India to buy 4 E-2D Advanced Hawkeye for INS Vishal

[Fenrir]

The India AEW. 2 handed over to the IAF. The next version of the same is under development.

And how do we propose it flies off the deck of a future IN carrier? The purpose of an E-2 or Yak-44 isn't to replace land-based combat control aircraft, but to provide an expeditionary force, centered around an aircraft carrier, an early warning aircraft of their own. Sailing in the SCS or East/West Indian Ocean - away from Indian waters - India wont have a land-based early warning aircraft unless it bases them in regional nations like Vietnam or Japan.

It's nice, but it doesn't have the same role or functionality that this does:

Or this JZY-01:

 

[Abingdonboy]

The India AEW. 2 handed over to the IAF. The next version of the same is under development.

Isn't a carrier-borne AWACS so irrelevent to this discussion.

 

[Fenrir]

throughout Cold War Soviet Union had this doctrine of not fielding ACs and rather have long range missile carrier planes and subs as deterrent against US CBGs.
In todays world, how do you foresee Russia changing those tactics in near future, especially when we see it increasingly at loggerheads with NATO.

There's been talk of a future RN carrier around the size for the Ford Class, but to date the RN functions much like its previous iteration the Soviet Navy. It's still centered around long-range strike capabilities to keep NATO - and especially US ships - outside of the effective range of air defense missiles like SM-6 and beyond the reasonable fire-range of long-ranged anti-ship missiles like Tomahawk block IV and LRASM.

Reasonable fire-range means the distance the US will actually fire from. Even with a 1000+ km range, the US wont fire a Tomahawk from that distance targeting a move ship. They just wont do it.

The current trend with the RN is building smaller, but heavily armed frigates packed with long-range anti-ship and land-attack missiles. Missiles like 3M-54.

Their aircraft remain as they always have, being a healthy mix of TU-22M3, TU-142MK/MR/MZ and SU-27/33 series aircraft carrying long-range anti-ship missiles.

Both Oscar II and Yasen provide Russia with much the same. Standoff land and ship attack capabilities, though the Oscar IIs are getting a bit old now:

And interesting trend that Russia's been implementing - or at least trying to - is a shift towards expeditionary warfare, for assaults against near by targets. Russia's attempted purchase of several Mistral class amphibs:

And the creation of new landing craft, the Dyugon class:

Indicates we may be seeing a shift towards an expeditionary capability, in conjunction with strategic deterrence and a continued focus on anti-shipping.

Russia is also beefing up its naval special operations capabilities, another sign of a continuation of trends seen in Crimea, by introducing new special warfare craft like this Project 03160 ‘Raptor’, which has been spotted in Syria:

All in all the RN remains the same in some respects and is undergoing changes in others. It's capabilities against a NATO-type target remain as they've always been with tactics and doctrine largely unchanged.

But Russia is evolving too and is slowing gaining a greater capability to project power and implement a "shadow" war type of scenario - insertion of special operations to prepare a nation for a conventional attack or support local radical elements- as noted in both Syria, Ukraine and Crimea and shown to be a major concern by the US for which the Jade Helm exercises where a response.

Except to see more of these guys, just without their uniforms:

 

[F-22Raptor]

There's been talk of a future RN carrier around the size for the Ford Class, but to date the RN functions much like its previous iteration the Soviet Navy. It's still centered around long-range strike capabilities to keep NATO - and especially US ship - outside of the effective range of air defense missiles like SM-6 and beyond the reasonable fire-range of long-ranged anti-ship missiles like Tomahawk block IV and LRASM.

Reasonable fire-range means the distance the US will actually fire from. Even with a 1000+ km range, the US wont fire a Tomahawk from that distance targeting a move ship. They just wont do it.

The current trend with the RN is building smaller, but heavily armed frigates packed with long-range anti-ship and land-attack missiles. Missiles like 3M-54.

Their aircraft remain as they always have, being a healthy mix of TU-22M3, TU-142MK/MR/MZ and SU-27/33 series aircraft carrying long-range anti-ship missiles.

Both Oscar II and Yasen provide Russia with much the same. Standoff land and ship attack capabilities, though the Oscar IIs are getting a bit old now:

And interesting trend that Russia's been implemented - or at least trying to - is a shift towards expeditionary warfare, for assaults against near by targets. Russia's attempted purchase of several Mistral class amphibs:

And the creation of new landing craft, the Dyugon class:

Indicates we may be seeing a shift towards an expeditionary capability, in conjunction to strategic deterrence and a continued focus on anti-shipping.

Russia is also beefing up its special operations capabilities, another sign of a continued trend from Crimea, by introducing new special warfare craft like this Project 03160 ‘Raptor’, which has been spotted in Syria:

All in all the RN remains the same in some respects and is undergoing changes in others. It's capabilities against a NATO-type target remain as they've always been with tactics and doctrine largely unchanged. But Russia is evolving too and is slowing gaining a greater capability to project power and implement a "shadow" war type of scenario, as noted in both Syria, Ukraine and Crimea... if only near its own borders.

