Indian Navy – News & Discussion – IV

Time to open another 🙂

Trebovanije-M is the combat management system on the Talwar class and the website mentions pr.11356. It is termed as Combat information control system (CICS).

Trebovanije-M Combat Information Control System

Trebovanije-M Combat information control system (CICS) is intended for ship (project 11356) weapons and radio-electronic armament combat control processes automation at the time of prosecution of combat activities both independently and consisting of a group of ships as an escort ship.
CICS provides the automation of the ship command posts at the time of ship weapon and radio-electronic armament usage control tasks solution:

The Shivalik class is mentioned in the article from USC and probably the CMS-17 of the Project-17 is what the article is talking about. If we read and connect the two highlighted part it looks highly probable.

P17 Shivalik class (Indian CMS)

The Combat Management System (CMS-17) is a locally developed system (by WESEE) with stand alone Russian consoles that connect to the CMS though interface units. The architecture of CMS-17 is a major improvement over legacy Indian developed systems

From United Shipbuilding Corp

Our successful cooperation is well exemplified by the joint development of the radically new combat command information system for project 17 capable of controlling weapons operated by not only a single ship, but by a whole naval force.

Combat information control system (CICS) and Combat Command Information System (CCIS) is probably the same thing and it is the Combat Management System. i.e Trebovanije-M (& derivatives) are installed on the 6 Talwar class and & probably its JV derivatives (CMS-17) are installed on the 3 Shivalik class frigates.

But the topic was not about the specific CCIS or CICS or CMS. It was about which all ships are to form the battle group of INS Vikramaditya. I’m still inclined to believe it is going to be the ships from these 9 frigates. Low AD missile inventory and lack of long legs will be an issue and might need more supply and support vessels, but the above 9 ships represents the finest ships that IN will have by the time carrier battle group is formed.

None

:confused:

Get some water

Again, that is assuming P15 ‘as is’ does not have that capability. I’m not quite sure we’ve definitively established it does not have that capability already…. I’m also not even quite sure 11356 and P17 have the same CMS (there has apparently been a change in project cost [see: http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NAVY/Ships/Future/189-Frigate.html], so perhaps only the last three share that, but again: no firm info). Also, I’m not sure CCIS refers to the CMS or the communications suite.

P15 Delhi class (Italian derived Indian CMS)

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NAVY/Ships/Active/182-Delhi-Class.html

P17 Shivalik class (Indian CMS)

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NAVY/Ships/Active/190-Project-17.html

Project 11356 Talwar class (Russian CMS)

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NAVY/Ships/Active/180-Talwar-Class.html

As per the article and from what they said, CCIS looks like the CMS, but can it be just for communication…

Our successful cooperation is well exemplified by the joint development of the radically new combat command information system for project 17 capable of controlling weapons operated by not only a single ship, but by a whole naval force.

I’m not sure either. But its a combat system not just able to manage own ships combat assets, but also able to control the weapons from other ships and a whole battle group. For instance, not designating AD missiles from different ships to the same target etc.

The “indigenous” and “locally” developed systems these days does not hold much value because most of it are with JV and ToT and which are locally produced. The Indian developers and manufacturers have started calling everything as “indigenous”, corrupting the meaning that we used to have it earlier.

In the P-17 link, there isn’t mention of the Russian involvement in the combat suite where as the page from United Ship Building Corp clearly mentions the Joint Development (possibly a modified version of what was available earlier) for the CCIS (what ever it means). That is the reason why I asked who is that “our” meaning the entity involved in the CCIS developeed for P-17.

Takeoff / Landing at Extremely Low Speeds

The world’s only amphibian equipped with a BLC (Boundary Layer Control) powered high-lift device, the US-2 can cruise at extremely low speeds (approx. 90 km/h) and take off and land on water within a very short distance.

Outstanding Seaworthiness

ShinMaywa’s original spray suppressor and spray strip realize excellent seaworthiness, thereby preventing damage to airframes when landing on water. Together with its capability to cruise at extremely low speeds, the US-2 can take off and land on water with waves up to three meters high.

The Be-200 can operate from either a 1,800 m long runway or an area of open water not less than 2,300 m long and 2.5 m deep, with waves of up to 1.3 m high

No it is way behind in capcity to Shinmaywa at least for amphibious aircraft

I’ll believe that capability of ShinMaywa US2 to operate during 3m high waves when they post a video of it actually operating. Else it is very difficult to believe. Even in the videos of the aircraft taking off in relatively calm weather with very low waves, the amphibian ride doesn’t looks smooth compared to the Be-200 or A-40.

