not able to build an UVLS till now.

3. Required an Subsonic CM like Nirbhay.

4. Did not have an Proper CIWS. Current one is more or less an Jugaad.

5. RBU 6000 is there hogging large space. Should invest in equivalent system

6. Our Submarine procurement is a sort of mess. Either go with Another batch of Scorpene and push the overall count to 20. P-75I is no starter.


But few of the problems have jugaad alternatives in work like CIWS, RBU 6000 but few of them were missing Minesweeper. Few of them were missing.

But IAF is on dire state due to fighter situation.

Meanwhile Army is hell bent on not inducting any indigenous system and cry muh emergency product.

P8I armed with Harpoon missiles are closest we've to a Bomber . Also Indian Navy operates more satellites than other services.

 

[shade2]

The Navy knows that it can't fund all priorities so it triages the most important ones and then develops technology blocks that can be used interchangeably.

Like if have tech for Barak 8, you have tech for LRAshM and Kusha, MF-STAR for AESA X Band radar, etc.

1. The Navy has been looking into distributed anti-mine platforms such as USVs and clip ons for FACs near harbors.

While not a perfect replacement, I'm sure the upcoming ASW-SWC (16 units) can sort of function as a minesweeper for the Navy.

Desperate Navy opts for anti-mine clip-ons | India News - Times of India

India News: NEW DELHI: Continuing delay to even kick off the long-pending Rs 32,000 crore project to construct 12 advanced minesweepers with foreign collaboration.

timesofindia.indiatimes.com

2. The Navy has developed a SLS (in cooperation with DRDO) but needs a huge platform to use it. I'm thinking P 18 class NGDs.

3. I agree but the LR-LACM is a more of a lower priority for the Navy now. It is at best a replacement for the KH 35 missiles.

4. AK 630 is outdated but the Navy probably takes the savings and invests it elsewhere. The Navy is now using 76mm updated SRGM on it's Nilgiri Class so it is following the Italian model of using 76mm guns for CIWS.

5. Agree with this. Perhaps in future designs RBU 6000 is replaced with BDL license manufactured Torbuster launchers and we get more VLS.

6. Navy is going in for 3 more Scorpene Class submarines in the very near future. Medium term P 75I. Long term SSN and maybe P 76.

The Army is lucky because PSU/Private Industry solved their No. 1 problem which is artillery. Now they are swimming in options and ATAGS and more K9 are coming in. Long term MGS and TGS (maybe). Either way there are many manufacturers here.

Tanks are a flux because the very concept of tanks is in flux since a $20 FPV can do this to a $24 million M1A2 Abrams tank :

I expect the DATRAN 1500 engine to fill in for MTU for all the engines of the Arjun MK1 A and the MLU for the T 90M in the next few years.

Infantry equipment-wise frontline infantry will look like Easter European NATO nations and rear echelons like extras from the Border movie.

As for the IAF, they brought this upon themselves and it will take until early 2030s for them to un-fuck their situation assuming no war, no governmental instability, economic crisis, apocalypse, etc.

So to sum up, is it correct to say the Navy's issue is "budget" and the issue of the other two is Import Khori?

Just an observation but most of Navy's current weapon systems and even more in the future are standardized on either fully or partially domestically produced systems like

• AK-630 CIWS, OFB/AWEIL, FCS by BEL
• OTOMelara 76mm SRGM, BHEL Haridwar, FCS by BEL
• Barak-8 SAM, + BDL
• , + "BrahMos Aerospace"
• The much maligned RBU, L&T
• MF-STAR radar, + BEL
• Lanza Radar, Indra from + Tata
• LW-08 , BEL
• GE LM2500 series MGT engines assembled by HAL
• Zorya Mashproekt MGT engines

 

[Ayan Barat]

Yes, but will they be able to throw all those high-end SAMs in time??

That's where the economy comes into play in deciding which country has a greater chance of winning a war.

Let's just assume for a moment that they don't have an AWACS at hand, how far out you think they are gonna detect those incoming BrahMos missiles, flying 10 meters above sea-level

L band secondary air search radar

In case of Type-055 it's just X and S, so I'm leaving L for this bit

Now, how long it will take those incoming BrahMos rounds to close that distance??

If my math is mathing correctly then...

In Type-055 the X-bands are atleast at a height of 20m above waterline. Using d=√(2hR) we get 16km. And this is the minimum because in this case (h=0 for BrahMos) the missile is crawling above the surface, not just skimming. Add a skimming height of even 3m and this would go up.

