INS Vikrant (IAC1) & INS Vikramaditya - News & Discussions

[randomradio]

The way technology in this sector is rapidly evolving, I suspect the size of the swarm drones and the payload it'd carry will see huge enhancements & the need for a mother ship to be launched from a Carrier done away with too .

Unlikely for that to happen anytime soon. Just a missile alone costs so much, is less sophisticated than a drone and is easier to use.

In which case the A&N islandchain can well function as an Aircraft Carrier harbouring both swarm drones & UCAV's designed to interdict the Carrier fleets in the Sunda & Malacca Straits.

What is this drone, and what's its range, payload etc?

How many nations have reported success in deployment of lasers powerful enough to knock out drones leave aside Aircrafts since then.What you're referring to will come to pass in the post 2050's time period.That's too far ahead in the future for is to be considering them today .

Countries have already started doing it. We will be realeasing our own operational air defence laser by 2021.

 

[randomradio]

I'm telling you @randomradio is a planner in the futuristic war planning department of the IN & the IAF. That he's an active gamer and PUBG player is sheer & pure co incidence.

Haven't played games in years?

 

[_Anonymous_]

Unlikely for that to happen anytime soon. Just a missile alone costs so much, is less sophisticated than a drone and is easier to use.



What is this drone, and what's its range, payload etc?



Countries have already started doing it. We will be realeasing our own operational air defence laser by 2021.

I'm suggesting a hypothetical scenario where in UCAV's & swarm drones overwhelms the AD of a Carrier. Naturally, you wouldn't rely on these solely to accomplish such a mission. They'd be to augment capacities of your Aircraft, missiles & submarines apart from other naval assets in such an endeavor. If you're laying so much stock of futuristic technologies like the railgun & lasers, is the concept of enhanced payload swarm drones & UCAV's so far fetched?

 

[_Anonymous_]

Haven't played games in years?

Then I desperately need to have what you're having.

 

[randomradio]

I'm suggesting a hypothetical scenario where in UCAV's & swarm drones overwhelms the AD of a Carrier. Naturally, you wouldn't rely on these solely to accomplish such a mission. They'd be to augment capacities of your Aircraft, missiles & submarines apart from other naval assets in such an endeavor. If you're laying so much stock of futuristic technologies like the railgun & lasers, is the concept of enhanced payload swarm drones & UCAV's so far fetched?

Yes, it is far fetched. Because rail guns and lasers are built based on reality, while swarm drones are simply tiny little experimental drones with limited range and payload.

If you are thinking of swarm drones of this type...

...then 2250.

When you consider rock music as classical music, then we can talk about swarm drones taking out carriers.

 

[_Anonymous_]

Yes, it is far fetched. Because rail guns and lasers are built based on reality, while swarm drones are simply tiny little experimental drones with limited range and payload.

If you are thinking of swarm drones of this type...

...then 2250.

When you consider rock music as classical music, then we can talk about swarm drones taking out carriers.

Swarm drones aren't meant to take out carriers. They're meant to overwhelm it's defences or knock out it's air defenses. Where did I write swarm drones or UCAV's will take out carriers?

 

[randomradio]

I'm aware of it. It's potency remains limited though. As I've pointed out this will mature in the post 40's -50's timescale. It's the next two decades we need to plan for and cater to.

Correct. It will take decades before these weapons will be really effective.

The exact opposite.

Air defence lasers are more or less operational today in some form or the other.

Northrop and Raytheon to compete to build laser weapon for short-range air defense

 

[randomradio]

Then I desperately need to have what you're having.

A dose of reality?

 

[randomradio]

Swarm drones aren't meant to take out carriers. They're meant to overwhelm it's defences or knock out it's air defenses. Where did I write swarm drones or UCAV's will take out carriers?

How will the drones take out air defences?

 

[_Anonymous_]

A dose of reality?

You mean optimism.

 

[_Anonymous_]

The exact opposite.

Air defence lasers are more or less operational today in some form or the other.

Northrop and Raytheon to compete to build laser weapon for short-range air defense

I'm aware of it. Are these relevant to our scheme of things? Are we planning our IN capacity enhancement based on what the USN is planning / achieving or on what PN & specifically the PLAN is planning / achieving?

 

[_Anonymous_]

How will the drones take out air defences?