But there is one very definite advantage that ShinMaywa US2 have and that is its very short take-off and landing capability on water. Others like range and the promoted 3m capablity (when tke-off with even lower wave height looks shaky) is not at any significant capability for a game changer. If ShinMaywa is selected, it will be mainly for its short take-off in which it wins hands down.

Also,

ShinMaywa US2
Crew: 11 (how they are distributed?)
Capacity: 20 passengers or 12 stretchers

Be-200
Crew: 2 (maybe 2 more handling persons?)
Capacity: upto 45 persons (Search & rescue variant)

Be-200 have higher capacity, more than double that of US2, and still weights only the same or even less. A more powerful engine will definetely shorten the current take-off distance provided by the old D-30.

http://www.beriev.com/eng/core_e.html

Search & Rescue

Be-200 search and rescue aircraft can loiter within two-hundred-mile zone for 6.5 hours.
The aircraft equipment includes inflatable rubber dinghy, thermal-imaging and optical search aids, and first-aid means.
Be-200 aircraft in this modification can take up to 45 passengers aboard.

Ambulance

Be-200 aircraft in ambulance version provides evacuation of up to 40 injured persons on stretchers, with medical staff attending on the injured. The aircraft is equipped with emergency-diagnostics and intensive care facilities. 30 injured persons can be transported on stretchers.

Transport

Be-200 aircraft can be used for transportation of cargoes in standard containers, on pallets, or loose.
Flight range with 6.5-ton payload and 1-hour fuel reserve is 1250 km.

Passenger (Be-210)

Crew, pilot: 2
Service personnel: 2
Number of passengers: 72

Firefighting (basic version, all others are based on this)

Crew, pilots: 2
Tanks for fire extinguishing fluid, cu. m: 1.2
Tanks for water, cu. m: 12

The aircraft can drop 270 tons of water into the fire area without refueling.

It maybe possible in the future though not sure if the current system on Delhi class is compatible. Maybe or maybe not.

But I was talking about a time 12 months from now and in this time period Delhi class is not going to be upgraded. So the only ships with CCIS will be the 6 Talwar class and possibly 2+1 Shivalik class.

Again, that is assuming P15 ‘as is’ does not have that capability. I’m not quite sure we’ve definitively established it does not have that capability already…. I’m also not even quite sure 11356 and P17 have the same CMS (there has apparently been a change in project cost [see: http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NAVY/Ships/Future/189-Frigate.html], so perhaps only the last three share that, but again: no firm info). Also, I’m not sure CCIS refers to the CMS or the communications suite.

P15 Delhi class (Italian derived Indian CMS)

The Sea King Mk.42B is equipped with a surface search radar, dunking sonar and can carry two Sea Eagle AShMs or a combination of depth charges and AS-244 anti-submarine torpedoes. The helicopter can fly 400 km around the vessel and is equipped with a data link to download target data to the combat information centre, based on the indigenous Bharat Shikari (Hunter) combat data system, in the operations room. The combat data system, which is a derivative of the Italian IPN series of combat data systems, integrates Western, Russian and Indian systems, thus representing a remarkable technical achievement in system integration skills.
…
The Delhi Class are the largest warships ever to be built in India and primarily act as command and control platforms for task groups and as screening escorts for the aircraft carriers. INS Mumbai, is more advanced than the other two vessels in the Delhi Class though minor modifications are already taking place on INS Delhi and INS Mysore. These vessels are well suited for power projection roles in the Indian Ocean Region and are fully fitted with flag facilities.

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NAVY/Ships/Active/182-Delhi-Class.html

P17 Shivalik class (Indian CMS)

A notable feature on these ships is the completely integrated ship data and communication management network. AISDN-17 ties in all shipboard functions using several Versatile consoles -VCS Mk2. The communication grid is built around a Gigabit Ethernet-based integrated ship borne data network, with a fibre optic cable backbone running through the vessel.

The Combat Management System (CMS-17) is a locally developed system (by WESEE) with stand alone Russian consoles that connect to the CMS though interface units. The architecture of CMS-17 is a major improvement over legacy Indian developed systems

A large portion of the communications system, CCS Mk2, is of Indian origin with equipment coming from BEL and elsewhere. A Link 2 datalink is standard equipment.

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NAVY/Ships/Active/190-Project-17.html

Project 11356 Talwar class (Russian CMS)

Combat Data System: The Trebovaniye-M combat information and control platform is a is a fully distributed combat management system produced by the Meridian Research and Production Enterprise JSC. The system is an advanced up-to-date information acquisition/processing and target designation data transmission facility. It controls all platforms of attack and defence weapons, independently generates combat missions based on situation analysis, determines optimal number of missile firings, displays information on the state of ship-borne weaponry and transmits data to protection systems. It is capable of processing information coming simultaneously from 250 sources.