Considering the maximum terminal speed of Mach 3, the time taken to cover this distance should be 16,000/3*340 = 15 sec. Deduct 5 seconds for things like IFF verification and also you want some standoff distance for interception so that you're not hit by shrapnel...so 10 sec.

Now this part is bit iffy as we don't have any data point other than pure speculation. Tor may have its own issues but one thing's clear that they've a good response time. Tor is used by China so it's safe to assume that just like every single thing imported by China, it's technology too would be absorbed. So if you ask me then I'm pretty sure a Type-055 can assign atleast three FM-3000N (Sino Tor) per BrahMos in the 10 sec window it has.

AESA or not, everything will hinge on the availability of some form of early warning, be it from another ship that is travelling ahead or an airborne platform.

My point of bringing AESA was all the technical jargon an AESA brings...pencil beam, track while scan, track 100 targets simultaneously, radar as data-link

Moreover now you can have an extremely precise X-band radar that's continuously staring at 360° instead of say a S-band that's rotating

In short, you'll have to intercept the cruise missiles BEFORE they have a chance to perform that last minute electric boogaloo.

Now this one's I'm not that sure about Man, bit confused. Because I'm thinking no matter how much maneuver you do, would it be enough to evade a missile with whom you're on a collision course?
Proportional navigation is already pretty good at tail chase scenarios, shouldn't it be even better in head-ons

Also a small, solid rocket motor SAM with TVC can easily pull upto 20-30g. How much can BrahMos pull with its pretty unbalanced body (most of the mass is from kerosene which has more or less all burnt at engagement range, so now it's just 500kg worth of warhead and seeker attached to an empty tube)? Also BrahMos won't do a "dynamic maneuver" to evade the missile, rather it'll just do "a maneuver"...so it's not like it gets into a roll then suddenly increase AoA only to bank left; the only thing unpredictable here is the instance it'd start it's S-maneuver.

Needless to say, it's the same for IN

I can do this same scenario for IN too, like a Vishakhapatnam with 32 Barak-8 getting engaged by 16x supersonic AShMs...but it's just the second day of the year, don't want to go into a depression.

Just for starter their first layer of air defence would be KJ-600 (we've no analogue) directing J-15s with PL-15s (more magazine depth than MiG-29Ks)

 

[ArjunMK1A]

The Navy knows that it can't fund all priorities so it triages the most important ones and then develops technology blocks that can be used interchangeably.

Like if have tech for Barak 8, you have tech for LRAshM and Kusha, MF-STAR for AESA X Band radar, etc.

1. The Navy has been looking into distributed anti-mine platforms such as USVs and clip ons for FACs near harbors.

While not a perfect replacement, I'm sure the upcoming ASW-SWC (16 units) can function as a sort of minesweeper for the Navy.

Desperate Navy opts for anti-mine clip-ons | India News - Times of India

India News: NEW DELHI: Continuing delay to even kick off the long-pending Rs 32,000 crore project to construct 12 advanced minesweepers with foreign collaboration.

timesofindia.indiatimes.com

2. The Navy has developed a SLS (in cooperation with DRDO) but needs a huge platform to use it. I'm thinking P 18 class NGDs.

3. I agree but the LR-LACM is a more of a lower priority for the Navy now. It is at best a replacement for the KH 35 missiles.

4. AK 630 is outdated but the Navy probably takes the savings and invests it elsewhere. The Navy is now using 76mm updated SRGM on it's Nilgiri Class so it is following the Italian model of using 76mm guns for CIWS.

5. Agree with this. Perhaps in future designs RBU 6000 is replaced with BDL license manufactured Torbuster launchers and we get more VLS.

6. Navy is going in for 3 more Scorpene Class submarines in the very near future. Medium term P 75I. Long term SSN and maybe P 76.

The Army is lucky because PSU/Private Industry solved their No. 1 problem which is artillery. Now they are swimming in options and ATAGS and more K9 are coming in. Long term MGS and TGS (maybe). Either way there are many manufacturers here.

Tanks are a flux because the very concept of tanks is in flux since a $20 FPV can do this to a $24 million M1A2 Abrams tank :

I expect the DATRAN 1500 engine to fill in for MTU for all the engines of the Arjun MK1 A and the MLU for the T 90M in the next few years.

All services are going in aggressively for loitering munitions/ FPV/ drones since they are cheap and from what we can see in Ukraine, they are the future of all warfare.

Infantry equipment-wise frontline infantry will look like Eastern European NATO nations and rear echelons like extras from the Border movie.

