Yeah thats NATO designation for diesel sub.Glad to see you back here.
INS Vikrant (IAC1) & INS Vikramaditya - News & Discussions
- Thread starter Ashwin
- Start date
-
- Tags
- aircraft carrier csl iac1 mig-29k
Yeah thats NATO designation for diesel sub.Glad to see you back here.
I agree with almost all points of you but I have a slightly different opinion regarding to Indian Marine corps. I think we should raise a marine corps based on USMC and equip them with all types of support ships like LHDs. Then we should place them in naval bases constructed on the coastline of our friendly countries like Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Philippines etc in SCS and NCS. This will create pressure on China and help in establishing freedom of navigation in SCS. It will also provide us capability to intervene in a possible Sino- Taiwan conflict slated in 2049.
So if China decides to take down our communication satellites, the destroyers of our CBG can shoot down the ASAT missiles !!
I would strongly recommend to some scenarios while taking the following parameters into account.
1. Different orbits of communications satellites. ( LEO to GEO).
2. Firing location of ASAT enemy missile. This will decide the desired range of interceptor.
3. Reaction time required within which interceptor can be fired.
4. Any example of inceptor for ASAT weapons. I am not aware of any such weapons being successfully tested so far.
5. In case of a hypothetical scenario of such a powerful interceptor, why can't it be fired from land. I am assuming the interceptor must be having really long range, since you have no idea where your carrier will be located when enemy fires ASAT missile. Hence it should have a range that must cover worst case scenario.
6. If the enemy decides to fire it's ASAT from it's ship or submarine, "Phir gaya bhains pani mein"
. For example when our CBG is waiting in South China sea, the Chinese decided to fire the ASAT from their sub located near Gwadar 
.
These are your speculations. I asked for official confirmation or a credible source.
What are the timelines for the finished products, again? When are we going to see TDs?
Again, I urge you to produce credible links here not your speculations.
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.
I thought I wrote earlier that DRDO ought to explore the feasibility of powering newer iterations of the TAPAS with a 30 - 40 KN turbofan. It should be capable of a combat radius of 1500-2000 kms, endurance of 18-20 hrs, payload of 2-3 tons and possibly supersonic . You can call the deployment of such drones swarm or Cinderella
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.
Are you suggesting a Ghatak Or an AURA would cost us around a 100 million USD per piece?
Pray, why would you need a carrier when you can base them in the A& N islands?And you need a carrier to operate these type of drones anyway.
So, in the end, you still need a carrier.
Why not? What's your peeve with a supersonic drone?
Define significant?
Which UCAVs are we referring to? Have any feasibility studies been conducted to gauge their costs? Besides if UCAVs cost as much as a FA, why are nations dedicating programs to manufacturing such UCAVs? What's the cost benefit analysis?
I think we're getting into a circular argument here. Or perhaps your optimism is rubbing off on me. I rarely indulge in optimistic speculations as I believe - if it's too good to be true, it's too good to be true and that's what I've done for the past half a dozen posts on this thread. You on the other hand try to pass off your wishlist as what's being planned and conveniently bend facts to fit into your narrative.I think I'm going to end my optimistic speculations here.
Because SSN is not a surface fleet. It has its uses, but it's very limited when compared to a CBG.
So all navies are wrong, only you are right?
Even the smallest navies dream of operating a carrier, and it has nothing to do with show-off. The only people who think a carrier is for show are those who have nothing to do with the navy.
If we have money problems, we need to buy the carrier and buy submarines in smaller quantities stretched over a longer period of time. But submarines are not expensive anyway, so we are not making such a choice.
Where we can save money is by choosing the right choice of aircraft, lower deployment times, smaller escorts etc, so that we can afford both the carrier and the submarines. For example, we do not need 6 destroyers as escort when we can make do with 4, or even 2 destroyers and 2 frigates. This is how we are going about it for now.