By air to ship missiles or next generation cruise missiles. How else? More specifically UCAV's carrying cruise missiles.Or did you anticipate I would write lasers? I'm not too optimistic, pls note.

 

[randomradio]

I'm aware of it. Are these relevant to our scheme of things? Are we planning our IN capacity enhancement based on what the USN is planning / achieving or on what PN & specifically the PLAN is planning / achieving?

Even our FICV and FRCV will have lasers. Pretty much all our ships will have lasers by 2030. The French are currently making a laser pod for Rafale, which will be an option for us as well. And we are also planning to develop air based lasers. We are developing lasers for boost phase missile defence as well.

Lasers everywhere.

By air to ship missiles or next generation cruise missiles. How else? More specifically UCAV's carrying cruise missiles.

That's what we are doing now, but with manned aircraft. Where's swarm drones in this?

Swarm drones are something else entirely, they do not carry cruise missiles.

A carrier already counters what you are hoping drones will do.

 

[_Anonymous_]

Even our FICV and FRCV will have lasers. Pretty much all our ships will have lasers by 2030. The French are currently making a laser pod for Rafale, which will be an option for us as well. And we are also planning to develop air based lasers. We are developing lasers for boost phase missile defence as well.

Lasers everywhere.

If the Turks can do it, so should we. Then again what are the timelines for those lasers and more to the point, the timelines for the FICV & the FRCV? Do you see them in service before 2035 with or without those lasers? Besides what would the capacity of those lasers be in KW? 15-50 KW? Would they be able to knock off a tank or merely take down UAVs / drones? Aren't we looking at 2040 and beyond for such potent lasers mounted on tanks in the sub continent to knock off tanks, artillery batteries or even helos? How different is it from the timelines I've posted in my previous posts?

What would be the capacity of the laser pod on the Rafale? Would the F4.2 versions sport such a pod?

That's what we are doing now, but with manned aircraft. Where's swarm drones in this?

Swarm drones are something else entirely, they do not carry cruise missiles.

A carrier already counters what you are hoping drones will do.

Let me elaborate. Take the Tapas. What's the range and payload of it? Now consider a scenario in the 2030's where in the Chinese have anywhere between 4-5 carrier flotillas. If we keep up development of the Tapas, would it be too much you expect it to have an endurance of 18-20 hours, a combat radius of 1500 -2000 kms and a payload of 2 -3 tons by the 2030's. All you've to do is build them in their hundreds. Call them swarm drones or Cinderella for all I carecare as long as you've them in their hundreds and not dozens and they do their job of overwhelming carrier AD's. Ditto for UCAV's too in much lesser numbers.

 

[randomradio]

If the Turks can do it, so should we. Then again what are the timelines for those lasers and more to the point, the timelines for the FICV & the FRCV? Do you see them in service before 2035 with or without those lasers? Besides what would the capacity of those lasers be in KW? 15-50 KW? Would they be able to knock off a tank or merely take down UAVs / drones? Aren't we looking at 2040 and beyond for such potent lasers mounted on tanks in the sub continent to knock off tanks, artillery batteries or even helos? How different is it from the timelines I've posted in my previous posts?

Vehicle equipped lasers should become operational by 2021 in India. The lasers are for drones, ATGMs and tank electronics. The laser can't defeat the tanks and IFVs themselves because of armous, but jeeps and trucks will be soft targets. Of course people as well can be targets.

What would be the capacity of the laser pod on the Rafale? Would the F4.2 versions sport such a pod?

Can't say. Hopefully it's 100+KW. I suppose any Rafale or even any jet can sport that pod. Especially since the pod will power the laser on its own. So even LCA can.

Let me elaborate. Take the Tapas. What's the range and payload of it? Now consider a scenario in the 2030's where in the Chinese have anywhere between 4-5 carrier flotillas. If we keep up development of the Tapas, would it be too much you expect it to have an endurance of 18-20 hours, a combat radius of 1500 -2000 kms and a payload of 2 -3 tons by the 2030's. All you've to do is build them in their hundreds. Call them swarm drones or Cinderella for all I carecare as long as you've them in their hundreds and not dozens and they do their job of overwhelming carrier AD's. Ditto for UCAV's too in much lesser numbers.

Do you know IAF and IA are backing out of the program to import UCAVs from the US because each UCAV is the same cost as the Rafale? Only IN is going ahead with 10 such UCAVs for now.

