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

We are cutting down P8I, Ka31 purchase due to CAPEX strains, we have 0 Minesweepers, Submarine arm is growing ancient, Helicopters is a mess, not enough funds to buy even MALE surveillance platforms and among all this an aircraft carrier.

Do we realise that the 26 Fighter Jet procurement will cost us somewhere between 5-6 billion USD minimum.

We need to have some sense for the procurement plans.
This is not true when you look at the CAPX allocation for navy. It's all procurement procedure failure. Be it Minesweeper,SSKs or helicopters.
 
This is not true when you look at the CAPX allocation for navy. It's all procurement procedure failure. Be it Minesweeper,SSKs or helicopters.
That is also true. But still no room for an aircraft carrier anytime soon. Difference between "must have it" and "would be nice to have it" needs to be established going forward.
 
That is also true. But still no room for an aircraft carrier anytime soon. Difference between "must have it" and "would be nice to have it" needs to be established going forward.
Navy asking carrier for early 2030s not today or tomorrow. There is definitely room for it. Blocking it today won't make Minesweepers or SSKs magically appear.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Adm_Kenobi

1866845.jpg


#Boeing showcased E/F Block 3 +4.5gen variant back in #AeroIndia2011 in #India often called "Silent Hornet" back then it was very modern compare to any in #IAF inventory, cockpit includes 11-by-19 inch MFD, built in MAWS,LWS,RWR & IRST, Powered by GE414 EPE Engine. #IndianNavy
 
CROWSNEST is a failure, even the RN is gonna get rid of it after 9 years of service. Obviously something else is in the works.

But with aircraft like TEDBF and SH/Rafale, a traditional AWACS will no longer be necessary.
 
CROWSNEST is a failure, even the RN is gonna get rid of it after 9 years of service. Obviously something else is in the works.



But with aircraft like TEDBF and SH/Rafale, a traditional AWACS will no longer be necessary.

Fighters cannot replace AEW.

Their radar wavelengths are too short, field of view of said radars is too limited, no space for Operator Work Stations to disseminate data collected by radar and conduct C&C with minimal delay, cannot track multitudes of targets in theatre (Rafale can track 40, Hawkeye tracks 2,000) without which a situation picture beyond the surface ships' horizon cannot be developed.

Whether its ship-based or land-based long range aircraft (flying from mainland, A&N islands or elsewhere), a dedicated AEW platform is necessary to maximize the fighting capability of a CBG.

NATO countries have sensor fusion & ODL/TDL capabilities far beyond our own (which enhance each unit's awareness), and yet US will continue buying E-2Ds to operate alongside SH/F-35/FA-XX for Ford class and even France will operate the same on its future PANG carrier alongside Rafale & FCAS/NGF. AEWs are not going anywhere.

Shutterstock_11378369p.jpg


But one thing's for sure though - we need a replacement for Ka-31. The platform capabilities are too limited and the radar is frankly outdated & lacking in ECCM capabilities...not to mention more than likely the frequencies are compromised because the Chinese operate the same, making it even easier to spoof.

For IAC-2 we can look toward E-2D ourselves, but the existing STOBAR carriers cannot operate it effectively. So a common platform that features an advanced AESA radar & which can operate from both STOBAR & CATOBAR carriers would be nice to have...the ideal platform in my opinion would be an Osprey. Posted a thread on that actually, proposing a joint program with UK (they also need CROWSNEST replacement, QEC too has no catapult):

 
14 Ka31s are there. More or less enough for 2 carriers. Bare minimum are there. So even if additional Ka31 don't come, chances for anything else is quite low.
I don't know why they need more than 10 !

This is when they don't have that many operational ASW helicopters.
 
I don't know why they need more than 10 !

This is when they don't have that many operational ASW helicopters.
Might be something to do with low availability. So they would have wanted to raise a 2nd squadron.

It's endurance is like 2 hours. So for 1 CBG you will need like 2-3 from the carrier and another 2-3 from the ships.

Limitations of endurance, of capabilities, I wonder why even bother 😂

Better to get a couple of shore based Netra MK2.
 
Fighters cannot replace AEW.

Not exactly, but the rules are changing because traditional AWACS are unable to keep up with fighter jets.


Their radar wavelengths are too short, field of view of said radars is too limited, no space for Operator Work Stations to disseminate data collected by radar and conduct C&C with minimal delay, cannot track multitudes of targets in theatre (Rafale can track 40, Hawkeye tracks 2,000) without which a situation picture beyond the surface ships' horizon cannot be developed.