First preference is always surface fleet. Ships are extremely resilient and can survive bombardment from multiple missiles and torpedoes for days on end. As for subs, most of the time just one hit and down it goes.
You come snorkeling into the IOR, your sub is useless. Submerging after serves no purpose, we will have frigates and corvettes chasing it all over the IOR, with the submarine crew sh!tting their pants every few hours.
If you don't control the surface, the underwater fleet is not going to be very useful.
You have a very unrealistic idea about SSKs. They do not do what you think they do.
India plans to be the net security provider for the entire IOR. It's not just Andamans, we need the capability to deploy troops all over the IOR. And in time, the Pacific as well.
And with 4 LHDs, all you can move is a brigade at a time, which is too less, even after considering all 4 are actually available. We actually are in need of a whole fleet of LHDs and LPDs (both large and small), enough to move at least 1 full division.
Even 9 subs against the Chinese are more than enough, never mind 24. The IN's aim when it comes to the submarine fleet is overkill, since our surface fleet is so large.
Hell, all we have to do is park 1 or 2 SSKs at the two chokepoints of the SCS and sink whatever comes our way. That's actually why we only have 4 SSKs allocated to the BoB, out of our total fleet of 14. We really need SSNs to deal with the China threat, so that we can go into their waters. We need only a handful of SSKs instead.
In open water, the enemy surface fleet can simply go around your SSKs. And SSKs won't give chase, 'cause they can't.
The reason why the Chinese, Russians and other East Asians have so many submarines is because all their seas and oceans are contested. Plus their seas are very small and packed with chokepoints. In our case, there is no real competitor in the IOR, and everybody significant operating in the IOR are not from the IOR, so they all have the habit of bringing only their top tier vessels into the IOR, so we have to match that.
In fact, we do not even need SSKs in the Eastern Fleet. But we are still aiming for ocean-going subs for P-75I because of budget and time constraints.
To defeat those sea-launched Baburs you need a carrier, not submarines. Shadowing submarines also requires a surface fleet, not submarines.
So if China decides to take down our communication satellites, the destroyers of our CBG can shoot down the ASAT missiles !!
I would strongly recommend to some scenarios while taking the following parameters into account.
1. Different orbits of communications satellites. ( LEO to GEO).
2. Firing location of ASAT enemy missile. This will decide the desired range of interceptor.
3. Reaction time required within which interceptor can be fired.
4. Any example of inceptor for ASAT weapons. I am not aware of any such weapons being successfully tested so far.
5. In case of a hypothetical scenario of such a powerful interceptor, why can't it be fired from land. I am assuming the interceptor must be having really long range, since you have no idea where your carrier will be located when enemy fires ASAT missile. Hence it should have a range that must cover worst case scenario.
6. If the enemy decides to fire it's ASAT from it's ship or submarine, "Phir gaya bhains pani mein"
4. SM-3 class of missiles. They are capable of boost and mid course interception. But there's still a some ways to go for this role, and we most definitely do not have this capability yet. You can even consider soft kill and DEWs, not just physical missiles for interception.
5. Satellites can be anywhere, far, far away from your land. A GEO satellite can be placed over the Pacific for example.
6. Subs can't use ASATs, only ships can. And in case what you say come to pass, then we will obviously have missile defences around our own territory. The CBG provides air defence over enemy territory and has the staying power to do it.
Why would you get official confirmation for such strategic programs on the internet? Give it time instead.
Obviously secrets. You have already seen pics of TDs posted all over this forum.
It's not speculations. Rather look up what other countries are doing instead. Some have already started operational deployment.
There is a drone called Global Hawk with a 30-40KN engine. It is way more expensive than the Rafale. And is not even a combat drone, it will only handle surveillance.
The version that the Iranians shot down recently cost $123M.
Depends on the size though. For example, Ghatak could only be the size of LCA, whereas American drones are already the size of large FAs. Naturally that affects range and payload, and hence the cost. But it's gonna be extremely expensive, especially if you kit them with FA avionics necessary for most missions.