100 drones will cost more than the entire CBG, never mind the cost of the missiles. And those drones are not survivable anyway. A single fighter jet from the CBG will destroy multiple such drones in a single sortie. It will be a turkey shoot.

 

[_Anonymous_]

Vehicle equipped lasers should become operational by 2021 in India. The lasers are for drones, ATGMs and tank electronics. The laser can't defeat the tanks and IFVs themselves because of armous, but jeeps and trucks will be soft targets. Of course people as well can be targets.

Should be operational in India by 2021 ? Any source for it? Any news on it's capacities or any info in terms of KW? Pls post credible news with links.

Can't say. Hopefully it's 100+KW. I suppose any Rafale or even any jet can sport that pod. Especially since the pod will power the laser on its own. So even LCA can.

Hopefully? Why am I not surprised! I expect you have credible news on this development.Let's see it. Or Let's discuss this when we have credible news. The French members here haven't commented on this development.

Do you know IAF and IA are backing out of the program to import UCAVs from the US because each UCAV is the same cost as the Rafale? Only IN is going ahead with 10 such UCAVs for now.

Yes, I'm aware. Which is why I specifically mentioned the Tapas drone. Implicit in this was the idea that we'd develop & deploy our own UCAV - Aura or Ghatak Or whatever you choose to name it.

100 drones will cost more than the entire CBG, never mind the cost of the missiles. And those drones are not survivable anyway. A single fighter jet from the CBG will destroy multiple such drones in a single sortie. It will be a turkey shoot.

Not if you develop it indigenously nor if you choose to power it with the updated version of the HTSE which delivers anywhere between 30-40 KN. I'm not aware of what it takes to be supersonic. Perhaps you know better. In any case aren't our UCAVs to be powered by the Kaveri engines? Without afterburners? What's the thrust these would deliver? Will our UCAVs be supersonic? If not, what will it take for our UCAVs to be supersonic?

As far as tactics go, these drones and UCAVs aren't supposed to engage with the FA deployed by these carriers. There are our FAs which're meant to combat them. These Drones & UCAVs are to be deployed only to overwhelm the AD of the carrier .

 

[randomradio]

Should be operational in India by 2021 ? Any source for it? Any news on it's capacities or any info in terms of KW? Pls post credible news with links.

Already mentioned some things before.

K-30 Biho Anti-Aircraft Artillery Gun and Mobile Air Defence System.

K-30 Biho Anti-Aircraft Artillery Gun and Mobile Air Defence System.
The army and air force have asked for development and delivery of two types of laser weapons.
-One type is to target radar and EW antennas, mobile towers and cables, small UAVs etc from a distance up to 8Km. This is for Phase I.
-The second type should be able to kill soldiers and unarmoured vehicles from a distance of 20Km. It should also be able to destroy sensors in satellites located in LEO. This is part of Phase II.

The second project is for HPMs.
-Phase I is the same as for lasers.
-Phase II is meant to target avionics in surface to surface missiles and air launched PGMs from 15Km.

Hopefully? Why am I not surprised! I expect you have credible news on this development.Let's see it. Or Let's discuss this when we have credible news. The French members here haven't commented on this development.

No one's gonna tell the power rating right away for most operational stuff. You will only get it for experimental stuff. The same reason why nobody goes around telling the power rating of radars as well. Lasers are modular, so you make a 20KW power source, you can club a bunch of them together and increase the power by many times.

I am merely hoping it's 100+KW, but it can also be 300 or 400KW.

Yes, I'm aware. Which is why I specifically mentioned the Tapas drone. Implicit in this was the idea that we'd develop & deploy our own UCAV - Aura or Ghatak Or whatever you choose to name it.

They do not operate the way you think they do.

If you are thinking of this...

...it's not gonna go anywhere near a carrier. Dead long before.

If you are thinking of this...

...we are not gonna be able to afford a 100 of these for a single mission. As I said, the cost will be more than the cost of the entire CBG.

And you need a carrier to operate these type of drones anyway.

So, in the end, you still need a carrier.

Not if you develop it indigenously nor if you choose to power it with the updated version of the HTSE which delivers anywhere between 30-40 KN. I'm not aware of what it takes to be supersonic. Perhaps you know better. In any case aren't our UCAVs to be powered by the Kaveri engines? Without afterburners? What's the thrust these would deliver? Will our UCAVs be supersonic? If not, what will it take for our UCAVs to be supersonic?