As for the IAF, they brought this upon themselves with their obsession with MMRCA/MRFA and it will take until the early 2030s for them to un-fuck their situation assuming no war, no governmental instability, economic crisis, apocalypse, etc.

Agree to lot of points with few objections.

1. Minesweeper is very basic - They are trying to go with USV, Mothership concept. But still the good old Minesweeper will protect our Maritime routes from big ass sea mines. May be minesweeper should have Anti-USV systems to take them out.

2. LRCM is not KH-35 replacement as the former is completely more advanced missile interms of Range. Point is Nirbhay with current NPO Saturn engine still travel 1500Km. With Manik Engine missile reliability could be better. Inducting Nirbhay with Block upgrades will be beneficial in long run since is expensive. It is our Tomahawk replacement.

3. Army have Artillery at door system, but still not inducting it.

4. For MRFA it is more on Bajapa than IAF. If IAF is happy with Rafale, then Bajapa should directly sign the second order 72 (2 Squadrons) with French government. But Bajapa got scared of evil Spawn of Rajiv Gandhi and italian bar dancer. MRFA is hogwash to save Bajapa assess. 56inch should signed the second GoG deal. Already an decade passed now. Rafale deal signed in 2015.

 

[Blood+]

That's where the economy comes into play in deciding which country has a greater chance of winning a war.

No arguments there.

In case of Type-055 it's just X and S, so I'm leaving L for this bit

No, I meant a secondary air search radar for over-the-horizon targeting, like this -

If my math is mathing correctly then...

In Type-055 the X-bands are atleast at a height of 20m above waterline.

Maybe the back panels, but the front panels?? No way!! 15 at most, although I do realize that I'm just being pedantic here.

Using d=√(2hR) we get 16km. And this is the minimum because in this case (h=0 for BrahMos) the missile is crawling above the surface, not just skimming. Add a skimming height of even 3m and this would go up.

Well, as I said, although I have heard it to be as low as 5 meters ASL, let's go with 10 meters anyway just to be safe. And with some back of the envelop calculations, under these set of variables, the radar should pick up the missiles at about 23 - 25 kms, depending on the sea clutter.

Plus, another thing to consider is the fact that the missiles will probably fly pretty close to each other, so it'll make things more difficult for the radar to differentiate one target from another.

Considering the maximum terminal speed of Mach 3, the time taken to cover this distance should be 16,000/3*340 = 15 sec. Deduct 5 seconds for things like IFF verification and also you want some standoff distance for interception so that you're not hit by shrapnel...so 10 sec.

Let's say 15 seconds. You think that will be big enough a window to get enough number of SAMs in the air, especially if the salvo happens to be on the larger side??

Now this part is bit iffy as we don't have any data point other than pure speculation. Tor may have its own issues but one thing's clear that they've a good response time. Tor is used by China so it's safe to assume that just like every single thing imported by China, it's technology too would be absorbed. So if you ask me then I'm pretty sure a Type-055 can assign atleast three FM-3000N (Sino Tor) per BrahMos in the 10 sec window it has.

Yeah, that's indeed possible.

My point of bringing AESA was all the technical jargon an AESA brings...pencil beam, track while scan, track 100 targets simultaneously, radar as data-link

Moreover now you can have an extremely precise X-band radar that's continuously staring at 360° instead of say a S-band that's rotating

All fine and dandy but the moment the target takes a sudden turn, it'll throw a spanner in all its previous calculations and now the radar will have to reacquire the target and plot out a new intercept point back from the scratch, regardless of how the beam is being steered.

Well, a modern AESA backed by all the latest advancements in processing power and AI infusion, will definitely do it faster but will it be fast enough is the question here.

Now this one's I'm not that sure about Man, bit confused. Because I'm thinking no matter how much maneuver you do, would it be enough to evade a missile with whom you're on a collision course?
Proportional navigation is already pretty good at tail chase scenarios, shouldn't it be even better in head-ons
View attachment 20464
Also a small, solid rocket motor SAM with TVC can easily pull upto 20-30g. How much can BrahMos pull with its pretty unbalanced body (most of the mass is from kerosene which has more or less all burnt at engagement range, so now it's just 500kg worth of warhead and seeker attached to an empty tube)? Also BrahMos won't do a "dynamic maneuver" to evade the missile, rather it'll just do "a maneuver"...so it's not like it gets into a roll then suddenly increase AoA only to bank left; the only thing unpredictable here is the instance it'd start it's S-maneuver.