With the Tomahawk and SM-6 now being announced as new anti-ship missiles and LRASM reaching IOC in a couple years, the US will now be able to hold ships at risk at very long ranges from air, sea, and undersea. This is a dramatic upgrade in capability considering the state the US antiship inventory had been in. Potential adversaries such as Russia will no longer have the advantage in antiship weaponry they've once had.

 

[surya kiran]

And how do we propose it flies off the deck of a future IN carrier? The purpose of an E-2 or Yak-44 isn't to replace land-based combat control aircraft, but to provide an expeditionary force, centered around an aircraft carrier, an early warning aircraft of their own. Sailing in the SCS or East/West Indian Ocean - away from Indian waters - India wont have a land-based early warning aircraft unless it bases them in regional nations like Vietnam or Japan.

Actually, I was referring not to the air platform, but its payload. Should have made that clearer. Using another aircraft with the Indian AEW. With something like the Yak-44 or V-22, like you said.

Isn't a carrier-borne AWACS so irrelevent to this discussion.

First let's see a carrier

 

[Abingdonboy]

First let's see a carrier

Compartmentalising isn't the sensible way to go. All of the diffeent elements- propulsion, weapons, air group etc need to be cosidered together to formulate an optimised designand product.

 

[Fireaxe888]

I don't agree with US arms sales to Pakistan (the Airlift of Evil and covert support for the Taliban has shown them to be more trouble than they're worth), but New Delhi really shouldn't be panicking over a small F-16 sale. The US has a lot to offer to India as a partner, and both sides see to benefit from this partnership. It would be foolish to derail it over such a relatively small thing.

 

[jetray]

Who else has EMALS tech and advanced carrier based fixed wing AWACS?

Not a game changer mate. Only reason they are giving EMALS is to sell F35's. Over a period of time these techs will be the norm so why bother about it. Let them provide some thing state of art like nuke propulsion or stealth tech. We should not sell our interests for peanuts.

 

[$@rJen]

Not a game changer mate. Only reason they are giving EMALS is to sell F35's. Over a period of time these techs will be the norm so why bother about it. Let them provide some thing state of art like nuke propulsion or stealth tech. We should not sell our interests for peanuts.

But Defence Minister already stated publicly that we won't ever buy F-35s from them but the discussion on Puting naval Rafale is intensifying. lets wait and see i bet US would turn down the offer in the last minute

 

[MKC]

Stranger things have happened, so i won't be surprised if there is significant contribution from US on 65-70 K ton Indian AC. the areas of co-operation could include EMALS , Nuclear propulsion (We know that power hungry Electrical catapult system and its linear motors will be too much of a burden of ships power generating prime movers, necessitating a nuclear reactors) and of course the fighters and reconnaissance aircrafts.
This program is already part of agreement between US and India to pursue 4 Pathfinder programs and co-operation in AC and jet engine technology (Link).
Honestly, i suppose only two options are looking likely for Vishal class AC Heavy combat aircrafts (Rafale or F 35C).

Why can't we use same nuclear reactor for INS Vishal which was developed for INS Arihant?
I know there is difference in 6000 tonnes & 65,000 tonnes but I don't think that can be a problem.

 

[Rajaraja Chola]

Radar should not be the problem but platform will be.....Brazil or I believe any other country has nothing to offer of that sort of platform yet which is carrier capable....

F35 has all the operation data servers based in USA, and they will regularly update software patch from their centres. Who knows these codes can download mission details, co-ordinates and what not.
Technically superb or not, I do not want Indian fighters softwares to be controlled by Americans

 

[kaykay]

F35 has all the operation data servers based in USA, and they will regularly update software patch from their centres. Who knows these codes can download mission details, co-ordinates and what not.
Technically superb or not, I do not want Indian fighters softwares to be controlled by Americans

Then only options left are either Rafale-M or F-18SH. France operates E-2s with Rafale I guess

 

[$@rJen]

Why can't we use same nuclear reactor for INS Vishal which was developed for INS Arihant?
I know there is difference in 6000 tonnes & 65,000 tonnes but I don't think that can be a problem.

That's what is going to be used... some tweaks and modification would take place and two reactors would be placed on IAC2

 

[Rajaraja Chola]

Then only options left are either Rafale-M or F-18SH. France operates E-2s with Rafale I guess

Then lets go for Rafales buddy. Our immediate dangers and would be potentials for war is Pakistan. We are in a arms race with China, but India and China have too much in common to go for a war. Rafale M would still be more advanced than any naval crafts China might deploy for the next two decades.

 

[Abingdonboy]

Then lets go for Rafales buddy. Our immediate dangers and would be potentials for war is Pakistan. We are in a arms race with China, but India and China have too much in common to go for a war. Rafale M would still be more advanced than any naval crafts China might deploy for the next two decades.

Hope for the best but prepare for the worst my friend. I agree fully that the liklihood of China and India fighting is minimal as there is too much convergence of interests BUT part of maintaining stability is having a credible defence, weakness is itself a destabilising factor and will invite hostility. Any weakness will be punished and there is no way you will be treated as equals with the current desparity in conventional fighting capabilties.