Because the IOR is very large and A&N Islands don't cover the entire ocean.
Too much money for a useless capability. Will make it even more expensive.
A2G payloads of any type. FAs are supersonic only with A2A missiles or with internal bays.
UCAVs of the Predator type are being made for surveillance. They stay up in the air for a long time and can constantly monitor the area, and use small weapons if necessary. During war time, these UAVs and UCAVs will not survive without air superiority.
Larger UCAVs like Ghatak and Neuron are being made as Suicide Squad for their manned counterparts, so these drones can go into more dangerous areas under the direction of manned FAs.
So all you're saying is you don't know what you mean when you said, "overwhelm the AD of the carrier".
You've gone well past optimism and into some weird wonderland where reality has ceased to exist.
4. SM 3 has been used for ASAT purpose. There is no material to suggest that it can target an ASAT missile.
5. Wrong, GEO satellites cannot be anywhere. They have to be placed above the host country. Reason : Curvature of earth. A GEO satellite placed over Pacific cannot provide service to India.
The performance is the same. If a missile can kill a satellite, it can kill an ASAT missile as well. SM-3 has been made for mid-course interception after all, the ASAT capability is secondary.
It depends on the function. A GEO satellite over India will provide service to India. But if we need it to provide a particular service over the Pacific, we need one over the Pacific. Once we get global NAVIC, we are obviously going to have multiple GEO satellites over the Pacific, Atlantic etc, and that is the plan.
Dude ..Just think about a scenario and then see whether it's practical. An enemy country targets our satellite and lunches it's missile. We don't know from where it's going to lunch it's ASAT missile. For example China might decide to target Indian satellite when it passes over Tibet and lunches it's missile from Takla Makan desert.
Now somehow we detect the missile and then lunch our intercepter (similar to SM -3) from our CBG located in bay of Bengal or Arabian Sea. Does this scenario sound even remotely practical?? And you are justifying CBG for something like this ?? Dude..No offense..but this is completely absurd.
Last edited:
What you are talking about is a LEO satellite. You can't do much to protect LEO satellites. So a satellite that passes over Tibet can be shot down easily. And that same satellite is easily replaced anyway.
But GEO satellites are strategic, and they don't "pass over" anything, their positions are fixed with respect to the earth.
Look at this for example. Imagine these are Indian satellites.
How are you going to protect these three satellites in case of a war with the US? And remember, you need these satellites to maintain accuracy of your weapons.
Technically, you only need a BMD capable destroyer. You need to park it in the path between the US mainland and the satellite so that you can intercept any ASAT fired towards it. But a destroyer does not have any staying power, it can easily be driven away. So you are most definitely going to need a CBG. And in this particular instance the distances are so vast that you most definitely need 3 CBGs. And replacing a GEO satellite can take months even if you have the missile and satellite already built.
And no, I'm not justifying a CBG for solely this purpose. I'm merely pointing out that the CBG provides very important warfighting capabilities, to the point where it can even protect the space over it, and anyone saying a CBG is unnecessary is generally a person who has no knowledge or experience in this field, or has been suckered into blatant disinformation from people who already possess carriers.
It's quite literally like someone saying fighter jets are not needed for warfighting at all. So you can see how stupid it sounds when someone says carriers that carry these fighter jets are not necessary.
I did masters in Communication eng and my satellite communication professor was an ex scientist of ISRO. So I know a thing or two about satellitesWhat you are talking about is a LEO satellite. You can't do much to protect LEO satellites. So a satellite that passes over Tibet can be shot down easily. And that same satellite is easily replaced anyway.
But GEO satellites are strategic, and they don't "pass over" anything, their positions are fixed with respect to the earth.
Look at this for example. Imagine these are Indian satellites.
How are you going to protect these three satellites in case of a war with the US? And remember, you need these satellites to maintain accuracy of your weapons.
