What's new

The Indian Navy’s future power: Kolkata-Class and Visakhapatnam-Class Destroyers

BTW American CEC definition includes cooperation between different navies like USN and JSDF and their different platforms can share data. That is also a part of what they call CEC.

We are not a part of NATO or a US ally, so it does not apply to us. Anyway how many of your ''allies'' have the same?

Here is the French doing it.

Horizon-class air defense destroyer Forbin remotely engaged a target (with an ASTER 30 surface to air missile) using a radar track shared via data-link by the FREMM frigate Languedoc.

According to the French Navy, the success of this cooperative engagement validates the robustness of the data link architectures between its surface combatants and demonstrates their ability to share the tactical situation and coordinate their sensors and effectors in order to conduct air defense missions in combat situations.



Which is exactly what the Indian Navy did. Please scream ''it's relay guidance'' once again. :lol:

With what we are talking about, it is relayed guidance. This is so basic and common there is no point bragging about it and announcing.

Utter BS. Indian definition of CEC is consistent with USN definition of ''netting of geographically dispersed sensors to provide a single integrated air picture, thus enabling integrated fire control to destroy cruise missiles and aircraft.''

We are not talking about data links with missiles here.

The UK said they don't have CEC with US. That means their Aster missile systems differ to SM system where Japanese and American platforms have CEC.

What?

1631185915493.png


No CEC. That's what the UK MOD says.

So what about Indian CMS, Indian SDN, Indian Communication Suites/ Data links etc? So what? What has these things got to do with anything?

Again, I asked you to describe how you think CEC can be achieved. I wonder how they manage to obtain an integrated air picture from multiple sensors on multiple vessels. Maybe a data link or a data highway (SDN) would be useful in such a scenario. But what do I know?
 
We are not a part of NATO or a US ally, so it does not apply to us. Anyway how many of your ''allies'' have the same?

Here is the French doing it.

Horizon-class air defense destroyer Forbin remotely engaged a target (with an ASTER 30 surface to air missile) using a radar track shared via data-link by the FREMM frigate Languedoc.

According to the French Navy, the success of this cooperative engagement validates the robustness of the data link architectures between its surface combatants and demonstrates their ability to share the tactical situation and coordinate their sensors and effectors in order to conduct air defense missions in combat situations.



Which is exactly what the Indian Navy did. Please scream ''it's relay guidance'' once again. :lol:



Utter BS. Indian definition of CEC is consistent with USN definition of ''netting of geographically dispersed sensors to provide a single integrated air picture, thus enabling integrated fire control to destroy cruise missiles and aircraft.''

We are not talking about data links with missiles here.



What?

View attachment 776628

No CEC. That's what the UK MOD says.



Again, I asked you to describe how you think CEC can be achieved. I wonder how they manage to obtain an integrated air picture from multiple sensors on multiple vessels. Maybe a data link or a data highway (SDN) would be useful in such a scenario. But what do I know?

This is what I'm saying. Your CEC is also CEC. Relay guidance is a part of CEC. But when US sometimes refer to CEC just like UK link you screenshot refers to CEC as cooperation between different navies using some different equipment.

When UK say they don't have "CEC" they mean they don't have the same type of fluid and seamless CEC between US and Japanese navies. But UK probably does have relay guidance. I would assume UK has this ability of relay guidance because it is common!

Do you understand what the nuance here is?

You say UK admit it doesn't have CEC. It doesn't have CEC with USA. Look at the article you posted.

1631186823468.png


They say they don't have integrated systems with US CEC but they are not saying they don't have relay guidance ability.

What India has is relay guidance ability with just one Israeli developed system India is sharing with Israel.
This information is brought to you by Wumao's uncle who was onboard INS Kolkata during the time. lmao. :rofl:

You mean your own pajeet's reporting from your own link in post #10

https://thediplomat.com/2019/05/ind...ve-engagement-capability-during-missile-test/

1631187066359.png



:cheesy::fie::dance3: dumbass ^
 

Attachments

  • 1631187029888.png
    1631187029888.png
    261.4 KB · Views: 18
Last edited:
"controlled by one ship to intercept aerial target" means launching ship's fire control is off and using datalinked from second ship which is using its fire control radar to provide information and fed through datalink. This way one ship with working or better radar can provide fire control or even search and track for a shooting node.

So no sorry it is not wumao uncle onboard reporting like you loser mentality must refrain to :omghaha:

Now when US often mentions CEC it is in context of network warfare conducted with certain allies like Japan and of course this includes relay guidance ability. With China it is network centric warfare layered with EW EA cyberwarfare etc and part of a semi autonomous command input which changes on situation and how much information it is gaining and of course as well this includes relay guidance ability.