Everything you mentioned isn't such a big problem. Most of the stuff can be automated or transferred to manned jets or ship workstations too. Today's comm systems have pretty much no latency either. More AI means less personnel.

The Koreans claim their fighter AESA radar can track 1000+ targets.
There are still few details about AESA’s radar, which officials describe as “a state-of-the-art system capable of detecting and tracking over 1,000 targets simultaneously.”

More like sustained detection. The number falls from thousands to just a handful based on what sort of data is obtained from the track. It has little to do with hardware and more to do with software. It's a limitation of processing, which is slowly being solved.

NATO countries have sensor fusion & ODL/TDL capabilities far beyond our own (which enhance each unit's awareness), and yet US will continue buying E-2Ds to operate alongside SH/F-35/FA-XX for Ford class and even France will operate the same on its future PANG carrier alongside Rafale & FCAS/NGF. AEWs are not going anywhere.

Shutterstock_11378369p.jpg


But one thing's for sure though - we need a replacement for Ka-31. The platform capabilities are too limited and the radar is frankly outdated & lacking in ECCM capabilities...not to mention more than likely the frequencies are compromised because the Chinese operate the same, making it even easier to spoof.

For IAC-2 we can look toward E-2D ourselves, but the existing STOBAR carriers cannot operate it effectively. So a common platform that features an advanced AESA radar & which can operate from both STOBAR & CATOBAR carriers would be nice to have...the ideal platform in my opinion would be an Osprey. Posted a thread on that actually, proposing a joint program with UK (they also need CROWSNEST replacement, QEC too has no catapult):


The USN's AEW is also gonna change. Right now, the USN is working on their own version of NGAD which the E-2D is unlikely to be able to support as an AEW, so even the NGAD will need a radar-equipped drone.

The Brits are apparently working on an unmanned replacement to CROWSNEST.
The release stated that the current assumption for a follow-on for Crowsnest would see a single large radar sensor mounted on an unmanned platform. Given the relative limitations of the Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers in only being able recover embarked aircraft vertically, it is likely that any future unmanned host of the ASaC replacement will be a rotary wing platform..

This new drone could actually become an option for the IN too.
 
Might be something to do with low availability. So they would have wanted to raise a 2nd squadron.

It's endurance is like 2 hours. So for 1 CBG you will need like 2-3 from the carrier and another 2-3 from the ships.

Limitations of endurance, of capabilities, I wonder why even bother 😂

Better to get a couple of shore based Netra MK2.
If You need a shore based AWACS, then it must be a 360 deg type.
 
Not exactly, but the rules are changing because traditional AWACS are unable to keep up with fighter jets.


USAF E-3 AWACS are outdated.

But the role is going ahead - USAF, RAF, RAAF have all selected the new E-7 Wedgetail to be the future AEW platform.

Everything you mentioned isn't such a big problem. Most of the stuff can be automated or transferred to manned jets or ship workstations too. Today's comm systems have pretty much no latency either. More AI means less personnel.

The USN's AEW is also gonna change. Right now, the USN is working on their own version of NGAD which the E-2D is unlikely to be able to support as an AEW, so even the NGAD will need a radar-equipped drone.

The Brits are apparently working on an unmanned replacement to CROWSNEST.
The release stated that the current assumption for a follow-on for Crowsnest would see a single large radar sensor mounted on an unmanned platform. Given the relative limitations of the Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers in only being able recover embarked aircraft vertically, it is likely that any future unmanned host of the ASaC replacement will be a rotary wing platform..

This new drone could actually become an option for the IN too.

It still proves the point that AEW will be offloaded to a separate platform. Manned, unmanned, fixed wing, rotary wing - it depends on requirements & available launch options.

There's no major Carrier navy out there that is considering ditching AEW as a separate role.

The Koreans claim their fighter AESA radar can track 1000+ targets.
There are still few details about AESA’s radar, which officials describe as “a state-of-the-art system capable of detecting and tracking over 1,000 targets simultaneously.”

Most likely it has 1,000 transmit/receive modules and it was misconstrued/mistranslated as being able to track 1,000 targets.
 
USAF E-3 AWACS are outdated.

But the role is going ahead - USAF, RAF, RAAF have all selected the new E-7 Wedgetail to be the future AEW platform.

Not at the time the article was written, especially what the article was based on, ie, ELINT. While the radar remained a PESA, the rest of the antennas have received significant ugprades.