Technically, you only need a BMD capable destroyer. You need to park it in the path between the US mainland and the satellite so that you can intercept any ASAT fired towards it. But a destroyer does not have any staying power, it can easily be driven away. So you are most definitely going to need a CBG. And in this particular instance the distances are so vast that you most definitely need 3 CBGs. And replacing a GEO satellite can take months even if you have the missile and satellite already built.
And no, I'm not justifying a CBG for solely this purpose. I'm merely pointing out that the CBG provides very important warfighting capabilities, to the point where it can even protect the space over it, and anyone saying a CBG is unnecessary is generally a person who has no knowledge or experience in this field, or has been suckered into blatant disinformation from people who already possess carriers.
It's quite literally like someone saying fighter jets are not needed for warfighting at all. So you can see how stupid it sounds when someone says carriers that carry these fighter jets are not necessary.
. BTW out of 7 satellites of NAVIC, only 3 are located at GEO. Rest four are located on GSO (Geo Synchronous orbit ). I don't think any country has demonstrated shooting down a GEO satellite so far, though targeting a GEO is probably
easier due to it's relatively fixed location.
Regarding LEO satellites (used for Spying) , you can't replace them just like that. In a war scenario if you loose them, then the probability of replacing them within the span of war is next to NIL. ISRO does not have a warehouse full of satellites
. It takes lot of time and effort to built a satellite and lunch it. You can justify CBG for thousand different reasons, but protecting space can't be one of them.
I did masters in Communication eng and my satellite communication professor was an ex scientist of ISRO. So I know a thing or two about satellites
GEO, GSO, these are semantics unnecessary to the point being made. All GPS satellites are 36000 Km away from the earth and remain at a fixed point relative to the ground. GEO satellites are right above the equator in a circular orbit, whereas GSOs are not, that's the only difference.
Comm satellites too are placed in similar orbits and remain at a fixed point relative to the ground.
No one has obviously demonstrated it, but the three major powers already have it. We are aiming for it as well.
I think your arguments are based on a misunderstanding of the difference between GSO and GEO anyway.
Regarding LEO satellites (used for Spying) , you can't replace them just like that. In a war scenario if you loose them, then the probability of replacing them within the span of war is next to NIL. ISRO does not have a warehouse full of satellites
You can justify CBG for thousand different reasons, but protecting space can't be one of them.
LEO satellites are easily replaced. You forget that most LEO satellites today are made for long lives, so they are heavy and carry enough fuel that lasts for years. But during wartime, much smaller satellites are brought out of the woodwork and can be launched quickly and can remain in orbit for only a few months. These satellites are small and light.
Many countries actually have the ability to launch such small satellites during wartime.
Some countries have even experimented with fighter jets launching such satellites.
Here's a nice CGI of the Rafale launching a satellite.
The same for the F-15.
But these are more exotic capabilities which are unnecessary. A regular rocket is more than enough.
The difference between GEO and GSO are not mere semantics. The difference is shooting a stationary target vs a target traveling at 9420 km/h !!
Who said all GPS satellites are located at 36000 km orbit?? The American GPS, GLONASS and Galileo are all located in MEO ( 19000 to 23000 km) orbit. Chinese system is a mixed system with satellites at different orbits.
In case of NAVIC it's a localized navigation system and hence the need of GEO and GSO satellites so that at any point of time the receiver is able to receive data from 4 satellites ( Necessary to solve 4 equations which provides latitude, longitude, altitude and time.)
Please explain the relationship between these lines.
"LEO satellites are easily replaced"
"You forget that most LEO satellites today are made for long lives, so they are heavy and carry enough fuel that lasts for years."
How is the life of satellite has any impact on it's quick replacement ??
And here we are talking about spy satellites not some 1-2 kg experimental satellites !!
Please provide data for
1. No of satellites ISRO has in it's storage.
2. When ISRO lunched spy satellites by aircraft or any official document claiming such capability.
Again, we are not talking about micro satellites. We are talking about satellites intended for military applications.
You misunderstood, I wasn't talking about American GPS or any other country's satellites, I was only talking about our own satellites, which we need to protect. I am aware of the orbits of the satellites of other systems. It's weird that you didn't say anything about comm satellites either, where all ours are in GEO whereas there are a lot of foreign comm sats in MEO. The future GINS will also be in MEO.
As for speed, what's more important is the relative speed of the interceptor with the satellite or warhead, which is many times higher. There is not a lot of difference between the two orbits from the PoV of interception.
So yes, within the boundaries of this discussion, GEO, GSO are simply semantics and serve no point. Interceptors can take both down, unless you think all such satellites are invincible.
Depending on the life of the mission, you can build a 150Kg satellite for the same capability as a large satellite. Small enough to be launched into orbit and close enough to the surface to get the resolution you want before the satellite falls back down within a few weeks to a few months.
1. and 2. are both irrelevant, nor is anyone going to tell you that. We are under no threat from ASAT, so we do not have any reason to actually go around storing spare satellites. But other major countries do. And we will too, by the time we get something like IAC-2 and start pushing other countries around and become an overall threat to others. Right now, we are as harmless as a poodle, and all of our interests are regional.
But we have the building blocks for it already. Take the SSLV, ISRO is designing for it to be assembled and launched within 5 days of a satellite launch order.
Even before its birth, Isro's mini launcher booked for US satellite customer | India News - Times of India
The mini launcher, whose maiden test flight is due later this year, can be assembled in just 3-5 days as compared to 30-40 days for a normal-size rocket and made in just one-tenth the cost of a PSLV, which is worth around Rs 150 crore.
Isro chairman K Sivan told TOI, "The maiden demonstration flight of SSLV, which was earlier scheduled in July-August, will now happen after Chandrayaan-2 landing on Moon scheduled for September 7 as our entire focus is on the moon mission." He said the first testflight "will carry two small defence satellites of 120kg weight each". SSLV weighs just 110 tonnes, which is 1/10th the mass of a PSLV rocket. It can carry a payload of up to 500kg to the low earth orbit and 300kg to the sun synchronous orbit, making it ideal for launching small satellites.
You can expect this to get even better in time. The futuristic RLV will be launch capable on demand as well.
So, while there are options for LEO satellites, there are none for GEO.
Anyway, going back to carriers, carriers are useless or obsolete once fighter jets become useless or obsolete. Until then, every single navy in the world should aim to get a carrier. We need 6 at the minimum and 3 being the absolute red line.
Four should be enough to cover the Indian Ocean persistently, gives always one in the west, one in the east, and usually a third that can reinforce either side as needed or travel further away to participate in some joint exercise while the fourth is at quay.
Six seems overkill.
Six seems overkill.
Masters in Communication engineering kar kae baitha hua hai and you don't know the concept of relative speed and calling me schizophrenic on other thread? For a missile launched from earth the satellite in GEO or GSO won't be stationary! It will travel at 4km/s or somewhat more wrt missile if coming towards eachother and slower if missile chases it.
Oh my apologies Sir. I am not qualified enough like you to give GYAN to ISRO scientists regarding Chnadrayan failure.
BTW, on the way to doctor buy a book on physics and revise the chapter on relative velocity. And rather than bothering me with your useless posts, try to do some introspection and improve your quality of post.
Computer hardware stolen from under construction aircraft carrier.
Hard disk from first indigenous aircraft carrier 'stolen' at Kochi facility | Kochi News - Times of India
SMH. How irresponsible can shipyards get?
Hard disk from first indigenous aircraft carrier 'stolen' at Kochi facility | Kochi News - Times of India
SMH. How irresponsible can shipyards get?
I am astonished as to how easily India's technological secrets are stolen and swept under the rug, remember the break in for rafale documents or the scorpene documents leak or how frequently files are missing from various ministries. Many of those never even come to light and are easily forgotten.