Interconnected via an Ethernet LAN, Trebovaniye-M features eight T-171 full-colour operator workstations (with 18-inch colour flat panel displays) and three central T-162 servers. Individual items of combat system equipment interface to Trebovaniye-M via T-119- and T-190-series bus interface units. Raw radar data is received through a T-181 data reception unit. According to the Meridian Research and Production Enterprise, the hardware is based on ruggedised industry-standard processing boards supplied by Octagon Systems. Applications are coded in C++, running under the QNX real-time operating system.

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NAVY/Ships/Active/180-Talwar-Class.html

What makes you think the CCIS on the P15 Delhi’s in not compatible, or cannot be made compatible during MLU? Follow on Kolkata class P15A will surely take mny of the same systems as P17.

It maybe possible in the future though not sure if the current system on Delhi class is compatible. Maybe or maybe not.

But I was talking about a time 12 months from now and in this time period Delhi class is not going to be upgraded. So the only ships with CCIS will be the 6 Talwar class and possibly 2+1 Shivalik class.

???:rolleyes: which one you suggest for India

None

DO follow the link to ShinMaywa I provided, where it lists comparison:

Dimensions & Performances
US-2 (ShinMaywa)
CL-415 (Bombardier)
Be-200 (Beriev)

Power Plant Four-turboprop Twin-turboprop Twin-turbofan
Length 33.3m 19.8m 31.4m
Wing Span 33.2m 28.6m 32.8m
Max Take-Off Weight 47.7t 19.9t 41.0t
Range over 4,500km 2,426km 3,300km
Cruise Altitude over 6,000m 3,048m 7,986m
Cruise Speed 480km/h 278km/h 560km/h
Take-Off Distance
(on water) 280m 808m 1,000m
Landing Distance
(on water) 330m 665m 1,300m
Wave Height up to 3m up to 1.8m up to 1.2m
Source: Jane’s encyclopedia of Aviation

I’ve not commented on the relative performances, just that I think the offer to IN is daft, considering P8i induction.

???:rolleyes: which one you suggest for India

The Be-200 can operate from either a 1,800 m long runway or an area of open water not less than 2,300 m long and 2.5 m deep, with waves of up to 1.3 m high

No it is way behind in capcity to Shinmaywa at least for amphibious aircraft

DO follow the link to ShinMaywa I provided, where it lists comparison:

Dimensions & Performances
US-2 (ShinMaywa)
CL-415 (Bombardier)
Be-200 (Beriev)

Power Plant Four-turboprop Twin-turboprop Twin-turbofan
Length 33.3m 19.8m 31.4m
Wing Span 33.2m 28.6m 32.8m
Max Take-Off Weight 47.7t 19.9t 41.0t
Range over 4,500km 2,426km 3,300km
Cruise Altitude over 6,000m 3,048m 7,986m
Cruise Speed 480km/h 278km/h 560km/h
Take-Off Distance
(on water) 280m 808m 1,000m
Landing Distance
(on water) 330m 665m 1,300m
Wave Height up to 3m up to 1.8m up to 1.2m
Source: Jane’s encyclopedia of Aviation

I’ve not commented on the relative performances, just that I think the offer to IN is daft, considering P8i induction.

Hilarious. Wonder when we’ll see Beriev B-200 entered…

Compare! http://www.shinmaywa.co.jp/english/guide/us2_world.htm#list4

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shin_Meiwa_US-1A
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ShinMaywa_US-2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beriev_Be-200

The Be-200 can operate from either a 1,800 m long runway or an area of open water not less than 2,300 m long and 2.5 m deep, with waves of up to 1.3 m high

No it is way behind in capcity to Shinmaywa at least for amphibious aircraft

Shinmayawa SS3

A new entry from Japan for Indian navy.
Amphibian STOL aircraft currently pitched by Japan, look very promising and useful.

Hilarious. Wonder when we’ll see Beriev B-200 entered…

Compare! http://www.shinmaywa.co.jp/english/guide/us2_world.htm#list4

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shin_Meiwa_US-1A
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ShinMaywa_US-2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beriev_Be-200

This is what Trishul blogspot had to say about the article on INS Vikramaditya and Pr.11356 batch 2.

one interesting point I missed earlier was in the opening para of the article itself…

who is this “our” mentioned in the article w.r.t to the joint development of the combat command information system?

At least for me it was somewhat new info…. If this combat management system or Combat Command Information System (CCIS), as Russian developers terms it, is common for all the Talwar class frigates and the Shivalik class…..it would mean Indian Navy have at least 5 ships that is completely networked. This now makes me believe more that Talwar class and Shivalik class are going to be the main surface combatants of the INS Vikramaditya group and the Delhi class is going to be left out. A fleet that is completely networked would be the better option anyway.