The issue was the distance from targets. And the fact that new AESA radars ended up matching the range of the AWACS alongside the distance advantage. We have ended up in a situation where fighter jets can see more than AWACS, including defeating a very big weakness, the radar horizon.

It still proves the point that AEW will be offloaded to a separate platform. Manned, unmanned, fixed wing, rotary wing - it depends on requirements & available launch options.

Yes. In fact, some reports have claimed that the NGAD won't even carry a radar of its own. It will be off-loaded to a cheaper drone. Whether it will eventally come true or not, I don't know.

Basically what I'm getting at is we can end up with a combination of drones with L/S band radars and fighters with X band to cover the entire air space instead of dedicated AEWs with crews, like the E-2/3 or Ka-31, with questionable survivability.

There's no major Carrier navy out there that is considering ditching AEW as a separate role.

Actually we don't yet know that. They are still working on concepts, both RN and USN. The USN's E-2Ds are still relatively new and will see service alongside the SHs into the 2040s. But the RN solution will be more up to our speed for Vikram and Vikrant. Plus, our interest is also geared towards the era beyond 2035 via IAC-2, so whatever the USN's making for that era, we need to keep an eye out for that, 'cause I doubt the E-2 will be in production beyond 2025.

At least NATO's definitive E-3 replacement is said to be a distributed system based on drones after 2035, while looking at the E-7 as a stopgap purchase until that point.

Most likely it has 1,000 transmit/receive modules and it was misconstrued/mistranslated as being able to track 1,000 targets.

The Koreans clearly said tracking 1000 targets. When the interview was given during the radar's unveiling, they said the radar TRM numbers will climb from 1088 to up to 1300 with the final production model. So both were two different topics.

There's not much of a difference between AWACS radars and fighter radars in terms of number of TRMs, at least based on aspect. In fact bigger fighters can easily have more TRMs than AWACS.
 
Hi, sorry seem to have forgotten about this reply. Just noticed again.

Not at the time the article was written, especially what the article was based on, ie, ELINT. While the radar remained a PESA, the rest of the antennas have received significant ugprades.

The issue was the distance from targets. And the fact that new AESA radars ended up matching the range of the AWACS alongside the distance advantage. We have ended up in a situation where fighter jets can see more than AWACS, including defeating a very big weakness, the radar horizon.

It's mostly done to prevent platform obsolescence but upgrade a non-AESA as much as you like, the jump to AESA is always a quantum leap in capability.

Most of perceived superiority of a fighter based radar dissipates once you remove the ~40 year gap between the E-3's base technology and that of F-22/35 AESAs.

No next gen fighter has demonstrated such a capability against an E-7 for example. Reason why its now positioned to replace E-3.

Yes. In fact, some reports have claimed that the NGAD won't even carry a radar of its own. It will be off-loaded to a cheaper drone. Whether it will eventally come true or not, I don't know.

Basically what I'm getting at is we can end up with a combination of drones with L/S band radars and fighters with X band to cover the entire air space instead of dedicated AEWs with crews, like the E-2/3 or Ka-31, with questionable survivability.

The type of platform depends on needs & launch options of the user, but my point was that next gen fighters are not meant to serve the role of a AWACS at all.

F-35 for example is only designed to operate its radar in small pings or bursts, which then serve as cues for EODAS to take over the tracking passively, minimizing the probability of intercept. VLO fighter doctrine simply doesn't allow for acting as illuminators for all warfighting elements in theatre (all of which don't have acquisition or tracking capabilities of their own) as its directly antithetical to their role as low observable attack platforms, continuously operating one's radar at full power negates it.

Manned, unmanned, fixed wing, rotary wing, whatever the case may be, AEW & Battlespace Management will be offloaded to a different platform for the foreseeable future.

The Koreans clearly said tracking 1000 targets. When the interview was given during the radar's unveiling, they said the radar TRM numbers will climb from 1088 to up to 1300 with the final production model. So both were two different topics.

There's not much of a difference between AWACS radars and fighter radars in terms of number of TRMs, at least based on aspect. In fact bigger fighters can easily have more TRMs than AWACS.

An AEW radar of the same era & base technology (size & weight of TRMs, and type of substrate) can always have far more TRMs, far more transmission power (thanks to ability to house larger dedicated APUs) and a consequence a far greater ability to acquire and track targets compared to a fighter radar of the same generation.

The equation gets thrown out of the window if your fighter radars are two or three generations ahead of your AEW though (which is currently the case with most Western AFs. However it's set to change in the near future).