There is no need for drones to be supersonic. It's a waste of money.

4th gen aircraft cannot go supersonic with significant external payload anyway.

As far as tactics go, these drones and UCAVs aren't supposed to engage with the FA deployed by these carriers. There are our FAs which're meant to combat them. These Drones & UCAVs are to be deployed only to overwhelm the AD of the carrier .

How will our FAs protect these drones? And why can't the FAs that are capable of protecting themselves fire these cruise missiles? I'm sure 100 Rafales are cheaper than 100 UCAVS + whatever number of Rafales are necessary to protect these drones. After all, the UCAVs cost the same as the Rafale.

And how do you define "overwhelm the AD of the carrier"?

 

[Janardan Shukla]

Should be operational in India by 2021 ? Any source for it? Any news on it's capacities or any info in terms of KW? Pls post credible news with links.



Hopefully? Why am I not surprised! I expect you have credible news on this development.Let's see it. Or Let's discuss this when we have credible news. The French members here haven't commented on this development.




Yes, I'm aware. Which is why I specifically mentioned the Tapas drone. Implicit in this was the idea that we'd develop & deploy our own UCAV - Aura or Ghatak Or whatever you choose to name it.




Not if you develop it indigenously nor if you choose to power it with the updated version of the HTSE which delivers anywhere between 30-40 KN. I'm not aware of what it takes to be supersonic. Perhaps you know better. In any case aren't our UCAVs to be powered by the Kaveri engines? Without afterburners? What's the thrust these would deliver? Will our UCAVs be supersonic? If not, what will it take for our UCAVs to be supersonic?

As far as tactics go, these drones and UCAVs aren't supposed to engage with the FA deployed by these carriers. There are our FAs which're meant to combat them. These Drones & UCAVs are to be deployed only to overwhelm the AD of the carrier .

You must understand that we can't make something that is long range, have large payload, stealthy and cheap at the same time so that you can produce it in such a large numbers to use it as a swarm. You have to compromise on all these factors to make it cheap. And then the result will not be able to harm CBG or even exhaust it's AD.

 

[Austerlitz]

Haha. You didn't get what I said. You need a carrier to fight China. And having a carrier makes you a blue water navy. So you need to be a blue water navy to fight China. That tag is very important.



A 65k T carrier is the minimum you need in order to compete with a 100k T carrier. The 100k T carrier and handle more missions, that's all.

Meaning, a 65k T carrier is needed as a minimum in order to attack the CBG of a 100k T carrier. All its resources will then be dedicated to defeat the enemy CBG. But a 100k T carrier can use half its assets to fight the CBG of the 65k T carrier while also attack another fleet elsewhere with the other half. Overall, it doesn't make much of a difference to us because our intention is to only fight another CBG, so a 65k T carrier is more than enough.



You are making a considerably large mistake. The Chinese cannot operate their SSKs in the IOR, it's too far for them. The only SSK that can pull off such a long distance mission is the SMX Ocean, and the Chinese have none of those. SSKs are meant for patrols right outside the harbour and a few hundred kilometers around it. At best, you can snorkel your way to elsewhere and then go underwater again, but that's pointless when up against the IN.

So what I'm saying is, any Chinese SSK will have to snorkel its way through the SCS and into the IOR and then go underwater. Snorkeling makes the submarine useless as a warfighter. And SSKs have significant range and speed restrictions, they can only choose either, not both.



As I said, they are broke, so they are taking their surface ship expansion slow. But their goal is the same as what the USN and PLAN have.

Did you forget the Soviets also had grandoise carrier plans based on the Ulyanovsk class?



We do have expeditionary requirements. Why else are we buying 4 LHDs? We need the full gamut of capabilities the USN has. All major powers want what the USN have.

A 3rd carrier gives us 24/7 presence at sea.



We can make do with the number of SSKs we have for now. And we most definitely do not need 40-50 subs. Especially given the limitations of SSKs, as pointed above. What we really need are more minsweepers, anti-sub corvettes, tons of helicopters and P-8Is, which we are getting.

24 SSKs means we can have 12 in the Arabian Sea and 12 in the BoB. That's already overkill. Even 9 each is a lot, never mind 20 each.

And I wouldn't pay too much attention to Pakistani subs.