Any thoughts and info on the above quote from USC publication?

What makes you think the CCIS on the P15 Delhi’s in not compatible, or cannot be made compatible during MLU? Follow on Kolkata class P15A will surely take mny of the same systems as P17.

This is what Trishul blogspot had to say about the article on INS Vikramaditya and Pr.11356 batch 2.

The pages were from the in-house publication of Russia’s United Shipbuilding Corp, which was distributed during the trade show days at DEFEXPO 2012. This issue is a collector’s item since it contains several more pages detailing USSR/Russia-India cooperation in naval matters from the start till to date.

one interesting point I missed earlier was in the opening para of the article itself…

Our successful cooperation is well exemplified by the joint development of the radically new combat command information system for project 17 capable of controlling weapons operated by not only a single ship, but by a whole naval force.

who is this “our” mentioned in the article w.r.t to the joint development of the combat command information system?

At least for me it was somewhat new info…. If this combat management system or Combat Command Information System (CCIS), as Russian developers terms it, is common for all the Talwar class frigates and the Shivalik class…..it would mean Indian Navy have at least 5 ships that is completely networked. This now makes me believe more that Talwar class and Shivalik class are going to be the main surface combatants of the INS Vikramaditya group and the Delhi class is going to be left out. A fleet that is completely networked would be the better option anyway.

Any thoughts and info on the above quote from USC publication?

Because Indian MoD has no technical expertise to tell what is suitable and what is not. Armed Forces do. There is only one way a country like India can work and open tendering is that only way, everything else is corruption happening or waiting to happen. Yes, that includes Govt to Govt deals as well if these are not joint development projects, follow-on orders or replenishing orders. Now you can say speed up tendering process and criticize it if it is slow. But I don’t get it How can you criticize open tendering.

Maybe…because the current one is just a show piece.

Until the UPA era there were a fair many quiet defence deals that happened through single-vendor deals or small closed tenders and no corruption resulted. Like the purchases of MiGs, Jaguars, Mirage-2000s, Su-30s, Hawks, Israeli UAVs and basically any aircraft prior to the MMRCA circus. T-90s, the INS Vikramaditya, the Talwar frigates and the Nerpa sub are other examples(What problems they had had nothing to do with corruption in tendering).

Even post-UPA there were scam-free closed tender deals like the P-8 buy(It was evaluated against an A319-based platform). Open tenders do nothing but get dragged out ad infinieum with the threat of cancellation and retendering every time(See the army’s howitzer drama). And in the end these don’t solve the corruption problem either, because corruption happens anyway and while the tender gets cancelled the guilty parties are rarely found or caught. In the long term the nation loses far more both strategically(Due to the long delays in acquiring even basic capabilities) and monetarily(Due to inflation in prices, do you know the MMRCA was originally valued at only $6-8 billion?).

The problem here is not with the process of buying arms but the government that does it. Closed tenders and single-vendor deals are fine for other countries, large and small. They have worked out well for us as well. Saint Antony and his MOD only adopted this policy because they were afraid of another Bofors and cared not so much about the armed forces’ needs as the need to avoid scandals(Which they failed in as well).

why can’t the MOD just shortlist a few suitable contenders up front like everyone else does?

Because Indian MoD has no technical expertise to tell what is suitable and what is not. Armed Forces do. There is only one way a country like India can work and open tendering is that only way, everything else is corruption happening or waiting to happen. Yes, that includes Govt to Govt deals as well if these are not joint development projects, follow-on orders or replenishing orders. Now you can say speed up tendering process and criticize it if it is slow. But I don’t get it How can you criticize open tendering.

AK Antony gets nominated and elected as the President,

Maybe…because the current one is just a show piece.

Not at all liking the massive line of contenders for the MPA purchase. This will end up as another MMRCA with umpteen rounds, allegations and inquiries and the Navy still holding it’s breath for new MPAs 7-8 years down the line.

Rather than issuing a global open tender to every single aircraft manufacturer in the world why can’t the MOD just shortlist a few suitable contenders up front like everyone else does? For Indian Navy and Coast Guard needs it’d have been enough to choose a shared platform between the CN-235/295 and the ATR-42/72 families.:(

And despite being under consideration since 2006 the Project 76I tender isn’t even on the horizon. I sincerely hope AK Antony gets nominated and elected as the President, because he isn’t the Defence Minister the Indian Armed Forces need for their modernization.

Shinmayawa SS3

A new entry from Japan for Indian navy.
Amphibian STOL aircraft currently pitched by Japan, look very promising and useful.

what exactly do you mean by that? :confused:

It is directed at him about what he was saying in posts 579 and 581 on page 20(not sure if is same on your computer) on this thread
http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?t=105111&page=20