ajay_ijnthere were fair share of issues between IAF & IN. when IAF commanded MPAs, Navy was not happy with MPA coverage during 1965 war and hence asked IAF to transfer all the planes to their command. Air force initiallly rejected the proposal but after 1971 war, IN again complained about inadequate coverage, after lot of debates aircraft were transferred to IN.
The issues with Tankers would be during full scale war when multiple aircraft types would need limited tanker assets at same time, i.e Fighters at CAP, Fighters in Strike missions, AWACS and MPAs.
IAF-IN might sort it out during peacetime, but neverthless during war they would have give to priority of some over others in many instances, at that time IAF controlling tankers would obviously give priority to their own fighters and AWACS. There can be times where IAF really needs tankers and may have none to spare for Navy due to large number of fighters and large areas patrolled by AWACS. there can be other reasons like low operational readiness leading to less aircraft availaible than expected.
So it would be better if Navy gets buddy refuelling for P-8I, like they did for Mig-29K and Ka-31. just in case if something goes wrong, P-8Is can still depend on their buddies for fuel.
it any case modifying them for buddy refuelling won’t much of pentalty to the aircraft, isn’t it?
ajay_ijnCurious why the P8I is fitted with a boom slot in these pictures, India’s IL78 wouldn’r be able to refuel them. Also Airbus is proposing a variant of the RAF A330mrtt with three hoses rather then the boom.
boom is completely useless for India. i expect P8I to be fitted with buddy refuelling because Navy doesn’t have IL-76 and Air force won’t give importance to maritime planes during war time.
ajay_ijnI was going to through wiki regarding european naval forces, just got a doubt. why do many of operate corvettes?, they have limited endurance and won’t be useful deployments far away from Europe?, within europe everything is largely peaceful in post cold war period. So why would they need corvette sized warships?
Germany Navy operates 380 ton missile boat? why?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gepard_class_fast_attack_craft
missile boat generally for somebody operating tiny naval force and for defensive purposes against a major naval forces.
Is Russia the only reason for such small ships?
ajay_ijnwas just reading BR and it seems delay of operationalizing LM2500 on Shivalik is resolved.
entire story is posted in this blog
http://www.exportlawblog.com/
The INS Shivalik, the first in the Shivalik class of stealth frigates being built by the Indian Navy, was scheduled for commissioning in April or May of this year. But the U.S. Department of State’s Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (”DDTC”) has thrown a wrench into the works, so to speak, and that commissioning may be delayed for some time.
The INS Shivalik utilizes two GE LM-2500 gas turbine engines which have already been fitted on the frigate. However, additional work needs to be performed by GE to render the engines operational. According to a report in today’s edition of India’s Business Standard, the DDTC has told GE to stop all work on the engines until the incoming administration could review its military ties with a number of nations, including India. Because this was a direct commercial sale between GE and India, a DSP-5 and a Technical Assistance Agreement (”TAA”) would already have been in place and DDTC would have therefore told GE that it was temporarily suspending the DSP-5 and the TAA.
GE told the Indian Navy that this review could take upwards of five months. This has prompted the Indian Navy to commence a search for other companies outside the U.S., such as Fiat Avio, to complete the work on the engines, according to an article in today’s Times of India. Because that might void the warranty, India is also exploring whether a foreign G.E. subsidiary could complete the work. According to the Business Standard, GE is not averse to that possibility as long as no U.S. citizens are involved in the work.
The State Department, for its part, is neither confirming nor denying that it has instructed temporary suspension of the work on the INS Shivalik according to inquiries made by the Business Standard:
The US State Department has also ignored a request for information. A spokesperson of the US Embassy in New Delhi has sidestepped the question, replying by email that, “The State Department has not instructed GE in the conduct of this direct commercial sale. Aspects of this sale were subject to export licensing, which is conducted through the State Department.” When asked to comment specifically on blanket orders from the State Department to GE regarding commercial defence dealings with India, the US Embassy did not respond.
The Obama administration’s review of its military relationship with India will no doubt be complicated by the failure of India and the U.S. to agree to the terms of a global End Use Monitoring Agreement which would permit the U.S. to monitor the deployment of defense articles exported from the United States to India. Instead, the U.S. and India have been signing individual end-use agreements for each military sale. The Indian government claims that U.S. monitoring requests are intrusive and are a violation of the country’s sovereignty, an argument that India would seem to have waived when it decided to outsource supply of military equipment from the United States.(For those who may be wondering why I haven’t said anything yet about the DDTC’s consent decree with Analytic Methods, Inc., I plan on posting something on that tomorrow.)
