Indian Navy News & Discussions

[Dillinger]

Good post, but here you simply discussed about aerial threats. There will be sub surface combatants too. Searching for sub sea while keep guard up in the air will one hell of a job. It will be up to the IN to strategize and see how they implement their tactics in such a scenario. Like i have stated here multiple times, an electric submarine, lurking silently beneath at 1-2knots, and the massive Kolkata passing over it, would be ready to ambush. The submarines can hear you, they know your wake, but you can't hear him. Perhaps that's why PN is intending to place a 6 submarine order for newer SSKs, rather than surface ships.

We already have concluded multiple exercise to effect the same, just recently we conducted a mammoth exercise where the ISAR and MPA platforms of the IN were coordinated along with surface and sub surface combatants (the latter by dint of the VLF comm. facility) along with the IAF's air assets "wading into the sea", all run through the Link-2 and linebacked by the IN's own organic AEW, all of this facilitated by the IN's own dedicated satellite asset.

So, multiple engagements over vast areas is exactly what we have been training for, that is exactly why dedicated space assets were set up for the IN and preference was given to ensuring the seamless integration and development of a situation awareness picture at the theater wide level.

The sub-surface threat on the other hand will indeed remain dominant in relative terms. For multiple reasons, firstly because the IN has a severe paucity of ASW helos operating off its combatants and the NMRH/ASW helo deal has not been concluded yet, furthermore even if it were signed quickly it would take some time to build up appropriate force levels and ease them into the mix. Secondly, the absence of low/very low frequency active/passive towed array sonars in significant numbers at the moment, till the recently inducted Kamortas and the Talwar class frigates get their ACTAS sonar fitment (the latter moving into said refit next year) and lastly because the last three Agostas are capable boats.

@Donatello One can always "hear" the subs too, the sub needs to stay glued on its passive sonar, any active ping and the chances of detection go up quite a bit. The Ships have their own passive and active sonars up and running, towed arrays which can trail for kms and with sensors at variable depths (low, very low frequency brings an immense detection range increment, more than the range at which most subs will pick out the ships) negates the advantage of hiding in thermocline layers to a good extent. Add to that large area sanitation by MPAs such as the 8Is using their MAD and with persistence (and remember all this data is being collated and added to the unified picture) due to their large ETOS, then come the ASW helos which sanitize the relatively immediate area around the CBG/ship through sonobuoys and dipping sonar (marking contacts, plotting possible paths through multiple contacts) and then the ASW ships like the Kamorta themselves.

All such systems are always best utilized when they are structured in a layered manner with redundancies.

Of course, you could still eat a torpedo as stated before, just haggling over the technical point of sub vs. surface.

 

[Donatello]

We already have concluded multiple exercise to effect the same, just recently we conducted a mammoth exercise where the ISAR and MPA platforms of the IN were coordinated along with surface and sub surface combatants (the latter by dint of the VLF comm. facility) along with the IAF's air assets "wading into the sea", all run through the Link-2 and linebacked by the IN's own organic AEW, all of this facilitated by the IN's own dedicated satellite asset.

So, multiple engagements over vast areas is exactly what we have been training for, that is exactly why dedicated space assets were set up for the IN and preference was given to ensuring the seamless integration and development of a situation awareness picture at the theater wide level.

The sub-surface threat on the other hand will indeed remain dominant in relative terms. For multiple reasons, firstly because the IN has a severe paucity of ASW helos operating off its combatants and the NMRH/ASW helo deal has not been concluded yet, furthermore even if it were signed quickly it would take some time to build up appropriate force levels and ease them into the mix. Secondly, the absence of low/very low frequency active/passive towed array sonars in significant numbers at the moment, till the recently inducted Kamortas and the Talwar class frigates get their ACTAS sonar fitment (the latter moving into said refit next year) and lastly because the last three Agostas are capable boats.

And six new ones coming up....plus the older Agosta 70s have been given the SUBTICs refit. Like i said before, is IN willing to risk a billion dollar asset to say, a missile or torpedo attack? Hit to your lead ship will have it's effects. All that's needed is neutralization of the threat, in case of a destroyer, the bridge taken out or propulsion damaged by the torpedo, would render it ineffective. IN has the numbers game, but again, like the IAF, how many will it want to field, and how many would it want to move from their different operation theaters, Since PN wouldn't need to go out much.

 

[Dillinger]

And six new ones coming up....plus the older Agosta 70s have been given the SUBTICs refit. Like i said before, is IN willing to risk a billion dollar asset to say, a missile or torpedo attack? Hit to your lead ship will have it's effects. All that's needed is neutralization of the threat, in case of a destroyer, the bridge taken out or propulsion damaged by the torpedo, would render it ineffective. IN has the numbers game, but again, like the IAF, how many will it want to field, and how many would it want to move from their different operation theaters, Since PN wouldn't need to go out much.

In war? Yes. That is the very sine qua non of all warfare unless in specific scenarios larger strategic/tactical interests prevail.

 

[Luftwaffe]

@Penguin what do you think about this Topic.

 

[pursuit of happiness]

A single sub could sink it-

--
yes..
single sub CAN do many things..
ques is
when
CAN is replaced by WILL
based on fire power, stealtgh, nuclear propulsion, AIPs , SLBM, AIPs

 

[Viper0011.]