Here's my pathetic attempt at explaining what I meant to say in my last comment.

But yeah, all this is moot as any future PLAN expedition in the IOR is bound to be backed by one or more Carriers and their KJ-600s.

I can do this same scenario for IN too, like a Vishakhapatnam with 32 Barak-8 getting engaged by 16x supersonic AShMs...but it's just the second day of the year, don't want to go into a depression.

An wise decision, indeed.

Just for starter their first layer of air defence would be KJ-600 (we've no analogue) directing J-15s with PL-15s (more magazine depth than MiG-29Ks)

Yeah, I know. Wish we could get one based on some VTOL aircraft.

 

[shade2]

1. Minesweeper is very basic - They are trying to go with USV, Mothership concept. But still the good old Minesweeper will protect our Maritime routes from big ass sea mines. May be minesweeper should have Anti-USV systems to take them out.

They wanted ToT to make FRP hulls domestically i.e a metal-mukt, non-wood hull because minesweeping, this had few takers, apart from a single Korean merchant called Kangnam, they still went ahead with this

Ofc somebody smelt certain (((people))) screaming SCAM SCAM SCAM, had a bad case of PTSD from the Rafale drama and deal was cancelled

https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/defence-ministry-to-float-tender-for-12-minesweepers/story-GkTVj4RrTMRkyunKYp4n1H.html/

The demand for these minesweeper ships was 24 btw, and Navy for whatever reason has decided to "fight with what we have" and not push this further, the new tender like you said is for USV Mothership concept which doesn't need the FRP hull, metal would do.

You ask me we need both types of ships, the classic minesweeper type and the USV Mothership type but what mix exactly idk, also I believe these must be procured on priority even over those German subs that Admirals are lusting for.

Since mines are the cheapest way for our local adversaries to try to defend against our large fleet, since their nautically-challenged "navies" are not upto the mark.

 

[ArjunMK1A]

They wanted ToT to make FRP hulls domestically i.e a metal-mukt, non-wood hull because minesweeping, this had few takers, apart from a single Korean merchant called Kangnam, they still went ahead with this

Ofc somebody smelt certain (((people))) screaming SCAM SCAM SCAM, had a bad case of PTSD from the Rafale drama and deal was cancelled

https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/defence-ministry-to-float-tender-for-12-minesweepers/story-GkTVj4RrTMRkyunKYp4n1H.html/

The demand for these minesweeper ships was 24 btw, and Navy for whatever reason has decided to "fight with what we have" and not push this further, the new tender like you said is for USV Mothership concept which doesn't need the FRP hull, metal would do.

You ask me we need both types of ships, the classic minesweeper type and the USV Mothership type but what mix exactly idk, also I believe these must be procured on priority even over those German subs that Admirals are lusting for.

Since mines are the cheapest way for our local adversaries to try to defend against our large fleet, since their nautically-challenged "navies" are not upto the mark.

I mean Minesweeper need that FRP hull, Our Research org like NIOT, DRDO should came with an FRP material for the request. But somehow missed it.

For quick bucks we have IVANS with their minesweeper. Unfortunately we will get in delayed fashion with balooned budget and then shit tier reliability.

As for Pakistan is concerned. Karachi will always be violated by 3 Forces of our Armed forces.

 

[DancingPeacock]

They wanted ToT to make FRP hulls domestically i.e a metal-mukt, non-wood hull because minesweeping, this had few takers, apart from a single Korean merchant called Kangnam, they still went ahead with this

Ofc somebody smelt certain (((people))) screaming SCAM SCAM SCAM, had a bad case of PTSD from the Rafale drama and deal was cancelled

https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/defence-ministry-to-float-tender-for-12-minesweepers/story-GkTVj4RrTMRkyunKYp4n1H.html/

The demand for these minesweeper ships was 24 btw, and Navy for whatever reason has decided to "fight with what we have" and not push this further, the new tender like you said is for USV Mothership concept which doesn't need the FRP hull, metal would do.

You ask me we need both types of ships, the classic minesweeper type and the USV Mothership type but what mix exactly idk, also I believe these must be procured on priority even over those German subs that Admirals are lusting for.

Since mines are the cheapest way for our local adversaries to try to defend against our large fleet, since their nautically-challenged "navies" are not upto the mark.

ToT and ToT always. I bet it would have been cheaper to develop inhouse than importing it. Most likely babus would get commission. Its not exactly we are some Nursery kids in Materials- we developed Composites for Aerospace, Hulls for Arihant etc.