UPDATE: Upon further investigation by me, I have discovered that the Indian press accounts of the situation involving the GE engines being installed in the INS Shivalik were inaccurate and that the DDTC did not stop GE’s operationalization of the engines in order to conduct a review of U.S. policy regarding defense exports to India. Apparently the engines were not modified for military use and were therefore not listed on the United States Munitions List. Accordingly, export of the engines to India did not require a license from DDTC. However, since installation of the engines on a military frigate could be construed as a “defense service,” GE delayed work on the engines pending DDTC approval of a Technical Assistance Agreement (”TAA”) allowing that work. That TAA has now been granted.
so hopefully there will be no delay in induction of Shivalik frigates.
ajay_ijnP17 was never intended to have Aster. Besides, it may be wiser to adopt Barak-NG on later ships rather than Aster (wouldn’t multiply the number of missile types too much)
Beyond the three currently building, nothing is firm as regards SAM: VL Shtil is a distinct possibility for a three ship follow-on P17A, particularly in view of its adoption for the follow-on Talwars, which will give the IN an opportunity assess the system before incorporating it into a domestic design. Also, given it will then have 9 ships with Shtil (3 P15, 3 Talwar, 3 mod-Talwar), it makes sense in terms of logistics and training as well.
actually if VLS Shtil offered good performance then IN probably wouldn’t have asked Israel/DRDO to develop 70km Barak-2. I believe when Barak-2 is ready for induction, IN might replace Shtil with it provided radars and entire system can fit into the ship easily.
For CIWS, P-15, P-16A and other older warships were refitted Barak-1 replacing Russian SAMs and Guns. while Talwar still has Kashtan-M System. But P-17 might have Barak-1/AK-630. that does say that if warship is built in russia, israeli origin weapons or systems are not entertained.
Viraat was fitted with 16 Barak VLS, we would expect similar fit for Gorshy but it repordtedly has Kashtan-M. Again Carrier built locally by India is expected to have Barak.
ajay_ijnBecause the NATO countries and Japan, Taiwan, Singapore, Australia as well as some Arab countries will never buy Russian weapons!!
Sir I am not against US weapons but against staffs like ‘annual physical verification’, sanctions etc etc.
India may not have had any problem with EUMs at all if it was US ally and had stable relations with them, common foreign policy, even allowed US bases etc. But unfortunately none of this is true. i am not talking about present situation but over the last 30 to 50 years.
But if you take Europe and Russia, our main suppliers of arms, they not only have good relations but they don’t mind if India uses their fighters as nuclear weapon carriers, they didn’t mind if India waged war against Pakistan whenever she wants to, they don’t mind if india tests a nuclear weapon, they don’t mind if India builds long range ballistic missiles.
ajay_ijnActually a Russian firm is helping with the Aircraft operation and deck. While Fincantieri is helping with propulsion system and design.
Harriers got updated with Elta 2032s and Derby BVRAAMs :).
The scond IAC being 60000+ tons is bull****, because the Cochin Shipyard’s dry dock cannot house a ship that large, it will need a bigger dry dock for that. Unlikely for the time being.
I think Navy will have to shell out its own funds to upgrade the present dock or build a new one because financial crisis n recession means it won’t be commercially feasible for them. there is another option- check out private shipyards, Pipavav is said to be a very large shipyard under construction. its dry dock is of dimensions 661 m x 65 m. ABG was planning shipyard in Dahej with dry docks measuring 400m x 45m
ajay_ijn1. Russia was for long allied to India. But offlate her interests in many areas does not coincide with India’s. Her warming of ties with China supplying engines to Pakistani jets etc have irked India. In the long term Russia is going to fade out as our strategic ally.
lol Russian supplied engines to FC-1 and they will fade out as strategic ally.
what about US, Europe which openly sell and donate so much equipment to Pakistan.
2. France like I said have been good to us. French programmes tho cost a lot of money and like they said their weapon proliferation rate is rather high as they would offer the weapons to almost anyone with the money. Now France will play fair for the moment, but her relationship was not tested in times of a serious war.
i have told about French fighters during 65 war.
Do you think 1965 is not serious war?
US imposed embargo on both India & Pakistan during the war. Pakistan suffered but luckily India didn’t as most of its equipment was from British and France.
forget about French, take the case of British which is lot closer ally to United States, we have purchased tons of military equipment post-indendepence from them and never faced problems.
ajay_ijnNo.
The EL/M-2032 deal had already been signed when the RN retired its remaining Sea Harriers early, & offered some to India – without their Blue Vixen radars or AMRAAM missiles. The UK is not permitted to sell on AMRAAMs without US permission (a standard condition of sale of US weapons), & in any case, wanted them for its other aircraft. The sale of the Harriers without radars was logical, as the IN SHAR fleet was standardising on the EL/M-2032 & Derby. But India, in a fit of complete insanity, declared that the aircraft were unacceptable without radars (Doh! Fit EL/M-2032) & missiles (which we couldn’t sell, & India knew that before starting negotiations – and anyway, India had already signed up for Derby), & called off the deal.
But swerve India could have ordered new batch of AMRAAMs from US for Harriers with Blue Vixen, why would US deny permission to sell AIM-120 to India. agreed that 2032/Derby was chosen but still was any concern from british/US to sell AMRAAM or Blue Vixen to India?