Nothing happens.
A single AAW destroyer carries over 72 LR-SAMs. That means long range fleet defense air cover.
And in any SAG - Surface Action Group, there is more than one AAW destroyer, not to mention all individual ships of importance/capital ships carry their own SRSAM.

Have you served in the Navy either in a CBG (carrier battle group) or in one of the FDT (Fleet Defense Tiers)?

 

[thesolar65]

From the title, I thought "Mamata Banarjee is threatening Pakistan"!!.............

 

[Echo_419]

How about the 7,000t TF2000 class AAW frigate.

If you are going to provide this thing to Pakistan on soft loans then why not go ahead & are there any type of these vessels on service

 

[IceCold]

Effectively, shore based batteries/MPAs/ISAR assets can at best still some what sanitize a zone extending 100+ nautical miles from Pakistan's shores AAW abilities or no AAW abilities (no mean feat), so an Op Python cannot be attempted again, of course other equally devastating options remain on the table.

Please correct me however IN can very well stay out of 100 miles radius and still enforce an effective blockade, an effective blockade is all it needs to choke our war machinery.
If anything is to be learned from operation phyton, was how flawed our strategy for protection of our strategic port was and that there is no alternative to a good old conventional navy whether or not it can be attempted again is debatable.

 

[SQ8]

Well Pakistan is not unfamiliar with pre-emptive strikes, infact once before did Pakistan organize a massive pre-emtive strike on 11 Indian bases..and they were so efficient in it, that they failed to hit even a single aircraft and the damage caused to the Indian bases was so extensive, that IAF took off from the very same bases that very night and bombed Pakistan.

Read all about it.

Operation Chengiz Khan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

P.S. If you think you are smart, your enemy is not dumb, they would have already prepared for such an eventuality.

If wikipedia is your guru, then your knowledge is hollow and baseless.
Please read about the operation here before derailing the thread.
Aeronaut: PAF on the Offensive - 1971 War

 

[Danish saleem]

and do you think that a better navy than your'S won't have any counter measures? Typical nonsense

Brother,

Please check the capability of RAAD, easily deliver from any Plane, from 30000+ feet in the Air having range of more than 500 KM, so two or three Raad Missiles hit from different directions, counter measures of any ship will not able to tackle that!

So brother your kolkaata class will be easily turned in koool caata class. nothing to worry .

Danish

 

[Zarvan]

We will definently not have a answer except a Babur cruise missile to the hull of the ship.

India won the arms race. Pakistan lost. :,(

We need to improve economy fast and get 4 Destroyers from China even if we have take help from our allies in Middle East there security depends on us and for us to defend them specially Saudi Arabia we need to have at least a Navy with around 24 Major Warships and many more Submarines so they can give us money and in the mean while we can work on our economy producing electricity developing industrial areas and improving Law and Order

 

[HariPrasad]

We will definently not have a answer except a Babur cruise missile to the hull of the ship.

India won the arms race. Pakistan lost. :,(

Hey Guy,

What happened??? Your answer is very unusual.

Submarines and large numbers of anti-ship cruise missiles are the traditional answer to an asymmetric naval conflict.

Even the threat of a single submarine can pose an unacceptable risk to a surface fleet if its location is unknown.

That's why China has over 70 submarines, including 10 nuclear ones. As well as thousands of anti-ship cruise missiles. Many of which can be fired from submarines, using hit and run tactics over large distances.

But noisy Chinese are very difficult to Hide. They possess more threat to themselves rather than enemy. They are not fit to fight in High sea.

@ah

With all due respect sir, if this was the case, countries like US had not developed powerful navies but rather just invested more in anti-ship missiles and the same had been true for air-force, invest more in sams and less on air crafts but history has proven on the contrary. There is no counter to an effective conventional air force and the same stands true for navy.

Anti-ship missiles are effective, but that does not negate the effectiveness of a conventional navy. Not to forget that these billion dollar ships also have the means to neutralize the threats from anti-ship missiles.

But these ships are having stealth features and it is not easy lock on the missile for fire. You will not be able to detect it from few kilometers away. I had heard an India officer saying that they could not detect one of Indian ship from some 100 KM distance.

 

[IceCold]

But these ships are having stealth features and it is not easy lock on the missile for fire. You will not be able to detect it from few kilometers away. I had heard an India officer saying that they could not detect one of Indian ship from some 100 KM distance.

I don't know why you quoted me but i am actually stressing on the same thing that a missile cannot be substitute of a conventional navy, it can only supplement it.

 

[HariPrasad]

You're making too many idealistic assumptions. Barak's real time performance has yet to be seen, that's why i brought the CM400AKG up, since it is not combat tested as well. However, since the Chinese are putting it's idea forward as a anti-aircraft carrier weapon (which always is guarded by LR SAMs,) it seems plausible that CM400AKG can score a hit. Even if i missile hits the Kolkata, the job is done. You don't have to sink it, you have to disable it. Would IN be willing to risk it's main combatants for fire?

You are talking as if the performance of other weapons are already proven. Non of the weapon we are discussing is used in War. We are only discussing based on the capability and general information available in Public. Actually you should tell it to the members who advocate DF 21 here. It is not even inducted in Chinese navy.