When the articles on Indian "CEC" talk about CEC it is only referring to guidance and simple datalinking providing multiple platforms with firing solutions even if shooting node is not sensor node. Even then this Indian stuff is 100% Israeli which means India cannot be the second country to have relay guidance capability. At least it comes after Israel and in truth comes well after many others but whatever you disregard because not your choice of language articles that mention it and I guess people need to prove to you with Pajit sitting next to platform to witness it.
 
Last edited:
They say they don't have integrated systems with US CEC but they are not saying they don't have relay guidance ability.
When UK say they don't have "CEC" they mean they don't have the same type of fluid and seamless CEC between US and Japanese navies. But UK probably does have relay guidance. I would assume UK has this ability of relay guidance because it is common!

From 2019. Written Evidence submitted by Lockheed Martin UK

1631187590030.png


Read point e.

As for integrated air picture.

The CMS is used to integrate information from other platforms using indigenous data-link system, to provide Maritime Domain Awareness.

https://indiannavy.nic.in/content/ins-kochi-commissioned-mumbai

"controlled by one ship to intercept aerial target" means launching ship's fire control is off and using datalinked from second ship which is using its fire control radar to provide information and fed through datalink. This way one ship with working or better radar can provide fire control or even search and track for a shooting node.

Wait, datalink? I thought IN has no data link for enabling CEC.
 
From 2019. Written Evidence submitted by Lockheed Martin UK

View attachment 776634

Read point e.

As for integrated air picture.

The CMS is used to integrate information from other platforms using indigenous data-link system, to provide Maritime Domain Awareness.

https://indiannavy.nic.in/content/ins-kochi-commissioned-mumbai



Wait, datalink? I thought IN has no data link for enabling CEC.

Okay cool I didn't know RN didn't have relay guidance. I assumed it would with Sampson and Aster.

When did I say IN has no datalink. Please show me where I said IN as no datalink enabling relay guidance.

It clearly has datalink that allow relay guidance. Otherwise the Kolkata class test wouldn't happen.
 
@MH.Yang

This Israeli provided relay guidance for three Indian navy ships is really something they need to brag about it seems.

Your links are good. I didn't realize even Type 053 had relay guidance with HHQ-7.

But to think in this era that any modern navy has not got relay guidance ability is something. UK, France, Australia, Russia all of them long ago had relay guidance. Almost all our anti ship missiles and cruise missiles use relay guidance.

They really think they're special with their Barak-8 and EL/M-2248. They are good systems but not Indian.

And to counter this he said India has CMS, Indian SDN, Indian Communication Suites/ Data links. LOL Like someone saying I can build supercar because I have made a bicycle tire before which nobody wants to use or buy from me. He thinks making CMS, SDN, and datalinks is special and difficult o_O or even relevant to fact that their only relay guidance platform is Israeli developed Barak-8 networked with Israeli EL/M2448. So what their CMS and datalinks are also included in this chain. The two major elements are Israeli.

And then this relay guidance capability is not unique to US and India.

If 15 years ago, relay guidance was relatively advanced. But in 2021, this technology has been flooded. We don't have to care which country has this ability. I even told Indians that Bangladesh's two 053H3 ships, such as Omar Farouk, just could do it. Moreover, the four 054AP of Pakistanis can link China's 055&052D to achieve a real CEC.

China's earliest relay missile platform was not HQ7, but SS-N-22 of four Type P.956 destroyer warships. The Russians had this technology in the 1970s.

The Indian just couldn't accept the fact that he was cheated by the Indian government again and again.
 
The Kolkata class's Barak-8's fire control radar is the Israeli EL/M-2248 MF-STAR. So the main elements of this relay guidance is Barak-8's internal system, EL/M-2248 as search and fire control, and Indian datalinks.
 
If 15 years ago, relay guidance was relatively advanced. But in 2021, this technology has been flooded. We don't have to care which country has this ability. I even told Indians that Bangladesh's two 053H3 ships, such as Omar Farouk, just could do it. Moreover, the four 054AP of Pakistanis can link China's 055&052D to achieve a real CEC.

China's earliest relay missile platform was not HQ7, but SS-N-22 of four Type P.956 destroyer warships. The Russians had this technology in the 1970s.

The Indian just couldn't accept the fact that he was cheated by the Indian government again and again.

I assume the relay fire control unit would be done by the Israeli radar rather than the Thales search radar.

Datalink would be some subsystem of BEL EMCCA Mk4 CMS.
 
. We don't have to care which country has this ability. I even told Indians that Bangladesh's two 053H3 ships, such as Omar Farouk, just could do it. Moreover, the four 054AP of Pakistanis can link China's 055&052D to achieve a real CEC.