BTW another historical question, if you remember during 1998 nuclear tests done by India, US impose embargo. Did UK too impose embargo, i was thinking it did not because only Sea King (which UK license produces) suffered due to US Sanctions as far as IN is concerned, nothing was reported about Harriers.
ajay_ijnI also believe in the Armed forces buying a percentage of the Indigenously developed weapons as a mandatory rule. Which can help further development.
I am not sure Russia is trustworthy. Soviet Union was but they both are entirley different countries.
As for France their record with us is good, but we only had their aircraft during one war ie. Kargil war which was not a full scale war. Their record with other countires , such as Israel is less remarkable one remember the Mirage episode.
actually both countries continued to supply us with spares despite the nuclear weapon tests, which could be the worst case scenario for India in future. that shows the track record. your forgetting about French Mystere and Ouragan fighters in 65 & 71 war. france record is good as long as India is concerned.
ajay_ijnYes but it will take more time. If you invest money in R&D better pay for your employees etc. You are bound to get a product. Making things is not magic, it is done by hard research and hard cash, the government should spend more of its GDP on indigenous products and we should offer as good a pay as any foriegn rival.
Otherwise we will always be hostage to the whims of the suppliers. I guess we will only learn it during a war time, India never learns it the easy way.
its not so easy, if development takes more time then weapon becomes outdated and customer will change requirements. if customer isn’t happy, its of no use how long you take in development of the weapon or how much you succeeded.
after looking at what happened to Arjun, Akash, Nag etc. JV was said to be the good solution. you cannot have weapons just in lab or test ranges, it has to be accepted by defence forces. thats the best thing about brahmos-its already inducted by Navy and ordered by Army and they are also going in for further development. JV means we share costs, risk and also DRDO gets experience to develop other weapons where in JV option isn’t availaible like the long range cruise missile.
Otherwise we will always be hostage to the whims of the suppliers. I guess we will only learn it during a war time, India never learns it the easy way.
thats exactly why trusted vendors like russia or france are required. they never backstab India during wartimes or try to block spares.
ajay_ijnWe may not get one we can try and develop one. The same people who argued that the indigenous nuclear program has taken a few steps back with the Nuclear Deal has not such arguments with regards to projects like the Brahmos. Don’t you think our money is spent better elsewhere?
money spent better where? better than brahmos? can DRDO come out with that. if they could then there would have been no talk about JVs at all.
ajay_ijnAlway good to hear the old girl is showing the youngsters how it’s done! Mind you the journo need to check the details a little, she wasn’t built in a drydock, she was launched from a slipway back in 53, by the wife of Winston Churchill no less! I think barring any further major screw ups, Vikramaditya will end up serving the IN simply to save face, though any future purchases from Russia will be subject to far stricter contract conditions. If Viraat has any serious problems in service (unlikely) the IN could always lease Invincible to bridge the gap to the IAC, in fact that might not be a bad idea anyway as it will allow the IN to train up a second carrier crew ready to transfer to either of the new ships.
There was talk about British denying Blue Vixen radar for Indias Harriers. Is that true. and that was said to be the reason why Navy went for Israeli 2032/Derby.
ajay_ijnIt is not a Ban Col Shukla used the term to suit his own line of thoughts.
It is a delay while the new administration assesses the contracts and status of relationships between the U.S and other countries. U.K and Australia also getting the same treatment means it is just routine.
The problem is/was india isn’t australia and UK, these are just one of things why India keeps away from US defence equipment from last many decades. it delays our frigates further and this adds more reasons not to buy US arms. the question is why US needs to delay everything for 3 to 4 months, are they willing pay the extra costs incurred by India due the delay.
if in case of Russia, the govt is fine while the companies have problems in delivering projects on time, in case of US, the companies are fine, the Govt is the problem with all the EUMs and these kind of restrictions. ultimately its the Govt which India deals with because all military deals are Govt to Govt for both countries.
Boeing was fine company to cooperate with ADA on LCA Project but their govt restrictions simply wouldn’t allow them to do hence EADS got the opportunity.
ajay_ijn3. For a land based Cruise Missile Payload and Range is more important. I would rather have a Tomahawk any day.
india will not get tomahawk, so no use of day dreaming. we are not debating on which is worlds best cruise missile but if Brahmos can be good our Army.
Brahmos hi-speed can be decisive advantage in dealing with targets like bunkers as it will pack much more Kinetic Energy. the greater speed, the greater penetration into any protected structure.
Low reaction time means even if brahmos is detected, its more difficult to intercept . The very requirement of hi supersonic speed was low-reaction time. It would be suitable for targets which protected by various SAM Systems, require high accuracy and required payload penetrate many meters of concrete.
Tomahawk takes the advantage flying low and planning flight route so that it can take safest route to the target there by avoiding Radars. while Brahmos would simply take advantage of its speed.
coming to range, its restricted by MTCR. we definitely long range cruise missile but we have to develop it completely by ourselves, which is Nirbhay but its no reason to reject Brahmos in LACM Role. Brahmos costs would also come down as different versions will be mass produced for Navy, Air force and Army with many.
assuming its CEP is down to few meters, it will provide Army with an option to strike targets with high accuracy.
Sign In
