Lockheed Martin CEO Phil Shaw :Talks with the INDIAN NAVY for AEGIS air-to-air defence system

[RISING SUN]

Say wut??!!Why do you want Aegis to be on the old Godavari class FFGs??



Only Bows for me.Which kind takes your fancy by the way - the composite ones or the Long bows??I for one like the composite recurves simply because of the variety of looks they come in where as in case of the longbows, you seen one, seen them all!!



The only problem with the Aegis is that virtually all of its SAM components, the SMX ones I mean, are mostly optimised against long range ballistic missiles but their effectiveness against anti ship cruise missiles is not yet proven, and India,as you know, does not have any sea borne ballistic missile threat!!So............

To be fair AEGIS was first time offered for P17A class boats only. You can cross check with sources.

 

[Abingdonboy]

I think 7 are on order.
@Abingdonboy @PARIKRAMA

6 more are confirmed (delivery starting in 2017), there was talk of 7 but I can't confirm that.

This imho is the most important requirement right now with God alone knows how many delays till date.

Indeed and God knows why the IN is taking their sweet time on the matter.

Is he implying AC 130 Spectre?

I don't think so, there is quite a large market for the C-130 in India beyond the Special Operations role especially now the MTA is DOA. I don't understand why LM are wasting their time pitching a F-16 line in India when the more logical (and benefical) offer would be a C-130 line in India for X amount of units. As pointed out, TASL is already deeply involved in the C-130 production and supply chain.


@PARIKRAMA


On topic, there is NO chance of the IN opting for the AEGIS now. They had rejected the offer a few years back in favour of developing their own BM solutions making use of in-house and JV weapons were possible. The IN isn't interested in adopting off the shelf solutions for such critical technologies, they are well on the road of making their own in house.

If allowed access, I am sure India SF would love to get their hands on it. That much ranged firepower can come in handy in few situations if and when Indian leadership generates enough political will to hit the HVTs across the LOC. The main thing is stealth in this cases. SF sneaking around, identifying the terrorist base, designating the target, and launching the strike from Indian ground.

I have no idea if that could work but if it does then sure Hellfire would be a nice ace in our deck.

Indian SF already have the SPIKE-MR in their arsenal

 

[Carlosa]

Wasnt there an news on how an Su34 bomber with an Jammer blinded the Aegis in the Mediterranean and how the US sailors were demotivated?
So if Russians can disable the Aegis, maybe we can too, if we buy that tech ftom them. Honestly, Aegis is an overkill in Indian Ocean Realm where MF Star with Barak has already tilted the scales to a very large extent.

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2014/11/13/aegis-fail-in-black-sea-ruskies-burn-down-uss-donald-duck/

It was actually a SU-24.

 

[Kashmiri Pandit]

Say wut??!!Why do you want Aegis to be on the old Godavari class FFGs??



Only Bows for me.Which kind takes your fancy by the way - the composite ones or the Long bows??I for one like the composite recurves simply because of the variety of looks they come in where as in case of the longbows, you seen one, seen them all!!



The only problem with the Aegis is that virtually all of its SAM components, the SMX ones I mean, are mostly optimised against long range ballistic missiles but their effectiveness against anti ship cruise missiles is not yet proven, and India,as you know, does not have any sea borne ballistic missile threat!!So............

Classic hunter Bows and one was shown on HTV18 Baggage Battles Among swords I am a big fan of Samurai Katana

 

[SvenSvensonov]

The only problem with the Aegis is that virtually all of its SAM components, the SMX ones I mean, are mostly optimised against long range ballistic missiles but their effectiveness against anti ship cruise missiles is not yet proven, and India,as you know, does not have any sea borne ballistic missile threat!!So............

Ballistic missile defense is not one of SM-2's primary capabilities. These are S2A and Anti-shipping defense primarily, but it can and have been used as an anti-ballistic missile missile as well.

SM-2 Block IV has a built-in ABM capability to augment SM-6 for short-to-medium range interceptions while SM-3 engages medium-to-long range ballistic missiles. SM-2 is still the primary air defense SAM of the Aegis ships.

SM-3 has no capability to intercept cruise missiles, limited ability to intercept aircraft and was from the ground up designed to down long-range ballistic missiles from long ranges. It also has an ASAT capability and future blocks, like the Block IIA - shown here during a test flight:

Will have a range greater then 3x that of the existing SM-3 - in excess of 1500 km. This extends the kill envelope of the SM-3 and expands its ability to intercept ICBM and Satellite targets, as well as engage MRBM and IRBMs from a greater distance.

It's kinetic kill vehicle has limited utility against aircraft:

SM-6 on the other hand is an all-around capable missile that has been tested against ballistic missile targets, aircraft and cruise missiles/anti-ship missiles. It does not have the capability to intercept satellites.

SM-6 demonstrated its ability to intercept sea-skimming, superonic targets during an "Engage on remote" testing exercise in 2014. During this exercise a fleet of several ships, including the launch platform for SM-6 - USS Paul Jones:

Collaberated to detect, track and engage a target using information from multiple ships. Paul Jones launched an SM-6 before its radars were in range to track the incoming target, but using the "Engage on remote" capability that Aegis ships have, USS Sampson, which was able to track the incoming target, picked up and vectored the SM-6 to a successful engagement:

All without USS Paul Jones, the ship that launched the SM-6, ever even seeing the target missiles. This type of engagement extends the kill chain of Paul Jones by using sensors on Sampson, and keeps Paul Jones out of danger as it can engage a target before the target, or Paul Jones, could see each other.

SM-6 has a range against anti-ship missiles of +200 km and a maximum range against all classes of +500 km.

And what was the target used during this Engage on remote test? A low-altitude, supersonic GQM-163A Coyote flying at Mach 3 at 15 feet.

A BQM-74E was downed during the same engagement, just for fun.

So to recap, rather then not having proven a capability to intercept anti-ship missiles, Aegis and the Standard series have proven capable of intercepting missiles from all classes - from ballistic missiles to anti-ship missiles, and aircraft to satellites - the Standard can intercept whatever you can throw at it.

@SvenSvensonov your posts are a pleasure to read .

Glad I can be of service.

 

[Eminent Mainstream Media]

Barak-8 has half the range of the missiles Aegis controls (and even less when paired against SM-3. Keep in mind Aegis integrated sub-surface, surface and air and orbital combat management into a single combat system. It's not just surface-to-air), so it's able to hit out at a longer range then even Barak-8ER.

As for how it measures up to fast missiles such as Brahmos or YJ12? It works. That's all I'm saying on the subject.

Barak-8 too combines in a system like Aegis- Its control systems have integrated surface to surface, surface to air modes, you can call It a mini Aegis whose work is cut off for tactical roles of attacking and defending the ship and fleet- unlike Aegis which has Area missile defense and can take on ballistic missiles at great ranges-

The position of radar on Barak system gives advantage in picking up targets closer to sea surface at greater range Aegis system could on Its own- due to height- rumors are that Israelis intercepted a Yakhont with Barak-8-

If allowed access, I am sure India SF would love to get their hands on it. That much ranged firepower can come in handy in few situations if and when Indian leadership generates enough political will to hit the HVTs across the LOC. The main thing is stealth in this cases. SF sneaking around, identifying the terrorist base, designating the target, and launching the strike from Indian ground.

I have no idea if that could work but if it does then sure Hellfire would be a nice ace in our deck.

Stealthy drone is the key- the answer to all problems Avenger C-

 

[RISING SUN]

Barak-8 too combines in a system like Aegis- Its control systems have integrated surface to surface, surface to air modes, you can call It a mini Aegis whose work is cut off for tactical roles of attacking and defending the ship and fleet- unlike Aegis which has Area missile defense and can take on ballistic missiles at great ranges-

The position of radar on Barak system gives advantage in picking up targets closer to sea surface at greater range Aegis system could on Its own- due to height- rumors are that Israelis intercepted a Yakhont with Barak-8-



Stealthy drone is the key- the answer to all problems Avenger C-

Do you friend really know what BARAK 1 or 8 are??? BARAK 8 is the LRSAM of IN. It is itself SAM, how will it combine in a system. Please understand at least basic work of equipment before explaining things which might be way of the track.
On topic what @SvenSvensonov said makes sense. Yes we have the best possible things but if we can try at least one batch of boats with AEGIS with full package of radars, illuminators, weapons, and most important co-operative engagement capabilities. Then it will give us fairly clear idea where does it stands compared to current MF Star. Though there are lot of rumors about MF Star but most of the things are not proven even in extensive exercises...

 

[Olaf One-Brow]

On topic what @SvenSvensonov said makes sense. Yes we have the best possible things but if we can try at least one batch of boats with AEGIS with full package of radars, illuminators, weapons, and most important co-operative engagement capabilities.

You don't need Aegis for a CEC type of capability. It's not a built-in aspect of the Aegis Combat System or its supporting elements, it's a learned capability that the USN and USAF are practicing using existing capabilities and linking them into a singular capability.

Russia used to do the same thing with their Relay system. A submarine link this Juliet Class would launch a missile, without the submarine being able to detect or see the target.

And orbiting aircraft, often times the a TU-95 derivative would pick up the missile and provide updates for course correction.

These course updates could come from the Bear itself if it was able to ID and track the target, but more commonly it too would be at standoff ranges and have course updates fed by additional maritime recon aircraft, satellites, submarines or surface ships.

The final result would be this:

But the Bear, the Juliet or its quartet of missiles, the surface ships, supporting subsurface or orbital platforms weren't purpose built to guide each other, they achieved this relay capability, a precursor to OTH CEC engagements by simply being able to talk with one another. Using up and downlinks that would feed each other targeting updates.

Aegis and its supporting elements like SM-6, E-2D, Virginia class submarines or specialized remote sensing satellites - among many more - are able to talk to each other, much the same way Link16 allows the USAF to talk with all its aircraft, not just a balkanized system were only F-16s can talk to F-16s.

MF-STARs should be able to do that too, if the IN is built right its ships, aircraft and submarines should be able to communicate with each other. After that, if they already don't, adding the capability to talk with and vector missiles shouldn't be too hard.

You don't need Aegis to implement a CEC type of engagement capability, you just need to be able to talk with supporting elements and most importantly practice it.

Then it will give us fairly clear idea where does it stands compared to current MF Star.

And this is part of the reason the US wont sell it, or would sell you a nerfed version that doesn't represent the current baseline. We aren't selling you sh*t if you're intention is to compare if with your other control platforms.

 

[RISING SUN]

Barak-8 too combines in a system like Aegis- Its control systems have integrated surface to surface, surface to air modes, you can call It a mini Aegis whose work is cut off for tactical roles of attacking and defending the ship and fleet- unlike Aegis which has Area missile defense and can take on ballistic missiles at great ranges-

The position of radar on Barak system gives advantage in picking up targets closer to sea surface at greater range Aegis system could on Its own- due to height- rumors are that Israelis intercepted a Yakhont with Barak-8-



Stealthy drone is the key- the answer to all problems Avenger C-

Do you friend really know what BARAK 1 or 8 are??? BARAK 8 is the LRSAM of IN. It is itself SAM, how will it combine in a system. Please understand at least basic work of equipment before explaining things which might be way of the track.
On topic what @SvenSvensonov said makes sense. Yes we have the best possible things but if we can try at least one batch of boats with AEGIS with full package of radars, illuminators, weapons, and most important co-operative engagement capabilities. Then it will give us fairly clear idea where does it stands compared to current MF Star. Though there are lot of rumors about MF Star but most of the things are not proven even in extensive excerc

You don't need Aegis for a CEC type of capability. It's not a built-in aspect of the Aegis Combat System or its supporting elements, it's a learned capability that the USN and USAF are practicing using existing capabilities and linking them into a singular capability.

Russia used to do the same thing with their Relay system. A submarine link this Juliet Class would launch a missile, without the submarine being able to detect or see the target.

And orbiting aircraft, often times the a TU-95 derivative would pick up the missile and provide updates for course correction.

These course updates could come from the Bear itself if it was able to ID and track the target, but more commonly it too would be at standoff ranges and have course updates fed by additional maritime recon aircraft, satellites, submarines or surface ships.

The final result would be this:

But the Bear, the Juliet or its quartet of missiles, the surface ships, supporting subsurface or orbital platforms weren't purpose built to guide each other, they achieved this relay capability, a precursor to OTH CEC engagements by simply being able to talk with one another. Using up and downlinks that would feed each other targeting updates.

Aegis and its supporting elements like SM-6, E-2D, Virginia class submarines or specialized remote sensing satellites - among many more - are able to talk to each other, much the same way Link16 allows the USAF to talk with all its aircraft, not just a balkanized system were only F-16s can talk to F-16s.

MF-STARs should be able to do that too, if the IN is built right its ships, aircraft and submarines should be able to communicate with each other. After that, if they already don't, adding the capability to talk with and vector missiles shouldn't be too hard.

You don't need Aegis to implement a CEC type of engagement capability, you just need to be able to talk with supporting elements and most importantly practice it.



And this is part of the reason the US wont sell it, or would sell you a nerfed version that doesn't represent the current baseline. We aren't selling you sh*t if you're intention is to compare if with your other control platforms.

Every system can have the co-operative engagement capabilities but till what level. I don't think at present there are many working options if you look into AEGIS capability and Russian, Chinese standards. Everything takes time, but what India can learn from AEGIS can't be judged on facevalue as we can do it for Russian or Chinese systems. Please check how much level of seamless real time information Sharing happens in US Navy, Russian Navy, Chinese Navy, European navies and Indian Navy as well. If everybody could do the things as efficiently as AEGIS does with being economical as well is worth the money. And it's my personal opinion that we should AEGIS systems with MF Star. Government can do it that much I have faith in government if they wish to do it. Depending on that they can keep on building domestic platform as well as increasing exposure to US top platform.

 

[Olaf One-Brow]

Every system can have the co-operative engagement capabilities but till what level. I don't think at present there are many working options if you look into AEGIS capability and Russian, Chinese standards. Everything takes time, but what India can learn from AEGIS can't be judged on facevalue as we can do it for Russian or Chinese systems. Please check how much level of seamless real time information Sharing happens in US Navy, Russian Navy, Chinese Navy, European navies and Indian Navy as well.

I don't need to look at the level of information sharing or data fusion. It's largely irrelevant. You use what you have, not what you wish you had and develop a doctrine to fit. Even if you had Aegis, like Japan and Norway do, that doesn't mean you're going to suddenly have a CEC type of capability. It's not inherent to Aegis. It's learned.

Norway has Aegis and a large amount of data fusion and intelligence gathering capabilities. Norway, despite having a rather small military, is considered by the US and NATO to one of the best at data fusion and execution because their strategy is based on using superior intelligence and coordination to overcome superior firepower. Firepower belonging to Russia.

It does practice a variant of CEC that sees Air Force, Naval and Ground assets working as a unified loop.

A small nation with a small military leveraging its assets to form a network,

Japan has Aegis, but because of defense doctrine limitations, its lagging behind in CEC.

The US has Aegis too:

But it's only now learning how to leverage its assets to perform CEC. It's not about the number of assets you have or even their sophistication as Russia is still leveraging Soviet era tactics like its relay systems. It's how you use them that counts. India has what it has, not what we wished it had. It'll develop a doctrine based around this and a CEC type of capability isn't impossible, it just needs to be learned and practiced.

You don't need Aegis for this as this capability is no inherent to Aegis. It works with Aegis, not because of it. Aegis doesn't add capabilities that better weapons or supporting sensors couldn't afford MF-STAR, it just adds more cost.

Everything takes time, but what India can learn from AEGIS can't be judged on facevalue as we can do it for Russian or Chinese systems.

Learn what? The architecture? 80s vintage. It's not the architecture of Aegis that's special, in fact MF-STAR is largely superior in how it operates, not needing illuminators, linking surface, subsurface and air-warfare into a single combat architecture and supporting better sensors right now - Aegis will need baseline updates to support SPY-6:

MF-STAR likely already supports and open architecture design that'll allow it to be upgraded with an ABM capability too. Aegis is the standard because the US uses it so effectively, not particularly because it's the best system around today, though it is being constantly upgraded too.

And if you weren't aware, I am Sven.

 

[RISING SUN]

I don't need to look at the level of information sharing or data fusion. It's largely irrelevant. You use what you have, not what you wish you had and develop a doctrine to fit. Even if you had Aegis, like Japan and Norway do, that doesn't mean you're going to suddenly have a CEC type of capability. It's not inherent to Aegis. It's learned.

Norway has Aegis and a large amount of data fusion and intelligence gathering capabilities. Norway, despite having a rather small military, is considered by the US and NATO to one of the best at data fusion and execution because their strategy is based on using superior intelligence and coordination to overcome superior firepower. Firepower belonging to Russia.

It does practice a variant of CEC that sees Air Force, Naval and Ground assets working as a unified loop.

A small nation with a small military leveraging its assets to form a network,

Japan has Aegis, but because of defense doctrine limitations, its lagging behind in CEC.

The US has Aegis too:

But it's only now learning how to leverage its assets to perform CEC. It's not about the number of assets you have or even their sophistication as Russia is still leveraging Soviet era tactics like its relay systems. It's how you use them that counts. India has what it has, not what we wished it had. It'll develop a doctrine based around this and a CEC type of capability isn't impossible, it just needs to be learned and practiced.

You don't need Aegis for this as this capability is no inherent to Aegis. It works with Aegis, not because of it. Aegis doesn't add capabilities that better weapons or supporting sensors couldn't afford MF-STAR, it just adds more cost.



Learn what? The architecture? 80s vintage. It's not the architecture of Aegis that's special, in fact MF-STAR is largely superior in how it operates, not needing illuminators, linking surface, subsurface and air-warfare into a single combat architecture and supporting better sensors right now - Aegis will need baseline updates to support SPY-6:

MF-STAR likely already supports and open architecture design that'll allow it to be upgraded with an ABM capability too. Aegis is the standard because the US uses it so effectively, not particularly because it's the best system around today, though it is being constantly upgraded too.

And if you weren't aware, I am Sven.

For you it might be irrelevant friend but in my opinion we should test it to understand the differences between Indian CMS and AEGIS. And don't put words in my mouth as I said clearly that CEC which india can gain will be of much higher level in information Sharing and action taken on its basis from AEGIS compared to current ICMS. And comparing MF Star and AEGIS is like comparing Apple and banana. For GOD sake MF Star is only a radar not a Combat management system. Indian Kolkata class boat has so many sensors and MF Star is only one of them. While on the other hand if you have to compare, please compare the SPY 1D against MF Star, you will get your answers. You put both against each other in day in night, result will be same. And why only limited to only radar, you pickup missile to missile, anything. I say you compare full system against another in one to one ship and against fleet as well. Why? Simple fact that AEGIS is matured to higher level while Indian combat management system is taking baby steps. It's good to be humble and learn from wherever possible. Let's see what are the results. Indian ICMS is developing and we need to learn faster than the opponent. if AEGIS can help in that, why not test it for one or two batchs. I don't believe that because of this, Indian fleet quality will go down. If kne has to compare we compare irrelevent things while forgetting the relevant and comparable hardwares and softwares. That's all the point I am trying to make. Thank you.

 

[Eminent Mainstream Media]

Do you friend really know what BARAK 1 or 8 are??? BARAK 8 is the LRSAM of IN. It is itself SAM, how will it combine in a system. Please understand at least basic work of equipment before explaining things which might be way of the track.

Read again-

Barak-8 too combines in a system like Aegis

 

[RISING SUN]

Read again-

If the system in which BARAK is built is so great, then why are we comparing it with AEGIS??? It is because we want to reach the level of sophistication in AEGIS systems.

 

[Eminent Mainstream Media]

If the system in which BARAK is built is so great, then why are we comparing it with AEGIS??? It is because we want to reach the level of sophistication in AEGIS systems.

Different roles- one is a nail hammer and other a sledge hammer-

 

[RISING SUN]

Different roles- one is a nail hammer and other a sledge hammer-

Sorry to disappoint you mate but that is not true at all. Bad analogy.