If you are talking about political implications of having bluewater tag how will 3 carriers get us the tag when 2 will not? How does a navy with ssn and ssbn not get that tag?ssn is most useful for blue water ops anyway.

As to the 65k tonne vs 100k tonne,actually 100k tonne has a choice if it wants to use all of ts assets against enemy carrier or not.It will have better sortie generation and punch in that scenario.A 65 k tonne carrier will not give us any advantage,10 ssn or 30-40 ssk for that amount does change the equation substantially.Question is if both cant be afforded what would you rather choose?

Chinese yuans make patrols quite often in ior.1 few years ago docked in pakistan, another in sri lanka(which caused diplomatic storm). Even if they have to snorkel for periods before entering ior it makes them easier to detect,certainy not useless once they submerge,and AIP subs have good endurance.Obviously ssn are far better at the job,but rest assured in a war you will see dozens of chinese aip ssks entering ior,even at risk of early detection.And we wont have the numbers to counter them,being totally dependant on p8i aircraft to hunt them.Submarine hunting with surface ships is always uncertain ,costly( in numbers of ships allocated to the task) and difficult job.

LHD is total overkill.We DO not need the full gamut of abilities available to usn.This is exactly what im talking about.Ego compromising common sense.We only need enough to quickly reinforce andaman with a brigade at most if necessary. Nothing more.We have no need for huge marine corps support ships.

We wont have 24 ssk until 2040 whatever at the rate navy is planning.You are looking at 15 ssk by the end of 2020s while PN operates 11 .You decide if thats enough.If we had 30-40 ssk lurking PLAN would be shit scared of entering IOR no matter how many cruisers of carriers they deploy.A 65k tonne carrier?not really.
Mind you im only advocating 40 ssk in case we keep ssn numbers at 6, otherwise 24 ssk is ok .The bare minimum.

Pakistani subs may come with capability to launch nuke tipped baburs ,so not paying attention is not an option.We need enough numbers to shadow these 24/7 from everytime they leave their homeports with on station ability to take them out quickly.In arabian sea and bay of bengal ssk is king.They will also be excellent for chokepoint ambushes and maritime trade interdiction.

 

[vsdoc]

If you are talking about political implications of having bluewater tag how will 3 carriers get us the tag when 2 will not? How does a navy with ssn and ssbn not get that tag?ssn is most useful for blue water ops anyway.

As to the 65k tonne vs 100k tonne,actually 100k tonne has a choice if it wants to use all of ts assets against enemy carrier or not.It will have better sortie generation and punch in that scenario.A 65 k tonne carrier will not give us any advantage,10 ssn or 30-40 ssk for that amount does change the equation substantially.Question is if both cant be afforded what would you rather choose?

Chinese yuans make patrols quite often in ior.1 few years ago docked in pakistan, another in sri lanka(which caused diplomatic storm). Even if they have to snorkel for periods before entering ior it makes them easier to detect,certainy not useless once they submerge,and AIP subs have good endurance.Obviously ssn are far better at the job,but rest assured in a war you will see dozens of chinese aip ssks entering ior,even at risk of early detection.And we wont have the numbers to counter them,being totally dependant on p8i aircraft to hunt them.Submarine hunting with surface ships is always uncertain ,costly( in numbers of ships allocated to the task) and difficult job.

LHD is total overkill.We DO not need the full gamut of abilities available to usn.This is exactly what im talking about.Ego compromising common sense.We only need enough to quickly reinforce andaman with a brigade at most if necessary. Nothing more.We have no need for huge marine corps support ships.

We wont have 24 ssk until 2040 whatever at the rate navy is planning.You are looking at 15 ssk by the end of 2020s while PN operates 11 .You decide if thats enough.If we had 30-40 ssk lurking PLAN would be shit scared of entering IOR no matter how many cruisers of carriers they deploy.A 65k tonne carrier?not really.
Mind you im only advocating 40 ssk in case we keep ssn numbers at 6, otherwise 24 ssk is ok .The bare minimum.

Pakistani subs may come with capability to launch nuke tipped baburs ,so not paying attention is not an option.We need enough numbers to shadow these 24/7 from everytime they leave their homeports with on station ability to take them out quickly.In arabian sea and bay of bengal ssk is king.They will also be excellent for chokepoint ambushes and maritime trade interdiction.

Enjoying your posts as always buddy.

What is ssk ... diesel submarine?

Cheers, Doc