With an obscure blog claiming a cheap Chinese copy of a 1960s vintage short-range SAM did it. Ok. :lol:
 
And?

Rukmini will provide networking capabilities with various Indian Navy’s assets. During Theatre-level Readiness and Operational Exercise (TROPEX) in the Bay of Bengal in 2014, Rukmini was able to network about 60 ships and 75 aircraft seamlessly.


Well and... to go back to original topic of India being second country to perform relay guidance type CEC activity it is untrue.

First it is using Israeli systems to perform this (and its own datalink) but this is not something new and only done by USA and India.
 
Well and... to go back to original topic of India being second country to perform relay guidance type CEC activity it is untrue.

First it is using Israeli systems to perform this (and its own datalink) but this is not something new and only done by USA and India.

As I said earlier, IN CEC complies with the USN definition of the same. Claiming that PLAN did it with a vintage French Crotale SAM in the 90s with an obscure blog as a source proves nothing.

Only three countries have demonstrated this, with area defense SAMs: US, India & France. Please do show a test before claiming you have done it.
 
Delhi had a Russian hull? :rofl: ''Derived from earlier Delhi class hulls as well as scaled up from Talwar/Krivak class''? What is that even supposed to mean?

Talwars have nothing to do with Delhis. Both have very different hulls.

I understand that you have a severe case of inferiority complex, but you are taking this too far.



We are talking about the navy of a country that has dedicated military comm sats as well as ASAT capabilities. Not some BNS ''whatever old Chinese hull'' Navy.

India's Navy Successfully Tests Cooperative Engagement


Can you explain what is meant by ''full capability''?

India's Navy Successfully Tests Cooperative Engagement

Please do provide data about Chinese CEC.



If you want to start with slurs, you have Wumaos thinking their reverse-engineered military can take on the US.
Nibba crying about slurs lol
His whole country say absolutely nasty, heart wrenching things about other people groups, call Chinese monkeys, hell go to your own posting history and see how many slurs you use on consistent basis
Pajeet is nothing in comparison
 
Last edited:
With an obscure blog claiming a cheap Chinese copy of a 1960s vintage short-range SAM did it. Ok.

The missile is only a part of the system. The missile can be based off whatever but it can be upgraded with the relevant hardware and software to be relay guidance capable. You ask for some links, you reject. Okay well what more can be said.

Because you call it cheap copy of 1960s SAM doesn't mean it didn't do relay guidance in 1980s right? Clearly this relay guidance ability is 1970s technology.

No Indian can yet produce a SAM even close to 20 year old HQ-9 or HQ-16. We took reverse engineered and upgraded the best Russia had. Upgraded with different fuel and rocket engines. Increased its range. TVC rather than same fins for some HQ-9 and HQ-17 missiles. The search radar, command module, fire control radar, EW and ECCM are totally different. So much that even export 2000s era FD-2000 beat S-300 and Patriot in third party tests.

I think that's a pretty smart idea. China had these missiles for over 20 years. While India had poor cheap Indian Kub copy in the Akash during this time.

India had no real air defence at all this whole time and at least with our copying of the best Russian missiles and improving on certain aspects, we had the tool on hand during those 20 years. Better than India's zilch and copying Russia's worst missile from 20 years before S-300.

Akash NG is also to be completed as well LOL typical India bragging before job is done. Even then it is no different to some SD-10 SAM versions or HQ-22 developments.
As I said earlier, IN CEC complies with the USN definition of the same. Claiming that PLAN did it with a vintage French Crotale SAM in the 90s with an obscure blog as a source proves nothing.

Only three countries have demonstrated this, with area defense SAMs: US, India & France. Please do show a test before claiming you have done it.

Well why focus on just the Chinese version of Crotale? We have relay guidance for pretty much all our cruise missiles. Relay guidance for DF-100 and every HGV and anti-ship ballistic missile.

Those must use relay guidance and some of them use near space drones for relay guidance.

LOL we do trials and tests for SAMs in relay guidance. Just because you are not invited to see them doesn't mean they don't exist right? That's logical yes? So if you know we have relay guidance for weapons traveling at above mach 5 and had relay guidance since 1980s for anti-ship missiles and even one tiny short range SAM, do you think we wouldn't have it for HHQ-9 on Type 052D and HHQ-16 on Type 054A? Which came before your Kolkata was ready.

China which has incredible expertise and global competitiveness or leadership in computing and telecommunication technologies with at least 30 years of making own CMS and datalinks from integrated SAM systems to exotic weapons and naval CEC networks, somehow cannot do this for SAMs yet can do it for cruise missiles and HGVs. Okay sure sure.
 
Last edited:

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom